NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On November 05 2023 01:24 KwarK wrote: Zeo is attempting to imply the current government is the one that overthrew the democratic one. It isn’t. The current one is the democratically elected successor to the one that faced those popular protests. The Maidan simply isn’t relevant after a new democratic election is held.
I understood him as saying that the president Yanukovych (and co.) was democratically elected and (violently) overthrown in the Euromaidan.
And Bush illegitimately took power in the 2000 election after losing Florida to Gore. But that has no relevance to anything today.
The Middle East begs to differ.
It has no relevance to the legitimacy of the Biden administration.
I mean I could make the argument that it does, but I read it as talking about how the violent overthrow of their democratically elected leadership triggered Russia annexing Crimea rather than a comment on Zelenskyy's legitimacy. Obviously, the longer Zelenskyy refuses to hold elections, the less legitimate he appears though.
He’s not refusing to hold elections. What are you talking about? He is constitutionally barred from holding an election, no matter how much he might wish to.
Please refrain from making things up.
My mistake, it's parliament making that choice, the result being the same (undermining legitimacy).
On November 05 2023 01:24 KwarK wrote: Zeo is attempting to imply the current government is the one that overthrew the democratic one. It isn’t. The current one is the democratically elected successor to the one that faced those popular protests. The Maidan simply isn’t relevant after a new democratic election is held.
I understood him as saying that the president Yanukovych (and co.) was democratically elected and (violently) overthrown in the Euromaidan.
And Bush illegitimately took power in the 2000 election after losing Florida to Gore. But that has no relevance to anything today.
The Middle East begs to differ.
It has no relevance to the legitimacy of the Biden administration.
I mean I could make the argument that it does, but I read it as talking about how the violent overthrow of their democratically elected leadership triggered Russia annexing Crimea rather than a comment on Zelenskyy's legitimacy. Obviously, the longer Zelenskyy refuses to hold elections, the less legitimate he appears though.
He’s not refusing to hold elections. What are you talking about? He is constitutionally barred from holding an election, no matter how much he might wish to.
Please refrain from making things up.
My mistake, it's parliament making that choice, the result being the same (undermining legitimacy).
The presidential elections are staggered and on a different cycle. They’re every 5 years and he was elected in 2019.
How much legitimacy do you think Zelensky has lost by “refusing” to hold a presidential election 4 years into his 5 year term?
On November 05 2023 01:24 KwarK wrote: Zeo is attempting to imply the current government is the one that overthrew the democratic one. It isn’t. The current one is the democratically elected successor to the one that faced those popular protests. The Maidan simply isn’t relevant after a new democratic election is held.
I understood him as saying that the president Yanukovych (and co.) was democratically elected and (violently) overthrown in the Euromaidan.
And Bush illegitimately took power in the 2000 election after losing Florida to Gore. But that has no relevance to anything today.
The Middle East begs to differ.
It has no relevance to the legitimacy of the Biden administration.
I mean I could make the argument that it does, but I read it as talking about how the violent overthrow of their democratically elected leadership triggered Russia annexing Crimea rather than a comment on Zelenskyy's legitimacy. Obviously, the longer Zelenskyy refuses to hold elections, the less legitimate he appears though.
He’s not refusing to hold elections. What are you talking about? He is constitutionally barred from holding an election, no matter how much he might wish to.
Please refrain from making things up.
My mistake, it's parliament making that choice, the result being the same (undermining legitimacy).
The presidential elections are staggered and on a different cycle. They’re every 5 years and he was elected in 2019.
How much legitimacy do you think Zelensky has lost by “refusing” to hold a presidential election 3 years into his 5 year term?
Not much, because Parliament's election got skipped first. But if/when that same parliament (run by Zelenskyy's party btw) prevents a presidential election in March (particularly if Zelenskyy doesn't call for one), I'd say a lot more.
I don't think it's a coincidence that reported pressure from the US for Ukraine to reach a deal with Russia lines up with the scheduled presidential election in Ukraine.
Regardless, I still don't think zeo's comment was about Zelenskyy's governments legitimacy. I could have misunderstood it though.
On November 05 2023 01:24 KwarK wrote: Zeo is attempting to imply the current government is the one that overthrew the democratic one. It isn’t. The current one is the democratically elected successor to the one that faced those popular protests. The Maidan simply isn’t relevant after a new democratic election is held.
I understood him as saying that the president Yanukovych (and co.) was democratically elected and (violently) overthrown in the Euromaidan.
