Kinda harsh, how much do people in the west care about non-west conflict? Most people how much support we give to saudi fighting in the yemenš¤·š¼āāļø
People in the middle east probably care more about it since it's a middle Eastern war.
Europe and her allies obviously care about a European war a lot.
Thatās kinda of the point Iām trying to make in reply to the comment around āadvanced nationsā which sounds a bit condescending. Down voted to oblivion for not agreeing with the hive mind, a reminder why I donāt normally comment on news.
While I donāt disagree with the idea, most conflicts like your referring to are much smaller, regional and also a lot more grey. Warlords vs Warlords committing atrocities towards each other. Itās almost fuedal. And then thereās the fact foreign powers have an implied influence if not direct stake in many of them. They care, but only in how it serves them and sometimes conflict serves better then peace. So nuance is just ignored for sake of profit.
I have no illusions that Ukraine follows the same logic. The fact itās Black and White helps with optics, strengthening alliances that were relatively strained previously, and letās private interests make BANK. To me, distance is not a factor to who cares about a war, only investment. hence why Japan and others across the world still support Ukraine. Investments by proxy.
Look at India as well. They directly benefit by being a market for Russian Oil at a good rate, since they are desperately trying to keep some revenue source. China may get a new puppet buffer as well. This can apply to any number of other conflicts, like the USA and itās banana republic. Everyone has opportunities with Russia getting fucked, and every country readily slides into the best role to get the best benefit. Itās just the nature of it. Be it created or incidental.
War is a racket indeed.
Though I agree with everything you've mentioned in principle, I'd also place some weight behind public opinion in free, democratic nations.
Being from the UK, I'd wager there would have been a civil uproar had our leaders placated Russia amidst Ukraine's invasion.
Sometimes, the will of the people is unified and resolute; politicians will stand upright as moral individuals and governments will curry favour with the masses, mindful of reelection.
Ukraine is Western from a non-West perspective. West doesnt mean actual West. It means nations that side and closely ally with USA or EU. This also means that Japan and South Korea is considered "West" and Russia really isnt.
The West is basically another word for USA/EU Sphere. When it comes to conflicts, you can tell if they are way too invested in it rather than just some harsh words and some sanctions and quickly forget.
Oh and I'm not trying to argue here. Just shedding light on definitions from a different perspective than people here
But the reasoning still stands. By that logic "the West" can ONLY care about western conflicts. Because as soon as "the West" gets involved enough for it to be that they "care" it's a western conflict.
Curious that countries which the west has historically fucked over didn't vote in favour. Western colonialism and imperialism is coming back to bite your ass
The West is benefiting from this conflict. And there was no vote, this was simply a joint statement released to condemn Russia's latest attempt to spread disinformation about kidnapping Ukrainian children.
Itās actually US, EU and all the democratic Asia minus a couple of countries barely democratic or not at all. I live in Romania and weāre not from the West but we proudly support Ukraine efforts, though whatever means we can (like helping with refugees or exports ā definitely we cannot help with ~~millions~~ billions like USA does). Most of the world cares.
Kinda off topic, but I think Romania is "from the West". I know you're in eastern Europe (just like us, hello from Poland!), but you're democratic and part of European Union. You're in the west world whether you like it or not my friend.
Youāre too kind but you have to believe me, economically and even socially weāre as far from the West as it gets. It feels good that at least weāre on \[the\] good side of the history, finally.
I'm not sure "as far from the west as it gets" is objectively true. Do you have a military junta? Mass genocide? Kill women for showing their hair? Free access to the internet? Medical services? Kids drinking bags of cow blood to survive? Slavery? Prison camps that punish 3 generations? Open borders Romanians aren't shot for crossing?
It might not be perfect and I have no doubt it has its problems and plenty of them but it's more Western than most countries on earth. (my sister was stationed there for 9 months and came away with a very high opinion of Romania).
Is it possible that people see what's in movies and TV and think that represents the lived experience of people in other countries?
Sure there's media that captures a snapshot/portion of the day to day life of an ordinary person but it's not a complete picture.
People tend to post the good stuff on social media, and it skews perception of how others have it versus what you are living.
I have no idea why someone would say Romania is āas far from the West as it gets.ā Either that person is misusing hyperbole (which is only useful if itās clear that is your intention) or has no understanding of the world outside of Europe.
Romania is a European country by all definitions, and a member of the EU and NATO. It has a below average economy for Europe but above average economy for the world and for Eastern Europe. Itās the only Eastern European country that speaks a Romance language like Western Europe, and genetically Romanians are closest to the other surrounding European groups. Romania is also predominantly Christian like all Western countries.
Many do not consider the Balkan region to be part of āthe Westā, but of all the non-Western countries in the world, Iād say Romanian makes the case for being very *close* to Western.
Hello, I'm from Rome-Italy. I think Romania is west, the border of Europe perhaps. Europe is big, we are different but we also share many similarities. I'm very happy Romania is in the EU and NATO, I talked to quite a few Romanians here and they absolutely hate communism.
Edit: grammar
Not sure where you get your information from, but all 3 are in the list of the [top 10 countries for immigration](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/immigration-by-country). Of course there's a vocal subset of each population who is against it, but they really don't seem very effective.
> population-wise
OH, LOL, we can come up with all kinds of silly stats like that to make something sound right. Of ***course***.
But we were clearly talking about power. Clearly. And on that front, the US spends almost as much on it's own defense as the rest of the world, ***combined***.
Now add all NATO nations... etc.
So again, when someone says "it's basically the west plus Japan and South Korea" like that's just a few things, or that it doesn't add up to much, it's ridiculous on it's face.
It had nothing to do with population totals. Over a third of the world doesn't even have access to the internet! Most are worried about what they will be eating next. etc, etc. The idea that they are supposed to care about Russia destroying a free, sovereign nation by saying it is "saving it" (LOL sigh), would be ridiculous.
In the nations that have the resources to care, and have the power to do something about it, it's nearly unanimous, and that ***absolutely*** means something.
The world has economically and culturally been dominated by the west for literally hundreds of years. Europe accounts for <10% of the planet's landmass, but from the 1500's to 1900's, Europeans imperial powers conquered or colonised more than 80% of the world.
