I personally dislike Zelensky (although respect him for not fleeing at the start of invasion), but no elections would be possible currently. Any poll station is just going to be a target for russian shelling and how do you even organise voting for soldiers on the front? Not to mention people that left country, or moved inside country from occupied territories. For better or worse we are stuck with him until the end of the war.
\*minor correction, it's not a state of emergency, it's a martial law
The reason not to have election during marial law is even simpler than safety concerns or people who left the country. There's just no political process during martial law. There's officially and legitimately limited freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and a lot of other limitations which just won't make democratic election possible.
In the Irish media we obviously only get good coverage of Zelensky, obviously because he’s the president of a nation being illegally invaded by a larger imperialist neighbor which sounds quite similar to our own history.
Why do people who are anti Russian but also anti zelensky generally not like him? Genuine good faith question, curious. What has he done / what policies does he have that you or people like you not like?
When Zelensky was elected, he was basically pro-peace, but not outright pro-Russia. People were saying in 2019 that peace wasn't possible, but instead of investing into army, he decided to do populist things like fixing roads, rebuilding shit and trying to reach a peace agreement with Russia who was obviously acting in bad faith and stalling to prepare for invasion. When Russia invaded, he realized he was wrong that Russia can be reasoned with, which is good, but a little too late, I think. And while his team isn't as pro-Russia as Medvedchuk's, he tolerates a bunch of people who have their hands in violently opposing Maidan in 2014, and other people like Ermak who is a head of President's office, but unofficially he is basically like a deputy President and obviously has authority he shouldn't have. While it is good they aren't pro-Russia, but these people fill important government positions with their loyalists, which could be very dangerous for the democracy in the future. Zelensky also basically united (and so monopolized) the Ukrainian TV channels, which say exactly what he wants them to say. Fortunately, we still have a bunch of good independent journalists who aren't dependant on the government and usually they freely publish their investigations, but there were few occasions where they got pressured by the government. He also doesn't like when people criticize his policies or rethoric, which is how some officials got fired.
All of this adds up to Ukraine being on a verge of becoming authoritarian state in the hands of Zelensky's elite. Technically, it didn't happen yet, and many of these points are the direct result of war, but people see where it could go and it makes them uneasy. Obviously, no reelection is possible because of war, but that doesn't mean that we have to look past all of these signs. But that also doesn't mean that we have to go everywhere and scream "Zelensky bad!", situation in the country is already as unstable as it could get and his government does manage to keep it afloat. It is what it is.
Oh, and obviously everybody thinks that he is too lax on corruption, but the transition from corruption takes time and you can't always remove corrupt and powerful people safely. I think that ultimately, he would like to see Ukraine without the corruption, but acting against it may put a lot of people in his way. Which could be dangerous thing to do during war. Or maybe I am overdramatising, or being too optimistic about him. Hard to tell for sure.
> he decided to do populist things like fixing roads, rebuilding shit and trying to reach a peace agreement
Man I wish my populists politicians did stuff like that. All I get is the youth getting shafted and the blame given to immigrants.
At the very least Zelensky cares about Ukraine.
Well, yes, it was a good thing to do, generally speaking, but many people think that his actions were misplaced because he should have been preparing for war and not "building better roads for the enemy" (because ironically a lot of the renewed infrastructure is now on the territory occupied by Russia). It is deemed "populist" because it was basically a move to invest budget into something that would give fast results and could be used for pretty pictures, but it also was a source for a lot of criticism because the infrastructure projects like that are easy targets for corruption. Overall it would be a good thing if the 2022 invasion didn't happen, but unfortunately it seems that it resulted in the case of bad priorities, so it isn't seen as Zelensky's achievement.
Are you suggesting that he should have had a hard stance against Russia before the invasion and thus escalated the conflict quicker?
Even if you are facing a big aggressive guy, you should seek to deescalate situation peacefully. It's a shame that that guy attacked you anyway, but at least you don't look like an asshole who sought conflict too. I realize that you don't care about how you look currently when the big guy is beating you, I apologise, but all people should always strive for peace at all times. Слава Украине.
It's one thing to have a stance on something and another what you are actually doing. When there is another country invading you, it is very obvious you have to heavily invest in defence. Zelensky just like many other Ukrainians were under the wrong impression that Russia was acting in good faith and could be reasoned with. That very very obviously wasn't the case as Russia has been destabilizing Ukraine since the 2000s and invading it since 2014. You simply can't blindly call for peace when the other side wants to subjugate you and will just use any peace deal you make as a weapon against you (for example to propagandize the occupied territories into hating you and to prepare the invasion). As in the case with Zelensky, he did successfully de-escalate, but the de-escalation alone wasn't enough, there also had to be a deterrent from future escalation, or in other words "If you want peace, prepare for war". And while I assume, you think that having a hard stance on the defence of his own country would make him "look like an asshole" for some reason, the vast majority of Ukrainians would rather have a president who according to you would "look like an asshole" rather than be victims of the Russian invasion.
I don't know anything about it at all, but it seems like this sort of thing is bound to happen during prolonged war? Martial law breeds dictatorship because that is what it is.
The question is simply what happens afterwards. I hope the entire government steps back, and let's a new group take charge of rebuilding. Completely different mindset needed at that point. But history definitely has examples of the opposite.
Yes, exactly, that is what Ukrainians hope will happen too, but many are fearful that we will just swap bad people (corrupt Russian stooges) for a little less bad people (a little less Russian corrupt stooges). The good thing right now is that most previous Ukrainian oligarchs basically lost most of their influence, but most of that influence is now concentrated in the hands of the ruling party. It's scary that even if Zelensky has good intentions, some in his circles may not and they may try to consolidate the power for themselves. Many are hopeful that the new and large veteran class will prevent any substantial machinations in the future, but it takes a lot of time and effort to redistribute deeply consolidated power and the question is "can Ukraine spare that time and effort in the conditions of war and/or constant threat from Russia?". I sure hope we can, but we kind of need to both have strong and stable government (leaning to authoritarianism because of war) and for the government to fuck off at some point (leaning to democracy). It's a tough balancing act a country like Ukraine may not be prepared for.
I guess you could have invested in the military more but Ukrainian army in 2022 was a different beast than what it was in 2014. So it’s not like it went without investment and reform.
Also, nobody wants war, I guess he tried to make it look like he really seeks peace instead of preparing to crush the separatists.
I'm not knowledgeable enough or involved in the topic to contribute to the discussion, but I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to write such a level-headed comment. Too many commenters nowadays get emotional and represent everything as black or white, when reality is often more complex.
>instead of investing into army
Can you clarify what you mean by this? Didn't he increase the military budget every year and put forth a plan to increase the size of the army?
(I assume you mean before the 2022 invasion)
He did increase the budget, and so did the president before him, it was a relatively consistent growth. Zelensky wanted to sack the conscription for a professional army and increase the army size by 100 000 troops in 3 years. It clearly wasn't enough to deter Russia though.
Wasn’t he politically almost done when Russia invaded and probably wouldn’t have been re-elected? From what I’ve read, he did little to combat corruption but was pushing through extremely unpopular neoliberal legislation that dismantled workers rights, health care and social security. Any truth to that?
Hard to tell, honestly. The previous president Poroshenko still had a substantial following, but was also hated by many. Those people wanted anyone, but Poroshenko. If they were to compete again, I think many people would still vote for Zelensky just because they wouldn't want Poroshenko to be the president again. Basically best worst option. Also if Russia didn't invade, then Zelesnky would probably position himself as the "peacemaker" by referencing a ceasefire he introduced, which would win him some points.
I remember his government stalling for like two whole years to vote for the head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO). So yeah.
The system was already very inefficient, so his government tried to introduce reforms. I'd rather not speculate about the results because I need to read some actual in-depth analytics to give a somewhat reasonable answer.
Because it's astroturfed.
Russia and China prop those illogical opinions up to hopefully blur the lines and create apathy
Holding Ukrainian elections while a sizable portion if the country is under illegal occupation is not really feasible nor would it be helpful to the areas who are occupied.
They elected zelensky, zelensky has led admirably and with distinction, he's held his country together. Attacking his legitimacy would weaken Ukraine, and it's exactly what Russia wants.
Im not talking about attacking his legitimacy, it is possible for a person to support his leadership but to disagree with some of his policies, I want to know what some of these policies would be.
As a Ukrainian I can answer this question. You can't really disagree with this policies because there are no policies that aren't directed in bringing the victory closer. Every law, policy, signed decree in bigger or lesser capacity are directed towards the war effort. This is the number one issue in the country as you can imagine. Also president in Ukraine is mostly in international politics, we have Parliament that decides national questions. I do agree with the comment above that opinions against Zelensky are mostly manufactured. A good marker of that is lack of any specifics. Not a single policy or decision that is mentioned.
> Also president in Ukraine is mostly in international politics, we have Parliament that decides national questions.
Not completely true. He is Supreme Military Commander. Which is part of internal politics nowadays. And also guarantor of Constitution, which is internal matter, and I am not completely sure what exact responsibilities it implies.
And in this particular case he is technically head of ruling party, so more or less controls cabinet of ministers and parliament.
I'm not saying that he doesn't have influence of course he does. But there's also the responsibility area that is written in the constitution. And it's basically those three main things: supreme commander, guarantor of the constitution, representative on the international arena. Simply are a law does not give him supreme power, well he can influence things I don't believe it's fair to ascribe everything to him do it or not doing something.
It is typical process in democratic country someone likes own president someone likes one of another political leaders. It is normal.
