Zelenskyy says men of conscription age must return to Ukraine

[-]

w8str3l@reddit

Lots of comments popping up in the first minutes after the post came up, all saying Ukrainians shouldn’t protect their country “because it was corrupt before the war”, or “because the war is already four years old”, or “because drones kill” or some such reason.

I have a few questions for those commenters:

Was any country in the world worth defending in WWII when Hitler/Stalin/Hirohito invaded? Which ones?
Is any country worth defending today, when a modern Hitler/Stalin/Hirohito invades? Which ones?
Would you defend your own home and family if the soldiers of a modern Hitler/Stalin/Hirohito broke in via your backdoor? Is your home in any of the countries you named above?

Objectively more right than wrong

https://imgur.com/yDBJLM0

[-]

historydude1648@reddit

you're taking a metric of web searches as proof? seriously? how old are you?

[-]

drink_with_me_to_day@reddit

More proof than you've shared

[-]

you are talking about something that happened AFTER the Munich Agreement. please dont waste my time with nonsense, think before you write something

[-]

S-Tier_Commenter@reddit

I understand you to be arguing that everything after the Munich agreement is to be ignored?

[-]

historydude1648@reddit

do you not understand that actions have consequences?

[-]

beefprime@reddit

Man the anti-Soviet/anti-Russian EU propaganda really is a hell of a drug

[-]

S-Tier_Commenter@reddit

They had a friendship treaty. Like in the literal sense. Stalin even attempted to join the Axis pacts.

The reason Hitler invaded his literal friend, is because he was convinced Germans to be genetically superior, and Slavs inferior, and it to be an easy fight for this reason.

I guess proper history is propaganda now.

[-]

beefprime@reddit

I guess proper history is propaganda now.

The framing of Molotov-Ribbentrop as a "friendship pact" as if diplomatic language means Stalin was a genuine friend and fan of Hitler when in actuality that agreement came about as a last ditch, stop gap measure by the Soviets after a decade of Stalin trying desperately to get anyone who would listen to help him stop German aggression is pure unfiltered bullshit driven by decades of cold war propaganda, yes.

[-]

S-Tier_Commenter@reddit

Another prime example:

Stalin's translator, Valentin Berezhkov, recalled how Stalin praised Hitler in 1934 for his execution of the entire leadership of his storm troopers, known as the SA.

'Have you heard the news from Germany. Hitler is a 'molodets' (sharp boy). That is how to deal with one's political enemies,' Stalin told the Politburo a day after he learned of the killings, Berezhkov recalled.

Hitler and Stalin had praise for one another

[-]

beefprime@reddit

And yet no matter what you say here, Stalin was working harder than any other European leader to curb German expansionism, including supporting for the side opposed to the fascists in the civil war in Spain, opposing appeasement in general, it was only after the western powers just straight up gave Germany chunks of other countries that M-R was negotiated, from the Soviet side to ensure that any aggression eastward from Germany had pre-defined limits to try and ensure there was a buffer for the Soviets.

In fact the entire pre-war foreign policy of the Soviets was geared 100% towards preparing for what was seen as an almost inevitable German invasion, with the only question of when the invasion coming. For example the Winter War was fought because the Soviets, right or wrong, wanted to take a chunk of Finland around Leningrad to try and ensure it was defendable, this turned out to be probably unnecessary (and even outright counterproductive) given Finnish behavior during the war, and the Soviet demands aren't something anyone reasonable would accept, but it shows the Soviet intention regardless was its own security in the event of a war with Germany and their expectation of an eventual conflict with Germany.

[-]

S-Tier_Commenter@reddit

Tldr. I will reply to this single sentence to keep it brief:

And yet no matter what you say here, no matter what random comment you can dig up, Stalin was working harder than any other European leader to curb German expansionism, including supporting for the side opposed to the fascists in the civil war in Spain, opposing appeasement in general, it was only after the western powers just straight up gave Germany chunks of other countries that M-R was negotiated, from the Soviet side to ensure that any aggression eastward from Germany had pre-defined limits to try and ensure there was a buffer for the Soviets to work with before what they saw as an inevitable war.

Stalin gave Hitler the greenlight to invade Poland, and thereby unchain WW2. To say he worked in any way to curb nazi expansionism, is a sad joke.

[-]

beefprime@reddit

Hitler would not have invaded Poland if the Red Army had come to aid

I mean, this is again ahistorical, the Soviets invaded weeks after the invasion from the German side, it was not a coordinated attack between the two, and the Poles were pretty much done by the time the Soviets go on the ground.

To say he worked in any way to curb nazi expansionism, is a sad joke.

Completely ahistorical again. He was offering to militarily defend the Czechs if the French were willing to help, they were excluded from Munich where the western allies gave Hitler what he wanted out of central Europe, why do you think that was? If Stalin was friendly to Hitler there would be no reason to exclude him since the appeasement would be just fine for him, hell if he was such a friend might have even helped. Instead he was on the other side, calling for and offering military intervention to stop German expansion.

Another question: why do you think the British immediately declared war according to the Polish/British AMA in response to the German invasion but did not do the same for the Soviet invasion? Its because the British knew 100% that whatever cooperation existed between the Soviets and the Germans was not real and was not going to last.

The British knew first hand all the things the Soviets tried diplomatically and materially to stop Germany, knew that the Soviets viewed a re-armed and expansionist Germany as an existential threat, and knew that whatever was going on in Poland was not going to last, especially in the context of a major war.

(my comment has one sentence more than yours btw (now 2 (3)))

Congratulations.

Just to sum up: Hitler and Stalin weren't friends, up until around 1939 Stalin was trying consistently to reign in German expansion and counter German geopolitically, the western allies simply refused to help and left them basically alone to just deal with it, even going so far as to completely exclude them from talks where they capitulated to German demands. At that point the Soviets just said fuck it, we'll play this stupid game, and that's when the Soviet Union started demanding these borderline insane mutual defense pacts with the Baltics and Finland, that's when they started ramping up for invasions of buffering territories. It wasn't some long standing cooperation between Germany and the USSR, it was exactly the opposite, the Soviets were buying time while setting the stage to do what western Europe left them to do: deal with Germany alone and fight a war they now saw as inevitable.

[-]

S-Tier_Commenter@reddit

According to Stalin's interpreter, Valentin Berezhkov, Stalin spoke highly of the Night of the Long Knives in 1934 and viewed Hitler as a "great man" who had demonstrated "the way to deal with your political opponents." Berezhkov also suggested parallels between Hitler's inner party purge and Stalin's mass repressions of the Old Bolsheviks, military commanders, and intellectuals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Nazism_and_Stalinism

[-]

TheGreatBatsby@reddit

If the M-R Pact was to "stop German aggression" why was there a secret protocol that divided the Nazi/Soviet spheres of influence that included plans for the Soviets to invade Poland, Romania, the Baltics and Finland?

[-]

S-Tier_Commenter@reddit

They had a friendship treaty. Like in the literal sense. I guess proper history is propaganda now.

[-]

w8str3l@reddit

I note how yours is yet another reply that was unable to answer the three questions, as predicted.

[-]

historydude1648@reddit

i didnt answer, because i didnt care about answering, not because i couldnt. 1 and 2 are rhetorical questions, they dont need answers. for 3 there is no equivalent to Hitler today, so again, rhetorical.

Not worth for the actual soldiers
Not worth for the actual soldiers
Just run or meet the invaders nicely and hope that you will be fine.

Soft power and diplomacy is the best approach for solving any problems.

Even when defending it should be done skillfully to not further provoke.

Maybe start "defending" diplomatically first?

Doesn't work out? Well, then fight.

I want you to answer me these questions:

1) Does Russia have a European culture? 2) Are Russians in Moscow and big cities hate Ukranians? 3) What is the trend, do you think Russia currently becomes more radicalized and goes away from the European culture? __

I will tell you a secret, if Ukraine has played a good boy role and didn't try to resist nobody would have died and both Russia and Ukraine would have became better places to live in after some time.

The life is improving everywhere. Unless there are huge setbacks as wars or crises. That's why a war should be avoided by all costs.

Basically. Putin dies, democracy gradually improves. Fin.

[-]

FutureDaysLoveYou@reddit

Sure a lot of people would’ve died, they would’ve just been dissidents you probably dont much care for.

Your claim that it will just get better overtime assumes that just happens by itself, it absolutely doesn’t. No situation has ever improved by just sitting and waiting, only by action.

You can only do so much until your country is invaded, Ukraine has been defending itself diplomatically since the fall of the Soviet Union and the 2014 revolution. Even now they’re still trying to figure out NATO and EU accession, so they have full diplomatic and military backing to their existence.

Ukraine deems itself worth fighting for, not as a colony to be extracted by Russia, but as a state that works for its people, not against it. Nobody wants to live— like the Russians do.

[-]

ThatHeckinFox@reddit

No, none.

No, I would grab my relatives and go. Let the nationalists walk the walk.

[-]

Valdemar_FIN@reddit

I have to ask, do you belong to a labor union? And if you do, do you think the other members would take it kindly if you announced that you would be a strikebreaker in advance?

Saying that you would undermine the collective security for individual safety is certainly a choice, but there's no guarantee that the third society you seek to escape to would treat foreign defectors any better.

[-]

ThatHeckinFox@reddit

Labour unions don't ask you to die for them, so the analogy doesn't work.