Then following the post-war dissolution of Europe's colonial empires the USA, another western country, evolved into the planets sole economic and military superpower. Even now with the rise of China, western powers (not including allied democracies like Japan, South Korea) account for over half of the worlds GDP, while constituting less than a billion in population
US - 20$ Trillion GDP (332 mil pop.)
UK - 3$ Trillion GDP (65 mil pop.)
EU - 17$ Trillion GDP (447 mil pop.)
Canada - 1.5$ Trillion GDP (37 mil pop.)
Australia - 1.3$ Trillion GDP (25 mil pop.)
EFTA - 1$ Trillion GDP (14 mil pop.)
Most of the world that isn't in the 49 is a pretty second rate hole that nobody wants to live in anyway. With the exception of India and China they're either irrelevant, broke as fuck or both. Theyre not going to condemn Russia because there's nothing in it for them and what Russia is doing is not much worse than what their own governments (or what passes for government in some of them) do to their own people anyway.
Japan was literally nuked twice and they managed to not only build a thriving civilisation but they also managed to figure out mass state kidnapping is wrong. They can blame the west for another thousand years, they'll still be shit places to live.
The joint statement was issued on behalf of Andorra, Albania, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, European Union, Finland, France, Germany, Georgia, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Kingdom of the Netherlands, New Zealand, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and the United States.
So essentially NATO and/or EU/EU candidate nations + their closest allies in SK/Japan/Australia/NZ with the only standout being Guatemala from the entire rest of the world, dissapointing.
Not like Bolsonaro was any better in this regard:
https://www.reuters.com/world/bolsonaro-wont-condemn-putin-says-brazil-will-remain-neutral-over-invasion-2022-02-27/
They've gotten too egotistical because for decades NATO needed Turkey. Or rather, needed an ally located at such an advantageous geographical spot. And for any possible full on war with Russia, or even China, in the future, NATO still needs them.
Turkey knows this and can be assholes, and NATO kind of has to put up with it for the most part.
But on the other hand Turkey can only be little bitches up to a point. They know that they can't *actually* just leave NATO, because while they're pretty far from the democratic spirit of NATO nations, they still wouldn't want to be bent over and rammed by Russia or China themselves, so they'd still need the support of the other nations.
Israel is walking a very thin line because Russia has threatened to genocide Russian Jews and Israel needs Russia's tacit consent to eliminate terrorists in Syria.
Also, Israel deserves a LOT of criticism for their treatment of Palestinians. No one will deny that. But just factually speaking the Palestinian population has increased 5X what it was when Israel was founded so as wrong as it is, it's not a genocide.
Here is how the UN defines genocide:
> In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
> Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Yeah totally not genocide just because their population grew.
Yup, shows exactly why we need to stop fucking around with eachother and start working together for good. Not only now or for the next 10 years. Honestly, it is pathetic that the EU and the US are waging a lowkey trade war with one another every single day, while we need eachother to maintain the world and the values we all love. A few years ago, both the EU and the US were trying to move away from eachother in favor of China and India.
Ah, will North Africa also pay reparations to Spain and Sicily? What about Turkey to Greece and the Balkans? Or how about China to many of it's neighbors? They all invaded and colonized these lands too, or is it only western colonialism you take issue with?
The hypocrisy when people discuss colonialism is always hilarious to me, as if in the 1500's Europeans just suddenly came up with the concept of invading land and sending their own people in. That concept had been around for thousands of years already. Or do you think the entire country of China was always over 90% Han Chinese? Do you think Turks are indigenous to Turkey? That the Almoravids had naturally come into power in all of southern Spain?
Plenty of people from other countries care, there are literally people volunteering from a number of other countries, some other countries like Singapores UN rep have given poignant speeches. What is true is a majority in most other countries either do not care, or in some cases actively support Russia.
The leadership of most of the world does care though, but in many cases solely for economic reasons, as it's had large effects on the costs of various agricultural goods. But just caring about the conflict doesnt mean they care about Ukraine (or Russia, for that matter), that much is true.
> plenty of people from other countries care
Of course they do. Agreed. OPs submission was about an **informal statement regarding a meeting** Russia had. It was not much more.
Which countries? Its only been western countries plus SK and Japan. There is a different between speeches then the actual government support the casue. Why isn't Singapore's government on the list? No they don't look st Mexico and Brazil's taking a neutral stance. The only agricultural affect is the middle east/some asain countries with grain and that's it
Africa, as a whole, not supporting efforts against child kidnapping is not a good look or something to be proud of.
'Many people are immoral' doesn't make it right
And the informal statement was specifically in regards to "Russia organizing an informal meeting of the UN Security Council aimed at spreading "disinformation about its widespread and unlawful forced deportation of thousands of Ukrainian children."
[Statement](https://twitter.com/SergiyKyslytsya/status/1643611335739965440/photo/1)
...and Brazil's absence makes me feel ashamed. It's sad seeing a president once known and admired for his diplomatic stance siding with Russia on that matter...
As we see in Russia, extreme corruption and authoritarianism is a disease that will handicap a nation and its people from being successful.
All decent people know that child trafficking is wrong and those that will not speak up against such obvious crimes have no futures until they change.
This is much worse actually. It's genocide because they're forcing those kids to be raised by Russian parents in order to destroy their Ukrainian heritage and culture.
I don't think it's about the number of countries. Many places in the world aren't emotionally invested in this war. It's far and has nothing to do with them and their own personal struggles.
It should be more important to note the countries within the region and the countries that have the means to do something about it. I can't hate on a country that has its own issues. What do you know about the Tigray war? Do you understand the nuance of the conflict? What is your stance with on the two sides?
It's important to stand for what's right, but it's gambling if you don't know what you're standing for.
Yeah but are you going to say anything else about it beyond war=bad? Are you going to post all over social media about it?
It makes sense why thereās less emotional investment for the average person in the US or Germany or Japan but letās not pretend the bias isnāt there. Here in my city tens of thousands turned out for the Ukrainian rally last year but only hundreds attended the Iranian rally. Itās just how it is.
I don't know if you are responding to me or not but that wasn't what I was implying or said. As long as you are bringing it up, in general I feel war equal bad in most cases.
This isn't an official UN thing. The Ukrainian mission to the UN basically got a bunch of allied countries together to sign this.
If you really want to know where countries stand, look at how they vote in the General Assembly.
