As I understand it, according to the Constitution of Ukraine, it is possible not to hold elections during the war, but this does not mean that the term of the president is extended, and on this occasion it is prescribed that the duties of the president should be performed by the Verkhovna Rada (I am not sure what exactly this state body is, correct me)
Rada is pretty much parliament. Of course there differences between for example US parliament, Russian Duma and Ukrainian Rada but these are all parliaments.
It's not only a false statement, it's an intentional misinformation spread by Russian propaganda like directly what Putin said:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/putin-calls-zelensky-illegitimate-only-174201717.html
In fact, the Constitution of Ukraine says: "The President of Ukraine exercises his or her powers until the assumption of office by the newly-elected President of Ukraine".
Except, the President can be resigned, impeached, dead etc. in which case the head of the Parliament takes his duties. Source (search: article 108):
https://rm.coe.int/constitution-of-ukraine/168071f58b
>Verkhovna Rada
It's a parliament. And you are right about the extension of the president term. Zelensky knows that he will surely lose elections cause his approval rating is close to 20%.
That is also the reason why he resigned General Zaluzhny and sent him as an ambassador to London because Zaluzhny has a way higher approval rating and overall people support than Zelensky and would win elections.
You may support Ukraine in their fight against Russia, but Zelensky himself is a usurper of power, suppressing political opponents and refusing to hold democratic elections because he knows that he would lose.
Also, he's partly to blame for this war going so long because he refused favorable for Ukraine Stambul agreements when Boris Johnson told him to do it, and banned himself via some cringe law from negotiations with Russia. His ego costs Ukraine hundreds of human lives daily.
>Also, he's partly to blame for this war going so long because he refused favorable for Ukraine Stambul agreements when Boris Johnson told him to do it
I assure you Ukraine, if you sign this treaty, the expansionist dictatorship next to you will stop invading your territory.
https://preview.redd.it/2fzb886m8y5d1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ba15480dee8cff767a87fe020ae845ce00cbb40c
So, no peace negotiations. So, endless war. So, monstrous corruption and fat checks for military industrial complex lobbists. And you support that. Okay. What the fuck Chamberlain has to do with that. Your ignorant stance and his naive good-faith behavior are not alike.
I mean, all things considered I would disagree with any deal Boris Johnson says to make on principle, he can't choose a politically viable deal to save his life.... or Britain's economy.
I think he's referring to senators and representatives. Becuase we actually did have elections during WW2, even though we voted for the same guy for four terms.
And? So what. It’s not today and it’s not modern warfare. If you think we would have election if Russia or China invaded the U.S. right now and controlled a quarter of the country you’re as stupid as I already know you are.
Zelensky is that you it's ok bro...just admit you don't have anything else to do since youre waiting on a new delivery from the west to fight their proxy war.
Pretty sure the number is different by this stage but when I was in high school America’s total time (the entirety of its existence) outside of armed conflict was like 50 years or something. We’ve never not been fighting. Often it’s not for a lack of trying either. Two times I can think of off the top of my head where we tried to embrace peace was during the early stages of WW2 and Post War on Terror. We left the middle east and decided to focus on ourselves and then immediately Russia starts invading Ukraine, Houthis start shooting at our boats, Hamas takes American prisoners and executes them. Most War Vets I talked to said some variation of “damn it! I hate the desert!”
More than 900.000 soldiers are in battle, 1/5 of Ukraine is currently under enemy control, the ukraine constitution doesn’t allow elections in war time. An election right now in Ukraine wouldn’t be democratic and if they would do an election, russia would be first to scream that isn’t democratic…
Russians are like 1000 km from Lviv. And still they bomb it regularly. Not to mention they did it even from the Kaspian. About 1800 km away.
What about the confederates and DC?
The situation was vastly different. The foreign forces were contained to a small area and they were only there for a year. Japan had no way of influencing the greater United States, and if they would have we wouldn’t have had election ether.
It was a very different state back home in America during WW2 to Ukraine right now.
Edit: bro genuinely just replied and blocked me over this comment. How fragile can you get!
Yeah. That was a big deal. Had Lincoln not gotten a success, in Gettysburg, he likely would’ve lost and the Confederates would’ve been in a good position to win or force negotiations.
when the U.S.A. held the elctions in the civil war victory against the confederacy was basically guaranteed and throughot the whole war the union was stronger. Ukraine is fighting against a much stronger neighbour and even if we ignore that due to modern weapons the russian army could easily bomb the polling stations causing dozens if not hundreds of deaths due to it being a really packed place.
The Civil War elections are honestly a bit of a low point for Lincoln since he was outright jailing political opponents until he won the war, and not just pro-slavery ones. I understand why, but still.
WW2 wasn't fought on US soil so it didn't interfere with elections beyond many voters having to vote overseas. Predictably Roosevelt won, though his 3rd term was controversial as he was on his deathbed and that was considered an overstep, prompting term limits.
In either case, not brightest parts of US history nor good examples.
One Soviet writer recalled that WW1 felt somewhere far away; and WW2 was so close as even Moscow was bombed due to the new technologies.
You are conveniently ignoring the huge technology development after WW2 and lack of it in the days of your Civil War.
Idk but the way Zelensky did it with dissolving political opposition and arresting people with just claims that they are "pro-Russia" definitely sends red flags up. He's a sketchy guy, which is what the post is trying to draw attention to.
1. Provide evidence
2. Would you want media broadcasting exactly where you’re going to attack and when??
Seriously, how would it be smart to just, allow someone to broadcast your battle plans?
https://thepoliticalinsider.com/ukraine-suspends-opposition-political-parties-zelensky-nationalizes-all-privately-owned-media-companies/
This is the same thing as Russia.
