Thanks for the detailed report and for sharing your election observer experiences.
What I still wonder about, is why you assert that the Russian election, despite 4 candidates and high turnout, was NOT democratic.
Is overwhelming preference for a popular leader, especially during wartime and being threatened by the Global Hegemon and its allies, with the Motherland being actively attacked, why you are defining the election as NOT Democratic?
Do you have to have a bunch of fractious Parties who all run unattractive candidates, so all/most the mediocre aspirants are close competitors?
Was the 1972 Nixon win over McGovern (who won only 1 State) less Democratic than the contest between Gore and Bush, which was so close it went to the Supreme Court?
Would it look more Democratic if there had been a significant number of Communist Russians who thought the CP candidate was better than Putin to be President in the current critical period? I hear that there probably are more Communists left in Russia than there are Libertarians in the USA.
Is having a huge donor class having undue influence over the candidates' policies, determining who gets the nomination, and who has the most money for campaign propaganda an indication of more or less democracy?
I am not an academic in the field so I don't know the official criteria used to objectively define the relative extent of democracy. I presume it is measured on a continuum, unless it is just a propagandists' epithet. OTOH, I am trained as a scientist and know the difference between correlation and causation and the importance of specifying operational definitions for all critical concepts so that everyone is on the "same page".
Given your assertion that the Russian election was not Democratic, I would be grateful if you would explain more fully, so that I can understand what you mean.
The behavior of Nixon's operatives during the 1972 election caused him to resign soon after. And the deciding votes in the 2000 election were left uncounted, because those in power thought the drama would be too much for the faint hearted US public. (if they only knew what was to come...).
More immediately, does can a country which presents Trump vs Biden as the only meaningful choices (and more than once!), get to pass judgment on others? I think not.
Switzerland, in my experience, has long been help up as the most democratic country, because their citizens routinely must approve National Laws in direct votes (although a Swiss friend tells me that the National Govt. conducts many aspects of foreign policy without approvals by the population and have reduced the extent of the country's effective neutrality as a result).
The USA, of course, is a Republic, and one purposely made less democratic by the Founders, by putting the Electoral College in place (and associated rules in Congress) to potentially over-ride the votes of the citizens in election of the President).
Ironic that Americans never actually vote for their favorite candidate, but only for the Electors pledged to vote for a specific person, but who is allowed to change their mind and vote for someone else.
"There is no doubt that the opposition in Russia is suppressed."
Would it be fair to say that here in the USA that the candidacy of RFK Jr is suppressed? It certainly looks that way from where I sit. The Democrats certainly have done everything possible to remove him from the process.
It isn't only Putin who suppresses his opposition. Scranton Joe does it as well.
In a functioning democracy, Joe would not have been the Demo candidate in 2020. He and Kamala Harris were placing 4th and 5th in primaries. Bernie Sanders had massive support, but they played games with the Black vote in South Carolina and Joe was over the hump and dragged Kamala with him, and now she is more unpopular than Joe!
God Himself could personally descend from the Highest Heaven to bless the Russian election results and swear in Putin and the West would bitch about how Putin only won because he was blessed by an absolute monarch, so unfair.
Macron's brilliantly timed threats didn't help the NATO cause either.
But here's the thing for talking heads in State Dept etc to understand: People in other countries may have complaints about their governments, but few want the US to be the ones coming in "to fix things". In Moscow, regime change already happened not that long ago. The results were unequivocally miserable for the vast majority. The story is the same around the world.
What do you mean? It is an absolutely clear statement, we are not at war with you, we will simply send our military personnel to fight you. But it's not us, it's the Martians
I thought it was fairly clear. Take random shots at Russian infrastructure, then when the response comes, scurry off to hide behind the Ukrainians, plus half dozen NATO countries between Paris and Kiev. I'm guessing the audience understands perfectly.
A really brilliant idea would be to threaten the Chinese that he will to send the Légion étrangère to democratize Hong Kong.
