Demographic catastrophe: Ukraine’s remaining population has been revealed
Posted by BendicantMias@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 326 comments
Posted by BendicantMias@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 326 comments
Xtrems876@reddit
That is what wars do to countries yes. I hope that russians will stop the war someday, but that is unlikely up until their country is touched severely enough as well. At least europe is still providing support, even if USA failed to be a reliable ally.
BendicantMias@reddit (OP)
Even if the war stops, the emigration won't. That preceded the war, taking Ukraine down from over 50 million people in the 90s to only around 30 million before the 2022 invasion had even happened. Nor will the debt disappear, of which Ukraine has an over 100% debt-to-gdp ratio. Ukraine was, unfortunately, in a drawn out process of fading away before the war, which will likely accelerate even after it stops.
Lucius_Furius@reddit
A fair amount of that 50 million to 30 is natural aging. All soviet states had their birthrate crater in the 80s and 90s, it never really recovered.
wezl0@reddit
Late 80s, early 90s? Interesting, I wonder if something must have happened around then...
Private_HughMan@reddit
I know the USSR had a lot of issues and was excessive in its authoritarianism, even after Stalin, but fuck it's sad that we won the Cold War. The former Soviet states just lost so much in their quality of life and the US was left unchallenged.
ThreeMountaineers@reddit
The poor quality of life in USSR wasn't caused by them losing so much as an untenable authoritarian system
Plenty of countries with a less regressive mindset recovered beautifully after beeing freed from the Soviet yoke
VasylKerman@reddit
Quite strange for you to claim such things with expert certainty all the way from Bangladesh, as a Ukrainian I can say that this statement is completely false.
In addition, the war didn’t start in 2022, it began with the annexation of Crimea in 2014, followed by the hybrid invasion of two other major regions: Donetsk and Luhansk.
But rest assured, we will not fade away lol, and once the war ends - we’ll accelerate, but not in the direction you predict.
Beat_Saber_Music@reddit
Not like Russia is doing stellar either. Its non war economy is suffering a slow collapse, the oil sector is burning up, and the Russian birthrates are even worse considering how many men they're sending to die in the meatgrinder against drones to advance at ww1 speeds.
Ukraine has the prospect of a Polish path, where ideally through curbing the oligarchs who have lost much influence during the war, and with plenty of economic propects upon the war's end you could gave stellar growth once war spending can be directed to more productive sectors. That, and many Ukrainians will certainly prefer to return to Ukraine once there are more jobs
kapsama@reddit
I don't see how Russia suffering also benefits Ukraine in anyway.
And besides the point Russia has plenty of non-Slavs they can feed to the meat grinder while their own ethnicity demographics are preserved. Almost as if the plan is to destroy those non-Slavs by extending this war.
Beat_Saber_Music@reddit
The large amount of ethnic minorities being conscripted is result of a volunteer "contract" under promises of big pay. Said promises of big pay are more often than not a scam, because the volunteer conscripts have to buy their own gear with this money given to them, plus you have the traditional Russian corruption of officers demanding these volunteer conscripts to give money from their pay or face being punished or sent to die in a frontal assault agianst drones. Also, these contracts are quite literally automatically extended, because Russia is starving for men to throw at Ukrainian drones.
This lie of big pay most attracts people from regions with plenty of minorities, because these minority regions tend to be the poorest. That non Russians are dying at a disproportionate rate is a happy accident for Russia from its policy to avoid conscription which is political suicide, plus at this point the Russian economy is on a brittle point where a partial conscrption drive could very well cause a financial crisis because so many Russians would be panicking and trying to flee as happened in light of the Kharkiv offensive disaster for Russia.
Russia suffering economically is of much benefit to Ukraine, because that weakens Russia's ability to wage the war. The Russian logistics being bombed by drones means less Russian soldiers with less supply reaching the front in the first place. Bombed refineries means Russia not being able to refine and export oil and gas which helps pay the army. Bombed Russian factories means reduced ability to say produce missiles launched against Ukrainian apartments, shopping malls, and kindergartens.
kapsama@reddit
Leaders in minority regions are unable to speak up about it. It's not strictly "volunteering" when you cannot warn people against the true nature of Russia's scam and there is societal pressure by an authoritarian government.
datNomad@reddit
This is not true nor realistic. You clearly aren't familiar with real situation in Ukraine. Some oligarchs fell, like Kolomoyski, some remained, like Akmetov and Pinchuk, plenty of new oligarchs have risen. It will be very hard or even impossible to "curb" them.
Not true either, statistics suggets otherwise. Russian birthrates are pretty bad, like in most western countries, but not worse than in Ukraine.
I suggest you to read some Ukrainian Telegram channels to understand that this will not happen. Some will return, sure, but most of Ukranians who fled the war aren't going to return back, especially the ones with kids. That's why Ukrainian government is pushing the idea of bringing in immigrants from Pakistan and India in large numbers.
Ukraine is demographically and economically fucked for decades, unless Europe will massively invest in rebuilding their economy. I doubt this outcome because of tremendous corruption in Ukraine, on every level, especially top positions. Yermak, Zuckerman, Mindich, Umerov, Reznikov, Chernyshov: close friends or appointees of Zelensky, all accused of corruption, most fled the country already.
Beat_Saber_Music@reddit
Ukrainians currently don't want to return to Ukraine simply because they think it'll be economically worse off basically. However Ukraine is quite likely to rebuild with a much more robust economy structurally helped by military related investment that will trickle down to the civilian economy too. That, and European companies will be very happy to invest in the Ukrainain markets once the war ends its hot phase.
Even more so, if the most optimistic scenario for Ukraine of Russian collapse from its economic issues comes to fruition, there's gonna be plenty of rebuilding contracts in the Russian occupied lands, including Donbass and Crimea. That, and the Russian investments into these occupied territories would now benefit Ukraine ironically.
The birth rate is not inelastic and destined to remain so low, especially with the current war situation. It is a general trend in human history that upon the end of a war there's gonna be a lot of kids as couple who put off having kids are gonna have them with the war's end.
Also Ukraine has such a seemingly bad corruption situation in part simply becuase it is actually being investigated. If Russia had an Ukrainian style culture of investigating corruption, I'm very sure Russian news would be an endless stream of corruption scandals, because Russia is built around hiding the corruption. It is the paradox of anti-corruption that investigating corruption makes it seems like corruption got worse. The Ukrainains quite literally went to the streets to stop Yermak's idea of gutting the independent anti-corruption agency, in the middle of a war.
Also there's plenty of economic recovery poised to happen, as a labor shortage is an issue for many Ukrainain sectors, as for example there was a good while ago an article about an Ukrainian steel producer iirc about how they simply don't have enough workers to keep up with demand.
datNomad@reddit
This is not optimistic scenario, this is delusion or propaganda for simple-minded people. Wishful thinking at best.
Sure, kudos for Ukranian anti-corruption bureau, but the fact that corruption is so widespread in cabinets of top officials who were directly appointed by the current president makes any investments in Ukraine too risky, am i wrong? Also, recent Zelensky's (it is weird to solely blame Yermak for this) push to strip NABU of their independence raises concerns. Who would invest in any project in Ukraine knowing that half of that money would be stolen by corrupted officials?
Go check Russian telegram channels. That's exactly what's happening there - endless stream of corruption scandals and jailed officials, even high profile ones.
Sure, that's what happening in nearly all Ukrainian industries but, like in most western countries, problem is that local population demands higher salaries than immigrants. Owners will prioritize cheap labour, thus immigration from southeast Asia. Just recently there was a protest in Kyiv against immigrants, but I doubt that Ukraine has any choice considering that they lost half of their population, mostly productive ones.
Xtrems876@reddit
Of course. It would be stupid of me to claim Ukraine will be a rich and prosperous country right after hostilities stop
ChaosDancer@reddit
Countries work for their people, not outside interests. Ukraine is essentially immolating itself for western geopolitical interests. You think when the war is over in 5 or 10 years Europe and the US will sink a cool trillion at minimum to rebuild Ukraine?
I guarantee you when the war ends they will be a bloodbath inside Ukraine and it will be between the people that made the decisions and the people that have to suffer for those decisions.
moderngamer327@reddit
Vs letting themselves get dominated to Russian geopolitical interests?
Slow_Librarian861@reddit
I mean, yeah, but as serving foreign interests has already cost them 20%+ of their territory, almost half of their population and all prospects for prosperity with victory looking completely unattainable, just having balanced policies like Kazakhstan doesn't look too bad, does it?
moderngamer327@reddit
Vs loosing the territory immediately and likely losing more in the future too? Why don’t we put the blame on Russia where it belongs
Slow_Librarian861@reddit
Blame whoever you want to, that's not the point. The article is about a brutal depopulation Ukraine is facing. Losing the territory immediately, learning the lessons and trying to build their future without such shortsighted policies would prevent that. But that would require putting Ukranian interests ahead of NATO interests, and we all know that's not what's going on.
moderngamer327@reddit
“The slaves should just bow down to the plantation owners but they’re more interested in serving abolitionists interests rather than their own”
vegetable_completed@reddit
Says a lot that that still looks better to Ukrainians than living in Russkiy Mir.
I don’t know what’s wrong with them, frankly. Who wouldn’t want to emulate the beacon of prosperity and human development that is Kazakhstan?
Slow_Librarian861@reddit
Kazakhstan is far, far ahead of Ukraine despite having around 5% of the Soviet legacy left to Ukraine.
Azzagtot@reddit
Gerorgia is doing fine.
Chemical-Drawer852@reddit
Being a repressive russian satellite state is the opposite of that
Azzagtot@reddit
Being a freedom fighters from Vakanda under Capitan America does better. Like 20% of your country gone, 50% of population left and press-ganging what's left of male population while nazi scum screams Zieg Hiel on capital's square.
https://x.com/HavryshkoMarta/status/2058301471553171642
https://x.com/MarioBojic/status/2058307239908147255
Did I mention barbed wire on borders, so ukrainian "males" could not escape meatgrinder?
If we compare those 2 countries we can clearly see a better one, where it's government places needs of it's people first.
moderngamer327@reddit
You mean after they got ethnically cleansed?
Azzagtot@reddit
Lmao, tell us about how ebil ruskies ethnicaly cleansed Georgia in 2008
moderngamer327@reddit
Huh?
larrythecucumberer@reddit
Yes, exactly. In the same way endless countries around the world find their own interests subsumed to those more powerful than them. They needed to make a difficult choice, and so far it's looking like they picked very very wrongly.
