I wonder how many people actually have a problem with this. Very few I’d suspect. Zelensky still seems popular within Ukraine, and I think most would agree that this isn’t a good time for a change in leadership. Plus elections are expensive and nobody in the occupied space would be able to vote. Yeah I think this was the right call.
Yes. This is a inflammatory headline purely to try and push an agenda.
There was literally a poll a couple of months ago that showed something like 80% of Ukrainians were in favour of not having elections.
Not to even mention that Ukraine is under Marshall Law, and per their laws disallows elections.
And don’t even get me started on the entire premise of running elections in a country where a quarter of the landmass is under enemy occupation and the logistics of getting votes from 100s of thousands of deployed troops and the serious security concerns of the election itself from Russian attacks.
In my opinion Newsweek have just outed themselves here and the question is for who?
Most of my Ukranian friends would not vote for him in an election, it’s a bit of an ‘open secret’ in the country that he’s seen as a wartime leader who would be expected to step aside in peacetime.
Because he barely had any experience in diplomatic relations before being thrust into Ukrainian Ultimate Commander. He unfortunately has become a wartime politician, even though that was never his intentions.
UK, 1939-1945: No general elections were held during the Second World War until Allied victory was assured via acts of Parliament; hence the 1935 House sat until 1945. (per Wikipedia)
I wonder how many people actually have a problem with this. Very few I’d suspect. Zelensky still seems popular within Ukraine, and I think most would agree that this isn’t a good time for a change in leadership. Plus elections are expensive and nobody in the occupied space would be able to vote. Yeah I think this was the right call.
Yes. This is a inflammatory headline purely to try and push an agenda.
There was literally a poll a couple of months ago that showed something like 80% of Ukrainians were in favour of not having elections.
Not to even mention that Ukraine is under Marshall Law, and per their laws disallows elections. And don’t even get me started on the entire premise of running elections in a country where a quarter of the landmass is under enemy occupation and the logistics of getting votes from 100s of thousands of deployed troops and the serious security concerns of the election itself from Russian attacks.
In my opinion Newsweek have just outed themselves here and the question is for who?
Probably trying to paint a narrative that Zelensky is undemocratic and corrupt, which some people in the US might believe.
Look at the house GOP who gave a big military aid package to Netanyahu but nothing to Ukraine.
Most of my Ukranian friends would not vote for him in an election, it’s a bit of an ‘open secret’ in the country that he’s seen as a wartime leader who would be expected to step aside in peacetime.
It’s not much of a secret, he has said so himself.
Did he at least whisper it?
He was a stand up comedian before? Seems like he thought he’d be a peacetime leader.
deleted by creator
Why would they choose someone else, though?
Because he barely had any experience in diplomatic relations before being thrust into Ukrainian Ultimate Commander. He unfortunately has become a wartime politician, even though that was never his intentions.
So you think it’s better to choose someone else because of experience diplomatic relations?
Are there other people in Ukraine who are considered to be preferred for the job when the war ends?
Which typically happens. That could be a while yet.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Shall I continue?
Yes continue.
deleted by creator
If the Japanese had taken the west coast I bet they would have delayed them.
deleted by creator
Alaska has entered the chat
Logistically, that’s a very different prospect though.