21
Zelensky refuses to hold elections in wartime Ukraine
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2023
21 points (54.6% liked)
World News
32282 readers
691 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I don't think this is unreasonable. Citizens in occupied territory won't be able to vote and elections would just add pressure to a country that's fighting a major conflict on its own soil.
However I would expect Zelensky to hold free and fair elections as soon as the conflict ends, especially if he wants Ukraine to be part of the EU and eventually NATO
Not to mention that Russia would absolutely bomb voting centers.
You're confused with the country bombing hospitals right now.
And then claim Ukraine did it.
Zelensky has openly declared many times that the war would not end until Crimea (a territory Ukraine did not control when Zelensky was elected) was taken back, despite there being no hope of such a victory for the Ukrainian government. He has created a set of parameters where, if he is consistent with what he says, there will never be an election for as long as he survives.
For someone who was elected on the basis of promising to take a more conciliatory stance to the breakaway states, perhaps to avoid exactly the conflict he lead Ukraine into, this shit cannot be reasonable.
Pressure to do what?
As someone who lives in a country that's been in more or less continuous conflict since I was born I would be pretty upset if the leadership here decided elections couldn't happen during wartime.
Zelensky wasn't elected to be a wartime leader; his mandate from the public was to do the opposite. Perhaps he has won over some citizens during the conflict, but he owes it to the people of Ukraine to give them the choice to pursue peace.
I don't even understand what the stakes are from his perspective, he's already banned like a dozen political parties and nobody cares, what do you have to fear holding an election when you're allowed to ban people who oppose you? It's a free rubber stamp basically, you get democracy points and to renew your mandate by being the only legal option, it's a win win.
The numbers of votes cast will be pretty grim
How would that peace negotiation go with a country like Russia?
What kind of question is that? No one has even tried.
Yes, but what should they expect? what would Russia most likely ask for, for the war to end?
How the fuck am I supposed to know since no one has even tried.
Let me give you a hint: Why did Russia start the war according to Russia and to Ukraine?
This one is really simple.
Bruh the Ukrainian government started it in 2014 when they started shelling their own civilians.
First of all do you have a source for the shelling claim never heard of it, but the other claim of unfair treatment and prosecution of Russians in Donetsk and Luhansk means that Russia wants to at least take control of those areas. And the claims that Ukraine is run by neo-nazis means that Russia may want to take control of Ukraine as a whole.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/24/ukraine-unguided-rockets-killing-civilians
OK, that's horrible. But yeah, Russia isn't looking for peace if it doesn't involve taking control over a large area of Ukraine.
Borders are constructs and as history shows they change whether its justifiable or not.
Yes, and that's not in the best interest of Ukraine. So Ukraine doesn't want to lose all of that territory, but Russia wants to gain it, and Ukraine thinks it is capable of defending it's territory, while Russia thinks that it's capable of defeating them.
That's how you get a war. To get peace negotiations you need one of, or both of the nations to decide that they've had enough casualties or other loses, and that they're ready to settle down for less. Neither of them have decided that.
Not surprised that an .ee doesn't find "literal fascism" unreasonable.
I thought the entire reason that the white western world has been pouring untold amounts of money and resources into this small part of the world was to uphold and protect democracy? Funny how quickly that excuse just vaporizes the absolute second it's not convenient anymore.
Dare I google into the unknown and ask the void what the hell is a hexbear?
@HuddaBudda it's a tankie instance. It's been around since ChapoTraphouse got banned from reddit. It has a culture of ... argumentative engagement. Several of the big instances have defederated it due to allegations of brigading etc.
They love China, love Russia, and all of their past, current and yet to be supreme leaders. They like the taste of military boot leather. Some are trolls some are a little more "leftist" than the rest of Lemmy, but most are tankies.
Id expect a take like this from a manjaro user
Thanks. You forgot to mention what OS you're using BTW.
LFS
Oh, a professional time waster. That explains a lot.
lol
Stop with the fucking crying about instance. I love hexbears but this behavior is super cringe.
Who's crying? I think it's funny, federation has been fantastic amounts of fun. Being part of an echo chamber of correct ideas gets boring
You literally just equated some lamer with a bad take with the entire instance which is exactly what they do with hexbear
tbf there are members on that instance and yours who have said essentially the same thing about their own instances. I assume they stay for the slop associated with broader federation (which I don't begrudge).
Obviously. But to equate an entire instance with some bad take liberals is just a bad move overall and will only alienate possible allies.
This is one of those "not all men" "not all white people" things. It's common practice to speak in generalization about groups that have a general consensus of chauvinism (whether demographics, organization members, or whatever). One thing that is good about this is that it encourages the relative outliers to not identify with the group (e.g. you can't 'opt out' of being white, but you can stop personally self-identifying with the social formation of whiteness). When a .ee or .ml user disparages their instance, they are not disparaging themselves or literally every single person in it (despite the denotative meaning of the words they use) but are pointing to a broad and explicit consensus around certain views and traits. Incidentally, there are groups that you can opt out of, whether it's being a member of a bourgeois-democratic party ("not all Liberals") or something more trivial, like being a user on a neoliberal instance. I think it's better to stay on one's instance and try to change it, but it's worth noting for the sake of completeness, and there are some instances that are not worth trying to change except to kill, like .world
We can language police all day long, but this line is old-hat and there's little reason to believe any wording would be received as "correct" and "properly inoffensive" except for silence. A "possible ally" who is alienated by something this trivial wasn't ready to be an ally anyway.
Good points thanks for the thoughtful reply.
Correct, but I wasn't crying about it. Just pointing it out. Do you think that climate scientists who look at the overwhelming amount of data in favor of global climate change are "crying" about it when they publish their research?
You're not a climate scientist and this comment section isn't some scientific journal.
I also love that the thing you're bent out of shape about is that I'm posting something that is at worst mildly annoying to you in a comment section, rather than the fact that Ukraine's president announced that he's pulling the mask off and just implementing full on fascism in Ukraine.
Rather telling isn't it.
You obviously haven't read my other comments in this thread. I only replied toyours with shade becuae of the cringe
Fascism:
Being cringe on a website:
Ugotme
I thought posting was praxis
It is, that's why I'm still posting
Touche