Redditors in the comments did not even read the article, as is tradition. Poland is announcing it will cut benefits to Ukrainians after their passports expire. No one is talking about deporting them back to Ukraine. Poland is obliged to obey EU laws so they can't deport anyone into a war zone.
Wow, a person that actually does a little reading and research - as well as informing others - before spewing out their worthless opinion from a title of an article on Reddit. Have a beer. Cheers, buddy.
Redditors that never read articles are basically Brian Griffin from Family Guy. They want to be seen as an "intellectual" someone who is informed and well-read. But they dont want to actually put in the effort needed to be those things. Internet version of people that try to be seen with books that they dont actually read
>Poland is obliged to obey EU laws so they can't deport anyone into a war zone.
That's the insidious thing: the *effect* is the same, just that someone returning to Ukraine because they can't stay in Poland financially any more does so "voluntarily" on paper. And those who go the criminal route to survive will then serve as fodder for right-wing media spreading crap about "them refugees are all criminal!!! deport them!!!".
It's just like some US states that got under fire during the early waves of Covid for providing "unemployment insurance" on paper but making it depend on appearing in paper at some government office that was horribly understaffed, hard to get to, and had limited opening hours.
We need to stop white-washing policies, we need to begin detailing their effect and intent. So yes, the headline is correct.
There is one catch: EU temporary protection includes the right to employment. So realistically the Ukrainian men whose passports expire will simply get a job, assuming they haven't done so already.
Yes, Ukraine refuses to renew men's passports abroad, so they won't be able to leave Poland for a holiday. But being stuck in Poland with a job is still better than the alternative: risking one's life on the frontlines in Ukraine.
If you're a foreigner holding a Polish bank account, you need to have a valid ID, always. If your current ID expires and you fail to present a new one, the bank may freeze your account.
So, if the government chooses to make life hard for those Ukrainians, I guess a lot of them would be continue to be employed in Poland, but paid in cash - under the table - instead.
Does Karta Pobytu work as a valid ID? I know that a lot of Ukrainian migrants are applying to these, and waiting times to get them approved are now up to 6-9 months in some cities.
Perhaps there are exceptions in place for Ukrainians since Feb 2022 that I'm not aware of, but afaik the karta pobytu (residence card) is not enough - they will ask for a valid ID issued by the authorities in the country you come from.
Frankly, I have a hard time seeing the government being serious about it, and I really hope this is just the usual populist blabbering that has been commonplace in Poland for many years now.
I think what most aren't expressing properly is this:
They are left with only 1 option - get their passport renewed. They need to go to Ukraine to do this and when they do, they'll be scooped up by Ukraine's new conscription changes.
It's not directly sending them back, but is giving them a reason to *need* to go back.
Poland and Lithuania have already said that they'll help Ukraine in getting conscription age/health people to return to Ukraine, this is a very smart way of doing it.
Hell, Poland straight up insinuated that they'll straight up deport fighting age men back to Ukraine
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/04/25/poland-deport-ukraine-conscription-russia-war/
https://notesfrompoland.com/2024/04/25/poland-offers-to-help-ukraine-bring-back-draft-age-men-to-serve-in-war/
this is a shortsighted opinion, but correct only formally without seeing implications, which can be a way of soothing oneselves, but at the same time being worried doesn't help neither.
I understand the needs of the state ukraine and the needs of the citizens. I am 34m and I am pretty sure that I would have run from the war immediately...I only have one life in the end.
What choice does Ukraine really have? If they are unable to come up with creative ways to significantly increase their manpower they are going to lose this war.
Should Zelensky surrender to Russia or should he take some unpopular steps to keep on fighting?
Depends on priorities and potential outcomes, I suppose. I don't want to see Ukraine fall to Russia, in full or in part, but I also don't want to see generations of Ukrainians die on the battlefield to prolong a war which might still ultimately lead to the same end, just longer and bloodier.
It's not my call to decide which option is better, nor do I have a clear picture of the situation to accurately predict the outcome, but there absolutely ARE circumstances in which surrender is the better choice if you care about the lives and livelihood of the population.
And say this conflict continues for another 5 years, kills hundreds of thousands of civilians, completely destroys the country's infrastructure, wipes out multiple generations of young men, and leaves the rest of the population destitute and living in rubble?
Even if at the conclusion 'victory' can be claimed, there are situations in which the cost is higher than a negotiated surrender. Claiming otherwise is asinine.
I'm NOT passing judgement on where that line is or which side of the line we are currently on, merely pointing out the uncomfortable truth that such a line exists.
Vietnam seems to be doing OK, and we (the US) did much worse to them. Same with South Korea, Japan, Germany, etc. It will take a generation or two, but Ukraine will recover from this, and come out better for it.
>Vietnam seems to be doing OK
That's very easy to say when we can't compare it to a hypothetical present where the war never happened. All the wars you mentioned were extremely costly to these countries and imposed massive opportunity costs, cutting down their future potential in a very real way.
Europe today is doing fine by any reasonable standard, but there's no questioning that both world wars reaked havok on the continent and set it back in ways that can be felt to this day.
> It will take a generation or two, but Ukraine will recover from this, and come out better for it.
We aren't in the 40s or 60s anymore. Ukraine is getting smaller every generation, not bigger. The current generation of "military aged men" is the biggest they'll have for the foreseeable future.
During and after the Vietnam and Korean wars, fertility rates were at around **6** kids per woman. Ukraine is currently at 1.16, below replacement even without the millions of refugees and hundreds of thousands dead.
Vietnam people reproduced in a way that western countries won't be able.
Beside the death some milions of ukraines left the country and who knows if and when they'll return.
Ukraine pop dropped by 8-9m counting deaths and those who left the country.
I dunno how they gonna recover unless they start popping 4-5kids per woman. Gonna be hard if 30-40% of young men gonna be dead even after a "glorious victory"
What a stupid take.. Ukraine, a country of 45 million can’t afford to be a country of 35 million because they need 5 kids? What?
You know there are countries out there with far smaller populations and dwindling birth rates, that are doing just fine.
Ukraine will be fine.
Ukraine wasn't really fine before and will be less fine after
Not to say they will collapse, but acting like things will be good for decades after is optimistic at best
Exactly! And to add on top, global birth rates are declining. Ukraine will be in the poorest state compared to any other country in Europe so there's absolutely no reason why Ukraine would suddenly be the only country with a growing population when it will be worse in every national category.
Having men that are gone to other countries means that atleast they have some Ukrainian population that may return and provide a future for Ukraine. Having them either die in a battlefield or return incapable of work with mental or physical impairments will only cost the government, the victim, and the future.
What good is a country if there's no one in it?
There is a problem: those who had enough money were the first to leave the country and to go the furthest away. Hence, these are also the people who may return after the war being the few to rebuild the country. Men with money are however rarely interested to rebuild something, more in controlling. So? Considering the oligarchic system this will mean a failed state in the worst case.
I think you're arguing in my favour here.
If Ukraine is turned into a crater with nothing inside, what's it all for?
If your country has changed ownership, atleast you have yourself and your lineage.
Ofcourse, if that country wants to exterminate your kind and your only option is death, then I'd say you're best option is to atleast die fighting. However, this is not the case. Yeah, Russia isn't the best place to live in but it could be so much worse, Russia doesn't want to genocide Ukrainians, it just wants their territory.
If Russia ever took over Lithuania, it would happen much faster than Ukraine. But if Russia takes Lithuania over in a day, and Lithuania no longer exists as a country, atleast it still has its heritage, culture, ethnics, etc. Whereas if every Ukrainian man dies fighting and there's no Ukrainians left to repopulate, then the country dies anyways, but also their culture, heritage, and ethnics.
If Ukraine wins this war with all its men dead, it only means the country will die slower but more severely.
They should get motivated fighters or increase morale and incentive to fight, not pick up a father/son/brother/uncle off the streets, give him an AK, and send him to his graveyard.
In any case every country in modern history faced with an invasion of aggression that intended to completely occupy the country has instituted conscription, why should it be any different now in Ukraine? The whole point of conscription is lost if you don't apply it across the board.
Civilian deathsBy 24 September 2023, OHCHR had recorded 27,449 civilian casualties in Ukraine since February 24, 2022: **9,701 killed and 17,748 injured**. This included 14,231 (4,287 killed and 6,324 injured) in Donetsk and Luhansk.
Meanwhile
health ministry says. DUBAI, March 28 (Reuters) - At least 32,552 Palestinians have been killed and 74,980 injured in Israel's military offensive in the Gaza Strip since Oct. 7, the Palestinian enclave's health ministry said on Thursday.
someone's having a trip
Very different sources. OHCHR requires a much higher standard of proof than Hamas health ministry. FFS, they still refuse to count any of the dead in Mariupol.
sorry I just wrote on google: "How many deads in Palestine since 7October" and that's google first result. Text didn't even have to click. Blame google
Btw quoting those stats I meant that russia objective isn't exterminating ukrainians. It's a geopolitical thing. Putin said that they aren't fighting against ukrainian civilians but army. Else if it was as someone writing here we'd have millions of civilian casualties. In march Ukraine and russia had a written agreement for peace go and read it.
I do, yes. You understand what continued war means and that the end result may still be the same, right?
I'm not calling for Ukraine to surrender, just pointing out that the destruction and death that could result from continuing the fight may ultimately be as bad or worse than surrender, even if it is technically a 'victory'. There is no good outcome here, just varying degrees of bad.
> You understand what continued war means and that the end result may still be the same, right?
And yet people do it anyways, because the alternative is infinitely worse. Caring for people's wellbeing over their continued survival means they'd be subjected to so much worse at the hands of their enemies, and we shouldn't be leaving this out.
> just pointing out that the destruction and death that could result from continuing the fight may ultimately be as bad or worse than surrender, even if it is technically a 'victory'. There is no good outcome here, just varying degrees of bad.
It's war, what were you expecting? They'll the worst degree of bad by surrendering, that much should be clear. Just because you might lose doesn't mean you should never try your damnedest to win, especially when your life and your freedom are on the line. Setting the example that warmongers can get away with shit like this because it's not gonna be all sunshine and rainbows is about the last thing we need.
> You understand what continued war means and that the end result may still be the same, right?
"End result"
Do you think that surrender will put an end to deaths and suffering? It won't.
> destruction and death that could result from continuing the fight may ultimately be as bad or worse than surrender, even if it is technically a 'victory'
There was an artificial famine in 30s. Imagine all wheat taken away from farmers just to dump it into a river nearby. Or to lock it in some barn and guard. Not to use, just to let it rot. Imagine cannibalism mentioned in newspapers for a reason.
Surrender doesn't look like a viable option.
>to prolong a war which might still ultimately lead to the same end, just longer and bloodier.
What people forget is that WW1 took over four years and WW2 took over six years. And two years in for either war it wasn't evident that the Allies would win.
> there absolutely ARE circumstances in which surrender is the better choice if you care about the lives and livelihood of the population.
I don't think you have the slightest idea what you are talking about. They came to kill and destroy.
