SlAvA UkrAnI!

top 74 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 29 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (8 children)

From the latest Perceptions of Democracy index, from NIRA Data:

Ukrainians are among the most skeptical of the democratic processes in their country. Meanwhile, even a country as hotly contested as Venezuela, faith in elections is skyrocketing. And this is gathered by a western org run by a NATO official.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    As always, I would like to point out that these kinds of surveys of public opinion are not really evidence of anything besides public opinion itself.

    You cannot assert that a certain country has more or less of some quality simply because more people in that country said they think they do more frequently than people in a different country did.

    For example if you asked Americans (particularly those in the south or rural areas) if they thought their country was more “free” than the rest of the world, you would probably get higher numbers than you would from most other regions of the world despite the fact that America is not that free relative to much of the world.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Trends in perception, as well as comparison, does tell a good story. In many ways it's a superior method of data gathering on democracy than the standard method of defining democracy as whatever the Nordics are doing, and then grading everyone based on how closely they follow that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Direct comparison of perception of democracy by people who have lived in both countries would be much clearer evidence of differences in democracy itself.

    However, the raw perception of democracy without any other reference to other democracies does not allow for comparison/measurement of democracy itself but rather indicates how happy individuals feel within their current democracy.

    The data is a good story and it does encode information, but that information is more significantly influenced by culture, current events, and overall happiness of the populace than it is by “level of democracy”

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Sure. When I mean comparison, I mean in trends. If a country scores lower in one year while another scores higher, and this trend repeats, it's a sign of improving and decaying conditions. Democracy isn't really something you can measure directly, which makes the entire subject pretty muddy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    that’s why I put quotes around “level of democracy.” If everyone in a country had to vote directly for any and all government action, that is kind of the purest democracy possible, but it would not be a very effective method of government especially for large countries.

    In order to rank democracy in a meaningful way, one would need to decide on what the desired outcomes of a “good” democracy are and which outcomes are most important etc. which would make the scale subjective.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago

    Even that would not be democratic, as it ignores the role of ownership of production and distribution. In a capitalist economy, such would still be subject to the same mechanisms preventing bourgeois democracy from following the will of the proletariat.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)
  • If you follow the comment chain you’ll see me and cowbee talk about how subjective the term “democracy” is.

    However, we can illustrate my point using proof by counter example. It is entirely possible to imagine two countries with the same government structure (and hence “democracy”) but with different answers to this kind of survey.

    Imagine two nearly identical countries each with corrupt governments having the exact same structure and culture etc. The only major difference between them is that in one of the countries, a recent scandal has occurred which was able to bring to light deep seated corruption and criminal activity of many public figures, whereas similar acts are being committed by the govt. of the other country, but none of it has been brought so fully to light yet.

    The citizens of the former country are likely to rank their “democracy” lower than the citizens of the latter would rate their own, despite the fact both governments have equal amounts of corruption. Hence, surveys of popular opinion of democracy are not directly indicative of the “level of democracy” or level of corruption or fidelity etc. etc.. QED.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 20 points 5 months ago

    Canceling elections is totally fine if it's our guy

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Just for factual correctness (don't actually care about your opinion) - no Israeli election was cancelled. Bibi himself lost an election in 2020.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Ukraine being less democratic than Israel is not the gotcha its supporters expected

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    As I said, not going for any gacha. Also not versed enough on Ukraine politics to comment. Just saying that no Israeli election was cancelled (we're going to have one in a couple of months).

    Decided a while ago I don't want to get into internet arguments, big waste of time which can be used for more significant things.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago

    I didn't even meant to argue, just wanted to put it into perspective for lurkers. We could even go further and note that there is huge support for genocide in various forms and methods in Israel, but Zelensky got explicitly elected on his promises of deescalating and stopping the civil war.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 5 months ago (10 children)

    What part of martial law do you not understand?

    A country being invaded can be and will be overthrown if possible. In fact, it's been done many times in European imperialist history.

    That's why the clause exists, even before democracy was normalized in Europe. Just find someone else in line for procession and install a puppet prince.

    It's even been abused. Some speculate that Trump would trigger martial law to stay in office - or even Netenyahu himself clinging to power.

    In the end you don't want a captured government. That's also historically been really bad.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    Letting democracy exist is bad because then the government might change hands.

