They are literally forbidden to leave the country (only men, 18-60yo, with some exceptions [0]).
It's not men choosing not to check-out, it's literally men being forced to die for a piece of land they might not even care for.
[0] https://visitukraine.today/blog/102/exceptions-when-a-man-ca...
They also need folks willing to drive tanks into battle (while going by burning hulks of tanks just like theirs on the side of the road), and handle 100lb shells and fire artillery while being shot at by other artillery, and many other things.
They also need people who can handle being yelled at, mentally and physically abused (by modern standards), and given barely the minimum things necessary to survive - sometimes not even that - and still function enough to survive and even do what they are ordered to do, even if it puts them in harms way. Even if it means doing things no one wants to talk about, or even horrible things.
Statistically, that means men, especially young men.
They did (and probably still do) accept women volunteers. They are out there, but there is not a lot. I can't say I blame them. Some of the videos I've seen, some are holding their own. I definitely respect them for that, they are fighting for what is theirs. It's not a place good for anyone. It is a place some can survive better than others.
Also, I dont know if we can use "willing" when talking about people who are forced to do it.
That's not to say women joining the military bring large benefits. The significant majority of military personnel, men and women alike, aren't in combat facing roles. The Womens Army Corps in WWII was a big success, and the military wanted to recruit even more women than joined to the point that selective service among women was considered: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_Army_Corps
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187704281...
95% of convicted murderers are male, and it’s not the only place with an obvious skew like that.
I'm not sure if this inspired your post, but On Killing by Dave Grossman was widely influential but not highly regarded among military people. The combat veterans I've talked to reported little to no hesitation among them or the men they led to use lethal force against the enemy. They reported not only an absence of hesitation, but an eagerness to claim credit for dispatching the enemy (to the point of getting into arguments over who killed which enemy).
Boots on the ground are still what hold it though, and that still requires the willingness to do what I was describing, even if they usually aren’t called to do it because other, more effective means do it first.
Being able to handle being in reach of artillery and mortars, also required, once you know the above is true.
Additionally, someone willing to bayonet a stranger is going to really have no issues pulling a lanyard on a howitzer.
Are there women out there who could best your average man, or even an exceptional man in any of the areas I listed?
You bet.
But there aren’t enough of them to make an army. They’re outliers. And frankly, each of them had to sacrifice so much of what most women value to be that, and have such painful circumstances behind why they chose that path, that it isn’t surprising that is the case to me. And physically, each of them has had to struggle far more than their male compatriots to do it, because there are differences.
As to willingness or not - just because someone is drafted, doesn’t mean they won’t own their circumstances and do what needs to be done for the better outcome, even if they don’t like that they are there, or wish they were somewhere else.
Frankly, unless you’ve been called upon to do that, you’ll never know if you have that in you. Not everyone does.
But running away from it doesn’t help either.
There were some talks about that in ukraine recently, but nothing much happened on that, so women can still leave the country. - https://www.kyivpost.com/russias-war/confusion-as-registrati...
At the end of the day, even if women are not as good as men at being soldiers they should be drafted similarly. They should see the same rules/laws applied to them. But hey, sometimes we're ok with some inequality I guess.
It’s like gun registration and confiscation. The second step may not happen, but why do the first step if it isn’t being considered?
Say "fuck it", let the politicians fight it by themselves, survive, and wave the whatever flag is the winning one in the end.
Or let the volunteers fight, preferably in open fields somewhere.
Who cares, it's just some lines on the map. If you're bothered by those, you can can still volunteer.
Sounds like it would work for a very small subset of the population, and screw (and likely kill) most everyone else.
1) why should anyone else Ukrainian be okay with that, let alone enable it?
2) the reason cowardice is so frowned upon is the wonton selfishness gets a lot of others killed. Brothers, sisters, daughters, sons, parents.
If someone is entangled with society, society is going to entangle with them. And anyone who doesn’t like that, is going to find out pretty quickly what the consequences are.
The problem is, that your own government won't let you leave, will make you fight (and probably die) and imprison you if you desert.
And the reason that societies don't just let folks leave is because the whole is stronger than the parts - and they don’t want you or some other part bailing and getting them all killed.
Though sometimes, even that isn’t enough.
In the best case, it's the collective good trying to protect itself. In the worst case, it's the controlling parent dragging you down with them.
While certainly a survival strategy for an individual to desert, it has heavy costs - and don't expect any friends in those who are left behind.
Yes, I know, that's why I'd pack and leave... I don't want to live in "a society" that expects me to die for it.
> And the reason that societies don't just let folks leave is because the whole is stronger than the parts - and they don’t want you or some other part bailing and getting them all killed.
So, they want to use me as a human shield? Sure, another reason to leave.
> While certainly a survival strategy for an individual to desert, it has heavy costs - and don't expect any friends in those who are left behind.
Who cares, they'll be dead anyway and i'll be alive somewhere far away and safe.
Effectively you behave like the billionaires of the world today. They have enough money to run away from whatever problems they create and therefore care little about preventing them in the first place.
You have no skin in the game.
The war in ukraine is a proxy war between nato and direct for russia. Some random Vlad and Boris have had nothing to do with it, didn't start it but now have to die, so that elenski, ursula, macron and biden on one side and putin, xi, whoever the iranian leader is on the other side measure their dicks.
Sorry, but not sorry, fuck them.
If they want to start wars.. sure, but if more people were like me and not like you (who I guess is also not in a battlefield but being a smartass behind a keyboard), the battlefields would be empty, and the only way for a battle to be won would be with putin riding a bear, biden in an old peugeot and biden eating icecream.
You are free to die for whatever you deem necessary... I don't need to die for politics and want a way out, even if that means leaving everything behind and going away.
When things get bad enough everywhere will draft you at gunpoint, and you'll either fight or die.
Practically, it includes the folks entangled with others under a specific label, under the putative control of an entity which is able to exercise a degree of control over them and others using that label. Usually in strong physical vicinity, but not always.
Practically, a lot of us exist in multiple societies. All with benefits, expectations, costs, and penalties.
One clear cut and straightforward example of course being something like a Professional Engineer, or a member of the Bar somewhere.
But Church for those who go is almost always one. Every country has at least one, with many subdivisions, etc.
Expectations of women to have kids to grow populations of their societal group still exist, very directly - it’s a core teaching of the Catholic Church, and Islam. Judaism has it as a core requirement for marriage, and rabbis can force a divorce if one or both of a couple is not having sex (which in pre birth control times, is highly likely to result in kids).
Most religions have some element of ‘a marriage that doesn’t result in kids isn’t valid’ to some degree. It’s a pretty modern thing that a woman not having kids wouldn’t be subjected to severe social pressure, in one or more forms. And that is without taking in some of the odder cases like Henry VIII.
Not unlike a man dodging the draft, frankly, though without the threat of jail time.