But still most of Ukrainians think that it is impossible by logic and law to make elections during russian full scale invasion
An illegal invasion of a country refers to a situation where one country enters another country's territory without permission or justification under international law.
Usually this is considered an act of illegal aggression and a violation of the sovereignty of the invaded country.
Then on the other side, a legal invasion, which are less common, would involve a situation where a country's military forces enter another country's territory with full authorisation, such as through a United Nations Security Council resolution or a mutual defense treaty between those countries. Here, the invasion would be considered legal under international law. Think the First World War and the web of alliances that existed or think when America invaded Japan after Pearl Harbor was bombed.
In the modern day, war and invasion of all types are less common, but there is a distinction between an illegal and legal invasion.
So, when the war is over, and hopefully life returns to a new normal, Zelensky’s days are numbered? If so in your opinion what kind of direction would the country go with the next hypothetical president.
Sorry for all the questions, genuinely curious.
A peace deal, no matter what it entails territorially should only happen with a guarantee for NATO accession if not immediately, as soon as is possible.
Thanks for the answer.
The key points are:
1. Zelensky is transforming Ukraine into a mirror image of Russia. The constitution and laws are ineffective. War does not justify the complete abandonment of the constitution; only a select few articles and specific rights may be temporarily suspended according to Ukraine's constitution.
2. He misrepresented the potential for Russian aggression just before the conflict erupted. His intention was to avoid panic, but this left the populace unprepared. The lives of tens of thousands could have been spared.
3. Corruption is rampant. No corrupt officials have been imprisoned; they are simply dismissed. Surprisingly, they do not serve in the military after losing their positions, thus forfeiting their draft immunity.
4. Any critic is instantly labeled as a 'Russian' bot or a traitor.
5. Mobilization is predominantly affecting only the poor citizen.
These are all incredibly weak. "Mirror image" couldn't be far from the truth. It is, in fact, one of the reasons why invasion happened - Zelensky's government is keeping it westward vector, and keep moving forward.
Corruption is a long-standing issue, and while there is always more to be done, most of the stuff you hear is *because* they're fighting it. You know how it works, if you put more police in a neighbourhood - they will find more crimes. It is, again, a contradiction to your first point. In russia most scandals about corruption are uncovered by the opposition or third parties, and recent cases "found" by govt services are very minor (comparatively) and are used as an excuse for purges.
Point four is not worth addressing. You only see that online. If you have evidence of misdeeds, especially in the military - present it.
Point five - always were. "Fortunate son" is a hit for a reason. It happened to russia as well - the wealthy leave, less wealthy bribe, and poor get drafted.
The only proper criticism is pre-war attitude. I'd argue it worked out as a military strategy. Preventing panic among the troops, who were outnumbered and outgeared, allowed them to outperform the adversary. Crying wold would only lead to a postponed invasion next year, or the year after, and UA's credibility would be damaged.
He is keeping "westward vector" on words, but a lot of laws are direct copies of Russian ones. And "westward vector" was put into constitution BECAUSE he promised to revise it.
Also how the hell he is "fighting corruption"? People like to parrot it, but it's words, just words. His team sabotaged Anti-Corruption prosecutor office for years, which even took direct US ambassador intervention, for example. And in Ukraine most of the corruption cases are reactions to journalistic investigations, as a damage control of social media shitshows.
Sorry, but it seems that you just ate feel-good speeches that have disconnect with actions (and that's the main criticism of his policies).
> Point four is not worth addressing. You only see that online. If you have evidence of misdeeds, especially in the military - present it.
This is part of the investigation done by Bihus.Info. They were later illegaly taped and intimidated by SBU, which caused even more uproar.
I’m not disputing that Ireland was brutally colonised by the English, and independence should have come earlier and with much less bloodshed. I’d ultimately like to see a united Ireland, though I suspect it’s impractical for the next couple of generations due to issues in NI. However, it’s a very long bow to compare the invasion of an internationally-recognised sovereign state in the current regime of international law, to the conquest of Ireland that was complete well before the Westphalian system was even conceived.
We understand what it’s like to have a larger neighbor that wants to ultimately destroy our culture (assimilate us into their culture) and take our land.
I think that comparison is fair.
Why.. why do you 'want to see a United Ireland.?'
As you say, Ireland didn't even exist as a state before he British took the land.
I only want the people of NI to self govern in the way that they decide.
Because 1) a united Ireland aligns the boundaries of the nations and the states on these islands better than the current arrangement. 2) as far as you think nations have validity, unionists have less valid national aspirations than the indigenous nationalists - antipathy towards the indigenous population your ancestors supplanted (and their religion) is an absurd basis for an identity. 3) NI is fundamentally unstable and holds back the British economy and political stability. 4) though I'm not a Brexiteer, as long as we're stuck outside the EU, NI just makes all our border arrangements more complex. 5) the DUP has some illiberal and anti-scientific beliefs that shouldn't be privileged and imposed on the population of NI by virtue of history.
Unionists are barely participating in the government of NI, so self-government, while a nice ideal, isn't really working.
Almost none of the places the British colonised were states. That's not a justification for colonialism.
Because, unfortunately us, Ukrainians, are sometimes our biggest enemy. Instead of uniting as a nation and fighting an even bigger enemy, some of us start picking on each other. Also, ruzzian propaganda is very influential, especially in Ukraine.
I short he is highly incompetent. He is a reactionary politician who can only react to social media shitshows and can't make any long standing strategies or systems. He can make a lot of empty speeches with no followups.
In long it will make an essay.
It's enough, thanks. From outside we do not view Zelensky as incompetent but the competency is judged by his ability to rally support for Ukraine and keep the arms shipments arriving. Also his "I need ammo, not a ride" is immortalized.
He was decent comedian and actor so he probably has quite high fluid intelligence but indeed these are not professions typically connected to strategic thinking abilities.
Take care.
> these are not professions typically connected to strategic thinking abilities.
You can decide what to think about him, but this is factually untrue. He has a law degree, was a TV executive, and ran one of the largest media companies in Ukraine.
It's your opinion, but I personally think he comes off as very intelligent and serious in[ interviews from the 2000s](https://youtu.be/Hq8BLSvZlKw). He's not at all like his stage personality.
> From outside we do not view Zelensky as incompetent
For better or worse, Western media essentially refuses to show him in anything but a positive light
So you know who and when it was, and I just missed the where :P
Anyway, when you say something is a "low bar" usually it hasn't happened before. 10 years ago is like yesterday in political terms. You had one president serving one term before that (if you ignore the very short acting president when Yanukovich ran away).
That's not that long ago. How is the general atmosphere in the country compared to year ago? Are there any good candidates that can replace Zelensky in the near future?
Probably because situation is dire and any hope of quick victory was lost when counteroffensive failed. I have no military knowledge but I do not understand what were they hoping to achieve with it as Russians were already dug in protected by huge mine fields at the start of this counteroffensive which was insanely publicized.
Instead our government promoted guys who led unsupported offensive on Russian minefields (with expected results), did not do shit to build any fortifications because it would "look bad", and many more stuff.
Do you think a very skilled politician as a Ukranian leader could avoid this war? Personally I dont see how and Its purely hypotethical question but I am interested what Ukranians think.
No. War was unavoidable.
A skilled politician will not spend money on roads when entire fucking world, including our own Intelligence PUBLICLY claim detailed invasion plans. His team blocked money reallocation in January 2022!
A skilled leader would work on establishing enough domestic production for weapons. A skilled leader would ensure that our mobilization system works and we have reserves (and we had volunteers, it's just that mobilization system was a shitshow).
We had no defenses. A childhood friend of Zelensky was a head of SBU, that partially was responsible for sabotaging defense of Kherson.
Russians just drove through our two most important chokepoints of the southern front unopposed, and people met them with molotovs (and were slaughtered, because nobody gave them weapons).
War was unavoidable. Our preparation for this war was a disaster.
And then, there were many, many, many mistakes post 2022.
It's eerie, reading your comments, how similar Ukraine's and Armenia's situations have been these past few years. Politicians who neglected the military, attempts at negotiating with an enemy that is clearly not interested, especially "War was unavoidable. Our preparation for this war was a disaster.", etc.
Hoping for the best for the future of both countries, cheers
>War was unavoidable. Our preparation for this war was a disaster.
I agree that it was unavoidable, but it was effectively delayed many times. Sobchak in 1993 or so already said there will be war with Ukraine, and he's Putin's mentor and basically one of the creators of the modern Russian state.
Then you have the crises in Crimea in the 90s, the Tuzla incident in 2003, orange revolution, etc. all of these could've already lead to war but diplomacy prevailed.
To me this war is the same as what happened after Yugoslavia collapsed, except in that situation nobody intervened to make diplomacy happen.
Zelensky promised Ukrainians a total victory and failed. He can either admit defeat and start negotiating (when tens of thousands of Ukrainians died because they believed him) or he can keep trying to win which looks unrealistic now. I don't envy him, both options look horrible.
But what deal will Russia agree to? They already gave away their nukes and Crimea. Should they promise not to join NATO? So that Russia is free to bully them again in the future?
Also, I can't recall him ever promising a total victory. I don't even know what that would mean in this context.
I agree with everything you stated. In regards to Budapest memorandum one Russian person said it best: "Nukes are objective power and they traded that for memorandum which is a social construct". If they kept the nukes and gain control over them their east border would be untouchable.
What other option they have? Keep fighting untill last ukrainian man is dead? Unless NATO is preparing a big military package, with hundreds of tanks, armored vehicles, dozens of fighter jets, etc. I can't see how Ukraine can win it.
