Conscientious Objectors in Ukraine

[ken_sylvania]

So an anecdotal 2nd, 3rd, 4th? hand report in the Plain News that seems to have been documented by no other news organization anywhere? And doesn't reflect how conscription actually happens in Ukraine (i.e. villagers are not involved in the conscription process).

And if true, this anecdote isn't actually an example of execution, but simply murder. Or what we might once have called lynching here in the US.

In addition, this anecdote doesn't actually indicate that it is the Ukrainian side involved here and not some village in the Russian-occupied portion of the Donbass (parts of which have been under occupation since 2014) where local villagers are being conscripted to fight in pro-Russian units under the control of the occupying Russian army.

OK, fine lynched would have been a better word. Or just shot.
You really do crack me up though.
#1 - You would have no problem at all using the term execution if it had been a gang of Russian Privates killing captured Ukrainians.
#2 - How do you know this wasn't documented by any other news organization? Do you read Ukrainian?
#3 - I suppose I should assume that you do not exist unless I can find evidence otherwise from at least two news organizations
#4 - Can you provide links to at least two news organizations who can confirm your claim that no other news organization documented the killing? After all, if we shouldn't believe the writer of that letter (I know who the writer is and know her family) then we definitely shouldn't believe some random guy named Ken who has no idea what he's talking about
#5 - I don't think I made any kind of a claim as to which "side" was responsible for the killings. Why do you imply that I did?

The biggest hole in the story is that no one ages 18 and 20 is being conscripted in Ukraine. The conscription age is 27 and in the process of being lowered to age 25. There are 18 year-olds who are being recruited in the armed forces for sure. Heavily recruited. But they are not being conscripted.

And who exactly claimed they were conscripted?

[Ken]

The biggest hole in the story is that no one ages 18 and 20 is being conscripted in Ukraine. The conscription age is 27 and in the process of being lowered to age 25. There are 18 year-olds who are being recruited in the armed forces for sure. Heavily recruited. But they are not being conscripted.

There is official position and then unofficial position. The article also doesn't indicate which side the martyrs were on.

Secondly, there is evidently considerable corruption in the enlistment offices. Perhaps someone was hoping to twist their arm into giving a bribe.
https://kyivindependent.com/zelensky-en ... s-ukraine/

Yes, but the corruption in the enlistment offices for which Zelenskyy fired all the recruitment office chiefs was not illegal enlistment of 18 year-olds.

The corruption they were fighting was the opposite: The enlistment officers were taking big bribes to give eligible men (over age 27) fraudulent waivers from enlistment. They were selling waivers.

[Soloist]

The biggest hole in the story is that no one ages 18 and 20 is being conscripted in Ukraine. The conscription age is 27 and in the process of being lowered to age 25. There are 18 year-olds who are being recruited in the armed forces for sure. Heavily recruited. But they are not being conscripted.

There is official position and then unofficial position. The article also doesn't indicate which side the martyrs were on.

Secondly, there is evidently considerable corruption in the enlistment offices. Perhaps someone was hoping to twist their arm into giving a bribe.
https://kyivindependent.com/zelensky-en ... s-ukraine/

Yes, but the corruption in the enlistment offices for which Zelenskyy fired all the recruitment office chiefs was not illegal enlistment of 18 year-olds.

The corruption they were fighting was the opposite: The enlistment officers were taking big bribes to give eligible men (over age 27) fraudulent waivers from enlistment. They were selling waivers.

You seem to miss the implication of greed here. Either way, I believe the story, you don't.
I don't know if its Russian or Ukraine but based on the article, it appears to be Ukraine.

[Ken]

And who exactly claimed they were conscripted?

The Plain News article. It didn't use the actual word "conscription" but it said they were "called to the army" which amounts to the same thing.

If you aren't being conscripted then there isn't actually anything to conscientiously object to is there?

[ken_sylvania]

And who exactly claimed they were conscripted?

The Plain News article. It didn't use the actual word "conscription" but it said they were "called to the army" which amounts to the same thing.

If you aren't being conscripted then there isn't actually anything to conscientiously object to is there?

Being "heavily recruited" can accurately be described as being "called to the army."

I have never been conscripted but I am still a conscientiously objector to war.

