Ilay’s approach is cold risk assessment. He doesn’t need to hate you. He doesn’t eve...

Ilay’s approach is cold risk assessment.
He doesn’t need to hate you. He doesn’t even need to feel anything about you. If his calculations say “this person could become a problem later,” you’re already marked. It’s preventive, strategic, almost bureaucratic in its ruthlessness. There’s a kind of twisted acknowledgment in it: he still registers YOU as a person capable of agency, capable of becoming dangerous, so he removes the variable. He doesn’t neglect the fact that you’re human, he just decides that your humanity is irrelevant next to the mission or the long-term equation. The decision is detached, precise, and final.

Zhenya’s approach is more personal and dehumanizing from the jump. He kills because he’s bored, because you annoyed him, because it would be entertaining, or simply because he doesn’t like your face. There’s often no deeper strategic necessity. In his worldview, most people already register as insects or toys rather than full humans. You’re not a potential future threat to be calculated, you’re already disposable. The act itself can even be a form of amusement or self-expression for him.

So in a weird way, Ilay’s kills still contain a faint recognition of the other person’s personhood (enough to evaluate them as a possible threat). Zhenya never grants you that much. You were never fully human in his eyes to begin with.

That’s why Ilay’s version can feel more chilling to me, the quiet, rational decision that your continued existence is an unacceptable variable. No passion, no spite, just pure methodology. Zhenya’s is more flexing, chaotic and openly contemptuous. “I don’t like you, so you’re gone.”

Does anyone get me? Or am I just insane