The only people who complain about whataboutism are the ones who want to get away with being hypocrites. Your displeasure won't help you in evading the fact of your double-standard application of the notion of agency. Individual agency is a prerequisite property for every state that wants to claim its sovereignty, as otherwise you'd be describing a slave state controlled by illegitimate rulers of the land according to their preffered modus operandi. As to whether the current Ukraine government's decision to close the borders for its entire adult male population is a token of people's democratic decision, I rest the case: you've just openly admitted that physical coercion of individuals is justifiable and lawful as long as the end goals serve the purpose of the side who holds a preferential stance in power imbalance of the given situation. The might's making it right in its purest textbook form, coming straight out of your typing fingertips. So let the same moral principle of yours guide the current foreign relations between Ukraine and Russia.

Better check your nation's laws. I bet they're the same of not similar to what's going on in Ukraine right now. I wonder what happens in the US if you try to evade a draft?

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.

> 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 is extend this to nation states to provide a justification for a war of conquest and honestly, it's not really working. A bit of a stretch. Very weak strawman..

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.

Not sure what your trying to accomplish with this pseudo-philosophical word salad. You've went through whataboutism, strawman, continuum fallacy and still haven't stated any sort of conclusion while topping it off with some example of corruption. It would be fun if it wasn't sad.

<< 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.

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 )?