The US might pressure him to assemble a government of national unity on pain of once again suspending military and intelligence aid if he refuses to dilute his power in lieu of holding elections.
Governments and leaders commonly stay in power during war. President Franklin D. Roosevelt remained in his seat from 1933 to 1945, he died while still in office. The problem with Zelensky is his own accumulated record. From a Servant of the People he went to a brutal enforcer of wartime policies during a war that he could have avoided before it started. As the cemeteries fill up with Ukrainians so is his popularity sliding. There is nothing to celebrate or reward him for. He took Ukraine down a slippery slope without any chances to win a war he started with his CIA handlers. It is very unlikely that will ever win an election in Ukraine again.
Zelensky didn't take Ukraine down that road. The U.S. did. Zelensky is the patsy who gets to take the fall. This war is ultimately to be blamed on the U.S. and every U.S. President after Bush Sr., including Trump
U.S. arms, intelligence, military leadership, money are the only things that made it all possible.
At least Putin has expressed remorse over the deaths of not just his own men but also the Ukrainians. He takes no delight in this war. He wasn't the one who had a desire to weaken the other side, to kill Ukrainians just to advance his nation's selfish and evil goals. He wasn't the one to work with murderous Nazis nor did his nation entertain Nazis in the halls of Russia's national buildings.
All of that was done by the U.S. The U.S. sent Muslim terrorists into Russia for the purpose of attacking innocent civilians attending the concert at the Crocus Concert Hall. The U.S. has turned a blind eye to every act of murder, assassinations etc. because the U.S. helped orchestrate each one. And now Trump thinks he has the right to dictate the timeliness for ending the war and who gets to run in the Ukrainian elections.
It is Putin who offered up a non-partisan avenue for holding the elections under U.N. supervision.
What's the Trump's administrations response to that?
The Trump administration rejected the proposal. They said it's for Ukraine to decide and they pointed to the Ukranian Constitution which says elections can't be held during war.
All the sudden the U.S. seems devoted to this post coup Constitution which it authored and that just coincidentally, fortuitously has a clause forbidding elections during war time.
Do you honestly think that clause is there by accident? The U.S. doesn't have such a clause and I haven't heard anyone from the U.S. say that Russia has a similar clause.
That clause was put there deliberately in anticipation of a war that the U.S. knew was coming because they were going to provoke it. They wanted to make sure that the disgruntled Ukrainian people didn't have the possibility of voting in a government that wanted to end the war. In other words Trump has zero interest in forcing Ukraine to hold elections and when elections are eventually held the U.S. wants to control those elections. The U.S. can't allow the U.N. to conduct the elections because that would put the elections out of their control.
As I said before. Trump is playing game with Putin. Trump cangive way on things, like recently voting with Russia in the UN., that don't put at risk the ultimate goal of establishing NATO on Russia's border but that's all.
These elections will just be a repeat of the post coup elections where the U.S. picked the Ukrainians who would be in the government and where they would go.
The issue isn't that he remained in power. The issue is that he canceled elections and has exceeded the limits of his mandate plus he's in violation of Ukraines Constitution in order to stay in power.
Putin is a lawyer and I'm confident with his reading and understanding of the Ukrainian Constitution. Zelensky has barred anyone in the government, including himself, from even talking with Putin. And given the fact that he's exceeded his term of office he's been made illegitimate as President which means nothing he says or signs is legally binding on any successor government.
Trump is anxious to get Zelensky to sign the Minerals Deal because it will mean that the U.S. believes Zelensky is the legitimate leader.
Trump won't come out and put forth a legal argument for Zelensky's legitimacy as leader because he, and all of his cabinet, know Putin is right but they can't say it since that would blow their game. And bring down the legitimacy of this post coup government from its very inception. They know they installed this Fascist government. They know it isn't democratic. They just can't say it. This is why I maintain that Trump is bargaining in bad faith. He won't state the truth.
He once said that Zelensky is a dictator but the following week when he was asked by a reporter if he still believes Zelensky is a dictator, what was his reply?
