The most important one is the promise given to Ukraine that it will enter NATO and the EU if only given enough time for implementation details, totally ignoring the needs and apprehensions of Russia next door. Which might be ok in an ideal world, but fact of the matter is that international relations are as far from an "ideal world" as one can imagine, they're one of the last, true bastions of open hobbes-ianism when it comes to politics and human relations. We needed more realists, more people willing to see things as they really were, and less idealists, less people saying things like "how can Putin not accept the sovereignty of other countries? Doesn't he know that breaks international law?"
Also, one must have the feeling that Ukraine has been a little let down by the EU and NATO in all this, especially by the EU. I can understand at this point why NATO won't get involved more than it has (I think they now see the possibility of Putin starting WW3 on the flimsiest of pretences), but imo the EU could have done so much more, at least when it comes to direct economic assistance given to Ukraine and to real economic sanctions imposed on Russia. Just two days ago the Belgians and Italians were still bickering [1] over not imposing sanctions on Russian oligarchs related to the diamond market (very strong in Belgium) and the luxury market (very strong in Italy). When you put in the balance the selling of luxury bags to some Russian oligarchs' wives vs the fate of a nation to whom you had promised the world then something is wrong, really wrong (hopefully, once the war really started a day after that those petty negotiations were put on hold)
Source: me, living in a NATO and EU member country bordering Ukraine
[1] https://twitter.com/MatinaStevis/status/1496758467943866374
Your comment history approaches deliberate misinformation. This is an example. NATO admission was never promised. The consultation process was all but abandoned over a decade ago, before Putin rolled into Crimea.
NATO reaffirmed that “Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP)", which is the most traction on the topic since 2008.
In 2016, Ukraine was granted the Comprehensive Assistance Package (CAP), comprising the advisory mission at the NATO Representation to Ukraine as well as 16 capacity-building programmes and Trust Funds. And in 2018, Ukraine was officially given an aspiring member status.
I found this article to be informative:
https://euromaidanpress.com/2021/06/15/the-2021-brussels-nat...
You can read it yourself from the 2021 NATO statement, unless you think the NATO website is another shill. See section 69.
It corroborates my earlier statements.
> But why on Earth is anyone buying into it?
Russians buy it, because their propaganda shows them enough "facts" of Ukrainians attack Russians. Outside of Russia it seems to me no one buys it.
Turns out now, that this lack of education, for lack of a better term, might be an issue. So, sincere question, what is the Russian understanding of Nazism?
I think Putin's understanding of a "Nazi" is deeply connected to the Russian trauma of WWII that the West still doesn't get. Russians believe that due to the sheer number of lives lost, the USSR (and so Russia as its successor state) played _the_ central role in WWII. I encourage you to watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwKPFT-RioU (the relevant parts start at about 4:40 and 9:40)
I personally think that it makes no sense to talk about "who made the victory" because it was an allied effort and none of the allies could have done it alone. But at the same time, I think that westerners just don't get how personal and traumatic this was for the people of Russia.
So, Putin is very sensitive to any view on WWII that differs from his. Things like "this was just two dictators (Stalin and Hitler) fighting". Or the view of some Ukrainian nationalists that the communists and the nazis were just both occupants (same view exists in Poland), or even that the nazis were liberators from communism. There's history of collaborationism in the Ukraine, as is everywhere, but not everywhere the collaborationists are viewed by a lot of people as national heroes, not as traitors who joined the aggressor (the nazis). I personally understand why this view exists, but for Putin and most Russians it's just outrageous.
So, for Putin a nazi is mostly someone who disagrees with the Russian view on the role of the USSR in WWII. That includes nationalists from countries that Putin views as satellites/buffers (ex-USSR and socialist block), but Western countries that don't get how it looks from the Russian side, even those that were allies in WWII, are also tinted with this "nazi" color.
I think there is truth to the saying that WW2 was won by English intelligence (I wpuld add stuborness), Soviet blood and American bullets (as a synonym for industrial power).
I'm not a fan of Putin's policies here, but inside Russia it's certainly not oppressive in the linguistic sense. If you agree on the unity of the state (don't want actual political independence), you're free to use your language.
Hitler was not so much against Jews he was against non-Aryan people, the group that included Jews and Russians and African, and Asian, and almost everyone.
I'm not sure is it a good definition or not, but it is how it is. I vaguely suspect that this definition even may be offensive to Jews (judging by a recent Ruby Goldberg blooper), but honestly I have no intention to be offensive, just describing how it is. And trying to understand the other point of view.
Well, first and foremost Nazi were anti-semites. All other "minor" and "undesirable" people and races came after that.
Of course it's a rotten excuse for an invasion. But I think it answer OP's question, "why on earth anyone is buying into it". People are buying into it because there's a grain of truth to it.
Who BTW are funded and equipped with our tax dollars. Yay!
> while Putin has in mind more broad definition "anti-ethnos, for any ethnos"
But: the Ukrainian government never was against any ethnic group. That is what Putin would like you to believe, but it simply isn't true. Just like the Latvian government isn't against the ethnic Russians living in Latvia (a very large fraction of the people in Latvia have Russian roots).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion
There are photos of them doing the Nazi salute [1] and videos of them flying the Nazi flag on the front lines. Even human rights groups have complained about the arms sales to neo-Nazis [2].
https://ukraineatwar.blogspot.com/2014/11/nazis-in-azov-batt...
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/rights-groups-demand-isr...