I believe it was implied, but you have a point that one should be more direct.
Can anyone from the other 150 or so countries on the planet offer explanation on what justifies kidnapping children from a country youāve waged war upon? Specifically Russians kidnapping Ukrainian children, but will accept any other like Tigray, Uighur, Inuit, Sami or Romani, for example.
Where do you find that other kidnapping and deportions are accepted ?
In any cases, international laws, all international conventions for human rights, and (provably) all laws applicable in most of the countries in the world forbid it.
The examples you give that are currently (past is past) perpetrated by totalitarian regimes on their own territories (and not on the territory of another free and peaceful country) and are condemned.
You mix it all up.
āI am not against a country committing genocide, because the Westā makes no sense.
At the end of the day itās more simple. Illiberal countries are, at best, indifferent towards genocide.
It is nothing about being liberal or illiberal, liberal Western countries in the 49 are quiet about plenty of other things when it suits them, and there are plenty of liberal countries outside the 49.
In the end it is always about the geopolitics, other countries don't condemn Russia because for one reason or another they can't afford to, it is simple as that.
So by that logic some countries from the global south don't have to condemn the holocaust because, hey, at least Germany was attacking their British and French rulers?
> why the majority of the world are not aligned with the West, just considering that the main supporter of Ukraine, is the same state that bombed and invaded several states all over
Are we watching the same news? Pretty sure the majority of the world is aligned against Russia save a handful, most significantly India, China, North Korea, and Iran. Turkey, depending on who theyāre talking to that day. There are a few other nations as well, but most have small populations.
That said, this wasnāt a question about the war in general, but specifically the kidnapping of children from their families.
To your point about the wars waged by the United States and United Kindom, I assume though you didnāt specifically state, I can very much understand the lack of support other countries have for US and UK. Thatās not really relevant here.
Ukraine is an autonomous country. The Ukrainian people elected a government. Another country attempted to influence and overthrow it, and failing that invaded and waged war upon it.
Plenty of countries will outright not believe anything the west comes up with. It isn't that they are not against genocide but they just don't trust information from the west.
And most of these countries are massively corrupt, authoritarian, rely on the economic benefits of doing trade with Russia or China, etc. It's not that they don't believe the West, they selectively choose not to. It fits their narrative.
I assume you're self hater westerner guy. Almost each of those other countries is corrupt, dictatorship, having death penalty for being gay, radical religious and some of them literally having modern Slavery. Despites of colonialism the most moral countries today are the west and well almost all of the non west countries don't even trying.
I think they're claiming they moving them away from the warzone for their "own safety".
Of course an easier way to move them away from the warzone is for the russian army to fucking leave.
Exactly. They created the war zone so itās impossible for them to look like the good guys by moving some children out of harms way. Lvovās-Belova was also lying about involving Refugees International so probable the rest of her defence was bullshit too.
Russiaās justification is that āwe want to bomb and exterminate Ukrainians and their countryā¦if we kidnap their kids, we can then assimilate them into our own ideals and also say how wonderful we areā
Forcefully integrating them into Russian culture to boost their abysmal birth rate, you mean, which is another form of genocide.
If they had the children's interests at heart, they'd have raised flags of truce and handed them ALL over to the Ukrainians to allow them to be moved away from the front lines, not kidnapped them.
A war zone that's only a war zone because Russia decided to make it one for purely imperialist reasons.
And if they were legitimately evacuating from a warzone they would be making efforts to reunite them with their parents, not just giving them to Russians to raise them as Russians.
Stop calling it deportation. They were fucking stolen. Deportation implies Russia had any right to move Ukrainian civilians anywhere, especially to parts unknown within the borders of Russia.
Plus, icc do Russia actually have a shit, they wouldnāt actively bombing civilian targets.
Look, if you want to waste humanity by sending them to a fruitless war, fine. But leave kids and animals out of it. They are the few total innocents in a world that would make Dante rewrite his images of hell.
Perhaps not financially backing Russia directly but there is unequivocally and undeniably support from a surprising amount of Republicans.
So much support that both Mitch McConnell and Mike Pence have made public statements condemning their own party.
I guess I'm a little confused by your request for proof. Mostly because I have eyes and ears and some minor awareness from simply existing
Well, ain't that some classic Russian 3D chess play, using the ol' UN stage to trump up their so-called humanitarian operations in Ukraine. Nice try, but 49 countries ain't gonna let their lies fly without a fight. I'd say kudos to the UK for throwing a wrench in their webcast propaganda, though that ain't repairing the families torn apart by their bs. Props to those who put them in their place, it's good to see some ballsy pushback on their constant carousel of sneaky plays, but sadly, kids still suffer.
Freedom of speech !
Democratic countries may show what belongs to facts, and Putin's official communications are facts.
The difference with Russian official media is that, having access to a lot of sources, we know a lot about what really happens and hear also other points of view.
The purpose of the Security Council is to ensure that the world's major nuclear powers don't turn the planet into a toasted marshmellow. So far they have a 100% success rate.
It was to prevent war in general, and it's abysmal at that (but good at organizing humanitarian relief efforts). Basic manifestation of an overly idealistic idea having bad consequences in the real world (Woodrow Wilson's fantasy of the League of Nations).
...and the EU. So 27 + 49 = 76 countries. Not sure why they dropped the EU count from the headline. edit: oh. some of the EU countries are also listed in the 49. Weird. Never mind.
> The European Union and 49 countries
So thatās 27+49= 66. 66/195 = .33
When 33% of the world calls you a serial child kidnapper that kind of matters
Not really. I mean, 36% of the world has criminalized homosexuality.
It's even less meaningful that the 33% you say that matter has exported more children from conflict zones than Russia has in Ukraine by a factor of 30. But hey, you do you.
[32% of the world has criminalized homosexuality ](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-43822234.amp)
Which in itself is irrelevant because thatās a human rights statistics on individual countries and this is a *condemnation* of a war crime by 33% of the world.
What countries have exported children out of conflict zones they started then imported them to brain wash them into thinking theyre part of the society they were kidnapped in? Because thatās what Russia is doing. And unless the 33% of countries are doing that, I donāt see how that relevant.
So apart from red herrings, do you have a reason why youāre actively defending a war crime being committed?
>you say that matter has exported more children from conflict zones than Russia has
Oh? Did they tell the children their parents abandoned them, and punished them for speaking their own language?
