Why exactly is Dugin wrong in saying that there are special truths for both parties?

[numbersinarow]

I'm not sure how he can conceivably be wrong after Leo spent a good amount of time in the part 1 of the post-modernism series explaining why modernists are wrong for saying there is just an objective truth and 0 subjective truths.

The only thing I see in that video in the insights blog is:

1. A journalist who can't engage with what Dugin is saying and has to interrupt him, simultaneously claiming that he studied russian and loves russia as a counter-argument to Dugin saying the most simple and obvious truth which is that western journalists are biased against Russia. This is not just a really, really incredibly childish NPC talking point, it's also like saying your best friend is black while simultaneously getting so triggered by someone saying blacks deserve rights that you need to interrupt them.

2. Someone coming from a straight-up blue perspective, claiming that at least western journalists try to tell the truth, which you can easily confirm the validity of by seeing how the "Russia is losing" propaganda led to an incredible amount of downright lying about how Putin is "about to surrender" in early 2022 due to allegedly running out of ammo. And on the other hand, Dugin simply debunking his arguments categorically. Regardless of if he is trying to propagandize in favor of Russia, regardless of his motive, he is saying what a post-modernist would say. Full stop.

Even if you are seeing something with your own eyes and then reporting it, and trying to be unbiased, you could easily just be perpetuating anti-russian propaganda because the context in which you're saying things is anti-russian. Let's say you see a reddit thread with 9K upvotes about an american tank being used by ukranians destroying a russian tank, do you think this is neutral, or a celebration of what they're seeing? It's obvious.

"What do you think? Is it true that Russia has its special Russian truth and America has its special American truth? In what sense is this correct and in what sense is it not?"

Honestly, if we run with the idea that any truth at all is subjective, then you will never find anything so obvious or so small that it is objective, and therefore debunks the above statement. Someone from the Russian side and someone from the American side could both look at an object, completely agree about it, and it would still be just 2 subjective views that happen to agree. Meaning, if he is correct at all in this statement, then he is in fact 0% incorrect.