He said, "did i say that? I don't think I said that? That doesn't sound like me"
He lied again. That's why i say he's playing games. Because he is. He's got something up his sleeve. Even on the issue of the U.S. refusing to outright provide Ukraine with security guarantees he's lying.
He is providing Ukraine with security guarantees through the Minerals Deal. He stated that he believes that the presence of Western companies and citizens in Ukraine is a sufficient security guarantee. Those people are going to be trip wires. Any Russian attack on Ukraine will be used as a casus belli for military intervention by the governments of those citizens. And he's right. That's the plan for informally establishing security guarantees for Ukraine.
Trump is a "bullshitter" in Professor Frankfurt's sense of the term, in that he doesn't really care whether his words are truth or lies, as long as they happen to be useful at the moment.
We can not have free government without elections; and if the rebellion could force us to forego, or postpone a national election it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us. The strife of the election is but human-nature practically applied to the facts of the case. "
In reality the dissolution of Ukraine's population might be the most substantial act on the minds of the people there. By the time Zelensky finishes with his "homeland" their numbers might go down to 20 million and keep melting after for many years. Under American influence it is only a question of time when Ukraine will be heavily populated with Jews again, as it used to be before WWII.
No chance of Ukraine being populated with Jews again. There are not enough to go round, lol. Anyway, Jewish population in Ukraine collapsed after 1990 - there was something like 500 thousand before (most came back in 1944/45), but now probably around 50 thousand. If at all. Almost everyone who could get out, got out in the last 30+ years.
On a similar note: Russian Federation did try to attract SAR Boer farmers, but that hasn't worked either. I think some German large agrarian farmers have come though.
There were already plenty of signs that Jews were trying to move back in large numbers. They assign some sort of mythical importance and rights to that land and once it is emptied for them they will drive in with giant trucks fully loaded with freshly printed federal notes from the USA.
Ukraine is not holy land - there are some who go for yearly pilgrimages to Uman, but that's it. It was a fortuitous holding place after the pogroms in Germany in the 12th to 15th century. Luckily, Polish kings - under whose sovereignty most of today's Ukraine lay in the latter half of that period - needed settlers to set up infrastructure. So they allowed settlement throughout core Poland, Lithuania, Belorus and Ukraine. Germans were settled too, mostly in core Poland. Especially in the Baltic littoral region. However, most places where Germans settled later broke away from the Polish crown and became parts of independent Prussia.
Technically, USA was not at war in 1940. The problem for FDR was that the vast majority of Isolationists were inside his own Democrat party and he didn't want to run the risk of having a real Isolationist become the Democrat Presidential candidate in 1940. The Republican party didn't pose such a risk. Hence, FDR could send the beaten Republican candidate Wendell Wilkie as his messenger to UK after the November 1940 elections.
Zelensky's time on the world stage is limited because I suspect that Russia won't accept a peace deal with him in power. Zelensky is nearing his final political act in Ukraine. The longer he is in power, the closer Ukraine comes to sealing its fate by surrender as Russia destroys its AFU forces at 3 to 1 ratio estimate.
Putin decides what the peace agreement looks like, and I doubt Zelensky is in it.
Getting rid of Zelensky is only one problem. Getting rid of the U.S. is the other. The U.S. is itself the root cause of the war. The U.S. is the taproot from which the whole plant has been nourished.
I'm surprised that any U.S. presence in the election isn't being questioned. The U.S. financed the coup, sat back and watched as Yanukovych was illegally ousted and didn't say one thing against the murders that were committed on Maidan Square.
It didn't force Ukraine to abide by the Minsk Accords. Blew up the Nordstream Pipelines. Continuously escalated the war. And sat back watching millions of young Slavic men die. And all it could say was that it was getting a good deal for its money without having to send its men to war. Trump was part of all this and even brags about his role in arming Ukraine.
There's no morally correct ethical premise upon which U.S. any involvement with any Ukrainian elections is acceptable. The only party that should be involved is Russia.
We can see the total ignorance of this administration on this matter in the fact that it refuses to recuse itself based upon its own, and that of its allies, conflict of interest.