And Bush illegitimately took power in the 2000 election after losing Florida to Gore. But that has no relevance to anything today.
The Middle East begs to differ.
It has no relevance to the legitimacy of the Biden administration.
I mean I could make the argument that it does, but I read it as talking about how the violent overthrow of their democratically elected leadership triggered Russia annexing Crimea rather than a comment on Zelenskyy's legitimacy. Obviously, the longer Zelenskyy refuses to hold elections, the less legitimate he appears though.
He’s not refusing to hold elections. What are you talking about? He is constitutionally barred from holding an election, no matter how much he might wish to.
Please refrain from making things up.
My mistake, it's parliament making that choice, the result being the same (undermining legitimacy).
The presidential elections are staggered and on a different cycle. They’re every 5 years and he was elected in 2019.
How much legitimacy do you think Zelensky has lost by “refusing” to hold a presidential election 3 years into his 5 year term?
Not much, because Parliament's election got skipped first. But if/when that same parliament prevents a presidential election in March (particularly if Zelenskyy doesn't call for one), I'd say a lot more.
I don't think it's a coincidence that reported pressure from the US for Ukraine to reach a deal with Russia lines up with the scheduled presidential election in Ukraine.
Regardless, I still don't think zeo's comment was about Zelenskyy's governments legitimacy. I could have misunderstood it though.
Are you willing to concede that you mistakenly thought Zelensky’s term might have already expired when you made your comment about legitimacy? There’s a lot of disinformation online.
On November 05 2023 01:36 2Pacalypse- wrote: [quote] I understood him as saying that the president Yanukovych (and co.) was democratically elected and (violently) overthrown in the Euromaidan.
And Bush illegitimately took power in the 2000 election after losing Florida to Gore. But that has no relevance to anything today.
The Middle East begs to differ.
It has no relevance to the legitimacy of the Biden administration.
I mean I could make the argument that it does, but I read it as talking about how the violent overthrow of their democratically elected leadership triggered Russia annexing Crimea rather than a comment on Zelenskyy's legitimacy. Obviously, the longer Zelenskyy refuses to hold elections, the less legitimate he appears though.
He’s not refusing to hold elections. What are you talking about? He is constitutionally barred from holding an election, no matter how much he might wish to.
Please refrain from making things up.
My mistake, it's parliament making that choice, the result being the same (undermining legitimacy).
The presidential elections are staggered and on a different cycle. They’re every 5 years and he was elected in 2019.
How much legitimacy do you think Zelensky has lost by “refusing” to hold a presidential election 3 years into his 5 year term?
Not much, because Parliament's election got skipped first. But if/when that same parliament prevents a presidential election in March (particularly if Zelenskyy doesn't call for one), I'd say a lot more.
I don't think it's a coincidence that reported pressure from the US for Ukraine to reach a deal with Russia lines up with the scheduled presidential election in Ukraine.
Regardless, I still don't think zeo's comment was about Zelenskyy's governments legitimacy. I could have misunderstood it though.
Are you willing to concede that you mistakenly thought Zelensky’s term might have already expired when you made your comment about legitimacy? There’s a lot of disinformation online.
No, I was aware the presidential elections were next year (pretty sure I've mentioned it here). I didn't anticipate you'd argue that Zelenskyy's party was preventing elections against his wishes.
On November 05 2023 01:24 KwarK wrote: Zeo is attempting to imply the current government is the one that overthrew the democratic one. It isn’t. The current one is the democratically elected successor to the one that faced those popular protests. The Maidan simply isn’t relevant after a new democratic election is held.
I understood him as saying that the president Yanukovych (and co.) was democratically elected and (violently) overthrown in the Euromaidan.
And Bush illegitimately took power in the 2000 election after losing Florida to Gore. But that has no relevance to anything today.
The Middle East begs to differ.
It has no relevance to the legitimacy of the Biden administration.
I mean I could make the argument that it does, but I read it as talking about how the violent overthrow of their democratically elected leadership triggered Russia annexing Crimea rather than a comment on Zelenskyy's legitimacy. Obviously, the longer Zelenskyy refuses to hold elections, the less legitimate he appears though.
It has been common practice since at least a century for countries engaged in an all-out war to postpone elections until such time as it is feasible to do so without affecting the war effort.
As to what "affects the war effort"... it's generally the military brass that decide that rather than civil government. I know that elections were postponed in pretty much all countries engaged in WW1 or in Britain during WW2 (and for obvious reasons, also no elections were held in occupied Europe). I'm not quite sure why you insist Ukraine's situation is such that an election would affect the war effort less than.in Britain in 1939 or so (elections were roughly due when the war started, and were postponed until 1945).
