Awkward? You'll see how quickly Euros will turn on Ukrainians. They'll have the nerve to demand explanations for why these refugees don't want to fight. Euros will then try to enlighten them, as to why Ukrainian refugees throwing themselves at minefields is their duty. When these refugees refuse to do so, anger will follow. They'll be accused of being Russian spies, forcefully conscripted and the ones who can hide will probably have to live clandestinely in slave like conditions.

With news that any Ukrainian can be a double agent for Putin, public support for Ukraine will continue to deteriorate and Ukraine will be left to fend for itself.

If this becomes common knowledge, the western left is going to once again show their true faces.

Without a doubt, we'll see people who call themselves "socialists" arguing that the Ukrainians who fled the country are - in some way - in the wrong and should be sent back. I've already seen them argue that Russians who've moved to Western countries should be arrested, simply because they're Russian. And these are the people who call us "Red Fascists"? Fuckers literally argue for the mass arrest of an ethnic group, because the government that represents them is an enemy of the West.

Unironically yet more proof that Belarus and Russia are the only ones who actually care about helping and protecting Ukrainians. The West are happy to send every last one of them into the meat grinder for a chance at hurting Russia.

I've seen a lot of Twitter accounts (mostly NAFOs of course) that are all for sending the "cowards" to the front line to die. Even the most empathetic ones are saying that they shouldn't do that, not because it's wrong, but because they wouldn't be reliable meat for the grinder.

The biggest justificiationg I can find is that it's okay because they're "criminals."

What a fucking meat grinder.

Nitter link since TankieReplyBot didn’t do it:

https://nitter.net/djuric_zlatko/status/1699441484695572811

Here is a not so nice thought: These people are not (necessarily) refugees.

I mean that, as defined by the 1967 protocol^1^ (which is mostly just the 1951 conventions^2^ definition, but without the time limitation). Therefore the right to non-refoulment (i.e. not returning a person to their prior country) does not apply to them. The EU has a lesser definition "subsidiary protection"^3^ which these people ~~do~~ might[?] qualify for (as it includes ~~war~~ "serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict"), but as far as I can read, the directive does not define any rights for these people. So the exact things a person under subsidiary protection is afforded is up to the individual country. I am probably missing some "laws", but otherwise there is, legally as far as these "laws" go, nothing wrong, with‒e.g.‒Germany (assuming German law doesn't define non-refoulment for S.P.) returning Ukrainians to Ukraine.

^1^ https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=0800000280048bb8&clang=_en
^2^ https://treaties.un.org/Pages/showDetails.aspx?objid=080000028003002e&clang=_en
^3^ https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32011L0095

Definition as modified by the 1967 protocol:

owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country ; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it

Did he really have to post that video from a poolside bar? Unbothered, talking about having beers.