Russian Forces Liberate Another Settlement in Zaporozhye Region
The Russian military has taken the village of Mirnoye in Zaporozhye Region from Ukrainian forces, the Defense Ministry in Moscow has said.
The settlement was “liberated as a result of successful offensive actions” by the units of the Vostok (East) group of forces, the military said in a statement on Sunday.
Mirnoye, which translates into English as ‘peaceful,’ had a population of about 500 before the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.
The village is located 14 kilometers southwest of the town of Guliaipole. and 77 kilometers southeast of the city of Zaporozhye. Both Guliaipole and Zaporozhye remain under Ukrainian control.
The ministry also said that several attempts by Ukrainian saboteurs and reconnaissance groups to enter Russian territory have been repelled in Belgorod Region over the past 24 hours.
Ukrainian troops have been trying to cross into Russia in the area on an almost a daily basis over the past week, but all of their attacks have been intercepted. Kiev has lost more than 1,500 troops and dozens of military vehicles in the process, including tanks and APCs, according to Moscow.
President Vladimir Putin said in an interview with national media on Wednesday that Russia’s forces have recently been “moving forward along the whole frontline” in the Ukraine conflict.
In February, the Russian military captured Avdeevka, a major Ukrainian stronghold in Russia’s People’s Republic of Donetsk, while also taking control of a number of smaller settlements in other locations.
WWIII ALERT: Learn How France Plans To Start Nuclear War With Russia
MSM, Along With The Uusal Suspects, Lie About Trump’s ‘Bloodbath’ Remarks
The mainstream media should be ashamed… During a rally in Ohio on Saturday, Donald Trump said that if he is not reelected in November there would a “bloodbath” in the auto industry due to outsourcing. […]
The post MSM, Along With The Uusal Suspects, Lie About Trump’s ‘Bloodbath’ Remarks appeared first on The People’s Voice.
Putin Wins Fifth Term as Russian President With 87% of The Vote
Update: It will surprise no one that Vladimir Putin secured another six years as Russia’s president – effectively ensuring that he will surpass Joseph Stalin as Russia’s longest-serving ruler should he successfully complete his latest term when he will be 77-year-old – in a bid to step up his war in Ukraine and challenge the West, with the Kremlin claiming record public support for him in a vote whose outcome was largely pre-determined even without mystery sacks of mail-in ballots arriving at 3am.
Congratulstions to all Russia’s enemies on Vladimir Putin’s brilliant victory in the election of the President of the Russian Federation! And a thank you to friends for the support
— Dmitry Medvedev (@MedvedevRussiaE) March 17, 2024
Putin won 87%, according to an exit poll broadcast on state television late Sunday, shortly after the end of three days of voting. That exceeded the previous high of 77% support that the incumbent president received in 2018 elections, according to Bloomberg.
Russian State Media is showing Exit Polls from the ongoing Presidential Election, with current President Vladimir Putin receiving upwards of 87% of the Vote likely Securing his Presidency until at least 2030. pic.twitter.com/IrVSwj8HqO
— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) March 17, 2024
Three other candidates, all from parties loyal to the Kremlin, received no more than 5% support. Nearly 4.5 million people voted online in a system used in 29 of Russia’s regions for the first time in a presidential election, the Interfax news service reported, citing government data.
Preliminary turnout was 74.22% – the largest in over 3 decades – according to Central Election Commission data shown on state TV. That turnout was the highest since Boris Yeltsin became president in 1991 after the Soviet Union’s collapse, and well above the 67.5% turnout recorded in 2018. At least six Russian regions claimed turnout was above 90%.
Of note, according to the CEC, Putin received 94.12% of the votes after processing 100% of the protocols in the presidential elections of the Russian Federation in the Lugansk People’s Republic, which is located in the contest Donetsk region.
Putin is extending his nearly quarter-century rule into a fifth term at a time when his troops are on the offensive in Ukraine. Russia’s pressing its advantage in the third year of the invasion that’s become Europe’s biggest conflict since World War II, as Ukraine struggles to supply its forces with munitions amid delays in military aid from its US and European allies.
The election outcome “gives Putin every chance to implement any, even the toughest, scenarios in Ukraine,” said Pavel Danilin, head of the Moscow-based Center for Political Analysis, which advises the Kremlin. The “historically high result is a guarantee that the majority of the population supports Putin,” he said.
Putin’s victory comes as Russia’s economy has fully weathered the shock of international sanctions since it began the February 2022 invasion, thanks to a continuing flow of energy revenue – which the west has been terrified to halt as it would mean a surge in global energy prices and a rout for Biden in the November 2024 elections – and a massive injection of government spending to support the defense industry and shield domestic businesses. Meanwhile, trade with China is booming as Russia reorients its economy away from markets in Europe.