No one has any grounds upon which to question Putin's ethics on this matter since his voice is the only voice that has been consistent uttered to prevent the war. That's been true for over 20 decades. Not only did he warn about war coming to Ukraine over NATO, but so also did former U.S. Ambassador to Russia, William Burns. He told Washington that NATO membership for Ukraine was the reddest of Red Lines. The U.S. stepped over every RedLine. President Biden said that he had no respect for Russia's Red Lines.
All isn't to just suddenly be forgotten just because we've been falsely led to believe Trump has turned over a new leaf because he hasn't changed one bit. He's still waging wars and threatening to wage wars. He could've stopped this war from day one by ceasing all military support for Ukraine and pulling all U.S. personnel out. But he couldn't do that because it would've meant giving up what little leverage he has. He's been willing to continue to watch those beautiful young men die, not for their sakes, but for his. His wanted to show the world how clever he is and his ability to make a deal. Everything for him boils down to that 4 letter word. But this isn't a reality show or a real estate transaction. This war. You don't ask people to die for your own vanity.
Then look at the mess the U.S. is still trying to foment in Georgia, Armenia, Thailand, Philippines etc. The U.S. is meddling in elections and governments all over the world.
The U.S. cannot have any role in Ukrainian elections and neither can anyone from the illegal post coup government. Zelensky is illegitimate and Trump knows it. They've all committed crimes against humanity and that label is attached to every president whose hands have touched the project Ukraine portfolio.
If you want to guarantee a future war then let the West play its spoiler role in the elections and let them be financially involved with whatever is left of future Ukraine.
Putin's has proposed that Ukraine be put under a kind of U.N. Guardianship in preparation for the elections and that the elections be conducted by the U.N.
The U.S. opposes this because it would prevent them from rigging the elections which is what they plan to do.
Since that guardianship ain't going to happen, the point is moot.
Russia's problem since the beginning of this war is that Russia does not want to make war on what it still sees as its sadly misguided bretheren, and Russia does not want to destroy the West but to join it.
Russia's enemies see such misgivings as contemptible weakness, and smell blood.
Ukrainians used to say similar things, until membership in The Club was dangled out, and suiddenly All Is Forgiven.
Anyway, Russia has dithered and been indecisive since the beginning of this war, as I said, a war they do not want. No reason to think that will change.
Some form of actually representative government in UKR is not just a pretext for any peace deals, but a necessity. Russia needs a representative authority with which to conclude a deal, or they have no reason to expect the deal will be kept to.
My understanding of the situation in Ukraine is that Zelenskiy is a relatively popular president, given what the nation has experienced in the last three years. This understanding comes from multiple Ukrainians in my circle. I would be interested to expand my knowledge in reading more about Zelenskiy started the war with the CIA handlers. It's always important to understand all opinions before drawing any firm conclusion.
“The war began with the violent overthrow of Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014, a coup that was overtly and covertly backed by the United States government in the service of NATO expansion.” (Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia, Jeffrey Sachs 3/8/23)
Yermak's olive drag homunculus Zelensky, knows full well that if peace ever arrives, he will face justice. The staggering toll of Ukrainian lives lost under his reckless leadership will be tallied, and he will meet the same fate as Mussolini—an end I hope is televised for the world to see. This spineless, drug-addled actor has shown nothing but contempt for his own soldiers, throwing them into the meat grinder time and again for nothing more than propaganda stunts. He is a man so morally bankrupt that he would gladly risk a global war just to hide his own crimes.
Hmm. On balance, probably yes for the Russian speakers. Remember, Saarland and Austria wanted to be part of the Reich in 1936 and 1938. My concept of Ukrainians is that most wanted to (a) be able to continue to speak Russian, (b) be a really neutral country, and (c) become part of a pacifistic EU. However, none of these 3 wishes got fulfilled.
and don't you consider the possibility that Ukraine is extending martial law because the war is still going on there? Has that possibility not occurred to you?
