Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

[andysays]

I'm not suggesting anything "should" happen. Just commenting on the notion that the political acceptability of external military help might be determined by a perception of "draft dodgers" in whatever country is unfortunate enough to be under attack.

I'd say it's quite "armchair" to point at young men trying to avoid conscription as a reason to deem a particular country or area unworthy of international help.

To be clear, I haven't made any reference to draft dodgers or suggested that young men trying to avoid conscription is a reason to deem a particular country or area unworthy of international help.

Ukraine is, of course, already receiving lots of international help. I don't think it would be right to send British troops to fight against Russia troops in Ukraine, and I think this irrespective of the numbers of Ukrainian men trying to avoid conscription.

But in terms of whether it's politically acceptable or not to send western troops, which was the point TopCat was originally making, I think the willingness or otherwise of significant numbers of Ukrainians to defend their own country is undoubtedly a factor.

 

[teuchter]

I don't think it would be right to send British troops to fight against Russia troops in Ukraine, and I think this irrespective of the numbers of Ukrainian men trying to avoid conscription.

Should I take this statement as indicating you think it is "right" to send unwilling Ukrainian conscripts into battle? Just so I know whether I get to accuse you of being an armchair warrior.

 

[andysays]

Should I take this statement as indicating you think it is "right" to send unwilling Ukrainian conscripts into battle? Just so I know whether I get to accuse you of being an armchair warrior.

You can take it however you want.

If you really want to twist my statement into something it clearly isn't saying, go right ahead.

 

[DownwardDog]

This is what I've been saying for the last two years.... though I don't see why it has to be NATO per se, it could be defended by any coalition of willing countries.

I don’t think it can be NATO because all it would take to prevent it would be one veto. So the US would have to want them in badly enough to threaten and/or bribe the awkward squad of Hungary, Türkiye, etc.

 

[Pickman's model]

Should I take this statement as indicating you think it is "right" to send unwilling Ukrainian conscripts into battle? Just so I know whether I get to accuse you of being an armchair warrior.

((((andysays)))) not even an armchair general

 

[andysays]

((((andysays)))) not even an armchair general

I'm more of a chaise longue conscientious objector, TBH

 

[tim]

I don't imagine many of them signed up on the basis that they would be deployed to defend a non-NATO country, and I think it would be hugely politically unpopular* if US or UK troops were used in that way.

* except perhaps to gung-ho armchair warriors such as yourself with, as far as I'm aware, no history of military service.

Presumably, members of the British military signed up to murder people wherever the British state sent them. Afghanistan and Iraq where never in NATO and too few of their predecessors balked at going to kill there.