Ukraine faces ‘huge problems’ finding soldiers as men flee abroad, says Kyiv mayor

Ukraine is facing a worsening shortage of soldiers as record numbers of men flee to Europe, Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko warned in an interview.

“We have huge problems with soldiers — with human resources,” Klitschko told the Axel Springer Global Reporters Network, of which POLITICO is a part, acknowledging the toll that nearly four years of war has taken on Ukraine’s capacity to replenish its ranks.

He said Russian troops are advancing relentlessly, describing their assaults as “like a computer game — they just keep coming, they don’t care about fallen soldiers.”

Under current rules, Ukrainians can be mobilized from the age of 25. Klitschko suggested that should change.

“In the past, 18-year-olds served in the army — but those are kids,” he said. “Right now you can only be mobilized in Ukraine from age 25. You could lower it by a year or two — to 23 or 22.”

The remarks reflect mounting concern about a growing exodus of young men. A government decree issued in August allowing men aged 18 to 22 to leave the country has coincided with a sharp increase in Ukrainians seeking protection in EU countries.

Recent data shows EU countries granted more than 79,000 new temporary protection decisions to Ukrainians in September — the highest monthly figure in two years — with large increases recorded in Germany and Poland.

Worldtraveler once upon a time: "Ex-US Army from another time, I would use language herein to answer which the moderator(s) and also my bride of these many years would disapprove."

I have no problem with Army words, so I'll address you as I would a superior officer:

Sir, this is not multiple choice, it's binary -- you either support the aggressor, Russia, or you support its victim, Ukraine.
There is no "hands off", there is no "neutral", no "none of the above" -- because of the mismatch of military powers, failure to support Ukraine is de facto support for Russia, and, with all due respect, sir, why would any sane person do that?

Yes, sir, I understand that we have our own problems at home, and can ill afford to squander money and resources, much less US lives, in ill-conceived foreign adventures -- I get that.
But our Commander in Chief has addressed all of those issues, every one of them, including increasing our own national defense while reducing Federal budget deficits.
In Ukraine, especially, he no longer gives anything away, but rather now sells whatever weapons the Europeans are willing to pay for.
So this is not a question of American treasure going to support Ukrainian bloodshed.

More important, our Commander in Chief has done everything humanly possible to bring peace in Ukraine, but has been steadfastly stiffed by Russians.
So, the war will continue until Russians decide to stop invading.
In the meantime, our CinC has increased sanctions on Russia and forced Europeans to step up their game in support of Ukraine.

Sir, you may remember, the USSR collapsed after 10 years of pointless war in Afghanistan -- but with barely 10% of the losses they've already suffered in Ukraine.
So, nobody today knows when Russia will collapse, but all of the news from Russia suggests they are seriously hurting.

Meanwhile, there is no news suggesting any Ukrainians are willing to give up their war for independence from Russia and submit to the Russian boot on their necks.

That's why I think, sir, with all due respect, that if you can't support our Commander in Chief's definitions of what "America First" means, then you are probably in the wrong line of work and should turn in your papers to resign from the US Army, so you can go to work full time supporting the country you love the most, Russia... with all due respect, of course.

--- "...this is not multiple choice, it's binary -- you either support the aggressor, Russia, or you support its victim, Ukraine."

Nice try, rhetorically. You don't define the choice. There are at least five.

1) Support Ukraine AND the Zelensky government.
2) Support Ukraine BUT NOT the Zelensky government, as opposition voices inside and outside Ukraine evidence.
3) Support Russia AND the Putin government.
4) Support Russia BUT NOT the Putin government, as some opposition voices inside and outside Russia evidence.
5) Support neither.

The game of -- in parallel structure -- "supporting the Bloods or the Crips, choose one" is fallacious.

I support neither Zelensky nor Putin, period. I will go along with President Trump as the whole progresses and evolves. In that regard, I keep my eye on our too-large national debt, and think that this is THE issue for us, above all FOR US.

As to the "grand chessboard" mentality, put forward by DEMOCRAT Brzezinski when he worked for Carter, and then published in book form in 1997 ( and whose daughter is a talking head on the Morning Joe show to this day ), I do not ascribe to it. You seem to.

I'll quote the conclusion for you:

"In brief, the U.S. policy goal must be unapologetically twofold: to perpetuate America's own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer still; and to create a geopolitical framework that can absorb the inevitable shocks and strains of social-political change while evolving into the geopolitical core of shared responsibility for peaceful global management. A prolonged phase of gradually expanding cooperation with key Eurasian partners, both stimulated and arbitrated by America, can also help to foster the preconditions for an eventual upgrading of the existing and increasingly antiquated UN structures. A new distribution of responsibilities and privileges can then take into account the changed realities of global power, so drastically different from those of 1945.
"These efforts will have the added historical advantage of benefiting from the new web of global linkages that is growing exponentially outside the more traditional nation-state system. That web—woven by multinational corporations, NGOs (nongovernmental organizations, with many of them transnational in character) and scientific communities and reinforced by the Internet—already creates an informal global system that is inherently congenial to more institutionalized and inclusive global cooperation.
"In the course of the next several decades, a functioning structure of global cooperation, based on geopolitical realities, could thus emerge and gradually assume the mantle of the world's current 'regent,' which has for the time being assumed the burden of responsibility for world stability and peace. Geostrategic success in that cause would represent a fitting legacy of America's role as the first, only, and last truly global superpower."
THE GRAND CHESSBOARD - American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.