Existential national threat arguably makes this right. I'm not saying that it is right even in Ukraine's case. If the idea is that your whole society will be destroyed, and you choose to leave and say "eh, let society die, hopefully someone else will take me in with their kindness and generosity", I can see the argument for conscription.
If Ukraine's government ruled for the sake of the country's philia (in the Aristotelian sense), then that might be a good argument. That would mean Ukraine had a cohesive society, where desertion in the face of crisis would be traitorous behavior-- to be dealt with accordingly.
When the government is corrupt (as Ukraine's is) and the ruling caste is of a different religion than the people (as Ukraine's is,) forced conscription starts to look like shoving unwilling citizens' bodies in harm's way for the sake of the ruling caste's agenda. Deserting a government that has arguably already betrayed it's people through gross malfeasance prior to the crisis isn't nearly as clear cut as the situation in the above paragraph.
Yeah, I don't really disagree with that. Generally, this is also why conscription is stupid, and conscription at the border for people who are fleeing on the first day of fighting is worse. These people have no interest in defending the country.
I suspect they just want to stop people from routing, which is as alternative issue, and has it's own kinds of considerations.
But you're not wrong, even if it is a societal level existential threat, if you don't give a shit about your society dying, then clearly you aren't going to defend it.
Existential national threat arguably makes this right. I'm not saying that it is right even in Ukraine's case. If the idea is that your whole society will be destroyed, and you choose to leave and say "eh, let society die, hopefully someone else will take me in with their kindness and generosity", I can see the argument for conscription.
If Ukraine's government ruled for the sake of the country's philia (in the Aristotelian sense), then that might be a good argument. That would mean Ukraine had a cohesive society, where desertion in the face of crisis would be traitorous behavior-- to be dealt with accordingly.
When the government is corrupt (as Ukraine's is) and the ruling caste is of a different religion than the people (as Ukraine's is,) forced conscription starts to look like shoving unwilling citizens' bodies in harm's way for the sake of the ruling caste's agenda. Deserting a government that has arguably already betrayed it's people through gross malfeasance prior to the crisis isn't nearly as clear cut as the situation in the above paragraph.
Yeah, I don't really disagree with that. Generally, this is also why conscription is stupid, and conscription at the border for people who are fleeing on the first day of fighting is worse. These people have no interest in defending the country.
I suspect they just want to stop people from routing, which is as alternative issue, and has it's own kinds of considerations.
But you're not wrong, even if it is a societal level existential threat, if you don't give a shit about your society dying, then clearly you aren't going to defend it.
Yeah, if society collapses who will protect the trannys and refugees. I see no reason to die for the pro-NATO/EU globalists.
is the tranny stuff widespread in ukraine?
if you mean the US, well you wouldnt exactly benefit when the currency was destroyed.
I'm sure the conscription of those who have no skin in the game will work wonders.
That's why it would only work with an existential threat. Even most armies tend not to do that.
Pick one.
If you need to force the men under the 'existential threat', that society should die.
But that was my point... By definition it is the former and not the latter.
Ehhhh... I don't think so. Some people's courage fails. That doesn't mean that society should die because of it.
That's like saying an army should never retreat, it should just fight and die if it has to give ground. That's unreasonable.