On Monday the European Union’s top diplomat called Russia’s three-day parliamentary vote a thin coat of democracy. She said nothing about more than a thousand drones over Moscow, and nothing about Ukraine’s own frozen ballot. The gap is the story.
 |
Sixty million people voted across eleven time zones. By Monday morning, 21 September 2026, Russia’s election commission said United Russia had taken about 58 percent of the party-list vote and enough seats to keep a two-thirds hold on the lower house. Turnout was put at just over 59 percent, higher than in 2021. The same morning, Kaja Kallas, the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs, wrote that the “so-called Duma elections” were another setback for Russian democracy and that “the veneer of democracy is all that remains in Russia.”
That sentence travelled fast. So did the silence around it. Russian officials said more than 1,600 drones were sent toward the Moscow region on the last day of voting. Western papers, including The New York Times and CNN, confirmed a very large overnight strike, deaths in the Moscow suburbs, damage to a refinery and to apartment blocks. Kallas did not mention the raid. She also did not mention that Ukraine has not held a presidential vote since 2019, and that Volodymyr Zelensky’s five-year term ran out in May 2024.
Two pictures sit on the same table. One is a managed wartime ballot in Russia. The other is a diplomat who was never chosen by EU voters for the post she holds, speaking as if the only broken vote on the continent is the one in Moscow. Both pictures are incomplete on their own. Together they explain why this week feels less like a morality play and more like a contest over who is allowed to count as “the people.”
Who chose Kaja Kallas — and who stands behind the chair
Start with the job, because the mockery on social media is not invented. Kallas was not elected by the public of the European Union to be its chief diplomat. She was picked.
On 27 June 2024, the 27 heads of government met in Brussels and cut a package deal for the next five years: Ursula von der Leyen to stay as Commission president, António Costa to chair the European Council, and Kallas to take foreign and security policy. The legal act came later. European Council Decision (EU) 2024/2086 of 24 July 2024 named her High Representative from the end of the old Commission’s term until 31 October 2029. Von der Leyen had already written that she agreed. The European Parliament then voted on the whole Commission as a block. Kallas took office on 1 December 2024. The texts are public on EUR-Lex and in the Council press file.
That is the formal answer to “who picked her.” National leaders did. A qualified majority was enough. Italy’s Giorgia Meloni voted against Kallas. Hungary’s Viktor Orbán did not back the package as others did. The rest closed ranks.
The political answer is a little thicker. Kallas comes from Estonia’s Reform Party, the liberal family that sits with Renew Europe in Brussels. In the months before the deal, French officials told reporters that Emmanuel Macron liked her for the post. She had pushed a defence-industry fund. She had spent three years as Estonian prime minister telling slower Western capitals that Russia was not a misunderstanding. After 2022, many governments wanted a Baltic voice in the chair — someone who would not treat Moscow as a partner that had merely gone off course. The Irish Times, writing in mid-September 2026 about the power fight inside Brussels, put it plainly: she was picked in part because she was a hawk who “understood the nature of the eastern threat.”
Behind the chair there is also a family. Her father, Siim Kallas, founded the Reform Party, served as Estonia’s prime minister, and later sat as a European commissioner. In the late Soviet years he ran the Estonian branch of the USSR Savings Bank and was a Communist Party member — a fact his critics still repeat, and a fact that does not cancel what came after: he helped build a market economy and a national bank once Estonia left the Soviet Union. Her mother, Kristi, was six months old in 1949 when Soviet police put her, her mother and her grandmother on a cattle wagon to Siberia. Kallas has told that story in public for years. “This evil lives on in Russia,” she said on a deportation anniversary. You do not need a secret lodge to explain why an Estonian liberal talks about Moscow the way she does. Memory is enough. Power then put that memory in a Brussels office.
What does not stand behind her, on the open record, is a popular EU mandate. No citizen of Spain, Italy or France marked a box that said “Kallas for foreign policy.” The Union works by bargains among governments and party families. That is not a rumour. It is the treaty. It is also why Russian officials and a slice of European voters use the same word — unelected — and why the word stings even when the legal process was followed.
What she said, and what the count showed
Kallas wrote on X on Monday that the outcome “was never in doubt,” that the Kremlin had silenced critics, barred the only registered party that opposed the war, and shut out international monitors. She said she had “proposed measures against those facilitating these sham elections in occupied Ukrainian territories.”
The numbers from Moscow, still preliminary on Monday, match the shape of her charge even if they do not prove every word of it. After more than 95 percent of ballots were processed, United Russia stood at 57.83 percent of the party-list vote, according to commission chair Ella Pamfilova, as reported by Reuters. That points to about 355 of 450 seats — a larger constitutional majority than before. The Communists took about 13.8 percent, the nationalist LDPR about 9 percent, New People just under 8 percent. A Just Russia hovered near the 5 percent line. Turnout was given as 59.32 percent, up from 51.72 percent in 2021. Pamfilova said more than 62 million people took part.