It's pretty obvious that Zelensky doesn't want to give up power otherwise he'd have followed the constitution by letting the Rada Speaker take his place after his term expired last May.
You know that though, but you're angry about what I wrote and are therefore being sarcastic to troll or whatever. I've experienced this daily, literally, since the conflict started. It's boring and ineffective, maybe try being polite to get your point across better?
even if it were true about this giving up power (and I completely disagree with that, imputing that "i know that" is a primitive eristic trick, Schopenhauer is sad) then still writing an article on this topic and omitting the issue that in a state of war it is obvious that martial law exists is simply manipulation.
and as you know perfectly well (look, same cheap eristic trick, but if you can i can too...) that according to the law of Ukraine Zelensky is the legal president of Ukraine until the next election and there is nothing in this law about obligatory transferring power to the speaker of parliament. but even assuming that Zelensky wants power, well, he is a politician, politicians want power, it is hard to make an accusation out of it - the question is whether they want power for the good of their country, like Zelensky, or to rob it like Putin.
I don't like the way you're talking to me, you're getting increasingly personal and toxic, but the only reason that I'm being gracious by not blocking you right away is because your name suggests that you're a fellow Pole.
But if you talk to me like that one more time, then you'll definitely be blocked and no longer have the privilege of sharing your opinion under my posts. You can convey your point politely and respectfully. Stop being so rude, calm down.
What exactly in your opinion prevented Zelensky from following the Ukrainian Constitution, and handing Presidential power over to Stefanchuk - as he was legally required to do?
I think the answer to that is pretty obvious. Stefanchuk spends his days quoting Bandera, which is a red line for the U.S. to continue providing support. So you favor ignoring laws when it's convenient to your position. But if that's so, where do you draw the line? What laws are okay to ignore, and what ones must be followed?
"What exactly in your opinion prevented Zelensky from following the Ukrainian Constitution, and handing Presidential power over to Stefanchuk - as he was legally required to do?"
i dont think its true. where in ukrainian constitution is this requirement. in what paragraph? In the Ukrainian constitution known to me, there is nothing about such a necessity. but I'm not a constitutionalist, so of course I can change my mind. but I'm curious where to look for it.
It is not explicit in the Ukrainian Constitution (UC) and would have required an opinion from Ukraine's Supreme Court. That is likely the reason Zelensky imprisoned the Chief Justice of the country's Supreme Court a week after the deadline for elections to be held last May, and disbanded the Court entirely.
Article 83 of the UC provides that the Rada (Parliament) continues without elections in the event of a declaration of martial law. Rada cannot act on bills to declare martial law itself; these must originate from the President, as otherwise there may be no way to ever end martial law (a safeguard). This decision came during the first period of martial law from the Ukrainian Supreme Court.
Once Zelensky's elected term expired, he no longer had authority to submit legislation to the Rada. So the subsequent extensions to martial law he proposed (after the last three month period made while he was still in his elected period) were without legal basis. The UC is silent on what should happen if the President declares martial law, cancels elections, overstays his term while claiming Presidential power, and imprisons the Supreme Court justices while disbanding the court.
The UC specifies that the Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal should be President (Article 112), with consent of the Rada. But Shmyhal has also overstayed his elected term and is not a legitimate leader, either. Stefanchuk's position (as the leader of Parliament) is that authority vests in him as President until the next election.
In short, Zelensky is a dictator, and since he imprisoned the constitutional court members, there's no one to stand up to him.
Governments and leaders commonly stay in power during war. President Franklin D. Roosevelt remained in his seat from 1933 to 1945, he died while still in office. The problem with Zelensky is his own accumulated record. From a Servant of the People he went to a brutal enforcer of wartime policies during a war that he could have avoided before it started. As the cemeteries fill up with Ukrainians so is his popularity sliding. There is nothing to celebrate or reward him for. He took Ukraine down a slippery slope without any chances to win a war he started with his CIA handlers. It is very unlikely that will ever win an election in Ukraine again.
