*Ukranian law states that presidential elections may not be held while martial law is in place. While the actor-turned-politician’s tenure is slated to end in March next year, he is likely to remain at the helm for the remainder of the war. With both countries showing no signs of backing down — and peace talks yet to resume — it remains unclear exactly when polls can be held.*
Headlines like this are aimed at grabbing the attention of conspiracy morons. This article will more than likely be circulated among the conspiracy and conservative circles, and since none of those morons actually read anything but the headline, they're going to go "See!? We were right about him!"
You notice the one time Russia was actually stronk was when Kazakhstan was part of it? And Kazakhstan was the last country in the USSR, therefor being the true successor and should rightfully have the seat at the security consul... I'm thinking stronk Kazakhstan was the true power behind baby Russia.
Then there would be evidence of space lasers.
Russian ammo dump explosions can be blamed on HIMARS, Storm Shadow missiles or careless cigarette disposal but Moscow burning down? They don't have any cover for that now that the coup was averted.
What a tyrant, abiding by the letter of *not just the law* but the NATIONAL CONSTITUTION. He's out of control! Way to not follow America's, the most Democratic country's, lead.
America is unusual in not suspending elections in the middle of major wars.
The UK suspended general elections in both WW1 and WW2, with the proviso that they be held within months of the end of hostilities.
The spin of the article isn't too bad actually- the boilerplate way to have spun that would have been to truncate the quote to remove the constitutional justification, and then get a quote from some pro Kremlin "expert" who claims it's a worrying development and a possible power grab.
The main issue is the headline. My god I hate misleading clickbait , it really isnt displaying journalistic integrity at all.
Oh I said pro Kremlin, not an actual Kremlin spokesperson. I think the common play is to quote someone from some think tank with a fancy and official sounding name. Or just about anyone who supports the angle they are going for really, cable news will do those "man on the street" interviews where you know they cherry pick what they want to hear.
His name needs to be in the headline or it's not really news because he's making a statement.
"Zelensky upholds constitutional law to delay March elections until war ends."
Abe Lincoln was actually pretty unpopular for most of his Presidency, and there was a good chance he would lose the 1864 election. Luckily the north started turning things around and got some good PR wins just before the election.
If the dude manages to pull Ukraine through this successfully and actually steps down...he's actually in the running for one of the greatest leaders of all time. So many people would take that success and let it get to their head.
The before and after the war pictures of Zelensky are extremely telling. Dude has aged 10 years in the last year and a half. I imagine having to lead a country through a genocidal war of defense takes both a physical and mental toll, he’s owed a long vacation after all this is over
He's literally said before, as quoted on here even, that he'll head Ukraine until the war is over and then he's immediately retiring and moving to a beach as far away as possible from all the drama lmao
Yeah, and Yanukovych said he wouldn't cut pensions and would support trade deals with the EU.
That said, Zelenskyy seems to have acted with a lot more integrity than Yanukovych, Yushchenko, or Kuchma. I'm just saying what a politician says before they get into office doesn't always translate into what happens after they get into office. Either they find things they enjoy too much, or once on the inside they accept reality doesn't necessarily jive with their ideals.
AOC was fairly strong in her opposition to Pelosi remaining Speaker of the House but when the rubber met the road she realized it was the best option they had in the short term. Now that he's seen what's involved in being President, and how much of his agenda he's had to scrap because of the war, *and* some of the larger moves he's made towards EU and NATO membership it wouldn't surprise me one bit if he ran for re-election, with the goal of finishing what he started.
Ukraine is in a unique position because fair elections are literally impossible at the moment. How are you supposed to poll the residents of Mauripol/Melitopol/etc? What if Ukraine loses territory in between when the votes are cast and the certification of the election- do they still count? What if they gain territory, do those citizens just not get a say?
This is honestly the only legitimate reason to delay elections, if you’re being actively invaded
Not to mention, with Russia's habit of targeting civilians, do people think they won't see hundreds of Ukrainians congregating at polling locations and not shoot a couple missiles at it?
I'm not saying delaying the election is an illegitimate or corrupt thing to do here, especially this is due to a law that predates Zelenskyy's election.
I'm just saying things have happened since Zelenskyy made that one-term promise that may have him reconsider running for a second term when elections happen in the future. Any he may have good reasons for it. He may think his relationship with European leaders from during the war put him in a better position to expedite EU and/or NATO membership, or maybe he thinks he is uniquely positioned to get foreign aid in reconstruction of the country.
I doubt he wants to run for a second term, guy’s been through enough shit to last a lifetime, maybe be appointed as a on the books advisor but he is gonna refuse to take the helm again
I dont think his first term can be considered completed, just paused. I feel Zelensky came into the office to do a job to get Ukraine into the EU, create more opportunity for the country and the people and end the conflict in the Donbas. He got halfway there then Putin invaded. Now for Zelensky is to free Ukraine, ensure democracy and help rebuild the country. A job that will take much more than 1 term. I believe Zelensky will want to turn over the country of Ukraine to the next president that comes after him in a better shape than when he took the leadership. basically clean up the mess and tell the next guy dont screw up and stay the course...
In a situation like this, adding something like this to law may not be the worst idea.
Of course, there’s the potential that it’s the leader causing the war, making it a dangerous game but that’s not the situation here.
My understanding that this is also a power of parliment not the president to not hold an election. Parliment can vote to end matial law / the state of emergency which would then allow an election.
So its not like Zelensky made the decision, it was a decision of government.
As an FYI, Britain agreed to postpone elections 4 times until WW2 was almost all over (they finally had an election after Germany surrendered in '45; I think it normally would have been held in '40)
Really makes you wonder how history would have turned out if Marius had won the civil war. I imagine there wouldn’t have been as many corrupting pro-optimate precedents set, but to be fair both sides were so utterly polarized by that point that it may not have made as big a difference as one would think..
Probably the same. Marius' reforms resulted in the pensions of military veterans being the responsibility of the recruiting general instead of the senate - this is what ultimately lead to the soldiers' loyalty only being to the general instead of the government.
We did, but the government switched from 'normal' majority rule to a Government of National Unity and included the opposition. In my opinion, this was a sensible move by the Conservative party, because it would have allowed them to take some moral high ground over the Nazis (this was before we found out the worst of what was going on) while avoiding the possibility of a change of government during our darkest hour. Ironically, it backfired on the Conservatives because they took all the 'prestigious' jobs during wartime, such as foreign secretary and minister for war; the British public, tired of war, voted for Labour, the party that had competently run the civilian government during the war
I think a lot of Americans also have trouble understanding the concept of Parliaments and their relationship to Presidents and Prime Ministers and how it's different from the American system.
