She was on sanctions list because her newspaper suggested that Ukraine would perish if it joins NATO. Which is far cry from calling Ukranians subhumans or calling for genocide. She sure did support a horrible war, but so did many Americans 20 years ago. The only way to justify it that I can think of is that this killing will somehow help defeat Russian invasion and thus save lives and generally make this world a better place. Then you could make an argument that ends justify means. Otherwise there's nothing she did to deserve death.
Despite not holding an official position in government, Alexander Dugin is believed to be a close ally of the Russian president and has even been branded "Putin's Rasputin".
Darya Dugina was herself a prominent journalist who vocally supported the invasion of Ukraine.
In May, she described the war as a "clash of civilisations" in an interview and expressed pride in the fact that both she and her father had been targeted by Western sanctions.
She supported and promoted an utterly illegal monstrous barbaric invasion of another country where countless innocents are being murdered. For what? She may not have been the target, but nothing of value has been lost, here.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. May this be a lesson to the rest of the propagandist #######s in Russia who continue to blatantly lie to keep the war machine rolling. #### her, and #### her father.
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
She supported and promoted an utterly illegal monstrous barbaric invasion of another country where countless innocents are being murdered. For what? She may not have been the target, but nothing of value has been lost, here.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. May this be a lesson to the rest of the propagandist #######s in Russia who continue to blatantly lie to keep the war machine rolling. #### her, and #### her father.
I'm definitely not crying over this. Fact is, her father wrote that stupid book that Putin/Russia seems to be following line by line. She had the same ####bag views as her father. Both of them are popular enough that their voices reached millions and likely swayed public opinion in Russia (and abroad) about justifying the war. If Tucker Carlson or Alex Jones met their maker one day I sure wouldn't feel an ounce of sadness.
Also very strange to me that lots of the discussion online now is how unjustified this bombing was, yet more than likely it was the Russians themselves who did it and not Ukraine. So saying Ukraine has no right to commit terrorist attacks is a waste of time, given they likely weren't involved.
17+ people, including many deaf people, were killed in a significantly worse terrorist attack days ago in Kharkiv. As I type this people are still being dug out of the rubble. Yet the news is focusing on this lone attack within Russia.
The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to Huntingwhale For This Useful Post:
Yeah was about to post this, and also as a general note that a target like Dugin seems a lot more likely to be selected by internal Russian forces rather than Ukrainian or western.
Now, I would be very careful to take this at face value, Putin is famous for his false flags, and surely others within Russia could have picked up the habit.
A car bomb like this doesn't make sense for Putin though, because it's unreliable and a he has lot better means at his disposal against someone like Dugin. This also doesn't seem like something that would get sympathy from the masses.
In fact it's somewhat of an embarrassment for Putin. Protection is a major reason why people flock to strong men like Putin.
So yeah, I would chalk it up as a Russian internal thing of some sort. Definitely a sign that Putins grip on power isn't absolute.
It's even possible this RNRA is a roughly what it says it is, a legit anti-Putin movement.
Let's remember there's already been a string of attacks against the recruitment offices in Russia (although with afaik only material damages so far), so this isn't the first sign of violent internal resistance to Putin.
Last edited by Itse; 08-22-2022 at 02:46 AM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
Dugin & Dugina are legitimate targets in war. Period. To claim terrorism is asinine at best, or you are a Russian sympathizer at worse. Ukrainians are literally fighting for their lives against a country who has been militarizing since the 1940s.
It would appear Ukraine were not the ones who terminated them, but if they did, it would be a legitimate military objective/target.
If a Ukrainian sniper had a clear shot at Lavrov or Putin himself, should he not shoot because they aren't a soldier combatant in uniform? Gimme a break.
Dugin & Dugina are legitimate targets in war. Period. To claim terrorism is asinine at best, or you are a Russian sympathizer at worse. Ukrainians are literally fighting for their lives against a country who has been militarizing since the 1940s.
It would appear Ukraine were not the ones who terminated them, but if they did, it would be a legitimate military objective/target.
If a Ukrainian sniper had a clear shot at Lavrov or Putin himself, should he not shoot because they aren't a soldier combatant in uniform? Gimme a break.
No no, they should just sit back and be ethnically cleansed. Just like the Croatians should have sat back and be dominated by the communists in Belgrade.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to White Out 403 For This Useful Post:
Ilya Ponomarev, a former member of the State Duma of the Russian Federation, said the National Republican Army (NRA) claimed responsibility for the death of Darya, who died in a car explosion near the village of Bolshiye Vyazemy in the Odintsovsky District in Moscow Oblast.
———
“This act, like many other partisan acts carried out on Russian territory over the last few months, was carried out by the National Republican Army," Ponomarev said in an interview on opposition TV channel Utro Fevralya, as quoted by Ukrainska Pravda.
Quote:
”We will destroy the property of everyone who fails to repent and publicly express their opposition to this government and its war, and we will kill every one of them," the manifesto read.
The Following User Says Thank You to TherapyforGlencross For This Useful Post:
The video of the drone attack that Putin has been trying to hide. Better defended then Moscow. They are actually trying to shoot it down with rifle fire.
I legitimately think that Russia moved all their air defense units away and into Ukraine, not thinking for a second that Sevastopol would ever be at risk.
The video of the drone attack that Putin has been trying to hide. Better defended then Moscow. They are actually trying to shoot it down with rifle fire.
I legitimately think that Russia moved all their air defense units away and into Ukraine, not thinking for a second that Sevastopol would ever be at risk.
A supposed superpower really shouldn't need to prioritize like that, not in areas that close to the war.
