Connect with us




Russian opposition leader Zhirinovsky urges country to move to a simplified left-right two party democracy




Russian opposition leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky who founded the Liberal Democratic Party of the Soviet Union (now the LDPR), the second legally registered political party in Soviet history, has repeated calls for Russia to move to a simplified two-party democracy which would feature a large Conservative Party and large Social Democratic Party.

Zhirinovsky’s views have remained incredibly consistent over the years. His LDPR continues to call for a democratic reunification of Russian peoples living in post-Soviet states (Crimean re-unification has been an example of such a policy in action), advocates for a Russian geo-strategy that favours a pro-Asian and Eurasian trajectory, favours a mixed economic system that combines state managing of large companies with a less bureaucratic market economic for small and medium sized businesses, is notoriously anti-communist in terms of Leninist ideology and has called for a redrawing of the internal Russian map to reflect the Guberniyas (governorates) of pre-1917 Russia rather than the model of republics and oblasts instated by the USSR which is still largely reflected in the federative model of modern Russia.

Zhirinovsky has recently argued that the current democratic system of Russia is overly cumbersome with four main parties and several smaller parties. Zhirinovsky has pointed to the US and western Europe as examples of countries that lecture Russia on diversifying its democracy while in reality, the elections in the west are more often than not, two horse races between main parties of the left and right.

Remarking on Donald Trump’s election victory, Zhirinovsky said that by the 2024 Russian Presidential elections, things will be more similar to a straight forward left-right race whose outcome will likely be as tight as the 2016 US election.

Today Zhirinovsky has said the following,

“Only two powerful parties can save the country from stagnation and allow a constant, stable situation”.

RT further reports on his proposal in the following way,

“To achieve this, the LDPR proposes that United Russia rename itself the ‘Conservative Party,’ and all opposition parties, including those without parliamentary representation, unite into a single ‘Social Democratic Party of Russia.”

Realistically, this would mean that the governing United Russia party (generally described as centrist) would combine with Zhirinovsky’s LDPR (generally described as centre-right or populist) to form a broad based Conservative Party of Russia.

Likewise, the leading left wing parties including the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and the Fair Russia (centre left) party would form a left-wing Social Democratic Party of Russia.

Alternatively, existing parties could run as part of a broader left versus right coalition as is the case in many world democracies.

The idea would be to make Russian elections both more stable and more clear cut.

Due to Zhirinovsky’s advanced age, some have begun worrying that the LDPR might be increasingly perceived as a party too heavily reliant on its scholarly and charismatic leader. Because of this Zhirinovsky has handed over some of his duties to his deputies while still being fully active in authoring party policy documents as well as his current Presidential campaign (his 6th Presidential race over all). By aggregating the traditional LDPR vote with that of United Russia, Zhirinovsky might be able to insure that his long political legacy continues to receive support for decades to come.

In last years’s Duma elections, Zhirinovsky’s party finished in a strong third place, while Zhirinovsky stated that his party will soon take over from the Communists as the second most powerful party in Russia.

Zhirinovsky has always focused a great deal on foreign affairs and in particular, Russia’s geo-strategic orientation. With America engaging in what many call a ‘new Cold War’, much of Zhirinovsky’s ideas have been vindicated by recent events, thus catapulting his population to levels last seen in the 1990s. That being said, the LDPR has always been a consistently popular party among the Russian electorate.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!

Leave a Reply

3 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
3 Comment authors
Constantinerosewood11XRGRSF Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

I certainly hope Russia doesn’t fall into the two party trap. If Russia does go with the two part system it will end of with a disastrously fractured, and hostile political climate equaled only by the United States.


Mr. Zhirinovsky has undoubtedly come to this conclusion by watching how well the two-party system works in the US!!! Sounds like a lose-lose situation to me.


Zhirinovsky’s views reveal his idiocy plainly for all to see. Not only would his nationalist belief – should be implemented – in the Tsarist guberniya system undermine the loyalty of the various non-Russian minorities to the Russian state (a most positive heritage from the Soviet era), his support for a copy of the failed and evidently undemocratic political system of the US would also spell disaster for Russia.

All in all, Zhirinovsky should be resundly defeated in a few political contests (elections at various levels) to get the message.