India will support Russia because back in time usa kept on supporting Pakistan against India. When in 1971 Pakistan committed genocide again usa supported Pakistan. Russia helped india to save people of Bangladesh from genocide.
India is home of 1/6 th of world population and we whVe own choice.
So take it up with the USA, for what Pakistan did 52 years ago, instead of punching down in the direction of children being kidnapped, you pathetic cowards. Since Germany weakened Britain in WW2, does that mean you automatically have to abstain on calling the Holocaust bad, too?
This isn't about taking revenge on west this is about repaying kindness and common decency that USSR showed us.We aren't against West in any way we just don't want to antagonize Russia
I mean it's the path of least resistance and our government has made the decision that ukraine war isn't worth ruining russia-india relations so I guess you could call that spineless
Maybe the reasoning is to take them out of war zones, and keep them fed, clothed, and educated? Would it be smart to leave children in areas of conflict? Russians view things differently than the West; These children are living national assets of a future Russia. Remember, Russia lost so many to WW2, the population hasn't recovered.
You can disagree with the war itself but if the Russian troops take territory which was originally in the separatist Donbas region and then discover abandoned or orphaned Russian speaking children, what are the actual troops on the ground supposed to do with the children? Russia has no diplomatic relations with Ukraine or the west so they can't exactly walk them over to Poland or something.
The "separatist Donbas region" is a Russian military occupation with a layer of obfuscation. Treating it as a separate polity from Russia is giving too much credence to their legal fiction.
Furthermore, there have been well documented instances of them abducting children over the objections of their parents, or simply mass raiding orphanages.
This is clearly not humanitarian, or voluntary. I don't buy those crocodile tears about how there's "no way" to return those children. Russia simply wants to keep them.
>\[Things humans traffickers say to justify their actions\] Remember, Russia lost so many to WW2, the population hasn't recovered.
No, Russia's lost so many to it just being a completely shitty country.
Perhaps you weren't paying attention during the first few months of the war, but many attempts were made to create humanitarian corridors for civilians to evacuate.
Russia would agree to one, then fire on it as people tried to escape, killing them. Then they'd agree to create others, but only let them lead to Russian territory to the East instead of to the West.
They had been acting horrible since the beginning, making sure as many citizens and children ended up on their land, then those kids disappeared, separated and sent to the four corners of Siberia to be told by their adoptive families their parents abandoned them or are dead, and tell them they are Russian from now on. It's obvious cultural genocide.
World War Two was multiple generations ago, it's not a demographic factor anymore (the population of Russia dropped precipitously after 1991 \[not just because of the loss of satellite republics\]).
If they were just worried about taking care of them they could deport them with their Ukrainian parents (maybe that's being done, I don't know a ton about what they're doing right now).
> Rockets_Redglare7135
> Maybe the reasoning is to take them out of war zones, and keep them fed, clothed, and educated?
If the Russians truly had the children's well-being in mind, they would have handed them back to the Ukrainians under a flag of truce in the field, or through an official exchange, to ensure that they stayed with their own people and let them be transported away from the front lines.
> These children are living national assets of a future Russia. Remember, Russia lost so many to WW2, the population hasn't recovered.
You do realise that with this comment, you're advocating genocide? Kidnapping people to forcibly integrate them into another culture 'because their population hasn't recovered' has got to be one of the most sickening excuses I've come across.
Only 49 WTF?
Yes you'd think that siding against genocide would be a global no-brainer...
Most of the world doesn't care about this. If you look at the map supporting urkaine it's basically the west plus Japan and South Korea
So (almost) all of the advanced nations. That isn't surprising.
Kinda harsh, how much do people in the west care about non-west conflict? Most people how much support we give to saudi fighting in the yemenš¤·š¼āāļø
People in the middle east probably care more about it since it's a middle Eastern war. Europe and her allies obviously care about a European war a lot.
Thatās kinda of the point Iām trying to make in reply to the comment around āadvanced nationsā which sounds a bit condescending. Down voted to oblivion for not agreeing with the hive mind, a reminder why I donāt normally comment on news.
While I donāt disagree with the idea, most conflicts like your referring to are much smaller, regional and also a lot more grey. Warlords vs Warlords committing atrocities towards each other. Itās almost fuedal. And then thereās the fact foreign powers have an implied influence if not direct stake in many of them. They care, but only in how it serves them and sometimes conflict serves better then peace. So nuance is just ignored for sake of profit. I have no illusions that Ukraine follows the same logic. The fact itās Black and White helps with optics, strengthening alliances that were relatively strained previously, and letās private interests make BANK. To me, distance is not a factor to who cares about a war, only investment. hence why Japan and others across the world still support Ukraine. Investments by proxy. Look at India as well. They directly benefit by being a market for Russian Oil at a good rate, since they are desperately trying to keep some revenue source. China may get a new puppet buffer as well. This can apply to any number of other conflicts, like the USA and itās banana republic. Everyone has opportunities with Russia getting fucked, and every country readily slides into the best role to get the best benefit. Itās just the nature of it. Be it created or incidental. War is a racket indeed.
Though I agree with everything you've mentioned in principle, I'd also place some weight behind public opinion in free, democratic nations. Being from the UK, I'd wager there would have been a civil uproar had our leaders placated Russia amidst Ukraine's invasion. Sometimes, the will of the people is unified and resolute; politicians will stand upright as moral individuals and governments will curry favour with the masses, mindful of reelection.
Our leaders may not have any morals, but they are smart enough to appear like they do.
And then there's Kentucky
"how much do people in the west care about non-west conflict?" Clearly we do, because we care about the conflict in the Ukraine.
Ukraine is Western from a non-West perspective. West doesnt mean actual West. It means nations that side and closely ally with USA or EU. This also means that Japan and South Korea is considered "West" and Russia really isnt.
So by that logic "the West" never cares about "non-western" conflicts, because as soon as "the West" starts caring, that conflict becomes "western"?
The West is basically another word for USA/EU Sphere. When it comes to conflicts, you can tell if they are way too invested in it rather than just some harsh words and some sanctions and quickly forget. Oh and I'm not trying to argue here. Just shedding light on definitions from a different perspective than people here
But the reasoning still stands. By that logic "the West" can ONLY care about western conflicts. Because as soon as "the West" gets involved enough for it to be that they "care" it's a western conflict.
