NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On April 28 2025 04:40 KwarK wrote: Palestinians aren't fighting for their freedom. Hamas is fighting to kill every person of Jewish descent in the Middle East. They couldn't give a shit about Palestinian freedom.
On April 09 2022 10:37 WombaT wrote: [quote] What do we do with that information?
Best case Ukraine by and large isn’t latently Nazi, worst case let’s say they are.
In either scenario is Russia’s conduct acceptable? Should Ukraine be left without aid(
I usually agree with your points but, not really sure what you’re angling for here.
Be reasonably confident the West won't pull support because neo-nazi Ukrainian forces commit war crimes.
For example the US Congress tried to prohibit arming and training neo-nazis in Ukraine in 2015 after reports about their war crimes in 2014 but removed the prohibition under pressure from the pentagon.
Rather than make these vague assertions of Ukraine being nazis, can you be clear about to what extent you think Nazi philosophy is integrated in ukraine military, government or citizens? What are you saying is the extent of it? The US has a lot of white nationalists in the police but we are clearly not a nazi state. What are you actually saying here? Everything you’ve said feels like a unique mix of gas lighting and whataboutism.
It honestly feels totally nuts that after Russia marches a bunch of tanks across a border, you are somehow able to bring yourself to justify it in some way. Its like you have conditioned yourself to be so adamantly against the west in all situations that you can't even watch Russia bomb hospitals without saying "yeah but".
How do you read his post as a justification of the invasion? He's literally saying that the take-away from the knowledge that there are Nazis fighting for Ukraine is that it won't affect western funding of them.
There's no conflict between 'Russia is an evil imperialist power and we must give support to the countries invaded by them /discourage Russia from being imperialist' and 'the US has a history of being an evil imperialist power and we must recognize this/fight this trait of the US, because our current, well justified opposition to Russia will be entirely meaningless/hypocritical if we support the next imperialist adventure the US decides to engage on'. The far left in Norway largely seem to combine these two attitudes, and I think it's entirely coherent.
Now, that the amount of Nazis in Ukraine seems overblown is valid criticism of the point. To me, as a fairly far leftist dude, there's also no question that we must support Ukraine with all sorts of weaponry, because there can be found no justification for Russia's actions. However, there is also history between the US and Russia (Soviet) that should inspire a certain degree of sobriety with regards to our actions. Especially the conflict in Afghanistan - where the US wanted it to turn into a quagmire and where their partners in the conflict ended up backfiring severely at a later point in time. Again - there's no question that Russia is the bad actor in this conflict, but there's also history that justify asking some questions like 'what'll happen to the weapons after the conflict' 'are we sure the US hasn't been antagonizing as there might be some involved parties who see it as beneficial to US interests'. To me - none of the answers to these questions seem to alter what I perceive as the correct course of action (full support of Ukraine short of escalating into potential nuclear war), but asking these questions also does automatically translate into some type of hidden tucker carlson 'I'm just asking questions' bigotry.
There are « nazis » in most armies, starting with the russian army, but also the french army. The Legion Etrangère and the Parachutistes are full of people with extremely doubtful ideologies and the Group Wagner is led by an authentic neo nazi. The notion that the fact that there are extremists in the Ukrainian army is consequential in this conflict is grotesque.
I know you always refuse to understand what GH positions imply and what he is really saying. I admire your « assume good faith » position but it makes you totally oblivious of the content of his interventions here.
GH’s post really wasn’t that complicated. It amounts to “anyone who thinks the west is too ideologically pure to arm Nazis if it would serve their ends hasn’t been paying attention so I wouldn’t worry about the west pulling support for Ukraine anytime soon”. It’s a reasonable point. As long as they’re shooting people we don’t like we’ll arm just about anyone.
He wasn’t saying the Ukrainians are Nazis or that Russia is justified, he was saying the whole question is moot.
It is not hard to see why people extrapolate as he could expand and point out the US has armed communists, fundemental Muslims, narcos, basically anyone deemed the lesser of evils. When it comes to Russia it is not a high bar to be lesser in either what they will do to civilians and capavility to do it on a large scale.
