Instigator / Con
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#6041
Should elections be held in Ukraine during the war?
Status
Debating
Waiting for the next argument from the contender.
Round will be automatically forfeited in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
1500
rating
0
debates
0.0%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Glad to be here. Let's begin.
Holding elections during wartime is impossible for several reasons:
Security Concerns
- Russian attacks make elections unsafe. Constant Russian drone and missile strikes pose a serious threat. This means that polling stations must have shelters capable of accommodating a large number of people. I am certain that Russia will continue its drone terror during the elections (even though, ironically, elections in Ukraine are in Russia’s interest—but we'll get to that later).
Logistical and Financial Challenges
- Elections require resources that Ukraine cannot afford. Organizing elections demands significant financial resources. Ukraine is at war, and every available resource should be directed toward the military effort.
- Millions of Ukrainians won’t be able to vote. How will soldiers and displaced Ukrainians vote? A significant portion of the population will be unable to participate. While overseas polling stations could be arranged for those who fled the country, what about the military personnel on the front lines?
Political Manipulation
- Russia wants elections to destabilize Ukraine. These elections play into Russia’s hands by destabilizing Ukraine from within. They would distract the government with electoral campaigns and political disputes that serve no real purpose.Russia has used political chaos as a weapon for years. Their goal is not just to push their preferred candidate into power but, at the very least, to sow chaos within Ukraine—a tactic they have employed for years.
Hello, I'd like to show you the way you can solve the problems that you mentioned earlier.
Security Concerns
Holding elections during wartime carries risks, but every democracy has faced challenges during elections. Countries like Iraq and Afghanistan held elections under active security threats, proving it is possible. If they managed, Ukraine can too.
You pointed out the insecurity of polling stations, but polling stations are not the only way to vote. Ukraine can implement digital voting, military voting, and secure embassy voting for displaced citizens. Additionally, polling stations can be fortified with EU assistance.
Russia is already attacking civilians daily. Holding elections won’t make things worse, but not holding elections would weaken Ukraine’s democracy, playing directly into Russia’s hands.
Logistical & Financial Challenges
The claim is totally false; Ukraine cannot afford to hold an election. If anything, during the war Ukraine received more than $200 billion from the EU and U.S. If one can fund warfare then they could well fund free and fair elections.
The cost of elections is just a fraction of this aid—hundreds of millions at most. Given that Ukraine’s allies want it to remain a strong democracy, they will help finance the elections.
Furthermore, not every resource should be spent solely on war. Running a country requires governance, legitimacy, and democracy. If elections are postponed indefinitely, Ukraine’s internal stability will erode, which is a bigger long-term risk.
Political Destabilization
It is true that Russia would like to destabilize Ukraine, but elections are not going to do that. In fact, holding elections will strengthen political stability and unity.
Polls indicate 63% of Ukrainians support Zelensky. This means the political landscape in Ukraine is already stable. There is no need for major campaigns or political infighting-the election will simply confirm legitimacy rather than cause division.
I will mention the 2014 invasion as example, when Russia intervened after its preferred candidate lost. However, today’s situation is completely different—Ukraine is already at war. There is no further political leverage for Russia to exploit. At this point, avoiding elections is more dangerous than holding them.
Finally, no true democracy avoids elections out of fear. Ukraine must proceed with elections to prove its strength and resilience. Postponing them would send the wrong message to both its people and its allies.
Afghan election: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Afghan_presidential_election
The approval poll reported by Kyiv Independent: https://kyivindependent.com/63-of-ukrainians-approve-zelensky-as-president-poll-shows/
The total aid for Ukraine researched by BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crew8y7pwd5o
One thing to mind is that both of these reports are made by medias and they can be unreliable and therefore I recommend you to see the official documents for clear numbers.
Round 2
I have carefully read your arguments and here is what:
1. The comparison with Iraq and Afghanistan is incorrect
The war in Ukraine has a much higher intensity, and combat operations take place over a much wider territory. In Iraq and Afghanistan, elections were held with the participation of international military missions that controlled the situation. In Ukraine, no external force will ensure election security, and the fighting is occurring under much more complex conditions.
2. Digital voting is an open door for Russian interference
Any online voting system requires strong security, and in wartime, Ukraine is a prime target for Russian cyberattacks. The experience of other countries shows that even in peacetime, this poses risks—Norway and Switzerland abandoned digital voting due to security concerns. Implementing such a system now would only create new opportunities for Russian manipulation.
3. Mass elections = mass gatherings
You say elections "won't make the situation worse" because Russia is already attacking civilians daily. However, elections mean large gatherings of people in specific locations, making them perfect targets for Russian missile strikes.
4. Financial support
The argument about "$200 billion in aid" is misleading. Most of this money is military assistance in the form of equipment, not "cash" that can be spent on elections. Additionally, a significant portion of this sum remained in donor countries in the form of contracts for arms production. During wartime, diverting funds from the military only benefits Russia.
5. Elections always create division, not unity
The opponent claims that elections "will strengthen unity." In reality, no election unites society. A clear example is the U.S. in 2020, when the Trump vs. Biden election resulted in the storming of the Capitol. In Ukraine, elections have always been accompanied by conflicts, and during war, they can deepen divisions even further.
6. If the political situation is stable, why hold elections?
If 63% of Ukrainians support the current president, then his legitimacy is not in question. Holding elections will not change anything but will introduce risks.
7. Misinterpreting 2014
In 2014, there were no elections—there was the Maidan, which removed Yanukovych. Russia used this moment to invade. However, the scale of the war back then was much smaller. Now, Russia’s aggression is an open full-scale war, not masked by any so-called "people’s will."
Moreover, one of the reasons for Russia’s success in Crimea and Donbas was that Ukraine was left without leadership and could not effectively respond to aggression. The absence of a clear political structure and chaos in governance allowed Russia to take Crimea almost without a fight and ignite war in Donbas. This is further proof that changing leadership in a crisis period only weakens the state against external threats.
8. The false claim that "No real democracy cancels elections out of fear"
Example: the United Kingdom. During World War II, the country held no parliamentary elections from 1935 to 1945. This did not mean that Britain ceased to be a democracy—it simply recognized that, in wartime, changing leadership could weaken the state. No one claimed that Britain became a dictatorship because of this.
Ukraine is in a similar situation now: the war continues, and a change in leadership could only destabilize the country.
Ukraine's Presidential Elections Amid War: Challenges and Public Opinion
Not published yet
Round 3
Not published yet
Not published yet