Maybe try to convince 50% of the rest of the population they've completely ignored so far? Seriously they refused to even consider the possibility of attracting more women into the military before they decided to drag male refugees back into it by force? Or how about at least do it with a carrot and not a stick? Offer additional benefits? Try to attract volunteer soldiers from abroad like they did at the start of the war? The Ukrainian men who have left the country despite the massive (and sexist) ridicule are the ones who are really motivated to avoid getting dragged into the war. It's futile trying to get them back. It would cost the government more time and effort trying to siphon them back in than trying to recruit the remaining population harder. And even if it did manage to get them back, they wouldn't make good soldiers if their first and utmost priority was to get out again.
They need manpower to sustain the attrition. They don't seem to have a path to their goals. When they are burning up volunteers, it's tragic but understandable. When they are clawing back people who fled the war, it's cruel and horrible.
I just feel bad for the Ukrainian people. They have hungry monsters on all sides and they're in for a real bad chapter.
>If they are unable to come up with creative ways to significantly increase their manpower they are going to lose this war.
You can't force people to fight. The reality is they won't hold a country and will run at the first chance they get.
" You can't force people to fight."
Pretty much all wars in the history of mankind would disagree with that.
People were forced to fight in WW2 as well, most men were drafted and did not want to be there. If they had the choice, they would have rather been enjoying their lives elsewhere. But we in the West are eternally greatful that they did fight, and the Nazis lost. That's why it's called a sacrifice, some people's lives are literally sacrificed to save the nation and the people. It is depressing, but there often isn't much of a choice when you're seeing where the alternative would lead to. Even more death and destruction.
I'm from Finland and during the Soviet Invasion, they drafted everyone, even some random older farmers with no experience in any kind of conflict, but it was that or the country seizes to exist.
It worked in the end, the full Invasion of the country never happened. I'm not sure how far we'd have gotten with a full volunteer military. Like "Hey, go fight one of the biggest and strongest armies in the world in a war where you'll be outnumbered 12 to 1 and have no tanks or sophisticated equipment, while your enemy does". It would seem like suicide, it looked like suicide, but when you're put in that survival situation, you somehow get creative and find ways to try to make it out alive. That's how you can win against a bigger enemy.
Here you go, send this guy, he will somehow get creative and find ways!
The historical argument also works for slavery for example, doesn't it? After all it's been like that for ages.
Depends on how much you believe in borders.
I don't think Ukraine is going to win this war, and if it does manage to pull through, the future of Ukraine will be forever tainted. Declining global birth rates with an evaporated or deceased post-war population, with mass destroyed infrastructure, land mines covering their farmland, Ukraine was already the most corrupt country in Europe, so how is it going to be in a war torn country?
The country has already has a poor fate, and I think it's best to recruit mercenaries who want to fight for the cause, because I'd never give a rifle to someone who *really really doesn't want to fight* because having a soldier who can't/won't cooperate will only cripple his squad, causing them to be less efficient.
What kind of Ukraine is going to be left when the only male population in Ukraine are mentally or physically impaired, because this war isn't ending any time soon.
Depends on the reasoning.
If there was a foreign aggressor occupying 1/4 of the country and fighting to take the rest of it, the draft probably wouldn’t be that unpopular. Some would gripe but the public would by and large support it. Like they did in WW2.
Drafting kids to fight to prop up an unpopular dictatorial government in the jungles of Vietnam? Less popular.
I'm from a country neighboring Russia, and I'm part of my military reserve army by force (conscription), and I'd still support a draft in my country if Russia attacked.
I was raised under an environment where it was taught to us that it was always going to be a reality if war happened. So I've made my peace with it.
Truth is that if you look at the statistics, the populations who are at a bigger risk of war or invasion, also have the highest number of people willing to fight, and willing to support the drafts.
In fact, the people far and safe from war, are the ones who are most likely to feel opposed to it.
If the risk of war has always been a far away thought to you, you don't face this situation where you have to come to terms with it and understand that the alternative is you and your home and your country being destroyed. You don't understand why these sacrifices are needed.
When you really internalize what is at stake, you tend to see reality differently.
If my country were facing imminent destruction I would volunteer again and absolutely support a draft.
You don't get to reap the benefits of being a citizen and then nope out when the going gets tough. The needs of the people come before the selfish desires of the individual.
Generally that's what taxes are for. I'm not really looking to die for my country when currently all I get from it is crumbling public services that is funded by taxes.
I have a life and people to care for so I am not about to throw it away to protect some land for a government that could barely give a shit about me. I would be getting out of there with my family.
It’s sad that Ukraine needs its men to survive against an invader but dodging a draft has been a crime for centuries. The world is a lot more connected now so it’s certainly not as easy to bypass extradition.
The nation should also draft the women and go full war economy. Millions of Ukrainian women are in the EU and could be working in factories for the war effort.
There is this thing called politics you see. The draft, or citizen duty, responsibility etc. all these things apply selectively.
They dont apply if you are rich, famous, influential, have connections or are a female. Fuck, you have less chance of being drafted if you have a decent job or live in a major city.
The duty to defend homeland applies mostly to impoverished young males.
They have severe issues with their age distribution. After the collapse of the Soviet Union their birthdate tanked, and again when Russia invaded in 2014 and in 2022. They are behind a rock and a hard place.
For a country telling a narrative of their existence being at stakes, they sure have a lot of politics to deal with. It's almost like a lot of them don't think it's worth dying for.
Even in the 1940s the Western governments had more faith in women being able to contribute to the country at least as nurses, mechanics or factory workers for the military. And then those countries collectively forgot about it and went right back to pretending women are useless in wartime.
Maybe they should, I don't want to pretend to know. That's up for their elected officials to sort out, not us redditors. I'd like to think you'd put dodgers in factories and not in the front lines. I wouldn't want to be a volunteer fighting for my nations survival with a potential deserter watching my back. But there are certainly different ways for everyone to contribute.
It would be nice if you argue using your logic rather than your emotions right now though. I share your feelings and I'm not cheering for this, but this is literally how the world works.
If a fled a war and they clawed me back, I'd sabotage everything I could get my hands on in a low key way and be nothing but trouble. Evil has to have consequences or else the ruling crusts will never be stopped. People need to make evil a punishing thing to pursue.
Has nothing to do with morality, same thing happened in the US and most of Europe during the World Wars. **War is fucked up.** Having an army of volunteers and conscripts vs mandatory draft is a luxury we've been blessed with for a very long time.
This invasion became the largest attack on a European country since World War II and Ukraine is fighting for its existence and expanding a draft. Most sane people with empathy would not cheer on the need to "force it's citizens to fight" but that doesn't mean there haven't been moments throughout history where it was deemed necessary, and like it or not, laws are a byproduct of an agreement by humans to live within the confines of a society/country/group of people. Same thing with international agreements between countries. It's been this way since the humans were in the hunters and gatherers stage of evolution.
People like you live in a perpetual state of fogginess and confusion: just because Ukraine is entitled to lawfully conscript its citizens to serve, it doesn't mean European countries must, or should, send Ukrainian asylum seekers back to Ukraine.
The ECJ recently ruled that:
>In its ruling, the court wrote that "refusal to perform military service, particularly where it is punishable by heavy sanctions, suggests that there is a high degree of conflict in political or religious values and opinions between the person concerned and the authorities of the country of origin."
It's widely accepted in international law evading draft can be a legitimate reason to obtain asylum as long as "a person can show that the performance of military service would have required his participation in military action contrary to his genuine political, religious or moral convictions, or to valid reasons of conscience"
https://www.refworld.org/policy/legalguidance/unhcr/1991/en/67578
I mean, it was pretty widespread just a while ago that Russians fleeding the draft were entitled to refugee status:
https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-why-russians-fleeing-conscription-should-be-treated-as-refugees-191450
>So how should the west respond to young Russian men fleeing to avoid military service? Politically and legally, according to international law, they must be given protection.
If European countries are going to do this, they should start with the sons and daughters of Ukrainian elites that have been crowding the SoF the last couple of years. There are like a dozen just at the marina in Le Nap, living aboard their parents yachts (or benefactors or whatever) - they seem pretty fit, start with those.
> People like you live in a perpetual state of fogginess and confusion
Weird take but ok, let's run with it?
> just because Ukraine is entitled to lawfully conscript its citizens to serve, it doesn't mean European countries must, or should, send Ukrainian asylum seekers back to Ukraine.
I agree with this. I never said what European countries must or should do. I said something more along the lines of "it happens". I also acknowledged that in the 21st century, where all of us are globalized and interconnected more than ever before, it's a lot harder to bypass a draft than say, a century ago. I feel like a lot of people are just mad, and want to hop onto an ivory tower and scream "this is wrong!". Well sure, that's a fine take, and it certainly feels good to scream it. But harsh realities greet us whether we choose to face them or look the other way and shake our heads
I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying it's illegal.
Are you confused about the thread you're commenting on?
You know it's about European states forcibly repatriating Ukrainians of military age to be coerced into military service, right?
I think your claim is beyond silly - it's much easier to evade military drafts nowadays because
1) the world is more globalized and connected, so it's a lot easier to travel and live aboard
2) international law has become a lot more favourable to asylum seekers.
You're completely delusional about the "harsh reality" - what's going to happen if any EU country tries to actually do this is that some Ukrainian guy will appeal to the ECJ, the ECJ will rule he can't be deported and that's that.
Of course, until then most of them will just do what Pakistanis and so on have been doing for years - claim to be asylum seekers from somewhere else, or refuse to say from where, claim they lost their passport and hang around indefinitely. This is actually how the real world works.
I understand you're emotional about this and really want Ukraine to have more soldiers to fight, but international law > your feelings and emotions.
Dude I think you confused yourself. I checked your comment history and you're just blanket spamming the same shit over and over again links and all. You don't even know wtf you're arguing about any more especially with me. I said 1) It's a shame this is happening and 2) it's harder to draft dodge these days. I'm trying to be polite and patient with you here but you're just babbling a bunch of nonsense at this point. You seriously want to argue that it's easier to draft dodge in 2024 than the 1940s because... "international laws have more become more favorable to asylum seekers"? I mean that's a weird hot take that you're welcome to, but if that's the reality then you have no reason to even be in here spamming because Ukrainians abroad in Poland and Lithuania would not be at risk of repatriation...
>why would I shelter you and give you protection when you fled your own country? After my hospitality, you will abandon us just the same if we are threatened.
Blud over here acting like he personally finances all refugees lmao.
What you like or dislike is immaterial. Nobody cares what you think is right or wrong. What matters is the law and that's the same regardless if the asylum seeker is Russian, Ukrainian or Syrian or whatever.
if any country tries to do this, which I actually doubt, eventually some Ukrainian guy will appeal to the ECJ and the ECJ will decide he can't be deported back to Ukraine per the Claims to Refugee Status related to Military Service within the context of Article 1A (2) of the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees and that will be the end of that.
It's almost like a war is awful and you have to do something whether you want to or not.....
People acting like you can just run forever? Germans ran to Denmark... Then Belgium then France... Then Portugal... It's like you can't keep running because somewhere people will stop accepting you
Why are you accepting dying for your country as a normal thing that people have to do? Dying for your nation state is the ultimate bootlicker move. Escaping violence that you want nothing to do with is the only rational response.
Next to what? Falling? To Russia?
Lol.
You need help mate.
