4 ms·

They’re literally fighting for their lives. Nobody wants elections in wartime, not least because polling stations become targets. You need to lay off the MAGA

They’re literally fighting for their lives. Nobody wants elections in wartime, not least because polling stations become targets. You need to lay off the MAGA talking points.

koolba 1y ago
[flagged]
thatcat 1y ago
The conscripted might disagree and desire a leader who will pursue a peaceful solution, this conclusion is supported by the high number of deserters.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  Very possible, but you should provide data. The data we have suggests that Zelensky's approval is extremely high among the public and the consensus not to violate the constitution to hold elections during wartime is unanimous within the government.
  - eru 1y ago
    I guess unanimous is too high a bar amongst any larger group of people. But I can very well believe that the consensus is virtually unanimous.
    - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
      The parliament held a vote and it was unanimous. You’re right that parliament isn’t “the government” writ large though.
      - eru 1y ago
        Thanks for that detail!
- mikeyouse 1y ago
  Public opinion shows there’s nobody more supportive than the continued military defense of Ukraine than the Ukrainians. Even the conscripted would prefer more modern weapons to permanently ceding Ukrainian territory to Russia.
- multjoy 1y ago
  Peaceful solution to an invasion? How does that work, exactly?
  - eru 1y ago
    Well, the invader is the last party to want a war: they'd be happy to just take over. Russia's takeover of Crimea in 2014 was almost as 'peaceful' as the German takeover of the Sudetenland in the 1930s. All in all, my comment is just a convoluted way that sometimes the price to pay for peace is too high. In addition, there's also pre-commitments that make everything more complicated: as a potential victim of invasion, you might want to pre-commit to defending long beyond any reasonable threshold, in the hopes that this will deter invasion. Sometimes your bluff gets called, and then you need to actually fight to maintain your credibility. Compare mutual assured destruction in nuclear war: nuking Moscow in retaliation for the Soviets nuking New York isn't going to bring anyone back from the dead. But it's what you pre-commit to in order to deter the bombing of New York in the first place.
- rat87 1y ago
  Zelensky was elected in part on a platform of trying to negotiate with Russia but it fell apart because Russia wasn't interested in negotiating and instead decided it wanted to massively expand the war. If Russia shown the smallest sign that they had given up on conquering Ukraine and were willing to seek peace Zelensky would be interested. Zelensky is also more popular then most potential political opponents and they would rather the election would be held after the war when they'd have more of a chance(wartime popularity doesn't always transfer over to peacetime, Winston Churchill lost his post war election). And any credible challenges would likely be more hawkish on Russia not less
Ray20 1y ago
>Nobody wants elections in wartime THE GOVERNMENT doesn't want elections in wartime. Most people want. >not least because polling stations become targets. I think this is pure gaslighting. If we are talking about Ukraine, Putin is one of the main supporters of holding elections there. And almost certainly not because he wants to bomb some polling stations, but because he is confident that people will vote for a candidate who will de-facto offer to surrender, and not for Zelensky with his busifications.
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  Ah yes and Putin is sooo above bombing locations that are likely to vote more heavily Zelensky. Totally outrageous concern.
- mopsi 1y ago
  The only likely candidate close to Zelenskyy in popularity is Zaluzhnyi, the former commander of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. That's not a person who sees surrender as an option. All major political factions oppose holding elections now, because they expect Zelenskyy's popularity to fade after the war ends and believe their candidates will have better chances then.
  - eru 1y ago
    > All major political factions oppose holding elections now, because they expect Zelenskyy's popularity to fade after the war ends and believe their candidates will have better chances then. Well, that, and also the constitution doesn't allow election during wartime.
- multjoy 1y ago
  >Putin is one of the main supporters of holding elections there Because he will interfere, like he has across Europe. He is a tyrant and has only his own interests at heart.
eru 1y ago
> Nobody wants elections in wartime, not least because polling stations become targets. Nobody is a strong word. Lots of people want elections, especially in wartime. And lots of other people don't want elections. But it doesn't matter: the constitution of Ukraine doesn't allow elections during wartime. I think by default constitutional rules should be followed, unless there are very good reasons not to.
- EasyMark 1y ago
  Also if the Ukrainians hated it so much they would just side with Russia and form rebel militias all over and apparently that is not happening, I think they know which side has their best interests at heart and which is trying to genocide them.
  - eru 1y ago
    Well, from 2014 onward there were supposedly rebel militia groups in the south and east. (Most people think they were Russian puppets however.) > [...] I think they know which side has their best interests at heart and which is trying to genocide them. Doesn't even need to be their best interest, really. The Ukrainian government had and has its fair share of flaws. (They exist in the real world after all.) But it's enough that they are a lot better than Russia.