    Gotcha.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    Because then the government might be corrupted and perverted by the active aggressor with massive incentive to do so.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (6 children)

    Or at least that's what the fascists will say if anyone votes against continuing the war

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Well there's already a shitload of doubt over the referendums that happened after Russia invaded. The doubt is especially bolstered by the fact that polling data suggested sentiment favored moving away from Russia when they all of a sudden show up, hold a vote in regions they fully control, and win with a wildly impractical something like 95%. It's not even good lying. It's "fuck you, what are you gonna do about it?" lying.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (4 children)

    "it wasn't close therefore it is fake"

    Who was voting? What was the voting about?

    "Oh they asked people who had their democratic government couped by a hostile foreign power and had nazis installed that proceeded to ethnically cleanse them and take away their rights whether they wanted to stay part of that country"

    And they didn't want to?

    "Yeah the only possible interpretation was they were brainwashed"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)

    "it wasn't close therefore it is fake"

    No, it was fake because polling data that was relatively recent to the election was in gross conflict with the results. Imagine you lived somewhere with a large expat American population. Imagine that polling specifically in the region full of American expats showed that the clear majority did NOT want to join the US and that the trend over time is for the sentiment to get STRONGER, not weaker. Now imagine the US invades, a referendum on secession and annexation by the US is held almost immediately, and the vote is exactly what the US wants, the people increasingly did NOT want, and they claimed the vote was 95% in their favor. You'd never buy that load of bullshit, but if Russia does it, and it's perceived to be against The West...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Who collected this polling data? Have a link/source? From everything I've seen the east was firmly pro yanukovych and Crimea specifically formally petitioned for Russian intervension after the 2014 coup. And while the Donbass didn't formally petition they literally went to war for the right to split away from Ukraine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    I'll try to dig it back up later, having a bit of trouble finding it again because modern search is shit and heavily favors tangential at best recent events even with clear requests.

    As for the vote and in Crimea, as I've been saying, there's extremely reasonable doubt of authenticity given the vote was held after Russia seized the area. Russia held an election in which the result was what Russia wanted by margins in gross excess of what recent polling suggested the people actually wanted.

    About Donbass, I don't really remember the specifics at this moment, but I recall getting into it with someone about that topic a few weeks ago. If you wanna look back in my comment history probably 2-4 weeks, I found sources for the poll, various issues with the Crimean referendum, and some stuff on Donbass I don't recall at the moment.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -5 points 5 months ago

    Read history, bro - instead of suckling at the feet of Putin. Martial law does not exclude democracy, as democracy is more than national elections and representative democracy (not that you'd know anything about that) - but a change in government can actively sabotage defences and weaken a nation to be overrun by a foreign agressor 👏 while 👏 the 👏 nation 👏 is 👏 being 👏 invaded.

    But tell me how Maripol being leveled is somehow good for renovation plans.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    Oh boy the reddit imperialists are angry with this one

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    Yeah, people get irritable about misinformation on their front page, like when someone falsely claims Zelenskyy canceled elections.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    And before that he banned opposition parties

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    No, a bunch of parties were suspended because they have connections to the country that's bombing them, and it's only while they're under martial law. Martial law could end any day now if Russia just fucked off back home.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    No, a bunch of parties were suspended

    Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    That's a great thought-terminating cliche you have there. Careful with it, though. It's an antique.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Brushing me off is a thought terminating cliche

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    You said nothing for me to really refute, other than a round about way of saying you think in generally full of shit. I made an actual claim, you made a vague dodge that doesn't actually address it, I pointed that out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (26 children)

    so much pro russian propaganda in the meme channel, crazy

  • source
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago* (23 children)

    Actually, the opposite.

    Crazy to see many imperialist supporters trying to justify Western capitalist puppets/allies

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 5 months ago (13 children)

    I'm not saying the US is good, that's classic whataboutism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago* (11 children)

    You made a classic ad hominem attack since you had no proper response to the meme.

    I replied to see your reaction and it confirms it then.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 5 months ago (10 children)

    I'm not sure you know what ad hominem means.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    Attacking the person and not the point?

