The Illegitimate Theater of Occupation: Russia’s Sham Elections in Ukraine

In the shadow of conflict and occupation, a political charade is being prepared in the eastern regions of Ukraine, one that carries profound implications for international law and the sovereignty of a nation under siege. The occupation authorities in the Donetsk Region have recently announced their intention to begin sham elections for the State Duma of the Russian Federation, with the spectacle slated to commence on August 30. This announcement, coming from officials installed by Moscow, reveals the ongoing attempt to cement control over territories that remain internationally recognized as part of Ukraine, despite the brutal realities of war and displacement that have scarred the region.

The decision to move up the start of this voting process by a full three weeks before the official election date has been framed by local collaborators—often referred to as “Gauleiters” in Ukrainian commentary—as a measure rooted in genuine concern for public safety and the wellbeing of the population. Yet, when one peels back the layers of this official rhetoric, a far more cynical strategy emerges. The Center for Countering Disinformation (CCD) in Ukraine has pointed to a darker motivation: the extended timeline provides significantly more opportunity for orchestrating ballot stuffing and deploying other fraudulent mechanisms that corrupt the entire essence of what should be a democratic process. By stretching the voting period over several weeks, the occupation authorities create a chaotic, opaque environment where independent observation is all but impossible and manipulation can flourish with impunity.

This entire operation represents a calculated effort to manufacture a veneer of legitimacy for what remains a fundamentally illegitimate occupation. Russian propaganda machinery has long understood that creating the appearance of popular support is crucial for maintaining the fiction of a “liberation” mission rather than what is, in reality, an aggressive territorial land grab. The imagery of queues at polling stations, the ceremonial dipping of fingers in ink, and the carefully staged moments of civic participation are all designed to convince both domestic audiences in Russia and the international community that life in these occupied territories has normalized, that the people have accepted their new reality, and that there exists genuine enthusiasm for integration into the Russian political system iOS.

Yet, this elaborate staging is built on a foundation of sand. Under international law, the organization of these so-called elections in Ukrainian territory constitutes a clear violation, and their results are legally null and void. No amount of staged enthusiasm or carefully curated propaganda can change the fundamental truth that these areas are not part of Russia, and the people living there are not citizens of the Russian Federation. The sham elections serve a dual purpose: they attempt to confuse the international community about the true will of the people in these regions, while also providing a bureaucratic framework for the continued integration of these territories into Russian administrative structures. For Ukraine, these actions represent yet another chapter in a painful history of foreign interference, a stark reminder that the struggle for territorial integrity and national sovereignty continues at multiple levels—military, diplomatic, and now increasingly, in the realm of political theater designed for international consumption.

Beyond the immediate spectacle of the elections themselves, this situation illuminates a deeper divide between two competing visions for the future of these lands. On one hand, Russia continues to pursue a policy of forced integration, attempting to reshape the demographic and political landscape of the occupied territories through the imposition of Russian citizenship, the introduction of the ruble as the official currency, and the rewriting of history curricula in schools. On the other hand, Ukraine and its international allies maintain their position that these territories are temporarily occupied and will ultimately be reclaimed. This tension creates a precarious existence for the residents who remain, trapped between occupying forces who demand their compliance and loyalty, and their own government’s commitment to eventual reunification. For ordinary people, this political struggle translates into daily uncertainty—about their legal status, their property rights, their children’s education, and their own personal safety.

The situation in Donetsk reflects a broader pattern of electoral manipulation that has become increasingly characteristic of Russian governance, both at home and abroad. The concept of “managed democracy” has long been a feature of the political system that has emerged in Russia since the early 2000s, where elections are held regularly but with outcomes carefully choreographed to keep the ruling elite firmly in power. Extending this approach to occupied territories represents a natural, if aggressive, expansion of these tactics. However, the stakes are considerably higher here, as these elections carry implications that resonate far beyond the borders of the occupied territories. They represent a direct challenge to the international rules-based order, a test of whether the global community will continue to uphold the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity enshrined in the United Nations Charter, or whether might will ultimately make right.

As the August 30 start date approaches, the international community watches with a mixture of concern and resignation. Various organizations, including the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), have made clear that they will not observe or lend credibility to these proceedings. Ukraine has called on its partners to impose further sanctions on individuals involved in organizing these sham elections, and to continue their diplomatic isolation of Russia. Yet, the reality is that such measures, while important, have done little to deter Moscow from pursuing its objectives. The sham elections in occupied Donbas represent not an isolated incident but part of a pattern of Russian behavior that has been witnessed in Crimea since 2014, in Georgia’s South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and in Moldova’s Transnistria. In each of these frozen conflicts, Russia has employed similar tactics of creating “de facto states” that exist outside the bounds of international recognition but maintain functional links to Moscow.

