Disinfo: Russian electoral system is one of the most advanced worldwide


There are clear indications of the deterioration of democracy that can be seen in the US elections compared to the progressive Russian democracy.

The Russian electoral system today is one of the most advanced in the world, including in terms of legislation.

It doesn’t even occur to Russia to allow something similar to what is happening now in the American elections (battle of fakes, dirty techniques, mutual insults, accusations, and slanders).


A pro-Kremlin narrative about Russian superiority, in this case, about the superiority of Russia's electoral system.

Russia has been widely accused of having little political plurality. One of the most valuable weapons in the Kremlin's arsenal is its power to control who can run - and indirectly guiding their campaign. Moscow “has tried to create the semblance of competition”, says The Times, allowing other candidates to take part, whilst the more vocal anti-Putin voices are quickly pushed out of the race.

In 2015, politician Boris Nemtsov, a prominent critic of Putin’s government, was assassinated in Moscow and another anti-corruption campaigner and Putin critic, Alexei Navalny, has been barred from running for the president. Navalny was convicted of embezzlement in a Russian court, meaning he couldn't run for election, although he denied the charges and said they were politically motivated before he suffered an attempted assignation attempt in August 2020.

“Choice without real competition, as we have seen here, is not a real choice,” said Michael Link, leader of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) group of short-term observers.

The Russian election system all but guarantees that Putin wins not only through controlled opposition but also as the result of fraudulent ballot set-ups, according to critics.

Measurable interference on polling day is difficult to gauge, but during the regional elections on September 2017, Golos, Russia’s only independent watchdog, said they received reports of voting problems in 55 regions nationwide.

Predictably, the Russian government denies the electoral rigging allegations, which have dogged it for years - most notably in 2011, when people took to the streets to protest the “flawed” results in that year’s legislative elections. The Central Election Commission of Russia later said that only 11.5% of official reports of fraud could be confirmed as true. However, the European Court of Human Rights did not agree, ruling that the 2011 votes were “unfair” and “compromised”.

This article also had another claim that the US is living a “colour revolution”


  • Reported in: Issue 220
  • DATE OF PUBLICATION: 06/11/2020
  • Language/target audience: Arabic
  • Country: Russia, US
  • Keywords: US Presidential Election 2020, Alexei Navalny, Vladimir Putin, Elections, OSCE, Russian world


Cases in the EUvsDisinfo database focus on messages in the international information space that are identified as providing a partial, distorted, or false depiction of reality and spread key pro-Kremlin messages. This does not necessarily imply, however, that a given outlet is linked to the Kremlin or editorially pro-Kremlin, or that it has intentionally sought to disinform. EUvsDisinfo publications do not represent an official EU position, as the information and opinions expressed are based on media reporting and analysis of the East Stratcom Task Force.

see more

US is living a “colour revolution” and neither candidate won’t concede

The current elections refute the well-known story that the only country in the world where a “colour revolution” is impossible in the United States because it lacks an American embassy.

These days, it looks as if the United States has opened an American embassy on its soil. The elections are conducted according to the “colour revolution” scenario, as none of the candidates is prepared to admit the victory of his opponent. Both are preparing street protests, a “Black Lives Matter” project of chaos and vandalism and looting in major cities.


Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about the racial justice protests in the US and the current US Presidential elections in addition to colour revolutions.

The claim of a "colour revolution" is made without evidence and fits squarely with the Kremlin's view that no mass protest or civil uprising can take place without manipulation by cynical actors behind the scenes. See here for our analysis of this narrative, with examples.

OLD DR // British Special Services the main initiators of the Karabakh conflict

Both countries (Armenia and Azerbaijan) are by no means the main subjects of a carefully prepared adventure, rather they are its tools and victims. The main initiators of the conflict, are Turkey and the British Special Services, and this operation is directed against the Russian Federation and, in part, Iran.


Conspiracy theory about the war in Nagorno-Karabakh, recurrent pro-Kremlin disinformation narratives about an aggressive West and Russia as the ultimate target of international events.

While Turkey does not hide its support to Azerbaijan, and would stand “with all its resources and heart” behind Baku, Armenia had its own supporters. There is no evidence that any Western foreign special services had anything to do with the 2020 military escalation between Armenia and Azerbaijan, much less with the purpose of benefitting from a confrontation between Russia and Turkey.

“Sputnik V” criticism is based on financial motives

The criticism of the “Sputnik V” vaccine is nothing more than an example of a protracted competition between Russia and the United States, which in this case is based on financial motives.


This is part of a pro-Kremlin disinformation campaign on the Russian coronavirus vaccine called “Sputnik V”, which was met with scepticism and criticism, even by Russian specialists.

Reservations about the Russian Sputnik V vaccine are caused by the fact that Russia didn’t complete the large trials which WHO insists that a vaccine must undergo involving thorough testing to examine the vaccine’s safety and efficacy before it is released. Rolling out an inadequately vetted vaccine could endanger the people receiving it.