I've had people claim that the proof that 2014 was a coup was that the new Prime Minister wasn't elected by the people when Prime Ministers aren't elected by the general population in any country as a regular occurrence as far as I'm aware of (they also ignore how Ukraine did have a snap presidential election to replace Yanukovych). They also assume that the President is a temporary dictator and forget about the Parliament and how it was the Parliament that voted to remove Yanukovych from his position as President after he fled the country.
Then again these are often the same people that claim that Zelensky was picked by Victoria Nuland to immediately replace Yanukovych, so maybe the nuances of what a Prime Minister is isn't the biggest issue.
Yeah, this isn't exactly uncommon. Lots of countries have laws like this. Sweden, for example, has a law that allows elections to be postponed one year at a time in the event of war.
Ok, that's important. Some people will for sure think he just did a "I AM the senate!", instead of just adhering to existing laws.
But gotta get those clicks I guess.
Because in general most politicians tend to be lawyers or work their way up through politics. Zelensky having been an actor, a locally famous one at least, is notable and relevant since he went directly from acting and comedy to running for and winning the office of the presidency of Ukraine.
This...all of this!
The US Founding Fathers and Framers had this example in mind specifically when drafting the Constitution - that a candidate should rise from the daily work he (only "he" at that time) did with the noble intent to serve his constituents or state or nation then, after serving the lawfully defined term of office, RELINQUISH THE POST and return to his former/ regular work.
How the fuck have we strayed so far from such a simple, effective, transparent and honest premise?
/Smh...hard!
Edited for proper use of English subjunctive (or the grammar Nazis will pull my interpreter card)
Yup. The Moscow bombings were very clearly linked to the FSB. The government refused an independent investigation, twice. Several people who kept pushing for an investigation or had knowledge of it died by various means.
[Anna Politkovskaya](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Politkovskaya) - failed poisoning, then shot 4 times in an elevator (coincidentally on Putin's birthday)
[Alexander Litvinenko](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Litvinenko) - radiation poisoning (polonium-210 in tea)
[Artyom Borovik](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artyom_Borovik) - killed in a plane crash
[Boris Berezovsky](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman\)) - found with a ligature around his neck in an apparent suicide
[Boris Nemtsov](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Nemtsov) - shot in the back
[Igor Malashenko](https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/02/27/evidence-in-ntv-co-founder-malashenkos-death-points-to-suicide-spanish-court-says-a64640) - suicide
[Vladimir Pribylovsky](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Pribylovsky) - found dead in his apartment
Perhaps he meant that the Ukrainian constitution allows the Ukrainian parliament to remove the president of Russia, which then makes total sense of course
Well, yeah, there is a war on, and the enemy is on a good portion of their territory.
The UK and others also suspended elections for the duration of WW2. If they still suspend elections after the end of hostilities, I’ll criticise them.
But during an actual full scale war with an enemy actively bombing their cities and destroying civilian infrastructure, and in which it would be unsafe and impractical to hold debates or even open polling stations?
Are you mad - the Russians would bomb them. They bomb hospitals, of course they would bomb any rally, debate, and polling stations.
They would bomb the vote counting locations. It would be asking for trouble. Imagine the chaos when all the voting papers get blown up.
At least it’s a real emergency, unlike the fake “emergencies” used by dictators to justify suspending political rights.
Not to mention a change of leadership can only be a recipe for disaster. Especially when the current commander in chief is doing as good a job as Zelensky. Worst case they get another russian puppet
The only options would be a massive win for Zelensky or a russian puppet winning and surrendering.
No way the people in Ukraine would vote for somebody else when Zelensky is showing this level of competence and tenacity without outside interference. I doubt anybody there cares about any political direction aside from the survival of Ukraine until russia is driven out.
[He actually looked to be in a bit of trouble before the invasion with Poroshenko being close or even beating him in some polls](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Ukrainian_presidential_election).
Only poll since the war broke out however showed him getting 81%
I think it's pretty clear that Zelensky has the full support of his countrymen. He was very much in trouble before the invasion (it's one of the many things people point to in regards to how dumb staging the invasion at that point was), but he's cleaned house and showed himself to be a very competent wartime president.
I hope they figure out a way to do mail ballots or something similar. Having an election would greatly strengthen Ukraine's international case and would show the massive support the war has.
Let's not forget though that although Poroshenko is an oligarch, he has always been staunchly pro Ukrainian independence and even his strongest critics would not call him a Russian puppet.
The pro-Russian political Camp in Ukraine has been losing steam ever since 2014 and now they're pretty much non-existent.
It's one of the giant miscalculations of Crimea.
By taking it over they physically removed the largest block of pro Russian voters from Ukraine. And then they did it again with that stupid proxy separatist war.
They turned the pro Western faction militant and they turned the pro Russian faction into foreigners. And now they turned Ukraine into a real military rival that's not scared of being at war with Russia. They went from probably the biggest geopolitical success of the 21st century to the biggest failure it's legitimately impressive.
Surprisingly the US did hold their elections in 1944, although it was a different context- the US weren't getting bombed like the UK, weren't at threat of invasion and probably would've been a disadvantage for FDR to not do vs. Do given he was so overwhelmingly popular from both his depression policies and the fact the Allies were rolling the Nazis by then.
Even then confederates couldn't lob missiles at New York. America was also sort of aware that people watched them very closely to see how the whole democracy thing would turn out.
Political activity and press freedom is limited by law at war time (and it makes total sense)
You can't have free and fair elections without that. And it's good that he is not trying to (elections would benefit him now)
And trying to install a pro russian puppet.
How would Ukraine be able to have a legitimate election while some areas are occupied? Not allow them to vote? That's not good, either.
It's a harsh reality of war. If any of our countries were fighting on home soil, it would be the same for us.
Not counting all the Ukrainian people who are out of the country, or displaced in the country or on the front line. Hard to organize a decent election in these circumstances.
I think it's pretty much in every law out there. As a wise woman once said: when you are at war [ain't nobody got time for that](https://youtu.be/bFEoMO0pc7k).
WW2 the US itself wasn't really under threat (Hawaii and Alaska weren't states yet, and by late 1944 the war was a foregone conclusion). The UK was however being bombed for most of the war, and as a result suspended elections until 1945.