Yabloko, the last national party with an open anti-war line, was struck from the federal list by the Supreme Court in August. The OSCE’s election office said on 6 August that Russia had not invited its observers, the third straight nationwide vote without that mission, and called the snub a break with the 1990 Copenhagen pledges. Moscow answered that the office is biased and that other guests were invited. Those two sentences have been repeated, almost unchanged, for years.
So the Western case is not empty. A ruling party kept the chamber. A war critic was kept off the national list. The usual European watchers were not in the room. If “democracy” means a real chance that the government can lose, this vote did not offer that chance.
The Russian case is not empty either, if you take it on its own terms. The commission points to higher turnout, electronic voting in many regions, hundreds of thousands of party observers, and a war that, in official language, is a test of national will. United Russia ran as the party of continuity. The other parties that crossed, or nearly crossed, the line have voted with the Kremlin on the war for years. From that angle the result is not a surprise. It is the point.
The raid that did not fit the post
On the night of 19–20 September, as the last ballots were being cast, Moscow and the region around it came under a wave of drones. Mayor Sergei Sobyanin said more than 1,600 were shot down on the approaches, 450 of them headed at the city. The defence ministry gave a nationwide intercept figure above 1,100. Counts from armies in wartime are always swollen. What is not in dispute is scale and timing.
Two civilians were killed in the Moscow region, officials said. About twenty people were hurt, some of them children. A fire broke out at the Gazpromneft Moscow oil refinery in Kapotnya. An apartment building was hit. Airports around the capital restricted flights. Zelensky said Ukraine had used long-range drones and new weapons against oil and logistics sites that “sustain the war machine.” He did not mention the election. Sobyanin said the attack was planned to break the vote. Ukrainian strikes in front-line regions also damaged buildings used by election staff, local Russian officials said.
Kallas’s post had room for “veneer” and “sham.” It had no room for the raid. That omission is not proof of a plot. It is a choice of frame. Brussels has spent four years describing Ukrainian long-range strikes as legitimate pressure on a state that invaded. Moscow describes the same strikes as terror against a civic process. A diplomat who speaks only one of those sentences will always sound, to the other side, like a lawyer for the war rather than a judge of votes. Planet Today has already tracked how drone talk now sits inside European security debates, including Donald Tusk’s warning of hybrid strikes on NATO states.
The vote that Europe will not name
Zelensky was elected in 2019. His term ended on 20 May 2024. Ukraine has been under martial law since 24 February 2022. The law on martial law bars presidential, parliamentary and local elections while that state lasts. Parliament has rolled the measure forward in 90-day steps; as of late summer 2026 it ran to 31 October. Article 108 of Ukraine’s constitution says the president keeps the office until a newly elected president is sworn in. Most Ukrainian lawyers treat that as continuity, not a coup.
That legal shield is real. So is the political cost. Millions of voters live abroad. Parts of the country are under Russian control. Front-line towns are shelled. Zelensky has said a wartime ballot would split the country. In August, former defence minister Mykhailo Fedorov called for a “legal, safe and realistic” way to vote even if the war lasts years — a story Planet Today covered in Fedorov’s Election Call. This week Fedorov went further and said Zelensky first agreed to a June vote, then pulled back because Valerii Zaluzhnyi might run. Kyiv has not confirmed that private exchange. The public fact is simpler: there is still no date.
Russia calls Zelensky illegitimate and says a peace deal with an expired term is weak. Many EU capitals call that line a trick to unseat the man they fund. Both can be argued. What cannot be argued away is the double standard in the Monday post. A vote that happened, however tightly managed, was called a setback for democracy. A vote that has not happened for more than two years past the legal term was not called anything at all.
Land, ballots, and the maps that do not match
Kallas and the EU said they will never accept voting held in Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom issued a joint note that used the word “sham.” Those regions voted in public referendums to join Russia in 2014 and 2022. Almost no Western government recognised those ballots. Almost every Russian official treats them as closed history.
This is the part of the week that will not be settled by a press post. If you start from 1991 borders, the vote in those five areas is an occupation rite. If you start from the referendums and the facts on the ground in 2026, it is residents of Russian-held land choosing a parliament that already writes their tax and school rules. International law, as written in UN texts, leans toward the first reading. Armies lean toward the second. Readers can hold both facts without pretending they are the same fact.