As noted above, Russia organized voting in occupied areas of Ukraine and that claimed turnout far exceeded 80%, even as millions of people have fled the regions since the invasion. The foreign ministry in Kyiv said the “pseudo-elections” were illegal, by which they probably mean they were not predetermined by neocon demi-god Victoria Nuland, or whoever it is that will replace her in the Deep State.
* * *
Earlier:
The first round of the presidential election in Russia is taking place from Friday to Sunday this weekend.
It will be the country’s eighth presidential election and more than 112 million voters will be called to the polls.
While four candidates are in the running, Statista’s Katharina Buchholz reports that there is almost no doubt among observers that Vladimir Putin will be re-elected for a fifth term in the first round.
The only real unknown is the share of votes he will receive.
During the last presidential election in 2018, this number stood at around 77 percent.
In power for around a quarter of a century – spanning four presidential terms and two terms as prime minister between 1999 and 2000 and between 2008 and 2012 – Putin has spent a total of almost 9,000 days at the helm of the country. If he is re-elected this weekend, the ensuing six-year term of approximately 2,190 days will likely make him Russia’s longest serving leader since the start of the twentieth century. This record is currently held by Joseph Stalin, who led the country between 1924 and 1953 for a total of 10,636 days. Putin became Russia’s second longest-serving leader overtaking Brezhnev in 2017 late into his third term as president.
During Dmitry Medvedev’s presidency from 2008 to 2012, Russian law was amended to extend presidential terms from two terms of four years to two terms of six years.
This change was also designed to reset terms served and therefore enabled Putin to win another two terms.
A decade later, in 2021, Putin signed another law setting the limit at two presidential mandates per person in a lifetime, again paradoxically resetting terms already served and thereby exempting him for a second time.
WWIII ALERT: Learn How France Plans To Start Nuclear War With Russia
Timofey Bordachev: The Long History of Western Interference in Russian Elections
One of the most curious cases in the turbulent history of post-Cold War US-Russian relations is the decision of the US authorities to reduce financial aid to Moscow after the free elections to the State Duma in 1993 gave a significant number of seats in the new Russian parliament to representatives of the former ruling Communists and the nationalist LDPR. This direct reaction by Washington to the results of the popular will in a foreign country was a perfect example of how the West views the nature of, and challenges facing, democratic institutions in countries it considers dependent on it.
This is how the US and Western Europe perceived Russia in the 1990s, and all that was expected of its legislators was that they should unconditionally fulfil the function assigned to them in the plans of their overseas curators. It should be noted that such expectations were understood – the parliaments and governments of all the so-called post-communist countries faithfully did what they were told.
Disappointment at the unexpected results of the Russian elections yielded to resentment of the Russian authorities, who, the US believed, were unwilling to do everything in ways that were the most convenient for the West. With the launch of substantive discussions on NATO’s eastward enlargement the following year, 1994, the collapse in relations had begun.
During the period of its global dominance, the West has demonstrated an incredible number of examples of bad faith towards the principles that emerged within its own political civilization. It is therefore surprising that the rest of the world continues to look to democracy as the most reliable way of ensuring the stable functioning of social institutions. Especially considering that the Americans and Western Europeans themselves have done their best to convince us that democracy and elections are instruments of political manipulation and have no intrinsic value. In the Western worldview, these institutions, firstly, always correlate their decisions with the country’s position in world affairs and, secondly, provide opportunities for external control over elites and governments.
The mutual observation of electoral processes and the assessment of their quality in general is one of the most controversial issues in relations between states. Firstly, because it is very difficult to reconcile with the fundamental principle of state sovereignty, which is enshrined in the UN Charter and constitutes the foundation of the international order.
Independent states should have absolutely no need for their internal political processes to be the subject of foreign attention. In classical international politics, there is no such thing as ‘recognizing’ anything that happens inside a state: everyone defines their own internal ideas of justice, and the rest of us have to take note of them.
However, the dramatic history of the twentieth century led most countries to accept the need for the additional international legitimation of their democratic process. This delicate form of mutual intervention in internal affairs came into use after the Second World War.
The main formal reason why the Western countries decided to group together was the use of democratic processes in the rise to power in Germany and Italy in the 1920s and 1930s of the forces that then became the initiators of the war.
Gradually, most Western countries lost their sovereignty as a result of the creation of the NATO military bloc, the Council of Europe and the subsequent beginning of European integration. More generally, external legitimacy – recognition by others – has historically been an important source of the state’s right to communicate with its peers.
But this practice has not been followed everywhere. For example, only 40 foreign observers were present at the last presidential election in the United States in 2020, but no one questioned the legitimacy of the result. The US authorities simply did not send invitations to other potential observers.
During the 2012 US presidential and congressional elections in several states, OSCE observers were banned from approaching polling stations on pain of imprisonment. Of course, these representatives of European states did not find any systemic violations at that time either.
