@netcat Are you humoring yourself with the worst possible takes?
I'm a pacifist, so I can hardly justify anyone giving weapons away (or selling them). But then there's self defense. If I had to criticize something from Zelensky it wouldn't be that he's giving arms to civilians. It'd be that he's not letting men 18-60 to leave their country. It's discriminatory by gender and age, and it's condemning people to death for no reason. That those who want to stay and help, or even fight are given means, it's understandable. That those that may not want to fight are forced to, I don't understand. And I certainly wouldn't like to fight side by side with someone that was forced to fight. I even think that if Ukraine would allow men to flee, not many would (most women, children and elders stay, after all, despite those leaving being still a whole lot).
@netcat may be right that resistance is futile and all that. But that's not for
@netcat or me to decide. Ukranians have the right to decide whether they want to risk a likely death instead of a lousy life. Each one for themselves not ones for the others.
And they may just want to leave their Russian brothers time to get rid of Putin (which I doubt will be fast enough).
Zelensky's government has offered any Russian soldier who defects 42000€ or so and amnesty. That's more clever than fighting, but may not be good enough (soldiers may fear for their families back home, their own fate when caught or whatever, but I doubt they understand why are they fighting to begin with, although I guess when one asks himself that any often one doesn't become soldier).
Arguing on part of being a pacifist is is a supposed inability to do something by choice not derived from the conditions of being able to chose and abstaining, ala "I can't do this because I am vegan". You reason in the very thing you pertain to be unable to, so that means weapons for people other than yourself? How far does the self go? In a zero sum scenario, self-defense exists for all parties btw.
Put yourself in his shoes, and you can either defect or try to signal opposition.
The propaganda effort has all sorts of potential, and the bar is low.
To arm a population having amassed grievances without them also means other scores are settled.
A war fought with Ukrainian women using hand-weapons is not good optics, nor are they trained to do so.
Having the entire populace capable of fighting a guerilla war leave is a default loss for the person giving orders.
Gender politics vanish immediately removed from the underpinnings of western pretence. Ipso facto.
The EU is dealt a hand having to play along like it was a fight to be had, when it offers temporary asylum.
Note that work-permits will follow those.
The gas and oil is and will be bought, and Ukraine not joining NATO is communicated openly.
The consideration of fighting a professional army or not doesn't take into account being invaded by a less corrupt entity.
Ukraine is bankrupt and can hardly afford to pay its citizens pensions.
The economic incentive does not even abate the surge in crime internally.
Entire regions are seceding and steadfast in this aim when the industry laden parts it constitutes have lost much of that capacity.
We observe the tactics and results of an army as distinct from a scenario where people don't know what they are doing.
When you rationalize they can make that consideration for their families, you are inserting a motive for exactly why they are there on both sides of what is often the same coin.
If you think you are immune from reprisals from Russia in present day Ukraine, I really don't know what to tell you.
TL;DR If you believe in self-defense for anyone that could put up a fight or actually change outcomes, what do you think is on the table in so doing?
