Your rebuttal is certainly legitimate and worth discussing.

Bringing real facts to the table is always appreciated. And I think we do see more or less the same facts, just debating what to make of them. So, in that spirit:

One issue is clear: the Western media is and would be very alarmist about the extreme-right having large influence in any European country. — ssu

I'm not completely convinced. For example, Syria opposition was painted as "freedom fighters" for a long time ... despite obviously being mostly jihadists and, if not, just some lighter version of Islamic authoritarianism.

But the West wanted Assad gone so mostly ignored this issue. Even when the opposition consolidated into mostly Islamic State extremists, the West still cheered the fall of the Assad regime ... more or less ignoring what would replace them.

So the discredition of the "normal" right posed people to vote for neo-nazis. But after the Maidan revolution they had enough of them. The Svoboda-party made a huge election loss in 2014 and now is a tiny minority in the Ukrainian Parliament. — ssu

I have no problem accepting your argument voting for Svoboda was "tactical".

My point here is basically that there's a downside to that tactic in that it gives extremely good pretext to invade ... according to CNN, Putin's popularity has risen from 60% to 70% in Russia since the war started. If true, certainly these sorts of factoids about a lot of people voting for Svoboda and Azov brigade, and proud neo-Nazi's claiming credit for the coup in 2014 using violence and on a mission of war with Russia that they want the fight and want the violence etc. regardless of their real world relevance, certainly plays into Putin's hands if he wants to attack Ukraine

Now, "how many neo-Nazi's with how much power is too many neo-Nazi's with too much power" honestly is a difficult question to answer.

Obviously, we don't like neo-Nazi's, and we agree they are in Ukraine and agree Putin is using that as the justification for the war.

Is there some absolute moral answer to this question; honestly, I do find the argument of some threshold of Nazi's justifying invading a valid one, but what that threshold is and what the "truth is" is difficult to answer.

It's also, in my point of view, not such a practical question when the war is on going. First priority in terms of intellectual energy I would argue is finding some way out of the war.

After that, we can debate who's most to blame for exactly what for decades to come.

What seems more fruitful in terms of discussion is that clearly the EU had no real response to a legitimate concern of their being any neo-Nazi brigades whatsoever and, whether Putin would have acted differently or not, is clearly something the EU could have made more clear (that it doesn't actually like neo-Nazi's either and has policy responses to that) and would, at the least, make me personally happier to have seen.

When one basically reurgitates the lines of an authoritarian regime that has now made it a law that saying anything wrong about the army or the "special military operation" will get you at most 15 years imprisonment, is a bit hypocrite. — ssu

Totally agree Russia is accelerating towards totalitarianism, which, for me, is potentially a worse outcome for the world than the war in Ukraine itself. It could be "Putin's plan" all along, or it could be a failure of EU diplomacy to find other solutions than push Russia in this direction as hard as possible since 2014.

And, if the EU does some introspection on it's only diplomatic failure while "having Ukraine's back" ... which it obviously doesn't have or EU soldiers would have been in Ukraine before the war, then maybe such learning would make diplomacy more effective starting now.

EU and NATO have taken direct force off the table (for I think good reason), so the constructive thing left to do is diplomacy. Putin bashing I don't think will save any lives.

Which is a conversation I had with Brussels bureaucrats literally years ago, that I didn't see the purpose in just calling Putin names. Indeed, I don't even think the name calling is even credible, if Putin was so evil ... why are we still even alive to point out his evilness and not already dead in Nuclear Armageddon? They didn't really have an answer to this argument, but would just keep calling Putin names anyways and bring out entirely unrealistic political arguments like Russia has to be punished for taking Crimea even if they accepted that was a foregone and rational action after Ukraine turned anti-Russian.

I just don't see how this attitude of "Putin is literally Hitler" is constructive. Indeed, if Hitler had as many nuclear weapons it's arguable that the argument "Hitler is literally Hitler" would be, unfortunately, not so constructive and some concessions for peace are necessary.

Thanks for the "maybe". — ssu

Yes, obviously the first goal of diplomacy is to find acceptable diplomatic solutions.

If those solutions fail, and things are resolved the hard way, the advantages of having done diplomacy well and clear treaties being violated and so on is not too significant, but is still a consideration.

Certainly treatise get violated all the time, but my basic point is that the narrative around them (in this case not to the West, but other potential partners of Russia) does matter.

you know this how?

I was recently described as a violent conspiracy theorist, rapist, white supremacist, fringe minority. I attended the Coutts Border protest with my wife and a sign that said healthcare workers support freedom and advocate for choice. Hardly the values I associate with the labels applied to me.

So you know Putin is a neo-nazi how?

You forgot Trudeau eh. Had his horsemen run down a senior with a walker that dared protest oppression. If you are going to cover 21st century Facists, never forget Trudeau; Canada's national embarrassment.

He is a brutal nationalist autocrat. He is a war monger and a mass murderer. He is funding Le Pen and has links with other European extreme right parties. And he complains about nazis?

