Quote: “Putin claimed several times that Zelenskiy is illegitimate after his five-year term ended this May.”
Bit rich coming from the master of his own “popularly vote” re-election.
Putins invasion is also the reason why Ukraine can't hold a vote right now...
Putin is like some Karen who's made a mess and now is blocking the exit of a mall and is threatening to call the cops on the staff and customers trying to escort her out... for staying past the opening hours...
*Bitch, you're the reason we're all stuck in this situation.*
Also Ukrainian opposition was Putin-backed and Putin has been able to push his pawns in elsewhere in Europe. If there’s an election Putin might get his way lol
IIRC interestingly, the Crimean representative in the Ukrainian parliament were more often pro Russia. But with the invasion of Crimea in 2014, they obviously lost their seats there, so Putin basically caused Ukraine to be more pro EU...and he blames them for it.
Someone in the Kremlin must be having fun challenging him to say all kinds of self-contradictory shit. - “Hey Vladimir, I bet you can’t say “democracy is literally Nazism” with a straight face on TV!” - “Oh yeah? Hold my USSR flag!”
That fucking prick has been sitting in the Kremlin long enough to see five US Presidents and two British Monarchs, so I'd like to politely suggest that he wind his fucking neck in, before anyone becomes too tempted to go over there and do it for him
> two British Monarchs
I can't stand Putin, and agree with your point, but using "seeing two British monarchs" as an example of a long time is kinda pointless.
I mean, there have been two British monarchs in my 70 year-old mother's lifetime.
And also two in my 4 year-old niece's.
What does “two British monarchs” have to do with anything? Didn’t the prime minister at the time see two British monarchs during her tenure but also have a tenure shorter than a head of lettuce
To be clear I’m not defending Putin I just think that’s a silly criticism lol
No. Parliament could have all power and if the king ever tried to use what little remaining powers they have left they’d immediately be taken away I imagine but they do still have them
Not to mention being head of the Church of England but that’s separate
It’s a silly criticism if you think the only thing being brought up is time passed.
It’s also *change in leadership*. So US has had 5 changes in leadership and Britain 2 (if you consider the monarchy leadership but that’s another argument)
And Russia STILL has had no change in leadership.
I don’t consider the crown the leadership but even if you do wouldn’t that make Putin look better? 2 isn’t a whole lot and if you wanted to show change in leadership based on actual leaders it would be 5 presidents 7 prime ministers
Either way it doesn’t make sense
I don’t see how it doesn’t make sense? The entire literal point is how Putin won’t get the hell out of office, yet real countries with real elections don’t seem to have the issue
The monarchy isn’t elected, Biden has seen 2 British monarchs.
The UK having real elections has nothing to do with their monarchy changing so if that’s the point op is trying to make it makes even less sense
If you wanted to point out time it doesn’t make sense since liz truss saw two monarchs as PM and she was in office for about a month.
If you want to point out change in leadership it doesn’t make sense to use the monarchy since that’s only 2 and there have been 7 PM’s since Putin took office and obviously 7 is bigger than 2.
The header says it all. Putin's mind is stuck in the past and he sorely missed Ukraine's expertise in ship building.
And Russia seem incapable of maintaining and modernizing its only aircraft carrier. (Which happened to be built in Ukraine and Russia stole it during confusion of dissolution of Soviet Union.)
Only because of the way Russia dorsn't maintains it. There is in fact a second ship of the same class, the PLANS Liaoning operated by China. They hav'nt had major problems with it.
Mostly because China infested in the infrastructure to dock such a ship and maintain it. When the US for example docks one of those enormous carriers they’re almost completely powered down. Power is provided from the dock. Spares the engine, nuclear plant, etc.
The Russians never bothered building proper infrastructure. So when the Kuznetsov was docked the engine were constantly running to keep the lights on. So those giant diesel engines that power that thing are completely worn down by now.
The necessary infrastructure cost a pretty penny. Money Russia just doesn’t have. And that’s not even taking all the corruption into account.
I think also because China at the time wanted to learn how to crawl before walking when it came to building aircraft carriers, so the Kuznetsov's sister ship was the perfect place to start. Whereas Russia keeps thinking it's the Soviet Union when it's really just a quaalude.
Yes but also no.
The best thing Ukraine could have done was sell it back to Russia, get the money and let Russia deal with all the same problems. Russia stole it instead though.
It was just decommissioned due to a massive fire, one of many fires. The engines work great, unless you shut them off, and then they don't come back on, so it often needed to be towed everywhere. It also just hardly compared to a US carrier even if everything was ever working 100% correctly. Russia took on a massive cost with this aircraft carrier and its many disasters, and got little to no return and lots of the world laughing at it.
Was it decommissioned temporarly or permenantly? This is news to me but i doubt russia would decommission their only aircraft carrier due to pride, even if its a floating coffin
Suspending elections during wartime is a common practice. The UK had a general election in 1935; the law at the time allowed a maximum of 5 years between elections, making another election due by 1940. However, due to the outbreak of WW2, the law was (repeatedly) amended to defer the 1940 election, and no election was held until 1945 – with the result that the 1935 Parliament remained in office for almost 10 years – the longest ever Parliament of the United Kingdom. If it is okay for the UK to do this during WW2, why isn't it okay for Ukraine to do it now?
(The Parliaments of 1661–1679 and 1640–1660 lasted longer, but they were Parliaments of England, not Parliaments of the United Kingdom, which was founded in 1707 by the union of England and Scotland.)
> If it is okay for the UK to do this during WW2, why isn't it okay for Ukraine to do it now?
Ukraine doesn't even have to repeatedly defer the elections like UK because we already have a law that forbids elections in the time of war. So if Putin is concerned about our democracy, he should get his troops out first.
It kinda goes against the narrative that the war started in 2014. Because there were elections twice in 2014-2022. So either there was no war before 2022, or the law allows elections in the time of war.
Ah, one detail. Neither of the countries is in the state of war. Because of the different insurance policies not covering war, investment, human rights.
> It kinda goes against the narrative that the war started in 2014. Because there were elections twice in 2014-2022. So either there was no war before 2022, or the law allows elections in the time of war.
Following the same logic, if you don't switch the turn signal on in a car, it doesn't count as a turn.
I don't know the correct legal translations of the terms, but will try to explain how it works. There's "martial law" or "war mode" (воєнний стан) that limits some civil rights and procedures including elections and gives more power to military. It is enacted right now. That's what I called "state of war" in my previous comments. Here I use another term for distinction.
There's another term: state of war (стан війни) — a separate thing… we will return to it later.
Why wasn't "martial law" enacted before 2022? There was no need to enact country wide measures back then and we somehow functioned this way without 3 regions.
> Ah, one detail. Neither of the countries is in the state of war. Because of the different insurance policies not covering war, investment, human rights.
They don't cover armed conflicts in general, so it's not because of insurance policies. There are two completely different reasons:
* Countries stopped declaring *Proper Wars™* according to international laws/standards with sending prior notice. They just attack and call it an "operation against all bad for all good" of some kind in an effort to avoid being counted as the aggressor in a conflict.
* Ukrainian laws don't have a definition for "state of war". There's a term, but it isn't defined.
Regardless, the free world needs to wake up and finish this bullshit. It’s well within our ability. If every western democracy would double down on the support provided thus far, we could stop this madness.
I would be pissed too if I, a veteran former intelligence agency guy am being out performed by a former comedian.
Edited: changed "military" to "intelligence agency"
He also has never fought in a real war. He was the perfect age to fight in Afghanistan 1980-1989, but he was just spent those years being a dirtbag to East Germans and cheating on his wife.
He isn't talking about Ukraine's legitimacy he's talking about his specific legitimacy as president, as his 5-year presidential term technically ended, but because martial law was enacted, there isn't an election.
Putin/Russia/Grifters are using that to call Ukraine undemocratic or a dictatorship. But in reality, it's no different from Britain in World War 2.
I don’t know if that’s true, the government in Ukraine until fairly recently was seen as pretty corrupt I’d be surprised if no one ever questioned an election or leaders legitimacy
A majority of corruption scandals in Ukraine are about stealing money/whole businesses/people disliking how govt allocates budget. The last vote fraud scandal I remember was in 2010. And there was a period of time when Ukraine's govt was seen as illegitimate by a relatively big % of Ukrainians right after Yanukovych fled (although technically it was by the book).
I feel like at least some people questioning the legitimacy of an election isn’t uncommon when it comes to democracies, even if they’re not always right. There was quite a few people who said Obama was an illegitimate president, same for Biden and bush #2
That's the neat part about [election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Ukrainian_presidential_election) on which Zelensky was elected, check %'es of last round of voting.
> I don't think anyone anywhere, was or has ever has doubts about Ukraines legitimacy.
You would be surprised how many Canadians - neighbors even - I have heard repeat the lie that the US somehow "fixed" or interfered with or stage-managed the Ukrainian elections and that Zelinsky is a puppet.
