Putin Promises ‘Popular Rule’ and Elections—Days After Russia’s Only Registered Anti-War Party Was Barred
Putin told United Russia that Russia would preserve elections and popular rule even under wartime pressure, ending with ‘Victory will be ours.’ The speech comes after Yabloko was barred from the September parliamentary vote.
Vladimir Putin used United Russia’s election congress in Moscow to deliver two messages at once: Russia will keep voting, and Russia will keep fighting.
Putin said the country would not retreat from the principles of popular rule even under difficult conditions and would hold elections at every level. He said the next State Duma must firmly defend national interests and serve the population.
He praised United Russia as the country’s leading political force, arguing that it had earned trust by avoiding empty promises and linking itself to national development. Then the war became central. Putin said the party’s duty was to do everything necessary for victory in what Moscow calls the special military operation and ended with the phrase: ‘Victory will be ours.’
The democratic language is politically striking because Russia’s Supreme Court recently removed Yabloko from the September parliamentary ballot.
Yabloko is small and has not been a major parliamentary force for years. But it was the only registered nationwide party openly campaigning against continuation of the war in Ukraine. Russian authorities say its exclusion followed legal and technical violations. Yabloko says the process was politically motivated.
That contrast goes to the heart of how contemporary Russia defines democracy.
Elections continue. Parties compete. Millions vote. But the permitted boundaries of competition have narrowed dramatically through wartime censorship, criminal cases, candidate restrictions and pressure on independent media.
Putin’s supporters reject Western descriptions of Russia as simply undemocratic. They argue that Russia is fighting what the Kremlin describes as an existential confrontation and that every state restricts political actors it regards as tied to hostile foreign interests. They also argue United Russia has genuine public support and that Putin remains popular because many Russians associate his rule with sovereignty and stability.
Those points do not automatically cancel criticism. A political system can retain real popular support while also restricting competition.
Democracy is not only the physical act of voting. It also involves whether voters can choose a party that openly opposes the government’s defining policy, whether media can criticize leaders freely and whether courts apply electoral rules independently.
Putin’s sovereignty language is central. He said Russia determines its own future ‘by itself and only by itself.’ The Kremlin presents domestic political control as part of national defence, arguing that foreign powers use opposition movements, sanctions and information campaigns to weaken the state.
Once that framework is accepted, dissent can easily be treated as a security problem rather than ordinary politics.
United Russia’s congress also showed why the Kremlin still values elections rather than abolishing them. Elections mobilise supporters, distribute power among elites, reveal weak regions and provide a public demonstration of legitimacy. Even tightly managed elections can play important political functions.
The September vote will therefore not be meaningless. It will measure turnout, support for United Russia and the performance of approved competitors.
But Yabloko’s absence creates an unavoidable question. If Russian voters oppose the war itself, where do they express that choice through a registered national party?
Putin says Russia will preserve popular rule and that victory will belong to Russia. Critics will argue that a vote is less persuasive as evidence of popular rule when the clearest registered anti-war option has been removed before election day.
The real debate is not whether Russia will hold elections. It will. It is whether elections where the central strategic direction of the state cannot be challenged still offer voters meaningful power over that direction.