comment: >
  
  “Ukrainians can’t fight if there aren’t any Ukrainians!”
  Absolutely monstrous.
context: *kidnap. They’re preparing to kidnap 100,000 Ukrainians >
  
  Abduct. Kidnap is when you nap a kid. Although there's probably gonna be some kids in that. >
  
  You're talking about legal terms, I'm talking about etymology.
  Wikipedia, much like the dictionary, is not an authority. >
  
  More pointing out common usage and helping you to not be an off-putting pedant.
  And the dictionary is absolutely the fucking authority on language usage, wtf? >
  
  It's a record of usage, words are made-up and thus do not have inherent meaning.
  Language is descriptive, not proscriptive.
  If you picked a tone out of me being clinical that's more a you thing than a me thing. >
  
  It wasn't a tone, just a general cuntiness. >
  
  It absolutely wasn't, you just assumed it was.
  You've now explicitly insulted me two or three separate times and I haven't said a thing against you.
  You even had the audacity to pretend you were doing me a favor by "helping" me.
  Goodbye. >
  
  Not deport. “Kidnap” is maybe the word. “Ethnically cleansed from their homeland” might work. And so on. 
  The media’s insane standard of impartiality is killing this world. Call shit what it is. >
  
  Deport is the word.  Just add it to the list of war crimes, I guess... >
  
  Isn’t it actually importing though? >
  
  I join those questioning the use of the word 'deport' here in this context... >
  
  Genocide by literal definition. >
  
  No.  Forced deportation is a separate crime altogether covered by a different convention. >
  
  In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
  Killing members of the group;
  Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group >
  
  They've been doing that for almost a year.  These are just Ukrainians in general though. >
  
  It's called kidnapping and genocide. >
  
  I really wish media would use the actual words. >
  
  More slaves for the slave State. >
  
  My grandfather was deported to Siberia after ww2. Luckily he made it back, otherwise I wouldn't exist. I wonder how many people don't... >
  
  How are they gonna manage that? They hardly have a strong enough presence to get to major population centers and start rounding up civilians undeterred. >
  
  Right, I’d like to know more about the logistic side of this. Also, how would they manage this silently, as doing it in plain sight would turn many of their last remaining allies against them >
  
  How has almost 3 million Ukrainians end up in Russia since February last year??  You think 100k will bother them??? >
  
  Deport?
  It’s human trafficking. >
  
  This is genocide. >
  
  Deport -> to where? Russia where they will never be seen again. I bet you anything they are gasing them in the streets. >
  
  Siberia, to use as slave workforce. Like they've done before >
  
  How do you deport someone from their own country? This news outlet should be reported to media watchdogs >
  
  Did you report them? >
  
  nope, I don’t live in the EU. did you? >
  
  That is not "deporting". That is kidnapping. >
  
  Good let Ukrainians sabotage inside Russia without making the trek. >
  
  kidnap >
  
  "Deport"? 
  Try "kidnap". >
  
  Colonialism and genocide, disgusting Russian scum. >
  
  Free Labour - german style >
  
  Telling someone they are committing war crimes as a deterrent for them in committing more and worse war crimes is not going to stop any wars. Also, threatening to charge them with war crimes after the war is over, when they have no intention of ending the war, is pointless too. If you don't have people go and arrest the soldiers captured who did war crimes and start arresting members of their government (after getting all allies out of Russia first) then nothing will stop. Thoughts? I have no background in conflict resolution/management anything close to this. >
  
  From personal sources I can tell you this is not a deportation.  They are moving those Ukrainians who have accepted Russian citizenship and passports and are working with occupying forces in civilian capacities.
  That's not to say that RF has not done forced relocation of loyal Ukrainians or worse. No one knows what Russia's end game here is.  And in the grand scheme  of things, perhaps it's best for those people who accepted Russian citizenship to leave peacefully while they can instead of being tried for treason and collaboration once Ukraine wins those territories back. >
  
  “I know that this is not forced relocation, but that’s not to say they don’t do exactly that right now in that area.” Ok. 
  Also, “accepted citizenship.” With a rifle to my wife’s skull I’d accept that up was down, dude. 
  Your post reads like Russian propaganda. >
  
