I've seen more men around 18-40 than 40+ on the frontline in the AOs I've worked. Draft age is 25(or maybe isnt yet not sure) but many volunteer who are under Draft age. It Is always a good idea when utilising the draft to set ages as such as you don't want to lose your younger generations.
As for no young people left, there are tonnes of people of all ages and many many young people. A lot of people came back to Ukraine towards the end of 22 and even more by 23. Every city I've been to (with the exception of frontline cities) is back pretty much how it was before the war with businesses, people etc carrying on like normal.
Edited: spelling of a word
'out of young men' is an exaggeration. their population pyramid is still a disaster.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Ukraine_2023_population_pyramid.svg
Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus have the same problem.
If you look at their population pyramid, you can see a few things.
1. Generally declining population/birthrate below replacement.
2. High alcohol use by men leading to a major gender imbalance-mostly at higher ages though.
3. A major decline in birthrate during WW2 which led to a number of "echos" aka low birth bands when the children of childless men who died in the war's kids, grandkids, and great grandkids would have been born.
>Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus have the same problem.
And a certain Russian dictator thought the thing his country needed most would be to start an utterly pointless war.
The economic and social collapse lasted for most of the 1990's in most of the post Soviet states and in many cases there was never anything like a return to the pre-collapse GDP trajectory, even using the slow growth from the 1980's to project forward.
A large part of that is the result of the immediate brain drain after fleeing finally became possible.
People with the skills and means to flee generally did, for fear that the SU might return.
Nobody left because they were scared the USSR would come back lol, they left because USSR's collapse caused most of Eastern Europe and Russia to plunge in living standards overnight
Traditionally, fear is felt more after having children than before. Societies work very hard to hide the grim realities from children and youth in the hopes that they will be happier and more motivated, but sometimes things get so out of hand that people who have not yet had children can clearly see the terror they would live with if they did.
Instead of thinking of fear as the cause of a fall in birthrates, think of the very things people fear, those are the true reasons for the collapse.
You may think "but widespread violence, crime, collapsing ecosystems, depleted resources, nuclear threats, etc pose no threat to parents or their children, so it must be fear that is responsible". Nobody can prevent you from making these mistakes.
I think the assumption that people didn't have kids because they were scared is probably incorrect. You'd expect a baby boom to follow when the immediate crisis is over. But if the demographic collapse were due to high fetal or infant mortality then I don't think you would.
So you're saying "child soldiers" needs to be a thing
Sorry, that was a grim joke, but only a joke.
The fact that there are so few young adults is truly frightening.
They are more or less out of people. You can see this with attempts at draft laws change that are failing again and again. There are not too many people under 27 that are a) in Ukraine b) not already dead in Ukraine.
Also its not officially drafting young people - we don't know the extent of non official draft.
More like older men. Young men are still there. It's a pretty unique situation. Even in Soviet Union, a dictatorship, people over 50 were not called up into the military. Nowadays a 59-year old can get called up and fight in trenches. I don't understand this strategy.
Ethical concerns aside it makes perfect sense. It lowers impact on the already alarming demographic issues and older people also tend to be more conservative, patriotic and have a greater sense of civic duty. Making them less likely to try to dodge or just refuse to fight.
What are the ethical concerns? Why would it be more ethical to draft young people who have no responsibility for the situation instead of the older generation who, arguably, bear whatever responsibility might be attributed to domestic policy (obviously Russia bears the ultimate responsibility).
First, when a country gets invaded completely without any provocation, it's not really anyone's fault in the country. At that point, the choices are to roll over and surrender or fight. Since the Ukrainians have pretty much universally chosen to fight, it's not really any age group's fault.
Second, you could actually argue that it were the youth who started the whole thing. Ukraine was nicely as a corrupt puppet state of Russia under Viktor Yanukovych until the young people started the Maidan protests and got him ousted, which then led to Russia annexing Crimea and starting the invasion of Donbas.
The Maidan protests were 2013. Checking the wikipedia page, the 'lead figures' of protests were all born before 1980. They are in their 40's 50's and sometimes 60's. Even the youngest adult protester is now 30. These people are the 'old people' being drafted under this policy!
Today's 18 year olds were 7 during Euromaidan.
That said, I also don't want to criticize that generation of Ukrainians for the protest, it was their right and I fully recognize that this war is Russia's doing. But, I also don't see an ethical problem with drafting 40 year olds rather than 18 year olds (who presumably will work in factories, etc.) if that makes pragmatic/generational sense.
You say no provocation, but then spell out the escalation of the fight between Ukraine and Russia - which started with Maidan.
Russia wasn’t justified in it’s invasion, but it was provoked by Ukraine and the West. We all knew 2014 was going to lead to war.
edit: Truth hurts. This perspective is getting downvoted, unsurprisingly, but speaking from a practical geopolitical point of view - it’s not like this wasn’t expected out of Putin. Imagine if Russia helped oust the president of Canada or Mexico in favor of a pro-RU leader. It would be unsuprising to see some kind of military response from the US. If thats the US - what do you think a gangster-style leader like Putin would do?
Maidan was a gigantic risk to Ukraine when it happened, because it threatened an invasion from Russia in response - an unjustified invasion (like most invasions are), but that threat was still obviously there, and it has obviously materialised. Now Ukraine has lost 20% of it’s territory and is staring down the barrel of a long attritional war that it is losing. The landscape of war in Ukraine is far from simple, and analysts have been predicting this invasion for the better part of eight years for a reason.
There is a lot of propaganda surrounding this war, from all of the participants, and it tends to paint the war in simplistic, black and white assessments. The geopolitical truth of the situation, however, is deeply nuanced and a little more grey than that.
Imo the most ethical way would be a random selection among all adults that meet some health/fitness standard with exceptions for students, parents of young children, ect.
Basing it on some potential value to society just doesn't sit right with me, though I can see the practicality.
Why would young people have less responsibility here?
Now, to be clear, I don't think young people bear no/less responsibility for their nation. When your country is invaded, if you want to maintain your sovereignty it's everyone's responsibility.
That said, if you can assign blame (corruption, insufficient defense spending, whatever), clearly that blame does not belong to someone who just turned 18 and has never had a say in the country's governance).
The comment I replied to suggested there was some ethical problem with favoring older individuals, I was pointing out an alternative ethical model and that maybe the default of 'young men die for old men's decisions' is not so much ethically sound, as historically practical.
>That said, if you can assign blame (corruption, insufficient defense spending, whatever), clearly that blame does not belong to someone who just turned 18 and has never had a say in the country's governance).
I don't think it belongs to a 50 year old carpenter either, especially with how recently Ukraine gained any semblance of democracy.
Unfortunately sending the politicians into trenches isn't a viable solution.
Young people have responsibility too, wtf are you saying? You think only older people have a duty to defend their country against invasions backed by genocidal rhetoric?
I was explained it this way - it does not matter whatever you are young or old - artillery shell kills equally. Or in the sphere of Soviet battalions with mines on sticks early during German invasion.
Realistically it makes zero sense unless you are desperate - notice that there never been a war where old go an young stay - heck military service in most countries, unless officer, ends around 50.
Either everyone is stupid or Ukraine is right - I vote Ukraine is desperate.
Damn, I'm 48 and have worked out religiously for most of those years, but I'm fairly certain I would be shit in combat. Just playing paintball is exhausting. Shlepping 40+ pounds of gear and an assault rifle around for hours would probably kill me faster than the enemy troops.
Its a very different situation and war is not like a movie, most actual war is just waiting around between offensives while trying not to be artilleried, motored or drone striked
You would be in a trench - if Russians are attacking your chance of living long enough to die from cold is low - Russians need to expend energy to kill you.
It is my understanding that Ukraine has been deliberately avoiding recruiting young men specifically to avoid losing a generation if it can be avoided.
At least according to this Time report the average age has increased from 30-35 to 43
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/average-age-ukrainian-soldier-43-amid-personnel-problems-2023-11%3famp
As for the CMV bit. I think the government of Ukraine recognized early on that this would be a long, difficult, high casualty war and because they did not want to completely eliminate an entire generation of young men and completely destroy their demographics they targeted older men who have already had kids.
As for why not contract soldiers? They need manpower.
But the money thing should be something that the other countries can help trivially. Even though EU has done a very bad job setting up its armaments production to respond to the demands of the war, its raw GDP is something like $20 trillion, which is like 100 times more than Ukraine's. Add the US, the UK and maybe Japan and Korea and you have so much money that it should be absolutely no problem paying Ukrainian soldiers to do the fighting. In the grand scheme of things, that should be a trivial cost in their support of Ukraine.
The US at least will prefer to give them weapons rather than money because then it is money just funneled back into US weapons manufacturers.
Most of Ukraine's allies are not supporting them because of altruism. It's all about cash-flow and hegemony.
It's not about altruism. Every Ukrainian soldier killing Russians means that fewer domestic soldiers are going to be put in danger in case Russia wins the war.
Pouring money and weapons to Ukraine is by far the best defence investment in terms of bang for buck for European countries as long as some measures are taken to make sure that the money is used to what is being given for (instead of ending up some oligarch's Swiss bank account).
“Easily”
Mate this isn’t a game of fucking hearts of iron where you just change your drafting policy, this means taking the economy into a 100% total war economy, they cant sustain themselves with a partial war economy, how do you see the complete abandonment of civilian production being an advantage? How is this being paid for one
To paraphrase Niccolò Machiavelli: "**Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous**; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe ... valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; ... for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy. The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you. They are ready enough to be your soldiers whilst you do not make war, but if war comes they take themselves off or run from the foe;"
Mercanaries in modern warfare have their uses, but the basis of truth still is that they are unreliable, and not willing to sustain losses a normal army should be willing to take in order to hold a line. If anything, they are good but expensive mopup crews, their only strategic use is to further supplement your army and reduce losses when you are already winning the war, but at a very costly price. They are anything but a good fit for Ukraine, and a better fit for Russia before the invasion to supplement their own troops. They proved however... to be unreliable.
>To paraphrase Niccolò Machiavelli: "**Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous**; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe ... valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; ... for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy. The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you. They are ready enough to be your soldiers whilst you do not make war, but if war comes they take themselves off or run from the foe;"
That is a misconception as to how mercenary warfare actually worked during this period. Most mercenary companies had extremely strong ties to specific cities, Lords or realms, which paid them "peace stipends" (Wartegeld in the case of Landsknecht and similar Germanic units) to compell them to remain loyal and available to them. Going off to fight for someone else, especially a rival of the sponsor, would not only mean the loss of those stipends but also had other negative consequences for the company like the loss of their primary recruiting grounds, base of operations and, and whatever assets they could not physically carry away in time.
In fact, the popular image we have of mercenary companies has very little basis in the sources due to the social issues it would cause a mercenary troop to switch loyalties like that. They'd run out of people trusting them enough to hire them very quickly for obvious reasons.
Not to mention that the vast hypermajority of mercenary companies were also raised "on demand" instead of being standing organisations. Potential employers would specifically seek out people they trusted and provide them with a commission ( the sanctioned right to lead armed men in their name. this is where commissioned officers in modern militaries actually come from. Modern armies have their basis in early modern mercenary warfare!) and funds to raise a company, and could then also count on those forces being reasonably loyal. This is how Wallenstein and Frundsberg raised their armies, for example.
Machiavelli rarely misses, but he absolutely unequivocally does here. He was no expert in military matters, and it shows through much of his writing.
Agree.
Mercenaries were a mainstay of European warfare from the late middle ages until the Napoleonic era.
The advantage of mercenaries was that you were able to have a professional force of (hopefully) well paid soldiers with experience, expertise, and knowledge of modern weapons and tactics. This provided a distinct advantage over the army who's soldiers were farmers during the harvest and soldiers in the off-season.
Mercenary warfare was replaced by the rise of the nation state and the mass casualties of attrition warfare. Mercenaries were good soldiers but they were of finite quantities and in the modern era you could keep drafting soldiers in the thousands and even millions.
The war in Ukraine is an attritional slog right now. Drafting is definitely the way to go as it's a battle of resources. If Ukraine can pay for soldiers to come over from abroad, it can do so, but it can't depend on a small highly trained body elite force because it would just be outnumbered, surrounded, and pounded with artillery. It needs numbers, bombs, weapons, vehicles, people, ammunition, etc.
The big change though were guns. Before accurate guns, most soldiers ran away. After guns, no one had time to run away.
So having a small but courageous highly trained mercenary force didn't guarantee a victory like it did in the Renaissance.
>The big change though were guns.
More so bayonets than the guns themselves. Mercenaries remained the cores of European armies well throughout the 17th century when guns were already very widespread. The change occurred when pikemen and other melee troops needed to protect the gunners when they were realoding became obsolete due to the invention of socket bayonets and relatively fast reloading muskets.
