Kamil Galeev Profile picture
Aug 22, 2022 13 tweets 5 min read Read on X
On Darya Dugina's death

Darya was an ambitious young woman. She leveraged her father's *international* brand to build herself a network in Russia. She was indeed smarter than an average golden kid and viewed herself as a potential national leader
In the last months she would not shut up about bad Russian military performance. She constantly criticised Shoygu (privately) and insisted that if *she* was a minister of defence, it'd be alright. For some reason, she was trying to pitch herself a a minister of defense, Idk why
Becoming a minister of defence was a new topic that emerged only recently. Previously to that, she was obsessed with Le Pen. She constantly talked about how great, amazing and misunderstood Marine Le Pen is, boasted how well she knew her and clearly viewed Le Pen as a role model
What was interesting about Darya was an extreme contrast between her public and her private discourse. Publicly, she largely followed her father's footsteps. Publicly she complained about too gentle mode of war in Ukraine and called for the tougher measure against "nonhumans"
On public Darya was fiery and uncompromising. Privately though she was the opposite of that, a sort of chameleon. She'd figure out what her interlocutors think and present herself as their thinker. If a (useful) interlocutor was against the war, than she was against the war too
On public she was a hawk, calling for escalation, tribunals in every Ukrainian city, lynching Azovstal defenders, etc. Privately though, she would mock the entire DPR/LPR project, Russian irredentism, etc. if she felt that would help her to win her interlocutor's sympathy
Audience largely perceived her as dad's attribute. Publicly she played by the rules and leveraged it. Privately though, she hated that. She wanted to be seen as a political figure in her own right. That's why she took "Platonova" nickname and tried to brand herself as such
Whenever Darya felt it could win her a sympathy, she mocked and criticised her dad's insane and ridiculous agenda. She would also argue that most of her social circle (other Russian golden kids) share this feeling. Most feel only contempt towards their fathers
Psychologically this may be understandable. Imagine yourself as a golden kid. On the one hand, you owe your dad everything and you would be a total zero without his resources. On the other hand, you want to be seen as great and amazing in your own right, not a dad's attribute
In search of glory and self-affirmation, you'd rather distance yourself from dad. But the more you do that, the more of zero you become. The world doesn't give a damn about you as an individual. For them you are and will always be the Daughter of Dugin

Of course you'll hate him
Didn't you find it funny that the media are describing this 30 year old woman as a child or a kid? On the one hand, it sounds kinda absurd. On the other hand, it is very, very true. Darya never could brand herself to the outer world as an independent person. Only as Dugin's child
Many describe Darya as "innocent". But she was the opposite of that. I don't rejoice at the death of conscripts or rural idiots lured into the army by high wages. But a golden kid who leveraged war and genocide to boost her career, that's as close as you can get to unmixed evil
The end

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Kamil Galeev

Kamil Galeev Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @kamilkazani

May 2
Fake jobs are completely normal & totally natural. The reason is: nobody understands what is happening and most certainly does not understand why. Like people, including the upper management have some idea of what is happening in an organisation, and this idea is usually wrong.
As they do not know and cannot know causal relations between the input and output, they just try to increase some sort of input, in a hope for a better output, but they do not really know which input to increase.
Insiders with deep & specific knowledge, on the other hand, may have a more clear & definite idea of what is happening, and even certain, non zero degree of understanding of causal links between the input and output

(what kind of input produces this kind of output)
Read 6 tweets
Apr 12
There is a common argument that due process belongs only to citizens

Citizens deserve it, non citizens don’t

And, therefore, can be dealt with extrajudicially

That is a perfectly logical, internally consistent position

Now let’s think through its implications
IF citizens have the due process, and non-citizens don’t

THEN we have two parallel systems of justice

One slow, cumbersome, subject to open discussion and to appeal (due process)

Another swift, expedient, and subject neither to a discussion nor to an appeal (extrajudicial)
And the second one already encompasses tens of millions of non citizens living in the United States, legal and illegal, residents or not.

Now the question would be:

Which system is more convenient for those in power?

Well, the answer is obvious
Read 10 tweets
Apr 5
I have recently read someone comparing Trump’s tariffs with collectivisation in the USSR. I think it is an interesting comparison. I don’t think it is exactly the same thing of course. But I indeed think that Stalin’s collectivisation offers an interesting metaphor, a perspective to think aboutImage
But let’s make a crash intro first

1. The thing you need to understand about the 1920s USSR is that it was an oligarchic regime. It was not strictly speaking, an autocracy. It was a power of few grandees, of the roughly equal rank.
2. Although Joseph Stalin established himself as the single most influential grandee by 1925, that did not make him a dictator. He was simply the most important guy out there. Otherwise, he was just one of a few. He was not yet the God Emperor he would become later.
Read 30 tweets
Mar 16
The great delusion about popular revolts is that they are provoked by bad conditions of life, and burst out when they exacerbate. Nothing can be further from truth. For the most part, popular revolts do not happen when things get worse. They occur when things turn for the better
This may sound paradoxical and yet, may be easy to explain. When the things had been really, really, really bad, the masses were too weak, to scared and too depressed to even think of raising their head. If they beared any grudges and grievances, they beared them in silence.
When things turn for the better, that is when the people see a chance to restore their pride and agency, and to take revenge for all the past grudges, and all the past fear. As a result, a turn for the better not so much pacifies the population as emboldens and radicalises it.
Read 6 tweets
Mar 1
Three years of the war have passed

So, let’s recall what has happened so far

The first thing to understand about the Russian-Ukrainian war is that Russia did not plan a war. And it, most certainly, did not plan the protracted hostilities of the kind we are seeing today Image
This entire war is the regime change gone wrong.

Russia did not want a protracted war (no one does). It wanted to replace the government in Kyiv, put Ukraine under control and closely integrate it with Russia

(Operation Danube style) Image
One thing to understand is that Russia viewed Ukraine as a considerable asset. From the Russian perspective, it was a large and populous country populated by what was (again, from the Russian perspective) effectively the same people. Assimilatable, integratable, recruitable Image
Read 32 tweets
Feb 8
Why does Russia attack?

In 1991, Moscow faced two disobedient ethnic republics: Chechnya and Tatarstan. Both were the Muslim majority autonomies that refused to sign the Federation Treaty (1992), insisting on full sovereignty. In both cases, Moscow was determined to quell them. Image
Still, the final outcome could not be more different. Chechnya was invaded, its towns razed to the ground, its leader assassinated. Tatarstan, on the other hand, managed to sign a favourable agreement with Moscow that lasted until Putin’s era.

The question is - why. Image
Retrospectively, this course of events (obliterate Chechnya, negotiate with Tatarstan) may seem predetermined. But it was not considered as such back then. For many, including many of Yeltsin’s own partisans it came as a surprise, or perhaps even as a betrayal.

Let's see why Image
Read 24 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(