Edit: also, for someone who preaches socialist revolution, you seem weirdly hung up on the legitimacy of elections.
On November 05 2023 01:24 KwarK wrote: Zeo is attempting to imply the current government is the one that overthrew the democratic one. It isn’t. The current one is the democratically elected successor to the one that faced those popular protests. The Maidan simply isn’t relevant after a new democratic election is held.
I understood him as saying that the president Yanukovych (and co.) was democratically elected and (violently) overthrown in the Euromaidan.
And Bush illegitimately took power in the 2000 election after losing Florida to Gore. But that has no relevance to anything today.
The Middle East begs to differ.
It has no relevance to the legitimacy of the Biden administration.
I mean I could make the argument that it does, but I read it as talking about how the violent overthrow of their democratically elected leadership triggered Russia annexing Crimea rather than a comment on Zelenskyy's legitimacy. Obviously, the longer Zelenskyy refuses to hold elections, the less legitimate he appears though.
It has been common practice since at least a century for countries engaged in an all-out war to postpone elections until such time as it is feasible to do so without affecting the war effort.
As to what "affects the war effort"... it's generally the military brass that decide that rather than civil government. I know that elections were postponed in pretty much all countries engaged in WW1 or in Britain during WW2 (and for obvious reasons, also no elections were held in occupied Europe). I'm not quite sure why you insist Ukraine's situation is such that an election would affect the war effort less than.in Britain in 1939 or so (elections were roughly due when the war started, and were postponed until 1945).
Edit: also, for someone who preaches socialist revolution, you seem weirdly hung up on the legitimacy of elections.
Well Zelenskyy/Ukraine's government is already facing public protests for the open-ended conscription requirements and reported pressure from the US to prepare to negotiate with Russia due at least in part to a lack of trained soldiers.
Is it not obvious that creates the conditions for internal political tension that would be exacerbated by not holding scheduled elections (even if the reasoning for it is relatively sound and Zelenskyy/his party would win again anyway)?
On November 05 2023 00:48 2Pacalypse- wrote: Even though I like to pile on zeo as much as the next guy (see above ^^), these are particularly weak replies to his statement.
Issue is that these statements are repeated once every month or so by Zeo, and someone writes out a proper answer showing him why it's complete bs, only for him to go radio silent, and then repeat the same gargled garbage a month later. At this point, it doesn't deserve anything other than mockery
In either case, he's the one who's coming with an accusations in the first place. The weight is on him to prove it, not for us to disprove it. Until then, weak answers is all he's going to get, from me at least
On November 05 2023 01:56 KwarK wrote: [quote] And Bush illegitimately took power in the 2000 election after losing Florida to Gore. But that has no relevance to anything today.
The Middle East begs to differ.
It has no relevance to the legitimacy of the Biden administration.
I mean I could make the argument that it does, but I read it as talking about how the violent overthrow of their democratically elected leadership triggered Russia annexing Crimea rather than a comment on Zelenskyy's legitimacy. Obviously, the longer Zelenskyy refuses to hold elections, the less legitimate he appears though.
He’s not refusing to hold elections. What are you talking about? He is constitutionally barred from holding an election, no matter how much he might wish to.
Please refrain from making things up.
My mistake, it's parliament making that choice, the result being the same (undermining legitimacy).
The presidential elections are staggered and on a different cycle. They’re every 5 years and he was elected in 2019.
How much legitimacy do you think Zelensky has lost by “refusing” to hold a presidential election 3 years into his 5 year term?
Not much, because Parliament's election got skipped first. But if/when that same parliament prevents a presidential election in March (particularly if Zelenskyy doesn't call for one), I'd say a lot more.
I don't think it's a coincidence that reported pressure from the US for Ukraine to reach a deal with Russia lines up with the scheduled presidential election in Ukraine.
Regardless, I still don't think zeo's comment was about Zelenskyy's governments legitimacy. I could have misunderstood it though.
Are you willing to concede that you mistakenly thought Zelensky’s term might have already expired when you made your comment about legitimacy? There’s a lot of disinformation online.
No, I was aware the presidential elections were next year (pretty sure I've mentioned it here). I didn't anticipate you'd argue that Zelenskyy's party was preventing elections against his wishes.
The constitution prevents it. The elections would be unconstitutional.
On November 05 2023 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
The Middle East begs to differ.