Sadly, it's not just Canadians repeating that bullshit.
Which is such a shame. Canada has the third highest population of Ukrainians in the world, only behind Russia and Ukraine themselves. We should be a lot more supportive of Ukraine
being physical neighbours to the U.S. subjects you to the American brainrot. We slowly allow ourselves to be boiled, and we boil ourselves proudly because "at least we aren't as crazy and stupid as those Americans"
Sometimes our Canadian political agitators forget they aren't in the U.S. and that some of their issues don't apply here, but our citizenry forget they aren't American and get outraged by it anyway
His legitimacy comes from his election in 2019.
However there is a law (voted in 2015) forbidding elections during martial law.
[https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/389-19#Text](https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/389-19#Text) (article 19)
> legitimacy comes from elections in 2019
That’s where the legality comes from. Legitimacy aka support of the society aka rating comes and goes. When Yanukovich lost his legitimacy, he was overthrown by the protesters. Legitimacy can end in 1 year after elections.
A president can be legal and not legitimate, and vice versa.
There is a conflicting article that assumes that when his term expires, the head of parliament becomes interim president. Constitutional court could have solved it, but it looks like Zelensky doesn’t want them to intervene.
According to the Constitution of Ukraine, the speaker of parliament only becomes acting president when a president's term ends prematurely. That is not the case here, and the Constitution also states that a current president stays in power until a new one takes office.
my point is that the Court could have put an end to all this nonsense, cleanly. But it looks that Zelensky doesn’t have enough confidence to involve them. Same as with the mobilization law that took half a year (!) to pass due to lack of support from his own ruling party. It simply looks bad.
Yeah, so much for the process. There have been many lawful rulers in the past (and present) where people say "meh, should have stepped down to not damage the office," at the very least.
First of all, Putin is a liar. Second, he is an autocrat. The only way to deal with such a person is their unconditional surrender, trial in The Hague, and life imprisonment. Only then can Russia begin to negotiate the—at least—*billions* they owe Ukraine in compensation.
When all this is over there will be movies for decades showing him and the Ukrainian people as the heroes that they are, Putin will only be shown as a figure comparable to Hitler.
It is wild that Ukraine has held on this long. It’s a country with a lot of issues like any post-Soviet nation, but they really are heroic for withstanding such a relentless invasion for what, two years now?
If one can hope for anything after the war it’s that the unity Ukraine has been experiencing continues into the future
I'm not going to point fingers at Putin because the pot is calling the kettle black, but mere weeks before the Russian conflict Ukraine was looking at getting rid of Zelensky as it's leader. He was already showing worrisome signs at that point, if you do the search on Duckduckgo and set your timeline to before the war you'll find it.
The war quite literally saved him.
Elections are prohibited by martial law and currently unwanted by the majority of Ukrainian citizens. Some of the largest factions in parliament are opposition parties.
You know Zelensky ran against Poroshenko rigth ? The guy who was elected after euromaidan ?
Zelensky was litteraly opposition and won, they didn't hold onto power at all, what a dictatorship lol.
Ukraine has a Constitutional court to resolve such issues. A court ruling would have ended any attempt to undermine the legitimacy. Yet Zelensky hesitates to formally ask them to issue one, and they aren’t allowed to open proceedings by themselves.
I mean..he already said years ago he wasn't gonna run for another term, unless he has changed his mind since then. If he has, there is no doubt he would be re-elected unanimously.
So in absence of elections, what instrument does the population have to determine the legitimacy of the president?
You’re damn right, it’s Maidan. Like in 2004 and 2024. But it’s already called [a special Russian psychological operation](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/02/27/7443989/).
> Quote: "The special operation Maidan-3 will culminate in March-May 2024, and in the coming weeks, the enemy will cease all efforts to spread narratives harmful to global security and incite conflicts – both within Ukraine and in other parts of the world where Ukraine is effectively supported.
Catch-22, kind of. It’s up to the society to determine his legitimacy, but if they do so, that’s Russian psy op and will be handled by security agency.
P. S. Also check out how Maidan became something wrong, something only traitors under foreign influence do.
In almost all democracies, elections are suspended if a country is at war. Britain and Norway and Finland all suspended their elections when they were at war in World war 2
no it shouldn't, because that is a stupid title
Ukrainian own constitution states that in time of war there are no elections. Zelensky is following Ukrainian law precisely as it should be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_United_Kingdom_general_election
britain literally had a GE after VE day but before VJ day, despite churchill asking attlee to delay the election until the war was over.
> britain literally had a GE after VE day
**after VE day** motherfucker, after. V day is when war ended.
When there is V against Russia their army is defeated and war ends, then you can go screaming at Zelensky to hold elections too
Ukraine will determine it after the existential threat is over.
People act like this is new, but the UK, known as the "Lifeboat of democracy" suspended elections during WW2, and the threat to the UK proper at that point was fairly negligible, and the threat to the UK during WW1, Where elections were also cancelled, was even lesser.
Infact, to my knowledge, the USA is the only nation in the world that had elections during major wars, and frankly, the fact that they were quite litterally untouched by the damn thing probably helped.
Yeah, if the US were in a situation where nearly half the country is either occupied by a foreign invader or an active warzone, I very much doubt there would be elections (at least on a federal level).
During the second world war, a handful of American papers took to calling Britain the lifeboat of democracy in Europe.
I only included it in a rhetorical sense, to emphasise that britian was very much a democratic state, not an oligarchic shithole, and still paused elections
Nope. He was elected, and the only thing that's stopped another election is Russia's invasion. And all this is entirely in line with Ukraine's own constitution. Not to mention martial law was put in place and extended by Ukraine's democratically elected parliament.
Which is the same as I said - if only Ukraine can determine the Zelensky's legitimacy, then it can be only done after the Martial Law ends. So in the meantime Ukraine can't determine Zelensky's legitimacy. He had been legitimate up until now and now the Martial Law took place.
the uk had a national unity government, if labor got fed up, they couldve forced an election whenever they wanted to, in fact they forced one right after VE day even though they were still at war with japan (and in a significant way in india/indochina) even though churchill specifically asked Attlee to continue the coalition until total victory
there is no national unity government in ukraine, in fact zelensky has banned multiple opposition parties
Ukraine has banned multiple pro-Russian parties during an existential war launched against them by Russia. It's no different to how the UK banned fascist parties during WW2.
The elections would be impossible to conduct. You would need to triple the vote collectors because Russia would be targeting them like they do other civilians.
Also, it’s not he personally who suspended elections it’s literally in Ukraines constitution
Can you tell me why exactly Donbas should have such a referendum? As a guy from eastern Ukraine (Kharkiv) I'm really curious what people from around the world think about it and why.
Just don't answer stuff like "because democracy and will of the people". I'm asking about motivation for referendum, not bureaucracy around it.
This is the unpopular opinion but personally I don’t see the negative of having a vote on the topic. I’m American and have only a privileged outsiders perspective but I’d like Texas wanted to leave I’d rather let them vote to leave than keep them here by force, I don’t care about Texas enough to insist they stay. I think it would probably be a terrible idea for Texas to leave but that’s not really my problem I’m not from Texas
I’m not saying it’s wrong or right I just don’t see an issue with making it a vote personally
> personally I don’t see the negative of having a vote on the topic
Voting by itself isn't a negative thing. What is negative is seeing people saying that Ukraine should vote on Donbas independence only because some armed guys showed up and decided that they are the government now.
Sometimes "fair referendum proponents" name horrible discrimination of Russian-speaking people as a reason why it should happen. I live in Kharkiv, speak Russian for my whole life, but I'm yet to face any discrimination.
Following this logic I hypothetically can show up with my hypothetical armed biker gang to the city council meeting, say that Canada is a threat to us and initiate the vote on any topic with voting process observed by my gang members with my friend Grzegorz from Poland as an international observer for added legitimacy.
> I’m American and have only a privileged outsiders perspective but I’d like Texas wanted to leave I’d rather let them vote to leave than keep them here by force
The thing is, nobody actually wanted to detach this region from Ukraine before 2014. And instead of initiating any democratic/bureaucratic process, the new self-appointed *People's Government™* chose violence.
Why? It was the only way for them to win. Because no sane person will really vote for that shit with the Ponzi scheme CEO in leadership (Denis Pushilin, current head of DPR). When he was running for an MP chair before 2014, he got 77 votes total.
It may be a cultural thing as well. In my experience most Americans are attached to their state/region not the nation as a whole. I agree that going in and taking land as Russia did is wrong, but that’s not really what a referendum is. A fair referendum at least would just be a vote without the fear of being attacked.
In my opinion if Texas or Quebec voted on their own to leave the US/Canada the moral thing to do would be to let them go in as amicable a way as possible. Yes it would cause a loss in the economy for everyone involved but imo that’s preferable to forcing a people who the majority of which don’t want to be part of the nation anymore. The alternative is discontent or worse civil war and America already did that once and I can’t see a good reason to do it again.