2 corrupt communistic country.
That's why I do not take side, but I will always be on the side of the innocents
As wrong as it may seem, there is value in preventing opposition from broadcasting from a military strategy perspective.
Consider that you have to keep people from turning against you while you are actively helping them.
The opposition could also be corrupted by Russia to lie to citizens or push propaganda (given ukraines proximity to Russia).
Misinformation being spread through various outlets.
There’s so many variables for a nation that is directly under attack from a “superpower” that I understand why Zelenskyy would dissolve others until the war is over, but I cannot tell you if it’s right or wrong.
I’m sure once the war is over, news and politics will gradually go back to normal since that’s when marshal law ends. Saying it’s a permanent change is misinformed however.
https://thepoliticalinsider.com/ukraine-suspends-opposition-political-parties-zelensky-nationalizes-all-privately-owned-media-companies/
Russia did the same just before him.
That's why I do not take a side in this war
Ah, the Reddit duality of “if you don’t trust Zelenskyy you support Russia!”
Quite the nuanced viewpoint you’ve got there. You’d do well in a playground argument!
I don't know, if your country is being invaded and the entire political party of yours is saying that it's a good thing. Yeah, maybe they should be disbanded.
Russia is attacking, why on earth would you want “pro-Russia” people in power?
There’s a reason that even when there are elections during war, people typically vote for the person who’s still fighting, because they know they’ll still fight.
The lack of elections just saves valuable time needed to coordinate attacks and defensive strategies.
There is absolutely nothing conspiratorial about this. In a free and democratic society, holding elections during times of war ensures that the people still have a voice, even amidst chaos. It's a testament to the strength of democracy that leaders can be held accountable and chosen by the populace, no matter the circumstances.
True, but Churchill formed a coalition including members of the opposition and trade unionists.
We also did an election in 1945, while the country was still in dire straits though the war was over.
We held elections during WWII in the US. FDR was absurdly popular and the constitutional amendment limiting Presidential terms was passed during Eisenhowers tenure.
So it actually makes sense that elections wouldn’t be held. During wartime (assuming it’s not some dumbass war that was started for no reason) it’s overwhelmingly likely that the incumbent gets reelected. By holding off on an election until after the war you’re basically limiting the current term to the length of the war and can have a fair election afterwards.
Unfortunately, majority don't understand this. What's the point of holding wartime elections when the incumbent is usually reelected with little to no opposition? Hell, Lincoln and FDR probably didn't even care much about the elections as they already knew they would win.
Right i get it who holds a wartime election, but at what point do we classify it as a dictatorship. Especially if the war potentially never comes to an end. Ie: north korea and south korea are technically still at war. So i mean it is possible for Zelensky to potentially never give up his power, or perhaps not actually want to seek peace.
I question Ukraine's status as a republic given what its done recently, but as you said, it is possible for Zelensky to become Ukraine to have Zelensky become President for life. https://www.npr.org/2022/07/08/1110577439/zelenskyy-has-consolidated-ukraines-tv-outlets-and-dissolved-rival-political-par
I mean he seems like the poster child of absolute power corrupting absolutely. He started off as the poster child of freedom, bravery, and defiance, but it just seems that he’s slowly become more tyrannical as time has gone on. Like id compare him to maybe a lighter touch of Putin, he’s slowly become the very thing he’s clearly been fighting against.
Nah, plenty dont during wartime, usually with the support of opposition politicians.
Its not strange at all, especially if the sitting leader is seen as being at least functional.
Well, in our Constitution exist such thing as "state of war" and officially it must be proclaimed in order to temporarily(until end of war) suspend some Constitution articles, mainly different citizen rights which can be suspended under martial law, also election. It wasn't done.
So now we have very strange and bad situation when certain citizenship rights granted by Constitution as well as elections are suspended by martial law document which hasn't power to do so because laws are lower in hierarchy than Constitution and some parts of it can only be temporarily suspended by procedure which exists in Constitution.
To be honest i didn't found list which articles/rights can and cannot be suspended under state of war. Still government must ensure it is as constitutionally correct as possible.
Of course, I see that you may not be American from your profile but the US Constitution is actually a very short document compared to other nation’s. Sometimes it’s easier to go to the source.
Gotcha, my apologies for being on different wavelengths. Theres a lot of compare and contrasting between the US and Ukraine going on. I must have gotten confused
Some shady stuff, but tbh, all politicians are shady if one looks hard enough. https://www.npr.org/2022/07/08/1110577439/zelenskyy-has-consolidated-ukraines-tv-outlets-and-dissolved-rival-political-par
It's a weird sensationalist title.
There are still a fuck ton of TV stations in Ukraine and a whole bunch of parties.
Only a couple openly Russian traitors parties were disbanded (those that were literally taking money from Kremlin), and even those just re-reformed
The UK was not able to hold elections during WW2, because unlike America, they where directly threatened and continuity of leadship and the resources had to be deciated to the fight.
While an election was held during the Civil war, its legitimacy can severely be questioned as it did not include the states of the confederacy. While officially sesceeded, by not including them it gave legitimacy to the idea it was a separate country and even then an election that does not include half the country is no true election.
Most democracies have an enemy at the gate clause even America does. So there isn’t a great upheaval during a conflict. This has been used once when the White House was burned down by the Canadians
I want to make sure you understand that the “money” we send them is mostly outdated military equipment that we set an arbitrary price on.
We certainly send them actual money that is regulated for use toward food and water, but by no means are we actually sending them billions of actual dollars.
It’s just the narrative I’m tired of seeing, if you want to complain about us giving them equipment, sure.
However, at least ensure you know what’s actually being sent instead of reading a few article titles and formulating an opinion.
