Opinion: We have Forgotten the meaning of Remembrance
Opinion: We have Forgotten the meaning of Remembrance
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're viewing a single thread.
Instead of spending billions on a war machine to try to solve a problem ... spend billions on peaceful resolutions and negotiations.
And don't tell me that you can't, shouldn't or don't want to negotiate with Nazis, authoritarians or any other descriptor you use to demonize opponents. You are right, there are nasty, ugly, authoritarian leaders out there ... but we still need to create platforms to talk to them to end hostilities.
The old cave man mentality of killing people or figuring out how to kill as many people as possible to make a point or win an argument is completely stupid.
If you invest in war ... you will get a war.
If you invest in peace .. you will get peace.
Millions died to remind us that war is no answer ... yet we forget every year and still try to argue that killing people will solve problems.
That was called appeasement, and was tried. It helped lead to WW2.
There should always be a forum to talk. However, words must be backed by a big enough stick, and the resolve to use it. Otherwise those who respect the use of words will just be flattened by those who are happy to abuse the situation. Finding the balance of this is the biggest challenge we have as a species.
Assuming you are referring to Russia Vs Ukraine right now. Russia was using and abusing words, with no intent to match them with actions. If they truly wanted to come back to the table, they would be welcomed. The catch is, it would have to be backed with actions. Pull back to the original borders, and present the evidence they supposedly have of issues in Ukraine to the international community. Right now they appear to just be bullies, and are being treated as such.
appeasement and WW2
It's a bit of a stretch to compare the lead up to WW2 to modern day politics. Back then news and information took days and weeks to reach people and everyone had a hard time figuring what was going on and leaders on any side could simultaneously use that fact to bend and break the truth.
It's a bit harder to hide true intentions of what any side is attempting to do in an age of instant communication.
For the record, I have no love for Russia and it's authoritarian regime ... nor do I appreciate America and its war machine.
Reverse the situation in Ukraine and Russia and place Russian military forces in Mexico to 'contain' America .... what do you think the reaction would be?
Everyone loves this argument but no one ever likes to acknowledge the double standard.
Appeasement allowed the 3rd Reich to build the momentum it did. It was a nice idea, but failed when faced with actors who don't act in good faith. Russian backed trolls online have be desperately pushing the "we should sit down and talk" card, without the accompanying "give back what Russia stole" part.
If America is launching an invasion of Mexico, without the concerted backing of the rest of the world, then it's the right action to take. If someone breaks their fist on the shield you used to cover someone's face, that's on them. A policing action should be multinational, with clear, stated goals. Not 1 country imposing its views on its neighbour by force.
I'm also of the mindset that boots should be on the ground in Israel and Palestine, with orders to help de-escalate both sides. Unfortunately, that's never going to happen in a useful way. It would have to be a coalition including significant Islamic elements to not immediately explode. The west has been stirring the pot FAR too much over the last 70 years for most Islamic countries to trust us now.
I fully agree, however, that the American military machine needs to be cooled WAY down. It's become a beast set on devouring its host, along with everything else it can get its claws on. I've no idea how that could be achieved though.
In an age of mass communication, instant connection, accumulated knowledge, historic experience and legions of academics and capable professionals and political leaders .... there should be more options to deal with regional conflicts other than spending billions of dollars on the latest technologies designed to kill people.
If we aren't capable of preventing or solving problems without war and death ... then we (everyone on all sides) are no better than our ancestors thousands of years ago.
The answer shouldn't be trying to figure out how to kill as many people as possible to settle differences.
I'll repeat it again ... if billions are spent on war, war is inevitable ... if billions are spent on peace, peace can occur.
The fundamental truth hasn't changed. While all measures should be taken to avoid war, those measures ultimately rest on the ability to wage that war.
In martial arts terms. The goal is to avoid fighting. You de-escalate, and disengage where possible. However, when someone is attacked, you need to know how to step in and defend them. Further, you need to know how to counter and neutralise the threat. Those same tools can be misused to do great harm, but many of the methods for avoiding conflict rely on being able to counter the threat, if the opponent drops the veneer of civility.
