You are implying this is some diplomatic decision. They are being abducted. They have no choice. Again, these children are being placed in foster homes and put up for adoption to be raised as if they are Russian. This isn’t a refugee rescue operation. It’s cultural genocide. You’re either wildly obtuse, or in defense of genocide.
So you would prefer that they be left where they are, understood.
Personally I think it’s good that children not be left in dangerous, traumatic situations, but if you want to classify something as “genocide” when it involves saving the lives of the “victims,” then I guess I am defending “genocide.” And if you wanted to call if “murder” when I take a drink of water, I guess that means I’ll defend “murder” too. If you play around with words enough you can make anything look bad.
I consider people being slaughtered worse than children being raised in a culture different from that of their parents, so sue me.
No, I’m using a real-dilemma argument. If you’d care to provide an alternative to taking them out of a war zone or leaving them there, I would love to hear it.
How many Rubles do you get per comment?
Of course, the “everyone who disagrees with me is a secret agent” conspiracy theory. I’m not feeling particularly quippy today so I’m not going to bother making fun of it.
No. Refugees are given temporary amnesty until the war is over. Then they will work with the Ukrainian government for reconnection with family or adoption.
Russia is placing them in homes that will raise them as Russians, with no intention of returning these children to Ukraine.
So you want them to stay in the orphanage system indefinitely, until the war ends.
I’m sorry but the pressing, immediate issue is the humanitarian crisis. The orphanage system of any country can only handle so many and if there are families willing to take them in, then that’s better than the alternatives for them. Cultural concerns are secondary to humanitarian ones.
Also we don’t really know what Russia’s plans are for war orphans after the war ends. The idea that they have no intention of returning them seems like speculation on your part.
The thing that would change my mind on this is to see established precedent for how these issues have been handled in the past, during previous wars. Every war creates war orphans but not every war is classified as a genocide.
Yes, and hopefully peace will be achieved as soon as possible so that that process can happen, but it’s a little hard to track people down during the chaos of war. This isn’t a new phenomenon.
What a moronic take. Those Russian must be saints taking those poor Ukrainian children after, you know, illegally invading their country, killing their parents, and destroying their cities.
Being a tankie is when you consider children being adopted to parents who raise them in a safe environment “safety,” in comparison to living in a war zone.
I can think of one country first in line to take them: Ukraine, or Ukrainian refugees sheltering in NATO countries. Wtf kind of fascist take are you spewing? 'Someone has to save these kids from the warzone we created; can’t just give them to their extended families, those are the enemy, guess we have no choice but to do genocide '. Get the fuck out of here.
Did they try locating the extended families, or did they just abduct thousands of children to be raised as Russians? That’s a rhetorical question, they did the latter.
War orphans are not a new thing. Every war that’s ever been caught has produced children who’s families cannot be found, because wars are chaotic and also deadly.
Oh yeah, like how during the Iraq war when the US abducted all those Iraqi children and gave them to American families? Or when France stole all those orphans from central Africa to raise as little French kids? Or when the Canadian adoption system was flush with Afghani children they took away from their families and homeland?
Pretty sure abducting children after killing their parents has always been wrong.
If the US ever tried evacuating Iraqi orphans into the US adoption system, the right would start race riots over it. We didn’t even let our collaborators in.
No, instead, the children were left in the war zone where countless numbers were killed.
When has it happened in a situation that wasn’t genocide? Did the British adopt thousands of German children in WW2? Were thousands of Italian children adopted away to America?
So if Israel took every Palestinian child they saw, regardless of what family they have, and brought them to Israel for an Israeli family to raise, you’d be fine with that?
I’d be better than the current situation, yes. It’s by no means ideal, but Palestinian children would be better off being adopted by Israeli families than starving to death or being bombed or shot. My problem is with them putting them in the situation in the first place.
What I’m saying is that the problem isn’t moving war orphans out of a conflict zone, the problem is that there’s a conflict zone in the first place.
It’s not as if these orphans are some sort of “prize” to be won and brought home as spoils. Caring for them takes resources. Individual Russian families are not out there twirling their moustaches thinking, “How can I help destroy Ukrainian culture… I know! I’ll adopt a child and spend years raising them as my own, that’ll show 'em!”
A more direct analogy would be if they were being put up for adoption by the Israeli government. That’s what makes it genocide. Once adopted, they become property of the Russian family. They’re not being returned to their homes when the war is over like the refugees who have sought amnesty in the EU.
Removed by mod
You are implying this is some diplomatic decision. They are being abducted. They have no choice. Again, these children are being placed in foster homes and put up for adoption to be raised as if they are Russian. This isn’t a refugee rescue operation. It’s cultural genocide. You’re either wildly obtuse, or in defense of genocide.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us-aware-credible-reports-russia-is-listing-ukrainian-children-adoption-white-2024-06-12/
So you would prefer that they be left where they are, understood.
Personally I think it’s good that children not be left in dangerous, traumatic situations, but if you want to classify something as “genocide” when it involves saving the lives of the “victims,” then I guess I am defending “genocide.” And if you wanted to call if “murder” when I take a drink of water, I guess that means I’ll defend “murder” too. If you play around with words enough you can make anything look bad.
