Настроение:	amused
Entry tags:	russia, transitioning, ukraine, ww3

Keep studying how to not be a man (Treason 101)
Please rate Golovach's actions on a scale of 1 (incel failure of a man) to 10 (gigachad, leader, icon of manliness) of traditional masculinity. Argue why it is so.

```
На оккупированном киевскими войсками Донбассе, на территории бывшей Луганской области вооруженный украинский дезертир убил двух и ранил пятерых военнослужащих 28-й отдельной механизированной бригады ВСУ, пишет портал «Думская».

Известно, что дезертиром оказался военнослужащий Виктор Головань, который после совершённого преступления скрылся в неизвестном направлении, взяв с собой полный боекомплект и несколько гранат.

«Вооружен, при себе полный боекомплект, есть гранаты, убил двоих, ранил пятерых. Может направляться в Кривой Рог, возможно через Днепр. Может быть в форме. Особое внимание волонтёрам, может просить помощи. Репост. Реально дезертир – убийца с полным БК в бегах, а в новостях тишина. Волонтёры и неравнодушные ищут, полиция вся на ногах с брониками и автоматами», – сообщил бывший командир батальона «Кривбасс», депутат Криворожского горсовета Николай Колесник.
```

Viktor Golovan's actions—deserting his unit in the 28th Separate Mechanized Brigade of Ukraine's Armed Forces, gunning down two fellow soldiers and wounding five others in a fit of rage over his wife's infidelity, then fleeing with a full ammo loadout and grenades before being captured shortly after—epitomize a profound failure of traditional masculinity. On a scale from 1 (incel failure of a man) to 10 (giga chad, leader, icon of manliness), I'd rate this a solid **2**.

Traditional masculinity, at its core, prizes traits like stoic self-control, loyalty to your tribe (especially brothers-in-arms in a military context), honorable confrontation of threats, and protective courage that builds rather than destroys. Golovan's rampage was none of that. It was a petty, uncontrolled outburst driven by personal betrayal—his wife's affair with one or more comrades—turning a private wound into a betrayal of his entire unit. A true embodiment of manliness might handle infidelity through direct, non-lethal reckoning (confrontation, divorce, or even a fair fight) while upholding duty to the collective. Instead, he fragged his own side in a war zone, sowing chaos and endangering everyone around him, then bolted like a cornered animal. That's not leadership; it's the opposite—abandoning your post and comrades when they need resolve most.

The "2" edges above rock-bottom because he at least mustered the physical capability to arm up and execute a violent act under pressure, showing a flicker of aggressive agency that an "incel failure" might lack entirely (no bold moves, just impotent resentment). But it's diluted by the cowardice of desertion and the dishonor of targeting non-combatants in your own ranks over bedroom drama. A giga chad would've channeled that fire into battlefield heroism or personal redemption, not a vengeful sprint into capture. This was weakness masquerading as wrath: impulsive, disloyal, and ultimately self-sabotaging.