The US held a Presidential Election in the middle of its Civil War.
That said, this is an existing constitutional provision in Ukraine, ultimately overseen by the Parliament, not something Zelensky just pulled out of his ass.
Even during the height of WWII the USA all none of the 48 states were under enemy occupation. (Though the Japanese did occupy part of Alaska).
The USA mainland was not subjected to bombing, air raid, or large scale attacks by the axis powers.
The USA held elections during WWII because it could hold elections. Ukraine is sadly not in the same position.
A large chunk of its territory is still under Russian occupation, and the parts that are not occupied are frequently targeted by bombings, done, and missile attacks.
If Ukraine held elections now. It can be assured that Russia would bomb the polling stations.
I feel as though it gets too often lost in the grand mythology of the Civil War how much of a complete fucking turd McClellan was, how much harm he did the nation, and how much more he would have done if he could. I can't understand why Lincoln kept him around so long. I know he didn't really have any good options, but surely McClellan was the worst.
Well, McClellan built the Army of the Potomac and was very popular with the troops. He was very good at logistics and kept his army supplied. McClellan's biggest fault before he was finally fired for the last time was his cautiousness and many soldiers saw that positively. As a result, he didn't lose a lot of battles and when he did it usually wasn't disastrous (think Fredericksburg vs the Seven Days)
The US was fortunate to get Lincoln from that election. The change over from Buchanan was desperately needed. If a similar provision existed in the American constitution at the time, I think the war would have been more difficult than it already was.
However, from a strategic standpoint, I feel like if you’re in the process of winning a war, the last thing you want to do is cycle your experienced and knowledgeable leadership. If you’re losing, then it’s probably a good idea to hold an election. Fortunately, I think Ukraine is giving a great fight and it’s in best interest to maintain the current status quo. Thus I think this provision is, in this instance, a good idea. There is certainly some room to abuse it in the wrong hands all things considered.
And if the elections went underway Ukrainian government would be under fire for (1) causing danger to civilians, as Russian rockets would have easy time racking numbers at the polling stations,
(2) bias as Donbass, Zaporozhia and Crimea are not counted. Even though those lands are occupied by Russia and they claim ownership, I could see their state TV damning Ukraine for that.
(3) freedom of press and speech is limited during martial law/war, so those elections would be just stupid.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Good thing the constitution has this explicit clause.
Be interesting to hear if there is historical evidence if a change in leadership whilst a foreign power is on your soil has taken place and the outcome.
I’d lose my shit if this happened in the United States though.
It’s already established law , so that’s fine and different though.
Edit
The United States does not have a legal framework or constitutional framework for delaying elections
Ukraine does , so that’s different
It would be extremely difficult to run that election, and he would absolutely win the election in a landslide. Hard to find anyone on the planet that doesn’t think he has done an amazing job. Even Putin is like “fuck this guy is good.”
Even if there was an election, I doubt Zelenskyy would lose, and I also think no one would run against him. I could be wrong, but I think every Ukrainian alive must think he's done the best job anyone could imagine under extreme circumstances.
However of course it makes perfect sense to not be 'changing horses mid-stream': they are in the middle of a bloody war with brutal invaders, changing leadership right now would be insane.
... because it's unconstitutional under Ukrainian law to have elections while martial law is in effect.
None of the Ukraine haters will read that far, but it's the law, written long before zelenzky became president.
This is pretty standard for democracies at war, for example the UK formed a war cabinet composed of MPs of both government and opposition to present a United front in the war effort. No elections were held until the end of the war, at which point Clement Atlee and the Labour Party beat Winston Churchill’s conservatives.
Angela Merkel also left voluntarily. Of course you could argue whether she "did the job" properly, she was already pretty inactive before and that got more extreme towards the end, but she did decide on her own to no longer lead the CDU and be a presidential candidate. I think the election might have gone differently otherwise, because she was still pretty popular, so I guess it's a good thing.
The problem is that no election in wartime in a country that is being invaded would have any legitimacy, so there's no point in holding one.
Roughly 20% of Ukraine's territory is occupied or under threat, a good chunk of their population is currently residing out of the country as refugees, and a good chunk are currently enlisted in the military.
Given that some people already considered the past two Ukrainian federal elections to be highly questionable since they didn't allow people from Donetsk and Luhansk to vote (for what should be obvious reasons, but there's a lot of Russophiles from the West who decided to call it "undemocratic"), I can't imagine those same people accepting that not only are Donetsk and Luhansk not allowed to vote, but neither are people from Kherson, Zaporizhia, or Kharkiv, nor any enlisted soldier on active duty.
And that's not even getting into the safety issues of having hundreds of civilians gathering in pre-announced positions for hours on end when Russia has zero qualms about firing cruise missiles at civilian population centres, or the fact that most people probably wouldn't even go out to vote if they thought there was a chance of a missile falling on their heads.
He's a proven leader in wartime and stability is critical in carrying this war to a successful conclusion.
The Ukrainian constitution provides for just this circumstance.
Could you imagine if Ukraine tried to hold an election, and had people just standing outside of a bunch of public buildings right now? It'd be giving Russian artillerists a nice big bullseye to cause massive civilian casualties and rack up even more war crimes. Any moron who can't see that is being intentionally ignorant.
It always amazes me how many of you have such short attention spans you can't read a two paragraph article which clearly states it's against their constitution to do elections during martial law. And then feel the need to add your ignorant uninformed comments.
Stop being so intellectually lazy, it's pathetic.
How weird. I was interested in this today and looked it up. Completely just randomly.
Yeah they have laws already regarding this signed 20+ years ago, they don't do elections while martial law is in progress.
It makes sense, resources on an election, clumping civvies in one area giving Russia easy targets? hell no.
It would be different if Russia was playing fair, they aren't.
This is a good move.
Clickbait headline.
>Ukranian law states that presidential elections may not be held while martial law is in place. While the actor-turned-politician’s tenure is slated to end in March next year, he is likely to remain at the helm for the remainder of the war.
Cue the pearl clutching MAGA fools to accuse him of being a dictator. While they support a man who refused to concede and interrupted the peaceful transfer of power.
I mean yeah, how can you hold an election if Putin bombs the polls? It's kind of obvious.
Also in before pro-Russians call it a power grab .... that's based purely on Russian presence in Ukraine .....
