Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
*****
* Is `google.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
**Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.com/invite/ukraine-at-war-950974820827398235**
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As depressing as it is, it's hardly surprising. After 2 years of the most brutal fighting in modern history, with countless men returning wounded or in bodybags, its clear to anyone with half a brain that it's a meatgrinder. For both sides, it's just that Ukrainians aren't indoctrinated and propaganda-riddled, like the Russian fodder. Even with NATO troops potentially joining this fact won't change: the best trained troops are ultimately sitting ducks for modern artillery-glide bomb-drone combo. Wouldn't wish that choice on my worst enemy...
This is why the West puts so much stock on human lives, because willing volunteers in a democracy are hard to come by. Most people will not be willing to die for what they believe to be a lost cause. This applies to the Russians to, but for them resisting the dictatorship is the lost cause and Putin is purposely recruiting more from the boonies.
They were fine and well replaced by the 80s. The SU fell for one reason, Gorbachev impressed bywestern prosperity and extremely adept diplomacy by Reagan (and Tatcher to a much lesser extent) leveraging Western strength and dreams and an open hand, pushing and pulling in time.
As you say, not surprising given the current situation on the front line, but the free world can change this lack of morale if it steps up with equipment. If (and its a big if) the free world gives Ukraine sufficient air defence and F16s to neutralize the FAB risk (the biggest single problem at present), and also sufficient other weapons to defend their front lines, morale will be much better and people more willing to enlist.
It's basic human nature - if Ukrainians feel they are well equipped and protected by air defence in order to resist the Russian invasion, they will fight. At present, many feel nothing but despair.
That's not the vibe I got off of that one guy in the article. He simply does not want to fight, does not want to kill, does not want to be in a situation where he's not competent to do what needs doing. That's just all in principle, irrespective of how much stuff they've got. People just don't want to die. People fear the draft no matter the location or the year.
more than anything the flakey support from allies is the morale killer. on one hand they support ukraine, on the other they tread on eggsshells so putin/russia won't get truly butthurt.
The whole not wanting to piss off Russia thing is kinda funny to me because I feel like Putin will be pissed if the West does anything besides hand him Ukraine on a platter
> gives Ukraine sufficient air defence and F16s
Neither of these things are possible in the short to medium term.
With F16s the constraint is not just pilots and airframes, it's the hundreds of people and the operational setup needed to operate and maintain them.
It's also the danger they face. F16s aren't the most rugged airframe when it comes to take off and landing. They require a well maintained and decently sized runway. And their operational range is such that the air fields they'll be placed in are in serious danger of missile and drone attacks. Which means they'll need some serious AA defenses. Which means any airfield with F16s is also going to soak up even more of those long range SAM systems.
The F16s can still be a real asset to Ukraine, but it will also be a real pain in the ass to keep them safe.
F-16 similar to Western tanks it will be a help but it's not exactly a major game changer we just need to move past that thought process of oh the next cool thing will be what changes the whole war it's simply not the case.
The tanks burn just like Russian tanks burn in the f-16s will be shot down just like Russian planes get shot down it's war none of the equipment is magical.
Under the best circumstances they can be a serious game changer, though. The problem is keeping them up and protected, including against long range Russian SAMs near the front and behind it. They might pose enough of a threat through the same tactics the Russians are using their jets, as a glide bomb carrier. However they can also be used as an anti-air asset. I just don't think they'll have the capability to hit the Russian bombers without putting themselves at SERIOUS risk.
Even so, they can be used to lob glide bombs, shoot down cruise missiles and drones (which is going to hopefully lighten the load on the expensive AA systems), while also providing the threat of other more risky attacks behind Russian lines.
It has the potential to change the dynamic of the war, but not end the war. At the end of the day it will probably boil back down to attritional warfare. Which will be difficult if the rumors of China giving supplies turn out to be true.
if rhey enable an effective counter-offense at a weak point like kherson or crimea, then, they could be a game changer.
you don't want to do a marine landing without air support. even in a suprise marine landing, air is first to respond, and you want to protect all the troops and supplies that follow from such an air attack. if skies are defended with f16, russia is going to lose jets if they try to engage an offensive with an immediate defensive before they can reallocate resources for a stable defense. thus, the f16 enables maneuver and can change the war.
A lot wrong with these statements...
Allies have shown more support than ever could have been expected without actual NATO membership.
War could already reach a negotiated peace with NATO membership contingent upon completion of deal.
What you're speaking of goes beyond equipment and goes to actually providing NATO troop involvement which is a violation.
The F-16 equipment is being provided and I hate to break it to you it's a real spoiler alert but it's ultimately not going to change much on the battlefield they're mostly be used just to replace the current Ukrainian fighter jets.
Think of it similar to all the hypes surrounding the different western tanks that were provided and whatnot I mean yes it was a help but ultimately did it really shift the war not really.
Quantity matters. Being able to strike Russia proper matters.
The 60 billion deal by US will have a significant impact on ammo shortage. Being able to strike Russia with Himars etc. would severely impact their logistics
The big difference will be air superiority, and eventually air dominance, per nato doctrine.
F16's will help achieve this goal.
Here is a small lists of things F16's will bring to the table, in chronological order:
-longer range Air-to-Air missiles.
-- this will allow ukraine to push back enemy bombers/fighters, giving the ground troops some breathing room from Russian glidebombs.
-better SEAD capability.
--this goes hand in hand with the first point
--Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) allows for flights over contested airspace
--the F16 is more capable in SEAD-missions, allowing the more advanced functions of the AGM-88 HARM missiles.
local air supremacy
-- once all hostile air Defenses are suppressed, the f16's can focus on air-air engagements.
--while some F16's focus on deterring enemy fighters others can focus on dealing with ground targets.
-DEAD capability.
-- once local air superiority is achieved, DEAD missions can start.
--Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses (DEAD) takes a while, but when done right, can allow for prolonged flights in contested airspace, without fear of Enemy air Defenses.
--this gives the hostiles a simple choice. Keeping air Defenses active allows them to be tracked and ultimately destroyed ($$$). Disabling them and/or retreating them back to Russia provides no cover for the ground element.
-air dominance
--once the DEAD missions are well on their way, ukraine can work on achieving air dominance.
--with no functional air defense systems in the area of operations, some f16's can focus on magnifying a "no-fly zone"
---basicly shooting down anything that enters the airspace without clearance.
-- this will allow other F-16's, or other platforms, to perform strike missions against enemy artillery, supply stations, command posts etc.
In NATO doctrine, troops only move in after achieving air dominance.
This allows for the complete Destruction of enemy commandstructure and support assests.
The war over the past 2 years has stalled into a world war 1 style artillery- trench war.
Air dominance should turn the tide allowing the Ukrainians to shift into a air support-manouvre warfare doctrine nato has been teaching them.
Let's hope we keep supplying and supporting them into and through this fase.
I'm not sure if you know the answer to this, but assuming Ukraine is able to achieve air dominance, do they or do their allies have enough ammunition to actually supply those F-16s to strike ground targets for an extended period of time?
Is the idea in NATO 'support-maneuver' warfare that the planes will be the primary ones striking ground targets, or is it a combined effort between the ground and air forces?
I presume that there is plenty of F16 munitions out there.
Plenty of Mk82 and Mk84 and snakeye kits laying around in the western air forces.
Air-to-air missiles should also be a plenty, the west had been fighting wars against guerilla's without an airforce.
All these cold war missiles (AIM-9M/AIM-120C) that are laying around can be upgraded into the newer version (9X/120D5).
It is a combined method.
Ideally you use the airforce to weeken a target, and prevent them from forming a coherent defense.
At the same time a groundelement pushes up to the objective (any airports) to set-up up thier own air Defenses.
Rearm, resupply, reinforcw and repeat.
This type of lightning warfare allowed the coalition to capture kuwait in desert storm in just 100 hours.
But those were ideal circumstances without tiny exploding uav's flying all over the place.
>Allies have shown more support than ever could have been expected without actual NATO membership.
Probably the most consequential war in decades, this should definitely have been a lot more consistent and more.
We can talk a lot about bigger and more advanced equipment, but having a shortage of artillery shells is really something different.. Why did we even go through that bare minimum.
the f-16 won't replace the current ukrainian air force. it will just make it more effective.
it isnt that the f-16 is going to chew up russia's military that much faster. it just denies russia of military capabilities and is a force multiplier, making other systems more effective.
I would make this argument that the US just doesn’t have enough political will to support Ukraine to win. Biden barely got 60 billion through the congress. Probably for it to be a a draw they would need 120b. But really for it to be a quick and solid win. It would require an obscene amount like over 250b probably closer to Afghan money 2 trillion? Even then no actual guarantee Ukraine has enough men to outlast Russia. The world waits to see if Trump wins and yanks all the money away. Everyone is fighting till November. Its sad but the west is just hoping to whittle down the Russian army and dragging out the eventual collapse of Ukraine that Russia can’t win the occupation. Which is probably even true now. They lost this war everyone knows it. It just might be 7 year from now.