Edit: when you are defending a country against a much stronger force that is willingly and purposefully commiting warcrimes you do not check on the political affiliation of those willing to fight them. There is very likely a "nazi" element in every military, especially if you use Russia's definition.
I completely agree on both counts. If you look hard enough you can find Nazis basically anywhere because Nazism is, and always has been, relatively popular. It’s a political philosophy based on easy answers for disaffected people.
The whole thing with the Azov battalion and other neo Nazis in Ukraine is unsurprising generally and super unsurprising given the shitty experience of Ukraine under Russian dominion and the historical legacy of antisemitism in the area. The correct response to the allegation of Nazism in Ukraine is, as you say, that they don’t run the place and that it’s ultimately not a relevant factor to the decision of whether to support Ukraine. I’d be more worried supporting a blood and soil government like the Hungarian one. Ukraine isn’t run by Nazis and
quite frankly if Nazis want to pick fights with Russian war criminals then I’m in favour of both sides being better armed. Let the trash take itself out.
EDIT to your edit:
Ukraine has a legitimate non genocidal government that the West can support. Who should the West support in Gaza?
It should STOP arming and supporting the genocidal government of Israel for starters. Maybe stop inviting them to hang out at their parties? That seems like an easier and more obvious step than worrying about who to support instead.
The Palestinians should just make a peace deal with Israel. Their people are dying. I don't understand why they can't just make a deal right now.
They shouldn't have attacked in the first place and started the war but they did. It was stupid. If Trump was president it would never have happened. But when they did they should have made a deal day 1. They can make a deal now and everyone will say; see it was to have so many deaths that didn't mean anything. They thought Iran, Hezbollah and Syria would support them but they are weak and really don't want to so they have no support. If they don't stop the war they will lose everything and be genocided by evil Israel. Since they don't have a chance they should just take the peace deal Israel wants and give all their lands to Israel and offer themselves as serfs. It would be the lesser evil since they are dying, live in tents in constant fear and are starving. At least that way they would have food, shelter and work and healthcare.
This is not a good analogy and what GH is trying to pretend his point was all along so he doesn't have to admit that he injects massive amounts of Russian propaganda because he trusts any source that is anti american.
The Palestinians would love to sign a peace deal, they can not because of Hamas. Hamas also started this war and is still holding hostages. Best move with GH is just to ignore. He will never admit fault, because he wants to keep his mythos of socialist revolutionary who knows so much more but does not want to lower himself to explain it to the plebs.
On April 28 2025 05:46 ZeroByte13 wrote: What are the actual news from the frontlines now? As I understood from a few drops of info here and there in this thread - Russian army is still (very?) slowly moving forward and UAF were pushed out of Kursk region, but the consensus (?) is that with current rate of progress and losses Russia won't be able to gain anything significant any time soon, not before they will have no resources left? Is this correct?
More or less yes. UA is pushing in certain spots, so you see some movement in there favor on the livemaps but it is insignificant amounts of territory.
The big moves have been a massive strike on a ammo depot, the assassination of a General and taking out another top end jet.
On April 28 2025 04:40 KwarK wrote: Palestinians aren't fighting for their freedom. Hamas is fighting to kill every person of Jewish descent in the Middle East. They couldn't give a shit about Palestinian freedom.
On April 09 2022 11:38 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote] Be reasonably confident the West won't pull support because neo-nazi Ukrainian forces commit war crimes.
For example the US Congress tried to prohibit arming and training neo-nazis in Ukraine in 2015 after reports about their war crimes in 2014 but removed the prohibition under pressure from the pentagon.
Rather than make these vague assertions of Ukraine being nazis, can you be clear about to what extent you think Nazi philosophy is integrated in ukraine military, government or citizens? What are you saying is the extent of it? The US has a lot of white nationalists in the police but we are clearly not a nazi state. What are you actually saying here? Everything you’ve said feels like a unique mix of gas lighting and whataboutism.
It honestly feels totally nuts that after Russia marches a bunch of tanks across a border, you are somehow able to bring yourself to justify it in some way. Its like you have conditioned yourself to be so adamantly against the west in all situations that you can't even watch Russia bomb hospitals without saying "yeah but".
