Russia has invaded Ukraine

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

He is only power due to a coup in 2014 though. It suited the West to support him at the time. Does that make him legitimate ? I dunno

Zelensky was elected in 2019. Again, the idea that the present Ukrainian government is illegitimate because of events in 2014 is a talking point actively promoted by Russia.

These sorts of things ought to be beyond question. Indeed, the OSCE monitored the 2019 election and while it had concerns about the conduct of some candidates its overall conclusion does not dispute the veracity of the final outcome.

https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/ukraine/439574

Be careful that your healthy desire to be a free-thinker isn’t being exploited for propaganda purposes by a country presently engaged in an illegal invasion of a sovereign neighbour and widespread war crimes.

---------- Post added at 07:28 ---------- Previous post was at 07:26 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

While the coup didn’t directly elect Zelensky it laid the ground work.

You are Margarita Simonyan and I claim my ₽5,000,000,000.

[jfman]

So how, democratically, do the people of Ukraine remove Zelensky if they decide they’ve paid enough in blood for tens of square kilometres in the months of the counteroffensive?

Originally Posted by jfman

He’s banned opposition parties, trade unions and (as far as I can tell) elections. In no way, shape or form can that be considered democratic. Especially when your number one policy is to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian men by conscription.

Both of my claims have been reported in the Ukrainian press.

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/21242
https://kyivindependent.com/ukraines...-mobilization/

---------- Post added at 00:13 ---------- Previous post was at 00:11 ----------

Unusual interpretation of "trying to stop the Russian invaders by doing the same as the U.K. and USA did the last time they had the same existential threat"…

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by jfman

So how, democratically, do the people of Ukraine remove Zelensky if they decide they’ve paid enough in blood for tens of square kilometres in the months of the counteroffensive?

You clearly favour the present occupation but why? I am curious.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Chris

Zelensky was elected in 2019. Again, the idea that the present Ukrainian government is illegitimate because of events in 2014 is a talking point actively promoted by Russia.

These sorts of things ought to be beyond question. Indeed, the OSCE monitored the 2019 election and while it had concerns about the conduct of some candidates its overall conclusion does not dispute the veracity of the final outcome.

https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/ukraine/439574

Be careful that your healthy desire to be a free-thinker isn’t being exploited for propaganda purposes by a country presently engaged in an illegal invasion of a sovereign neighbour and widespread war crimes.

---------- Post added at 07:28 ---------- Previous post was at 07:26 ----------



You are Margarita Simonyan and I claim my ₽5,000,000,000.

I am not naïve enough to think for one second I am a free thinker. I know all about the propaganda machine but it cuts both ways, I also believe we are victims of the same propaganda but from the opposite side. We are not furnished with the whole truth in the West just not to the same extremes as those in Russia

Originally Posted by jfman

So how, democratically, do the people of Ukraine remove Zelensky if they decide they’ve paid enough in blood for tens of square kilometres in the months of the counteroffensive?

Wow!

Why don’t you ask Ukraine if they’ve stopped beating their wife, if you’re in the mood for loaded questions?

Or to put it in your terms - "have you actually started believing your own* lies?

*may be from other sources…

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Wow!

Why don’t you ask Ukraine if they’ve stopped beating their wife, if you’re in the mood for loaded questions?

Or to put it in your terms - "have you actually started believing your own* lies?

*may be from other sources…

The short answer is there’s no way to remove Zelensky. Except by a bullet.

That’s not a democracy and you know it. That answer would be sufficient.

Originally Posted by jfman

The short answer is there’s no way to remove Zelensky. Except by a bullet.

That’s not a democracy and you know it. That answer would be sufficient.

Much like the U.K. during WW2, then…

Zelensky didn’t ban the opposition. He banned pro-Russian polical parties after Russia invaded Ukraine (wonder why…).

All toghether thiose parties accounted for 49 of the 450 seats in Ukrainian parliament, or aproximatelly 11%.

Calling this “ban opposition political parties” is just another narrative from Russian propaganda.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by ianch99

You clearly favour the present occupation but why? I am curious.

Where do I say I favour the present occupation? You’re taking my legitimate questions and portraying them as representing something they don’t.

It’s a straightforward question that - in a true democracy - would be easy to answer.

Ironically the safest place for a Ukrainian man who doesn’t want to die on the front line is Russia.

Probably not - he’d be conscripted…

You are constantly overlooking the existential threat the war has on Ukraine.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Much like the U.K. during WW2, then…

I don’t recall the UK banning opposition parties that actually sat in the House of Commons.

Originally Posted by jfman

I don’t recall the UK banning opposition parties that actually sat in the House of Commons.

I recall them banning pro-Fascist parties.

In Britain in 1940 we did the same thing it was called Regulation 18B of the Defence (General) Regulations 1939.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Hugh

I recall them banning pro-Fascist parties.

But not ones that sat in the House of Commons - you know the ones that could call for a vote of no confidence and push out the PM.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by jfman

Where do I say I favour the present occupation? You’re taking my legitimate questions and portraying them as representing something they don’t.

It’s a straightforward question that - in a true democracy - would be easy to answer.

Ironically the safest place for a Ukrainian man who doesn’t want to die on the front line is Russia.

You are assuming that the Ukrainians, as a nation, are being forced against their will to defend their homes, children, etc. This is not true.

The reason you favour the present occupation is that you criticise the defence against it. You can't have it both ways: either they defend themselves or they allow the current invasion to stand. There is no third way here

[jfman]

Originally Posted by ianch99

You are assuming that the Ukrainians, as a nation, are being forced against their will to defend their homes, children, etc. This is not true.

I mean that’s literally the definition of conscription.

The reason you favour the present occupation is that you criticise the defence against it. You can't have it both ways: either they defend themselves or they allow the current invasion to stand. There is no third way here

Let the ones that don’t want to fight flee to the west then arm everyone who remains to the teeth then.