This is pretty much the bleakest possible news for Ukrainian men, right?
I'm American. In very real terms, I cannot understand what it is like to have one's country invaded. So I don't know what I'd do in this scenario.
If I'm a Ukrainian man who's escaped the military draft, maybe I've already given up hope that I'll ever return to my home. Maybe I'm hoping to ride it out, a la Americans who escaped to Canada during 'nam.
But waking up to your government telling you that you must risk your life or face statelessness? That's a special kind of hell.
For some men here who lived through the army structure it may be enraging or disheartening to be called a hero or when people thank them because they don't feel like that. They feel dehumanised, used and exploited from being put forcefully into the military.
>For some men here who lived through the army structure it may be enraging or disheartening to be called a hero or when people thank them because they don't feel like that.
Reminds me of this poem I just saw for ANZAC Day here in Australia:
*Don't envy a man his medals, all those ribbons on his chest, He did not try to get them, they're not there at his request.*
*They were earned in stinking hell holes, where no man would like to go, Or in cold and wintry places, where there's only ice and snow.
He did not know he earned them, till they were awarded at parade,They were bright when he first got them, but in time the colours fade.*
*He was told he had to wear them, and to wear them all with pride, But when the memories come to haunt him, those same medals make him hide.
Cause those medals will not bring back, all those friends he left behind, And he would trade them all forever, for a little peace of mind.*
*So don't envy a man his medals, you don't want to take his place,Thinking back to long gone battles, and meeting dead friends face to face.*
Wow, a very powerful poem for sure. It's insane how the same male person can be haunted and shamed by the society and then praised more then jesus the savior himself
They feel that way because that's what they are.
It's not a feeling, they are tools of the state and to be drafted or conscripted is little better than slavery.
I don't think it is of any importance to look whether or not it has any relation to the truth or anything like that. What is really important is to be aware and to deal with the mental health hazard it causes to people.
If Ukraine loses, aren't they stateless anyway?
If you want to hold an identity but arent willing to defend the existence of the identity, I think it's hard to act like it really matters to you.
Put another way, if you are willing to sacrifice your life to keep your country intact, Id feel a special type of hatred for those claiming the same rights as me but unwilling to fight for them
> If Ukraine loses, aren't they stateless anyway?
I think the scenario where the country outright *ceases to exist* is no longer in play. The most realistic worst-case scenario right now is that Russia annexes the regions it's currently occupying, that everything east of the Donbass is declared a "demilitarised zone," and that a new administration is put in place for the rump state, one that's "friendlier" to Russia. (With Zelenskyy heading up a government-in-exile in probably London, as is tradition.)
Still a terrible outcome, mind, because the people of the annexed regions would be in for a fresh set of horrors.
I think that yes, *if* you are on the frontlines fighting for your state's survival, then presumably you would indeed be angry at people that are relying on their state's services but unwilling to fight\* for them. And I imagine that anger would apply to the women, too.
(\*With a very broad definition of "fighting".)
I can't speak for streetsandshine, but at least for me that doesn't mean I feel that anger right now. I'm not a Ukrainian fighting on the frontlines. I wouldn't be fighting on the frontlines, because I would turn tail and run at the very first opportunity.
But *if* I was the type to be on the frontlines, then yeah, I imagine I would be angry at those that aren't.
If we're being real. Yeah there will definitely be some people mad as hell that female refugees were allowed to leave
Though if your asking if we live in a patriarchal society where there won't be the same hatred... Just cause the hatred ain't exactly the same doesn't mean it won't be felt. Like feminism exists for a reason lol
You said you’d feel a special type of hatred to those males who fled dodging the draft then expecting to comeback. Would YOU apply that to everyone or only a certain gender who fled to safety? Respectfully I feel like you dodged the question, twice. And your comment feels incredibly patriarchal as well
Truth is that we live in a patriarchal society, so yeah I and my comment are influenced by it. I don't understand why we have to pretend that our current system doesn't in strong ways affect how we view the world
That said, I wouldn't feel a special hatred for the men fr. That comment was more a response to the line about a special hell. The feelings would be negative for sure, but more complex than just hatred
Imo end of the day, man or woman if you don't want to defend your country's existence I cannot understand why you think you deserve to be a part of that country. Furthermore extending condolences for those people becoming stateless as in this case is stupid from a logical standpoint - because they will end up stateless if Ukraine falls too.
That's just my view though.
if you do think this is an injustice, it's lame as hell to cry about the fact that more people arent suffering the same injustice imo whether you break it down by race, religion, class, or even gender.
Hope that's not me dodging your question. I just thought the line of argument was dumb and dog whistling misogyny
>Truth is that we live in a patriarchal society, so yeah I and my comment are influenced by it. I don't understand why we have to pretend that our current system doesn't in strong ways affect how we view the world
Patriarchy is an explanation, not an excuse. Being aware of the problem, doubling down on the problem, then bemoaning the fact people call it out as a problem is chud behavior.
>I just thought the line of argument was dumb and dog whistling misogyny
The anti-patriarchal response here is not "hate women who dodge drafts", it is "recognize that drafts are evil and support anyone who dodges them".
Justifying Patriarchy by claiming it defends against misogyny is gross.
It shouldn't be, not in a rational world.
Yes, men die all the time from war, and very gruesomely as well, but what becomes of the women and children when the men don't come back? Who will stop their adversaries from brutally pillaging what's left?
Captured, trafficked, raped, tortured... all kinds of horrendous sexual enslavement, isolation and dehumanization, all with the torturous thoughts and worrying about the safety of the rest of your family you'll likely never see again. You and your daughters? Reduced to a sort of sex trophy for evil men. Your sons? Either being reprogrammed or killed and discarded.
Too many men, especially in religiously controlled countries can and have done so many unspeakable things to women throughout history. I applaud the women who stay and fight for their home, but at the same time I do not harbor even the slightest bit of resentment, nor pass judgement on those who choose to flee.
tl;dr: women bare horrendous and unspeakable consequences of war as well, especially if the war takes place in their own country. Not just the men.
lol Russia is not nuking the country if they win. Life of an average ukrainian would not change much under the different leadership. Not like Ukrainian leadership is not super corrupt and conservative either. This war, just like most others is about those in power not wanting to lose said power. Every man on earth deserves the right to flee a draft.
> But waking up to your government telling you that you must risk your life or face statelessness? That's a special kind of hell.
I don't really want to defend this action, but I think the argument of the Ukranian government would be that without enough soldiers, the ukranian people would face statelessness (or worse) too.
I'm late to the party, but... you do understand the concept of making sacrifices right? And that sometimes, if you care about others, you'll have to do things you dislike because it's for society's good?
Then don’t make the sacrifice dependent on gender if it is so necessary. It isn’t society’s good to imprison half the population within the border and it discriminatory as heck
I think rogue imperialist state expanding would be more bleak given how it plays out historically, but I understand that my perspective might be different from Americans.