It has no relevance to the legitimacy of the Biden administration.
I mean I could make the argument that it does, but I read it as talking about how the violent overthrow of their democratically elected leadership triggered Russia annexing Crimea rather than a comment on Zelenskyy's legitimacy. Obviously, the longer Zelenskyy refuses to hold elections, the less legitimate he appears though.
He’s not refusing to hold elections. What are you talking about? He is constitutionally barred from holding an election, no matter how much he might wish to.
Please refrain from making things up.
My mistake, it's parliament making that choice, the result being the same (undermining legitimacy).
The presidential elections are staggered and on a different cycle. They’re every 5 years and he was elected in 2019.
How much legitimacy do you think Zelensky has lost by “refusing” to hold a presidential election 3 years into his 5 year term?
Not much, because Parliament's election got skipped first. But if/when that same parliament prevents a presidential election in March (particularly if Zelenskyy doesn't call for one), I'd say a lot more.
I don't think it's a coincidence that reported pressure from the US for Ukraine to reach a deal with Russia lines up with the scheduled presidential election in Ukraine.
Regardless, I still don't think zeo's comment was about Zelenskyy's governments legitimacy. I could have misunderstood it though.
Are you willing to concede that you mistakenly thought Zelensky’s term might have already expired when you made your comment about legitimacy? There’s a lot of disinformation online.
No, I was aware the presidential elections were next year (pretty sure I've mentioned it here). I didn't anticipate you'd argue that Zelenskyy's party was preventing elections against his wishes.
The constitution prevents it.
As long as Parliament says it does. Of course that's their choice, not an immutable fact.
On November 05 2023 01:24 KwarK wrote: Zeo is attempting to imply the current government is the one that overthrew the democratic one. It isn’t. The current one is the democratically elected successor to the one that faced those popular protests. The Maidan simply isn’t relevant after a new democratic election is held.
I understood him as saying that the president Yanukovych (and co.) was democratically elected and (violently) overthrown in the Euromaidan.
And Bush illegitimately took power in the 2000 election after losing Florida to Gore. But that has no relevance to anything today.
The Middle East begs to differ.
It has no relevance to the legitimacy of the Biden administration.
I mean I could make the argument that it does, but I read it as talking about how the violent overthrow of their democratically elected leadership triggered Russia annexing Crimea rather than a comment on Zelenskyy's legitimacy. Obviously, the longer Zelenskyy refuses to hold elections, the less legitimate he appears though.
He’s not refusing to hold elections. What are you talking about? He is constitutionally barred from holding an election, no matter how much he might wish to.
Please refrain from making things up.
My mistake, it's parliament making that choice, the result being the same (undermining legitimacy).
Holding elections during war time is the proper way to undermine legitimacy, for a number of reasons.
You can't have two candidates trying to bring each other down, making the population lose faith in the government, in a time when it's required the most.
A large portion of the country isn't even able to vote due to either residing in occupied territories, are out of the country completely, or actively on the front lines fighting for their very lives. The logistics behind holding a reasonably democratic election in the middle of a war is impossible.
And lastly, holding an election in the middle of a war is an excellent avenue for attack from the opponents, both behind the scenes and literally, by bombing voting locations. Russia would absolutely go to any lengths to sabotage an election if Ukraine tried to hold one.
It's not so much that they don't want to hold elections, it would genuinely undermine democracy to do so. The reasonable democratic choice is to uphold martial law and suspend elections, and for Zelenskyy to retire a hero after the war is over.
On November 05 2023 02:01 KwarK wrote: [quote] It has no relevance to the legitimacy of the Biden administration.
I mean I could make the argument that it does, but I read it as talking about how the violent overthrow of their democratically elected leadership triggered Russia annexing Crimea rather than a comment on Zelenskyy's legitimacy. Obviously, the longer Zelenskyy refuses to hold elections, the less legitimate he appears though.
He’s not refusing to hold elections. What are you talking about? He is constitutionally barred from holding an election, no matter how much he might wish to.
Please refrain from making things up.
My mistake, it's parliament making that choice, the result being the same (undermining legitimacy).
The presidential elections are staggered and on a different cycle. They’re every 5 years and he was elected in 2019.
How much legitimacy do you think Zelensky has lost by “refusing” to hold a presidential election 3 years into his 5 year term?
Not much, because Parliament's election got skipped first. But if/when that same parliament prevents a presidential election in March (particularly if Zelenskyy doesn't call for one), I'd say a lot more.
I don't think it's a coincidence that reported pressure from the US for Ukraine to reach a deal with Russia lines up with the scheduled presidential election in Ukraine.
Regardless, I still don't think zeo's comment was about Zelenskyy's governments legitimacy. I could have misunderstood it though.
Are you willing to concede that you mistakenly thought Zelensky’s term might have already expired when you made your comment about legitimacy? There’s a lot of disinformation online.
No, I was aware the presidential elections were next year (pretty sure I've mentioned it here). I didn't anticipate you'd argue that Zelenskyy's party was preventing elections against his wishes.
The constitution prevents it.
As long as Parliament says it does. Of course that's their choice, not an immutable fact.
The constitution says they can’t hold them, not parliament.
You’re complaining that his party have chosen not to change the constitution and are instead following the strict constitutional guidelines regarding holding elections? And this doesn’t seem at all in bad faith to you?
On November 05 2023 02:11 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote] I mean I could make the argument that it does, but I read it as talking about how the violent overthrow of their democratically elected leadership triggered Russia annexing Crimea rather than a comment on Zelenskyy's legitimacy. Obviously, the longer Zelenskyy refuses to hold elections, the less legitimate he appears though.
He’s not refusing to hold elections. What are you talking about? He is constitutionally barred from holding an election, no matter how much he might wish to.
Please refrain from making things up.
My mistake, it's parliament making that choice, the result being the same (undermining legitimacy).
The presidential elections are staggered and on a different cycle. They’re every 5 years and he was elected in 2019.
How much legitimacy do you think Zelensky has lost by “refusing” to hold a presidential election 3 years into his 5 year term?
Not much, because Parliament's election got skipped first. But if/when that same parliament prevents a presidential election in March (particularly if Zelenskyy doesn't call for one), I'd say a lot more.
I don't think it's a coincidence that reported pressure from the US for Ukraine to reach a deal with Russia lines up with the scheduled presidential election in Ukraine.
Regardless, I still don't think zeo's comment was about Zelenskyy's governments legitimacy. I could have misunderstood it though.
Are you willing to concede that you mistakenly thought Zelensky’s term might have already expired when you made your comment about legitimacy? There’s a lot of disinformation online.
No, I was aware the presidential elections were next year (pretty sure I've mentioned it here). I didn't anticipate you'd argue that Zelenskyy's party was preventing elections against his wishes.
The constitution prevents it.
As long as Parliament says it does. Of course that's their choice, not an immutable fact.
The constitution says they can’t hold them, not parliament.
You’re complaining that his party have chosen not to change the constitution and are instead following the strict constitutional guidelines regarding holding elections? And this doesn’t seem at all in bad faith to you?
I'm saying that if people are already publicly protesting your open-ended conscription requirements (EDIT: I should have mentioned this has recently added women with medical backgrounds from doctors to midwives 18-60) and you're already forcibly preventing men from leaving the country so they can effectively be drafted, and the US is reportedly pressuring you to prepare to make a deal with Russia (in part because you lack enough troops), you're going to lose legitimacy by not holding scheduled elections regardless of how valid your reasoning is.
I don't think anyone in the West or Ukraine is going to question the legitimacy of Ukrainian governnment. Maybe excluding people who are already Russian supporters or fake neutrals who don't have the courage to admit they're on Kremlin's side.
I'm not sure but I think most of the people who are protesting against the conscription in Ukraine don't and won't question the legitimacy of Ukrainian governnment. They just claim their (legitimate) government is doing something illegal and/or wrong.
On November 05 2023 02:13 KwarK wrote: [quote] He’s not refusing to hold elections. What are you talking about? He is constitutionally barred from holding an election, no matter how much he might wish to.
Please refrain from making things up.
My mistake, it's parliament making that choice, the result being the same (undermining legitimacy).
The presidential elections are staggered and on a different cycle. They’re every 5 years and he was elected in 2019.
How much legitimacy do you think Zelensky has lost by “refusing” to hold a presidential election 3 years into his 5 year term?
Not much, because Parliament's election got skipped first. But if/when that same parliament prevents a presidential election in March (particularly if Zelenskyy doesn't call for one), I'd say a lot more.
I don't think it's a coincidence that reported pressure from the US for Ukraine to reach a deal with Russia lines up with the scheduled presidential election in Ukraine.
Regardless, I still don't think zeo's comment was about Zelenskyy's governments legitimacy. I could have misunderstood it though.
Are you willing to concede that you mistakenly thought Zelensky’s term might have already expired when you made your comment about legitimacy? There’s a lot of disinformation online.
