[petertodd]

> Anyway the fact is almost 4 years in Ukraine is probably dead demographically. You can't really reboot a country after having so much of its "fighting age" male population dead.

You should actually look up the facts before making assumptions. Or, for example, actually visit Ukraine. Currently conscription is between ages 25 and 55; mobilization of younger men is not done specifically to ensure the next generation is not depleted, and men of all ages are fighting. You're actually more likely to get called up if you are in your 30's and 40's than if you are younger.

There's about five million males currently in Ukraine in that age range, of which under 100,000 have been killed and under 500,000 wounded. That's just not an existential crisis at all. Germany the country survived WW2, and about half of their male population died in the war.

This matches the on-the-ground reality: I've visited plenty of Ukrainian cities during the war, and there are plenty of males of all ages. Including young males. Any crisis they face is the same birthrate crisis that all developed countries face. And hopefully, the psychology of war will help reverse that --- Israel also has a notably high birthrate.

> Especially because the one who will be left will be deranged, violent and addicted to all sort of things.

I personally know quite a few Ukrainian soldiers who have seen action. They're all well functioning people. Combat when you're on the side of good rather than evil doesn't have the psychological toil people think it does. It's not nothing. But the supermajority of people recover just fine and go on to lead productive lives.

An important part of that is recognizing that Ukraine is up against an irredeemably evil enemy. You were killing orcs, not men.

[FirmwareBurner]

>I personally know quite a few Ukrainian soldiers who have seen action. They're all well functioning people.

What kind of "action" did they see, pushing pencils? Because all soldiers who I saw coming out from action on the front line, meaning killing and seeing your friends get killed under firearms, drones and artillery shells, all had various forms of PTSD. There's no way sane normal people don't get affected witnessing that and can just bounce back to be "well functioning people" as you claim. So maybe they lied to you about their action.

> Combat when you're on the side of good rather than evil doesn't have the psychological toil people think it does.

Then why are so many men deserting and dodging the draft to leave the country, if fighting so chill? Some often almost die trying to cross the border to my country. That pretty much tells me everything.

[petertodd]

> What kind of "action" did they see, pushing pencils?

Frontline trench warfare, including getting wounded.

A high % of the young male population saw combat in WW2. What followed was some of the most successful economic growth and society advancement in human history, especially the US. People are more resilient than you'd think, especially when society as a whole has your back.

This isn't Vietnam or Afghanistan. The mission is crystal clear and vital. Every day at 9am all of Ukraine stops to remember the dead. I've seen this first hand. Cars stop, people get out and stand, and they honor what soldiers are doing for them. It makes a big difference.

[FirmwareBurner]

>A high % of the young male population saw combat in WW2.

Sugarcoated way of saying "most of them died". I wonder what their opinion would be if the dead could speak.

>What followed was some of the most successful economic growth and society advancement in human history

So every 50-100 years or so, we need to kill a lot of people in a world war, so that whoever remains alive in the rubble, gets to see massive economic prosperity because of the labor shortage that follows? Basically, the same thing Mussolini and Hitler were advocating for in their speeches.

Not sure I'd sign up for that. You can keep your "economic growth", I'd rather live mediocre but not die in a war for the elites.

And how will Ukraine achieve this hypothetical growth when all of they're youths moved to Europe? Most Europeans didn't have this luxury of moving to a safe country during and after WW2 but they were forced to fight for their country and then stay and rebuild it. Most Ukrainians are not forced to stay or even if they are, they can smuggle/bribe their way out with money, skills, connection or sheer determination, and can just pack their bags and go shopping for the best country that fits their desires via the asylum system. There was no asylum system of this generosity for Europeans in WW2.

[sunshine-o]

I sure hope you are right but I wouldn't trust too much the official numbers we are told. We know during a war every incentive is there too minimize the causalities of one side. The real number usually appear long after and are always much larger.

> Germany the country survived WW2, and about half of their male population died in the war.

One way to see it is Germany and Europe did not really even survived WWI. The demographic shock and the trauma then lead directly to WWII. At the end Europe has been a shadow of itself since. Most of the problems Europe have today are rippling effects of the deep traumas of the two WW.

Let's say just a third or half the men between 25 and 55 are dead/badly wounded/traumatized/addicted, it will destroy the next generation and society.

Just look on much smaller scale at what the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq did to the US in the last 20 years. Even the few professionals and volunteers who fought it abroad brought back a lot of problems still clearly visible in today american society.

This is why those type of wars need to be avoided or stopped at all cost.

[FirmwareBurner]

>Most of the problems Europe have today are rippling effects of the deep traumas of the two WW.

Can't agree on this when I see what China managed to do starting way worse than Europe and with no marshal plan to help. You can't keep endlessly blaming the distant past. How far in the past does the blaming go?

[sunshine-o]

China is even more shocking example of the consequence of the WWs (and what happened before). Just the cultural revolution was an extreme aftershock of the wars. They did then had their "Marshal plan" with almost the entire world massively investing in their economy.

In Europe for example I vaguely heard the French government collapsed again. One of the reasons is usually that for decades they can't reform their retirement system. This retirement system was designed for the lost and greatest generations demographics after the war but totally unsustainable after that.

After 80 years of "never again" because of the WWs Europe dangerously under invested in its military capabilities, now it is panicking and the pendulum is swinging in the other direction.

Wars create demographic and societal shock waves, this is one of the reason historian focus so much on them.

[petertodd]

> I sure hope you are right but I wouldn't trust too much the official numbers we are told.

I don't have to trust the official numbers. I've been to Ukraine both before and after the full scale invasion. Yes, there are easily visible differences (like the big increase in the number of men you see with visible war wounds). But this isn't a society in collapse. Not yet. Overall, Ukraine is winning this fight and what they're getting in return for that sacrifice is a future.

> Let's say just a third or half the men between 25 and 55 are dead/badly wounded/traumatized/addicted, it will destroy the next generation and society.

Again, we've been through this before. It simply does not destroy society.

> Just look on much smaller scale at what the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq did to the US in the last 20 years. Even the few professionals and volunteers who fought it abroad brought back a lot of problems still clearly visible in today american society.

No. America's biggest problems have nothing to do with veterans. It wasn't a veteran who killed that Ukrainian refugee...

> This is why those type of wars need to be avoided or stopped at all cost.

Do you have a better plan? Russia isn't invading Ukraine out of some religious dispute. They're just war criminals who just want to plunder and steal. Negotiations have been tried over and over before: Russia just violates every agreement ever made. The only solution is to defeat Russia. And the fastest way to do that is to crush Russia's economy... which is exactly what Ukraine is (finally!) doing with their strikes on oil and gas infrastructure.

If you want less harm to be done, help Ukraine win faster.

[sunshine-o]

> If you want less harm to be done, help Ukraine win faster.

That was my point.

What I find disgusting is those type of proxy wars where one side say we fully support you but won't send any troops or really work on a diplomatic solution (see my original comment). So the war continues for years and kill the population.

[petertodd]

This isn't a proxy war. Russia is invading Ukraine because they want to invade. That has absolutely nothing to do with anyone else; Russia is not a proxy.

Ukraine has exactly one choice: defend themselves, or be subjugated and killed. There is no diplomatic solution. It's very helpful that Ukraine has outside help. But that doesn't make it a proxy war. Regardless of whether or not Ukraine had outside help, they'd still be fighting.

The fact is that the #1 thing Ukraine is doing right now to win is destroying Russian industry with Ukrainian made weapons. They're doing that themselves. Again, that's not a proxy.