Russia-Ukraine War - News and Developments

[DF41]

Said by a person from a country which founded by invasion and apartheid, very persuative.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1531826011419340800

https://twitter.com/x/status/1532365873851564032

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Here in Tunisia, if you fight in any external war, you are considered a terrorist and terrorist laws are applicable. Seems logical to me.....

But if the English pow are Ukrainians citizens, should be treated like any other Ukrainian pow.

A country can make a law for its own citizens, but it cannot make a law for the other side in a war.
To be a mercenary, you have to be a foreigner and motivated by money and earn more than an ordinary soldier.

Said by a person from a country which founded by invasion and apartheid, very persuative.

China was formed by wars. I am pretty sure that involved invasion after invasion.
Israel was founded by a declaration of independence.

 

[northeast]

A country can make a law for its own citizens, but it cannot make a law for the other side in a war.
To be a mercenary, you have to be a foreigner and motivated by money and earn more than an ordinary soldier.


China was formed by wars. I am pretty sure that involved invasion after invasion.
Israel was founded by a declaration of independence.

Looks like you support invasion and colonialism if it suit your interest,fine.

 

[jhungary]

They go to nobody, they are deducted from the Total Votes for both candidates, division is done on V : valide votes not X : total votes

Following your logic :

If blank votes are 6% of all votes, candidate Y should have 6%+1 more votes than candidate W to win and have a valide election, that's illogical

I will beg to differ on the high lighted portion

In fact, I would argue why would you deduct from the total vote if that is a legitimate option. for you to not vote for Candidate A or B. If they were to be taken out, then why bother with giving them the 3rd option to begin with? You would just be giving them the choice to vote on either A or B or don't vote at all.

On the other hand, I can see why you can think blank vote or faulty vote should not be count, while I am not any expert on election issue, but I can see the losing candidate to challenge the result in court if not all the ballot counts. That's very prone to election fraud.

 

[kingQamaR]

A country can make a law for its own citizens, but it cannot make a law for the other side in a war.
To be a mercenary, you have to be a foreigner and motivated by money and earn more than an ordinary soldier.


China was formed by wars. I am pretty sure that involved invasion after invasion.
Israel was founded by a declaration of independence.

Both are married to Ukrainians and shld have defacto citizenship in their new country, so not mercenaries

 

[PakFactor]

Bozo will end up getting them an extra 10 years like he did Nazanin lol

Lol. I agree with that.

 

[Brainsucker]

That's thermobaric, best defence is to stay out of range

This bomb is so frightening. I'm sure that Ukraine's casualty must be more than they can counted for. How many death on their side until today? 100 thousand, 1 millions?

Both are married to Ukrainians and shld have defacto citizenship in their new country, so not mercenaries

No, they can become an Ukrainian if they have Ukrainian's citizenship. If you said that people who marry a local can automatically become a citizen, then people like SerpentZA and Laowai has become a PRC citizen right now.

 

[Viet]

This bomb is so frightening. I'm sure that Ukraine's casualty must be more than they can counted for. How many death on their side until today? 100 thousand, 1 millions?


No, they can become an Ukrainian if they have Ukrainian's citizenship. If you said that people who marry a local can automatically become a citizen, then people like SerpentZA and Laowai has become a PRC citizen right now.

No not so much. Ukraine has about 700,000 men in the army after general mobilization. Russia much less because Putin has yet to do the same. call general mobilization.

Let’s do the math.

Zelinskki says Ukraine army loss is about 100 men per day. Putin suffers similar casualty rate. Considering that’s not a full scale war yet that may come next in few months, then casual rate is very low.

In comparison, in the war against Germany, USSR casualties ran about 6,000 men per day. France, UK loss was several thousands per day luckily less against Germany in WW1, 2.

 

[jhungary]

This bomb is so frightening. I'm sure that Ukraine's casualty must be more than they can counted for. How many death on their side until today? 100 thousand, 1 millions?

