Kings of bloody rains

Alexander Dugin took the opportunity to show off his own intelligence. But this time, he probably went too far, because his Telegram post about the consequences of the Kherson fiasco did not last long.

So, the ideologist of Russian "Eurasianism" (read - fascism) openly wrote about the possibility of Putin's physical removal. He dressed his appeal in metaphorical robes, recalling the work of James Frazer The Golden Bough: A Study in Comparative Religion. Anyone who managed to finish this 12-volume manuscript of social anthropology will remember the death of the "king of rain", who was disemboweled by barbarians because living water did not pour down from heaven after his rituals.

Dugin writes about those responsible for the surrender of Kherson: “The authorities. It is they who are responsible for this. Why is autocracy the meaning of it, and we have it? We give the Ruler the absolute fullness of power, and he saves us all - the people, the state, people, citizens - at a critical moment... And if he doesn't save, then he has the fate of the "king of rains".

Dugin justifies his sentence in absentia to "the Ruler" by the fact that Kherson is “not a treason, it is a step towards Armageddon.” And here we can completely agree with him.

No matter how Dugin later justified himself (“No one turned his back on Putin, I and all Russian patriots definitely support him. The pain of losing Kherson is one thing. The attitude towards the supreme commander is another. We are loyal to Putin and stand for a special military operation and Russia to the end”), this is the chaff. Kherson will accelerate Russia's trajectory to "Armageddon", and to such an extent that neither Dugin nor his associates from the "warrior party" dreamed of it.

“Putin has actually lost almost all of his footholds. The shuffling of the general deck at the request of Strelkov, Kadyrov and Prigozhin has caused a gap between the Kremlin and the army.”

Putin has actually lost almost all of his footholds. The shuffling of the general deck at the request of Strelkov, Kadyrov and Prigozhin caused a rift between the Kremlin and the army. And the biggest problem is that when talking about the "army", one should have in mind a rather revealing thing. What army is it about? About the "official" army, caricaturally strengthened by Putin's recent mobilization, or, perhaps, about private formations like the Wagner PMC, which intensively feeds on thugs recruited by Putin's "cook". And who will give guarantees that Prigozhin will refrain from the temptation to pick up the power, which is about to "lie around in the street" in Russia, using his mercenaries? Moreover, Putin personally contributes to the formation of a parallel army.  Russian oppositionist Igor Yakovenko said that “it is quite possible that some individual Russian governors will join the war party, in which regional armies have appeared due to Putin's decree.”

“Who will give guarantees that Prigozhin will refrain from the temptation to pick up the power, which is about to "lie around in the street" in Russia, using his mercenaries?”

Apparently, the last of the Mohicans loyal to the "lieutenant colonel" remained only in Lubyanka.  But who would believe in the loyalty of the Chekists when it comes to the tectonic shift of yesterday's monolith, and today's amorphous mass of Russian power?

On the other hand, the isolationism insisted on by the "non-existent" nationalists ended with the forced non-participation of the "leader" in the G20 summit. Because, firstly, Putin would probably not survive another (after the meeting of the SCO leaders) humiliation by being ignored, and secondly, everyone understands that the main event of the Indonesian meeting will be the dialogue between Biden and Xi Jinping. Who is interested in a Moscow loser against such a background? Or Medvedev, who still dreams that "Russia is shaping the world order." But in order to meet with "Demon", you don't have to go to Bali, he is always nearby. 

After all, who would like to shake hands with the leader of the outright perverts who mumble from behind Putin's hunched back? For example, the "dynamic conservative", the director of the "Center for Russian Studies of the Institute of Fundamental and Applied Studies of the Moscow University of Humanities" Andrey Fursov, who endlessly juggles the terms "Anglosphere" and "bioeco-technofascism" that he coined with his own hands as a feature of the modern West. After reading his opus, you come to the conclusion that his "dynamic conservatism" is rather a "pathological conspiracy with elements of paranoia", with an urge to act on the model of the Cheka (first Soviet secret-police organization - ed.), because - after all - "ultra globalists are the direct heirs of Nazism - in one line, and Trotskyism - in the second.”

And there are legions of such Fursovs in Russia. So when you're looking for the culprits after de-occupied Kherson, spit and you won't miss a beat. All of them, one way or another, are "kings of bloody rains", and only the civility of modern international law will allow them to get away with a much more humane punishment. At least no one will think of cutting their bellies…

About the author. Ihor Hulyk, journalist, Editor-in-Chief of the Espreso.West website. 

The editorial team does not always share the opinions expressed by the authors of the blogs.