Letter From the Editors
This week, Joe Biden got low marks for his subpar performance in his first presidential debate against Donald Trump. US media outlets called the debate a “total flop” and a “catastrophe,” while Russian publications also pointed out Biden’s flubs. According to expert Andrei Korobkov, the debate was more a test of Biden’s stamina than a deep dive into the candidates’ policies. Would Biden be able to stand up for 90 minutes? Would he collapse? Would he speak coherently? Korobkov says that he did at least “meet these minimum requirements, more or less.”
Interestingly, though, some Russian commentators saw the debate as a win for Biden and for the US electoral process in general. American Studies expert Yegor Toropov writes in Izvestia that, in the face of “solid competition,” “Trump and Biden won their nominations in an intense, spirited, true electoral battle in open primaries, defeating their opponents by crushing margins.” He argues that both candidates have done a good job “adjusting to the aspirations, emotions and demands of voters,” and that a change in candidates would negatively impact both parties. And columnist Sergei Strokan applauds Biden for acknowledging that he may have botched the debate, but that he knows “how to tell the truth.” If we turn this “into a confrontation between a physically weak leader who is honest with himself and America and a politician who talks fast, reacts quickly, gestures expressively but is at the same time deceitful through and through,” then Biden comes out looking like the responsible leader.
While US voters may be befuddled about their choice at the polls in November, Ukrainians are most confused about how the US election will impact their country’s chances for peace. As Korobkov explains, Biden favors continuing support for Ukraine, while Trump appears to support a more “carrot-and-stick approach,” with Ukraine continuing to receive aid in exchange for some territorial concessions to Russia. Ukraine seems willing to negotiate with Moscow through intermediaries, as it did with the grain deal. However, expert Vladimir Bruter says that Russia will not agree to this kind format, because its conditions were not ultimately met under it. Bruter also says that Zelensky’s newfound willingness for talks may be due to pressure from the American advisers and strategists from the Democratic Party he works closely with. For his part, Zelensky said that he is ready to meet with Trump to hear his proposals and learn if Ukraine will have “powerful US support” after the November election, or if it will lose its statehood.
But the US isn’t the only country with an upcoming presidential election. In Moldova, the opposition is struggling to agree on a candidate to challenge incumbent Maia Sandu in that country’s October presidential election. Experts say the reason for this is infighting among opposition parties and interference by US special services. There are also concerns that Chisinau is not doing enough to ensure a competitive race. According to opposition Deputy Vladimir Odnostalko, the government has severely restricted the opposition’s access to the media and shut down pro-Russian outlets.
Meanwhile, in Iran, the June 28 presidential election ended in a runoff between the moderate Masoud Pezeshkian and the conservative Saeed Jalili. Pezeshkian supports women’s and minority rights and economic reforms that would curb inflation, while Jalili intends to continue former president Raisi’s foreign and domestic policies. Regardless of who wins, though, nothing will change, says expert Vladimir Sazhin, since the supreme leader is the real decision-maker in the country.
So what’s a voter to do? Are the only choices between bad and worse? Not according to Bernard Guetta, who sees some cause for hope despite a weakening EU, turmoil in the Middle East, and ailing and quirky US presidential candidates. But with the “Russian and Chinese dictatorships” in a “vulnerable” position, he believes the rest of the world has a real chance for change. Democracy, he concludes, “is not dead.”