National pride and independence isn't worth a section of used toilet paper when the elites who rules your country are actively stealing from the public in the middle of an
AntonioVivaldi7@reddit
Why wrongly? EU is a better partner than Russia.
BendicantMias@reddit (OP)
Methinks the EU can talk about being a 'partner' after they stop keeping countries like Turkey forever on hold for over 3 decades. No one is expecting Ukraine to join the EU anytime soon. Germanys' Merz has even explicitly warned against such expectations. If Turkey, which is in FAR better shape than Ukraine and also just far more valuable in general, can be kept waiting for over a generation, then Ukraine is getting nowhere.
Czart@reddit
Huh? EU is a club where members decide who joins, not some god given right to be let in. Turkey membership being in freezer has absolutely ZERO bearing on if, when and how Ukraine joins.
AntonioVivaldi7@reddit
They don't need to be in the EU. They can still be a partner.
larrythecucumberer@reddit
The EU isn't a charity organization. They need to be in the EU to actually benefit from relief and investment funds- of which billions of Euros will be required to fix the country. This is a pipe dream and any Ukrainian politician from Zelensky down who supported this, is either a) quite stupid, or b) stands to profit massively from the war or aftermath.
Being a "partner" just means signing up to be the beat stick again when the EU finally decides to take a swing at Russia again.
sofixa11@reddit
Being an independent country is not "western geopolitical interests".
bachh2@reddit
Depend on what you consider independent.
Would you consider a country survived solely on being constantly fed with Western or Eastern money independent?
sofixa11@reddit
Yes, because half the world is fed on foreign loans. Many countries survived difficult periods like wars only because of foreign financial backing. The EU has a strong vested interest to make sure Ukraine doesn't become a failed state after the war is over too.
wezl0@reddit
And those are not independent countries
24_August_1814@reddit
Would you consider the United States independent?
Bonjourap@reddit
Unless a state is a global power, it's not as independent as it thinks it is. Even the Europeans had to bend to their new masters following WW2, the US and the USSR.
Ukraine shifted its loyalty from Russia to the US (the causes are too complicated to list here). Now, its suffering the consequences...
For Ukraine's sake, let's hope that switching masters was worth all of this in a couple decades.
Azzagtot@reddit
Ukraine is in a no way independent since 2014 coup.
Even now Ukraine's government fucntions on US and EU money. I am not talking about some wild conspiracy theories - they literally pay government workers their salary.
Ukraine can't make independent political choices, when it's paid from outside.
sofixa11@reddit
What is this nonsense? Since 2014 they've had two separate governments that were extremely at odds. The second one was even considered pro-Russia because its presidential candidate was strongly for negotiations with the devil. Oh, and that's Zelensky. He was the guy trying his best to be nice to putler and avoid war at all cost.
Now, because they're at war. It wasn't at all the case in 2022 when they were invaded.
AntonioVivaldi7@reddit
It's Russia immolating them.
Azzagtot@reddit
And it will continue to do so, until Ukraine is beaten into neutrality, denazified and demilitarized.
Egb_1@reddit
Least delusional orc.
Czart@reddit
Yeah, i now understand the chinese and their great firewall. I so wish i wouldn't be exposed to genocidal third world rejects and their "thoughts".
AntonioVivaldi7@reddit
They seem to be taking their time.
ChaosDancer@reddit
And it matters this how, why the fuck does it matter in this situation? So Russia is the bad guy, in what fucked up reality does it matter for Ukraine past, present and future.
Russia will always be there next to Ukraine and a not corrupt leader would look at the situation and decide what will it cost walking down this road, which apparently as things continue to go, the destruction of Ukraine as a functioning state in the next 20 years.
AntonioVivaldi7@reddit
I just like to put the blame where it belongs.
BassoeG@reddit
Hence the suicidal WWI-with-drones tactics, the Ukrainian leadership know the more conscripts survive the bigger the lynch mob coming for them.
Slow_Librarian861@reddit
Ukraine is like a boxer who is fighting way out of his weight class with no referee and is battered badly, and EU countries are a cornerman who brings him back to his feet after each knockdown.
True friends would throw in the towel to save the boxer from permanent damage and box another day. Ukraine's cornermen are only waiting for his opponent to spend more energy, and Ukraine maybe surviving to a lopsided decision loss. Long-term consequences be damned.
Xtrems876@reddit
This is a fundamentally flawed analogy as it presupposes this is a mutually agreed upon brawl wherein throwing in the towel means the two sides shake hands and go their own ways. If this was the case I'd agree with you.
But Ukraine is like a regular guy having an evening stroll and being jumped by a group of low-lifes. And you're telling me his friend should stop supplying him with pepper spray.
Slow_Librarian861@reddit
Ukrainian openly hostile policies were anything but an evening stroll. Rather a dumb kid spitting and pointing his pistol at his neighbor.
And watching how much can your 'friend' spray his opponent while bleeding to death must be a special Polish form of friendship..
goofygodzilla93@reddit
And Russia is in the exact same boat, without China they would have collapsed already.
Lopsided-Selection85@reddit
Can you list all of the aid packages that China gave to Russia. Can you list all of the sanctions that China put on Ukraine...
China continues to trade with Russia and Ukraine, that's what being neutral is.
goofygodzilla93@reddit
Just a few I found in a few minutes. Google isn't hard to use my friend.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/12/politics/china-russia-support-weapons-manufacturing/index.html
https://www.voanews.com/a/countries-in-crisis-top-recipients-of-chinese-funds-/7348919.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/china-helping-russia-momentum-ukraine-war-top-us-spy-rcna150437
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/china-helps-russia-evade-sanctions-tech-used-ukraine-war-rcna96693
https://fortune.com/2026/02/14/china-aid-drones-minerals-russia-war-ukraine-invasion-putin-xi-jinping/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_the_Russo-Ukrainian_war#Industry
https://democrats-intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/odni_report_on_chinese_support_to_russia.pdf
Lopsided-Selection85@reddit
Those are all normal trade relations.Where is the actual aid.
goofygodzilla93@reddit
Every single article talked about what you said and has sections talking about China sending drone parts, manufacturing equipment/tools, and electronics for free along with the ones Russia actually traded for. They are trading, but they are using that trading to cover the free items they are giving because as long as China doesn't provide a weapon itself no one will care. One also talks about the face China has been supporting Russia's development via loans for the last 2 decades and it's not stopping any time soon. You also have to take into account all of the resources being secretly sent via their shadow fleets.
Lopsided-Selection85@reddit
Amazon sends me a lot of "aid" in this case as well, praise be Bezos. He is sending "aid" to most of the people in the west, literally a saint!
Can you get any evidence of any of those "free items" you are talking about.
Investments are investments. Like read the article it self, Chinese investments in Russia are not much larger than Chinese investments in Venezuela. And the data is from 2000 to 2021, so of zero relevance to the conflict
There is no such thing as shadow fleet. Russia and China re free to trade, including trade using ships. The fact that those ships are not insured by western companies means nothing.
goofygodzilla93@reddit
Again they are sending Russia FREE drone parts, manufacturing tools/equipment and electronics and the articles go over that. The fact those ships are illegally identifying as ships they are not, means they are in a shadow fleet and their is a total of 1'400 tankers spread out between multiple countries that are evading and breaking maritime laws.
Lopsided-Selection85@reddit
Nowhere in the links you've provided it says anything about anything being given for free. Like read them your self they will call it "aid" and "export" interchangeably, precisely so people without critical thinking skills would fall for this blatant propaganda. Read the actual White House report, it's all just whining that China refuses to follow unilateral sanctions that some countries enacted.
The being in the "shadow fleet" is not breaking any laws, it's a pointless propaganda term. Any time that western countries capture so called "shadow fleet" tankers, they are forced to release them.
https://www.reuters.com/world/sweden-seizes-sanctioned-oil-tanker-suspected-being-source-spill-2026-04-03/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8xy4dl2xwgo
It's nothing more but the harassment.
Azzagtot@reddit
>they are sending Russia FREE drone parts, manufacturing tools/equipment and electronics and the articles go over that
Bring us direct quote on that.
Azzagtot@reddit
Are you implying that China provides Russia with hundreds of billions dollars as loans? Provided them with military gear?
Or you just trying to paint everyday trade as "support"?
goofygodzilla93@reddit
Just a few I found in a few minutes. Google isn't hard to use my friend.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/12/politics/china-russia-support-weapons-manufacturing/index.html
https://www.voanews.com/a/countries-in-crisis-top-recipients-of-chinese-funds-/7348919.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/china-helping-russia-momentum-ukraine-war-top-us-spy-rcna150437
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/china-helps-russia-evade-sanctions-tech-used-ukraine-war-rcna96693
https://fortune.com/2026/02/14/china-aid-drones-minerals-russia-war-ukraine-invasion-putin-xi-jinping/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_the_Russo-Ukrainian_war#Industry
https://democrats-intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/odni_report_on_chinese_support_to_russia.pdf
Azzagtot@reddit
"Local shop support it's customers with food in exchange for money."
goofygodzilla93@reddit
What I posted also shows that China is sending Russia drone parts, manufacturing equipment/tools, and electronics.
Nahcep@reddit
The boxer would be allowed to leave the ring without losing a few limbs, and wouldn't get forced back in by the same opponent a few years later
Buddy_Dakota@reddit
Russia has like half the GDP of a single European country. No way they can keep going. Ukraine has an almost infinite supply of arms and material, as long as they have people they can keep going forever. Russia is toast, will probably end up divided between Europe and China in the end.
moonorplanet@reddit
Russian nominal GDP isn't very high but their GDP based on purchasing power parity is the forth highest in the world. The country is essentially cut off from the international markets making nominal GDP is irrelevant to their economy.
fretnbel@reddit
Have fun eating potatoes & drinking vodka. Good for as long as you want to buy a shovel or something. But anything specialized is $$$.
kapsama@reddit
Are we acting as if most goods specialized or not come from China anyway?
CompetitiveAd4732@reddit
A "belgian" mocking people for eating potatoes just for the opportunity to dickride dollars. Aristotle is right, some people are slaves by nature
eagleal@reddit
I'm not sure what you comment signals to be the end of? They can stop now for example, but that's still means they got Crimea and Donbas. What even is your point about toasted Russia?
You're not seeing pre-2022 borders in Ukraine ever again. If it even comes to it Russia can actually do a total mobilization. And if that fails too, like political pressure, they have tactical nukes to rebalance the tide.
And no the US would not nuke Russia if nukes were dropped in Ukraine despite saying they would respond. Not with Iran's war ongoing and the rise of China in the pacific.