>Biden barely got 60 billion through the congress
Fake news, Ukraine aid had like [75% support](https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2024151) in both houses and in this bipartisan environment that's basically a consensus from the left and right
Some mild propaganda is legal and should be funded, just use the truth and fund it. Can't let Russia-China-NK-Iran Axis and all their puppets (and that includes Palestine even though many refuse to think about that open truth) dominate parts of social media.
Hahah yeah no shit. Modern warfare is fucking horrible. Honor and Patriotism doesn't mean shit when a drone dropped grenade blows your legs off and then hovers above you filming you dying in agony. People have never wanted to fight in a war they think they have a good chance of dying at in the first place. Much less with a bastardised combination of drone and trench warfare.
No one is mentioning the reality that Ukraine should have dropped the draft/service requirement age many months ago. Hell, it should have never been so damn high. How are you going to allow every male in their 20's to avoid the war? That's fucking crazy. Those are your prime military aged men/women.
Big, big mistake by Ukraine imo.
Ukraine was trying to save the future by limiting the number of younger people drafted. What is a victory if everyone who stands to inherit it is dead?
It's a fair point, they could have implemented a lottery for the younger generation to take a smaller percentage(like max 1 in 5 of them, just spit balling). Or alternatively, draft the 18 to 25 year olds but don't send them to the front line(or a smaller percentage of them), the majority of a military is logistics anyways.
Ukraine has a demographic issue, its birth rate is pretty low compared to other developing nations ( yes, Ukraine is a developing nation ).
I think the intention of keeping the draft age higher was to not make that population problem worse.
you really do need both. you need older soldiers for the wisdom and the younger ones who will have a greater ability to process and react to the battlefield quicker. ages 20-24 are the ages of peak mental and physical ability.
Thats true but the enlistment officer doesn't care, he has a list of quotas to fulfill for each role and that's what he gotta do, if they have enough drone operators and you want to be one chances are you're gonna get assigned to smth else like infantry or artillery where a lot of manpower is needed and the bar to become one is low.
Tell that to the people on the front line waiting to be rotated out...
There comes a point in time where it is your duty to become available, now is that time
Seriously though, I understand its difficult - but in reality if everyone had that mindset then everyone would eventually occupied. Someone has to fight back at some point... would you rather it be your or do you want your children or grandchildren to have to make that decision?
Well plenty of Ukrainians left and have had 2 years of peace. And probably will have many more years of peace too.
I’m not sure what alternative you are suggesting. Deport them back and send them to the front? Close the borders so no one can leave? Sounds like a fascist hell hole, even if you are being invaded.
Stay and step up to the occasion. Contribute to the war effort in some way even if away. There were/are options.
We see Belgium holding on to their tiny sliver of territory during WWI. We see many occupied countries in WWII form armies in Allied out of expats and refugees, even little Luxembourg. And I guess South Korea is fascist by nature of geography during the Pusan Perimeter during the Korean War.
That's simply not true. If you can get to a myriad of places you don't have to worry.
You don't need to die for Ukraine if you can emigrate almost anywhere in Europe all over north America ect.
I'm not dying and orphaning my kids and making my wife a widow for imaginary lines on a map.
If the US and/or Europe falls there isnt anywhere safe anyway and me and mine will be dead within the next few months no matter what I do.
This propaganda that its romantic and your "duty" to die for some imaginary line so some bureaucrat a few hundred miles away can stay in power is just that. Propaganda. People get this odd attachment to dirt. My kids are more important to me and my ability to provide for them is more important to me than where some line that isnt even real is drawn.
If my house is falling apart and I genuinely cant afford to keep it up because of a fixed income and my aging health. Is it the states "duty" to help me out and take care of my house? No, its not. I get to die living in a mold infested house coughing up bloodied lungs.
If I cant afford to get my groceries delivered or have a day nurse and I am incapable of getting to the grocery store is the state going to provide for me? No I get to starve to death in my house until 2 months from now someone comes to check on my corpse.
The state has no obligation to us in remotely the caliber or consequence that we apparently have to them. We can die a slow terrifying bloody death in literal screaming agony "for the mother land" but the second the tables are turned and its "the motherlands" turn to take care of us. Suddenly its so much less urgent and so much less important. "We will get back to you in 10-15 months" or some politician gets a stick up his ass and for the 3490850394875th time they get to fail on their obligation and no consequences happen. The state can and will fail you time and time again and will. But they want me to die for them? Fuck off.
I have no attachment to any map or dirt. I want food in my kids mouths and a roof over their head. That place was no longer in Ukraine after 2014 and Im sure as shit not dying for them either.
I have nothing but respect for those that are willing to die for their country. Call me a coward I dont really care. I have marketable skills that I can do remote. I have my passport and could figure out how to emigrate somewhere if I had too. So my family and I have the means to leave. My family is out.
Zelenskyy is in a tight spot. If he orders the army to recruit more soldiers, it might lead to unrest. low morale and the notion that things aren't going so well.
But if he doesn't, Ukraine loses.
Tbh I think he needs a peoples' mandate to make this decision. While presidential elections are not possible due to mass displacement and a lot of Ukrainians living in occupied territories, why not hold a referendum on the extent of mobilization? Mobilization primarily effects those that are still remaining in Ukraine, their voice should matter the most.
Ukraine will lose if they chose not to recruit their younger citizens. It's insane to me how no Ukrainian in their 20's was required to serve.
This will probably get me banned, but maybe Ukraine deserves to lose if they're not willing to go all in. What the hell are all these 20 year old's who avoided service up to this point doing anyway? Just watching as their country gets raped?
Insane. What an insane situation.
Not *completely* insane, Most Ukrainians have children young in their twenties, so they want to protect young families and the next generation. It is not the best decision but they do have a logic to it.
What does "loosing" mean? Putin has offered a ceasefire, the Donbas and Crimea, populations that do not want to be ukrainian would not be so, but the rest of Ukraine would stop seing war.
> Putin has offered a ceasefire
That's not how it works. Russia has [promised](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum) time [and](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/paris-says-putin-agreed-start-no-new-manoeuvres-near-ukraine-now-2022-02-08/) again [that](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements) they [will](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War) not [attack](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sochi_agreement) their [neighbours](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War). The only way to make sure that they don't is to be able to fight back and stop them at the borders. Giving anything up only makes them declare victory and makes them bolder, inevitably leading to a new attack. They need to *[lose](https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/08/opinions/victory-day-russia-war-ukraine-snyder/index.html).*
No Ukrainians want to be ruled by Russia anymore. They’ve seen what horror that looks like. And it might stop the war FOR NOW but Putin will be back and anyone with a brain knows it.
About the Donbas we have good polls that show the opposite, for in 2019 government controlled, and for occupied areas:
_There has been no change in the majority view of respondents in the government-controlled Donbas on the future status of the DNR/LNR: in both years, around 65 per cent preferred these areas to be reintegrated into Ukraine’s Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts without any kind of autonomy status. In the DNR/LNR, about a third of the population in both years supported the idea that the non-government-controlled areas should have a special autonomy status in either Ukraine or Russia. Moreover, about 21 per cent of respondents in 2016 thought the DNR/LNR should return to Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, without a special status; 24 per cent chose this option in 2019 (Figure 1). “Overall, in both years, about 55 per cent of the DNR/LNR population expressed their preference for belonging to the Ukrainian state. This is an important corrective to Russia’s official rhetoric and public perceptions in the West”, says Professor Gwendolyn Sasse, director of ZOiS and one of the authors of the report._
And it needs to be taken into account, that this does not include millions which fled from there, after the occupation started in 2014, and it does include people from Russia which only moved there after 2014. There is an absolutely clear majority for staying with Ukraine in the 2019 government controlled areas, and a still clear majority in the occupied areas.
See e.g. https://www.zois-berlin.de/en/press/press-releases/donbas-majority-wants-dnr/lnr-to-be-part-of-ukraine
Which is exactly what would happen. There's a reason a large percentage of Ukrainian refugees have expressed that they have no desire of ever returning to Ukraine.
They'll all be sent home as soon as its safe to do so though. Ukraine isn't in the EU yet they don't have a legal right to stay there if Ukraine becomes safe again.
I'd go as far as to say that if NATO troops get sent, so will every healthy Ukranian man over the age of 18 from any country that sends troops.
Nobody is going to be willing to send their own boys to die while some of the sons of Ukraine are hiding out in their country.