Constantinople: Ukrainian Church leader is now uncanonical

October 12 letter proclaims Metropolitan Onuphry as uncanonical and tries to strong-arm him into acquiescing through bribery and force.

Seraphim Hanisch



The pressure in Ukraine kept ratcheting up over the last few days, with a big revelation today that Patriarch Bartholomew now considers Metropolitan Onuphy “uncanonical.” This news was published on 6 December by a hierarch of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church (running under the Moscow Patriarchate).

This assessment marks a complete 180-degree turn by the leader of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople, and it further embitters the split that has developed to quite a major row between this church’s leadership and the Moscow Patriarchate.

OrthoChristian reported this today (we have added emphasis):

A letter of Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople to His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry of Kiev and All Ukraine was published yesterday by a hierarch of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, in which the Patriarch informed the Metropolitan that his title and position is, in fact, uncanonical.

This assertion represents a negation of the position held by Pat. Bartholomew himself until April of this year, when the latest stage in the Ukrainian crisis began…

The same letter was independently published by the Greek news agency Romfea today as well.

It is dated October 12, meaning it was written just one day after Constantinople made its historic decision to rehabilitate the Ukrainian schismatics and rescind the 1686 document whereby the Kiev Metropolitanate was transferred to the Russian Orthodox Church, thereby, in Constantinople’s view, taking full control of Ukraine.

In the letter, Pat. Bartholomew informs Met. Onuphry that after the council, currently scheduled for December 15, he will no longer be able to carry his current title of “Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine.”

The Patriarch immediately opens his letter with Constantinople’s newly-developed historical claim about the jurisdictional alignment of Kiev: “You know from history and from indisputable archival documents that the holy Metropolitanate of Kiev has always belonged to the jurisdiction of the Mother Church of Constantinople…”

Constantinople has done an about-face on its position regarding Ukraine in recent months, given that it had previously always recognized the Metropolitan of Kiev and All Ukraine of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate as the sole canonical primate in Ukraine.

…The bulk of the Patriarch’s letter is a rehash of Constantinople’s historical and canonical arguments, which have already been laid out and discussed elsewhere. (See also here and here). Pat. Bartholomew also writes that Constantinople stepped into the Ukrainian ecclesiastical sphere as the Russian Church had not managed to overcome the schisms that have persisted for 30 years.

It should be noted that the schisms began and have persisted precisely as anti-Russian movements and thus the relevant groups refused to accept union with the Russian Church.

Continuing, Pat. Bartholomew informs Met. Onuphry that his position and title are uncanonical:

Addressing you as ‘Your Eminence the Metropolitan of Kiev’ as a form of economia [indulgence/condescension—OC] and mercy, we inform you that after the elections for the primate of the Ukrainian Church by a body that will consist of clergy and laity, you will not be able ecclesiologically and canonically to bear the title of Metropolitan of Kiev, which, in any case, you now bear in violation of the described conditions of the official documents of 1686.

He also entreats Met. Onuphry to “promptly and in a spirit of harmony and unity” participate, with the other hierarchs of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, in the founding council of the new Ukrainian church that Constantinople is planning to create, and in the election of its primate.

The Constantinople head also writes that he “allows” Met. Onuphry to be a candidate for the position of primate.

He further implores Met. Onuphry and the UOC hierarchy to communicate with Philaret Denisenko, the former Metropolitan of Kiev, and Makary Maletich, the heads of the schismatic “Kiev Patriarchate” and the schismatic “Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church” respectively—both of which have been subsumed into Constantinople—but whose canonical condemnations remain in force for the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

The hierarchs of the Serbian and Polish Churches have also officially rejected the rehabilitation of the Ukrainian schismatics.

Pat. Bartholomew concludes expressing his confidence that Met. Onuphry will decide to heal the schism through the creation of a new church in Ukraine.

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church under Metropolitan Onuphry’s leadership is recognized as the sole canonical Orthodox jurisdiction in Ukraine by just about every other canonical Orthodox Jurisdiction besides Constantinople. Even NATO member Albania, whose expressed reaction was “both sides are wrong for recent actions” still does not accept the canonicity of the “restored hierarchs.”

In fact, about the only people in this dispute that seem to be in support of the “restored” hierarchs, Filaret and Makary, are President Poroshenko, Patriarch Bartholomew, Filaret and Makary… and NATO.