We, the west will going to lose a war that there was no reason to have started the economic impact on Europe will be enormous, and later also the political turmoil
The most likely outcome of the Ukrainian intervention It is the strengthening of Russian nationalism and a run around the flag effect. The idea that an invasion of 2,000 people would start the next Russian revolution And that the Russian population will demand an end to the Ukrainian war and that they will want to return the Crimean peninsula tomorrow. It's a scenario for the flying circus.
Excellent diplomatic and strategic thinking. Maybe they should be reading not only Alice in Wonderland, but also a little Thucydides to begin with
Milley had to call his Chinese counterpart twice in October 2020 to assure him, with evidence, that America was NOT planning - despite much evidence to the contrary - a pre-election 'surprise' in the Pacific.
I'm afraid I don't have the same confidence in his successor, previously head of the Pacific Air Command, later this year.
In the coming months, I wonder if the Russians will offer to pause the fighting for a short duration (say, three weeks) so that the Ukrainians can hold their own presidential election. Ostensibly so that they will have a legitimate leader to negotiate with. That'd put Zelenski into quite a bind. If he rejects the offer, that would alienate him from soldiers on ground, who could really use a reprise. Hard-line Republicans in the House would also use that as an argument against sending more money to Ukraine. If he accepts it, the OSCE would quickly announce that organization of ballot monitoring in such short order is impossible. Election is canceled once again and the ceasefire collapses. Consequences are the same as in scenario 1 plus the Collective West gets a black eye. If the election moves forward despite everything, Zelenski would get reelected in an election boycotted by opposition, with political chaos following soon after.
"According to a Gallup poll from 2017, 81% of Serbs think that the breakup of Yugoslavia harmed their country, while 77% of Bosnians and Herzegovinians, 65% of Montenegrins, and 61% of Macedonians agree. Only 4% of Serbs think that the break-up of Yugoslavia was beneficial for their country, while just 6% of Bosniaks and 15% of Montenegrins feel positive about the split. In Croatia, 55% of respondents saw the break-up as beneficial and just 23% as harmful. In Slovenia, 41% see the break-up as beneficial while 45% think it was harmful. The highest number of respondents who welcomed the break-up of Yugoslavia were in Kosovo which declared independence in 2008, where 75% said the split was beneficial and only 10% regretted it."
The terrible Balkan War of the 90s began when NATO supported secessionist Croats, with many connections to factions who allied with Axis powers in WW2.
So elements are shared with the current crisis not so far away in Ukraine.
I said over 30 years ago: NATO likes maps, and doesn't like areas that are the wrong colour in areas they otherwise control.
They supported Nazi elements in Croatia as they have supported Nazi elements in Western Ukraine.
But somehow Croatia's and Kosovo's rights to secede from Yugoslavia, enforced by NATO at the millenial Balkan faultline of East and West, isn't echoed by support for historically 'Eastern' parts of Ukraine to declare autonomy from a hostile regime (and the figures from the most 'Westernized' area, Slovenia, are pretty striking).
Walter Duranty, New York Times journalist and Pulitzer Prize winner for his reporting of Stalin's Russia, is a good example to bear in mind when writing a column to explain Russia's election.
A system is democratic if everything it does is aimed at improving the quality of life in all respects for the vast majority of people. Period. How it is formed is unimportant. On the other hand, the line of the ruling class of a fake "democracy" denies this. It claims it has set up a process which it calls democratic, but if those who win elections and form governments betray the people, it is not the fault of the system, because the people are technically free to vote them out, and then back in when THAT choice turns out to be bad. I have been watching this in and out charade for 75 years, as the people have become ever more dissatisfied.
Your definition includes polities such as enlightened despotism. which by definition are not democratic. You might find interest in a Frenchman named de Tocqueville, Maybe olso in Aristotle
Supposedly, there is a serious opposition to Putin which is not allowed to be heard. In times like this, it could only be an antiwar movement. Does it exist? If it did, then CNN, MSNBC, et al would be all over it. So there is that. There are probably people nostalgic for the Soviet Union. Those people can, and many probably did, vote for the Communist Party. You can''t do that in Ukraine where the Communist Party, and other parties as well. I suppose the Trans crowd had difficulty finding a candidate to support, but no system is perfect.🤣
Interesting to link Nuland's trip with Budanov's 'Northern Front'.
