Apparently Putin’s landslide victory means Russian morale is low.
Other bangers from this collective of intellectual giants include claims that the massive turnout victory for Putin in Russia in fact demonstrates “things are not well”, "the economy is collapsing, “the military is resisting orders”, and “the population knows he is a thief”. Seriously they are literally writing this on Twitter…
That’s a very astute observation. Cynicism has overtaken the Western political spectrum, and they know no other way to view politics elsewhere. European, US and their vassal governments are set up to launder money and siphon wealth to the elites. Therefore everyone must be set up this way.
Even if that viewpoint was true. Putin is a war-time president in a war that is going well and Russia doing better and better during this duration. How would any voter consciously risk Russia losing this momentum?
The reality of these kinds of posts is that the Russian election results are forcing the West to face the futility of the gigantic attrocity they’ve commited in Ukraine. The whole point of Maidan and the subsequent provocations for war with Russia was not to get Ukraine to join NATO. The West didn’t suddenly start loving Ukraine. The whole point was to destabilize Russia and get Putin out, so they can return it to its colonial status of the 90s. They’ve achieved the exact opposite. And they can’t let their people understand this. So the narrative being set is “We did everything right, but Putin rigged the elections because he’s obviously a bad guy”.
This is exactly right, and excellently explained by the way!
Thanks! I’ll add that the hypocrisy of these propagandists is underlined when we observe their silence over Zelenski cancelling Ukrainian elections, which were supposed to happen this May. The West proclaims that the president who cancels elections represents democracy, but the president who wins elections overwhelmingly is an authoritarian dictator.
I wouldn’t even call it hypocrisy, as in both cases it is consistent with their conception of democracy, which is that if you bow down to western diktat in every way you are democratic, if not then you are an authoritarian dictator.
Their conception of democracy has nothing to do with elections or free speech or anything of the sort and everything to do with cowtowing to the US as the global hegemon and allowing western capital to plunder your country.
By that definition Zelensky is indeed a champion of democracy, as were Pinochet, Suharto, Somoza, etc.
Conversely, too much popular approval for a leader is generally considered to be un-democratic by supporters of liberal democracy, and they call it things like “mob rule” when a leader actually does what the majority wants. You see real democracies act in the interest of small minorities of moneyed elites and otherwise have political systems that are designed to be as dysfunctional and byzantine as possible which safeguards against dangerous “populist” policies ever being implemented.
I agree, they are very consistent. It is all about capital, if western capital has authority in the policies of X country then it is democratic, if it doesn’t then Y country is authoritarian.
It has never been about the people.
Apparently it’s okay for Zelenskyy to cancel elections because he’s fighting a war and therefore needs to keep power for national security reasons or whatever. It’s not a good defence but its the one they’re using.