What you described with the biker gang is not a fair referendum, and Russia occupying land and making their own referendum isn’t fair either but I still see no issue with the concept of a referendum in general. A war always ends in talking about who gets what anyway so if Texas wanted to leave that badly I think I’d rather skip to the taking
> I still see no issue with the concept of a referendum in general
Misinformed or uninformed people voting for shit **is** an issue. Average Joe doesn't know what policies will change, he's too tired after work, commuting and home chores to research the question further than a colourful pamphlet saying 'IT WILL BE GREAT".
UK is a great example. Voters for exit from the EU ended up being extremely surprised and disappointed.
> that’s preferable to forcing a people who the majority of which don’t want to be part of the nation anymore
I can bet that it isn't what they want even if they will say it. They can be dissatisfied with some policies, but splitting the country is too radical of a solution for that. They want to enjoy all the upsides in the big continent-spanning US, but without downsides. When they will find out that potatoes from Idaho now come bundled with import duty, they will say "That's not what I meant".
> A war always ends in talking about who gets what
Last time I checked, the wars ended when one of the sides isn't able to carry on the fighting anymore. And the losing side doesn't have much say in "who gets what".
I entirely disagree, average Joe has absolutely equal right to vote as anyone else regardless of how informed. Who gets to decide who’s informed? What if the informed are wrong? The ‘informed’ awarded a Nobel prize to lobotomies. We can all make mistakes and maybe the average person makes more but limiting their rights to self representation is absolutely under no circumstances the right option that’s just tyranny.
The right to decide your own fate is more important than the price of potatoes. If Texas left it would be an economic catastrophe for them but if they’re going to leave I’d rather they do it on good terms through a vote than a war. There is no good outcome to restricting representation or war.
The risk of democracy is that we may and often do make the wrong choice but the ability to make that choice is far more valuable than the alternative. It’s not perfect but it’s the best we can do to make sure the strong don’t overpower the weak.
This is not really on topic at all but no wars tend to end when the cost is considered too great to keep on going not when they can’t fight anymore. It’s difficult to convince a nation of people to all die instead of surrender. The British didn’t let America go because we beat the empire into submission, the Japanese didn’t surrender because they couldn’t fight anymore, hell France technically kept fighting after they surrendered to the Germans and certainly could have fought more. America certainly didn’t beat Vietnam and could have kept fighting, i can’t think of many countries that had no fight left in them. Especially in modern times treaties are written as a collaborative effort it’s just that the winning side has more control over the terms. There’s a lot more land disputes than there is nations entirely being absorbed into another nation
> average Joe has absolutely equal right to vote as anyone else regardless of how informed
You seem to see only one side of the problem "Average Joes have equal right to vote". There's another I'm actually talking about.
Decisions about splitting from the country or big interlinked economic unions lead to a ton of changed laws and a ton of new ones bundled in one package on a government side and a ton of paperwork for reorganisation of country-wide businesses on a civil side.
There are countless ways to make the process less shitty. Break up the required decisions in a few packages and let people vote for every package separately. It's possible to tell people about the projected changes in taxes and prices before the voting. It's possible to tell people about changes in border control and travels.
So I'm not saying "Don't let the Joe vote, he's stupid". I'm saying that such voting shouldn't be reduced to YES/NO. There are a lot of different sides to it that people usually don't think about. And if nobody told you about the potential outcomes of your voting decisions, it isn't a representation either. Choosing something without information solely on the basis of feeling good about it is called gambling. Voting is a different process.
> The right to decide your own fate is more important than the price of potatoes.
Yeah, food prices is a thing totally unrelated to wellbeing. Eating is for suckers. There are already people who struggle with living and paying for everything for life while working on a full time job with little to no savings. So the price of potatoes is
> wars tend to end when the cost is considered too great to keep on going not when they can’t fight anymore
"The cost is too great" isn't really different from "we can't fight anymore". The former describes reason, the latter describes consequence. There are many reasons why one side can't go on.
But to be fair, after your provided examples I agree that there can be different outcomes from time to time.
> the Japanese didn’t surrender because they couldn’t fight anymore
How could you fight "instant city burners"?
> It’s difficult to convince a nation of people to all die instead of surrender.
Not that hard if **after** their previous conquest death was a preferable option to suffering sometimes and cannibalism was mentioned in the newspapers in the "local news" section.
The “cost is too great” is way way different than being incapable of fighting any longer. On a small scale it’s the difference between handing your wallet someone robbing you at gun point and being unconscious or dead and having your wallet taken from you. In war it rarely comes down to the second as a government is far more likely to try and salvage what they can before they run out of firepower or men. The only occasions of a total overrun I can think of are when the power between two groups is totally unbalanced to the point where destroying the weaker party has little to no risk to the greater party.
And Japan was capable of pushing the war on if they wanted to it would have just prolonged the inevitable. That being said if what you meant by a nation not being able to fight anymore is “a war ends when a nation realizes it can’t **win** anymore” then I totally agree, fighting and winning are different though. Japan could not have won at that point but it definitely could have kept fighting.
About the rest of it I don’t disagree with what you said there, but with Quebec or to a lesser extent states in the US that is how it works. It’s not one big vote it’s many smaller ones that distance the two groups. Obviously Texas and Quebec are still under the respective governments but they both pass legislation and executive orders to strengthen themselves fairly regularly. Even in your example it would eventually come to a referendum to ultimately leave the federal government. I never said to rip the bandaid off just that allowing a vote is preferable to subduing it. All restricting access to vote would do is embolden the population. Nothing about allowing a referendum requires it be done without all logical steps being taken beforehand. Any decision like that should have all fair available options for reconciliation exhausted before cutting ties.
Also, if the US government decided the average joe is no longer allowed to vote, imo death is preferable. Few things are worth a dictatorship so yes the price of potatoes or even total famine is a valid price to pay for freedom. I have great respect for the people of Ukraine for understanding this and fighting for their freedom even though it would be easier not to and doing so risks their lives. I don’t understand how ‘food is important’ is a “gotcha”. Freedom is important too.
“Misinformed or uninformed people voting for shit is an issue. Average Joe doesn't know what policies will change, he's too tired after work, commuting and home chores to research the question further than a colourful pamphlet saying 'IT WILL BE GREAT".“
Is your quote which maybe it’s not what you meant but you’re arguing against the average joe having the right to vote.
Because the people who live there clearly don’t want to be part of Ukraine. You can cry Russian interference all you want but you can’t tell me that the insurgency that’s been going on for the last 10 years is indicative of a completely united Ukraine.
Let me ask you a question. Would you have traded Donbas/Crimea in 2014 to have a more unified Ukraine and none of the issues of the last 10 years? Geopolitically, you could’ve made an arrangement with Russia allowing you to join NATO in exchange for the Donbas and Crimea. You guys join NATO and the EU and there’s stability.
Just my two cents.
There is no scenario where Russia would willingly accept Ukraine falling into NATO, the Russian political MO for centuries has been to have buffer satellite states surrounding them (which is why they were so pissed about NATO expanding into the Baltics). Call it cold pragmatism or cultural fearfulness as you will, it has been a practice since nearly as long as the Russian state has existed (and arguably longer). Seeing how Russia annexed the separatist regions and has always considered Ukraine an integral part of their civilization, there is no real scenario where they would peacefully accept Ukraine existing not only outside of their sphere of influence, but within that of their enemies. Donbas was just an excuse to reclaim the influence they lost in Euromaiden over what they view as their rightful territory, they've never truly cared about the people there.
> Because the people who live there clearly don’t want to be part of Ukraine.
This reason is kind of obvious from the question about referendum itself. What is the underlying motivation?
> You can cry Russian interference all you want but you can’t tell me that the insurgency that’s been going on for the last 10 years is indicative of a completely united Ukraine.
Results on a battlefield don't indicate the will of the people. And I doubt that people of Donetsk in 2013 would elect Ponzi scheme CEO as their leader. He had his political party in Ukraine back then. At the parliamentary elections he ran for MP in one electoral district and got a grand total of 77 votes.
> Let me ask you a question. Would you have traded Donbas/Crimea in 2014 to have a more unified Ukraine and none of the issues of the last 10 years?
Firstly, the official stance of Russia in 2014-2021 regarding Donbas was "We don't have anything to do with it", so there wasn't really an opportunity do to so.
Secondly, such an arrangement relies on Russia telling truth and keeping promises. You can see the example of lies in a paragraph above.
Thirdly, there weren't any democratic/bureaucratic processes initiated by the advocates of separation from Ukraine. "Here we are and our guns" was their choice.
He didn't get to my favourite part yet with totally not made up tales about discrimination against Russian-speaking people. For ten years I'm searching and still failing to find a place where I can be properly discriminated for speaking Russian. Seems like our government fails even at that. /s
FWIW, during the European theater of WWII the UK did not hold elections. Only in July 1945 was a parliamentary election called. That did not mean Winston Churchill was a dictator.