  That's your prerogative to perceive it as such.  But people were offered money to change passports and many have gladly accepted.  So it's not quiet the rifle you implying.
  Is it hard to believe that there are Russian supporters in Ukraine?  Maybe you missed the part where Ukraine is actively looking for collaborators?  Sure, Russia does plenty shady shit and Ukrainians are at risk.
  It's not always violence that gets people motivated. >
  
  This happens in war time. In WWII an ex-gf’s grandfather ran a sporting goods shop and sold a lot of hunting gear and other things to Nazi during that time. Collaborated with them and benefitted despite the fact that there was an occupied nature of things with a resistance force, et c. He wasn’t a part of the resistance force, he simply adjusted. When occupied Belgium was liberated, he adjusted there was well. I get why another commentator might quote gladly with skepticism but when it comes to opportunity in such a time, people are always glad to accept whatever opportunities they can get. C’est la vie. >
  
  I'm glad at least someone is seeing this from a rational point of view. People who are downvoting probably reacting emotionally and likely haven't even watch the clip.  I liberally know people who are experiencing this invasion first hand.  But hey, I'm the one spewing Russian propaganda, right? >
  
  We need other countries to offer resources and opportunities for refuge for Ukraine civilians other than Russia. Russia shouldn't be leading the effort on this, this makes western nations look like a joke. The U.S. has done a tremendous amount for the Ukrainian effort undoubtedly, however I would like to see us offer refuge to millions of Ukrainians civilians caught in the war zone, especially women and children. >
  
  Russian deporting is a lot like normal international kidnapping. >
  
  So that’ll take care of declining birth rates. >
  
  Why are news publications using terms that imply that Russia is doing anything civilized to Ukrainians? Russia is abducting, seizing, kidnapping, taking, snatching, etc. Ukrainians. >
  
  Putin and the people who go along to get along are assholes. I know that’s extreme to say but I’m gonna say it anyway >
  
  “Ukrainians can’t fight if there aren’t any Ukrainians!”
  Absolutely monstrous. >
  
  I find that puzzling. Whereas America is trying to deport its immigrants for fear of diluting its White majority. I would think Russia would be adverse to importing a captive minority. Are they going to be placed in camps, interspersed with the majority Russians, sent to Siberia for resettlement? >
  
  Kidnapping? >
  
  Wtf is this title?? Journalist is a idiot or a shill. Clearly unfamiliar with the definition of the word depart >
  
  Next news: Russia finds new 100,000 conscripts >
  
  I don't doubt it for a second. >
  
  Deport them and then sign them up for military service to force them to invade their own country. Or just arm Ukrainian men to turn on Russian >
  
  So, deported to death.   Just to be clear. >
  
  are they finally catching on to ukrainians in the occupied areas sending intel back to ukrainian military/govt? >
  
  How can a country deport people from a land they claim to have annexed to what would be the same country?? Did they report this deport, or were they just playing some sport in their fort? >
  
  You are right. Seem like its Russia trying to protect who they consider their people. >
  
  If Russia really wanted to protect them they wouldn’t have invaded. They could just say move to Russia. Hitler said the same thing. He must protect the ethnic Germans so he invaded >
  
  In this point of time the intention is protection, it is mainly people of Kherson a city that's about to be lost, Russian ethnics could easily be under Ukraine's army scrutiny for being collaborators with the enemy (which most probably were, but that's not the point).
  You comment is so out of context, like Russia/Putin did invade for other reasons. But in this instance it is clear what's the intention. In the other comment you claim they do so to sell them to Russian families. Like Russians can't just have kids? like there is a nation somewhere so in need to import kids?
  Also the motivation of Russia's invasion started with Ukraine's 2014 revolution, which was a right wing revolution supported by the West that opposed the president of the time's choosing closer ties with Russia over Europe. Russia saw it as middling in the affairs of the bordering state, ethnic Russians in Ukraine saw it as the West ousting a president that wanna have relations with Russia, this started the war, ethnic Russians started forming militia.
  There is no clear hero here, it is nations' politics. >
  