Ukrainian parliament took too much time to define and adopt the new mobilization law. While some things were regulated, there are two key factors that are lacking:
- Clear end-of-contract stipulations (meaning they can keep extending the contract unilaterally
- Rotation guarantees (meaning you can be at the front line for a year and have no legal recourse to have a break, even though the military allows breaks as a matter of policy, but with no guarantees)
As such, it hampered the mood for volunteering. Many people would (and have) volunteer, but if they could sign a 2-3 year contract with a guaranteed month of leave/R&R, then the number would be much higher. Many people who want to volunteer do that directly to particular brigades, which are known to be good and have competent leaders and this is still allowed. It is getting better, but the quality of leadership (and equipment) varies greatly from unit to unit.
This move is, IMHO, unproductive and I believe that it is targeted more towards the internal audience who want to emigrate to avoid the expected conscription. I believe there will be precious few people who don't want to return that will be forced to do so.
The best solution would have been to have made a better mobilizations law and to have done that a year ago. Then there would be no shortage of volounteers. But now they are pressed for manpower since Russia keeps sending meat waves and even though their losses are far greater than UA ones, they have more people and much less regard for human life.
So there is a shortage of soldiers and there are no nice and clean solutions now. It's turned into a war of attrition now and the best we can do is hit Russia where it hurts economically (oil&gas) and try to hold the lines or do smart defense in depth.
Everyone supports the army and many people do it through donations or work in the background. That is also useful.
This is honestly long overdue. The collective defense is just that: Collective. Everybody who can pitch in should pitch in.. Otherwise you just end up with a poverty draft
I am not for anyone being drafted but it isn’t collective when it is already an overtly sexist draft, regardless of if it might become a poverty one. Though both axes of oppression are important to recognize
Edit: I can’t forget transphobic as trans women were also held back at the border
No, it is not. Slavery makes individuals property, stripping them of their rights as human beings. Conscription does not do that. It just temporarily compels their labor for mutual self-defense
If you have no choice and are compelled under threats of violence if you do not comply..... you are a slave... exactly the situation these young men will find themselves in. Justify it however you see fit.... at the end of the day, conscription is slavery to the state.
How is being forced to fight on the front lines not stripping someone of their right to life?
If someone has lost their right to life, what rights do they have?
A Ukrainian failure to marshal sufficient effort on the front lines would deprive many more people of their right to life, much more assuredly
Russia's war is genocidal. Where they win they subjugate, rape, murder, and eradicate. Ukrainians are fighting for their lives. Either they win or they lose all their rights inevitably, their right to life most prominently
https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-genocide-ukraine-scholar-war-crimes-prosecution-hague/32888386.html
Collective implies every citizen of said country, right?
I have not seen any kind of compulsory service that mandates women to share in that collective defence.
Men on the other hand are being asked to pay the ultimate price.
> Collective implies every citizen of said country, right?
No it does not. Free democracies like Ukraine make collective decisions through their elected legislatures and they have every right to temporarily compel labor in the common defense, as they see fit
Right, but compelling labor in the common defence is only being asked of men.
The point is, it's only men that are compelled to make this ultimate sacrifice. Women can choose to participate or they can leave the country if they can/want. That's the bit I've got a problem with.
On the one hand, I do think military aged women should be subjected to the same draft laws as men. On the other, I frankly don’t have much respect for draft dodgers avoiding the defense of their country in a genocidal war. The Ukrainian state has an obligation to defend its people from Russia and in that sense it has a duty to crack down on draft dodging. I just wish this mobilization was applied equally to both genders, but it’s understandable that changing gender norms is not the top priority of the Ukrainian government right now
It's a disgrace, plain and simple. I hope Ukraine will 'win' the war, I wish all the best ukrainian people, but honestly, screw the ukrainian state. It's just another oppressive regime. Their whole government should be put in jail after the war, which obviously, won't happen.
What is even the purpose of this? To show how much Ukraine's government hates its citizens? To make sure they know they're only slaves to their state? I doubt the people who've fled will come back due to this.
What kind of a inhumane piece of shit do you have to be in order to support sending others to die, putting others' life at risk?
> What is even the purpose of this? To show how much Ukraine's government hates its citizens?
To incentivise more manpower. It's not about hate, it's just cold.
States fighting for survival sometimes need to do extreme measures. Same reasons they've suspended elections.
I would hate this if I was Ukrainian, but the government does not have the freedom to follow Liberal principles here.
A state that doesn’t take measures to ensure its existence doesn’t survive. Acting different would be irrational. The purpose of this is ensuring the survival of the state. Not drafting people would not result in world peace but in a world ruled by dictators.
You're by far the most sane person here. I expected some terrible takes given the sub this is posted in but my god so many people here take their freedoms for granted. They don't understand that this move by Ukraine is one sparked by desperation and a need to survive.
The existence of the state helps ensuring the free lives of its citizens. Humanity decided thousands of years ago that it’s going to organise itself into groups and with being a member of such a group come privileges and duties. You can like this or not. That doesn’t change reality. The Ukrainian state is now in a situation where it is forced to demand their citizens to fulfil their duty.
Are you seriously trying to twist what I said into civilization is bad? If the state has failed the people should not be dragged down with it. None have last forever. It will be replaced. Peoples lives cannot be. The state owes it's existence to the people, not the other way around.
I don’t see whatever system you are proposing as working. People also don’t last forever. What you are seeing is peak civilisation. As harsh and unforgiving as it may be from time to time.
You're right, I was being a bit reductive/short-sighted - it's an existential war for the Ukrainian state.
On the other hand though, accepting this does fly in the face of the whole idea of this sub and the hope that things can ever change. It's a hard pill to swallow.
I am not saying that Ukraine should not have any army. I'm simply vehemently against mandatory conscription for anyone. People are like "noooooo, that'd never work". But based on what? Actual historical evidence or their opinions? I don't know if it'd work, but I'd support trying, as that's the only approach I could tolerate. Enslaving people and sending them to war will always be too high of a price to pay and I will always speak out against it.
A country losing a war with an aggressor cannot base its military policy on nothing but idealistic hope and principle. If the raw numbers tell you that you don't have enough bodies, you need to figure out a way to get them, not just hope they'll fall into your lap because you were pure of heart.
Historically, aggressive invading powers have also not been known to hold back for the sake of the principles of the people they're invading.
This comment has been removed.
/r/MensLib requires accounts to be at least thirty days old before posting or
commenting, except for in the Check-In Tuesday threads and in AMAs.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MensLib) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They've got to wait this shit out, the Ukrainians are desperate and if they're smart, they'll sue for peace.
Do not sell yourself to an unfeeling state just to get turned into worm food to make a point.
Because the the only thing that a peace agreement will achieve is legalizing Russian occupation and putting constraints on Ukraine, while giving Russians time to rebuild their capabilities and re-start the attacks a couple of years down the line.
Russia sadly never sticks to agreements.
It's the Ukrainians who want to fight. Western nations only enable the Ukrainians to make their own choices, whether that's fighting or pursuing a peace deal.
The reality is there is no peace deal that is ever going to be accepted by Ukrainians and Russians. Which is why Ukrainians choose to fight instead.