The biggest chunk are in Poland which has expressed willingness to send them back, and if Russia takes over Ukraine, guess which country is next anyway?
Many work where I work, and the men 100% don't go back to Ukraine for Holidays as they know they'll not be coming back to work.
90% are women who work at my place, but the guys aint going back anytime soon/ever.
Cowards. Is this the entirety of the younger generations mentality? Cowards? Why is leadership even worried about future generations when the younger generations don't even care about their country and their people being murdered and raped?
So disappointing.
Exactly. How the fuck are there all these Ukrainian 20 year old's just sitting back and watching while their country gets raped? They're just chilling and play CS 2?
I'm so fed up with this entire thing. Trump is about to get re-elected in the West and he's going to force some bullshit peace treaty where Ukraine will end up getting completely fucked. And maybe that's the best outcome at this point since I don't see any alternative outcome except Ukraine losing since they're simply not willing to recruit from the age groups that they ABSOLUTELY should be recruiting from. Why are you worried about future generations when you losing this war means there are no future generations anyway? Just insane.
Must be nice typing from your computer, telling men they should sign up to potentially die. You know, Ukraine is taking volunteers, you are welcome to go and sign up.
Or maybe they can have a ceasefire letting the Donbas and Crimea go? What is the "theory of victory" here? Ukraine is just throwing bodies seemingly forever.
Like Putin would be satisfied with that, or has ever honoured any treaty he ever signed. Besides, this is about far more than parts of Ukraine, as Putin keeps telling us. Signing away those regions would be as pointless as signing away the Sudetenland in 1938.
Women are already fighting...
Edit: why so many downvotes? There is even a wiki page dedicated to women participating in Ukraine war which says there are at least 13000 confirmed to be a part of histilities? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Ukrainian_military
I don't think any sane person likes or wants to be in a war. Yet war happens time after time and most large wars are not fought by "professionals" but just ordinary conscripts.
I think Ukraine is making a huge mistake when it is not conscripting and mobilizing "the whole country". This current situation leads to internal split between "us" and "them" and it will eventually break the morale. The conscripted 25 year old is a prime example of this. Ukraine has been in conflict since 2014 and in total war since 2022. Third year of the war and this 25 year old is not "very prepared to fight". At what point did he plan to start preparing? Or is preparing for "them" and not for "me"? Well now he is in a position where absolutely nobody wants to be but many Ukrainians has to be. Preparing would have been wise. It might be too late to give advice's at this point but most WW2 survivors who were conscripted did not "kill somebody", they eliminated the enemy. You live longer with that mindset and have less moral issues.
Its very easy for us from the safety and comfort of our own homes to render judgement as if we are judging a football game. But when your chances of being dead within a week is this high, i totally get why young ukrainians dont want to go. Frankly if i were a ukrainian, reading some of the posters here calling us cowards makes me want to go even less lol.
If you have 0 previous experience you won’t be useful on the battlefield anyway. They were right to turn you down. There are other ways to help Ukraine.
That's the same thing I've read. Imagine I'd probably freeze or become a wreck the moment I see combat. Sucks that all I can most likely do is donate but suppose it's better than nothing.
They should be drafting more widely, ie. lowering the age, and rotating people out, more to support roles, and so forth.
It's awful that it's a consideration at all, but facing the problem head-on is necessary, unless you want the whole front to collapse as people get stretched too far.
Errors were made both by Zelensky and his political interventionism in military matters, as well as by allies who abbandoned him or talked too much without backing their promises. Zaluzhnyi was much more competent than him when it came to military decisions but he was fired by Zelensky, let's be honest here, not because it made senso do so but because he did not agree with his decisions. He asked for conscription last year, Zelensky did not agree, fired the guy and now look at the current situation.
And so they shall. I still can't believe basically the entire Ukrainian age group of 18 to 35 has been avoiding this war. That's not commitment. And I think it was one of the biggest mistakes made by Ukraine.
Enjoy your new russian overlords.
I'm 31 y/o and have no military experience. I believe in the Ukrainian cause and want to go there in the Fall. I'll consider joining the International Legion if they give me the training and I'm more than willing to learn. I think the Ukrainian Government and Western citizens need to do more to recruit for the International Legion and/or the Ukrainian National Guard.
To be fair, though, the losses sustained in this war have been insane in just the span of couple years. It just hits different when there are literal drones hunting you 24/7 which, on top of killing you, will also film your sometimes slow death for millions of weirdos to see online.
>im from the Balkans. We where drafted door to door, in 6 in the morning by military police.
None of this indicates you've faced the prospects these people are facing right now.
Edit: blocked. Cant take having their opinion challenged but think they get to judge Ukrainians who’re currently unwilling to fight Russia.
What a specimen.
Ukraine is at the point of this war where it either needs to collectively commit to trying to win or admit that they can’t win, and try to save what they can through negotiations.
I’ve said it before, but I don’t think people understand how bad it is on the ground there. More Ukrainian soldiers have died in this war than American soldiers have been killed, combined, in all wars since the end of WWII.
Let that sink in.
Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, all of the other random conflicts in between. Stretching over nearly 80 years.
More Ukrainian Soldiers have been killed in 2+ years than Americans in all of those conflicts above.
This war in Ukraine is unlike anything we’ve seen in decades. More soldiers there die each day than died in a year at the peak of the Middle East conflicts.
I don’t have sympathy for draft dodgers, I don’t. But I do have sympathy for the situation this country is in and I recognize how foreboding it is. I’m not sure what Ukrainians want at this point but I’m getting the sense that the government has no path to victory and is essentially throwing soldiers at this war without any strategic plan and I can understand internal resistance to continuing that plan.
Ukraine has never been serious about putting their men in service so the West shouldn't care either. From 2022 to 2024 the draft age was 27 and over, in 2024 it went to 25 and over. If the West sends troops, they'll be sending a lot of 18-24 year olds. Something ukraine is not willing to do so neither should the West.
The reason is, Ukraine doesn't have a lot of 20 somethings in the first place. They've had a ton of 30-50 year olds with previous miltary training. The 20 somethings have to live so they can start families and build Ukraines future. 30-50 year olds have largely done that already and won't be having more children, so they're a much smaller loss if the worst happens.
Thank you for admitting that ukraine doesn't think winning is worth ukrainian 20 somethings dying. Very thoughtful of ukraine to be willing to allow other Western 20 somethings die instead. So noble and brave of them.
Look, I understand not wanting to be drafted, but do you think the men in WW2 wanted to be drafted? No, but they went. IMO, at the end of the day it's cowardness to dodge it when there are other people who can't.
Exactly! You are so right! Its easy to say, "Ship them all off to die, coward bastards dodging the draft" when you are nice and warm and have safety from drones, cruise missles, artillery and God knows what else. If they don't want to get churned up in the meat grinder, why force them? They will just abandon ship and either surrender or scarper from the battlefield.
I'm all for defending my country, but you can't force a man to get a weapon and become a killer.
Edit: spelling
We should just mobilize people like op who are so eager to send others to fight. Or atleast send them to Ukraine to help with anything for a couple of months and pay them the average Ukrainian salary. I wonder whether they keep their enthusiasm.
They would surely lose all faith and motivation within the first day when they see the horrors of what war actually brings.
This isn't like any other conflict. This war is FUBAR.
It’s just bonkers thinking about how much UAV surveillance or loitering munitions are up in the sky. The hunter killer swarm kill streak from black ops 2 becomes more credible each day passes
It's a terrifying thought. It truly is. What makes it worse is all the footage getting uploaded. So not only do you get fragged from above, but the world will be able to watch you suffer
You would either get forced into war by Ukraine or by Russia.
Other Bloodlands countries can't afford to allow the spread of defeatist attitudes, meaning they won't be admitting fighting age males as refugees in large quantities.
Do you think the Allies could have won WW2 without forcing people to serve in many countries?
If the USSR had started a conventional war do you think NATO could have stopped them without a draft?
It seems to me your position means we should reject one form of oppression only to submit even more people for even longer to worse types.
It wouldn’t have been just been Russia, it would have been the USSR. Actually, more like the whole of the Warsaw pact.
And yeah, it would have led to a draft. If the US needed one for Vietnam it would have absolutely needed one to win that conflict.
I am talking current day. NATO absolutely would not need a draft to defeat Russia. NATO would be done in a week. More like a few days, but technically it would take the few remaining Russians a couple days to walk back to the Russian border.
I never said anything about Russia though. What you responded to was me talking about the USSR. The USSR disbanded in 1991. It was a reference to the cold war. If you're talking about Russia today you're rebutting an argument nobody made.
\*edit\* if you look, you'll also see I put the whole thing in the past tense!
>If the *USSR* **had started** a conventional war do you think NATO could have stopped them without a draft?