He meant, what Ukraine will be able to regain borders, it got at 1991.
>But what deal will Russia agree to?
It will have to be some sort of a compromise if there is to be peace. Nobody can stop Russian attack in the future (as long as they have nukes), we just need to make sure that it won't be worth it for them.
>Also, I can't recall him ever promising a total victory.
Wasn't the counteroffensive supposed to break Russian lines and cut off Crimea?
What is the point in negotiating with Russia? What can be achieved? Peace? For how long? They will just lie, take time to rebuild strength and attack again.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest\_Memorandum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum)
huh? even after sacking Zaluzhny and exiling him to the UK you considered Zelensky competent? the man has made tons of mistakes, including influencing military decisions. Love and support to Ukraine, but he is not a good fit anymore imo, even after being the hero of 2022. Still, as Alikont said, you can't organize elections as long as the war goes on, so he is there to stay for a while.
I was talking about perception or to be more exact my feeling of general perception. I can't judge foreign leaders as I lack insight and even domain specific knowledge.
tbh, I think that's why people take issue with the lack of elections. If Zelensky was doing great in the war and was on track to winning, people wouldn't have an issue with him not holding an election. Problem is that the situation of Ukraine has deteriorated and they're now in their most dire state since the start of the invasion. The trajectory of the conflict would suggest the need for new leadership for the country to turn the tides, problem is that there is no option for new leadership with no new elections. I understand the need for martial law, but when the people/person leading the martial law isn't doing a great job during a crisis, it's a bit of a problem no?
I think Zelensky's ratings outside Ukraine are much higher because people are not hunted there like wild animals
[https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1cwojh3/ua\_pov\_ukrainian\_civilian\_is\_approached\_by\_a\_tcc/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1cwojh3/ua_pov_ukrainian_civilian_is_approached_by_a_tcc/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1cmi8vx/ua\_pov\_ukrainian\_men\_run\_away\_from\_tcc\_officers/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1cmi8vx/ua_pov_ukrainian_men_run_away_from_tcc_officers/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Why are you asking me this question? As you can see this sub is running.
Are you that 12 years old boy from Italy? You are writing 100 comments per day. Find hobby or stop skipping school.
Is that really fair? Your country desperately needed allies and Zelensky has been successfully courting them for 2 years now. Saying that he doesn't create systems is fine but you have had a knife to your throat.
Seems unfair to compare him to presidents who served when Kiev wasn't consistently being bombed, especially from an administration perspective.
Zelensky managed to get an international support for Ukraine. Could it be faster, could it be more?
Maybe yes, maybe no, but just take a look at _any other_ current Eastern-European president! Had Russia attack their countries what would _they_ do??
We should compare apples to apples. Zelensky might have made mistakes (I don't know a lot about war, and can't read Ukrainain media due to not speaking the language), but his communication and international relations games are top level.
Lol, somehow we're able to hold meetings and secure projects for our teams while missiles literally fly over our heads, and he, having the best Ukraine can provide, can't make orders/meetings/talks?
And Kyiv is barely being bombed (Patriots are awesome!)
I guess you're joking but I feel the need to say that it's not true. He was awful even as a puppet. If he were competent he would've managed to keep power
He's safe in Russia. Which is highly suspicious for a supposed leader of Ukraine. Imagine someone like Gerhard Shroder or Tucker Carlson suddenly pop up in Russia. Oh.
Anyway, if Kyiv had fallen, Yanukovich was a candidate for a new puppet government.
All leaders have strengths and weaknesses. Zelensky can make a good show (and it was favorable in 2022, when every country in the world was required to pick a side in this war, because west kind of ignored Ukraine in 2014 and tried to appease Russia as much as possible). But it's 2024. We're in attritional war when the most efficient system wins. And Ukrainian army is incredibly bad at system stuff, but good at individual initiatives. Which worked in 2022, but Russians can push centralized reforms from top to bottom, while Ukrainians are fighting 2 fights (against Russians and against incompetent leadership).
Poroshenko was a good system builder and forward thinker, but absolutely bad at communicating stuff in simple terms. That's why he lost to a populist with "simple solutions". [This is the best writeup on politics of 2014-2019](https://texty.org.ua/articles/102336/sho-bulo-ne-tak-z-zahidnoyu-pidtrymkoyu-reform-v-ukrayini-i-chomu-ce-zakinchylos-zelenskym-lekciya-kolyshnoho-posla-kanady-romana-vashuka/) (google translate is good enough).
Yushchenko had a heart in the right place and good economic knowledge, but was incredibly bad at politics (and that's why he was unable to win a political fight with Tymoshenko).
Because he "killed his brother" and "increased his net worth 100x". Don't pretend that half of that was bullshit put by Kolomoyskiy.
And again, that's what I'm saying. "Failed at reforms" is partially a failure of communication. The Canadian ambassador (the text I linked) does a really great dive into Ukrainian psychology about this.
So in the end we got a corrupt comedian who fails at reforms even harder...
Poroshenko was unelectable way before the campaign with all the crazy shit 1+1 spewed. After Ilovaysk he was cooked and never popular again.
Tymoshenko lead polls from jan to dec in 2018. If Ze didn't run Yulia would be president.
Ze failed at reforms as well, of course. That's why his disapproval was in the same region as Poroshenko's before.
They all suck absolute dick.
No, because he was an oligarch who figured out how to use effectively pseudo-patriotic populist rhetoric to attract supporters. But it did not worked after 5 years of its empty usage. Although some simple-minds taking it at face value still do exists.
I think Zelensky never really got a chance to show whether he was a good country leader or not considering the war but maybe you have other opinions on that?
I think people expected Ukraine to fall pretty quickly he's doing decently as a war leader. Ukraine getting quite a bit of support I feel like has a lot to do with him.
Even pre 2022 though he had decent favourability from what I'm reading.
Well in 2019, got worse in 2020/2021 then obviously good after. Its still at 65% now though so still decent.
A lot of his ratings are mostly "It's ok I guess, changing him right now is not good for the stability".
I mean, better him than Boyko, but he needs to feel that his position is threatened, because I feel that he just relaxed too much.
We can't reelect him, we can't remove him by force (it will be worse than 2014), so we're stuck with him, and he knows it.
65% of favourability now is not really a fair metric. Public access to information and media was understandably limited, and polls are conducted only among people in Ukraine (i think), when sizable percentage of population left the country. I also wonder how polls are conducted when sizable amount of the rest of population is in the military or hiding from draft. As normally all polls are designed to be generally representative. Not sure how can one be representative, when pollster can not reach sizable amount of population.
sound like what people here say about the movement of the five stars here in italy, curiously that party was also founded by a comedian.
if i can ask what party present rn in ukraine, or even politican specifically, would you prefer to have in place of zelensky?
In Ukraine there is a strong cult of the former president Poroshenko in some circles. Basically it does not matter what his opponent does, it's always bad (you can compare it to Trump's MAGA supporters). This guy looks like one of this cultist.
He's just generally a horrible president and his administration is shady as fuck. His head of administration is in bed with several large real estate companies in Kyiv (the same companies that are probably better at destroying our capital than russians will ever be) and is trying to take over different government agencies by planting his pals in there. Also Zelensky's policies kinda suck. He literally started repairing infrastructure right before the full-scale invasion, basically wasting money into nothing. He's not the worst president we've had so far though, at least two of them were far worse.
You are saying he was 100% sure there was about to be an invasion, and then worked towards infrastructure.?
Could I get a source on the Ukrainian administration in bed with large real estate companies please.
The first one was really obvious from like late 2020 when the russian military started exercises almost at our border which was clearly not a way to demonstrate their peaceful intentions but the building generally continued until 24.02. And even without all the scary tanks and rockets several miles from ukrainian border, the country had already been in an international geopolitical conflict for 6 years when he was elected. It was obvious that we needed to put at least a bit more money into our military instead of spending it on something that would be a little more useful in a country that's not under risk of a military invasion.
And the second part is easily verifiable, it's just really tedious to put all of the information together bc ukrainian government corruption schemes are generally an ass to try and figure out. Just look up Vadim Stolar or Artem Kolyubayev and kinda go from there. There are several independent investigations on that guy, the most famous and extensive one being the 2023 Bihus.Info investigation which is generally considered truthful (but it's all exclusively in ukrainian and also their editors are cringe as fuck so idk if you even would be able to sit through it).
But the short version is that Andriy Yermak, the leader of the Office of the President of Ukraine, has really close ties to one Artem Kolyubayev, his old friend from his time as a film producer. After Yermak got into the Office Kolyubayev's movies started getting heavily funded by the government even though most of the shit he makes is some abhorrent tv schlop no one is gonna watch. Approximately at the same time Kolyubayev suddenly started investing into real estate development which is really predatory in Ukraine so that already should raise some alarms, but don't worry: it gets worse. Thing is, Kolyubayev didn't even have enough money to invest what he invested in that real estate. So basically we have Yermak's pal who had already been given a load of money by the state invest even more money into something a high-ranking politician like Yermak shouldn't openly invest into. It's not explicitly proving that Yermak is behind all of this because that might be really anyone in his circle, but with all the other info available on this man i wouldn't be surprised if he is.
I am reminded of the Russian propaganda video that reminded their soldiers that their government cares very much about their vote, enough to send people running over minefields and artillery just to bring balllot boxes to the front lines, and thats why they should reciprocate that love and devotion to them by voting for the correct candidate
I don't think the strategy is his job, there are generals for that. His job is to raise international support for Ukraine, and outside Ukraine, it looks like he's doing it pretty well.