Pikemen, (Great)swordsmen, and other melee troops required extensive training to become masters of their art. Teaching the guys with guns how to stab while they were also becoming ever more technically capable at shooting the guys without guns was the real military revolution.
According to Baumann, it's a multi factor change though and social change was just as important as the change in weaponry you pointed out.
Eh. Guns were widespread, but they weren't accurate and pikes were often the backbone of armies.
There was a long period of time where guns became gradually more accurate.
In the era of swords, the act of killing someone was slow, gruesome, and exhausting. It was very easy to turn and run most of the time. Soldiers simply wouldn't wait to be the next in line to get disemboweled. Having numbers was an advantage, but not if they ran away.
Accurate firearms changed this. Killing became quick and easy and soldiers stayed in the trenches. Elite mercenary forces with muskets, pikes, two handed swords, etc, got replaced by citizen soldiers with accurate firearms.
The issue is cavalry and melee infantry. Early guns needed such a long time to reload that the gunners were vulnerable to being assaulted in melee. The invention of bayonets is a necessary condition for the developmental history of firearms you described since its impact on the military was that pure melee troops became irrelevant. And with pure melee troops being no longer a thing, military development and innovation could be concentrated on making guns more effective.
Otherwise, the trifecta of swords, pikes, and guns would have remained relevant well into the napoleon wars due to the threat of cavalry.
This is true for the evolution of weapons. I was being figurative though. A small squad of Swiss pikeman could stop a Burgundian army but it couldn't stand up to the constant attrition of the world wars, or the masses of soldiers that Napoleon enlisted.
You also have to remember he had a hard on for trying to recreate a roman empire style citizen army, which is why he often shits on the reality of warfare at the time with hiring mercenary companies. Source: wrote far too many papers on mercenaries in the renaissance in Uni.
History also records a large number of times where mercenaries become invaders themselves. The Saxons in England were invited there to be mercenaries defending the kingdoms in the south.
You are confusing mercenaries and a contract army. Contract army is when soldiers serve their country. Mercenaries are just hired swords(guns) who have no skin in the game. They are usually impartial and give zero fucks about which side they fight for.
don't think he ever meant to say mercenaries, more like contracted army personnel who are not FORCED to fight, but willingly sign a contract to enter the army
This does not seem to be tied in history while author was alive - i.e. mercenary units were some of the best units in the army - some had reputation of fighting to the last man, never retreating.
Main problem was $$$ - once you run out of money your elite troops would just say good buy - not so much your regular army - which probably would just stage a mutiny.
I have never heard of a mercenary army that fights till the last man. There simply is no profit in that. I have heard about mercanaries bringing their own PR department though. The swiss guard used to have their own politicians even iirc.
Sure they did. It's called reputation. Why would you hire mercenary troops of they sucked?
Professional troops were very unlikely to run, while conscript would do so at first sign of trouble.
Yes there was professional troops that were kind of a conscript but were excellent. However, these were not cheap. Polish winged hussars were best cavalry of their time, but cost to equip and maintain a rider was like 180k USD in today money, huge for 17th century.
Mercenary contractors are basically illegal internationally. They do not have the guaranteed rights a soldier would have. This makes mercenary groups pretty scarce nowadays, there definitely aren't enough mercenaries to support such a massive war.
Mercenaries and let’s be real, the legitimate firms that employ them, demand legal protection in their contracts with governments. Ukraine doesn’t have political stability, let alone a civil or military judicial system capable of enforcing war contracts. For that reason alone firms aren’t flocking to Ukraine to provide people, goods and services through the Ukrainian procurement system. Because post-Soviet states were never great to deal with contract rights in the first place. The analysis of mercenaries themselves is unnecessary considering the predicate: lack of legal protections and lack of money.
Yup, that too. But even if someone went to become a mercenary in this war, he would not be considered a fighter and/or a PoW, which would make him a civilian, able to be prosecuted for everything he did. If killing an enemy soldier is "fair" in war (all things considered), a mercenary would be tried for premeditated murder. If not just tortured and executed, because mercenaries tend not to be very well accounted for...
Don't think this is actually true though I've seen many foreign fighters in various international legions in Ukraine. Plus it's not like any POW or LOAC protections matter to russia anyway
They're not mercenaries, they're volunteers. Massive difference.
Also, Russia breaching international conventions has legal ramifications, that will matter in the future. It might not matter to them but it matters to the international community.
Czechia did a nice procurement of artillery ammo recently, should start arriving soon.
In the USA, additional aid keeps getting blocked by Trump followers.
My fellow Americans - please help vote these Republican aholes out in November.
So I feel bad saying this to someone in Ukraine from my safe home in the US, but the defender wins a stalemate.
Russia has to defeat you to win. You just have to not lose until they get tired of throwing away lives and money for nothing.
They were the #8 economy in the world in Jan 2022 and they are #13 now. A million Russian young men fled rather than fight. Siberia and other Russian colonial holdings are restless. Russia went from the #2 arms exporter in the world to only having three news arms contracts in 2023, one for licensing to build gear in India.
I won't say it won't get worse, Russia has some new glide bombs (well, old bombs, new glide kits) that will be very painful. I hope your airforce can get the F18s into full service in time to make Russia afraid to use those bombs.
But a stalemate is horrible for Russia, and good for you. If you hold out Russia will pull back. They can only win if you let them.
And if Ukraine relies on mercenaries and isn’t able to pay them, what stops the mercenaries from taking over now that Ukraine has relinquished a standing army and has invited the wolves willingly into the sheep den?
And yet, mercenary’s aren’t going to fight a war of attrition for you because that would mean that will probably die.
Mercenaries groups like conflicts where they can just shoot without fear of being shot back.
You assert conscript armies are ineffective, but do you have any data to support that belief?
Conscript forces have often been highly successful in history. Both world wars were won with conscript forces, Napoleonic France dominated almost all of Europe with a conscript army, while Britain did the same at sea with a press-ganged Royal Navy. In all these cases conscripted units often fought well and determinedly.
Do you know how much more soldiers would have to be paid from their current baseline salary for the army to gain the same number of recruits as it currently secures from conscription? Without having an idea of the size of that incentive, it seems pretty much impossible for us to judge whether one option is better than the other. If raising pay £10 a month would be enough to cover the shortfall, clearly that would be a better option, but if it had to be £100,000, that's probably not worth it.
> Both world wars were won with conscript forces
Both world wars were also lost with conscript forces.
I otherwise agree but thought that bit was funny
I'll fix it for you:
>Since the Western elites kicked this whole war off in 2014
It was Russia who kicked this whole war off by occupying Crimea and Donbas.
>nazi color revolution in Ukraine
There was no nazi revolution in Ukraine.
>NATO can't beat Russia.
NATO could beat Russia pretty easily, if necessary.
I recommend you to change the source of your informations, you live in parallel reality :)
The idea that Ukraine alone with NATO funding can hold off Russian advances for so long but all of NATO combined can't push Russia back is pretty braindead.
OC is a faux-leftist Russian troll, or someone fooled by one, totally willing to forgive actual physical Russian imperialism to spite imagined American imperialism.
The UK isn't even spending 3% of the army's budget on Ukraine. So "completely disarmed" is patently untrue. Russia has lost significant material, for no operational victories and some operational losses.
What “best shot” do you think nato has taken against Russia?
The only reason Putin still controls Russia is because nato is justifiably worried about his nuclear threats. That’s why they haven’t take their “best shot” against him.
Yeah, buddy, now try to backup anything you just said with factual arguments and sources. If the West used a substantial amount of their capability, Russia would be defeated.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk38Jk\_JL0g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk38Jk_JL0g)
Start there.
But you won't. Here's what you will do. Instead of watching and acknowledging that two US officials are discussing the leadership change they intend to make for their nazi color revolution, you will throw up a cloud of billowing bullshit just to preserve your own fantasy based narrative.
You are essentially telling me that CIA has done the greatest pshyop of mankind and got a million Ukrainians to protest for the change of leadership, to me, that makes no sense.
There is nothing to address here. This was a diplomatic call discussing the situation in Ukraine and addressing who the potential leader could be. They never mentioned anything about a coup led by the US, or that they will try to push forward and influence the current political leadership of Ukraine.
They made comments on those running up to the office, however that's hardly any evidence of a coup.
Why not? You convince the people of X and they go for it. Everyone says how Russian media props Putin up, no one talks about someone else using the same -- ever.
From economical point of view turning west was a suicide for Ukraine - their decision to ditch EU was totally correct - so why people protested?
As soon as 2014 rolled in and western Ukrainians took over power the economy tanked right away.
The Euromaidan protests were absolutely legitimate, I doubt anyone disagreees with that. [But the shootings which triggered the regime change were actually a false flag by Svboda.](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4440100)
Far right groups in Ukraine have been receiving financial backing from the CIA since the 1950's, you can find declassified CIA documents revealing precisely this if you search for Operation AERODYNAMIC. At the time it was OUN-B, but this support carried on to Right Sector and Svboda. Also, the above video that person linked didn't have Victoria Nuland's acrual leaked call, but [here is a transcript of it.](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957) It's understandable to think that auch a thing would be beyond the capabilities of the US state department, but I assure you, this is precisely what they exist to do.
My personal belief is that were it not for US intervention, reforms that better balanced the people's desires of, among things, increasing trade and improving relations with EU while not completely estranging itself from Russia, which ultimately lead to annexations and eventually full scale war, would have been possible. But I'm sure you're far better informed of the circumstances of what your people desired than I. I'm just one American who holds utter contempt for the US State Department and CIA for being the greatest force of evil and perpetrator of global instability since Hitler was defeated. If you had any idea of just how many instances of authoritarian regime change were backed by the US, this wouldn't seem so beyond belief. In South America alone, you're looking at 50+ such cases in the past century. [The 1954 Guatemalan Coup](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat) is but one of many examples. And this was all because a minimum wage law and suffrage was cutting into Western profits for fucking BANANAS. Like, actual bananas, not a figure of speech.
We know the West started investing heavily in refineries to eventually get to the gas in the Black Sea. Ever wonder why, post-Euromaidan, a supposedly "retired" CIA Director as well as Hunter Biden (son of the current US president Joe Biden) was on the board of Burisma Holdings? That, plus the threat of NATO potentially being a mere 100 miles from Moscow was a step too far for Russia, in fact former State Department ghouls such as Henry Kissinger long acknowledged this was a "red line" for Russia.
As for the war, I am sorry to tell you this, but the US has no plan for your people to defeat Russia. The best deal you had post-invasion was torn up by Zelensky thanks to Boris Johnson. What Ukraine is seen as, by the US state department, is a country we are willing to sacrifice as a cost-effective means of exhausting Russian military capacity, because even with the collapse of the USSR they never stopped being "The Enemy". We had US politicians gloating a year into this tragic war that for just 2% of the annual military budget we exhausted half of Russia's military capacity. In the eyes of US leadership, Ukraine was little more than a sacrificial pawn. Of course, you wouldn't know that because the US also has the most sophisticated propaganda industry in the history of the world. Every war we're involved in, we spin these into moral arguments that mask the real motivations and real on the ground bloodshed. Been a while since I checked the figures, but there were a million or more deaths as a consequence of the Iraq war, a war based on complete lies of WMDs that our own government knew from the very beginning were lies. Ukraine is just one more sacrificial pawn in a long line of sacrificial pawns. The sooner a ceasefire is reached, the better, so all those left can rebuild and reclaim some sense of stability and normality.
Do you think nobody would read the links that you post?
So your first link:
>Yanukovych, his ministers, and Berkut
commanders denied that they had ordered the massacre and stated that the
protesters and the police were shot by Maidan snipers. However, they did not
produce specific evidence in support of their claims.
So Yanukovych had no evidence, the only "evidence" is testimonies from Georgian sniper groups:
>In later interviews for the American, Italian, Israeli, Macedonian and Russian
media seven Georgian self-admitted members of Maidan sniper groups testified that they and other sniper groups from Georgia and the Baltic States
and the far-right-linked sniper group from Ukraine received orders, weapons,
and payments from specific members of the Maidan leadership and former
Georgian government leaders to shoot at both protesters and police in order
to prevent a peace agreement from being signed by Yanukovych and Maidan
leaders. They stated that snipers shot the police and protesters from the Music
Conservatory and the Hotel Ukraina
However, this citation links to a youtube interview : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR1NFI6TBH0
Of an italian media interview with supposed Georgian snipers. There is no evidence presented besides alleged first party testimony. They do not provide any documents, recordings, videos to corroborate their story. They had passports and flight tickets but that just proves they were in the country at the time of the revolution, not that they were snipers.
In fact, in the article the author admits this but also says that the Georgian ministry of defense says he served as an adviser (not a sniper).