But it seems improbable to me that the Pentagon or NATO would have approved his diversion of much-needed men and material from the growing crises in the East and South, any more than they approved the equally stupid and counterproductive diversion of forces from South to East last summer.
Budanov may with Yermak largely control their beseiged front-man Saint Volodymyr, but it's not clear to me that anyone controls Budanov, except maybe the strange wife I call Lady Macbeth.
I was stopped today while shopping in a supermarket by the supermarket guy in the"meat" section. We share same soccer team so Monday comments. But right after he asked me same questions about Putin Election, as he was noticing and hearing from clients the same propaganda hammering motive and story about "non democratic" Russian elections. He was very concerned that in my country it's the same story, but overall what "Democratic Elections" means, as somebody was asking here?
On my point of view, and without being ever involved in the mainstream political parties, for me Nor Church neither State, if Democratic Election means you buy, cause u are rich or backed by rich/powerful people, the result through propaganda, media, as Berlusconi did in my country since 1993, those are not Democratic at all, as normal people, a simple professor with no money but with great ideas and principles has no chances...
US elections were almost never Democratic then, as you need a lot of money to run for... Democracy can't be weighted by who's got the money, a rich is more democratic of a middle class woman?
So if we start by this assumption nor US neither most of EU countries had not Democratic Elections in the last, say, 40/50 years... Just check what Cambridge Analitica did recently..
Macron in France represent the Elite, he was put there by the Elite and the Elite have the money to buy the consensus for him. Is this a Democratic way to elect a President?
But the worst in terms of Democratic Elections is yet to come, but will come soon: June 2024, EU Elections.
So to define an Election as Democratic you have to ask citizens to vote a Democratic Parliament, a Democratic Government, a Democratic President or PM. Are EU political Institutions Democratic?
I'm sorry they are not. At all.
How you define Democracy and its political institutions? In the West by the fact that the "System" has its how own balanced weights, based on a series of laws/rules that are commonly called CONSTITUTION: base principles, base rights and duties, base laws and balanced rights to guarantee all Citizen has a control of any part of the State, that Citizen are sovereign.
So, are EU Election based on a common Constitution that rule and guarantee EU Citizen to be sovereign? NOPE!
No Constitution, No Democracy, sorry guys!
No Constitution, No democratic EU Parliament.
No Constitution, No EU Government called EU Commission
No Constitution, No Eu Commission's President (PM).
EU Commission (Government) don't even need the Parliament approval for its nefarious Acts (they love US there..)
Dot.
So are Russian and Putin elections democratic? Sure!
So were USA and Nato backed Ukraine tentative to attack Russia Elections an Act of War against Democracy in Russia? Yes.
Democracy is an ideal, and like all ideals it is impossible to implemented it in its pure form. We can only improve the system a little at a time. But this presupposes citizens and not subjects, knowledge, information and critical thinking. And that's what Europe has been missing for a long time, if it ever existed
Completely agree! May be in the past times some european Countries had a certain dose of what you asking for, but surely since EU everything about the minimum level of so called "democracy" has fallen to the lowest!
Thanks for the detailed report and for sharing your election observer experiences.
What I still wonder about, is why you assert that the Russian election, despite 4 candidates and high turnout, was NOT democratic.
Is overwhelming preference for a popular leader, especially during wartime and being threatened by the Global Hegemon and its allies, with the Motherland being actively attacked, why you are defining the election as NOT Democratic?
Do you have to have a bunch of fractious Parties who all run unattractive candidates, so all/most the mediocre aspirants are close competitors?
Was the 1972 Nixon win over McGovern (who won only 1 State) less Democratic than the contest between Gore and Bush, which was so close it went to the Supreme Court?