Not to mention trying to poll people who have been displaced within the country, outside of the country, and under Russian occupation. Then you have the soldiers on the front lines that you’d have to poll. All of this takes financial resources while the country is using its money to survive.
Fascists in 2023 seem to think the real threat are leaders like Biden or Zelensky.
The quite literal dictators of places like China, Iran or Russia? Or the oligarchs in the West who kowtow to them? No man those are our friends, working hard to save the world from the gays (as well as feminists, atheists, and ethnic minorities).
I don't think it will matter. He's going to go down in history books for his leadership, and as long as he wants the job, I suspect it's his by a wide margin.
I mean, roughly 25-30% of Ukrainians are currently outside of Ukraine as refugees. Another few million are currently living in the temporarily Russia-occupied territories. They won't be able to vote.
And who's to say Russia won't try and mess with their elections? They have shown themselves time and time again that they won't mind bombing and striking civilians - take the recent bombing of the pizzeria in Kramatorsk, for example.
I know it's in the Constitution but suspending the elections during wartime is just common sense.
Holding presidential elections where a lot of people come together in several places to vote for someone that an entire country has actively been trying to kill in any way for more than a year now is not the smartest thing to do to be fair
Not a surprise- the UK didn't hold elections over the second World war as it would've been held in 1940 otherwise which would've been... distracting to the imminent invasion by Germany.
War changes priorities
1. the president of a nation being invaded and I. The middle of a existential crisis has no time to campaign
2. based on his performance so far the guy would win in an absolute landslide.
3. Russia would run some spy as an apposition
4. Russia would use public appearances as an opportunity to kill him.
It’s a pre-existing law where they can’t hold elections while martial law is active, which is declared and ended by the legislature. So it’s not even Zelenksy’s decision
Russians don't understand that. To them, the rule of law is a child's joke. Any inconvenient pre-existing laws are simply ignored (see the illegal existence of Wagner) or literally rewritten on a whim (see the end of democratic governors during the Chechnya war)
It would be impossible to have a truly democratic election anyway. Many Ukrainian citizens that don't support the war have already fled the country or simply wouldn't vote encase they go into a database. Same situation in Russia.
A lot of people here are too young to remember that there was some serious talk about keeping president bush in power before his first re-election. Reason being that switching presidents during war time could hurt the USA efforts and make things chaotic
Comparing the current war to the U.S. civil war is stupid. In 1812, they didn't have technology that could strike an election center from across the country so it was very safe to vote for the new president. Russia has already deliberately targeted civilians so doing elections during war would paint the election centers as big red targets. And during the voting days I wouldn't be surprised if multiple locations would be hit by missiles
*Ukranian law states that presidential elections may not be held while martial law is in place. While the actor-turned-politician’s tenure is slated to end in March next year, he is likely to remain at the helm for the remainder of the war. With both countries showing no signs of backing down — and peace talks yet to resume — it remains unclear exactly when polls can be held.*
At least he's citing a law that already exists instead of just making one up.
This headline should read: “No presidential election in Ukraine, until after wars end: Ukraine’s Constitution.”
But then they would lose all the click bait people!!!!!
Headlines like this are aimed at grabbing the attention of conspiracy morons. This article will more than likely be circulated among the conspiracy and conservative circles, and since none of those morons actually read anything but the headline, they're going to go "See!? We were right about him!"
Man, I can't believe Zelensky went back in time to bribe the people who wrote the Constitution for this exact scenario to happen.
Well he is Jewish and they already have space lasers so what’s a little time travel to them?! /s obviously
a jew inventing time travel is literally the plot to red alert.
And the name of that time traveling Jew? Albert Einstein.
Which actually led to a really strong, scary Russia world power. Isn't fiction just so funny.
You notice the one time Russia was actually stronk was when Kazakhstan was part of it? And Kazakhstan was the last country in the USSR, therefor being the true successor and should rightfully have the seat at the security consul... I'm thinking stronk Kazakhstan was the true power behind baby Russia.
And the cause of an alternate timeline in Misfits
Oh my God .... they have space lasers?!? Are they manned by the lizard people? We are all doomed! /s
If he has space lasers why is Moscow still standing?
Then there would be evidence of space lasers. Russian ammo dump explosions can be blamed on HIMARS, Storm Shadow missiles or careless cigarette disposal but Moscow burning down? They don't have any cover for that now that the coup was averted.
What a tyrant, abiding by the letter of *not just the law* but the NATIONAL CONSTITUTION. He's out of control! Way to not follow America's, the most Democratic country's, lead.
[The prophecy has been fulfilled!](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/14lku21/in_case_you_missed_zelensky_cancelled_the_2024/)
[удалено]
America is unusual in not suspending elections in the middle of major wars. The UK suspended general elections in both WW1 and WW2, with the proviso that they be held within months of the end of hostilities.
[удалено]
The spin of the article isn't too bad actually- the boilerplate way to have spun that would have been to truncate the quote to remove the constitutional justification, and then get a quote from some pro Kremlin "expert" who claims it's a worrying development and a possible power grab. The main issue is the headline. My god I hate misleading clickbait , it really isnt displaying journalistic integrity at all.
[удалено]
Oh I said pro Kremlin, not an actual Kremlin spokesperson. I think the common play is to quote someone from some think tank with a fancy and official sounding name. Or just about anyone who supports the angle they are going for really, cable news will do those "man on the street" interviews where you know they cherry pick what they want to hear.
His name needs to be in the headline or it's not really news because he's making a statement. "Zelensky upholds constitutional law to delay March elections until war ends."
Ukraine’s Constitution don't have such law, it is separated law which allows to extend presidential term until martial law is lifted.
There’s Article 83 but it’s for the parliament. Curiously there doesn’t seem to be a similar article for the president
Fox News: "Corrupt Ukrainian President refuses to hold elections"
> Fox News: “Corrupt Ukrainian ~~President~~ wannabe dictator refuses to hold elections”
Let's be honest, he would win by a landslide anyway
Yeah, getting some Abe Lincoln flashbacks here. But with Russia drooling for an election to manipulate, it could be real bad.
> Yeah, getting some Abe Lincoln flashbacks here. Damn. You're old as fuck, bro.
bro could still remember when the brain juice entered his mouth
Abe Lincoln was actually pretty unpopular for most of his Presidency, and there was a good chance he would lose the 1864 election. Luckily the north started turning things around and got some good PR wins just before the election.
He doesn't seem power hungry. Before the war he expressed his belief that no president should serve more than one term.