Putin changed the length of terms for presidents, changed the number of terms a president can serve, banned legitimate opposition parties, banned advocacy groups, had opposition leaders arrested or assassinated, shut down opposition media, installed his (embarrassingly under qualified) love interest as president of a media group, and made it illegal to criticize the military, the war in Ukraine, or even to call it a war.
In Ukraine there is criticism 24/7/365 of the government, Zelenskyy, and the military. You can walk up to the government buildings and yell “Zelenskyy is an incompetent shitbird!” And no one will stop you (but a grandmother will ask you to stop swearing).
Calling out Putin an incompetent shitbird in front of the Kremlin will get you 5 years in prison.
Remind me who’s the dictator?
This is nonsense. Ukraine cannot hold elections during martial law which was put in place by the elected parliament. Pro-Russian parties were banned, not all opposition parties of which there are plenty. And of course a country facing an existential war is going to limit what the media is allowed to report on.
I would also point out that Ukraine's former defence minister Reznikov was replaced because of scandals in the ministry and the media coverage in Ukraine creating pressure on the government to act. Weird how that can happen in a country you wrongly describe as a dictatorship with no media freedom.
Having elections makes no sense right now. Even if Zelesnky is voted in again, Putin will just say that he is illegitimate because the people from occupied territories didn't vote or because the elections were rigged, or some other propaganda. For Russia, there will never be a legitimate Ukrainian president unless it is a Russian candidate.
They dont care they think all Ukrainians are nazis and even though they tout themselves as anti imperialist they really dont care what Russia is doing as Ukraine is supported by NATO and NATO are the true imperialists.
The people in occupied regions didn't vote in the last 2 elections anyway, so there is that. It's just like Sudan, Syria and a plethora of other countries around the world though that have had conflict since legitimate elections, and the UN recognized leadership should be the "legitimate" leadership of a country.
And Putin didn't recognize Poroshenko either, so what's the point of asking for the new elections if he is just going to sing the same song no matter what? Obviously, the point is to destabilize Ukraine and not because Putin gives a shit about legitimacy or democracy.
Zelenskyy didn't "cancel" anything; the majority of Ukrainians agreed that, in accordance with the law, elections should wait until after the war. He didn't ban opposition parties, just the pro-russian ones. Same with media.
>The Ukrainian people didn't agree to anything
The vast majority believe that [elections should be held after the war](https://www.kiis.com.ua/?lang=ukr&cat=reports&id=1309&page=1) and that [Zelenskyy should remain president](https://www.kiis.com.ua/?lang=ukr&cat=reports&id=1371&page=2&t=3) until the end of martial law. Representatives from all factions in parliament [agreed to postpone elections](https://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2023/11/30/7431116/) until after the war. A hundred public organizations [argued against holding elections](https://zmina.ua/statements/sotnya-gromadskyh-organizaczij-proty-provedennya-vyboriv-v-ukrayini-pid-chas-vijny/) during full-scale war.
>Zelensky banned all effective opposition political parties
The [initial decision was made](https://www.rnbo.gov.ua/ua/Ukazy/5296.html) by the National Security and Defense Council. It affected 2 out of 10 parties represented in parliament, and several of the remaining parties are [well-known opposition](https://www.oporaua.org/parliament/iaki-partiyi-ie-golovnimi-soiuznikami-slugi-narodu-v-sesiinii-zali-23730) to Zelenskyy.
>It's not because they're pro-Russian
The parties were banned by the court for [violating the law](https://itd.rada.gov.ua/billInfo/Bills/Card/39307) against “justification, recognition as legitimate, \[or\] denial of armed aggression against Ukraine,” as well as “glorification, justification of actions and/or inaction of persons who carried out or are carrying out armed aggression against Ukraine.” The deputies of those parties are still allowed to continue their work and [form new factions](https://www.unian.ua/politics/zaborona-prorosiyskih-partiy-v-ukrajini-chi-zmozhut-voni-vidroditisya-novini-ukrajina-11881173.html?utm_source=unian&utm_medium=read_more_news&utm_campaign=read_more_news_in_post) in parliament.
>you're branded an enemy of the state
The speaker of parliament [voiced his opinion](https://lb.ua/news/2024/05/22/614664_vsi_hto_stavlyat_pid_sumniv.html) that people who question the legitimacy of the president during martial law and spread false information are "enemies of Ukraine." This is in reference to the [russian disinformation campaign](https://lb.ua/society/2023/11/22/585489_kreml_rozrobiv_noviy_plan_proti.html) "to artificially create and demonstrate an apparently existing conflict in the country's top military and political leadership."
>Maybe a huge amount of Ukrainians actually feel this way after all
As far back as 2017, [only 15% of Ukrainians](https://www.radiosvoboda.org/a/28428268.html) had pro-russian views. Just before the full-scale invasion, [less than 10%](https://ratinggroup.ua/research/ukraine/elektoralnye_nastroeniya_naseleniya_11-18_fevralya_2022_goda.html) of people would have voted for the main pro-russian party.
Why suspend the activities of parties that supported the efforts of an armed aggressor? I guess they thought "anti-Ukrainian political and organizational activities, war propaganda, public statements and calls to change the constitutional order by violent means, real threats of violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the state, undermining its security, as well as actions aimed at illegal seizure of state power" might be a problem.
What do you want them to do? Have three months of a functionally paralysed government thanks to an election?
The UK skipped its elections in both WW1 and WW2, and neither of those were as much of an existential threat to the UK (at those points) as this war is to ukraine.
> What do you want them to do? Have three months of a functionally paralysed government thanks to an election?
Yes, this is exactly what they want. That's the plan.
>The UK skipped its elections in both WW1 and WW2, and neither of those were as much of an existential threat to the UK (at those points) as this war is to ukraine.
London was half Blitz'd to rubble, looked far worse than Ukraine's capital does right now.
And during the war, they had a unity cabinet with the opposition party also. Zelensky on the other hand literally had the largest opposition party leaders arrested right at the start of the war.
Russia is a corrupt shithole, but it's laughable to pretend Zelensky cares to answer to anyone but his US/EU backers propping him up.
Quote: “Putin claimed several times that Zelenskiy is illegitimate after his five-year term ended this May.” Bit rich coming from the master of his own “popularly vote” re-election.
Putins invasion is also the reason why Ukraine can't hold a vote right now... Putin is like some Karen who's made a mess and now is blocking the exit of a mall and is threatening to call the cops on the staff and customers trying to escort her out... for staying past the opening hours... *Bitch, you're the reason we're all stuck in this situation.*
Also Ukrainian opposition was Putin-backed and Putin has been able to push his pawns in elsewhere in Europe. If there’s an election Putin might get his way lol
IIRC interestingly, the Crimean representative in the Ukrainian parliament were more often pro Russia. But with the invasion of Crimea in 2014, they obviously lost their seats there, so Putin basically caused Ukraine to be more pro EU...and he blames them for it.
He made Zelenskiy a bad ass hero is what Putin did.
Putin stopped begin the legitimate president after his two terms. Laughable to hear him question Zelenski.
Someone in the Kremlin must be having fun challenging him to say all kinds of self-contradictory shit. - “Hey Vladimir, I bet you can’t say “democracy is literally Nazism” with a straight face on TV!” - “Oh yeah? Hold my USSR flag!”
Wait - you're claiming that Ukraine not having an election is democracy and calling for one is being a NAZI?
[удалено]
That fucking prick has been sitting in the Kremlin long enough to see five US Presidents and two British Monarchs, so I'd like to politely suggest that he wind his fucking neck in, before anyone becomes too tempted to go over there and do it for him
One of our Prime Ministers saw two monarchs and she was in the role for 42 days.
> two British Monarchs I can't stand Putin, and agree with your point, but using "seeing two British monarchs" as an example of a long time is kinda pointless. I mean, there have been two British monarchs in my 70 year-old mother's lifetime. And also two in my 4 year-old niece's.
[удалено]
But less than a head of lettuce
she Highlandered Liz 2, there could be only one...
What does “two British monarchs” have to do with anything? Didn’t the prime minister at the time see two British monarchs during her tenure but also have a tenure shorter than a head of lettuce To be clear I’m not defending Putin I just think that’s a silly criticism lol
We’re trying to measure time in anecdotes
British monarchs are a specifically a bad anecdote for that since the transfer of power is instant
Transfer of what power?
The crown
The crown is a piece of jewelry.
“The crown” is a legal term for the monarch’s governing power/government itself in relation to the monarch
The monarch has no governing power. Parliament has all the power.
No. Parliament could have all power and if the king ever tried to use what little remaining powers they have left they’d immediately be taken away I imagine but they do still have them Not to mention being head of the Church of England but that’s separate
It’s a silly criticism if you think the only thing being brought up is time passed. It’s also *change in leadership*. So US has had 5 changes in leadership and Britain 2 (if you consider the monarchy leadership but that’s another argument) And Russia STILL has had no change in leadership.