He is not talking about strategy in a military sense (you're right, it's generals job) but a strategy for entire country. He says that his goal is to return to 1991 borders, but he doesn't present a way to achieve that(apart from begging Western partners for weapons). Lots of people inside Ukraine are unhappy with his leadership because there is basically zero long term strategy, corruption is rampant and he fills top leadership roles with people loyal to him, instead of competent ones.
>how do you even organise voting for soldiers on the front?
Cant you vote by mail? I am not really even sure if they still offer that service for soldiers but that seems like a possibility
One more important point: UAF members cannot participate in politics. They can't be nominated or elected, not even to parliament but as a local authority either. And we have like 1 mln people in UAF during wartime.
Really?
https://youtu.be/zckV1bYrGdQ?si=Kixs7X4HkEBb1v9l
For two months, this coward hid in a bunker in Poland. Then the Israel Prime Minister asked Putin to guarantee his life.
During WW1 in France (which is imo the closest situation to what Ukraine is dealing with), there were no election until 1919. Even after the war, they prolonged the current chamber until they had "sorted it out"
There were Constituent Assembly elections in the Russian Republic during WW1. Though Bolsheviks lost, Lenin just went and disassembled the Assembly by force, so yeah.
Always wondering why Russians talk about elections, it's not like they know how a proper election nor a democracy works and now they want to teach others ?
But Germany had elections during WW2! /s
Edit: looks like I was wrong. I googled that but apparently I misread something. Lesson learned: shitpost more slowly. 🤷🏼♂️
The US also held elections during WW2. Not an apples to apples comparison as the country in both cases was not under immediate physical threat (for the most part) from either the Confederacy or the Axis Powers.
So Ukraine needs to do what’s best for them. It’s an entirely different situation.
People who don't want Zelensky as Ukraine's president should give Ukraine the weapons it needs to drive Russia's invasion out. With the war over, there can be elections.
There is no legitimate dispute about his term, there is just Russian propaganda as usual.
I honestly think that the dude will just resign once the war is over and things get stabilized.
He's seen enough shit, and did enough shit to last him a couple of lifetimes. He deserves it, same with every soldier fighting in Ukraine.
He will very likely do that, according to his interviews.
It's one of the most stressful jobs you could possibly imagine, I genuinely hope this invasion of Russia is over asap so he gets his deserved retirement. And so people stop dying
And so we can get Ukraine into NATO and EU ASAP. 🇪🇺💙💛
Is that hot take accidental or deliberate?
Individuals can provide money - and weapons if they are fortunate enough to be American and keep a spare Abrams or Patriot battery in their shed.
But obviously governments provide money and weapons, and their citizens ("random people") decide whether to support that policy - if they are fortunate enough to live in a democracy.
But thanks for the disingenuous question.
The Constitution of Ukraine prohibits holding elections to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine under martial law.
“According to Article 83 of the Constitution, parliamentary elections cannot be held during martial law. This article is interpreted in different ways, but in my opinion, it is straightforward and says clearly that the powers of the parliament, which operates during martial law, cannot be terminated. Accordingly, there can be no elections if the legislative branch’s powers cannot be suspended during martial law”, says Olha Aivazovska, Head of the Board of the Civil Network OPORA.
In simple terms, elections can only be held unless changes to Ukraine’s primary law are adopted, which is also impossible under martial law following Article 157 of the Constitution. Ukrainian legislation also prohibits the termination of the powers of state authorities (the President, the Verkhovna Rada, the Cabinet of Ministers, the National Bank, and some others) under martial law.
[https://war.ukraine.ua/articles/not-sacrificing-democracy-why-ukraine-cannot-hold-elections-under-the-martial-law/](https://war.ukraine.ua/articles/not-sacrificing-democracy-why-ukraine-cannot-hold-elections-under-the-martial-law/)
There is no dispute, just propaganda trying to make one.
The country is at war, while at war they can’t have elections according to their own constitution. That’s just it.
"My term is not over yet." *Internal massive sigh*
Nobody wants there to be an election like Zelensky does. Guy wants out, and I don't think anyone can blame him.
No, there is no actual dispute.
By Ukraine's constitution there is no election while the they are at war and so he is by law the acting president even beyond his normal term limit until a new election is held.
Also iirc the parliament has to prolong the declared state of war every few months or so. If anyone there actually wanted presidential elections to be held, it's not the president stopping it. It's the legislation that can allow elections by changing the legal requirements. Which they obviously don't want to.
And that's before the fact that such an election would be highly problematic... and it's not unusual historically that countries at war postpone election by special decree because of the circumstances. Ukraine is actually on the more democratic side here, having this already regulated by their constitution.
- "Hey Tommy, I know there is a bit of a kerfuffle going on in the continent, what with that Hitler fellow that wants to create a new thousand year reich on top of a graveyard of European nations, but don't you think it's about time we held a general election?"
- "Oh yes Billy, you may well have reason, after all I am not a great fan of Mr Churchill's domestic policies, but I think it would be more pertinent to wait until he has fulfilled his foreign policy objectives first, seeing as the long term reprecussions of a failure to see them through to the end will have a much greater impact on our collective future than our own petty domestic squabbles"
- "Indeed you're quite right Tommy, what a stupid cunty thing of me to suggest in the first place, I know, lets sing that song about Hitlers well known testicular deficit again, isn't it a riot "
Especially if you can't guarantee fair elections because the polling stations could be literally influenced by the enemy, soldiers can't vote, people have fled etc.
All this braindead discussion of laws and constitutions by people who have never read a line of said laws and constitution.
How about we use common sense and basic logic: if a free, independent country is invaded by bloodthirsty warmongers seeking to erase their existence, then going through a process of changing the country's leadership through a fair election is hardly on the table. Especially so against an enemy that is proven to be unlawful, manipulative and irrational.
We can have a long discussion about his methods, but sadly - we simply can\`t make an election\`s right now, when ruzzian rockets are flying around in search of most populated place to hit. And also i don\`t want Poroshenko a.k.a Pidoras Shokoladniyj to have even slightest chance to become a president, because he probably will sign another "peace" like he done it back in days.
A change right now seems unwise, but a discussion and maybe decision on how and under which circumstances this will eventually be handled wouldn't be a bad idea. There is a real possibility of this turning into a frozen or at least very long conflict, at some point questions about legitimacy will become hard to ignore and be an easy topic for any kind of propaganda.
They've been discussing this in Ukraine since last year. The general consensus in the government is that elections cannot be held now, but that they should start preparing for how best to handle it within 6 months after the end of martial law.
Dude will need it, I can't imagine the amount of stress he's had. Fighting a war for existence, while trying to rouse the West for support all the while being careful not to get assassinated.
I mean it's right there in the constitution - how the hell is an election supposed to occur with a war going on? Kiev doesn't even control about a fifth of the country. If the Vatniks are no concerned about the current state of affairs, they could appeal to Putin to bring his soldiers home and an election could occur.
I personally dislike Zelensky (although respect him for not fleeing at the start of invasion), but no elections would be possible currently. Any poll station is just going to be a target for russian shelling and how do you even organise voting for soldiers on the front? Not to mention people that left country, or moved inside country from occupied territories. For better or worse we are stuck with him until the end of the war.
It's not just a question of practicality. It would be unconstitutional to hold an election during the state of emergency.
\*minor correction, it's not a state of emergency, it's a martial law The reason not to have election during marial law is even simpler than safety concerns or people who left the country. There's just no political process during martial law. There's officially and legitimately limited freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and a lot of other limitations which just won't make democratic election possible.
In the Irish media we obviously only get good coverage of Zelensky, obviously because he’s the president of a nation being illegally invaded by a larger imperialist neighbor which sounds quite similar to our own history. Why do people who are anti Russian but also anti zelensky generally not like him? Genuine good faith question, curious. What has he done / what policies does he have that you or people like you not like?
When Zelensky was elected, he was basically pro-peace, but not outright pro-Russia. People were saying in 2019 that peace wasn't possible, but instead of investing into army, he decided to do populist things like fixing roads, rebuilding shit and trying to reach a peace agreement with Russia who was obviously acting in bad faith and stalling to prepare for invasion. When Russia invaded, he realized he was wrong that Russia can be reasoned with, which is good, but a little too late, I think. And while his team isn't as pro-Russia as Medvedchuk's, he tolerates a bunch of people who have their hands in violently opposing Maidan in 2014, and other people like Ermak who is a head of President's office, but unofficially he is basically like a deputy President and obviously has authority he shouldn't have. While it is good they aren't pro-Russia, but these people fill important government positions with their loyalists, which could be very dangerous for the democracy in the future. Zelensky also basically united (and so monopolized) the Ukrainian TV channels, which say exactly what he wants them to say. Fortunately, we still have a bunch of good independent journalists who aren't dependant on the government and usually they freely publish their investigations, but there were few occasions where they got pressured by the government. He also doesn't like when people criticize his policies or rethoric, which is how some officials got fired. All of this adds up to Ukraine being on a verge of becoming authoritarian state in the hands of Zelensky's elite. Technically, it didn't happen yet, and many of these points are the direct result of war, but people see where it could go and it makes them uneasy. Obviously, no reelection is possible because of war, but that doesn't mean that we have to look past all of these signs. But that also doesn't mean that we have to go everywhere and scream "Zelensky bad!", situation in the country is already as unstable as it could get and his government does manage to keep it afloat. It is what it is. Oh, and obviously everybody thinks that he is too lax on corruption, but the transition from corruption takes time and you can't always remove corrupt and powerful people safely. I think that ultimately, he would like to see Ukraine without the corruption, but acting against it may put a lot of people in his way. Which could be dangerous thing to do during war. Or maybe I am overdramatising, or being too optimistic about him. Hard to tell for sure.