Zelensky didn't take Ukraine down that road. The U.S. did. Zelensky is the patsy who gets to take the fall. This war is ultimately to be blamed on the U.S. and every U.S. President after Bush Sr., including Trump
U.S. arms, intelligence, military leadership, money are the only things that made it all possible.
At least Putin has expressed remorse over the deaths of not just his own men but also the Ukrainians. He takes no delight in this war. He wasn't the one who had a desire to weaken the other side, to kill Ukrainians just to advance his nation's selfish and evil goals. He wasn't the one to work with murderous Nazis nor did his nation entertain Nazis in the halls of Russia's national buildings.
All of that was done by the U.S. The U.S. sent Muslim terrorists into Russia for the purpose of attacking innocent civilians attending the concert at the Crocus Concert Hall. The U.S. has turned a blind eye to every act of murder, assassinations etc. because the U.S. helped orchestrate each one. And now Trump thinks he has the right to dictate the timeliness for ending the war and who gets to run in the Ukrainian elections.
It is Putin who offered up a non-partisan avenue for holding the elections under U.N. supervision.
What's the Trump's administrations response to that?
The Trump administration rejected the proposal. They said it's for Ukraine to decide and they pointed to the Ukranian Constitution which says elections can't be held during war.
All the sudden the U.S. seems devoted to this post coup Constitution which it authored and that just coincidentally, fortuitously has a clause forbidding elections during war time.
Do you honestly think that clause is there by accident? The U.S. doesn't have such a clause and I haven't heard anyone from the U.S. say that Russia has a similar clause.
That clause was put there deliberately in anticipation of a war that the U.S. knew was coming because they were going to provoke it. They wanted to make sure that the disgruntled Ukrainian people didn't have the possibility of voting in a government that wanted to end the war. In other words Trump has zero interest in forcing Ukraine to hold elections and when elections are eventually held the U.S. wants to control those elections. The U.S. can't allow the U.N. to conduct the elections because that would put the elections out of their control.
As I said before. Trump is playing game with Putin. Trump cangive way on things, like recently voting with Russia in the UN., that don't put at risk the ultimate goal of establishing NATO on Russia's border but that's all.
These elections will just be a repeat of the post coup elections where the U.S. picked the Ukrainians who would be in the government and where they would go.
The issue isn't that he remained in power. The issue is that he canceled elections and has exceeded the limits of his mandate plus he's in violation of Ukraines Constitution in order to stay in power.
Putin is a lawyer and I'm confident with his reading and understanding of the Ukrainian Constitution. Zelensky has barred anyone in the government, including himself, from even talking with Putin. And given the fact that he's exceeded his term of office he's been made illegitimate as President which means nothing he says or signs is legally binding on any successor government.
Trump is anxious to get Zelensky to sign the Minerals Deal because it will mean that the U.S. believes Zelensky is the legitimate leader.
Trump won't come out and put forth a legal argument for Zelensky's legitimacy as leader because he, and all of his cabinet, know Putin is right but they can't say it since that would blow their game. And bring down the legitimacy of this post coup government from its very inception. They know they installed this Fascist government. They know it isn't democratic. They just can't say it. This is why I maintain that Trump is bargaining in bad faith. He won't state the truth.
He once said that Zelensky is a dictator but the following week when he was asked by a reporter if he still believes Zelensky is a dictator, what was his reply?
He said, "did i say that? I don't think I said that? That doesn't sound like me"
He lied again. That's why i say he's playing games. Because he is. He's got something up his sleeve. Even on the issue of the U.S. refusing to outright provide Ukraine with security guarantees he's lying.
He is providing Ukraine with security guarantees through the Minerals Deal. He stated that he believes that the presence of Western companies and citizens in Ukraine is a sufficient security guarantee. Those people are going to be trip wires. Any Russian attack on Ukraine will be used as a casus belli for military intervention by the governments of those citizens. And he's right. That's the plan for informally establishing security guarantees for Ukraine.
Trump is a "bullshitter" in Professor Frankfurt's sense of the term, in that he doesn't really care whether his words are truth or lies, as long as they happen to be useful at the moment.
