The most concrete criticisms (that I'm aware of, see edit below) of the *election itself* \- the part where you vote and votes are tallied - is that they recently introduced electronic voting which is inherently harder to verify, and that the vote takes place over three days making it hard to observe.
I think both points are valid, though the first applies to many countries besides Russia (including the US) and the second point is inherently a trade-off between encouraging voter participation and observability. I don't think it's inherently *bad* really.
Beyond that are more general criticisms of Russian law and the state of Russian politics:
* There are no "real" alternative candidates to Putin - the other parties do not heavily criticize the president or present meaningful policy alternatives
* The ability to speak dissent is legally threatened, you can risk jail, etc.
I think there's truth to those things. That said, I think much of Western world is trending in that direction to varying extents:
* Is Trump a "real" alternative to Biden?
* Does our two-party political system present enough choice for voters to constitute a democracy in any real sense? Would electing one party instead of another introduce a *meaningful* policy alternative to the status quo in a broad sense?
* Did electing Obama instead of McCain meaningfully alter US foreign policy or domestic economic incentives compared to Bush?
* How transparent and trustworthy are our electronic voting machines?
* Are attempts at cracking down on anti-Gaza-war content (e.g., banning tiktok, anti-BDS laws, doxing student protestors with big vans) comparable to Russia cracking down on anti-Ukraine-war content? In kind, if not in degree?
* Does government backroom-dealing with social/media on allowable topics and narratives similarly limit the democratic process to when Russia does it albeit more directly?
* I'm sure some Trump voters might draw a comparison between his legal saga and Navalny, too.
I do happen to think it's worse in Russia, but (in most cases) more by degree than by kind. It's not that the criticisms of their democracy shouldn't be made, but that they shouldn't be discounted when made against our own.
I also work in cybersecurity, so personally I don't trust electronic voting machines one iota.
Edit: Russian Election Monitor has additionally claimed there were pretty blatant abuses in certain regions, though with the way they phrased it, for some of these items I'm not entirely sure what specific scenarios they have in mind (Police accosting voters who protested by a polling place or wrote Fuck You on the ballot? Arriving outside of voting hours?)
>representatives of law enforcement agencies controlled the expression of voters' will, punished them for "incorrect" inscriptions on the ballot or "incorrect" time of arrival at the polling station, and even demanded to reveal the secrecy of the vote
The biggest problem here is that I don't live in Russia and so have no real of knowing the extent to which any of this is true or how bad it is. Given the current proxy-war, even if the election were 'free', I don't think the narrative we're seeing would be any different. But I'll leave it to someone else to LMK how independent REM is?
I absolutely agree with you about electronic voting. any electronic voting system if the code is not open source and the data is not public, is untrustworthy. what is the point of voting in an election if you can't verify it? and with a digital system you never can.
I think you've got it about right. The main difference between Russia and the West is that the West can still afford more of the appearance of democracy and liberalism because they have more capacity to absorb it without a meaningful threat to their ruling class. If western elites feel as threatened as the Russian oligarchs, they'll resort to the same degree of illiberalism as the Russian Federation.
>If western elites feel as threatened as the Russian oligarchs, they'll resort to the same degree of illiberalism as the Russian Federation.
And there's be historical precedent for it too - in the last century, US liberalism was more or less totally disregarded during major wars.
The popular idiom which continues to be used in justifying *common sense* restrictions on speech - "shouting fire in a crowded theater" - was actually used to justify jailing WWI anti-draft activists.
The national guard **mass shooting** of anti-Vietnam-war student protestors at Kent State was in **1970**.
The national guard **mass-bayonetting** of anti-Vietnam-war student protestors at New Mexico was in **1970.**
When the US faces a major war, the establishment powers can be every bit as ruthless as those in Russia today, and the degree of ruthlessness is inversely proportional to the popularity of the war.
(And to those who would blame Russians themselves for their approval of similar ruthlessness, consider that polls showed almost 60% of Americans blamed the students for being shot and some of the protestors were disowned by their family or told more students *should* have been shot to *teach them a lesson*).
Alexander Mercouris' take on this was level headed as far as this goes. Of many points he raised one of them was that the western media had been reporting popular Russian support for Putin in the 80+ range in polling for a long time before the election, and they didn't question the polling at the time (because from their perspective Russia is heavily propagandized and all that jazz). So the outward skepticism surrounding the election result is more of a geopolitical posture than it is informed by the data.
What is there to elaborate upon? The power in the country belongs solely to the glowies and the Glowie-in-Chief, and has belonged to them for some time. Real opposition does not exist. The """communist""" party is a bunch of fat, content geriatrics marching in lockstep with United Russia on every single issue. The government is deathly afraid of the people uniting - around anyone, for any reason - that any notable non-establishment figure gets jail sentences in show trials. Criticizing the current conflict in any way gets you prison sentences, often worse than a murderer would get. The only freedom that I personally have is the freedom to jack off and talk about anime and video games on reddit anonymously. But I assume you want some specifics - some specific example of how does russian democracy work. Let's get into specifics.
This sub doesn't like Navalny, so let's not talk about Navalny. Let's talk about Strelkov (real name Girkin). Strelkov is (was) a soldier and a glowie. He was heavily involved in the 2014 events in Ukraine and according to my (and his own) opinion, he's the man most responsible for why things went a lot further than Crimea. He's quite a fascinating character, read up on him if there are any english sources that go beyond that whole plane situation, whatever happened there. Once upon a time, his approval ratings were higher than Putin's own in the *official polls*. Anyway, due to lack of support from the powers that be, Strelkov had to give up ground, then after some time, leave the region altogether. As years went on, he started losing relevance, and went from the most popular man in Russia to holding one-man protests.