Would it look more Democratic if there had been a significant number of Communist Russians who thought the CP candidate was better than Putin to be President in the current critical period? I hear that there probably are more Communists left in Russia than there are Libertarians in the USA.
Is having a huge donor class having undue influence over the candidates' policies, determining who gets the nomination, and who has the most money for campaign propaganda an indication of more or less democracy?
I am not an academic in the field so I don't know the official criteria used to objectively define the relative extent of democracy. I presume it is measured on a continuum, unless it is just a propagandists' epithet. OTOH, I am trained as a scientist and know the difference between correlation and causation and the importance of specifying operational definitions for all critical concepts so that everyone is on the "same page".
Given your assertion that the Russian election was not Democratic, I would be grateful if you would explain more fully, so that I can understand what you mean.
Thanks!
The behavior of Nixon's operatives during the 1972 election caused him to resign soon after. And the deciding votes in the 2000 election were left uncounted, because those in power thought the drama would be too much for the faint hearted US public. (if they only knew what was to come...).
More immediately, does can a country which presents Trump vs Biden as the only meaningful choices (and more than once!), get to pass judgment on others? I think not.
Switzerland, in my experience, has long been help up as the most democratic country, because their citizens routinely must approve National Laws in direct votes (although a Swiss friend tells me that the National Govt. conducts many aspects of foreign policy without approvals by the population and have reduced the extent of the country's effective neutrality as a result).
The USA, of course, is a Republic, and one purposely made less democratic by the Founders, by putting the Electoral College in place (and associated rules in Congress) to potentially over-ride the votes of the citizens in election of the President).
Ironic that Americans never actually vote for their favorite candidate, but only for the Electors pledged to vote for a specific person, but who is allowed to change their mind and vote for someone else.
Democracy is obviously quite complicated.
"There is no doubt that the opposition in Russia is suppressed."
Would it be fair to say that here in the USA that the candidacy of RFK Jr is suppressed? It certainly looks that way from where I sit. The Democrats certainly have done everything possible to remove him from the process.
It isn't only Putin who suppresses his opposition. Scranton Joe does it as well.
In a functioning democracy, Joe would not have been the Demo candidate in 2020. He and Kamala Harris were placing 4th and 5th in primaries. Bernie Sanders had massive support, but they played games with the Black vote in South Carolina and Joe was over the hump and dragged Kamala with him, and now she is more unpopular than Joe!
God Himself could personally descend from the Highest Heaven to bless the Russian election results and swear in Putin and the West would bitch about how Putin only won because he was blessed by an absolute monarch, so unfair.
Macron's brilliantly timed threats didn't help the NATO cause either.
But here's the thing for talking heads in State Dept etc to understand: People in other countries may have complaints about their governments, but few want the US to be the ones coming in "to fix things". In Moscow, regime change already happened not that long ago. The results were unequivocally miserable for the vast majority. The story is the same around the world.
What do you mean? It is an absolutely clear statement, we are not at war with you, we will simply send our military personnel to fight you. But it's not us, it's the Martians
I thought it was fairly clear. Take random shots at Russian infrastructure, then when the response comes, scurry off to hide behind the Ukrainians, plus half dozen NATO countries between Paris and Kiev. I'm guessing the audience understands perfectly.
A really brilliant idea would be to threaten the Chinese that he will to send the Légion étrangère to democratize Hong Kong.
We, the west will going to lose a war that there was no reason to have started the economic impact on Europe will be enormous, and later also the political turmoil
The most likely outcome of the Ukrainian intervention It is the strengthening of Russian nationalism and a run around the flag effect. The idea that an invasion of 2,000 people would start the next Russian revolution And that the Russian population will demand an end to the Ukrainian war and that they will want to return the Crimean peninsula tomorrow. It's a scenario for the flying circus.
Excellent diplomatic and strategic thinking. Maybe they should be reading not only Alice in Wonderland, but also a little Thucydides to begin with
sorry but Thucydides is over their collective heads.
Unfortunately Ukrainians have very little knowledge of Russian character for a number of reasons.