CompetitiveAd4732@reddit
This narrative is so repeatedly said. Brother its been 4 years. Its cope and bs. Real life isnt a fiction where the author can set up strenght based by mana points where you can easily powerscale from that. Its much more complicated than that. This is how a child thinks politics is like
"GDP" has never proven to be a good metric to assess a country strenght, resilience and ability to wage war
goofygodzilla93@reddit
The USA has sent the most equipment and money to Ukraine out of any country in the world, so how did we fail to be a reliable ally?
Xtrems876@reddit
EU provided twice as much support as the USA, you may have out of date information
goofygodzilla93@reddit
The EU itself has provided $80 billion. The USA has provided $110 billion. If you add all of Europe together then yes it would be twice as much, but that's now how that works. Going based on GDP it would be Denmark the last time I checked.
Xtrems876@reddit
What doesn't work how it works? Comparing denmark alone to the USA is absurd and you know it
goofygodzilla93@reddit
What I'm saying is you can't take all of Europe and call it the EU which is what you would have to do in order to get the EU to have supported over double of what the USA has. The USA is the single largest contributor of aid to Ukraine. Denmark was just a preliminary measure in case anyone wanted to pull the "based on GDP America isn't close to 1", because I have had that happen multiple times in the past.
amateur220@reddit
USA has given the most by any single country….
Sweet_Cinnabonn@reddit
Which is not the same as being a reliable partner.
The US struggles with reliable at this point in time.
BendicantMias@reddit (OP)
Chipay@reddit
Strange way to say that every woman should have 2.2 kids.
Anony_mouse202@reddit
2.2 is… a normal replacement rate?
BendicantMias@reddit (OP)
It says to 'preserve' the population, not to grow it. You need a replacement rate level of fertility to preserve your current population. That won't grow back its decline though.
Xasf@reddit
Surely you should need higher than that baseline rate to preserve the population of a country at war? To offset additional deaths from the war itself in addition to constant emigration.
calmdownmyguy@reddit
2.1 is the normal replacement rate. Apparently 2.2 would be sufficient in this case
vplatt@reddit
I don't see how. The last time I checked, Ukraine had a population of around 41 million. This new statistic of 22 million puts their mortality rate up way past the replacement rate that 2.2 children per woman would provide.
Quite honestly, they haven't really prospered since the Soviet days when the population was over 50 million. I'm not praising the virtues of the system they had back then, but it is what it is. Wishing they could prosper now as an independent democratic country is getting to be more and more of a pipe dream.
BendicantMias@reddit (OP)
Ironically, for most of human history that's not even a high number of kids. It's only in recent times that targets like that have become mythical. Unless you're from sub-saharan Africa, though theirs are also falling steadily. Or an ultraorthodox Israeli I guess (or just ultraorthodox in general)..
historicusXIII@reddit
Yeah, even Bangladesh no longer reaches that number now.
sianrhiannon@reddit
Industrial societies just don't really work well with having lots of kids it seems. It's expensive and there's limited space. In an agricultural society you're more likely to be outside all day farming so I guess having more kids means having more potential helpers if they live long enough
BendicantMias@reddit (OP)
The 'free labor for the farm' explanation doesn't work either, as the fall also occurs in cities as well as in countries with mandatory state provisioned free schooling in rural areas. As for the expense, economic incentives and other public policies that pay people have had negligible impact on birth rates. Even more well off parts of the population have few kids.
gregorydgraham@reddit
The economic incentives are miserly and do not compensate for a society optimised for all adults working all the time
calmdownmyguy@reddit
Yeah comma it's funny to hear people talk about how incentives for having kids don't work when the incentives aren't even close to 1% of the actual cost of raising a kid for 22 years if you want your kid to be educated
BendicantMias@reddit (OP)
Hungary spends over 5% of its GDP on supporting families. That's more than almost all countries spend on defense, and that's not counting what it also spends on healthcare and education in general. It STILL didn't work. Asking for even more is just asking for countries to bankrupt themselves.
Besides which, we've already seen that even the well off don't have large families, so it's clear money isn't doing it even for those who do have it. Unless you're demanding everyone can be like Elon Musk. And there's populations that DO have larger families even at similar socio-economic levels as other groups of people i.e. relative to their economic peers. The most consistent one is orthodox religious communities. Regardless of your feelings on that, it shows that this really doesn't seem to be a money issue.
The idea has been tried, all over the world. It has failed over and over again.
xevizero@reddit
The 40h work week is fundamentally incompatible with having kids for any educated society where having children is not a fundamental resource for the family and a retirement plan.
Shorter (way, way shorter) work week, plus more investment in communal childcare so that the burden doesn't fall on the family alone, are the only sustainable model unless we prefer the solution of going back to a darker age of widely uneducated people with half the life expectancy we have now, working mindlessly and hoping one of their 10 kids who won't die young will care for them when they'll be old, at 50.
I'll take the short work week, financed by the ex-billionaires, please.
Successful-Bobcat701@reddit
Europe has been industrialized for 200 years, but the sharp decline in fertility only happened in the last 20 years.
jetlags@reddit
The timing isn't quite right for this to be a good explanation. In industrializing 19th century Europe, the fertility rate rose faster in countries that industrialized the most (and this effect is not explained by lower infant mortality). There is some other factor here.
Nevarien@reddit
Time as well. We have to commute, exercise and work. There goes 10-12h a day at dthe very least.
KronusTempus@reddit
In the past, people were incentivized to have kids because of their own economic well being. Kids meant extra help, extra income for the family, and they were seen as a retirement plan because they were socially obligated to care for their parents.
Nowadays kids move away as soon as they have their own income, it costs more than ever to raise them, and they are economically unproductive for 20+ years. The fact that they move away means that even when they start being economically productive, hardly any of that money (if any at all) makes it back to the family. It’s also worth mentioning that raising a child is incredibly mentally and physically taxing.
It’s all cost no benefit, aside from maybe feeling good about having raised a child and continuing your family line.
The incentives to have kids (and especially multiple kids) are just not there anymore in a lot of the developed world.
Successful-Bobcat701@reddit
Because it's difficult to have 0.2 of a kid.
Frosty-Perception-48@reddit
Why does a woman need 0.2 children?
andthatswhyIdidit@reddit
Using the numbers 220/100 is actually a way to evade such floating point statistics...
nhzz@reddit
its actually 3- tax.
potatoesarenotcool@reddit
Spare parts
WannaAskQuestions@reddit
Bruh! This had me cackling ded
Black_Prince9000@reddit
To account for child deaths of other people, some people having 3 instead of 2 children is necessary for sustaining population
MonkeyPanls@reddit
USA manages with lower fertility rate (~1.8), but we have immigration, despite efforts to the contrary. Unfortunately for UKR, nobody is immigrating to a warzone
NeJin@reddit
I wonder if this would change after the war. Rebuilding takes a lot of work, yeah? That labour has to come from somewhere.
Chipay@reddit
Ukraine had an emigration issue long before the war as well, it just didn't offer as good a future as the EU or Russia.
GiveMeSumChonChon@reddit
Yeah I heard many Ukrainians would travel to Russia for seasonal work because there’s so few opportunities
JustChillin3456@reddit
Third worlders will for a hot meal
Beat_Saber_Music@reddit
I mean, that is what is needed for a human population to not collapse and remain stable
Private_HughMan@reddit
When I saw the population drop by a million, I assumed that most of it would be from refugees and draft dodgers fleeing the country. The idea that most of it is from death is absolutely insane. It's been 4 years of this war and now Ukraine and Russia have more or less locked in the territorial lines. Shifts in land are barely existent. People are dying for a few metres.
historicusXIII@reddit
Most of those deaths are elderly dying, not casualties of war. People still die of cancer, vascular diseases and other old age relaxed conditions.
Canadian_Border_Czar@reddit
I first thought you were saying 210 children each.
Then I did the math and saw that would require being pregnant for 158 years. Like the entire time. One out another in on the same day.
BendicantMias@reddit (OP)
It's basically a fertility rate of 2.1 - 2.2 per woman. As of 2024, they have a fertility rate of 0.99. I'm not sure about the claim that they're the lowest, as South Korea is lower than that, but it is one of the lowest (the only others lower than Ukraine are city states like Macau, so it pretty much is just SK). Which I suppose says something about SK, that their fertility rate is lower than a literal warzone..
TachiH@reddit
I feel like a country at war doesn't really have a birth rate you can use. The young men who are more likely of kid having age are in the trenches. The women of an age to have children were evacuated to other countries.
Ukraine's solution is once the war ends to make sure it becomes a country worth returning to. If they return to corruption or a risk of being invaded again, it is unlikely to improve. If they work towards EU membership a lot will return.
BendicantMias@reddit (OP)
Ukraine had a major emigration problem even before the war. They went from over 50 million people in the 90s to about 30 million before the 2022 invasion, and much of that was due to emigration. As for EU membership, not only is that both far from guaranteed and also a very long way off even if it happens, but it'll likely only deepen the emigration crisis. Eastern european EU members mostly haven't drawn people back by joining the EU, quite the opposite - the free labour movement tends to accelerate emigration. Latvians leave for Poland, while ironically Poles themselves emigrate to Germany or, until recently, the UK. You can't magically make up for the massive wage differences, and folk go where the money is.
A majority of Ukrainians abroad are unwilling to return home - https://www.kyivpost.com/post/47831
TachiH@reddit
Who in their right mind would want to return to a country still under attack. The whole issue of Russia needs to be resolved before anything can be done.
The Polish started returning home now that salaries in Poland are starting to meet the same levels that they had in the UK and Germany.
Obviously the longer the war goes on less will return though as they set down roots and start families in the countries they moved to.
GiveMeSumChonChon@reddit
There’s also no end is sight. If Ukraine regained all their territory I could see people returning but right now that would be impossible for both sides because of lack of manpower and prevalence of fpv drones. The only way this ends is with a DMZ.
PerforatedPie@reddit
The article seems to suggest it was 30M last year, 29M this year, with the bulk of people leaving in 2022. So I feel like it was closer to 50M before 2022; certainly it couldn't have been as low as 30M if the article numbers are right.
Canadian_Border_Czar@reddit
Such is the life when you set insane beauty standards. Nobody in Korea wants to be big from pregnancy and none of the men want dad bods
TearOpenTheVault@reddit
I think the untenable work culture and rampant misogyny also doesn’t help.
BendicantMias@reddit (OP)
Neither explanations work. Finland despite having one of the lowest average working hours in the world has a fertility rate barely higher than famously low Japan.