How do you read his post as a justification of the invasion? He's literally saying that the take-away from the knowledge that there are Nazis fighting for Ukraine is that it won't affect western funding of them.
There's no conflict between 'Russia is an evil imperialist power and we must give support to the countries invaded by them /discourage Russia from being imperialist' and 'the US has a history of being an evil imperialist power and we must recognize this/fight this trait of the US, because our current, well justified opposition to Russia will be entirely meaningless/hypocritical if we support the next imperialist adventure the US decides to engage on'. The far left in Norway largely seem to combine these two attitudes, and I think it's entirely coherent.
Now, that the amount of Nazis in Ukraine seems overblown is valid criticism of the point. To me, as a fairly far leftist dude, there's also no question that we must support Ukraine with all sorts of weaponry, because there can be found no justification for Russia's actions. However, there is also history between the US and Russia (Soviet) that should inspire a certain degree of sobriety with regards to our actions. Especially the conflict in Afghanistan - where the US wanted it to turn into a quagmire and where their partners in the conflict ended up backfiring severely at a later point in time. Again - there's no question that Russia is the bad actor in this conflict, but there's also history that justify asking some questions like 'what'll happen to the weapons after the conflict' 'are we sure the US hasn't been antagonizing as there might be some involved parties who see it as beneficial to US interests'. To me - none of the answers to these questions seem to alter what I perceive as the correct course of action (full support of Ukraine short of escalating into potential nuclear war), but asking these questions also does automatically translate into some type of hidden tucker carlson 'I'm just asking questions' bigotry.
There are « nazis » in most armies, starting with the russian army, but also the french army. The Legion Etrangère and the Parachutistes are full of people with extremely doubtful ideologies and the Group Wagner is led by an authentic neo nazi. The notion that the fact that there are extremists in the Ukrainian army is consequential in this conflict is grotesque.
I know you always refuse to understand what GH positions imply and what he is really saying. I admire your « assume good faith » position but it makes you totally oblivious of the content of his interventions here.
GH’s post really wasn’t that complicated. It amounts to “anyone who thinks the west is too ideologically pure to arm Nazis if it would serve their ends hasn’t been paying attention so I wouldn’t worry about the west pulling support for Ukraine anytime soon”. It’s a reasonable point. As long as they’re shooting people we don’t like we’ll arm just about anyone.
He wasn’t saying the Ukrainians are Nazis or that Russia is justified, he was saying the whole question is moot.
It is not hard to see why people extrapolate as he could expand and point out the US has armed communists, fundemental Muslims, narcos, basically anyone deemed the lesser of evils. When it comes to Russia it is not a high bar to be lesser in either what they will do to civilians and capavility to do it on a large scale.
Edit: when you are defending a country against a much stronger force that is willingly and purposefully commiting warcrimes you do not check on the political affiliation of those willing to fight them. There is very likely a "nazi" element in every military, especially if you use Russia's definition.
I completely agree on both counts. If you look hard enough you can find Nazis basically anywhere because Nazism is, and always has been, relatively popular. It’s a political philosophy based on easy answers for disaffected people.
The whole thing with the Azov battalion and other neo Nazis in Ukraine is unsurprising generally and super unsurprising given the shitty experience of Ukraine under Russian dominion and the historical legacy of antisemitism in the area. The correct response to the allegation of Nazism in Ukraine is, as you say, that they don’t run the place and that it’s ultimately not a relevant factor to the decision of whether to support Ukraine. I’d be more worried supporting a blood and soil government like the Hungarian one. Ukraine isn’t run by Nazis and
quite frankly if Nazis want to pick fights with Russian war criminals then I’m in favour of both sides being better armed. Let the trash take itself out.
EDIT to your edit:
Ukraine has a legitimate non genocidal government that the West can support. Who should the West support in Gaza?
It should STOP arming and supporting the genocidal government of Israel for starters. Maybe stop inviting them to hang out at their parties? That seems like an easier and more obvious step than worrying about who to support instead.