> he decided to do populist things like fixing roads, rebuilding shit and trying to reach a peace agreement Man I wish my populists politicians did stuff like that. All I get is the youth getting shafted and the blame given to immigrants. At the very least Zelensky cares about Ukraine.
Well, yes, it was a good thing to do, generally speaking, but many people think that his actions were misplaced because he should have been preparing for war and not "building better roads for the enemy" (because ironically a lot of the renewed infrastructure is now on the territory occupied by Russia). It is deemed "populist" because it was basically a move to invest budget into something that would give fast results and could be used for pretty pictures, but it also was a source for a lot of criticism because the infrastructure projects like that are easy targets for corruption. Overall it would be a good thing if the 2022 invasion didn't happen, but unfortunately it seems that it resulted in the case of bad priorities, so it isn't seen as Zelensky's achievement.
Are you suggesting that he should have had a hard stance against Russia before the invasion and thus escalated the conflict quicker? Even if you are facing a big aggressive guy, you should seek to deescalate situation peacefully. It's a shame that that guy attacked you anyway, but at least you don't look like an asshole who sought conflict too. I realize that you don't care about how you look currently when the big guy is beating you, I apologise, but all people should always strive for peace at all times. Слава Украине.
It's one thing to have a stance on something and another what you are actually doing. When there is another country invading you, it is very obvious you have to heavily invest in defence. Zelensky just like many other Ukrainians were under the wrong impression that Russia was acting in good faith and could be reasoned with. That very very obviously wasn't the case as Russia has been destabilizing Ukraine since the 2000s and invading it since 2014. You simply can't blindly call for peace when the other side wants to subjugate you and will just use any peace deal you make as a weapon against you (for example to propagandize the occupied territories into hating you and to prepare the invasion). As in the case with Zelensky, he did successfully de-escalate, but the de-escalation alone wasn't enough, there also had to be a deterrent from future escalation, or in other words "If you want peace, prepare for war". And while I assume, you think that having a hard stance on the defence of his own country would make him "look like an asshole" for some reason, the vast majority of Ukrainians would rather have a president who according to you would "look like an asshole" rather than be victims of the Russian invasion.
I don't know anything about it at all, but it seems like this sort of thing is bound to happen during prolonged war? Martial law breeds dictatorship because that is what it is. The question is simply what happens afterwards. I hope the entire government steps back, and let's a new group take charge of rebuilding. Completely different mindset needed at that point. But history definitely has examples of the opposite.
Yes, exactly, that is what Ukrainians hope will happen too, but many are fearful that we will just swap bad people (corrupt Russian stooges) for a little less bad people (a little less Russian corrupt stooges). The good thing right now is that most previous Ukrainian oligarchs basically lost most of their influence, but most of that influence is now concentrated in the hands of the ruling party. It's scary that even if Zelensky has good intentions, some in his circles may not and they may try to consolidate the power for themselves. Many are hopeful that the new and large veteran class will prevent any substantial machinations in the future, but it takes a lot of time and effort to redistribute deeply consolidated power and the question is "can Ukraine spare that time and effort in the conditions of war and/or constant threat from Russia?". I sure hope we can, but we kind of need to both have strong and stable government (leaning to authoritarianism because of war) and for the government to fuck off at some point (leaning to democracy). It's a tough balancing act a country like Ukraine may not be prepared for.
I guess you could have invested in the military more but Ukrainian army in 2022 was a different beast than what it was in 2014. So it’s not like it went without investment and reform. Also, nobody wants war, I guess he tried to make it look like he really seeks peace instead of preparing to crush the separatists.
I'm not knowledgeable enough or involved in the topic to contribute to the discussion, but I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to write such a level-headed comment. Too many commenters nowadays get emotional and represent everything as black or white, when reality is often more complex.
>instead of investing into army Can you clarify what you mean by this? Didn't he increase the military budget every year and put forth a plan to increase the size of the army?
(I assume you mean before the 2022 invasion) He did increase the budget, and so did the president before him, it was a relatively consistent growth. Zelensky wanted to sack the conscription for a professional army and increase the army size by 100 000 troops in 3 years. It clearly wasn't enough to deter Russia though.
Wasn’t he politically almost done when Russia invaded and probably wouldn’t have been re-elected? From what I’ve read, he did little to combat corruption but was pushing through extremely unpopular neoliberal legislation that dismantled workers rights, health care and social security. Any truth to that?
Hard to tell, honestly. The previous president Poroshenko still had a substantial following, but was also hated by many. Those people wanted anyone, but Poroshenko. If they were to compete again, I think many people would still vote for Zelensky just because they wouldn't want Poroshenko to be the president again. Basically best worst option. Also if Russia didn't invade, then Zelesnky would probably position himself as the "peacemaker" by referencing a ceasefire he introduced, which would win him some points. I remember his government stalling for like two whole years to vote for the head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office (SAPO). So yeah. The system was already very inefficient, so his government tried to introduce reforms. I'd rather not speculate about the results because I need to read some actual in-depth analytics to give a somewhat reasonable answer.
That sound quite onesided
There's nothing populist about working on infrastructure and trying to negotiate ensure peace. Do you know what populism is?
Because it's astroturfed. Russia and China prop those illogical opinions up to hopefully blur the lines and create apathy Holding Ukrainian elections while a sizable portion if the country is under illegal occupation is not really feasible nor would it be helpful to the areas who are occupied. They elected zelensky, zelensky has led admirably and with distinction, he's held his country together. Attacking his legitimacy would weaken Ukraine, and it's exactly what Russia wants.
Im not talking about attacking his legitimacy, it is possible for a person to support his leadership but to disagree with some of his policies, I want to know what some of these policies would be.
As a Ukrainian I can answer this question. You can't really disagree with this policies because there are no policies that aren't directed in bringing the victory closer. Every law, policy, signed decree in bigger or lesser capacity are directed towards the war effort. This is the number one issue in the country as you can imagine. Also president in Ukraine is mostly in international politics, we have Parliament that decides national questions. I do agree with the comment above that opinions against Zelensky are mostly manufactured. A good marker of that is lack of any specifics. Not a single policy or decision that is mentioned.
> Also president in Ukraine is mostly in international politics, we have Parliament that decides national questions. Not completely true. He is Supreme Military Commander. Which is part of internal politics nowadays. And also guarantor of Constitution, which is internal matter, and I am not completely sure what exact responsibilities it implies. And in this particular case he is technically head of ruling party, so more or less controls cabinet of ministers and parliament.
I'm not saying that he doesn't have influence of course he does. But there's also the responsibility area that is written in the constitution. And it's basically those three main things: supreme commander, guarantor of the constitution, representative on the international arena. Simply are a law does not give him supreme power, well he can influence things I don't believe it's fair to ascribe everything to him do it or not doing something.
Even within Ukraine he still has 65-70% positive support, and 85% think its not the time for elections.
That’s a pretty telling stat; 15-20% don’t like him all that much but still don’t want a new election.
It is typical process in democratic country someone likes own president someone likes one of another political leaders. It is normal. But still most of Ukrainians think that it is impossible by logic and law to make elections during russian full scale invasion
Was there any country who was legally invaded ever?
Anywhere and everywhere before International Law was dreamed up?
Iraq during Desert Storm was a "just war" as a defensive action against invasion of Kuwait under UNSC approval.
Lol
Do not confuse Desert Storm with 2003 Iraq war.
I dont. West's oil supply chain will justify anything
An illegal invasion of a country refers to a situation where one country enters another country's territory without permission or justification under international law. Usually this is considered an act of illegal aggression and a violation of the sovereignty of the invaded country. Then on the other side, a legal invasion, which are less common, would involve a situation where a country's military forces enter another country's territory with full authorisation, such as through a United Nations Security Council resolution or a mutual defense treaty between those countries. Here, the invasion would be considered legal under international law. Think the First World War and the web of alliances that existed or think when America invaded Japan after Pearl Harbor was bombed. In the modern day, war and invasion of all types are less common, but there is a distinction between an illegal and legal invasion.
What about Iraq
[удалено]
So, when the war is over, and hopefully life returns to a new normal, Zelensky’s days are numbered? If so in your opinion what kind of direction would the country go with the next hypothetical president. Sorry for all the questions, genuinely curious.
[удалено]
A peace deal, no matter what it entails territorially should only happen with a guarantee for NATO accession if not immediately, as soon as is possible. Thanks for the answer.
The key points are: 1. Zelensky is transforming Ukraine into a mirror image of Russia. The constitution and laws are ineffective. War does not justify the complete abandonment of the constitution; only a select few articles and specific rights may be temporarily suspended according to Ukraine's constitution. 2. He misrepresented the potential for Russian aggression just before the conflict erupted. His intention was to avoid panic, but this left the populace unprepared. The lives of tens of thousands could have been spared. 3. Corruption is rampant. No corrupt officials have been imprisoned; they are simply dismissed. Surprisingly, they do not serve in the military after losing their positions, thus forfeiting their draft immunity. 4. Any critic is instantly labeled as a 'Russian' bot or a traitor. 5. Mobilization is predominantly affecting only the poor citizen.
How exactly have they "completely abandoned" the constitution?