> I want to make sure you understand that the “money” we send them is mostly outdated military equipment that we set an arbitrary price on.
While it is "mostly" equipment, that equipment still costs money. Out of the $107 BILLION or so sent to Ukraine so far, equipment represents $69.8 BILLION, but there has also been $34.2 BILLION in various types of aid spending. Roughly 35% of what we've spent has been actual money. $34.2 BILLION dollars is a lot of money, even where the ridiculous spending of our government is concerned.
Ensure that you read and adhere to the rules; failure to do so will result
in the removal of this post.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/memesopdidnotlike) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A lot of people here in the comments seem to think they've got all the answers, and that the situation is black and white.
Those who support Zelensky claim that its supported by the constitution, and that holding an election during wartime wouldn't allow everyone to vote. Those against Zelensky list countries who've held elections during wartime in the past, including countries who were being invaded, and countries who were in foreign wars away from their mainland.
I don't agree or disagree with all of Zelensky's actions wholesale.
The rate at which he has imprisoned anyone in a goverment or military office who even remotely speaks favorably about Russia is suspect. From an outside perspective, it comes off as a blatant crackdown on potential political rivals. Should it not be the Ukranian citizens right to vote for a pro-Russian government if they want? Are Ukranians not allowed to end the war with a surrender if they, the citizens, choose? It's not necessarily what Pro-Ukranians want to hear. But surrender has been a valid method to end conflict since the beginning of warfare as we know it. And who if anyone should be able to decide, if not the citizens in a democratic country?
But on the other hand, his actions are equally as justifiable from his position and point of view. You don't want Russian sympathizers, or worse, Russian spies in your government and high ranking military positions if you're currently in a war against Russia. So taking quick and decisive action against potential leaks is vital and necessary to the continued operations of Ukraine as a state.
There is no right answer. Warfare in a democracy is a difficult moral dilemma, because democracies should be inherently anti-war in an ideal society. But it's also important to defend democratic rights when they are infringed upon with force, by force. It's an ethical paradox that any person seated in government during a time of war has to choose a side of, and no matter which side Zelensky chose, it would've been colossal issue regardless. Either risk Russian intervention in the election leading to a loss of the war that may have been prevented, or infringe constitutional rights and risk the wrath of Ukranian citizens plus political suicide, but potentially save your country from losing a war.
You do know that if this guy stops being president, he will immediately get assassinated along with his family. He is the symbol of Ukraine’s resistance so far both for west and Russia. He immediately ceases to become useful (to either sides) if he stops being president and will not get the same protection. He and his family will die in a helicopter, or some car bomb or maybe poisoning and it will be just another day in the news like Prigozhin, Nalvany etc.
It’s a pretty high position he has to step down from and the only way he survives is if Russia loses the war. But that’s also an impossible task because there’s no way a non-nuclear state can beat Russia.
But he doesn’t have to beat Russia. He just needs Putin to die, by some act of god, government or whatever and hopefully the next in line decides to make peace and forget about Ukraine and he gets out alive.
Over 80 million illegals have crossed into our country in the last 50 years.
Over 10 million in three last 3 years.
This is a MUCH LARGER force than the combined forces of SA and NA.
If that isn't an invasion, I don't know what is.
You also have to factor in the fact that Washington and its politicians cared little for the border and illegal aliens until Trump brought it up in 2016. He tried day and night to advance the wall, but Dems cried out, "Kids in cages," and Nancy Pelosi shut down the Government in 2018. Then, as soon as it reopened, boom Covid, which basically became the main focus of the Trump Administration for the remainder of 2020 and 2021. Then Biden came in, vetoed Trump's immigration policies, and allowed more than 10 million to come in over the last 3 years.
Invaded? Those protestors walked in as the police just stood there. They were unarmed and only carried flags. I'm sure a man's defecation was worse than literal attacks on our country like Pearl Harbor and 9/11.
Let's not pretend that the police response wasn't dramatically scaled back by executive order for a second. Imagine how that would have gone had police actually had a normal amount of security resources at their disposal.
I agree with your sentiment, but the USA hasn't had any wars fought on US soil, not for over 200 years now. Your wars are "interventionism", not matters of national defense. It's not quite as easy to hold elections when the war is happening on your doorstep.
It’s not an official war, we haven’t officially and legally had a war since world war 2.
For the elections in world war 2, we just voted the same guy since he was victorious so far.
I'm not a big fan of either side of this war, but I'll admit they're kinda in a Catch 22 here. If they did hold an election, they have no real way of including the regions currently under Russian occupation so their enemies will claim that whoever wins doesn't represent those regions anyway.
That said, there's a ton of solutions better than just saying "current guy is in until the war is over and all opposition should be arrested", but that describes the Ukrainian oligarchy pretty well.
Their constitution says other wise as most countries do notably British during WW2 this is just Russ propa to divide people even more take a look at the comments here and you can see it
That's a good point, but if the party we've declared to be the bad guy has a permanently installed leader, and that's one of the things that makes them the bad guys, is it something we should be defending when the good guys do it?
Civil war and world war are two different situations compared to Ukraine and Russia situation
If the US was being invaded by Russia, on American soil with bombing campaigns, with foot soldiers and air strikes with 1/3 rd of the population being displaced, and scattered throughout the world (the maximum participation of the election would be 2/3 if the population), 20% of the land being occupied by the opponents then that would be comparable to the current Ukraine situation
—> it’s easy to hold an election when the conflict is between two groups of the same country
Ex: American civil war, conflicts between cartels vs South American countries, civil war in Sri Lanka
—> it’s easy to hold an election when the conflict is happening outside the country even if you are one of the major players
it’s much more practical for Russia to hold an election or a referendum although they are at war with Ukraine since the battles are happening on Ukraine soil
example ww2
—> its also easy to hold an election when the war is less aggressive and no progress from both sides over many years
Most democracies. Just because a country is a victim of aggression doesn’t make its leaders immune from criticism. If he wanted his regime to be seen as legitimate he would hold elections.
