Every statement that you write reeks of base ignorance, but it is supported with such a sense that you actually know something that there is only one possible conclusion: that you are, in fact, stupid as well.

Russia has, of course, had many elections. There were four free elections for the original State Duma between 1905 and 1917, one set of free elections in 1917 for a Constituent Assembly that the Bolsheviks forcibly disbanded because it was not considered radical enough, and further elections starting in the late 1980s and continuing until the present day. Prior to 2003, those election results have not been questioned.

By contrast, Russia has had fewer anti-democratic events during the same period of time: (1) the February Revolution, which saw the overthrow of the autocratic government of the Tsar, (2) the October Revolution, which was a coup against the democratically elected government because it wasn't seen as "progressive" enough, (3) Stalin's seizure of power, which was simply the result of in-party fighting, (4) the coup to unseat Khrushchev, who was seen as an unstable adventurer who brought the Soviet Union to the brink of World War III,and (5) a failed coup in 1991 that ultimately led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. In none of those cases, other than in 1991, was the action "against leaders foolish enough to try 'imposing liberal democratic principles where they are unwelcome".

The period between 1905 and 1917 also saw assassinations, which were usually carried out by the Social Revolutionaries, led by Boris Savinkov, because the people to be executed were considered conservatives.

As a result, there is not one shred of truth in your first paragraph, but rather, just a stilted and myopic view of Russia that one could get by ingesting mushrooms and then proceeding to watch Red Dawn.

Your second paragraph has nothing to do with Russia, though I find it quite stupid in the extreme as well.