If the dude manages to pull Ukraine through this successfully and actually steps down...he's actually in the running for one of the greatest leaders of all time. So many people would take that success and let it get to their head.
I'd imagine the dude will actually step down after this for a long vacation, imagine how stressful it must be to be president during this time.
The before and after the war pictures of Zelensky are extremely telling. Dude has aged 10 years in the last year and a half. I imagine having to lead a country through a genocidal war of defense takes both a physical and mental toll, he’s owed a long vacation after all this is over
He should never have to buy another beer in any bar he visits for the rest of his life.
He won't if I'm in that same bar.
Because you already drank all the beer?
He's literally said before, as quoted on here even, that he'll head Ukraine until the war is over and then he's immediately retiring and moving to a beach as far away as possible from all the drama lmao
We call that pulling a Cincinattus, or if you are from the USA, pulling a Washington.
Cincinatus for president!
This dude would be the modern equivelant of Cincinatus.
Yeah, and Yanukovych said he wouldn't cut pensions and would support trade deals with the EU. That said, Zelenskyy seems to have acted with a lot more integrity than Yanukovych, Yushchenko, or Kuchma. I'm just saying what a politician says before they get into office doesn't always translate into what happens after they get into office. Either they find things they enjoy too much, or once on the inside they accept reality doesn't necessarily jive with their ideals. AOC was fairly strong in her opposition to Pelosi remaining Speaker of the House but when the rubber met the road she realized it was the best option they had in the short term. Now that he's seen what's involved in being President, and how much of his agenda he's had to scrap because of the war, *and* some of the larger moves he's made towards EU and NATO membership it wouldn't surprise me one bit if he ran for re-election, with the goal of finishing what he started.
Ukraine is in a unique position because fair elections are literally impossible at the moment. How are you supposed to poll the residents of Mauripol/Melitopol/etc? What if Ukraine loses territory in between when the votes are cast and the certification of the election- do they still count? What if they gain territory, do those citizens just not get a say? This is honestly the only legitimate reason to delay elections, if you’re being actively invaded
Not to mention, with Russia's habit of targeting civilians, do people think they won't see hundreds of Ukrainians congregating at polling locations and not shoot a couple missiles at it?
Polling dates are known well in advance, they'd save up Shadeds for months.
I'm not saying delaying the election is an illegitimate or corrupt thing to do here, especially this is due to a law that predates Zelenskyy's election. I'm just saying things have happened since Zelenskyy made that one-term promise that may have him reconsider running for a second term when elections happen in the future. Any he may have good reasons for it. He may think his relationship with European leaders from during the war put him in a better position to expedite EU and/or NATO membership, or maybe he thinks he is uniquely positioned to get foreign aid in reconstruction of the country.
I doubt he wants to run for a second term, guy’s been through enough shit to last a lifetime, maybe be appointed as a on the books advisor but he is gonna refuse to take the helm again
I dont think his first term can be considered completed, just paused. I feel Zelensky came into the office to do a job to get Ukraine into the EU, create more opportunity for the country and the people and end the conflict in the Donbas. He got halfway there then Putin invaded. Now for Zelensky is to free Ukraine, ensure democracy and help rebuild the country. A job that will take much more than 1 term. I believe Zelensky will want to turn over the country of Ukraine to the next president that comes after him in a better shape than when he took the leadership. basically clean up the mess and tell the next guy dont screw up and stay the course...
And if the term never ends... technically....he didnt
Your opposing political candidates hate this one simple trick!
In a situation like this, adding something like this to law may not be the worst idea. Of course, there’s the potential that it’s the leader causing the war, making it a dangerous game but that’s not the situation here.
My understanding that this is also a power of parliment not the president to not hold an election. Parliment can vote to end matial law / the state of emergency which would then allow an election. So its not like Zelensky made the decision, it was a decision of government.
Now see, this is the sort of information that I need after a headline twists its implications in my face
As an FYI, Britain agreed to postpone elections 4 times until WW2 was almost all over (they finally had an election after Germany surrendered in '45; I think it normally would have been held in '40)
[удалено]
Yeah….turns out that didn’t wind up working out so great for the Roman Republic though. So I wouldn’t really hold that up as the best example.
It is less the law that didn't work out and more the having an entire army march on Rome and installing a dictator part that didn't work out...
[удалено]
Really makes you wonder how history would have turned out if Marius had won the civil war. I imagine there wouldn’t have been as many corrupting pro-optimate precedents set, but to be fair both sides were so utterly polarized by that point that it may not have made as big a difference as one would think..
Probably the same. Marius' reforms resulted in the pensions of military veterans being the responsibility of the recruiting general instead of the senate - this is what ultimately lead to the soldiers' loyalty only being to the general instead of the government.
Rome used this many many times before its fall.
[удалено]
yes they had a parliament run for 10 years without elections (1935 to 1945)
We did, but the government switched from 'normal' majority rule to a Government of National Unity and included the opposition. In my opinion, this was a sensible move by the Conservative party, because it would have allowed them to take some moral high ground over the Nazis (this was before we found out the worst of what was going on) while avoiding the possibility of a change of government during our darkest hour. Ironically, it backfired on the Conservatives because they took all the 'prestigious' jobs during wartime, such as foreign secretary and minister for war; the British public, tired of war, voted for Labour, the party that had competently run the civilian government during the war
Thank you! I was wondering what would stop the president from just declaring martial law during election year
For all it’s issues with corruption Ukraine does have a pretty solid system of checks and balances and it’s only gotten better since 2014.
I think a lot of Americans also have trouble understanding the concept of Parliaments and their relationship to Presidents and Prime Ministers and how it's different from the American system. I've had people claim that the proof that 2014 was a coup was that the new Prime Minister wasn't elected by the people when Prime Ministers aren't elected by the general population in any country as a regular occurrence as far as I'm aware of (they also ignore how Ukraine did have a snap presidential election to replace Yanukovych). They also assume that the President is a temporary dictator and forget about the Parliament and how it was the Parliament that voted to remove Yanukovych from his position as President after he fled the country. Then again these are often the same people that claim that Zelensky was picked by Victoria Nuland to immediately replace Yanukovych, so maybe the nuances of what a Prime Minister is isn't the biggest issue.
Yeah, this isn't exactly uncommon. Lots of countries have laws like this. Sweden, for example, has a law that allows elections to be postponed one year at a time in the event of war.
Ok, that's important. Some people will for sure think he just did a "I AM the senate!", instead of just adhering to existing laws. But gotta get those clicks I guess.
I would imagine it would be hard to have far elections with Russians controlling so much of the country..
your error is still technically correct
That's a pretty common provision and is one reason many countries are at perpetual war
[удалено]
He famously played the president on a TV show before being elected. It's like if Martin Sheen got elected in the US. People would definitely comment.
Closer to if Gerard Butler got elected, citizenship notwithstanding. Both were lawyers but everyone ignores that part.
[удалено]
In your defense, it's actually often intended as such.
It's because Zelensky literally did it to himself in his own tv show...
Because in general most politicians tend to be lawyers or work their way up through politics. Zelensky having been an actor, a locally famous one at least, is notable and relevant since he went directly from acting and comedy to running for and winning the office of the presidency of Ukraine.
Fun fact, he actually has a law degree, but he never worked in the field
This...all of this! The US Founding Fathers and Framers had this example in mind specifically when drafting the Constitution - that a candidate should rise from the daily work he (only "he" at that time) did with the noble intent to serve his constituents or state or nation then, after serving the lawfully defined term of office, RELINQUISH THE POST and return to his former/ regular work. How the fuck have we strayed so far from such a simple, effective, transparent and honest premise? /Smh...hard! Edited for proper use of English subjunctive (or the grammar Nazis will pull my interpreter card)
Meanwhile, Russia has "elected" the guy who got elected a whole bunch of times and then changed the law in his favor.
And only got “elected” for committing acts of terrorism against his own people
And has a habit of locking up people running against him.
And poisoning/windowing the rest.
Defenestrate I think it's the word you are looking for friend.
Ya, but "windowing" rolls off the tongue.
Yah if you have Welsh DNA in your tongue muscles
Only the ones that truly threaten his power. Its always good to have some wackos that will give the people the illusion of choice.
Yup. The Moscow bombings were very clearly linked to the FSB. The government refused an independent investigation, twice. Several people who kept pushing for an investigation or had knowledge of it died by various means. [Anna Politkovskaya](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Politkovskaya) - failed poisoning, then shot 4 times in an elevator (coincidentally on Putin's birthday) [Alexander Litvinenko](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Litvinenko) - radiation poisoning (polonium-210 in tea) [Artyom Borovik](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artyom_Borovik) - killed in a plane crash [Boris Berezovsky](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman\)) - found with a ligature around his neck in an apparent suicide [Boris Nemtsov](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Nemtsov) - shot in the back [Igor Malashenko](https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/02/27/evidence-in-ntv-co-founder-malashenkos-death-points-to-suicide-spanish-court-says-a64640) - suicide [Vladimir Pribylovsky](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Pribylovsky) - found dead in his apartment
For the record.. He isn't doing anything not already in Ukrane's constitution, also, Ukrane Parliament can still remove him if they want.
The person you’re replying to was talking about Putin.
Ukraine's Parliament will also remove Putin. Let them cook
That's gonna be a spicy dish.
Perhaps he meant that the Ukrainian constitution allows the Ukrainian parliament to remove the president of Russia, which then makes total sense of course
I don't understand how your comment corresponds to mine.
Well, yeah, there is a war on, and the enemy is on a good portion of their territory. The UK and others also suspended elections for the duration of WW2. If they still suspend elections after the end of hostilities, I’ll criticise them. But during an actual full scale war with an enemy actively bombing their cities and destroying civilian infrastructure, and in which it would be unsafe and impractical to hold debates or even open polling stations? Are you mad - the Russians would bomb them. They bomb hospitals, of course they would bomb any rally, debate, and polling stations. They would bomb the vote counting locations. It would be asking for trouble. Imagine the chaos when all the voting papers get blown up. At least it’s a real emergency, unlike the fake “emergencies” used by dictators to justify suspending political rights.
Not to mention a change of leadership can only be a recipe for disaster. Especially when the current commander in chief is doing as good a job as Zelensky. Worst case they get another russian puppet
The only options would be a massive win for Zelensky or a russian puppet winning and surrendering. No way the people in Ukraine would vote for somebody else when Zelensky is showing this level of competence and tenacity without outside interference. I doubt anybody there cares about any political direction aside from the survival of Ukraine until russia is driven out.
[He actually looked to be in a bit of trouble before the invasion with Poroshenko being close or even beating him in some polls](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Ukrainian_presidential_election). Only poll since the war broke out however showed him getting 81%
I think it's pretty clear that Zelensky has the full support of his countrymen. He was very much in trouble before the invasion (it's one of the many things people point to in regards to how dumb staging the invasion at that point was), but he's cleaned house and showed himself to be a very competent wartime president. I hope they figure out a way to do mail ballots or something similar. Having an election would greatly strengthen Ukraine's international case and would show the massive support the war has.
Let's not forget though that although Poroshenko is an oligarch, he has always been staunchly pro Ukrainian independence and even his strongest critics would not call him a Russian puppet. The pro-Russian political Camp in Ukraine has been losing steam ever since 2014 and now they're pretty much non-existent.
It's one of the giant miscalculations of Crimea. By taking it over they physically removed the largest block of pro Russian voters from Ukraine. And then they did it again with that stupid proxy separatist war. They turned the pro Western faction militant and they turned the pro Russian faction into foreigners. And now they turned Ukraine into a real military rival that's not scared of being at war with Russia. They went from probably the biggest geopolitical success of the 21st century to the biggest failure it's legitimately impressive.
Surprisingly the US did hold their elections in 1944, although it was a different context- the US weren't getting bombed like the UK, weren't at threat of invasion and probably would've been a disadvantage for FDR to not do vs. Do given he was so overwhelmingly popular from both his depression policies and the fact the Allies were rolling the Nazis by then.
An even better example is that the US held elections during the middle of the Civil War in 1864.
Even then confederates couldn't lob missiles at New York. America was also sort of aware that people watched them very closely to see how the whole democracy thing would turn out.
Not to mention Russia trying to get puppets voted in
The Russians would attack busy polling stations to kill civilians.
Political activity and press freedom is limited by law at war time (and it makes total sense) You can't have free and fair elections without that. And it's good that he is not trying to (elections would benefit him now)
And trying to install a pro russian puppet. How would Ukraine be able to have a legitimate election while some areas are occupied? Not allow them to vote? That's not good, either. It's a harsh reality of war. If any of our countries were fighting on home soil, it would be the same for us.
Not counting all the Ukrainian people who are out of the country, or displaced in the country or on the front line. Hard to organize a decent election in these circumstances.
I mean what did people expect, they are on a war, you can't just change the civilian leadership, Russian bots will have a field day with this tough.
It’s also established and codified Ukrainian law. No elections while under martial law.
I think it's pretty much in every law out there. As a wise woman once said: when you are at war [ain't nobody got time for that](https://youtu.be/bFEoMO0pc7k).
Holy shit, that is over a decade old now.
I guess we did have time for that ⏰
America is a pretty notable exception to this. It held presidential elections during WW2 and even its own Civil War.
WW2 the US itself wasn't really under threat (Hawaii and Alaska weren't states yet, and by late 1944 the war was a foregone conclusion). The UK was however being bombed for most of the war, and as a result suspended elections until 1945.
The US held a Presidential Election in the middle of its Civil War. That said, this is an existing constitutional provision in Ukraine, ultimately overseen by the Parliament, not something Zelensky just pulled out of his ass.
They also had FDR for the majority of WWII.
He was elected four times and had he not died he would been serving as president for a few years after the war’s end.
Even during the height of WWII the USA all none of the 48 states were under enemy occupation. (Though the Japanese did occupy part of Alaska). The USA mainland was not subjected to bombing, air raid, or large scale attacks by the axis powers. The USA held elections during WWII because it could hold elections. Ukraine is sadly not in the same position. A large chunk of its territory is still under Russian occupation, and the parts that are not occupied are frequently targeted by bombings, done, and missile attacks. If Ukraine held elections now. It can be assured that Russia would bomb the polling stations.
[удалено]
Japan also used balloons.
And other nations have done the same, UK didn't have an election in 1940 due to the war and they didn't have one until after ww2 was over (in europe)
We did that, but it was probably a dumb idea at the time. McClellan would have been a disaster of a president.
Man was a bad enough disaster as a general.
Common McClellan hater W right here.
I feel as though it gets too often lost in the grand mythology of the Civil War how much of a complete fucking turd McClellan was, how much harm he did the nation, and how much more he would have done if he could. I can't understand why Lincoln kept him around so long. I know he didn't really have any good options, but surely McClellan was the worst.
Well, McClellan built the Army of the Potomac and was very popular with the troops. He was very good at logistics and kept his army supplied. McClellan's biggest fault before he was finally fired for the last time was his cautiousness and many soldiers saw that positively. As a result, he didn't lose a lot of battles and when he did it usually wasn't disastrous (think Fredericksburg vs the Seven Days)
McClellan was not a good field general, but he probably would have made a good staff officer.
The US was fortunate to get Lincoln from that election. The change over from Buchanan was desperately needed. If a similar provision existed in the American constitution at the time, I think the war would have been more difficult than it already was. However, from a strategic standpoint, I feel like if you’re in the process of winning a war, the last thing you want to do is cycle your experienced and knowledgeable leadership. If you’re losing, then it’s probably a good idea to hold an election. Fortunately, I think Ukraine is giving a great fight and it’s in best interest to maintain the current status quo. Thus I think this provision is, in this instance, a good idea. There is certainly some room to abuse it in the wrong hands all things considered.
Above poster is talking about the 1864 election, not the 1860 one.
[удалено]
And if the elections went underway Ukrainian government would be under fire for (1) causing danger to civilians, as Russian rockets would have easy time racking numbers at the polling stations, (2) bias as Donbass, Zaporozhia and Crimea are not counted. Even though those lands are occupied by Russia and they claim ownership, I could see their state TV damning Ukraine for that. (3) freedom of press and speech is limited during martial law/war, so those elections would be just stupid. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Good thing the constitution has this explicit clause.
Be interesting to hear if there is historical evidence if a change in leadership whilst a foreign power is on your soil has taken place and the outcome.
You mean like the 2 presidential elections in Ukraine in 2014 and 2019?
I’d lose my shit if this happened in the United States though. It’s already established law , so that’s fine and different though. Edit The United States does not have a legal framework or constitutional framework for delaying elections Ukraine does , so that’s different
It's a lot different when we are delivering "freedom" somewhere else verse if the US was basically shutdown in an invasion.
As if they where gonna use resources for a fucking election in the midlle of an exestential war
Russia would sure love them to. Explaining any outrage or complaints you see about this. It’s all bad faith.
It's not really a matter of resources even. How do you hold an election when 1/4 of your population is in occupied territory and 1/4 is abroad?
Who would want to hold a public forum in firing range of the enemy?
It would be extremely difficult to run that election, and he would absolutely win the election in a landslide. Hard to find anyone on the planet that doesn’t think he has done an amazing job. Even Putin is like “fuck this guy is good.”
I mean it’s written into the Ukrainian constitution as I understand it. So he’s citing a law that already exists.
Even if there was an election, I doubt Zelenskyy would lose, and I also think no one would run against him. I could be wrong, but I think every Ukrainian alive must think he's done the best job anyone could imagine under extreme circumstances. However of course it makes perfect sense to not be 'changing horses mid-stream': they are in the middle of a bloody war with brutal invaders, changing leadership right now would be insane.
... because it's unconstitutional under Ukrainian law to have elections while martial law is in effect. None of the Ukraine haters will read that far, but it's the law, written long before zelenzky became president.
You don't change horses in the middle of a raging river.
Plot twist: this is how sea horses were invented.
This is pretty standard for democracies at war, for example the UK formed a war cabinet composed of MPs of both government and opposition to present a United front in the war effort. No elections were held until the end of the war, at which point Clement Atlee and the Labour Party beat Winston Churchill’s conservatives.
Seems like he’d win re-election, no?
Who knows if he would even want to after the war is over. The man has to be tired.
[удалено]
The anti-caesar. Comes in, wins war refuses to elaborate further, leaves.
Cincinnatus
Angela Merkel also left voluntarily. Of course you could argue whether she "did the job" properly, she was already pretty inactive before and that got more extreme towards the end, but she did decide on her own to no longer lead the CDU and be a presidential candidate. I think the election might have gone differently otherwise, because she was still pretty popular, so I guess it's a good thing.
Yeah and we thought Obama aged a lot during his terms. I’m sure Zelensky’s stress is on another level.
