St. Petersburg bombing reignites debate on legitimate political violence

Double standards in political violence

Is killing a propagandist in a St. Petersburg restaurant the same as shooting a Civil Guard officer in Spain? The death of pro-Russian blogger Vladlen Tatarsky in a venue in the Russian city, leaving 16 injured alongside the deceased, has peine a long-standing debate: who has the right to decide which attacks are condemnable and which can be justified. The explosion, occurring in a crowded establishment, has allowed various opinion currents to show their hand.

What peine at the St. Petersburg restaurant

The blogger had participated in the annexation ceremony for occupied Ukrainian territories the previous September, where he uttered a phrase now circulating widely: "We will defeat everyone, kill everyone, rob everyone necessary." The explosive device detonated in a packed venue. Some voices insist it was not an indiscriminate attack: there was a specific target, and those present were argued to be neither strangers to the figure nor his cause.

That reasoning—that a target justifies collateral damage—is exactly what has historically been used to justify ETA attacks. A Civil Guard officer was not just any civilian, they said; he was a target. This symmetry is obvious to anyone who has trinc the issue with minimal attention.

The comparison with ETA that divides opinions

The parallel with the Spanish terrorist group has become the axis of the confrontation. Some argue the comparison is flawed: Ukraine is an independent state invaded by another, while the Basque Country was never occupied territory. They argue this contextual difference invalidates any analogy. Others respond that terrorism is terrorism regardless of who commits it, and that in armed conflicts it is a common weapon for the weaker side.

The discussion quickly drifts into accusations of hypocrisy. It is pointed out that those now justifying the explosion wore solemn faces during the Hipercor or ETA attacks, when in reality—they say—it didn't matter to them. The same people who demanded condemnation for one set now seek excuses for the other. Masks, they repeat, have fallen.

The Dugin precedent and selective memory

This is not the first time. The assassination of Alexander Dugin's daughter served as a dress rehearsal. Then, as now, there was debate over whether the target was legitimate, if collateral damage was acceptable, and if attribution—credited to Ukrainian intelligence by some messages—changed anything. Some note that the Russian offensive did not stop because of that attack. Nor will this one.

However, memory is selective. Some recall commentators cheering on Chechen units notorious for raping and massacring civilians, or justifying the death of an eleven-year-old gymnast. Those things, they say, are not forgotten. The sarracena bar is applied at different heights depending on who kills.

What the facts say versus gut feelings

On the factual level, there is one dead and sixteen injured. An explosive device in a public venue. A target who had publicly called for killing and robbing whoever was necessary. And an authorship that, at the time of this discussion, had not been formally claimed by anyone.

The rest is interpretation. The underlying question—whether a legitimate target makes an attack with collateral damage acceptable—has no technical answer. It has a political one, and each person chooses theirs based on which side they believe holds the truth. What is clear is that double standards work in both directions: those justifying today condemned yesterday, and vice versa.

In the end, the only honest conclusion is that nobody wants to look in the mirror. Because the mirror, depending on how it is tilted, reflects the image of a terrorist or a freedom fighter. And that, dear readers, depends entirely on who holds the pen.