How very true. I suppose the same thing happens with Machiavelli, von Molke, etc.
For their own elections the US knows that war favors the incumbent.
Yet for all other countries they seem to believe that attacking them will decline the support for their leaders.
Strange people, these neocons.
Milley had to call his Chinese counterpart twice in October 2020 to assure him, with evidence, that America was NOT planning - despite much evidence to the contrary - a pre-election 'surprise' in the Pacific.
I'm afraid I don't have the same confidence in his successor, previously head of the Pacific Air Command, later this year.
In the coming months, I wonder if the Russians will offer to pause the fighting for a short duration (say, three weeks) so that the Ukrainians can hold their own presidential election. Ostensibly so that they will have a legitimate leader to negotiate with. That'd put Zelenski into quite a bind. If he rejects the offer, that would alienate him from soldiers on ground, who could really use a reprise. Hard-line Republicans in the House would also use that as an argument against sending more money to Ukraine. If he accepts it, the OSCE would quickly announce that organization of ballot monitoring in such short order is impossible. Election is canceled once again and the ceasefire collapses. Consequences are the same as in scenario 1 plus the Collective West gets a black eye. If the election moves forward despite everything, Zelenski would get reelected in an election boycotted by opposition, with political chaos following soon after.
Meanwhile, WWIII is coming, and Ukraine is but a pretext, even if there are no Ukrainians to fight for:.
https://sputnikglobe.com/20240319/france-preparing-to-deploy-military-contingent-in-ukraine-russian-foreign-intel-chief-1117427572.html
I was surprised yesterday to read this:
"According to a Gallup poll from 2017, 81% of Serbs think that the breakup of Yugoslavia harmed their country, while 77% of Bosnians and Herzegovinians, 65% of Montenegrins, and 61% of Macedonians agree. Only 4% of Serbs think that the break-up of Yugoslavia was beneficial for their country, while just 6% of Bosniaks and 15% of Montenegrins feel positive about the split. In Croatia, 55% of respondents saw the break-up as beneficial and just 23% as harmful. In Slovenia, 41% see the break-up as beneficial while 45% think it was harmful. The highest number of respondents who welcomed the break-up of Yugoslavia were in Kosovo which declared independence in 2008, where 75% said the split was beneficial and only 10% regretted it."
The terrible Balkan War of the 90s began when NATO supported secessionist Croats, with many connections to factions who allied with Axis powers in WW2.
So elements are shared with the current crisis not so far away in Ukraine.
I said over 30 years ago: NATO likes maps, and doesn't like areas that are the wrong colour in areas they otherwise control.
They supported Nazi elements in Croatia as they have supported Nazi elements in Western Ukraine.
But somehow Croatia's and Kosovo's rights to secede from Yugoslavia, enforced by NATO at the millenial Balkan faultline of East and West, isn't echoed by support for historically 'Eastern' parts of Ukraine to declare autonomy from a hostile regime (and the figures from the most 'Westernized' area, Slovenia, are pretty striking).
I wonder why?
Walter Duranty, New York Times journalist and Pulitzer Prize winner for his reporting of Stalin's Russia, is a good example to bear in mind when writing a column to explain Russia's election.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty
A system is democratic if everything it does is aimed at improving the quality of life in all respects for the vast majority of people. Period. How it is formed is unimportant. On the other hand, the line of the ruling class of a fake "democracy" denies this. It claims it has set up a process which it calls democratic, but if those who win elections and form governments betray the people, it is not the fault of the system, because the people are technically free to vote them out, and then back in when THAT choice turns out to be bad. I have been watching this in and out charade for 75 years, as the people have become ever more dissatisfied.
Your definition includes polities such as enlightened despotism. which by definition are not democratic. You might find interest in a Frenchman named de Tocqueville, Maybe olso in Aristotle
Supposedly, there is a serious opposition to Putin which is not allowed to be heard. In times like this, it could only be an antiwar movement. Does it exist? If it did, then CNN, MSNBC, et al would be all over it. So there is that. There are probably people nostalgic for the Soviet Union. Those people can, and many probably did, vote for the Communist Party. You can''t do that in Ukraine where the Communist Party, and other parties as well. I suppose the Trans crowd had difficulty finding a candidate to support, but no system is perfect.🤣
Where you able to experience the food in Tashkent? Those amazing pilafs and lamb kebabs are famous in entire Central Asia.
When in Tashkent, be sure not to miss the National Ballet of Uzbekistan!
US paedo-empire worker.
Interesting to link Nuland's trip with Budanov's 'Northern Front'.
But it seems improbable to me that the Pentagon or NATO would have approved his diversion of much-needed men and material from the growing crises in the East and South, any more than they approved the equally stupid and counterproductive diversion of forces from South to East last summer.
Budanov may with Yermak largely control their beseiged front-man Saint Volodymyr, but it's not clear to me that anyone controls Budanov, except maybe the strange wife I call Lady Macbeth.
my suspicion is the Pentagon did not know
I was stopped today while shopping in a supermarket by the supermarket guy in the"meat" section. We share same soccer team so Monday comments. But right after he asked me same questions about Putin Election, as he was noticing and hearing from clients the same propaganda hammering motive and story about "non democratic" Russian elections. He was very concerned that in my country it's the same story, but overall what "Democratic Elections" means, as somebody was asking here?
On my point of view, and without being ever involved in the mainstream political parties, for me Nor Church neither State, if Democratic Election means you buy, cause u are rich or backed by rich/powerful people, the result through propaganda, media, as Berlusconi did in my country since 1993, those are not Democratic at all, as normal people, a simple professor with no money but with great ideas and principles has no chances...
US elections were almost never Democratic then, as you need a lot of money to run for... Democracy can't be weighted by who's got the money, a rich is more democratic of a middle class woman?
So if we start by this assumption nor US neither most of EU countries had not Democratic Elections in the last, say, 40/50 years... Just check what Cambridge Analitica did recently..
Macron in France represent the Elite, he was put there by the Elite and the Elite have the money to buy the consensus for him. Is this a Democratic way to elect a President?
But the worst in terms of Democratic Elections is yet to come, but will come soon: June 2024, EU Elections.
So to define an Election as Democratic you have to ask citizens to vote a Democratic Parliament, a Democratic Government, a Democratic President or PM. Are EU political Institutions Democratic?
I'm sorry they are not. At all.
How you define Democracy and its political institutions? In the West by the fact that the "System" has its how own balanced weights, based on a series of laws/rules that are commonly called CONSTITUTION: base principles, base rights and duties, base laws and balanced rights to guarantee all Citizen has a control of any part of the State, that Citizen are sovereign.
So, are EU Election based on a common Constitution that rule and guarantee EU Citizen to be sovereign? NOPE!
No Constitution, No Democracy, sorry guys!
No Constitution, No democratic EU Parliament.
No Constitution, No EU Government called EU Commission
No Constitution, No Eu Commission's President (PM).
EU Commission (Government) don't even need the Parliament approval for its nefarious Acts (they love US there..)
Dot.
So are Russian and Putin elections democratic? Sure!
So were USA and Nato backed Ukraine tentative to attack Russia Elections an Act of War against Democracy in Russia? Yes.
I used to say:
In the US Politics is a branch of Economics, in Russia Economics is a branch of Politics.
That's why the ruling class in the west makes sure that "political economy" is is virtually unheard of.
Democracy is an ideal, and like all ideals it is impossible to implemented it in its pure form. We can only improve the system a little at a time. But this presupposes citizens and not subjects, knowledge, information and critical thinking. And that's what Europe has been missing for a long time, if it ever existed
Completely agree! May be in the past times some european Countries had a certain dose of what you asking for, but surely since EU everything about the minimum level of so called "democracy" has fallen to the lowest!
The political architecture of EU was constructed in such a way that its not a democracy, but a façade. a fustian freedom of choice