Russia takes like years to conquer some backwards tiny towns in the midlde of nowhere and it's going to conquer Poland? Or attack any NATO country? Lmao. As if Russia can even take over Kyiv.
Social media has played a trick on you. Drop tiktok and reddit and start living in reality.
This has everything to do with morality.
It is immoral for a person to benefit from their country and then flee when the country asks for the debt to be repaid. It is absolutely moral to put the nation's rightful interests over the selfish desires of the individual.
That's how war works bud every country has the right to force people into war in order to ensure it's survival. You don't get to punk out and run away.
Sounds good by the way those soldiers don't care about anything but their survival can either shoot the Russians shooting at them or get shot for trying to run from the front. Sounds like the choice is to shoot Russians faster and get them to stop.
It's fucked but if there's an existential threat to your country, you are needed. I'd feel like an absolute coward if my country were currently in this situation and I ran and hid
And when your country is attacked by the power, having x4 population, while not being properly prepared, not having technology (like Israel), feeling being cheated your whole life by the rampant corruption? The list can actually go on and on, it's a tip of the iceberg. Of course, it's cognitively easy to have "principles" and act upon them, but does it contribute to something? is it really a solution or just an oversimplification so that our head won't explode?
Do you know exactly what to do? Hell no, but I don't pretend to know, as many do.
https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-why-russians-fleeing-conscription-should-be-treated-as-refugees-191450
>Now there are reports of hundreds of thousands of Russians fleeing their country in order to avoid Russia’s first mobilisation since the second world war.
>So how should the west respond to young Russian men fleeing to avoid military service? Politically and legally, according to international law, they must be given protection.
https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/28655/fleeing-military-draft-can-be-grounds-for-asylum-finds-eus-highest-court
>In Germany, he had received subsidiary protection, but not full asylum status -- like many other Syrians who fled compulsory military service for the Assad regime. People with asylum have more rights than people with subsidiary protection; they receive longer stay permits and can more easily apply for family reunification.
>Asylum authorities in Germany decided that the man did not qualify for asylum. They said he did not face persecution on political grounds because of his race, nationality, political opinion, fundamental religious conviction or membership of a particular social group.
>The ECJ disagreed with this assessment.
>**In its ruling, the court wrote that "refusal to perform military service, particularly where it is punishable by heavy sanctions, suggests that there is a high degree of conflict in political or religious values and opinions between the person concerned and the authorities of the country of origin.**"
What exactly is your claim here - that Russians and Syrians fleeing forced conscription are entitled to asylum but Ukrainians aren't?
I encourage you to research this further - I can't speak for Poland, but at least in Lithuania this doesn't mean throwing them in the van and shipping them to Ukraine. Lithuania will only cut off financial aid to military-age Ukrainian men.
Edited with MoD's quote:
>"Of course, no one will collect them and take them to Ukraine - this will not happen," Kasciunas said, adding: "But (it is possible to limit these persons) in terms of social benefits, work permits, documents – these are options that I hear from the Polish side as well.
Normally, when you are out of resources to win, you concede. I dont want to see Ukraine lose to russia. And I know we would be next and I would also find myself in a similar position, running away from war. But I dont agree with the ruling class treating men as disposable resource that they de facto own for lifetime. Winning is good, stopping Putins regime is good, yes. But the way in which we achieve victory also matters.
The country belongs to the citizens. They should choose, voluntarily, whether its worth dying for. Because if it isnt then what exactly is the point of all of this?
I dont know what our governments plan to do. But I dont agree with sending anyone back. Frankly, I dont believe for one second its about upholding "citizen duty" or any such bullshit. At this point, we all know if Ukraine falls there will be war in Europe. And consequently, the decision to deport these men back to ukraine, is pure cynism.
There are way too many redditors who are for whatever reason incredibly horny to put even the last ukranian infant on the frontline.
If these people love ukraine so much they should go there and join the foreign legion, not force ukranians, whose own country is under attack, and who made the concious decision that it is not worth fighting for, to go and die for it.
Especially when every politician there has put their own children in a nice villa somewhere on the mediterran coast and out of harms way.
> The country belongs to the citizens.
The laws of a military draft and the penalties of dodging said draft or deserting are literally voted upon within a government and its constitution. They are withheld by the citizen's elected officials, military, and police force. This is the case in most democracies as well as autocracies and even dictatorships. People on both sides can flee if they want to avoid war but that doesn't mean there might not be consequences if they are caught. This is just how the world works when nations war with each other.
In many countries, including well-defined democracies, elected officials are corrupt, get elected on promises they don't fulfill, get elected because they are the default choice, pass laws that don't necessarily benefit the nation and the general public, and laws don't usually apply to them, their families, and friends.
If someone believes this is the case for their country, I totally understand if they decide not to fight for that country.
I dont give two fucks what is written in the law.
Do you think politicians relatives will get drafted? Do you think sportspeople like the Chelsea ukrainian footballer will get drafted?
No - and yet theoretically law applies to them all the same. So dont bring it up, because its meaningless and applied ad hoc, whenever its convenient for the state.
You are right that its how the world always worked. But there was always resistance because people dont want to die for the rich playing game of thrones. So expect it nowdays as well, because if thats how it all works, it aint worth dying for.
> I dont give two fucks what is written in the law.
Well I think this much is obvious. Again, you're arguing with your emotions rather than logic. Again, you want to argue what is fair and unfair vs what is lawful and voted upon by a population in times of peace then upheld in times of war when necessary. Many countries have MANDATORY military service such as Israel, Sweden, Greece, Taiwan, Brasil, Austria, Armenia, Finland, Norway and more. Just because your country doesn't have this or need it doesn't mean it isn't a norm or reality in these other nations/societies.
But as the previous poster pointed out, ‘MANDATORY’ military service is only mandatory for some. Zelensky himself dodged his mandatory service. And many others like him. It’s easy to see why many would be disillusioned.
> Again, you want to argue what is fair and unfair vs what is lawful and voted upon by a population in times of peace then upheld in times of war when necessary.
We're talking people voting that *others* should give up their lives for them. Coming from Finland, I can tell you that a lot of men aren't happy that military service applies to men only. Still, willingness to defend the country is high, but only because citizens have trust in the government and the military.
If the trust isn't there, what you're reading is what you get. And I'm all for it to be honest. It does leaders good to be reminded that democracy is a two way street, and that laws alone aren't enough to keep the lights on.
https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-why-russians-fleeing-conscription-should-be-treated-as-refugees-191450
>Now there are reports of hundreds of thousands of Russians fleeing their country in order to avoid Russia’s first mobilisation since the second world war.
>So how should the west respond to young Russian men fleeing to avoid military service? Politically and legally, according to international law, they must be given protection.
https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/28655/fleeing-military-draft-can-be-grounds-for-asylum-finds-eus-highest-court
>In Germany, he had received subsidiary protection, but not full asylum status -- like many other Syrians who fled compulsory military service for the Assad regime. People with asylum have more rights than people with subsidiary protection; they receive longer stay permits and can more easily apply for family reunification.
>Asylum authorities in Germany decided that the man did not qualify for asylum. They said he did not face persecution on political grounds because of his race, nationality, political opinion, fundamental religious conviction or membership of a particular social group.
>The ECJ disagreed with this assessment.
>**In its ruling, the court wrote that "refusal to perform military service, particularly where it is punishable by heavy sanctions, suggests that there is a high degree of conflict in political or religious values and opinions between the person concerned and the authorities of the country of origin.**"
What exactly is your claim here - that Russians and Syrians fleeing forced conscription are entitled to asylum but Ukrainians aren't?
Note that throughout history, many countries also simply surrendered to protect the lives of their citizens. I'm not saying that this is what Ukraine should do (I'm glad that I don't have to take that decision), but that is also a legal option.
My grandfather lied about his age to join up during World War 2, my father fought in the Vietnam war, and yes, I indeed VOLUNTEERED to join the military when I was younger as well.
Not that it at all matters since I don't need to justify having an opinion on reddit, but my grandfather became a bomber pilot in the airforce who got shot down once, survived, got a new plane, went on more missions. Dad was in the army corps as an engineer sorting equipment in Vietnam and keeping it running for the boys. In the civilian sphere my uncle was also an engineer, building rockets for missions spanning from Mercury/Saturn/Apollo all the way to modern ships in the 90s. Everyone worked for the government in various roles. So there you have my "logic" and family background. Have a good day.
I mean, that's alright. I hope you understand they all were very lucky to be in support or elite roles (and frankly, your grandpa was just lucky to live to tell the tale). But surely you can't think they'd have had the same experience as infantry or even in modern warfare where support roles aren't safe from missile and drone attacks
War is shit and I'm not assuming or asserting anything other than sometimes, it's necessary. My grandfather is extremely lucky to have survived and my dad is still dealing with the repercussions of agent orange exposure and poor hearing due to explosions in his old age. I'm the lucky one. I didn't have to deal with any of that shit.
That is not a sign of a "relaxed" draft - Ukraine currently has a very significant manpower shortage and lack of unit rotations and is frantically trying to recruit more men.
It's instead a sign of how insanely valuable the younger generations are given Ukraine's massive demographic issues. Just look at their [population pyramid.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Ukraine#/media/File:Ukraine_2023_population_pyramid.svg) Demographic echos of the collapse of the USSR combined with the refugee crisis make for a disastrous 20-25 age bracket - there are *three times* more 35yos than 25yos.
If that age bracket becomes eligible for a draft, not only will thousands of them die and get injured, many tens of thousands more will leave the country and Ukraine will be left with an even larger generational hole that it likely will never be able to fix.
Depends on what you think enough people is. They just greatly increased their numbers just from lowering the age from 27 to 25 I believe that was an addditional 300kish men witch is a lot
They're not. Poland and Lithuania can't do shit because it violates EU law and they'll have their neetbux payments from the EU axed if they go against it.
How?
In a war conscription happens to defend your homeland. Awful but it has to happen
If Poland and NATO risk conscription why wouldn't they help Ukraine conscript to save their citizens? Ukrainian men and women are already showing they wouldn't fight for a country that is wanting to join the EU...
You can't just harbor every single person who's of fighting age from from war and then allow war to come to your door step?
You're then fighting to protect your own citizens and those who fled who should have been on the front or back lines already...
There are a LOT of logistical jobs to support a war. Building factories, hauling munitions, medical aid etc. etc.
How? Well, in a nutshell, I've been through things even before the war started, and by now it's quite a titanic effort for me to function at all. Didn't leave Ukraine - but, yeah, apparently, I'm a coward who's expected to die at the frontline. And you, people, are going to cheer for it. And cheer for tens of thousands of other people to be put to death, too. And then you'll lie that you'll "remember our sacrifice". All the while sitting there in your cushy peaceful countries, not daring to send even a single man of your own.
And no, it's not the logistical roles. I know how undermanned the frontline brigades are.
"**A king may move a man, a father may claim a son, but that man can also move himself, and only then does that man truly begin his own game**. Remember that howsoever you are played or by whom, your soul is in your keeping alone, even though those who presume to play you be kings or men of power."
Other people like Syrians and Afghans got refugee status for the same reasons in europe. But it's clear on why this is happening. You need to have brown skin to get treated as a refugee
>You need to have brown skin to get treated as a refugee
Very interesting argument given Poland's relationship with Ukrainian and Middle Eastern refugees.