  Putin invaded for one reason to take all of Ukraine back. 
  It has nothing to do with the revolution. Nothing to do with protecting Russians. Nothing to do with nato
  Russians can also have kids. But the birth rate across Russia is dropping badly. If the war continues and people continue to leave Russia. They could drop below 1.2 million births this year. A first in modern history.
  You look at those numbers and the slowing birth rate. You can see why Russians are buying Ukrainian kids.
  Also like if Putin really wanted to protect Russians. He wouldn’t force a draft that leads to tens of thousands dying.
  If Putin wanted to protect Russians he wouldn’t send back to the battlefield before they got cleared by doctors.
  If Putin wanted to protect Russians he wouldn’t order the Wagner group to execute anyone who retreats.
  If Putin wanted to protect Russians he’d punish the soldiers and mercs who rape and murder other Russian soldiers. 
  One Russian soldier who served in Chechnya wars, Afghanistan and Ukraine killed himself because he was tired of war. He was raped and beaten by the Wagner group before he hung himself. 
  If Putin wanted to protect Russians he would’ve pulled out of Ukraine after the first 100 thousand soldier deaths. 
  If Putin wanted to protect Russians he wouldn’t draft murderers, rapists and other people from Russian and African prisons.
  If Putin wanted to protect Russians he wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine >
  
  As human shields, no doubt. >
  
  "deport" doesn't fit, he brings them to him so it's more like.. report? ô_ô >
  
  Naturalize might be a better word >
  
  Yes, this is genocide, but for people asking "why Russia", its because Russia is facing catastrophic demographic imbalance and population decline. >
  
  And the world will allow it. >
  
  russias new slaves to replace all the dead russian soldiers! >
  
  Traffic. Moscow prepares to Traffic 100,000 Ukrainians into its breeding programs. 
  In Nearly Related News, the Tigray Genocide if 2022 went unnoticed and more than 100,000 people were Trafficked. >
  
  *kidnap. They’re preparing to kidnap 100,000 Ukrainians >
  
  Yeah ao was trying to work this sentence out in my mind. How does a country deport citizens from a different country back to theirs? That doesn't make any sense lol >
  
  Well when the world sits by unwillingly to cross a red line no matter how many war crimes a country commits this is what you get.  I’m not necessarily condoning the World tag teaming Russia, but we don’t really have a method for holding Nations accountable when they become monsters like this. >
  
  They’re also a nuclear power which is probably why the west has only tried to bolster Ukraine with arms and intelligence instead of acting directly. >
  
  So what exactly is stopping Russia using nukes on Ukraine right now? Almost 12 months into the "3 day operation" Russia is losing the war, what is Putin waiting for? >
  
  The fact that they'd be nuked back. Come on, dude, this is basic shit. Nobody wants to be the first to push the button because everyone knows nobody wins. >
  
  Ok, so: if Ukraine beats Russia by themselves in Ukraine, Russia won't use nukes first.
  But if NATO fully commits troops to Ukraine to help them beat Russia in Ukraine, then Russia will use nukes first.
  I would have thought either outcome was equally catastrophic to Putin, but only one of them will make him use nukes first. Why? >
  
  If russia loses in ukraine it can always fall back. Since ukraine and west won't pursue russia to their own lands losing isn't really an existential crisis for russia and thus they can't justify the button press by claiming it to be so. Even if they somehow could, pressing the button would just make things worse for them since they would lose and be nuked. Out of spite? On the other hand russia has reserved the right to use tactical nukes (small nukes, think of hiroshima type) but they haven't which further showcases that they really don't want to press the button.
  It is also unlikely that NATO putting troops in ukraine would actually trigger nuke launch but everyone has been kinda walking on eggshells because there's a chance that it will escalate it and eventually lead to such an event. >
  
  
  because there's a chance that it will escalate it and eventually lead to such an event.
  
  This is the second and often ignored reason why NATO probably is not intervening. Starting an official war between NATO and Russia is a significant escalation that opens a can of worms nobody wants to open. It means the big powers are fighting each other again, something that doesn't happen in an official capacity since WWII. It makes it more likely that other countries will go to war, too, because we'll be moving the Zeitgeist towards thinking that it's time for wars. >
  
  Not deport. “Kidnap” is maybe the word. “Ethnically cleansed from their homeland” might work. And so on. 
  The media’s insane standard of impartiality is killing this world. Call shit what it is. >
  
