By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Zelensky’s signing of the bill extends Ukraine’s martial law and general mobilization for another 90 days, from February 8th to May 9th. This extension, approved by the Verkhovna Rada, continues measures initially implemented in response to Russia’s full-scale invasion. The May 9th end date coincides with Russia’s Victory Day, potentially countering Kremlin narratives. The continued martial law prevents elections and restricts the movement of men of military age, a situation Russia has attempted to exploit politically.
Read the original article here
Ukraine’s extension of martial law until May 9th is a decision steeped in the harsh realities of ongoing war. Holding elections under these circumstances would be incredibly irresponsible. The very act of voting would place citizens at significant risk, with polling stations becoming likely targets for Russian aggression.
A substantial portion of the Ukrainian population is currently unable to participate in an election. Many are actively fighting on the front lines, while others reside in Russian-occupied territories, effectively disenfranchising them. This alone renders a free and fair election impossible.
Furthermore, the existing legal framework in Ukraine, currently operating under martial law, prohibits the holding of parliamentary and presidential elections. Attempting to circumvent this would require significant constitutional changes, a process hardly feasible amidst the chaos of war.
The suggestion that President Zelenskyy should use the extensive damage to civilian infrastructure as a justification for postponing elections holds merit. The sheer scale of destruction inflicted by Russia makes the logistical undertaking of a fair election virtually impossible, regardless of security concerns.
It is argued that a change in leadership during a war could have devastating consequences, potentially leading to a catastrophic loss for Ukraine. The analogy to the US Civil War, where a change of leadership might have altered the war’s outcome, underscores this point. Any attempt to remove a wartime leader risks destabilizing the country and undermining the war effort.
The idea of holding elections while facing a constant threat of Russian interference is untenable. Russia’s history of meddling in foreign elections is well-documented, making a fair and unbiased outcome highly improbable. The potential for Russian manipulation, either through cyberattacks or physical intimidation, would severely compromise the integrity of the electoral process.
The argument that President Zelenskyy is a “western puppet” is a distraction. Focusing on who is in power in Ukraine ignores the fundamental issue: Russia’s unprovoked invasion. The real problem lies with the aggressor, not the country defending itself. Blaming Zelensky for the conflict is misplacing the blame entirely. The criticism that the West has not provided sufficient aid and support to Ukraine also has some merit. There have been delays in the delivery of crucial weapons systems, and some Western governments have shown a reluctance to fully commit to Ukraine’s success. Yet, this does not justify holding an election under such chaotic and insecure conditions.
The comparison with other countries that have gone extended periods without elections misses a critical point: those countries were not under active invasion and bombardment. Ukraine’s situation is unique and necessitates different considerations. Holding an election would be tantamount to risking the lives of Ukrainian citizens for the sake of adhering to a political schedule.
It’s worth emphasizing that Ukraine is not alone in postponing elections during times of war. This practice is common in many legal systems, reflecting the practical impossibility of holding a fair and safe election during periods of active conflict.
The extension of martial law until May 9th is therefore a pragmatic decision. It acknowledges the devastating reality of the war and the impossibility of holding a fair and safe election. The focus must remain on winning the war and securing a stable future for Ukraine, not on a political timetable that disregards the ongoing threat to life and liberty.