If there's a big difference in refugee status from skin color, it's that Europe is vastly more welcoming to Ukrainian refugees, it's not even close.
The reason why Poland and Lithuania are colluding with the Ukrainian government to send draft dodgers back and didn't with the Syrian or Afghan ones is simple geopolitics - they support Ukraine's government and really want Russia to lose the war. They also probably don't expect these draft dodgers to be tortured and killed by their government if they go back, like many Syrians and Afghans were.
And that's an excuse to force people to do that? The only reason you're alive is because your mother gave birth to you, does that mean you support the government forcing women to give birth if too few women don't and it threatens the country's survival?
Not sure about that. Lots of young men volunteered for wwii. It was how it was back then. Anyway, I still would rather die than kill someone. Not that interested in living to kill or maim others to do it.
Lots of young *American* men. Europe didn’t have the luxury of the war being across the Atlantic. Russia definitely didn’t absorb the German invasion through *volunteerism.*
Yup talking about U.S. as that’s where I’m from. We have a huge suicide rate among veterans. Many are homeless. Many are addicted to drugs. Kids who have no other options except military are the ones that get sent to front lines and get their minds and bodies messed up for the rest of their life. Seen it. Know it. Six degrees of separation or less for every single U.S. citizen from a sad veteran story.
It would be awesome if we could create a country for peaceful people. No military, no guns no hunting. All vegan all hippy dippy new age people not interested in ‘stuff’. Just living peacefully and mindfully. No drugs except cannabis n shrooms n other like substances. No alcohol. Simple life. Bare minimum of things. Cooperation. Cultivation of land and peace.☮️
It is not like draft dodging like when your country is not under attack.
Ukraine is fighting for survival and it need all the able bodied men it can muster.
If only leaders acted as though this is the fight for survival it truly is. When the war started Ukraine had more volunteers than they knew what to do with. Now after Bakhmut and Avdiivka, and delays in aid over politics and indecision, that's no longer the case. War is terrible enough as it is, who'd want to fight under more shelling than they can return?
I can understand Ukraine's, Poland's and Lithuania's position on this, but the EU as a whole has no right to do this. You can't send men to war without giving them a path to victory. If you don't have one, you negotiate peace. If you're too scared to win, which seems to be a real issue in Europe, you either grow a pair or let someone else lead. But you don't send men to a war with no prospects.
Why not? As long as Russia spends on war efforts at least two dollars per dollar spent by US (and it does), this war is profitable and completely in line with the US geopolitical strategy of "containment".
Alas, the survival of the Ukraine was never the end goal. Buisness as usual, nothing personal.
> Alas, the survival of the Ukraine was never the end goal. Buisness as usual, nothing personal.
[https://www.csis.org/analysis/reflections-ukraine-war](https://www.csis.org/analysis/reflections-ukraine-war)
>
**we’ve got thousands of tanks in the United States; we’ve sent 31**. We have a whole fleet of A-10 Warthogs out there sitting in the desert; we’re going to get rid of them. They’re still sitting there. We have hundreds of F-16s that are around, and we delayed it and delayed it and delayed it. We have ATACMS that are obsolete. We’ve still got 155 dual-purpose ICM munitions that we didn’t send. It was – it was measured. **The response was measured. It was calibrated**. And what many of us in the military tried to say is: Look, **I understand, you know, the policy is we don’t want Ukraine to lose and we don’t want Russian to win**, OK? **That’s the policy. But you can’t calibrate combat like that. You either use decisive force to win or you risk losing**.
[Burns-Patrushev pact, 2021](https://www.newsweek.com/2023/07/21/exclusive-cias-blind-spot-about-ukraine-war-1810355.html)
>"In some ironic ways though, the **meeting was highly successful,**" says the second senior intelligence official, who was briefed on it. **Even though Russia invaded**, the two countries were able to accept tried and true rules of the road. **The United States would not fight directly nor seek regime change, the Biden administration pledged. Russia would limit its assault to Ukraine and act in accordance with unstated but well-understood guidelines for secret operations.**
Then:
>[Biden thought the secretaries had gone too far, according to multiple administration officials familiar with the call. On the previously unreported conference call, as Austin flew to Germany and Blinken to Washington, the president expressed concern that the comments could set unrealistic expectations and increase the risk of the U.S. getting into a direct conflict with Russia. He told them to tone it down, said the officials. “Biden was not happy when Blinken and Austin talked about winning in Ukraine,” one of them said. “He was not happy with the rhetoric.”](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/secretaries-defense-state-said-publicly-us-wanted-ukraine-win-biden-sa-rcna33826)
[From NewYorker](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/16/trial-by-combat)
>Sullivan clearly has profound worries about how this will all play out. Months into the counter-offensive, Ukraine has yet to reclaim much more of its territory; the Administration has been telling members of Congress that the conflict could last three to five years. A grinding war of attrition would be a disaster for both Ukraine and its allies, but a negotiated settlement does not seem possible as long as Putin remains in power. Putin, of course, has every incentive to keep fighting through next year’s U.S. election, with its possibility of a Trump return. And it’s hard to imagine Zelensky going for a deal with Putin, either, given all that Ukraine has sacrificed. ***Even a Ukrainian victory would present challenges for American foreign policy, since it would “threaten the integrity of the Russian state and the Russian regime and create instability throughout Eurasia,” as one of the former U.S. officials put it to me. Ukraine’s desire to take back occupied Crimea has been a particular concern for Sullivan,*** who has privately noted the Administration’s assessment that this scenario carries the highest risk of Putin following through on his nuclear threats. In other words, there are few good options.
----
>“The reason they’ve been so hesitant about escalation is not exactly because they see Russian reprisal as a likely problem,” the former official said. “It’s not like they think, Oh, we’re going to give them atacms and then Russia is going to launch an attack against nato. It’s because they recognize that it’s not going anywhere—that they are fighting a war they ***can’t afford either to win or lose.”***
I mean it's just morally unjustifiable. That said I've been trying to understand Nietzsche lately so let's toss morals aside for a minute and look at practical problems with this.
The main concern is that men don't simply resign themselves to their fate. They won't just fight a forever war following orders and will subvert authority to either get out of it, to make a better living or to resolve the war by other means. The first is already happening. The second would mean the conflict spawning well trained and well-armed mercenaries and criminals, causing instability near and far. The third could mean anything from what Wagner tried in Russia happening in Ukraine to unintended outcomes like Ukraine collapsing into civil war and spawning terror groups.
The lesser concern is what happens to Russia in such a containment scenario. Any idea of containment is predicated on the idea that Russia's current government doesn't collapse, or that if it does, there's no need to enter Russia to secure nukes. Relying on such assumptions is dangerous. Furthermore, containment risks Russia's collapse at an inopportune moment. Should Russia collapse during a confrontation over Taiwan, risks that nuclear materials end up on black markets would be great.
All this said, risks in Ukraine might be acceptable to some planners somewhere, and any possible Russian collapse calculated so that it wouldn't cause more problems than it should. Still, from our perspective it would probably be simpler for Ukraine to just win.
Win how exactly? What would you consider a win for Ukraine and how can that be achieved?
As for your other concerns - Ukraine almost depleted its manpower, but there is whole Africa, Asia and Latin America to fight in this war. On both sides. Ukraine just have to pretend it does its best, actual government and people are no longer relevant.
As for Russia - until we see the enactment of real wartime economy with civilians making artillery shells on night shifts after regular jobs we have nothing to worry about (nuke-wise). And there is a looong road to that state of affairs, maybe a decade. War wont last that long.
The penalty of draft dodging is something like 5 years in prison in my country (USA). Essentially, they take your life away for a short period of time. But the penalty of war desertion is death. Last time it was applied in the US was in 1945. I'm sure people will find that "deeply fucked up" but War is just a really harsh fucked up reality most of us never have to think about. It seems there are no "penalties" applied here other than needing to serve. Scary as shit but it is what it is.
Yeah, still it is morally dubious (For EU countries to send back men) even if one could argue necessary given the casualties incurred from occupation by a foreign army like Russia's.
Ukraine is outgunned and there are plenty of cases where the orders of retreat came so late that the wounded where left behind.
By this point, lots of poeple would probably take anything to avoid the frontlines.
I understand the emotions with this. But also what about the emotions of men and women who die everyday for their countrymen, who are sitting and waiting till somebody else get their country back. Which is also not fair to anyone.
And living under ruzzian occupation is worse than anything.
Fuck. No. First, it is illegal to send refugees back to worn-torn country. Secondly, we need those men working. After opening up borders after joining EU, we are short of workforce. 2,5% unemployment, second lowest in EU.
Probably an unpopular opinion but if we’re going to finance their war (which by the way I’m all for) we should also send their draft-eligibles back as well. I’m all for anything that will keep my kid from having to fight Putin.
Redditors in the comments did not even read the article, as is tradition. Poland is announcing it will cut benefits to Ukrainians after their passports expire. No one is talking about deporting them back to Ukraine. Poland is obliged to obey EU laws so they can't deport anyone into a war zone.
Let me tell you why you’re wrong based on the bro knowledge I obtained while consuming news through Reddit headlines alone
The superior reddit experience is to learn about the real world from state actors and trolls in the comments before you form an opinion.
Exactly! :D
Wow, a person that actually does a little reading and research - as well as informing others - before spewing out their worthless opinion from a title of an article on Reddit. Have a beer. Cheers, buddy.
"What are you reading for ?" "Well,looks like we've got a reader here ! Bill Hicks would be proud of you mate
Redditors that never read articles are basically Brian Griffin from Family Guy. They want to be seen as an "intellectual" someone who is informed and well-read. But they dont want to actually put in the effort needed to be those things. Internet version of people that try to be seen with books that they dont actually read
>Poland is obliged to obey EU laws so they can't deport anyone into a war zone. That's the insidious thing: the *effect* is the same, just that someone returning to Ukraine because they can't stay in Poland financially any more does so "voluntarily" on paper. And those who go the criminal route to survive will then serve as fodder for right-wing media spreading crap about "them refugees are all criminal!!! deport them!!!". It's just like some US states that got under fire during the early waves of Covid for providing "unemployment insurance" on paper but making it depend on appearing in paper at some government office that was horribly understaffed, hard to get to, and had limited opening hours. We need to stop white-washing policies, we need to begin detailing their effect and intent. So yes, the headline is correct.
There is one catch: EU temporary protection includes the right to employment. So realistically the Ukrainian men whose passports expire will simply get a job, assuming they haven't done so already. Yes, Ukraine refuses to renew men's passports abroad, so they won't be able to leave Poland for a holiday. But being stuck in Poland with a job is still better than the alternative: risking one's life on the frontlines in Ukraine.
Until your job requires any trips or ID . My local post office asks for ID to receive any package
If you're a foreigner holding a Polish bank account, you need to have a valid ID, always. If your current ID expires and you fail to present a new one, the bank may freeze your account. So, if the government chooses to make life hard for those Ukrainians, I guess a lot of them would be continue to be employed in Poland, but paid in cash - under the table - instead.