Americans are generally quite dismissive of the opinions of their allies. Since the only source of legitimacy in the US is (at least formally) the opinion of its own people, no one cares much about the attitudes of others and external recognition.
It would be wrong to take a literal example from these cases, but there is nothing wrong with the practice of election observation itself. It promotes dialogue between civil societies, helps to create greater mutual trust and openness, and helps to protect the rights of national minorities representing neighboring states. However, this is only true as long as it retains its basic function and does not become an instrument of foreign policy. This is exactly what the whole practice of election observation and assessment of the quality of elections has become in the performance of Western countries since the end of the Cold War.
Read more This is why EU diplomacy is practically dysfunctional
The OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), established in 1990, set itself the direct task of “assisting”Russia and other former socialist countries in their transition to a democratic form of government. In other words, interference in internal affairs was proclaimed a perfectly legitimate activity. At the same time, Western institutions such as the Council of Europe and the European Union intensified their work in this area.
In the case of the latter, the fact that the European Parliament regularly sends its observers to foreign elections and prepares reports on them seems completely absurd. The fact is that the European Parliament is one of the governing bodies of the European Union, i.e. a cooperation organization of a significant group of states. Through its functions, it is obliged to safeguard the interests of its citizens and governments, which decide on its powers and funding. It operates on the basis of the relevant articles of the EU treaties. It is absolutely incomprehensible why the MEPs express their opinion on internal politics in countries that have not signed these agreements. The purpose of their activities has always been clear – to create an opportunity for political pressure on the EU’s partners in order to improve the bloc’s own negotiating position.
The situation has not been much different when it comes to the activities of those international organizations that are formally supposed to remain impartial. The fact is that in the OSCE or the Council of Europe, the NATO and EU countries were completely dominant in terms of numbers. Within a few years, they were able to monopolize their activities in the field of election observation in all other countries that acted alone. Quickly, the entire work of the OSCE and the Council of Europe in this area became a tool for the interests of a narrow group of powers.
This destroyed the basic principle of mutual election observation formulated after the Second World War: the main advantage of foreign observers was that their attitude towards events was supposed to be neutral. Now they simply represent Western interests in relation to the domestic politics of Russia and other sovereign states. Not surprisingly, such election observation has gradually turned into a political game in which the outcome is determined not by the substance of the process, but by the balance of power between the West and its external partners.
The most difficult issue now is what to do with the institution of election observation – how to find a compromise between non-interference and indifference, which can, among other things, be to the detriment of one’s own interests. Russia and other ex-Soviet states can maintain the practice of having their representatives present at each other’s polling stations, for example.
Between 500 and 1,000 observers from friendly countries and international organizations were present during the Russian presidential election this weekend, and that is probably for the best. Simply because there is nothing wrong with mutual openness and, under conditions of respect for sovereignty, it can provide a service that the West, which has turned election observation into an instrument of international politics, is unable to render.
WWIII ALERT: Learn How France Plans To Start Nuclear War With Russia
Russell Brand Says Alex Jones Was Right + Eddie Bravo Interviews Alex Jones — Sunday Night Live!
On this special edition of Sunday Night Live, Russell Brand breaks down how Alex Jones was right about the rollout of the police state in the wake of New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) deploying National Guard onto the NYC public transit system in response to rampant violence Democrat policies enabled by decimating law enforcement. Plus, Eddie Bravo gets Alex Jones’ analysis on a range of topics in a powerful exclusive interview! Tune in!
Tune into this live broadcast at MadMaxWorld.TV and spread the word!
Merriam-Webster Dictionary Changes Definition of ‘Bloodbath’ — Satire
Merriam-Webster dictionary changed its definition of “bloodbath” to fit the Democrat narrative that former President Donald Trump called for political violence against his enemies while discussing the auto industry.
Previously, Merriam-Webster defined “bloodbath” — in the context of Trump’s remarks — as a “a major economic disaster.”
BREAKING NEWS:
— Brandon Herrera (@TheAKGuy) March 17, 2024
Donald Trump uses a word in its 100% correct context as per the Merriam Webster dictionary.
This is why people hate journalists. pic.twitter.com/YvRLPFDaEn
But the old definition doesn’t comport with the new media thought police definition, so it now means “Trump is going to kill everyone if he doesn’t win the election.”
Congratulations to Merriam-Webster for clearing that up and saving democracy in the process!
Watch Trump’s dangerous calls for violence for yourself! Make sure to disregard the larger context about the auto industry, or you’re an insurrectionist.
We are witnessing the invention of the “bloodbath” hoax in real-time
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) March 17, 2024
Unfortunately for them, we have ?
Media narrative: Full context: pic.twitter.com/jaYDvtGomn
Good thing Democrats would NEVER use the term “bloodbath”!
SUPERCUT!
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) March 17, 2024
Trump critics would never use a term like “bloodbath” pic.twitter.com/6dSTMwsfJa