The US intelligence services believe that parts of the Ukrainian government authorized the attack that killed Daria Dugina, daughter of the famous Russian ultranationalist leader Alexander Dugin, on the outskirts of Moscow last August. as reported by The New York Times.
Washington denies having participated in the attack and assures that it did not know the plans of the operation, reports the newspaper citing US government sources. If they had been consulted, they would have opposed the attack, the same sources point out. The US rebuked Ukraine for what happened.
US intelligence services shared their findings on the attack with the government last week. Ukraine has so far denied taking part in the attack.
The New York times notes that members of the Biden Administration are “frustrated” by Ukraine’s lack of transparency about its covert plans and fear that these operations, which do not have much impact on the battlefield, will trigger Russian attacks against senior officials. Ukraine.
Just two days after the attack, Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) accused Ukraine’s secret services of carrying out the attack. Then kyiv strongly denied the accusations: “Ukraine has absolutely nothing to do with this because we are not a criminal or terrorist state like Russia,” said Mikhailo Podoliak, an adviser to Zelensky.
According to the FSB statement, the attack was carried out by a Ukrainian citizen, identified as Natalia Vovk, 43 years old. The Russian intelligence service claims that Vovk arrived in Russia on July 23 together with her 12-year-old daughter, Sofia, and rented an apartment in the same apartment building where Dugina lived. After committing the crime, the perpetrator “went to Estonia through the Pskov region.”
The FSB says Vovk arrived in the country in a car with the license plate of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic, moved around Moscow with a Kazakh license plate and left Russia using a Ukrainian license plate. “The day of the murder, Vovk and Sofia were at the ‘Tradition’ literary-musical festival, to which Dúguina attended as guest of honor,” they point out.
Alexander Dugin has described his daughter’s death as a “terrorist act of the Ukrainian Nazi regime”. The ideologue has said that her daughter “she never called for violence or war” and that “Russia’s enemies quietly killed her.”
Following the FSB statement, President Vladimir Putin condemned the attack as a “despicable and cruel crime” in a statement released by the Kremlin. The president offered condolences to the family and referred to the journalist as a “brilliant and talented person with a true Russian heart”, and that she had shown with deeds what it meant to be “a patriot of Russia”.
Dugin is one of Russia’s best-known ideologues. On several occasions he has been described as “Putin’s brain” or “Putin’s Rasputin”, although the influence he wields over the Russian president remains hotly debated.
Born in 1962 into a high-ranking military family, Dugin spent his early youth as an anti-communist dissident, joining various eccentric avant-garde groups. Emerging in the last two decades of the Soviet Union, Dugin was known within them for his flirtations with the politics of Nazi Germany.
In the 1990s, he became nationally known by writing for the far-right newspaper give. In a manifesto published by the newspaper in 1991, Dugin set out for the first time the ultra-nationalist and anti-liberal vision he had for Russia, a country that according to him was destined to confront an individualistic and materialistic West.
Dugin’s worldview was more clearly articulated in his book ‘The foundations of geopolitics’published in 1997. Apparently the text became one of the manuals of the Russian General Staff academy and served to reaffirm his transition from dissident to leading pillar of the establishment conservative.
In the book, Dugin lays out his vision for dividing the world: Russia should rebuild its sphere of influence through annexations and alliances; and Ukraine should not be a sovereign state. “Ukraine as a state has no geopolitical significance, no particular cultural significance or universal significance, no geographical uniqueness, no ethnic exclusivity,” he wrote. “His unequivocal territorial ambitions represent an enormous danger for all of Eurasia and without a solution to the Ukrainian problem, in general, it makes no sense to talk about continental politics.”