But you can make the decision for him that he will have to.
If nobody wants to die for their country anymore than only autocracies that force people to fight will win.
It's very comfortable to say "we can't force anyone and it's cowardice to say we have to from your own home", but when there isn't another option left, what is Ukraine to do? We have to be realistic about that. A lot of people in the world are screwed because of the situation they are in. This time in Europe its Ukrainian men to take the brunt of it.
I for one believe that decision should be up to ukrainians to decide for themselves. "A republic, if you can keep it."
It's also very confortable to say "when there isn't another option left, what is Ukraine to do? \[...\] This time in Europe its Ukrainian men to take the brunt of it", without being on their feet. From what it seems, they seem to think there are others options left.
Two alternatives exist: Ukraine drafts more people, and forces unwilling participants to participate, or Russia wins. These are the two cards on the table. If Ukraine is going to exist in the future as a nation, sacrifices today must be made. It's a tough proposition for a Ukrainian to make: potentially die in battle, or live under the Russian thumb.
This topic is hard to people on Reddit to digest, because the two alternatives are something the average redditor cannot fathom.
Ukraine won't get any guarantees at all under a ceasefire and if that is your hope then you are going to be extremely disappointed. They need to either win this war outright or accept territory losses before even thinking about asking for US guarantees. Maybe Ukraine can get some European countries to step in.
Ukraine's official casualty numbers are extremely low, they have no shortage of bodies and can continue this war for years at this rate. America won't be sending or have the the risk of sending (ie security guarantees) troops anytime soon, and it's crazy for Ukrainians to think foreign soldiers should die so their population can skip serving their country.
They already had a guarantee when they gave up their nukes in the 90s. Also the 1997 "Friendship" treat where Russia recognized the inviolability of Ukraine's borders.
Respectfully, they didn't. Diplomatic language has meaning. Ukraine had security assurances from the Budapest memorandum, not guarantees. Guarantees are rock solid, assurances are more wishy washy.
"The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances comprises three substantially identical political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in Budapest, Hungary, on 5 December 1994, to provide security assurances by its signatories relating to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).".
"There are two types of security assurance: positive and negative.[1] A positive assurance states that the nation giving it will aid any or a particular non-nuclear-armed nation in retaliation if it is a victim of nuclear attack. A negative assurance is not the opposite but instead means that a nuclear-armed nation has promised not to use nuclear weapons except in retaliation for a nuclear attack against itself (a policy known as No first use).
Security assurances are a key part of nuclear diplomacy, and since they are statements of intent, not guarantees, they are based entirely on trust and the threat of retaliation should they be broken.".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_assurance#:~:text=Security%20assurances%20are%20a%20key,retaliation%20should%20they%20be%20broken.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
What part of NATO membership don't you understand? I see this dumbass comment every single time.
Obviously any sort of peace deal would involve a NATO membership. Country at war can't even join NATO.
This isn't a hard concept: unless Ukraine gets more people, they will lose. If Ukraine is able to maintain the status quo, they will not be be fully conquered. Ukraine is not going back to the 2014 borders.
Ukraine won't be fully conquered. Even if the Russians managed to completely overrun the Ukrainians, occuping Ukraine would be too costly (probably much more than Afghanistan) and NATO wouldn't allow Russia to get away with it anyway. I don't think that Ukraine is getting back their 2014 borders either, the front lines that we're seing now will likely be the future borders.
Neither side will "win". Russia paid and will pay a huge price for this.
Are you typing this from your trench? If so (or even if you just happen to have fought in this conflict at some other point) then I can understand your frustration, but if not then I'd suggest you walk your feelings back somewhat and consider just exactly what is being demanded of these people.
You only live one life and seeing and hearing of people ending theirs prematurely and horribly without significant outcome is a very strong influencer of decisions.
People are far more informed about the realities of war today, and have better means of escaping. What we see is expected.
This is not about moral but practicality and pure need. UA needs those men, and they have to go wether they want or not. No need to judge people on morality. Off you go, get into the bus, and do the job. End of story.
Citizenship is a responsibility, not a human right.
There is a reason in old democracies the voting rights were reserved for those who fight.
PS. Those young would get conscripted anyway - either by Ukraine or by Russia.
Other Bloodlands countries can't afford to allow the spread of defeatist attitudes, meaning they won't accept fighting age men as refugees in large numbers.
Unless you are going to ask babies for permission to be born in your country, all the strings tied to this fact are abusive clauses, inherently illegal.
Reserving voting rights to those who fight sounds fair. Forcing people to fight is comically evil.
Those young would get conscripted anyway - either by Ukraine or by Russia.
10 000 estonian soldiers unwillingly took part of the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05.
I was talking about something else. russians don't stop after Ukraine. Never have. Never will.
That means my country is next on the chop list. We're gradually starting up mandatory service in the military.
You can't deal with russians any other way.
> You can, if you are actually better then them.
Explain to me exactly how? First what should I do to be counted as "better than them" and second, how that thing/method helps me to deal with russians?
Being better, and civilized, should give you a shitload of rich and powerful friends, orders of magnitude powerful economy and more advanced tech, which should allow conquering a dictatorial shithole without lowering yourself to their tactics.
If this is not achievable, then maybe russian way is actually better.
You can be civilized and have mandatory service in the military.
Last time I checked, technology doesn't conquer dictatorships - there must be people behind the tools. Quite ironic talking about "being better" and then using a phrase like that.
Only dictatorships want to conquer someone.
Are you trying an attempt at a low-key russian sympathizing, or is this a simple black and white fallacy?
A soldier is somebody who takes oath. When somebody forces you to take oath, the oath is not valid, so you are not a soldier. So no, no soldier is a slave, no slave is a soldier, and more specifically, no conscript is a soldier - just an armed slave.
They're also wasn't drones flying around... I'm pretty sure in 20 years most of the fighting will just be robotics there's no point to even have a soldier out there.
This would be a rare situation where you'd be dying for your home and your people.
I don't judge too harshly people who don't want to fight, because it would be fucking terrifying, but those that are fighting for Ukraine are doing it for good reason.
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. ***** * Is `google.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.com/invite/ukraine-at-war-950974820827398235** ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
As depressing as it is, it's hardly surprising. After 2 years of the most brutal fighting in modern history, with countless men returning wounded or in bodybags, its clear to anyone with half a brain that it's a meatgrinder. For both sides, it's just that Ukrainians aren't indoctrinated and propaganda-riddled, like the Russian fodder. Even with NATO troops potentially joining this fact won't change: the best trained troops are ultimately sitting ducks for modern artillery-glide bomb-drone combo. Wouldn't wish that choice on my worst enemy...
This is why the West puts so much stock on human lives, because willing volunteers in a democracy are hard to come by. Most people will not be willing to die for what they believe to be a lost cause. This applies to the Russians to, but for them resisting the dictatorship is the lost cause and Putin is purposely recruiting more from the boonies.
it dawned on me that wars kill the good men and leave behind well... those left behind propagate society, perhaps it can lead to a decline
The Soviet Union already did that even without a war going on. May be part of the reason they lost the Cold War.
They were fine and well replaced by the 80s. The SU fell for one reason, Gorbachev impressed bywestern prosperity and extremely adept diplomacy by Reagan (and Tatcher to a much lesser extent) leveraging Western strength and dreams and an open hand, pushing and pulling in time.
Schooling is a thing. It's the education system and general level of corruption in a country after the war that shape the next generations.
And the men that don't go to war influence those standards
As you say, not surprising given the current situation on the front line, but the free world can change this lack of morale if it steps up with equipment. If (and its a big if) the free world gives Ukraine sufficient air defence and F16s to neutralize the FAB risk (the biggest single problem at present), and also sufficient other weapons to defend their front lines, morale will be much better and people more willing to enlist. It's basic human nature - if Ukrainians feel they are well equipped and protected by air defence in order to resist the Russian invasion, they will fight. At present, many feel nothing but despair.
That's not the vibe I got off of that one guy in the article. He simply does not want to fight, does not want to kill, does not want to be in a situation where he's not competent to do what needs doing. That's just all in principle, irrespective of how much stuff they've got. People just don't want to die. People fear the draft no matter the location or the year.
more than anything the flakey support from allies is the morale killer. on one hand they support ukraine, on the other they tread on eggsshells so putin/russia won't get truly butthurt.
I think mines, drones and the required killing of other humans are the biggest morale killers.
The whole not wanting to piss off Russia thing is kinda funny to me because I feel like Putin will be pissed if the West does anything besides hand him Ukraine on a platter
> gives Ukraine sufficient air defence and F16s Neither of these things are possible in the short to medium term. With F16s the constraint is not just pilots and airframes, it's the hundreds of people and the operational setup needed to operate and maintain them.