The Palestinians should just make a peace deal with Israel. Their people are dying. I don't understand why they can't just make a deal right now.
They shouldn't have attacked in the first place and started the war but they did. It was stupid. If Trump was president it would never have happened. But when they did they should have made a deal day 1. They can make a deal now and everyone will say; see it was to have so many deaths that didn't mean anything. They thought Iran, Hezbollah and Syria would support them but they are weak and really don't want to so they have no support. If they don't stop the war they will lose everything and be genocided by evil Israel. Since they don't have a chance they should just take the peace deal Israel wants and give all their lands to Israel and offer themselves as serfs. It would be the lesser evil since they are dying, live in tents in constant fear and are starving. At least that way they would have food, shelter and work and healthcare.
Israel doesn‘t really want to annex the region, they don‘t want to have to care for the people living there and the security risk of having them in the country. That‘s my guess.
They keep the US happy by shelling the militants hiding among the civilians. How accurate they are is debatable, I don‘t think we get a lot of accurate news about it either.
The ICJ already declared that the occupation is illegal. For the genocide not to occur one might have to grant a lot of Palestinians asylum in other countries, but that‘s not very popular or feasible right now.
If you look at the map, it‘s stupid. Everything up to Gaza would be better off in the hands of Egypt.
Egypt's been offered it, I think been multiple times. They don't want it because of how radicalized and militarized Iran's proxies have made it. They have also created a crazy awful demographic situation. (not getting into to many details on wrong spot).
On April 28 2025 05:46 ZeroByte13 wrote: What are the actual news from the frontlines now? As I understood from a few drops of info here and there in this thread - Russian army is still (very?) slowly moving forward and UAF were pushed out of Kursk region, but the consensus (?) is that with current rate of progress and losses Russia won't be able to gain anything significant any time soon, not before they will have no resources left? Is this correct?
At this rate Russia would still need about 5 years to take remainder of Donbass. But I wouldn't expect any side to run out of resources. They seem to be keeping things at sustainable pace until something gives politically or economically.
On April 28 2025 05:46 ZeroByte13 wrote: What are the actual news from the frontlines now? As I understood from a few drops of info here and there in this thread - Russian army is still (very?) slowly moving forward and UAF were pushed out of Kursk region, but the consensus (?) is that with current rate of progress and losses Russia won't be able to gain anything significant any time soon, not before they will have no resources left? Is this correct?
There was this bit from Reuters reporting on Ukraine's struggle to recruit younger fighters that easily could have been missed.
You'll receive a generous salary, a bumper bonus and an interest-free loan to buy a home. The challenge? You'll have to fight on the frontlines of Europe's deadliest conflict since World War II.
It's a tough sell to young people with their whole lives ahead of them.
On top of the mortgage deal, the package includes a monthly salary of up to $2,900, way above the national average wage of about $520, a cash bonus of 1 million hryvnia ($24,000) and a one-year exemption from mobilization after a year of service.
My commentary: "That's a lot of money. Someone else can do better PPP math, but based on median income, that's basically like recruiting people to the US military by promising them ~$15,000 a month and a $200,000 signing bonus. Shit would have to be pretty dire for the recruitment offices to not be flooded with recruits in most countries. In Ukraine?"
Two months after Ukraine launched a national drive to recruit young people to fight in its tired and aged armed forces for a year, fewer than 500 have signed contracts, according to Pavlo Palisa, President Volodymyr Zelenskiy's military adviser.
Considering how many of my buddies at the time (2001-2003) signed up for bonuses much less than $24,000 and a month of leave let alone the equivalent of $200,000+ not having to fight in 2026, that's way worse than pretty much anyone here is going to come to grips with any time soon.
It would be very worth knowing whether the benefits are transferable to their families upon their deaths for anyone that wants to focus on us being better informed about the conditions on the ground. If you market that right, you can recruit a lot of people and replenish future generations.
If I was a Ukrainian 19 year old, I would seriously consider asking my high school girlfriend if she wanted to start a family, do it, and sign up.