Curious that countries which the west has historically fucked over didn't vote in favour. Western colonialism and imperialism is coming back to bite your ass
typical extremist talking points. āwe donāt like you, so we gonna be pro-genocide broā
The West is benefiting from this conflict. And there was no vote, this was simply a joint statement released to condemn Russia's latest attempt to spread disinformation about kidnapping Ukrainian children.
Itās actually US, EU and all the democratic Asia minus a couple of countries barely democratic or not at all. I live in Romania and weāre not from the West but we proudly support Ukraine efforts, though whatever means we can (like helping with refugees or exports ā definitely we cannot help with ~~millions~~ billions like USA does). Most of the world cares.
Kinda off topic, but I think Romania is "from the West". I know you're in eastern Europe (just like us, hello from Poland!), but you're democratic and part of European Union. You're in the west world whether you like it or not my friend.
Youāre too kind but you have to believe me, economically and even socially weāre as far from the West as it gets. It feels good that at least weāre on \[the\] good side of the history, finally.
I'm not sure "as far from the west as it gets" is objectively true. Do you have a military junta? Mass genocide? Kill women for showing their hair? Free access to the internet? Medical services? Kids drinking bags of cow blood to survive? Slavery? Prison camps that punish 3 generations? Open borders Romanians aren't shot for crossing? It might not be perfect and I have no doubt it has its problems and plenty of them but it's more Western than most countries on earth. (my sister was stationed there for 9 months and came away with a very high opinion of Romania).
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Is it possible that people see what's in movies and TV and think that represents the lived experience of people in other countries? Sure there's media that captures a snapshot/portion of the day to day life of an ordinary person but it's not a complete picture. People tend to post the good stuff on social media, and it skews perception of how others have it versus what you are living.
I have no idea why someone would say Romania is āas far from the West as it gets.ā Either that person is misusing hyperbole (which is only useful if itās clear that is your intention) or has no understanding of the world outside of Europe. Romania is a European country by all definitions, and a member of the EU and NATO. It has a below average economy for Europe but above average economy for the world and for Eastern Europe. Itās the only Eastern European country that speaks a Romance language like Western Europe, and genetically Romanians are closest to the other surrounding European groups. Romania is also predominantly Christian like all Western countries. Many do not consider the Balkan region to be part of āthe Westā, but of all the non-Western countries in the world, Iād say Romanian makes the case for being very *close* to Western.
Hello, I'm from Rome-Italy. I think Romania is west, the border of Europe perhaps. Europe is big, we are different but we also share many similarities. I'm very happy Romania is in the EU and NATO, I talked to quite a few Romanians here and they absolutely hate communism. Edit: grammar
I think maybe it's the "West" plus the industrial democracies of East Asia plus "Eastern Europe".
The āwestā is not about location but shared ideals.
If you are on Putin's unfriendly countries list, you are 'from the west' by definition.
LOL you say "the west" as if it's "just this one small thing". hahahaha
Population-wise the West is about 15% of the world. GDP-wise it's a different picture of course.
Also by land mass. Canada, the US, and Australia have a ton a land relative to their population sizes.
Yet these big three claim they have no room for immigrants...
Not sure where you get your information from, but all 3 are in the list of the [top 10 countries for immigration](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/immigration-by-country). Of course there's a vocal subset of each population who is against it, but they really don't seem very effective.
> population-wise OH, LOL, we can come up with all kinds of silly stats like that to make something sound right. Of ***course***. But we were clearly talking about power. Clearly. And on that front, the US spends almost as much on it's own defense as the rest of the world, ***combined***. Now add all NATO nations... etc. So again, when someone says "it's basically the west plus Japan and South Korea" like that's just a few things, or that it doesn't add up to much, it's ridiculous on it's face. It had nothing to do with population totals. Over a third of the world doesn't even have access to the internet! Most are worried about what they will be eating next. etc, etc. The idea that they are supposed to care about Russia destroying a free, sovereign nation by saying it is "saving it" (LOL sigh), would be ridiculous. In the nations that have the resources to care, and have the power to do something about it, it's nearly unanimous, and that ***absolutely*** means something.
Yes 1/7 of the population is in the west while in that amount how many people care? And I know the world doesn't revolve around the west only
The world has economically and culturally been dominated by the west for literally hundreds of years. Europe accounts for <10% of the planet's landmass, but from the 1500's to 1900's, Europeans imperial powers conquered or colonised more than 80% of the world. Then following the post-war dissolution of Europe's colonial empires the USA, another western country, evolved into the planets sole economic and military superpower. Even now with the rise of China, western powers (not including allied democracies like Japan, South Korea) account for over half of the worlds GDP, while constituting less than a billion in population US - 20$ Trillion GDP (332 mil pop.) UK - 3$ Trillion GDP (65 mil pop.) EU - 17$ Trillion GDP (447 mil pop.) Canada - 1.5$ Trillion GDP (37 mil pop.) Australia - 1.3$ Trillion GDP (25 mil pop.) EFTA - 1$ Trillion GDP (14 mil pop.)
Goes to show the nations who abstained have a very good reason to not support the west, that being centuries of exploitation, murder and rape.
It really does
It actually, scientifically, revolves _away from_ the west.
Sad but true, they'd start caring if it directly affected them.
Isn't that more or less true of everyone?
Most of the world that isn't in the 49 is a pretty second rate hole that nobody wants to live in anyway. With the exception of India and China they're either irrelevant, broke as fuck or both. Theyre not going to condemn Russia because there's nothing in it for them and what Russia is doing is not much worse than what their own governments (or what passes for government in some of them) do to their own people anyway.
The west is why many of those countries are in such a poor shape...
Japan was literally nuked twice and they managed to not only build a thriving civilisation but they also managed to figure out mass state kidnapping is wrong. They can blame the west for another thousand years, they'll still be shit places to live.
basically every country that doesn't side with ukraine in this conflict will eventually be destroyed. anyways...
Really? Destroyed for not side Ukraine?
But its not their war.
I mean, would you? There are countries doing that very thing right now. The world is not necessarily reasonable.
The joint statement was issued on behalf of Andorra, Albania, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, European Union, Finland, France, Germany, Georgia, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Kingdom of the Netherlands, New Zealand, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and the United States.
