So you have an actual source with first hand knowledge that can speak against Russian drafting and notably the increase in drafting since they decided to invade a sovereign nation?

Also the kyiv independent is.... He's me out here. Independent the Ukrainian stance officially is that they are in large part conscripts.

[–] NimdaQA@lemmy.ml 9 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Can you prove that conscripts are generally being used in Ukraine?

There are some cases where conscripts are used, where they signed combat contracts either voluntarily or without knowing what they signed or during the Kursk incursion. But these are exceptions, not the rule.

In 2022, there were some cases of conscripts being inadvertently or illegally deployed to Ukraine. However, when this was found out, they were withdrawn and returned to Russia. The commanding officers responsible for the deployments were punished.

[+] Madison420@lemmy.world -8 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I don't need to. Their main military is by legislation conscripts. The claimant who said they're mostly volunteer needs to prove that and no a retracted editorial is not a good source.

What's your source dude?

[–] NimdaQA@lemmy.ml 9 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Their main military is by legislation conscripts.

And by law, conscripts are currently prohibited from serving outside the territory of the Russian Federation under any circumstances. Conscripts cannot even participate in peace-keeping missions.

[+] Madison420@lemmy.world -9 points 6 days ago (1 children)

And countries would never break the law right? Certainly not Russia who signed an non aggression agreement with Ukraine in 91 right?

[–] NimdaQA@lemmy.ml 9 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Russia who signed an non aggression agreement with Ukraine in 91 right?

I believe you meant the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. The Budapest Memorandum was first violated by America when they sanctioned Belarus in violation of Article 3 of the Memorandum.

America then stated that the Memorandum was "not legally binding".