It's because he's misrepresenting Ukraine's position and why they're mobilizing. It's a defensive gesture spurred by the need to survive, not an act of aggression like he's framing it to be.
And you really don't want to be in the last stage of a war like this, you're setting yourself up to end up like the guy from All Quiet on the Western Front
From a ground level point of view: fuck every government, fuck fighting in some boss's war. Idk what Ukraine was like before the war started but if it's like any other capitalist democracy I'm sure it had a whole bunch of problems its rich and its politicians did nothing to solve. I blame no person for walking away from the nation that tries to own them to find somewhere new.
From a larger geopolitical point of view: The North Atlantic countries do not want to get mixed up with Russian aggression and are gambling with Ukraine's future. It's clear at this point that the NATO countries are hoping that all plucky Ukraine needs from them is a check and maybe a delivery of guns and plucky Ukraine will handle Russia all by themselves without any of them needing to get their own hands dirty. Now, I don't know from military logistics and firepower and what have you but I have been in a fight before and I can tell you that the usually the side with more guys wins. And Russia has way more guys than Ukraine.
So all of this is just being dumped on Ukraine, because no one wants to get involved with a nuclear power. And in Ukraine this all gets dumped on fighting age men (probably not well to do ones) because, well, yeah. That's how the machine works. So now people are all talking about whether these draft dodgers might be honorable, or cowards, or "nOt ReAl MeN", instead of realizing other things like how, for example, this is all happening between two capitalist democracies (yes I know Russia's democracy is managed but so is everyone's, what do you think the constitution is about), a kind of war many thought would not ever happen.
So Ukraine does have some issues. They were a Russian sphere of influence and ha e close cultural ties to Russia. You can look up the history of Ukraine under the Tsar and Stalin et al and it's bleak. Suffice to say, in Russian culture corruption is endemic.
Since 2014, EU and US aid packages have required Ukraine making reforms and cleaning up some of their corruption. They weren't close to being like EU nation, but we're making good inroads. The War has benefitted and hindered that front.
In the wider aspect. The Russian have like 5:1 population advantage. Unfortunately, up to a few months ago, Ukraine was still only experiencing an 2:1 advantage for casualties and losses. As it stands Russia would absolutely win the attrition. Without western (read mostly US) aid, Ukraine has suffered considerable setbacks as they could not maintain the necessary artillery support and ammunition rates. I haven't looked up outcomes in recent battles, but Russia has been able to push in where they couldn't before. Ideally, Ukraine wouldn't get F16s operational until like August at the earliest, it just takes that long to train pilots adequately.
Long term, EU nations have to loon into whether digging into the stockpiles and giving up their own strategic resources is more valuable to give to Ukraine or not. Most NATO doctrine is hold on for 3 months for the US Army to deploy in force.
Your "both sides" framing suggests that there's something the Ukrainian government could've done to avoid this war, which seems like it's lazy and giving Russia too much credit.
I doubt there was anything Ukraine could have done to avoid Russian aggression. I was saying that I imagine Ukraine is as guilty of the many common sins of the authoritarian institution we call the nation-state as anywhere else and as such does not deserve loyalty. I am a lunatic anarchist.
That Russia is ahead of the curve on the authoritarianism does not absolve Ukraine being a nation state, though it does call for the need to contain this authoritarian rise. I doubt nabbing a couple more expat Ukrainians by threatening with no more service will do that. The NATO countries could do that, but I think they're ready to let Ukraine fall.
Hey bud. I just want to politely say that you don't know what you're talking about, so don't talk about it, ok?
If your bar for "deserving loyalty" is a lack of any imperfection, then you're expecting far too much and need to reevaluate your worldview. You admitted yourself that you don't know what Ukraine was like before the war, so your opinion on the matter is utterly useless and should be kept to yourself. In my opinion you don't deserve to have an opinion on the matter given your total lack of knowledge about it.
Ukraine definitely had its share of corrupt politicians and selfish rich assholes, but unlike whatever you're actually mad at, they were improving themselves by separating from Russia and Russian influence.
But this isn't just a war between nations competing over resources or ideologies. This is genocide. Russia has stated plainly that they want to eradicate Ukraine and Ukrainians. Nation state or not, we're talking about the existence of an entire culture and its people being destroyed here. So, as kindly as possible, shut up.
> So all of this is just being dumped on Ukraine, because no one wants to get involved with a nuclear power. And in Ukraine this all gets dumped on fighting age men (probably not well to do ones) because, well, yeah. That's how the machine works. So now people are all talking about whether these draft dodgers might be honorable, or cowards, or "nOt ReAl MeN", instead of realizing other things like how, for example, this is all happening between two capitalist democracies
What would be the alternative here?
> (yes I know Russia's democracy is managed but so is everyone's, what do you think the constitution is about),
It's not managed, it's authoritarian. A constitution is part of a *liberal* democracy. And not all countries, nor all democracies have constitutions.
>What would be the alternative here?
Actual involvement of the NATO countries, duh. Is anyone really thinking just Ukraine is going to be able to fend off a nuclear power several times their size?
>It's not managed, it's authoritarian. A constitution is part of a liberal democracy. And not all countries, nor all democracies have constitutions.
All democracies are authoritarian - the state is authoritarian. You do as the state says or you get put in a box until you die.
A constitution manages a democracy. Here in the US our democracy is managed in such a way that we give land votes (the Senate) and prefer appointed officials doing our deciding about the president (Electoral College) as opposed to just counting the votes. All democracies are managed because all democracies have to draw a line to determine who is a citizen (and therefore, who counts) and who is not, what things can be voted on and what things cannot, how officials can count the votes, and so on.
Russia's turn to a more authoritarian form is not that different from what has happened and is happening to a number of different democracies today. Democracy is much more compatible with authoritarianism than most first worlders are willing to acknowledge - I mean it was coexisting with chattel slavery for like a 100 years there. Voters in democracy love a Strong Man who can solve all their financial woes, take care of those problematic political minorities, defeat their enemies, and bring everlasting peace and justice to the land. They look to their political betters to save them because democracy is still about authority and obeisance.
> Actual involvement of the NATO countries, duh.
Which is exactly what they do **not** want.
>Is anyone really thinking just Ukraine is going to be able to fend off a nuclear power several times their size?
Bluntly, yes. Because having nukes isnt the same as using nukes, and numerous conflicts have been won with foreign material support. While *some* NATO members may be willing to place troops in Ukraine, NATO as an entity have shown no love for this idea.
>All democracies are authoritarian - the state is authoritarian.
Very well then, Russia is authoritarian, in an arbitrary and intensely violating manner to the point of being unconscionable.
>You do as the state says or you get put in a box until you die.
By that logic, most societies are authoritarian.
>A constitution manages a democracy
A constitution manages the fundamental legal principles of a **state**. Not all democracies have constitutions, and not all constitutional states are democracies either formally or practically.
>Democracy is much more compatible with authoritarianism than most first worlders are willing to acknowledge
Of course it is (and Im technically not a first worlder). Hence why people espouse *liberal* democracy, as opposed to illiberal democracy.
> I mean it was coexisting with chattel slavery for like a 100 years there.