As for being treated as a second class citizen... I am an LGBT eastern European. Nothing would change from my perspective.

[-]

doiveo@reddit

Actually, many did die before labour unions had enough power to change things.

[-]

Valdemar_FIN@reddit

Labor unions have lower risk, that much is true, but it's an example where collective disciple is necessary for common good of members.

For the latter part, well, I feel for you, truly. I do consider your choice a valid reason if your personal values don't align with those of the larger society.

I hope that some day you will find a group you would be willing to fight for, if it comes to that.

[-]

gatospatagonicos@reddit

How long have you been serving in Ukraine for?

[-]

Valdemar_FIN@reddit

I would defend my country if we were attacked. After all, I have training and equipment with my name on it over here. I would fight even for Estonia. Or does it surprise you if I say that cultural and geographical distance is a factor of how much I am willing to risk my life?

On the other hand, do you really think that if everyone had the defector mentality in a society, it would stand for long? I think that if everyone escaped, they would eventually be out of places to run to, after all, all of the previous places were defenceless free game.

[-]

Basic-Wind-8484@reddit

You:

"Hmrph, no one here seems to have the courage to defend their country. Let me pose an example, if we were in World War Two-"

Yeah lmao that's why no one's answering your comment. In your first argument you call up WW2. This ain't WW2. It's Ukraine (a notoriously corrupt country) vs Russia (a notoriously violent country). Idk bro i ain't fighting for either side and don't blame anyone who wouldn't either. Take your families our of Ukraine and just move.

[-]

w8str3l@reddit

Funny how you were unable to quote me and had to invent a straw man in my place…

You also stopped reading my comment half way through, did you get tired?

Anyway, let me quote you:

It's Ukraine (a notoriously corrupt country) vs Russia (a notoriously violent country). Idk bro i ain't fighting for either side and don't blame anyone who wouldn't either. Take your families our of Ukraine and just move.

You’re from Mexico, a country that is more corrupt than Ukraine and more violent than russia. (Mexico is less corrupt than russia, but almost every country in the world has achieved that “feat”.) If a neighboring country that is three times larger were to invade Mexico, would you “take your family out of Mexico and just move”, and where would you move to?

How big of a family are we talking about, will you be taking your mother with you? Anybody else?

[-]

test_test_1_2_3@reddit

Nobody is saying they shouldn’t, people are saying why should an individual feel a duty to go die in a ditch?

If war broke out in my country I’d get me and my family out and go live somewhere else.

[-]

You're deliberately ignoring full-fledged military invasion from Russia, huh. Just look at Russia now: corrupt, no democracy, kleptocratic, authoritarian, no elections, no freedom of speech, no media, total censorship, same group of people ruling for 30 years. Ukraine is fighting for the very right of exist, self-determination, freedom. And again, you're ignoring hundreds of thousands of people fighting willingly for 5 years, Ukraine is still standing

[-]

test_test_1_2_3@reddit

I’m not ignoring it at all, I agree with everything you said about Russia.

I’m just saying I completely support any individuals choice to leave and not die in the war.

[-]

Levitz@reddit

Of course people take the stance of "super-individualistic westerners", that's the world we live in. National pride and nationalistic-adjacent thought has been crushed through the west. We deal with people as fungible through immigration, turning countries into little more than economic zones. We care not for our sons and daughters that will inherit our homeland because they don't even exist. Why should we care?

What ideas and values are those worth defending? You warn "when people with a worldview similar to yours reach critical mass in the nation, don't be surprised if a more aggressive mentality replaces your people (and your values, too). For nobody was there to defend them", and in another comment below you appeal to democratic values, freedom of speech, self-determination, but if people were willing to die for those values and to protect their worldviews to begin with, you'd be seeing terrorism through the west. If you do think these are ideas worth fighting and dying for, by all means do go and fight for them, I wish you the best, I do think it's a noble thing to do and anyone doing so has my utmost respect, but I can't see how it can be demanded of specific people, first for being Ukranian, second for being men (which would have sent feminism through the west reeling if it had any integrity, but that's a different matter)

You can't advocate for a multicultural society and demand any of this at the same time. It is nonsensical. You can't expect to have a population deal with a migrant crisis worsened by war refugees, then demand they stay and fight. People gasp and reek at slogans like "Germany for the Germans", which is fine, I'm no fan of nationalism, but you can't by any means whatsoever then expect to have "Germans for Germany".

[-]

w8str3l@reddit

I note how you did not answer any of my questions, as I predicted. The third one was the one that hit you hard, wasn’t it?

You also did not name the “somewhere else” country… why don’t you move to that “somewhere else” country today?

[-]

The real joke is some people still think the USSR wasn’t gravely imperialist to its neighbours. e.g. Tell a Finn that Stalin wasn’t a war mongering unprovoked invader, and see what happens.

[-]

GianfrancoZoey@reddit

The Soviet assessment of the Leningrad border issue and the intentions of the Finnish ruling class was later proven to be correct when the Finns allied with the Nazis...

I'm sure you'll say that the Finns were forced to ally with them because of the Soviet invasion, which would only be true if you think there's any proportionality between taking territory as a defensive precaution and engaging in an ethnically based genocidal war of annihilation.

[-]

umpteenthrhyme@reddit

They started the Winter War unprovoked for territory and nothing else. You’re describing a typical Soviet strategy of claiming something is a threat in the future to justify your expansion, just as Israel is using now to justify their expansion, genocide, and ethnic cleansing now.

No one forced them to ally with Germany, but would you ally with the nation that just murdered your countrymen and family for no reason? BEFORE you answer, the USSR was also known to be undertaking grievous mass killings in their occupied areas too, of anyone they considered a threat to Stalin’s version of communism, e.g. ownership class. They othered, imprisoned, and killed ethnic groups within their borders just weren’t as explicit of their version of “others.”

Did you also read one of the questions that was asked?

[-]

Cubusphere@reddit

I'll bite.

No 2. No 3. Yes

Countries are just arbitrary constructs, none is worth defending to me in of itself. People are.

If you want a better answer, don't ask loaded questions.

[-]

w8str3l@reddit

So you’d defend “your family”, and you’d defend “people”, but you wouldn’t defend “a country”?

OK. Let’s break your logic down.

Would you defend the geographic location where “the people you would defend” reside?
Do the “people you would defend” reside in “a country”?

I’m interested to eventually see which fantastical scenario you have in mind where you’re bravely “defending people”, and by which means you are doing the “defending”, and from whom, if what you are defending is somehow orthogonal to the concept of “country”.

Also I note how you’d be fine living in a world, and country, where Hitler won. There’s a term for such people.

[-]

test_test_1_2_3@reddit

Go join the Ukrainian army then, put your money where your mouth is.

[-]

BrainBlowX@reddit

So will the russian army. In fact, they'll pay you handsomely for it to the point of economically bankrupting most russian states that are forced to carry that cost.

There is also plentiful evidence the russian army sends men on crutches back into the fight, but please tell us how russia can do this "forever" deapite the war not being popular enough for russia to invoke conscription to fix its own severe economic problems related to recruitment bonuses.

[-]

ThatHeckinFox@reddit

No. I would defend the people to the extent necessary for us to get to safety.
Yes, but most of them would do the same as I in answer one.

[-]

Cubusphere@reddit

You didn't ask if I would defend against an invasion, you just asked if countries are worth defending. I don't claim to be brave. That's why your questions go unanswered, you're loading them and misrepresent the answers.

I had ancestors of mine murdered in concentration camps, some fled, some fought against the Nazis, others were conscripted into the Wehrmacht. There you have a nice spectrum of possibilities for your hypotheticals.

What term do you mean? Pacifist? Coward? Ok. I fight for what I believe in as much as I can, but killing others I cannot, unless in immediate self defense.

[-]

w8str3l@reddit

Read again, I specifically asked about defending against invasions.

Do you want to change your answers now that you've understood the questions?

...or are you imagining some scenario where you're "defending" against something that is not "an invasion"? You intrigue me.

[-]

Cubusphere@reddit

You asked about countries, and I answered that I don't deem any country worth defending. My potential defense is not contingent on the country being worth defending. I'm defending people, including Ukrainian men's human right to life. Ukrainian law does not trump human rights.

Most of the world's population did not choose which country they are citizens in. Most accept this forced social contract, but not to the point of giving up one's life. There should be no countries/nations at all.

[-]

drgr33nthmb@reddit

I would do my best to get my family out of the country. My country is no more. Its a shell of what it once was. Our largest employer in Canada is our own government... The people here have dead eyes as they vote again and again for the same government while expecting change. Easily swayed by government sponsored propaganda.

So in short, no. I will unfortunately leave the country my great grandparents fought for in WW2. The Natives can have it along with the Indians.

[-]

sexaddic@reddit

Hey look I gave you a downvote AND a reply. I hope you feel as special as you are.

[-]

MettSemmell@reddit

Was any country in the world worth defending in WWII when Hitler/Stalin/Hirohito invaded? Which ones?

Germany.

Is any country worth defending today, when a modern Hitler/Stalin/Hirohito invades? Which ones?

No.

Would you defend your own home and family if the soldiers of a modern Hitler/Stalin/Hirohito broke in via your backdoor? Is your home in any of the countries you named above?

Only as a Terrorist, not as a soldier. And yes.