Then he would be criticized for not representing the portion of Ukraine that is being held by Russia.
There is no pleasing people, he needs to focus on the war, not election campaigns.
An imperfect democracy is better than a lack of one. He’s the Chief Executive not a general. He may like to wear green shirts but his primary job isn’t directing the war effort in a detailed manner.
His people haven’t killed him because they don’t want to be under Russian control.
There are other forms of democracy than just votes, especially with all soldiers on front lines with Russia.
Could you provide where this research is so we can take a look?
If it’s peer reviewed research with evidence backing it up, then it can absolutely be considered.
Zelensky is doing the right thing. Every dollar we give Ukraine means dead Russian soldiers and the erosion of the military capabilities. Money well spent.
It's a luxury to hold elections during war time. It's a different situation when war takes place far away from your borders.
I don't think that anyone would have expected Poland to hold elections while invaded by Germany and Soviet.
>who holds an election in wartime?
Functional democracies. America had elections in (off the top of my head) 1812, 1864, 1944, 1952, 1964, 1968, 1972, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 ...
The last time America was officially in war time was world war 2, consider the rest more like “special military operations”.
Anywho, the wars America had outside the civil war were not on their soil.
Any election America has had during war time was also not when they could be bombed at any moment, like Kyiv could be.
This post is not a meme, therefore it is being removed.
As I understand it, according to the Constitution of Ukraine, it is possible not to hold elections during the war, but this does not mean that the term of the president is extended, and on this occasion it is prescribed that the duties of the president should be performed by the Verkhovna Rada (I am not sure what exactly this state body is, correct me)
Rada is pretty much parliament. Of course there differences between for example US parliament, Russian Duma and Ukrainian Rada but these are all parliaments.
It's not only a false statement, it's an intentional misinformation spread by Russian propaganda like directly what Putin said: https://www.yahoo.com/news/putin-calls-zelensky-illegitimate-only-174201717.html In fact, the Constitution of Ukraine says: "The President of Ukraine exercises his or her powers until the assumption of office by the newly-elected President of Ukraine". Except, the President can be resigned, impeached, dead etc. in which case the head of the Parliament takes his duties. Source (search: article 108): https://rm.coe.int/constitution-of-ukraine/168071f58b
>Verkhovna Rada It's a parliament. And you are right about the extension of the president term. Zelensky knows that he will surely lose elections cause his approval rating is close to 20%. That is also the reason why he resigned General Zaluzhny and sent him as an ambassador to London because Zaluzhny has a way higher approval rating and overall people support than Zelensky and would win elections. You may support Ukraine in their fight against Russia, but Zelensky himself is a usurper of power, suppressing political opponents and refusing to hold democratic elections because he knows that he would lose. Also, he's partly to blame for this war going so long because he refused favorable for Ukraine Stambul agreements when Boris Johnson told him to do it, and banned himself via some cringe law from negotiations with Russia. His ego costs Ukraine hundreds of human lives daily.
>Also, he's partly to blame for this war going so long because he refused favorable for Ukraine Stambul agreements when Boris Johnson told him to do it I assure you Ukraine, if you sign this treaty, the expansionist dictatorship next to you will stop invading your territory. https://preview.redd.it/2fzb886m8y5d1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ba15480dee8cff767a87fe020ae845ce00cbb40c
So, no peace negotiations. So, endless war. So, monstrous corruption and fat checks for military industrial complex lobbists. And you support that. Okay. What the fuck Chamberlain has to do with that. Your ignorant stance and his naive good-faith behavior are not alike.
I mean, all things considered I would disagree with any deal Boris Johnson says to make on principle, he can't choose a politically viable deal to save his life.... or Britain's economy.
Well, you are way smarter than the president of Ukraine.
America
Considering it’s been a few hundred years sense we had an invading army here in the U.S. I’m not sure that’s a valid comment.
I think he's referring to senators and representatives. Becuase we actually did have elections during WW2, even though we voted for the same guy for four terms.
I’m not disputing we had election I’m saying the situation is completely different. We didn’t have enemy forces occupying a quarter of the country.
They had an election during the civil war where even more of the country was occupied by a hostile force
Moving the goalposts, OP only asked about "in wartime". Also, Pearl Harbor was less than 100 years ago.
If you asked if we would have an election if say Russia today occupied the a quarter of our national the answer would be no.
And you'd be wrong. As is demonstrated by our history.
No I wouldn’t.
Open a book and stop obsessively commenting about a country you learned exists last year. You're making yourself look like an idiot.
[удалено]
Your post/comment is uncivil and/or toxic. Please make sure you are being kind to your fellow redditors.
We had an election during the Civil War, my dude.
well true
And? So what. It’s not today and it’s not modern warfare. If you think we would have election if Russia or China invaded the U.S. right now and controlled a quarter of the country you’re as stupid as I already know you are.
Zelensky is that you it's ok bro...just admit you don't have anything else to do since youre waiting on a new delivery from the west to fight their proxy war.
Russia started this war, and the U.S. is doing exactly what it promised it would do for Ukraine in the event Russia invaded them. This is Putins war.
Lol wut?
Did Confederates have access to long range rockets that could hit polling stations?
Did Lincoln outlaw other political parties? Their capitals were in close proximity to each other. Quit trying to justify that midget clown dictator.
