Letter From the Editors
United Russia swept parliamentary elections this week with results that surprised exactly no one. In the vote, which Central Electoral Commission head Ella Pamfilova said “proceeded without a hitch,” the ruling party increased its representation in the State Duma to just over 75% of the 450 seats. The RFCP and the LDPR came in second and third, followed by Noviye Lyudi, which improved its performance over the last elections, and A Just Russia, which barely staggered across the 5% threshold.
This begs the question: Why hold elections if the result is a foregone conclusion? As Stanislav Belkovsky explains to NGE, elections are “meaningless in terms of any real political process, but [they’re] part of the ritual of power.” For Putin, he says, this ritual helps maintain “the stability of power.” Similarly, Ivan Preobrazhensky believes that elections are a “civic ritual” for voters; a way of taking “at least some kind of action in a situation where there’s no real way left to influence the outcome.”
However, according to Boris Bondarev, the main barrier standing in the way of a new regime in Russia is the opposition itself, which “sustain[s] the illusion that a bloody and brutal dictatorship can be dealt with easily and simply,” and which is “unwilling to admit***that solving the problem of Putin and authoritarian rule in Russia***will require enormous effort, hard work, serious risks, blood and tears.” To have any chance of making a difference within Russia, Bondarev says the nonestablishment opposition should start building a democracy in exile by creating a representative assembly and holding “proper elections” that provide space for real political debate and competition. Such an assembly could become the “embryo” for an anti-Putin movement extending into Russia.
For now, though, Russia is stuck with the system it has, and with those pesky elections out of the way, the Kremlin is free to proceed with its agenda. A much discussed possible item on this agenda is a second mobilization of troops to send to Ukraine, even though Putin and other officials have repeatedly denied any plans for one. Economist Vladislav Inozemtsev agrees that the authorities won’t resort to this step. According to him, Putin’s strategy is one of attrition. In fact, he says, Putin doesn’t have the guts to order mobilization or nuclear strikes, and the status quo suits him just fine. In contrast, former State Duma deputy Gennady Gudkov views the issue more cynically. In his opinion, a second mobilization will earn Putin another two years of intense fighting, during which time Ukraine could suffer enough losses to enable Putin to declare victory. However, people in communities across the country are not waiting around for a decision on a new call-up, but, as The Moscow Times reports, are taking action now to avoid conscription, including leaving the country or going into hiding.
Meanwhile, the situation in Ukraine itself remains mired in its habitual rut. Even though Sergei Lavrov and Marco Rubio took advantage of the UN General Assembly in New York to meet, their conversation did not appear to yield any new ideas for a settlement. This seems odd because, as former adviser to the Ukrainian presidential chief of staff Aleksei Arestovich noted in an interview with Republic, the US has leverage over Russia (i.e., the lifting of sanctions), but not over Ukraine, since it has already cut off many forms of support for that country.
Finally, on the cultural front, St. Petersburg hosted the 12th International United Cultures Forum this week. In comments to Izvestia, Culture Minister Olga Lyubimova said AI was a “through line” of the forum. According to her, “it’s important for us to tame AI, to make it so it creates masterpieces, but without killing human gifts and talents.”
As we have seen, though, the Kremlin itself has no need for “human gifts and talents”: It has already managed to create an opposition that follows its prompts to a tee.