OK, we can stop repeating Kremlin propaganda now. No one cares about the previous job of the democratically elected president and it is no new information anyway. Apparently in this dark hour, he is doing a fine job. If you want another example for an actor getting to a high position in politics, take Schwarzenegger. Actors probably do have some skills and qualifications, which are of good use in politics. For example they are used to being in front of the camera. With sufficient popularity, they are also used to talking to many people. Being an actor furthermore does not mean, that for your whole life you must remain an actor.
You appeal to stereotypes, trying to downtalk the elected Ukrainian president. As if actors in general were incapable of ever entering politics or government. This is clearly wrong as shown by other examples.
Some are just puppet, some gain power and became dictator but no dictatorship born strong and powerful and very rarely born alone, without external help of some interested actor.
Long story short if you consider actual Ukrainian government a Democratic one, and even one that act well... That's not Russian but USA propaganda and that's hold the same level of truth, around 0... I told you another story: while living in France I'm Italian, actual Italian government formally is a Democratic one, and following the press it acting well. Following many Citizens believes, mine included, as a nephew of two Italian Partisans from WWII is that's actual head of state is a dictator that must be arrested for high treason, embezzlement, participation in crimes against humanity, along his public-private entourage. ANY civil servant that do not act accordingly must be considered partner and so at minimum banned from any public office for life. Did you have any suspicions about that? Or, following the press you read you imagining a Democratically elected (he was not, but that's by law, to avoid directly voting head of states in a way a power of the State can remove the other and they surveil each others avoiding the need of a civil war in case one try to grab power) and well acting leader?
We ALL live in some propaganda and the sole way to know what's "true enough" and "false enough" is summing different propaganda eliciting what can be true and what can't. Just to talk again about Italy: there is now a right polemic about a cut scene from the game War Thunder published on the main national headline (TG1 and TG2, like BBC in UK, formally) as a filmed scene of Kiev bombing. Some photos of crying mothers in tear is published saying they are Ukrainian mothers now while the source of the image came from 2014/Euromaidan massacre, so from the opposite side of the front.
Since I'm not there, nor I know people there I can't say what's really going on, but I read enough to know what's our propaganda and the other side one, also I see the effect. So I form my opinion and suggest anyone trying to do the same before fighting for their own enemy, against their own interest. I know many will never been able to do so, but on HN I hope there is a cohort of people who might be if at least pushed a bit to look for some information instead of blindly drinking the headlines of one or another side...
If they decide to impromptu join Russian Federation say "thanks, you free us from a western-made puppet government" Russians can't remain in arm there, just like they aren't for similar reasons remained in Kz even with the mocked-up CSTO umbrella. Of course their will remain now if a Resistance start to operate, in that very case they have a perfectly licit and justifiable reason to be there: "Russian people, we the government, goes to Ukraine to free the country from the western nazi-armed oppressors (witch is actually a real fact, since both USA and UK do not denied that they have armed and trained Azov battalion and co) and we have to stay because such bad crooks still plague the country bombing, raping and killing people". They can't tell the same if mass of locals citizens welcome them and formally demand to be part of the Federation. In that case the Russian surely keep a bit of grip, but can't really establish a puppet regime with strong military presence. They need to be soft, and being soft the locals do have power to organize slowly and slowly form their own government, a really democratic one, powerless at first but a small growth at a time more influential, enough to rule in a decades.
Also think twice and twice again about China profit: so far despite it's enormous growth China can't really overpower USA, yes they can build many more low tech ships, but they can't military confront the USA not on the sea not on abroad lands. With Russian natural resources AND Russian tech they can in few years, and they already need to counter the USA because just to eat they need to be in South America, APAC and Africa, witch means they need to control seas, a thing that USA and UK can't tolerate because it's the sole remaining imperial power they have, a power so far no other nation can menace.
For USA keep Europe means remain the tech leader since they can drain EU resources and control it's development, but keeping EU at the price of giving China the Russian Federation means that all needed basis for a III world war are finally made and sealed. Avoid escalation in that case is next to impossible, remember that in both WWI and WWII all nations involved do not, do never wanted a real world war, things just escalate to it. Do you think it's worth risking the end of humanity just for the profit of some cancer of humanity actually ruling on their own people back in all world power, both formal dictatorship like China or formal but not substantial Democracies like Russian and USA, and France and Italy and Germany etc?