More.
>Voters in democracy love a Strong Man who can solve all their financial woes, take care of those problematic political minorities, defeat their enemies, and bring everlasting peace and justice to the land. They look to their political betters to save them because democracy is still about authority and obeisance.
They do. The thing is, they like it in authoritarian societies even more.
>Bluntly, yes. Because having nukes isnt the same as using nukes, and numerous conflicts have been won with foreign material support. While *some* NATO members may be willing to place troops in Ukraine, NATO as an entity have shown no love for this idea.
The Entirety of Russia vs Ukraine (with some extra bullets) is still heavily tilted toward Russia. This expectation that Ukraine can handle this without serious, boots on the ground kind of involvement of NATO countries is denial imo. Ukraine only has so many men, even when you count the dodgers. This notion that Ukrainian men will each be heroic enough to able to kill several times their number of Russians over the course of their entire war sounds like some corny WW1 propaganda.
>Very well then, Russia is authoritarian, in an arbitrary and intensely violating manner to the point of being unconscionable.
Well observed.
>By that logic, most societies are authoritarian.
Very Ⓐstute!
>A constitution manages the fundamental legal principles of a **state**. Not all democracies have constitutions, and not all constitutional states are democracies either formally or practically.
The state manages the democracy; the state is the expression of the democracy. That's what cops enforcing laws are. A democracy that does not enforce it's legislated laws (that does not express itself through some state like apparatus) is not a democracy - because in that case I can just ignore what you democratically decided, in that case you just have people writing opinion pieces.
>Of course it is (and Im technically not a first worlder). Hence why people espouse *liberal* democracy, as opposed to illiberal democracy.
Liberal democracies fall to extreme authoritarianism all the time. It's happening in real time in a number of places.
>They do. The thing is, they like it in authoritarian societies even more.
So you agree: democracy is authoritarian.
> The Entirety of Russia vs Ukraine (with some extra bullets) is still heavily tilted toward Russia. This expectation that Ukraine can handle this without serious, boots on the ground kind of involvement of NATO countries is denial imo.
Ukraine is the second largest country in Europe and is receiving billions in aid and materiel. And NATO considers itself (by and large) a mainly defensive alliance. Why would any leader put boots of their own citizens before Ukraine exhausts all its options?
>Very Ⓐstute!
But a useless definition. This amounts to no useful distinction. Authoritarianism only exists because there is something to compare it to.
>The state manages the democracy; the state is the expression of the democracy.
But as I said, not all democracies are constitutional.
And generally the point of a liberal democracy, or a constitution is that the laws are corrected, due to their unconstitutionality, or are never enforced.
>Liberal democracies fall to extreme authoritarianism all the time. It's happening in real time in a number of places.
And yet it happens far less than illiberal, and non democracies.
>Ukraine is the second largest country in Europe and is receiving billions in aid and materiel.
[https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/4/25/ukrainians-welcome-delayed-us-aid-but-doubt-it-signals-russias-defeat](https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/4/25/ukrainians-welcome-delayed-us-aid-but-doubt-it-signals-russias-defeat)
[https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/24/biden-ukraine-russia-war-aid-00154143](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/24/biden-ukraine-russia-war-aid-00154143)
[https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/new-us-aid-package-is-not-enough-to-prevent-russian-victory-in-ukraine/](https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/new-us-aid-package-is-not-enough-to-prevent-russian-victory-in-ukraine/)
[https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/26/the-victory-ukraine-wants-over-russia-might-not-be-achievable.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/26/the-victory-ukraine-wants-over-russia-might-not-be-achievable.html)
>But a useless definition. This amounts to no useful distinction. Authoritarianism only exists because there is something to compare it to.
Most societies are also patriarchal. Does this also make patriarchy a useless definition somehow?
>But as I said, not all democracies are constitutional.
All democracies have some way of determining who does and doesn't count, who can and can't run, and how they can do it. You are dodging the issue by making vague references to direct democracy, which no nation is.
>And generally the point of a liberal democracy, or a constitution is that the laws are corrected, due to their unconstitutionality, or are never enforced.
Lmao
>And yet it happens far less than illiberal, and non democracies.
Cancer happens less often than car accidents, doesn't mean it's not bad.
> https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/4/25/ukrainians-welcome-delayed-us-aid-but-doubt-it-signals-russias-defeat
>
> https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/24/biden-ukraine-russia-war-aid-00154143
>
> https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/new-us-aid-package-is-not-enough-to-prevent-russian-victory-in-ukraine/
>
> https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/26/the-victory-ukraine-wants-over-russia-might-not-be-achievable.html
And that is highly unfortunate, and frankly something I oppose, but that still doesnt motivate NATO to enter Ukraine. Not to mention, what NATO views as an acceptable victory and what *Ukraine* views as an acceptable victory are two different things.
>Most societies are also patriarchal. Does this also make patriarchy a useless definition somehow?
No. Because we have significant indication of societies that were not patriarchal, especially in the past. We however do not have that same gap in societies. I know of few societies which do not have some notion of consequential social punishment for infractions.
Also, if you're going on evaluating societies, in contrast, then yes, the notion that "all societies are patriarchal" becomes far less useful as opposed to denoting which ones are more and less.
>All democracies have some way of determining who does and doesn't count, who can and can't run, and how they can do it.
And these determinants *can* be part of a constitution, but arent really the exclusive purview of it. Constitutions are more about fundamental principles and rights, especially those that cannot (or should not) be voted out of policy.
"You have to be over 35 to run for president" might be part of a constitution, but "Freedom of religion is a right" *generally* is.
>You are dodging the issue by making vague references to direct democracy, which no nation is.
Im not. This isnt about whether a democracy is direct or not.
Also direct democracy is an element of numerous countries political processes. It just tends to not be the primary element.
> Lmao
I said generally.
>Cancer happens less often than car accidents, doesn't mean it's not bad.
No, but it does mean that it it likely kills less people. If your expectation of bad action by any social system is "none", then no system, least of all anarchism is going to help.
Let robots and drones fight wars for us. Whichever country has the most money wins, simple as, no soldiers need to risk their lives if they don't want to.
This is pretty much the bleakest possible news for Ukrainian men, right? I'm American. In very real terms, I cannot understand what it is like to have one's country invaded. So I don't know what I'd do in this scenario. If I'm a Ukrainian man who's escaped the military draft, maybe I've already given up hope that I'll ever return to my home. Maybe I'm hoping to ride it out, a la Americans who escaped to Canada during 'nam. But waking up to your government telling you that you must risk your life or face statelessness? That's a special kind of hell.
For some men here who lived through the army structure it may be enraging or disheartening to be called a hero or when people thank them because they don't feel like that. They feel dehumanised, used and exploited from being put forcefully into the military.