As for misogyny, one of the few populations in advanced nations that're still having high numbers of children are the Haredi i.e. ultraorthodox Jews in Israel. Who are, shall we say, far from feminist. Indeed ultraorthodox communities globally tend to have higher birth rates, so it isn't specific to Judaism. And one of the only things all those various religions have in common is a lower status for women.
travistravis@reddit
Misogyny combined with women's empowerment. If the women have few rights there isn't much they can do to "fight back". Like the 4B movement isn't going to be able to take off somewhere that women don't have enough autonomy to make those choices.
JustChillin3456@reddit
Bro this fantasy like orthodox women have NO choice but to bred is NOT reality
The fact is that they want children. It’s simply a difference in culture
BendicantMias@reddit (OP)
That wouldn't explain the Finnish example I gave above that paragraph, nor many other similarly feminist societies (like all the rest of the Nordics).
It's also weird to claim the problem is society being both less friendly AND more friendly to women. Like that just sounds like you're trying to thread the needle in order to keep pushing the cause you want to ascribe it to.
JustChillin3456@reddit
Feminism ruined the West
larrythecucumberer@reddit
I'm thinking the role of misogyny is massively, massively overrated in this trend. Most human societies throughout history have had women giving birth to way more than two children in the context of way more misogyny than the modern day and very little personal freedom. I'm pretty sure that widespread access to contraception (a global trend) is just now reaching it's logical conclusion in a system where giving birth is largely a penalty and the historical socio-economic incentives to raise children have pretty much evaporated. It's not sexy nor fixable but that's it.
CrochetChameleon@reddit
The irony of "dad bods" when the dad's bod does nothing during pregnancy
travistravis@reddit
The only thing that it does requires very little mobility. Just getting up to go out for whatever weird craving. Or normal around the house stuff. Maybe foot massages. The part most guys complaining about this hate is that they might need to do emotional labour.
(Also "dad bods" is a ridiculous reason altogether -- there's nothing that forces a man to relax and be comfortable, just like it's only societal pressure to look a certain way when single ... and even that is related to misogyny, assuming women only want a specific body type.)
Affectionate_Cup9112@reddit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Couvade_syndrome
travistravis@reddit
I had no idea that was a thing! I didn't experience any of that, thankfully. Pretty sure my wife's pregnancy actually made me lose weight (mostly due to her not wanting certain things around)
BendicantMias@reddit (OP)
At this point I'm wondering what isn't misogyny in your worldview?...
Anyway, the 'dad bods' thing was silly to begin with - South Korean men are in better shape than Americans, where that silly concept originated from. Indeed both Koreans and Japanese, famous for their low birth rates, are also famous for being a lot healthier than people in the west, with low levels of obesity and high longevity i.e. living to very old ages.
travistravis@reddit
Or just lots and lots of multiples, like that's only 26 sets of 8 and a set of twins. (I imagine that even without the caring for newborns part, that would absolutely wreck a human body).
Herooo31@reddit
pre-war estimate was around 37-40 million which might have been even lower because of outdated census, 3-5 million under occupation, 6-8 milion fled some of which returned, mass civilian casualties which are still not accounted for because they are mostly happening on occupied and contested parts where many people stayed living in contested cities and villages which were bombed to dust and must have killed hundreds of thousands or missing.
The essential to recovery will be the effort to rebuild ukraine completely, when that happens there will be massive opportunities you wont find anywhere else in the world to aquire property, start business. cities like Warsaw went from 600k population pre ww2 to almost completely evacuated to like 800k after the war and almost 2 millions now because of this exact effect. Depends how post war situation is handled a good example is west vs east after ww2. West and especially germany recovered and east withered (we know why).
Another factor will be if ukraine even doesnt manage to recover its territories that ukraine will be under sort of marshalls plan and will probably grow in short time period while occupied territories will turn into hellholes like occupied karelia, ossetia or abkhazia and will never not be sanctioned so they will be forever depended on russia. People may flee from these to ukraine eventually.
One war ends and another war will start. The race to economically build up their perspective parts under their influence west vs russia and we have seen how this went after ww2.
Wameo@reddit
Offial number of civilian deaths is 2-5% the lowest ratio by far in any modern war, the average being 50% many reaching 65-70%
The way Russia is fighting this war gives ample opportunity for civilians to flee the active war zones, and they are also clearly not targeting civilians in their deep strikes as people like to claim, the numbers don't lie.
Herooo31@reddit
Official civilian death number is around 15000 which are literaly verified by UN and considered as minimum. Nobody is keeping track of numbers of dead civilians in occupied territories. I regulary watch combat videos from ukraine from the ground and soldiers run into civilians in basements in almost every other house.
Russia does not care about civilian deaths. They dont directly target them most of the time but they dont care about colateral they are literaly dropping glide bombs directly on villages and cities. The whole war is mostly urban warfare.
Wameo@reddit
5% is the maximum figure which is vastly lower than the 50% average.
Nothing else you say is of relevance, Russia's war strategies clearly result in far lower civilian deaths compared to any other modern war period.
Herooo31@reddit
give me credible source for your 5%. You cant because you dont know how many civilians died and you dont know how many soldiers died but keep repeating something you cannot possibly know. And have audacity to call something irrelevant.
Wameo@reddit
Is your brain just painted on? 2-5% is because the exact figure is unknown.....
Im gonna end this here cause your mental faculties are clearly lacking if you can't understand basic concepts, you have all the time in the world to watch ukraine combat footage and argue on reddit but no time to look up topic relevant statistics?
Herooo31@reddit
no you are going to end this because you pulled it out of your ass and have no source
Russel_Rogers@reddit
De facto Ukraine has already lost. A lot of territory is never coming back, infrastructure is damaged and destroyed, refugees doesn't plan to return, the leftover population is not able to reproduce.
Chipay@reddit
Minus the territory, those same arguments also count for Russia.
BendicantMias@reddit (OP)
None of them count, at least nowhere to the same extent. Ukraine has far more damaged infrastructure than Russia, a far higher number of refugees and Russia's fertility rate is about 50% higher than that of Ukraine.
Chipay@reddit
I don't dispute the severity, but the fact of the matter is that Russian infrastructure is getting hit, its people are fleeing the country, its population is shrinking and its fertility rate is well below replacement levels.
Vassago81@reddit
The fertility rate is low, but better than many western european country if you don't count freshly arrived immigrants. And russia is still having more immigration than emigration.
BendicantMias@reddit (OP)
I mean, you could say this about almost every country these days, including yours. Ironically Russia's fertility rate is actually a bit higher than your own country (1.47 versus 1.39).
TrizzyG@reddit
Its almost entirely kept afloat by the Muslim populations in Russia which which is a recurring pattern across the entire World. Russia has almost doubled the Muslim population of Belgium, hence the discrepancy.
calmdownmyguy@reddit
Russia is on track to be 30% Muslim by 2050 but dipshits in the west think Europe is overrun by Islam.
TrizzyG@reddit
Not to mention the constant racist fear mongering of no go areas that dont exist in Europe, meanwhile Russia literally had a region break away for several years. Talk about no go areas 😅
greenwizard987@reddit
Yep, even if war finishes and all trade restrictions are lifted tomorrow, Russia got damaged bad enough still. Ironically most of the real damage is self-inflicted via poor laws and economic decisions. On top of losses caused by war itself. Net loss overall.
re_carn@reddit
Demographics in Russia are so good that Rosstat has simply stopped publishing data on them - why bother, when it’s already clear that everything is fine!
The economy is doing great, the sanctions aren't getting in the way, and once the war is over and thousands of people come back with PTSD and weapons - everything will be absolutely fantastic!
CluelessExxpat@reddit
Minus the infastructure as well.
Chipay@reddit
You're kidding, right? Drones have been hitting Russian energy infrastructure on a weekly basis
CluelessExxpat@reddit
Yes, but compared to what Ukraine suffered, its very tiny.
Chipay@reddit
Is it? How did you compare the two?
CluelessExxpat@reddit
First of all, in terms of bridges, energy infastructure etc. its Ukraine that is getting hit.
The only thing that is getting hit in Russia is the refineries and oil depots.
To see the effectiveness of that, i can check the production. I use https://energyandcleanair.org/march-2026-monthly-analysis-of-russian-fossil-fuel-exports-and-sanctions/ this website for that.
For me the biggest indicator is the volume, not the revenue as that can change based on the market price.
Chipay@reddit
So drone strikes reduced Russian oil exports by +40% in Primorsk and +90% in Ust-Luga. I assume you calculated the monetary value of this and compared it to the building cost of Ukrainian bridges or something? I'm really interested in how you compared the two to come to your conclusion.
CluelessExxpat@reddit
True but that is recent news. What matters is if it becomes a consistent thorn on Russia's side.
Also, you are talking about monetary losses. If you go there then you need to include all parameters; sanctions, inflation, interests, overall trade volumes and so on.
The conversation was about the destruction of infastructure. As it is, Ukraine's energy grid is at least half destroyed, a ton of other infastructure such as bridges, gas stations, oil depots etc. continue get destroyed in incomparable levels.
For Russia, Ukraine mainly targets the refineries and recently the 2 ports. If we look at the production of oil; distruption is minimal, which is the main indicator for overall refineries destruction levels.
PurpleMclaren@reddit
Anyone with a brain could have told you that a month into the invasion, the question now is: why does NATO/EU insist on a military led end to the conflict when they are military beat?
Either they are braindead or are sacrificing Ukrainian lives and Ukraine itself so they can "weaken" Russia.
Stubbs94@reddit
It is the latter. Letting Russia bleed itself dry in Ukraine and become somehow even more hard-line militarised benefits NATO. They get a weakened, but more radicalised boogie man to justify the increase in military spending. Because logically, if Russia cannot easily overwhelm Ukraine, what actual threat are they to NATO?
PurpleMclaren@reddit
How exactly are they weakened if they are leading in innovation on the battlefield? Ukraine just copies what Russia does, they just got long range strike drones while russia has been producing thousands a month since 2022.
They have lost men by most favorable estimates only 6 months out of the 48.. so theyve literally only gotten stronger, how are they weaker?
deseven@reddit
If I may ask... Are you spreading Russian propaganda deliberately or you just have no clue? If it's the latter, well, try finding some other sources apart from Russia Today? Read Russian Z-bloggers for example.
PurpleMclaren@reddit
First de si brate
What did i say that is incorrect? Headlines have been coming out on how Ukraine now has drone advantage because they are using long range strike drones but Russia is using Gerans for 4 years, im simply showing the narrative is false.
