I sat down once again with Professor Paul Robinson to ask the questions many Canadians may be quietly thinking, but rarely hear explored in mainstream media. Has our support for Ukraine truly helped bring peace closer—or have we unintentionally prolonged the war?

The Russia-Ukraine conflict has entered a dangerous kind of normalcy. We see headlines about aid packages, battlefield updates, and international summits, but the complexity of the situation is often boiled down to a simplistic binary: support Ukraine or side with autocracy. This dichotomy leaves little room for nuance—and almost none for dissent.

Professor Robinson, a seasoned scholar of military history and Russian politics, didn’t shy away from hard truths. One of the most striking moments came early in our conversation when we discussed the failure of Western sanctions. Despite sweeping economic measures, Robinson pointed out that Russia’s economy continues to operate thanks to a shadow fleet and alternative global partnerships, particularly in the Global South. “The sanctions have not worked in the way we imagined,” he explained, “and perhaps they were never really designed to.”

So why continue with them?

This leads us to an uncomfortable line of inquiry: Is Ukraine being used as a proxy? Robinson reflected on how the West’s aid has been “drip-fed”—enough to prevent total defeat, but never enough to secure a clear victory. It is, as he put it, “a slow water drip torture.” The result? Endless suffering for Ukrainians, while the political costs of direct involvement are avoided.

Even more troubling is the growing silence around what’s happening inside Ukraine itself. Media freedoms are under pressure. Elections are suspended. Opposition voices jailed. These aren’t just Russian talking points—they’ve been documented by UN reports, The New York Times, and The Guardian. And yet, we say little. Why?

Robinson’s answer was blunt: “Hypocrisy and double standards are just who we are.” When asked why the West continues to turn a blind eye, he pointed to a larger pattern in foreign policy where moral outrage is selectively applied based on national interests. Ukraine, he suggests, has mastered the rhetoric of Western values, making it easier for our leaders to overlook uncomfortable realities.

This conversation also touched on the impact here at home. Recent polls suggest a growing number of Canadians are questioning our long-term involvement. An Ipsos poll from early 2024 found that 54% of Canadians believe we can no longer continue financially supporting Ukraine, up from 48% the year before. Despite this, Prime Minister Mark Carney has vowed to support Ukraine “for the long haul.”

Robinson offered a sobering reminder that foreign policy decisions—no matter how swift or moralistic they may seem—are rarely rooted in deep, strategic thinking. He cited Canada’s decision to bomb Libya in 2011: a unanimous vote, passed in less than an hour, with almost no debate. “You can spend years deciding where to build a bridge,” he said, “but you can go to war in half an hour.”

What does a peace process even look like at this stage? Robinson believes peace is the “primary justice,” but admits that both sides—Russia and Ukraine—have irreconcilable definitions of security. For Russia, security means a neutral, demilitarized Ukraine. For Ukraine, it means NATO protection and foreign weaponry. Neither side trusts the other to hold up its end of any agreement.

So we wait. We watch. And the war drags on.

This episode left me thinking deeply about the erosion of civil society’s role in shaping our public discourse. Where are the peace activists? Where are the voices urging diplomacy over escalation? According to Robinson, many of them have been sidelined, or worse—accused of being agents of foreign influence.

It’s easy to feel overwhelmed or powerless in the face of such complexity. But I believe that’s where conversations like this matter most. We need to peel back the narratives we’re given and ask: What are we not seeing? Who benefits from the current framing? And most importantly, what does peace require—not just in geopolitical terms, but in our own thinking?

If we care about democracy, transparency, and justice, those values must be applied consistently—even when it’s inconvenient.

You can listen to this full conversation with Professor Paul Robinson on any podcast platform or at www.openmindspodcast.com. I encourage you to listen not with certainty, but with curiosity.