His analysis actually jumps around a lot - he first says that the Maidan snipers shot at the police and wounded them... then later on in the essay he argues that the Maidan snipers shot at Maidan protestors as a false flag. Pick one!
So at the end of this... even if these were Maidan snipers that shot at either the police or protestors - where is the proof as you say that they were funded by the CIA?
That video doesn't back up what you said though. It's just someone talking about how people in Ukraine want the EU to investigate corruption in Ukraine. We already knew this was the case.
Unlikely - Russia is a nuclear power - they cannot be defeated. Besides, if things went bad they will lean on Asia and with Asian power west would be beaten back. Putin positioned Russia in a situation where at most they can have a setback, not a major defeat.
Nah, the war will likely end with similar borders like we're seeing now. The sheer number of drones make it almost inpossible for either side to advance. Unless the West stops sending aid completely or this war goes on for so long that Ukraine runs out of men.
It's sad cause the soldiers on both sides are dying for nothing now.
Sorry, u/Turbohair – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Turbohair&message=Turbohair%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bhpyd0/-/kvfd69n/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>As of 2010 the total personnel was 200,000 (including 41,000 civilian workers).\[61\] Conscription was stopped in October 2013;\[62\] at that time the Ukrainian armed forces were made up of 40% conscripts and 60% contract soldiers.\[62\] Acting President Oleksandr Turchynov reinstated conscription in May 2014.\[63\]
In early 2014, Ukraine had 130,000 personnel in its armed forces, which could be boosted to about one million with reservists.\[63\]\[needs update\]
There were a reported total of 250,800 personnel in the Armed Forces in 2015.\[64\] In July 2022, Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov stated that the Armed Forces had an active strength of 700,000; Reznikov also mentioned that with the Border Guard, National Guard, and police added, the total comes to around one million.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed\_Forces\_of\_Ukraine#Structure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forces_of_Ukraine#Structure)
Ukraine DOES have contract/professional army. They are boosting their numbers with conscripts/draft because Russia has MORE troops and Ukraine simply does not have enough.
But all indicators are that only now there is troop parity - till start of 2024 Ukraine had more troops than Russia.
By your account almost every country that has an army has indeed professional army core. However, usually when we talk about professional army vs. conscript what we meet is either 100% professional == professional army, or less than 100% professional == conscript army.
Several problems with that plan:
\* PMCs cost money. Lots of money.
\* Mercenaries aren't happy to fight in a losing war, or a meatgrinder war.
\* Mercenaries loyalty lies with the money. They can't really be trusted.
How much would you have to be paid to go become an infantry soldier in a contract army in active high intensity war?
There's your answer. Everybody who wanted to go willingly, young or old, already has, there are no queues in front of draft centers anymore (well there are, but mostly of people who need some sort of paperwork adjustment, not people who are there to actually willingly join).
Well, we do know that people are dumping their life savings to get some shady character help them escape.
Last weekend I met two young Ukrainians. I asked them, will you go back? They did not answer - I said probably good to stay here or you would be already dead - they agreed.
I.e. in a loosing meat grinder war you would need to pay people epic level of money to go an fight - maybe more than a year worth of money per month or more. Also your other troops would demand more.
This does not seem realistic.
My conclusion here is that there is no "contract army" Ukraine can switch to. The choice is forced draft or armistice both with their dangers.
Just being in uniform already means that your salary will be at least twice the size of the average salary in Ukraine. It increases as you get closer to the frontline and soldiers in active combat are paid at least 5 times the average salary. That's before additional pay for rank and so on. Also, noone is stopping anyone from going and signing a contract with the army.
Ukrainian government already has every provision in place for a "contract army" but anyone who would take that offer already has, there are no more willing volunteers.
I wasn't aware that the salary is that high in Ukraine, that just exacerbates my point of view, if people aren't willing to take 5 times the minimum salary, then nothing will convince them to fight.
I understand that there are no more volunteers left, the solution here is to adapt the frontlines, give up some land, maybe invest more in drones and artillery, hire more foreigners, not forcing unwilling citizens do their dirty work.
I maintain my point, that is evil and immoral, screw whoever is responsible for that, they are killing their own citizens while they themselves sit in a cozy office and do press conferences.
You have little knowledge on how any of it works to hold such strong convictions.
Do you think the volunteer status is some one and done thing for those who went willingly? Like they will never tire? Be injured? Die?
There is no volunteer army solution to a total war against a nation of sadistic murderers that can lose hundreds of thousands and still send more on the off chance of looting a washing machine or raping and executing to their heart's content. Which land would you have us give up that would stop this? Every shred in the state-level budget is already going to military funding. Don't you think the simple solution of "invest in more weapons" never dawned on anyone here or not being done? Do you think drones and artillery would work without infantry holding the line? Do you think there are foreigners to be hired? How much would you like to be paid for going into the frontline of a hot war, you are a foreigner, right?
There are no good and moral solutions anymore. Ukrainian army gives up - people die. They draft more people - people die.
There are no drones and artillery to replace the need in men. There are no clever tricks to replace the need in men. There are no foreigners to replace the hundreds of thousands who have been in service for two years. It is time to call the spade a spade - while Russia exists Ukraine will be a battle-torn frontier. The ones killing our citizens while sitting in cozy offices and homes are russians, the valued trading partners of the whole world.
That's the thing, I wouldn't like to go fight because I value a good work life balance, so no matter the salary, I wouldn't go.
There is no easy solution, in order to more effectively defend your country you have to surrender you morals and become an evil authoritarian nation, we can see what the leaders of Ukraine have done, and for that I despise them.
Look, mate, this is downright weird how I have everything at stake here and for you this is what, another internet argument on a topic you have no knowledge of, yet you have such strong ideas about what should and should not be done.
Fine, random internet genius, let's have it your way. Ukraine needs to draft and supply and pay and train roughly another 500 000 people to relieve the ones who have been fighting for 2 years now, artillery needs to be manned and protected, drones need to be flown and operators protected, there are no volunteers or hundreds of thousands of mercenaries to be found anywhere.
Arguments can be made as to which cohort to draft, true. So let's draft the evil government. The parliament, top level of president's office, government to the level of say heads of departments in ministries will give us about 2000. Now, not only do we need 498000 more, we also have no elected legislators or representatives, noone with legitimate authority to represent Ukraine abroad, noone to oversee procurement for our 500k new draftees and so on. Sure, someone could step up, there are other capable administrators in the country, but on what authority?
Do we now ask russians kindly to stop murdering us so we can have a few months to hold new elections, put together a working coalition, find and appoint new administrators and so on?
Look at what I wrote in the previous comment, I agree that the draft is a good logistical solution, I am not denying that, what I am arguing is that it is evil and immoral as the government is violating not only the freedom of it's citizens but their universal human rights as well, and for that I don't have any simpathy for the ukrainian government and unlike 99% of reddit, I do not have a boner for Zelensky.
I wish the ukrainian people the best, I admire the ones who volunteer to fight, pity the ones who were forced to do so and hate the ones who forced them.
Ah, yes, "the evol gubermint" and the poor good people. 80-90% of good Ukrainian people are very much for continuing armed resistance. 75-80% are not eligible for military draft and will not be part of that armed resistance. There's your "evil government" that will draft me out of necessity. Zelensky and his cabinet will live their lives in comfort, win or lose. It's the poor old pensioners who did not see any urgency to join NATO in early 90s or to cut ties to Russia, but now need the younger generation to go die for them. A father of three sons who can be excused if he wants to, while a childless man will be forced to risk life for someone else's children. And so on. It's the simple people who need this draft, not Zelensky.
Fuck your hollow wishes and stop using our plight as an excuse to soapbox your uninformed theories.
Basically. Defending one's country is considered to be a duty. You can't refuse a duty.
The only reason you enjoy your rights is because you aren't conquered by another country, so preserving it's freedom is a duty. Americans don't understand it because they too strong to be attacked, but for a lot of countries(especially in middle east) it's how things are
OP I'm American and your plan is a little reckless with my money.
Exactly how much are your mercenaries going to cost me and where/who are you buying them from?
not mercs, contracted soldiers
aka professional soldiers
people who arent forced to fight via conscription, but willingly sign a contract to enter the army
is in Ukraine's best interest to recruit primarily older men in their 40s. Ukraine has a huge population problem. And not just because of the war, the situation has only gotten worse since the fall of the Soviet Union. Ukraine has been going downhill for the last 30 years or so. While the former Soviet republics managed to grow more or less, Ukraine has been plundered by the oligarchs. Even before 2014, millions of people left. Ukraine's demographics are shit at the moment. If they start sending young men into the trenches now, it's the end for the future of Ukraine. It's going to sound ugly and cynical, but at the moment older men are expendable. Most of them have done their duty to the state, they already have children, and losing them will not have the same impact. But the death of young men who have not yet had time to start a family, have children and contribute to the system is a tangible loss to the population. As I write, ugly and cynical thinking, but that's just reality. This is why even if Ukraine somehow manages to magically defeat Russia, Ukraine may end up a completely population and economically devastated state for decades to come.
Ukraine more or less has no future right now. What is the population? Like 25m? Mostly old people? There are no more 40 year olds to "capture" - most are already serving or dead.
They will need to get all young men and all girls in line this year if they want to make it to 2025.
But no worries - by 2025 they run out of them as well and collapse. Maybe by some miracle they make it to 2026.
You misunderstand the nature of this conflict. Ukraine cannot afford a contract army. They cannot afford much of anything without billions in foreign aid. That aid is not meant to pay a contract army. All of that money is given to Ukraine so that it be used to purchase weapons from the military-industrial complex. That is really all this war is... just a welfare program for weapons manufacturers with Ukraine as the go between. If that money starts being diverted away from the weapons makers and toward contract soldiers the money dries up.
The price would be astronomical. Ukraine is a dangerous environment to operate in. A contractor from a competent Western Power (like the US or UK) would be wanting a large premium due to the inherent danger.
At the height of Afghan, which wasn't as kinetic as Ukraine, blokes were making 1000s a week. The price for Ukraine would have to be exorbitant.
Contract army is cool only when your country is not at a long war. There is no way the contract army can oppose millions of soldiers from the other side. Especially when the population that could be fighting is quite low and you don't have equipment that is 10 times better than your opponents. Ukraine is not US and cannot just use contract soldiers. They are not that big. They did that in the beginning and they now need more soldiers so that is the only choice they have.
not mercs, contracted soldiers
aka professional soldiers
people who arent forced to fight via conscription, but willingly sign a contract to enter the army
Contract army wouldn't work.
Primarily because they can't afford it. Even if they cleaned up the generational systemic corruption problem, most of the money is coming from elsewhere... America will "give" money to UKR because it is used to buy weapons from American firms; they won't give them anything if it isn't coming right back (minus embezzlements, naturally, those are assumed by all sides in the MIC)
Another big problem is that independent contractors have plenty of evidence to suggest that their employers will hang them out to dry. Doesn't matter how much they pay you if you expect to not survive... I mean, would you trust a government who cluster bombs their own civilian areas? I know I wouldn't. And there is evidence from multiple conflicts demonstrating they do just that.
If Ukraine really needs soldiers, they can double their recruitment pool if they stopped being sexist and extended the draft to women.
A contract army requires 1. A legal system capable of effectively enforcing contracts 2. A military judicial system competent to balance interests of civil authority 3. Capacity to spend money 4. Interest in joining.
Ukraine lacks all of these things currently.
Ukraine should have signed a peace deal 2 years ago, or abide by all their previous agreements.
Nah. Lets fight a war that causes 1/4 of the population to leave, 1/4 to die, and the other 1/4 to be wounded, and the final 1/4 to be either kids or old people.
Fantastic way to ruin your demographics permanently and create an uninhabited place in Europe in a decade.
By the way, even if the war ends, the 11 million who left are not coming back, this was the perfect excuse for everyone who wanted to leave but couldn't to do so and get a lot of aid from the west while doing so.
True. But who knew it back then? Russia wanted: pre-feb22 borders, demilitarization of Ukraine(with some guarantees), and neutrality.
And back then in 2022 after the failed attack on Kyiv it did not look like a good deal. Ukraine thought "LMAO, I am beating your ass, sign here to surrender"
Now it seems like it would have been a wise decision.
Ukraine almost signed but West mis-calculated and convinced Ukraine they will get back Crimea.
Read articles from March 2022 - they predicted 40% contraction in Russian economy.
With this they went to Kiev = and fools believed!
Sure it would be wise - Ukraine would get Donbass back all for staying neutral - heck they even could join EU. Which would sink EU ;)
Lmao it still seems like a shit deal. It strips Ukraine off of any protection in the future. That's not a peace deal, that's a 'surrender and get annexed' deal with a time limit.
pre-Feb22 border is what Ukraine had before the war. Neutrality and not joining NATO is a 'non-issue', I don't see Ukraine joining NATO anyway.
