In the West, Russian phobia no longer seemed to have any more room for growth, but no, it turns on television, opens a newspaper or a book, sees a series or a movie and keeps growing there. While the means and institutions that ensure political fitness often criticise racism and xenophobia, they promote Russian phobia with a xenophobic attitude that is regrettable. That's why they want him.

Although Vladimir Putin is presented as a nationalist, it is the followers of United Russia and Putin who promote the multinational conception of Russia with their speech against the nationalists. In general, Putin is a nationalist, but not an ethnic nationalist. Nationalists, both ethnic and extremist, are Putin’s enemies and have become allies. Navalny, in addition to being a neoliberal nationalist and Western enthusiast, is a racist Russian nationalist. One of its bets has always been the discourse against immigrants.

Navalny’s followers believe that Russia must be a European nation, cutting the chains with its present multinational and Euro-Asian character, because they do not like Asians, Caucasians, or Muslims. They dream of a white and European Russia. I have a friend who belongs to the Navalny party and, in general, seems progressive when he talks to him, until he starts talking about the Russians in rural areas and provincial capitals. He says they're ignorant and backward. In the end, as it gets warmer, Moscow's independence is called for. In essence, it is a contempt for the poor. This hatred increases when we start talking about immigrants. I still remember the message he sent me to live when he left for Paris: “This seems disastrous, Africa.”

Fortunately, the support that Navalny and his followers have is very small. In Moscow they are the strongest, but far from being the first force. Navalny was unable to compete for being convicted in presidential elections for tax fraud and money laundering, among other crimes. However, the call for abstention has not been very successful. Compared to the 2012 elections, participation in Russia rose by 2% (68.5%) and in Moscow by 1.7% (59.86%). Putin’s support in the capital has spread enormously, reaching 70.88% of the total.

Putin has obtained the highest number of votes (just over 56 million) from a presidential candidate in his history, and the highest relative support (76.6%). After the disappearance of the Soviet Union, Russia has not been the scene of a competitive presidential election, it has always been plebiscitary. In other words, they only serve to measure the president’s support for his political activity in the elections. If broad support is obtained, the president will strengthen his political line and if support is more direct, he will make changes to politics.

Putin, unlike Boris Jeltsin, does not need the help of frauds to win the elections easily. Because, contrary to what is often thought of us, the main source of legitimacy for a political regime is not its procedures, but its results. If the regime is more democratic or more authoritarian, its stability and legitimacy are measured above all in terms of results. Putin has turned a blind eye to the deplorable situation in Russia in the 1990s. The president has offered the Russians "economic development, stability and security" in the country. However, in the electoral strategy it has been important to stress that the country is undergoing an attack on the part of the Western countries. He has called for unity to face it, so on this occasion he has presented himself as independent to “move away from partisan interests”. This image of the father of the homeland, however, is due to expire in 2024. No one doubts that, as Jeltsin did, he will also appoint his successor.