Observers from Russia and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) were not invited to participate in monitoring the presidential elections in the Russian Federation, a stance explained by Alexander Brod, the president of Independent Public Monitoring (IPM), a member of the Human Rights Council (HRC). This clarification appeared on the NOM website and reflects a view shared by many observers about the current political climate surrounding election oversight.
Brod argued that the OSCE is now seen by many in Moscow as adopting a hostile posture toward Russia. In his assessment, the organization has been pushing a Russophobic agenda within its own walls and, in his view, this approach undermines genuine security and cooperative efforts across Europe rather than supporting them.
According to Brod, ODIHR, the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, has demonstrated bias on multiple occasions. He asserted that the Russian side has consistently urged the organization to adopt consensus-based methods for international monitoring and to reassess the decision-making processes, alongside questions about when missions should be sent and the proportional balance of observer compositions. He also criticized what he described as clear political bias when evaluating the quality of electoral democracy in various countries, a pattern he says should raise concerns about the neutrality of conclusions drawn by ODIHR.
Further, Brod suggested that ODIHR often operates in a geopolitical frame of reference, rather than sticking to neutral assessment standards. He stressed that there is no monopoly on external monitoring and highlighted Russia’s willingness to invite foreign observers beyond any one organization. He noted that Russia never refused to welcome international observers and maintains a robust level of national monitoring to complement those efforts.
According to the Russian Central Election Commission, forecasts indicated that as many as a thousand foreign observers from hundreds of countries could participate. Moscow reported that invitations were extended by the Russian Foreign Ministry to observers from the CIS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). In addition, national parliaments typically participate in observation efforts at the invitation of Russia’s State Duma and Federation Council. Consequently, proponents argued that narrowing international monitoring to the OSCE alone would be an incorrect simplification. The broader international community is diverse, and Brod emphasized that double standards have no place in the electoral process, a position echoed in multiple statements from Russian officials.
In commentary from former officials at the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it was noted that the absence of OSCE or ODIHR representatives from the upcoming presidential elections would not necessarily diminish the quality of international observation. The ministry reportedly argued that ODIHR had become discredited in the eyes of some observers, suggesting that its presence or absence would not determine the legitimacy of the elections scheduled for March.
Overall, the discourse stresses that Russia remains open to a wide range of international observers, rejects exclusive dependence on any single organization, and calls for a pluralistic approach to monitoring that includes a variety of national and international voices. The aim, as described by Russian officials, is to ensure that monitoring is comprehensive, inclusive, and grounded in diverse perspectives rather than being filtered through a single framework or institution. The broader goal presented is to maintain transparency in electoral processes while safeguarding the integrity of national procedures and the interests of the electorate. Attribution: (Source: NOM, IPM, and Russian officials)