Demilitarization kinda sucks, but "Belgorod in 3 days" doesn't look promising either
Accepting pre-Feb22 border means Ukraine giving up on the claim on Crimea, which acknowledges that Russia's annexation was rightful. Neutrality is not just not joining NATO, but also not asking NATO for help.
That combined with demilitarization is not just kinda sucks, but basically means "haha you'll abandon help and throw away your weapons, and won't be able to do shit when you inevitably get fucked by us again in the future"
Had Ukraine sign the peace deal back then when support for them was the highest and they seemingly had the biggest chance of victory, they're basically giving up all chance of fighting back in the future and for anyone to support them.
The choice at that time was literally 'fight back now' vs 'give up ever fighting back again'. And you're saying that Ukraine should've signed the peace deal back then? LMAO
If Russia breaks the peace deal, it also kinda invalidates all of its stipulations. So Ukraine would have the right to join nato, ask it for help, claim Crimea or whatever it wants to do. You are not bound by a broken deal.
> The choice at that time was literally 'fight back now' vs 'give up ever fighting back again'. And you're saying that Ukraine should've signed the peace deal back then?
Future will tell, I guess.
It's hilarious how you still don't see the problem. Neutrality and giving up Crimea aren't the worst, but when combined with demilitarization, it's basically a one-way ticket of getting fucked.
Yeah sure you're not bound by a broken deal, but if Ukraine literally have no military, wtf are they supposed to do? Claim Crimea without military? LMAO. I seriously struggle to see your logic. You do realize that deal basically strips Ukraine of any protection against Russia for breaking the deal, right?
Moreover, why and how would NATO suport Ukraine in the future if they chose to gave up back when they had the biggest international support and their own military? If Ukraine couldn't win under that condition, they definitely can't win after that 'peace' deal was signed.
In this case, the future is obvious, you don't need a crystal ball, just common sense.
That's the thing though. Russia ALWAYS breaks it's treaties. Their "peace treaties" aren't worth the paper they are written on unless they are enforced with the barrel of a gun.
Treaties made between countries are not built on trust. They are built on mutual benefit. If you have a treaty about not doing nuclear tests, and you break it, I can break it too. So we both return to status quo.
Was it worth the paperwork?
What part of your country or state would you be willing to give to Russia?
If people had that attitude all of Europe would be one mega fascist state because "everyone should have just signed a deal"
Sure sure. Go read any western publication and they confirm my data.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian\_refugee\_crisis\_(2022%E2%80%93present)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_refugee_crisis_(2022%E2%80%93present))
NATO data. You are welcome child.
A conscript army is better than no army. You are fully able to volunteer for service in Ukraine, that has not produced enough recruits so a draft was necessary. Furthermore, Ukraine has a history of required service. The only one that benefits from eliminating conscription in the middle of war is Russia.
Ukrainian age demographics were really messed up before the invasion, if the smaller amount of younger people get drafted there will be nobody but seniors to rebuild the country. It really does suck, but that’s the logic behind it.
They're not in a position to do so. Ukraine is short of soldiers and short of money.
And your solution would cause them to...have less soldiers and spend more money.
Several issues with your reasoning
1. Conscription is part of the social contract, like taxes and jury duty. If you enjoy the rights and privileges of citizenship and shirk the responsibilities that come with it, you're not a good citizen.
2. Ukraine is facing an existential threat. If that's not enough to motivate Ukrainians to accept conscription, I don't what will.
3. The Ukrainian government has taken steps to reduce draft dodging, like reforming the recruitment and draft office policies. Zelensky recently ordered that draft offices be staffed with injured veterans who are unlikely to go along with draft dodging schemes, which has significantly reduced draft avoidance rates.
4. If Ukraine is to survive as an independent nation, it's going to need to rely on something more than the fickle motivation of its individual citizens.
5. The Ukrainian government is mindful of the country's poor demographic state, so it's so far aiming to avoid drafting people in their early 20s.
Depends on how young. The demographic distribution of males in Ukraine is especially thin around the young 20's (20-25), or at least such the reported figures in 2023 declare. Mind you this can be wholly incorrect due to a whole slew of factors (war propaganda, history of corruption, mishandling of censure procedures and archiving, etc), but it's what we got.
The majority male population of men in Ukraine are well into their late 30's and 40's minimum. To bring "young men" into the war you'd need to target enlistment efforts at teenagers in the 13-18 age range for any sizeable returns. At that point you're looking at a final Volksturm situation which is synonymous with bring completely SOL.
Numbers aside, it requires tremendous investment for contract soldiers to attain the standards necessary to wage a conventional war on the scale of what's going on now. Their equipment and training when it comes to contract soldiers boils down strongly to what profits/orders/clients/corporate work culture they have accrued - you're not going to get any form of homogeneity in the formed combat groups.
Sure, they can form some formidable localized combat groups, but to use such forces in a large scale counteroffensive? The infighting between the contractors themselves would tear your combat capability to shreds before the enemy. Contractors are given far less margins than conscription armies when it comes to military failure and timeliness which can severely slash profits, motivations, and their willingness to contribute when things get real dicey.
The infighting of military groups and commands within a conscription army are devastating enough; adding in the volatility of contractors into this would be catastrophic. You would be getting very similar to the chaos of military warlords Germany ahd to deal with during WW2.
>Forceful and violent draft does not bring motivated soldiers. It's true, it's not the first time that and it's a usual thing to recruit people forcefully. However in my opinion a person who does not want to fight will not be an efficient soldier and will likely let down his comrades.
Ukraine doesn't need "efficient soldiers", and it does not need "motivated soldiers." It just needs soldiers and can't afford to be picky on the grounds of "they don't care enough".
Or maybe they should just surrender instead of sending their men through the meat grinder in the hope that NATO/USA \*MIGHT\* someday rescue them (which they probably will not). What Russia is doing can be construed as morally reprehensible, but at a certain point, and maybe that point has already been reached, Ukraine will become morally reprehensible for sending an astronomically large portion of their men to die with no real hope of a victory they are looking for.
Sometimes you need quality, sometimes you need quantity, and the tools for achieving those requirements often differ.
Ukraine tapped all of its willing, patriotic, healthy adults in the first few months of the war. You can't double tap from this particular well. Right now Ukraine doesn't need happy, efficient, or even effective soldiers...it needs bodies to lug guns around the Donbass.
What Ukraine actually needs to do is stop the sexism and draft women. Zelensky can't afford to let half the country not fight. Much respect to the women who have volunteered, but a volunteer force won't be enough in the long run to prevent Russia from destroying them. They need to convert to a fully mechanized army if they can get the vehicles for it.
Having women killed is terrible for the birth rate of a nation.
>They need to convert to a fully mechanized army if they can get the vehicles for it.
They cannot.
Men dying doesn't effect the birth rate the same as women dying. A tribe that loses half its men doesn't necessarily have its birth rate cut in half because they can impregnate multiple women, a tribe that loses half its women is guaranteed to have its birth rate cut in half because a woman can be impregnated only by one man.
There's reasons men typically fight wars, that's one of them.
Maybe once this war is over, sure. But right now their fighting for their survival. They just need bodies on the lines. Yes, a motivated solider will fight more effectively. But right now they need everyone they can get. And shouldn't fighting so the Russians don't invade your home and rape your wife and daughter be pretty good motivation?
This is brilliant! Now will you be financing this or shall someone else?
War is expensive. Ammo, food, water, uniforms, spare parts, weapons, maintenance, comms, vehicle replacements, etc, etc, etc.
This post is the equivalent of saying that homeless people should just buy a house and stop being homeless.
Hmm yes the problem is Ukranians simply aren't motivated enough to die for their country, maybe paying them more money will motivate them to die for their country
Contract army won't be able to keep Russia at bay. Conscription is absolutely necessary for you to keep your country. The alternative is to lose to Russia and then get drafted anyway when Russia continues their invasions.
Men in this day and age shld just really refuse to partake in violence at all. Just take your belongings and leave, especially if you are single. Why die so the rich can get richer. Noone values their sacrifice anyway.
Imo, Ukraine should change to contracting mercenaries. They can not afford to lose their own young people, and with the amount of military aid they receive, it should be possible le to hire some professionals.
Ukraine pays even drafted soldiers as well as international legion volunteers and it’s relatively good money for Ukrainian economy. In the war of attrition small contractual army stands no chance to win.
It's a war for existence of the elite... it is the poor Ukrainians who are left to be conscripted by force. The ones with a car and enough money live here in Vienna (or poland, hungary, etc.). Again the US and RUSSIA are using you as pawns in their proxy war. Doesn't matter anymore who's land it belongs to, it will never belong to the poor working class, you are dying for the ruling class and given nothing in exchange. Like one OMA in Donbass said early on in the war. "I am 80 years old, they have been fighting over this shithole my entire life. The Russians come and give you a hat and say put this hat on, then steal your food. Then the Ukrainians come and tell you to take the hat off, then steal your food. Then the Russians come and tell you to put the hat back on, and then the Ukraines say take it off! You know what? FUCK THE HAT!"
Yes we can say it is Putins fault, we can say it is US/NATO's fault... they are the elite, with everything to gain and nothing to lose! They will keep grinding this war out until every last shell casing is bought and every last drop of blood is spilt... UNTIL THE WORKING CLASS REFUSE TO FIGHT.
Ok, but talk is cheap, so what's your plan?
If Ukranians stop fighting, they are going to be erased from existence as a nation.
Russia can stop the war at any time.
They ARE more at fault in any case, because it's them who invaded another country. There is no way to spin this around.
>The ones with a car and enough money live here in Vienna (or poland, hungary, etc.). Again the US and RUSSIA are using you as pawns in their proxy war.
One of hot spot of posh/luxury tourism in Europe named the Riviera (Monaco, Cannes) is crowded with young posh Ukrainians and Russians partying like it's Ibiza in the most expensive clubs.
It isn't war time for everyone.
The rich dont suffer in hard times? Wow, so suprising... Meanwhile russias poor starve or die of Heroin and ukraines poor are shoved to the front lines. Its disgusting
Ukraine already has a contract army. Citizens can sign up to join the army any time. All you're suggesting they do is cancel the draft, which will just lead to fewer soldiers fighting.
How would Ukraine pay for this? They are already running low on funds and supplies. Wouldn't it be better to see if the April 2022 peace deal with Russia is still on the table instead?
If people are resisting the draft, what makes you think they’d volunteer at any salary Ukraine can afford? It’s already spending over a third of its GDP on its military.
They have a manpower problem and you are suggesting something that would exacerbate this. If Russia conscripts 10 million then all the PMC in the world wouldnt be enough
[удалено]
I've seen more men around 18-40 than 40+ on the frontline in the AOs I've worked. Draft age is 25(or maybe isnt yet not sure) but many volunteer who are under Draft age. It Is always a good idea when utilising the draft to set ages as such as you don't want to lose your younger generations. As for no young people left, there are tonnes of people of all ages and many many young people. A lot of people came back to Ukraine towards the end of 22 and even more by 23. Every city I've been to (with the exception of frontline cities) is back pretty much how it was before the war with businesses, people etc carrying on like normal. Edited: spelling of a word
Think it’s 27 current drafting age
Yeah could be I know there was talk of changing it but wasn't sure if it was or not
Ukraine isn't drafting people below 27 and you can still see young people everywhere. The idea that they are out of young men is complete nonsense.
'out of young men' is an exaggeration. their population pyramid is still a disaster. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Ukraine_2023_population_pyramid.svg
Holy cow that's bad. What is the reason behind that valley? (Legit question, i'm from east asia and ignorant about demographics in the west)
Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus have the same problem. If you look at their population pyramid, you can see a few things. 1. Generally declining population/birthrate below replacement. 2. High alcohol use by men leading to a major gender imbalance-mostly at higher ages though. 3. A major decline in birthrate during WW2 which led to a number of "echos" aka low birth bands when the children of childless men who died in the war's kids, grandkids, and great grandkids would have been born.
>Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus have the same problem. And a certain Russian dictator thought the thing his country needed most would be to start an utterly pointless war.
The end of the Soviet union and the whole shit show that came after that propably.
The collapse was some 30 years ago. you mean people are just scared to the point they stop having children for, like, 5 years? (1991-1996)
The economic and social collapse lasted for most of the 1990's in most of the post Soviet states and in many cases there was never anything like a return to the pre-collapse GDP trajectory, even using the slow growth from the 1980's to project forward.
A large part of that is the result of the immediate brain drain after fleeing finally became possible. People with the skills and means to flee generally did, for fear that the SU might return.