[-]

umpteenthrhyme@reddit

This is about government coercion to defend and sacrifice one’s life, not attacking people who volunteer to defend.

[-]

wezl0@reddit

Hitler or Hirohito, yea probably have to fight, fascists just want blood. Stalin? I might stay put and hear them out. Probably just do what im told if it comes with safety and the resources my family needs.

[-]

humansrpepul2@reddit

Very easy to see how many Russian bots/state trolls are on this sub. By all means Ukraine should be fighting a guerilla campaign by now but they've been incredible.

[-]

Lckke@reddit

I guess I'll answer from my perspective.

Not inherently, I guess. People can choose to defend them if they want. I personally probably wouldn't, unless it was forced onto me. But I also wasn't born in any of them at the time, so my perspective might have been different otherwise.
Also not inherently, from my perspective. I can only answer if my country is something I would consider defending personally, and the answer is no.
Yes, if escape or hiding was unfeasible. I guess that answer goes to all, if escape and hiding are unfeasible, I would see myself forced to defend them, though that doesn't come from seeing any of them as inherently worth defending with my life.

(I remade the comment because the first was deleted from my previous lack of flair)

[-]

test_test_1_2_3@reddit

If I were Ukrainian I wouldn’t. Dying as a nameless drop in the ocean for a country that prior to the war wasn’t exactly a bastion of democracy and fairness seems like a shitty deal.

We’ve all got one life to live and I don’t blame anyone who doesn’t want to waste it dying in a ditch to a mavic with a hand grenade strapped to it.

[-]

TheGalator@reddit

The bigger problem is Ukrainian men are fed up with feeling like jews in the third Reich and hiding like Anne frank (real cases reported online. Look it up) while their female counterparts get state sponsored studies in western Europe cities.

Like there were multiple stories of Ukrainian men seeing their friends die next to them just to see the girls they went to school with flood Instagram with nice travel pics.

Smashego@reddit

That’s the thing. Europe is intentionally plundering Ukraine of it’s reproduction age females and it’s intentional. No one needs Ukrainian men for labor, but they can assuredly use young, displaced women to intermarry and adopt the west european culture of the host nation while increasing marriage and population growth.

[-]

TheGalator@reddit

Bro what

[-]

Darth_Syphilisll@reddit

Reproduction age women are excellent for demographics. Even if they're below 2 kids per woman it's better than not having them

[-]

TheGalator@reddit

Read my comment again

[-]

test_test_1_2_3@reddit

I wouldn’t say that is a bigger problem than being told to go and die in a ditch. But I definitely agree that the disparity in how men and women are treated when it comes to war is a problem and one that has become much more difficult to ignore with social media putting a spotlight on the differences.

But regardless, why should an average Ukrainian man want to do for Ukraine? What Russia has done is obviously terrible and Putin is evil, but why should Ukrainian men feel a duty to a country where cronyism and oligarchy is rife?

[-]

GiveMeSumChonChon@reddit

I feel like you could say this about any country that chooses to govern themselves then is invaded but the force that used to govern them. They say only 3% of Americans fought in the American revolution. They prob asked themselves why would they fight and die for a colony that was loyal to the crown. In hindsight these things are pretty black and white but I bet every single person in an occupied country thinks the same thing.

[-]

Lawd_Fawkwad@reddit

Ukraine is a different beast in that aspect.

If you are a civilian who has the misfortune of falling ill or suffering a debilitating but not life-threatening accident, it's well known that a few strategic gifts will magically move you up the line and could be the difference between lifelong disability or a positive outcome.

Similarly, any Ukranian will tell you some store about being shaken down by the police, being pressured into bribing government officials, or being screwed over because someone more powerful was willing and able to do it.

The guys losing limbs, their eyesight, their hearing, and their sanity will become destitute once the war is over, Ukraine has no VA nor does it have the economic capacity to realistically care for hundreds of thousands of wounded warriors and integrate them back into civil society.

Using the press freedom index, the democracy perception index, HDI indicators, and the democracy index up until 2022 Ukraine was consistently the 3rd or 4th worst country in Europe just lagging behind Russia and Belarus.

I don't blame Ukrainian men for leaving and opting out of fighting and dying for a country that will realistically won't support them in dealing with the consequences of having been drafted to fight in the war once it's all said and done.

[-]

test_test_1_2_3@reddit

You could say it about any country period at this point.

Either way I don’t think any soldier in an invasion has fought for their politicians

They drinked the cool-aid. Of course they don't think that. But It was for the politicians anyway

[-]

arparso@reddit

Although that may be true to a certain degree, there is still a certain spectrum on the corruption or dictatorship scale. At some point, you are going to run out of better alternatives, if every person keeps fleeing to a different country at the first sign of war. That's also how the "truly bad" countries will keep winning conflicts, because they don't care about their population's feelings and simply force the men into war.

And it's not like the average citizen of any country will have a great experience living as a war refugee in another country. Restricted in movement, paid very little money, can't take regular jobs, can't speak the language and the locals probably sooner or later start resenting your kind (because you cost their government money that should be better spend on the locals and not "some dirty refugees", according to them). Expect to explain yourself, why your new host country should welcome you here and give refuge after you "cowardly" fled your home.

Only rich people are able to freely pick their residence anywhere on the globe.

Ok but we are talking about Ukraine in this thread, that’s specifically the topic of discussion.

I am aware of that, but the person I originally replied to was talking about "any country" and not Ukraine specifically. Context matters in this case.

Still rather be alive and living in a safe country with a prospect of a future than getting blown to pieces in a field somewhere in eastern Ukraine.

Oh, absolutely! On a personal level I completely agree. But problems arise when everyone start acting in this self-centered way and conflicts escalate to World-War levels (or at least to some kind of large scale regional conflict).

If the Allied of WW2 had most of their able-bodied men flee their home country in order to not die on some desolate battlefield, then today's world order might have looked entirely different.

TheGalator@reddit

I wish you would comprehend that not everything you don't understand or like is "conservative" or "right"

"Women were never soldiers because they are physically incapable of it! But do draft them anyway!"

Source where I said that?

[-]

ThatHeckinFox@reddit

Not you, idiots like you.

[-]

GiveMeSumChonChon@reddit

Corruption is also still a huge deal is Ukraine. More often than not it’s the poor Ukrainians getting sent while sons of politicians, generals and criminals get to live it up partying like no war is happening at all. Anyone with any money or connections leave so it’s the poor population that have to take up arms. When the war started you had nurses, teachers and foreigners taking up arms but after 5 years and a dose of reality it makes sense no one wants to fight anymore. Especially when you know you could kill 100 Russians and it wouldn’t make a difference because the Russian army cares about them even less than Ukraine.

[-]

kwonza@reddit

People with money can just buy their way out of conscription and have no need to leave the country. There were articles mentioning that for $5-10k you can get a “job” as an essential employee at the military industrial complex and thus be exempt from conscription

[-]

ScaryShadowx@reddit

Also, you have pictures of the sons of the elite partying away across Europe and America while the average Ukrainian is locked in the country expected to die for 'honor'.

https://x.com/SputnikInt/status/1899532595970588896

[-]

GiveMeSumChonChon@reddit

I also read they had medical exemptions for like 2k but the military has been cracking down on them and arresting those that have done it.

[-]

Vassago81@reddit

It was even cheaper before from reading telegrams of transporter from time to time, in 2022 you could just slip 500$ / euro with the paperwork when crossing, or enroll into a fake online university, or have a "legit" medical exemption online for less than 1000$.

[-]

SweetEastern@reddit

Which makes the exemptions more expensive - they now need to pay a cut to the military too.

[-]

Constant-Plant-9378@reddit

poor Ukrainians getting sent while sons of politicians, generals and criminals get to live it up partying like no war is happening at all.

The poor have always been the ones saddled with the duty to fight.

"Why are we here? Because, we don't mean squat. We are second rate citizens. What about all the other people whose kids don't have to fight the war? Let's face it boys, we're the hicks, the spics and the ni88ers. That's why we're here." — Private Danny Purcell 'Tour of Duty'

[-]

apophis-pegasus@reddit

The bigger problem is Ukrainian men are fed up with feeling like jews in the third Reich

Conscription is hardly the same as being under active threat of genocide.

[-]

TheGalator@reddit

The behavior you have to engage in to avoid it is tho. The stakes are just slightly lowet

[-]

apophis-pegasus@reddit

The stakes of conscription vs eradication are more than "slightly"lower

[-]

TheGalator@reddit

Very good chance you die vs dying for sure

[-]

Nethlem@reddit

You know it's perfectly fine to be against being forced to serve at the weapon, without having to make a gender issue out of it?

The only reason it's a gendered issue is because the related conscription laws in many cases date back to literally the last century, and even further.

But making a gendered issue out of it comes across as really weird, kinda like; "I have no problem being forced to do things I don't want as long as the others are also forced!".

That kind of "I eat shit so everybody else has too!" mentality is exactly why we can't have nice things, that's why it's way better and constructive to demand that nobody be forced to eat shit instead of trying to drag everybody else into a shit-eating contest nobody even really wants.

If the Epstein class wants the shit to be eaten they are free to do it themselves, don't let them divide us with such nonsense distractions.

[-]

TheGalator@reddit

Average continent flair comment

[-]

Zemledeliye@reddit

This. If women want the pros of being a man, they will also have to accept the cons of being a man, and that includes being sent away to be turned to a smoking pile of shredded meat.