Lincoln on the 1864 Election
November 10, 1864: In Response to a Serenade
"But the election was a necessity.
We can not have free government without elections; and if the rebellion could force us to forego, or postpone a national election it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us. The strife of the election is but human-nature practically applied to the facts of the case. "
In reality the dissolution of Ukraine's population might be the most substantial act on the minds of the people there. By the time Zelensky finishes with his "homeland" their numbers might go down to 20 million and keep melting after for many years. Under American influence it is only a question of time when Ukraine will be heavily populated with Jews again, as it used to be before WWII.
No chance of Ukraine being populated with Jews again. There are not enough to go round, lol. Anyway, Jewish population in Ukraine collapsed after 1990 - there was something like 500 thousand before (most came back in 1944/45), but now probably around 50 thousand. If at all. Almost everyone who could get out, got out in the last 30+ years.
On a similar note: Russian Federation did try to attract SAR Boer farmers, but that hasn't worked either. I think some German large agrarian farmers have come though.
There were already plenty of signs that Jews were trying to move back in large numbers. They assign some sort of mythical importance and rights to that land and once it is emptied for them they will drive in with giant trucks fully loaded with freshly printed federal notes from the USA.
Ukraine is not holy land - there are some who go for yearly pilgrimages to Uman, but that's it. It was a fortuitous holding place after the pogroms in Germany in the 12th to 15th century. Luckily, Polish kings - under whose sovereignty most of today's Ukraine lay in the latter half of that period - needed settlers to set up infrastructure. So they allowed settlement throughout core Poland, Lithuania, Belorus and Ukraine. Germans were settled too, mostly in core Poland. Especially in the Baltic littoral region. However, most places where Germans settled later broke away from the Polish crown and became parts of independent Prussia.
Technically, USA was not at war in 1940. The problem for FDR was that the vast majority of Isolationists were inside his own Democrat party and he didn't want to run the risk of having a real Isolationist become the Democrat Presidential candidate in 1940. The Republican party didn't pose such a risk. Hence, FDR could send the beaten Republican candidate Wendell Wilkie as his messenger to UK after the November 1940 elections.
Zelensky's time on the world stage is limited because I suspect that Russia won't accept a peace deal with him in power. Zelensky is nearing his final political act in Ukraine. The longer he is in power, the closer Ukraine comes to sealing its fate by surrender as Russia destroys its AFU forces at 3 to 1 ratio estimate.
Putin decides what the peace agreement looks like, and I doubt Zelensky is in it.
Adieux, le petit gremlin. lol
Getting rid of Zelensky is only one problem. Getting rid of the U.S. is the other. The U.S. is itself the root cause of the war. The U.S. is the taproot from which the whole plant has been nourished.
I'm surprised that any U.S. presence in the election isn't being questioned. The U.S. financed the coup, sat back and watched as Yanukovych was illegally ousted and didn't say one thing against the murders that were committed on Maidan Square.
It didn't force Ukraine to abide by the Minsk Accords. Blew up the Nordstream Pipelines. Continuously escalated the war. And sat back watching millions of young Slavic men die. And all it could say was that it was getting a good deal for its money without having to send its men to war. Trump was part of all this and even brags about his role in arming Ukraine.
There's no morally correct ethical premise upon which U.S. any involvement with any Ukrainian elections is acceptable. The only party that should be involved is Russia.
We can see the total ignorance of this administration on this matter in the fact that it refuses to recuse itself based upon its own, and that of its allies, conflict of interest.
No one has any grounds upon which to question Putin's ethics on this matter since his voice is the only voice that has been consistent uttered to prevent the war. That's been true for over 20 decades. Not only did he warn about war coming to Ukraine over NATO, but so also did former U.S. Ambassador to Russia, William Burns. He told Washington that NATO membership for Ukraine was the reddest of Red Lines. The U.S. stepped over every RedLine. President Biden said that he had no respect for Russia's Red Lines.