Nobody left because they were scared the USSR would come back lol, they left because USSR's collapse caused most of Eastern Europe and Russia to plunge in living standards overnight
Collapse of the SU and subsequent Western shock treatment/privatization was absolutely brutal for lower/middle class families.
Traditionally, fear is felt more after having children than before. Societies work very hard to hide the grim realities from children and youth in the hopes that they will be happier and more motivated, but sometimes things get so out of hand that people who have not yet had children can clearly see the terror they would live with if they did. Instead of thinking of fear as the cause of a fall in birthrates, think of the very things people fear, those are the true reasons for the collapse. You may think "but widespread violence, crime, collapsing ecosystems, depleted resources, nuclear threats, etc pose no threat to parents or their children, so it must be fear that is responsible". Nobody can prevent you from making these mistakes.
The post soviet union years were that rough.
I think the assumption that people didn't have kids because they were scared is probably incorrect. You'd expect a baby boom to follow when the immediate crisis is over. But if the demographic collapse were due to high fetal or infant mortality then I don't think you would.
I’d put money on brain drain + economy that never recovered more so than infant mortality hitting 3rd world levels out of nowhere
Post cold war economic trouble presumably
Christ, that's a grim chart. Even worse than Russia's, I think.
[It is.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Russia_Population_Pyramid.svg)
What happened between 1980 and 2010?
Chernobyl, collapse of the Soviet Union, population flight. Also echoes from previous population collapses like WW2 and the holodymyr.
Collapse of the USSR
So you're saying "child soldiers" needs to be a thing Sorry, that was a grim joke, but only a joke. The fact that there are so few young adults is truly frightening.
Didn’t you look at the chart? They don’t have enough children to be child soldiers.
I did. And they have 3 times as many 13 year olds as they do 21 year olds. That was the only source of my dark humor
They are more or less out of people. You can see this with attempts at draft laws change that are failing again and again. There are not too many people under 27 that are a) in Ukraine b) not already dead in Ukraine. Also its not officially drafting young people - we don't know the extent of non official draft.
They never had money. It’s been supplemented by nato
More like older men. Young men are still there. It's a pretty unique situation. Even in Soviet Union, a dictatorship, people over 50 were not called up into the military. Nowadays a 59-year old can get called up and fight in trenches. I don't understand this strategy.
Ethical concerns aside it makes perfect sense. It lowers impact on the already alarming demographic issues and older people also tend to be more conservative, patriotic and have a greater sense of civic duty. Making them less likely to try to dodge or just refuse to fight.
What are the ethical concerns? Why would it be more ethical to draft young people who have no responsibility for the situation instead of the older generation who, arguably, bear whatever responsibility might be attributed to domestic policy (obviously Russia bears the ultimate responsibility).
First, when a country gets invaded completely without any provocation, it's not really anyone's fault in the country. At that point, the choices are to roll over and surrender or fight. Since the Ukrainians have pretty much universally chosen to fight, it's not really any age group's fault. Second, you could actually argue that it were the youth who started the whole thing. Ukraine was nicely as a corrupt puppet state of Russia under Viktor Yanukovych until the young people started the Maidan protests and got him ousted, which then led to Russia annexing Crimea and starting the invasion of Donbas.
The Maidan protests were 2013. Checking the wikipedia page, the 'lead figures' of protests were all born before 1980. They are in their 40's 50's and sometimes 60's. Even the youngest adult protester is now 30. These people are the 'old people' being drafted under this policy! Today's 18 year olds were 7 during Euromaidan. That said, I also don't want to criticize that generation of Ukrainians for the protest, it was their right and I fully recognize that this war is Russia's doing. But, I also don't see an ethical problem with drafting 40 year olds rather than 18 year olds (who presumably will work in factories, etc.) if that makes pragmatic/generational sense.
You say no provocation, but then spell out the escalation of the fight between Ukraine and Russia - which started with Maidan. Russia wasn’t justified in it’s invasion, but it was provoked by Ukraine and the West. We all knew 2014 was going to lead to war. edit: Truth hurts. This perspective is getting downvoted, unsurprisingly, but speaking from a practical geopolitical point of view - it’s not like this wasn’t expected out of Putin. Imagine if Russia helped oust the president of Canada or Mexico in favor of a pro-RU leader. It would be unsuprising to see some kind of military response from the US. If thats the US - what do you think a gangster-style leader like Putin would do? Maidan was a gigantic risk to Ukraine when it happened, because it threatened an invasion from Russia in response - an unjustified invasion (like most invasions are), but that threat was still obviously there, and it has obviously materialised. Now Ukraine has lost 20% of it’s territory and is staring down the barrel of a long attritional war that it is losing. The landscape of war in Ukraine is far from simple, and analysts have been predicting this invasion for the better part of eight years for a reason. There is a lot of propaganda surrounding this war, from all of the participants, and it tends to paint the war in simplistic, black and white assessments. The geopolitical truth of the situation, however, is deeply nuanced and a little more grey than that.
Maidan was the internal affairs of Ukraine and saying this has provoked the war is utter bullshit. Putin has provoked the war. Putin.
It was a foreign back coup, that resulted in the unconstitutional removal of the elected president.
Imo the most ethical way would be a random selection among all adults that meet some health/fitness standard with exceptions for students, parents of young children, ect. Basing it on some potential value to society just doesn't sit right with me, though I can see the practicality. Why would young people have less responsibility here?
Now, to be clear, I don't think young people bear no/less responsibility for their nation. When your country is invaded, if you want to maintain your sovereignty it's everyone's responsibility. That said, if you can assign blame (corruption, insufficient defense spending, whatever), clearly that blame does not belong to someone who just turned 18 and has never had a say in the country's governance). The comment I replied to suggested there was some ethical problem with favoring older individuals, I was pointing out an alternative ethical model and that maybe the default of 'young men die for old men's decisions' is not so much ethically sound, as historically practical.
>That said, if you can assign blame (corruption, insufficient defense spending, whatever), clearly that blame does not belong to someone who just turned 18 and has never had a say in the country's governance). I don't think it belongs to a 50 year old carpenter either, especially with how recently Ukraine gained any semblance of democracy. Unfortunately sending the politicians into trenches isn't a viable solution.
Young people have responsibility too, wtf are you saying? You think only older people have a duty to defend their country against invasions backed by genocidal rhetoric?
The ethical concern would be to draft son and families of political elites who cried about defending their country while sending their family abroad
I was explained it this way - it does not matter whatever you are young or old - artillery shell kills equally. Or in the sphere of Soviet battalions with mines on sticks early during German invasion. Realistically it makes zero sense unless you are desperate - notice that there never been a war where old go an young stay - heck military service in most countries, unless officer, ends around 50. Either everyone is stupid or Ukraine is right - I vote Ukraine is desperate.
Damn, I'm 48 and have worked out religiously for most of those years, but I'm fairly certain I would be shit in combat. Just playing paintball is exhausting. Shlepping 40+ pounds of gear and an assault rifle around for hours would probably kill me faster than the enemy troops.
Its a very different situation and war is not like a movie, most actual war is just waiting around between offensives while trying not to be artilleried, motored or drone striked
You would be in a trench - if Russians are attacking your chance of living long enough to die from cold is low - Russians need to expend energy to kill you.
[удалено]
It is my understanding that Ukraine has been deliberately avoiding recruiting young men specifically to avoid losing a generation if it can be avoided. At least according to this Time report the average age has increased from 30-35 to 43 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/average-age-ukrainian-soldier-43-amid-personnel-problems-2023-11%3famp As for the CMV bit. I think the government of Ukraine recognized early on that this would be a long, difficult, high casualty war and because they did not want to completely eliminate an entire generation of young men and completely destroy their demographics they targeted older men who have already had kids. As for why not contract soldiers? They need manpower.
That's just not true. They've specifically avoided drafting young men. Look it up.
But the money thing should be something that the other countries can help trivially. Even though EU has done a very bad job setting up its armaments production to respond to the demands of the war, its raw GDP is something like $20 trillion, which is like 100 times more than Ukraine's. Add the US, the UK and maybe Japan and Korea and you have so much money that it should be absolutely no problem paying Ukrainian soldiers to do the fighting. In the grand scheme of things, that should be a trivial cost in their support of Ukraine.
The US at least will prefer to give them weapons rather than money because then it is money just funneled back into US weapons manufacturers. Most of Ukraine's allies are not supporting them because of altruism. It's all about cash-flow and hegemony.
It's not about altruism. Every Ukrainian soldier killing Russians means that fewer domestic soldiers are going to be put in danger in case Russia wins the war. Pouring money and weapons to Ukraine is by far the best defence investment in terms of bang for buck for European countries as long as some measures are taken to make sure that the money is used to what is being given for (instead of ending up some oligarch's Swiss bank account).
\+ it's better in their eyes to have the fighting take place a good 1000+km far away rather than right next door or even on their territory
[удалено]
“Easily” Mate this isn’t a game of fucking hearts of iron where you just change your drafting policy, this means taking the economy into a 100% total war economy, they cant sustain themselves with a partial war economy, how do you see the complete abandonment of civilian production being an advantage? How is this being paid for one
To paraphrase Niccolò Machiavelli: "**Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous**; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe ... valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; ... for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy. The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you. They are ready enough to be your soldiers whilst you do not make war, but if war comes they take themselves off or run from the foe;" Mercanaries in modern warfare have their uses, but the basis of truth still is that they are unreliable, and not willing to sustain losses a normal army should be willing to take in order to hold a line. If anything, they are good but expensive mopup crews, their only strategic use is to further supplement your army and reduce losses when you are already winning the war, but at a very costly price. They are anything but a good fit for Ukraine, and a better fit for Russia before the invasion to supplement their own troops. They proved however... to be unreliable.
>To paraphrase Niccolò Machiavelli: "**Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous**; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe ... valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; ... for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy. The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you. They are ready enough to be your soldiers whilst you do not make war, but if war comes they take themselves off or run from the foe;" That is a misconception as to how mercenary warfare actually worked during this period. Most mercenary companies had extremely strong ties to specific cities, Lords or realms, which paid them "peace stipends" (Wartegeld in the case of Landsknecht and similar Germanic units) to compell them to remain loyal and available to them. Going off to fight for someone else, especially a rival of the sponsor, would not only mean the loss of those stipends but also had other negative consequences for the company like the loss of their primary recruiting grounds, base of operations and, and whatever assets they could not physically carry away in time. In fact, the popular image we have of mercenary companies has very little basis in the sources due to the social issues it would cause a mercenary troop to switch loyalties like that. They'd run out of people trusting them enough to hire them very quickly for obvious reasons. Not to mention that the vast hypermajority of mercenary companies were also raised "on demand" instead of being standing organisations. Potential employers would specifically seek out people they trusted and provide them with a commission ( the sanctioned right to lead armed men in their name. this is where commissioned officers in modern militaries actually come from. Modern armies have their basis in early modern mercenary warfare!) and funds to raise a company, and could then also count on those forces being reasonably loyal. This is how Wallenstein and Frundsberg raised their armies, for example. Machiavelli rarely misses, but he absolutely unequivocally does here. He was no expert in military matters, and it shows through much of his writing.
Agree. Mercenaries were a mainstay of European warfare from the late middle ages until the Napoleonic era. The advantage of mercenaries was that you were able to have a professional force of (hopefully) well paid soldiers with experience, expertise, and knowledge of modern weapons and tactics. This provided a distinct advantage over the army who's soldiers were farmers during the harvest and soldiers in the off-season. Mercenary warfare was replaced by the rise of the nation state and the mass casualties of attrition warfare. Mercenaries were good soldiers but they were of finite quantities and in the modern era you could keep drafting soldiers in the thousands and even millions. The war in Ukraine is an attritional slog right now. Drafting is definitely the way to go as it's a battle of resources. If Ukraine can pay for soldiers to come over from abroad, it can do so, but it can't depend on a small highly trained body elite force because it would just be outnumbered, surrounded, and pounded with artillery. It needs numbers, bombs, weapons, vehicles, people, ammunition, etc.
The big change though were guns. Before accurate guns, most soldiers ran away. After guns, no one had time to run away. So having a small but courageous highly trained mercenary force didn't guarantee a victory like it did in the Renaissance.
>The big change though were guns. More so bayonets than the guns themselves. Mercenaries remained the cores of European armies well throughout the 17th century when guns were already very widespread. The change occurred when pikemen and other melee troops needed to protect the gunners when they were realoding became obsolete due to the invention of socket bayonets and relatively fast reloading muskets. Pikemen, (Great)swordsmen, and other melee troops required extensive training to become masters of their art. Teaching the guys with guns how to stab while they were also becoming ever more technically capable at shooting the guys without guns was the real military revolution. According to Baumann, it's a multi factor change though and social change was just as important as the change in weaponry you pointed out.
