image credits- cnn
Advertisement
Russian state media outlets are showering U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris with praise for her “masterly” debate performance, going so far as to declare her the winner over former President Donald Trump in a hypothetical matchup. The commentary highlights the often strategic and curious nature of Russian media’s engagement with U.S. political figures.
The Russian praise came through several prominent state-controlled news channels, which commented on how Harris’s performance was seen as a victory in terms of composure, rhetoric, and delivery. Anchors on these platforms described her as “confident” and “poised,” and emphasized her ability to handle complex political topics with a level of skill they deemed superior to Trump’s approach.
Russian analysts framed the hypothetical debate as an important symbolic moment, especially given the long-standing strained relations between Russia and the U.S. Underlining this, the media noted that Harris demonstrated a leadership style that resonated strongly with voters looking for stability and clarity in governance.
“This was a masterclass in diplomacy and tact,” said one commentator on Russia’s state TV. “Kamala Harris effortlessly outshone Donald Trump in every aspect of the debate.”
The praise for Harris comes as part of Russia’s ongoing effort to influence narratives about U.S. elections and leadership. While Russia has been traditionally seen as supportive of Trump due to his foreign policy moves, this shift in praise toward Harris may indicate a strategic pivot. Observers suggest that Russia’s state media often amplifies or criticizes U.S. politicians based on broader geopolitical calculations, rather than personal preferences.
Critics of the Russian media’s stance argue that the sudden praise for Harris is part of a broader attempt to meddle in U.S. political discourse by creating new divisions or casting doubt on American democratic processes. Some political analysts have warned against reading too much into the commentary, viewing it as more of a rhetorical flourish than a serious analysis.