Also I only make 2800 denars a month
deseven@reddit
Evo me, druze.
Interesting how I didn't imply that you're getting paid, but you immediately got on the defensive and decided to joke about it. Not your first time I guess? What I meant is whether you're spreading Russian propaganda by heart because you like the ideas behind it or you're just its victim. I have absolutely zero facts to believe you're getting paid for it.
Your 3 points:
Russia is leading in the innovation. Debatable at best, there are several areas where each side have significant advantages. If you want to talk about drones specifically, Ukraine dominates in short (20 km) and medium (100-150 km) ranges. This is one of the main topics of concern among Z-bloggers for the last several months. I'd say none have a decisive edge, the fact that it's a war that goes on for the 5th year is the perfect proof for that.
Ukraine simply copies what Russia does. Again, both sides copy each other where possible, these are the rules of the war. If your enemy figured out something that works, what would be your reasons to not copy it? Pride?
Russia only had casualties 6 months out of 48 (?). Russia is having casualties every day, claiming otherwise is just absurd, that's a "I am a binder with docs on Putin's desk" level of delusion. The casualties got significantly higher in 2024 and stayed on a very high level throughout 2025 with no sight of slowing down. There are confirmed 220k dead as of today, the most conservative total estimate that I know is 350k. How losing people could ever make you stronger in general?
Overall, a simple question - if Russia innovates so much, dictates the rules of the battle and gets stronger day by day, why exactly this war still goes on? Russian propaganda provides several answers to that, ranging from "we haven't started yet" to "we're at war with NATO" or "everything goes according to plan". What would be yours?
Stubbs94@reddit
I'm stating what the logic is from NATO. Not my thought processes.
PurpleMclaren@reddit
Im outlining that its completely illogical what is going on, something more sinister is at play.
Stubbs94@reddit
Well yeah, they want to justify militarizing Europe. There are even pressures being placed on Ireland of all places to increase their defence capabilities. It's disgusting.
Illesbogar@reddit
"They are militarly beat" 😭🙏
PurpleMclaren@reddit
If EU/NATO could do something, they would. Youre implying they could do something but choose not to, which says a lot.
InconspicuousRadish@reddit
NATO is a defensive alliance. It cannot unilaterally "do" something like getting involved in a war, its members wouldn't all agree to change the rules of engagement, and the consequences of doing so would be extremely complex.
crusadertank@reddit
Just like when they defensively bombed Yugoslavia right? I must have missed then Yugoslavia attacked NATO, can you point me to that? Or Libya?
InconspicuousRadish@reddit
Regardless of the morality of it, since the Yugoslavia intervention is largely considered illegal from an international law perspective (and did not adhere to NATO's own framework), are you really upset that a mistake of the past isn't repeated? Or what's your point?
crusadertank@reddit
Except they did repeat it. In Lybia
Am I right your argument is "NATO is a defensive alliance except those times it made a mistake and wasn't"?
If NATO has multiple times been the agressor, they are not a defensive alliance
Bike_Of_Doom@reddit
NATO’s intervention in Libya was with the explicit permission of the UN Security Council. Authorization by the UNSC is one of the only mechanisms under international law whereby countries are allowed to use military force. Neither China nor Russia, who had the power to veto the decision at the UNSC decided to do so. If NATO were capable of receiving authorization to intervene in Ukraine under the authority of the UNSC, it could and would intervene like it did in Libya.
crusadertank@reddit
NATO were authorised to use force to protect civilians
What NATO actually ended up doing was helping the rebels to bomb government forces and also put troops on the ground. Something that the UN did not give NATO permission to do and what turned the operation into agression against Lybia
This is what was written by Ian Martin. General Secretary of Amnesty International and head of the UN support mission in Lybia
Which was in violation of the UN mandate
Bike_Of_Doom@reddit
NATO were authorised to use force to protect civilians
Nope. The UNSC resolution authorized nations to engage in actions that protected civilians, it did not say that it had to target particular groups equally or in a particular manner. This is what the resolution says with respect to the use of military force:
Nothing in the statement on the use of force limited them to protecting civilians in one particular way you think was best. Just because they did it differently than you feel they should does not mean they overstepped their authority under the resolution. It also proved you’re lying that putting troops on the ground violating the UNSC resolution. The resolution forbid “a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory.” The only NATO personnel to operate on Libyan territory were small groups of special forces units who never served as an occupying force and thus were fully permitted by the UN resolution.
None of that is relevant at all. Even if this was entirely true, the means by which they operated to protect civilians was not limited preventing ongoing attacks or to preempt attacks, it was to protect civilians generally. That’s a significantly broader mandate.
Where does it say that in the mandate? If you want to say the mandate was too broad, that’s fine but that isn’t a criticism of NATO intervention, that’s a criticism of how much room the UNSC gave to NATO (again without Chinese or Russian opposition).
InconspicuousRadish@reddit
You're trying to convince a guy who is openly pro USSR. Not sure how fertile the ground is for meaningful conversation.
Bike_Of_Doom@reddit
I’m not trying to convince him. I’m trying to convince anyone who happens to read this that he’s lying.
crusadertank@reddit
"Nooo dont believe the UN and what NATO themselves say it's propaganda"
Nobody has to trust me. Anyone can go and look at what the UN reports say that NATO went over their mandate.
You are just making yourself look untrustworthy trying to defend it
Bike_Of_Doom@reddit
Except you didn’t provide a statement by the UN, you provided a statement of a guy who worked for the UN whose statement was made in his individual capacity. You also only provided an ambiguous statement made by a NATO spokesperson to a partially inaudible question as your proof that NATO disagree. The only propagandist here is you.
Anyone can read the UN mandate and conclude absolutely none of what you provided here contradicts the claim that NATO operated squarely within the broad authority granted to them by the UN mandate.
crusadertank@reddit
Head of the UN mission to Lybia and GenSec or Amnesty International
Someone who knows a lot more about the topic than you do
There is nothing ambiguous. You just live in denial because you don't like what it said
Sure and then they can see what the head of the UN mission to Lybia said about NATO following that mandate and how they did not operate in accordance with it
Nice projection, you are still wrong though and your attempts at an ad hominem doesn't change that the head of the UN in Lybia directly disproves all you say
He is more trustworthy than you and your arguments here only amount to a waste of electricity
InconspicuousRadish@reddit
Martin himself defends the initial intervention in said book. He is only critical of the prolonged response and its consequences.
But of course you'd only use the perspective that conveniently supports your narrow minded views.
crusadertank@reddit
Yes I agree. Don't argue against something I never said
Defending civilians was positive as Martin says. What was not positive was how NATO shifted the mission towards regime change and away from protecting civilians
InconspicuousRadish@reddit
That's not the topic. That's just what you made it be.
I only said that NATO is a defensive alliance, which it is, by any and all definitions. You're the one trying your damnest to turn the conversation into some kind of whataboutism.
crusadertank@reddit
I responded to you calling NATO a defensive alliance by giving examples of it not being a defensive alliance
Whether NATOs protection of civilians during the beginning of its intervention in Lybia was positive is of course not relevant here and why I didn't mention it. But you are welcowe to ask rather than being accusatory and assuming based on your own biases
It is not. It has engaged in offensive actions and so it is not defensive. This isn't hard to understand
I would love to see you explain how "Your statement is incorrect" is whataboutism
Correcting your mistake is not whataboutism.
crusadertank@reddit
Why write a comment "I disagree but let me agree with what you said"
I said that the UN resolution was about protecting civilians?
The point is that NATO partook in actions past just protecting civilians
Don't act as if this is my opinion. This was the opinion of the head of the UN mission in Lybia. He is the one you are trying to tell is wrong. I am just telling you his statements
Let's see what the NATO spokesperson has to say
https://www.nato.int/en/news-and-events/events/transcripts/2011/04/05/press-briefing-on-libya
"OANA LUNGESCU: Remember under UNSCR 1973 there are no ground operations."
So not only are you disagreeing with the UN mission to Lybia, you are disagreeing with NATO now?
"I don't like what he says so it's not relevant"
He was the head of the UN mission to Lybia. What he says is very relevant if you are trying to claim the UN supported NATOs actions and yet the head of the UN mission says that what NATO did was not in agreement with the UN mandate
The mandate was about protecting civilians. NATO bombing government forces in support of the rebels and having forces on the ground go against the mandate. As NATO themselves have said.
Let me again quote the same head of the UN mission in Lybia
"since the special forces operations and other military assistance were not officially declared, their legality has been little debated."
"Missions were ‘deliberately concealed’ from the UN Security Council"
"It is impossible to believe that there would have been the necessary votes in the Security Council, let alone the withholding of vetoes by Russia and China, if the full extent of the military campaign had been foreseen"
China and Russia didn't oppose because NATO lied about the operations they were conducting.
Bike_Of_Doom@reddit
No, you claimed that
No. You've repeatedly misrepresented his statements in completely dishonest ways without any sense of shame.
I am sorry but a one-sentence answer from a NATO spokesperson two weeks into the operation without clear definitions of their terms is not particularly useful for understanding anything. Particularly when the question asked in the transcript you cite is described as "inaudible." Its also not particularly clear whether the spokesperson means that UNSCR 1973 forbids ground operations or that NATO's mission under UNSCR 1973 does not involve ground operations. NATO wasn't engaged in ground operations in Libya at the time and one of the only confirmed instances of ground forces in Libya was to rescue a downed pilot which is not at all what anyone would consider an "occupying force" under UNSCR 1973.
Its not "I don't like it so its not relevant" its not relevant because nothing in that statement contradicts anything I said nor does it support your position. It does not state it was unlawful or acted contrary to UNSCR 1973. He stated that NATO's targetting shifted but even if it shifted, it does not mean it was not within the scope of UNSCR 1973's mandate. Therefore it can be dismissed as a completely irrelevant quote that does nothing for your argument irrespective of his credentials.
A) No, it does not say either of those things. It says that they can take whatever actions necessary (except for occupying the country) to protect civilians. If that meant supporting the rebels then nothing in the text forbids it (nor did the statement from Ian Martin state otherwise which is again why bringing up his quote is irrelevant).
B) You've not actually demonstrated that NATO said that, you've only provided an ambiguous statement to a partially inaudible question and expect me to accept it without any inquiry as to what it actually meant.
This is not a statement that their use was unlawful nor does it provide any support for them being used in the forbidden capacity as occupation forces.
