What do you mean by agency here? It's clear by now that at least some Ukrainian men aged 18 are kept captive in their own country and that they've no agency over their natural right to make decisions for themselves (whether to leave the country or to fight for the land they might care about) as they are being physically coerced into trenches of war by their own government. If you assume that the government has the right to deprive its citizens from their agency to decide on that matter and if you believe that projecting state power over the lives of common folks who think otherwise is justified as long as it serves your political viewpoints in this war, I see no reason why you'd complain when Russia projects its military power over Ukraine's agency when it fits Russia's geo-political goals. It's the same principle of might making it right, after all.
Actually, please show me a country in which an able bodied individual eligible for the draft in time of war can evade the draft without the help of corruption or legal loopholes.
Most countries don't draft women, presently including America. This may change of course, there are those who are trying to change it.
I'm not disagreeing with your broader point. On the whole, across this conversation, you are right.
What you’re trying to do in your turn is pretend that nation states operate by their own code of values devoid of the interests of particular individuals. So as long as the interests align with your political stance you see no problem in coercing other individuals into dying for your goals. I bet you won’t volunteer into trenches of Bakhmut any time soon, but you’ll happily accept the fate of those who are being beaten and sent there by force by the Ukrainian government at this moment.
> Better check your nation's laws. I bet they're the same of not similar to what's going on in Ukraine right now.
Note how quickly your arguments shift from being based on ethics (the virtue of agency) to interpretations of jurisprudence (state laws allowing to deprive people from the virtue of agency if self-preservation of the ruling class is at risk). In other words, you’ve got no ground for a moral objection if one day there’s a side to hold the power over Ukraine’s agency and sovereignty, as long as there’s a lawful declaration of Ukraine’s territorial and political subjection to that side.
> Are you a 'sovereign citizen' or something? This is literally how law enforcement works pretty much all over the planet.
You’d better address this question to the Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, Mr Danilov, who happens to think that he’s sovereign enough to receive a preferential treatment from his employer that allows him to hide his adult male children in the US during the forced conscription of his fellow citizens. All in the name of the sovereignty that he and his family benefits the most, as you’ve demonstrated with your arguments.
This is a pretty heavy claim ( though I admit I cynically would expect the same from average US politician ). Do you have anything to support that claim ( I was not able to find any information that would )?
Former satellite, but does it really matter? Argue your point and it will be judged on its own merits.
This is not the place to appeal to emotion or use talking points ( you can, but you will be called out on it like I am about to do ).
<< My problem is with this narrative that Putin had his hands tied (by NATO) to invade.
I am not going to go after characterizing it as narrative ( in a sense, everything is ), because it can be classified as that. I personally would argue that this is version of risk control. He lost control over Ukraine as aftermath of Orange Revolution and he wants it back. NATO may have not actively participated in said revolution, but you can't honestly tell me western powers had no stake in it ( or no reason to participate in some manner ).
<< Because it implies that >>what follows is an actual Ukrainian propaganda/talking points<<
I don't mind propaganda, but the agency line is a bad line AND a bad argument ( and, as a result, even worse propaganda; propaganda should be effective ). TBH, I am not sure where it originated, but I read it before and I assume it made more sense in original, but lost something in translation.
If you read it on your own and adopted it as your own, I would ask you that you explain to me what you think it actually means, because, logically, it does not follow what I wrote at all. If you can do that, we can continue this discussion in good faith. Otherwise, this is my last post in this section.
<< Allowing the russians to take Crimea in 2014 is what created 2022.
I am resisting the urge of connecting some event in a distant past to show how it could be traced to today. As in, you are not completely wrong, but that moment has long passed AND it was just one of the causes ( and you choose to just ignore them ).
Shoulda woulda coulda is fun, but unlikely to be productive at this stage ( may make for a good history lesson at some point in the future though ).
<< The trend I'm seeing is the edgy 14 yo sounding contrarians who think that condemning Russia is too mainstream and boring.
I hate to invoke Thiel, but this is one of those few times, where his quote is actually relevant and apt. The most contrarian thing you can do is to think for yourself. It is very true.
I have zero problem condemning Russia. Hell, from the beginning I outright stated I want Russians to fail in this campaign. There is a benefit for US ( and frankly EU ) should that come to pass, but repeating talking points is not furthering your cause. Here, it might undermine it.
I will take it one step further and offer a piece of advice: know your audience.
<< It's all part of the regular 'firehose of bullshit' which is a Soviet tactic to influence discourse away from reality.
For once, we can agree on something. It is a known tactic and does work surprisingly well and it is the bane of the internet. The good news is that, on the internet these days, shit is everywhere so gold is much, much easier to spot.
minor edit: personally, I am an admirer of Ukrainian propaganda. It is usually very competent. The 'no agency' line is just bad though. It is definitely not great for US. It is silly for HN.
I'm not debating the reasons Putin thought this was a good idea. My problem is with this narrative that Putin had his hands tied (by NATO) to invade. Because it implies that:
- Ukraine has no agency
- in the 21st century, it is still acceptable to attempt wars of conquest
- Russia cannot survive as a state without an allied Ukraine (as if being a Gas station with nukes can be threatened in any way)
- Russia has no imperial ambitions - LOL (did I mention 13 invasions of my homeland? The last of which took 14 years for the Red Army to leave, featured mass deportations and ethnic 'readjustments' and ended with ~50 years of communism)
- 'the west' should do nothing to help Ukraine as to not piss off the Russians (as of course, they're already pissed off, I mean look at them, they started a war! Better not piss them off further!)
Crimea is a great point. That's where NATO and 'the west' failed and where I agree in hindsight that they're responsible. That was the line that should not have been crossed. When Putin said he doesn't know who the 'the green men' were and he lied they weren't state actors, that's when 'the west' should have sent a peacekeeping mission to figure out who the 'green men' were, right then and there. Allowing the russians to take Crimea in 2014 is what created 2022.
The trend I'm seeing is the edgy 14 yo sounding contrarians who think that condemning Russia is too mainstream and boring. So, there's definitely more to it, right? Proxy wars, conspiracies, western coups, russia is cornered by 'the west' and has no other option, etc.. It's all part of the regular 'firehose of bullshit' which is a Soviet tactic to influence discourse away from reality. The boring tragic and stupid reality of an old school invasion driven by an insane authoritarian with WW1 trenchlines and WW2 soviet tactics of sending meat into the grinder until the enemy submits.