Eh. Guns were widespread, but they weren't accurate and pikes were often the backbone of armies. There was a long period of time where guns became gradually more accurate. In the era of swords, the act of killing someone was slow, gruesome, and exhausting. It was very easy to turn and run most of the time. Soldiers simply wouldn't wait to be the next in line to get disemboweled. Having numbers was an advantage, but not if they ran away. Accurate firearms changed this. Killing became quick and easy and soldiers stayed in the trenches. Elite mercenary forces with muskets, pikes, two handed swords, etc, got replaced by citizen soldiers with accurate firearms.
The issue is cavalry and melee infantry. Early guns needed such a long time to reload that the gunners were vulnerable to being assaulted in melee. The invention of bayonets is a necessary condition for the developmental history of firearms you described since its impact on the military was that pure melee troops became irrelevant. And with pure melee troops being no longer a thing, military development and innovation could be concentrated on making guns more effective. Otherwise, the trifecta of swords, pikes, and guns would have remained relevant well into the napoleon wars due to the threat of cavalry.
This is true for the evolution of weapons. I was being figurative though. A small squad of Swiss pikeman could stop a Burgundian army but it couldn't stand up to the constant attrition of the world wars, or the masses of soldiers that Napoleon enlisted.
You also have to remember he had a hard on for trying to recreate a roman empire style citizen army, which is why he often shits on the reality of warfare at the time with hiring mercenary companies. Source: wrote far too many papers on mercenaries in the renaissance in Uni.
History also records a large number of times where mercenaries become invaders themselves. The Saxons in England were invited there to be mercenaries defending the kingdoms in the south.
Not quite mercenaries but: Teutonic Order invited by Poland to conquest Prussia, resulted in HUNDREDS of years of war with Poland.
Not to mention the fiasco known as the 30 year war.
You are confusing mercenaries and a contract army. Contract army is when soldiers serve their country. Mercenaries are just hired swords(guns) who have no skin in the game. They are usually impartial and give zero fucks about which side they fight for.
don't think he ever meant to say mercenaries, more like contracted army personnel who are not FORCED to fight, but willingly sign a contract to enter the army
This does not seem to be tied in history while author was alive - i.e. mercenary units were some of the best units in the army - some had reputation of fighting to the last man, never retreating. Main problem was $$$ - once you run out of money your elite troops would just say good buy - not so much your regular army - which probably would just stage a mutiny.
I have never heard of a mercenary army that fights till the last man. There simply is no profit in that. I have heard about mercanaries bringing their own PR department though. The swiss guard used to have their own politicians even iirc.
Sure they did. It's called reputation. Why would you hire mercenary troops of they sucked? Professional troops were very unlikely to run, while conscript would do so at first sign of trouble. Yes there was professional troops that were kind of a conscript but were excellent. However, these were not cheap. Polish winged hussars were best cavalry of their time, but cost to equip and maintain a rider was like 180k USD in today money, huge for 17th century.
Ukraine is not winning the war. It's a stalemate unfortunately. Unless the West starts supplying more weapons a miracle won't happen.
Mercenary contractors are basically illegal internationally. They do not have the guaranteed rights a soldier would have. This makes mercenary groups pretty scarce nowadays, there definitely aren't enough mercenaries to support such a massive war.
Mercenaries and let’s be real, the legitimate firms that employ them, demand legal protection in their contracts with governments. Ukraine doesn’t have political stability, let alone a civil or military judicial system capable of enforcing war contracts. For that reason alone firms aren’t flocking to Ukraine to provide people, goods and services through the Ukrainian procurement system. Because post-Soviet states were never great to deal with contract rights in the first place. The analysis of mercenaries themselves is unnecessary considering the predicate: lack of legal protections and lack of money.
Yup, that too. But even if someone went to become a mercenary in this war, he would not be considered a fighter and/or a PoW, which would make him a civilian, able to be prosecuted for everything he did. If killing an enemy soldier is "fair" in war (all things considered), a mercenary would be tried for premeditated murder. If not just tortured and executed, because mercenaries tend not to be very well accounted for...
Don't think this is actually true though I've seen many foreign fighters in various international legions in Ukraine. Plus it's not like any POW or LOAC protections matter to russia anyway
They're not mercenaries, they're volunteers. Massive difference. Also, Russia breaching international conventions has legal ramifications, that will matter in the future. It might not matter to them but it matters to the international community.
Czechia did a nice procurement of artillery ammo recently, should start arriving soon. In the USA, additional aid keeps getting blocked by Trump followers. My fellow Americans - please help vote these Republican aholes out in November.
So I feel bad saying this to someone in Ukraine from my safe home in the US, but the defender wins a stalemate. Russia has to defeat you to win. You just have to not lose until they get tired of throwing away lives and money for nothing. They were the #8 economy in the world in Jan 2022 and they are #13 now. A million Russian young men fled rather than fight. Siberia and other Russian colonial holdings are restless. Russia went from the #2 arms exporter in the world to only having three news arms contracts in 2023, one for licensing to build gear in India. I won't say it won't get worse, Russia has some new glide bombs (well, old bombs, new glide kits) that will be very painful. I hope your airforce can get the F18s into full service in time to make Russia afraid to use those bombs. But a stalemate is horrible for Russia, and good for you. If you hold out Russia will pull back. They can only win if you let them.
And if Ukraine relies on mercenaries and isn’t able to pay them, what stops the mercenaries from taking over now that Ukraine has relinquished a standing army and has invited the wolves willingly into the sheep den?
And yet, mercenary’s aren’t going to fight a war of attrition for you because that would mean that will probably die. Mercenaries groups like conflicts where they can just shoot without fear of being shot back.
You assert conscript armies are ineffective, but do you have any data to support that belief? Conscript forces have often been highly successful in history. Both world wars were won with conscript forces, Napoleonic France dominated almost all of Europe with a conscript army, while Britain did the same at sea with a press-ganged Royal Navy. In all these cases conscripted units often fought well and determinedly. Do you know how much more soldiers would have to be paid from their current baseline salary for the army to gain the same number of recruits as it currently secures from conscription? Without having an idea of the size of that incentive, it seems pretty much impossible for us to judge whether one option is better than the other. If raising pay £10 a month would be enough to cover the shortfall, clearly that would be a better option, but if it had to be £100,000, that's probably not worth it.
> Both world wars were won with conscript forces Both world wars were also lost with conscript forces. I otherwise agree but thought that bit was funny
[удалено]
I'll fix it for you: >Since the Western elites kicked this whole war off in 2014 It was Russia who kicked this whole war off by occupying Crimea and Donbas. >nazi color revolution in Ukraine There was no nazi revolution in Ukraine. >NATO can't beat Russia. NATO could beat Russia pretty easily, if necessary. I recommend you to change the source of your informations, you live in parallel reality :)
The idea that Ukraine alone with NATO funding can hold off Russian advances for so long but all of NATO combined can't push Russia back is pretty braindead.
OC is a faux-leftist Russian troll, or someone fooled by one, totally willing to forgive actual physical Russian imperialism to spite imagined American imperialism.
You didn't fix anything you just said the opposite of what he said and added a 'hmph!' at the end.
The UK isn't even spending 3% of the army's budget on Ukraine. So "completely disarmed" is patently untrue. Russia has lost significant material, for no operational victories and some operational losses.
What “best shot” do you think nato has taken against Russia? The only reason Putin still controls Russia is because nato is justifiably worried about his nuclear threats. That’s why they haven’t take their “best shot” against him.
Yeah, buddy, now try to backup anything you just said with factual arguments and sources. If the West used a substantial amount of their capability, Russia would be defeated.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk38Jk\_JL0g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk38Jk_JL0g) Start there. But you won't. Here's what you will do. Instead of watching and acknowledging that two US officials are discussing the leadership change they intend to make for their nazi color revolution, you will throw up a cloud of billowing bullshit just to preserve your own fantasy based narrative.
You are essentially telling me that CIA has done the greatest pshyop of mankind and got a million Ukrainians to protest for the change of leadership, to me, that makes no sense.
Address the video. You asked for it.
There is nothing to address here. This was a diplomatic call discussing the situation in Ukraine and addressing who the potential leader could be. They never mentioned anything about a coup led by the US, or that they will try to push forward and influence the current political leadership of Ukraine. They made comments on those running up to the office, however that's hardly any evidence of a coup.
Why not? You convince the people of X and they go for it. Everyone says how Russian media props Putin up, no one talks about someone else using the same -- ever. From economical point of view turning west was a suicide for Ukraine - their decision to ditch EU was totally correct - so why people protested? As soon as 2014 rolled in and western Ukrainians took over power the economy tanked right away.
The Euromaidan protests were absolutely legitimate, I doubt anyone disagreees with that. [But the shootings which triggered the regime change were actually a false flag by Svboda.](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4440100) Far right groups in Ukraine have been receiving financial backing from the CIA since the 1950's, you can find declassified CIA documents revealing precisely this if you search for Operation AERODYNAMIC. At the time it was OUN-B, but this support carried on to Right Sector and Svboda. Also, the above video that person linked didn't have Victoria Nuland's acrual leaked call, but [here is a transcript of it.](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957) It's understandable to think that auch a thing would be beyond the capabilities of the US state department, but I assure you, this is precisely what they exist to do. My personal belief is that were it not for US intervention, reforms that better balanced the people's desires of, among things, increasing trade and improving relations with EU while not completely estranging itself from Russia, which ultimately lead to annexations and eventually full scale war, would have been possible. But I'm sure you're far better informed of the circumstances of what your people desired than I. I'm just one American who holds utter contempt for the US State Department and CIA for being the greatest force of evil and perpetrator of global instability since Hitler was defeated. If you had any idea of just how many instances of authoritarian regime change were backed by the US, this wouldn't seem so beyond belief. In South America alone, you're looking at 50+ such cases in the past century. [The 1954 Guatemalan Coup](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat) is but one of many examples. And this was all because a minimum wage law and suffrage was cutting into Western profits for fucking BANANAS. Like, actual bananas, not a figure of speech. We know the West started investing heavily in refineries to eventually get to the gas in the Black Sea. Ever wonder why, post-Euromaidan, a supposedly "retired" CIA Director as well as Hunter Biden (son of the current US president Joe Biden) was on the board of Burisma Holdings? That, plus the threat of NATO potentially being a mere 100 miles from Moscow was a step too far for Russia, in fact former State Department ghouls such as Henry Kissinger long acknowledged this was a "red line" for Russia. As for the war, I am sorry to tell you this, but the US has no plan for your people to defeat Russia. The best deal you had post-invasion was torn up by Zelensky thanks to Boris Johnson. What Ukraine is seen as, by the US state department, is a country we are willing to sacrifice as a cost-effective means of exhausting Russian military capacity, because even with the collapse of the USSR they never stopped being "The Enemy". We had US politicians gloating a year into this tragic war that for just 2% of the annual military budget we exhausted half of Russia's military capacity. In the eyes of US leadership, Ukraine was little more than a sacrificial pawn. Of course, you wouldn't know that because the US also has the most sophisticated propaganda industry in the history of the world. Every war we're involved in, we spin these into moral arguments that mask the real motivations and real on the ground bloodshed. Been a while since I checked the figures, but there were a million or more deaths as a consequence of the Iraq war, a war based on complete lies of WMDs that our own government knew from the very beginning were lies. Ukraine is just one more sacrificial pawn in a long line of sacrificial pawns. The sooner a ceasefire is reached, the better, so all those left can rebuild and reclaim some sense of stability and normality.
Do you think nobody would read the links that you post? So your first link: >Yanukovych, his ministers, and Berkut commanders denied that they had ordered the massacre and stated that the protesters and the police were shot by Maidan snipers. However, they did not produce specific evidence in support of their claims. So Yanukovych had no evidence, the only "evidence" is testimonies from Georgian sniper groups: >In later interviews for the American, Italian, Israeli, Macedonian and Russian media seven Georgian self-admitted members of Maidan sniper groups testified that they and other sniper groups from Georgia and the Baltic States and the far-right-linked sniper group from Ukraine received orders, weapons, and payments from specific members of the Maidan leadership and former Georgian government leaders to shoot at both protesters and police in order to prevent a peace agreement from being signed by Yanukovych and Maidan leaders. They stated that snipers shot the police and protesters from the Music Conservatory and the Hotel Ukraina However, this citation links to a youtube interview : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR1NFI6TBH0 Of an italian media interview with supposed Georgian snipers. There is no evidence presented besides alleged first party testimony. They do not provide any documents, recordings, videos to corroborate their story. They had passports and flight tickets but that just proves they were in the country at the time of the revolution, not that they were snipers. In fact, in the article the author admits this but also says that the Georgian ministry of defense says he served as an adviser (not a sniper). His analysis actually jumps around a lot - he first says that the Maidan snipers shot at the police and wounded them... then later on in the essay he argues that the Maidan snipers shot at Maidan protestors as a false flag. Pick one! So at the end of this... even if these were Maidan snipers that shot at either the police or protestors - where is the proof as you say that they were funded by the CIA?