I consider people being slaughtered worse than children being raised in a culture different from that of their parents, so sue me.
You’re using a false-dilemma argument while arguing semantics over the lives of children. How many Rubles do you get per comment?
What I’d prefer is what the EU is doing by providing temporary amnesty for refugees, while they await return to their conflict-free home country.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/ukraine-refugees-eu/
No, I’m using a real-dilemma argument. If you’d care to provide an alternative to taking them out of a war zone or leaving them there, I would love to hear it.
Of course, the “everyone who disagrees with me is a secret agent” conspiracy theory. I’m not feeling particularly quippy today so I’m not going to bother making fun of it.
As I said, the EU is accepting Ukrainian refugees without cultural cleansing.
Where they’ll be raised by French or German or English parents, etc. Still doesn’t address your core issue.
No. Refugees are given temporary amnesty until the war is over. Then they will work with the Ukrainian government for reconnection with family or adoption.
Russia is placing them in homes that will raise them as Russians, with no intention of returning these children to Ukraine.
So you want them to stay in the orphanage system indefinitely, until the war ends.
I’m sorry but the pressing, immediate issue is the humanitarian crisis. The orphanage system of any country can only handle so many and if there are families willing to take them in, then that’s better than the alternatives for them. Cultural concerns are secondary to humanitarian ones.
Also we don’t really know what Russia’s plans are for war orphans after the war ends. The idea that they have no intention of returning them seems like speculation on your part.
The thing that would change my mind on this is to see established precedent for how these issues have been handled in the past, during previous wars. Every war creates war orphans but not every war is classified as a genocide.
We would prefer they go with their parents or at least family.
Which Russia is preventing by kidnapping them.
We’re talking about war orphans. Generally, their family is either dead or can’t be located.
Most people have extended families, that could be located if someone tried. But I think you knew that.
Yes, and hopefully peace will be achieved as soon as possible so that that process can happen, but it’s a little hard to track people down during the chaos of war. This isn’t a new phenomenon.
What a moronic take. Those Russian must be saints taking those poor Ukrainian children after, you know, illegally invading their country, killing their parents, and destroying their cities.
I never called them saints, I only said that transporting war orphans into safety is not genocide.
What a tankie clown. To “safety”.
Being a tankie is when you consider children being adopted to parents who raise them in a safe environment “safety,” in comparison to living in a war zone.
I can think of one country first in line to take them: Ukraine, or Ukrainian refugees sheltering in NATO countries. Wtf kind of fascist take are you spewing? 'Someone has to save these kids from the warzone we created; can’t just give them to their extended families, those are the enemy, guess we have no choice but to do genocide '. Get the fuck out of here.
We’re talking about war orphans, children whose families cannot be located.
Did they try locating the extended families, or did they just abduct thousands of children to be raised as Russians? That’s a rhetorical question, they did the latter.
War orphans are not a new thing. Every war that’s ever been caught has produced children who’s families cannot be found, because wars are chaotic and also deadly.
Oh yeah, like how during the Iraq war when the US abducted all those Iraqi children and gave them to American families? Or when France stole all those orphans from central Africa to raise as little French kids? Or when the Canadian adoption system was flush with Afghani children they took away from their families and homeland?
Pretty sure abducting children after killing their parents has always been wrong.
If the US ever tried evacuating Iraqi orphans into the US adoption system, the right would start race riots over it. We didn’t even let our collaborators in.
No, instead, the children were left in the war zone where countless numbers were killed.
This only didnt happen because Americans feel no empathy to help non-white children and families.
When has it happened in a situation that wasn’t genocide? Did the British adopt thousands of German children in WW2? Were thousands of Italian children adopted away to America?
In what conflict has this ever been acceptable?
So if Israel took every Palestinian child they saw, regardless of what family they have, and brought them to Israel for an Israeli family to raise, you’d be fine with that?
I mean, it would be an improvement…
…I can’t argue there. Genocide all the same, but at least without killing kids.
Russia is not doing this. We’re talking about war orphans.
Fine then, if Israel took war orphans like Russia? You’d be totally fine with that?
I’d be better than the current situation, yes. It’s by no means ideal, but Palestinian children would be better off being adopted by Israeli families than starving to death or being bombed or shot. My problem is with them putting them in the situation in the first place.
I mean, it’s hard to argue with that. It would still be genocide, but at least kids wouldn’t be dying.
God. It’s fucked up.
What I’m saying is that the problem isn’t moving war orphans out of a conflict zone, the problem is that there’s a conflict zone in the first place.
It’s not as if these orphans are some sort of “prize” to be won and brought home as spoils. Caring for them takes resources. Individual Russian families are not out there twirling their moustaches thinking, “How can I help destroy Ukrainian culture… I know! I’ll adopt a child and spend years raising them as my own, that’ll show 'em!”
Objection used a false comparison.
A more direct analogy would be if they were being put up for adoption by the Israeli government. That’s what makes it genocide. Once adopted, they become property of the Russian family. They’re not being returned to their homes when the war is over like the refugees who have sought amnesty in the EU.