[-]

IWanTPunCake@reddit

This. The girls are living life with 0 fucks here, studying, drinking their matchas and getting BS degrees. I know some that made a society that organizes stupid events to raise “awareness” about Ukraine and post Russia bad stuff. Feels tone-deaf to me when your men are literally dying there, that they live a spoilt easy life here and still virtue signal

[-]

timmytissue@reddit

This is missing the forest for the trees. Conscription is evil. If it was happening to women too there would be double the evil.

[-]

[-]

JustChillin3456@reddit

Whatever you replied was auto removed

[-]

JustChillin3456@reddit

And your county is ?

“Genocidal” the goal is to take land not kill every Ukrainian

No I wouldn’t, but I know for a fact most of my countrymen wouldn’t join me in battle

[-]

RogerianBrowsing@reddit

And your county is ?

Does it even matter? What a bizarre comment.

“Genocidal” the goal is to take land not kill every Ukrainian

You either know nothing about what genocide is or the Russian invasion to be making ignorant comments like these

No I wouldn’t, but I know for a fact most of my countrymen wouldn’t join me in battle

I’m not Ukrainian, I don’t live in Ukraine and I have no intention of ever doing so.

I don’t expect anyone to make those sacrifices, did you even read my comment?

Calling me a coward when you can’t even grasp the point of my comment is very funny. I’m not slandering anyone who died fighting in Ukraine, I feel pity and empathy for them and their families.

[-]

RogerianBrowsing@reddit

Oh, cool. So you’re not even a Ukranian it’s just a shameful lack of anything resembling honor? Gotcha.

Good to know you’d just sit by complaining about how war sucks and let your country get invaded by genocidal fascists 👍

[-]

S-Tier_Commenter@reddit

Name a war that people sacrificed their lives for on behalf of an actual bastion of freedom.

I am unable to. Yet I know plenty of fallen remain heroes nonetheless

[-]

JustChillin3456@reddit

Literally WW2, American civil war, American revolutionary war

[-]

S-Tier_Commenter@reddit

They fought for freedom and such, and I admire them for it. But a bastion of freedom in the sense that OP means it, it was not in 1941, 1861 or 1775.

[-]

JustChillin3456@reddit

WW2 literally created the UN and ended most powerful authoritarian regimes

If that isn’t literally the bastion of freedom war , what is ?

[-]

oby100@reddit

The wars weren’t fought for freedom though. Assuming we’re taking the American perspective, we were just making the prudent move. Our support of Britain led to Germany eventually dragging us into the war. Never were any ideals the reason for fighting.

Americans died to defend American economic and imperialist interests and it just so happens the Nazis and Japan were doing incredibly evil stuff. If they had contained their evil acts, neither the US nor the Soviets likely would have opposed them.

And let’s not even start with the Soviets being on the “good” side of the war…

[-]

JustChillin3456@reddit

The outcome was freedom, from the nation that espouses freedom more than any other nation

“Imperial interests” such as ? You can be the most democratic / still nation on earth and still engage in imperialism

“If” if it’s and buts were candy and nuts etc

The fact is the war is why fascism isn’t the dominate ideology. Pointing out that democratic nations had personal interests / things to gain like idk, not having hundreds of thousands of their young boys die a brutal death doesn’t take away the outcome of the war

And America right after WW2 spent decades fighting proxy wars with Russia , thus continuing our battle for freedom

Democracy/ human rights, these things don’t just exist in a vacuum , they dont just appear without sacrifice

[-]

I wouldn’t want to die for any country, but yeah, I doubt the men that fled have any interest in dying for prewar Ukraine, probably even less so after all the damage.

Drafts are unethical imo. If you haven’t convinced your citizens the country is worth protecting then the government has failed.

[-]

TheFlightlessPenguin@reddit

Hell naw. And I will live out the rest of my days in Antarctica rather than get drafted for Epstein’s war so I will especially never judge any Ukrainian draft dodgers (even if comparing these two wars is apples and oranges)

[-]

Heroyem@reddit

You wouldn't in any case. You would find any excuse not to defend your country.

[-]

derpstickfuckface@reddit

They will likely face long term consequences for avoiding service though. They might not be allowed to be a permanent refugee in some other country.

[-]

I meant after the war in the comment above

[-]

I-Here-555@reddit

Any long term consequences they might face (if any) compare pretty favorably with being dead or crippled.

[-]

duva_@reddit

If it was the most advanced elfic perfect utopia, I'd STILL wouldn't give my life for that.

[-]

I-Here-555@reddit

That's the key thing. In a peer conflict like Ukraine, where chance of dying (or getting crippled) is high, there's no way to get soldiers except by forcing people to fight.

Patriotism only goes so far when compared to self-preservation.

[-]

keepthepace@reddit

Everyone wants everyone else to die for them. Support for conscription is low, support for surrender is even lower.

I wish there were no countries and borders and we all collectively felt responsible to fund and defend this territory against Russian imperialism. I wish all national armies were mobilized to defend it, with better training, better numbers and better morale.

Let’s see you guys sanction Israel or USA first because they are doing way worse things than we are. Unless you do it’s not a justice but a kangaroo court

[-]

FutureDaysLoveYou@reddit

The USA has not recently done worse things than Russia. You’ve bombed and kidnapped magnitudes more children.

[-]

It seems like what you are saying is that you have a moral duty to go fight for Ukraine. Much like any passerby must stop sexual assault.

[-]

PorkshireTerrier@reddit

I think we'd agree international relations are more complex than that

However I do believe that to ignore assault and focus on victim blaming is absurd.

Anyone who is pro-appeasement, anti-sovereign borders AND claims moral superiority perplexes me

[-]

timmytissue@reddit

When is your flight to Ukraine?

[-]

gatospatagonicos@reddit

I’ll never understand these kids, they swear how just the war is, how it’s existential, how every young Ukrainian man needs to die for oligarchs on the right side of the Dnieper, etc. yet they themselves are unwilling to go fight in such a righteous conflict.

It’s one thing to support Ukraine, but an entirely different thing to demand random poor young men die for it when you aren’t willing to do the same.

[-]

TrizzyG@reddit

No, it's more so that it's very rich for clueless Redditors to chime in and say conscription is bad but offer no real solution short of, "just surrender bro"

Forgetting the fact that no country operates that way, in the past, present or in the future, it's a complete non-starter and a waste of everyone's time.

Just because one supports a cause doesn't mean they have to go personally fly over and fight in the very specific manner you decided they should help lol.

[-]

Valdemar_FIN@reddit

Lot of modern pacifism comes from the legacy of former soviet-aligned political parties preaching that the only true way to be pacifist is to have complete self-inflicted helplessness, conveniently especially against Soviet Union. Therefore, standing up for yourself, or any other group you're affiliated with is pure aggression and every kind of -ism.

Why is it up to the US and not the entirety of Europe?

That part makes no sense to me. The whole point of NATO is to stop Russian aggression on their borders. Russia is knocking on the door, and Europe seems to not really give much of a fuck and thinks the US should be doing more.

[-]

GothicGolem29@reddit

Idk which specific comment you are referring to do you mean when I was criticising Hamas murder or something else?

[-]

Occamsfacecloth@reddit

Lick my sack

[-]

GothicGolem29@reddit

Ummmm??? Odd response

[-]

PorkshireTerrier@reddit

texzt can be weird and sounds like we're onthe same page. For any other readers, just to clarify:

- in this situation I agree with you on the rationale. even if i didnt, self-preservation is natural, common sense, legally recognized etc

but

- in a vacuum, conceptually: if we could choose between conscription and no war, of course we choose no war. You and me probably agree that forcing anyone to die (regardless of their belief in the Cause) is something that *ideally* we want to avoid as a society

THe point is, here, myopically focusing on the "bad thing" (conscription) prevents the conversation from addressing the real Causes of the conflict, and all the people creating an environment encouraging that conscription.

[-]

GothicGolem29@reddit

Yeah guess we do agree then

[-]

Express_Spirit_3350@reddit

Oh, so you mean Biden's policies again? There's still going to have a conscription problem.

What exactly do you want to send Ukraine now? They got missiles to hit deep inside Russia.

The real question is, just wtf are you hoping for? There's no way for Ukraine to win militarily against Russia, how high are people?

The real answer is, you're a basement-dweller-warrior, you just want your team to win. FuCk RuZzIa.

The truth is, had you ever cared about actual Ukrainians, you'd have raised eyebrows a looong time ago, even accepting all your "we are warriors of the light" bs propaganda. Ukraine is getting destroyed, has been since 2022. Did they make Russia retreat from their initial push? Yes. Did they ever break Russia's defenses, heck no. They are not winning this, never were, never had a chance to.

The problems with kidnapping as a way of conscription are old now, like over a year old. You're one of those who accused people of being Russian bots at every turn in this war no doubt. You know, to weak brainwashed sentient rags, true worth is in purity of pretense. Literally dragging society back a century.

Ukraine had democracy during all its existence, then the Maidan stoped that. "Ukraine" was never in "existential danger", its the "western-aligned regime" thats under threat. Peace always was an option. You know those brainwashed rags? They pretend Finland and Austria didnt have "neutrality deals".

So yeah, basement-dwelling-warriors got in a frenzied bloodlust. WE MUST NOT FAIL. SEND ALL MEN TO DIE.

