how would holding elections even work when russia is known to specifically attack civilian targets. large gatherings at a known date in that context seem like a bad idea…
Mail in ballots?
If Russia could successfully hack the voting machines, stuff the ballot boxes, or otherwise cheat in the election, they could elect someone who would surrender and give up Ukrainian sovereignty and security. Or at least divide the nation enough to weaken it severely at a point when Ukraine is winning the war.
Ukraine was relatively balanced with Ukrainian and Russian candidates having a fair chance. That changed when crimea was occupied. Russia where then surprised when the most pro russian territory don’t send there votes and the country votes for a pro Ukraine president. Fighting in the Donbas made the issues even worse for them.
The best thing Putin could do to insure a favourable election is stop, give the occupied regions back and see what happens.
The more you look at the history of this conflict the bigger blunder it appears to be. Yet again Russia has been toppled by a conflict it could have totally avoided.
For a bunch of kgb master mind strategists they sure cant strategise for shit lmao
Or you just don’t have the voting machines connected to the internet. Problem solved, just don’t give them access to the system locally.
That does not even come close to solving the problem
Do you truly believe that is the only way Russia could possibly interfere in the election?
Do you believe Russian would simply skip propaganda campaigns? Or do you approve of that?
Do you think the Ukrainians in occupied territories would be able to vote freely and fairly?
There are dozens of issues with holding an election while occupied, and you’ve thought about 1 of them
Ukraine doesn’t use voting machines.
The title is somewhat true. History has proven repeatedly that a change in leadership during war tends to end poorly.
Wasn’t there a change in leadership from Chamberlain to Churchill during WW2 which allowed the British to better counter Naziism?
Edit: y’all are reading too much into this. OP said: “History has proven repeatedly that a change in leadership during war tends to end poorly.” Which is factually inaccurate as a statement.
I’m not a historian, I don’t know who is correct.
That send, “tends to” does not mean always, so giving a single counter example doesn’t mean the original statement is incorrect.
Chamberlain resigned, leaving Churchill to take over. There was no election.
That wasn’t really into the war though. It was barely at the start and it was done without an election. I think that’s very important context for the example, not really the same thing as what OP was referring to.
Sorry, but this is becoming a history discussion now.
Chamberlain getting removed was after Britain’s failed attempt to stop the Nazi invasion of Norway. Boots on the ground and everything. They were very much into the war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_campaign
Either way, OP made the claim about what history can show, it’s their responsibility to back it up. We’re the ones attaching recent context to Ukraine because of the post, but OPs claim said historically.
And there are many examples when changing of leadership actually helped during war (again, not referencing recent context).
You are avoiding all the context. There were no invading troops in the UK. As others have said, there was apparently no election, which means subversive groups can’t rely on populism to get in power. He also said “repeatedly tends to go poorly,” not “always ends poorly.” Your one counter-example does nothing to disprove his statement.
Again, it’s not about me disproving OPs claim because 1) people making the claim need to back it up, and 2) it’s still factually incorrect on both accounts (repeatedly or always).
There were no invading troops in the UK. As others have said, there was apparently no election, which means subversive groups can’t rely on populism to get in power.
If we’re being that specific and the audience assuming context (invading + elections), then historically there is no record for OP to make the generalized statement of it being repeatedly bad. So it’s either a general statement or very specific to this context (which others claim but only OP can tell us) and neither of those work even.
I get that people want to defend Ukraine, I’m not disputing that. I’m literally saying that someone is referencing history incorrectly.
They weren’t partpy occupied during that time and not really fighting German troops on the ground. It’s a completely different situation in Ukraine right now.
Getting rid of a gullible idiot for a hardass is very different from potentially removing an effective leader for a possible Russian patsy.
It is not sensible to have an election right now.
How does one hold an election during a war exactly??
Especially when large chunk of the country is under occupation and millions are refugees in dozens of countries all over the place.
Suggesting to have a election now is just absolutely stupid, in pretty much every possible way.
It’s certainly what Russia wants
Which makes the idea extra stupid.
should say when being invaded. facist type leaders love to go to war and then say that is why there should be no elections or not a good time to change things.
With difficulty.
“It is with great reluctance that I have agreed to this calling. I love democracy… I love the Republic. The power you give me I will lay down when this crisis has abated. And as my first act with this new authority, I will create a Grand Army of the Republic to counter the increasing threats of the Separatists.”
By any chance, do you know how long putin is in power? More than 14 years? :O no! That sounds very facist, this cant be true!
Oh are they doing the “Ukrainians were the real fascists all along” propaganda bit? Pretty weak sauce when Russia is glidebombing apartments and Ukraine keeps it to military targets
The narrative these puppets use to counter that is that Ukraine is bombing itself to make Russia look bad.
I wish I was making this up.
I was just advocating for democracy in a sea of people doing the opposite.
What the hell are you on about?
Removed by mod
Might help if you made some kind of sense.
But if you are happy, please, do continue.
Well, it’s a reference that you’re apparently missing. I suppose I could make a more direct, nuanced comment, but I’ve learned that this circlejerk of a community has no patience for substance or actual discourse.
You expect to have a good quality discourse after starting with a silly movie reference? And then ranting about circlejerks?
We have a saying, translates to something like “the forest replies in the similar manner as you yell into it.” Perhaps try to say something of substance and make sense, that might help.
Oh, I promise you, I have no expectation of good quality discourse from this community.
So you just like to waste your time, then? Mmkay. Have fun with that.
