| TLTR: The international laws on war are based on the fiction that only armies are fighting. The article is also quite gender-biased, even insulting. I consider that the fight of Ukraine against Putin's invasion is fundamentally the defense of Human Rights and democracy. However, the ban of leaving the country for men doesn't necessarily imply the obligation for all of them to carry a weapon. Just consider the millions of men in Ukraine and the few hundreds thousands who are on the front. In such a war, fighting is not only on the front. The nurse is fighting, even in an hospital hundreds of miles from the front. A cook who prepare meals for the drivers need to supply the front, he is fighting too. The LGBT+ case is - in my opinion - very dubious and even insulting. As if a gay man could not be a warrior. Many other men are facing specific threats if captured, like elected officials who organize civil defense, Jewish people will probably be mistreated or worse etc. Mothers and their children, aged people, and people who need it for various reasons should be evacuated. But I can't help feeling that the restriction on men only is nothing but a gender bias, like the LGBT+ already mentioned. Women can fight, both in the front or wherever they are or feel more relevant to. Kurdish women have proved it quite enough, among many other examples. You don't need a pair to be a warrior. Women, gays, queers, transgenders, ..., can fight as hard as heterosexual men. In the end, the whole article is based on the idea that only "army men" are supposed to fight in a war. That may be true according to international laws, but these laws are a pure fiction. During the XXth century, more than 80% of casualties were civilians. A war is a fight of two countries, not two armies. Not that I like it, but just look at the facts. Ukraine is fighting back as a country, hence their incredible toughness and fortitude. |