You can estimate it by the account of how many billing were fill, how many equipment lost and so on. Conservative estimate by multiple open source put Ukrainian war dead around 25000. Which coincide with the loss figure per day the Ukrainian publishes (around 150-200 a day, this being a 104 day war)

Similar Russian death toll were judged by the equipment loss.

No, they can become an Ukrainian if they have Ukrainian's citizenship. If you said that people who marry a local can automatically become a citizen, then people like SerpentZA and Laowai has become a PRC citizen right now.

Different country have different citizenship rule, it's different between Ukrainian and China.

Also, you can be a foreigner to fight for another country, Geneva Accord only dictated the term "non-state actor". Which mean as long as the host country is sponsoring you, you are a state actor. That's why you don't need Citizenship to join many Military in the world.

Say you hold Australian Permanent Residence and not Citizenship, you can apply for any roles within Australian Defence Force without proper clearance. (So usually low lying job) This is a false narrative that foreigner fighting for a foreign government itself is automatically a mercenary

 

[kingQamaR]

I don't believe a word of what either the Ukrainians or Russians tell us. Believe nothing, question everything, assume nothing. By the way that's not being a Russian troll, it's being aware that not everything you're told is true.

 

[SalarHaqq]

Only thing is, it is not how it work.

https://tass.ru/info/6275043?utm_source=en.wikipedia.org&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=en.wikipedia.org&utm_referrer=en.wikipedia.org

If it's this paragraph you have in mind:

Для победы на выборах кандидату необходимо получить более 50% голосов. Если ни один из претендентов не наберет необходимого количества голосов, в двухнедельный срок проводится второй тур. В бюллетень для голосования вносятся фамилии двух кандидатов, показавших лучшие результаты в первом туре. Победителем признается тот, кто наберет наибольшее число голосов. Во втором туре также может принимать участие один претендент на высший государственный пост (если второй кандидат откажется баллотироваться менее чем за 12 дней до выборов). В этом случае для победы необходимо получить более половины голосов избирателей.

Which "Google" translates as follows:

To win the election, a candidate needs to receive more than 50% of the votes. If none of the candidates receives the required number of votes, a second round is held within two weeks. The names of the two candidates who showed the best results in the first round are entered on the ballot paper. The winner is the one who gets the most votes. One contender for the highest state post can also take part in the second round (if the second candidate refuses to run less than 12 days before the election). In this case, to win, you need to get more than half of the votes.

Then let's look at it carefully. Here's what it's basically explaining:

1) Either the two top-ranked candidates of the first round both agree to run in the second round, and in that case a simple majority (i.e. not necessarily more than 50%) will be enough to win the election.

As expressed in these two sentences:

The names of the two candidates who showed the best results in the first round are entered on the ballot paper. The winner is the one who gets the most votes.

The one who gets the most votes. In other terms, it doesn't say that the winner has to score an absolute majority (i.e. >50%), it simply says the most votes, that is a simple majority (can be less than 50%).

2) Or, one of the two top-ranked candidates of the first round may refuse to run in the second round (by announcing it less than 12 days before the run-off election). In that case, and in that case only, will the single remaining candidate need to get more than 50% of votes in the second round.

Which is what the paragraph's two follow-on sentences convey:

One contender for the highest state post can also take part in the second round (if the second candidate refuses to run less than 12 days before the election). In this case, to win, you need to get more than half of the votes.

Because that candidate would be running all alone in the second round, and so this rule is to ensure that the person will not be elected despite people casting a majority of "Against all" and/or invalid votes.

Hope this clears it up.

you are excluding those invalid and non-preferred vote even if you said they counted in the election. They counted in Overall tally, but do not count toward any of the candidate. If you taken out those invalid and non-prefer vote and don't count them in the total tally, then yes, Yanukovich would have won by 51% but then again this is NOT how it work.