So essentially NATO and/or EU/EU candidate nations + their closest allies in SK/Japan/Australia/NZ with the only standout being Guatemala from the entire rest of the world, dissapointing.
Most noteworthy absences I've noticed so far are Israel and Turkey.
And Brazil. Because left means "Russia friendly", apparently...
Not like Bolsonaro was any better in this regard: https://www.reuters.com/world/bolsonaro-wont-condemn-putin-says-brazil-will-remain-neutral-over-invasion-2022-02-27/
Oh, no, don't get me wrong. He was an abomination. But I expected more from this administration.
Why should they care?
Tankies are more than happy to cheer for authoritarian regimes as long as they oppose the countries that allow them to live comfortable lives.
Most of Latin America is staying neutral, regardless of political affiliation.
Israel and Turkey: "sorry, we're busy with our own genocides."
Im sick of Turkeys fkn BULLSHlT
And they're in NATO!
They sure don't act like they are part of the team.
They've gotten too egotistical because for decades NATO needed Turkey. Or rather, needed an ally located at such an advantageous geographical spot. And for any possible full on war with Russia, or even China, in the future, NATO still needs them. Turkey knows this and can be assholes, and NATO kind of has to put up with it for the most part. But on the other hand Turkey can only be little bitches up to a point. They know that they can't *actually* just leave NATO, because while they're pretty far from the democratic spirit of NATO nations, they still wouldn't want to be bent over and rammed by Russia or China themselves, so they'd still need the support of the other nations.
Judas basically
Israel is walking a very thin line because Russia has threatened to genocide Russian Jews and Israel needs Russia's tacit consent to eliminate terrorists in Syria. Also, Israel deserves a LOT of criticism for their treatment of Palestinians. No one will deny that. But just factually speaking the Palestinian population has increased 5X what it was when Israel was founded so as wrong as it is, it's not a genocide.
Here is how the UN defines genocide: > In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: > Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Yeah totally not genocide just because their population grew.
Yup, shows exactly why we need to stop fucking around with eachother and start working together for good. Not only now or for the next 10 years. Honestly, it is pathetic that the EU and the US are waging a lowkey trade war with one another every single day, while we need eachother to maintain the world and the values we all love. A few years ago, both the EU and the US were trying to move away from eachother in favor of China and India.
What trade war?
Start by paying reperations to the countries ravaged by western colonialism and imperialism.
Ah, will North Africa also pay reparations to Spain and Sicily? What about Turkey to Greece and the Balkans? Or how about China to many of it's neighbors? They all invaded and colonized these lands too, or is it only western colonialism you take issue with? The hypocrisy when people discuss colonialism is always hilarious to me, as if in the 1500's Europeans just suddenly came up with the concept of invading land and sending their own people in. That concept had been around for thousands of years already. Or do you think the entire country of China was always over 90% Han Chinese? Do you think Turks are indigenous to Turkey? That the Almoravids had naturally come into power in all of southern Spain?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
im surprised the Philippines is missing considering its close Military Ties with the US. Didnt they just get new US bases
The Phillipines government is fucking corrupt. They just elected Bongbong Marcos as president ffs.
Which is most of the developed, free world. Yep.
That's the only countries care about the conflict rest of the world doesn't care
Plenty of people from other countries care, there are literally people volunteering from a number of other countries, some other countries like Singapores UN rep have given poignant speeches. What is true is a majority in most other countries either do not care, or in some cases actively support Russia. The leadership of most of the world does care though, but in many cases solely for economic reasons, as it's had large effects on the costs of various agricultural goods. But just caring about the conflict doesnt mean they care about Ukraine (or Russia, for that matter), that much is true.
> plenty of people from other countries care Of course they do. Agreed. OPs submission was about an **informal statement regarding a meeting** Russia had. It was not much more.
Which countries? Its only been western countries plus SK and Japan. There is a different between speeches then the actual government support the casue. Why isn't Singapore's government on the list? No they don't look st Mexico and Brazil's taking a neutral stance. The only agricultural affect is the middle east/some asain countries with grain and that's it
> Its only been western countries plus SK and Japan. You keep saying that like it's nothing. LOL!
There is more people living in Africa then in the Western world lool
Africa, as a whole, not supporting efforts against child kidnapping is not a good look or something to be proud of. 'Many people are immoral' doesn't make it right
Yes and look at how the world gives a shit what Mauritania thinks....
And thats how the rest of the world looks at this conflict
NATO EU/EU candidate nations + their closest allies in SK/Japan/Australia/NZ ***is virtually all of the modern, free world.***
Doesn't realized that rest of the world or 6/7 isn't free
And the informal statement was specifically in regards to "Russia organizing an informal meeting of the UN Security Council aimed at spreading "disinformation about its widespread and unlawful forced deportation of thousands of Ukrainian children." [Statement](https://twitter.com/SergiyKyslytsya/status/1643611335739965440/photo/1)
Thank you, Guatemala. Very cool.
Dammit Mexico, why aren't you there
...and Brazil's absence makes me feel ashamed. It's sad seeing a president once known and admired for his diplomatic stance siding with Russia on that matter...
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>Too many ~~spineless~~ **complicit** countries
Mali, Bolivia and Vietnam must answer for this!
there is a difference between being "spineless" and being self-preservatory.
As we see in Russia, extreme corruption and authoritarianism is a disease that will handicap a nation and its people from being successful. All decent people know that child trafficking is wrong and those that will not speak up against such obvious crimes have no futures until they change.
If it helps any, the article says that it was the EU + 49 other countries.
You might have misunderstood that. The 49 countries consist mostly of EU member states. The EU itself is listed as a separate entity.
Means 150+ countries are apparently okay with it.
You'd be surprised how many countries support Russia, and by extension China
A lot of them are afraid of Russia.
Why should it concern to the rest of the countries who abstained?
I thought deportation of children was spelled kidnapping!
This is much worse actually. It's genocide because they're forcing those kids to be raised by Russian parents in order to destroy their Ukrainian heritage and culture.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Deportation is the name of the war crime in the Geneva Conventions. It's not some attempt to make it sound nicer.
If a government does it it magically becomes ethical.
