The successors of the notorious KGB, now operating as the Federal Security Service of Russia, have leveled accusations against Ukrainian Natalia Vok, alleging involvement in the death of Daria Duguina, the daughter of Alexander Dugin, a prominent adviser to the Kremlin and a vocal advocate for expansionist nationalism. This claim is framed within a broader narrative that portrays Russia as defending a concept of a greater country whose boundaries and influence were narrowed after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The narrative asserts that many former Soviet republics chose independence, turned away from Moscow’s orbit, and unexpectedly joined the Western world, a shift that is presented as ingratitude toward a long history of central control. Some versions even suggest the murder occurred accidentally, pointing to a claimed setup where the explosives’ purchaser was Alexander Dugin himself, who allegedly altered his vehicle at the last moment. The person responsible for the attack, according to these claims, is believed to be safely in Estonia now, avoiding direct accountability.
Outraged by what is portrayed as Ukrainian arrogance, the Russian leadership has publicly denounced the assassination as a despicable crime and issued praise for the memory of Duguina. They have criticized what they call the infamy of Ukrainian special services, accusing them of meticulously planning an assault that supposedly jolted Russians from a long period of stagnation, a phase they describe as a prelude to renewed conflict rather than a reaction to ongoing hostilities. Moscow, in this portrayal, maintains that the event represents not merely a violent act but a political maneuver within a broader strategic competition. The framing emphasizes that the response is not to be seen as an isolated incident but as part of a larger, continuing struggle between two entrenched systems with divergent aims and histories.
In this charged narrative, it is noted as strikingly cynical that Moscow would scrutinize the murder through ethical and ideological lenses while many Russians see parallels with a history of occupation and violence during more than one era and under various brands of governance. The text presents a controversial stance: regardless of the perpetrator, crime remains unacceptable, yet it contends that certain actions taken by Ukrainian nationals are interpreted by supporters as acts of self-defense against a long-standing aggression. The result is a narrative where moral certainty conflicts with political calculation, inviting readers to weigh the wording, context, and underlying interests that shape such statements in a polarized regional arena. The discussion captures how victims, responses, and the attribution of blame can be weaponized in the service of broader national narratives, turning a single murder into a symbol of a larger geopolitical struggle and a test of international perceptions and loyalties.