this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2025
-55 points (22.2% liked)
World News
36865 readers
904 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No one was preventing anyone from leaving the country...they just don't get to take the land with them. That's not how it works. The word for that is "stealing".
You probably misunderstood what I meant :)
By not allowing people to escape I meant this: https://theconversation.com/why-banning-men-from-leaving-ukraine-violates-their-human-rights-178411
By kidnapping people off the streets I meant this (and well, hundreds of other sources): https://uadraftmuseum.ch/
So let me ask you once again, when someone frees people from that, what is a more appropriate word than liberation? :)
Conscription has always violated human rights but there are certainly better words like "conquer". And let's not pretend Russia isn't also conscripting men (though certainly not those in their 50s).
Well, that's true, at least we can agree on that :)
What happens in Ukraine isn't even "conscription" tho, it's literally just masked men hunting other men on the streets and kidnapping them into vans (grab first ask questions later). Just look up "busification" (word of the year 2024 according to some Ukrainian dictionary organization btw) if you want to see more.
Why would you think that "conquer" is more appropriate than "liberation" in this context? When hostages are freed, and can now do whatever they want (instead of just being hostages), do you say they were conquered or maybe liberated? Same situation here.
Well TIL. But to call it liberation isn't correct. America is also kidnapping people from their homes and work places but to say of another country was to invade and take a territory wouldn't be the same as liberation. Liberation has a higher standard where the people of the land receive sovereignty and a self-determined government.
Are you talking about ICE?
Well, I think it's a question of scale.
If somebody invaded USA to liberate "illegals" (so, after taking power, "illegals" would have the same rights as "legals"), I would also call that a liberation, but only for that group of people. I wouldn't say that USA as a whole got liberated though, because obviously this is just a small group that received additional liberties.
It's different in case of Ukraine. Almost every single family (apart from the rich ones, obviously) is a potential subject to kidnapping (and killing/wounding) of their men. So here it's liberating everyone, therefore I don't think there is more appropriate word than liberation.
Maybe there's a better example but the point remains, liberating a people comes with self-determination. It's not a matter of how little rights the people had before the military action.
Well, that also fits.
People from Donbass in particular very much don't want to be governed by Zelensky (or Ukraine in general).
The rest of the people, as you can imagine (and see from all the busification videos) also don't like being governed by the regime that literally forbids them to leave and kidnaps and kills. People under Zelensky's regime cannot vote and choose their representatives.
Of course, the perfect scenario for people would be to have independence both from Zelensky's regime and Russia (as was the case initially with DPR & LPR), thus having full self-determination, but unfortunately that card is not on the table (if it was, it would be the best option imaginable). So there are just two choices. And obviously, the one with Russia gives people more self-determination than the other one.
That's already after the initial crime has been committed...and is a direct result of it.
It also intentionally mischaracterized what that article is talking about. Russia isn't "liberating" the people in those regions. They are stealing that land, and calling it "liberation".
But it is. And I literally just told you why - the people on the liberated territories gain more freedoms (or liberties, as in liberated ;) ), freedom of movement, freedom of leaving the country, freedom of not being kidnapped off the street, freedom to vote for political parties parties, freedom to speak whatever language they want, etc. etc. etc.
This is literally the dictionary definition of word " liberation" :)
Also, they are not stealing land, what are you talking about? The land / real estate in the liberated territories still belongs to the people that live there, nothing changed (well, except those people having rights and liberties instead of being Zelensky's cannon fodder).
Russia also drafts civilians. Hundreds of thousands of them, so far. So, what you are saying, is pure bullshit. Russia doesn't give a fuck how many civilians die for Putin's war.
If they did care, it would be the easiest thing in the world to solve. Just withdraw their troops and go home. Everyone lives. The ongoing death toll has always been up to them. They chose this.
Ah, silly me, look like I felt victim to tankie propaganda, I thought in Russia people join the army because there are monetary incentives to do so! Can you now please share a page similar to https://uadraftmuseum.ch/ documenting how evil Russian empire kidnaps people off the streets, beats and busifies them, so that I can finally break free from the propaganda? Thank you very much!
You mean, something like this? Or maybe this?
If you want to complain about how one side is doing something bad...it helps if the side you're defending isn't also doing the same thing. And for the record, sarcasm is really only effective if the point you're trying to make, is valid. Bullshitting your way through an argument, is just intellectually dishonest.
First link - about detention for protesting. Thanks for proving my point about people in Russia having more freedoms and at least some chance to protest. In Ukraine you would not even think about, as you would be kidnapped and sent to the meatgrinder immediately.
Second link also further proves my point - "conscripts cannot legally be deployed to participate in military operations in Ukraine", so in other words you are not sent to die in the meatgrinder. The following example of conscripts actually getting into war is about Ukraine invading (!!) Kursk oblast, where they murdered soldiers and civilians. The stories about the actual kidnappings are just that - stories. Perhaps if you look really hard you would be able to find 1 or 2 videos of that happening in Russia, where individual officers overstep their authority, in Ukraine its systematic, and well the only way to keep the war going.
So again, Russia is liberating people imprisoned by Zelensky's regime.
So...you didn't actually read the article then? Because it goes into quite a bit of detail about how protestors are being jailed and the media is being censored. Which is the exact opposite of what you are claiming.
Again...you didn't actually read the whole article, did you? That one detail you quoted, is being circumvented by several new changes to the law, and in many cases is simply ignored by commanding officers in the field. All that is in the article. Along with the fact that those who resist the draft or try to avoid conscription are often beaten, tasered and forced to join anyway, or they are sent to prison for as much as two years...and then they are sent to war after that.
Your arguments are so transparently disingenuous that there is really no point in providing you with any further information. You are obviously just going to ignore it.