I am not excluding them. I clearly explained that in Ukraine results do take into account "Against all" and invalid votes in the second round of a presidential election.

The alternate calculation I made was simply meant as an illustration of what Yanukovych's score would have been if Ukraine established the tally in the same way as other countries do. That's all.

The election was won by Yanukovych and there was nothing irregular about it. The declarations of OSCE and Council of Europe observers show that no election rules had been breached.

Therefore my initial statement stands, Yanukovych was democratically elected.

 

[jhungary]

What's this article supposed to prove?

This is to show you how Ukrainian Election works

I am not excluding them at all, and I clearly explained that in Ukraine results do take into account "Against all" and invalid votes in the second round of a presidential election.

The alternate calculation I made was simply meant as an illustration of what Yanukovych's score would have been if the Ukraine established the tally in the same way as other countries do. That's all.

The election was won by Yanukovych and there was nothing irregular about it. OSCE and Council of Europe observers made it clear that no electoral rules had been breached.

So I don't know what it is you're trying to find fault with, which neutral, professional election observers are supposed to have missed. Therefore my initial statement is correct, Yanukovych was democratically elected indeed.

Again, I have already said my piece, he did NOT have over 50% of vote as per Ukrainian Constitution lay out. I mean you can call what you want, you can call him marginally elected, or having a deal with the opponent, in term of Ukrainian constitution, he was not elected "Democratically", because to do that he need that number to be North of 50%.

You can try to tweak around the result to make it over 51% or like Trump said "Find me 12,000 vote so I can win Georgia" That does not mean it is true, and as I said, this is not how Ukrainian election works.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Looks like you support invasion and colonialism if it suit your interest,fine.

No, that is why I oppose Russia.

 

[Apollon]

Boris Johnsons solution to people facing a cost of living crisis with inflation and soaring energy costs?

" Just accept the paycut"

Boris Johnson tells workers to accept pay cuts or UK faces 1970s–style ‘stagflation’

Prime minister blames Ukraine war for U-turn on promise to create a high-wage economy

www.independent.co.uk

These clowns have miscalculated big time. and the longer they wait to admit that defeat/humiliation. The harder the fall is going to be.

I doubt the mrs lucky sperm club "queen" , her long parasitic line of family "royalty" , or boris johnson, or weapons companies CEOs etcc will be having to "accept paycuts"

Now everyone shut up, and and fap to NLAW's being delivered to ukraine!!1!!! glorious victory is right around the corner -Boris Johnson

War costs. The alternative would be Europe under a facist russian regime. After Ukraine Baltics and Poland would be attacked next. Then Germany. Putin in a speech yesterday showed what a deluded crazy tyrant he is, comparing himself to Czar Peter I and how Russia should expand even more.


Im willing to pay cuts, so are all that i know. The russians must be destroyed in Ukraine.


Negotiations make no sense. It must end in their complete collapse

 

[SalarHaqq]

This is to show you how Ukrainian Election works

Again, I have already said my piece, he did NOT have over 50% of vote as per Ukrainian Constitution lay out. I mean you can call what you want, you can call him marginally elected, or having a deal with the opponent, in term of Ukrainian constitution, he was not elected "Democratically", because to do that he need that number to be North of 50%.

You can try to tweak around the result to make it over 51% or like Trump said "Find me 12,000 vote so I can win Georgia" That does not mean it is true, and as I said, this is not how Ukrainian election works.

I edited my previous reply to include your answer. You can refer to it for more details.

To summarize:

* If two candidates agree to run in the second round, then Ukrainian electoral law does not require the winner to receive over 50% of votes. Simple majority, including less than 50% will be enough.

* If only one candidate accepts to run in the second round, then Ukrainian electoral law demands that this one candidate receive over 50% of votes to be elected.

This is the actual rule. I can see where the confusion stems from but if you read the paragraph carefully, this is what it explains.

So yes, Yanukovych's win was legit.