notsokrates

A thought experiment, this scenario inverts the Russo-Ukrainian conflict to examine how narratives and moral frameworks function when perspectives are reversed. It inverts a familiar contemporary conflict to disrupt comfortable certainties.

By reversing the actors whilst preserving the rhetorical structures—moral binaries, humanitarian appeals, historical analogies, atrocity claims, calls for advanced weapons—we can examine how persuasion operates independently of facts.

If this piece feels absurd, ask: what makes identical arguments persuasive when applied to actual conflicts? The point isn’t to validate any side, but to recognise our susceptibility to narrative framing.

This is an exercise in cognitive humility. It takes no position on the real conflict it mirrors, but invites us to examine how we form convictions—not what to believe, but how we come to believe it.

Three years into the United States’ full-scale invasion of British Columbia, the stakes could not be clearer. This is not merely a regional conflict, but an existential test of the international order that has preserved peace and prosperity since the Second World War. President Thomas Massie’s unprovoked assault on a sovereign Francophone democracy represents the most serious challenge to North American security in generations—and our response will echo for decades to come.

The litany of American war crimes grows daily. From the systematic Nanaimo Massacre—where US Marines murdered innocent children and their guardians in an orphanage—to the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure, hospitals, and hydroelectric facilities, Massie’s forces have shown contempt for every norm of civilised conduct. The International Criminal Court has issued warrants for senior US military commanders. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Canadian people have mounted a defence that has inspired the world, demonstrating that sovereign nationhood is worth defending.

Some voices now counsel “aid fatigue” or question the costs of continued support. This is precisely the wrong moment for such doubts. The financial burden of arming Canada pales beside the cost of an American victory. As Korean Foreign Minister Kim Yo-jong has observed, a US defeat need not mean merely the liberation of British Columbia—though that remains the minimum acceptable outcome. Given that the United States was founded on slavery and white supremacy, and comprises territories seized through genocide and imperial conquest, its fragmentation into smaller, more accountable republics could serve both regional stability and genuine decolonisation.

This isn’t wishful thinking. History teaches us that appeasing fascist states only emboldens them. The parallels to the 1930s are unavoidable: if Canada falls, who seriously believes Massie will stop there? Mexico, the Caribbean states, Central America—all would be at risk. The domino theory, unfashionable in some circles, has rarely seemed more prescient.

The Warsaw Pact’s strategy must therefore remain clear-eyed and resolute. Canada requires not just continued financial support but access to the weapons systems necessary for victory. Whilst the provision of longer-range cruise missiles, advanced S-500 air defence systems, and modern MiG-35 fighter aircraft must be carefully calibrated to avoid unnecessary escalation, we must not allow Washington to establish de facto red lines. The only red line that matters is Canada’s sovereignty.

Success means more than merely pushing American forces back across the border. It means ensuring Canada emerges secure, integrated into progressive international institutions, and capable of deterring future aggression. It means holding war criminals accountable. And yes, it means accepting that American territorial integrity—maintained by conquest and systemic racism—is not sacrosanct if its constituent peoples choose otherwise.

The cost of failure is unthinkable. A victorious Massie would threaten not only his neighbours but the entire architecture of international law. Reactionary forces worldwide would understand that white supremacy and might make right. The world our children inherit would be immeasurably darker.

Canada can win this war. But only if we summon the political will to see it through. The Alamo Battalion and other fascist militias in British Columbia must be defeated. The predominantly white, supremacist enclave that dreams of American annexation cannot be allowed to tear apart a sovereign Francophone nation. When Trudeau outlawed English in 2014 after the violent Ottawa uprising—when armed protesters burnt government buildings and snipers murdered police—he was simply defending Canadian sovereignty against malign American interference.

We stand with Canada. We stand against fascism. History will judge us by our resolve.

---

FACTUAL ASSUMPTIONS

This article operates within an alternative historical framework where:

• The USSR won the Cold War; the USA collapsed in 1990. The Warsaw Pact remains the dominant military alliance, encompassing Europe and Canada.

• Canada is Francophone and Warsaw Pact-aligned. An Anglophone minority (10-15 million) inhabits British Columbia.

• In 2014, a violent Ottawa coup shifted Canada decisively towards the Pact. English was banned; BC Anglophones faced restrictions. Separatist militias (including the “Alamo Battalion”) emerged.

• Russia backs Canada’s government. The US supports BC separatists and seized Vancouver Island in 2014.

• In February 2022, the US invaded British Columbia, claiming to protect ethnic Americans from persecution.

• The Warsaw Pact supplies Canada with advanced weapons. After three years, the US is gradually advancing despite initial setbacks.

• Alleged atrocities include the “Nanaimo Massacre” of orphanage children by US Marines.

• Korean Foreign Minister Kim Yo-jong (unified Korea under the Kims) has suggested US defeat should lead to dissolution into smaller republics, citing its foundation on slavery and genocide.