    Should I have termed it as 'Poisoning the well' or something else?
    What term would you have used?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    While that is correct, it's not what the comment you replied to did. There's no criticisim to you as a person. It simply says that the argument reads as "whataboutism" so yup, your reply doesn't really make sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago* (7 children)

    Are you isolating that comment alone, while ignoring the original comment? I was talking about that one. Not any towards me, but the original OP.

    I mentioned that they did not have any response, other than trying to poison the well and implying stuff about the memes community, OP and other posters.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    You replied to the wrong comment then ¯\_ (ツ)_/¯ why would you reply to the second comment if you were referring to the first?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Because it was a continuation of the convo?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Didn't seem that way since neither the original comment nor their response is an "ad hominem" attack. But ok dude, you do you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (3 children)

    It may have seemed like that since you were not the commentor who I was replying to and did not follow the comment chain. And I did ask if it would be better to term it as 'poisoning the well'.

    But ok dude, you do you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Not the issue, no. Your reply just didn't make sense. No one, at any point, made an "ad hominem" attack/comment. Also, that term and "poisoning the well" have nothing to do with each other.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    Also pretty crazy to watch a bunch of anti-imperialists laud imperialism just because it happens to be against their perceived enemies, The West. Lies in favor of Putin and against Ukraine are fucking rampant in this community, and you would think they'd be opposed to a war of conquest, but so long as The West is hurt, they'll justify literally anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children)

    Where is imperialism lauded?

    Tho, the West which sides with Genocide and Nazis, while also being engaged in neo-colonialism, will obviously be getting more concern.

    And considering NATO surrounding Russia and helping Ukraine kill civilian in areas like Donbass with Russian speaking people, restricting Russian language n all, some people do think that Russia was baited into acting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Where is imperialism lauded?

    Russia in Ukraine is a great example. The amount if very easily disproven Russian propaganda I see spread in here is insane, and it gets eaten up because it gives people a chance to rail against The West. And I'm not saying the railing is undeserved. I'm just saying that people lap up very obvious bullshit to get an opportunity to participate.

    some people do think that Russia was baited into acting.

    If you think Russia acted out of anything other than selfish interest, I have a bridge to sell you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)

    Which is the obvious 'Russian propaganda' shared here that you mention? Do list some.

    If you think Russia acted out of anything other than selfish interest, I have a bridge to sell you.

    I have no intent to buy one. If you ordered a bridge, you can keep it.

    No one is saying that it is altruism in case of war.

    But that Western imperialism's arm... NATO's escalation and posturing has contributed a lot to the issue.

    I said it seems that Russia was baited by West's encirclement

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Which is the obvious 'Russian propaganda' shared here that you mention? Do list some.

    • Zelenskyy canceled elections. He didn't, they're constitutionally forbidden under martial law, and he's bound to the constitution. If you want Ukrainians to have elections again, get Putin to fuck off. They either had to enact martial law and lose elections temporarily or be conquered and lose Ukrainian elections permanently.

    • Zelenskyy banned the opposition parties. He didn't, that was a national defense council. Specifically, parties with active ties to Russia, the country actively invading them, were temporarily suspended only while under martial law, so they'll be back once treasonous aid to the invader is off the table.

    • Russia invaded because they were being attacked by people coming over the border from Ukraine. This was a wild claim because I can't even find evidence that Russia claimed this, and when asked, they provided a bunch of articles about the 2014 "coup" that didn't mention the alleged attacks.

    • The vote to join Russia from... I think Crimea happened before the invasion. Might be mixing up events here, but I don't have time to dig more up right now. But it didn't. It didn't happen until Russia had already seized the region, which is relevant because we cannot trust Russia to run fair elections, especially for a vote like that.

    This is just what I found by glancing through my recent comment history to find recent claims made in Lemmy.ml posts. These are ones I actually had to verify myself, and all of them were trivially easy to prove are incorrect. All of these claims are extremely easily verifiable lies in favor of Russian goals. I'm not saying the people I heard it from are intentionally spreading propaganda. At least some portion are undoubtedly just people who have fallen for sweet sounding lies about perceived enemies they already hate, basically falling for confirmation bias.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)

    Maduro also did not cancel elections, right?

    Zelenskyy banned the opposition parties. He didn't, that was a national defense council.

    That is under Zelensky, right?

    If so, then claims against Putin and Maduro also are wrong, as they also have council-equivalents, ministries of defense, agencies etc.