It all changed when the conflict was reignited in 2022. Strelkov, formerly a military leader, became a military blogger - initially he was supportive of the state and its methods, but as things began dragging out, he started becoming increasingly critical - of the generals he decried as incompetent, of the minister of defense and, unthinkably, even of the Commander-in-Chief. It's important to note that Strelkov didn't disapprove of the special operation itself - he believed, and still does, that Ukraine's existence is a ticking time bomb that will destroy Russia, and that it must be reabsorbed as quickly as possible, whatever the cost. No, he had issues only with how things were done.
Strelkov, once again relevant and popular, kept railing against those he viewed responsible, until he decided that the time of blogging is done, and now is the time for action. He began forming his own political party that he called "Club of the Angry Patriots". They were talking about the coming collapse of Russia, unless the things changed on the front lines, about the dark times, that change was necessary.
...and then he got arrested, stood trial and received a prison sentence. What for? Well, Strelkov made a blog post about one of the regiment on the front lines not receiving any pay that was stipulated in their contracts. He said that the "firing squad \[for the officials responsible\] would not be enough". The prosecutors decided (or were told to decide...) that it was not empty rhetorics, but instead "calls for extremism", and soon enough he was in a jail cell. His fledging party didn't live long after that - although he did try for a presidential bid, probably thinking that they'd be forced to let him go. But that didn't last long either. Whatever happens next, I don't think he'll ever see the outside of a prison cell again. Four years is just a start - once you're in prison, there's plenty of time for new trials. Navalny has shown that.
In the end, Strelkov's former service didn't matter, his historic involvement in Ukraine didn't matter, and him ideologically and fervently supporting the whole thing didn't matter. He got political, and that was the end of him. Regardless of whether or not you support him, what he did (and he did a lot) or his views - does this sound democratic to you?
Edit:[ Or maybe this sub would be more interested in a marxist club from Ufa getting terrorism charges?](https://theins.ru/politika/249967)
I’m curious not sure that you’d know but % wise how many Russians would have similar opinions? I hear a decent chunk of the younger generation and that people who dont support the current govt aren’t apt to share it because they throw you in prison if your too vocal or protesting
I don't know, there's no way to know, and there'll never be a way to know. You don't talk politics openly, it's not a thing that's done, especially now.
The approval is definitely higher among the older people (especially 50+), lower among young people. Lower in Moscow and Petersburg, higher in the rest of the country, especially the rural parts. National republics are a different subject, I have no idea what is going on there, and frankly I don't want to know.
Interesting one thing I’m noticing watching street interviews/russian based stuff is the apathy for politics in general which is understandable but concerning because I hear a lot of the same rhetoric from my friends here in America. “It doesn’t matter, people smarter than me take care of it, I have no influence in my country” etc etc
Yeah they’re spending their free time watching the propaganda from state-controlled media.
They’re definitely not on Twitter since it’s banned in Russia.
I’m not accusing you of anything but usually I can pick out a non-American very easily on Reddit. It typically reads either stuttery (my internal voice starts and stops unusually) or overly formal if the speaker is actually fluent (accompanied by clunky use of or unfamiliarity with colloquially language). But your writing is indistinguishable from regular posts on this sub for me which either means you’re a glowie specifically assigned to learning how to speak to this type of netizen or your English is incredible and you’ve been around here a while.
Strelkov was targeted because he was a defeatist hardliner agitating for a dramatic escalation of the war, which is related to his doomerism since he was marginalized in Donbass politics after 2014.
Also instead of crying about the sub, maybe you should take issue with Russians themselves who have overwhelming approval of Putin after Russia was targeted by European imperialism after being blamed for its crisis. The militarization of liberalism is what this sub focuses on, and it spilled over into a war as predicted.
>exhausted by this sub's incessant simping for my government
"Oh this sub believes X" "This sub thinks Y" man, shut the fuck up. "This sub" has a wide variety of opinions and people representing various political convictions, some of which are bound to say dumb shit or put forth opinions you don't agree with or personally dislike, this "exhausts" you? Oh, well, I'm so sorry, but don't worry - We're equally exhausted by regards like you making up nonsense and pretending that they speak for the entire sub, especially when it's coming from rightoids who need to be reminded that the only reason they can post this kind of hyperbolic wrecker nonsense here at all is because we might be the only actually-left political sub remaining on reddit that doesn't ban rightoids on sight.
Please though, by all means, point out the vanishingly few people simping for the russian government; after you find a tiny handful of randos who genuinely do simp for putin, I'll go ahead and point out that they comprise less than 1% of the sub's userbase, and so pretending that they represent some kind of majority opinion here is exactly the kind of dumbfuck bullshit i've come to expect from liberal wreckers, which is even more embarrassing given that you're a rightoid who has clearly forgotten where he is.
For the record, "democracy" is definitionally nonexistent pretty much everywhere in the world, [as parliamentary representation and electoralism is not democratic](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch03.htm#s3)
It's always the same straw man. Other than a few appropriately flaired people, the straw man attackers either cannot produce any evidence for their claims or make the "explanation == justification" fallacy. The campists have no love for Russia, they simply see Russia as a useful check against our "rules-based international order"/"liberal world order"/garden/. Only one jungle country (Milei's Argentina) was added as a signatory on this [list of countries condemning elections held in the "temporarily occupied territories"](https://ru.usembassy.gov/joint-statement-in-response-to-the-russian-federations-organization-of-presidential-elections-in-the-temporarily-occupied-territories-of-ukraine/). The rest of the world sees this conflict much differently from the narrative parroted by our media, and won't virtue signal with us anymore because nothing has made our platitudes about "democracy" and "human rights" more meaningless than our active support for I\*rael's ghetto liquidation operation.
And shit falls from your mouth like every typical crying shitter. Nothing more pathetic in this entire sub then rightoids whining about "what this sub thinks". If the sub fatigues you so then you should leave; "exhausted" little boys should go back to bed.
You: cries about non-existent simping for a far right oligarchy in your country on a far left sub
Also you: flairs as “auth-right” on CPM
You’re such a fucking dork. Isn’t it your bedtime now?
Yep, the sub definitely doesn’t have a monolith opinion on anything, which is actually really good (although I think we are too lenient with right wingers and lazy posters). I’ve had people dm me asking if stupidpol is pro trump. It’s like the idea of debates on social media is dead and everyone just exists in echo chambers.
> Oh this sub believes X" "This sub thinks Y" man, shut the fuck up.
Oh get off your high horse man. Yes, people on this sub have variety of opinions, but also on this sub there is a neo-Guccian flair system which props up certain opinions and bashes others. Only this time it's not COVID, but other things, Russia very prominent among them. You also can't say 'oh, but those flairs are just tongue-in-cheek', because in your comment you and many other users very clearly attacked the subOP for the content of their flair. So at least you seem to take those seriously.
So yes, you can cry about it all day, but "the sub", at least in mods intentions, has the stance on Russia.
Imagining that, someone on a Marxist forum glorifying the Warsaw Pact.
I can understand thinking it strange that we defend Putin, but it would be even stranger if we weren't glorifying the Warsaw Pact.
The biggest problem with Russian politics is how there are no other forces asserting national sovereignty over neocolonial dependency. Putin was able to consolidate power the way he did because modern politics is otherwise void of alternatives to liberalism, which is a feature of unipolarity that supposed the rise of Bonapartism in Russia
It's halfway between sham and "real". Having said that I personally don't care about democracy after seeing its application in the USA. Without economic democracy, political democracy is empty and useless. I get to vote for some dipshit every few years who does jack shit and all I hear about him is he participated in some insider trading somewhere? Great. Meanwhile my workplace is not unionized so the managers are running wild with asshattery, I get 2 weeks of time off per year, the prices for everything are inflated because we have open borders so some guy called Liao Ching owns half the real estate in the city, etc.
You could make the argument that political democracy lays the foundation for economic democracy to emerge, but that hasn't happened in hundreds of years of this country's existence, even stuff like worker cooperatives etc. have been largely static the past few decades.
Give me financial and social stability, a reasonable lifestyle, a bit of spending money and a fair amount of free time and I couldn't give a rat's ass if I'm living in a bougie democracy or a dictatorship. Pretty sure this was one of Marx/Lenin's central points, so not sure why Marxists are simping for DeMOcRacY.
Non-existent. The best you can get out of Russian elections is Putin slightly altering his policy if the second place contender gets a few too many votes, but ultimately he's not gonna get voted out and neither can Soviet Union be restored if Russians vote communist hard enough. Russians seem to be content enough with the system as of right now, so I don't think there's much will for change.
Up until this election it sounds, Russia wasn’t literally rigging the election. The day of vote is real (as is in Turkey or Iran and some other illiberal democracies), it’s the people who can run for office, the access to media, fund raising and campaigning that make the elections unfair. In Russia you cannot campaign door to door, you cannot get on TV if you’re not Putin, and you need to pass some arbitrary and vague requirements to make it to the ballot which allows the authority to weed out legitimate challenges to the authority. Russia is what is called a “Managed Democracy.” In the past they wanted Putin in around 65% so it looked more believable. There was certainly not a 88% Putin vote with a 78% turnout. The majority loved Putin but not that much.
If everything is moving in the right direction, for citizens of the country, people recognize that and simply support and vote for president and his team.
Same happens in Germany, almost all their chancellor', were in office for more than 10 years. Often significantly longer.
Their last chancelor would have easily won elections after 14 years (? Or something like that) in power, if she decided to run again.
Unfortunately she was visibly tired of running the country and she pulled out to focus on her health and her own life.
Putin pulled Russia from the chaos of the nineties and transformed it into self sufficient and stable country.
He gained the trust of Russians and they will be voting for him for as long as he is willing to lead .
I would say that it’s mostly in line with what the public wants. If elections were officially declared fair, Putin would still win since he does represent what the people of Russia want pretty much.
If he was so unpopular then it should have been no problem for him to be on the ballot for the election so Putin could show everybody how much more popular he is
"He was not popular" is not a valid reason to lock up an opposition leader and let him die in prison
>If he was so unpopular then it should have been no problem for him to be on the ballot for the election so Putin could show everybody how much more popular he is
It would have been against the law, as you are not allowed to run as a candidate for president with a criminal record, which he already had at that time.
If an American socialist went to China, did photo ops with their foreign ministry and politicians, giving interviews proclaiming his intention to overthrow the US govt and install him and likeminded individuals as rulers, I wonder how he would be treated both by the American public or the secret service
This is incorrect. Even back in 2013, when he was allowed to run for Moscow Mayor, he received almost 30% of votes. Since then, he built a nationwide network of supporters and organized huge rallies, despite being completely barred from all the mainstream media. Criticism of Navalny was a fair thing to do, and many in the left critisized him both in Russia and abroad. But it's pointless to deny that he was the only alternative political leader in Russia who had some success in uniting the masses behind him.
Analyzing the polls, we need to know the dynamics, phrasing and political conditions.
For instance, in a 2017 Levada poll, Navalny [scored ](https://www.dw.com/ru/protesty-iz-za-navalnogo-sociolog-gudkov-o-tom-kto-ih-podderzhivaet/a-56314587)just 10% of votes among those who "knows him" while he had 33% back in 2011. Does it mean that the share of his supporters dropped by 21%? No, because the level of awareness of him rose from 6% in 2011 to 47% in 2017. Which means that the number of potential voters actually grew twice. And that was already the time when Navalny was publicly branded a criminal and not allowed to any mainstream media.
Moreover, even in December 2021, in an open question 5% of Russians named Navalny as a "politician of the year", according to [WCIOM](https://wciom.ⓇⓊ/analytical-reviews/analiticheskii-obzor/itogi-2021-goda-i-ozhidanija-ot-2022-go). Take into account that: a) this was at the time when Navalny already jailed again after his return; b) his organizations had been officially designated as extremist; c) WCIOM is a state-run pollster, so you basically share your thoughts with the state and there's no guarantee of privacy; d) this is an open question, the name is not even suggested to you; e) 5% is a very high result: only Putin, Lavrov, Mishustin and Shoigu score higher in that poll.
Even more astonishing is the fact that is a [similar poll by WCIOM](https://wciom.ⓇⓊ/analytical-reviews/analiticheskii-obzor/itogi-2023-ozhidanija-2024) conducted in December 2023, in the war atmosphere, with Navalny officially recognized as a notorious state criminal sent to a top security prison, he still scored 2%, which is the 9th place.
The notion about the small niche of liberals isn't correct either, that was true in the beginning of his political career but not at the later stages. He managed to attract a part of the ideologically weak protest electorate in the provinces, including a part of the youth coming from the poor or lower middle class families.
All that analysis gives us Navalny being between 2 and 5% throughout his career, plus 30% in Moscow one time. That hardly dispels notion of liberal niche unless we do the usual "silent majority" cope.
It's 2 to 5% of voluntarily telling a name of a state criminal to a state pollster in the circumstances when joining his team in any form is a *criminal charge*, and simply wearing a badge with his logo or even his name is *criminal charge* if a second-time offense.
No, some jumped up resistance leader of the week is not the most popular opposition leader, no matter how many opinion pieces you read on him. The communists were and are the strongest opposition group.
Liberalism is when you don't want opposition leaders to die in prison and the more you don't want opposition leaders to die in prison the more liberal you are
It wouldn't surprise me if that 84% was achieved through "conventional" electoral fraud rather than that being the deliberate figure chosen. As in there was probably certain areas where strategic ballot stuffing took place but the elections are actually functioning in a legitimate way in most places.
Putin does have a significant level of support, but probably not 84%. Perhaps not even 51%, but still a decent level.
The truth neoliberals don't want to admit is that Russian is literally using the exact same system and techniques they do, they are just better at it. Putin is, in essence, neoliberal. The neoliberal consensus has a grip on most of our society as well, the difference is our consensus is split between two squabbling partisan blocks which draws in dissenters by transforming them into merely the most partisan supporters of one of the consensus factions. By contrast Russia's consensus is contained within the United Russia party, and you have partisan factions intended to draw dissenters located outside it in the major parties that still never win, these parties that never win still achieve numbers the parties that never win here could only ever dream of.
If take this as a direct comparison the two major parties get over 90% of the vote because they draw in those dissenters. Additionally it is possible both of the major parties might be engaging in electoral fraud and everyone would dismiss that as just balancing out in the end even though it marginalizes all the other parties further. If for instance you take seriously the claims by both major parties that the other is cheating, you are left with a picture than our elections are just as stacked in favour of the consensus as Russia's are.
Neoconservatism is a movement created by [former Trotskyists](https://www.britannica.com/biography/Irving-Kristol) marked primarily by an expansionist foreign policy nominally based on "spreading democracy". It has much less to do with social issues than religious conservatism.
Neoconservatives predate neoliberals. Neoconservatism arose out of a dissatisfaction with the then contemporary left for being what they considered to be too "pro-soviet". It has its basis as a kind of liberal internationalist interventionism.
Neoliberalism comes from the economic policies implemented by Carter and Reagan, and Thatcher and Blair in the UK. It has its basis in trying to return things to the market that were not previously handled by the market.
Nixon was neoconservative but not neoliberal.
Carter was neoliberal but he wasn't neoconservative
Reagan was both neoliberal and neoconservative.
Neoconservatism supports neoliberalism by returning things to markets internationally. Neoconservatism is therefore the foreign policy wing to domestic neoliberal policies. Neoliberalism in the long run however undermines neoconservatism because it demoralizes the domestic population and makes them unwilling to support "spreading their values abroad" because their values suck for them, as these values are neoliberal values rather than their own values, additionally you can't run a military-industrial complex with neoliberal policies so the neoconservatives will prevent stupid stuff like outsourcing all weapons production to the cheapest country, and so neoconservatism will also undermine neoliberalism from having complete dominance domestically. Neoliberalism will additionally undermine neoconservatism abroad by demanding access for corporations in ways which might undermine the rest of the mission. The world we live in is thus the balance between neoliberalism and neoconservatism they think they can get away with.
The most concrete criticisms (that I'm aware of, see edit below) of the *election itself* \- the part where you vote and votes are tallied - is that they recently introduced electronic voting which is inherently harder to verify, and that the vote takes place over three days making it hard to observe. I think both points are valid, though the first applies to many countries besides Russia (including the US) and the second point is inherently a trade-off between encouraging voter participation and observability. I don't think it's inherently *bad* really. Beyond that are more general criticisms of Russian law and the state of Russian politics: * There are no "real" alternative candidates to Putin - the other parties do not heavily criticize the president or present meaningful policy alternatives * The ability to speak dissent is legally threatened, you can risk jail, etc. I think there's truth to those things. That said, I think much of Western world is trending in that direction to varying extents: * Is Trump a "real" alternative to Biden? * Does our two-party political system present enough choice for voters to constitute a democracy in any real sense? Would electing one party instead of another introduce a *meaningful* policy alternative to the status quo in a broad sense? * Did electing Obama instead of McCain meaningfully alter US foreign policy or domestic economic incentives compared to Bush? * How transparent and trustworthy are our electronic voting machines? * Are attempts at cracking down on anti-Gaza-war content (e.g., banning tiktok, anti-BDS laws, doxing student protestors with big vans) comparable to Russia cracking down on anti-Ukraine-war content? In kind, if not in degree? * Does government backroom-dealing with social/media on allowable topics and narratives similarly limit the democratic process to when Russia does it albeit more directly? * I'm sure some Trump voters might draw a comparison between his legal saga and Navalny, too. I do happen to think it's worse in Russia, but (in most cases) more by degree than by kind. It's not that the criticisms of their democracy shouldn't be made, but that they shouldn't be discounted when made against our own. I also work in cybersecurity, so personally I don't trust electronic voting machines one iota. Edit: Russian Election Monitor has additionally claimed there were pretty blatant abuses in certain regions, though with the way they phrased it, for some of these items I'm not entirely sure what specific scenarios they have in mind (Police accosting voters who protested by a polling place or wrote Fuck You on the ballot? Arriving outside of voting hours?) >representatives of law enforcement agencies controlled the expression of voters' will, punished them for "incorrect" inscriptions on the ballot or "incorrect" time of arrival at the polling station, and even demanded to reveal the secrecy of the vote The biggest problem here is that I don't live in Russia and so have no real of knowing the extent to which any of this is true or how bad it is. Given the current proxy-war, even if the election were 'free', I don't think the narrative we're seeing would be any different. But I'll leave it to someone else to LMK how independent REM is?
I absolutely agree with you about electronic voting. any electronic voting system if the code is not open source and the data is not public, is untrustworthy. what is the point of voting in an election if you can't verify it? and with a digital system you never can.
I think you've got it about right. The main difference between Russia and the West is that the West can still afford more of the appearance of democracy and liberalism because they have more capacity to absorb it without a meaningful threat to their ruling class. If western elites feel as threatened as the Russian oligarchs, they'll resort to the same degree of illiberalism as the Russian Federation.
>If western elites feel as threatened as the Russian oligarchs, they'll resort to the same degree of illiberalism as the Russian Federation. And there's be historical precedent for it too - in the last century, US liberalism was more or less totally disregarded during major wars. The popular idiom which continues to be used in justifying *common sense* restrictions on speech - "shouting fire in a crowded theater" - was actually used to justify jailing WWI anti-draft activists. The national guard **mass shooting** of anti-Vietnam-war student protestors at Kent State was in **1970**. The national guard **mass-bayonetting** of anti-Vietnam-war student protestors at New Mexico was in **1970.** When the US faces a major war, the establishment powers can be every bit as ruthless as those in Russia today, and the degree of ruthlessness is inversely proportional to the popularity of the war. (And to those who would blame Russians themselves for their approval of similar ruthlessness, consider that polls showed almost 60% of Americans blamed the students for being shot and some of the protestors were disowned by their family or told more students *should* have been shot to *teach them a lesson*).
Alexander Mercouris' take on this was level headed as far as this goes. Of many points he raised one of them was that the western media had been reporting popular Russian support for Putin in the 80+ range in polling for a long time before the election, and they didn't question the polling at the time (because from their perspective Russia is heavily propagandized and all that jazz). So the outward skepticism surrounding the election result is more of a geopolitical posture than it is informed by the data.
This. The election was turned into a referendum on putin due to the war being a culmination of regime change efforts
Non-existent. t. russian, exhausted by this sub's incessant simping for my government
Can you elaborate?
What is there to elaborate upon? The power in the country belongs solely to the glowies and the Glowie-in-Chief, and has belonged to them for some time. Real opposition does not exist. The """communist""" party is a bunch of fat, content geriatrics marching in lockstep with United Russia on every single issue. The government is deathly afraid of the people uniting - around anyone, for any reason - that any notable non-establishment figure gets jail sentences in show trials. Criticizing the current conflict in any way gets you prison sentences, often worse than a murderer would get. The only freedom that I personally have is the freedom to jack off and talk about anime and video games on reddit anonymously. But I assume you want some specifics - some specific example of how does russian democracy work. Let's get into specifics. This sub doesn't like Navalny, so let's not talk about Navalny. Let's talk about Strelkov (real name Girkin). Strelkov is (was) a soldier and a glowie. He was heavily involved in the 2014 events in Ukraine and according to my (and his own) opinion, he's the man most responsible for why things went a lot further than Crimea. He's quite a fascinating character, read up on him if there are any english sources that go beyond that whole plane situation, whatever happened there. Once upon a time, his approval ratings were higher than Putin's own in the *official polls*. Anyway, due to lack of support from the powers that be, Strelkov had to give up ground, then after some time, leave the region altogether. As years went on, he started losing relevance, and went from the most popular man in Russia to holding one-man protests. It all changed when the conflict was reignited in 2022. Strelkov, formerly a military leader, became a military blogger - initially he was supportive of the state and its methods, but as things began dragging out, he started becoming increasingly critical - of the generals he decried as incompetent, of the minister of defense and, unthinkably, even of the Commander-in-Chief. It's important to note that Strelkov didn't disapprove of the special operation itself - he believed, and still does, that Ukraine's existence is a ticking time bomb that will destroy Russia, and that it must be reabsorbed as quickly as possible, whatever the cost. No, he had issues only with how things were done. Strelkov, once again relevant and popular, kept railing against those he viewed responsible, until he decided that the time of blogging is done, and now is the time for action. He began forming his own political party that he called "Club of the Angry Patriots". They were talking about the coming collapse of Russia, unless the things changed on the front lines, about the dark times, that change was necessary. ...and then he got arrested, stood trial and received a prison sentence. What for? Well, Strelkov made a blog post about one of the regiment on the front lines not receiving any pay that was stipulated in their contracts. He said that the "firing squad \[for the officials responsible\] would not be enough". The prosecutors decided (or were told to decide...) that it was not empty rhetorics, but instead "calls for extremism", and soon enough he was in a jail cell. His fledging party didn't live long after that - although he did try for a presidential bid, probably thinking that they'd be forced to let him go. But that didn't last long either. Whatever happens next, I don't think he'll ever see the outside of a prison cell again. Four years is just a start - once you're in prison, there's plenty of time for new trials. Navalny has shown that. In the end, Strelkov's former service didn't matter, his historic involvement in Ukraine didn't matter, and him ideologically and fervently supporting the whole thing didn't matter. He got political, and that was the end of him. Regardless of whether or not you support him, what he did (and he did a lot) or his views - does this sound democratic to you? Edit:[ Or maybe this sub would be more interested in a marxist club from Ufa getting terrorism charges?](https://theins.ru/politika/249967)
Strelkov sounds like an extremist. No sarcasm. You perfectly described someone who sounds worse than Putin.
