how would holding elections even work when russia is known to specifically attack civilian targets. large gatherings at a known date in that context seem like a bad idea...
Mail in ballots?
If Russia could successfully hack the voting machines, stuff the ballot boxes, or otherwise cheat in the election, they could elect someone who would surrender and give up Ukrainian sovereignty and security. Or at least divide the nation enough to weaken it severely at a point when Ukraine is winning the war.
Ukraine was relatively balanced with Ukrainian and Russian candidates having a fair chance. That changed when crimea was occupied. Russia where then surprised when the most pro russian territory don't send there votes and the country votes for a pro Ukraine president. Fighting in the Donbas made the issues even worse for them.
The best thing Putin could do to insure a favourable election is stop, give the occupied regions back and see what happens.
The more you look at the history of this conflict the bigger blunder it appears to be. Yet again Russia has been toppled by a conflict it could have totally avoided.
For a bunch of kgb master mind strategists they sure cant strategise for shit lmao
The title is somewhat true. History has proven repeatedly that a change in leadership during war tends to end poorly.
Wasn't there a change in leadership from Chamberlain to Churchill during WW2 which allowed the British to better counter Naziism?
Edit: y'all are reading too much into this. OP said: "History has proven repeatedly that a change in leadership during war tends to end poorly." Which is factually inaccurate as a statement.
Chamberlain resigned, leaving Churchill to take over. There was no election.
That wasn't really into the war though. It was barely at the start and it was done without an election. I think that's very important context for the example, not really the same thing as what OP was referring to.
Sorry, but this is becoming a history discussion now.
Chamberlain getting removed was after Britain's failed attempt to stop the Nazi invasion of Norway. Boots on the ground and everything. They were very much into the war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_campaign
Either way, OP made the claim about what history can show, it's their responsibility to back it up. We're the ones attaching recent context to Ukraine because of the post, but OPs claim said historically.
And there are many examples when changing of leadership actually helped during war (again, not referencing recent context).
You are avoiding all the context. There were no invading troops in the UK. As others have said, there was apparently no election, which means subversive groups can't rely on populism to get in power. He also said "repeatedly tends to go poorly," not "always ends poorly." Your one counter-example does nothing to disprove his statement.
Again, it's not about me disproving OPs claim because 1) people making the claim need to back it up, and 2) it's still factually incorrect on both accounts (repeatedly or always).
There were no invading troops in the UK. As others have said, there was apparently no election, which means subversive groups can't rely on populism to get in power.
If we're being that specific and the audience assuming context (invading + elections), then historically there is no record for OP to make the generalized statement of it being repeatedly bad. So it's either a general statement or very specific to this context (which others claim but only OP can tell us) and neither of those work even.
I get that people want to defend Ukraine, I'm not disputing that. I'm literally saying that someone is referencing history incorrectly.
They weren't partpy occupied during that time and not really fighting German troops on the ground. It's a completely different situation in Ukraine right now.
I'm not a historian, I don't know who is correct.
That send, "tends to" does not mean always, so giving a single counter example doesn't mean the original statement is incorrect.
Getting rid of a gullible idiot for a hardass is very different from potentially removing an effective leader for a possible Russian patsy.
It is not sensible to have an election right now.
How does one hold an election during a war exactly??
Especially when large chunk of the country is under occupation and millions are refugees in dozens of countries all over the place.
Suggesting to have a election now is just absolutely stupid, in pretty much every possible way.
It's certainly what Russia wants
Which makes the idea extra stupid.
With difficulty.
“It is with great reluctance that I have agreed to this calling. I love democracy... I love the Republic. The power you give me I will lay down when this crisis has abated. And as my first act with this new authority, I will create a Grand Army of the Republic to counter the increasing threats of the Separatists.”
Oh are they doing the “Ukrainians were the real fascists all along” propaganda bit? Pretty weak sauce when Russia is glidebombing apartments and Ukraine keeps it to military targets
The narrative these puppets use to counter that is that Ukraine is bombing itself to make Russia look bad.
I wish I was making this up.
I was just advocating for democracy in a sea of people doing the opposite.
By any chance, do you know how long putin is in power? More than 14 years? :O no! That sounds very facist, this cant be true!
What the hell are you on about?
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Ask Historians !askhistorians@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/