All isn't to just suddenly be forgotten just because we've been falsely led to believe Trump has turned over a new leaf because he hasn't changed one bit. He's still waging wars and threatening to wage wars. He could've stopped this war from day one by ceasing all military support for Ukraine and pulling all U.S. personnel out. But he couldn't do that because it would've meant giving up what little leverage he has. He's been willing to continue to watch those beautiful young men die, not for their sakes, but for his. His wanted to show the world how clever he is and his ability to make a deal. Everything for him boils down to that 4 letter word. But this isn't a reality show or a real estate transaction. This war. You don't ask people to die for your own vanity.
Then look at the mess the U.S. is still trying to foment in Georgia, Armenia, Thailand, Philippines etc. The U.S. is meddling in elections and governments all over the world.
The U.S. cannot have any role in Ukrainian elections and neither can anyone from the illegal post coup government. Zelensky is illegitimate and Trump knows it. They've all committed crimes against humanity and that label is attached to every president whose hands have touched the project Ukraine portfolio.
If you want to guarantee a future war then let the West play its spoiler role in the elections and let them be financially involved with whatever is left of future Ukraine.
All true, but what does Russia propose to do about it?
Putin's has proposed that Ukraine be put under a kind of U.N. Guardianship in preparation for the elections and that the elections be conducted by the U.N.
The U.S. opposes this because it would prevent them from rigging the elections which is what they plan to do.
Since that guardianship ain't going to happen, the point is moot.
Russia's problem since the beginning of this war is that Russia does not want to make war on what it still sees as its sadly misguided bretheren, and Russia does not want to destroy the West but to join it.
Russia's enemies see such misgivings as contemptible weakness, and smell blood.
Russia no longer wants to join the West Putin has said it will take 30 years before Russia will have anything to do with the West.
The U.N. supervision thing isn't moot. It has been done before with other countries coming out of wars.
Its either that or Russia goes all the way to the Western Ukrainian border.
And make what is left of Ukraine a none sovereign Russian protectorate like Puerto Rico is for the U.S.
Ukrainians used to say similar things, until membership in The Club was dangled out, and suiddenly All Is Forgiven.
Anyway, Russia has dithered and been indecisive since the beginning of this war, as I said, a war they do not want. No reason to think that will change.
F Zelensky lol
Some form of actually representative government in UKR is not just a pretext for any peace deals, but a necessity. Russia needs a representative authority with which to conclude a deal, or they have no reason to expect the deal will be kept to.
Of course Leftists love him.
My understanding of the situation in Ukraine is that Zelenskiy is a relatively popular president, given what the nation has experienced in the last three years. This understanding comes from multiple Ukrainians in my circle. I would be interested to expand my knowledge in reading more about Zelenskiy started the war with the CIA handlers. It's always important to understand all opinions before drawing any firm conclusion.
“The war began with the violent overthrow of Ukraine President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014, a coup that was overtly and covertly backed by the United States government in the service of NATO expansion.” (Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia, Jeffrey Sachs 3/8/23)
Yermak's olive drag homunculus Zelensky, knows full well that if peace ever arrives, he will face justice. The staggering toll of Ukrainian lives lost under his reckless leadership will be tallied, and he will meet the same fate as Mussolini—an end I hope is televised for the world to see. This spineless, drug-addled actor has shown nothing but contempt for his own soldiers, throwing them into the meat grinder time and again for nothing more than propaganda stunts. He is a man so morally bankrupt that he would gladly risk a global war just to hide his own crimes.
Thank you. Do you think that Russian society is a viable alternative for Ukraine?
Hmm. On balance, probably yes for the Russian speakers. Remember, Saarland and Austria wanted to be part of the Reich in 1936 and 1938. My concept of Ukrainians is that most wanted to (a) be able to continue to speak Russian, (b) be a really neutral country, and (c) become part of a pacifistic EU. However, none of these 3 wishes got fulfilled.
Do you think Russia under Putin is pacifist?
No, of course not. However, who would be crazy enough to attack Novorossiya once it is incorporated into Mother Russia?
and don't you consider the possibility that Ukraine is extending martial law because the war is still going on there? Has that possibility not occurred to you?
