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.

  • LeFantome@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    If not for nukes, the West ( really any single NATO country frankly ) could end the war with Russia easily. Russia could not only be pushed out of Ukraine but perhaps the easiest way to do it would just be to occupy Moscow, form a new government, and end the war.

    The lesson of history though is that the real problems begin after you do that. While the threat of nukes is real, I think the West is hiding behind that so that we do not have to directly engage. Having Ukraine do it for us is not only preferable to putting our own troops at risk but, perhaps more importantly, there is a lot more legitimacy to them fending off an invader. If it is done that way, the ability to achieve political stability and peaceful progress is greatly enhanced.

    The West could be a little faster sending more advanced weaponry. If I was Ukrainian, I would feel like the blood of my countrymen was being spilled unnecessarily. That said, for the same reasons as above, the current pace is probably better for everybody in the long run.

    Putin and Russia ( as it has been ) are unlikely to survive this conflict. What they get replaced by remains to be seen. In the long run though, that is the more important question and the more important objective. Ukraine needs to be liberated. In a way, Russia does too.

    Honestly, things are being managed pretty well.

    I had my kids at Remembrance Day this morning. I think we were there for the right reasons. We need to remember the sacrifice made by those that came before. We need to do what we can to build a world that honours that sacrifice. Patience. The easy answer is not always the best.

    • sbv@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      the West … could end the war with Russia easily. Russia could not only be pushed out of Ukraine but perhaps the easiest way to do it would just be to occupy Moscow

      Napoleon, is that you? 😬

    • Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      perhaps the easiest way to do it would just be to occupy Moscow, form a new government, and end the war.

      That’s failed in every nation we, or any of our allies, have tried it.

      • phx@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you read the rest of what they wrote, yeah that’s pretty much the point.

        Killing a bunch of people and even toppling governments is a lot easier than establishing a peace after doing so