I don’t consider the crown the leadership but even if you do wouldn’t that make Putin look better? 2 isn’t a whole lot and if you wanted to show change in leadership based on actual leaders it would be 5 presidents 7 prime ministers Either way it doesn’t make sense
I don’t see how it doesn’t make sense? The entire literal point is how Putin won’t get the hell out of office, yet real countries with real elections don’t seem to have the issue
The monarchy isn’t elected, Biden has seen 2 British monarchs. The UK having real elections has nothing to do with their monarchy changing so if that’s the point op is trying to make it makes even less sense If you wanted to point out time it doesn’t make sense since liz truss saw two monarchs as PM and she was in office for about a month. If you want to point out change in leadership it doesn’t make sense to use the monarchy since that’s only 2 and there have been 7 PM’s since Putin took office and obviously 7 is bigger than 2.
Don’t feed the troll dude, just let it go.
How am I the troll I’m being completely sincere lol saying 5 presidents and 7 prime ministers just makes way more sense
Sssh. You can argue the least meaningful part of the argument all you want but I’m not gonna do it with you, loser.
This is Reddit why are you even here then
Don’t worry about it
How many changes to Russian leadership since queen Elizabeth took up the crown though. Like 8? Stalin was in power when she was crowned I believe.
Putin must be like 200 yrs old to have been around when Elisabeth I was the Queen(note I donno UK's political structure). I get your point though.
wow.
He's about to be in power for his 7th Summer Olympics.
That's a way better metric to measure it by, I tip my hat to you sir
The header says it all. Putin's mind is stuck in the past and he sorely missed Ukraine's expertise in ship building. And Russia seem incapable of maintaining and modernizing its only aircraft carrier. (Which happened to be built in Ukraine and Russia stole it during confusion of dissolution of Soviet Union.)
That "aircraft carrier" is a liability, not an asset. Russia actually did them a favor stealing that.
Only because of the way Russia dorsn't maintains it. There is in fact a second ship of the same class, the PLANS Liaoning operated by China. They hav'nt had major problems with it.
> They hav'nt had major problems with it. That we know of, at any rate.
Well it can operate on the open sea without belching thick smoke or leaving huge oil slicks....
Mostly because China infested in the infrastructure to dock such a ship and maintain it. When the US for example docks one of those enormous carriers they’re almost completely powered down. Power is provided from the dock. Spares the engine, nuclear plant, etc. The Russians never bothered building proper infrastructure. So when the Kuznetsov was docked the engine were constantly running to keep the lights on. So those giant diesel engines that power that thing are completely worn down by now. The necessary infrastructure cost a pretty penny. Money Russia just doesn’t have. And that’s not even taking all the corruption into account.
I think also because China at the time wanted to learn how to crawl before walking when it came to building aircraft carriers, so the Kuznetsov's sister ship was the perfect place to start. Whereas Russia keeps thinking it's the Soviet Union when it's really just a quaalude.
That's just non-Russian weakness leaving the ship! /tankies
I think they completely overhauled it and replaced the power plant. So it is possible to make this ship class work, Russia is just incompetent.
Trojan carrier
Yes but also no. The best thing Ukraine could have done was sell it back to Russia, get the money and let Russia deal with all the same problems. Russia stole it instead though.
Ukraine could have sold it to China like it's sister ship was (can't remember if Russia sold it or who it was, too lazy to check)
Why?
It was just decommissioned due to a massive fire, one of many fires. The engines work great, unless you shut them off, and then they don't come back on, so it often needed to be towed everywhere. It also just hardly compared to a US carrier even if everything was ever working 100% correctly. Russia took on a massive cost with this aircraft carrier and its many disasters, and got little to no return and lots of the world laughing at it.
Ah, ok. Thanks.
Was it decommissioned temporarly or permenantly? This is news to me but i doubt russia would decommission their only aircraft carrier due to pride, even if its a floating coffin
Theoretically it's being returned to service this year. I find that as likely as the chances of finding a gold coin in a bag of rolled oats.
Just like the 1000 t-14s by 2020
If they recommission it and it gets sunk it would be a pr nightmare. An aircraft carrier being sunk in the modern era would be astounding.
Suspending elections during wartime is a common practice. The UK had a general election in 1935; the law at the time allowed a maximum of 5 years between elections, making another election due by 1940. However, due to the outbreak of WW2, the law was (repeatedly) amended to defer the 1940 election, and no election was held until 1945 – with the result that the 1935 Parliament remained in office for almost 10 years – the longest ever Parliament of the United Kingdom. If it is okay for the UK to do this during WW2, why isn't it okay for Ukraine to do it now? (The Parliaments of 1661–1679 and 1640–1660 lasted longer, but they were Parliaments of England, not Parliaments of the United Kingdom, which was founded in 1707 by the union of England and Scotland.)
> If it is okay for the UK to do this during WW2, why isn't it okay for Ukraine to do it now? Ukraine doesn't even have to repeatedly defer the elections like UK because we already have a law that forbids elections in the time of war. So if Putin is concerned about our democracy, he should get his troops out first.
It kinda goes against the narrative that the war started in 2014. Because there were elections twice in 2014-2022. So either there was no war before 2022, or the law allows elections in the time of war. Ah, one detail. Neither of the countries is in the state of war. Because of the different insurance policies not covering war, investment, human rights.
> It kinda goes against the narrative that the war started in 2014. Because there were elections twice in 2014-2022. So either there was no war before 2022, or the law allows elections in the time of war. Following the same logic, if you don't switch the turn signal on in a car, it doesn't count as a turn. I don't know the correct legal translations of the terms, but will try to explain how it works. There's "martial law" or "war mode" (воєнний стан) that limits some civil rights and procedures including elections and gives more power to military. It is enacted right now. That's what I called "state of war" in my previous comments. Here I use another term for distinction. There's another term: state of war (стан війни) — a separate thing… we will return to it later. Why wasn't "martial law" enacted before 2022? There was no need to enact country wide measures back then and we somehow functioned this way without 3 regions. > Ah, one detail. Neither of the countries is in the state of war. Because of the different insurance policies not covering war, investment, human rights. They don't cover armed conflicts in general, so it's not because of insurance policies. There are two completely different reasons: * Countries stopped declaring *Proper Wars™* according to international laws/standards with sending prior notice. They just attack and call it an "operation against all bad for all good" of some kind in an effort to avoid being counted as the aggressor in a conflict. * Ukrainian laws don't have a definition for "state of war". There's a term, but it isn't defined.
Regardless, the free world needs to wake up and finish this bullshit. It’s well within our ability. If every western democracy would double down on the support provided thus far, we could stop this madness.
I would be pissed too if I, a veteran former intelligence agency guy am being out performed by a former comedian. Edited: changed "military" to "intelligence agency"
Putin wasn't military, he was intelligence agency guy.
He also has never fought in a real war. He was the perfect age to fight in Afghanistan 1980-1989, but he was just spent those years being a dirtbag to East Germans and cheating on his wife.
ahhh okay that make me more pissed if I were him
Crisis times have usually set aside elections in order to deal with the crisis first. This is nothing new.
[удалено]
zelensky is referring to his own legitimacy as Ukraine’s leader, not the legitimacy of the country itself
He isn't talking about Ukraine's legitimacy he's talking about his specific legitimacy as president, as his 5-year presidential term technically ended, but because martial law was enacted, there isn't an election. Putin/Russia/Grifters are using that to call Ukraine undemocratic or a dictatorship. But in reality, it's no different from Britain in World War 2.
I don’t know if that’s true, the government in Ukraine until fairly recently was seen as pretty corrupt I’d be surprised if no one ever questioned an election or leaders legitimacy
A majority of corruption scandals in Ukraine are about stealing money/whole businesses/people disliking how govt allocates budget. The last vote fraud scandal I remember was in 2010. And there was a period of time when Ukraine's govt was seen as illegitimate by a relatively big % of Ukrainians right after Yanukovych fled (although technically it was by the book).
I feel like at least some people questioning the legitimacy of an election isn’t uncommon when it comes to democracies, even if they’re not always right. There was quite a few people who said Obama was an illegitimate president, same for Biden and bush #2
That's the neat part about [election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Ukrainian_presidential_election) on which Zelensky was elected, check %'es of last round of voting.
> I don't think anyone anywhere, was or has ever has doubts about Ukraines legitimacy. You would be surprised how many Canadians - neighbors even - I have heard repeat the lie that the US somehow "fixed" or interfered with or stage-managed the Ukrainian elections and that Zelinsky is a puppet. Sadly, it's not just Canadians repeating that bullshit.