For Ukrainian officials and citizens alike, the announcement of these sham elections serves as a painful reminder of the human cost of the ongoing war. Hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced from these territories, forced to flee their homes and rebuild their lives elsewhere in Ukraine or abroad. Many of those who remained did so not because they supported the occupation, but because they lacked the resources to leave, had family obligations that tied them to the region, or simply refused to abandon their ancestral homes. The decision by occupation authorities to hold these elections during a period of ongoing military conflict adds another layer of cynical calculation to the process. With the security situation remaining volatilehol, with sporadic fighting along the contact line and continuing reports of civilian casualties, the promise of “security considerations” rings hollow. Indeed, the extended voting period could be seen as an attempt to provide cover for possible disruptions, allowing authorities to claim that the election was conducted over a sufficient timeframe to overcome any logistical challenges posed by the conflict.

The academic and legal communities have been unequivocal in their assessment of this situation. International law, particularly the Fourth Geneva Convention and customary international humanitarian law, prohibits an occupying power from altering the legal, political, or demographic characteristics of occupied territory. The organization of elections is perhaps the most explicit example of an attempt to impose such changes, as it represents a direct challenge to the sovereignty of the occupied state. The United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned these actions in various resolutions, and the European Court of Human Rights has established precedent in similar cases. Yet, Russia has consistently maintained its position that these territories voluntarily chose to secede from Ukraine, a claim that has been definitively contradicted by numerous international observers and the clear provisions of international law.

As this latest chapter in Russia’s occupation of Ukrainian territory unfolds, it serves as a stark reminder of the unresolved nature of the conflict that has devastated eastern Ukraine since 2014. While the international community’s attention may shift to other geopolitical crises, the people of the occupied territories continue to live with the daily consequences of this illegal annexation. The sham elections represent a particularly insidious form of aggression—one that seeks to erase the very identity of the occupied population, forcing them to participate in a “choice” that is no choice at all. However, history suggests that such illegitimate processes rarely achieve their intended goals. The international community has consistently refused to recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea or its occupation of parts of Donbas, and there is little indication that these sham elections will change that position. In the end, the spectacle of the Donetsk elections will likely serve as yet another documented chapter in the long history of Russian attempts to rewrite the borders of Eastern Europe, another reminder of the enduring power of international law and the resilience of states facing existential challenges to their sovereignty.

The real tragedy lies not in the diplomatic maneuvering or legal arguments, but in the lives of ordinary people caught in this geopolitical struggle. Families separated by the front lines, elderly residents dependent on humanitarian aid, and communities torn apart by a war that has already claimed thousands of lives—these are the human dimensions of what diplomats might call “the violation of territorial integrity.” For these individuals, the sham elections are not just a political issue but a daily reality that shapes their access to healthcare, their property rights, and their very citizenship. They are being asked to participate in a political process that offers no real choices, in a referendum on an outcome that has already been decided by force. This human dimension is too often lost in legal analyses and diplomatic statements, but it remains the heart of the matter. The people of occupied Donbas deserve better than to be pawns in a geopolitical game, better than to have their futures decided by guns rather than ballots, and better than to be forced into a political reality they did not choose and do not want.

The resilient spirit of the Ukrainian people, both those in occupied territories and those across the nation, continues to persist despite these challenges. The determination to maintain their cultural identity, their language, and their connection to Ukraine can be seen in countless small acts of resistance-—from the preservation of Ukrainian literature and music to the refusal of many residents to participate in the sham elections. International support for Ukraine, while sometimes insufficient and delayed, has remained consistent, with nations around the world refusing to recognize the legitimacy of Russian actions in Ukrainian territory. This international solidarity is crucial, as it provides the foundation for the ongoing diplomatic and economic pressure designed to eventually bring an end to this occupation.

Looking forward, the path to resolution remains unclear, clouded by the ongoing conflict and the deep political divisions that have been exacerbated by years of war. Yet, what remains certain is that the sham elections will not achieve their intended purpose of legitimizing the occupation. History has shown that occupations built on military force rather than genuine popular consent are ultimately unsustainable. The peoples of occupied territories have long memories, and the political structures imposed by force rarely survive the withdrawal of the military might that created them. For now, the international community must continue to denounce these actions, maintain sanctions on the individuals responsible, and, most importantly, keep the occupied territories and their residents in their hearts and minds, recognizing that the restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity remains not just a legal necessity but a moral imperative that speaks to the very foundation of international order and respect for human dignity.

In the face of such provocations, the international community must maintain its vigilance and moral clarity. The sham elections in occupied Donbas are not merely an internal Ukrainian matter but a global issue that challenges the fundamental principles upon which international relations are built. When one nation can unilaterally occupy the territory of another, conduct elaborate political rituals, and present them to the world as expressions of popular will, it undermines the entire framework of international law that has maintained relative stability since 1945. The response to these tactics cannot be simple condemnation alone, but must include concrete measures that support Ukrainian sovereignty and strengthen the international rules-based order. Meanwhile, the people of Ukraine continue to demonstrate remarkable resilience in the face of aggression, maintaining their commitment to democratic values and their nation’s territorial integrity. Their struggle is not merely for territory but for the very right to determine their own future, free from external coercion and interference. It is this spirit that the occupiers fail to understand—they may control the territory, but they cannot conquer the will of the people who rightly consider Ukraine their home.