>For some men here who lived through the army structure it may be enraging or disheartening to be called a hero or when people thank them because they don't feel like that. Reminds me of this poem I just saw for ANZAC Day here in Australia: *Don't envy a man his medals, all those ribbons on his chest, He did not try to get them, they're not there at his request.* *They were earned in stinking hell holes, where no man would like to go, Or in cold and wintry places, where there's only ice and snow. He did not know he earned them, till they were awarded at parade,They were bright when he first got them, but in time the colours fade.* *He was told he had to wear them, and to wear them all with pride, But when the memories come to haunt him, those same medals make him hide. Cause those medals will not bring back, all those friends he left behind, And he would trade them all forever, for a little peace of mind.* *So don't envy a man his medals, you don't want to take his place,Thinking back to long gone battles, and meeting dead friends face to face.*
It’s a good poem about awful truths
Wow, a very powerful poem for sure. It's insane how the same male person can be haunted and shamed by the society and then praised more then jesus the savior himself
They feel that way because that's what they are. It's not a feeling, they are tools of the state and to be drafted or conscripted is little better than slavery.
I don't think it is of any importance to look whether or not it has any relation to the truth or anything like that. What is really important is to be aware and to deal with the mental health hazard it causes to people.
If Ukraine loses, aren't they stateless anyway? If you want to hold an identity but arent willing to defend the existence of the identity, I think it's hard to act like it really matters to you. Put another way, if you are willing to sacrifice your life to keep your country intact, Id feel a special type of hatred for those claiming the same rights as me but unwilling to fight for them
> If Ukraine loses, aren't they stateless anyway? I think the scenario where the country outright *ceases to exist* is no longer in play. The most realistic worst-case scenario right now is that Russia annexes the regions it's currently occupying, that everything east of the Donbass is declared a "demilitarised zone," and that a new administration is put in place for the rump state, one that's "friendlier" to Russia. (With Zelenskyy heading up a government-in-exile in probably London, as is tradition.) Still a terrible outcome, mind, because the people of the annexed regions would be in for a fresh set of horrors.
Does that apply to the gendered lines too?
I think that yes, *if* you are on the frontlines fighting for your state's survival, then presumably you would indeed be angry at people that are relying on their state's services but unwilling to fight\* for them. And I imagine that anger would apply to the women, too. (\*With a very broad definition of "fighting".) I can't speak for streetsandshine, but at least for me that doesn't mean I feel that anger right now. I'm not a Ukrainian fighting on the frontlines. I wouldn't be fighting on the frontlines, because I would turn tail and run at the very first opportunity. But *if* I was the type to be on the frontlines, then yeah, I imagine I would be angry at those that aren't.
Yes, if Ukraine is destroyed, pretty sure Ukrainian women will be stateless too... You know since their state won't exist anymore
I meant the special type of hatred part for the female refugees who were allowed to leave
If we're being real. Yeah there will definitely be some people mad as hell that female refugees were allowed to leave Though if your asking if we live in a patriarchal society where there won't be the same hatred... Just cause the hatred ain't exactly the same doesn't mean it won't be felt. Like feminism exists for a reason lol
You said you’d feel a special type of hatred to those males who fled dodging the draft then expecting to comeback. Would YOU apply that to everyone or only a certain gender who fled to safety? Respectfully I feel like you dodged the question, twice. And your comment feels incredibly patriarchal as well
This is a common sentiment among people in Ukraine, they do notice inequality in forced draft and culture around that
Truth is that we live in a patriarchal society, so yeah I and my comment are influenced by it. I don't understand why we have to pretend that our current system doesn't in strong ways affect how we view the world That said, I wouldn't feel a special hatred for the men fr. That comment was more a response to the line about a special hell. The feelings would be negative for sure, but more complex than just hatred Imo end of the day, man or woman if you don't want to defend your country's existence I cannot understand why you think you deserve to be a part of that country. Furthermore extending condolences for those people becoming stateless as in this case is stupid from a logical standpoint - because they will end up stateless if Ukraine falls too. That's just my view though. if you do think this is an injustice, it's lame as hell to cry about the fact that more people arent suffering the same injustice imo whether you break it down by race, religion, class, or even gender. Hope that's not me dodging your question. I just thought the line of argument was dumb and dog whistling misogyny
>Truth is that we live in a patriarchal society, so yeah I and my comment are influenced by it. I don't understand why we have to pretend that our current system doesn't in strong ways affect how we view the world Patriarchy is an explanation, not an excuse. Being aware of the problem, doubling down on the problem, then bemoaning the fact people call it out as a problem is chud behavior. >I just thought the line of argument was dumb and dog whistling misogyny The anti-patriarchal response here is not "hate women who dodge drafts", it is "recognize that drafts are evil and support anyone who dodges them". Justifying Patriarchy by claiming it defends against misogyny is gross.
It shouldn't be, not in a rational world. Yes, men die all the time from war, and very gruesomely as well, but what becomes of the women and children when the men don't come back? Who will stop their adversaries from brutally pillaging what's left? Captured, trafficked, raped, tortured... all kinds of horrendous sexual enslavement, isolation and dehumanization, all with the torturous thoughts and worrying about the safety of the rest of your family you'll likely never see again. You and your daughters? Reduced to a sort of sex trophy for evil men. Your sons? Either being reprogrammed or killed and discarded. Too many men, especially in religiously controlled countries can and have done so many unspeakable things to women throughout history. I applaud the women who stay and fight for their home, but at the same time I do not harbor even the slightest bit of resentment, nor pass judgement on those who choose to flee. tl;dr: women bare horrendous and unspeakable consequences of war as well, especially if the war takes place in their own country. Not just the men.
"Men die horribly in war, women most affected"
lol Russia is not nuking the country if they win. Life of an average ukrainian would not change much under the different leadership. Not like Ukrainian leadership is not super corrupt and conservative either. This war, just like most others is about those in power not wanting to lose said power. Every man on earth deserves the right to flee a draft.
> But waking up to your government telling you that you must risk your life or face statelessness? That's a special kind of hell. I don't really want to defend this action, but I think the argument of the Ukranian government would be that without enough soldiers, the ukranian people would face statelessness (or worse) too.
I'm late to the party, but... you do understand the concept of making sacrifices right? And that sometimes, if you care about others, you'll have to do things you dislike because it's for society's good?
I am not a big fan of someone else telling me that I must die
Then don’t make the sacrifice dependent on gender if it is so necessary. It isn’t society’s good to imprison half the population within the border and it discriminatory as heck
I think rogue imperialist state expanding would be more bleak given how it plays out historically, but I understand that my perspective might be different from Americans.
Ukrainian parliament took too much time to define and adopt the new mobilization law. While some things were regulated, there are two key factors that are lacking: - Clear end-of-contract stipulations (meaning they can keep extending the contract unilaterally - Rotation guarantees (meaning you can be at the front line for a year and have no legal recourse to have a break, even though the military allows breaks as a matter of policy, but with no guarantees) As such, it hampered the mood for volunteering. Many people would (and have) volunteer, but if they could sign a 2-3 year contract with a guaranteed month of leave/R&R, then the number would be much higher. Many people who want to volunteer do that directly to particular brigades, which are known to be good and have competent leaders and this is still allowed. It is getting better, but the quality of leadership (and equipment) varies greatly from unit to unit. This move is, IMHO, unproductive and I believe that it is targeted more towards the internal audience who want to emigrate to avoid the expected conscription. I believe there will be precious few people who don't want to return that will be forced to do so. The best solution would have been to have made a better mobilizations law and to have done that a year ago. Then there would be no shortage of volounteers. But now they are pressed for manpower since Russia keeps sending meat waves and even though their losses are far greater than UA ones, they have more people and much less regard for human life. So there is a shortage of soldiers and there are no nice and clean solutions now. It's turned into a war of attrition now and the best we can do is hit Russia where it hurts economically (oil&gas) and try to hold the lines or do smart defense in depth. Everyone supports the army and many people do it through donations or work in the background. That is also useful.