There would basically have to be 0 chance of me making it back and a good chance they never pay my family to keep me from signing up. Shit, for a $200k bonus and $15k/mo I know teenagers in the US that would go fight right now if Europeans want to pay. That they can't find Ukrainians is pretty bad.
EDIT: Considering how shitty it is in the US and how oblivious younger people are about the conditions on the front lines of a real war, there's probably more than 500 18-24 year olds willing to take the deal as it is (~$3k a month, a $24k signing bonus, and an interest free home loan) in each state in the US.
What's the average age of the Russian army compared to UA? Does UA have a large pool of people they could conscript if needed? Do they have the equipment ready for them? Or could they be waiting for that before using that hard to renew resource?
On April 28 2025 06:47 Billyboy wrote: What's the average age of the Russian army compared to UA? Does UA have a large pool of people they could conscript if needed? Do they have the equipment ready for them? Or could they be waiting for that before using that hard to renew resource?
Latest reports said that UA has a large pool of men but lacks equipment so they're not doing mass recruitment because they can't outfit them. They've deliberately kept their draft age high to preserve the younger generation, recently they lowered it to 25 (previously it was 27) so it's not like they lack young people, they just don't want to use them. Edit: I also think that a lot of the younger folks who have fled the war will not be coming back to get killed on the front. Can't really blame them but it might pose difficulties if the war drags on for much longer.
This also results in UA soldiers being older on average. UA average is 43-45 while RU average is 38 for military personnel. It might change however since the reports say that new recruits for RU are in the 40-50 range. They even raised the max draft age because they're running out of young people in poorer regions.
On April 28 2025 06:47 Billyboy wrote: What's the average age of the Russian army compared to UA? Does UA have a large pool of people they could conscript if needed? Do they have the equipment ready for them? Or could they be waiting for that before using that hard to renew resource?
Latest reports said that UA has a large pool of men but lacks equipment so they're not doing mass recruitment because they can't outfit them. They've deliberately kept their draft age high to preserve the younger generation, recently they lowered it to 25 (previously it was 27) so it's not like they lack young people, they just don't want to use them. Edit: I also think that a lot of the younger folks who have fled the war will not be coming back to get killed on the front. Can't really blame them but it might pose difficulties if the war drags on for much longer.
This also results in UA soldiers being older on average. UA average is 43-45 while RU average is 38 for military personnel. It might change however since the reports say that new recruits for RU are in the 40-50 range. They even raised the max draft age because they're running out of young people in poorer regions.
So it sounds like GH is taking a small bit of information and making inaccurate assumptions based on his own assumptions likely based on the information he is taking in.
On April 28 2025 06:47 Billyboy wrote: What's the average age of the Russian army compared to UA? Does UA have a large pool of people they could conscript if needed? Do they have the equipment ready for them? Or could they be waiting for that before using that hard to renew resource?
Latest reports said that UA has a large pool of men but lacks equipment so they're not doing mass recruitment because they can't outfit them. They've deliberately kept their draft age high to preserve the younger generation, recently they lowered it to 25 (previously it was 27) so it's not like they lack young people, they just don't want to use them. Edit: I also think that a lot of the younger folks who have fled the war will not be coming back to get killed on the front. Can't really blame them but it might pose difficulties if the war drags on for much longer.
This also results in UA soldiers being older on average. UA average is 43-45 while RU average is 38 for military personnel. It might change however since the reports say that new recruits for RU are in the 40-50 range. They even raised the max draft age because they're running out of young people in poorer regions.
Bit more to it than that though isn't there? The new youth recruitment drive is definitely a serious effort to increase young recruits based on the amount of money they are offering. There's also the aspect of the 18-24 crowd originally being exempt from the draft for economic reasons. We're talking almost 4 years worth of the median salary, just for a signing bonus and more than 5x the monthly rate. That's a helluva lot better than whatever jobs they're working (feel like Kwark had a good breakdown on this for Russia). That's not an offer you make because you don't want people to take it. It is true that they aren't forcing those young people
It is unusual for such raids to take place in the capital, and reflects Ukraine's dire need for fresh recruits.
onto the front lines yet, because they wouldn't have any equipment to give them.