    Regarding other claims, I did not see them here.

    My understanding was that NATO expanded which baited Russia.

    And there was growing Ukrainian supremacism with Russian speaking regions like Donbass being affected. Have read that their 2019 language law had exceptions for English and European Union's official languages, while Russian, Belarusian and Yiddish languages did not have any. So, Russian speaking regions of Ukraine having issue is understandable there.

    The Nazi symbols on some Ukrainian soldiers too.

    My understanding is that Western imperialist powers wants to isolate Russia, setup NATO bases around them and squeeze them, for not falling in line as a vassal. NATO was getting closer to Ukraine, arranged regime change in 2014 etc.

    And finally everything culminated into the Russia taking bait.

    I remember seeing a video on it.
    Edit: Yep, here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LL4eNy4FCs8

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    Maduro also did not cancel elections, right?

    I am unfortunately not well informed on the current and recent state of Venezuela, so I'm not going to try to pretend I can form a well informed opinion on what he's done. I've heard some bad things recently, of course, but the timing makes it feel like justification for what was planned, so it's definitely a tinted view at best. All I can really say on Maduro is that it was most likely a bad idea for Trump to take him like that. I'm open to learning more, but I unfortunately can't keep up with everything.

    That is under Zelensky, right?

    If so, then claims against Putin and Maduro also are wrong, as they also have council-equivalents, ministries of defense, agencies etc.

    Hmmm that's actually a fair question, but I'm not entirely sure they're equivalent. While the state as a whole certainly takes blame for actions of any of its agents, for individuals, it depends on what they have control over, and while the head of state's powers are generally extensive in any state, they are generally not complete. For an example from the jurisdiction I'm most familiar from, I wouldn't blame the US president for a law passed by Congress with a strong enough majority to override a veto because they effectively have no power there.

    Speaking more directly on the individuals you mentioned, I'm going to pass on Maduro for the reasons I stated earlier. As for Putin, I think he takes a larger portion of blame than many other heads of state as he has accumulated a significantly larger portion of the state's power. He has managed, for example, to have the constitution amended so he can retain power well beyond the limits when he first came into power, and the fact that Russia isn't exactly known for election integrity suggests a wide capacity to corrupt even aspects of the government that should be well outside his control. He may get some blame for things genuinely out of his control, but his corruption does obscure the exact extent of his power.

    As for Zelenskyy, this did warrant some more research into who in the government made the call and the hierarchies they operate under. I found this article, which goes into some of the details.

    On March 18, 2022, the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine decided to suspend, for the duration of martial law, the activities of certain political parties with ties to the Russian Federation. Zelenskyy signed a decree the next day. A week later, the Verkhovna Rada introduced a draft law to amend the existing legislation on political parties, specifically to add a restriction on “justification, recognition as legitimate, [or] denial of armed aggression against Ukraine,” as well as “glorification, justification of actions and/or inaction of persons who carried out or are carrying out armed aggression against Ukraine.” The law was unanimously adopted on May 3rd.

    The activities of 11 political parties were affected, all with ties to Russia or in violation of the law. Five other parties were charged with the crime of “helping the occupier.” Per the legislation, lawsuits were filed by the Ministry of Justice in order to obtain judicial bans and forced dissolution. As of June 2023, “the Eighth Administrative Court of Appeal upheld the claims of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine to ban the activities of 18 political parties.” According to the Rule of Law Research Center, “after the execution of the court decision on the ban, the political party loses all its members and all its structural formations, that is, it completely ceases to exist as an association of citizens.”

    Okay, so I had to look a bit deeper, and it seems the council serves under the president, but he's required to include certain people, mainly various ministers of assorted ministries. Looking deeper again, though, most if not all of those ministers do seem to be appointed by the president, even if they do need to be approved by a legislature. Plus, he signed the decree, even if at their suggestion and even if the legislature reinforced it with codified law later. Given that, I admit you are correct that he must share at least some of the blame for the suspension of those parties, and I was incorrect to try to absolve him of all blame.

    That said, I don't disagree with the move. Not only are they under active attack, Russia has a known very recent history of attempting to interfere with and corrupt foreign parties and elections. Combined with their lack of election integrity at home, there is every reason to assume they would attempt to corrupt Ukrainian political parties and use them to amplify Russian propaganda and sway critical votes towards Russia's goals and away from the will of the people, and there is no reason at all to assume they wouldn't try. If Russia wants the political allies to be trusted in an emergency, maybe they should try not making allies through corruption and not being the reason their neighbors are having emergencies.