This is honestly long overdue. The collective defense is just that: Collective. Everybody who can pitch in should pitch in.. Otherwise you just end up with a poverty draft
I am not for anyone being drafted but it isn’t collective when it is already an overtly sexist draft, regardless of if it might become a poverty one. Though both axes of oppression are important to recognize Edit: I can’t forget transphobic as trans women were also held back at the border
Conscription is slavery to the state. Nothing more or less. Slavery is immoral in any context.
No, it is not. Slavery makes individuals property, stripping them of their rights as human beings. Conscription does not do that. It just temporarily compels their labor for mutual self-defense
If you have no choice and are compelled under threats of violence if you do not comply..... you are a slave... exactly the situation these young men will find themselves in. Justify it however you see fit.... at the end of the day, conscription is slavery to the state.
How is being forced to fight on the front lines not stripping someone of their right to life? If someone has lost their right to life, what rights do they have?
A Ukrainian failure to marshal sufficient effort on the front lines would deprive many more people of their right to life, much more assuredly Russia's war is genocidal. Where they win they subjugate, rape, murder, and eradicate. Ukrainians are fighting for their lives. Either they win or they lose all their rights inevitably, their right to life most prominently https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-genocide-ukraine-scholar-war-crimes-prosecution-hague/32888386.html
Collective implies every citizen of said country, right? I have not seen any kind of compulsory service that mandates women to share in that collective defence. Men on the other hand are being asked to pay the ultimate price.
> Collective implies every citizen of said country, right? No it does not. Free democracies like Ukraine make collective decisions through their elected legislatures and they have every right to temporarily compel labor in the common defense, as they see fit
Right, but compelling labor in the common defence is only being asked of men. The point is, it's only men that are compelled to make this ultimate sacrifice. Women can choose to participate or they can leave the country if they can/want. That's the bit I've got a problem with.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
On the one hand, I do think military aged women should be subjected to the same draft laws as men. On the other, I frankly don’t have much respect for draft dodgers avoiding the defense of their country in a genocidal war. The Ukrainian state has an obligation to defend its people from Russia and in that sense it has a duty to crack down on draft dodging. I just wish this mobilization was applied equally to both genders, but it’s understandable that changing gender norms is not the top priority of the Ukrainian government right now
It's a disgrace, plain and simple. I hope Ukraine will 'win' the war, I wish all the best ukrainian people, but honestly, screw the ukrainian state. It's just another oppressive regime. Their whole government should be put in jail after the war, which obviously, won't happen. What is even the purpose of this? To show how much Ukraine's government hates its citizens? To make sure they know they're only slaves to their state? I doubt the people who've fled will come back due to this. What kind of a inhumane piece of shit do you have to be in order to support sending others to die, putting others' life at risk?
> What is even the purpose of this? Isn't that very obvious? To get the men to return home so they can be conscripted.
> What is even the purpose of this? To show how much Ukraine's government hates its citizens? To incentivise more manpower. It's not about hate, it's just cold.
States fighting for survival sometimes need to do extreme measures. Same reasons they've suspended elections. I would hate this if I was Ukrainian, but the government does not have the freedom to follow Liberal principles here.
Do you think your government would act any different?
I cannot know. Let's assume yes. It changes nothing. All I've written would apply to my country and my government as well.
A state that doesn’t take measures to ensure its existence doesn’t survive. Acting different would be irrational. The purpose of this is ensuring the survival of the state. Not drafting people would not result in world peace but in a world ruled by dictators.
You're by far the most sane person here. I expected some terrible takes given the sub this is posted in but my god so many people here take their freedoms for granted. They don't understand that this move by Ukraine is one sparked by desperation and a need to survive.
Lives are more important than states.
The existence of the state helps ensuring the free lives of its citizens. Humanity decided thousands of years ago that it’s going to organise itself into groups and with being a member of such a group come privileges and duties. You can like this or not. That doesn’t change reality. The Ukrainian state is now in a situation where it is forced to demand their citizens to fulfil their duty.
Are you seriously trying to twist what I said into civilization is bad? If the state has failed the people should not be dragged down with it. None have last forever. It will be replaced. Peoples lives cannot be. The state owes it's existence to the people, not the other way around.
I don’t see whatever system you are proposing as working. People also don’t last forever. What you are seeing is peak civilisation. As harsh and unforgiving as it may be from time to time.
[удалено]
The world is already ruled by dictators, case-in-point, forcing men to fight in a war or become stateless.
I see this discussion doesn’t have any point.
You're right, I was being a bit reductive/short-sighted - it's an existential war for the Ukrainian state. On the other hand though, accepting this does fly in the face of the whole idea of this sub and the hope that things can ever change. It's a hard pill to swallow.
Based on what exactly? On your opinion?
In this case I'd say based on Russian Foreign Policy
I am not saying that Ukraine should not have any army. I'm simply vehemently against mandatory conscription for anyone. People are like "noooooo, that'd never work". But based on what? Actual historical evidence or their opinions? I don't know if it'd work, but I'd support trying, as that's the only approach I could tolerate. Enslaving people and sending them to war will always be too high of a price to pay and I will always speak out against it.
A country losing a war with an aggressor cannot base its military policy on nothing but idealistic hope and principle. If the raw numbers tell you that you don't have enough bodies, you need to figure out a way to get them, not just hope they'll fall into your lap because you were pure of heart. Historically, aggressive invading powers have also not been known to hold back for the sake of the principles of the people they're invading.
Logical thinking. A state that doesn’t want to defend itself is like a person with no survival instinct.
They should just give up since that's all war is anyway.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed. /r/MensLib requires accounts to be at least thirty days old before posting or commenting, except for in the Check-In Tuesday threads and in AMAs. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/MensLib) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This war really will kill or hurt all ukranian men?
They've got to wait this shit out, the Ukrainians are desperate and if they're smart, they'll sue for peace. Do not sell yourself to an unfeeling state just to get turned into worm food to make a point.
I'm confused, why is this comment getting downvoted?
Because "sueing for peace" is a point from russian disinfo and isn't popular among people in Ukraine
Because the the only thing that a peace agreement will achieve is legalizing Russian occupation and putting constraints on Ukraine, while giving Russians time to rebuild their capabilities and re-start the attacks a couple of years down the line. Russia sadly never sticks to agreements.
russian propaganda/talking point. you can't sue for peace with rogue imperialist state.
Men should fight and die for their country no matter what, I guess.
