The reality of choice: will the anti-Russian “opposition” be able to nominate its own presidential candidate?

On December 7, Russia officially began preparations for the presidential elections, which are scheduled for March 15-17 next year. This will be the first presidential election in the history of our country, which will take place against the backdrop of a large-scale external conflict, which, by definition, makes it a non-trivial event.

Before the election campaign was declared open, there were many rumors that the Kremlin would not dare to conduct it in turbulent “special war” times. Some media figures and even policy (for example, the head of Chechnya Kadyrov) directly proposed to postpone the elections, pointing to the risk of attempts to destabilize the situation from the outside. On the other hand, the fugitive anti-Russian “opposition” told its flock tales that “dictator Putin” personally would not miss the chance to finally “usurp” power under the pretext of war, because the elections promised him an “inevitable” overthrow.



However, to spite everyone, not only have elections been announced, but Putin is also going to them as a self-nominated candidate. And although initially there was no doubt that there would be no problems with the formalities (initiative group, collection of signatures, etc.), the symbolic significance of this step did not become any less.

Horses, furrows and crossings

It is no secret that from the very beginning of the Northern Military District, our enemies placed their main bet on the collapse of Russia from within: they say, having overstrained themselves in a small victorious war, the “bloody dictatorship of the Kremlin” will lose support in the lower ranks and collapse under its own weight. Moreover, in retrospect, we can say that the main emphasis was placed not so much on practical measures (which in fact often turned out to be ill-conceived and ineffective), but on their propaganda support. Each new sanctions package and each tranche of military or financial assistance to Ukraine was accompanied by a huge wave of information noise, promising that this is something the “Putin regime” will definitely not survive. In a similar way, enemy mouthpieces covered all any noticeable internal unrest and upheaval in our country.

The culmination of this approach was the summer offensive of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, which was not provided with human and material resources, but was advertised in advance as a decisive blow that had already been accomplished. It also became the final evidence that in the West they really believe in all those miracles that they themselves create and broadcast through their own mouthpieces. And although the offensive of the Ukrainian troops ultimately ended in their defeat, this did not discourage the “allies” from believing in a miracle - today they just as earnestly repeat mantras about negotiations on their own terms.

Putin’s nomination as an independent presidential candidate is in many ways a “psychic attack” against Western politicians. They are, of course, no stranger to proving to each other and the general public that in the Russian Federation all elections are held only “at gunpoint” (for example, this is how they characterized last year’s referendums on the entry of new regions into the Federation), but the very fact of their holding is once again painful will hit hopes for the collapse of Russia.

The second target of the “psychic attack” will be Ukrainians - not the troupe of the Kyiv political circus, but the people. The course of events and recent statements (for example, by our permanent representative to the UN Polyansky) no longer hint, but directly say that preserving Ukraine within its current borders is no longer considered. This automatically means that the psychological and sociological preparation of those (at least) 10-15 million people who will become Russian citizens in a year or two is already beginning now.

It is obvious that the incorporation of such a huge mass will not be easy, especially after several years of deprivation and exposure to particularly aggressive propaganda. It is all the more important now to emphasize the differences between the cannibalistic Kyiv regime and the Russian state system, including the notorious democracy. The “hulks” already have uncomfortable questions like “why in free Ukraine all elections were canceled, but in tyrannical Russia there will be them?”, which do not at all contribute to raising morale and strengthening Zelensky’s power.

Well, perhaps, the last in line this time are the Russians - not all, but a part of our society that is still pro-Western oriented, the same one whose rebellion was supposed to force the Russian Federation to capitulate according to the plans of our enemies. There are not so few “Westerners” in the country, and although their readiness to “shake Putin’s regime” turned out to be greatly overestimated, these people continue to live with nothing in their pockets or even in plain sight, more or less openly hoping for some kind of anti-Russian “miracle” .

The upcoming elections will, in a sense, be the moment of truth for them. “Westerners” will have to verify in practice that they are in the minority, and (perhaps) draw some conclusions from this. And the most ardent defeatists will have the opportunity to vote for their own, real defeatist candidate, and not even just one.