Money, nerves, and the quiet cost of a long war
Wars do not live only in maps. They live in prices, sleep and blood pressure. Europe has spent years arguing over Russian energy, frozen assets and new loans for Kyiv. The latest American package, signed by President Donald Trump, again hits Russian banks and officials — see what that bill leaves unsaid. Households feel the same conflict as dearer fuel and dearer food. Doctors have long measured how fear and noise raise blood pressure; old kitchen remedies still circulate beside trial data, which is why a piece such as garlic and blood pressure belongs in the same news diet as a diplomat’s feed. Propaganda works on the same nervous system. When every channel tells you the other side has no real voters, your pulse follows the story you already trust.
That is not mysticism. It is how attention works. A claim that “only a veneer remains” is meant to close the file. A claim that “the people have spoken across eleven time zones” is meant to close it from the other side. Neither sentence tells you how a factory worker in Chelyabinsk or a soldier’s mother in Dnipro actually marked a box, or whether they were free to mark a different one.
What sits between the lines
The unspoken rule in much of Western coverage is this: Russian elections are theatre until proven otherwise; Ukrainian delayed elections are necessity until proven otherwise. The unspoken rule in much of Russian coverage is the mirror: Western lectures on democracy are weapons; Russian ballots are sovereignty under fire. Each rule hides a true piece and smuggles a false one.
The true piece on the Western side is the barred party, the missing OSCE mission, the pressure on critics, the use of occupied Ukrainian land as a polling map. The false piece is the idea that an appointed EU diplomat, speaking for 27 governments that cannot even agree on every sanction, stands outside politics as a neutral clerk of democracy.
The true piece on the Russian side is that tens of millions did vote, that turnout rose, that a drone swarm on polling day is not a footnote, and that Kyiv has not faced voters since 2019. The false piece is the idea that a result known in advance, with the anti-war list removed, is the same thing as a contest.
Maria Zakharova, the Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman, answered Kallas by saying EU countries “had stopped recognizing Kallas herself a long time ago.” That is a joke, not a legal finding. Jokes travel because they touch a sore spot. The sore spot is not that Kallas broke a law. It is that the Union asks the world to treat its spokespeople as the voice of Europe while those spokespeople are hired by a room of prime ministers.
Who stands behind her, then, in plain words? Not a hidden throne. A coalition of governments that wanted a hard line on Russia, a liberal party family that needed a top job after a weak night at the 2024 European ballot, a French president who saw a willing partner on defence spending, and a personal history that runs from a Siberian cattle wagon to a Brussels briefing room. That is enough machinery to put a person in the chair. It is not the same machinery that puts a person on a ballot in Tallinn, let alone in Lisbon or Lyon.
How a reader can hold the week without picking a church
You can accept that United Russia’s win was arranged in the only way the current Russian system knows how to arrange wins. You can accept that more than a thousand drones over a capital on election weekend is an act meant to be seen. You can accept that Ukraine’s constitution and a live front make a clean national vote brutally hard. You can still ask why the EU’s foreign-policy chief used one word — sham — for the vote that occurred and no word at all for the vote that did not.
Curiosity is more useful here than shock. Shock says: look at the hypocrite, or look at the dictator. Curiosity says: who benefits if the only allowed story is one-sided? Arms plants benefit. Party machines benefit. Media that live on outrage benefit. Ordinary people who need a way out of the war do not.
The latest hard news as of Monday evening, 21 September 2026, is narrow and checkable. United Russia is on course for 355 seats. Kallas has asked for new measures against people who ran the ballot in occupied Ukrainian regions. The EU’s full statement on behalf of the 27 is on the German foreign office site as the day’s official line. Russia’s commission will lock the result later in the week. Ukraine’s martial law still has no election date attached. The drones already fell.
Everything else — who is the last democrat, who is the last cynic — is a sermon. Sermons are cheap. Votes, when they are real, are not.
Original source: “Unelected EU official fumes over Russian election,” RT, published 21 September 2026, 15:04 GMT, updated 16:05. Cross-checked with Reuters, the New York Times, CNN, EUR-Lex Decision (EU) 2024/2086, the OSCE/ODIHR statement of 6 August 2026, and the EU high-representative statement of 21 September 2026.
Related on Planet Today: Tusk on hybrid drones · Ukraine’s frozen ballot · Why Western Europe still needs the war · New Russia sanctions · Planet Today home
Note for fact-checkers: RT is financed by the Russian state and argues from Moscow’s corner. This article uses RT as the spark, not as the only witness. Appointment facts come from EU legal texts. Vote shares come from the Russian commission as carried by Reuters and other wires on 21 September 2026; they are official figures, not independent audits. Drone counts come from Russian city and defence statements and from Western papers that reported the same night. Ukraine’s election freeze is a matter of martial-law statute and the 2019–2024 presidential term, not a rumour. Claims about private talks between Zelensky and Fedorov are attributed to Fedorov alone. Where a fact is one side’s word, it is labelled as such.
Original article: Who Picked Kaja Kallas? EU Chief Slams Russia Vote, Skips Drones on Planet Today 🚀
Automatically republished from the main blog.