This statement isn't even specifically directed at NATO but on general breaches of the arms embargo independent of NATOs actions. Why bring it up other than to mislead given this topic is squarely about NATO. It also glosses over how UNSCR 1973 specifically says that any actions notwithstanding UNSCR 1970 (2011), which set up the arms embargo in the first place, meant to protect civilians was permissible which creates a potential legal grey area to allow for disregard of the original embargo if it was in pursuit of the objective of UNSCR 1973 and it should have been better written if they didn't want issues.
This is his retrospective assessment over 11 years after the fact and entirely based on an ex-post facto rationalizing.
crusadertank@reddit
Ok then let me know how. "You are lying" holds no water when you have been the one here trying to lie
Ok then tell me how "Under the UN mandate, there are no ground operations" can be misinterpreted.
What she said was extremely clear, the UN mandate said no ground operations and NATO is following that
Of course we now know NATO did operate on the ground which means either you think the NATO spokesperson is lying here or that NATO did go against the UN mandate by their own admission
It you are clearly grasping at straws here and it doesnt look good.
Another lie by you
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16573516
''British efforts to help topple Colonel Gaddafi were not limited to air strikes. On the ground - and on the quiet - special forces soldiers were blending in with rebel fighters."
The article then goes into how these forces would direct air strikes for NATO. So no, you are either wrong or lying here
Ok then let me directly quote him when he was interviewed in Norway
https://www.panoramanyheter.no/diplomati-fn-krig-og-konflikt/helt-klart-at-mandatet-ble-overskredet/331571
"It's difficult to say exactly when the line between the protection of civil and regime change was crossed, but it's quite clear that it was violated"
Is that clear enough for you? Or you want to continue playing dumb? Because yes, you are trying to dismiss it because you don't like it when you clearly have no idea what he actually said or his opinions
Quoting Martin again
"NATO’s arguments that its support for the rebels’ attacks on Tripoli, and after its fall, on Sirte and Bani Walid, were necessary to protect civilians are unconvincing."
So no, you are again wrong here and your argument is specifically rejected by Martin. You would do well to actually read his book because then you would not look quite so ignorant on the topic
It was clearly said you just again don't like it so want to pretend it doesnt exist.
Let me quote Martin on the topic
"Although Resolution 1973’s exclusion of a foreign occupation force should mean no boots whatsoever on the ground"
So NATO said it, the head of the UN in Lybia said it. Refusing to accept it is to live in denial. But you have already proved you are so it wouldn't surprise me for you to keep it up
Lmao you are so predictable with your denial. It's almost like you are following a script that has been disproven many times before
Let me quote the rest
"The French had a single special forces officer discreetly placed close to Bouchard who passed intelligence through their red-card holder, while the UK opened a special forces cell alongside NATO’s air operations centre"
"On occasion, there was direct communication between French special forces on the ground and aircraft taking part in NATO operations."
No, they did not operate independently of NATO and it was not about the arms embargo. It was about the actions of special forces units operating in Lybia
You are the one misleading here. Either you are lying or have no idea what you are talking about. But you should get reading before writing your comments because it's really easy to prove you are lying
Well yeah because more information came out after it had happened. What even is your argument here?
InconspicuousRadish@reddit
None of that changes the fact that it is formally a defensive alliance.
Not sure why you keep trying to convince me otherwise, I haven't drafted its articles or initiated its own deviations from that definition or mission.
crusadertank@reddit
It means that NATO is in practice not a defensive alliance but an offensive alliance too
Infact what you are saying here to defend your point works directly against you
Because if you want to say that NATOs rules mean they are a defensive alliance, then the fact they have acted agressively proves these rules are meaningless
They are as defensive as the Democratic Republic of the Congo is Democratic
Illesbogar@reddit
It wasn't even a mistake. The intervention in yugoslavia was the most successful western intervention in history.
InconspicuousRadish@reddit
I personally agree with it, but as the person I'm replying to pointed out, it exceeded NATO's mandate as a defensive alliance. In that way, it was a mistake.
PurpleMclaren@reddit
So NATO countries can't start/enter wars or something? Someone should tell America...
What youre saying is so laughable, come on, the real reason is that no politican is sending their men to be drone footage.
TheBigOof96@reddit
It would've taken you not even a minute on Google to learn that NATO isn't involved in Iran
Bike_Of_Doom@reddit
In fact, Trump was mad that he couldn’t badger the alliance into the war that he and the Israelis started and was upset that the US was doing it all alone.
AntonioVivaldi7@reddit
This isn't up to the EU or NATO.
softwarebuyer2015@reddit
The west will fight until the last Ukrainian .
dezztroy@reddit
It's Russia that insists on a military solution, they are the ones invading.
You tried blaming this on Ukraine last week and ended up making pro-rape arguments, I don't know if you're cut out for this.
YourFuture2000@reddit
Could be the same reason that in the WW2 both sides (Russia and England/France) were weiting and hoping that Nazist Germany would attack the other side for them to destroy themselves and then the other side invade and become victorious not only of the war but of the world order, which is the composition that were the world wars about and the current war.
So yes. It is a praxy war which NATO is sacrificing Ukraine for to "weak" Russia for a possible futher war which NATO remain in power of world order.
No Wonder Germany talk about Russia invasion a a fear propaganda to justify the big investment in militarization, including of the economy.
PurpleMclaren@reddit
Whats the plan after there isnt any Ukrainians left or Ukraine for that matter? Back to normal life?
YourFuture2000@reddit
With a much weaker Russia with a mich deteriorated economy, ans with a much more militarized Europe Union, it could either be a geopolitical deal which Russia would have to accept the demands of NATO/EU, futher proxy wars in middle east or an other European Country, or direct confrontation war, which any nation in structural crises (like geemany) with oligarchs in power are very well willing to do always. After all, they are always profiting from war even if their nation loses as war, but always hopping not.
PurpleMclaren@reddit
Is the weaker russia in the room with us? How are they weaker?
Bike_Of_Doom@reddit
“How are they weaker”
All of the tens of thousands of pieces of destroyed Russian/Soviet equipment that they have absolutely no industrial capacity to replace for decades is a good start. Or the hundreds of thousands of manpower losses for pathetic military advances is another. Or the fact that their economy is increasingly hollowed out by sanctions, and Ukrainian kinetic actions, and if it weren’t for Trump’s absolutely idiotic decision to raise global oil prices via his failed war in Iran, the Russian government revenues would be cratering harder.
That’s how.
PurpleMclaren@reddit
Tens of thousands? Interesting, source?
They are producing 44k drones a year from one factory, saying they have no industrial capacity is hilarious when they out produce all of nato, at least try to make sense.
Russia is able to field hundreds of thousands of men to push trenches for their country, what NATO country can do the same? Also if its pathetic gains, why are the Ukrainians dying to defend it?
So their economy is ruined but are making more money than ever due to oil prices..? Youre so blinded by hatred youre completely contradicting YOURSELF.
Bike_Of_Doom@reddit
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html?m=1
My bad it’s “only” 19,000 major equipment losses when you take out trucks/jeeps. And this doesn’t factor in the depletion of Russian munitions since the start of the war which has happened at a rapid pace.
I’m sorry? Do you really think making cheap FPV drones is the same as manufacturing tanks, aircraft, and artillery systems (to name only a few of the major losses in Ukraine)? Are you dumb?
They have no industrial capacity to replace all those systems lost for decades, I don’t care if they can shit out thousands of drones, essentially any advanced economy can do that relatively cheaply (that’s literally the whole point of those drones). The Russians can’t replace their losses of sophisticated military hardware that they had in storage quickly and you’ve done nothing to rebut that point at all.
Pretty much any of the major NATO member state? Hell the European nato members could see off any Russian invasion of NATO even without the help of America, the main issue in any war is nuclear, not conventional. Russia can’t even establish air supremacy over Ukraine, the European NATO states would absolutely dominate the skies in a way the Russians currently could only dream of achieving against the Ukrainians.
Are you capable of reading English or are you being intentionally bad-faith? The pathetic military gains is the minuscule amount of territory the Russians have been able to capture outside of their initial advances at the start of the conflict which is a consequence of of Ukraine’s rather successful defence of their country. They’ve expended all these men and materials and accomplished little for it and anyone with even a moderate understanding of English would have interpreted that sentence as recapitulated here.
I don’t know if you’re aware but the linearity of time means two things can be true at different times and to different extents. The Russian economy was doing a lot worse four months ago than it is today because of high oil prices but it’s still in a rough shape all the same, it just could be even worse. Absolutely nothing I said contradicts itself here. Your poor reading comprehension does mean my argument is contradictory.
PurpleMclaren@reddit
Gerans arent cheap fpv drones. Tanks are obsolete. Russia has more artillery than NATO combined. They also have over 800 air defense batteries to counter airpower, which is why nothing has been sent but old f16s to be used in the rear.
According to who...? /r/UkraineRussiaReport has videos of entire trains of armored vehicles headed to the front from the factory, batches of planes being delivered every month, what on earth are you talking about?
What makes you think they cant produce more than NATO?
Doubt. If they could, they would have already.
We are in a thread with a headline that Ukraine has lost half its population, so in another 4 yesrs the entire country is theirs, not some small percentage.
Its gonna collapse any day now.. maybe after the 69th sanction package 😂
sneakpeekbot@reddit
Here's a sneak peek of /r/UkraineRussiaReport using the top posts of the year!
#1: UA pov: Ukrainian drone filming strikes on TU-95 bombers | 1100 comments
#2: UA POV: Ukrainian soldier training fires a RPG but the round fails, spins out of control, bounces downhill multiple times and still manages to hit the target | 108 comments
#3: RU POV: Difference of narrative in Western media | 400 comments
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^Contact ^^| ^^Info ^^| ^^Opt-out ^^| ^^GitHub
YourFuture2000@reddit
Sorry. I thought it was a honest conversation.
Have fun.
PurpleMclaren@reddit
I mean it was a simple question, you clearly can not articulate a meaningful reply other than mainstream headlines/talking points.
The reality is that Russia isnt weaker but has only got stronger.
YourFuture2000@reddit
It was more than a simple question. It was a retoric question carried with ironic tone and disrespectful. Which means, you didn't care for an answer but just for a reaction. And know you insist in eine dishonest, this time with intelectual dishonesty.
Bye.
PurpleMclaren@reddit
A lot of words but still havent articulated how russia has been weakened
YourFuture2000@reddit
I don't who you pretend to fool, me or yourself.
re_carn@reddit
That’s a funny take from a Russian propagandist. You make it sound as though Ukraine is choosing to continue the war rather than simply ending it. Yet the alternative is nothing more than a ceasefire on the condition that the occupied territories be handed over to Russia. And there’s absolutely nothing to prevent Russia from launching a new attack after that.