[-]

Practical-Pea-1205@reddit

Putin literally told George Bush Ukraine is an artificial state. He has never wanted Ukraine to be neutral. https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2025/12/25/8013350/

[-]

Express_Spirit_3350@reddit

Ukraine was literally grafted parts of other states to be what it was in 1991.

It took a while even after Ukraine's Istanbul refusal for Russia to withdraw that offer. It was there being discussed in person, its Ukraine who backtracked.

You are literally just saying words that make you feel good, that make you feel righteous in socially approved outrage.

[-]

familyguy20@reddit

People aren’t stupid anymore. They aren’t going to die in a war that’s been in stalemate for basically 4 years since it started.

Appealing to their nationalism when they’ll most likely die from a drone? Lmao no thanks. I would have left immediately to like lots of people did.

[-]

StickyThickStick@reddit

One country defends itself the other attacks. Like its not like ukrainians have a choice

[-]

familyguy20@reddit

Sure the state doesn’t but individual citizens? They always have a choice to not die if they don’t want to

[-]

StringTheory@reddit

Most Western countries expect Ukrainans to return when the war ends. So Western countries will force them to return eventually.

Immigrants are already hated enough as it is.

[-]

Zemledeliye@reddit

Immigrants are already hated enough as it is.

Not white blued eyed Christian immigrants like Ukrainians.

The hate for immigrants has to do with culture, skin color and religion.

Ukrainians wont face a millionth of the hate.

[-]

StringTheory@reddit

They're white alright, but have you even seen an Ukrainian? They have mostly brown eyes.

At least in my country the right wingers are starting to froth at the thought of Ukrainians not returning. Will get them so many political points.

[-]

Emotionless_AI@reddit

What country are you from

[-]

StringTheory@reddit

Well if the flag didnt give it away, Norway.

[-]

Zemledeliye@reddit

They are loved more than the natives in the country I live in, free housing, fast track jobs, free public transportation and all the anti immigration rhetoric is aimed at muslim immigrants, even the biggest anti immigration party has endorsed Ukrainians.

They will never face the same amount of scrutiny as non-european immigrants, sure some Russia linked alt right people may raise some stink, but end of the day Ukrainians are family, not guests

[-]

Lopsided-Selection85@reddit

The state does have a choice as well. Accepting Russian demands is an option. Obviously accepting them in 2008 was better than in 2013 was better than accepting them in 2015, and accepting than in 2021 was better than accepting them in 2022, and accepting than in 2022 was better than accepting them in 2023... etc.

Initially, Russian demand was only neutrality, but the more effort Russia has to put into forcing Ukraine to accept it, the more their demands will grow.

umpteenthrhyme@reddit

-Whichever wanted to prevent the spread of Russian imperialism. -to prevent future conflict, such as the one we’re seeing now, and to prevent Russia from feeling emboldened. -ask them -sanctions are not painful enough. ya that’s my point.

You may be right on that last part, but I’m saying that’s a problem.

[-]

chillichampion@reddit

1)Name me some countries. Must be easy if you’re that confident. Russian imperialism is actively ongoing. Why is no country intervening to join Ukraine and push back the Russian forces and free Ukraine from foreign occupation?

2) Then why haven’t they joined the war? The best chance at stopping Russia was 2014, why did no one intervene?

3)No need, I know the reason. They don’t want to die in a meatgrinder and eventually a nuclear war.

4)Sanctions won’t ever be painful enough to deter Russia, that’s my point. As long as china and Brics countries exist, china won’t let Russia suffer an economic collapse.

5)That “problem” has no solution unfortunately. No one is ready to go to war with Russia over Ukraine, that’s why we are using Ukraine to wage a proxy war on Russia.

[-]

umpteenthrhyme@reddit

The people I was originally responding was speaking to were talkign about failing to confront the Nazi’s annexing other contries emboldened them, and I likened it to how failing to confront Russia better when they took Crimea over a decade ago, emboldened them now.

Why do you keep jumping around in time? You keep saying “would” and then acting like we’re talking about the present.

You even just said “The best chance at stopping Russia was 2014” THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING.

[-]

Lopsided-Selection85@reddit

Russia had only a single demand from the 80s - no NATO expansion. Every single Russian leader since than - Gorbochev, Eltsin, Putin, Medvedev. At every international meeting every Russian leader said that they consider NATO expansion to be an existential threat. Russia drew a line on Ukraine and Georgia and NATO decided to step over that line in 2008. If at any point Ukraine accepted that simple request, there would be no war today.

Just think about it. If Russia wanted territory, why didn't take over Georgia first, much smaller, much weaker, quite strategically placed, already has a conflict with separatists. Or if they wanted even more territory, why not Kazakhstan, more territory, more resources, but much smaller population, plus Baykonur is there, so that's a pre-made reason for invasion to secure space access?

All Russian actions make way more sense, if you simply stop listening to the propaganda and simply watch what they say and what they do.

[-]

Casperzwaart100@reddit

Why would they have the right to dictate that over any other country? Aside from that, how does that justify the invasion of Ukraine? That only strengthens Ukraine's position that it needed to join a defence alliance, because of an erratic neighbour who has threatened to invade surrounding countries for all of its history.

[-]

Lopsided-Selection85@reddit

Why would they have the right to dictate that over any other country?

Because that's the world we live in. If Ireland would start to build up military relations with China, buy their weapons, do mutual training, build Chinese bases in Ireland. Do you think UK would just sit there and watch?

[-]

StringTheory@reddit

This argument only works if you are extremely Russia-apologetic. It's not the same. Ukraine and Russia are both in Europe. China is on the other side of the world. Yes, USA is in NATO, but the majority of the population of countries in NATO are still European. Ireland is under no threat of being invaded by China. Has no history of being invaded by China. Has no history of genocide from China. Has no history of China installing puppet governments.

[-]

pendelhaven@reddit

I think he's trying to say, if your neighbors cozy up to your rivals, you feel compelled to take some action to safeguard against any eventualities, even if it's the sovereign right of nations to fraternize with whoever they want. Just like the US does not allow Cuba to host any hostile countries' military.

[-]

Lopsided-Selection85@reddit

I don't think that you've got the point.

It's not about China threatening Ireland, it's about Chinese bases being put in Ireland that might bolster Ireland's desires to reclaim Northern Ireland, or China using those bases to be able to put pressure on UK trading if they would need to.

[-]

datNomad@reddit

You are too sane for EU flair, dude.

[-]

NezumiAniki@reddit

If anything his message shows how "erratic" Russia is, it isn't.

Russia:

Say same thing over and over for years

Get ignored

Do it

Everyone else:

How could this happen??

Apparently everyone just expected Russians to just lay and on the ground and die.

[-]

R1donis@reddit

Why would they have the right to dictate that over any other country?

Ukraine is in the procces of finding that out.

[-]

Inprobamur@reddit

Russia had only a single demand from the 80s - no NATO expansion.

Ukraine was against joining NATO before Russian invasion.

[-]

Lopsided-Selection85@reddit

Simply not true:

2008 NATO Bucharest Summit Declaration:

NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations. We welcome the democratic reforms in Ukraine and Georgia and look forward to free and fair parliamentary elections in Georgia in May. MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership. Today we make clear that we support these countries’ applications for MAP. Therefore we will now begin a period of intensive engagement with both at a high political level to address the questions still outstanding pertaining to their MAP applications. We have asked Foreign Ministers to make a first assessment of progress at their December 2008 meeting. Foreign Ministers have the authority to decide on the MAP applications of Ukraine and Georgia.

[-]

Inprobamur@reddit

Just a couple months later the members decided to drop Georgia and Ukraine from the declaration.

And even if they declare it, it needs unanimous member vote and a majority popular vote. Neither of these had any chance of passing.

[-]

Lopsided-Selection85@reddit

Just a couple months later the members decided to drop Georgia and Ukraine from the declaration.

Just stop lying.

[-]

Inprobamur@reddit

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7328276.stm

[-]

Lopsided-Selection85@reddit

Just stop lying, the article doesn't say anything about dropping Georgia and Ukraine from declaration, or redacting the statement. The article doubles down on exactly what the declaration said:

Nato Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer told a news conference that Georgia and Ukraine would become members eventually.

[-]

Inprobamur@reddit

You were right!

I found the 2008 December Final communiqué and apparently Wikipedia article is just straight up wrong?

[-]

Lopsided-Selection85@reddit

Good for you for admitting, and learning something today.

[-]

Lopsided-Selection85@reddit

Good for you for admitting.

Not when Ukrainians politicians are taking billions in the process

[-]

RedTulkas@reddit

Ukraine doesn't have a choice

Each individual Ukrainian does have a choice

[-]

Givemeyawallet@reddit

Agree, just accept your faith as a slave to Russia and enjoy life 👍

[-]

does anyone applying this logic for ukraine apply it to "cutting off aid" to israel?

do people note the constant burden shifting?
- regarding the current middle eastern crisis: Iran and Hezbollah are aggressors, they do bad things, we MUST stop them to uphold world order

- regarding the russian crisis: Blame Victim: orry it's just common sense, nothing we can do about it(no mention of aggressor). IF Russia wants to expand, that's just the way of the world.

Basically, when it's someone a conservative considers "on their team" ie israel, russia, etc, there is no problem.