Within countries, this dilemma was solved by giving a monopoly on force to the government (for good or bad). On the international stage, there is no higher power to appeal to. No police, or father figure to step in. We have to learn to play nice, including when a sibling wants to set fire to the playpen. We must, however be careful not to burn the playpen down ourselves.
One of the biggest problem in our modern is that ... if we stick to your analogy ... is that we allow these children to get their hands on hand guns, machine guns and flame throwers. And the only response they understand is that if they want something or start a fight with another sibling, their only response is to start shooting at people or set them on fire.
We live in a world where we have allowed a military industrial complex to dictate how we are are deal with differences, disagreements and debate by just figuring out how to kill people in order to settle these conflicts. Billions are spent on military solutions while only millions are spent on peaceful resolution or deescalation ... and if this comment thread is any indication, all we seem to understand is the need to fight, kill and destroy rather than in debating solutions to not do those things.
In martial arts, if all you teach to your students is to fight whenever there is conflict, hit whenever there is disagreement and strike whenever there are differences ... is it any wonder that all we ever do is fight and kill?
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
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.
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.
And there you go glad you got there we are no better then our ancestors. We like to think we are but we are not.
What exactly do you think the US is doing that's the equivalent of Russia having troops in Mexico? Hell if I can figure it out.
You sure very much describing appeasement. Russian officials have repeatedly let slip their desire to go further into Europe. There is really no difference.
And I'm someone more sympathetic than most to Russia's, "we had to do it," argument.
I mean, and Cuba is also a thing, although I guess the US did do something like Crimea 2014 back in the 60's.
If America has no hand in Ukraine .... how is Ukraine able to sustain its war with Russia?
It's almost become common knowledge to everyone now at this point ... Ukraine is a proxy war between the US and Russia.
A good way of understanding that is ... if the US were today to just withdraw its funding and supplies in Ukraine, how would Ukraine fair? If you removed all the military spending in Ukraine over the past ten years, how do you think history would have played out?
In terms of Russian expansionism ... how is it that they haven't changed their borders over the past 20 years, especially when they are right next to a few weak nations on their southern border.
The only nation I've ever read about that has spread and expanded their military and political influence worldwide to either occupy, influence or outright control foreign nations is the United States.
In terms of Russian expansionism ... how is it that they haven't changed their borders over the past 20 years, especially when they are right next to a few weak nations on their southern border.
Wow, now you're showing either total obliviousness, or you are actually a full on believer of Russian propaganda.
Two obvious counterexamples: invasion of Georgian territories, 2008; Russian invasion of Ukrainian territories, 2014.
The US has launched military actions in a number of places, yes. They have never absorbed those places into the US. One can debate the legitimacy of those US actions, and in Canada we did debate them, electing not to join the US in Iraq, for example. But the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of those US actions does not affect the legitimatacy of Russian actions. The US hasn't invaded Canada or Mexico for the purpose of expanding their borders. (Okay, a century or more ago...)
Whataboutism sucks. But at least be correct when using it as your argument.
Russia, and the Soviet Union has barely ever expanded beyond Eurasia ... the United States is the only country in history besides the British Empire that has exercised so much control, influence and violence in the world. Sure the soviets and communists set up in places like Cuba, African countries and southeast Asia ... but they never built and established lasting military bases all over the world. And if you read the history, most of the supposed communists expansions turned out to be western espionage as a pretext to install their military and their corporations to exert their own control on the world.
US Interventions (for the past 33 years .... the list is much longer the further you go back)
https://archive.globalpolicy.org/us-westward-expansion/26024-us-interventions.html
1990-1991 Iraq Major military operation, including naval blockade, air strikes; large number of troops attack Iraqi forces in occupied Kuwait.
1991-2003 Iraq Control of Iraqi airspace in north and south of the country with periodic attacks on air and ground targets.
1991 Haiti CIA-backed military coup ousts President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
1992-1994 Somalia Special operations forces intervene.
1992-1994 Yugoslavia Major role in NATO blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.