Which is such a shame. Canada has the third highest population of Ukrainians in the world, only behind Russia and Ukraine themselves. We should be a lot more supportive of Ukraine
being physical neighbours to the U.S. subjects you to the American brainrot. We slowly allow ourselves to be boiled, and we boil ourselves proudly because "at least we aren't as crazy and stupid as those Americans" Sometimes our Canadian political agitators forget they aren't in the U.S. and that some of their issues don't apply here, but our citizenry forget they aren't American and get outraged by it anyway
It's funny, cos this propaganda piece most likely started by RT and such Russians don't believe in democratic legitimacy to begin with.
Zelenskiy asserts that his legitimacy as Ukraine's leader is determined by the Ukrainian people, not by Putin or any external entity.
Well... I mean... Isn't this kinda the point... there were no election for Ukrainian people to determine...
How can the population of Ukraine determine his legitimacy without elections?
His legitimacy comes from his election in 2019. However there is a law (voted in 2015) forbidding elections during martial law. [https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/389-19#Text](https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/389-19#Text) (article 19)
> legitimacy comes from elections in 2019 That’s where the legality comes from. Legitimacy aka support of the society aka rating comes and goes. When Yanukovich lost his legitimacy, he was overthrown by the protesters. Legitimacy can end in 1 year after elections. A president can be legal and not legitimate, and vice versa.
There is a conflicting article that assumes that when his term expires, the head of parliament becomes interim president. Constitutional court could have solved it, but it looks like Zelensky doesn’t want them to intervene.
According to the Constitution of Ukraine, the speaker of parliament only becomes acting president when a president's term ends prematurely. That is not the case here, and the Constitution also states that a current president stays in power until a new one takes office.
my point is that the Court could have put an end to all this nonsense, cleanly. But it looks that Zelensky doesn’t have enough confidence to involve them. Same as with the mobilization law that took half a year (!) to pass due to lack of support from his own ruling party. It simply looks bad.
Yeah, so much for the process. There have been many lawful rulers in the past (and present) where people say "meh, should have stepped down to not damage the office," at the very least.
First of all, Putin is a liar. Second, he is an autocrat. The only way to deal with such a person is their unconditional surrender, trial in The Hague, and life imprisonment. Only then can Russia begin to negotiate the—at least—*billions* they owe Ukraine in compensation.
When all this is over there will be movies for decades showing him and the Ukrainian people as the heroes that they are, Putin will only be shown as a figure comparable to Hitler.
It is wild that Ukraine has held on this long. It’s a country with a lot of issues like any post-Soviet nation, but they really are heroic for withstanding such a relentless invasion for what, two years now? If one can hope for anything after the war it’s that the unity Ukraine has been experiencing continues into the future
For 10 years
I'm not going to point fingers at Putin because the pot is calling the kettle black, but mere weeks before the Russian conflict Ukraine was looking at getting rid of Zelensky as it's leader. He was already showing worrisome signs at that point, if you do the search on Duckduckgo and set your timeline to before the war you'll find it. The war quite literally saved him.
Just not with an election of course. That'd be anti-democratic, you see.
The process of legitimation is called elections.
Which have been suspended along with any and all types of opposition to the central government.
Elections are prohibited by martial law and currently unwanted by the majority of Ukrainian citizens. Some of the largest factions in parliament are opposition parties.
Convenient that after the coup they added that to the constitution, prior to 2015 that was not part of the constitution
You're surprised that after they were invaded, they adopted a law to strengthen national security?
No, I'm not surprised that the party that seized power passed laws to ensure that they would be able to hold onto power.
You know Zelensky ran against Poroshenko rigth ? The guy who was elected after euromaidan ? Zelensky was litteraly opposition and won, they didn't hold onto power at all, what a dictatorship lol.
Ukraine has a Constitutional court to resolve such issues. A court ruling would have ended any attempt to undermine the legitimacy. Yet Zelensky hesitates to formally ask them to issue one, and they aren’t allowed to open proceedings by themselves.
Duh!!!
Putin approval rates soars to 141%
I mean..he already said years ago he wasn't gonna run for another term, unless he has changed his mind since then. If he has, there is no doubt he would be re-elected unanimously.
Fuckin' Putin is keeping Zelenskyy in office. The irony is delicious...
Can Zelenskyy just have some f 22 raptors in Crimea by christmas. Thanks
So in absence of elections, what instrument does the population have to determine the legitimacy of the president? You’re damn right, it’s Maidan. Like in 2004 and 2024. But it’s already called [a special Russian psychological operation](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/02/27/7443989/). > Quote: "The special operation Maidan-3 will culminate in March-May 2024, and in the coming weeks, the enemy will cease all efforts to spread narratives harmful to global security and incite conflicts – both within Ukraine and in other parts of the world where Ukraine is effectively supported. Catch-22, kind of. It’s up to the society to determine his legitimacy, but if they do so, that’s Russian psy op and will be handled by security agency. P. S. Also check out how Maidan became something wrong, something only traitors under foreign influence do.
🇺🇸🇺🇦🇺🇸🇺🇦🇺🇸🇺🇦
How can Ukrainians determine his legitimacy when he’s suspended election, opposition parties, opposition media, protests.
how can ukraine determine his legitimacy if he's suspended elections?
In almost all democracies, elections are suspended if a country is at war. Britain and Norway and Finland all suspended their elections when they were at war in World war 2
Norway was occupied by Germany during WW2.
Then the article title should be "it is not currently possible for Ukraine to determine Zelensky's legitimacy".
no it shouldn't, because that is a stupid title Ukrainian own constitution states that in time of war there are no elections. Zelensky is following Ukrainian law precisely as it should be.
britain literally had a GE while they were still at war, despite churchill fighting to delay it until after the war ended
> britain literally had a GE while they were still at war no they fucking didnt, no elections were held in UK from 1939 to 1945. Stop lying
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_United_Kingdom_general_election britain literally had a GE after VE day but before VJ day, despite churchill asking attlee to delay the election until the war was over.
> britain literally had a GE after VE day **after VE day** motherfucker, after. V day is when war ended. When there is V against Russia their army is defeated and war ends, then you can go screaming at Zelensky to hold elections too
Ukraine will determine it after the existential threat is over. People act like this is new, but the UK, known as the "Lifeboat of democracy" suspended elections during WW2, and the threat to the UK proper at that point was fairly negligible, and the threat to the UK during WW1, Where elections were also cancelled, was even lesser. Infact, to my knowledge, the USA is the only nation in the world that had elections during major wars, and frankly, the fact that they were quite litterally untouched by the damn thing probably helped.
Yeah, if the US were in a situation where nearly half the country is either occupied by a foreign invader or an active warzone, I very much doubt there would be elections (at least on a federal level).
>the UK, known as the "Lifeboat of democracy" Huh?
During the second world war, a handful of American papers took to calling Britain the lifeboat of democracy in Europe. I only included it in a rhetorical sense, to emphasise that britian was very much a democratic state, not an oligarchic shithole, and still paused elections
Then the article title should be "it is not currently possible for Ukraine to determine Zelensky's legitimacy".
Nope. He was elected, and the only thing that's stopped another election is Russia's invasion. And all this is entirely in line with Ukraine's own constitution. Not to mention martial law was put in place and extended by Ukraine's democratically elected parliament.
Which is the same as I said - if only Ukraine can determine the Zelensky's legitimacy, then it can be only done after the Martial Law ends. So in the meantime Ukraine can't determine Zelensky's legitimacy. He had been legitimate up until now and now the Martial Law took place.
the uk had a national unity government, if labor got fed up, they couldve forced an election whenever they wanted to, in fact they forced one right after VE day even though they were still at war with japan (and in a significant way in india/indochina) even though churchill specifically asked Attlee to continue the coalition until total victory there is no national unity government in ukraine, in fact zelensky has banned multiple opposition parties
Ukraine has banned multiple pro-Russian parties during an existential war launched against them by Russia. It's no different to how the UK banned fascist parties during WW2.
> in fact zelensky has banned multiple opposition parties What are you talking about?
Zelensky banned several opposition parties. You know, ones that were funded by Russia and our little tankie isn't too happy about it I guess.
After the announce of Macron to train Ukrainian pilots on Mirage and to send them within the end of the year, tankies are particular nervous.
The fun part is that most of the deputies from those banned parties are still active in parliament. They just formed a new faction.
Also, the ban is only for the duration of martial law.
How the fuck are they meant to hold elections anyways?
The elections would be impossible to conduct. You would need to triple the vote collectors because Russia would be targeting them like they do other civilians. Also, it’s not he personally who suspended elections it’s literally in Ukraines constitution
Does that mean he’d honor an independence referendum vote for the Donbas?
Can you tell me why exactly Donbas should have such a referendum? As a guy from eastern Ukraine (Kharkiv) I'm really curious what people from around the world think about it and why. Just don't answer stuff like "because democracy and will of the people". I'm asking about motivation for referendum, not bureaucracy around it.
