With apologies for voicing an opinion rather than linking an external article.

I am of the strong opinion that Remembrance Day had become at best grandstanding, and at worst, completely meaningless. There are phases tossed around like “Lest we Forget” or “Never Again”. But when Russia invaded Ukraine, we have effectively done the opposite (or very nearly).

Sure, we can send ammo so Ukranians can fight back, or host some of their forces for training. But the reality is, we are only marginally involved. We haven’t mobilized. We aren’t on war footing economically.

The root causes are many. But a combination of NATO’s article 5 protection only kicking in if we are attacked (rather than joining an already existing war), and the threat of nuclear retaliation, means we are paralyzed politically.

At a minimum: I would support direct involvement, whether that’s ramping up our own military, deploying specialists, reservists for minesweeping, stationing our own troops (meagre as they are) in Ukraine to directly support the fight. I would actually support much larger actions, including naval blockades or airspace closures but wholly understand that Canada cannot execute those on their own.

We cannot allow genocidal wars to be pressed in the modern world. And we should be doing everything we can about it. Right now, we’re doing barely more than nothing.

  • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    spend billions on peaceful resolutions and negotiations.

    Isn’t that the exact purpose of the UN?

    The same body that, despite being members, is being completely ignored by at least half of the combatants in the various shooting wars that are currently in progress.

    The same body that the many countries routinely try to discredit or ignore when it’s convenient.

    .

    I agree that diplomacy should be the way forward, but when aggressors actively ignore and try to subvert the entire process, then unfortunately responding to violence with violence becomes the tool of last resort.

    • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      That’s the point I was making … if the world decides to invest in war … chances are high that we will just get war

      No one is spending billions on peace and everyone is surprised that there is no peace

      • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        You cannot invest in peace without also investing in war. Like someone else said, a country with no military is a country with no negotiating power.

        • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          Reductio ad absurdum (Latin for “reduction to absurdity”), is the form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction.

          I never said remove all military or dismantle all military altogether … I said stop investing in so much war or so much military corporations and hardware so as to make only war inevitable.

          Right now, the world is spending billions upon billions in just war … while only spending a few million on peace … and then everyone wonders why there is so much war.

          • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 months ago

            Ok I see your point and I can concur. However I don’t think my point counts as reductio ad absurdum, as it still stands on its own.

        • pbjamm@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          If most of the world invests in peace, and one nation in war you will still get war.

          It makes me sad, but people have and probably always will suck.