- War is not confined to eastern regions, it never was, even in 2014.
- Elections and freedom of speech, also freedom of movement, freedom of association and a lot of other freedoms are suspended for the duration of martial law being in effect, that’s part of the law. Changes to constitution, referendums, strikes are prohibited as well. Law #389-vii (may 12, 2015) itself is powered by Constitution (article 64 part 2 mentions what freedoms can’t be suspended during martial law). All previous iterations of the law starting from 2000, I think, have ± same conditions and change mostly in wording.
- Civil war was civil as in not against outside threat and it wasn’t an existential threat. Stated r*ssian goals include genocide.
I never said it was completely confined there, just primarily. I think contextually it should be clear that what I mean is that war has not affected the government or society away from the front so dramatically that elections could not be held.
I am aware of the law. But I think the law is wrong. Ukraine has never been a particularly democratic country so its laws were a product of that context, even before the war. They open the door to autocracy and should be changed.
Your last point isn’t relevant. They could and still should hold elections regardless of Russias intentions which they have no ability to bring about outside of their area of control.
You do understand law as a concept? Especially constitution as a basic law that can’t be violated unless every other law becomes invalid?
As for not being particularly democratic that’s either extremely uninformed or completely detached view. I would love to hear what is not particularly democratic about ukrainian state.
As for president and safety council being autocratic, and holding dictatorial power, that is the whole point of martial law and any kind of emergency powers that granted to elected or not elected officials during emergency.
I acknowledge that laws exist. I don’t respect or follow the bad ones. The laws were written, as in many countries, to prevent self governance by the people. This is always and everywhere the greatest fear of the powerful.
Your comment is self-contradictory. A dictatorship that governs with emergency powers and no elections is in no way democratic.
It’s clear from your comment that you think this kind of dictatorship is a good idea. I think you should defend this idea instead of acting confused about what I mean when you clearly understand what I’m talking about here.