No, I was aware the presidential elections were next year (pretty sure I've mentioned it here). I didn't anticipate you'd argue that Zelenskyy's party was preventing elections against his wishes.
The constitution prevents it.
As long as Parliament says it does. Of course that's their choice, not an immutable fact.
The constitution says they can’t hold them, not parliament.
You’re complaining that his party have chosen not to change the constitution and are instead following the strict constitutional guidelines regarding holding elections? And this doesn’t seem at all in bad faith to you?
I'm saying that if people are already publicly protesting your open-ended conscription requirements, and you're already forcibly preventing men from leaving the country so they can effectively be drafted, and the US is reportedly pressuring you to prepare to make a deal with Russia (in part because you lack enough troops), you're going to lose legitimacy by not holding scheduled elections regardless of how valid your reasoning is.
The schedule is constitutionally defined. You’re asking for unscheduled elections.
On November 05 2023 02:18 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
My mistake, it's parliament making that choice, the result being the same (undermining legitimacy).
The presidential elections are staggered and on a different cycle. They’re every 5 years and he was elected in 2019.
How much legitimacy do you think Zelensky has lost by “refusing” to hold a presidential election 3 years into his 5 year term?
Not much, because Parliament's election got skipped first. But if/when that same parliament prevents a presidential election in March (particularly if Zelenskyy doesn't call for one), I'd say a lot more.
I don't think it's a coincidence that reported pressure from the US for Ukraine to reach a deal with Russia lines up with the scheduled presidential election in Ukraine.
Regardless, I still don't think zeo's comment was about Zelenskyy's governments legitimacy. I could have misunderstood it though.
Are you willing to concede that you mistakenly thought Zelensky’s term might have already expired when you made your comment about legitimacy? There’s a lot of disinformation online.
No, I was aware the presidential elections were next year (pretty sure I've mentioned it here). I didn't anticipate you'd argue that Zelenskyy's party was preventing elections against his wishes.
The constitution prevents it.
As long as Parliament says it does. Of course that's their choice, not an immutable fact.
The constitution says they can’t hold them, not parliament.
You’re complaining that his party have chosen not to change the constitution and are instead following the strict constitutional guidelines regarding holding elections? And this doesn’t seem at all in bad faith to you?
I'm saying that if people are already publicly protesting your open-ended conscription requirements, and you're already forcibly preventing men from leaving the country so they can effectively be drafted, and the US is reportedly pressuring you to prepare to make a deal with Russia (in part because you lack enough troops), you're going to lose legitimacy by not holding scheduled elections regardless of how valid your reasoning is.
The schedule is constitutionally defined. You’re asking for unscheduled elections.
US and EU now urging Ukraine to seek peace as they cannot see a way it can win war, with Israel now being the current thing and Ukraine drifting into the background.
U.S., European officials broach topic of peace negotiations with Ukraine, sources say
WASHINGTON — U.S. and European officials have begun quietly talking to the Ukrainian government about what possible peace negotiations with Russia might entail to end the war, according to one current senior U.S. official and one former senior U.S. official familiar with the discussions.
The conversations have included very broad outlines of what Ukraine might need to give up to reach a deal, the officials said. Some of the talks, which officials described as delicate, took place last month during a meeting of representatives from more than 50 nations supporting Ukraine, including NATO members, known as the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, the officials said.
The discussions are an acknowledgment of the dynamics militarily on the ground in Ukraine and politically in the U.S. and Europe, officials said.
They began amid concerns among U.S. and European officials that the war has reached a stalemate and about the ability to continue providing aid to Ukraine, officials said. Biden administration officials also are worried that Ukraine is running out of forces, while Russia has a seemingly endless supply, officials said. Ukraine is also struggling with recruiting and has recently seen public protests about some of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s open-ended conscription requirements.
And there is unease in the U.S. government with how much less public attention the war in Ukraine has garnered since the Israel-Hamas war began nearly a month ago, the officials said. Officials fear that shift could make securing additional aid for Kyiv more difficult.
On November 03 2023 22:48 2Pacalypse- wrote: Yeah, that was a very interesting interview. I liked Anders Puck Nielsen's review of that article:
I watched the video and to be honest... Eh, it was a let down. He has maybe one minute of actual opinion/content thats padded out to 11min of pro-Kiev mental gymnastics. He should have actually talked about what was written in the article piece by piece instead of saying 'i wont go into specifics', seems like he barely talked about the article at all
Well, his opening statement in the video was (after promoting his book of course):
About Zaluzhny's interview. I will not go through all the things he said. You can find summaries online, because it really has created a lot of attention. So what I want to do instead is to say a few words about the context, and how I think we should think about the interview.
