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.
there are certainly better words like “conquer”
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.
America is also kidnapping people from their homes and work places
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) 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.
Self-determination is the right of a people to choose their own political status and governance, often associated with the desire for independence or autonomy. It is a key principle in international law, emphasizing that people should be governed only with their consent.
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.
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) 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.