Content pfp
Content
@
https://warpcast.com/~/channel/popup-ama
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Varun Srinivasan pfp
Varun Srinivasan
@v
This is dangerous precedent. We should not normalize invasions and gaslight the invaded.
13 replies
16 recasts
154 reactions
nick.base.eth pfp
nick.base.eth
@nickprince.eth
What’s the gaslighting specifically? I’m by no means an authority on this topic, and ChatGPT is wrong all the time, but it does seem like elections have been suspended and freedom of press curtailed
5 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
gFam.live (UrbanGladiator) pfp
gFam.live (UrbanGladiator)
@gfam
Elon is trying to pressure Ukraine into holding elections to provide civilian targets for Russian missles and drone attacks.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
nick.base.eth pfp
nick.base.eth
@nickprince.eth
War game that out. The challenger would run on a campaign of ending the war. This is in Russia’s interest. Why would they sabotage the election with war crimes? You’re also saying Elon/Trump are conspiring to aid Russia in committing war crimes against Ukrainian civilians during an election. This would extend the war which is the opposite of what trump ran on and what his stated goals are. It would also be so heinous that trump/elon would lose public support. Why would they want this?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
gFam.live (UrbanGladiator) pfp
gFam.live (UrbanGladiator)
@gfam
The only way a challenger would run on ending a war in a different manner to Zelensky would be to give in to Russia's demands... which I can't imagine the Ukrainian people would vote for. Russia has committed numerous war crimes already... Elon/Trump would just lie about it - call it fake news, liberal lies, etc and rightwing media would back them up... but the damage would obviously already be done... especially if the captured region voted by other areas were too scared to. Zelensky's approval rating is at 57% so why would Elon be pushing for elections unless he was aware of plans for Zelensky to lose.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
nick.base.eth pfp
nick.base.eth
@nickprince.eth
Challenger could run on being more open to compromise. Honestly can’t imagine Ukrainian people going for that either, but that’s the purpose of the vote. Seems plausible trump can get Putin to agree to a ceasefire while elections are held. There’s historical precedent for this.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
gFam.live (UrbanGladiator) pfp
gFam.live (UrbanGladiator)
@gfam
Oh, I have absolutely no doubt Putin would agree to a ceasefire if it meant elections were held in Ukraine.... the entire goal of Russia's invasion of Ukraine was to replace the government with one friendly to Russia. I'm also very sure Putin would do absolutely everything in his power to get Zelensky out; whether that's sabotage, hybrid warfare, cyberattacks, kinetic attacks or a combination of all.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
nick.base.eth pfp
nick.base.eth
@nickprince.eth
Two questions 1) if the integrity of the election (along with a ceasefire) was assured, do you think an election would be the right thing to do? ie let the Ukrainian people decide path forward after years of war and martial law 2) do you think a high integrity election (as far as elections go) is not possible, even with the whole world watching?
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
gFam.live (UrbanGladiator) pfp
gFam.live (UrbanGladiator)
@gfam
1.) I'm not Ukrainian so I would defer to them obviously, but no, I don't think an election during a hostile invasion is the right thing to do. It's too disruptive and they really need to focus all their energy on ejecting the Russian army from their country. If the Ukrainian people overwhelming wanted to cede territory to Russia then I think a referendum would make more sense, and then if Russia stopped advancing maybe an election would be appropriate. 2.) I don't know if there are a lot of journalists in Ukraine considering all the attacks, so I'm not sure how much the whole world is watching... but considering Russia holds 20% of Ukraine land, and millions of Ukraine citizens fled the war, I think a high integrity election would be very difficult. The war could end tomorrow if Putin decided to stop invading but he wants to be a conqueror and we know that Trump/Elon want the EV resources in Ukraine so they want Zelensky out too.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
nick.base.eth pfp
nick.base.eth
@nickprince.eth
All great points. I can’t help but wonder if it’s actually possible to eject the Russian army from their country w/o allied boots on the ground (which would needlessly be WW3). It’s for certain their right to try though and their bravery, perseverance etc is stunning. So far seems like the US has supported with effectively unlimited $ and weapons. Unclear to me what the right go-forward strategy is there. Seems like trump is opting for a swift end to the conflict even at the risk of favorable Russian terms (undermining everything we’ve done to support Ukraine thus far, but avoiding ongoing costs)
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
gFam.live (UrbanGladiator) pfp
gFam.live (UrbanGladiator)
@gfam
It is so incredibly hard to move an opposing force from a defensible position - that's true for both Ukraine and Russia. They're both in a precarious position though. Russia's economy is running hot, which affects citizens, the sanctions are hurting and they're running out of fighting aged men... but their entire economy is a wartime economy so peace will be a rough transition. Russia needs sanctions lifted or other income (new oil revenue) to continue. I'd respectfully push back on the US providing unlimited $ and weapons. Until recently the weapons provided were defensive only... but in terms of money I think it's only donated like 5% of the total Ukraine has received, with maybe another 5% in loans. What the US has done has paid US defense contractors to build new weapons and then donated the old stockpile to Ukraine, which is incredible, but also has boosted the US economy too. Also, how much military equipment does the US honestly need?
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction