▲ 55 ▼ Elections now would 'destroy Ukraine,' Zelensky says, revealing new details on disagreements with Fedorov (kyivindependent.com) submitted 1 day ago by schizoidman@lemmy.zip to c/europe@feddit.org 11 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml -3 points 7 hours ago (2 children) Elections are unlawful in times of war. If that was true, the article and Zelensky surely would have said so. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip 4 points 7 hours ago (1 child) Are you just mouthing off about what is and isn't in the article without even checking? Because the article does in fact say so. As per Ukraine's constitution, elections are suspended under martial law, which has remained in force since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 hours ago (1 child) Thanks, I did read over that. But it's still quite different from "unlawful". It's loaded language to preempt any discussion about democratic leadership. Clearly I'm not the only one thinking so, since at least Fedorov and quite a few protesters think so to. Elections are unlawful in times of war. per Ukraine’s constitution, elections are suspended under martial law permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 hours ago (1 child) Is it really that different? Either way, the government is forbidden to run and hold an election. You could get pedantic about the difference between at war and under martial law, but given this is a defensive war in which they're under active invasion, they're functionally identical because of course the country under invasion enacted martial law. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 hours ago I mean Fedorov thinks so, I imagine you would have to suspend martial law. Zelensky didn't say it's unlawful just that it would "destroy Ukraine". I imagine it would quickly devolve into the question on whether "Ukraine should continue fighting until it wins the war" (24% in 2024) or "Ukraine should seek to negotiate an ending to the war as soon as possible" (69% in 2024). Obviously opinion could have changed quite a bit since then. And Fedorov doesn't seem to be the peace negotiation type either. Should Ukrainians get a vote on that or not? If democracy is not for deciding such monumental questions, what is democracy for? Just saying "oh that's unlawful for Ukrainians to vote" is I think a bit... different. Not that I think the terms Russia might dangle for a peace agreement would make for a good election platform lol. They want Ukraine to be neutral, reduce it's army, and want to keep the territory they conquered. And would probably also not agree to a ceasefire because they believe it would give Ukraine the opportunity to regroup. But again impossible doesn't mean unlawful. permalink fedilink source parent [–] You@feddit.org 0 points 7 hours ago It's not so easy when Russia's spreading disinformation and Donald's regurgitating it. But smart people write about Ukraine’s Constitutional Order in Wartime: Elections, Continuity, and Legitimacy The article's conclusion: Wartime elections are neither a legal obligation nor a democratic necessity when they cannot be free, fair, or secure. Historical precedents confirm that elections are only feasible when security conditions allow, which is not the case in Ukraine’s current war. Meanwhile, the absence of elections does not mean the absence of legitimacy. Ukraine’s constitutional provisions, democratic consensus, and international recognition ensure that its government remains constitutionally legitimate, functional, and committed to democratic principles. Once martial law ends, Ukrainian authorities should fulfil their constitutional duty to hold elections, ensuring a seamless transition back to full democratic governance. This transition presents other unique challenges, from logistics to structuring the post-war electoral process – whether holding all elections simultaneously or sequencing presidential and parliamentary votes to uphold democratic principles. But until then, Ukraine’s leadership remains fully legitimate under both constitutional law and international recognition. Calls to question this legitimacy ignore Ukraine’s constitutional safeguards, historical precedent, and the security necessity of stable wartime governance. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip 4 points 7 hours ago (1 child) Are you just mouthing off about what is and isn't in the article without even checking? Because the article does in fact say so. As per Ukraine's constitution, elections are suspended under martial law, which has remained in force since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 hours ago (1 child) Thanks, I did read over that. But it's still quite different from "unlawful". It's loaded language to preempt any discussion about democratic leadership. Clearly I'm not the only one thinking so, since at least Fedorov and quite a few protesters think so to. Elections are unlawful in times of war. per Ukraine’s constitution, elections are suspended under martial law permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 hours ago (1 child) Is it really that different? Either way, the government is forbidden to run and hold an election. You could get pedantic about the difference between at war and under martial law, but given this is a defensive war in which they're under active invasion, they're functionally identical because of course the country under invasion enacted martial law. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 hours ago I mean Fedorov thinks so, I imagine you would have to suspend martial law. Zelensky didn't say it's unlawful just that it would "destroy Ukraine". I imagine it would quickly devolve into the question on whether "Ukraine should continue fighting until it wins the war" (24% in 2024) or "Ukraine should seek to negotiate an ending to the war as soon as possible" (69% in 2024). Obviously opinion could have changed quite a bit since then. And Fedorov doesn't seem to be the peace negotiation type either. Should Ukrainians get a vote on that or not? If democracy is not for deciding such monumental questions, what is democracy for? Just saying "oh that's unlawful for Ukrainians to vote" is I think a bit... different. Not that I think the terms Russia might dangle for a peace agreement would make for a good election platform lol. They want Ukraine to be neutral, reduce it's army, and want to keep the territory they conquered. And would probably also not agree to a ceasefire because they believe it would give Ukraine the opportunity to regroup. But again impossible doesn't mean unlawful. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml 1 point 5 hours ago (1 child) Thanks, I did read over that. But it's still quite different from "unlawful". It's loaded language to preempt any discussion about democratic leadership. Clearly I'm not the only one thinking so, since at least Fedorov and quite a few protesters think so to. Elections are unlawful in times of war. per Ukraine’s constitution, elections are suspended under martial law permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 hours ago (1 child) Is it really that different? Either way, the government is forbidden to run and hold an election. You could get pedantic about the difference between at war and under martial law, but given this is a defensive war in which they're under active invasion, they're functionally identical because of course the country under invasion enacted martial law. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 hours ago I mean Fedorov thinks so, I imagine you would have to suspend martial law. Zelensky didn't say it's unlawful just that it would "destroy Ukraine". I imagine it would quickly devolve into the question on whether "Ukraine should continue fighting until it wins the war" (24% in 2024) or "Ukraine should seek to negotiate an ending to the war as soon as possible" (69% in 2024). Obviously opinion could have changed quite a bit since then. And Fedorov doesn't seem to be the peace negotiation type either. Should Ukrainians get a vote on that or not? If democracy is not for deciding such monumental questions, what is democracy for? Just saying "oh that's unlawful for Ukrainians to vote" is I think a bit... different. Not that I think the terms Russia might dangle for a peace agreement would make for a good election platform lol. They want Ukraine to be neutral, reduce it's army, and want to keep the territory they conquered. And would probably also not agree to a ceasefire because they believe it would give Ukraine the opportunity to regroup. But again impossible doesn't mean unlawful. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 hours ago (1 child) Is it really that different? Either way, the government is forbidden to run and hold an election. You could get pedantic about the difference between at war and under martial law, but given this is a defensive war in which they're under active invasion, they're functionally identical because of course the country under invasion enacted martial law. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 hours ago I mean Fedorov thinks so, I imagine you would have to suspend martial law. Zelensky didn't say it's unlawful just that it would "destroy Ukraine". I imagine it would quickly devolve into the question on whether "Ukraine should continue fighting until it wins the war" (24% in 2024) or "Ukraine should seek to negotiate an ending to the war as soon as possible" (69% in 2024). Obviously opinion could have changed quite a bit since then. And Fedorov doesn't seem to be the peace negotiation type either. Should Ukrainians get a vote on that or not? If democracy is not for deciding such monumental questions, what is democracy for? Just saying "oh that's unlawful for Ukrainians to vote" is I think a bit... different. Not that I think the terms Russia might dangle for a peace agreement would make for a good election platform lol. They want Ukraine to be neutral, reduce it's army, and want to keep the territory they conquered. And would probably also not agree to a ceasefire because they believe it would give Ukraine the opportunity to regroup. But again impossible doesn't mean unlawful. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml 1 point 3 hours ago I mean Fedorov thinks so, I imagine you would have to suspend martial law. Zelensky didn't say it's unlawful just that it would "destroy Ukraine". I imagine it would quickly devolve into the question on whether "Ukraine should continue fighting until it wins the war" (24% in 2024) or "Ukraine should seek to negotiate an ending to the war as soon as possible" (69% in 2024). Obviously opinion could have changed quite a bit since then. And Fedorov doesn't seem to be the peace negotiation type either. Should Ukrainians get a vote on that or not? If democracy is not for deciding such monumental questions, what is democracy for? Just saying "oh that's unlawful for Ukrainians to vote" is I think a bit... different. Not that I think the terms Russia might dangle for a peace agreement would make for a good election platform lol. They want Ukraine to be neutral, reduce it's army, and want to keep the territory they conquered. And would probably also not agree to a ceasefire because they believe it would give Ukraine the opportunity to regroup. But again impossible doesn't mean unlawful. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] You@feddit.org 0 points 7 hours ago It's not so easy when Russia's spreading disinformation and Donald's regurgitating it. But smart people write about Ukraine’s Constitutional Order in Wartime: Elections, Continuity, and Legitimacy The article's conclusion: Wartime elections are neither a legal obligation nor a democratic necessity when they cannot be free, fair, or secure. Historical precedents confirm that elections are only feasible when security conditions allow, which is not the case in Ukraine’s current war. Meanwhile, the absence of elections does not mean the absence of legitimacy. Ukraine’s constitutional provisions, democratic consensus, and international recognition ensure that its government remains constitutionally legitimate, functional, and committed to democratic principles. Once martial law ends, Ukrainian authorities should fulfil their constitutional duty to hold elections, ensuring a seamless transition back to full democratic governance. This transition presents other unique challenges, from logistics to structuring the post-war electoral process – whether holding all elections simultaneously or sequencing presidential and parliamentary votes to uphold democratic principles. But until then, Ukraine’s leadership remains fully legitimate under both constitutional law and international recognition. Calls to question this legitimacy ignore Ukraine’s constitutional safeguards, historical precedent, and the security necessity of stable wartime governance. permalink fedilink source parent