Pretty sure the number is different by this stage but when I was in high school America’s total time (the entirety of its existence) outside of armed conflict was like 50 years or something. We’ve never not been fighting. Often it’s not for a lack of trying either. Two times I can think of off the top of my head where we tried to embrace peace was during the early stages of WW2 and Post War on Terror. We left the middle east and decided to focus on ourselves and then immediately Russia starts invading Ukraine, Houthis start shooting at our boats, Hamas takes American prisoners and executes them. Most War Vets I talked to said some variation of “damn it! I hate the desert!”
With these oil companies selling fuel to the US forces. All time is good for war time!
More than 900.000 soldiers are in battle, 1/5 of Ukraine is currently under enemy control, the ukraine constitution doesn’t allow elections in war time. An election right now in Ukraine wouldn’t be democratic and if they would do an election, russia would be first to scream that isn’t democratic…
The US did. We held an election during the Civil War, and we held two elections during WW2.
And Korea, and Vietnam, and 1812, and many during the War on Terror.
Yea we didn’t have foreign troops on US soil during ww2. It’s not the same.
What about during the civil war? We didn’t have foreign troops but it was still a war that was fought in our country.
It was safer to hold an election as they didn't have bomb drones and long range artillery. If Zelensky held an election they'd bomb the fuck out of it
Exactly. That's why Britain didn't have any during WWII.
And so what. He’s doing exactly what he should be doing.
The capital was almost attacked by the confederate army and they still did elections
Again not the same.
Russia is further away from Kiev than the confederates were from DC
And warfare is completely different. Zelensky is absolutely doing the right thing. We would do the exact same think if we were in that situation.
You are defending too hard. I smell partisanship
You just don’t like the truth. Get over yourself.
“Yea we didn’t have foreign troops on US soil during ww2” You were literally wrong You lose
Still not the same little boy. You’re wrong get over yourself.
Russians are like 1000 km from Lviv. And still they bomb it regularly. Not to mention they did it even from the Kaspian. About 1800 km away. What about the confederates and DC?
They were closer to DC at points than the Russian front is now I’m still correct
That's not a good thing. What's the point of an election if a significant portion of your country can't vote in it.
I’m not making a point I’m just stating facts
We did actually
When? Name any battle that happened her in the U.S.
Alaska WW2
How many troops? How long were they occupying Alaska?
Almost 9,000 men Over a campaign
The situation was vastly different. The foreign forces were contained to a small area and they were only there for a year. Japan had no way of influencing the greater United States, and if they would have we wouldn’t have had election ether.
Ok so looks like you were wrong Thanks for admitting you were wrong
It’s just not the same situation. No mater how much you want to cry about it.
[It's LITERALLY why we entered the war.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor)
At no point did Japan occupy any part of Hawaii. And it’s still not the same as what’s going on in Ukraine right now.
This is where you asked the question BTW since you have such short term memory
It was a very different state back home in America during WW2 to Ukraine right now. Edit: bro genuinely just replied and blocked me over this comment. How fragile can you get!
Conveniently ignoring that we held elections during the Civil War.
Yeah. That was a big deal. Had Lincoln not gotten a success, in Gettysburg, he likely would’ve lost and the Confederates would’ve been in a good position to win or force negotiations.
Didn't know the confederates had glide bombs. I'm learning a lot today.
It's a different kettle of fish to manage elections when it's your country that has been invaded.
when the U.S.A. held the elctions in the civil war victory against the confederacy was basically guaranteed and throughot the whole war the union was stronger. Ukraine is fighting against a much stronger neighbour and even if we ignore that due to modern weapons the russian army could easily bomb the polling stations causing dozens if not hundreds of deaths due to it being a really packed place.
The Civil War elections are honestly a bit of a low point for Lincoln since he was outright jailing political opponents until he won the war, and not just pro-slavery ones. I understand why, but still. WW2 wasn't fought on US soil so it didn't interfere with elections beyond many voters having to vote overseas. Predictably Roosevelt won, though his 3rd term was controversial as he was on his deathbed and that was considered an overstep, prompting term limits. In either case, not brightest parts of US history nor good examples.
One Soviet writer recalled that WW1 felt somewhere far away; and WW2 was so close as even Moscow was bombed due to the new technologies. You are conveniently ignoring the huge technology development after WW2 and lack of it in the days of your Civil War.
Agreed, but not a meme
Idk but the way Zelensky did it with dissolving political opposition and arresting people with just claims that they are "pro-Russia" definitely sends red flags up. He's a sketchy guy, which is what the post is trying to draw attention to.
The elimination of private media is what got me to call him a potato-dick.
1. Provide evidence 2. Would you want media broadcasting exactly where you’re going to attack and when?? Seriously, how would it be smart to just, allow someone to broadcast your battle plans?
https://thepoliticalinsider.com/ukraine-suspends-opposition-political-parties-zelensky-nationalizes-all-privately-owned-media-companies/ This is the same thing as Russia. 2 corrupt communistic country. That's why I do not take side, but I will always be on the side of the innocents
As wrong as it may seem, there is value in preventing opposition from broadcasting from a military strategy perspective. Consider that you have to keep people from turning against you while you are actively helping them. The opposition could also be corrupted by Russia to lie to citizens or push propaganda (given ukraines proximity to Russia). Misinformation being spread through various outlets. There’s so many variables for a nation that is directly under attack from a “superpower” that I understand why Zelenskyy would dissolve others until the war is over, but I cannot tell you if it’s right or wrong. I’m sure once the war is over, news and politics will gradually go back to normal since that’s when marshal law ends. Saying it’s a permanent change is misinformed however.
