Armchair Warriors Don't Win Real Wars

Surprise.

I spent 3 hours this weekend reading the news in various articles written from multiple perspectives. There was a twenty-page span covering Ukraine in the National Post which is openly advertised on the front page. I realize I understand no further now, than I did before, what is really going on. Thinking one can understand all the implications of a war: where, how, and why it truly started is lunacy. We are hardly capable of doing that in retrospect, let alone from the overseeing eye of the tornado. 

Images of people hunkering down in subway stations in Ukraine are reminiscent of WWII but with smart phones. The hunkered can view what is happening outside at the moment. The very real on-the-ground experience is being expanded beyond physical circumstance and can be viewed through a much larger scope. Imagine if on the front lines of WWII soldiers could tap into the various happenings, commentaries, and developing situations, while concurrently lying on their stomachs in the mud. What could this mean for news, and the experience of war? Is it more, or less traumatizing to have access to the veritable barrage of information, checked or unchecked, barrelling toward you while crouched with your countrymen underground?

In the Internet Age we have access to thousands of perspectives but the more we see the less we know. This is probable cause for our clinging to and continued attachment to the idea of “two sides”. This is a duplicitous duality and binary thinking. We know, in fact, there is a “side” for every individual involved. Why does the absence of a collective narrative disturb us? Why are we relieved by consistent narrative, even when it is a homogenized echo chamber devoid of nuance?

Uncertainty is a close companion of nuance. The more nuanced the thought the more defensive certainty becomes. 

It’s easier to read headlines than the entire story. It’s easier to accept one story than to read many. It’s easier to simplify than to complexify. It is easier to posture understanding than to face the reality that news is second-hand at best, watered down, abstracted, and presented by biased humans (this is not an accusation, it’s the reality of being human, and perhaps subjectivity is open to more truth than we give it credit for. The claim of objectivity is not a virtue and is oftentimes subjectivity in disguise).

It’s easier to maintain righteous belief than to defend nuanced reason. 

The drive of compassionate people is to help but this aspiration is often stunted by the underlying shadows we prefer not to acknowledge: we have very little power to actually do anything useful. What do we do in the absence of ability to do something useful? We settle for performance instead and that performance is useful only to assuage our conscience. 

As Raymond J. de Souza pointed out in his article on the Ukraine: this invasion is not new, it happened nearly a decade ago. It’s playing out on the world stage now, however, and that’s why many make a claim to standing with Ukraine — about 8 years late. 

What does it mean exactly, to stand with Ukraine? What change can an individual with no political power affect? What difference does it make to Putin whether a bunch of Canadians stand with Ukraine? More likely than not, it will just affect our fame-pandering, poll-profiteering, prime minister’s foreign policy, attaching us to a battle he thinks we can win on Twitter.

In the meantime we ignore issues in Canada that we can affect. Suffering is not defined solely by the presence of guns, bombs, and military. We cannot dismiss suffering that is unaccompanied by a visual slap in the face, especially when it’s staring us in it. Playing victim wars serves only to absolve us the responsibility of taking care of our own, while pretending we’re making a difference elsewhere.

The answer is not to pay less attention to the world stage. It is not to say war is ethical. It is to say that we should focus on our own country. Our individual power is bigger here, as is our responsibility. The farther away we extend our power, the more diminutive our desired effect becomes. It’s convenient to distract ourselves with issues we cannot hope to affect, because then we don’t have to take responsibility for them - and that means we can sit comfortable in our armchairs signalling our virtue into the void, until we realize too late that we’ve let our guard down and our turn is next.