But when the victim of Clear International Laws Violations (Maduro in Venezuela, Palestinians, Ukranians) are "woke," then it's crickets

SlavaCocaini@reddit

Ukraine agreed to Russian terms in April 2022, don't forget.

[-]

Ok_Fox9820@reddit

History changed that much that now the line is that they agreed?

[-]

SlavaCocaini@reddit

https://archive.ph/14c2N

[-]

What myth? Bakhmut was taken using these tactics, it came at the expense of 30-40k Russian lives and it wasn’t even a strategically important location.

Or if you want a less contemporary example what about the battles the soviets fought at Rzhev during WW2.

Or during the Russian civil war. Or fighting a defensive war against Napoleon and somehow losing a comparable amount of personnel despite not being the attacker.

[-]

evgis@reddit

And that was also the reason why Prigozhin was removed.

Russia wanted to keep UAF in cauldron as long as possible but he wanted a quick capture for his personal interests and was sacrificing prisoners. That's why they were arguing about ammunition.

[-]

test_test_1_2_3@reddit

Prigozhin was killed for rebelling against Putin and marching troops towards Moscow. What are you on about?

[-]

evgis@reddit

I was talking about why he rebelled against Putin.

[-]

test_test_1_2_3@reddit

He rebelled against Putin because he was ambitious and had a clear intent of making himself some kind of populist rival to Shoigu.

There was a ton of pre existing context to Prigozhin’s relationship with Putin and his cronies. The tactics used at Bakhmut and the subsequent loss of life were not the primary issue.

[-]

SlavaCocaini@reddit

One does not preclude the other

[-]

Occamsfacecloth@reddit

Sunk cost, a lot of money invested

[-]

Not without provocation. Anyone with half a brain more than "we are the West, what we do is moral and right (including supporting genocide)" could see that it was absolutely provocation.

NATO, a military alliance designed primarily to counter Russia was looking to expand further into Russia's sphere of influence, right up to their border (again), while talking about Ukraine and Georgia eventually joining. NATO absolutely is partially responsible for this and the writing was on the wall. The thing is NATO thought like all their previous expansion, Russia would not do anything.

If Mexico was in talks about about joining a military alliance with Iran, China and/or Russia and they had started those discussions, how long do you think it would be before the US turned their military might against Mexico?

[-]

amazing_sheep@reddit

Except NATO did absolutely nothing. Until 2014 Ukrainians did not care for NATO, Ukraine declared publicly non-bloc status and there was little effort towards joining NATO.

Then Russia decided to annex Crimea and Ukraine understandably reconsidered. For the first time Ukrainians want to join NATO and Ukraine overturned its non-bloc status. This makes perfect sense, it's difficult to stay neutral when you're actively being invaded by one side.

NATO, however, barely responded to Ukraine. There were some talks but multiple member states declared that they wouldn't allow Ukraine to join.

So what about this is NATO's fault?

[-]

ScaryShadowx@reddit

Until 2014 Ukrainians did not care for NATO, Ukraine declared publicly non-bloc status and there was little effort towards joining NATO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations#Request_for_a_NATO_Membership_Action_Plan

At the beginning of 2008, the Ukrainian President, Prime Minister, and head of parliament sent an official letter (the so-called "letter of three") to apply for a Membership Action Plan (MAP).

Ukrainian membership in NATO gained support from a number of NATO leaders. However, it was opposed by opposition parties within Ukraine, who called for a national referendum on any steps towards further involvement with NATO. A petition with over 2 million signatures called for a referendum on Ukraine's membership proposal to join NATO. In February 2008, 57.8% of Ukrainians supported the idea of a national referendum on joining NATO, against 38.6% in February 2007.

Well before 2014, Ukraine was putting out their interest in joining NATO. This may have been many years away, but they were shifting towards joining and had clearly made their intentions known.

Yanukovych was interested in a partnership with NATO, so was interested in pursuing a path of non-alignment, and Russia was completely fine with Ukraine's partnership with NATO. It was only after the Maidan Revolution, which had a evidence of US and Western influence in backing the coup and the new Ukrainian government to pull Ukraine into the Western fold, that Russia invaded and annexed Crimea.

While I agree that Russia was the aggressor, paining the West and NATO as completely innocent bystanders who just wanted to go good in the world is false. NATO was playing its cards in expanding eastwards to contain Russia in an effort to contain them, also supporting opposition governments and movements in Ukraine who were opposed to Russia, and people expected Russia just to sit still?

If Mexico was making overt expressions of interest in joining a Chinese military alliance which would eventuate in Chinese military equipment and soldiers being stationed on the US border, and then supporting coups that elected pro-Chinese leaders, does anyone believe that the US would just say "oh that's their right"? [The US all but threatened military action in the Solomon Islands if a Chinese military base was established back in 2022] (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/26/us-wont-rule-out-military-action-if-china-establishes-base-in-solomon-islands)

[-]

amazing_sheep@reddit

As per your source Ukraine was not provided with a Membership Action Plan and introduced a law that precluded NATO membership.

People liked the idea of a national referendum, not the membership. Support for a membership was 15-32%, opposition up to 70%.

It was only after the Maidan Revolution, which had a evidence of US and Western influence in backing the coup and the new Ukrainian government to pull Ukraine into the Western fold, that Russia invaded and annexed Crimea.

You're being vague. What evidence is there for improper involvement specifically?

Regardless, Maidan still changed nothing in terms of Ukraine (not) joining NATO. Only when Russia annexed Crimea Ukraine was forced to reconsider.

NATO was playing its cards

Please be specific. You're just repeating a tired narrative. What has NATO done that is improper?

If Mexico

Why bother with a hypothetical when we have a real world example? Trump threatened Canada and now Canada is considering joining the EU. The EU has a more resolute defense clause and is currently in the process of extending its military competencies. Not to mention that the EU has recently postured military in Greenland as a consequence of more of Trumps threats. I don't think that this would whatsoever justify the US attacking Canada -- especially given that Trumps own behavior caused that shift.

And by the way, why did you neglect to include the part where the USA first annexed part of Mexico in 2014 in your analogy? Kinda changes everything, no?

[-]

MC_chrome@reddit

NATO would not have a reason to exist if Russia abandoned its imperial ambitions.

Unfortunately for the world, Vladimir Putin has controlled Russia for almost its entire history post-Cold War in some form or fashion and he wants nothing more than to reconstruct the USSR.

[-]

b0_ogie@reddit

NATO is essentially the bedrock of imperialism. The resistance to NATO in Russia exists only because NATO members have launched dozens of invasions into sovereign states, killing millions. Furthermore, according to The Lancet, economic sanctions imposed by these nations have caused roughly 40 million deaths. Just about everyone outside the NATO bloc—which is most of the world—views its member states as a cancer on the earth.

There would be almost no wars in the world if NATO had ceased to exist.

[-]

Neville Chamberlain did not have a military that was prepared to invade Germany and the Munich agreement came after the Japanese invasion of China and after the German-Italian bombing of Barcelona. Everyone knew that we were going to war in 1938 and the situation was much worse.

TheBigOof96@reddit

NATO has been on the border of Russia for well over 2 decades at this point, mere 150 km away from St. Petersburg, with this border more than doubling with the accession of Finland. The only threat it poses is not to Russia, but to Russian imperialist wet dreams, as it suddenly cannot pull the same shit it does with Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine when a country is under Western protection. This constant aggression is precisely the reason why all their neighbors flock so desperately to join NATO

[-]

runsongas@reddit

welcome to the might makes right world order of donald Trump and the department of war

[-]

chillichampion@reddit

“Without provocation”

[-]

PorkshireTerrier@reddit

"They obviously not going to give back the territory their troops died to capture"

Lmao what is this logic?

So any time they feel like invading sovereign borders, and lose guys, we should accept that as something they deserve in negotiations? What is the logical result of following this logic?

[-]

oby100@reddit

Why are you arguing morality? And yes, “we” will accept it because we are thousands of miles removed from the conflict.

Ya know, peace negotiations are created due to competing leverage, not based on what’s fair. And yes, Russia needs big wins to justify all the blood shed. Putin might actually lose support altogether if a resulting peace deal is embarrassing.

[-]

Lopsided-Selection85@reddit

Never in the history of mankind were peace negotiations about what countries deserved. Grow up.

[-]

BrainBlowX@reddit

You're the one asserting it. Own your words and grow up.

[-]

StarTrotter@reddit

See as much as I think it’s wrong I think it’s inevitable that Russia will end the war at minimum controlling that territory. That said I think Lopsided is at best a mark if they think “neutrality, demilitarization, and denazification” are going to actually ensure Ukrainian independence long term.

[-]

machado34@reddit

These demands are akin to unconditional surrender, which even Russia has to know is a non-starter

Of course the Kremlin will talk big and make unrealistic demands, but a realistic off ramp that lets Putin save face and actually end the war exists

[-]

Nethlem@reddit

These demands are akin to unconditional surrender, which even Russia has to know is a non-starter

Those demands for neutrality are very similar to those made from Austria after WWII, worked pretty well since then for the Austrians.

West German Konrad Adenauer refused a similar Soviet offer for early German unification in exchange for German neutrality.

Germans paid the price for that with decades of hostility against each other and a split that persists to this day, not only in people's heads, but especially in people's economic indicators.