1993-1995 Bosnia Active military involvement with air and ground forces.
1994-1996 Haiti Troops depose military rulers and restore President Jean-Bertrand Aristide to office.
1995 Croatia Krajina Serb airfields attacked.
1996-1997 Zaire (Congo) Marines involved in operations in eastern region of the country.
1997 Liberia Troops deployed.
1998 Sudan Air strikes destroy country's major pharmaceutical plant.
1998 Afghanistan Attack on targets in the country.
1998 Iraq Four days of intensive air and missile strikes.
1999 Yugoslavia Major involvement in NATO air strikes.
2001 Macedonia NATO troops shift and partially disarm Albanian rebels.
2001 Afghanistan Air attacks and ground operations oust Taliban government and install a new regime.
2003 Iraq Invasion with large ground, air and naval forces ousts government of Saddam Hussein and establishes new government.
2003-present Iraq Occupation force of 150,000 troops in protracted counter-insurgency war
2004 Haiti Marines land. CIA-backed forces overthrow President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
To echo OP a bit, negotiate based on what? You can't just "negotiate" aggression away if you have no leverage. A country with no military has no leverage.
Maybe you're not a caveman, but plenty of people are, and being pacifists will get us killed.
Then you are bending the argument to extremes ... I never said take your gun away to start talking.
In extreme situations when there is no longer any option, fighting may be necessary.
But if the world continually creates situations where everyone is led to only the option of death and war and especially when governments and industries and corporations can only understand that investing billions into a war machine is the only option anyone will consider ... then we will only ever see death and destruction.
We're no different with our mentality a thousand years ago ... we just have better weapons now.
Well, I pretty much agree with that, then. NATO guidelines are to spend 2% of GDP on the military, and I think that's reasonable. I'm certainly not suggesting >25% like some of the more militaristic nations in recent history.
Russia will be spending something on the order of 6% of their GDP on war this year. Obviously their GDP isn't that high, but neither is their military cost per unit. If NATO were to spend 2% and funnel a fraction of that into Ukraine, the war simply could not be sustained by Russia. The combined GDP of NATO is insane.
However, there's a caveat-- at some point, Ukraine will run out of soldiers to operate the equipment. Then what?
How many years are we willing to let a continuous conflict go by doing the bare minimum? Is it better to do very little and let a war drag on for years? Unlikely. The only people that benefit then are the arms dealers.
What happens if NATO is deadlocked on intervention because Article 5 is never triggered. Everyone sits around waiting while Russia makes slow gains in a war of attrition? NATO uses their increased funding to buy a bunch of fighter jets that'll never see combat? We just give up Ukraine?
After a cursory review of available sources, Saudi Arabia appears to be the major country with the highest current military funding by GDP (there are some smaller states as outliers). They are at around 8%. Some projections suggest Russia might hit 10% this year.
For the sake of historical comparison, Nazi Germany was at 10% in 1936, and 75% in 1944. The Soviet Union was 5% in 1936, and 60% in 1944. I have a suspicion that Russia is so committed to winning that they'd be willing to follow those extreme examples. What do we do then? (The US reached 38% during the war.)
So, take some of these figures with a grain of salt. 6% for modern Russia sounds right, and >25% for the Nazis and Soviets during the second half of the 20th century sounds right. North Korea and maybe Eritrea would be the contemporary examples of that, although it's hard to collect the data. However, the Saudi military is famously useless (on purpose so there's no coups), and I imagine the money given out is mostly a slush fund for the appointees that run it.
However, there’s a caveat-- at some point, Ukraine will run out of soldiers to operate the equipment. Then what?
Indeed. Aside from internal trouble in NATO-land that's Russia's main path to victory. Ukraine is pretty populous itself, so it's not hopeless, but we can't rule it out in the long term either. But, I'm not sure unilaterally getting involved is a good solution.
For one thing, we'd lose our article 5 protections (otherwise NATO would get drawn into everybody's pet projects) and would run the risk of a direct Russian invasion. I don't think they could do it, because the oceans and ice cap are a pretty tricky obstacle, but they would definitely bomb us and our little airforce couldn't really stop them. That's a big sacrifice.