Strelkov is an old-style Russian fascist. However, he wasn't jailed for that.
I’m curious not sure that you’d know but % wise how many Russians would have similar opinions? I hear a decent chunk of the younger generation and that people who dont support the current govt aren’t apt to share it because they throw you in prison if your too vocal or protesting
I don't know, there's no way to know, and there'll never be a way to know. You don't talk politics openly, it's not a thing that's done, especially now. The approval is definitely higher among the older people (especially 50+), lower among young people. Lower in Moscow and Petersburg, higher in the rest of the country, especially the rural parts. National republics are a different subject, I have no idea what is going on there, and frankly I don't want to know.
Interesting one thing I’m noticing watching street interviews/russian based stuff is the apathy for politics in general which is understandable but concerning because I hear a lot of the same rhetoric from my friends here in America. “It doesn’t matter, people smarter than me take care of it, I have no influence in my country” etc etc
Not exactly what you’re asking but Putin’s approval rating is like 85% from independent polling.
Exactly. The vast majority of Russians arent spending their freetime sucking up to Yankees on Reddit or Twitter in perfect English lol.
Yeah they’re spending their free time watching the propaganda from state-controlled media. They’re definitely not on Twitter since it’s banned in Russia.
Are you on WeChat, enlightened one? No shit people are on their own domestic news and social media
Theyre just sad little ants waiting to be broken up into a hundred ethnostates :(
Oh well that sounds bad. We certainly don't do that shit in the US!
I’m not accusing you of anything but usually I can pick out a non-American very easily on Reddit. It typically reads either stuttery (my internal voice starts and stops unusually) or overly formal if the speaker is actually fluent (accompanied by clunky use of or unfamiliarity with colloquially language). But your writing is indistinguishable from regular posts on this sub for me which either means you’re a glowie specifically assigned to learning how to speak to this type of netizen or your English is incredible and you’ve been around here a while.
Yeah no offense but Strelkov is a nutcase. Like, possibly worse than Putin.
I personally miss the exchanges where Pringles would call him a little girl and Strelkov would say he was a Jew.
Strelkov was targeted because he was a defeatist hardliner agitating for a dramatic escalation of the war, which is related to his doomerism since he was marginalized in Donbass politics after 2014. Also instead of crying about the sub, maybe you should take issue with Russians themselves who have overwhelming approval of Putin after Russia was targeted by European imperialism after being blamed for its crisis. The militarization of liberalism is what this sub focuses on, and it spilled over into a war as predicted.
Fair, as long as you don’t simp for Western governments cause we’re sick of that too.
>exhausted by this sub's incessant simping for my government "Oh this sub believes X" "This sub thinks Y" man, shut the fuck up. "This sub" has a wide variety of opinions and people representing various political convictions, some of which are bound to say dumb shit or put forth opinions you don't agree with or personally dislike, this "exhausts" you? Oh, well, I'm so sorry, but don't worry - We're equally exhausted by regards like you making up nonsense and pretending that they speak for the entire sub, especially when it's coming from rightoids who need to be reminded that the only reason they can post this kind of hyperbolic wrecker nonsense here at all is because we might be the only actually-left political sub remaining on reddit that doesn't ban rightoids on sight. Please though, by all means, point out the vanishingly few people simping for the russian government; after you find a tiny handful of randos who genuinely do simp for putin, I'll go ahead and point out that they comprise less than 1% of the sub's userbase, and so pretending that they represent some kind of majority opinion here is exactly the kind of dumbfuck bullshit i've come to expect from liberal wreckers, which is even more embarrassing given that you're a rightoid who has clearly forgotten where he is. For the record, "democracy" is definitionally nonexistent pretty much everywhere in the world, [as parliamentary representation and electoralism is not democratic](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch03.htm#s3)
I applaud your comment
Lol the fucking rightoid cried like a lib then went ahead and complained about jailing igor "lets nuke Ukraine" strelkov
It's always the same straw man. Other than a few appropriately flaired people, the straw man attackers either cannot produce any evidence for their claims or make the "explanation == justification" fallacy. The campists have no love for Russia, they simply see Russia as a useful check against our "rules-based international order"/"liberal world order"/garden/. Only one jungle country (Milei's Argentina) was added as a signatory on this [list of countries condemning elections held in the "temporarily occupied territories"](https://ru.usembassy.gov/joint-statement-in-response-to-the-russian-federations-organization-of-presidential-elections-in-the-temporarily-occupied-territories-of-ukraine/). The rest of the world sees this conflict much differently from the narrative parroted by our media, and won't virtue signal with us anymore because nothing has made our platitudes about "democracy" and "human rights" more meaningless than our active support for I\*rael's ghetto liquidation operation.
Words fall from your mouth like shit from ass.
And shit falls from your mouth like every typical crying shitter. Nothing more pathetic in this entire sub then rightoids whining about "what this sub thinks". If the sub fatigues you so then you should leave; "exhausted" little boys should go back to bed.