[Ken]

And who exactly claimed they were conscripted?

The Plain News article. It didn't use the actual word "conscription" but it said they were "called to the army" which amounts to the same thing.

If you aren't being conscripted then there isn't actually anything to conscientiously object to is there?

Being "heavily recruited" can accurately be described as being "called to the army."

I have never been conscripted but I am still a conscientiously objector to war.

So these two young men, who were not of draft age or subject to conscription, were lynched by Ukrainian villagers because they didn’t pick up the phone when army recruiters called? That doesn’t pass the laugh test.

And no, in the context of this tread (and the original post by RZehr) you are not a conscientious objector if you are not facing military conscription. You might believe in non-resistance or pacifism. But that is something different.

[Soloist]

The Plain News article. It didn't use the actual word "conscription" but it said they were "called to the army" which amounts to the same thing.

If you aren't being conscripted then there isn't actually anything to conscientiously object to is there?

Being "heavily recruited" can accurately be described as being "called to the army."

I have never been conscripted but I am still a conscientiously objector to war.

So these two young men, who were not of draft age or subject to conscription, were lynched by Ukrainian villagers because they didn’t pick up the phone when army recruiters called? That doesn’t pass the laugh test.

And no, in the context of this tread (and the original post by RZehr) you are not a conscientious objector if you are not facing military conscription. You might believe in non-resistance or pacifism. But that is something different.

Actually you are wrong. Facing conscription doesn’t suddenly change someone into a CO. They were a CO before otherwise the Military frowns on granting it. Unlike 99% of the people here, I actually filed my CO paperwork while in the military.

[ken_sylvania]

The Plain News article. It didn't use the actual word "conscription" but it said they were "called to the army" which amounts to the same thing.

If you aren't being conscripted then there isn't actually anything to conscientiously object to is there?

Being "heavily recruited" can accurately be described as being "called to the army."

I have never been conscripted but I am still a conscientiously objector to war.

So these two young men, who were not of draft age or subject to conscription, were lynched by Ukrainian villagers because they didn’t pick up the phone when army recruiters called? That doesn’t pass the laugh test.

And no, in the context of this tread (and the original post by RZehr) you are not a conscientious objector if you are not facing military conscription. You might believe in non-resistance or pacifism. But that is something different.

I'm 100% going to take the word of a trustworthy source in Ukraine over the theories of some guy in western US who has a rather complicated relationship with the truth.

According to the SSS, a conscientious objector is one who is opposed to serving in the armed forces and/or bearing arms on the grounds of moral or religious principles. The SSS requires conscientious objectors to register with the SSS. Using your definition, for a CO to register with SSS would be a logical impossibility as a person couldn't be properly termed a CO until after being drafted.

[ken_sylvania]

So these two young men, who were not of draft age or subject to conscription, were lynched by Ukrainian villagers because they didn’t pick up the phone when army recruiters called? That doesn’t pass the laugh test.

Now you're just being stupid. Nobody suggested such a thing. You and I both know that when patriotic fervor runs high in wartime the official recruitment system isn't the only recruit system around. And often enough even the official system doesn't always follow the rules.

[Ken]

Being "heavily recruited" can accurately be described as being "called to the army."

I have never been conscripted but I am still a conscientiously objector to war.

So these two young men, who were not of draft age or subject to conscription, were lynched by Ukrainian villagers because they didn’t pick up the phone when army recruiters called? That doesn’t pass the laugh test.

And no, in the context of this tread (and the original post by RZehr) you are not a conscientious objector if you are not facing military conscription. You might believe in non-resistance or pacifism. But that is something different.

Actually you are wrong. Facing conscription doesn’t suddenly change someone into a CO. They were a CO before otherwise the Military frowns on granting it. Unlike 99% of the people here, I actually filed my CO paperwork while in the military.

This thread is about a news story discussing young men subject to conscription in Ukraine who are facing legal consequences and even prison sentences for evading mobilization or conscription.

It is not about 80 year-old widows, 13 year-old teenagers, young mothers, middle-aged men, foreign diplomats, or anyone else who might object to the war or who has philosophical/religions objections to fighting in it but isn't actually subject to conscription.