Of course the Kremlin will talk big and make unrealistic demands, but a realistic off ramp that lets Putin save face and actually end the war exists

Has nothing to do with "talking big", but a "red line" Russia has tried to set since the fall of the Soviet Union and even after WWII; They don't want a new "anti-Comintern" pact directly bordering them.

It's why one of the conditions for German reunification was no NATO East expansion, Russia wanted a "neutral" buffer between itself and NATO.

But the US and West Germans then argued how the "No NATO expansion" part of the 2+4 treaty only applied to East German territories, and not anything further East past that.

It's why even the first NATO Eastwards expansion to Poland and the Baltics wasn't something the Russians were too thrilled with. They only tolerated it due to the expectation that Russia might join to club too at some point, after Americans declared NATO and Russia to be literally "on the same side".

Instead, the US let Russia jump through a bunch of hoops before being willing to extend an invite to NATO that never happened, while in 2008 they just casually invited Georgia and Ukraine, which would have put NATO directly at the borders of Russia.

But even after that Russia was still willing to work with NATO, as late as 2012 Putin offered the use of Russian airports in support of the NATO mission in Afghanistan.

Wasn't until late 2013/2014 Russia shifted it's foreign policy towards the West/NATO for good, as direct consequences of US/EU officials touring around Ukraine to rile people up for regime change there, to make way for a NATO membership of Ukraine.

To do that they couped a president who was declared by the West as "pro-Russian", because he used to run, and win, on a "No to NATO" platform.

That's also why Russian involvement in US domestic politics started being a noticeable issue around 2016; Russia repaying in kind to Americans what the US government has been doing not only in Ukraine, but also in Russia and plenty of other places

[-]

Barrington-the-Brit@reddit

I’m pretty sympathetic to everything you’ve said, but don’t you think Russia perennially invading or getting involved militarily and politically with its neighbours in Georgia/South Ossetia/Abkhazia, Moldova/Transnistria, Tajikistan, Chechnya, Dagestan etc., has had some effect on the nervousness of European countries and made them more eager to join NATO? Or do you think it’s purely a western imperialist expansion

[-]

Lopsided-Selection85@reddit

Not even close. Unconditional surrender would be something like what Japan got after WWII, or full annexation. So don't worry, if Ukraine continues to prolong this conflict by forcing more man into ditches, then Russian demands could still go up.

but a realistic off ramp that lets Putin save face and actually end the war exists

Lol.

[-]

machado34@reddit

Demilitarization of a State that has been invaded twice in less than 15 years might as well be annexation. We all know that it Ukraine agreed to demilitarize Russia would invade again as soon as they did, and this time there be no resistance.

So yes, the 'neutrality'/demilitarization is akin to unconditional surrender, because it would lead to Russia taking their entire country country in the near future

[-]

Lopsided-Selection85@reddit

Why would Russia want to take over a bombed out country that had GDP per capita smaller than they had in USSR... Like for example Russia could have taken over Georgia, but did they? No, Russia ensured that it cannot and doesn't aspire to join NATO, and left them be.

[-]

Pick_Scotland1@reddit

They’ve already taken the most bombed out regions though

[-]

Lopsided-Selection85@reddit

Having a wide and defensible land corridor to Crimea is important for them. Land beyond that was up for negotiations in Alaska

[-]

Pick_Scotland1@reddit

So they’d happily take over land that’s been bombed out to stay safe?

Also I’d say having troops in the puppet governments of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is land grabbing

[-]

Lopsided-Selection85@reddit

So they’d happily take over land that’s been bombed out to stay safe?

Yes, that's the whole point of the war.

Also I’d say having troops in the puppet governments of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is land grabbing

Or, insurance against NATO expansion into Georgia. If Russia wanted square kilometers, than it's really not a great return for their investments. They could have easily grabbed more land from Georgia if that was the goal. But Georgia wasn't stupid and negotiated a deal that was acceptable for Russia.

[-]

Pick_Scotland1@reddit

Russia didn’t make a deal with Georgia they had a ceasefire and just created puppet governments

Now that no similar ceasefire is on the horizon what stops Russia annexing more of Ukraine?

[-]

Lopsided-Selection85@reddit

Russia didn’t make a deal with Georgia they had a ceasefire and just created puppet governments to threaten them not to join what would then stop Russia going for more land if Georgia tried again?

And? Georgia stopped their NATO ascension process, and Russia did not invade further, win/win... Ukraine had exactly the same option, right after the war started there was negotiations in Turkey where Russia didn't even demand DNR/LNR, only Crimea...

[-]

Pick_Scotland1@reddit

Not much of a win win

Georgia loses land and the ability to make its own decisions

Istanbul was a nothing burger something those who understand nothing bring up it’s a very poor excuse as there was never a deal ready to be signed due to the countries not fully agreeing

[-]

Pick_Scotland1@reddit

So they did take over land in Georgia?

And so they would take over a bombed out country?

[-]

Fearless-Feature-830@reddit

“Denazification” is so ironic and hypocritical of Putin.

[-]

Lopsided-Selection85@reddit

The term is stupid, I'll give you that, but the actual demand is for Ukraine to accept EU style rules on Nazi glorification as well as minority rights. I don't really see, why so many people are against that.

[-]

BrainBlowX@reddit

as well as minority rights.

Russia claims it is oppression for countries to have the same language laws as russia. The hypocrisy reeks.

[-]

OlafWoodcarver@reddit

They aren't. They just think it's laughable coming from one Russia, which is right up with America in terms of how many Nazis are running the show.

[-]

Lopsided-Selection85@reddit

They aren't.

They are, read other subs, many consider the ability for Ukraine to worship nazi collaborators and persecute Russian-speakers is non-negotiable for many Ukrainian supporters.

They just think it's laughable coming from one Russia, which is right up with America in terms of how many Nazis are running the show.

Russian nazis actually hate Putin. So much so, that big chunk of them is fighting for Ukraine, google Russian Volunteer Corps. Domestically, Russian policies around Chenya and other southern regions are also deeply unpopular with Russian neo-nazis, as, as usual they care way more about ethnic purity than anything else.

[-]

OlafWoodcarver@reddit

That's all fair.

Let me clarify - Russia is extremely fascist and behaves very much like they're Nazis with all their blood and soil talk and their starting a war with demands of denazification is an obvious false pretense.

[-]

PorkshireTerrier@reddit

Olaf my 2 cents

People who try to change the goalposts (did you that in ukraine...) are acting in bad faith

It often involves painting "Ukranians" as a monolith

Where you live, definitely where I live, is a country of millions of people , with often radically different views and desires

Practical-Pea-1205@reddit

The Kremlin have repeatedly said Russia and Ukraine must have a "friendly relationship". They're going to call any Ukrainian government that's not at least as pro-Russia as Lukasjenko in Belarus a Nazi regime.

[-]

Lopsided-Selection85@reddit

You do realize that the language used by spokespeople and the language used in peace deals is not the same language? Russia was calling all NATO countries friends and partners up until they started slinging sanctions at Russia.

[-]

an-invisible-hand@reddit

This. Ukraine just doesn't have the manpower to do what they want to do. Even if everyone came back, and they started drafting women. The war is a meat grinder and Russia has too much more meat.

Giving up and channeling the anger into something productive like rebuilding, derussification, and turtling up to prevent any more aggression seems like the move.

[-]

Salazarsims@reddit

Russia will never accept NATO officially being in Ukraine. They will continue the war until there is zero possibility of that.

[-]

amazing_sheep@reddit

This war is not about NATO, it's about Ukraine having no place in the world view of Moscow decision makers. Ukraine was no closer to joining NATO in 2022 than it was back in 2008.

[-]

oby100@reddit

Ridiculous. The war is about rising tensions since Russia invaded and stole Crimea in 2014. It was a Cold War until the full invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

[-]

BrainBlowX@reddit

Giving up and channeling the anger into something productive like rebuilding

Letting russia conquer them will allow them to rebuild and derussify?

and turtling up to prevent any more aggression seems like the move

This is literally what they are doing. Russia demands the rest of the donbas be given for free because they can't get past it. Without the Donbas fortress network there are just smooth, defenseless plains and cities for russia to invade. To believe russia wants the donbas and that they would then get permanent peace is simply delusional.

Ukraine has now gained the upper hand in the drone war, and the russian econony is no longer able to hide its catastrophic decline with cash injections. Why would ukraine surrender their best defenses for a lie of peace?

[-]

timmytissue@reddit

Land is just dirt. Human beings are what matter. If there's enough Ukraine left to be a country and then could end this they should.

[-]

Crimea was ten years ago. Russia and Israel have made clear that any nuclear powers allied to the US will expand as much as they want.

Russia seeking to "establish former borders" means a lot of wars with a lot of NATO countries including Poland. Should they also concede?

There is a reason Right-Wing pro-russia forces have been condemning "the cost" of NATO while starting wars around the world. Should NATO disband?

https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/va7mmw/borders_of_russia_today_vs_1914/#lightbox

[-]

temotodochi@reddit

It boils down into willingness to defend your country and that depends entirely on how pessimistic view a person holds. I have discussed with a few ukranians who moved abroad before 2014 and their view is entirely different as they experienced only a corrupt russian puppet state for their whole life.

[-]

Valdemar_FIN@reddit

Sadly, a lot of people live in low-trust societies, and judging by the replies to this thread, those prefer to keep it that way.