Both Russia, Ukraine and Serbia have a Neo Nazi problem. But that does not justify Russia invading Ukraine.
So does the US. But in the US, neo-Nazis are not in our government, the Congress and in top military positions. They are extremely powerful in the Ukraine and are dictating policy.
No, they aren't, that's pure propaganda from Russia, which, ironically, uses international neonazis as a means of undermining other states around the world.
https://www.justsecurity.org/68420/confronting-russias-role-...
No, it doesn't. There simply aren't any in positions of significant policy influence. (The US has—although that has changed a little bit since Jan. 6, 2021 for...reasons—historically largely turned a blind eye to the much more extensive influence of neonazis in the US, where they have, among other things, deep and extensive peentration of the internal and external security services, which is one reason the US has been especially vulnerable to their use as international agents of influence by Russia under Putin.)
They wouldn't, because it wouldn't solve any problem for them. The current Ukraine government is friendly towards the US and the neonazi militias were doing the job of suppressing insurgents, largely with support from said government. The US had more than a little influence in the replacement of the previous, Russia-friendly government.
Are you sure about that?
https://khpg.org/files/img/1394442849.jpg
Maybe if Putin would stop funding neonazi groups across Europe he'd have any credence on the matter.
And there's little doubt that if a country goes through a violent clash against corrupt government (see euromaidan), such groups would take the opportunity to gain standing. You can draw parallels to capitol hill events, or imagine what groups like Soldiers of Odin (the nordics) would have done had there been protests with bullets.
And when your country is invaded by a foreign nation, your army generals are not going to ask about the political opinions of those who are willing to fight for their country. A small group of nazis defending Ukraine from Russian invasion? So what. There will be nationalists standing in any country's army if they get invaded.
Talk about nazism is a mere distraction and something Putin's trolls would do. Please don't.
It's a bit more complicated than that. Ukraine has neonazi militias that enjoy some level of government support and that have been involved in violent incidents in the past. This, of course, does not justify an invasion by a foreign power. Ukraine currently ranks very low as a functional democracy (we can give them some slack on that, since they've been essentially invaded since 2014). I'm still not sure what's the upside of this for Russia, or for Putin. As the article points out, invasions take months, if not years, of planning. While the decision to stand down can be made at any point, the decision to invade has to wait for all the pieces to be in place. Whatever the end-goal is, it's not Ukraine.
I'm trying to say that this would likely happen in any country where political unrest and corruption leads to a violent change of regime. That militia formed during Euromaidan, and they are useful to the government in so far as they are against occupation by Russia. Just as Nazi Germany was useful to my country (Finland) in the second world war.
Nazi bad, but a small group with nationalistic ideals fighting for the nation doesn't mean the nation is nazi, and it would be irrational to reject the aid of such a group in the fight against occupation. It'd be good for virtue signalling at most but you don't fight a country the size of Russia or China by thoughts and prayer and virtue signalling. And I'm pretty sure Putin would have some excuse for attacking Ukraine with or without a minuscle amount of neo-nazis in the soup.
If Ireland is invaded by a giant neighbor, the government isn't going to ask their infantry whether they're nationalists before letting them fight for your country.
If Putin thinks nazis are the reason to invade a country, he ought to invade Finland too. I'd still hope our nationalist party takes up arms and goes to the front lines to defend Finland. And they should have the Government's full support in doing so.
As usual, the problem is how you deal with them later, after they got access to weapons and military training and, perhaps more dangerous, some political legitimacy as war heroes.
> On 11 August, Azov battalion, backed by Ukrainian paratroopers, captured Marinka from pro-Russian rebels and entered the suburbs of Donetsk clashing with Donetsk People's Republic fighters.
So, I assume, the Ukraininan Nazi are killing Donetsk People's Republic fighters? This is THE crime you are talking about?
No.
Try these:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/05/ukraine-attac...
https://freedomhouse.org/article/ukraine-authorities-should-...
https://khpg.org/en/1517275970
https://freedomhouse.org/article/ukraine-authorities-should-...
https://freedomhouse.org/report/analytical-brief/2018/far-ri...
Utter bullshit.
If there is any country that is instrumental in financing hate groups then it is Russia, they have their fingers in every pie that they can find.
What percentage of budget goes into Russian-majority areas? Let's say even before the whole NATO thing started in 2008.
Ukraine is not like the Nazi’s since their leader is Jewish, the opposite of being a Nazi. Hence the Putin lie.
https://www.csis.org/features/kremlin-playbook-3
It will click why this rhetoric is used by him and also the western (extreme) right (including Trump)
https://original.antiwar.com/rick_sterling/2022/02/24/how-th...
What's next? You're gonna claim Cuba is the fault of the Soviet union?
It seems to me that the author defines Nazi as anti-Jewish, while Putin has in mind more broad definition "anti-ethnos, for any ethnos". Being Russian I'm sure that my understanding of Putin is correct. Putin talks that Ukraine supposedly anti-Russian, prosecutes and kills Russians living in Ukraine, dreams of genocide of Russians and so on.
So the argument of the article seems to be a non-sequitur. But if we defined Nazi as anti-Jewish that the argument would cease to be a non sequitur, it would be completely logical and conviencing.
But maybe I do not understand something else?
I'd like to clarify one more time, because it is a hot political topic. I do not think that Ukraine is anti-Russian-ethnos. I'm sure it is now strongly anti-Putin and even anti-Russian Federation, and rightly so. So regardless of what definition of Nazism we used, Putin declaration is a lie.