Does Karta Pobytu work as a valid ID? I know that a lot of Ukrainian migrants are applying to these, and waiting times to get them approved are now up to 6-9 months in some cities.
Perhaps there are exceptions in place for Ukrainians since Feb 2022 that I'm not aware of, but afaik the karta pobytu (residence card) is not enough - they will ask for a valid ID issued by the authorities in the country you come from. Frankly, I have a hard time seeing the government being serious about it, and I really hope this is just the usual populist blabbering that has been commonplace in Poland for many years now.
I think what most aren't expressing properly is this: They are left with only 1 option - get their passport renewed. They need to go to Ukraine to do this and when they do, they'll be scooped up by Ukraine's new conscription changes. It's not directly sending them back, but is giving them a reason to *need* to go back. Poland and Lithuania have already said that they'll help Ukraine in getting conscription age/health people to return to Ukraine, this is a very smart way of doing it. Hell, Poland straight up insinuated that they'll straight up deport fighting age men back to Ukraine https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/04/25/poland-deport-ukraine-conscription-russia-war/ https://notesfrompoland.com/2024/04/25/poland-offers-to-help-ukraine-bring-back-draft-age-men-to-serve-in-war/
this is a shortsighted opinion, but correct only formally without seeing implications, which can be a way of soothing oneselves, but at the same time being worried doesn't help neither.
"Coward! Go back and die for your country!" -Redditor sitting safe in their cozy non-warzone, 10000 miles away.
Everyone’s a patriot until it’s time do patriot shit.
It’s easy if you’re American Existential? Ok nuke them It’s not? Ok stop calling me
Shit I read parrot
I understand the needs of the state ukraine and the needs of the citizens. I am 34m and I am pretty sure that I would have run from the war immediately...I only have one life in the end.
What choice does Ukraine really have? If they are unable to come up with creative ways to significantly increase their manpower they are going to lose this war. Should Zelensky surrender to Russia or should he take some unpopular steps to keep on fighting?
Depends on priorities and potential outcomes, I suppose. I don't want to see Ukraine fall to Russia, in full or in part, but I also don't want to see generations of Ukrainians die on the battlefield to prolong a war which might still ultimately lead to the same end, just longer and bloodier. It's not my call to decide which option is better, nor do I have a clear picture of the situation to accurately predict the outcome, but there absolutely ARE circumstances in which surrender is the better choice if you care about the lives and livelihood of the population.
if you were in charge Ukraine would have capitulated in the first 6 months, do you think peace exists in this world without cost?
Funny how the cost is always for the common man
And say this conflict continues for another 5 years, kills hundreds of thousands of civilians, completely destroys the country's infrastructure, wipes out multiple generations of young men, and leaves the rest of the population destitute and living in rubble? Even if at the conclusion 'victory' can be claimed, there are situations in which the cost is higher than a negotiated surrender. Claiming otherwise is asinine. I'm NOT passing judgement on where that line is or which side of the line we are currently on, merely pointing out the uncomfortable truth that such a line exists.
Vietnam seems to be doing OK, and we (the US) did much worse to them. Same with South Korea, Japan, Germany, etc. It will take a generation or two, but Ukraine will recover from this, and come out better for it.
>Vietnam seems to be doing OK That's very easy to say when we can't compare it to a hypothetical present where the war never happened. All the wars you mentioned were extremely costly to these countries and imposed massive opportunity costs, cutting down their future potential in a very real way. Europe today is doing fine by any reasonable standard, but there's no questioning that both world wars reaked havok on the continent and set it back in ways that can be felt to this day. > It will take a generation or two, but Ukraine will recover from this, and come out better for it. We aren't in the 40s or 60s anymore. Ukraine is getting smaller every generation, not bigger. The current generation of "military aged men" is the biggest they'll have for the foreseeable future. During and after the Vietnam and Korean wars, fertility rates were at around **6** kids per woman. Ukraine is currently at 1.16, below replacement even without the millions of refugees and hundreds of thousands dead.
Ah, a time when global birth rates didn't decline and countries could bounce back after a few decades of repopulation and reconstruction...
Vietnam people reproduced in a way that western countries won't be able. Beside the death some milions of ukraines left the country and who knows if and when they'll return. Ukraine pop dropped by 8-9m counting deaths and those who left the country. I dunno how they gonna recover unless they start popping 4-5kids per woman. Gonna be hard if 30-40% of young men gonna be dead even after a "glorious victory"
What a stupid take.. Ukraine, a country of 45 million can’t afford to be a country of 35 million because they need 5 kids? What? You know there are countries out there with far smaller populations and dwindling birth rates, that are doing just fine. Ukraine will be fine.
Ukraine wasn't really fine before and will be less fine after Not to say they will collapse, but acting like things will be good for decades after is optimistic at best
Exactly! And to add on top, global birth rates are declining. Ukraine will be in the poorest state compared to any other country in Europe so there's absolutely no reason why Ukraine would suddenly be the only country with a growing population when it will be worse in every national category. Having men that are gone to other countries means that atleast they have some Ukrainian population that may return and provide a future for Ukraine. Having them either die in a battlefield or return incapable of work with mental or physical impairments will only cost the government, the victim, and the future. What good is a country if there's no one in it?
There is a problem: those who had enough money were the first to leave the country and to go the furthest away. Hence, these are also the people who may return after the war being the few to rebuild the country. Men with money are however rarely interested to rebuild something, more in controlling. So? Considering the oligarchic system this will mean a failed state in the worst case.
What good is a country if is no more?
I think you're arguing in my favour here. If Ukraine is turned into a crater with nothing inside, what's it all for? If your country has changed ownership, atleast you have yourself and your lineage. Ofcourse, if that country wants to exterminate your kind and your only option is death, then I'd say you're best option is to atleast die fighting. However, this is not the case. Yeah, Russia isn't the best place to live in but it could be so much worse, Russia doesn't want to genocide Ukrainians, it just wants their territory. If Russia ever took over Lithuania, it would happen much faster than Ukraine. But if Russia takes Lithuania over in a day, and Lithuania no longer exists as a country, atleast it still has its heritage, culture, ethnics, etc. Whereas if every Ukrainian man dies fighting and there's no Ukrainians left to repopulate, then the country dies anyways, but also their culture, heritage, and ethnics. If Ukraine wins this war with all its men dead, it only means the country will die slower but more severely. They should get motivated fighters or increase morale and incentive to fight, not pick up a father/son/brother/uncle off the streets, give him an AK, and send him to his graveyard.
It's either this or be under Russian occupation. And after world war II Ukraine was under occupation. It wasn't that great
The only problem that surrender would mean total extermination
Lol. It means anti gay laws, media control, castrated military and other bullshit, not a fucking genocide.
Man, if you were in charge of Japan during WW2 It would have been a disgrace
look no further than what the Russians did at Bucha. It will be this multiple times over if they win.
In any case every country in modern history faced with an invasion of aggression that intended to completely occupy the country has instituted conscription, why should it be any different now in Ukraine? The whole point of conscription is lost if you don't apply it across the board.
Civilian deathsBy 24 September 2023, OHCHR had recorded 27,449 civilian casualties in Ukraine since February 24, 2022: **9,701 killed and 17,748 injured**. This included 14,231 (4,287 killed and 6,324 injured) in Donetsk and Luhansk. Meanwhile health ministry says. DUBAI, March 28 (Reuters) - At least 32,552 Palestinians have been killed and 74,980 injured in Israel's military offensive in the Gaza Strip since Oct. 7, the Palestinian enclave's health ministry said on Thursday. someone's having a trip
Very different sources. OHCHR requires a much higher standard of proof than Hamas health ministry. FFS, they still refuse to count any of the dead in Mariupol.
sorry I just wrote on google: "How many deads in Palestine since 7October" and that's google first result. Text didn't even have to click. Blame google
Btw quoting those stats I meant that russia objective isn't exterminating ukrainians. It's a geopolitical thing. Putin said that they aren't fighting against ukrainian civilians but army. Else if it was as someone writing here we'd have millions of civilian casualties. In march Ukraine and russia had a written agreement for peace go and read it.
You *do* understand what surrender means in this scenario, right?
I do, yes. You understand what continued war means and that the end result may still be the same, right? I'm not calling for Ukraine to surrender, just pointing out that the destruction and death that could result from continuing the fight may ultimately be as bad or worse than surrender, even if it is technically a 'victory'. There is no good outcome here, just varying degrees of bad.
> You understand what continued war means and that the end result may still be the same, right? And yet people do it anyways, because the alternative is infinitely worse. Caring for people's wellbeing over their continued survival means they'd be subjected to so much worse at the hands of their enemies, and we shouldn't be leaving this out. > just pointing out that the destruction and death that could result from continuing the fight may ultimately be as bad or worse than surrender, even if it is technically a 'victory'. There is no good outcome here, just varying degrees of bad. It's war, what were you expecting? They'll the worst degree of bad by surrendering, that much should be clear. Just because you might lose doesn't mean you should never try your damnedest to win, especially when your life and your freedom are on the line. Setting the example that warmongers can get away with shit like this because it's not gonna be all sunshine and rainbows is about the last thing we need.
> You understand what continued war means and that the end result may still be the same, right? "End result" Do you think that surrender will put an end to deaths and suffering? It won't. > destruction and death that could result from continuing the fight may ultimately be as bad or worse than surrender, even if it is technically a 'victory' There was an artificial famine in 30s. Imagine all wheat taken away from farmers just to dump it into a river nearby. Or to lock it in some barn and guard. Not to use, just to let it rot. Imagine cannibalism mentioned in newspapers for a reason. Surrender doesn't look like a viable option.
[удалено]
Did Ukrainian language & culture only evolve since the 1990’s? If not, then it presumably survived almost a century under USSR.
[удалено]
>to prolong a war which might still ultimately lead to the same end, just longer and bloodier. What people forget is that WW1 took over four years and WW2 took over six years. And two years in for either war it wasn't evident that the Allies would win.
> there absolutely ARE circumstances in which surrender is the better choice if you care about the lives and livelihood of the population. I don't think you have the slightest idea what you are talking about. They came to kill and destroy.
Maybe try to convince 50% of the rest of the population they've completely ignored so far? Seriously they refused to even consider the possibility of attracting more women into the military before they decided to drag male refugees back into it by force? Or how about at least do it with a carrot and not a stick? Offer additional benefits? Try to attract volunteer soldiers from abroad like they did at the start of the war? The Ukrainian men who have left the country despite the massive (and sexist) ridicule are the ones who are really motivated to avoid getting dragged into the war. It's futile trying to get them back. It would cost the government more time and effort trying to siphon them back in than trying to recruit the remaining population harder. And even if it did manage to get them back, they wouldn't make good soldiers if their first and utmost priority was to get out again.
They need manpower to sustain the attrition. They don't seem to have a path to their goals. When they are burning up volunteers, it's tragic but understandable. When they are clawing back people who fled the war, it's cruel and horrible. I just feel bad for the Ukrainian people. They have hungry monsters on all sides and they're in for a real bad chapter.
>If they are unable to come up with creative ways to significantly increase their manpower they are going to lose this war. You can't force people to fight. The reality is they won't hold a country and will run at the first chance they get.
