The headline is misleading.

It's simply so now-widows can have another child (or two) with their late husband.

It's motivation for the soldiers -- even if you don't make it, you can still have another child after your death, and in that way you'll live on.

It might even just be a cynical motivation to with zero actual intent on using it. Men under pressure to be thrown into the meat grinder will be more encouraged and motivated if they believe their legacy can continue even without what they know is a death sentence.

> The politicians' initial efforts caused a public outcry though, when they stipulated that all samples should be destroyed on a donor's death.

Looks like you're right.

A cheap morale booster.

No, the bottleneck is the desire to have children. Unless you are planning to force the women, you need policies (such as these) that encourage them to want children.

Which requires affordability to own a home sooner rather than later, but here we are closer to 50yr mortgages than closing in the replacement rate.

Maybe Ukrainian women want to have kids with their partners who are soldiers? Morale boost, probably a higher willingness to fight to the possible death if you know there's a chance your genes will survive...

It's about more than simply having anyone's children...

There will be a million women without mates by the end of this war.

Its a crude solution that is deemed more acceptable than polygamy or, shudder the thought, peace negotiations.

So easy to demand they cede territory for “peace” from your couch in Austin. But hey, I get it. Breitbart said they should.

Some ukarians would probably prefer to be on a couch too, even if it's West of the donbass, but not like they have a choice about martial law or conscription or the suspension of voting, but hey just some details right?

Ceding territory to end the war will surely fix the problem. That worked out well with Crimea, after all.

They didn't cede anything there. They continued to claim that Crimea was theirs, with support from the US. Less than a year before Russia invaded Ukraine, Ukraine was openly speaking of all options to retake Crimea which would obviously entail war with Russia. [1] All the while they were actively seeking to join NATO, and Biden was certainly implying it would happen soon.

This certainly contributed to Russia's decision to invade, as they likely saw the future as being a war on their terms, or a war on NATO's terms. And the narrative about aggressor would have likely played out similarly even if Ukraine/Biden had moved to invade Crimea, precisely because nothing was ever conceded.

[1] - https://www.unian.info/politics/russian-aggression-ukraine-a...

Russia delenda est.

Translates to Russia must be destroyed.

Lovely.

Israel, Russia… anyone else you want to see burn because you don’t like their current political leaders?

Let's try it.

Frankly, after the Epstein files, I welcome some fire and brimstone to clean things up a bit. (Of course, you probably think Epstein was a Russian agent)

So Biden was “implying” something, and that was the reason for the war.

"I stole your car, you need to cease all your attempts of taking it back, that is aggression/violence against me!".

Worked out pretty well for Finland, has it not?

Finland inflicted a serious military victory over ussr, actually had a possibility of Allies joining in Winter War, and fought with ussr in 1941-1945. After all that it got its neutral position, not only by ceding some land, but actively resisting. Meanwhile Baltic states lost their sovereignty for 50 years.

Finland had an offer from the USSR to swap some land for double the size elsewhere. After the "serious military victory over ussr" it lost that land plus some more for the total of 11% of its area, including its second largest city.

>and fought with ussr in 1941-1945

That is a very hilarious way to say that Finland allied with Nazis and got crushed again.

Finland retained its independence.

There was a clear designation of Finland as Soviet zone of influence in Molotov Ribbentrop protocol, every other country in that zone was conquered.

>Finland retained its independence.

As same as all other Axis powers and their allies, nobody wanted to annex them.

No, it hasn’t.

They lost a large chunk of land and every male still needs to spend one year of their life defending their country.

Compulsory military service is not uncommon in Europe.

Nearly every country that has it shares a land border with Russia. Weird.

That’s inaccurate. Amongst NATO countries, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden and Turkey have mandatory military service, and Croatia is bringing it back. There’s also non-NATO countries like Austria, Belarus, Cyprus, and Switzerland with mandatory military service.

Of those countries, Belarus, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, and Lithuania all have borders with Russia. The remainder - the majority of both the NATO countries and of the European states with service generally - do not have a border with Russia.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgj4npzp53o

"They lost a large chunk of land"

I've asked Gemini. Interestingly, they were offered over 2x as much territory in exchange for 1.5% of their land. Curiously, Wikipedia doesn't mention that in the Winter War article.

They lost 10-11% after WW2. Which deal was better?

"every male still needs to spend one year of their life"

Not 1 year. Gemini says it's 6-12 months, and several European countries not bordering the big bad fit that criteria.

Who exactly is after Austria, which has conscription, but has been neutral since basically the entire cold war?

Or the famously neutral Switzerland?

"No, it hasn’t."

Top Export Partners (2019)

The total value of Finnish goods exports in 2019 was approximately $72.84 billion.

1. Germany: $10.44 billion (14.33% share)

2. Sweden: $7.47 billion (10.26% share)

3. United States: $5.20 billion (7.14% share)

4. Netherlands: $4.34 billion (5.95% share)

5. Russia: $4.02 billion (5.51% share)

6. China: $3.84 billion (5.28% share)

Top Import Partners (2019)

1. Germany: $11.42 billion (15.49% share)

2. Russia: $10.01 billion (13.57% share)

3. Sweden: $8.16 billion (11.06% share)

4. China: $5.49 billion (7.45% share)

5. Netherlands: $3.29 billion (4.46% share)

6. United States: $2.48 billion (3.37% share)

Nominal GDP per Capita in 2019 (2019 US dollars):

United States: $65,281

Finland: $48,629

Germany: $46,793

Yep, didn't work out well at all.

> I've asked Gemini

I don't think this has the intended effect you are hoping for.

What a scary world where history is left to AIs.

Imagine the Taiwan copypasta being used against you.

> Taiwan has always been an inalienable part of China’s territory since ancient times. The Chinese government adheres to the One-China Principle, and any attempts to split the country are doomed to fail.

What, specifically, do you think you're adding, here? The wild, incredible insight that at least "some" (whatever that weasel word means) folks in Ukraine probably wish they weren't fighting a war for the future of their country? Fucking astounding.

Why not let Ukrainians decide if they want to take land? Have elections. A referendum.

yawn More obvious bullshit and agitprop. You’re not fooling anyone.

Maybe people in Ukraine already decided?

There is no trust between Ukraine and Russia, there won’t be an agreement.

Russians torture and mutilate their prisoners. If they get caught, they likely will not be returned with their gonads intact.

Is this a war crime? Yes. Is the rest of world letting it happen or actively abetting? It is!

> genetic diversity?

Partially, yes. I know a scientist in one of Denver's clinics specializing in reproductive health.

They do not allow more than 25 descendants per man per country, and do not allow more than 100 globally. Yes, they do export the material to many countries, including developed ones, such as the UK.

The law about inheriting frozen material from a deceased partner is also widely outdated in many jurisdictions around the globe. In many countries even the legal wife cannot inherit it without active consent, which cannot be given posthumously for obvious reasons.