Russia Votes in Occupied Ukraine Amid High Reported Turnout

Moscow held Duma elections in annexed territories, reporting over 80% turnout. Ukraine and the EU reject the vote as illegal and unverifiable.
Key points
- Russia held parliamentary elections in occupied Ukrainian territories for the first time during September 18-20.
- Occupation authorities reported turnout over 80% in several regions, significantly higher than the 56% national average.
- Ukraine and the EU rejected the vote as illegal, citing lack of independent observation and potential coercion.
Russian authorities conducted parliamentary elections in Ukrainian territories under military occupation for the first time during the September 18 to 20 voting period. While the vote was held simultaneously with elections across Russia, Ukraine and the European Union have formally rejected the process in occupied zones as illegal and lacking in democratic standards.
The primary objective of organizing this ballot, according to Ukrainian election experts, is to project an image of political integration and local acceptance of Russian rule. By linking the vote to broader State Duma elections, Moscow aims to demonstrate to international observers that residents of these regions are participating in the Russian political system, thereby seeking to legitimize its territorial claims.
Reported Turnout Figures Exceed National Averages
Russian occupation authorities have reported exceptionally high participation rates in the annexed regions, which significantly outpace the nationwide average. In the occupied part of Donetsk Oblast, turnout exceeded 81%, while figures in Luhansk Oblast were reported at nearly 80%. Similar high percentages were recorded in the occupied portions of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson Oblasts, where participation rates surpassed 74%.
These figures stand in contrast to the approximately 56% turnout reported by Russia's Central Election Commission for the rest of the country. Denis Pushilin, the head of Russian occupation authorities in Donetsk Oblast, described the vote as the final political step in integrating the region into Russia, emphasizing the symbolic weight of participation over the selection of specific candidates.
Concerns Over Coercion and Verification
Ukrainian officials and human rights organizations argue that the high turnout figures are the result of pre-set targets rather than genuine voter choice. Alena Lunova, advocacy director at the Human Rights Center ZMINA, stated to the Kyiv Independent that Russian authorities were working toward predetermined support levels for the ruling United Russia party. She noted that in the absence of independent observers, Russia can produce any figures it deems necessary.
There are also reports suggesting that residents may have faced pressure to participate. According to a Ukrainian election expert, Dementiy Bilyi, individuals may fear that refusing to vote could mark them as disloyal, potentially exposing them to scrutiny by Russian security services. The lack of unrestricted access for independent observers and the use of mobile ballot boxes have further complicated the ability to verify the authenticity of the results.
Allegations of Electoral Manipulation
Beyond coercion, specific allegations of fraud have emerged from local sources. The Ukrainian partisan movement ATESH claimed that commanders of a Russian motor rifle regiment used the identities of deceased soldiers to cast ballots for United Russia in Zaporizhzhia Oblast. This was reportedly done after the unit failed to meet a required voting target, though the Kyiv Independent could not independently verify these specific claims.
Ukraine's Center for Countering Disinformation characterized the high turnout as part of a preplanned propaganda effort. The center asserted that the process lacked the essential components of a democratic election, including competing candidates, free campaigning, and transparent procedures. Consequently, the international community is expected to continue rejecting the results as a tool of political narrative rather than a legitimate expression of democratic will.