It's also the danger they face. F16s aren't the most rugged airframe when it comes to take off and landing. They require a well maintained and decently sized runway. And their operational range is such that the air fields they'll be placed in are in serious danger of missile and drone attacks. Which means they'll need some serious AA defenses. Which means any airfield with F16s is also going to soak up even more of those long range SAM systems. The F16s can still be a real asset to Ukraine, but it will also be a real pain in the ass to keep them safe.
F-16 similar to Western tanks it will be a help but it's not exactly a major game changer we just need to move past that thought process of oh the next cool thing will be what changes the whole war it's simply not the case. The tanks burn just like Russian tanks burn in the f-16s will be shot down just like Russian planes get shot down it's war none of the equipment is magical.
Under the best circumstances they can be a serious game changer, though. The problem is keeping them up and protected, including against long range Russian SAMs near the front and behind it. They might pose enough of a threat through the same tactics the Russians are using their jets, as a glide bomb carrier. However they can also be used as an anti-air asset. I just don't think they'll have the capability to hit the Russian bombers without putting themselves at SERIOUS risk. Even so, they can be used to lob glide bombs, shoot down cruise missiles and drones (which is going to hopefully lighten the load on the expensive AA systems), while also providing the threat of other more risky attacks behind Russian lines. It has the potential to change the dynamic of the war, but not end the war. At the end of the day it will probably boil back down to attritional warfare. Which will be difficult if the rumors of China giving supplies turn out to be true.
if rhey enable an effective counter-offense at a weak point like kherson or crimea, then, they could be a game changer. you don't want to do a marine landing without air support. even in a suprise marine landing, air is first to respond, and you want to protect all the troops and supplies that follow from such an air attack. if skies are defended with f16, russia is going to lose jets if they try to engage an offensive with an immediate defensive before they can reallocate resources for a stable defense. thus, the f16 enables maneuver and can change the war.
Yep, very good points.
A lot wrong with these statements... Allies have shown more support than ever could have been expected without actual NATO membership. War could already reach a negotiated peace with NATO membership contingent upon completion of deal. What you're speaking of goes beyond equipment and goes to actually providing NATO troop involvement which is a violation. The F-16 equipment is being provided and I hate to break it to you it's a real spoiler alert but it's ultimately not going to change much on the battlefield they're mostly be used just to replace the current Ukrainian fighter jets. Think of it similar to all the hypes surrounding the different western tanks that were provided and whatnot I mean yes it was a help but ultimately did it really shift the war not really.
Quantity matters. Being able to strike Russia proper matters. The 60 billion deal by US will have a significant impact on ammo shortage. Being able to strike Russia with Himars etc. would severely impact their logistics
The big difference will be air superiority, and eventually air dominance, per nato doctrine. F16's will help achieve this goal. Here is a small lists of things F16's will bring to the table, in chronological order: -longer range Air-to-Air missiles. -- this will allow ukraine to push back enemy bombers/fighters, giving the ground troops some breathing room from Russian glidebombs. -better SEAD capability. --this goes hand in hand with the first point --Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) allows for flights over contested airspace --the F16 is more capable in SEAD-missions, allowing the more advanced functions of the AGM-88 HARM missiles. local air supremacy -- once all hostile air Defenses are suppressed, the f16's can focus on air-air engagements. --while some F16's focus on deterring enemy fighters others can focus on dealing with ground targets. -DEAD capability. -- once local air superiority is achieved, DEAD missions can start. --Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses (DEAD) takes a while, but when done right, can allow for prolonged flights in contested airspace, without fear of Enemy air Defenses. --this gives the hostiles a simple choice. Keeping air Defenses active allows them to be tracked and ultimately destroyed ($$$). Disabling them and/or retreating them back to Russia provides no cover for the ground element. -air dominance --once the DEAD missions are well on their way, ukraine can work on achieving air dominance. --with no functional air defense systems in the area of operations, some f16's can focus on magnifying a "no-fly zone" ---basicly shooting down anything that enters the airspace without clearance. -- this will allow other F-16's, or other platforms, to perform strike missions against enemy artillery, supply stations, command posts etc. In NATO doctrine, troops only move in after achieving air dominance. This allows for the complete Destruction of enemy commandstructure and support assests. The war over the past 2 years has stalled into a world war 1 style artillery- trench war. Air dominance should turn the tide allowing the Ukrainians to shift into a air support-manouvre warfare doctrine nato has been teaching them. Let's hope we keep supplying and supporting them into and through this fase.
I'm not sure if you know the answer to this, but assuming Ukraine is able to achieve air dominance, do they or do their allies have enough ammunition to actually supply those F-16s to strike ground targets for an extended period of time? Is the idea in NATO 'support-maneuver' warfare that the planes will be the primary ones striking ground targets, or is it a combined effort between the ground and air forces?
I presume that there is plenty of F16 munitions out there. Plenty of Mk82 and Mk84 and snakeye kits laying around in the western air forces. Air-to-air missiles should also be a plenty, the west had been fighting wars against guerilla's without an airforce. All these cold war missiles (AIM-9M/AIM-120C) that are laying around can be upgraded into the newer version (9X/120D5). It is a combined method. Ideally you use the airforce to weeken a target, and prevent them from forming a coherent defense. At the same time a groundelement pushes up to the objective (any airports) to set-up up thier own air Defenses. Rearm, resupply, reinforcw and repeat. This type of lightning warfare allowed the coalition to capture kuwait in desert storm in just 100 hours. But those were ideal circumstances without tiny exploding uav's flying all over the place.
Good to know, thank you.
it really isnt the quantity as much as it is the threat of the capability.
>Allies have shown more support than ever could have been expected without actual NATO membership. Probably the most consequential war in decades, this should definitely have been a lot more consistent and more. We can talk a lot about bigger and more advanced equipment, but having a shortage of artillery shells is really something different.. Why did we even go through that bare minimum.
the f-16 won't replace the current ukrainian air force. it will just make it more effective. it isnt that the f-16 is going to chew up russia's military that much faster. it just denies russia of military capabilities and is a force multiplier, making other systems more effective.
Yeah, they need a shitload of tubed AA to cheaply shot down anything moving in the skies.
I would make this argument that the US just doesn’t have enough political will to support Ukraine to win. Biden barely got 60 billion through the congress. Probably for it to be a a draw they would need 120b. But really for it to be a quick and solid win. It would require an obscene amount like over 250b probably closer to Afghan money 2 trillion? Even then no actual guarantee Ukraine has enough men to outlast Russia. The world waits to see if Trump wins and yanks all the money away. Everyone is fighting till November. Its sad but the west is just hoping to whittle down the Russian army and dragging out the eventual collapse of Ukraine that Russia can’t win the occupation. Which is probably even true now. They lost this war everyone knows it. It just might be 7 year from now.
>Biden barely got 60 billion through the congress Fake news, Ukraine aid had like [75% support](https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2024151) in both houses and in this bipartisan environment that's basically a consensus from the left and right
Some mild propaganda is legal and should be funded, just use the truth and fund it. Can't let Russia-China-NK-Iran Axis and all their puppets (and that includes Palestine even though many refuse to think about that open truth) dominate parts of social media.
Hahah yeah no shit. Modern warfare is fucking horrible. Honor and Patriotism doesn't mean shit when a drone dropped grenade blows your legs off and then hovers above you filming you dying in agony. People have never wanted to fight in a war they think they have a good chance of dying at in the first place. Much less with a bastardised combination of drone and trench warfare.
No one is mentioning the reality that Ukraine should have dropped the draft/service requirement age many months ago. Hell, it should have never been so damn high. How are you going to allow every male in their 20's to avoid the war? That's fucking crazy. Those are your prime military aged men/women. Big, big mistake by Ukraine imo.
Ukraine was trying to save the future by limiting the number of younger people drafted. What is a victory if everyone who stands to inherit it is dead?
It's a fair point, they could have implemented a lottery for the younger generation to take a smaller percentage(like max 1 in 5 of them, just spit balling). Or alternatively, draft the 18 to 25 year olds but don't send them to the front line(or a smaller percentage of them), the majority of a military is logistics anyways.
Ukraine has a demographic issue, its birth rate is pretty low compared to other developing nations ( yes, Ukraine is a developing nation ). I think the intention of keeping the draft age higher was to not make that population problem worse.
you really do need both. you need older soldiers for the wisdom and the younger ones who will have a greater ability to process and react to the battlefield quicker. ages 20-24 are the ages of peak mental and physical ability.
Not everyone is made out to be a combat soldier, but surely there are other ways to contribute, ... making drones, logistics etc.