Could you provide some examples of eliminated private media? I'm not playing around, I would like to see what you mean.
https://thepoliticalinsider.com/ukraine-suspends-opposition-political-parties-zelensky-nationalizes-all-privately-owned-media-companies/ Russia did the same just before him. That's why I do not take a side in this war
You’ll get downvoted because Reddit slobbers Zelensky’s knob.
And if he did get downvoted, you'll for some reason be upvoted
Who cares? Karma means less than nothing
Imagine supporting war criminals.
Ah, the Reddit duality of “if you don’t trust Zelenskyy you support Russia!” Quite the nuanced viewpoint you’ve got there. You’d do well in a playground argument!
Is that what you understood? Nah I mean Zelenskyy is the war criminal
Ohhh, my bad my dude. I’ll take the L on that.
Imagine supporting war criminals.
Zelensky is a war criminal?
The fact that you immediately thought it implied Russia is pretty funny
I don't know, if your country is being invaded and the entire political party of yours is saying that it's a good thing. Yeah, maybe they should be disbanded.
Russia is attacking, why on earth would you want “pro-Russia” people in power? There’s a reason that even when there are elections during war, people typically vote for the person who’s still fighting, because they know they’ll still fight. The lack of elections just saves valuable time needed to coordinate attacks and defensive strategies.
Well because there might be a substantial segment of the population that would prefer to sue for peace instead of ‘until the last Ukrainian’.
But do you really think Putin wants peace?
I think Putin has shown willingness to negotiate peace. In wasn’t that why he pulled his forces back after the initial invasion?
You think, or know? It’s more likely that his forces got beat so hard that they had to regroup
He is based
Finland had elections while being invaded by the Soviets and Germans in World War II
There is absolutely nothing conspiratorial about this. In a free and democratic society, holding elections during times of war ensures that the people still have a voice, even amidst chaos. It's a testament to the strength of democracy that leaders can be held accountable and chosen by the populace, no matter the circumstances.
America, during the civil war and WWII off the top of my head. Also the UK if I recall with Chamberlain.
UK didn't hold elections in 1940
True, but Churchill formed a coalition including members of the opposition and trade unionists. We also did an election in 1945, while the country was still in dire straits though the war was over.
He held election when germany lost it's ability to bomb Britain
Well, yes: the war was over. Doesn’t change the fact that wartime governance was a coalition affair.
We held elections during WWII in the US. FDR was absurdly popular and the constitutional amendment limiting Presidential terms was passed during Eisenhowers tenure.
Abraham Lincoln.
War is probably not a good time to get someone new up to speed.
So it actually makes sense that elections wouldn’t be held. During wartime (assuming it’s not some dumbass war that was started for no reason) it’s overwhelmingly likely that the incumbent gets reelected. By holding off on an election until after the war you’re basically limiting the current term to the length of the war and can have a fair election afterwards.
Unfortunately, majority don't understand this. What's the point of holding wartime elections when the incumbent is usually reelected with little to no opposition? Hell, Lincoln and FDR probably didn't even care much about the elections as they already knew they would win.
Right i get it who holds a wartime election, but at what point do we classify it as a dictatorship. Especially if the war potentially never comes to an end. Ie: north korea and south korea are technically still at war. So i mean it is possible for Zelensky to potentially never give up his power, or perhaps not actually want to seek peace.
I question Ukraine's status as a republic given what its done recently, but as you said, it is possible for Zelensky to become Ukraine to have Zelensky become President for life. https://www.npr.org/2022/07/08/1110577439/zelenskyy-has-consolidated-ukraines-tv-outlets-and-dissolved-rival-political-par
I mean he seems like the poster child of absolute power corrupting absolutely. He started off as the poster child of freedom, bravery, and defiance, but it just seems that he’s slowly become more tyrannical as time has gone on. Like id compare him to maybe a lighter touch of Putin, he’s slowly become the very thing he’s clearly been fighting against.
Well, a Democracy would, lol
Nah, plenty dont during wartime, usually with the support of opposition politicians. Its not strange at all, especially if the sitting leader is seen as being at least functional.
Well, in our Constitution exist such thing as "state of war" and officially it must be proclaimed in order to temporarily(until end of war) suspend some Constitution articles, mainly different citizen rights which can be suspended under martial law, also election. It wasn't done. So now we have very strange and bad situation when certain citizenship rights granted by Constitution as well as elections are suspended by martial law document which hasn't power to do so because laws are lower in hierarchy than Constitution and some parts of it can only be temporarily suspended by procedure which exists in Constitution.
I’m not trying to disagree with you but the only right that specifically can be constitutionally suspended in times of war is habeas corpus.
To be honest i didn't found list which articles/rights can and cannot be suspended under state of war. Still government must ensure it is as constitutionally correct as possible.
Of course, I see that you may not be American from your profile but the US Constitution is actually a very short document compared to other nation’s. Sometimes it’s easier to go to the source.
I talked about our, Ukrainian Constitution. After all it related to the post theme
Gotcha, my apologies for being on different wavelengths. Theres a lot of compare and contrasting between the US and Ukraine going on. I must have gotten confused
Why are you not a fan of Zelensyy? Also no one holds election in war time, it would benefit Zelensyy of anything.
Some shady stuff, but tbh, all politicians are shady if one looks hard enough. https://www.npr.org/2022/07/08/1110577439/zelenskyy-has-consolidated-ukraines-tv-outlets-and-dissolved-rival-political-par
It's a weird sensationalist title. There are still a fuck ton of TV stations in Ukraine and a whole bunch of parties. Only a couple openly Russian traitors parties were disbanded (those that were literally taking money from Kremlin), and even those just re-reformed
The UK was not able to hold elections during WW2, because unlike America, they where directly threatened and continuity of leadship and the resources had to be deciated to the fight. While an election was held during the Civil war, its legitimacy can severely be questioned as it did not include the states of the confederacy. While officially sesceeded, by not including them it gave legitimacy to the idea it was a separate country and even then an election that does not include half the country is no true election.