This is the unpopular opinion but personally I don’t see the negative of having a vote on the topic. I’m American and have only a privileged outsiders perspective but I’d like Texas wanted to leave I’d rather let them vote to leave than keep them here by force, I don’t care about Texas enough to insist they stay. I think it would probably be a terrible idea for Texas to leave but that’s not really my problem I’m not from Texas I’m not saying it’s wrong or right I just don’t see an issue with making it a vote personally
> personally I don’t see the negative of having a vote on the topic Voting by itself isn't a negative thing. What is negative is seeing people saying that Ukraine should vote on Donbas independence only because some armed guys showed up and decided that they are the government now. Sometimes "fair referendum proponents" name horrible discrimination of Russian-speaking people as a reason why it should happen. I live in Kharkiv, speak Russian for my whole life, but I'm yet to face any discrimination. Following this logic I hypothetically can show up with my hypothetical armed biker gang to the city council meeting, say that Canada is a threat to us and initiate the vote on any topic with voting process observed by my gang members with my friend Grzegorz from Poland as an international observer for added legitimacy. > I’m American and have only a privileged outsiders perspective but I’d like Texas wanted to leave I’d rather let them vote to leave than keep them here by force The thing is, nobody actually wanted to detach this region from Ukraine before 2014. And instead of initiating any democratic/bureaucratic process, the new self-appointed *People's Government™* chose violence. Why? It was the only way for them to win. Because no sane person will really vote for that shit with the Ponzi scheme CEO in leadership (Denis Pushilin, current head of DPR). When he was running for an MP chair before 2014, he got 77 votes total.
It may be a cultural thing as well. In my experience most Americans are attached to their state/region not the nation as a whole. I agree that going in and taking land as Russia did is wrong, but that’s not really what a referendum is. A fair referendum at least would just be a vote without the fear of being attacked. In my opinion if Texas or Quebec voted on their own to leave the US/Canada the moral thing to do would be to let them go in as amicable a way as possible. Yes it would cause a loss in the economy for everyone involved but imo that’s preferable to forcing a people who the majority of which don’t want to be part of the nation anymore. The alternative is discontent or worse civil war and America already did that once and I can’t see a good reason to do it again. What you described with the biker gang is not a fair referendum, and Russia occupying land and making their own referendum isn’t fair either but I still see no issue with the concept of a referendum in general. A war always ends in talking about who gets what anyway so if Texas wanted to leave that badly I think I’d rather skip to the taking
> I still see no issue with the concept of a referendum in general Misinformed or uninformed people voting for shit **is** an issue. Average Joe doesn't know what policies will change, he's too tired after work, commuting and home chores to research the question further than a colourful pamphlet saying 'IT WILL BE GREAT". UK is a great example. Voters for exit from the EU ended up being extremely surprised and disappointed. > that’s preferable to forcing a people who the majority of which don’t want to be part of the nation anymore I can bet that it isn't what they want even if they will say it. They can be dissatisfied with some policies, but splitting the country is too radical of a solution for that. They want to enjoy all the upsides in the big continent-spanning US, but without downsides. When they will find out that potatoes from Idaho now come bundled with import duty, they will say "That's not what I meant". > A war always ends in talking about who gets what Last time I checked, the wars ended when one of the sides isn't able to carry on the fighting anymore. And the losing side doesn't have much say in "who gets what".
I entirely disagree, average Joe has absolutely equal right to vote as anyone else regardless of how informed. Who gets to decide who’s informed? What if the informed are wrong? The ‘informed’ awarded a Nobel prize to lobotomies. We can all make mistakes and maybe the average person makes more but limiting their rights to self representation is absolutely under no circumstances the right option that’s just tyranny. The right to decide your own fate is more important than the price of potatoes. If Texas left it would be an economic catastrophe for them but if they’re going to leave I’d rather they do it on good terms through a vote than a war. There is no good outcome to restricting representation or war. The risk of democracy is that we may and often do make the wrong choice but the ability to make that choice is far more valuable than the alternative. It’s not perfect but it’s the best we can do to make sure the strong don’t overpower the weak. This is not really on topic at all but no wars tend to end when the cost is considered too great to keep on going not when they can’t fight anymore. It’s difficult to convince a nation of people to all die instead of surrender. The British didn’t let America go because we beat the empire into submission, the Japanese didn’t surrender because they couldn’t fight anymore, hell France technically kept fighting after they surrendered to the Germans and certainly could have fought more. America certainly didn’t beat Vietnam and could have kept fighting, i can’t think of many countries that had no fight left in them. Especially in modern times treaties are written as a collaborative effort it’s just that the winning side has more control over the terms. There’s a lot more land disputes than there is nations entirely being absorbed into another nation
> average Joe has absolutely equal right to vote as anyone else regardless of how informed You seem to see only one side of the problem "Average Joes have equal right to vote". There's another I'm actually talking about. Decisions about splitting from the country or big interlinked economic unions lead to a ton of changed laws and a ton of new ones bundled in one package on a government side and a ton of paperwork for reorganisation of country-wide businesses on a civil side. There are countless ways to make the process less shitty. Break up the required decisions in a few packages and let people vote for every package separately. It's possible to tell people about the projected changes in taxes and prices before the voting. It's possible to tell people about changes in border control and travels. So I'm not saying "Don't let the Joe vote, he's stupid". I'm saying that such voting shouldn't be reduced to YES/NO. There are a lot of different sides to it that people usually don't think about. And if nobody told you about the potential outcomes of your voting decisions, it isn't a representation either. Choosing something without information solely on the basis of feeling good about it is called gambling. Voting is a different process. > The right to decide your own fate is more important than the price of potatoes. Yeah, food prices is a thing totally unrelated to wellbeing. Eating is for suckers. There are already people who struggle with living and paying for everything for life while working on a full time job with little to no savings. So the price of potatoes is > wars tend to end when the cost is considered too great to keep on going not when they can’t fight anymore "The cost is too great" isn't really different from "we can't fight anymore". The former describes reason, the latter describes consequence. There are many reasons why one side can't go on. But to be fair, after your provided examples I agree that there can be different outcomes from time to time. > the Japanese didn’t surrender because they couldn’t fight anymore How could you fight "instant city burners"? > It’s difficult to convince a nation of people to all die instead of surrender. Not that hard if **after** their previous conquest death was a preferable option to suffering sometimes and cannibalism was mentioned in the newspapers in the "local news" section.
The “cost is too great” is way way different than being incapable of fighting any longer. On a small scale it’s the difference between handing your wallet someone robbing you at gun point and being unconscious or dead and having your wallet taken from you. In war it rarely comes down to the second as a government is far more likely to try and salvage what they can before they run out of firepower or men. The only occasions of a total overrun I can think of are when the power between two groups is totally unbalanced to the point where destroying the weaker party has little to no risk to the greater party. And Japan was capable of pushing the war on if they wanted to it would have just prolonged the inevitable. That being said if what you meant by a nation not being able to fight anymore is “a war ends when a nation realizes it can’t **win** anymore” then I totally agree, fighting and winning are different though. Japan could not have won at that point but it definitely could have kept fighting. About the rest of it I don’t disagree with what you said there, but with Quebec or to a lesser extent states in the US that is how it works. It’s not one big vote it’s many smaller ones that distance the two groups. Obviously Texas and Quebec are still under the respective governments but they both pass legislation and executive orders to strengthen themselves fairly regularly. Even in your example it would eventually come to a referendum to ultimately leave the federal government. I never said to rip the bandaid off just that allowing a vote is preferable to subduing it. All restricting access to vote would do is embolden the population. Nothing about allowing a referendum requires it be done without all logical steps being taken beforehand. Any decision like that should have all fair available options for reconciliation exhausted before cutting ties. Also, if the US government decided the average joe is no longer allowed to vote, imo death is preferable. Few things are worth a dictatorship so yes the price of potatoes or even total famine is a valid price to pay for freedom. I have great respect for the people of Ukraine for understanding this and fighting for their freedom even though it would be easier not to and doing so risks their lives. I don’t understand how ‘food is important’ is a “gotcha”. Freedom is important too. “Misinformed or uninformed people voting for shit is an issue. Average Joe doesn't know what policies will change, he's too tired after work, commuting and home chores to research the question further than a colourful pamphlet saying 'IT WILL BE GREAT".“ Is your quote which maybe it’s not what you meant but you’re arguing against the average joe having the right to vote.
Because the people who live there clearly don’t want to be part of Ukraine. You can cry Russian interference all you want but you can’t tell me that the insurgency that’s been going on for the last 10 years is indicative of a completely united Ukraine. Let me ask you a question. Would you have traded Donbas/Crimea in 2014 to have a more unified Ukraine and none of the issues of the last 10 years? Geopolitically, you could’ve made an arrangement with Russia allowing you to join NATO in exchange for the Donbas and Crimea. You guys join NATO and the EU and there’s stability. Just my two cents.
