When United Russia walked away with 355 of the 450 seats in the State Duma, the headline number looked like an overwhelming mandate. Yet one question refuses to go away: could Russian voters actually pick between political forces that disagreed about the war in Ukraine? The preliminary results from the parliamentary elections hand a decisive win to United Russia, the party of power tied to President Vladimir Putin. According to figures released by the central electoral commission, the party took 57.83 percent of the vote after more than 95 percent of ballots were counted, and it is set to control 355 seats in the Duma, the lower chamber of the Russian parliament.
The number on the board versus the choice on the ballot
On paper, this is a massive electoral victory. But the figures need context. This was the first nationwide legislative election held since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. More importantly, voters who opposed the war had no genuine anti-war political force on the national ballot that could openly defend that position.
Why Yabloko’s absence says it all
The most telling case is Yabloko, the liberal party that had been the last Russian political force with an explicitly anti-war stance. It campaigned on a platform called “For Peace and Freedom.”
On August 10, the Russian Supreme Court cancelled the registration of Yabloko’s federal list for the Duma elections. The decision followed a procedure launched by the Rodina party. The judicial grounds included donations received by people who had themselves benefited from funds of foreign origin, publications on digital platforms, and copyright questions around certain campaign materials.
Yabloko disputes those grounds and insists its exclusion was really about its pacifist programme. That is the party’s position, not a fact established in court. The Russian judiciary upheld the removal of the federal list. Yabloko’s subsequent challenge before the Supreme Court failed, and the party ultimately turned to the Constitutional Court.
The political consequence is significant: the only national formation openly opposed to the war that still had access to the electoral race disappeared from the federal ballot.
An opposition already hollowed out long before election day
This exclusion did not happen in a vacuum. For years, Russian authorities have steadily narrowed the space available to groups and figures challenging presidential power.
Even before the 2026 election, organisations linked to Alexei Navalny had been labelled “extremist,” while several opposition figures were imprisoned, forced into exile or blocked from running. In the previous parliamentary elections of 2021, authorities used legal provisions to keep certain Navalny-linked activists off the ballot.
So the current situation is not a simple contest between parties with competing programmes. Voters still had several ballots and several formations took part, but the main forces in the race did not offer an opposition comparable to the Kremlin on the fundamental question of the war.
The Communist Party, the LDPR, A Just Russia and the New People are among the main formations allowed to compete. But, as has been noted, no anti-war party was permitted to take part in the federal race.
No OSCE observers in sight
Another factor weighing on the international credibility of the vote: Russia did not invite the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe to deploy an election observation mission.
The OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights condemned that decision in August. According to the organisation, Moscow did not respond substantively to its efforts to organise an assessment mission. The OSCE also stresses that restrictions imposed since previous elections have further reduced opportunities for independent scrutiny of the electoral process.
The organisation points in particular to restrictions on candidates designated as “foreign agents,” campaign financing, the ability of parties to appoint representatives in polling stations, and the conditions under which citizen observers can work.
The OSCE also notes that the independent election-monitoring movement Golos was dissolved after years of pressure from Russian authorities. The absence of independent scrutiny does not, by itself, prove that every electoral result was falsified. But it does deprive voters and foreign observers of an independent mechanism to assess the entire process.
A parliamentary majority that goes far beyond one election
With 355 seats announced for United Russia, the presidential party retains a two-thirds majority in the Duma. That majority gives it considerable capacity to back the Kremlin’s directions and adopt texts requiring a strengthened majority.
Still, a simplistic conclusion should be avoided: the result does not automatically mean that 57.83 percent of the entire Russian population approves of the war in Ukraine or of Vladimir Putin’s policies as a whole. An election result reflects votes cast within a given institutional framework. In this specific case, the possibilities for choice were themselves heavily constrained.
That distinction sits at the heart of the debate over Russia’s 2026 vote. The question is not only how many votes United Russia won, but also which voices and which political alternatives were allowed to run.
A win inside a locked political landscape
United Russia’s dominance in the announced results is therefore undeniable. But analysing the election cannot stop at counting seats.
Yabloko’s exclusion, the restrictions imposed on opposition candidates and organisations, the absence of OSCE observers and the context of political repression are all elements that must be taken into account to understand this election.
The Duma emerging from the ballot boxes will be largely dominated by Vladimir Putin’s party. But the composition of this assembly must be read in light of an electoral competition in which open opposition to the war had no real national space to present its programme to voters.
Under these conditions, the 355 seats won by United Russia are a major electoral fact. They do not, on their own, measure the support of the whole Russian society for the war in Ukraine. Above all, they show the authorities’ ability to maintain parliamentary dominance in a political system where the conditions for its opponents to participate have become extremely restrictive.
More Stories
Molodo ambush: has Mali’s junta finally run out of options with Africa Corps?
Can Russia protect its own soil? The question Moscow faces after Ukraine’s drone strikes
Benin’s ARS second term: can stricter regulation finally deliver safer care?