So I'm not sure why you're criticizing him for not breaking down the interview piece by piece, when he specifically said he wants to provide a higher-level overview of the interview and its broader context. Personally, I find that much more valuable than someone offering play-by-play commentary of each sentence. But to each their own I guess.
And just because I'm pretty sure you haven't actually understood his point, or maybe skipped over it, I'll try to summarize here.
The first two sections of his video after the above statement are a preamble to the Zaluzhny's interview. He's setting the scene, which is talking about the now-over Ukraine's summer offensive and the Russia's new offensive around Avdiivka. Then he starts providing context for the interview itself. Which is that Ukraine's summer offensive has been disappointing, especially compared to the lofty goals it might've set for itself before it started. And how the attritional approach to the war is the new reality, which means that the Ukraine and the West need to shift their thinking to accepting this long term reality. He also says that Russia has adopted this reality much sooner, which makes sense to me.
And now we come to the crux of the Zaluzhny's interview. Or better said, it's timing. Key quote from the video:
And of course Zaluzhny is not sharing his thoughts on this just to contribute to an academic understanding about what's going on. When he makes an interview like that, then it's because he wants to achieve something. So we should ask ourselves, what is it he hopes to get out of this interview. And I think it's pretty clear: We should understand this interview as a call to action for the West. This is Zaluzhny telling us that "ok, we now understand that this will be a long war.
So while you're technically right that he hasn't talked about the specific Zaluzhny's statements in that interview, the video does a great job of providing the broader context in which the interview was conducted and how to think about it. And I think that's much more important to understand than dissecting each of Zaluzhny's sentences. That might just be me though.
On November 04 2023 14:52 zeo wrote: You forgot to mention the violent overthrow of the democratically elected government in Kiev by groups that immediately abused their new power to suppress minorities that made up the majority in large areas like Crimea.
Dude. We know that zeo-world is weird. Try living in the same world as everyone else.
On November 04 2023 13:41 KwarK wrote: There can be no peace with a nation bent on conquering yours. In 2014 they allowed Crimea to be taken and it did not earn them peace, only a shadow invasion of the Donbas as a precursor to a later full invasion.
You forgot to mention the violent overthrow of the democratically elected government in Kiev by groups that immediately abused their new power to suppress minorities that made up the majority in large areas like Crimea.
No, we didn't forget something that never happened
On November 04 2023 14:52 zeo wrote: You forgot to mention the violent overthrow of the democratically elected government in Kiev by groups that immediately abused their new power to suppress minorities that made up the majority in large areas like Crimea.
And any time Zeo tries to pretend anything he says is even remotely related to the truth, we can just bring up shit like this and reconfirm that he actually lives in complete Narnia. Even Russia themselves don't bother pretending any of this is true, yet you keep perpetuating them ad nauseam.
Even though I like to pile on zeo as much as the next guy (see above ^^), these are particularly weak replies to his statement. Sure, he didn't write that statement with exact purpose of fostering a good faith discussion so I can't blame you all for not indulging him, but I'd really like to come down to the bottom of the disagreement here, just so I have a better understanding of the situation.
Let's first split up zeo's statement in two parts:
violent overthrow of the democratically elected government in Kiev
abused their new power to suppress minorities that made up the majority in large areas like Crimea
On the face of it, the first statement seems technically correct to me. What I mean by that is that Euromaidan was violent, and it did overthrow democratically elected government. However, the nuance here would be how that violence came about (e.g. was it violent from the start? or was the violence initiated by the then government? was it both? etc.), and how democratic the government actually was (were the elections legitimate? did the government enact the will of the people? etc.)
The second statement I'm less informed about. What kind of suppression was done upon the people in Crimea (and Donbas I assume?) by the post-maidan government? Was it economical? Was it cultural (e.g. banning of Russian language)? Was it physical? Was it all of the above? Was it none of the above?
@zeo care to clarify?
I think we will have to agree to disagree about the video. I don't see the point in setting the scene if people are at his channel for analysis of something they should know about if they are at his channel already (if that statement makes sense). To me it sounds like a lot of nothing and padding.
