- cross-posted to:
- progressivepolitics
- uspolitics
- cross-posted to:
- progressivepolitics
- uspolitics
Speaking at a campaign rally in Florida on Friday, Oct. 23, US President Donald Trump stated that the US could execute another military operation against Iran, saying Washington “may do another little Epic Fury.” The statement comes amid sustained volatility across Middle Eastern maritime transit corridors and fuel markets ahead of the Nov. 3 US midterms.
It might happen before. Zelenskyy’s 5-year term as President was supposed to be up in 2024, but since his country is being actively invaded and the government is under martial law, elections have been suspended.
I distinctly remember Trump commenting on this at one point when Zelenskyy was visiting. I think Trump may have gotten it into his head that he can just cancel elections by starting a war, even though that’s not at all how it works here.
and whether it works that way or not, he seems really to miss the idea of to my knowledge of the “they were invaded” an enemy is specifically attacking them on their soil.
Even if we 100% give the anti ukrain group on here the full benefit of the doubt, say they are all nazi’s etc… there’s no form of the story that implies they were going to attack russia.
It’s not really about who started the war or who is invading who. It’s 100% about pragmatism. You can’t have an election when you’re under threat of being bombed. You don’t want large numbers of people gathering at a polling place, and people are displaced when there’s a war and can’t feasibly travel to where they live to vote. The Ukraine case has in addition to that parts of the country under occupation, so people living in those places obviously can’t vote.
We should look at how it was with the UK in WWII. Elections were suspended, but after V-E day (Germany surrendered) they held an election. But this was before Japan surrendered. So they did hold an election before the war was over, because the UK was well outside of the range of Japan’s bombers. Also note that Churchill lost that election, but he didn’t dispute the results or anything like that.
And the US did have an election in 1944, again because there wasn’t a danger from enemy bombers hitting theUS at that time.
Well mainly what I’m meaning is of the suspicion side. Yes the fact that you can’t have an election while bombs are dropping on your soil is logical, But there’s an additional caveat there, The implication is that a leader could start a war. IE if a country attacks it’s neighbor, then declares the they can’t have elections because their neighbor may be dropping retalitory strikes. You’d conclude maybe the leadership started the war just to avoid elections.