Maria Zhakharova interview with ‘News Detonator’ ( НОВОСТНОЙ ДЕТОНАТОР)
reveals how Germany in particular and Europe in particular not only constraint their own people’s voting but cripple the ability of Russians to vote in their Russian election.
This, of course, at the same time as endlessly braying that Russia is ‘not a democracy’ and ‘we are’.
This is the way it is today; totally Orwellian. The front story, the overt ‘truth’ is completely the reverse of the truth always.
In our noble nations. How can this possibly be so if our govts have any honesty at all, any principles at all? Aren’t they supposed to be the protectors of the public good? How is it publicly good to believe the nature of our world, our society, our nations is completely other than it is?
Isn’t that called ‘brainwashing’, ‘indoctrination’, ‘propaganda’ ? Isn’t that what we called it when we said China, Russia, North Korea, did that?
Didn’t we stipulate it was the hallmark of a totalitarian State?
Then what have we got? What is going on?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JyR2rafDfw
Summary, Comments and Translation:
The Crisis of European Leadership and Voting Challenges Amid Geopolitical Tensions
Summary
The content presents a critical perspective on European Union leadership, particularly focusing on Kaja Kallas and her perceived lack of professionalism and legitimacy among EU political elites. It highlights deep dissatisfaction within European corridors of power with the current direction of EU foreign policy, framed as dominated by unchecked Russophobia and incompetence. Kallas and Ursula von der Leyen are described as unelected figures groomed primarily for their harsh anti-Russian stance rather than their expertise or public support. The narrative emphasizes how the EU leadership’s approach to Russia and related geopolitical matters is increasingly isolated and ridiculed internally, despite external public censorship and control over media discourse.
Parallel to this political critique, the discourse shifts to the practical challenges faced in conducting elections for citizens abroad, particularly in Germany among the Russian diaspora. The closure of consulates and logistical hurdles are depicted as deliberate measures to obstruct voting, a pattern also noted in Moldova, Ukraine, and Romania. These electoral difficulties are framed against the backdrop of ongoing conflict and terrorism targeting Russia, with Western powers accused of backing efforts to destabilize and disrupt Russian sovereignty and democratic processes. Despite these obstacles and hostile external conditions, the commitment to enabling Russian citizens to vote, both domestically and overseas, is emphasized.
Highlights
• 🔥 EU leadership, especially Kaja Kallas, faces intense internal ridicule and is viewed as professionally incompetent by political elites.
• 🇪🇺 Kallas and von der Leyen were never elected by the public but selected for their fierce Russophobia and ignorance of facts.
• 💥 Russophobia is losing traction among the European public, exemplified by shifts in parties like Germany’s Alternative for Germany.
• 🚫 EU foreign policy is depicted as a “freak show” imposed without public consent, lacking legitimacy or popular support.
• 🗳️ Voting obstacles for Russian citizens abroad, especially in Germany, are highlighted as deliberate efforts to suppress democratic participation.
• 🌍 Similar electoral suppressions are noted in Moldova, Ukraine, and Romania, showing a broader regional pattern.
• ⚔️ Ongoing terrorist threats against Russia are linked to Western-backed destabilization attempts aimed at disrupting elections and governance.
Key Insights
• ⚖️ Leadership Legitimacy Crisis: The description of Kaja Kallas as professionally “zero” and the highlighting of her unelected status reveal a significant legitimacy deficit in EU governance structures. This undermines trust not only among ordinary citizens but also within the EU’s own political class, signaling a disconnect between leadership and constituents.
• 🔍 Selection Criteria over Elections: The emphasis on Russophobia as a primary qualification for EU officials like Kallas and von der Leyen suggests a political environment driven by ideological orthodoxy rather than expertise or democratic choice. This fosters an echo chamber that dismisses nuanced analysis and promotes unilateral hostility, reducing effective policymaking.
• 📉 Declining Effectiveness of Russophobia: Observations about the waning appeal of Russophobic rhetoric to European electorates point toward a potential shift in public sentiment. The example of the Alternative for Germany party marketing pro-Russia symbols implies that the political monopoly on anti-Russian sentiment is fracturing, risking internal EU cohesion.
• 🎭 EU Foreign Policy as Detached Spectacle: The metaphor of a “hall of mirrors” or “freak show” imposed unilaterally on Europeans illustrates a governance style detached from grassroots realities. Citizens lack agency in shaping foreign policy, which is shaped by unelected officials with predetermined agendas, breeding cynicism and disengagement.
• 🗳️ Systematic Electoral Suppression: The narrative presents closing consulates and limiting polling stations as calculated moves to restrict voter access, reflecting not incidental inconvenience but intentional disenfranchisement. This tactic undermines democratic norms and raises questions about the integrity of political processes in host countries.
• 🌐 Regional Patterns of Democratic Manipulation: Similar issues in Moldova, Ukraine, and Romania highlight a broader systemic challenge where geopolitical rivalries and external interference complicate the exercise of democratic rights, affecting populations beyond Russia itself and extending into Eastern Europe.
• 💣 Conflict and Destabilization Nexus: Linking terrorist attacks and Western financial/military support to attempts to sabotage Russian elections frames the ongoing conflict as not only a battlefield confrontation but a multidimensional struggle involving information warfare, political manipulation, and suppression of sovereignty.
The overall discourse paints a bleak picture of European leadership’s competence and legitimacy while underscoring the persistent resolve to uphold democratic electoral rights amid hostile external conditions and internal political machinations.
Transcript:
Here is the cleaned-up transcript, formatted into distinct speaker paragraphs with minor text flow adjustments for a much smoother reading experience.