------------------
The second part of your post is highly complicated to tackle at once without going into writing a lot of words but eh I'll try, its long and to be honest it would take a long time to make coherent so sorry if it isnt:
Today’s crisis in Ukraine can’t be understood without understanding Maidan. Of course, the problems within Ukraine go back much further than 2013, those points should all be taken into account but I’m not writing a book, the main catalyst for the catastrophic situation inside Ukraine today by and large was the 2014 coup.
I said the same in 2014, and I’ll say the same thing again. Ukraine came out of the USSR with a higher GDP and a far better industrial base than Poland ect. This cataclysm could have been prevented only by some sovereignists who would have put the prosperity and security of Ukraine and all its inhabitants before any alliance with anyone, but there were none and they would not have had any chance if there had been. Ukrainian sovereignty was never possible because there are, ie. until this war, there were at least two Ukraines that could not agree on anything. No long-term stability of Ukraine within the pre-war borders was possible. A Ukraine that includes both Galicia and Crimea/Donbass cannot be stable.
Growing from that the absolute biggest problem Ukraine has now and had ever since independence is corruption and politicians nurturing an us vs. them attitude selling out there own country to foreign interests to their left or to their right in exchange for personal wealth.
Viktor Yanukovych was ousted the first time back in the 2004 Orange revolution, he was replaced by people that were so incompetent and corrupt that six years later he became the most trusted politician in Ukraine and won the 2010 elections in what Western monitors called an impressive display of democracy. Just think about that for a moment, how incompetent and corrupt you have to be where the guy you toppled in a revolution gets back into power in the next election cycle. Once in power the authoritarianism and corruption started because of course it did, he is a Ukrainian politician, that is just the way the system is built there. He tried to juggle his pro-Russian supporter base and the pro-EU opposition by trying to ‘play both side’ but as we all know he was a weak minded and corrupt leader who also had to help take care of the corrupt people he brought along with him.
Going through every single misstep he made would take way too long. The political system of Ukraine is rotten to the core and both sides of the country wanted positive change. But. As I said in my second paragraph, there were two Ukraines, any tipping of the scale radically in one direction or the other would tear the country apart.
Much has been said about the actual Maidan protest. What is certain is that the revolution failed the moment it was taken over by far-right groups like Right Sector that claim to trace their roots back to genocidal Nazi collaborators that openly talked about their admiration of Goebbels and Hitler among others. One of the unofficial commanders of Maidanwas Andriy Parubiy who founded the National-Socialist Party of Ukraine which was totally not a wink to the Nazis and later became the Svoboda Party. The far right cared little for democracy or the EU and saw the chaos as a way to get what they wanted, violent suppression of anyone they deemed worthy of violently suppressing. They were also central to the bloodiest episodes of the protests, something that has come back to the spotlight after the recent one million word verdict from Kievs courts here in full and peer reviewed studies show what was already known since 2013, the Yanukovych was not the one to escalate.
Yanukovych and opposition parties signed a Europe-brokered deal on February 21, agreeing to scale back the president’s powers and hold new elections that December but the far right were the ones that broke into the Verhovna Rada and forced the MPs to oust Yanukovych under the threat of violence. They were very very close to a peaceful transition of power that would have kept Ukraine whole but...
After the coup the same far right received prominent roles in the new interim government and fueled massive discontent in the pro-Russian east of the country. What the normal people that supported Maidan got was neither peace, nor stability, nor a shift to liberal Western values beyond lip service. The snap elections brought Poroshenko to power, one on the richest and most corrupt men in Ukraine while lowering the seats of the far right crazies. But the damage had already been done until that point, they had moved the politics and discourse to the extreme right with politicians glorifying Nazi collaborators and pushing anti-Russian agendas. Would Crimea or the Donbass revolt because of the violent repression of anti-Maidan protests have happened if Maidan had not happened?
Absolutely nothing changed in Ukrainian politics since Maidan. Every single government after Yanukovych has been corrupt to the core, governed like autocrats, used their powers to go after political opponents and suppress dissent, and have been involved in corruption scandals at an industrial scale. Basically none of the demands of the Maidan have been fulfilled since 2014 and in many areas its gotten worse. Remember that Zelensky came to power on an anti-war ticket as a Russian speaker and immediately defaulted to authoritarian-corruption-ism.
I only read the last paragraph zeo because you have nothing real to say, but I ask you this : "Remember that Zelensky came to power on an anti-war ticket as a Russian speaker and immediately defaulted to authoritarian-corruption-ism."
I don't agree with this paragraph, but since when do you care about corruption when your favourite country in the whole world russia is more corrupt on every metric, this you never seem to have a problem with?
EPT
