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.
Russia is placing them in foster homes and putting them up for adoption to be raised as Russians. What is not clear about that statement? That’s not the same as temporary refugee amnesty shelter while awaiting return to their conflict-free home country.
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.
Russia is placing them in foster homes and putting them up for adoption to be raised as Russians. What is not clear about that statement? That’s not the same as temporary refugee amnesty shelter while awaiting return to their conflict-free home country.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us-aware-credible-reports-russia-is-listing-ukrainian-children-adoption-white-2024-06-12/