Take Kaja Kallas and this whole group. I don’t want to resort to personal attacks, but truly, they are a group of hellishly unprofessional people who have lost their standing, even within the European Union itself. Just look at how derogatory people are about them—not out of malice, but precisely from the standpoint of a professional assessment by their own colleagues.
I am not even talking about ordinary citizens here, but about those who are, quite literally, involuntary recipients of this very policy. They simply are no longer taken seriously there. You should see what is happening in the so-called corridors of power when representatives of the political elites talk about Kaja Kallas and how they assess her. Mind you, these are people who are absolutely not pro-Russian or even neutrally inclined—sometimes they are quite reactionary—but their assessment of her level is simply zero.
You see, you cannot divide by zero. But here, we have an absolutely blatant display of incompetence, multiplied, divided, and raised to the power of pure professional failure. You have no idea what they say about her behind her back. This, by the way, is not some eavesdropped or stolen information; they willingly share and discuss it. And in this case, I can’t even call it gossip, because what the European Commission and Brussels are doing through all these commissioners and high representatives has become an absolute disgrace to European politics.
It is another matter that they cannot express this in the media because everything is blocked, subject to monstrous censorship, and threatens them with consequences. But behind her back—and most importantly, without mincing words—they discuss their own Kaja Kallas. They laugh every day and tell monstrously illustrative, incorrect anecdotes which are based, I repeat, not on any gender attacks, but exclusively on a complete lack of professionalism.
No one actually elected Kaja Kallas and Ursula von der Leyen as representatives of all of Europe, yet these people are governing that very Europe. This brings up the question of elections and that very democracy.
You are absolutely right when you say they weren’t elected. They weren’t chosen by popular vote, and they weren’t the result of any public opinion polls that would indicate the people’s love or popularity. No, but they were certainly selected.
The specific vetting they went through required, in essence, only one thing of them: fierce Russophobia. The second very important quality is, of course, an absolute ignorance of the facts and an inability to use data, so as not to arrive, heaven forbid, at any analytical conclusions.
I once used the example of Jen Psaki, who, humanly speaking, was essentially just an ordinary person. She certainly wasn’t driven by any Russophobic agenda; it wasn’t related to her history, nor was it connected to any of her personal traits. She simply came to do her job, but at the same time, she didn’t possess any deep professional skills in the fields of diplomacy or international relations. She didn’t know the history of the countries she was talking about, and that caused incidents that effectively became global jokes thanks to her performance. But at the same time, the fact that she lacked this, so to speak, neo-Nazi spitefulness—that whiff of Nazism—was also quite evident.
That stage is already behind them. There shouldn’t be people like that anymore who will simply read out anti-Russian materials or spout tall tales. That isn’t enough for them anymore. The people who, as you say, are not elected, but as I say, go through a rigorous selection process, must convey a hostile attitude toward our country to the masses with their entire demeanor. That is one of their tasks. Don’t think that it just seems that way to you; it is nothing of the sort.
I also think, you know, Maria Vladimirovna, that with their emotional engagement, they might find that Russophobia is selling poorly right now. This very Russophobia, it seems to me, has swung in the other direction. Even looking at the Alternative for Germany party, where one of the leaders is now selling a mug at an auction with “Russian Army” written on it, it shows that Russophobia is no longer selling to the European public.
Then let’s return to your first point. No one elects them. Regarding the Alternative for Germany party, we can use this comparison: that party, in a way, “sells” its position. That is a bad, incorrect word, but we use it exclusively to figuratively show what is being discussed. They present their position—if you have the goods and the buyer—and accordingly, the audience either takes it or doesn’t take it.
But Kaja Kallas, excuse me, has nothing on her stall. No one approaches her wares or considers buying them. Why? As you yourself said, she wasn’t elected. She wasn’t put on public display for people to make their own choice on whether they need her or not. Is it a small price for them to pay to watch such a freak show, you know? Or perhaps it would be better to save money for something educational and informative? Maybe instead of the hall of mirrors, they could spend that money to go to an art exhibition or the theatre.
But European citizens were unable to make that choice. They were immediately shown a funhouse mirror in which Kaja Kallas is reflected for life, and they were told that this is EU foreign policy. That is all. Therefore, if you were to put Kaja Kallas up for some public discussion or a vote—assuming the positioning of her political product to an audience that either takes it or leaves it—I assure you there would be incredibly low ratings. I think she would lose absolutely, because she is a combination of everything worst in today’s modern EU bureaucracy.
But that is precisely what is not happening. They selected her. By the way, they have been grooming her for a long time—they have been grooming this whole family for a long time. And then they hoisted her up onto a pedestal, calling it the foreign policy of the European Union, without asking a single European citizen if they needed this or not.
Well, maybe that’s why they fight our elections. Because our elections are a matter of “please, come and vote,” yet they close consulates in Bonn. I believe half a million of our compatriots live in Germany, and where are they supposed to go to vote now? Only to Berlin. And they are scattered everywhere. Maybe this is what sticks in their eyes, as they say.
Our compatriots in Germany who have the desire, the urge, and the opportunity to vote can do so. Our embassy in Berlin provides all the information to familiarize oneself with it in advance, allowing them to realize their right and, in essence, even their duty. Yes, they are creating obstacles precisely for this reason. It was precisely for this reason that they closed the consulate general.
If someone says, “Oh, well, if they wanted to interfere, they would have closed it long ago,” the truth is they closed it at exactly the right time. They ensured there wouldn’t be a polling station there, and on the other hand, there wouldn’t be a possibility to organize any remote mobile voting. They calculated the timing very precisely, but that won’t ruin our plans. We will provide an opportunity for our citizens currently in Germany to vote, despite all the obstacles created by official Berlin.
What do you expect? Look at Ukraine, which they have taken under their wing; look at the complete absence of elections there. Take Moldova and the Sandu regime again—you know better than anyone, as you were there observing…