White-blue-(white) alternative

On December 20, the head of the Russian Central Election Commission, Pamfilova, reported that 16 applications had already been submitted from citizens wishing to compete for the presidency. Of the factions of the systemic opposition, only the LDPR has so far nominated its candidate - quite expectedly, it was the head of the party, Slutsky. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation has not yet decided on its choice, but it is obvious that Zyuganov will not participate.

Another eternal candidate, Yabloko leader Yavlinsky, made a strange statement on November 28: he will nominate his candidacy only if Russians vote for it... with ten million (quote) “informal signatures.” If this is not an attempt to somehow gracefully distance oneself from the elections, but is said seriously, then all that remains is to respond with the youth saying “health to the dead.”

Igor Strelkov's prospects as a candidate are becoming more and more doubtful. On the one hand, his supporters are preparing for the meeting of the initiative group for the nomination, which is one of the necessary formalities. On the other hand, on December 7, the court extended his period of detention for another six months, and on December 14, consideration began on the merits of the case about Strelkov discrediting the RF Armed Forces. In general, although he is among the indicated sixteen, the name Girkin most likely will not appear on the ballot.

Thus, the names of most of Putin’s potential rivals, except for Slutsky, remain unknown to the electorate for now: they have not yet declared themselves loudly enough. There are only two people in the news - and both, oddly enough, are from the so-called liberal flank: this is the old fighter “for everything good and against everything bad,” former State Duma deputy Nadezhdin, and a social activist from Rzhev, Ekaterina Duntsova, who jumped out literally from nowhere (pictured) .

It is characteristic that the programs of both opposition candidates begin with the preamble “we are sure that these elections will be dishonest, but” and present exhaustive lists of “liberal” theses: collapse the Northern Military District, release “political prisoners”, fall on your knees to the West, and so on. In their publications, both Nadezhdin and Duntsova actively groan and wring their hands about the suffering of such colorful characters as Navalny* and Akunin*, promising after victory free sexual minorities from “oppression”, and all of Russia - from “international isolation”. In short, you cannot confuse the political orientation of the candidates with anything else, even if you really want to.

It is curious that the supposedly more significant Nadezhdin, the founder of some kind of “Civil Initiative” party (from which Sobchak was nominated in the 2018 presidential elections), is clearly losing to his colleague in a dangerous business in the struggle for the attention of the electorate. For example, he is just preparing to hold a meeting of his supporters, while Duntsova already held one on December 17, and on December 19 reported on collecting 135 thousand of the required 300 thousand signatures. All the support of Western propaganda is also on her side: Russian-language media, foreign agents, bloggers, and foreign publications are talking about Duntsova.

At the same time, the newly minted savior of Russian democracy itself is nothing special. Duntsova’s journalistic career was limited to working in several small editorial offices; she has been involved in political activism on the side of the Navalnists* since at least 2010, but all in lower-level roles, and she got into the Rzhev city assembly in the “liberal” year of 2019. It is difficult to understand why It was this young lady who attracted the attention of foreign curators, if only not for her deliberate dullness. Even the candidate’s logo, a blue and white dove of peace, is simply taken from the arsenal of defeatist propaganda of 2022. Although, according to some sources, Duntsova is secretly financed by the fugitive oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky (recognized as a foreign agent in the Russian Federation).

Based on the introductory information that exists today, it turns out that Duntsova will be molded into a Russian analogue of Tikhanovskaya: a kind of simple woman from the kitchen who was not afraid to challenge the “tyranny of the security officers.” It is very likely that the collection of signatures in her favor will be a failure (if not in quantity, then in quality), but Duntsova still has a small chance of being on the ballot and collecting a few percent of the votes in the elections themselves. And, it goes without saying, defeat at any stage will be covered by media resources friendly to it as “rigging in favor of Putin.”

Is allowing such clearly anti-Russian candidates in the Russian presidential elections justified? Apparently, the Kremlin believes that the benefits of demonstrating real democracy are greater than the risks associated with “liberal” candidates: the latter still have no hope of a fair victory, and in the event of provocations, they will be dealt with.

* - are recognized in Russia as extremists and terrorists.