• neolib@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    50
    ·
    1 year ago

    I am emphatically in favor of supporting Ukraine but you should be aware that Zelensky has suspended elections. I wouldn’t call Ukraine totalitarian but a true democracy never suspends elections, even when they’re inconvenient. The United States has never done it despite always being at war and I don’t think we should give a pass to other nations just because they’re at war.

    • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Zelensky didn’t suspend elections. The Ukrainian constitution suspended elections–the country is under martial law due to invasion, and their constitution disallows elections under martial law. In order to hold elections, Zelensky would have to disregard the constitution.

      Assuming every nation’s constitution is the same as the United States and then judging actions based on that error is some high-level cultural arrogance.

    • Omgpwnies@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      ‘At war’ is not the same as defending yourself from an invasion, which the US has not had to do since it has existed in it’s current form. Also, governments have suspended elections in the past when necessary. For instance, the UK suspended elections during WW2 via the ‘Prolongation of parliament’ bill, while they were defending themselves from a German invasion.

      https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1944/oct/31/prolongation-of-parliament-bill

    • cynar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      1 year ago

      America has never been invaded to the level that its existence as an independent country has been threatened, at least not since the war of independence.

      During WWII the UK postponed elections. We even have explicit rules for how this can be done, when required. Wartime is one of the situations where it can be required. The complexity of holding an election under wartime conditions is huge. It is also a serious distraction from actually winning the war, and so costs lives. Finally, changing leadership, mid war is risky at best. The time for a new leader to settle in is paid for in lives lost.

    • BingoBangoBongo@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      US has never been at war in the homeland. That would make a huge difference. Plus it would probably be much easier during the chaos for Russia to subvert the Ukrainian elections. But that’s just me talking out my ass. Definitely good to be aware though. If the US did it, it would at least be through congressional action.

    • crispy_kilt@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah fuck off with that. We’ll supply with Ukraine with so many weapons it’ll destroy putlers hateful regime. The idiot fascist only understands violence. So violence is what he will get.

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, but the USA fights all its wars a long way from home.

      If the Rocky Mountains were swarming with Reds, you might find the election cycle interrupted somewhat.

    • Gamey@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There is something new that tends to get in the way of things, it’s called war!