  It's going to be a nightmare for Ukraine to recover from all this. If they win the war AND recapture all their lost territory, then they face the challenge of accounting for all the lost people. Assuming they have a recent accurate census to work from, they're going to have to work out whether the missing people:
  1) Fled the country to find safety elsewhere, or...
  2) Relocated within the country to escape their ruined home or oncoming danger, or...
  3) Were massacred and dumped into a mass grave, or...
  4) Were kidnapped and deported to Russia.
  Russia has been kidnapping tens of thousands of civilians and sending them God knows where. How is Ukraine going to know whether these people are alive in the first place, or whether they were tossed into a shallow grave, or if they're safe and sound somewhere else? Then how is Ukraine going to track them all down, given they could be as far away as Siberia? And once they do find them how are they going to force Russia to give them back?
  Decades later we still have Americans convinced that Vietnam is keeping prisoners of war as slave labor, even though there's essentially no evidence that happened and there were less than 3,000 MIA total. But 40-50 years from now Ukraine is going to have damn good reason to suspect there could still be tens of thousands of their citizens trapped in Russia. >
  
  God that’s terrifying. >
  
  It's called kidnapping and genocide. >
  
  I really wish media would use the actual words. >
  
  The actual word is deportation. It's not a nicer or safer word then genocide, it is genocide, but without the instant death in most historical genocides. Why take that away?
  If you move large groups of people for a sane reason, like disaster relief, that's mass relocation. If you do it for genocidial and slavery purposes, that's deportation.
  Especially soviet/russian relocations were always genocidal.
  All this insistence over using genocide instead of deportation seems really insensitive, as the years of suffering that will follow are not worthy of acknowledging with their own word and have to be erased by the first assumption that the victims will simply be executed soon. >
  
  I join those questioning the use of the word 'deport' here in this context... >
  
  Genocide by literal definition. >
  
  No.  Forced deportation is a separate crime altogether covered by a different convention. >
  
  In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
  Killing members of the group;
  Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group >
  
  They're not targeting children this time, they want workers for the factories churning out arms to fight the war.  And I doubt they'll be able to segregate 100k Ukrainians enough to deny them their culture. So this is just plain ol' still despicable slavery >
  
  More slaves for the slave State. >
  
  Slav(e) state. >
  
  your point?  Ukrainians are Slavs as well. >
  
  Why are news publications using terms that imply that Russia is doing anything civilized to Ukrainians? Russia is abducting, seizing, kidnapping, taking, snatching, etc. Ukrainians. >
  
  That is literally what 'deporting' is used for and has been used for this practice since at least the Nazis, but entire peoples were ripped apart by Sovjet deportation from their home lands to Siberia. Using 'deport' tells a large potion of the world that these people are treated like cattle, most won't make it home and those who do only with severe PTSD, and a huge scar will be left in their communities that will be felt for generations. >
  
  My grandfather was deported to Siberia after ww2. Luckily he made it back, otherwise I wouldn't exist. I wonder how many people don't... >
  
  Why did they do that to him? In addition to being bad and evil, like how did they try to justify it >
  
  I doubt there was any justification given, there were about 30 000 people "deported" to Siberia during the soviet occupation of my home. And the russians have been doing it since the 16-th century. It is a way for them to snuff out other smaller cultures. >
  
  Ah, are you from a central Asian or Turkic culture by any chance >
  
  Next news: Russia finds new 100,000 conscripts >
  
  This is genocide. >
  
  yes, deportation in this conditions falls under one of the definitions of genocide - vienna conventions have multiple points of what constitutes genocide.
  russia has been doing these kind of genocide by deportation since early USSR times. >
  
  How are they gonna manage that? They hardly have a strong enough presence to get to major population centers and start rounding up civilians undeterred. >
  
  Right, I’d like to know more about the logistic side of this. Also, how would they manage this silently, as doing it in plain sight would turn many of their last remaining allies against them >
  
  How has almost 3 million Ukrainians end up in Russia since February last year??  You think 100k will bother them??? >
  
  Deport?
  It’s human trafficking. >
  
  Same thing in this context. No, wait, deportation of entire peoples is a bit worse even. >
  
  That’s not deporting that’s kidnapping >
  
  Deport -> to where? Russia where they will never be seen again. I bet you anything they are gasing them in the streets. >
  
  This is likely to supplement the factor labor force now that more and more young mobiks are being called up to fight. >
  
  How do you deport someone from their own country? This news outlet should be reported to media watchdogs >
  
  Soverignity means jack shit when the country your city is in changes with the frontline.
  You deport a population by moving it, without any rules about their nationality or soverignity at the origin or destination. >
  