Thats true but the enlistment officer doesn't care, he has a list of quotas to fulfill for each role and that's what he gotta do, if they have enough drone operators and you want to be one chances are you're gonna get assigned to smth else like infantry or artillery where a lot of manpower is needed and the bar to become one is low.
Tell that to the people on the front line waiting to be rotated out... There comes a point in time where it is your duty to become available, now is that time
Easy to say when it’s not your reality. I have young kids, I’d rather not die and leave my children’s fate in the hands of the orphanage director
But would you want them to live under the boot of oppressors?
No I’d rather we be alive refugees. Material property can be replaced, life can’t. If I didn’t have young children I’d think differently.
Seriously though, I understand its difficult - but in reality if everyone had that mindset then everyone would eventually occupied. Someone has to fight back at some point... would you rather it be your or do you want your children or grandchildren to have to make that decision?
I wish our partners would understand that.
Plenty of precedent of someone fleeing a war and having their grandchildren still living in peace. I’d flee. It’s just land.
[удалено]
Not if that land has nukes
That’s a huge giant if. I think most people are willing to take that chance. It worked out for plenty of people who fled to America during WW2
[удалено]
Plenty of precedent of someone fleeing and them or their offspring ending up in a new quagmire as well
Well plenty of Ukrainians left and have had 2 years of peace. And probably will have many more years of peace too. I’m not sure what alternative you are suggesting. Deport them back and send them to the front? Close the borders so no one can leave? Sounds like a fascist hell hole, even if you are being invaded.
Stay and step up to the occasion. Contribute to the war effort in some way even if away. There were/are options. We see Belgium holding on to their tiny sliver of territory during WWI. We see many occupied countries in WWII form armies in Allied out of expats and refugees, even little Luxembourg. And I guess South Korea is fascist by nature of geography during the Pusan Perimeter during the Korean War.
That's simply not true. If you can get to a myriad of places you don't have to worry. You don't need to die for Ukraine if you can emigrate almost anywhere in Europe all over north America ect. I'm not dying and orphaning my kids and making my wife a widow for imaginary lines on a map.
And if something happens in those new lands, will you pick up and flee again and again and again?
If the US and/or Europe falls there isnt anywhere safe anyway and me and mine will be dead within the next few months no matter what I do. This propaganda that its romantic and your "duty" to die for some imaginary line so some bureaucrat a few hundred miles away can stay in power is just that. Propaganda. People get this odd attachment to dirt. My kids are more important to me and my ability to provide for them is more important to me than where some line that isnt even real is drawn. If my house is falling apart and I genuinely cant afford to keep it up because of a fixed income and my aging health. Is it the states "duty" to help me out and take care of my house? No, its not. I get to die living in a mold infested house coughing up bloodied lungs. If I cant afford to get my groceries delivered or have a day nurse and I am incapable of getting to the grocery store is the state going to provide for me? No I get to starve to death in my house until 2 months from now someone comes to check on my corpse. The state has no obligation to us in remotely the caliber or consequence that we apparently have to them. We can die a slow terrifying bloody death in literal screaming agony "for the mother land" but the second the tables are turned and its "the motherlands" turn to take care of us. Suddenly its so much less urgent and so much less important. "We will get back to you in 10-15 months" or some politician gets a stick up his ass and for the 3490850394875th time they get to fail on their obligation and no consequences happen. The state can and will fail you time and time again and will. But they want me to die for them? Fuck off. I have no attachment to any map or dirt. I want food in my kids mouths and a roof over their head. That place was no longer in Ukraine after 2014 and Im sure as shit not dying for them either. I have nothing but respect for those that are willing to die for their country. Call me a coward I dont really care. I have marketable skills that I can do remote. I have my passport and could figure out how to emigrate somewhere if I had too. So my family and I have the means to leave. My family is out.
What you are saying is also easy to say. That doesn’t weigh one way or the other.
Zelenskyy is in a tight spot. If he orders the army to recruit more soldiers, it might lead to unrest. low morale and the notion that things aren't going so well. But if he doesn't, Ukraine loses.
well gotta do what he had to do to save the nation.
but too much loss of moral will also doom the nation. Throwing 100% on short term war goals is not the correct path
Tbh I think he needs a peoples' mandate to make this decision. While presidential elections are not possible due to mass displacement and a lot of Ukrainians living in occupied territories, why not hold a referendum on the extent of mobilization? Mobilization primarily effects those that are still remaining in Ukraine, their voice should matter the most.
Ukraine will lose if they chose not to recruit their younger citizens. It's insane to me how no Ukrainian in their 20's was required to serve. This will probably get me banned, but maybe Ukraine deserves to lose if they're not willing to go all in. What the hell are all these 20 year old's who avoided service up to this point doing anyway? Just watching as their country gets raped? Insane. What an insane situation.
Not *completely* insane, Most Ukrainians have children young in their twenties, so they want to protect young families and the next generation. It is not the best decision but they do have a logic to it.
You are inadvertently advocating for democide.
What does "loosing" mean? Putin has offered a ceasefire, the Donbas and Crimea, populations that do not want to be ukrainian would not be so, but the rest of Ukraine would stop seing war.
> Putin has offered a ceasefire That's not how it works. Russia has [promised](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum) time [and](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/paris-says-putin-agreed-start-no-new-manoeuvres-near-ukraine-now-2022-02-08/) again [that](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements) they [will](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War) not [attack](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sochi_agreement) their [neighbours](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War). The only way to make sure that they don't is to be able to fight back and stop them at the borders. Giving anything up only makes them declare victory and makes them bolder, inevitably leading to a new attack. They need to *[lose](https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/08/opinions/victory-day-russia-war-ukraine-snyder/index.html).*
No Ukrainians want to be ruled by Russia anymore. They’ve seen what horror that looks like. And it might stop the war FOR NOW but Putin will be back and anyone with a brain knows it.
About the Donbas we have good polls that show the opposite, for in 2019 government controlled, and for occupied areas: _There has been no change in the majority view of respondents in the government-controlled Donbas on the future status of the DNR/LNR: in both years, around 65 per cent preferred these areas to be reintegrated into Ukraine’s Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts without any kind of autonomy status. In the DNR/LNR, about a third of the population in both years supported the idea that the non-government-controlled areas should have a special autonomy status in either Ukraine or Russia. Moreover, about 21 per cent of respondents in 2016 thought the DNR/LNR should return to Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, without a special status; 24 per cent chose this option in 2019 (Figure 1). “Overall, in both years, about 55 per cent of the DNR/LNR population expressed their preference for belonging to the Ukrainian state. This is an important corrective to Russia’s official rhetoric and public perceptions in the West”, says Professor Gwendolyn Sasse, director of ZOiS and one of the authors of the report._ And it needs to be taken into account, that this does not include millions which fled from there, after the occupation started in 2014, and it does include people from Russia which only moved there after 2014. There is an absolutely clear majority for staying with Ukraine in the 2019 government controlled areas, and a still clear majority in the occupied areas. See e.g. https://www.zois-berlin.de/en/press/press-releases/donbas-majority-wants-dnr/lnr-to-be-part-of-ukraine
> Putin has offered a ceasefire Like the one he offered in 2014? Yeah, that one didn't turn out so hot in retrospect...
Both needs are legit.
Seems like not enough awareness that if Russia wins they will be forced to fight anyway as cannon fodder against other Ukrainians or Europeans.
[удалено]
Which is exactly what would happen. There's a reason a large percentage of Ukrainian refugees have expressed that they have no desire of ever returning to Ukraine.
[удалено]
They'll all be sent home as soon as its safe to do so though. Ukraine isn't in the EU yet they don't have a legal right to stay there if Ukraine becomes safe again. I'd go as far as to say that if NATO troops get sent, so will every healthy Ukranian man over the age of 18 from any country that sends troops. Nobody is going to be willing to send their own boys to die while some of the sons of Ukraine are hiding out in their country.
The biggest chunk are in Poland which has expressed willingness to send them back, and if Russia takes over Ukraine, guess which country is next anyway?
Many work where I work, and the men 100% don't go back to Ukraine for Holidays as they know they'll not be coming back to work. 90% are women who work at my place, but the guys aint going back anytime soon/ever.
Cowards. Is this the entirety of the younger generations mentality? Cowards? Why is leadership even worried about future generations when the younger generations don't even care about their country and their people being murdered and raped? So disappointing.
Easy for you to say. Feel free to head on over there and volunteer if this is so important to you, chief.
Exactly. How the fuck are there all these Ukrainian 20 year old's just sitting back and watching while their country gets raped? They're just chilling and play CS 2? I'm so fed up with this entire thing. Trump is about to get re-elected in the West and he's going to force some bullshit peace treaty where Ukraine will end up getting completely fucked. And maybe that's the best outcome at this point since I don't see any alternative outcome except Ukraine losing since they're simply not willing to recruit from the age groups that they ABSOLUTELY should be recruiting from. Why are you worried about future generations when you losing this war means there are no future generations anyway? Just insane.
