Some are asking, why should even care about Darya Dugina's assassination? Because:
1. It is almost certainly the FSB false flag operation 2. Most likely, it will be used as a pretext for strikes that had been already pre-scheduled for the Ukrainian Independence Day this Thursday
Once again. Strikes later this week are highly likely, they have must been prescheduled long ago. Most probably, on Thursday-Friday. It's quite probable that Putin wants to scale up and sacrificed Dugina to needs justify future strikes as counter-terrorist action or sth like that
Assuming this is true, why was Dugina chosen as a sacrificial lamb? Presidential plenipotentiary Schegolev's speech on her funerals gives some idea:
1. Alexander (and Darya) Dugina were nobody in the Russian system of power 2. But the West believed they were somebody
AMAZING
If Putin planned a false flag operation to get a pretext for escalation, than Darya made a better sacrificial lamb than Alexander. *Exactly* because she is young woman. Her death would trigger more outrage. Legions of pornocephals gonna flood the internet with pro-Russian content
Alexander Dugin is playing exactly this game:
"We need only the Victory. My daughter put her maiden's life on its altar"
Indeed, theme of sacrifice is very common for Dugin. He was obsessed with the idea of ritual sacrifice for the greater good. Constantly thinking about it
Some hints on Dugin's views on the sacrifice. He's quoting a Jung's argument that for the sake of ritual, the sacrificer and the sacrificed, must be one.
For some reason other pro-war activists also tend to use the language of ritual sacrifice to describe what happened. Consider Prilepin. This pro-war writer used to be a member of the National Bolshevik Party with all its death worshipping esotericism
If it was the FSB false flag operation (which is almost certain), than it was most likely Darya and not Alexander who was the real target. If Alexander knew it all beforehand, I won't be much surprised. See him on Darya's funerals
The FSB false flag attack probably aimed to trigger exactly this type of reaction from the Western useful idiots. Preparing to launch massive strikes later this week, Russia needs to present its actions as "retaliatory". That's the most likely reason for them killing Darya Dugina
Putin, Parliament, key propagandists are trying to elevate previously virtually unknown Darya to the key martyr of the state cult:
"One country, one President, one Victory"
declares MP Slutsky on her funerals. Russia is kinda starting resembling a bad Third Reich cosplay
In Russian conditions nobody would speak against a new Horst Wessel campaign. But some gonna keep silence. What is interesting, neither Shoygu, nor Ramzan Kadyrov did not express any condolescences, threats or warnings regarding Darya's death. Just silence
To sum up. Most likely:
1. FSB killed Darya 2. as a pretext for escalation pre-planned for the end of this week 3. Why now? August 24, Ukrainian Independence Day. August 25, the Russian parliament session. Some expect significant changes in policy to be announced there. The end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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
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 about
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.
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.
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
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)
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
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.
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.
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.