Internationally, that would piss our friends of the to Nth degree. It would be a hell of an escalation in a world that's worried about MAD, and the bombing raids on Calgary would be right across the 49th from America's missile silos, which would make them very nervous from a first strike perspective. From a propaganda perspective this would also look great for Putin, as suddenly he's directly fighting the West, and someone from the West he might beat sometimes. Put together, I fully expect Canada would get kicked out of all the clubs we can be kicked out of, not that you really need CETA that bad with ports that aren't safe for civilian traffic.
My main hope for Ukraine going forwards is new technology. Particularly, Sweden's Gripens were built with this exact war in mind, just further north, so Turkey needs to get out of the way. Other than that we just have to hope they can kill 4 Russians for every Ukrainian, or that Putin's hold on the domestic situation is indeed tenuous.
How many would the Nazis have killed if they weren't stopped militarily?
Would the Nazis have come to power if the world's wealthiest individuals, corporations and companies had not supported them or financed them? Check out political movements in the 1920s and 1930s and fascism and Nazism was a fairly acceptable movement at the time.
The Nazi Third Reich didn't appear in a vacuum or come out of thin air, they were born out of the money and financing of wealthy backers who wanted them in power.
The wealthiest didn't try to stop them until their pet project got out of hand and out of control.
Everyone likes to talk about who the Nazis ended up becoming ... but no one ever likes to discuss where they came from and how they came to power.
Would the Nazis have come to power if the world’s wealthiest individuals, corporations and companies had not supported them or financed them?
You have a point, but how would you stop them from doing that?
All boils down to money and who has control of the majority of it.
If everyone votes for a conservative or far right political party that gives more power to monied interests .... eventually the greed will consume everything to the point of small groups of people wanting to control everything and everyone using all means necessary, even war.
Philosophically, I am very attracted by what you are saying here. It is certainly something to hope for and not to give up on. We cannot completely ignore the evidence of history however.
Are you familiar with the name Neville Chamberlain and the phrase “Peace for our time”? Neville would be applauding your post. Many people believe his desire for peace allowed a lot of war, death, and suffering that could have been avoided.
The real world is complicated. What you want and what you must do are not always the same thing.
The appeasement that led up to WW2 is completely different to anything today.
The world was negotiating with an ultra right wing fanatical political movement that was expansionist with a lot of motivation .... a small nation with no natural resources, no fuel and no land area. Coupled with an economy that was destroyed by a previous war and now based all their economy on the military and in expansion to new territory. Not to mention that the western nations supported this fanatical right wing movement at the start ... the German war machine was partly funded, supported and assisted by British, American and other European corporations, leaders and even monarchies. Henry Ford is a prime example that supported Nazi Germany and even got an award from Hitler himself ... they built Germany's military trucks leading up to the war ... not as Ford but as a newly created company called Opal. International industrial companies, chemical companies, civilian, military, medical and manufacturing companies all lined up to build the German war machine ... even as they all knew that Germany was not allowed to build up their military again. Aircraft, ships, military equipment all built inside the most monitored nation in Europe after being blamed by the last war ... and the allies turned a blind eye.
Modern Russia has none of these parallels .... they don't have a large enough or modern military (it pales in comparison to the Americans), they have abundant resources and they have more than enough land space. If they had wanted to expand, they would have done it long ago and they would have failed. The only thing the Russians have is nuclear weapons but its a useless weapon because once those are used ... everyone loses. Wealthy oligarchs in Russia and everywhere else only have one motivation to not use nuclear weapons ... money and finances ... they all know that once nuclear weapons start destroying the world, it will take most or all of their imaginary wealth locked up on digital global finances. So everyone on all sides have the greatest motivation to not start nuclear war .... greed.
Chamberlain's appeasement was a false agreement with fascism even when they all knew they were making a deal with the devil who was building an army that everyone knew about (because they were building it with everyone).