Russia claims to have "solved" the bombing. It was allegedly performed by former Azov member Ukrainian woman Vovk. The murder was allegedly planned by Ukrainian secret service. Russians have released several videos of Vovk, who is quite beautiful woman in her early 40s, crossing the border into Russia and leaving Russia after the murder. She has traveled with her daughter, who is 12, and spent roughly a month in Russia. Also the mainstream version now is that Dugina, rather than her father, was the intended target. The bomb was activated by a remote control by a person who was likely driving a bit behind, so it's most likely that the murderer understood that the father is not in that car.
Yeah was about to post this, and also as a general note that a target like Dugin seems a lot more likely to be selected by internal Russian forces rather than Ukrainian or western.
Now, I would be very careful to take this at face value, Putin is famous for his false flags, and surely others within Russia could have picked up the habit.
A car bomb like this doesn't make sense for Putin though, because it's unreliable and a he has lot better means at his disposal against someone like Dugin. This also doesn't seem like something that would get sympathy from the masses.
In fact it's somewhat of an embarrassment for Putin. Protection is a major reason why people flock to strong men like Putin.
So yeah, I would chalk it up as a Russian internal thing of some sort. Definitely a sign that Putins grip on power isn't absolute.
It's even possible this RNRA is a roughly what it says it is, a legit anti-Putin movement.
Let's remember there's already been a string of attacks against the recruitment offices in Russia (although with afaik only material damages so far), so this isn't the first sign of violent internal resistance to Putin.
There appears to be very little sense and very little gain for either Ukraine or Putin to blow Dugina. She's nowhere near significant to justify a false flag. She's not important military to bother for Ukraine. I'm leaning more towards the murder being carried out by some lesser gangs for somewhat petty reasons rather than a part of some global political plot.
The Following User Says Thank You to Pointman For This Useful Post:
There appears to be very little sense and very little gain for either Ukraine or Putin to blow Dugina. She's nowhere near significant to justify a false flag. She's not important military to bother for Ukraine. I'm leaning more towards the murder being carried out by some lesser gangs for somewhat petty reasons rather than a part of some global political plot.
I thought an anti-Putin Russian partisan group operating out of Kyiv already claimed responsibility for it.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Dugin & Dugina are legitimate targets in war. Period. To claim terrorism is asinine at best, or you are a Russian sympathizer at worse. Ukrainians are literally fighting for their lives against a country who has been militarizing since the 1940s.
It would appear Ukraine were not the ones who terminated them, but if they did, it would be a legitimate military objective/target.
If a Ukrainian sniper had a clear shot at Lavrov or Putin himself, should he not shoot because they aren't a soldier combatant in uniform? Gimme a break.
You can claim that Ukrainians are fighting for survival against barbarian forces led by a mad dictator and thus any killing of such nature is good. I can get behind that. You can't however concurrently take a higher moral ground and claim that Dugina is a legitimate war target. You can read below on what a legitimate target is. The only damage to civilians that is acceptable is a collateral damage. Simply put, a target that gives you a decisive military advantage is legitimate target while blowing prominent figures with intentions of showing them and teaching lessons is terrorism. Not getting it right is a matter of getting vocabulary wrong rather being on the wrong side of the war. Shooting Putin is actually fair game since he's a chief commander of an army. A journalist who promoted the war? I am actually on board with blowing her as long, as it helps stop the war. We would have to get off a high moral horse first though. You can either play by the rules or say screw the rules we have to survive here. Either way is perfectly acceptable in current circumstances, but not both simultaneously.
I thought an anti-Putin Russian partisan group operating out of Kyiv already claimed responsibility for it.
They did but whether it is true or they are merely looking to promote themselves is not immediately clear. The claim comes from a former politician after all.
Also very strange to me that lots of the discussion online now is how unjustified this bombing was, yet more than likely it was the Russians themselves who did it and not Ukraine. So saying Ukraine has no right to commit terrorist attacks is a waste of time, given they likely weren't involved.
17+ people, including many deaf people, were killed in a significantly worse terrorist attack days ago in Kharkiv. As I type this people are still being dug out of the rubble. Yet the news is focusing on this lone attack within Russia.
That's how discussions work. Can't really add much to the news of deaf people killed by terrorist attack by Russia except for what has already been said million times. Blowing Dugina is more mysterious and controversial and this is what breeds discussions.
You can claim that Ukrainians are fighting for survival against barbarian forces led by a mad dictator and thus any killing of such nature is good. I can get behind that. You can't however concurrently take a higher moral ground and claim that Dugina is a legitimate war target. You can read below on what a legitimate target is. The only damage to civilians that is acceptable is a collateral damage. Simply put, a target that gives you a decisive military advantage is legitimate target while blowing prominent figures with intentions of showing them and teaching lessons is terrorism. Not getting it right is a matter of getting vocabulary wrong rather being on the wrong side of the war. Shooting Putin is actually fair game since he's a chief commander of an army. A journalist who promoted the war? I am actually on board with blowing her as long, as it helps stop the war. We would have to get off a high moral horse first though. You can either play by the rules or say screw the rules we have to survive here. Either way is perfectly acceptable in current circumstances, but not both simultaneously.
In the very link you sent there is room for tons of nuance (last paragraph). A national figure promoting the war, and referring to Ukrainians with the same terminology that the actual Nazis did (subhuman), she becomes a legitimate target during war time IMO. Maybe you see it differently, but she is not reporting impartial news. She is a tool of the State's war machine, and therefore a target.
The discussion is moot anyway since it wasn't the Ukrainian government that offed her.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CroFlames For This Useful Post:
Seems like a bit of a tough call for where you draw the line between civilian and military during war times. Are political leaders fair targets? The answer is probably yes. What about journalist? When does a journalist cease to be merely a reporter and become part of the military attack? That one's clearly a grey area, where journalist ends and spokesperson (a form of political leadership) begins. There's also a reason the Ukrainians distanced themselves from this.
