this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2026
131 points (98.5% liked)

World News

57754 readers
2081 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Ask Historians !askhistorians@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
all 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] bad1080@piefed.social 42 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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...

[–] Calfpupa@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 days ago

Mail in ballots?

[–] Nobody@anarchist.nexus 54 points 2 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] tazeycrazy@feddit.uk 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

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

[–] lath@piefed.social 55 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The title is somewhat true. History has proven repeatedly that a change in leadership during war tends to end poorly.

[–] Rat_in_a_hat@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (5 children)

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.

[–] SorryImLate@piefed.social 3 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] laz@pawb.social 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Rat_in_a_hat@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

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).

[–] GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Rat_in_a_hat@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] comrade_twisty@feddit.org 14 points 2 days ago

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.

[–] Wataba@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 days ago

Getting rid of a gullible idiot for a hardass is very different from potentially removing an effective leader for a possible Russian patsy.

[–] lithiumground@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago

It is not sensible to have an election right now.

[–] CobraChicken3000@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 days ago (3 children)

How does one hold an election during a war exactly??

[–] HuudaHarkiten@piefed.social 16 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Taldan@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's certainly what Russia wants

[–] HuudaHarkiten@piefed.social 4 points 2 days ago

Which makes the idea extra stupid.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 4 points 2 days ago

should say when being invaded. facist type leaders love to go to war and then say that is why there should be no elections or not a good time to change things.

[–] Zombie@feddit.uk 3 points 2 days ago

With difficulty.