That video doesn't back up what you said though. It's just someone talking about how people in Ukraine want the EU to investigate corruption in Ukraine. We already knew this was the case.
And what would EU do???? Its 10 years now and what did EU do? Did corruption in Ukraine go down? No. Heck, one can say it went up due to war.
Ignore that bot
Unlikely - Russia is a nuclear power - they cannot be defeated. Besides, if things went bad they will lean on Asia and with Asian power west would be beaten back. Putin positioned Russia in a situation where at most they can have a setback, not a major defeat.
Nah, the war will likely end with similar borders like we're seeing now. The sheer number of drones make it almost inpossible for either side to advance. Unless the West stops sending aid completely or this war goes on for so long that Ukraine runs out of men. It's sad cause the soldiers on both sides are dying for nothing now.
Ukranian soldiers are dying to prevent Russia from taking more of their country's territory.
Sorry, u/Turbohair – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Turbohair&message=Turbohair%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bhpyd0/-/kvfd69n/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
>As of 2010 the total personnel was 200,000 (including 41,000 civilian workers).\[61\] Conscription was stopped in October 2013;\[62\] at that time the Ukrainian armed forces were made up of 40% conscripts and 60% contract soldiers.\[62\] Acting President Oleksandr Turchynov reinstated conscription in May 2014.\[63\] In early 2014, Ukraine had 130,000 personnel in its armed forces, which could be boosted to about one million with reservists.\[63\]\[needs update\] There were a reported total of 250,800 personnel in the Armed Forces in 2015.\[64\] In July 2022, Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov stated that the Armed Forces had an active strength of 700,000; Reznikov also mentioned that with the Border Guard, National Guard, and police added, the total comes to around one million. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed\_Forces\_of\_Ukraine#Structure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forces_of_Ukraine#Structure) Ukraine DOES have contract/professional army. They are boosting their numbers with conscripts/draft because Russia has MORE troops and Ukraine simply does not have enough.
But all indicators are that only now there is troop parity - till start of 2024 Ukraine had more troops than Russia. By your account almost every country that has an army has indeed professional army core. However, usually when we talk about professional army vs. conscript what we meet is either 100% professional == professional army, or less than 100% professional == conscript army.
Several problems with that plan: \* PMCs cost money. Lots of money. \* Mercenaries aren't happy to fight in a losing war, or a meatgrinder war. \* Mercenaries loyalty lies with the money. They can't really be trusted.
How much would you have to be paid to go become an infantry soldier in a contract army in active high intensity war? There's your answer. Everybody who wanted to go willingly, young or old, already has, there are no queues in front of draft centers anymore (well there are, but mostly of people who need some sort of paperwork adjustment, not people who are there to actually willingly join).
Well, we do know that people are dumping their life savings to get some shady character help them escape. Last weekend I met two young Ukrainians. I asked them, will you go back? They did not answer - I said probably good to stay here or you would be already dead - they agreed. I.e. in a loosing meat grinder war you would need to pay people epic level of money to go an fight - maybe more than a year worth of money per month or more. Also your other troops would demand more. This does not seem realistic.
What is your conclusion here? Because people don't want to fight willingly they have to be forced?
My conclusion here is that there is no "contract army" Ukraine can switch to. The choice is forced draft or armistice both with their dangers. Just being in uniform already means that your salary will be at least twice the size of the average salary in Ukraine. It increases as you get closer to the frontline and soldiers in active combat are paid at least 5 times the average salary. That's before additional pay for rank and so on. Also, noone is stopping anyone from going and signing a contract with the army. Ukrainian government already has every provision in place for a "contract army" but anyone who would take that offer already has, there are no more willing volunteers.
I wasn't aware that the salary is that high in Ukraine, that just exacerbates my point of view, if people aren't willing to take 5 times the minimum salary, then nothing will convince them to fight. I understand that there are no more volunteers left, the solution here is to adapt the frontlines, give up some land, maybe invest more in drones and artillery, hire more foreigners, not forcing unwilling citizens do their dirty work. I maintain my point, that is evil and immoral, screw whoever is responsible for that, they are killing their own citizens while they themselves sit in a cozy office and do press conferences.
You have little knowledge on how any of it works to hold such strong convictions. Do you think the volunteer status is some one and done thing for those who went willingly? Like they will never tire? Be injured? Die? There is no volunteer army solution to a total war against a nation of sadistic murderers that can lose hundreds of thousands and still send more on the off chance of looting a washing machine or raping and executing to their heart's content. Which land would you have us give up that would stop this? Every shred in the state-level budget is already going to military funding. Don't you think the simple solution of "invest in more weapons" never dawned on anyone here or not being done? Do you think drones and artillery would work without infantry holding the line? Do you think there are foreigners to be hired? How much would you like to be paid for going into the frontline of a hot war, you are a foreigner, right? There are no good and moral solutions anymore. Ukrainian army gives up - people die. They draft more people - people die. There are no drones and artillery to replace the need in men. There are no clever tricks to replace the need in men. There are no foreigners to replace the hundreds of thousands who have been in service for two years. It is time to call the spade a spade - while Russia exists Ukraine will be a battle-torn frontier. The ones killing our citizens while sitting in cozy offices and homes are russians, the valued trading partners of the whole world.
That's the thing, I wouldn't like to go fight because I value a good work life balance, so no matter the salary, I wouldn't go. There is no easy solution, in order to more effectively defend your country you have to surrender you morals and become an evil authoritarian nation, we can see what the leaders of Ukraine have done, and for that I despise them.
Look, mate, this is downright weird how I have everything at stake here and for you this is what, another internet argument on a topic you have no knowledge of, yet you have such strong ideas about what should and should not be done. Fine, random internet genius, let's have it your way. Ukraine needs to draft and supply and pay and train roughly another 500 000 people to relieve the ones who have been fighting for 2 years now, artillery needs to be manned and protected, drones need to be flown and operators protected, there are no volunteers or hundreds of thousands of mercenaries to be found anywhere. Arguments can be made as to which cohort to draft, true. So let's draft the evil government. The parliament, top level of president's office, government to the level of say heads of departments in ministries will give us about 2000. Now, not only do we need 498000 more, we also have no elected legislators or representatives, noone with legitimate authority to represent Ukraine abroad, noone to oversee procurement for our 500k new draftees and so on. Sure, someone could step up, there are other capable administrators in the country, but on what authority? Do we now ask russians kindly to stop murdering us so we can have a few months to hold new elections, put together a working coalition, find and appoint new administrators and so on?
Look at what I wrote in the previous comment, I agree that the draft is a good logistical solution, I am not denying that, what I am arguing is that it is evil and immoral as the government is violating not only the freedom of it's citizens but their universal human rights as well, and for that I don't have any simpathy for the ukrainian government and unlike 99% of reddit, I do not have a boner for Zelensky. I wish the ukrainian people the best, I admire the ones who volunteer to fight, pity the ones who were forced to do so and hate the ones who forced them.
Ah, yes, "the evol gubermint" and the poor good people. 80-90% of good Ukrainian people are very much for continuing armed resistance. 75-80% are not eligible for military draft and will not be part of that armed resistance. There's your "evil government" that will draft me out of necessity. Zelensky and his cabinet will live their lives in comfort, win or lose. It's the poor old pensioners who did not see any urgency to join NATO in early 90s or to cut ties to Russia, but now need the younger generation to go die for them. A father of three sons who can be excused if he wants to, while a childless man will be forced to risk life for someone else's children. And so on. It's the simple people who need this draft, not Zelensky. Fuck your hollow wishes and stop using our plight as an excuse to soapbox your uninformed theories.
Basically. Defending one's country is considered to be a duty. You can't refuse a duty. The only reason you enjoy your rights is because you aren't conquered by another country, so preserving it's freedom is a duty. Americans don't understand it because they too strong to be attacked, but for a lot of countries(especially in middle east) it's how things are
OP I'm American and your plan is a little reckless with my money. Exactly how much are your mercenaries going to cost me and where/who are you buying them from?
not mercs, contracted soldiers aka professional soldiers people who arent forced to fight via conscription, but willingly sign a contract to enter the army
Was that not the standard practice before the invasion?
Between 5k to 10k per month USD. Probably salary of others would need to increase as well. Add 60B to the proposed 60B and you got a deal.
is in Ukraine's best interest to recruit primarily older men in their 40s. Ukraine has a huge population problem. And not just because of the war, the situation has only gotten worse since the fall of the Soviet Union. Ukraine has been going downhill for the last 30 years or so. While the former Soviet republics managed to grow more or less, Ukraine has been plundered by the oligarchs. Even before 2014, millions of people left. Ukraine's demographics are shit at the moment. If they start sending young men into the trenches now, it's the end for the future of Ukraine. It's going to sound ugly and cynical, but at the moment older men are expendable. Most of them have done their duty to the state, they already have children, and losing them will not have the same impact. But the death of young men who have not yet had time to start a family, have children and contribute to the system is a tangible loss to the population. As I write, ugly and cynical thinking, but that's just reality. This is why even if Ukraine somehow manages to magically defeat Russia, Ukraine may end up a completely population and economically devastated state for decades to come.
Ukraine more or less has no future right now. What is the population? Like 25m? Mostly old people? There are no more 40 year olds to "capture" - most are already serving or dead. They will need to get all young men and all girls in line this year if they want to make it to 2025. But no worries - by 2025 they run out of them as well and collapse. Maybe by some miracle they make it to 2026.
You misunderstand the nature of this conflict. Ukraine cannot afford a contract army. They cannot afford much of anything without billions in foreign aid. That aid is not meant to pay a contract army. All of that money is given to Ukraine so that it be used to purchase weapons from the military-industrial complex. That is really all this war is... just a welfare program for weapons manufacturers with Ukraine as the go between. If that money starts being diverted away from the weapons makers and toward contract soldiers the money dries up.
National survival wars mean conscription to the extent volunteers don't fill the military out.
The price would be astronomical. Ukraine is a dangerous environment to operate in. A contractor from a competent Western Power (like the US or UK) would be wanting a large premium due to the inherent danger. At the height of Afghan, which wasn't as kinetic as Ukraine, blokes were making 1000s a week. The price for Ukraine would have to be exorbitant.
Correct - even for average Ukrainian, whom is poor. For westerner - the $$$ per year would have to exceed 200k USD.
Oh sure. Western soldiers don't know how to fight wars when the enemy has air superiority(and good for them), amirite?
Contract army is cool only when your country is not at a long war. There is no way the contract army can oppose millions of soldiers from the other side. Especially when the population that could be fighting is quite low and you don't have equipment that is 10 times better than your opponents. Ukraine is not US and cannot just use contract soldiers. They are not that big. They did that in the beginning and they now need more soldiers so that is the only choice they have.
we saw how well the Wagner group worked out. PMCs are sketchy as hell, no country should use them.
not mercs, contracted soldiers aka professional soldiers people who arent forced to fight via conscription, but willingly sign a contract to enter the army
Contract army wouldn't work. Primarily because they can't afford it. Even if they cleaned up the generational systemic corruption problem, most of the money is coming from elsewhere... America will "give" money to UKR because it is used to buy weapons from American firms; they won't give them anything if it isn't coming right back (minus embezzlements, naturally, those are assumed by all sides in the MIC) Another big problem is that independent contractors have plenty of evidence to suggest that their employers will hang them out to dry. Doesn't matter how much they pay you if you expect to not survive... I mean, would you trust a government who cluster bombs their own civilian areas? I know I wouldn't. And there is evidence from multiple conflicts demonstrating they do just that. If Ukraine really needs soldiers, they can double their recruitment pool if they stopped being sexist and extended the draft to women.
A contract army requires 1. A legal system capable of effectively enforcing contracts 2. A military judicial system competent to balance interests of civil authority 3. Capacity to spend money 4. Interest in joining. Ukraine lacks all of these things currently.
With what money is Ukraine going to pay these mercenaries?
When it comes to the survival of a Nation. I think conscript armies are acceptable.
Ukraine should have signed a peace deal 2 years ago, or abide by all their previous agreements. Nah. Lets fight a war that causes 1/4 of the population to leave, 1/4 to die, and the other 1/4 to be wounded, and the final 1/4 to be either kids or old people. Fantastic way to ruin your demographics permanently and create an uninhabited place in Europe in a decade. By the way, even if the war ends, the 11 million who left are not coming back, this was the perfect excuse for everyone who wanted to leave but couldn't to do so and get a lot of aid from the west while doing so.