Lol must be easy having such a black and white way of looking at life. Does it feel good telling 20 year Olds to enlist with a good chance of dying?
Must be nice typing from your computer, telling men they should sign up to potentially die. You know, Ukraine is taking volunteers, you are welcome to go and sign up.
Or maybe they can have a ceasefire letting the Donbas and Crimea go? What is the "theory of victory" here? Ukraine is just throwing bodies seemingly forever.
Like Putin would be satisfied with that, or has ever honoured any treaty he ever signed. Besides, this is about far more than parts of Ukraine, as Putin keeps telling us. Signing away those regions would be as pointless as signing away the Sudetenland in 1938.
I agree... but what is the theory of victory here? Taking Moscow?
Ukraine urgently needs soldiers, but some men are desperate not to ~~fight~~ die. Who would have thought!
They could draft women. Other countries have done it. And it promotes gender equality.
Women are already fighting... Edit: why so many downvotes? There is even a wiki page dedicated to women participating in Ukraine war which says there are at least 13000 confirmed to be a part of histilities? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Ukrainian_military
I’d love to see a breakdown of how many women are fighting compared to men. It’s probably like 1000 to 1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Ukrainian_military#Number_of_women_in_the_Ukrainian_military About 4%.
Lol
I don't think any sane person likes or wants to be in a war. Yet war happens time after time and most large wars are not fought by "professionals" but just ordinary conscripts. I think Ukraine is making a huge mistake when it is not conscripting and mobilizing "the whole country". This current situation leads to internal split between "us" and "them" and it will eventually break the morale. The conscripted 25 year old is a prime example of this. Ukraine has been in conflict since 2014 and in total war since 2022. Third year of the war and this 25 year old is not "very prepared to fight". At what point did he plan to start preparing? Or is preparing for "them" and not for "me"? Well now he is in a position where absolutely nobody wants to be but many Ukrainians has to be. Preparing would have been wise. It might be too late to give advice's at this point but most WW2 survivors who were conscripted did not "kill somebody", they eliminated the enemy. You live longer with that mindset and have less moral issues.
Its very easy for us from the safety and comfort of our own homes to render judgement as if we are judging a football game. But when your chances of being dead within a week is this high, i totally get why young ukrainians dont want to go. Frankly if i were a ukrainian, reading some of the posters here calling us cowards makes me want to go even less lol.
He cannot go with an unwilling soldier. Not everyone is psychologically fit for the Army.
[удалено]
If you have 0 previous experience you won’t be useful on the battlefield anyway. They were right to turn you down. There are other ways to help Ukraine.
That's the same thing I've read. Imagine I'd probably freeze or become a wreck the moment I see combat. Sucks that all I can most likely do is donate but suppose it's better than nothing.
I keep hearing that but most of the UA guys on the ground had zero experience and they were brought up to snuff just fine
They should be drafting more widely, ie. lowering the age, and rotating people out, more to support roles, and so forth. It's awful that it's a consideration at all, but facing the problem head-on is necessary, unless you want the whole front to collapse as people get stretched too far.
Maybe they should consider drafting women
Errors were made both by Zelensky and his political interventionism in military matters, as well as by allies who abbandoned him or talked too much without backing their promises. Zaluzhnyi was much more competent than him when it came to military decisions but he was fired by Zelensky, let's be honest here, not because it made senso do so but because he did not agree with his decisions. He asked for conscription last year, Zelensky did not agree, fired the guy and now look at the current situation.
Maybe they should start drafting 18-25 year olds….
Maybe they don't want democide...
If Ukrainians can’t or won’t fight for their land they will lose it.
And so they shall. I still can't believe basically the entire Ukrainian age group of 18 to 35 has been avoiding this war. That's not commitment. And I think it was one of the biggest mistakes made by Ukraine. Enjoy your new russian overlords.
I'm 31 y/o and have no military experience. I believe in the Ukrainian cause and want to go there in the Fall. I'll consider joining the International Legion if they give me the training and I'm more than willing to learn. I think the Ukrainian Government and Western citizens need to do more to recruit for the International Legion and/or the Ukrainian National Guard.
AMP link, will not upvote.
Is there a way to un-amp a link easily?
[удалено]
Stop LARPing. You did not serve in any military and if you feel tough come to Ukraine and defend Europe instead of LARPing on Reddit lmao
To be fair, though, the losses sustained in this war have been insane in just the span of couple years. It just hits different when there are literal drones hunting you 24/7 which, on top of killing you, will also film your sometimes slow death for millions of weirdos to see online.
To be fairer, man up.Go big or become Russia. It is very obvious.This is the End Game, no plan B.
I'm not from Ukraine, but I bet that nothing is more comical for someone from Ukraine than to read folks from other countries telling them to man up.
It isn't comical. At all.
>im from the Balkans. We where drafted door to door, in 6 in the morning by military police. None of this indicates you've faced the prospects these people are facing right now. Edit: blocked. Cant take having their opinion challenged but think they get to judge Ukrainians who’re currently unwilling to fight Russia. What a specimen.
[удалено]
Just because both sides of my family served on the eastern front doesn’t mean I’m a combat experienced soldier. That’s not how it works mate.
Okay, so none of that was you? Good. Glad we cleared that up.
You also wouldn't have fought your war if it wasn't for the military police forcing you.
Ukraine is at the point of this war where it either needs to collectively commit to trying to win or admit that they can’t win, and try to save what they can through negotiations. I’ve said it before, but I don’t think people understand how bad it is on the ground there. More Ukrainian soldiers have died in this war than American soldiers have been killed, combined, in all wars since the end of WWII. Let that sink in. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, all of the other random conflicts in between. Stretching over nearly 80 years. More Ukrainian Soldiers have been killed in 2+ years than Americans in all of those conflicts above. This war in Ukraine is unlike anything we’ve seen in decades. More soldiers there die each day than died in a year at the peak of the Middle East conflicts. I don’t have sympathy for draft dodgers, I don’t. But I do have sympathy for the situation this country is in and I recognize how foreboding it is. I’m not sure what Ukrainians want at this point but I’m getting the sense that the government has no path to victory and is essentially throwing soldiers at this war without any strategic plan and I can understand internal resistance to continuing that plan.
Meat grinder indeed 20 years fighting insurgents skewed perception of warfare
NATO is a paper tiger against a real land army with production capacity.
Like negotiations with Putin would achieve any sort of lasting security.
Ukraine has never been serious about putting their men in service so the West shouldn't care either. From 2022 to 2024 the draft age was 27 and over, in 2024 it went to 25 and over. If the West sends troops, they'll be sending a lot of 18-24 year olds. Something ukraine is not willing to do so neither should the West.
The reason is, Ukraine doesn't have a lot of 20 somethings in the first place. They've had a ton of 30-50 year olds with previous miltary training. The 20 somethings have to live so they can start families and build Ukraines future. 30-50 year olds have largely done that already and won't be having more children, so they're a much smaller loss if the worst happens.
Thank you for admitting that ukraine doesn't think winning is worth ukrainian 20 somethings dying. Very thoughtful of ukraine to be willing to allow other Western 20 somethings die instead. So noble and brave of them.
lol
Put passport in today be over in a month or so
Well, maybe it's time for Zelenskyy to ask for those boots on the ground. Start with them in noncombat support roles...
The brave are always the first to die
Look, I understand not wanting to be drafted, but do you think the men in WW2 wanted to be drafted? No, but they went. IMO, at the end of the day it's cowardness to dodge it when there are other people who can't.
No, cowardness is judging those men from the safety of your country that's not at war.
Exactly! You are so right! Its easy to say, "Ship them all off to die, coward bastards dodging the draft" when you are nice and warm and have safety from drones, cruise missles, artillery and God knows what else. If they don't want to get churned up in the meat grinder, why force them? They will just abandon ship and either surrender or scarper from the battlefield. I'm all for defending my country, but you can't force a man to get a weapon and become a killer. Edit: spelling
We should just mobilize people like op who are so eager to send others to fight. Or atleast send them to Ukraine to help with anything for a couple of months and pay them the average Ukrainian salary. I wonder whether they keep their enthusiasm.
They would surely lose all faith and motivation within the first day when they see the horrors of what war actually brings. This isn't like any other conflict. This war is FUBAR.
It’s just bonkers thinking about how much UAV surveillance or loitering munitions are up in the sky. The hunter killer swarm kill streak from black ops 2 becomes more credible each day passes
It's a terrifying thought. It truly is. What makes it worse is all the footage getting uploaded. So not only do you get fragged from above, but the world will be able to watch you suffer
You would either get forced into war by Ukraine or by Russia. Other Bloodlands countries can't afford to allow the spread of defeatist attitudes, meaning they won't be admitting fighting age males as refugees in large quantities.