But that's not because the people that are responsible for giving them the equipment haven't been telling them they don't have a choice:
President Joe Biden’s administration is urging Ukraine to quickly increase the size of its military by drafting more troops and revamping its mobilization laws to allow for the conscription of those as young as 18.
A senior Biden administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private consultations, said Wednesday that the outgoing Democratic administration wants Ukraine to lower the mobilization age to 18 from the current age of 25 to expand the pool of fighting-age men available to help a badly outnumbered Ukraine in its nearly three-year-old war with Russia.
The official said “the pure math” of Ukraine’s situation now is that it needs more troops in the fight. Currently Ukraine is not mobilizing or training enough soldiers to replace its battlefield losses while keeping pace with Russia’s growing military, the official added.
Ukrainians still have a hell of a lot of a better shot than Palestinians do, I don’t recall this new injection of pragmatism into your calls applying there.
But hey what would I know, I’m just overcome with emotion *shrugs*
On April 28 2025 06:31 GreenHorizons wrote: If I was a Ukrainian 19 year old, I would seriously consider asking my high school girlfriend if she wanted to start a family, do it, and sign up.
There would basically have to be 0 chance of me making it back and a good chance they never pay my family to keep me from signing up. Shit, for a $200k bonus and $15k/mo I know teenagers in the US that would go fight right now if Europeans want to pay. That they can't find Ukrainians is pretty bad.
They can't find willing young people because unlike in the US in UA most of them know exactly what's going on in the front lines through family and friends. No amount of money is worth getting killed or crippled for life so only the most desperate are doing it willingly. RU hasn't really pushed too deep into Ukraine yet so I guess there's also no real sense of urgency, considering the front lines haven't moved much in the past year.
As someone observing the situation actively I know that Ukraine is in some dire straits and pretty desperate but a more casual or cursory look at the conflict might seem otherwise. WW1 style trench warfare meatgrinder that doesn't move either way for months at the fringes of a huge country doesn't look very urgent at a glance.
On April 28 2025 06:47 Billyboy wrote: What's the average age of the Russian army compared to UA? Does UA have a large pool of people they could conscript if needed? Do they have the equipment ready for them? Or could they be waiting for that before using that hard to renew resource?
UA does have a large pool of people they could conscript, namely 18-24 year olds. They would be largely untrained tho, so that's at least 2 months of basic in Britain, and potentially another 2-3 in Norway for extended training and specialization.
They do not, however, have enough equipment for them. Ukraine doesn't have enough equipment for the men they do have, with battalions sitting non-combat ready because of a lack of simple arms and ammunition. So all this talk about how Ukraine lacking people is true, but only to the extend that they're also lacking equipment to recruit new people with.
On April 28 2025 06:47 Billyboy wrote: What's the average age of the Russian army compared to UA? Does UA have a large pool of people they could conscript if needed? Do they have the equipment ready for them? Or could they be waiting for that before using that hard to renew resource?
Latest reports said that UA has a large pool of men but lacks equipment so they're not doing mass recruitment because they can't outfit them. They've deliberately kept their draft age high to preserve the younger generation, recently they lowered it to 25 (previously it was 27) so it's not like they lack young people, they just don't want to use them. Edit: I also think that a lot of the younger folks who have fled the war will not be coming back to get killed on the front. Can't really blame them but it might pose difficulties if the war drags on for much longer.
This also results in UA soldiers being older on average. UA average is 43-45 while RU average is 38 for military personnel. It might change however since the reports say that new recruits for RU are in the 40-50 range. They even raised the max draft age because they're running out of young people in poorer regions.
Bit more to it than that though isn't there? The new youth recruitment drive is definitely a serious effort to increase young recruits based on the amount of money they are offering. There's also the aspect of the 18-24 crowd originally being exempt from the draft for economic reasons. We're talking almost 4 years worth of the median salary, just for a signing bonus and more than 5x the monthly rate. That's a helluva lot better than whatever jobs they're working (feel like Kwark had a good breakdown on this for Russia). That's not an offer you make because you don't want people to take it. It is true that they aren't forcing those young people
President Joe Biden’s administration is urging Ukraine to quickly increase the size of its military by drafting more troops and revamping its mobilization laws to allow for the conscription of those as young as 18.