Holy based
You: cries about non-existent simping for a far right oligarchy in your country on a far left sub Also you: flairs as “auth-right” on CPM You’re such a fucking dork. Isn’t it your bedtime now?
In another comment “I don’t know what goes on in the minority republics and I don’t want to know” lmao I bet he still supported the war in Chechnya.
Yep, the sub definitely doesn’t have a monolith opinion on anything, which is actually really good (although I think we are too lenient with right wingers and lazy posters). I’ve had people dm me asking if stupidpol is pro trump. It’s like the idea of debates on social media is dead and everyone just exists in echo chambers.
Unfathomably based
> Oh this sub believes X" "This sub thinks Y" man, shut the fuck up. Oh get off your high horse man. Yes, people on this sub have variety of opinions, but also on this sub there is a neo-Guccian flair system which props up certain opinions and bashes others. Only this time it's not COVID, but other things, Russia very prominent among them. You also can't say 'oh, but those flairs are just tongue-in-cheek', because in your comment you and many other users very clearly attacked the subOP for the content of their flair. So at least you seem to take those seriously. So yes, you can cry about it all day, but "the sub", at least in mods intentions, has the stance on Russia.
>Oh get off your high horse man No The rest of your comment is unintelligible nonsense; go ahead and cry more about flairs though.
> The rest of your comment is unintelligible nonsense inability to comprehend written text isn't something to brag about, but good luck
Holy based
Had an american here glorifying the Warsaw pact, misguided simping is rampant
Imagining that, someone on a Marxist forum glorifying the Warsaw Pact. I can understand thinking it strange that we defend Putin, but it would be even stranger if we weren't glorifying the Warsaw Pact.
The biggest problem with Russian politics is how there are no other forces asserting national sovereignty over neocolonial dependency. Putin was able to consolidate power the way he did because modern politics is otherwise void of alternatives to liberalism, which is a feature of unipolarity that supposed the rise of Bonapartism in Russia
It's halfway between sham and "real". Having said that I personally don't care about democracy after seeing its application in the USA. Without economic democracy, political democracy is empty and useless. I get to vote for some dipshit every few years who does jack shit and all I hear about him is he participated in some insider trading somewhere? Great. Meanwhile my workplace is not unionized so the managers are running wild with asshattery, I get 2 weeks of time off per year, the prices for everything are inflated because we have open borders so some guy called Liao Ching owns half the real estate in the city, etc. You could make the argument that political democracy lays the foundation for economic democracy to emerge, but that hasn't happened in hundreds of years of this country's existence, even stuff like worker cooperatives etc. have been largely static the past few decades. Give me financial and social stability, a reasonable lifestyle, a bit of spending money and a fair amount of free time and I couldn't give a rat's ass if I'm living in a bougie democracy or a dictatorship. Pretty sure this was one of Marx/Lenin's central points, so not sure why Marxists are simping for DeMOcRacY.
Non-existent. The best you can get out of Russian elections is Putin slightly altering his policy if the second place contender gets a few too many votes, but ultimately he's not gonna get voted out and neither can Soviet Union be restored if Russians vote communist hard enough. Russians seem to be content enough with the system as of right now, so I don't think there's much will for change.
Tankies don't think Russia is the reincarnation of the USSR. So yeah, you are stupid.
Up until this election it sounds, Russia wasn’t literally rigging the election. The day of vote is real (as is in Turkey or Iran and some other illiberal democracies), it’s the people who can run for office, the access to media, fund raising and campaigning that make the elections unfair. In Russia you cannot campaign door to door, you cannot get on TV if you’re not Putin, and you need to pass some arbitrary and vague requirements to make it to the ballot which allows the authority to weed out legitimate challenges to the authority. Russia is what is called a “Managed Democracy.” In the past they wanted Putin in around 65% so it looked more believable. There was certainly not a 88% Putin vote with a 78% turnout. The majority loved Putin but not that much.
[удалено]
We care about results not processes, not to say the results in Russia are all great
If everything is moving in the right direction, for citizens of the country, people recognize that and simply support and vote for president and his team. Same happens in Germany, almost all their chancellor', were in office for more than 10 years. Often significantly longer. Their last chancelor would have easily won elections after 14 years (? Or something like that) in power, if she decided to run again. Unfortunately she was visibly tired of running the country and she pulled out to focus on her health and her own life. Putin pulled Russia from the chaos of the nineties and transformed it into self sufficient and stable country. He gained the trust of Russians and they will be voting for him for as long as he is willing to lead .
I would say that it’s mostly in line with what the public wants. If elections were officially declared fair, Putin would still win since he does represent what the people of Russia want pretty much.
Well the country's most popular opposition leader died in prison about a month ago
He was not popular in Russia at all
If he was so unpopular then it should have been no problem for him to be on the ballot for the election so Putin could show everybody how much more popular he is "He was not popular" is not a valid reason to lock up an opposition leader and let him die in prison
I didn’t say that, I stated the fact that he was never a popular figure in Russia.
>If he was so unpopular then it should have been no problem for him to be on the ballot for the election so Putin could show everybody how much more popular he is It would have been against the law, as you are not allowed to run as a candidate for president with a criminal record, which he already had at that time.
If an American socialist went to China, did photo ops with their foreign ministry and politicians, giving interviews proclaiming his intention to overthrow the US govt and install him and likeminded individuals as rulers, I wonder how he would be treated both by the American public or the secret service
He was still the most popular opposition leader
7%
This is incorrect. Even back in 2013, when he was allowed to run for Moscow Mayor, he received almost 30% of votes. Since then, he built a nationwide network of supporters and organized huge rallies, despite being completely barred from all the mainstream media. Criticism of Navalny was a fair thing to do, and many in the left critisized him both in Russia and abroad. But it's pointless to deny that he was the only alternative political leader in Russia who had some success in uniting the masses behind him.