He is a brutal nationalist autocrat. He is a war monger and a mass murderer. He is funding Le Pen and has links with other European extreme right parties. And he complains about nazis? — Olivier5

You know these things because you said them? I get that you have your opinion, and are welcome to it, as are we all, however, Can you support your claims with facts? or perhaps we simply leave them as an opinion piece?

I say Trudeau is a Facist Prick. His actions certainly suggest this: He enacts the Emergency Measures act which allows him to use force against peaceful, legally gathered protesters; by using this act none of the police officers involved can be held liable for their actions, however violent, inappropriate, or otherwise illegal those actions may be. The organizers of the peaceful protest are arrested under this act, requiring no proof of guilt and held for an indeterminate amount of time (yep, still in jail) on "mischief" and "conspiring to commit Mischief" charges. No bail. Charges that would normally involve a minor fine (under $500.00) if anything. This is akin with charging someone with "intention to commit self-defence". Under this act the government froze citizens personal bank accounts "for contributing to domestic terrorism" Apparently bouncy Castles constitute "domestic terrorism" in Canada. All done BEFORE the Emergency Measures Act was actually approved by the Government. Which, incidently, it never was. The senate was very likely to refuse to support the action, so our Pansy leader, having already done what he wanted, decided to cancel the enactment. However, everything he did was still protected by the Act, despite not having official government approval. End result, Political prisoners in Canada, imprisoned for daring to protest legally, beaten (literally) protesters, for protesting legally and peacefully. The violence at the Ottawa protest was brought entirely by the police, on behalf of Justin Trudeau. This is my basis for the claim I make regarding Justin Trudeau.

If you are going to cover 21st century Facists, never forget Trudeau; Canada's national embarrassment. — Book273

I always considered Trudeau as one of the most important Western leaders. What you are saying it is shocking me. I never considered Canada or their PM as "fascists"

ROFL. Dude, get off the stuff you're on.

When you lock up your legally protesting citizenry, remove their charter rights, have your police use mounted horsemen on peaceful protesters, beat said protesters with batons and rifle butts, threaten to kill protesters pets and have their children taken away from them...You are way into totalitarianism and Facism. And forget the rule of law, every case brought against the government for charter rights violations was thrown out. The judges refused to hear any at all. Might as well burn the Canadian Charter of Rights for all it's worth.

ROFL. Dude, get off the stuff you're on. — hairy belly

Superb argument skills.

But they can't if they are blocked from trading technology, semiconductors etc. That's the point of the technology sanctions. — Christoffer

Uh, do notice that similar sanctions were there also with the Soviet Union. And if they need artillery pieces and tanks, then they just use older ones and manufacture more ammunition.

At the same time, manpower is cheap, but with a plunged Rubel people won't get far on what they earn, so it'll turn to slave labor and a vastly underperforming technological advantage. — Christoffer

It's an authoritarian regime, which can become even more authoritarian. Many Russians fear that marshal law will be implemented, which Putin has denied. Just like he denied that he had any intention to attack.

I believe that his goal now is to destroy as much as possible, — Christoffer

The quick dash to capture Kiev and for the Ukrainian government to fall didn't happen. And obviously the Russians didn't have the logistics capable of sustaining with easy such an operation. This points to the possibility of Putin truly living in a cocoon surrounded by yes-men: any opposition based on reality wouldn't even get to his ears. The first reports of hungry Russian soldier roaming around for food came from Belarus even before the start of the war, which was telling. Basically it's now for the slow slog. As Ukrainians logically prefer to fight in urban terrain (not on wide fields where armour and firepower triumph), the Russians seem to try to surround the cities. The next phase is the Stalingrad or Berlin type of fighting, which would be absolutely devastating.

Of course Ukraine dominates the Western media scene and we seldom see destroyed Ukrainian armor or units (but some references there are). So I would be cautious in judging just on how bad the situation for Russian armed forces is. Of course there is the possibility that's it even worse, but that we will see.

The problem of Ukraine being “neo-Nazi” when President Zelensky and many Ukrainian oligarchs (Pinchuk, Kolomoyskyi, Bogolyubov, Khan, Surkis, Rabinovich, Tymoshenko, etc.) are Jewish, seems a bit puzzling.

However, the fact is that though genuine neo-Nazis are a minority, there are large numbers of Ukrainian nationalists of all shades from moderates to ultras, and they tend to be anti-Russian, especially in the current climate.

Leading Jews like the oligarchs themselves are neither neo-Nazis nor anti-Russian (though some may be anti-Putin). But for various reasons (e.g., links to Western business) they prefer a West-oriented, liberal capitalist Ukraine to a less liberal Ukraine dominated by Russia. Hence, they tend to back pro-Western political parties even when they are nationalist and anti-Russian.

Now, consider that most of Ukraine’s parties, including the ruling Servant of the People, are center to center-right and thus NOT far-right by any definition. However, they are pro-European (or pro-EU) and therefore, “anti-Russian”.