InconspicuousRadish@reddit
Your ignorance on the subject is staggering.
PurpleMclaren@reddit
Enlighten me, professor
TimeIntern957@reddit
Because I belive that the long term plan is to drag Europe into hot war. So the things have been escalated very gradually.
Provodniik@reddit
So far there are mainly Slavic losses, for the EU war can continue indefinitely.
PurpleMclaren@reddit
Ding ding ding.
Same as Yugoslavia, let the dumb slavs fight amongst themselves and pick up the scraps.
Beat_Saber_Music@reddit
I think the Ukrainians and Russian soldiers disagree with you a little bit, considering the state of the Mariupol-Berdyansk-Melitopol road, the vital logistical artery of the Russian southern direction supplying the Kherson and Zaporozhia (Plus Donetsk region too) direction of the Russian front. Since the May 9th parade that Zelensky allowed Russia to host out of mercy, the Ukrainains have been pounding that road on a daily basis, resulting in the following map of strikes based on analysis of footage from both sides:
https://x.com/clement_molin/status/2059237242069975438
125 geolocated strieks on Russian trucks, with 80 confirmed destroyed, or in other words a 64% destruction rate of strikes.
A war effort relies on the ability to supply one's force with supplies, in which Russia is witnessing what is essentially a paralysis of their main artery on their narrowest front, where in addition they have already lost Stepnohirk as Ukraine pushes to liberate Kam'yans'ke. The Ukrainains also pushed Russia out of Mala Tokmachka which the Russians claimed to have captured multiple times, similar to Kupyansk.
Also the Ukrainian population is more than capable of reproducing, as there's plenty of children in Ukraine. Issue is rather will, which is an universal issue of how society has made it infinitely more necessary to focus on a job over the burden of unpaid labor in the form of taking care of a kid for 18 years, on top of often household chores and the likes. Simply put, women prefer to focus on their education and work career before contemplating having a kid, not to speak of the modern impossibility of dating owing to how dating apps make everythign worse with their algorithms etc.
Also last I checked, South Korea in spite of being fully ruined by the Korean war is not a post apocalyptic hellscape devoid of all hope last I checked.
_invalidusername@reddit
Most of the Ukrainians I know living here in Czech Republic want to go back after the war so not so sure about your not wanting to return statement. What are you basing it on?
PurpleMclaren@reddit
Yeah people who start a new life somewhere are willing to completely uproot it to go live in decimated Ukraine.. they can say all they want but in 5 years they arent leaving the new connections/life they made.
LazyGandalf@reddit
When the war ends, there's going to be a massive wave of investments into rebuilding Ukraine. Even a decade as a refugee in a foreign country isn't necessarily going to outweigh the opportunities provided by a growing Ukrainian economy.
_invalidusername@reddit
I know a couple of people who have already moved back during the war. I would guess for most people the connections they have back home are far more important than those they made abroad
PurpleMclaren@reddit
Your single anecdote isnt an indicator for a trend.
dezztroy@reddit
But your anecdote is?
_invalidusername@reddit
And neither is someone's opinion based on nothing.
MistaMais@reddit
Think for a moment about the massive technological advancement Ukraine has just made - over the entire world. Post-war, companies from all over the world will be flocking to Ukraine to do business. And their economy’s biggest shortage when this occurs will be labor. Labor to rebuild (blue collar), labor to run and scale these companies (white collar). These economic conditions can be referred to as a “job seeker’s market,” giving them more bargaining power in interviews.
I can see a prosperous future ahead for Ukraine, unique to a post-war country that has been absolutely decimated by missiles and war.
crusadertank@reddit
Current polling shows around 20% of Ukrainians definitely want to return, and 23% might return
https://ces.org.ua/en/refugees-fourth-wave/
It means you need to be careful as who you are talking to are not representative of most Ukrainains
_invalidusername@reddit
So the original statement of "refugees doesn't plan to return" is incorrect
crusadertank@reddit
No you are incorrect. The majority of refugees don't plan to return.
Only 20% say they definitely will return and that number decreases the longer the war goes on
_invalidusername@reddit
Funny how you leave out the other metrics to fit your opinion:
Definitely plan to, Rather plan to, Hard to say, Rather do not plan to, Definitely do not plan to
Which the last of is less than "Definitely plan to"
crusadertank@reddit
If I was "leaving out" information I wouldn't have quoted the source for you to look at would I?
You are clearly trying so hard to fight reality but you are wrong.
Doesn't change that only 20% of refugees definitely plan to return which goes against your claims
Plus quoting the source
"The share of refugees planning to return to Ukraine continues to decline. By the end of 2024, for the first time, it has fallen below half of the respondents. Many who previously expressed a definite or likely intention to return have now reconsidered, shifting towards staying abroad."
The facts do not support your claims
_invalidusername@reddit
I didn't claim anything, I posted an anecdote and asked OP what they were basing their claim on. Your source proves that very few people definitely don't want to return.
crusadertank@reddit
Right you posted an anecdote and I posted data that goes against your anecdote. Meaning your anecdote does not represent the general opinion of Ukrainians
The majority of Ukrainian refugees do not plan to return to Ukraine
Nice way to ignore everything written there proving you wrong.More than half of people have no plan to return to Ukraine. It is written clearly in the source.
_invalidusername@reddit
Based on your source, are there:
(a) more people who definitely want to return
or
(b) more people who definitely don't want to return
Just the correct letter please
crusadertank@reddit
Quoting the source again to help you read it
Less than 50% of Ukrainian refugees plan to return.
What issue are you having with this?
annewmoon@reddit
He's basing it on what his handlers told him to write.
BendicantMias@reddit (OP)
Ukraine had a major emigration problem even before the war. They went from over 50 million people in the 90s to around 30 million before the 2022 invasion, and much of that was due to emigration. As for EU membership, not only is that both far from guaranteed and also a very long way off even if it happens, but it'll likely only deepen the emigration crisis. Eastern european EU members mostly haven't drawn people back by joining the EU, quite the opposite - the free labour movement tends to accelerate emigration. Latvians leave for Poland, while ironically Poles themselves emigrate to Germany or, until recently, the UK. You can't magically make up for the massive wage differences, and folk go where the money is.
A majority of Ukrainians abroad are unwilling to return home - https://www.kyivpost.com/post/47831
space253@reddit
Yeah I would guess more than half want to return, just waiting for it to be over.
Trollimperator@reddit
Exactly the reason why you shouldnt ask for female conscription, like many incels are doing here on reddit. Not only because women might die in war, but more because you are stealing a year of fertility.
We have a world, where people start into thier lifes later and later, while the biological clock isnt really changing. We already have demographic decline and this one of the reasons. That the young have to many burdens already.
Katastrofiaines@reddit
Damn straight. You don't sacrifice the people who have value. You sacrifice the people that don't. That's just common sense.
excubitor_pl@reddit
so.. politicians are going first?
excubitor_pl@reddit
With whom are they going to have these children? Will 10 women share one man?
It's not 'incels', it's calling for gender equality
Trollimperator@reddit
You are calling for bullshit. Its not like you will ever have to deal with pregnancy yourself.
And men dont have a biological clock like women do.
Lets frame this different for you, lets exclude anyone with a biological clock, who are needed to singlehandedly do all the childbearing, from military mandory service. Women do alot more important things for society, than you do during a year of military service.
We can last without military conscriptions, we can not last without babies.
InconspicuousRadish@reddit
Women don't have an obligation to have children, biological clock or not. They should be able to choose how they contribute, be it through economic means, military service, raising children, stitching up wounds or a myriad other avenues.
It's not for you or anyone to decide what women specifically should or shouldn't be allowed to do.
The only incel here is you.
Trollimperator@reddit
So, you say woman should be able to deside. Thats why you are asking for mandatory military service for women. So they can not deside.
Do you even realize how stupid you are?
InconspicuousRadish@reddit
I'm supporting voluntary service for the women who want to serve. I never said anything about mandatory service.
Stop insulting people over your own assumptions.
PurpleMclaren@reddit
Consequences of blindly cheering slava ukraine; but you guys never cared about them anyways.
Demonking3343@reddit
What do you think the right move was just rolling over and hoping Russia was lenient? They had every right to fight for their country and it is an utter disgrace we don’t have boots on the ground right beside them.
PurpleMclaren@reddit
Ukraine had a much more favorable deal in 2022 but were persuaded by EU leaders to wait for more shipments to arrive.
If Ukraine tried to make concessions and appease Russia this wouldnt have gotten this far.
Now Putin is all in, another 3 years and the whole country is his, not some small percentage.
eelsandpeels@reddit
Have you actually looked at that "favorable deal"?
It would have given Russia a veto over any future aid to Ukraine.
TheBigOof96@reddit
not to mention that Russia already showed that the value of its promises (or lack thereof) when it agreed to the Budapest memorandum.
Azzagtot@reddit
Did Russia attack Georgia after wrecking their army after 2008? Nope.
Is this a rabit anti-russian comment from baltic states? Yep.
TheBigOof96@reddit
Hilarious how you have a perfect example of Russia promising on paper to "refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence" of Ukraine, but instead you try to yap something about Georgia and somehow drag the three colors next to my nickname into the conversation. What a circus!
Azzagtot@reddit
>"refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence"
you missed a main point there, buddy.
Ukraine should have continued to be unaligned. It chose NATO instead and included it in it's constitution.
TheBigOof96@reddit
The memorandum said nothing about Ukraine having to be non aligned. It's a really short document, even you could try reading it before commenting.
So the question stands - if Russia broke this memorandum, what kind of idiot should one be to trust them with not breaking another worthless piece of paper? Russian aggression is precisely the reason why every neighbor of it flocks so desperately to join NATO - countries that managed to get it are stable and thriving, while countries that didn't are... Well... Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine just to name a few.
Azzagtot@reddit
>The memorandum said nothing about Ukraine having to be non aligned. It's a really short document, even you could try reading it before commenting.
Indeed, I was wrong. Apologies for that.
>Russia broke this memorandum
From Russian PoV Ukraine lost it's independence after 2014 coup that oused legitemately elected president.
TheBigOof96@reddit
Ukraine held democratic elections in May 2014 with international observers, so that's bs. It slipped out of Russian sphere of influence which is why it got attacked, despite an explicit promise on paper that it's territorial integrity will be respected by Russia. This was a perfect illustration that Russian promises are no more binding than a crackhead's oath, which is why the only way to ensure peace in Eastern Europe is by NATO acting as a deterrent to Russian imperialism instead of new idiotic "treaties" that Russia keeps generating with no intent of honoring them.