  Kidnapping? >
  
  slaves?  POWs? >
  
  The word you're looking for is either "traffic" or "kidnap" >
  
  That sounds like importing not deporting. >
  
  Moscow is allegedly preparing to literally steal 100,000 Ukrainians to Russia >
  
  That is not "deporting". That is kidnapping. >
  
  No, kidnapping is individual. Human trafficking is small scale.
  Deportation is the word when those things happen at scale, with the intention of genocide or slavery. >
  
  Free Labour - german style >
  
  And the world will allow it. >
  
  Good let Ukrainians sabotage inside Russia without making the trek. >
  
  These people will be moved into far away lands with little economic prospects, few connections to the outside world, little possibility to improve their life conditions and likely not even a form of local government bar some armed forces.
  They will be thinking about starvation and farming, not about sabotage. Having power and not being scheduled to blackouts would be a reason to cheer. You're not exactly gonna gang up on social media to rebel.
  This has happened many times since soviet times. >
  
  So, deported to death.   Just to be clear. >
  
  kidnap >
  
  "Deport"? 
  Try "kidnap". >
  
  Telling someone they are committing war crimes as a deterrent for them in committing more and worse war crimes is not going to stop any wars. Also, threatening to charge them with war crimes after the war is over, when they have no intention of ending the war, is pointless too. If you don't have people go and arrest the soldiers captured who did war crimes and start arresting members of their government (after getting all allies out of Russia first) then nothing will stop. Thoughts? I have no background in conflict resolution/management anything close to this. >
  
  
  go and arrest the soldiers captured who did war crimes
  
  Yes, prisoners of war are literally a form of "arresting" a soldier.
  
  and start arresting members of their government
  
  Countries have this thing called soverignity, where only they can decide what is right for them.
  For example, Russia invaded Ukraine and disregarded its soverignity. You can't invade Russia to arrest Russian officials without disregarding its soverignity too.
  Regardless of your motive, soverignity and respct forcit is etched in every democracy's constitution.
  "But they did it first, we're justified to do it" is not really a motive to disregard your own principles. >
  
  Recommendations? >
  
  How can a country deport people from a land they claim to have annexed to what would be the same country?? Did they report this deport, or were they just playing some sport in their fort? >
  
  Deporting is "usually" from your country to the person's original country. This is completely opposite of deporting. >
  
  Traffic. Moscow prepares to Traffic 100,000 Ukrainians into its breeding programs. 
  In Nearly Related News, the Tigray Genocide if 2022 went unnoticed and more than 100,000 people were Trafficked. >
  
  What the hell?? >
  
  From personal sources I can tell you this is not a deportation.  They are moving those Ukrainians who have accepted Russian citizenship and passports and are working with occupying forces in civilian capacities.
  That's not to say that RF has not done forced relocation of loyal Ukrainians or worse. No one knows what Russia's end game here is.  And in the grand scheme  of things, perhaps it's best for those people who accepted Russian citizenship to leave peacefully while they can instead of being tried for treason and collaboration once Ukraine wins those territories back. >
  
  “I know that this is not forced relocation, but that’s not to say they don’t do exactly that right now in that area.” Ok. 
  Also, “accepted citizenship.” With a rifle to my wife’s skull I’d accept that up was down, dude. 
  Your post reads like Russian propaganda. >
  
  That's your prerogative to perceive it as such.  But people were offered money to change passports and many have gladly accepted.  So it's not quiet the rifle you implying.
  Is it hard to believe that there are Russian supporters in Ukraine?  Maybe you missed the part where Ukraine is actively looking for collaborators?  Sure, Russia does plenty shady shit and Ukrainians are at risk.
  It's not always violence that gets people motivated. >
  
  I think this makes sense, I would be tempted to make that decision to escape the war zone and keep my family safe >
  
  Yea get em boys >
  
  We need other countries to offer resources and opportunities for refuge for Ukraine civilians other than Russia. Russia shouldn't be leading the effort on this, this makes western nations look like a joke. The U.S. has done a tremendous amount for the Ukrainian effort undoubtedly, however I would like to see us offer refuge to millions of Ukrainians civilians caught in the war zone, especially women and children. >
  
  To whoever made this stupid title, learn the definition of deport, because they aren’t being deported. >
  
  
  extra spending for what Moscow calls ‘the potential resettlement’ of residents from the Kherson region to Russia
  
  What is happening then? >
  
  Russian deporting is a lot like normal international kidnapping. >
  
  So that’ll take care of declining birth rates.