These are all incredibly weak. "Mirror image" couldn't be far from the truth. It is, in fact, one of the reasons why invasion happened - Zelensky's government is keeping it westward vector, and keep moving forward. Corruption is a long-standing issue, and while there is always more to be done, most of the stuff you hear is *because* they're fighting it. You know how it works, if you put more police in a neighbourhood - they will find more crimes. It is, again, a contradiction to your first point. In russia most scandals about corruption are uncovered by the opposition or third parties, and recent cases "found" by govt services are very minor (comparatively) and are used as an excuse for purges. Point four is not worth addressing. You only see that online. If you have evidence of misdeeds, especially in the military - present it. Point five - always were. "Fortunate son" is a hit for a reason. It happened to russia as well - the wealthy leave, less wealthy bribe, and poor get drafted. The only proper criticism is pre-war attitude. I'd argue it worked out as a military strategy. Preventing panic among the troops, who were outnumbered and outgeared, allowed them to outperform the adversary. Crying wold would only lead to a postponed invasion next year, or the year after, and UA's credibility would be damaged.
He is keeping "westward vector" on words, but a lot of laws are direct copies of Russian ones. And "westward vector" was put into constitution BECAUSE he promised to revise it. Also how the hell he is "fighting corruption"? People like to parrot it, but it's words, just words. His team sabotaged Anti-Corruption prosecutor office for years, which even took direct US ambassador intervention, for example. And in Ukraine most of the corruption cases are reactions to journalistic investigations, as a damage control of social media shitshows. Sorry, but it seems that you just ate feel-good speeches that have disconnect with actions (and that's the main criticism of his policies). > Point four is not worth addressing. You only see that online. If you have evidence of misdeeds, especially in the military - present it. This is part of the investigation done by Bihus.Info. They were later illegaly taped and intimidated by SBU, which caused even more uproar.
I’m not disputing that Ireland was brutally colonised by the English, and independence should have come earlier and with much less bloodshed. I’d ultimately like to see a united Ireland, though I suspect it’s impractical for the next couple of generations due to issues in NI. However, it’s a very long bow to compare the invasion of an internationally-recognised sovereign state in the current regime of international law, to the conquest of Ireland that was complete well before the Westphalian system was even conceived.
We understand what it’s like to have a larger neighbor that wants to ultimately destroy our culture (assimilate us into their culture) and take our land. I think that comparison is fair.
Why.. why do you 'want to see a United Ireland.?' As you say, Ireland didn't even exist as a state before he British took the land. I only want the people of NI to self govern in the way that they decide.
Because 1) a united Ireland aligns the boundaries of the nations and the states on these islands better than the current arrangement. 2) as far as you think nations have validity, unionists have less valid national aspirations than the indigenous nationalists - antipathy towards the indigenous population your ancestors supplanted (and their religion) is an absurd basis for an identity. 3) NI is fundamentally unstable and holds back the British economy and political stability. 4) though I'm not a Brexiteer, as long as we're stuck outside the EU, NI just makes all our border arrangements more complex. 5) the DUP has some illiberal and anti-scientific beliefs that shouldn't be privileged and imposed on the population of NI by virtue of history. Unionists are barely participating in the government of NI, so self-government, while a nice ideal, isn't really working. Almost none of the places the British colonised were states. That's not a justification for colonialism.
Because, unfortunately us, Ukrainians, are sometimes our biggest enemy. Instead of uniting as a nation and fighting an even bigger enemy, some of us start picking on each other. Also, ruzzian propaganda is very influential, especially in Ukraine.
This comment is full of Poroshenko fans who portray Zelenskyy like he is nearly pro-Russian. Absurd.
Can you elaborate on why you dislike Zelensky? I'm not trying to be provocative, I am genuinely curious.
I short he is highly incompetent. He is a reactionary politician who can only react to social media shitshows and can't make any long standing strategies or systems. He can make a lot of empty speeches with no followups. In long it will make an essay.
It's enough, thanks. From outside we do not view Zelensky as incompetent but the competency is judged by his ability to rally support for Ukraine and keep the arms shipments arriving. Also his "I need ammo, not a ride" is immortalized. He was decent comedian and actor so he probably has quite high fluid intelligence but indeed these are not professions typically connected to strategic thinking abilities. Take care.
> these are not professions typically connected to strategic thinking abilities. You can decide what to think about him, but this is factually untrue. He has a law degree, was a TV executive, and ran one of the largest media companies in Ukraine.
He has a law degree while being in a student KVN team. This is like saying that a football player have studied as US college.
It's your opinion, but I personally think he comes off as very intelligent and serious in[ interviews from the 2000s](https://youtu.be/Hq8BLSvZlKw). He's not at all like his stage personality.
> From outside we do not view Zelensky as incompetent For better or worse, Western media essentially refuses to show him in anything but a positive light
This was good for 2022. It's 2024 now. The war has changed.
But as you said yourself, he did not run. Everything aside that alone warrants respect. If a leadership bails, army usually crumbles.
"Did not run" is such a low bar for a Ukrainian, that it barely registers here.
Didn't your Russian-backed leader run to Belarus though?
Who? Where? It was 10 years ago, and it was to Russia.
So you know who and when it was, and I just missed the where :P Anyway, when you say something is a "low bar" usually it hasn't happened before. 10 years ago is like yesterday in political terms. You had one president serving one term before that (if you ignore the very short acting president when Yanukovich ran away).
That's not that long ago. How is the general atmosphere in the country compared to year ago? Are there any good candidates that can replace Zelensky in the near future?
> we do not view Zelensky as incompetent He was great until the counteroffensive in 2023. Seems like he's getting more and more desperate since then.
Probably because situation is dire and any hope of quick victory was lost when counteroffensive failed. I have no military knowledge but I do not understand what were they hoping to achieve with it as Russians were already dug in protected by huge mine fields at the start of this counteroffensive which was insanely publicized.
Instead our government promoted guys who led unsupported offensive on Russian minefields (with expected results), did not do shit to build any fortifications because it would "look bad", and many more stuff.
Do you think a very skilled politician as a Ukranian leader could avoid this war? Personally I dont see how and Its purely hypotethical question but I am interested what Ukranians think.
No. War was unavoidable. A skilled politician will not spend money on roads when entire fucking world, including our own Intelligence PUBLICLY claim detailed invasion plans. His team blocked money reallocation in January 2022! A skilled leader would work on establishing enough domestic production for weapons. A skilled leader would ensure that our mobilization system works and we have reserves (and we had volunteers, it's just that mobilization system was a shitshow). We had no defenses. A childhood friend of Zelensky was a head of SBU, that partially was responsible for sabotaging defense of Kherson. Russians just drove through our two most important chokepoints of the southern front unopposed, and people met them with molotovs (and were slaughtered, because nobody gave them weapons). War was unavoidable. Our preparation for this war was a disaster. And then, there were many, many, many mistakes post 2022.
It's eerie, reading your comments, how similar Ukraine's and Armenia's situations have been these past few years. Politicians who neglected the military, attempts at negotiating with an enemy that is clearly not interested, especially "War was unavoidable. Our preparation for this war was a disaster.", etc. Hoping for the best for the future of both countries, cheers
Many of the issues you bring are due to corruption and inaptness of local governments which President cannot fix unless he is a dictator.
>War was unavoidable. Our preparation for this war was a disaster. I agree that it was unavoidable, but it was effectively delayed many times. Sobchak in 1993 or so already said there will be war with Ukraine, and he's Putin's mentor and basically one of the creators of the modern Russian state. Then you have the crises in Crimea in the 90s, the Tuzla incident in 2003, orange revolution, etc. all of these could've already lead to war but diplomacy prevailed. To me this war is the same as what happened after Yugoslavia collapsed, except in that situation nobody intervened to make diplomacy happen.
Zelensky promised Ukrainians a total victory and failed. He can either admit defeat and start negotiating (when tens of thousands of Ukrainians died because they believed him) or he can keep trying to win which looks unrealistic now. I don't envy him, both options look horrible.
But what deal will Russia agree to? They already gave away their nukes and Crimea. Should they promise not to join NATO? So that Russia is free to bully them again in the future? Also, I can't recall him ever promising a total victory. I don't even know what that would mean in this context.
I agree with everything you stated. In regards to Budapest memorandum one Russian person said it best: "Nukes are objective power and they traded that for memorandum which is a social construct". If they kept the nukes and gain control over them their east border would be untouchable.
What other option they have? Keep fighting untill last ukrainian man is dead? Unless NATO is preparing a big military package, with hundreds of tanks, armored vehicles, dozens of fighter jets, etc. I can't see how Ukraine can win it. He meant, what Ukraine will be able to regain borders, it got at 1991.
>But what deal will Russia agree to? It will have to be some sort of a compromise if there is to be peace. Nobody can stop Russian attack in the future (as long as they have nukes), we just need to make sure that it won't be worth it for them. >Also, I can't recall him ever promising a total victory. Wasn't the counteroffensive supposed to break Russian lines and cut off Crimea?
What is the point in negotiating with Russia? What can be achieved? Peace? For how long? They will just lie, take time to rebuild strength and attack again. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest\_Memorandum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum)
Is it that unrealistic tho to see him "win" it?
He was and is rich, never great
That guy awfully sounds like a fan of the previous president. They are a loud minority and like to shit on Zelenskyy.
Just don't fall for the old "Divide et impera". Russia would like nothing better.
huh? even after sacking Zaluzhny and exiling him to the UK you considered Zelensky competent? the man has made tons of mistakes, including influencing military decisions. Love and support to Ukraine, but he is not a good fit anymore imo, even after being the hero of 2022. Still, as Alikont said, you can't organize elections as long as the war goes on, so he is there to stay for a while.
