◄►Bookmark◄❌►▲ ▼Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
As I’ve pointed out, support for the pro-Western agenda in Russia is highly circumscribed, usually in the low single digits, never higher than 10%.
However, much like with divisions in Europe, Britain, and the US – where the globalist agenda (HRC, “Stay,” etc) are supported by multinational and cosmpolitan rich elites in the big cities and abroad while being opposed by the working/gopnik class in the suburbs and the provinces (Trump, Le Pen, Brexit, etc) – it is actually much the same in Russia.
All these maps are via Alexander Kireev.
Map of United Russia’s performance in Moscow in the 2016 elections. (Note that the elections in Moscow have been free from fraud since 2011, so this is an accurate representation of electoral preferences).
Incidentally, recall that map of tolerance?
Map of second place: Green = Yabloko, Red = KPRF, Yellow = LDPR.
So basically the Eye of Sauron Moscow edition (yuppies and oligarchs), the middle-class Moscow, and the gopnik Moscow.
This map shows where United Russia (blue) vs. Yabloko (green) won first place in different countries.
This is, incidentally, a stable pattern; more or less the exact same pattern was observed in the 2012 Presidential elections between Putin and Prokhorov.
In terms of absolute voters, there are basically three main “buckets” of Russian voters abroad: (1) The satellite states of Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria; (2) The Near Abroad, aka the territories of the ex-USSR; and (3) The Far Abroad, aka everywhere else.
(1) Here United Russia gets around 80%, just like Putin got 90% in 2012. The people there either overwhelmingly wish to join Russia (as in South Ossetia and Transnistria), or want to be closely associated with it (as in Abkhazia), so it is natural that the residents of those places who also have Russian passports would overwhelmingly support the party of power.
(2) In the ex-USSR, United Russia’s fluctuated between 50% and 60% (compared to 65%-90% for Putin). The biggest change from 2012 is, predictably enough, in Ukraine, where the numbers of Russian voters relative to the last election plummeted from 17,000 to 369.
(3) In the Far Abroad, the main division was between (a) countries where the majority of Russians are diplomatic/military personnel, who tend to vote overwhelmingly for United Russia, followed by LDPR; as opposed to (b) where the majority are 1990s-era economic migrants (many more of whom vote for Yabloko and PARNAS).
(a) This describes the classical “Third World,” whose Russian voters are primarily crusty career diplomats who vote more or less like the Russian average. This also describes the BRICS, albeit to a lesser extent, because those countries also host a number of (cosmopolitan) business types, who tend to vote more liberal; also in this category would be Thailand, the Phillipines, and Goa (India), which have seen a number of Russian “downshifters” who draw online incomes and emigrated there to enjoy better climate and lower living costs. PARNAS got its best result anywhere in Thailand!
Three amusing cases stand out in particular:
Syria – Had 4,571 voters total, which incidentally gives one a pretty good idea of the magnitude of the Russian military presence there (i.e., probably around 5,000, since turnout is close to 100% at military bases). United Russia got 63%, LDPR got 20%, KPRF got 6%, Fair Russia got 1.6%, and Yabloko and PARNAS got 0.5% between them. This is a good proxy for the political views of the Russian military.
Baikonur – The LDPR with 30% got its highest results abroad with the 6,438 voters at this Russian space base in Kazakhstan.
Best Korea – 20% voted for LDPR, continuing a long tradition of Russian diplomatic personnel in Pyongyang voting for ultranationalists. The Juche spirit must be rubbing off on them! Commies only got 4% here.
(b) The most extreme examples are the latter are of course the Anglosphere and most of Western Europe, where Yabloko either won outright or came close to beating United Russia. Their spokespeople are of course the Masha Gessens and the Leonid Bershidskys.
In the US itself, Yabloko + PARNAS got more than 50% of the total vote, versus 20% for United Russia, 5% for LDPR, and 7% for KPRF. Note that even accounting for electoral fraud Yabloko + PARNAS still got substantially less than 5% in Russia on average (pockets of support in Moscow and Saint-Petersburg regardless). This is a very clear illustration of why the views of emigre Russians should never be considered as being in any way representative of Russian opinion as a whole.
I had a longer discussion of this in my Prokhorov, President of Londongrad post.
The results at the polling station of the San Francisco consulate (where I happened to vote) were 57.1% for Prokhorov and 26.7% for Putin, the biggest discrepancy in all the Russian polling stations in the US. My experience is that of the people from Berkeley, votes were split evenly between Prokhorov and Zyuganov (what do you expect? It’s a leftist place), with Putin taking up third place. However, in the wider Bay Area, the electorate is dominated by Silicon Valley types, who tend to be people who emigrated from Russia during the Soviet era and who associate it with backwardness, anti-Semitism, etc., and coupled with the libertarian / bourgeois nature of their views, Prokhorov is a perfect fit for them.
In this election, of the 367 people who cast ballots at the San Francisco Russian Consulate polling station (#8276), the breakdown was as follows:
- United Russia – 24.98%
- LDPR – 6.54%
- PARNAS – 11.99%
- Yabloko – 37.87%
- KPRF – 4.09%
- Fair Russia – 3.27%
These are basically the Russian political prefences of Silicon Valley Sovok Jews.