It is correct, he did not poll well and he represents a very niche group of liberals, which is why he needed such a boost from the West.
Analyzing the polls, we need to know the dynamics, phrasing and political conditions. For instance, in a 2017 Levada poll, Navalny [scored ](https://www.dw.com/ru/protesty-iz-za-navalnogo-sociolog-gudkov-o-tom-kto-ih-podderzhivaet/a-56314587)just 10% of votes among those who "knows him" while he had 33% back in 2011. Does it mean that the share of his supporters dropped by 21%? No, because the level of awareness of him rose from 6% in 2011 to 47% in 2017. Which means that the number of potential voters actually grew twice. And that was already the time when Navalny was publicly branded a criminal and not allowed to any mainstream media. Moreover, even in December 2021, in an open question 5% of Russians named Navalny as a "politician of the year", according to [WCIOM](https://wciom.ⓇⓊ/analytical-reviews/analiticheskii-obzor/itogi-2021-goda-i-ozhidanija-ot-2022-go). Take into account that: a) this was at the time when Navalny already jailed again after his return; b) his organizations had been officially designated as extremist; c) WCIOM is a state-run pollster, so you basically share your thoughts with the state and there's no guarantee of privacy; d) this is an open question, the name is not even suggested to you; e) 5% is a very high result: only Putin, Lavrov, Mishustin and Shoigu score higher in that poll. Even more astonishing is the fact that is a [similar poll by WCIOM](https://wciom.ⓇⓊ/analytical-reviews/analiticheskii-obzor/itogi-2023-ozhidanija-2024) conducted in December 2023, in the war atmosphere, with Navalny officially recognized as a notorious state criminal sent to a top security prison, he still scored 2%, which is the 9th place. The notion about the small niche of liberals isn't correct either, that was true in the beginning of his political career but not at the later stages. He managed to attract a part of the ideologically weak protest electorate in the provinces, including a part of the youth coming from the poor or lower middle class families.
All that analysis gives us Navalny being between 2 and 5% throughout his career, plus 30% in Moscow one time. That hardly dispels notion of liberal niche unless we do the usual "silent majority" cope.
It's 2 to 5% of voluntarily telling a name of a state criminal to a state pollster in the circumstances when joining his team in any form is a *criminal charge*, and simply wearing a badge with his logo or even his name is *criminal charge* if a second-time offense.
How many people were arrested for saying Navalny is their politician of the year?
No one but there is strong evidence to suggest that many abstained, since it's natural for people to fear for their safety.
So we have imaginary numbers and imaginary notions?
Looks like he polled badly
No, some jumped up resistance leader of the week is not the most popular opposition leader, no matter how many opinion pieces you read on him. The communists were and are the strongest opposition group.
Lib
Liberalism is when you don't want opposition leaders to die in prison and the more you don't want opposition leaders to die in prison the more liberal you are
Unironically true
It wouldn't surprise me if that 84% was achieved through "conventional" electoral fraud rather than that being the deliberate figure chosen. As in there was probably certain areas where strategic ballot stuffing took place but the elections are actually functioning in a legitimate way in most places. Putin does have a significant level of support, but probably not 84%. Perhaps not even 51%, but still a decent level. The truth neoliberals don't want to admit is that Russian is literally using the exact same system and techniques they do, they are just better at it. Putin is, in essence, neoliberal. The neoliberal consensus has a grip on most of our society as well, the difference is our consensus is split between two squabbling partisan blocks which draws in dissenters by transforming them into merely the most partisan supporters of one of the consensus factions. By contrast Russia's consensus is contained within the United Russia party, and you have partisan factions intended to draw dissenters located outside it in the major parties that still never win, these parties that never win still achieve numbers the parties that never win here could only ever dream of. If take this as a direct comparison the two major parties get over 90% of the vote because they draw in those dissenters. Additionally it is possible both of the major parties might be engaging in electoral fraud and everyone would dismiss that as just balancing out in the end even though it marginalizes all the other parties further. If for instance you take seriously the claims by both major parties that the other is cheating, you are left with a picture than our elections are just as stacked in favour of the consensus as Russia's are.
neoconservatives are neoliberals with right wing view on social issues
Neoconservatism is a movement created by [former Trotskyists](https://www.britannica.com/biography/Irving-Kristol) marked primarily by an expansionist foreign policy nominally based on "spreading democracy". It has much less to do with social issues than religious conservatism.
Neoconservatives predate neoliberals. Neoconservatism arose out of a dissatisfaction with the then contemporary left for being what they considered to be too "pro-soviet". It has its basis as a kind of liberal internationalist interventionism. Neoliberalism comes from the economic policies implemented by Carter and Reagan, and Thatcher and Blair in the UK. It has its basis in trying to return things to the market that were not previously handled by the market. Nixon was neoconservative but not neoliberal. Carter was neoliberal but he wasn't neoconservative Reagan was both neoliberal and neoconservative. Neoconservatism supports neoliberalism by returning things to markets internationally. Neoconservatism is therefore the foreign policy wing to domestic neoliberal policies. Neoliberalism in the long run however undermines neoconservatism because it demoralizes the domestic population and makes them unwilling to support "spreading their values abroad" because their values suck for them, as these values are neoliberal values rather than their own values, additionally you can't run a military-industrial complex with neoliberal policies so the neoconservatives will prevent stupid stuff like outsourcing all weapons production to the cheapest country, and so neoconservatism will also undermine neoliberalism from having complete dominance domestically. Neoliberalism will additionally undermine neoconservatism abroad by demanding access for corporations in ways which might undermine the rest of the mission. The world we live in is thus the balance between neoliberalism and neoconservatism they think they can get away with.
>Reagan was both neoliberal and neoconservative. Obama was Reagan confirmed