this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2023
16 points (62.5% liked)

Canada

7230 readers
594 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Communities

🍁 Meta

πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories

πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities

πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

πŸ’» Universities

πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping

πŸ—£οΈ Politics

🍁 Social and Culture

Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
16
Opinion: We have Forgotten the meaning of Remembrance (lemmy.ca)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
75 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My point is there is nuance to the question. We have a dilemma. We need the very tools of oppression to resist the oppression. However, if we arm ourselves with them, we have the temptation of using them to oppress others, to our benefit.

Ukraine gave up its tools. It gave up its nukes, in exchange for an agreement that Russia wouldn't attack it, and the rest of the world would back them, if Russia broke that agreement.

What we need is a balance. The world, as a whole must be able to suppress a violent state. At the same time, no one state should have the power to suppress a large proportion of other states. This would allow for policing action, but avoid the use of force for selfish reasons. Right now, America has the biggest stick. And it uses it, and its threat regularly. However, if it just gave up that stick, others would take advantage of the power vacuum. Collectively, we need a big enough stick that no-one can threaten the collective. At the same time, individual members shouldn't have too much power.

Ironically, this is playing out in Ukraine. While America is sending significant resources, it is not the only one doing so. Abandoning Ukraine would be a dereliction of our agreement to back them. It would also embolden others to act, since Russia got their way.

If you've not ran across them, look up Nash Equilibriums. It's what is in play, and why simple fixes just won't work

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This sounds like the same logic that led up to World War One

Building a complex series of alliances like a series of dominoes and if one were to be knocked over, would set off a chain reaction.

The building of ever bigger militaries and armaments just builds bigger and bigger dominoes ready to fall over.

Every time I debate this topic, the most vocal arguments are the ones that want more war, more military and more fighting ... and then become confused and wonder why there is so much fighting all the time.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

You seem to think it's an either or question. I'm strongly anti war. At the same time, I know that pacifism is almost as bad.

As I said, look up Nash Equilibriums. The goal should be that the Nash Equilibrium is negotiation. If any one country or sub over arms, then the Nash shifts and war becomes an inevitability. In the Nash based model, disarming is equivalent to increasing the armament of the other countries. A country can over arm without changing its level of military spending etc.

The goal is a stable "steady state". No-one gains by arming up, but everyone can react effectively to someone doing it, without runaway escalation.