While this letter was released to the public eye yesterday, the nearly two months that Metropolitan Onuphry has had to comply with it have not been helped in any way by the actions of both the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Ukrainian government.

Priests of the Canonical Church in Ukraine awaiting interrogation by the State authorities

For example, in parallel reports released on December 6th, the government is reportedly accusing canonical priests in Ukraine of treason because they are carrying and distributing a brochure entitled (in English): The Ukrainian Orthodox Church: Relations with the State. The Attitude Towards the Conflict in Donbass and to the Church Schism. Questions and Answers.

In a manner that would do any American liberal proud, these priests are being accused of inciting religious hatred, though really all they are doing is offering an explanation for the situation in Ukraine as it exists.

A further piece also released yesterday notes that the Ukrainian government rehabilitated an old Soviet-style technique of performing “inspections of church artifacts” at the Pochaev Lavra. This move appears to be both intended to intimidate the monastics who are living there now, who are members of the canonical Church, as well as preparation for an expected forcible takeover by the new “united Church” that is under creation. The brotherhood characterized the inspections in this way:

The brotherhood of the Pochaev Lavra previously characterized the state’s actions as communist methods of putting pressure on the monastery and aimed at destroying monasticism.

Commenting on the situation with the Pochaev Lavra, His Eminence Archbishop Clement of Nizhyn and Prilusk, the head of the Ukrainian Church’s Information-Education Department, noted:

This is a formal raiding, because no reserve ever built the Pochaev Lavra, and no Ministry of Culture ever invested a single penny to restoring the Lavra, and the state has done nothing to preserve the Lavra in its modern form. The state destroyed the Lavra, turned it into a psychiatric hospital, a hospital for infectious diseases, and so on—the state has done nothing more. And now it just declares that it all belongs to the state. No one asked the Church, the people that built it. When did the Lavra and the land become state property? They belonged to the Church from time immemorial.

With the massive pressure both geopolitically and ecclesiastically building in Ukraine almost by the day, it is anyone’s guess what will happen next.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


Ukrainian leadership is a party of war, and it will continue as long as they’re in power – Putin

“We care about Ukraine because Ukraine is our neighbor,” Putin said.





Via RT…

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has branded the Ukrainian leadership a “party of war” which would continue fueling conflicts while they stay in power, giving the recent Kerch Strait incident as an example.

“When I look at this latest incident in the Black Sea, all what’s happening in Donbass – everything indicates that the current Ukrainian leadership is not interested in resolving this situation at all, especially in a peaceful way,” Putin told reporters during a media conference in the aftermath of the G20 summit in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

This is a party of war and as long as they stay in power, all such tragedies, all this war will go on.

The Kiev authorities are craving war primarily for two reasons – to rip profits from it, and to blame all their own domestic failures on it and actions of some sort of “aggressors.”

“As they say, for one it’s war, for other – it’s mother. That’s reason number one why the Ukrainian government is not interested in a peaceful resolution of the conflict,” Putin stated.

Second, you can always use war to justify your failures in economy, social policy. You can always blame things on an aggressor.

This approach to statecraft by the Ukrainian authorities deeply concerns Russia’s President. “We care about Ukraine because Ukraine is our neighbor,” Putin said.

Tensions between Russia and Ukraine have been soaring after the incident in the Kerch Strait. Last weekend three Ukrainian Navy ships tried to break through the strait without seeking the proper permission from Russia. Following a tense stand-off and altercation with Russia’s border guard, the vessels were seized and their crews detained over their violation of the country’s border.

While Kiev branded the incident an act of “aggression” on Moscow’s part, Russia believes the whole Kerch affair to be a deliberate “provocation” which allowed Kiev to declare a so-called “partial” martial law ahead of Ukraine’s presidential election.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


When Putin Met Bin Sally

Another G20 handshake for the history books.



Via Zerohedge

In the annals of handshake photo-ops, we just may have a new winner (much to the delight of oil bulls who are looking at oil treading $50 and contemplating jumping out of the window).

Nothing but sheer joy, delight and friendship…

…but something is missing…

Meanwhile, earlier…

Zoomed in…

And again.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...


Quick Donate

The Duran
Donate a quick 10 spot!


The Duran Newsletter