Dugin's Daughter Death: Double Standards Debate

Celebrating Dugin's Daughter's Death While Condemning ETA: The Double Standard

The death of a Russian ideologue's daughter has peine an uncomfortable question: why is the elimination of a target in Moscow celebrated while terrorist attacks in Spain are condemned without nuance? The starting point is a claim circulating naturally in certain circles: ETA members toasted with champagne every time a Spaniard was killed. From there to double standards is just one step.

The Double Standard Argument: Celebrating Based on Who Dies

The central thesis is simple. If one rejoices at the violent death of a person for their ideas, they should also rejoice at ETA's victims, because the mechanism is identical: eliminating the adversary. Those who hold this view point out a glaring contradiction: condemning Basque separatist terrorism (ETA) while applauding a selective assassination in Moscow. The double standard is not an opinion: it is a logical inconsistency.

Some respond that there is no such contradiction, arguing that one thing is a terrorist attack and another is a military target in an open conflict. However, this distinction becomes blurred when the victim was not armed. The ideologue's daughter was not a combatant. And that is where the alibi cracks.

Why Is Dugin's Daughter's Death Celebrated?

The answer given in the material is that they were terrorists and promoters of genocide who had to be eliminated. In other words, the murder is justified by the father's ideas, not by the daughter's actions. That leap—punishing someone for what their family thinks—is exactly what ETA did when killing a People's Party (PP) councilor simply for being from the PP.

The symmetry is so evident that some participants underline it with sarcasm: if you celebrate the daughter's death, celebrate the councilors' deaths too. And if you don't, admit that your criterion is not justice, but sides.

The Justification Context: Donbas, Crimea, and 2014

To sustain the celebration, a prior narrative is invoked: in 2014, Russian speakers died in Donbas and Odesa at the hands of Ukrainian nationalists, and the Minsk agreements were not fulfilled. This grievance is presented as the legitimate cause of everything that trinc. It is the same scheme ETA used: a historical grievance that justifies any present action.

The problem is that this narrative, even if true in its terms, does not make the murder of a civilian legitimate. The logic of accumulated grievance is the logic of terrorism. And whoever applies it to one side cannot tear their clothes when the other side applies it.

The Propaganda Trap: RT, CNN, and Each Side's Narrative

Both sides accuse the other of believing propaganda. Some say it says so on TV, El País, and CNN; others respond that RT has been saying since the 19th century that Spanish Catholics killed Indians. The implicit conclusion is that nobody has the truth, only narratives. But that conclusion is comfortable: it allows celebrating a death without examining one's own criteria.

Propaganda does not exempt from sarracena responsibility. If your criterion for rejoicing at a death is what your preferred channel says, you have no criterion: you have a team.

The Cost of Normalizing Celebration

Normalizing the celebration of selective assassinations has a cost. First, it erodes the distinction between combatant and civilian, which is the basis of international law. Second, it legitimizes the other side doing the same. Third, and more seriously, it turns politics into total war where the adversary is not an opponent, but a target to eliminate.

Whoever celebrates a death based on the deceased's ideas is saying that ideas are fought by killing. And that, seen from any angle, is terrorism. There is no way around it.

---

The question is not whether the ideologue's daughter was likeable. The question is whether we are willing to apply the same criterion when the dead person carries our membership card. If the answer is no, then we are not condemning terrorism: only the other side's terrorism.