i'm not saying it's anything new... i'm pointing out that if we view Zelenskyy’s role through a Roman lens, where the term dictator originates, his broad wartime powers—granted under martial law, with elections and normal governance suspended—mirror the temporary, crisis-driven authority of a Roman dictator.
Wasn't the word still nonetheless unjustifiably weaponized? Would it not be extremely reasonable to be upset if a sitting US president prior to the US getting involved in WW2 criticized Churchhill and strategically called him a dictator to delegitimize him?
UK’s parliamentary model spread power via coalition; Ukraine’s semi-presidential setup concentrates it in Zelensky, though Parliament retains legislative monopoly.
He's not a dictator at all as his term does have a guaranteed end, once the war is over. I'm sure he would hold an election if he could, just to prove people like you wrong, but it is illegal for him to do so during wartime as per the Ukrainian constitution, which cannot be amended during wartime either.
That's sort of what Trump was subtly trying to get at -- Zelenskyy's political power continues as long as the war continues. If we take the worst interpretation of his character that he is willing to do whatever it takes to hold onto power for as long as possible ... then he has an incentive to sabotage any peace deals.
I personally don't think that's likely, but it is a valid argument depending on how skeptical you are about Zelenskyy's motives.
Can people just think instead of regurgitating what they hear? To your definition Churchill was a dictator too, right? Or somehow he wasn't?
A war is happening, and how can people think they can just hold a nicely done election... Ukrainians don't even care about that, that rhetoric (propaganda) comes from a foreign nation.