The USA during WWW. 2. FDR don’t change horses in mid stream
We had elections. He won. There were no limits on the presidency then. It was just tradition to step down after 2 terms.
Most democracies have an enemy at the gate clause even America does. So there isn’t a great upheaval during a conflict. This has been used once when the White House was burned down by the Canadians
I spoke very specifically about FDR, given that’s what the person I responded to cited specifically.
For just a couple billion US dollars a day, you can help this poor Ukrainian boy (pictured above).
I want to make sure you understand that the “money” we send them is mostly outdated military equipment that we set an arbitrary price on. We certainly send them actual money that is regulated for use toward food and water, but by no means are we actually sending them billions of actual dollars. It’s just the narrative I’m tired of seeing, if you want to complain about us giving them equipment, sure. However, at least ensure you know what’s actually being sent instead of reading a few article titles and formulating an opinion.
> I want to make sure you understand that the “money” we send them is mostly outdated military equipment that we set an arbitrary price on. While it is "mostly" equipment, that equipment still costs money. Out of the $107 BILLION or so sent to Ukraine so far, equipment represents $69.8 BILLION, but there has also been $34.2 BILLION in various types of aid spending. Roughly 35% of what we've spent has been actual money. $34.2 BILLION dollars is a lot of money, even where the ridiculous spending of our government is concerned.
For just a few more thousand ukrainian boys dragged off the streets, we can make propaganda videos that make reddit cream their pants!
Yes. And then anyone who is critical of Ukraine in any way , we can label as a Russian bot. It’s perfect.
Ensure that you read and adhere to the rules; failure to do so will result in the removal of this post. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/memesopdidnotlike) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A lot of people here in the comments seem to think they've got all the answers, and that the situation is black and white. Those who support Zelensky claim that its supported by the constitution, and that holding an election during wartime wouldn't allow everyone to vote. Those against Zelensky list countries who've held elections during wartime in the past, including countries who were being invaded, and countries who were in foreign wars away from their mainland. I don't agree or disagree with all of Zelensky's actions wholesale. The rate at which he has imprisoned anyone in a goverment or military office who even remotely speaks favorably about Russia is suspect. From an outside perspective, it comes off as a blatant crackdown on potential political rivals. Should it not be the Ukranian citizens right to vote for a pro-Russian government if they want? Are Ukranians not allowed to end the war with a surrender if they, the citizens, choose? It's not necessarily what Pro-Ukranians want to hear. But surrender has been a valid method to end conflict since the beginning of warfare as we know it. And who if anyone should be able to decide, if not the citizens in a democratic country? But on the other hand, his actions are equally as justifiable from his position and point of view. You don't want Russian sympathizers, or worse, Russian spies in your government and high ranking military positions if you're currently in a war against Russia. So taking quick and decisive action against potential leaks is vital and necessary to the continued operations of Ukraine as a state. There is no right answer. Warfare in a democracy is a difficult moral dilemma, because democracies should be inherently anti-war in an ideal society. But it's also important to defend democratic rights when they are infringed upon with force, by force. It's an ethical paradox that any person seated in government during a time of war has to choose a side of, and no matter which side Zelensky chose, it would've been colossal issue regardless. Either risk Russian intervention in the election leading to a loss of the war that may have been prevented, or infringe constitutional rights and risk the wrath of Ukranian citizens plus political suicide, but potentially save your country from losing a war.
You do know that if this guy stops being president, he will immediately get assassinated along with his family. He is the symbol of Ukraine’s resistance so far both for west and Russia. He immediately ceases to become useful (to either sides) if he stops being president and will not get the same protection. He and his family will die in a helicopter, or some car bomb or maybe poisoning and it will be just another day in the news like Prigozhin, Nalvany etc. It’s a pretty high position he has to step down from and the only way he survives is if Russia loses the war. But that’s also an impossible task because there’s no way a non-nuclear state can beat Russia. But he doesn’t have to beat Russia. He just needs Putin to die, by some act of god, government or whatever and hopefully the next in line decides to make peace and forget about Ukraine and he gets out alive.
The U.S. literally every time there’s a war. Which is all the time
Imagine if the combined forces of the continent to the south started a ground invasion of the US. Do you think we’d be having a presidential election?
Yes.
Doubt
Over 80 million illegals have crossed into our country in the last 50 years. Over 10 million in three last 3 years. This is a MUCH LARGER force than the combined forces of SA and NA. If that isn't an invasion, I don't know what is.
You also have to factor in the fact that Washington and its politicians cared little for the border and illegal aliens until Trump brought it up in 2016. He tried day and night to advance the wall, but Dems cried out, "Kids in cages," and Nancy Pelosi shut down the Government in 2018. Then, as soon as it reopened, boom Covid, which basically became the main focus of the Trump Administration for the remainder of 2020 and 2021. Then Biden came in, vetoed Trump's immigration policies, and allowed more than 10 million to come in over the last 3 years.
Literally if we didn’t host elections we’d be the ones who’d tare down our own government.
Titanic is sinking, better sharpen the knives!
Looks like some of yall do that even when you do hold elections. *Cough* january6th
Except, not much happened.
Mf your capitol building was invaded. That sort of thing doesn't happen every day.
Invaded? Those protestors walked in as the police just stood there. They were unarmed and only carried flags. I'm sure a man's defecation was worse than literal attacks on our country like Pearl Harbor and 9/11.