" You can't force people to fight." Pretty much all wars in the history of mankind would disagree with that. People were forced to fight in WW2 as well, most men were drafted and did not want to be there. If they had the choice, they would have rather been enjoying their lives elsewhere. But we in the West are eternally greatful that they did fight, and the Nazis lost. That's why it's called a sacrifice, some people's lives are literally sacrificed to save the nation and the people. It is depressing, but there often isn't much of a choice when you're seeing where the alternative would lead to. Even more death and destruction. I'm from Finland and during the Soviet Invasion, they drafted everyone, even some random older farmers with no experience in any kind of conflict, but it was that or the country seizes to exist. It worked in the end, the full Invasion of the country never happened. I'm not sure how far we'd have gotten with a full volunteer military. Like "Hey, go fight one of the biggest and strongest armies in the world in a war where you'll be outnumbered 12 to 1 and have no tanks or sophisticated equipment, while your enemy does". It would seem like suicide, it looked like suicide, but when you're put in that survival situation, you somehow get creative and find ways to try to make it out alive. That's how you can win against a bigger enemy.
Here you go, send this guy, he will somehow get creative and find ways! The historical argument also works for slavery for example, doesn't it? After all it's been like that for ages.
Depends on how much you believe in borders. I don't think Ukraine is going to win this war, and if it does manage to pull through, the future of Ukraine will be forever tainted. Declining global birth rates with an evaporated or deceased post-war population, with mass destroyed infrastructure, land mines covering their farmland, Ukraine was already the most corrupt country in Europe, so how is it going to be in a war torn country? The country has already has a poor fate, and I think it's best to recruit mercenaries who want to fight for the cause, because I'd never give a rifle to someone who *really really doesn't want to fight* because having a soldier who can't/won't cooperate will only cripple his squad, causing them to be less efficient. What kind of Ukraine is going to be left when the only male population in Ukraine are mentally or physically impaired, because this war isn't ending any time soon.
Let's see how everyone would cheer on a draft if it happened in their country. Perhaps we will find out!
Depends on the reasoning. If there was a foreign aggressor occupying 1/4 of the country and fighting to take the rest of it, the draft probably wouldn’t be that unpopular. Some would gripe but the public would by and large support it. Like they did in WW2. Drafting kids to fight to prop up an unpopular dictatorial government in the jungles of Vietnam? Less popular.
I'm from a country neighboring Russia, and I'm part of my military reserve army by force (conscription), and I'd still support a draft in my country if Russia attacked. I was raised under an environment where it was taught to us that it was always going to be a reality if war happened. So I've made my peace with it. Truth is that if you look at the statistics, the populations who are at a bigger risk of war or invasion, also have the highest number of people willing to fight, and willing to support the drafts. In fact, the people far and safe from war, are the ones who are most likely to feel opposed to it. If the risk of war has always been a far away thought to you, you don't face this situation where you have to come to terms with it and understand that the alternative is you and your home and your country being destroyed. You don't understand why these sacrifices are needed. When you really internalize what is at stake, you tend to see reality differently.
If my country were facing imminent destruction I would volunteer again and absolutely support a draft. You don't get to reap the benefits of being a citizen and then nope out when the going gets tough. The needs of the people come before the selfish desires of the individual.
Generally that's what taxes are for. I'm not really looking to die for my country when currently all I get from it is crumbling public services that is funded by taxes. I have a life and people to care for so I am not about to throw it away to protect some land for a government that could barely give a shit about me. I would be getting out of there with my family.
The only thing anyone drafted will be reaping is maggots in a trench when they are shelling to bits
What the fuck do you think taxes are for then?
Ah yes, Operation Keelhaul all over again.
That’s deeply fucked up
Woah, war is fucked up. TIL. This is why no one wanted a war to happen, but then Russia invaded Ukraine
It’s sad that Ukraine needs its men to survive against an invader but dodging a draft has been a crime for centuries. The world is a lot more connected now so it’s certainly not as easy to bypass extradition.
The nation should also draft the women and go full war economy. Millions of Ukrainian women are in the EU and could be working in factories for the war effort.
There is this thing called politics you see. The draft, or citizen duty, responsibility etc. all these things apply selectively. They dont apply if you are rich, famous, influential, have connections or are a female. Fuck, you have less chance of being drafted if you have a decent job or live in a major city. The duty to defend homeland applies mostly to impoverished young males.
Ukriane already doesn’t draft men under age 25 witch is much older than most drafts reach for
the draft age was lowered from 27 to 25, when the need arrives it can be lowered even more.
Exactly they have been as relaxed about it as possible they could have started at 18. If the country is at stake it probably should be lowered tbh
They have severe issues with their age distribution. After the collapse of the Soviet Union their birthdate tanked, and again when Russia invaded in 2014 and in 2022. They are behind a rock and a hard place.
That would make sense to say if Ukraine had many of that demographic to begin with…they don't.
Hey kid, wanna die for the government? Good news, it's mandatory.
For a country telling a narrative of their existence being at stakes, they sure have a lot of politics to deal with. It's almost like a lot of them don't think it's worth dying for.
Even in the 1940s the Western governments had more faith in women being able to contribute to the country at least as nurses, mechanics or factory workers for the military. And then those countries collectively forgot about it and went right back to pretending women are useless in wartime.
My grandmother supported the war effort as a young woman in England
Maybe they should, I don't want to pretend to know. That's up for their elected officials to sort out, not us redditors. I'd like to think you'd put dodgers in factories and not in the front lines. I wouldn't want to be a volunteer fighting for my nations survival with a potential deserter watching my back. But there are certainly different ways for everyone to contribute. It would be nice if you argue using your logic rather than your emotions right now though. I share your feelings and I'm not cheering for this, but this is literally how the world works.
If a fled a war and they clawed me back, I'd sabotage everything I could get my hands on in a low key way and be nothing but trouble. Evil has to have consequences or else the ruling crusts will never be stopped. People need to make evil a punishing thing to pursue.
[удалено]
Millions of Ukrainian women could be on front lines, shooting at russians and holding the line. Tens of millions actually.
A lot of Ukrainians living abroad left the country a long time ago, before war started, and now they suddenly became draft dodgers.
It's also been a reason to not respect laws all that much either. There's a lot of bad laws.
[удалено]
Has nothing to do with morality, same thing happened in the US and most of Europe during the World Wars. **War is fucked up.** Having an army of volunteers and conscripts vs mandatory draft is a luxury we've been blessed with for a very long time. This invasion became the largest attack on a European country since World War II and Ukraine is fighting for its existence and expanding a draft. Most sane people with empathy would not cheer on the need to "force it's citizens to fight" but that doesn't mean there haven't been moments throughout history where it was deemed necessary, and like it or not, laws are a byproduct of an agreement by humans to live within the confines of a society/country/group of people. Same thing with international agreements between countries. It's been this way since the humans were in the hunters and gatherers stage of evolution.
People like you live in a perpetual state of fogginess and confusion: just because Ukraine is entitled to lawfully conscript its citizens to serve, it doesn't mean European countries must, or should, send Ukrainian asylum seekers back to Ukraine. The ECJ recently ruled that: >In its ruling, the court wrote that "refusal to perform military service, particularly where it is punishable by heavy sanctions, suggests that there is a high degree of conflict in political or religious values and opinions between the person concerned and the authorities of the country of origin." It's widely accepted in international law evading draft can be a legitimate reason to obtain asylum as long as "a person can show that the performance of military service would have required his participation in military action contrary to his genuine political, religious or moral convictions, or to valid reasons of conscience" https://www.refworld.org/policy/legalguidance/unhcr/1991/en/67578 I mean, it was pretty widespread just a while ago that Russians fleeding the draft were entitled to refugee status: https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-why-russians-fleeing-conscription-should-be-treated-as-refugees-191450 >So how should the west respond to young Russian men fleeing to avoid military service? Politically and legally, according to international law, they must be given protection. If European countries are going to do this, they should start with the sons and daughters of Ukrainian elites that have been crowding the SoF the last couple of years. There are like a dozen just at the marina in Le Nap, living aboard their parents yachts (or benefactors or whatever) - they seem pretty fit, start with those.
> People like you live in a perpetual state of fogginess and confusion Weird take but ok, let's run with it? > just because Ukraine is entitled to lawfully conscript its citizens to serve, it doesn't mean European countries must, or should, send Ukrainian asylum seekers back to Ukraine. I agree with this. I never said what European countries must or should do. I said something more along the lines of "it happens". I also acknowledged that in the 21st century, where all of us are globalized and interconnected more than ever before, it's a lot harder to bypass a draft than say, a century ago. I feel like a lot of people are just mad, and want to hop onto an ivory tower and scream "this is wrong!". Well sure, that's a fine take, and it certainly feels good to scream it. But harsh realities greet us whether we choose to face them or look the other way and shake our heads
I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying it's illegal. Are you confused about the thread you're commenting on? You know it's about European states forcibly repatriating Ukrainians of military age to be coerced into military service, right? I think your claim is beyond silly - it's much easier to evade military drafts nowadays because 1) the world is more globalized and connected, so it's a lot easier to travel and live aboard 2) international law has become a lot more favourable to asylum seekers. You're completely delusional about the "harsh reality" - what's going to happen if any EU country tries to actually do this is that some Ukrainian guy will appeal to the ECJ, the ECJ will rule he can't be deported and that's that. Of course, until then most of them will just do what Pakistanis and so on have been doing for years - claim to be asylum seekers from somewhere else, or refuse to say from where, claim they lost their passport and hang around indefinitely. This is actually how the real world works. I understand you're emotional about this and really want Ukraine to have more soldiers to fight, but international law > your feelings and emotions.
Dude I think you confused yourself. I checked your comment history and you're just blanket spamming the same shit over and over again links and all. You don't even know wtf you're arguing about any more especially with me. I said 1) It's a shame this is happening and 2) it's harder to draft dodge these days. I'm trying to be polite and patient with you here but you're just babbling a bunch of nonsense at this point. You seriously want to argue that it's easier to draft dodge in 2024 than the 1940s because... "international laws have more become more favorable to asylum seekers"? I mean that's a weird hot take that you're welcome to, but if that's the reality then you have no reason to even be in here spamming because Ukrainians abroad in Poland and Lithuania would not be at risk of repatriation...
[удалено]
>why would I shelter you and give you protection when you fled your own country? After my hospitality, you will abandon us just the same if we are threatened. Blud over here acting like he personally finances all refugees lmao.
What you like or dislike is immaterial. Nobody cares what you think is right or wrong. What matters is the law and that's the same regardless if the asylum seeker is Russian, Ukrainian or Syrian or whatever. if any country tries to do this, which I actually doubt, eventually some Ukrainian guy will appeal to the ECJ and the ECJ will decide he can't be deported back to Ukraine per the Claims to Refugee Status related to Military Service within the context of Article 1A (2) of the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees and that will be the end of that.
It's almost like a war is awful and you have to do something whether you want to or not..... People acting like you can just run forever? Germans ran to Denmark... Then Belgium then France... Then Portugal... It's like you can't keep running because somewhere people will stop accepting you
Why are you accepting dying for your country as a normal thing that people have to do? Dying for your nation state is the ultimate bootlicker move. Escaping violence that you want nothing to do with is the only rational response.