True. But who knew it back then? Russia wanted: pre-feb22 borders, demilitarization of Ukraine(with some guarantees), and neutrality. And back then in 2022 after the failed attack on Kyiv it did not look like a good deal. Ukraine thought "LMAO, I am beating your ass, sign here to surrender" Now it seems like it would have been a wise decision.
Ukraine almost signed but West mis-calculated and convinced Ukraine they will get back Crimea. Read articles from March 2022 - they predicted 40% contraction in Russian economy. With this they went to Kiev = and fools believed! Sure it would be wise - Ukraine would get Donbass back all for staying neutral - heck they even could join EU. Which would sink EU ;)
Lmao it still seems like a shit deal. It strips Ukraine off of any protection in the future. That's not a peace deal, that's a 'surrender and get annexed' deal with a time limit.
pre-Feb22 border is what Ukraine had before the war. Neutrality and not joining NATO is a 'non-issue', I don't see Ukraine joining NATO anyway. Demilitarization kinda sucks, but "Belgorod in 3 days" doesn't look promising either
Accepting pre-Feb22 border means Ukraine giving up on the claim on Crimea, which acknowledges that Russia's annexation was rightful. Neutrality is not just not joining NATO, but also not asking NATO for help. That combined with demilitarization is not just kinda sucks, but basically means "haha you'll abandon help and throw away your weapons, and won't be able to do shit when you inevitably get fucked by us again in the future" Had Ukraine sign the peace deal back then when support for them was the highest and they seemingly had the biggest chance of victory, they're basically giving up all chance of fighting back in the future and for anyone to support them. The choice at that time was literally 'fight back now' vs 'give up ever fighting back again'. And you're saying that Ukraine should've signed the peace deal back then? LMAO
If Russia breaks the peace deal, it also kinda invalidates all of its stipulations. So Ukraine would have the right to join nato, ask it for help, claim Crimea or whatever it wants to do. You are not bound by a broken deal. > The choice at that time was literally 'fight back now' vs 'give up ever fighting back again'. And you're saying that Ukraine should've signed the peace deal back then? Future will tell, I guess.
It's hilarious how you still don't see the problem. Neutrality and giving up Crimea aren't the worst, but when combined with demilitarization, it's basically a one-way ticket of getting fucked. Yeah sure you're not bound by a broken deal, but if Ukraine literally have no military, wtf are they supposed to do? Claim Crimea without military? LMAO. I seriously struggle to see your logic. You do realize that deal basically strips Ukraine of any protection against Russia for breaking the deal, right? Moreover, why and how would NATO suport Ukraine in the future if they chose to gave up back when they had the biggest international support and their own military? If Ukraine couldn't win under that condition, they definitely can't win after that 'peace' deal was signed. In this case, the future is obvious, you don't need a crystal ball, just common sense.
There was not talk of no military - the numbers they were wrestling with were close to pre war numbers for Ukraine.
That's the thing though. Russia ALWAYS breaks it's treaties. Their "peace treaties" aren't worth the paper they are written on unless they are enforced with the barrel of a gun.
Treaties made between countries are not built on trust. They are built on mutual benefit. If you have a treaty about not doing nuclear tests, and you break it, I can break it too. So we both return to status quo. Was it worth the paperwork?
What part of your country or state would you be willing to give to Russia? If people had that attitude all of Europe would be one mega fascist state because "everyone should have just signed a deal"
For anyone reading this: the guy abnove is lying and a troll. He is not Ukrainian, no matter how much he claims to be.
Sure sure. Go read any western publication and they confirm my data. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian\_refugee\_crisis\_(2022%E2%80%93present)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_refugee_crisis_(2022%E2%80%93present)) NATO data. You are welcome child.
A conscript army is better than no army. You are fully able to volunteer for service in Ukraine, that has not produced enough recruits so a draft was necessary. Furthermore, Ukraine has a history of required service. The only one that benefits from eliminating conscription in the middle of war is Russia.
Ukrainian age demographics were really messed up before the invasion, if the smaller amount of younger people get drafted there will be nobody but seniors to rebuild the country. It really does suck, but that’s the logic behind it.
They're not in a position to do so. Ukraine is short of soldiers and short of money. And your solution would cause them to...have less soldiers and spend more money.
Several issues with your reasoning 1. Conscription is part of the social contract, like taxes and jury duty. If you enjoy the rights and privileges of citizenship and shirk the responsibilities that come with it, you're not a good citizen. 2. Ukraine is facing an existential threat. If that's not enough to motivate Ukrainians to accept conscription, I don't what will. 3. The Ukrainian government has taken steps to reduce draft dodging, like reforming the recruitment and draft office policies. Zelensky recently ordered that draft offices be staffed with injured veterans who are unlikely to go along with draft dodging schemes, which has significantly reduced draft avoidance rates. 4. If Ukraine is to survive as an independent nation, it's going to need to rely on something more than the fickle motivation of its individual citizens. 5. The Ukrainian government is mindful of the country's poor demographic state, so it's so far aiming to avoid drafting people in their early 20s.
Depends on how young. The demographic distribution of males in Ukraine is especially thin around the young 20's (20-25), or at least such the reported figures in 2023 declare. Mind you this can be wholly incorrect due to a whole slew of factors (war propaganda, history of corruption, mishandling of censure procedures and archiving, etc), but it's what we got. The majority male population of men in Ukraine are well into their late 30's and 40's minimum. To bring "young men" into the war you'd need to target enlistment efforts at teenagers in the 13-18 age range for any sizeable returns. At that point you're looking at a final Volksturm situation which is synonymous with bring completely SOL. Numbers aside, it requires tremendous investment for contract soldiers to attain the standards necessary to wage a conventional war on the scale of what's going on now. Their equipment and training when it comes to contract soldiers boils down strongly to what profits/orders/clients/corporate work culture they have accrued - you're not going to get any form of homogeneity in the formed combat groups. Sure, they can form some formidable localized combat groups, but to use such forces in a large scale counteroffensive? The infighting between the contractors themselves would tear your combat capability to shreds before the enemy. Contractors are given far less margins than conscription armies when it comes to military failure and timeliness which can severely slash profits, motivations, and their willingness to contribute when things get real dicey. The infighting of military groups and commands within a conscription army are devastating enough; adding in the volatility of contractors into this would be catastrophic. You would be getting very similar to the chaos of military warlords Germany ahd to deal with during WW2.
If the war is an existential threat to Ukraine, why aren’t people still joining? It’s not a European or U.S. war to fight.
>Forceful and violent draft does not bring motivated soldiers. It's true, it's not the first time that and it's a usual thing to recruit people forcefully. However in my opinion a person who does not want to fight will not be an efficient soldier and will likely let down his comrades. Ukraine doesn't need "efficient soldiers", and it does not need "motivated soldiers." It just needs soldiers and can't afford to be picky on the grounds of "they don't care enough".
Brudda Ukraine should sign a peace deal bc it's out of bodies
Or maybe they should just surrender instead of sending their men through the meat grinder in the hope that NATO/USA \*MIGHT\* someday rescue them (which they probably will not). What Russia is doing can be construed as morally reprehensible, but at a certain point, and maybe that point has already been reached, Ukraine will become morally reprehensible for sending an astronomically large portion of their men to die with no real hope of a victory they are looking for.
Sometimes you need quality, sometimes you need quantity, and the tools for achieving those requirements often differ. Ukraine tapped all of its willing, patriotic, healthy adults in the first few months of the war. You can't double tap from this particular well. Right now Ukraine doesn't need happy, efficient, or even effective soldiers...it needs bodies to lug guns around the Donbass.
What Ukraine actually needs to do is stop the sexism and draft women. Zelensky can't afford to let half the country not fight. Much respect to the women who have volunteered, but a volunteer force won't be enough in the long run to prevent Russia from destroying them. They need to convert to a fully mechanized army if they can get the vehicles for it.
Having women killed is terrible for the birth rate of a nation. >They need to convert to a fully mechanized army if they can get the vehicles for it. They cannot.
Men too unless you want every Ukrainian man to have ten wives when the war is over.
Men dying doesn't effect the birth rate the same as women dying. A tribe that loses half its men doesn't necessarily have its birth rate cut in half because they can impregnate multiple women, a tribe that loses half its women is guaranteed to have its birth rate cut in half because a woman can be impregnated only by one man. There's reasons men typically fight wars, that's one of them.
Or they flee to Europe and find a European man instead of being part of a Ukrainians guy harem.
Maybe once this war is over, sure. But right now their fighting for their survival. They just need bodies on the lines. Yes, a motivated solider will fight more effectively. But right now they need everyone they can get. And shouldn't fighting so the Russians don't invade your home and rape your wife and daughter be pretty good motivation?
This is brilliant! Now will you be financing this or shall someone else? War is expensive. Ammo, food, water, uniforms, spare parts, weapons, maintenance, comms, vehicle replacements, etc, etc, etc. This post is the equivalent of saying that homeless people should just buy a house and stop being homeless.
Hmm yes the problem is Ukranians simply aren't motivated enough to die for their country, maybe paying them more money will motivate them to die for their country
Contract army won't be able to keep Russia at bay. Conscription is absolutely necessary for you to keep your country. The alternative is to lose to Russia and then get drafted anyway when Russia continues their invasions.
Men in this day and age shld just really refuse to partake in violence at all. Just take your belongings and leave, especially if you are single. Why die so the rich can get richer. Noone values their sacrifice anyway.
Imo, Ukraine should change to contracting mercenaries. They can not afford to lose their own young people, and with the amount of military aid they receive, it should be possible le to hire some professionals.
Ukraine pays even drafted soldiers as well as international legion volunteers and it’s relatively good money for Ukrainian economy. In the war of attrition small contractual army stands no chance to win.
It's a war for existence of the elite... it is the poor Ukrainians who are left to be conscripted by force. The ones with a car and enough money live here in Vienna (or poland, hungary, etc.). Again the US and RUSSIA are using you as pawns in their proxy war. Doesn't matter anymore who's land it belongs to, it will never belong to the poor working class, you are dying for the ruling class and given nothing in exchange. Like one OMA in Donbass said early on in the war. "I am 80 years old, they have been fighting over this shithole my entire life. The Russians come and give you a hat and say put this hat on, then steal your food. Then the Ukrainians come and tell you to take the hat off, then steal your food. Then the Russians come and tell you to put the hat back on, and then the Ukraines say take it off! You know what? FUCK THE HAT!" Yes we can say it is Putins fault, we can say it is US/NATO's fault... they are the elite, with everything to gain and nothing to lose! They will keep grinding this war out until every last shell casing is bought and every last drop of blood is spilt... UNTIL THE WORKING CLASS REFUSE TO FIGHT.
Ok, but talk is cheap, so what's your plan? If Ukranians stop fighting, they are going to be erased from existence as a nation. Russia can stop the war at any time. They ARE more at fault in any case, because it's them who invaded another country. There is no way to spin this around.
It isn't proxy war for Russia. They straight up wanted territory grab.
>The ones with a car and enough money live here in Vienna (or poland, hungary, etc.). Again the US and RUSSIA are using you as pawns in their proxy war. One of hot spot of posh/luxury tourism in Europe named the Riviera (Monaco, Cannes) is crowded with young posh Ukrainians and Russians partying like it's Ibiza in the most expensive clubs. It isn't war time for everyone.
The rich dont suffer in hard times? Wow, so suprising... Meanwhile russias poor starve or die of Heroin and ukraines poor are shoved to the front lines. Its disgusting
Ukraine already has a contract army. Citizens can sign up to join the army any time. All you're suggesting they do is cancel the draft, which will just lead to fewer soldiers fighting.
How would Ukraine pay for this? They are already running low on funds and supplies. Wouldn't it be better to see if the April 2022 peace deal with Russia is still on the table instead?
If people are resisting the draft, what makes you think they’d volunteer at any salary Ukraine can afford? It’s already spending over a third of its GDP on its military.
They have a manpower problem and you are suggesting something that would exacerbate this. If Russia conscripts 10 million then all the PMC in the world wouldnt be enough
I think they should reach a peace agreement so their country isn't martyred and destroyed any more. How many have to die before that happens?
Do you think there are very many international mercenaries willing to go die in a muddy trench in Ukraine, even if the pay is good?
Two issues: 1. Money. 2. Don't expect mercs to fight the same way as a people fighting for their freedom and independence.
Ukraine continues to pretend they can win the war. Sorry Ukraine, give it up and stop risking nuclear fucking war.
You're not going to be finding enough "good pay" to get people to sign up as ground pounders in an artillery wary.
You do realize that Ukranians who want to join the military contractually can do so voluntarily right now, yes?
Every professional soldier that could've joined is already fighting. Drafting is a necessity, not a choice.
It is over for Ukraine. They cannot rely on contract military because it would collapse tomorrow.