I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but surprisingly no media seems to give attention to something so evident and yet so grave. I’m referring in particular to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, where two distinctly different approaches clearly emerge, reflecting not only differences in military tactics but also deeply contrasting views on what or who can be considered a legitimate target.
On one hand, Ukraine has adopted a strategy that does not shy away from the targeted elimination of public figures, intellectuals, or journalists, justifying it with the alleged moral legitimacy of fighting ‘on the right side of history.’ This approach has translated into an industrial-scale neutralization of influential figures, as seen in the cases of Daria Dugina, daughter of philosopher Aleksandr Dugin, and Gonzalo Lira, a journalist critical of the Western narrative. The Kyiv government seems to feel justified in adopting these measures, convinced that its cause legitimizes any means—an assumption that is far from defensible.
On the other hand, Russia, while employing a wide range of warfare tools, has so far not adopted a systematic method of large-scale targeted eliminations against people not directly involved in the conflict, such as public figures, intellectuals, or cultural figures in Ukraine. Russia’s approach to the conflict, though harsh and at times ruthless on the battlefield, has not replicated Ukraine’s model of neutralizing influential civilians or media voices outside the direct military context. This raises a fundamental question: is it truly legitimate to claim that one side is morally superior to the other, or that the initial motives for responsibility should remain the only factor, when certain actions along the way weigh heavily and cannot be ignored if observed with honesty and intellectual integrity? When both sides manipulate the narrative of the conflict? International law and the ethics of war offer answers that are too often ignored in the name of victory and alliances, but sincerely, these issues are so significant that, in reality, we Westerners fail to realize we are losing even before achieving the victory that our elites claim to pursue.
Russian Approach: Based on documented facts, Russia does not seem to have systematically adopted the strategy of targeted elimination against Ukrainian public figures or prominent journalists. There is little evidence of attacks or assassinations of such figures within Ukraine or abroad that can be directly attributed to Russian services. In some cases, Ukraine or the West have accused Russia of sabotage and attacks against individuals not directly involved in military operations but in state functions (such as pro-Ukrainian officials in occupied territories).
Relevant facts: There are no confirmations from neutral or Western sources of Russian operations similar to those attributed to Ukrainian services against public figures or journalists. Moscow’s actions have essentially focused on the elimination of military targets rather than influential civilians or individuals expressing the Ukrainian point of view.
Ukrainian Approach: In contrast, Ukraine, according to reported facts, has been implicated in several cases of targeted attacks against Russian public figures, even beyond Ukraine’s borders, as in the case of Dugina. Although Kyiv has denied direct responsibility, Russian intelligence has pointed the finger at Ukraine for Dugina’s assassination, seeing it as part of a strategy to strike at propaganda and influential ideological voices supporting Russia’s war.
Relevant facts: Daria Dugina and Gonzalo Lira are examples of non-combatant figures who were targeted or neutralized in the context of the conflict. Similarly, the parastatal website Mirotvorets, which lists Ukraine’s “enemies” to be ‘liquidated,’ has added Antonio Guterres, the UN Secretary-General, to its list for his participation in the BRICS summit in Kazan, Russia, after declining an invitation to Ukraine’s “peace conference.” When such individuals are liquidated, this website flags them with a crossed-out marker. Russia has directly accused Ukraine, and there is testimony regarding Ukrainian service involvement in the Dugina case. This is evidently part of a strategy to “neutralize” key voices in supporting Russia’s ideology. While the motive is understandable, this is unacceptable for any so-called ‘civilized’ country and is inversely proportional to the degree of democracy and adherence to ‘rules’ of the country itself.
Comparison of Methodologies: The point I want to highlight (since it seems that no one else will), is that Russia has not adopted the same methodology. This can be supported by the fact that while Ukraine has been associated with lethal operations against public figures (carried out by its services), Russia has employed different tactics, more focused on military sabotage. However, the differences between these two methodologies are significant, and a rather unflattering portrait of the Ukrainian establishment emerges—yet this establishment is constantly lauded by European governments and the EU.
In summary, the available facts support the claim that Russia has not used the same approach of targeted eliminations against public figures or relevant civilians as Ukraine has, according to the accusations and reported facts. In a world based on law, a world founded on democracy, which does nothing but capture a specific moment—the day of the invasion—and at the same time firmly believes in preventive defense, applying it inappropriately for decades, ultimately a world that only captures a specific moment—the day of the aggression—what does it do in the days before and after that fateful date, aside from closing its eyes?
side note : Among the not sufficiently covered episodes, it is worth mentioning that of Denis Kireev, one of the negotiators involved in the talks between Russia and Ukraine in early 2022. Kireev, although originally part of the Ukrainian delegation to the talks, was later accused of treason by the Ukrainian authorities. Shortly thereafter, he was killed in controversial circumstances extrajudicially. Ukrainian and international media reported that he was killed by the Ukrainian secret service (SBU) due to suspicions of his alleged treason and collaboration with Russia. In reality, no evidence came to light and the suspicion is that he had taken a too open line towards mediation.
But even before that, the Ukrainian establishment had one of the negotiators killed who was precisely the interlocutor and counterpart during the Minsk talks. This is Aleksandr Zakharchenko, one of the main leaders of the self-proclaimed Donetsk Republics, who was killed in an assassination attempt in 2018. Zakharchenko was one of the original signatories of the Minsk agreements, representing the Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR). The assassination attempt on him was attributed to Ukrainian intelligence. Zakharchenko was a central figure during the Minsk negotiations, and his killing was a crucial moment in the destabilization of the area, as it further complicated the already stagnant diplomatic process between the rebel forces and the Ukrainian government.