They’re literally fighting for their lives. Nobody wants elections in wartime, not least because polling stations become targets. You need to lay off the MAGA talking points.

koolba 1y ago

[flagged]

thatcat 1y ago

The conscripted might disagree and desire a leader who will pursue a peaceful solution, this conclusion is supported by the high number of deserters.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
sorcerer-mar 1y ago
Very possible, but you should provide data. The data we have suggests that Zelensky's approval is extremely high among the public and the consensus not to violate the constitution to hold elections during wartime is unanimous within the government.
- eru 1y ago
  I guess unanimous is too high a bar amongst any larger group of people. But I can very well believe that the consensus is virtually unanimous.
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
    The parliament held a vote and it was unanimous. You’re right that parliament isn’t “the government” writ large though.
    - eru 1y ago
      Thanks for that detail!
mikeyouse 1y ago
Public opinion shows there’s nobody more supportive than the continued military defense of Ukraine than the Ukrainians. Even the conscripted would prefer more modern weapons to permanently ceding Ukrainian territory to Russia.
multjoy 1y ago
Peaceful solution to an invasion? How does that work, exactly?
- eru 1y ago
  Well, the invader is the last party to want a war: they'd be happy to just take over. Russia's takeover of Crimea in 2014 was almost as 'peaceful' as the German takeover of the Sudetenland in the 1930s. All in all, my comment is just a convoluted way that sometimes the price to pay for peace is too high. In addition, there's also pre-commitments that make everything more complicated: as a potential victim of invasion, you might want to pre-commit to defending long beyond any reasonable threshold, in the hopes that this will deter invasion. Sometimes your bluff gets called, and then you need to actually fight to maintain your credibility. Compare mutual assured destruction in nuclear war: nuking Moscow in retaliation for the Soviets nuking New York isn't going to bring anyone back from the dead. But it's what you pre-commit to in order to deter the bombing of New York in the first place.
rat87 1y ago
Zelensky was elected in part on a platform of trying to negotiate with Russia but it fell apart because Russia wasn't interested in negotiating and instead decided it wanted to massively expand the war. If Russia shown the smallest sign that they had given up on conquering Ukraine and were willing to seek peace Zelensky would be interested. Zelensky is also more popular then most potential political opponents and they would rather the election would be held after the war when they'd have more of a chance(wartime popularity doesn't always transfer over to peacetime, Winston Churchill lost his post war election). And any credible challenges would likely be more hawkish on Russia not less

Ray20 1y ago

>Nobody wants elections in wartime THE GOVERNMENT doesn't want elections in wartime. Most people want. >not least because polling stations become targets. I think this is pure gaslighting. If we are talking about Ukraine, Putin is one of the main supporters of holding elections there. And almost certainly not because he wants to bomb some polling stations, but because he is confident that people will vote for a candidate who will de-facto offer to surrender, and not for Zelensky with his busifications.

sorcerer-mar 1y ago
Ah yes and Putin is sooo above bombing locations that are likely to vote more heavily Zelensky. Totally outrageous concern.
mopsi 1y ago
The only likely candidate close to Zelenskyy in popularity is Zaluzhnyi, the former commander of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. That's not a person who sees surrender as an option. All major political factions oppose holding elections now, because they expect Zelenskyy's popularity to fade after the war ends and believe their candidates will have better chances then.
- eru 1y ago
  > All major political factions oppose holding elections now, because they expect Zelenskyy's popularity to fade after the war ends and believe their candidates will have better chances then. Well, that, and also the constitution doesn't allow election during wartime.
multjoy 1y ago
>Putin is one of the main supporters of holding elections there Because he will interfere, like he has across Europe. He is a tyrant and has only his own interests at heart.

eru 1y ago

> Nobody wants elections in wartime, not least because polling stations become targets. Nobody is a strong word. Lots of people want elections, especially in wartime. And lots of other people don't want elections. But it doesn't matter: the constitution of Ukraine doesn't allow elections during wartime. I think by default constitutional rules should be followed, unless there are very good reasons not to.

EasyMark 1y ago
Also if the Ukrainians hated it so much they would just side with Russia and form rebel militias all over and apparently that is not happening, I think they know which side has their best interests at heart and which is trying to genocide them.
- eru 1y ago
  Well, from 2014 onward there were supposedly rebel militia groups in the south and east. (Most people think they were Russian puppets however.) > [...] I think they know which side has their best interests at heart and which is trying to genocide them. Doesn't even need to be their best interest, really. The Ukrainian government had and has its fair share of flaws. (They exist in the real world after all.) But it's enough that they are a lot better than Russia.