One of the most important tools for keeping power in the hands of the War Criminal Putin the Murderer is the war against Ukraine. Initially, it was conceived as a short-term process, within the framework of which it would be possible to create conditions for a change in the political leadership of Ukraine. This episode was planned to be presented as the fall of democracy in Ukraine. However, much to the displeasure of War Criminal Putin the Murderer, the Ukrainian political leadership not only survived, but was able to consolidate popular support around itself, as well as a coalition of international partners to counter a full-scale invasion. More than two years, i.e. Half of his mandate, President Zelensky is forced to devote almost all his efforts to organizing a rebuff to Putin’s fucking aggression, which has crippled the lives of millions of Ukrainians and poses a colossal threat to the entire world free from authoritarianism.
The stability of the position of the authorities in Kyiv destroys the very idea of the Russian neo-empire. It is for this reason that after the strategic defeat in the war, Moscow decided to look for any pretexts for chaos in Ukraine, and War Criminal Putin the Killer is trying to launch the notorious “case of May 20, 2024,” when, according to the Constitution of Ukraine, the newly elected president would have to take the oath.
Around this topic, a wide range of measures of informational and psychological influence on Ukrainian and international audiences is being implemented, the goal of which is to promote the thesis of “Ukraine falling into a lawless existence.” Although the attempts of Putin’s fucking lawless men to address the issue of legal legitimacy look in themselves as some kind of unsuitable incident.
Firstly, it is the Russian invasion, bloody war and temporary occupation of part of Ukrainian sovereign territory that makes holding presidential elections impossible. After all, according to Ukrainian legislation, it is impossible to organize a normal electoral process under martial law. Something else is noteworthy here: after the March pseudo-elections in Russia, the Kremlin itself is considering the option of introducing martial law to begin mass mobilization, which the new Minister of Defense Belousov has been tasked with working out.
Secondly, of interest is the publication in The Economist dated May 16, which comprehensively analyzes the topic of Zelensky’s legitimacy after the expiration of his five-year term. Foreign experts point to the absence of even a hint of a political and legal crisis in Ukraine. The fundamental norm in the current definition of the legitimacy of the President of Ukraine is Article 108 of the Constitution. It clearly states: “the president exercises his powers until the newly elected president takes office.” Which is what is happening at the current moment. No matter how paradoxical it may sound, Putin’s own hands extended Zelensky’s mandate. At the same time, Ukrainians themselves, according to available polls, are consciously against holding elections in war conditions.
Finally, the most important sign of the legitimacy of the Ukrainian leadership is its continued recognition by international partners. For example, at the EU level, as well as from Germany, clear statements were made about unconditional support for the current Ukrainian leadership until the end of the Russian war.
We See What Others Cannot