Reasonably well it would seem from the outside. 11% of congress is "black", which is roughly in line with population and there seem to be hundreds of laws and programs aimed at helping them. And there's also lots of media attention to their problems and struggles.
That picture turns to the opposite when looking at statistics of jail and prison inmates representation, or when looking at how the wealth in the country is racially divided and whole neighborhoods still racially and economically segregated.
In that context BLM is not really a new thing, it's just the most modern manifestation of a rather old and still very on-going issue [0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_riots#United_St...
A group can have plenty of political representation and institutional and legal support and still struggle for other reasons (e.g. historic oppression or cultural problems depending on whether you lean left or right).
Though on second thought there still are a few laws with racist intent on the books aren't there? Though they're being undone at a decent clip.
People treated well don't need lots of media attention to remind those treating them well that black lives matter, in 2021. I'd say that for a democracy that's a pretty bad track record that isn't improving fast enough. Democratic majority decisions sometimes leave the minority far behind.
The US electoral system may have it’s flaws, but to compare it to Russia is absurd.
How many opposition leaders has the US government tried to murder recently?
The statement was clearly about the relationship each country has with democracy, comparing not to each other but to what democracy should be. There's value in evaluating things against what they should be, not against an arbitrarily worse thing. It's the only way to see the flaws and look to improve.
Most democracies are in general against war for practical reasons, wars are a drain away from stuff at home that's important for them as people. US citizens may be "less likely" to want that but only because recent history has saturated them with the justification that the war is against regimes with "different values". It's an easy sell for people who are never to keen on going beyond that. So it would mostly be a matter of repackaging the justification. Some democracies can afford both the wars and the "moral repackaging" for their citizens.
But people also misunderstand democracy and what it means. The fact that the interests of the majority are respected might also mean that the minority is suffering a great deal. How well are black people's interests represented in the US?
One the other hand in democracy you are allowed to give a tiny endorsement to a person or party for a leadership position in the hope that they will represent your interest while others are buying "priority" over you for this representation with far more than a vote. You're not seeing this as less of a democracy so people are not judging political systems based on their actual implementation but rather by picking and choosing on particular values.
Russia is ostensibly a democracy, albeit one where the leadership is somewhat predetermined a very small minority. USA is a democracy albeit one where the leadership is somewhat representing the interests of a very small minority. I'm sure a war between these two is not seen as such a remote possibility in terms of people's preference.