A senior Biden administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private consultations, said Wednesday that the outgoing Democratic administration wants Ukraine to lower the mobilization age to 18 from the current age of 25 to expand the pool of fighting-age men available to help a badly outnumbered Ukraine in its nearly three-year-old war with Russia.
The official said “the pure math” of Ukraine’s situation now is that it needs more troops in the fight. Currently Ukraine is not mobilizing or training enough soldiers to replace its battlefield losses while keeping pace with Russia’s growing military, the official added.
On April 28 2025 06:47 Billyboy wrote: What's the average age of the Russian army compared to UA? Does UA have a large pool of people they could conscript if needed? Do they have the equipment ready for them? Or could they be waiting for that before using that hard to renew resource?
Latest reports said that UA has a large pool of men but lacks equipment so they're not doing mass recruitment because they can't outfit them. They've deliberately kept their draft age high to preserve the younger generation, recently they lowered it to 25 (previously it was 27) so it's not like they lack young people, they just don't want to use them. Edit: I also think that a lot of the younger folks who have fled the war will not be coming back to get killed on the front. Can't really blame them but it might pose difficulties if the war drags on for much longer.
This also results in UA soldiers being older on average. UA average is 43-45 while RU average is 38 for military personnel. It might change however since the reports say that new recruits for RU are in the 40-50 range. They even raised the max draft age because they're running out of young people in poorer regions.
Bit more to it than that though isn't there? The new youth recruitment drive is definitely a serious effort to increase young recruits based on the amount of money they are offering. There's also the aspect of the 18-24 crowd originally being exempt from the draft for economic reasons. We're talking almost 4 years worth of the median salary, just for a signing bonus and more than 5x the monthly rate. That's a helluva lot better than whatever jobs they're working (feel like Kwark had a good breakdown on this for Russia). That's not an offer you make because you don't want people to take it. It is true that they aren't forcing those young people
It is unusual for such raids to take place in the capital, and reflects Ukraine's dire need for fresh recruits.
onto the front lines yet, because they wouldn't have any equipment to give them.
But that's not because the people that are responsible for giving them the equipment haven't been telling them they don't have a choice:
President Joe Biden’s administration is urging Ukraine to quickly increase the size of its military by drafting more troops and revamping its mobilization laws to allow for the conscription of those as young as 18.
A senior Biden administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private consultations, said Wednesday that the outgoing Democratic administration wants Ukraine to lower the mobilization age to 18 from the current age of 25 to expand the pool of fighting-age men available to help a badly outnumbered Ukraine in its nearly three-year-old war with Russia.
The official said “the pure math” of Ukraine’s situation now is that it needs more troops in the fight. Currently Ukraine is not mobilizing or training enough soldiers to replace its battlefield losses while keeping pace with Russia’s growing military, the official added.
That last source is half a year old... doesn't seem helpful. Especially when all the other more recent sources say they need gear not manpower
Ukraine needs more armed and trained soldiers coming to the frontlines and they have for months. Ukraine has been telling the US that it needs more weapons. The US, both Biden and Trump, have been telling them they need to draft more/younger soldiers.
This piece was from after the spat in the oval
Trump told Zelenskyy his country was “running low on soldiers,” while Vance said Ukrainian authorities “are going around and forcing conscripts to the front lines because [they] have manpower problems.”
The Biden administration, which provided tens of billions of dollars in support for Ukraine in its war against Russia, told Kyiv in November that Ukraine has the weaponry it needs and should significantly increase its troops levels.
So this "Ukraine would have the troops it needs if it was getting the weapons it needs" is weird copium from my perspective.
Ukraine's newish (~2 months) youth recruitment program was an attempt to prevent having to draft these Ukrainian youths for the "meatgrinder", essentially on US demands, but both (were the youth program actually successful) exacerbate the problem Zelensky has had with putting 18-24 year olds on the frontlines since the start.