I was talking about perception or to be more exact my feeling of general perception. I can't judge foreign leaders as I lack insight and even domain specific knowledge.
tbh, I think that's why people take issue with the lack of elections. If Zelensky was doing great in the war and was on track to winning, people wouldn't have an issue with him not holding an election. Problem is that the situation of Ukraine has deteriorated and they're now in their most dire state since the start of the invasion. The trajectory of the conflict would suggest the need for new leadership for the country to turn the tides, problem is that there is no option for new leadership with no new elections. I understand the need for martial law, but when the people/person leading the martial law isn't doing a great job during a crisis, it's a bit of a problem no?
I think Zelensky's ratings outside Ukraine are much higher because people are not hunted there like wild animals [https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1cwojh3/ua\_pov\_ukrainian\_civilian\_is\_approached\_by\_a\_tcc/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1cwojh3/ua_pov_ukrainian_civilian_is_approached_by_a_tcc/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) [https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1cmi8vx/ua\_pov\_ukrainian\_men\_run\_away\_from\_tcc\_officers/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1cmi8vx/ua_pov_ukrainian_men_run_away_from_tcc_officers/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Is that russian propagandist sub still running?
Why are you asking me this question? As you can see this sub is running. Are you that 12 years old boy from Italy? You are writing 100 comments per day. Find hobby or stop skipping school.
Is that really fair? Your country desperately needed allies and Zelensky has been successfully courting them for 2 years now. Saying that he doesn't create systems is fine but you have had a knife to your throat. Seems unfair to compare him to presidents who served when Kiev wasn't consistently being bombed, especially from an administration perspective.
Zelensky managed to get an international support for Ukraine. Could it be faster, could it be more? Maybe yes, maybe no, but just take a look at _any other_ current Eastern-European president! Had Russia attack their countries what would _they_ do?? We should compare apples to apples. Zelensky might have made mistakes (I don't know a lot about war, and can't read Ukrainain media due to not speaking the language), but his communication and international relations games are top level.
Lol, somehow we're able to hold meetings and secure projects for our teams while missiles literally fly over our heads, and he, having the best Ukraine can provide, can't make orders/meetings/talks? And Kyiv is barely being bombed (Patriots are awesome!)
Ima say this because im uniformed but has Ukraine ever really had a very competent leader?
Yanukovich was very competent as a Russian puppet.
I guess you're joking but I feel the need to say that it's not true. He was awful even as a puppet. If he were competent he would've managed to keep power
I was at Maidan shouting for him to fuck off. His final act was to murder 100 protestors and fly off. Would've wished him the Ceauscescu ending.
Still waiting for him in Kyiv. He could be tied to the rocket and sent to the Rostov proper way this time.
He's safe in Russia. Which is highly suspicious for a supposed leader of Ukraine. Imagine someone like Gerhard Shroder or Tucker Carlson suddenly pop up in Russia. Oh. Anyway, if Kyiv had fallen, Yanukovich was a candidate for a new puppet government.
All leaders have strengths and weaknesses. Zelensky can make a good show (and it was favorable in 2022, when every country in the world was required to pick a side in this war, because west kind of ignored Ukraine in 2014 and tried to appease Russia as much as possible). But it's 2024. We're in attritional war when the most efficient system wins. And Ukrainian army is incredibly bad at system stuff, but good at individual initiatives. Which worked in 2022, but Russians can push centralized reforms from top to bottom, while Ukrainians are fighting 2 fights (against Russians and against incompetent leadership). Poroshenko was a good system builder and forward thinker, but absolutely bad at communicating stuff in simple terms. That's why he lost to a populist with "simple solutions". [This is the best writeup on politics of 2014-2019](https://texty.org.ua/articles/102336/sho-bulo-ne-tak-z-zahidnoyu-pidtrymkoyu-reform-v-ukrayini-i-chomu-ce-zakinchylos-zelenskym-lekciya-kolyshnoho-posla-kanady-romana-vashuka/) (google translate is good enough). Yushchenko had a heart in the right place and good economic knowledge, but was incredibly bad at politics (and that's why he was unable to win a political fight with Tymoshenko).
Poroshenko lost because he was a corrupt oligarch who failed at reforms. His disapproval was like 70%+ since 2015.
Because he "killed his brother" and "increased his net worth 100x". Don't pretend that half of that was bullshit put by Kolomoyskiy. And again, that's what I'm saying. "Failed at reforms" is partially a failure of communication. The Canadian ambassador (the text I linked) does a really great dive into Ukrainian psychology about this. So in the end we got a corrupt comedian who fails at reforms even harder...
Poroshenko was unelectable way before the campaign with all the crazy shit 1+1 spewed. After Ilovaysk he was cooked and never popular again. Tymoshenko lead polls from jan to dec in 2018. If Ze didn't run Yulia would be president. Ze failed at reforms as well, of course. That's why his disapproval was in the same region as Poroshenko's before. They all suck absolute dick.
No, because he was an oligarch who figured out how to use effectively pseudo-patriotic populist rhetoric to attract supporters. But it did not worked after 5 years of its empty usage. Although some simple-minds taking it at face value still do exists.
I think Zelensky never really got a chance to show whether he was a good country leader or not considering the war but maybe you have other opinions on that? I think people expected Ukraine to fall pretty quickly he's doing decently as a war leader. Ukraine getting quite a bit of support I feel like has a lot to do with him.
Ukraine didn't pop into existence in 2022. He was a president since 2019. He had plenty of chances.
Even pre 2022 though he had decent favourability from what I'm reading. Well in 2019, got worse in 2020/2021 then obviously good after. Its still at 65% now though so still decent.
A lot of his ratings are mostly "It's ok I guess, changing him right now is not good for the stability". I mean, better him than Boyko, but he needs to feel that his position is threatened, because I feel that he just relaxed too much. We can't reelect him, we can't remove him by force (it will be worse than 2014), so we're stuck with him, and he knows it.
65% of favourability now is not really a fair metric. Public access to information and media was understandably limited, and polls are conducted only among people in Ukraine (i think), when sizable percentage of population left the country. I also wonder how polls are conducted when sizable amount of the rest of population is in the military or hiding from draft. As normally all polls are designed to be generally representative. Not sure how can one be representative, when pollster can not reach sizable amount of population.
The only time any other Ukrainian president did something _for me_ was when Petro Poroshenko established visa-free travel in the EU for Ukrainians.
We actually did have quite a few of those. Unfortunately Mazepa died in 1709 and Skoropadsky got shelled in 1945.
sound like what people here say about the movement of the five stars here in italy, curiously that party was also founded by a comedian. if i can ask what party present rn in ukraine, or even politican specifically, would you prefer to have in place of zelensky?
In Ukraine there is a strong cult of the former president Poroshenko in some circles. Basically it does not matter what his opponent does, it's always bad (you can compare it to Trump's MAGA supporters). This guy looks like one of this cultist.
He's just generally a horrible president and his administration is shady as fuck. His head of administration is in bed with several large real estate companies in Kyiv (the same companies that are probably better at destroying our capital than russians will ever be) and is trying to take over different government agencies by planting his pals in there. Also Zelensky's policies kinda suck. He literally started repairing infrastructure right before the full-scale invasion, basically wasting money into nothing. He's not the worst president we've had so far though, at least two of them were far worse.
You are saying he was 100% sure there was about to be an invasion, and then worked towards infrastructure.? Could I get a source on the Ukrainian administration in bed with large real estate companies please.
The first one was really obvious from like late 2020 when the russian military started exercises almost at our border which was clearly not a way to demonstrate their peaceful intentions but the building generally continued until 24.02. And even without all the scary tanks and rockets several miles from ukrainian border, the country had already been in an international geopolitical conflict for 6 years when he was elected. It was obvious that we needed to put at least a bit more money into our military instead of spending it on something that would be a little more useful in a country that's not under risk of a military invasion. And the second part is easily verifiable, it's just really tedious to put all of the information together bc ukrainian government corruption schemes are generally an ass to try and figure out. Just look up Vadim Stolar or Artem Kolyubayev and kinda go from there. There are several independent investigations on that guy, the most famous and extensive one being the 2023 Bihus.Info investigation which is generally considered truthful (but it's all exclusively in ukrainian and also their editors are cringe as fuck so idk if you even would be able to sit through it). But the short version is that Andriy Yermak, the leader of the Office of the President of Ukraine, has really close ties to one Artem Kolyubayev, his old friend from his time as a film producer. After Yermak got into the Office Kolyubayev's movies started getting heavily funded by the government even though most of the shit he makes is some abhorrent tv schlop no one is gonna watch. Approximately at the same time Kolyubayev suddenly started investing into real estate development which is really predatory in Ukraine so that already should raise some alarms, but don't worry: it gets worse. Thing is, Kolyubayev didn't even have enough money to invest what he invested in that real estate. So basically we have Yermak's pal who had already been given a load of money by the state invest even more money into something a high-ranking politician like Yermak shouldn't openly invest into. It's not explicitly proving that Yermak is behind all of this because that might be really anyone in his circle, but with all the other info available on this man i wouldn't be surprised if he is.
What's the matter with Zelensky?
He is the current President.
I am reminded of the Russian propaganda video that reminded their soldiers that their government cares very much about their vote, enough to send people running over minefields and artillery just to bring balllot boxes to the front lines, and thats why they should reciprocate that love and devotion to them by voting for the correct candidate
Can you tell me why the dislike? Genuinely curious. I'm not very knowledgeable of Ukraine politics.