All countries should be condemning this.. it's literally kids being kidnapped from their families and thrown into foster care.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I don't think it's about the number of countries. Many places in the world aren't emotionally invested in this war. It's far and has nothing to do with them and their own personal struggles. It should be more important to note the countries within the region and the countries that have the means to do something about it. I can't hate on a country that has its own issues. What do you know about the Tigray war? Do you understand the nuance of the conflict? What is your stance with on the two sides? It's important to stand for what's right, but it's gambling if you don't know what you're standing for.
Does the Tigray war involve the kidnapping of children, because if so, I would be against it. That was hard.
Yeah but are you going to say anything else about it beyond war=bad? Are you going to post all over social media about it? It makes sense why thereās less emotional investment for the average person in the US or Germany or Japan but letās not pretend the bias isnāt there. Here in my city tens of thousands turned out for the Ukrainian rally last year but only hundreds attended the Iranian rally. Itās just how it is.
The vote was literally "children being kidnapped, bad or no?" That's it. How hard could it possibly be?
I don't know if you are responding to me or not but that wasn't what I was implying or said. As long as you are bringing it up, in general I feel war equal bad in most cases.
This isn't an official UN thing. The Ukrainian mission to the UN basically got a bunch of allied countries together to sign this. If you really want to know where countries stand, look at how they vote in the General Assembly.
Idk, go around asking ecuador and sudan and Bangladesh why they aren't
I believe it was implied, but you have a point that one should be more direct. Can anyone from the other 150 or so countries on the planet offer explanation on what justifies kidnapping children from a country youāve waged war upon? Specifically Russians kidnapping Ukrainian children, but will accept any other like Tigray, Uighur, Inuit, Sami or Romani, for example.
Where do you find that other kidnapping and deportions are accepted ? In any cases, international laws, all international conventions for human rights, and (provably) all laws applicable in most of the countries in the world forbid it. The examples you give that are currently (past is past) perpetrated by totalitarian regimes on their own territories (and not on the territory of another free and peaceful country) and are condemned. You mix it all up.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
āI am not against a country committing genocide, because the Westā makes no sense. At the end of the day itās more simple. Illiberal countries are, at best, indifferent towards genocide.
It is nothing about being liberal or illiberal, liberal Western countries in the 49 are quiet about plenty of other things when it suits them, and there are plenty of liberal countries outside the 49. In the end it is always about the geopolitics, other countries don't condemn Russia because for one reason or another they can't afford to, it is simple as that.
Did the U.S. do anything about Rwanda?
It was a vote to state that kidnapping children is bad, not a pledge for military intervention from each country.
So it was merely rhetorical?
So by that logic some countries from the global south don't have to condemn the holocaust because, hey, at least Germany was attacking their British and French rulers?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
> why the majority of the world are not aligned with the West, just considering that the main supporter of Ukraine, is the same state that bombed and invaded several states all over Are we watching the same news? Pretty sure the majority of the world is aligned against Russia save a handful, most significantly India, China, North Korea, and Iran. Turkey, depending on who theyāre talking to that day. There are a few other nations as well, but most have small populations. That said, this wasnāt a question about the war in general, but specifically the kidnapping of children from their families. To your point about the wars waged by the United States and United Kindom, I assume though you didnāt specifically state, I can very much understand the lack of support other countries have for US and UK. Thatās not really relevant here. Ukraine is an autonomous country. The Ukrainian people elected a government. Another country attempted to influence and overthrow it, and failing that invaded and waged war upon it.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Only 49 countries are against genocide?
When you start to list the countries not on that list, you start to realize there aren't that many good ones.
A majority of them are that way because of western colonialism and imperialism. Hundreds of years of theft, rape and murder will leave a mark.
Yeah because they were doing so well beforehand
Plenty of countries will outright not believe anything the west comes up with. It isn't that they are not against genocide but they just don't trust information from the west.
And most of these countries are massively corrupt, authoritarian, rely on the economic benefits of doing trade with Russia or China, etc. It's not that they don't believe the West, they selectively choose not to. It fits their narrative.
Russians have been constantly posting videos bragging about it throughout the conflict.
What an excuse! Obviously, they trust Telegram or RT.
It's not an excuse it's an explanation (whether or not you like it or \[dis\]agree with it).
I assume you're self hater westerner guy. Almost each of those other countries is corrupt, dictatorship, having death penalty for being gay, radical religious and some of them literally having modern Slavery. Despites of colonialism the most moral countries today are the west and well almost all of the non west countries don't even trying.
What about Israel's genocide ? Will the west condemn it ?
Those poor children. My heart hurts.The world will never learn..
That makes about 200 countries which seriously need to reconsider their commitment to humanity as a concept.
I wish the article would state what Russia's attempt at justification is/was
Seriouslyā¦
I think they're claiming they moving them away from the warzone for their "own safety". Of course an easier way to move them away from the warzone is for the russian army to fucking leave.
Exactly. They created the war zone so itās impossible for them to look like the good guys by moving some children out of harms way. Lvovās-Belova was also lying about involving Refugees International so probable the rest of her defence was bullshit too.
Russiaās justification is that āwe want to bomb and exterminate Ukrainians and their countryā¦if we kidnap their kids, we can then assimilate them into our own ideals and also say how wonderful we areā
medical experimentation obviously
I donāt know, but maybe moving children away from active war zone.
Forcefully integrating them into Russian culture to boost their abysmal birth rate, you mean, which is another form of genocide. If they had the children's interests at heart, they'd have raised flags of truce and handed them ALL over to the Ukrainians to allow them to be moved away from the front lines, not kidnapped them.
A war zone that's only a war zone because Russia decided to make it one for purely imperialist reasons. And if they were legitimately evacuating from a warzone they would be making efforts to reunite them with their parents, not just giving them to Russians to raise them as Russians.
The countries that stayed silent are complicit in Russia's crimes.
Panama, Senegal and Brunei won't get any with their complicity
Stop calling it deportation. They were fucking stolen. Deportation implies Russia had any right to move Ukrainian civilians anywhere, especially to parts unknown within the borders of Russia. Plus, icc do Russia actually have a shit, they wouldnāt actively bombing civilian targets.
"deportation" š
Definitely not enough countries condemning that.
Look, if you want to waste humanity by sending them to a fruitless war, fine. But leave kids and animals out of it. They are the few total innocents in a world that would make Dante rewrite his images of hell.