Ukraine has resisted calls from the United States and other Western allies to lower the compulsory conscription age from 25 to 18. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s government has argued that sending the youngest adult generation to war en masse will leave Ukraine facing a demographic crisis in the future and hamper its ability to rebuild the nation after the fighting is over.
There's also other problems with drafting people, from Aug last year:
Some new Ukrainian soldiers refuse to fire at the enemy. Others, according to commanders and fellow fighters, struggle to assemble weapons or to coordinate basic combat movements. A few have even walked away from their posts, abandoning the battlefield altogether.
Yes, Ukraine (like pretty much any country that ever was in a prolonged defensive war) needs more (skilled) Manpower and Gear. Only the brightest minds could have forseen this. Why did they even fight, i mean, war is bad! Better become a puppet and life in poverty under mother Russia for decades/centuries to come.
Ukraine has a bunch of armoured battalions that are 10x the size they were prewar with half the armour. Meanwhile the White House has given them a tiny fraction of the hardware they donated to the Taliban when the ANA folded. Demanding that Zelenskyy conscript some kids and put them in a field with a rifle and an entrenching tool is repugnant. He is absolutely in the right, he has a duty to the men giving their lives. If he can’t equip them then he can’t ask them to hold the line.
Zelenskyy has visited hot zones on the front, he has spoken with men who have seen their comrades die, spoken with men only for them to die shortly afterwards. This war is visibly aging him. I believe he is extremely conscious of the human tragedy of this war and his responsibility to the people who serve.
Also, I agree that the morale problem in recruiting on the Ukrainian side would be vastly improved if they were confident that they would be properly armed, that supplies and intel would be reliably sustained and not randomly cut off by a maniac that blames the side that got invaded as the cause of war and main hinderance to peace.
I'm not sure who first posted this youtube channel, and the title is click baity but the information is good. It is basically a thorough take down of RedHorizons points. It starts with the economy as Russia recently announced they will need to cut back on luxury and it goes into that. It moves on to the pretend ceasefire negotiation and uses Putin's words to describe what Russia is really after. And it goes into what the denazification rhetoric is really about (first time I've heard it explained this well) and is really going to crush RedHorizons because it puts the uncomfortable truth about how Russia likes to pretend as the USSR it was not a tight ally with the Nazi's in joint attacks on Poland splitting up eastern Europe before the two evil nation states turned on each other. Enjoy!
Interesting article about the Demographics in Russia, least child births in the first quarter in 200 years. Considering Putin is openly campaigning for more babies this is extra bad news for them. Who could have predicted that having a bunch of young men getting killed, injured and being away from women would lower child birth? Who could have for seen inflation and bad economic outlook causing young people to wait on kids? Not Putin apparently.
On May 01 2025 01:21 Billyboy wrote: Interesting article about the Demographics in Russia, least child births in the first quarter in 200 years. Considering Putin is openly campaigning for more babies this is extra bad news for them. Who could have predicted that having a bunch of young men getting killed, injured and being away from women would lower child birth? Who could have for seen inflation and bad economic outlook causing young people to wait on kids? Not Putin apparently.
On April 30 2025 05:40 Billyboy wrote: I'm not sure who first posted this youtube channel, and the title is click baity but the information is good. It is basically a thorough take down of RedHorizons points. It starts with the economy as Russia recently announced they will need to cut back on luxury and it goes into that. It moves on to the pretend ceasefire negotiation and uses Putin's words to describe what Russia is really after. And it goes into what the denazification rhetoric is really about (first time I've heard it explained this well) and is really going to crush RedHorizons because it puts the uncomfortable truth about how Russia likes to pretend as the USSR it was not a tight ally with the Nazi's in joint attacks on Poland splitting up eastern Europe before the two evil nation states turned on each other. Enjoy!
Georgi does good content overall. Some people might accuse him of glazing Ukrainians too much but I think it's understandable considering he's from the Baltics (I don't remember which of the 3, Latvia I think?) and they're not big fans of Russia and big supporters of Ukraine on a country-wide level basically.
EPT