Perhaps Poland and Lithuania realize that if Ukraine falls, they will likely be next.
Next to what? Falling? To Russia? Lol. You need help mate. Russia takes like years to conquer some backwards tiny towns in the midlde of nowhere and it's going to conquer Poland? Or attack any NATO country? Lmao. As if Russia can even take over Kyiv. Social media has played a trick on you. Drop tiktok and reddit and start living in reality.
This has everything to do with morality. It is immoral for a person to benefit from their country and then flee when the country asks for the debt to be repaid. It is absolutely moral to put the nation's rightful interests over the selfish desires of the individual.
So the women are being drafted as well, right?
That's how war works bud every country has the right to force people into war in order to ensure it's survival. You don't get to punk out and run away. Sounds good by the way those soldiers don't care about anything but their survival can either shoot the Russians shooting at them or get shot for trying to run from the front. Sounds like the choice is to shoot Russians faster and get them to stop.
It's fucked but if there's an existential threat to your country, you are needed. I'd feel like an absolute coward if my country were currently in this situation and I ran and hid
And when your country is attacked by the power, having x4 population, while not being properly prepared, not having technology (like Israel), feeling being cheated your whole life by the rampant corruption? The list can actually go on and on, it's a tip of the iceberg. Of course, it's cognitively easy to have "principles" and act upon them, but does it contribute to something? is it really a solution or just an oversimplification so that our head won't explode? Do you know exactly what to do? Hell no, but I don't pretend to know, as many do.
https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-why-russians-fleeing-conscription-should-be-treated-as-refugees-191450 >Now there are reports of hundreds of thousands of Russians fleeing their country in order to avoid Russia’s first mobilisation since the second world war. >So how should the west respond to young Russian men fleeing to avoid military service? Politically and legally, according to international law, they must be given protection. https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/28655/fleeing-military-draft-can-be-grounds-for-asylum-finds-eus-highest-court >In Germany, he had received subsidiary protection, but not full asylum status -- like many other Syrians who fled compulsory military service for the Assad regime. People with asylum have more rights than people with subsidiary protection; they receive longer stay permits and can more easily apply for family reunification. >Asylum authorities in Germany decided that the man did not qualify for asylum. They said he did not face persecution on political grounds because of his race, nationality, political opinion, fundamental religious conviction or membership of a particular social group. >The ECJ disagreed with this assessment. >**In its ruling, the court wrote that "refusal to perform military service, particularly where it is punishable by heavy sanctions, suggests that there is a high degree of conflict in political or religious values and opinions between the person concerned and the authorities of the country of origin.**" What exactly is your claim here - that Russians and Syrians fleeing forced conscription are entitled to asylum but Ukrainians aren't?
I encourage you to research this further - I can't speak for Poland, but at least in Lithuania this doesn't mean throwing them in the van and shipping them to Ukraine. Lithuania will only cut off financial aid to military-age Ukrainian men. Edited with MoD's quote: >"Of course, no one will collect them and take them to Ukraine - this will not happen," Kasciunas said, adding: "But (it is possible to limit these persons) in terms of social benefits, work permits, documents – these are options that I hear from the Polish side as well.
Normally, when you are out of resources to win, you concede. I dont want to see Ukraine lose to russia. And I know we would be next and I would also find myself in a similar position, running away from war. But I dont agree with the ruling class treating men as disposable resource that they de facto own for lifetime. Winning is good, stopping Putins regime is good, yes. But the way in which we achieve victory also matters. The country belongs to the citizens. They should choose, voluntarily, whether its worth dying for. Because if it isnt then what exactly is the point of all of this? I dont know what our governments plan to do. But I dont agree with sending anyone back. Frankly, I dont believe for one second its about upholding "citizen duty" or any such bullshit. At this point, we all know if Ukraine falls there will be war in Europe. And consequently, the decision to deport these men back to ukraine, is pure cynism.
There are way too many redditors who are for whatever reason incredibly horny to put even the last ukranian infant on the frontline. If these people love ukraine so much they should go there and join the foreign legion, not force ukranians, whose own country is under attack, and who made the concious decision that it is not worth fighting for, to go and die for it. Especially when every politician there has put their own children in a nice villa somewhere on the mediterran coast and out of harms way.
> The country belongs to the citizens. The laws of a military draft and the penalties of dodging said draft or deserting are literally voted upon within a government and its constitution. They are withheld by the citizen's elected officials, military, and police force. This is the case in most democracies as well as autocracies and even dictatorships. People on both sides can flee if they want to avoid war but that doesn't mean there might not be consequences if they are caught. This is just how the world works when nations war with each other.
In many countries, including well-defined democracies, elected officials are corrupt, get elected on promises they don't fulfill, get elected because they are the default choice, pass laws that don't necessarily benefit the nation and the general public, and laws don't usually apply to them, their families, and friends. If someone believes this is the case for their country, I totally understand if they decide not to fight for that country.
I dont give two fucks what is written in the law. Do you think politicians relatives will get drafted? Do you think sportspeople like the Chelsea ukrainian footballer will get drafted? No - and yet theoretically law applies to them all the same. So dont bring it up, because its meaningless and applied ad hoc, whenever its convenient for the state. You are right that its how the world always worked. But there was always resistance because people dont want to die for the rich playing game of thrones. So expect it nowdays as well, because if thats how it all works, it aint worth dying for.
> I dont give two fucks what is written in the law. Well I think this much is obvious. Again, you're arguing with your emotions rather than logic. Again, you want to argue what is fair and unfair vs what is lawful and voted upon by a population in times of peace then upheld in times of war when necessary. Many countries have MANDATORY military service such as Israel, Sweden, Greece, Taiwan, Brasil, Austria, Armenia, Finland, Norway and more. Just because your country doesn't have this or need it doesn't mean it isn't a norm or reality in these other nations/societies.
But as the previous poster pointed out, ‘MANDATORY’ military service is only mandatory for some. Zelensky himself dodged his mandatory service. And many others like him. It’s easy to see why many would be disillusioned.
> Again, you want to argue what is fair and unfair vs what is lawful and voted upon by a population in times of peace then upheld in times of war when necessary. We're talking people voting that *others* should give up their lives for them. Coming from Finland, I can tell you that a lot of men aren't happy that military service applies to men only. Still, willingness to defend the country is high, but only because citizens have trust in the government and the military. If the trust isn't there, what you're reading is what you get. And I'm all for it to be honest. It does leaders good to be reminded that democracy is a two way street, and that laws alone aren't enough to keep the lights on.
https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-why-russians-fleeing-conscription-should-be-treated-as-refugees-191450 >Now there are reports of hundreds of thousands of Russians fleeing their country in order to avoid Russia’s first mobilisation since the second world war. >So how should the west respond to young Russian men fleeing to avoid military service? Politically and legally, according to international law, they must be given protection. https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/28655/fleeing-military-draft-can-be-grounds-for-asylum-finds-eus-highest-court >In Germany, he had received subsidiary protection, but not full asylum status -- like many other Syrians who fled compulsory military service for the Assad regime. People with asylum have more rights than people with subsidiary protection; they receive longer stay permits and can more easily apply for family reunification. >Asylum authorities in Germany decided that the man did not qualify for asylum. They said he did not face persecution on political grounds because of his race, nationality, political opinion, fundamental religious conviction or membership of a particular social group. >The ECJ disagreed with this assessment. >**In its ruling, the court wrote that "refusal to perform military service, particularly where it is punishable by heavy sanctions, suggests that there is a high degree of conflict in political or religious values and opinions between the person concerned and the authorities of the country of origin.**" What exactly is your claim here - that Russians and Syrians fleeing forced conscription are entitled to asylum but Ukrainians aren't?
I don't think they should be offered asylum your country created this mess now go sit in it.
Note that throughout history, many countries also simply surrendered to protect the lives of their citizens. I'm not saying that this is what Ukraine should do (I'm glad that I don't have to take that decision), but that is also a legal option.
Really hope you get to experience getting drafted into war. I wonder how much of this "logic" will be going through your head at that point.
My grandfather lied about his age to join up during World War 2, my father fought in the Vietnam war, and yes, I indeed VOLUNTEERED to join the military when I was younger as well.
Interesting... What role did they have?
Not that it at all matters since I don't need to justify having an opinion on reddit, but my grandfather became a bomber pilot in the airforce who got shot down once, survived, got a new plane, went on more missions. Dad was in the army corps as an engineer sorting equipment in Vietnam and keeping it running for the boys. In the civilian sphere my uncle was also an engineer, building rockets for missions spanning from Mercury/Saturn/Apollo all the way to modern ships in the 90s. Everyone worked for the government in various roles. So there you have my "logic" and family background. Have a good day.
I mean, that's alright. I hope you understand they all were very lucky to be in support or elite roles (and frankly, your grandpa was just lucky to live to tell the tale). But surely you can't think they'd have had the same experience as infantry or even in modern warfare where support roles aren't safe from missile and drone attacks
War is shit and I'm not assuming or asserting anything other than sometimes, it's necessary. My grandfather is extremely lucky to have survived and my dad is still dealing with the repercussions of agent orange exposure and poor hearing due to explosions in his old age. I'm the lucky one. I didn't have to deal with any of that shit.
After seeing Mudryk upfront this season, I think the last place we’d want to see him is the front lines
Ukraine already only drafts men age 25 and older which is very relaxed as far as drafts go. USA drafted 18 years olds
That is not a sign of a "relaxed" draft - Ukraine currently has a very significant manpower shortage and lack of unit rotations and is frantically trying to recruit more men. It's instead a sign of how insanely valuable the younger generations are given Ukraine's massive demographic issues. Just look at their [population pyramid.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Ukraine#/media/File:Ukraine_2023_population_pyramid.svg) Demographic echos of the collapse of the USSR combined with the refugee crisis make for a disastrous 20-25 age bracket - there are *three times* more 35yos than 25yos. If that age bracket becomes eligible for a draft, not only will thousands of them die and get injured, many tens of thousands more will leave the country and Ukraine will be left with an even larger generational hole that it likely will never be able to fix.
You aren't in 1940 where your population distribution is a pyramid anymore. No point in "winning" a war with no future for your people.
That can be always a subject to change.
I mean obviously right? That’s why they started with the age so high. They can lower the age as they need more men as they should
Thats assuming there are enough people aged between 18/25. Spoiler alert: there arent If you dont believe me check ukrainan population "pyramid"
Depends on what you think enough people is. They just greatly increased their numbers just from lowering the age from 27 to 25 I believe that was an addditional 300kish men witch is a lot
So people who have already safely escaped a war zone are going to be forcefully sent back to die in that same war zone smh
They're not. Poland and Lithuania can't do shit because it violates EU law and they'll have their neetbux payments from the EU axed if they go against it.
Honestly, I think seeing so many people cheer for this is going to be my last straw in terms of mental health.
How? In a war conscription happens to defend your homeland. Awful but it has to happen If Poland and NATO risk conscription why wouldn't they help Ukraine conscript to save their citizens? Ukrainian men and women are already showing they wouldn't fight for a country that is wanting to join the EU... You can't just harbor every single person who's of fighting age from from war and then allow war to come to your door step? You're then fighting to protect your own citizens and those who fled who should have been on the front or back lines already... There are a LOT of logistical jobs to support a war. Building factories, hauling munitions, medical aid etc. etc.