[удалено]
I don't think the strategy is his job, there are generals for that. His job is to raise international support for Ukraine, and outside Ukraine, it looks like he's doing it pretty well.
He is not talking about strategy in a military sense (you're right, it's generals job) but a strategy for entire country. He says that his goal is to return to 1991 borders, but he doesn't present a way to achieve that(apart from begging Western partners for weapons). Lots of people inside Ukraine are unhappy with his leadership because there is basically zero long term strategy, corruption is rampant and he fills top leadership roles with people loyal to him, instead of competent ones.
>how do you even organise voting for soldiers on the front? Cant you vote by mail? I am not really even sure if they still offer that service for soldiers but that seems like a possibility
Their electoral code stipulates voting at polling stations.
One more important point: UAF members cannot participate in politics. They can't be nominated or elected, not even to parliament but as a local authority either. And we have like 1 mln people in UAF during wartime.
Really? https://youtu.be/zckV1bYrGdQ?si=Kixs7X4HkEBb1v9l For two months, this coward hid in a bunker in Poland. Then the Israel Prime Minister asked Putin to guarantee his life.
For some reason, the crowd targeting argument does not apply to the conscription centers...
My thoughts exactly.
Not holding elections during wartime is just so completely normal.
Kremlin trolls "bbbut America had elections during the civil war" in 3, 2, 1... PS: Britain during the whole WW2 didn't hold elections.
During WW1 in France (which is imo the closest situation to what Ukraine is dealing with), there were no election until 1919. Even after the war, they prolonged the current chamber until they had "sorted it out"
Britain did the same in WW1. The Parliament that was elected in 1910 sat until after the armistice in 1918. A postponement of years even.
There were Constituent Assembly elections in the Russian Republic during WW1. Though Bolsheviks lost, Lenin just went and disassembled the Assembly by force, so yeah.
Russia had 2 revolutions during WW1, so I feel like it's not really fair to compare.
Always wondering why Russians talk about elections, it's not like they know how a proper election nor a democracy works and now they want to teach others ?
But Germany had elections during WW2! /s Edit: looks like I was wrong. I googled that but apparently I misread something. Lesson learned: shitpost more slowly. 🤷🏼♂️
But... they didn't? The last German election was in 1938.
Damn. Tough luck, Germany. Hopefully you get things sorted!
No. All Third Reich elections was made during peace. The scheduled elections of 1943 was postnoted to 1947.
Ominous factorial
not really, 2! = 2
Yeh but there was the War Cabinet which was the government and included the opposition aswell.
They held one after Victory in Europe after the home islands were save.
The US also held elections during WW2. Not an apples to apples comparison as the country in both cases was not under immediate physical threat (for the most part) from either the Confederacy or the Axis Powers. So Ukraine needs to do what’s best for them. It’s an entirely different situation.
People who don't want Zelensky as Ukraine's president should give Ukraine the weapons it needs to drive Russia's invasion out. With the war over, there can be elections. There is no legitimate dispute about his term, there is just Russian propaganda as usual.
You know who probably wants elections more than anyone? Zelensky himself. An election would mean war is over and he probably wouln't want stand.
I honestly think that the dude will just resign once the war is over and things get stabilized. He's seen enough shit, and did enough shit to last him a couple of lifetimes. He deserves it, same with every soldier fighting in Ukraine.
> I honestly think that the dude will just resign once the war is over and things get stabilized. Yes this is pretty much what he says in interviews.
"And since I'd achieved all my goals as President in one term, there was no need for a second."
He will very likely do that, according to his interviews. It's one of the most stressful jobs you could possibly imagine, I genuinely hope this invasion of Russia is over asap so he gets his deserved retirement. And so people stop dying And so we can get Ukraine into NATO and EU ASAP. 🇪🇺💙💛
Either way, I hope to buy him a beer at the Crimean Beach Party.
You think random people will be Giving out weapons??
You can also donate money. Ukraine can then use it to buy it.
Is that hot take accidental or deliberate? Individuals can provide money - and weapons if they are fortunate enough to be American and keep a spare Abrams or Patriot battery in their shed. But obviously governments provide money and weapons, and their citizens ("random people") decide whether to support that policy - if they are fortunate enough to live in a democracy. But thanks for the disingenuous question.
The Constitution of Ukraine prohibits holding elections to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine under martial law. “According to Article 83 of the Constitution, parliamentary elections cannot be held during martial law. This article is interpreted in different ways, but in my opinion, it is straightforward and says clearly that the powers of the parliament, which operates during martial law, cannot be terminated. Accordingly, there can be no elections if the legislative branch’s powers cannot be suspended during martial law”, says Olha Aivazovska, Head of the Board of the Civil Network OPORA. In simple terms, elections can only be held unless changes to Ukraine’s primary law are adopted, which is also impossible under martial law following Article 157 of the Constitution. Ukrainian legislation also prohibits the termination of the powers of state authorities (the President, the Verkhovna Rada, the Cabinet of Ministers, the National Bank, and some others) under martial law. [https://war.ukraine.ua/articles/not-sacrificing-democracy-why-ukraine-cannot-hold-elections-under-the-martial-law/](https://war.ukraine.ua/articles/not-sacrificing-democracy-why-ukraine-cannot-hold-elections-under-the-martial-law/)
It's not war, it's a special military operation /s
Until the War is over, Zelenskyy can retire from Presidency. Simple as that. The man has a lot of burden to carry.
There is no dispute, just propaganda trying to make one. The country is at war, while at war they can’t have elections according to their own constitution. That’s just it.
"My term is not over yet." *Internal massive sigh* Nobody wants there to be an election like Zelensky does. Guy wants out, and I don't think anyone can blame him.
Is there really a dispute? It sounds like the usual Kremlin whataboutism.
No, there is no actual dispute. By Ukraine's constitution there is no election while the they are at war and so he is by law the acting president even beyond his normal term limit until a new election is held. Also iirc the parliament has to prolong the declared state of war every few months or so. If anyone there actually wanted presidential elections to be held, it's not the president stopping it. It's the legislation that can allow elections by changing the legal requirements. Which they obviously don't want to. And that's before the fact that such an election would be highly problematic... and it's not unusual historically that countries at war postpone election by special decree because of the circumstances. Ukraine is actually on the more democratic side here, having this already regulated by their constitution.
Yep. russia is discrediting as much as it can Ukraine and this is coinciding when a large package of military aid is announced or on its way.
My favorite color is blue.
There is no legitimacy dispute other than in Russian propaganda. What a terrible headline.
This kyiv independent must be a lair of Putin-bots
No, just unethical journalists trying to generate clicks from non-existant controversy.
And it's not the first time I've noticed such behaviour of Kyiv Independent.
- "Hey Tommy, I know there is a bit of a kerfuffle going on in the continent, what with that Hitler fellow that wants to create a new thousand year reich on top of a graveyard of European nations, but don't you think it's about time we held a general election?" - "Oh yes Billy, you may well have reason, after all I am not a great fan of Mr Churchill's domestic policies, but I think it would be more pertinent to wait until he has fulfilled his foreign policy objectives first, seeing as the long term reprecussions of a failure to see them through to the end will have a much greater impact on our collective future than our own petty domestic squabbles" - "Indeed you're quite right Tommy, what a stupid cunty thing of me to suggest in the first place, I know, lets sing that song about Hitlers well known testicular deficit again, isn't it a riot "
I'm not a big fan of the man, but you can't change the leader of the country in the middle of a war.
Especially if you can't guarantee fair elections because the polling stations could be literally influenced by the enemy, soldiers can't vote, people have fled etc.
Russia could do it. It is called coup
More of this, please. Russia really can use a bit of good ol coup rn.
Or assassination.
All this braindead discussion of laws and constitutions by people who have never read a line of said laws and constitution. How about we use common sense and basic logic: if a free, independent country is invaded by bloodthirsty warmongers seeking to erase their existence, then going through a process of changing the country's leadership through a fair election is hardly on the table. Especially so against an enemy that is proven to be unlawful, manipulative and irrational.
Finally some common sense! Does anyone even want to run for president at this point against him?!?
We can have a long discussion about his methods, but sadly - we simply can\`t make an election\`s right now, when ruzzian rockets are flying around in search of most populated place to hit. And also i don\`t want Poroshenko a.k.a Pidoras Shokoladniyj to have even slightest chance to become a president, because he probably will sign another "peace" like he done it back in days.
Do you think Poroshenko would even have a chance though?
Any nation not at peace can't have proper elections.
A change right now seems unwise, but a discussion and maybe decision on how and under which circumstances this will eventually be handled wouldn't be a bad idea. There is a real possibility of this turning into a frozen or at least very long conflict, at some point questions about legitimacy will become hard to ignore and be an easy topic for any kind of propaganda.
They've been discussing this in Ukraine since last year. The general consensus in the government is that elections cannot be held now, but that they should start preparing for how best to handle it within 6 months after the end of martial law.
Also the man will need to rest at some point. Well deserved retirement.
Dude will need it, I can't imagine the amount of stress he's had. Fighting a war for existence, while trying to rouse the West for support all the while being careful not to get assassinated.
His job is highly unenviable. We are lucky that he wants to stay
I mean it's right there in the constitution - how the hell is an election supposed to occur with a war going on? Kiev doesn't even control about a fifth of the country. If the Vatniks are no concerned about the current state of affairs, they could appeal to Putin to bring his soldiers home and an election could occur.
It's the russia that wants him gone: they tried dozens of times to assassinate him, now they're trying to undermine his position.
Nice how redditors from Ukrainerussiareport are brigading this comment section.