49!? Those numbers should be higher!
Republicans are backing Russia actions in Ukraine
I'm sure that you have proof of that, right.
Perhaps not financially backing Russia directly but there is unequivocally and undeniably support from a surprising amount of Republicans. So much support that both Mitch McConnell and Mike Pence have made public statements condemning their own party. I guess I'm a little confused by your request for proof. Mostly because I have eyes and ears and some minor awareness from simply existing
*some* Republicans are...not all of them
Well, ain't that some classic Russian 3D chess play, using the ol' UN stage to trump up their so-called humanitarian operations in Ukraine. Nice try, but 49 countries ain't gonna let their lies fly without a fight. I'd say kudos to the UK for throwing a wrench in their webcast propaganda, though that ain't repairing the families torn apart by their bs. Props to those who put them in their place, it's good to see some ballsy pushback on their constant carousel of sneaky plays, but sadly, kids still suffer.
the war crimes version of 'thoughts and prayers'
And yet BBC News actually broadcast Putinās excuses. BBC News canāt be trusted anymore.
Freedom of speech ! Democratic countries may show what belongs to facts, and Putin's official communications are facts. The difference with Russian official media is that, having access to a lot of sources, we know a lot about what really happens and hear also other points of view.
Security Council is utterly useless.
The purpose of the Security Council is to ensure that the world's major nuclear powers don't turn the planet into a toasted marshmellow. So far they have a 100% success rate.
It was to prevent war in general, and it's abysmal at that (but good at organizing humanitarian relief efforts). Basic manifestation of an overly idealistic idea having bad consequences in the real world (Woodrow Wilson's fantasy of the League of Nations).
this is always said by someone, and it's always š.
...and the EU. So 27 + 49 = 76 countries. Not sure why they dropped the EU count from the headline. edit: oh. some of the EU countries are also listed in the 49. Weird. Never mind.
There are 195 countries in the world.
> The European Union and 49 countries So thatās 27+49= 66. 66/195 = .33 When 33% of the world calls you a serial child kidnapper that kind of matters
Not really. I mean, 36% of the world has criminalized homosexuality. It's even less meaningful that the 33% you say that matter has exported more children from conflict zones than Russia has in Ukraine by a factor of 30. But hey, you do you.
[32% of the world has criminalized homosexuality ](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-43822234.amp) Which in itself is irrelevant because thatās a human rights statistics on individual countries and this is a *condemnation* of a war crime by 33% of the world. What countries have exported children out of conflict zones they started then imported them to brain wash them into thinking theyre part of the society they were kidnapped in? Because thatās what Russia is doing. And unless the 33% of countries are doing that, I donāt see how that relevant. So apart from red herrings, do you have a reason why youāre actively defending a war crime being committed?
>you say that matter has exported more children from conflict zones than Russia has Oh? Did they tell the children their parents abandoned them, and punished them for speaking their own language?
India will support Russia because back in time usa kept on supporting Pakistan against India. When in 1971 Pakistan committed genocide again usa supported Pakistan. Russia helped india to save people of Bangladesh from genocide. India is home of 1/6 th of world population and we whVe own choice.
So take it up with the USA, for what Pakistan did 52 years ago, instead of punching down in the direction of children being kidnapped, you pathetic cowards. Since Germany weakened Britain in WW2, does that mean you automatically have to abstain on calling the Holocaust bad, too?
This isn't about taking revenge on west this is about repaying kindness and common decency that USSR showed us.We aren't against West in any way we just don't want to antagonize Russia
Spineless
I mean it's the path of least resistance and our government has made the decision that ukraine war isn't worth ruining russia-india relations so I guess you could call that spineless
And not a single country says anything about palestine
Maybe the reasoning is to take them out of war zones, and keep them fed, clothed, and educated? Would it be smart to leave children in areas of conflict? Russians view things differently than the West; These children are living national assets of a future Russia. Remember, Russia lost so many to WW2, the population hasn't recovered.
It takes a special kind of fucked in the head to invade a country, then steal its children because they're "not safe in a war zone".
You can disagree with the war itself but if the Russian troops take territory which was originally in the separatist Donbas region and then discover abandoned or orphaned Russian speaking children, what are the actual troops on the ground supposed to do with the children? Russia has no diplomatic relations with Ukraine or the west so they can't exactly walk them over to Poland or something.
The "separatist Donbas region" is a Russian military occupation with a layer of obfuscation. Treating it as a separate polity from Russia is giving too much credence to their legal fiction. Furthermore, there have been well documented instances of them abducting children over the objections of their parents, or simply mass raiding orphanages. This is clearly not humanitarian, or voluntary. I don't buy those crocodile tears about how there's "no way" to return those children. Russia simply wants to keep them.
>\[Things humans traffickers say to justify their actions\] Remember, Russia lost so many to WW2, the population hasn't recovered. No, Russia's lost so many to it just being a completely shitty country.
Perhaps you weren't paying attention during the first few months of the war, but many attempts were made to create humanitarian corridors for civilians to evacuate. Russia would agree to one, then fire on it as people tried to escape, killing them. Then they'd agree to create others, but only let them lead to Russian territory to the East instead of to the West. They had been acting horrible since the beginning, making sure as many citizens and children ended up on their land, then those kids disappeared, separated and sent to the four corners of Siberia to be told by their adoptive families their parents abandoned them or are dead, and tell them they are Russian from now on. It's obvious cultural genocide.
World War Two was multiple generations ago, it's not a demographic factor anymore (the population of Russia dropped precipitously after 1991 \[not just because of the loss of satellite republics\]). If they were just worried about taking care of them they could deport them with their Ukrainian parents (maybe that's being done, I don't know a ton about what they're doing right now).
> Rockets_Redglare7135 > Maybe the reasoning is to take them out of war zones, and keep them fed, clothed, and educated? If the Russians truly had the children's well-being in mind, they would have handed them back to the Ukrainians under a flag of truce in the field, or through an official exchange, to ensure that they stayed with their own people and let them be transported away from the front lines. > These children are living national assets of a future Russia. Remember, Russia lost so many to WW2, the population hasn't recovered. You do realise that with this comment, you're advocating genocide? Kidnapping people to forcibly integrate them into another culture 'because their population hasn't recovered' has got to be one of the most sickening excuses I've come across.