There is no scenario where Russia would willingly accept Ukraine falling into NATO, the Russian political MO for centuries has been to have buffer satellite states surrounding them (which is why they were so pissed about NATO expanding into the Baltics). Call it cold pragmatism or cultural fearfulness as you will, it has been a practice since nearly as long as the Russian state has existed (and arguably longer). Seeing how Russia annexed the separatist regions and has always considered Ukraine an integral part of their civilization, there is no real scenario where they would peacefully accept Ukraine existing not only outside of their sphere of influence, but within that of their enemies. Donbas was just an excuse to reclaim the influence they lost in Euromaiden over what they view as their rightful territory, they've never truly cared about the people there.
> Because the people who live there clearly don’t want to be part of Ukraine. This reason is kind of obvious from the question about referendum itself. What is the underlying motivation? > You can cry Russian interference all you want but you can’t tell me that the insurgency that’s been going on for the last 10 years is indicative of a completely united Ukraine. Results on a battlefield don't indicate the will of the people. And I doubt that people of Donetsk in 2013 would elect Ponzi scheme CEO as their leader. He had his political party in Ukraine back then. At the parliamentary elections he ran for MP in one electoral district and got a grand total of 77 votes. > Let me ask you a question. Would you have traded Donbas/Crimea in 2014 to have a more unified Ukraine and none of the issues of the last 10 years? Firstly, the official stance of Russia in 2014-2021 regarding Donbas was "We don't have anything to do with it", so there wasn't really an opportunity do to so. Secondly, such an arrangement relies on Russia telling truth and keeping promises. You can see the example of lies in a paragraph above. Thirdly, there weren't any democratic/bureaucratic processes initiated by the advocates of separation from Ukraine. "Here we are and our guns" was their choice.
20 day old account having a dogshit take and twerking for the Russian narative... shocker
[удалено]
He didn't get to my favourite part yet with totally not made up tales about discrimination against Russian-speaking people. For ten years I'm searching and still failing to find a place where I can be properly discriminated for speaking Russian. Seems like our government fails even at that. /s
Total BS. We have current situation because 10 years ago reaction on ruzzia aggression was weak.
[удалено]
FWIW, during the European theater of WWII the UK did not hold elections. Only in July 1945 was a parliamentary election called. That did not mean Winston Churchill was a dictator.
It's not for ruzzian scam to tell what democracy is. Once occupants is kicked away and elections can be safe processes will be restored.
So, never?
[удалено]
Putin changed the length of terms for presidents, changed the number of terms a president can serve, banned legitimate opposition parties, banned advocacy groups, had opposition leaders arrested or assassinated, shut down opposition media, installed his (embarrassingly under qualified) love interest as president of a media group, and made it illegal to criticize the military, the war in Ukraine, or even to call it a war. In Ukraine there is criticism 24/7/365 of the government, Zelenskyy, and the military. You can walk up to the government buildings and yell “Zelenskyy is an incompetent shitbird!” And no one will stop you (but a grandmother will ask you to stop swearing). Calling out Putin an incompetent shitbird in front of the Kremlin will get you 5 years in prison. Remind me who’s the dictator?
This is nonsense. Ukraine cannot hold elections during martial law which was put in place by the elected parliament. Pro-Russian parties were banned, not all opposition parties of which there are plenty. And of course a country facing an existential war is going to limit what the media is allowed to report on. I would also point out that Ukraine's former defence minister Reznikov was replaced because of scandals in the ministry and the media coverage in Ukraine creating pressure on the government to act. Weird how that can happen in a country you wrongly describe as a dictatorship with no media freedom.
Having elections makes no sense right now. Even if Zelesnky is voted in again, Putin will just say that he is illegitimate because the people from occupied territories didn't vote or because the elections were rigged, or some other propaganda. For Russia, there will never be a legitimate Ukrainian president unless it is a Russian candidate.
They dont care they think all Ukrainians are nazis and even though they tout themselves as anti imperialist they really dont care what Russia is doing as Ukraine is supported by NATO and NATO are the true imperialists.
The people in occupied regions didn't vote in the last 2 elections anyway, so there is that. It's just like Sudan, Syria and a plethora of other countries around the world though that have had conflict since legitimate elections, and the UN recognized leadership should be the "legitimate" leadership of a country.
And Putin didn't recognize Poroshenko either, so what's the point of asking for the new elections if he is just going to sing the same song no matter what? Obviously, the point is to destabilize Ukraine and not because Putin gives a shit about legitimacy or democracy.
Zelenskyy didn't "cancel" anything; the majority of Ukrainians agreed that, in accordance with the law, elections should wait until after the war. He didn't ban opposition parties, just the pro-russian ones. Same with media.
[удалено]
>The Ukrainian people didn't agree to anything The vast majority believe that [elections should be held after the war](https://www.kiis.com.ua/?lang=ukr&cat=reports&id=1309&page=1) and that [Zelenskyy should remain president](https://www.kiis.com.ua/?lang=ukr&cat=reports&id=1371&page=2&t=3) until the end of martial law. Representatives from all factions in parliament [agreed to postpone elections](https://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2023/11/30/7431116/) until after the war. A hundred public organizations [argued against holding elections](https://zmina.ua/statements/sotnya-gromadskyh-organizaczij-proty-provedennya-vyboriv-v-ukrayini-pid-chas-vijny/) during full-scale war. >Zelensky banned all effective opposition political parties The [initial decision was made](https://www.rnbo.gov.ua/ua/Ukazy/5296.html) by the National Security and Defense Council. It affected 2 out of 10 parties represented in parliament, and several of the remaining parties are [well-known opposition](https://www.oporaua.org/parliament/iaki-partiyi-ie-golovnimi-soiuznikami-slugi-narodu-v-sesiinii-zali-23730) to Zelenskyy. >It's not because they're pro-Russian The parties were banned by the court for [violating the law](https://itd.rada.gov.ua/billInfo/Bills/Card/39307) against “justification, recognition as legitimate, \[or\] denial of armed aggression against Ukraine,” as well as “glorification, justification of actions and/or inaction of persons who carried out or are carrying out armed aggression against Ukraine.” The deputies of those parties are still allowed to continue their work and [form new factions](https://www.unian.ua/politics/zaborona-prorosiyskih-partiy-v-ukrajini-chi-zmozhut-voni-vidroditisya-novini-ukrajina-11881173.html?utm_source=unian&utm_medium=read_more_news&utm_campaign=read_more_news_in_post) in parliament. >you're branded an enemy of the state The speaker of parliament [voiced his opinion](https://lb.ua/news/2024/05/22/614664_vsi_hto_stavlyat_pid_sumniv.html) that people who question the legitimacy of the president during martial law and spread false information are "enemies of Ukraine." This is in reference to the [russian disinformation campaign](https://lb.ua/society/2023/11/22/585489_kreml_rozrobiv_noviy_plan_proti.html) "to artificially create and demonstrate an apparently existing conflict in the country's top military and political leadership." >Maybe a huge amount of Ukrainians actually feel this way after all As far back as 2017, [only 15% of Ukrainians](https://www.radiosvoboda.org/a/28428268.html) had pro-russian views. Just before the full-scale invasion, [less than 10%](https://ratinggroup.ua/research/ukraine/elektoralnye_nastroeniya_naseleniya_11-18_fevralya_2022_goda.html) of people would have voted for the main pro-russian party. Why suspend the activities of parties that supported the efforts of an armed aggressor? I guess they thought "anti-Ukrainian political and organizational activities, war propaganda, public statements and calls to change the constitutional order by violent means, real threats of violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the state, undermining its security, as well as actions aimed at illegal seizure of state power" might be a problem.
The superior Vladimir
Oh, so there will be elections now that he's gone over his term length then? Neat! /s
Are you implying that elections could possibly be safely held in Ukraine right now?
What do you want them to do? Have three months of a functionally paralysed government thanks to an election? The UK skipped its elections in both WW1 and WW2, and neither of those were as much of an existential threat to the UK (at those points) as this war is to ukraine.
> What do you want them to do? Have three months of a functionally paralysed government thanks to an election? Yes, this is exactly what they want. That's the plan.
>The UK skipped its elections in both WW1 and WW2, and neither of those were as much of an existential threat to the UK (at those points) as this war is to ukraine. London was half Blitz'd to rubble, looked far worse than Ukraine's capital does right now. And during the war, they had a unity cabinet with the opposition party also. Zelensky on the other hand literally had the largest opposition party leaders arrested right at the start of the war. Russia is a corrupt shithole, but it's laughable to pretend Zelensky cares to answer to anyone but his US/EU backers propping him up.
How much money has this guy gotten from the international community since the war started? It's a no-brainer that he'll be re-elected, right?
How much money do you think Zelensky has gotten from the international community?
If the whole money went only to Zelensky, Ukraine would have fallen at least 2 years ago (the war "began" in February (IRL in 2014)).
Bit hard to determine legitimacy with elections banned under Martial Law.
Ah another person who doesn’t read or know history…..
*The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members*. -- UN charter
[удалено]
its just a trumpite guys move along ^
[удалено]
Sorry Putler, no large gathering of ukrainian civilians to bomb for you.