[-]

Able-Swing-6415@reddit

Yea the sad reality is that sometimes conscription makes sense and is for the greater good. No idea how they perform but it worked in WW2 on both sides.

tertig@reddit

Who are you to decide whats better deal? Is full loss of sovereignty, mass repressions and rusification of populace better deal than fighting the war?

[-]

GothicGolem29@reddit

Nah conceding to imperialists would not have given a better deal for the people

[-]

GothicGolem29@reddit

Hey would have murdered some and oppressed the rest. Occupation by a foreign dictator is rarely good for the occupied

[-]

MC_chrome@reddit

How else do you suggest Ukraine replace the many soldiers it has lost on the battlefield? It’s not like Ukraine has millions of people from which it can draw upon (not like Russia, anyways)

[-]

Lopsided-Selection85@reddit

Russia has the population 4 times larger than Ukraine. Ukraine claims 32:1 casualty ratio. In the mean time, Ukraine is catching people on the streets, while Russia doesn't even use their conscripts, relying only on contract soldiers.

So if you just let go of the propaganda that is being poured down your brain for the past 4 years, the answer is obvious: you simply don't

[-]

tertig@reddit

Estimated 18-24 thousand people from foreign countries have been dragged into russia war, a lot of them not even knowing they are gonna be on frontlines. Also, as the time goes on russia has to up the rewards for people to keep enlisting, which is also unsustainable.

[-]

reality_hijacker@reddit

Western powers didn't put enough effort into diplomatic efforts and used Ukraine as a proxy front to curb Russia. Russia is the bad actor but it's also a superpower - the diplomatic efforts gave importance to that point. It is indeed beneficial for the US and the EU to have a weakened Russia, but the cost is the suffering of Ukraine.

[-]

MC_chrome@reddit

Western powers didn't put enough effort into diplomatic efforts

So now it’s the fault of the EU & United States that Putin has continued his war of aggression.

Let me guess, if the West had simply let the Donbas become the new Sudetenland then Putin would have definitely stopped attacking Ukraine and other Eastern European countries, right?

[-]

reality_hijacker@reddit

There was possibility of ending the war or at least achieving a ceasefire early in the conflict by guaranteeing neutrality of Ukraine without giving up the Donbas region. But the US, UK and other western powers were not fully committed into that type of deal. They also made promises to Ukraine that made them reluctant to make concessions.

[-]

TheBigOof96@reddit

This whole notion that Ukraine, which Russia sees as some buffer state at best or a break-away province at worst could've been some Switzerland or Singapore is laughable.

Even Zelensky himself was aware of it and he gambled the future of Ukraine to destroy Russia.

Zelensky said it best back in March 2022:

“There are those in the West who don't mind a long war because it would mean exhausting Russia, even if this means the demise of Ukraine and comes at the cost of Ukrainian lives.”

[-]

SlavaCocaini@reddit

Ukraine agreed to terms with Putin in April 2022, so yes lol

[-]

TurtleFisher54@reddit

I know that Ukraine would not have been invaded if either the US didn't take its nukes or if the US followed through on its security guaranteed when they did take their nukes

[-]

ChampionshipNo3072@reddit

Can you show us the security guarantees part in the Budapest memorandum?

[-]

CrowdGoesWildWoooo@reddit

Russia is definitely not a “superpower” at least in the current world era. It’s more like the whole regime is a blackbox, you wouldn’t know what’s the worst they could do and we try so much to not go there.

They are at least way more organized than like middle eastern warlords.

[-]

reality_hijacker@reddit

Are you kidding me? They are sitting on largest nuclear arsenal in the world.

[-]

RedTulkas@reddit

You won't like the answer

If you cannot find enough men to fuel your own war machine you might have to give concessions elsewhere

You can force men into war, but many men also will always try to not be killed

[-]

LanaDelHeeey@reddit

I know this is completely unrelated, but I find it funny when people go “maybe Ukraine should throw in the towel, sue for peace, and hopefully get a stable long-term border and peace at the price of less land.” But then will say that Palestine should fight tooth and nail forever. If they’d followed the peace plan 70 years ago they’d have no war right now and more land. Sometimes it’s beneficial to surrender for long-term survival.

[-]

BufferUnderpants@reddit

Because in the present day Israel partitions Palestine into ghettos, and abducts people from checkpoints in between then to place on military prisons and courts where they may be subject to rape and put to death

How else do you suggest Ukraine replace the many soldiers it has lost on the battlefield?

The question should be to what end are you replacing them if you're at the point of dragging refugees back to fight? It may be a necessary evil, but it's not a sustainable one.

[-]

GloriousDawn@reddit

Disagree on the last sentence. Compare the trench war in Ukraine vs the US strikes in Iran where money is no object. You don't need that many men when you can afford not to fight on the ground. You need ten times less men but highly trained, and ten times more money than Ukraine got so far.

[-]

Lopsided-Selection85@reddit

And what did the US achieved with those strikes? Nothing. Winning the war with just airstrike is a fairy tale told by missile manufacturers.

[-]

SmugDruggler95@reddit

Not the point at all

US technology and airpower could dominate Russia in Ukraine and change the tide of the war in a short time.

As evidenced by the tactical and strategic gains made by either side when USA gives or removes intelligence and strategic weapons

[-]

RealAbd121@reddit

Ukraine is on defence not offence, Russia would quickly stop invading if Moscow became permentaly on fire. Its not like Ukraine has any aims to conquer belgorod

[-]

clubby37@reddit

Russia would quickly stop invading if Moscow became permanently on fire.

Or they'd use nukes. That's kind of what they're for.

[-]

RealAbd121@reddit

Nope they'd not use nukes against an air campaign, that's retarded, Iran is hitting Israel every other days with missles by this logic they should've nuked iran

[-]

Lopsided-Selection85@reddit

Is Tehran permanently on fire? No. There is only a certain number of targets that make some military sense to attack, all that would happen is that those targets will be dispersed further. Or do you mean incandescent attacks on civilians? If that's the case, you'd understand that Russia could do that as well.

And if that happens, Russia also has 1M+ conscripts that are currently not participating in the war, as they treat it as "SMO" not an actual war. So if Ukraine starts to incandescently attack civilians, Russia would be able to more than double the number of troops involved in the war, which would stretch Ukrainian defenses to basically nothing.

Playing the game of escalation chicken with Russia is a very stupid idea.

[-]

bfhurricane@reddit

If Ukraine had the ability to prosecute an air campaign the same way the US did against Iran, Russia’s conventional military would be crippled.

Granted, that’s not going to affect regime change or recover Iran’s nuclear stockpiles, but in a war where killing men and destroying equipment directly impedes an invading force? Yeah, it would help Ukraine tremendously.

[-]

Lopsided-Selection85@reddit

If Ukraine had the ability to prosecute an air campaign the same way the US did against Iran, Russia’s conventional military would be crippled.

If my grandma had wheels she would be a bicycle... Even US wouldn't be able to prosecute an air campaign against Russia the same way the do it in Iran.

[-]

timmytissue@reddit

I think you vastly over estimate how viable war is these days. It's not economically feasible to continue fighting with rockets and drones for more than a month or two.

[-]

debasing_the_coinage@reddit

The question is whether we are actually criticizing Ukraine. Is Ukraine offered better terms by the EU or NATO for continuing this brutal war of attrition? Will their application for EU membership be mysteriously delayed if they """surrender"""? Some of the statements made by NATO and EU bureaucrats are concerning on this point. No such demand could be moral.

Because I just don't buy the deterrence explanation. Ukraine has established deterrence. It doesn't really need peacekeepers (which have proven quite useless against a much smaller enemy in Lebanon). The only peacekeeping force that would make a meaningful difference is American troops and I just don't see it happening. It can't tolerate Russia's imperialist demands for limits on its military. But the very fact that Russia has even asked for such restrictions should be a hint. Russia is not a cult. Their military propaganda is the conventional fear-based sort, not apocalypse and martyrdom stuff. They don't like losing thousands of men. This is not a defense of Russia, it's a description. They will turn their attention elsewhere, and if NATO dreams of inflicting pain on Russia, they can spill their own blood and not Ukraine's.

The first thing to pop in my brain was “uh-oh”

[-]

Fortunafors@reddit

I thought Robots were fighting, more than 22.000 missions, why should they need more human cannon fodder?

Look at what is actually happening on the streets of Ukraine every day: https://busification.org/

We should not be supporting this.

[-]

Keksliebhaber@reddit

War is also just not "fair" anymore, all you do is run on a field and wait for some drone to bomb the fuck out of you and then wait to slowly bleed out, great, who the fuck wants that?

[-]

juflyingwild@reddit

Wonderful news. Now if the government bundles a financial incentive for information that leads to the extrication of eligible people, that would be far more helpful

[-]

bluecheese2040@reddit

Why? Ukraines official casualty figures are so low and Russias so high they shouldn't need any more men tbh.

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

The link you have provided contains keywords for topics associated with an active conflict, and has automatically been flaired accordingly. If the flair was not updated, the link submitter MUST do so. Due to submissions regarding active conflicts generating more contrasting discussion, comments will only be available to users who have set a subreddit user flair, and must strictly comply with subreddit rules. Posters who change the assigned post flair without permission will be temporarily banned. Commenters who violate Reddiquette and civility rules will be summarily banned.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.