Look at the dynamics of the war in Ukraine ... Ukraine fights Russia using American funding and resources ... without America, there is no war ... which means America is fighting a proxy war with Russia. The Americans don't mind this kind of conflict .... they can use their hardware and money and no American lives will be lost ... no one cares if Ukrainians die so the war will continue until enough Russians or Ukrainians die ... or if America runs out of money.
Just because I'm a car history guy, I think you have some broken information about Opel.
The company predated Nazi Germany by a long shot as a general equipment manufacturer in the 1800s and was one of the biggest auto producers in the 1920s holding over 25% of the market. They were actually bought by General Motors (not Ford) in 1929.
Where you did get it right is the famous Brandenburg factory was funded partly by the Nazi government and to specifically make the Opel Blitz trucks. Which were at the time just a general work truck in high demand. But soon after GM lost control and the plant was used to exclusively make military trucks for the war. But this is the same for any factory at the time.
A lot of this can be explained by the US political attitude to Germany where they kept up positive diplomatic relationships up until the attacks in the Pacific. The large companies like GM didn't have a direct reason to divest from their ties to Nazi regime, as they weren't really denounced themselves and still an important trading partner. Their investors would have had protests on a change of course. For GM, Opel was a huge success at the time.
Of course cutting ties and divesting would have been the moral thing to do, but capitalism has no morals... Apple doesn't mind making products in China today but sanctions on tech are already changing the course for companies like Nvidia, not without lots of protest by their leaders.
Also yes Henry Ford was idolized by Hitler and Ford didn't mind that one bit.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
War is the worst form of diplomacy, but can be the only solution if the other party has wholly unacceptable proposals. Given the ultimate choice Ukraine and others have is capitulation or war, what would you have them do? Keep in mind that the last time Ukraine was under Soviet rule, little things like Holodomor happened, so capitulation may not be the life-saving option you'd think it would be.
Everyone likes to refer to history 70 or 80 years ago ... but ignore recent history from 10, 20 years ago when military forces were encroaching on Russian borders
I don't like Russia or its authoritarian government ... but Ukraine was a preventable conflict but the world chose instead to start and then act surprised that it happened.
Really? What steps could the international community have used? Which ones that they did use do you think were ineffectual? How do we force sovergien countries to be peaceful when they are beating the drums of war?
So the answer is when someone beats the war drum ... to be a bigger war drum?
I'll keep repeating it ... if the world wants to spend money on war, no one should act surprised when war occurs.
Wars are also preventable and if conditions are constantly created to force war, war will always occur.
Everyone can name one or two major corporations or companies that create and build military hardware because billions are spent on them .... few can name a company or institution that builds and encourages peace because no one spends money on them ... is it any wonder that war is so easily frequent in our world?
When someone starts hitting you what do you do?
How did you end up in a situation where someone is hitting you?
We don't just exist in a world where people will go around hitting each other .... we aren't Neanderthals, this isn't a thousands years ago.
If we choose to create and live in a world where hitting each other is the only way to communicate ... then you're right, you just hit back.
There is money to be made on war and the owners of this world enjoy watching people hit each other.
Oh, so you don't answer questions.
Magdump in their chest because I panic and fear for my life. After that, while still shaking, I call ambulance because I feel like I can't breathe and my blood presure is still rising.
It will take years of therapy to calm me down. Perpetrator's parents will pay the bills.
Done with you.
This one was actually quite funny.
"Incel who can barely contain his rage, just itching to explain his violence-fantasy at the slightest provocation" describes you quite well as a person. Too bad even reality makes terrible troll bait and the person you tried baiting immediately saw through it. Maybe you're not as good a troll as I thought?
Anyway, glad I caught this one before I left. Better luck tomorrow, troll friend
@ininewcrow I think the problem is when there is no one on the other side with whom it is possible to engage in reasonable discussion. When the leadership of one side have shown time & time again that they are dishonest, untrustworthy, & not even sufficiently well informed & self aware to know when their cause is struggling, let alone lost.
And when both sides see the other this way, & are unwilling to look at themselves, or to see similarities with the current enemy which might be used as a foundation for peace…