To quote the article:
Again we ask, if Russia is a democracy, why can we not participate?

I think this would be understandable if one just look at the way the form of their ideology forces them to look at the world. Personally I think most people find it impossible to “put themselves in someone shoes” effectively. I am not talking about the ability to be empathetic, and such. what I am referring to is knowing enough about the different places, and ways people think and being able to sit in their shoes and perhaps see more like they do, and see WHY they make the choices they make.

One has to remember that the majority of KGB, FSB, GRU, etc, don’t see themselves as evil monsters. So to understand one has to somehow come to some premise that would allow them to naturally take their position, and not see themselves in the way that someone neutral to that position would see them (and definitely those interested would see it).

Lennin looked down on the proletariat, as did all leaders from there. They are the lumpenproletariat. To them, almost another species that because of their failure to rise up on cue, must be too stupid to take care of themselves.

Its from this regard that they then set themselves up as the elite and knowledgeable leaders that are taking care of the proletariat masses. As I mentioned in other places, around the Korean War, Stalin wrote a lovely ditty on linguistics. And what is confusing is the split between the natural and dominant definition of democracy, and the special definition of that item that they use through their greater understanding of the real situation.

These other definitions and such are or have been formulated to advantage. Its in this way that they can honestly speak about their goals, and intentions and such, and yet never tell their opponents what they are doing, or something they don’t want to hear.

So when they speak of democracy, they are going to do for the masses the same as their ideology says so. Its not democracy western style, its democracy reformed through a Marxist dialectic.

In this case the masses are still the lumpen proletariat, and they must be taken care of by the socialist state (note that this lets them also keep being socialist without changing too), and since the rulers are the special elite that can see things as they are, they must be the ones to vote for this lumpen proletariat.

Well shucky darn, give a sociopath a dictionary and some time, and see what they cook up? Kind of cute actually… and since the leaders do the voting, the rest of the state must be taken care of and remain socialist and a planned economy.

Taken to the next level, the whole perestroika (restructuring), was just that, a restructuring, and their financial success and position and getting all this technology and such, is seen as a confirmation of their ideological success and progress.

The fact that the US and EU are so socialist is also confirming them in their footsteps. Like a frentic fanatical zealot leading a group of revolutionaries, they believe that if they were wrong, they would lose.

But few see that in the real world, the concept of right and wrong are complex issues and not simple facts. This does not make them relative, which is what they use to play more linguistic games. That the mental realization of right or wrong is not confirmed in some mechanical connection to the real world.

So winning is not a confirmation of being right. how one wins, that complex issue, makes a difference in the mental knowledge of whether its right or wrong. This other view harkens back to trial by combat. Which forced end justifies the means thinking unless coupled with a real sense of right or wrong, a real sense of justice (no matter where it comes for that individual).

The whole dialectic has spent the most time forming its way to turn everything to its way. in fact even more than its spent working on the validity of the way it thinks things should be. For them, the end result, if its believed by them (which I have no way of knowing), is communism, and the state will dissolve away. (and I guess we will all be in teletubby land or something… they never get this far)

So what you have is a huge means, and a small distant vague idea of what you hope that awful means will get you to. This suits the sociopath control freaks just fine. After all, when you ride a horse, do you worry what the horse actually thinks that gets it to resolve the situation, do it, and live? No. that’s the horses problem, and if the horse delusionally thinks something that drags it the right way, why should they correct them?

Its only when the horse grants the wish and the end result is seen that the split between the two definitions is evident. The classic response would be “oh, my mistake, I thought this was what you meant”.

Or maybe they might say:
“Again we ask, if Russia is a democracy, why can we not participate?”