Putin claims a landslide, but he can’t hide the smoke over Moscow

The Kremlin may have discovered the perfect election strategy: eliminate the possibility of losing. Why bother with opposition or the unpredictability of a free vote when you can simply remove the competition?

Russia’s first parliamentary election since Russian President Vladimir Putin’s full-scale invasion had all the familiar trappings of democracy, such as ballots, polling stations, multiple parties, and even three days to vote. It just lacked one small detail: a choice.

Unsurprisingly, preliminary results show a landslide win for Putin’s party, United Russia, which won 57.83% of the preliminary party-list vote and won 355 of 450 seats. But the outcome was shaped long before election day. On Aug. 10, the Russian Supreme Court barred the participation of the anti-war Yabloko party in the elections.

Stacking the ballot was only the beginning. Reports before the election found that the Kremlin misused government resources to weaken anti-war movements and limit voter access to information, while outside observers were prohibited from monitoring the elections to ensure fairness. The Kremlin pressured citizens, particularly public-sector employees and students, to participate. The Kremlin also staged the election in occupied Ukraine, turning polling stations into another tool for Putin to project his claim that the territories belong to Russia.

And, of course, no Kremlin election would be complete without a healthy dose of propaganda. 

Many election campaigns focused on pro-war messaging. Nearly 200 total candidates, including around 80 from United Russia, were veterans who had served in Ukraine: The Kremlin promoted them as Russia’s “true elite” and they were featured in campaign videos. Putin’s propaganda has succeeded in gaining majority support for the war in polls. In February 2026, 72% of Russians told the Leveda Center they support the military’s actions in Ukraine, and support is highest among those who get their news from television. But only 24%, a record low, want the fighting to continue, and 67% now favor peace talks. 

The 2026 election is simply the latest performance in a political theater Putin has been staging for years.

In 2011, allegations of vote-rigging in the parliamentary election brought tens of thousands of citizens to the streets of Russia in the largest protests of his rule. In 2017, the election commission barred Alexei Navalny, Putin’s most prominent opponent, from the 2018 presidential race. In 2020, constitutional amendments reset Putin’s term count, allowing him to run again until 2036. Election rigging worsened in 2024. Navalny, barred again, died in prison weeks before the vote, the antiwar candidate Boris Nadezhdin was removed from the ballot over supposed signature problems, and for the first time, no Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe observers were allowed.

Following the recent parliamentary election, Russians are increasingly fearful of mobilization, and a growing number of Russians left in anticipation of the election to avoid possible restrictions on leaving the country. Meanwhile, European governments have increasingly warned that Russia’s aggression and hybrid operations could extend beyond Ukraine. The staged victory also gives Putin a convenient talking point: he can now claim the war has the “will of the Russian people” behind it. 

The ballot box is only one piece of Putin’s larger vision: restoring Russia as a dominant empire and himself as its modern-day “tsar.” He has praised Stalin’s leadership, while in 2005 he called the collapse of the Soviet Union the biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the century and argued in 2021 that Russians and Ukrainians are one people, questioning the legitimacy of Ukraine’s borders. 

A tsar, after all, is supposed to project strength and control. Yet that image took a hit on election day, when Kyiv brought the war to Moscow’s doorstep, striking an oil refinery and sending smoke into the capital’s skies … an embarrassing reminder that Putin’s carefully cultivated image of an untouchable ruler has its limits.

Western governments have condemned Putin’s sham election, citing the suppression of opposition, independent media, and dissent. But statements alone are just empty words if they are not followed by action. Instead of wringing their hands over a predetermined outcome, the West should send weapons to Ukraine and keep the sanctions on. If the West wants Ukraine to remain free and democratic, the time to act is now — before Putin has the chance to bring it under his rule.

Dr. Ivana Stradner serves as a research fellow at the FDD’s Barish Center for Media Integrity.