Here (and in ALL post-USSR countries and USSR) - people in military are more "disposal"

What does the "USSR" even have to do with any of this. And what's the point of dragging it up, like an off-topic piñata, in a discussion thread about a completely different issue - i.e. the Gender Critical topic here was the controversial legislative Trans policies promoted by the modern upcoming U.S. Cabinet, including the current Transgenderism challenges for the U.S. military.

As a fellow ex-Soviet person (born in Central Asia, half-Kazakh and half-Slav), it’s becoming a bit tiresome seeing (some) Ukrainian posters obsessively trying to squeeze in bizarrely sweeping, negative comments about “all” “post-USSR” countries (including Central Asia), the “USSR!” and “Russia!” into virtually any online discussion (even into a discussion about Trans legislation in North America that has literally NOTHING to do with the “USSR”, lol).

As for the point itself - well, breaking news: people in the military are (very often) treated as "disposable" almost everywhere across the whole planet Earth. It’s NOT some kind of unique ‘Slavic’, ‘Central Asian’ or ‘Soviet’ ‘special’ trait. A female recruit from e.g. Texas or Idaho (who is e.g. deployed to go die in endless wars for the Pentagon) is equally treated as “disposable". In fact, I think big North American and West European countries often treat their recruits as even more recklessly and needlessly “disposable" (sending them to other far-away continents to die or lose limbs in endless catastrophic, Imperalist 'wars for oil' in the Middle East / West Asia, etc). There's an apt colloquial word for it in the U.S. and Britain - soldiers, including female soldiers, are often described as "cannon-fodder".

“Our country is trying to go the professional army route instead of "throwing bodies USSR style"

Throwing bodies “USSR-style”? Again, the “USSR” has nothing to do with this. Most of Eastern Europe already had a long tradition of drafting conscripts BEFORE the USSR was even created. It’s silly to point to the USSR for something that was already endemic & deeply customary for most of the region. E.g. World War 1 (pre-revolution) already had mandatory military conscription for men.

The USSR did not ‘invent’ the draft. There’s surprisingly even a mandatory universal draft in countries like Switzerland. France is also currently introducing new laws that may require some military or alternative service for all young people, including young women potentially.

Moreover, even countries like the States (which invade other continents using a 'voluntary' army) STILL have a federal law which potentially allows compulsory conscription of men between the ages of 17 and 45 and certain women for military service in certain emergency situations (Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution and 10 U.S. Code § 246).

Anyway, it’s important to remember that having a professional (a.k.a. ‘volunteer’) army is ALSO “throwing bodies”. BOTH a conscript army and a volunteer-recruited army are, essentially, “throwing bodies”. Each format has its benefits and drawbacks. Each country can decide which format it wants, but it’s very naïve & over-simplistic to think that one is automatically better than the other.

I used to live in Texas (coincidentally one of the biggest places for Pentagon military recruitment in the U.S.). I saw MANY returning veterans crippled, mentally & physically, by unnecessary Imperialist wars. Suicide rates for such veterans are also quite high. Most people who enlist in ‘volunteer’ armies are usually from poor or working-class families - and they often do so not just because of ‘patriotism’ or military ‘perks’, but also because many come from poor towns and have few other employment options. So the result of ‘volunteer’ armies is also very problematic: many of the so-called ‘voluntary’ recruits are from the lower, more impoverished, rural classes, pushed to die in wars started by the upper urban classes (most of whom don’t volunteer). Such an unbalanced system creates an even bigger, deeper social divide between the socio-economic classes, between the haves and have-nots. It cements systematic classism.

"Our country is trying to go the professional army route ... However, because of Russian invasion and permanent war activities on border with them, it was halted for now."

Again, why are Ukrainian posters trying to squeeze in an over-simplistic comment about a “Russian invasion” into a discussion about …. Transgenderism (!). Anyway, that border conflict is far more complicated than that. Ukraine kept a military draft not originally because of “Russia”, but because the North-Western region in Ukraine created a violent REVOLUTION / COUP (depending on the PoV) and overthrew the elected government which was voted in and majority-supported by the South-Eastern region in Ukraine. The revolution resulted in social division and civil unrest (because many in the South-East didn’t support the controversial ‘Revolution’) - so in the ‘post-Revolution’ explosive situation the gov’t decided to maintain the military draft.

And the “permanent war” is not simply against “Russia”, but against the Russian-Ukrainian ethnic majority in the South-East, many of whom did not support the violent Revolution/Coup and its results.

But the draft actually did NOT help, it backfired. Because, ironically, in the aftermath of the Revolution, during the counter-revolutionary revolt in Crimea, the drafted Crimean military mostly defected to the Russian side (e.g. 8,000 drafted South-Eastern Ukrainian soldiers defected, according to Ukraine’s chief military prosecutor, Anatolii Matios). The population of Eastern Ukraine and Crimea have a sizeable mixed-ethnic Russian-Ukrainian majority (as Crimea was originally settled by Russian-ethnic Navy families after the peninsula was won by them in a war against the Ottoman Empire/Turkey). In most elections in the 21st C, the South-Eastern & Crimean electorate (unlike the North-Western electorate) consistently majority-voted for candidates running on a platform against integration with EU/U.S. globalists and in favour of closer historic bonds with Russia and Central Asian ex-Soviet Republics instead. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/01/24/this-is-the-one-map-you-need-to-understand-ukraines-crisis/?arc404=true

Anyway, it's now 'fashionable' to vilify "the USSR" as if it was Dante's Inferno, but at least in the USSR we all (Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Ukrainians, Russians, Armenians, Azeris, etc) learned to live together in peace, we sent the first-ever woman into space, we collectively created the first universal healthcare system in the region, the first subsidised affordable university system, etc (systems that even 'advanced' societies like the States don't have yet), etc. Whereas now, without the USSR bringing everyone together, many nations in the region started fighting and bickering, old grudges re-surfaced, revolutions here, revolutions there, government coups, ethnic tensions, mayhem. We abandoned the USSR in favour of becoming like the chaotic, war-torn Balkans.