At a crucial juncture of the war against Russia, President Volodymyr Zelensky has undertaken a major reshuffle of his government, insisting “new energy” in government was needed “today.”
“These steps are only associated with strengthening our state in various sectors — international politics and diplomacy are no exception,” he said on Sept. 4 during a press conference in Kyiv with Irish Prime Minister Simon Harris.
While lawmakers and political analysts close to the president told the Kyiv Independent the reshuffle is a way of bringing “new energy” to a tired government apparatus, those who are critical of Zelensky say it’s more about the President’s Office, run by Andriy Yermak, willing to consolidate power even more.
I really, really, really hope that Zelenskyy rides off into the sunset the day after this war is over and goes into history as a hero. He was outstanding in early 2022 and has been okay since then, but there are moments when power seems to be going to his head.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
-Nietzsche
The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution.
-Hannah Arendt
He’s by definition an autocrat at this point.
He didn’t have an election and just remained in power.
A reminder for those who will automatically respond “Ukraine is fighting for its life”
It definitely is, but the US had an election in the middle of the Civil War, and during WW2.
Ukraine’s constitution forbids an election during a state of emergency. This isn’t him overriding precedent, this is codified into law.
But during WW2 Britain didn’t hold elections. Did this turn Britain into an autocracy?
And by the way, you literally can’t hold elections if the aggressor is certain to attack polling stations. The US never had this threat, neither during the Civil War nor during WW2. Not a single US city was ever attacked by an enemy nation.
Not a single US city was ever attacked by an enemy nation.
This is definitely an um ackushally, but the Brits did burn the capitol.
Fair enough
Not a single US city was ever attacked by an enemy nation.
Pearl Harbor has entered the chat
Also, here’s some reading material for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foreign_military_attacks_on_United_States_territory
Pearl Harbor is not a city, is it?
I’ve checked nearly every single link from Wikipedia in that list, there were a handful of attacks on American villages. Not a single city was ever attacked (except for maybe Washigton by the Brits) - or rather seriously attacked.
I don’t really take
Casualties:
- 1 death
- 3 wounded
- damaged bridge
seriously, considering that attacks on cities usually end horribly for civilians.
Huh, that list actually has Goleta. I’m a bit surprised about that.
Good on Wikipedia.
Goleta, CA. WW2
Not really a counter argument, but you’re wrong about the whole not a single city bit.
Churchill led a fucking empire, and during that same time period chose to starve 4 million what would become Bengali’s.
Like, I see the argument you’re making, but the British fucking empire is not the example you want to use.
Yeah, that does make Churchill a genocidal British imperialist but not an autocrat.
Not that that’s any better - but the original comment claimed not holding elections in tines of war => autocracy.
I don’t really know about other democratic nations in WW2 that suspended elections - like 3/4 of Europe had their governments dissolved and couldn’t quite hold elections.
The US didnt have to account for the likelihood of russian psyops and election interference destabilizing the country during these critical times though.
Seems like a mixture of personnel exhaustion and attempt to freshen up PR.