    Regarding other claims, I did not see them here.

    Well I exclusively pulled out of my own recent comment history, as in within the last month or so.

    My understanding was that NATO expanded which baited Russia.

    My understanding is that Ukraine is not in NATO and therefore does not deserve to have their sovereignty violated to satisfy Russia's desire for safety guarantees. It is also my understanding that many of those NATO expansions happened as a direct result of Russian interference with or aggression towards neighbors, e.g. Finland and Sweden joined as a direct response to the invasion of Ukraine, so if Russia wants their neighbors to stop joining alliances to bolster defense against them, maybe they should stop terrorizing neighbors and making them feel unsafe. Whining about NATO expansion is crybully behavior, whining that your future victims saw it coming and teamed up to prevent it.

    And there was growing Ukrainian supremacism with Russian speaking regions like Donbass being affected. Have read that their 2019 language law had exceptions for English and European Union's official languages, while Russian, Belarusian and Yiddish languages did not have any. So, Russian speaking regions of Ukraine having issue is understandable there.

    I'm unfamiliar with this topic and would be open to learning more if you have any good sources. From my understanding, Ukraine on the whole was moving away from Russia, so I could see that causing some tensions with the Russian-speaking eastern Ukrainians. I usually see far more extreme claims about what's being done to the eastern Ukrainians, but they can never seem to come up with evidence for the more extreme claims, and this feels grounded enough to be possible, so yeah, if you have sources, I'm open to being convinced.

    The Nazi symbols on some Ukrainian soldiers too.

    I've heard a lot of claims of Ukrainian Nazis, but I'm increasingly convinced it's a grossly exaggerated issue. Don't get me wrong, I've seen pictures around here of a couple small groups, but the grand total was like 50 people around some flags or wearing symbols, and whole 50 Nazis is certainly 50 too many, it's far from the systemic issue people try to claim. I've asked for evidence many times now, and at this point, I think I'm more likely to be verbally abused for asking for evidence than to receive even a really shitty piece of "evidence" that doesn't actually prove anything. The animosity towards an open willingness to consider fresh evidence makes it feel more like Russian propaganda than truth. That said, I'm still open to being proven wrong. Just don't expect me to assume the whole nation is swarming with them because of something like a picture of a dozen dudes around a flag.

    My understanding is that Western imperialist powers wants to isolate Russia, setup NATO bases around them and squeeze them, for not falling in line as a vassal.

    My understanding is that many of the more recent states to join NATO did because they saw how Russia treats their neighbors, like Sweden and Finland as mentioned above. It looks an awful lot like Russia bullied their neighbors and then got really upset about it when some of the other neighbors started banding together so they wouldn't be next. If Russia wants neighbors to stop joining NATO, they should probably stop making their neighbors feel like they'd be safer in NATO.

    NATO was getting closer to Ukraine, arranged regime change in 2014 etc.

    My understanding is that the general public was moving towards the EU while state officials moved towards Russia, resulting in regime change. I've seen poll data from shortly before the 2014 invasion of Crimea that showed there was even a trend in eastern Ukraine of moving away from Russia, which is part of why the referendum to join Russia was seen as so suspicious, not only were they trending away, but then 95.5% voted to join Russia? Combined with the fact that the referendum was held after Russia invaded and gained control of the region and Russia's lack of election integrity, a vote of 95.5% in Russia's favor when recent polling data showed they probably wouldn't even pull a majority just looks like a "fuck you, what are you going to do about it?" vote count.

    I'll try to check out the video later, but I've already spent more time than I really had available researching and writing this up.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 0 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Ukraine needs to have elections

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 5 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Abraham Lincoln was given a choice to not hold elections during the American civil war but he understood the war is at the will of the people. Are we afraid the Ukrainian people will vote against the war?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago

    Abraham Lincoln was given a choice

    And Zelenskyy is not given a choice. Their constitution forbids it. Are you suggesting that Zelenskyy should seize more power beyond that granted by the constitution?

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    Oh no the troll farm discovered lemmy.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›