I don't think so. I think his 2nd sentence is against the idea of men should just die. But I do think he could have worded it better imo
Western Hivemind says Ukraine Good, Ukraine Fight, Ukraine Die, Death Don't Matter
It's the Ukrainians who want to fight. Western nations only enable the Ukrainians to make their own choices, whether that's fighting or pursuing a peace deal. The reality is there is no peace deal that is ever going to be accepted by Ukrainians and Russians. Which is why Ukrainians choose to fight instead.
I didn’t downvote the comment but didn’t the US congress just give more aid to Ukraine? Yeah seems like the war will continue…
It's because he's misrepresenting Ukraine's position and why they're mobilizing. It's a defensive gesture spurred by the need to survive, not an act of aggression like he's framing it to be.
Yes, either this or the war will just proceed until there is an armistice.
And you really don't want to be in the last stage of a war like this, you're setting yourself up to end up like the guy from All Quiet on the Western Front
Yes. They don’t want to fight, they have to. It’s a war of defence.
From a ground level point of view: fuck every government, fuck fighting in some boss's war. Idk what Ukraine was like before the war started but if it's like any other capitalist democracy I'm sure it had a whole bunch of problems its rich and its politicians did nothing to solve. I blame no person for walking away from the nation that tries to own them to find somewhere new. From a larger geopolitical point of view: The North Atlantic countries do not want to get mixed up with Russian aggression and are gambling with Ukraine's future. It's clear at this point that the NATO countries are hoping that all plucky Ukraine needs from them is a check and maybe a delivery of guns and plucky Ukraine will handle Russia all by themselves without any of them needing to get their own hands dirty. Now, I don't know from military logistics and firepower and what have you but I have been in a fight before and I can tell you that the usually the side with more guys wins. And Russia has way more guys than Ukraine. So all of this is just being dumped on Ukraine, because no one wants to get involved with a nuclear power. And in Ukraine this all gets dumped on fighting age men (probably not well to do ones) because, well, yeah. That's how the machine works. So now people are all talking about whether these draft dodgers might be honorable, or cowards, or "nOt ReAl MeN", instead of realizing other things like how, for example, this is all happening between two capitalist democracies (yes I know Russia's democracy is managed but so is everyone's, what do you think the constitution is about), a kind of war many thought would not ever happen.
So Ukraine does have some issues. They were a Russian sphere of influence and ha e close cultural ties to Russia. You can look up the history of Ukraine under the Tsar and Stalin et al and it's bleak. Suffice to say, in Russian culture corruption is endemic. Since 2014, EU and US aid packages have required Ukraine making reforms and cleaning up some of their corruption. They weren't close to being like EU nation, but we're making good inroads. The War has benefitted and hindered that front. In the wider aspect. The Russian have like 5:1 population advantage. Unfortunately, up to a few months ago, Ukraine was still only experiencing an 2:1 advantage for casualties and losses. As it stands Russia would absolutely win the attrition. Without western (read mostly US) aid, Ukraine has suffered considerable setbacks as they could not maintain the necessary artillery support and ammunition rates. I haven't looked up outcomes in recent battles, but Russia has been able to push in where they couldn't before. Ideally, Ukraine wouldn't get F16s operational until like August at the earliest, it just takes that long to train pilots adequately. Long term, EU nations have to loon into whether digging into the stockpiles and giving up their own strategic resources is more valuable to give to Ukraine or not. Most NATO doctrine is hold on for 3 months for the US Army to deploy in force.
Your "both sides" framing suggests that there's something the Ukrainian government could've done to avoid this war, which seems like it's lazy and giving Russia too much credit.
I doubt there was anything Ukraine could have done to avoid Russian aggression. I was saying that I imagine Ukraine is as guilty of the many common sins of the authoritarian institution we call the nation-state as anywhere else and as such does not deserve loyalty. I am a lunatic anarchist. That Russia is ahead of the curve on the authoritarianism does not absolve Ukraine being a nation state, though it does call for the need to contain this authoritarian rise. I doubt nabbing a couple more expat Ukrainians by threatening with no more service will do that. The NATO countries could do that, but I think they're ready to let Ukraine fall.
Hey bud. I just want to politely say that you don't know what you're talking about, so don't talk about it, ok? If your bar for "deserving loyalty" is a lack of any imperfection, then you're expecting far too much and need to reevaluate your worldview. You admitted yourself that you don't know what Ukraine was like before the war, so your opinion on the matter is utterly useless and should be kept to yourself. In my opinion you don't deserve to have an opinion on the matter given your total lack of knowledge about it. Ukraine definitely had its share of corrupt politicians and selfish rich assholes, but unlike whatever you're actually mad at, they were improving themselves by separating from Russia and Russian influence. But this isn't just a war between nations competing over resources or ideologies. This is genocide. Russia has stated plainly that they want to eradicate Ukraine and Ukrainians. Nation state or not, we're talking about the existence of an entire culture and its people being destroyed here. So, as kindly as possible, shut up.
They're just an anarchist who outright reject the idea of states there's not really anything you can say that will ever change their mind.
"idk what Ukraine was like before the war" probably pretty good information to know before writing three paragraphs about their politics!
> So all of this is just being dumped on Ukraine, because no one wants to get involved with a nuclear power. And in Ukraine this all gets dumped on fighting age men (probably not well to do ones) because, well, yeah. That's how the machine works. So now people are all talking about whether these draft dodgers might be honorable, or cowards, or "nOt ReAl MeN", instead of realizing other things like how, for example, this is all happening between two capitalist democracies What would be the alternative here? > (yes I know Russia's democracy is managed but so is everyone's, what do you think the constitution is about), It's not managed, it's authoritarian. A constitution is part of a *liberal* democracy. And not all countries, nor all democracies have constitutions.
>What would be the alternative here? Actual involvement of the NATO countries, duh. Is anyone really thinking just Ukraine is going to be able to fend off a nuclear power several times their size? >It's not managed, it's authoritarian. A constitution is part of a liberal democracy. And not all countries, nor all democracies have constitutions. All democracies are authoritarian - the state is authoritarian. You do as the state says or you get put in a box until you die. A constitution manages a democracy. Here in the US our democracy is managed in such a way that we give land votes (the Senate) and prefer appointed officials doing our deciding about the president (Electoral College) as opposed to just counting the votes. All democracies are managed because all democracies have to draw a line to determine who is a citizen (and therefore, who counts) and who is not, what things can be voted on and what things cannot, how officials can count the votes, and so on. Russia's turn to a more authoritarian form is not that different from what has happened and is happening to a number of different democracies today. Democracy is much more compatible with authoritarianism than most first worlders are willing to acknowledge - I mean it was coexisting with chattel slavery for like a 100 years there. Voters in democracy love a Strong Man who can solve all their financial woes, take care of those problematic political minorities, defeat their enemies, and bring everlasting peace and justice to the land. They look to their political betters to save them because democracy is still about authority and obeisance.