PurpleMclaren@reddit
Why would aid need to be given to Ukraine...? Come on you're so close...
eelsandpeels@reddit
To rebuild the country?
PurpleMclaren@reddit
Naive
eelsandpeels@reddit
You think Russia is going to pay for the rebuild?
PurpleMclaren@reddit
EU/NATO wasnt either, aid means military equipment.
What would be left after Zelensky and crew siphoned their share away.
eelsandpeels@reddit
Aid refers to help, assistance, or support provided to people, organizations, or countries in need.
Demonking3343@reddit
What was this deal? Because if it’s the one I’m thinking of it would have been no different than unconditional surrender
PurpleMclaren@reddit
Well yes, when you are beat you surrender, thats how it works..
America could learn from their mistake too and not drag out their unwinnable war as well.
ClownFace488@reddit
Ukraine was "beat" in 2022 when this deal was given? It's 2026 and Ukraine is still fighting. Someone should let them know they lost in 2022.
Active-Walk-6402@reddit
Mf proudly proposing appeasement in Anno Domini 2026 as a solution for dealing with a revanchist dictatorship.
At least Chamberlain had the privilege of not having a precedent for thinking it would work
TearOpenTheVault@reddit
And also, y’know, the fact that Chamberlain was trying to buy time for continued military re-armament given the state of the British and French armed forces.
SirLadthe1st@reddit
They have a roght to fight for their country - if they choose to do so. Grabbing random people who are shopping, walking their dogs or returning from work and shoving them into unmarked buses so they can be sent to the frontlines when children of the elite politicians are posting selfies from safe, western countries is not a right, it is slavery.
Crying about having low population and even worse fertility ratio after literally sending hunting squads after "fighting age men" (and letting millions of fighting age women leave the country under absolutely no obligations to return) is a real r/selfawarewolves moment from Ukraine.
It's not only that, they are starting to cry about having to fix the labor shortages with immigrants from India or Bangladesh too. I know of severa l people who escaped here to Poland to avoid that fate, or are lucky enough to have enough money saved to quit their jobs and start living off grid, hiding from their own government. Like, what did they expect to happen when they're shipping their own workers into trenches?
TrizzyG@reddit
This is made up because those efforts are not against random people, its against people who skipped their mobilization orders. Its part of the social contract in most countries. Your government likely has a clause for the same thing, unless you live in a very privileged country.
Whats with the obsession with India or Bangladesh? If anything, South Asian immigrants tend to perform quite well financially in the countries they settle and dont have huge barriers to integration. Its like crying that Koreans are coming to settle your lands. Problematic if youre a white supremacist I guess. Not so much a problem for the vast majority of people.
Azzagtot@reddit
Thank god, it's like that. I can finally tell my Ukrainian fried that he does not have to sit in his home and can finally - first time in 3 years leave it.
He is so depressed about it and half of his contact list of phone being dead people, he will be joyous that some canadian guy told his it's safe.
TrizzyG@reddit
One must have serious mental health issues that need to be resolved if one has to resort to making up straight fiction.
Any street video in Ukrainian cities will show you that people are living as normally as they can and nobody is hiding like Anne Frank in their attic lmao
I even know men who visited as tourists last year. Lots of military personnel around owing to the size of their military and those
So yeah dude, your imaginary friend can keep being depressed. Nobody else cares
Azzagtot@reddit
That's exactly why I despise westerners.
You live in your own propaganda bubble and from within it tell people how things really are.
TrizzyG@reddit
Nobody cares what you despise since youre just lying anyway and making things up.
Seek help lol its incredibly unhealthy to be so obsessed with Ukraine to the point of crafting your own fiction for the purposes of cheerleading
https://youtu.be/L_E9RTKAhtM?si=2wrdpdBtbGOxfnNe
Tell your imaginary "friend" to come out of his greasy cave maybe? 😉
Azzagtot@reddit
https://busification.org/
here's a thousands of videos of people getting dragged to die in a war they don't want to participate.
I am pretty sure that's okay for you, as they are breaking the law, right?
TrizzyG@reddit
Yeah thats called mobilization, you covered that lmao
Also happened in Russia in 2022 for reservists who had no intention of getting sent to an actual meatgrinder, but they are lucky because they have 140 million people to draw from.
Azzagtot@reddit
Yep, it happened in Russia.
Then it stopped and Russia since then using volunteers, paying them handsomely and providing for their families in case of their demise.
Ukraine closed it's borders and now hunts for men to press gang them into war they don't want to participate.
TrizzyG@reddit
Yeah...Ukrainian military get paid quite well too so idk what youre trying to argue here.
As you are an individual with alternative characteristics, I will remind you about the substantial population differences that allow Russia to pull from a wider pool of willing volunteers.
Adorable-Database187@reddit
Is this a Kremlin talking point bingo form with extra words?
sneakpeekbot@reddit
Here's a sneak peek of /r/SelfAwarewolves using the top posts of the year!
#1: Comparing oneself to Nazis… is telling | 3066 comments
#2: MAGA Dude thinks it's crazy there was no gun control at the Charlie Kirk Event | 1341 comments
#3: Zero chance. | 241 comments
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^Contact ^^| ^^Info ^^| ^^Opt-out ^^| ^^GitHub
12bEngie@reddit
Yeah letting Russia have the land was the best move.. huh? zero difference in that territory under putin’s command vs zelenskyy. preserving the rule of the latter and that government is not worth lives lost
Demonking3343@reddit
Ok keep telling yourself that. Wont make it true though.
12bEngie@reddit
Guys this race of people REALLY need their own country for some reason
moderngamer327@reddit
People have a right to self determination
Russel_Rogers@reddit
Why you're still not volunteering?
Demonking3343@reddit
So instead of addressing my point, you have to pivot to a personal gotcha. You know that usually means your argument isn’t very strong.
CluelessExxpat@reddit
A Turkey style Ukraine with some different configurations was the best option for Ukraine.
Anyone that thought Ukraine could change alliances and integrate with NATO freely have skipped 25 years of discussions between the West and Russia.
faultydesign@reddit
You think becoming a Russian puppet again would be more beneficial to Ukraine than staying independent?
Yikes, with lovers of Ukraine like this who needs enemies.
PurpleMclaren@reddit
Uhh you realize if this continues for another 4 years then Ukraine could potentially even cease to exisit, right? Youre telling me that's a better alternative to diplomacy?
faultydesign@reddit
I think many Americans will choose death over slavery.
Azzagtot@reddit
That's why they are in armed revolt against Krasnov, who started an illegal war or agression against Iran? :\^)
faultydesign@reddit
His supporters are pro-war
PurpleMclaren@reddit
I think many Americans would choose to be the slave owners.
faultydesign@reddit
Well yeah that’s why Russia is trying to enslave Ukrainians to be their loyal puppets.
PurpleMclaren@reddit
Isreal owns america 😂
faultydesign@reddit
Why do you think so?
PurpleMclaren@reddit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIPAC
faultydesign@reddit
AIPAC is not an Israeli organization.
PurpleMclaren@reddit
Its just an american pro isreali lobbying group! Nothing to see here folks.
faultydesign@reddit
They have a pro-Israel president they voted for.
That still doesn’t mean that Israel controls USA.
PurpleMclaren@reddit
Buying the presidency is exactly that, at least own up to it. Have no shame like your fellow Isrealis
faultydesign@reddit
You think Israel bought trump? That’s hilarious.
Also I think the genocide Israel is currently commiting is more shameful.
moderngamer327@reddit
There was no diplomacy lol. The options were submit or die
eelsandpeels@reddit
You have been saying the same thing for the last four years.
PurpleMclaren@reddit
No I havent because articles like this werent out four years ago, even experts predictions were way off in 2024, the demographic situation is beginning to spiral out of control.
Not surprising given the increase of forced conscription: https://busification.org/en
re_carn@reddit
And what will be the consequences of blindly chanting “Russia is Putin!”?
Chipay@reddit
How have the Crimean Tatars been doing since 2014?
AlexFullmoon@reddit
Crimean Tatar population? They are doing just fine.
A bunch of unofficial "political leaders", in reality being orgcrime with ties to islamic extremist groups, that escaped to Kyiv? Well, yeah, they've lost a lot of income and whine a lot. Who cares about them?
adrutu@reddit
Bending over for mama Russia was better alternative, you're right... Is what you hope people will say but this is still preferable than Russian rule. To this day. Everyone who was "saved" and "liberated" by Russians wishes it never happens again 😉.
Eraserguy@reddit
Ah yes the Nazis were a better alternative
genasugelan@reddit
Being liberated by the West was the better alternative.
adrutu@reddit
Nobody said that. But you go ahead and bend over then 👍
el_golpe@reddit
I do not understand what is the point of those articles, every western country have problem with fertility, Russia and China too.
What Ukraine can do to avoid this "Demographic catastrophe"?
Adorable-Database187@reddit
It's about painting a narrative of inevitable Ukrainian defeat and letting you draw the conclusion, better just give up and let it happen.
It's the usual Russian fare.
BendicantMias@reddit (OP)
I mean, you could ask that about most other news. Like every country have problems with inflation, so why bother reporting on it?
el_golpe@reddit
You're right, but why pointing out just for a poor country in active war against an imperialistic invasion? Other countries have the same problem too and nobody could solve that.
TrizzyG@reddit
Its just one of the few avenues pro-Russia redditors have to try to paint Russia as having come out on top in this conflict and simultaneously to make Ukraine look as bad as possible because it upsets them greatly that a country like Ukraine was able to shatter the image of the Russian military.
Their battlefield performance has been atrocious for 4+ years running against a much smaller neighbour, so the angle is, "Look how fk'd Ukraine is for resisting Russia!" Forget the fact that the same Russia has been in a pretty bad demographic spin too that has only been buoyed by occupation of new territories and immigration waves from worse off former-USSR countries.
Ukraines story is not special or unique. Country gets invaded, people leave. War ends, some number of those come back. If demographics turn sour, countries start trying to fix the issue, which can only happen after the war ends. So far nobody has been successful enough, but we shall all see I guess.
JustmeandJas@reddit
My partner is Ukrainian. We will happily return to Ukraine with our children when the Ukrainian government stops the bussification of those who are medically exempt from fighting
Adorable-Database187@reddit
Wow thats hard for them, better step up the support we give them, pronto.
Russel_Rogers@reddit
So, in fact, Ukraine already lost.
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.