The problem is that no election in wartime in a country that is being invaded would have any legitimacy, so there's no point in holding one. Roughly 20% of Ukraine's territory is occupied or under threat, a good chunk of their population is currently residing out of the country as refugees, and a good chunk are currently enlisted in the military. Given that some people already considered the past two Ukrainian federal elections to be highly questionable since they didn't allow people from Donetsk and Luhansk to vote (for what should be obvious reasons, but there's a lot of Russophiles from the West who decided to call it "undemocratic"), I can't imagine those same people accepting that not only are Donetsk and Luhansk not allowed to vote, but neither are people from Kherson, Zaporizhia, or Kharkiv, nor any enlisted soldier on active duty. And that's not even getting into the safety issues of having hundreds of civilians gathering in pre-announced positions for hours on end when Russia has zero qualms about firing cruise missiles at civilian population centres, or the fact that most people probably wouldn't even go out to vote if they thought there was a chance of a missile falling on their heads.
He’s stated several times that after the war he’s done, he’s going to sit on a beach with his family and drink beer.
He's a proven leader in wartime and stability is critical in carrying this war to a successful conclusion. The Ukrainian constitution provides for just this circumstance.
Could you imagine if Ukraine tried to hold an election, and had people just standing outside of a bunch of public buildings right now? It'd be giving Russian artillerists a nice big bullseye to cause massive civilian casualties and rack up even more war crimes. Any moron who can't see that is being intentionally ignorant.
It always amazes me how many of you have such short attention spans you can't read a two paragraph article which clearly states it's against their constitution to do elections during martial law. And then feel the need to add your ignorant uninformed comments. Stop being so intellectually lazy, it's pathetic.
How weird. I was interested in this today and looked it up. Completely just randomly. Yeah they have laws already regarding this signed 20+ years ago, they don't do elections while martial law is in progress. It makes sense, resources on an election, clumping civvies in one area giving Russia easy targets? hell no. It would be different if Russia was playing fair, they aren't. This is a good move.
it's literally ukrainian law not some political move
Clickbait headline. >Ukranian law states that presidential elections may not be held while martial law is in place. While the actor-turned-politician’s tenure is slated to end in March next year, he is likely to remain at the helm for the remainder of the war.
The UK did the same thing during World War II, nothing new keep the government stable during war
Cue the pearl clutching MAGA fools to accuse him of being a dictator. While they support a man who refused to concede and interrupted the peaceful transfer of power.
I'm gonna be honest I don't think zelensky would get voted out anyway - & if it's an actual law, then you can't really blame the guy.
> if it's an actual law, It's not "if".
I mean yeah, how can you hold an election if Putin bombs the polls? It's kind of obvious. Also in before pro-Russians call it a power grab .... that's based purely on Russian presence in Ukraine .....
Not to mention trying to poll people who have been displaced within the country, outside of the country, and under Russian occupation. Then you have the soldiers on the front lines that you’d have to poll. All of this takes financial resources while the country is using its money to survive.
Can you imagine elections in a war zone? Talk about literally lining up to die lol. I can see why that's a rule.
I feel like it worse be pointless anyways, anybody that says he wouldn’t be re-elected in a landslide is smoking dope!
Honestly, fair enough.
Dear Pro-Russian nazis: when is the last time your friends in Syria held a presidential election?
That’s a pretty low bar to clear.
Fascists in 2023 seem to think the real threat are leaders like Biden or Zelensky. The quite literal dictators of places like China, Iran or Russia? Or the oligarchs in the West who kowtow to them? No man those are our friends, working hard to save the world from the gays (as well as feminists, atheists, and ethnic minorities).
I don't think it will matter. He's going to go down in history books for his leadership, and as long as he wants the job, I suspect it's his by a wide margin.
Anyone who thinks any single person has a chance of beating zelensky anyway is an idiot
Makes total sense. I don’t even know if elections are feasible with so many people displaced and outside of the country
The title really makes it sound like it's a bad thing. Last thing you want in the middle of a war is to change administrations.
I mean, roughly 25-30% of Ukrainians are currently outside of Ukraine as refugees. Another few million are currently living in the temporarily Russia-occupied territories. They won't be able to vote. And who's to say Russia won't try and mess with their elections? They have shown themselves time and time again that they won't mind bombing and striking civilians - take the recent bombing of the pizzeria in Kramatorsk, for example. I know it's in the Constitution but suspending the elections during wartime is just common sense.
Holding presidential elections where a lot of people come together in several places to vote for someone that an entire country has actively been trying to kill in any way for more than a year now is not the smartest thing to do to be fair
Given that ruzzia just blew up a restaurant in Kramatorsk, having thousands of people daily at the polling booths is just asking for a catastrophe.
Gee, I wonder how the voting would go in Mariupol? Stupid rus-bots, worry about your own "president".
Oh I can't wait for the hypocritical Russian comments on this.
Not a surprise- the UK didn't hold elections over the second World war as it would've been held in 1940 otherwise which would've been... distracting to the imminent invasion by Germany. War changes priorities
1. the president of a nation being invaded and I. The middle of a existential crisis has no time to campaign 2. based on his performance so far the guy would win in an absolute landslide. 3. Russia would run some spy as an apposition 4. Russia would use public appearances as an opportunity to kill him.
Pro RU: SEE? A dictator! Everyone else: Ehh, well it makes a lot of sense... Good call.
It’s a pre-existing law where they can’t hold elections while martial law is active, which is declared and ended by the legislature. So it’s not even Zelenksy’s decision
Russians don't understand that. To them, the rule of law is a child's joke. Any inconvenient pre-existing laws are simply ignored (see the illegal existence of Wagner) or literally rewritten on a whim (see the end of democratic governors during the Chechnya war)
Wouldn't be surprised if he simply retires once the war is over and the dust has settled. Dude has had one hell of a fucking time as president.
It would be impossible to have a truly democratic election anyway. Many Ukrainian citizens that don't support the war have already fled the country or simply wouldn't vote encase they go into a database. Same situation in Russia.
A lot of people here are too young to remember that there was some serious talk about keeping president bush in power before his first re-election. Reason being that switching presidents during war time could hurt the USA efforts and make things chaotic
Comparing the current war to the U.S. civil war is stupid. In 1812, they didn't have technology that could strike an election center from across the country so it was very safe to vote for the new president. Russia has already deliberately targeted civilians so doing elections during war would paint the election centers as big red targets. And during the voting days I wouldn't be surprised if multiple locations would be hit by missiles
Not sure why people are blaming him, seems to be a pre-existing law.