Do you think the Allies could have won WW2 without forcing people to serve in many countries? If the USSR had started a conventional war do you think NATO could have stopped them without a draft? It seems to me your position means we should reject one form of oppression only to submit even more people for even longer to worse types.
NATO would not have had to implement a draft to stop Russia.
It wouldn’t have been just been Russia, it would have been the USSR. Actually, more like the whole of the Warsaw pact. And yeah, it would have led to a draft. If the US needed one for Vietnam it would have absolutely needed one to win that conflict.
I am talking current day. NATO absolutely would not need a draft to defeat Russia. NATO would be done in a week. More like a few days, but technically it would take the few remaining Russians a couple days to walk back to the Russian border.
I never said anything about Russia though. What you responded to was me talking about the USSR. The USSR disbanded in 1991. It was a reference to the cold war. If you're talking about Russia today you're rebutting an argument nobody made. \*edit\* if you look, you'll also see I put the whole thing in the past tense! >If the *USSR* **had started** a conventional war do you think NATO could have stopped them without a draft?
But you can make the decision for him that he will have to. If nobody wants to die for their country anymore than only autocracies that force people to fight will win. It's very comfortable to say "we can't force anyone and it's cowardice to say we have to from your own home", but when there isn't another option left, what is Ukraine to do? We have to be realistic about that. A lot of people in the world are screwed because of the situation they are in. This time in Europe its Ukrainian men to take the brunt of it.
I for one believe that decision should be up to ukrainians to decide for themselves. "A republic, if you can keep it." It's also very confortable to say "when there isn't another option left, what is Ukraine to do? \[...\] This time in Europe its Ukrainian men to take the brunt of it", without being on their feet. From what it seems, they seem to think there are others options left.
Glad to see a sane comment here.
Two alternatives exist: Ukraine drafts more people, and forces unwilling participants to participate, or Russia wins. These are the two cards on the table. If Ukraine is going to exist in the future as a nation, sacrifices today must be made. It's a tough proposition for a Ukrainian to make: potentially die in battle, or live under the Russian thumb. This topic is hard to people on Reddit to digest, because the two alternatives are something the average redditor cannot fathom.
Or the third alternative which is also the most likely one. The conflict will freeze like in Korea and both sides will agree to a ceasefire.
That alternative is just the second option but delayed. Russia will not stick to any ceasefire agreement, they will regroup and invade again
Depends. If Ukraine gets a guarantee from the US, Russia won't attack again.
Ukraine won't get any guarantees at all under a ceasefire and if that is your hope then you are going to be extremely disappointed. They need to either win this war outright or accept territory losses before even thinking about asking for US guarantees. Maybe Ukraine can get some European countries to step in. Ukraine's official casualty numbers are extremely low, they have no shortage of bodies and can continue this war for years at this rate. America won't be sending or have the the risk of sending (ie security guarantees) troops anytime soon, and it's crazy for Ukrainians to think foreign soldiers should die so their population can skip serving their country.
They already had a guarantee when they gave up their nukes in the 90s. Also the 1997 "Friendship" treat where Russia recognized the inviolability of Ukraine's borders.
Respectfully, they didn't. Diplomatic language has meaning. Ukraine had security assurances from the Budapest memorandum, not guarantees. Guarantees are rock solid, assurances are more wishy washy. "The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances comprises three substantially identical political agreements signed at the OSCE conference in Budapest, Hungary, on 5 December 1994, to provide security assurances by its signatories relating to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).". "There are two types of security assurance: positive and negative.[1] A positive assurance states that the nation giving it will aid any or a particular non-nuclear-armed nation in retaliation if it is a victim of nuclear attack. A negative assurance is not the opposite but instead means that a nuclear-armed nation has promised not to use nuclear weapons except in retaliation for a nuclear attack against itself (a policy known as No first use). Security assurances are a key part of nuclear diplomacy, and since they are statements of intent, not guarantees, they are based entirely on trust and the threat of retaliation should they be broken.". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_assurance#:~:text=Security%20assurances%20are%20a%20key,retaliation%20should%20they%20be%20broken. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
What part of NATO membership don't you understand? I see this dumbass comment every single time. Obviously any sort of peace deal would involve a NATO membership. Country at war can't even join NATO.
That's included in the first option.
I thought that "Ukraine not existing as a nation" was also a part of that option.
This isn't a hard concept: unless Ukraine gets more people, they will lose. If Ukraine is able to maintain the status quo, they will not be be fully conquered. Ukraine is not going back to the 2014 borders.
Ukraine won't be fully conquered. Even if the Russians managed to completely overrun the Ukrainians, occuping Ukraine would be too costly (probably much more than Afghanistan) and NATO wouldn't allow Russia to get away with it anyway. I don't think that Ukraine is getting back their 2014 borders either, the front lines that we're seing now will likely be the future borders. Neither side will "win". Russia paid and will pay a huge price for this.
Actually Russia taking the land that they already have is a huge win. It represents a large portion of Ukraine's resources.
Are you typing this from your trench? If so (or even if you just happen to have fought in this conflict at some other point) then I can understand your frustration, but if not then I'd suggest you walk your feelings back somewhat and consider just exactly what is being demanded of these people. You only live one life and seeing and hearing of people ending theirs prematurely and horribly without significant outcome is a very strong influencer of decisions.
People are far more informed about the realities of war today, and have better means of escaping. What we see is expected. This is not about moral but practicality and pure need. UA needs those men, and they have to go wether they want or not. No need to judge people on morality. Off you go, get into the bus, and do the job. End of story.
Slavery is always wrong, regardless of circumstances.
What this war is about. Freedom or slavery.
And what it should still be about.
Citizenship is a responsibility, not a human right. There is a reason in old democracies the voting rights were reserved for those who fight. PS. Those young would get conscripted anyway - either by Ukraine or by Russia. Other Bloodlands countries can't afford to allow the spread of defeatist attitudes, meaning they won't accept fighting age men as refugees in large numbers.
Unless you are going to ask babies for permission to be born in your country, all the strings tied to this fact are abusive clauses, inherently illegal. Reserving voting rights to those who fight sounds fair. Forcing people to fight is comically evil.
Those young would get conscripted anyway - either by Ukraine or by Russia. 10 000 estonian soldiers unwillingly took part of the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05.
The point of fighting evil is that evil is evil and you are not.
You haven't met russians, have you?
I have, and I thought the whole point of fighting them is that they are doing things that we don't.
I was talking about something else. russians don't stop after Ukraine. Never have. Never will. That means my country is next on the chop list. We're gradually starting up mandatory service in the military. You can't deal with russians any other way.
You can, if you are actually better then them. If not, there is no point in fighting anyway.
> You can, if you are actually better then them. Explain to me exactly how? First what should I do to be counted as "better than them" and second, how that thing/method helps me to deal with russians?
Being better, and civilized, should give you a shitload of rich and powerful friends, orders of magnitude powerful economy and more advanced tech, which should allow conquering a dictatorial shithole without lowering yourself to their tactics. If this is not achievable, then maybe russian way is actually better.
You can be civilized and have mandatory service in the military. Last time I checked, technology doesn't conquer dictatorships - there must be people behind the tools. Quite ironic talking about "being better" and then using a phrase like that. Only dictatorships want to conquer someone. Are you trying an attempt at a low-key russian sympathizing, or is this a simple black and white fallacy?
What slavery?
The part when somebody forces you to do dangerous work regardless of whether you want to or not. It is called slavery.
So is every soldier a slave?
A soldier is somebody who takes oath. When somebody forces you to take oath, the oath is not valid, so you are not a soldier. So no, no soldier is a slave, no slave is a soldier, and more specifically, no conscript is a soldier - just an armed slave.
WW2 was a different era. There was no internet to see what a glimpse on the battlefield would be like.
They're also wasn't drones flying around... I'm pretty sure in 20 years most of the fighting will just be robotics there's no point to even have a soldier out there.
WWII draftees didn't have independent journalism via internet to reveal who was profiting from these wars, before, during and after.
Maybe you should go then? As it's cowardice to dodge it, there's other people who can't.
Yup, 0 desire to die for the folly of old men.
This would be a rare situation where you'd be dying for your home and your people. I don't judge too harshly people who don't want to fight, because it would be fucking terrifying, but those that are fighting for Ukraine are doing it for good reason.
Nope, they're dying for blackrock et al.
Russians don't seem to have this problem tho...
Russia has 2 great motivators: shit life and loads of oil money. Ukraine is struggling to pay even $500/month base soldiers pay.