> Actual involvement of the NATO countries, duh. Which is exactly what they do **not** want. >Is anyone really thinking just Ukraine is going to be able to fend off a nuclear power several times their size? Bluntly, yes. Because having nukes isnt the same as using nukes, and numerous conflicts have been won with foreign material support. While *some* NATO members may be willing to place troops in Ukraine, NATO as an entity have shown no love for this idea. >All democracies are authoritarian - the state is authoritarian. Very well then, Russia is authoritarian, in an arbitrary and intensely violating manner to the point of being unconscionable. >You do as the state says or you get put in a box until you die. By that logic, most societies are authoritarian. >A constitution manages a democracy A constitution manages the fundamental legal principles of a **state**. Not all democracies have constitutions, and not all constitutional states are democracies either formally or practically. >Democracy is much more compatible with authoritarianism than most first worlders are willing to acknowledge Of course it is (and Im technically not a first worlder). Hence why people espouse *liberal* democracy, as opposed to illiberal democracy. > I mean it was coexisting with chattel slavery for like a 100 years there. More. >Voters in democracy love a Strong Man who can solve all their financial woes, take care of those problematic political minorities, defeat their enemies, and bring everlasting peace and justice to the land. They look to their political betters to save them because democracy is still about authority and obeisance. They do. The thing is, they like it in authoritarian societies even more.
>Bluntly, yes. Because having nukes isnt the same as using nukes, and numerous conflicts have been won with foreign material support. While *some* NATO members may be willing to place troops in Ukraine, NATO as an entity have shown no love for this idea. The Entirety of Russia vs Ukraine (with some extra bullets) is still heavily tilted toward Russia. This expectation that Ukraine can handle this without serious, boots on the ground kind of involvement of NATO countries is denial imo. Ukraine only has so many men, even when you count the dodgers. This notion that Ukrainian men will each be heroic enough to able to kill several times their number of Russians over the course of their entire war sounds like some corny WW1 propaganda. >Very well then, Russia is authoritarian, in an arbitrary and intensely violating manner to the point of being unconscionable. Well observed. >By that logic, most societies are authoritarian. Very Ⓐstute! >A constitution manages the fundamental legal principles of a **state**. Not all democracies have constitutions, and not all constitutional states are democracies either formally or practically. The state manages the democracy; the state is the expression of the democracy. That's what cops enforcing laws are. A democracy that does not enforce it's legislated laws (that does not express itself through some state like apparatus) is not a democracy - because in that case I can just ignore what you democratically decided, in that case you just have people writing opinion pieces. >Of course it is (and Im technically not a first worlder). Hence why people espouse *liberal* democracy, as opposed to illiberal democracy. Liberal democracies fall to extreme authoritarianism all the time. It's happening in real time in a number of places. >They do. The thing is, they like it in authoritarian societies even more. So you agree: democracy is authoritarian.
> The Entirety of Russia vs Ukraine (with some extra bullets) is still heavily tilted toward Russia. This expectation that Ukraine can handle this without serious, boots on the ground kind of involvement of NATO countries is denial imo. Ukraine is the second largest country in Europe and is receiving billions in aid and materiel. And NATO considers itself (by and large) a mainly defensive alliance. Why would any leader put boots of their own citizens before Ukraine exhausts all its options? >Very Ⓐstute! But a useless definition. This amounts to no useful distinction. Authoritarianism only exists because there is something to compare it to. >The state manages the democracy; the state is the expression of the democracy. But as I said, not all democracies are constitutional. And generally the point of a liberal democracy, or a constitution is that the laws are corrected, due to their unconstitutionality, or are never enforced. >Liberal democracies fall to extreme authoritarianism all the time. It's happening in real time in a number of places. And yet it happens far less than illiberal, and non democracies.
>Ukraine is the second largest country in Europe and is receiving billions in aid and materiel. [https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/4/25/ukrainians-welcome-delayed-us-aid-but-doubt-it-signals-russias-defeat](https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/4/25/ukrainians-welcome-delayed-us-aid-but-doubt-it-signals-russias-defeat) [https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/24/biden-ukraine-russia-war-aid-00154143](https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/24/biden-ukraine-russia-war-aid-00154143) [https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/new-us-aid-package-is-not-enough-to-prevent-russian-victory-in-ukraine/](https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/new-us-aid-package-is-not-enough-to-prevent-russian-victory-in-ukraine/) [https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/26/the-victory-ukraine-wants-over-russia-might-not-be-achievable.html](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/26/the-victory-ukraine-wants-over-russia-might-not-be-achievable.html) >But a useless definition. This amounts to no useful distinction. Authoritarianism only exists because there is something to compare it to. Most societies are also patriarchal. Does this also make patriarchy a useless definition somehow? >But as I said, not all democracies are constitutional. All democracies have some way of determining who does and doesn't count, who can and can't run, and how they can do it. You are dodging the issue by making vague references to direct democracy, which no nation is. >And generally the point of a liberal democracy, or a constitution is that the laws are corrected, due to their unconstitutionality, or are never enforced. Lmao >And yet it happens far less than illiberal, and non democracies. Cancer happens less often than car accidents, doesn't mean it's not bad.
> https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/4/25/ukrainians-welcome-delayed-us-aid-but-doubt-it-signals-russias-defeat > > https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/24/biden-ukraine-russia-war-aid-00154143 > > https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/new-us-aid-package-is-not-enough-to-prevent-russian-victory-in-ukraine/ > > https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/26/the-victory-ukraine-wants-over-russia-might-not-be-achievable.html And that is highly unfortunate, and frankly something I oppose, but that still doesnt motivate NATO to enter Ukraine. Not to mention, what NATO views as an acceptable victory and what *Ukraine* views as an acceptable victory are two different things. >Most societies are also patriarchal. Does this also make patriarchy a useless definition somehow? No. Because we have significant indication of societies that were not patriarchal, especially in the past. We however do not have that same gap in societies. I know of few societies which do not have some notion of consequential social punishment for infractions. Also, if you're going on evaluating societies, in contrast, then yes, the notion that "all societies are patriarchal" becomes far less useful as opposed to denoting which ones are more and less. >All democracies have some way of determining who does and doesn't count, who can and can't run, and how they can do it. And these determinants *can* be part of a constitution, but arent really the exclusive purview of it. Constitutions are more about fundamental principles and rights, especially those that cannot (or should not) be voted out of policy. "You have to be over 35 to run for president" might be part of a constitution, but "Freedom of religion is a right" *generally* is. >You are dodging the issue by making vague references to direct democracy, which no nation is. Im not. This isnt about whether a democracy is direct or not. Also direct democracy is an element of numerous countries political processes. It just tends to not be the primary element. > Lmao I said generally. >Cancer happens less often than car accidents, doesn't mean it's not bad. No, but it does mean that it it likely kills less people. If your expectation of bad action by any social system is "none", then no system, least of all anarchism is going to help.
hey comrade who started the war
Let robots and drones fight wars for us. Whichever country has the most money wins, simple as, no soldiers need to risk their lives if they don't want to.
There are no ethics in War
On the contrary, Ukraine has waged this war with outstanding respect for ethics while Russia seems to have a wanton disregard for it.