I agree that it is irrelevant. It is more like a linguistic research from my part. If the author understand Nazism in a different manner then I was taught in school, then I'd better pick it up, or I would misunderstand all such arguments.

> 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.

I'm German, so I do have obviously a view on Nazism. I was never taught the USSRs perspective on WW2 so. I think mainly because of the Cold War propaganda, we skipped ( and I had a really great history teacher at that time) over the Russian effort.

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?

Well, it's complicated.

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.

Thanks for the answer. And it makes sense. It's not that lkng ago that I came to realize how much of what I know about WW2 is in fact heavily influenced by post-War propaganda. Being West-German, that propaganda is obviously anti-Communist.

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).

Russian Empire was called «Jail of Nations», because of many nations captured. To unite the Empire, all nations are erased into «Russian Nation», by prohibiting speaking, writing, signing using people own languages, i.e. every nation is bad. In RF, every nation, which is not Russian, are called «Nazi», because «Nazi» is very bad word. German Nazi, American Nazi, Polish Nazi, Latvian Nazi, Estonian Nazi, Finlandize Nazi, Israeli Nazi, etc., except «Russian Internationalists».

I wouldn't agree. Of course there's a push for homogenisation because everyone has to speak Russian, which is the official language of the state, but nobody is stopping people in the "national republics" from using their corresponding languages. Chechens speak Chechen at home, Tatars speak their language (if they want to). Modern Russia inherited this from the USSR's policies towards ethnic minorities. National languages are taught in schools.

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.

I think it is close to a modern understanding of rasism, though an extreme variant: one race to rule them all. To rule or to genocide.

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.

> Hitler was not so much against Jews he was against non-Aryan people

Well, first and foremost Nazi were anti-semites. All other "minor" and "undesirable" people and races came after that.

Ok. Got it.

Of course it's just a dishonest pretext by Putin, he has no problem with neo-nazis as long as they're on his side, but there's a grain of truth in it. Look up Azov battalion.

What we should find in Ukrainian spec-ops unit? Germans?

When you have a bunch of football hooligans wearing nazi insignia, having nazi tattoos, waving nazi flags and talking about a historic mission to lead the white races of the world in a final crusade against the Semite-led untermenschen... does it really matter what "race" they are?

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.

That's how propaganda works: pack the big lie in a small truth.

> Look up Azov battalion.

Who BTW are funded and equipped with our tax dollars. Yay!

I've seen plenty of articles in western media about Ukrainian neonazis. You linked to one of those articles yourself.