It's pretty obvious that Zelensky doesn't want to give up power otherwise he'd have followed the constitution by letting the Rada Speaker take his place after his term expired last May.
You know that though, but you're angry about what I wrote and are therefore being sarcastic to troll or whatever. I've experienced this daily, literally, since the conflict started. It's boring and ineffective, maybe try being polite to get your point across better?
even if it were true about this giving up power (and I completely disagree with that, imputing that "i know that" is a primitive eristic trick, Schopenhauer is sad) then still writing an article on this topic and omitting the issue that in a state of war it is obvious that martial law exists is simply manipulation.
and as you know perfectly well (look, same cheap eristic trick, but if you can i can too...) that according to the law of Ukraine Zelensky is the legal president of Ukraine until the next election and there is nothing in this law about obligatory transferring power to the speaker of parliament. but even assuming that Zelensky wants power, well, he is a politician, politicians want power, it is hard to make an accusation out of it - the question is whether they want power for the good of their country, like Zelensky, or to rob it like Putin.
I don't like the way you're talking to me, you're getting increasingly personal and toxic, but the only reason that I'm being gracious by not blocking you right away is because your name suggests that you're a fellow Pole.
But if you talk to me like that one more time, then you'll definitely be blocked and no longer have the privilege of sharing your opinion under my posts. You can convey your point politely and respectfully. Stop being so rude, calm down.
What exactly in your opinion prevented Zelensky from following the Ukrainian Constitution, and handing Presidential power over to Stefanchuk - as he was legally required to do?
I think the answer to that is pretty obvious. Stefanchuk spends his days quoting Bandera, which is a red line for the U.S. to continue providing support. So you favor ignoring laws when it's convenient to your position. But if that's so, where do you draw the line? What laws are okay to ignore, and what ones must be followed?
"What exactly in your opinion prevented Zelensky from following the Ukrainian Constitution, and handing Presidential power over to Stefanchuk - as he was legally required to do?"
i dont think its true. where in ukrainian constitution is this requirement. in what paragraph? In the Ukrainian constitution known to me, there is nothing about such a necessity. but I'm not a constitutionalist, so of course I can change my mind. but I'm curious where to look for it.
It is not explicit in the Ukrainian Constitution (UC) and would have required an opinion from Ukraine's Supreme Court. That is likely the reason Zelensky imprisoned the Chief Justice of the country's Supreme Court a week after the deadline for elections to be held last May, and disbanded the Court entirely.
Article 83 of the UC provides that the Rada (Parliament) continues without elections in the event of a declaration of martial law. Rada cannot act on bills to declare martial law itself; these must originate from the President, as otherwise there may be no way to ever end martial law (a safeguard). This decision came during the first period of martial law from the Ukrainian Supreme Court.
Once Zelensky's elected term expired, he no longer had authority to submit legislation to the Rada. So the subsequent extensions to martial law he proposed (after the last three month period made while he was still in his elected period) were without legal basis. The UC is silent on what should happen if the President declares martial law, cancels elections, overstays his term while claiming Presidential power, and imprisons the Supreme Court justices while disbanding the court.
The UC specifies that the Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal should be President (Article 112), with consent of the Rada. But Shmyhal has also overstayed his elected term and is not a legitimate leader, either. Stefanchuk's position (as the leader of Parliament) is that authority vests in him as President until the next election.
In short, Zelensky is a dictator, and since he imprisoned the constitutional court members, there's no one to stand up to him.
I think Putin also cited the Ukrainian constitution when explaining why he thinks Zelensky is no longer the president from a legal perspective.
"he was legally required to do"
and then
"It is not explicit in the Ukrainian Constitution (UC) and would have required an opinion from Ukraine's Supreme Court."
is see her contradiction. sorry.
And btw "Once Zelensky's elected term expired, he no longer had authority to submit legislation to the Rada" is just not true, because
"Article 108
The President of Ukraine exercises his or her powers until the assumption of office by the newly-elected President of Ukraine.
"
so sorry, but you are just plain wrong.