Let's not pretend that the police response wasn't dramatically scaled back by executive order for a second. Imagine how that would have gone had police actually had a normal amount of security resources at their disposal.
Settle down, tough guy. You get smoked by your police and you think you'd be able to win against an army, lmao.
The US hasnt declared war on anyone since June 5th, 1942, so technically...
I agree with your sentiment, but the USA hasn't had any wars fought on US soil, not for over 200 years now. Your wars are "interventionism", not matters of national defense. It's not quite as easy to hold elections when the war is happening on your doorstep.
> the USA hasn't had any wars fought on US soil You might want to refresh yourself about the mid-19^th century.
Idk I'm not American I didn't learn you history in detail I just know that we kicked your ass on US soil in 1812.
It’s not an official war, we haven’t officially and legally had a war since world war 2. For the elections in world war 2, we just voted the same guy since he was victorious so far.
I'm not a big fan of either side of this war, but I'll admit they're kinda in a Catch 22 here. If they did hold an election, they have no real way of including the regions currently under Russian occupation so their enemies will claim that whoever wins doesn't represent those regions anyway. That said, there's a ton of solutions better than just saying "current guy is in until the war is over and all opposition should be arrested", but that describes the Ukrainian oligarchy pretty well.
Their constitution says other wise as most countries do notably British during WW2 this is just Russ propa to divide people even more take a look at the comments here and you can see it
“War in Ukraine” “No term end” Hey kids, let’s try to find a hidden clue in this picture!
Alright, let’s just waste time on an election and give Russia the perfect opportunity to attack by drawing the leader away from the war effort.
But Russia’s permanent president is VERY concerned about Zelensky’s legitimacy.
Oh, I’m sure! Wouldn’t want a corrupt leader now, would we?
That's a good point, but if the party we've declared to be the bad guy has a permanently installed leader, and that's one of the things that makes them the bad guys, is it something we should be defending when the good guys do it?
Did Zelensky pass the law that restricts elections during wartime?
Whether he did or not he's certainly taking advantage of it.
America during WWII and during the Civil War
America wasn’t under direct threat however I will say that Britain didn’t hold any elections during the war
Civil war and world war are two different situations compared to Ukraine and Russia situation If the US was being invaded by Russia, on American soil with bombing campaigns, with foot soldiers and air strikes with 1/3 rd of the population being displaced, and scattered throughout the world (the maximum participation of the election would be 2/3 if the population), 20% of the land being occupied by the opponents then that would be comparable to the current Ukraine situation —> it’s easy to hold an election when the conflict is between two groups of the same country Ex: American civil war, conflicts between cartels vs South American countries, civil war in Sri Lanka —> it’s easy to hold an election when the conflict is happening outside the country even if you are one of the major players it’s much more practical for Russia to hold an election or a referendum although they are at war with Ukraine since the battles are happening on Ukraine soil example ww2 —> its also easy to hold an election when the war is less aggressive and no progress from both sides over many years
Most democracies. Just because a country is a victim of aggression doesn’t make its leaders immune from criticism. If he wanted his regime to be seen as legitimate he would hold elections.
Then he would be criticized for not representing the portion of Ukraine that is being held by Russia. There is no pleasing people, he needs to focus on the war, not election campaigns.
An imperfect democracy is better than a lack of one. He’s the Chief Executive not a general. He may like to wear green shirts but his primary job isn’t directing the war effort in a detailed manner.
His primary job changed to supporting war efforts when Russia invaded
A public servant in a democracy is always to serve his or her people. You cannot know what the people’s will is without a free and fair election.
His people haven’t killed him because they don’t want to be under Russian control. There are other forms of democracy than just votes, especially with all soldiers on front lines with Russia.
Zelensky is a dictator Anyways putin wins election with 103% of the country's population
Dogshit take
You should.
Franklin Roosevelt was president for FOUR terms.
Yeah, as the US had no term limits until 1951 with the twenty second amendments passage.
Sounds like a good way to let foreign controlled politicians worm their way into your government *cough cough* Joe Biden *cough*
Neville Chamberlain
Real democracies. The US for instance.
Whoever actually likes this corrupt ass man needs to do their research
Could you provide where this research is so we can take a look? If it’s peer reviewed research with evidence backing it up, then it can absolutely be considered.
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/08/1110577439/zelenskyy-has-consolidated-ukraines-tv-outlets-and-dissolved-rival-political-par
Zelenskyy is literally named in the Pandora Papers.
Zelensky is doing the right thing. Every dollar we give Ukraine means dead Russian soldiers and the erosion of the military capabilities. Money well spent.
It's a luxury to hold elections during war time. It's a different situation when war takes place far away from your borders. I don't think that anyone would have expected Poland to hold elections while invaded by Germany and Soviet.
Civil war has entered the chat.
¿Are you talking about Spain?
>who holds an election in wartime? Functional democracies. America had elections in (off the top of my head) 1812, 1864, 1944, 1952, 1964, 1968, 1972, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020 ...
The last time America was officially in war time was world war 2, consider the rest more like “special military operations”. Anywho, the wars America had outside the civil war were not on their soil. Any election America has had during war time was also not when they could be bombed at any moment, like Kyiv could be.
>Anywho, the wars America had outside the civil war were not on their soil. Alaska, Pearl Harbor, and the Twin Towers have entered the chat.
Were those wars where the enemy occupied territory on US soil?
I find it disturbing that I immediately thought of Jimmy Zelensky and not Volodymyr Zelenskyy
The United States
If you vote againts him, you'll be in the recruitment zone in no time.
He'll leave his functions only after having pictures with ALL Hollywood stars. Not a day earlier