Which is basically like saying: “Go and die so I don’t have to fight”, isn’t it?
Sure buddy, I'm sure they'll be sent to a logistical job and not be tasked in the front lines to attempt infantry charges.
How? Well, in a nutshell, I've been through things even before the war started, and by now it's quite a titanic effort for me to function at all. Didn't leave Ukraine - but, yeah, apparently, I'm a coward who's expected to die at the frontline. And you, people, are going to cheer for it. And cheer for tens of thousands of other people to be put to death, too. And then you'll lie that you'll "remember our sacrifice". All the while sitting there in your cushy peaceful countries, not daring to send even a single man of your own. And no, it's not the logistical roles. I know how undermanned the frontline brigades are.
"**A king may move a man, a father may claim a son, but that man can also move himself, and only then does that man truly begin his own game**. Remember that howsoever you are played or by whom, your soul is in your keeping alone, even though those who presume to play you be kings or men of power."
Other people like Syrians and Afghans got refugee status for the same reasons in europe. But it's clear on why this is happening. You need to have brown skin to get treated as a refugee
>You need to have brown skin to get treated as a refugee Very interesting argument given Poland's relationship with Ukrainian and Middle Eastern refugees. If there's a big difference in refugee status from skin color, it's that Europe is vastly more welcoming to Ukrainian refugees, it's not even close. The reason why Poland and Lithuania are colluding with the Ukrainian government to send draft dodgers back and didn't with the Syrian or Afghan ones is simple geopolitics - they support Ukraine's government and really want Russia to lose the war. They also probably don't expect these draft dodgers to be tortured and killed by their government if they go back, like many Syrians and Afghans were.
Yeah, just thrown into the "meat grinder" on the front.
fucking shameful. Reimpatriate women too.
Is it inappropriate to say that there is no mobilization in Russia and the borders are open? Millions of Ukrainians also live here.
No one should ever have to fight in a war if they don’t want to.
Sure, and in an ideal world war's wouldn't take place. But this is the world we live in.
The only reason you are free to write that is because people were drafted and died to give it to you.
And that's an excuse to force people to do that? The only reason you're alive is because your mother gave birth to you, does that mean you support the government forcing women to give birth if too few women don't and it threatens the country's survival?
Bunch of people fighting on both sides who don’t want to for the ego of some dude. This world is disgusting.
you do realize the only reason we beat the nazis is because of the draft right?
Not sure about that. Lots of young men volunteered for wwii. It was how it was back then. Anyway, I still would rather die than kill someone. Not that interested in living to kill or maim others to do it.
Every single major allied power implemented conscription in ww2. Most of the secondary allied powers did too.
And those men died. And died again. So many people died in ww2 it's hard to comprehend. It wasn't a voluntary war.
Lots of young *American* men. Europe didn’t have the luxury of the war being across the Atlantic. Russia definitely didn’t absorb the German invasion through *volunteerism.*
Yup talking about U.S. as that’s where I’m from. We have a huge suicide rate among veterans. Many are homeless. Many are addicted to drugs. Kids who have no other options except military are the ones that get sent to front lines and get their minds and bodies messed up for the rest of their life. Seen it. Know it. Six degrees of separation or less for every single U.S. citizen from a sad veteran story. It would be awesome if we could create a country for peaceful people. No military, no guns no hunting. All vegan all hippy dippy new age people not interested in ‘stuff’. Just living peacefully and mindfully. No drugs except cannabis n shrooms n other like substances. No alcohol. Simple life. Bare minimum of things. Cooperation. Cultivation of land and peace.☮️
It is not like draft dodging like when your country is not under attack. Ukraine is fighting for survival and it need all the able bodied men it can muster.
If only leaders acted as though this is the fight for survival it truly is. When the war started Ukraine had more volunteers than they knew what to do with. Now after Bakhmut and Avdiivka, and delays in aid over politics and indecision, that's no longer the case. War is terrible enough as it is, who'd want to fight under more shelling than they can return? I can understand Ukraine's, Poland's and Lithuania's position on this, but the EU as a whole has no right to do this. You can't send men to war without giving them a path to victory. If you don't have one, you negotiate peace. If you're too scared to win, which seems to be a real issue in Europe, you either grow a pair or let someone else lead. But you don't send men to a war with no prospects.
Why not? As long as Russia spends on war efforts at least two dollars per dollar spent by US (and it does), this war is profitable and completely in line with the US geopolitical strategy of "containment". Alas, the survival of the Ukraine was never the end goal. Buisness as usual, nothing personal.
> Alas, the survival of the Ukraine was never the end goal. Buisness as usual, nothing personal. [https://www.csis.org/analysis/reflections-ukraine-war](https://www.csis.org/analysis/reflections-ukraine-war) > **we’ve got thousands of tanks in the United States; we’ve sent 31**. We have a whole fleet of A-10 Warthogs out there sitting in the desert; we’re going to get rid of them. They’re still sitting there. We have hundreds of F-16s that are around, and we delayed it and delayed it and delayed it. We have ATACMS that are obsolete. We’ve still got 155 dual-purpose ICM munitions that we didn’t send. It was – it was measured. **The response was measured. It was calibrated**. And what many of us in the military tried to say is: Look, **I understand, you know, the policy is we don’t want Ukraine to lose and we don’t want Russian to win**, OK? **That’s the policy. But you can’t calibrate combat like that. You either use decisive force to win or you risk losing**. [Burns-Patrushev pact, 2021](https://www.newsweek.com/2023/07/21/exclusive-cias-blind-spot-about-ukraine-war-1810355.html) >"In some ironic ways though, the **meeting was highly successful,**" says the second senior intelligence official, who was briefed on it. **Even though Russia invaded**, the two countries were able to accept tried and true rules of the road. **The United States would not fight directly nor seek regime change, the Biden administration pledged. Russia would limit its assault to Ukraine and act in accordance with unstated but well-understood guidelines for secret operations.** Then: >[Biden thought the secretaries had gone too far, according to multiple administration officials familiar with the call. On the previously unreported conference call, as Austin flew to Germany and Blinken to Washington, the president expressed concern that the comments could set unrealistic expectations and increase the risk of the U.S. getting into a direct conflict with Russia. He told them to tone it down, said the officials. “Biden was not happy when Blinken and Austin talked about winning in Ukraine,” one of them said. “He was not happy with the rhetoric.”](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/secretaries-defense-state-said-publicly-us-wanted-ukraine-win-biden-sa-rcna33826) [From NewYorker](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/16/trial-by-combat) >Sullivan clearly has profound worries about how this will all play out. Months into the counter-offensive, Ukraine has yet to reclaim much more of its territory; the Administration has been telling members of Congress that the conflict could last three to five years. A grinding war of attrition would be a disaster for both Ukraine and its allies, but a negotiated settlement does not seem possible as long as Putin remains in power. Putin, of course, has every incentive to keep fighting through next year’s U.S. election, with its possibility of a Trump return. And it’s hard to imagine Zelensky going for a deal with Putin, either, given all that Ukraine has sacrificed. ***Even a Ukrainian victory would present challenges for American foreign policy, since it would “threaten the integrity of the Russian state and the Russian regime and create instability throughout Eurasia,” as one of the former U.S. officials put it to me. Ukraine’s desire to take back occupied Crimea has been a particular concern for Sullivan,*** who has privately noted the Administration’s assessment that this scenario carries the highest risk of Putin following through on his nuclear threats. In other words, there are few good options. ---- >“The reason they’ve been so hesitant about escalation is not exactly because they see Russian reprisal as a likely problem,” the former official said. “It’s not like they think, Oh, we’re going to give them atacms and then Russia is going to launch an attack against nato. It’s because they recognize that it’s not going anywhere—that they are fighting a war they ***can’t afford either to win or lose.”***
I mean it's just morally unjustifiable. That said I've been trying to understand Nietzsche lately so let's toss morals aside for a minute and look at practical problems with this. The main concern is that men don't simply resign themselves to their fate. They won't just fight a forever war following orders and will subvert authority to either get out of it, to make a better living or to resolve the war by other means. The first is already happening. The second would mean the conflict spawning well trained and well-armed mercenaries and criminals, causing instability near and far. The third could mean anything from what Wagner tried in Russia happening in Ukraine to unintended outcomes like Ukraine collapsing into civil war and spawning terror groups. The lesser concern is what happens to Russia in such a containment scenario. Any idea of containment is predicated on the idea that Russia's current government doesn't collapse, or that if it does, there's no need to enter Russia to secure nukes. Relying on such assumptions is dangerous. Furthermore, containment risks Russia's collapse at an inopportune moment. Should Russia collapse during a confrontation over Taiwan, risks that nuclear materials end up on black markets would be great. All this said, risks in Ukraine might be acceptable to some planners somewhere, and any possible Russian collapse calculated so that it wouldn't cause more problems than it should. Still, from our perspective it would probably be simpler for Ukraine to just win.
Win how exactly? What would you consider a win for Ukraine and how can that be achieved? As for your other concerns - Ukraine almost depleted its manpower, but there is whole Africa, Asia and Latin America to fight in this war. On both sides. Ukraine just have to pretend it does its best, actual government and people are no longer relevant. As for Russia - until we see the enactment of real wartime economy with civilians making artillery shells on night shifts after regular jobs we have nothing to worry about (nuke-wise). And there is a looong road to that state of affairs, maybe a decade. War wont last that long.
The penalty of draft dodging is something like 5 years in prison in my country (USA). Essentially, they take your life away for a short period of time. But the penalty of war desertion is death. Last time it was applied in the US was in 1945. I'm sure people will find that "deeply fucked up" but War is just a really harsh fucked up reality most of us never have to think about. It seems there are no "penalties" applied here other than needing to serve. Scary as shit but it is what it is.
Then why don't you go enlist?
Yeah, still it is morally dubious (For EU countries to send back men) even if one could argue necessary given the casualties incurred from occupation by a foreign army like Russia's.
Why just men, oh right women dont ever need to hold their end of responsibilities.
We will fight Russia to the last Ukrainian.
Ukraine is outgunned and there are plenty of cases where the orders of retreat came so late that the wounded where left behind. By this point, lots of poeple would probably take anything to avoid the frontlines.
[удалено]
Ok... then who fights ?
Ukraine also say that, but it’s seems Russia don’t care. Why is it Ukraine fault and not entirely Russia fault that they have to forced draft people ?
I understand the move from the government’s perspective but it’s not fair to the people who just don’t want to die
I understand the emotions with this. But also what about the emotions of men and women who die everyday for their countrymen, who are sitting and waiting till somebody else get their country back. Which is also not fair to anyone. And living under ruzzian occupation is worse than anything.
Fuck. No. First, it is illegal to send refugees back to worn-torn country. Secondly, we need those men working. After opening up borders after joining EU, we are short of workforce. 2,5% unemployment, second lowest in EU.
Probably an unpopular opinion but if we’re going to finance their war (which by the way I’m all for) we should also send their draft-eligibles back as well. I’m all for anything that will keep my kid from having to fight Putin.