By John Q. Hosedrinker 
An Uzbek national was apprehended and subsequently jailed in January following his involvement in the 2024 explosion that claimed the life of General Igor Kirillov outside a Moscow apartment building. The Ukrainian SBU intelligence agency has claimed responsibility for this targeted attack. The incident underscores the ongoing tensions and clandestine operations between Ukraine and Russia.
Read the original article here
A Russian general has been shot several times in Moscow, an incident that has certainly sparked a great deal of discussion and speculation. The immediate reaction from many is to consider who might be behind such a brazen act, especially within the heart of Russia. One prominent line of thought suggests that if Ukraine is involved, this represents a significant and bold statement, demonstrating a remarkable level of capability to operate effectively behind enemy lines. The very idea of pulling off such an operation in Moscow is described as requiring immense courage, and the perceived success of the act has garnered considerable respect.
The circumstances surrounding the shooting itself have led to a range of hypotheses, some more darkly humorous than others. There’s a prevailing sense that this might be part of internal purges within Russia, with some musing whether this is Vladimir Putin “cleaning house” once again. This perspective is fueled by past patterns of mysterious deaths and incidents involving Russian officials. The notion that this individual might have been targeted after being warned about security, perhaps a reference to staying away from windows, adds to the sardonic commentary.
Interestingly, some comments draw a direct link to previous high-profile incidents. The general in question is suspected by some to be implicated in the Salisbury nerve agent attack, a serious accusation that, if true, would certainly justify a strong sense of retribution in the eyes of many. The sentiment expressed is that anyone involved in such an attack should face the full consequences of their actions.
The question of whether this was an assassination ordered by Moscow itself or an act of retribution by Ukraine is a central point of debate. Some suggest it could be part of an ongoing power struggle within Russian intelligence agencies like the GRU and FSB. Regardless of the perpetrator, there’s a clear sentiment that this development is viewed as positive news by a significant number of observers. The elimination of a general from an invading army is seen by some as a military victory in itself, a notion that resonates with those opposing the invasion.
The commentary also touches upon the unusual nature of a shooting occurring inside Moscow, suggesting that such events are not commonly heard of. This points to the potential for a planned and executed hit rather than a random act of violence. The phrasing “Et tu Putin?” playfully captures the feeling that even those within the inner circle may not be safe.
Amidst the speculation, there’s a recurring, and perhaps somewhat dark, comedic thread concerning the perceived propensity for Russian officials to suffer unfortunate accidents involving high-rise buildings. References to being pushed out of windows or falling from balconies are frequent, highlighting a widespread cynicism about the official explanations for certain events. This has led to jokes about the availability of windows and whether they are running short, a humorous jab at the repetitive nature of these alleged accidents.
The possibility of suicide has also been raised, though often with a sarcastic tone that implies disbelief. The elaborate scenarios conjured, where a general might, for instance, trip out of a window after learning of family tragedies, only to then startle a criminal who shoots him, underscore the widespread suspicion that these are not mere accidents. The idea of a “suicide by shooting the back of one’s skull” further satirizes the idea of staged suicides.
Despite the grim subject matter, the prevailing mood in many of the comments is one of grim satisfaction. Phrases like “Great news anyway,” “Excellent news to go with my morning coffee,” and “Best news I’ve heard all year!” reveal a strong desire for such events to occur, especially from those who see the general as an enemy combatant. The hope is often expressed that more such incidents will become commonplace in the future, indicating a strong desire for Ukrainian success and Russian setbacks.
It’s worth noting that even with the limited information available, the incident itself is considered a significant statement, particularly if Ukraine is indeed responsible. While Russia possesses a large number of generals, a shooting in the capital city carries a symbolic weight. The general principle that an invading army’s general is a legitimate military target is acknowledged, even if the news of death is never inherently enjoyable. The lack of extensive details so far means that many questions remain unanswered, but the event has undeniably captured attention and fueled considerable debate about its implications.