So, when Putin says “neo-Nazis”, he doesn’t mean neo-Nazis in the West European or US sense – except perhaps as a general hate term - but in the Russian sense of “anti-Russian nationalists”, i.e., an umbrella term for anyone deemed to hold an anti-Russian position, including those who are pro-EU without necessarily being anti-Russian in a narrow sense, i.e., people who have no anti-Russian intentions or sentiments, but are “anti-Russian” as a consequence of their being pro-EU.

This does not mean that violent neo-Nazi groups have not been used by mainstream parties in anti-Russian activities, possibly with the knowledge of Western powers. But is this enough to justify war? If the Russian minority is being persecuted, suppressed, or physically attacked, it may well be. But I think a greater danger for Russia would be if Ukraine joined NATO in which case Ukraine (and NATO) may decide to take Crimea back from Russia. This would be a direct threat to Russia’s security in the Black Sea area and, therefore, unacceptable.

The way I see it, the West could have avoided the conflict by renouncing eastward expansion, and Russia should have formed a broader diplomatic alliance with China, India, and other non-Western players, in order to pressure the West into staying out of the region by non-military means.

But to return to Zelensky. As stated before, he started his career as a TV comedian. In 2003, Zelensky and his close friends Ivan Bakanov and Serhiy Shefir set up the production company Kvartal 95.

Kvartal 95 started producing TV shows for Ukrainian TV channels including Inter, one of Ukraine’s most-watched television channels. A few years later Zelensky became a member of the board and general producer of Inter.

In 2015, Kvartal 95 started producing the TV series “Servant of the People” in which Zelensky played the role of president of Ukraine.

In 2018 Zelensky, Bakanov, Shefir, and other Kvartal 95 operatives founded the political party “Servant of the People”, named after the series, and headed by Bakanov. Zelensky ran for president in a virtual election campaign, using social media channels and YouTube clips. He was elected in 2019.

Zelensky’s party included media magnates like Oleksandr Tkachenko who became minister of culture and information policy. Tkachenko had been a correspondent for the British news agency Reuters, had a business degree from Harvard and completed a business course at INSEAD, after which he entered the TV and film production business, becoming a leading figure in Ukraine’s largest media group, 1+1 Media, which is owned by oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi, Ukraine’s second-richest man.

Together with oligarchs Hennadiy Boholyubov (a British citizen) and Oleksiy Martynov, Kolomoyskyi became super-rich during the privatization of state assets after the collapse of the Soviet Union and currently controls the global business conglomerate Privat Group which controls thousands of companies worldwide and maintains close links to political circles. (Other key associates from media, business, and banking include Boris Lozhkin and Serhiy Tihipko.)

Kolomoyskyi was a member of the pro-Western Fatherland Party and according to sources, Privat Group provided significant financial support to the Orange Revolution of 2004. Following the Maidan Revolution of 2014, Kolomoyskyi was appointed governor of Dnipropetrovsk, Ukraine’s most important industrial region, by acting president and former SBU boss Turchynov, a Fatherland leader.

Incidentally, Zelensky, Shefir, and Bakanov (who was appointed head of Ukraine’s Security Service SBU) themselves were operating a network of offshore companies in the British Virgin Islands, Cyprus, and Belize.

In 2019 Zelensky handed his shares in one of the companies over to Shefir, but the two men appear to have made an arrangement for Zelensky's family to continue receiving the money from these companies. Bakanov also controlled the Spanish construction and real estate company Nueva Tierra Verde SL.

Putting their money into offshore companies was not necessarily illegal, but it exposes a pattern of behavior typical of the oligarchs of whom Zelensky and his crew had been highly critical and whose rule they had promised to bring to an end.

In fact, there seems to be more to the story, but I think it is pretty clear that powerful Ukrainian business and media groups with links to the West are behind Zelensky’s government.

Anyway, here is an interesting take on the Ukraine situation from Henry Kissinger (written in 2014):

How the Ukraine Crisis Ends – Washington Post

You're the guy who says Putin is entirely justifiable starting a denazifying war against Ukraine, despite the fact that he has ties to neo-Nazis. You're saying he's entirely justifiable despite being a hypocrite regarding his stated cause. Can't argue with that shit, one can only laugh.

I'm not completely convinced. For example, Syria opposition was painted as "freedom fighters" for a long time ... despite obviously being mostly jihadists and, if not, just some lighter version of Islamic authoritarianism. — boethius

I think that Western journalists have little knowledge on Syria (as they had on Libya) as these have been quite closed authoritarian countries from the start. But considering what a genuine fiasco the whole US operation was... yeah. (Of course in Syria you have the situation where a minority is repressing the majority, and Assad has angered the Sunni majority so much, that the minorities have to simply fight alongside. The conflict was made a religious fight on purpose)

Yet think about it how for example Hungary's Victor Orban has been depicted. Or think about the scares about Austrian leaders starting from Kurt Waldheim. And Germany has it's neo-nazi scares as it has it's "Hitler-Welles". The fact is, that if the Zelensky administration would have links to the extreme-right, which they are against, it would have been earlier reported.

My point here is basically that there's a downside to that tactic in that it gives extremely good pretext to invade ... according to CNN, Putin's popularity has risen from 60% to 70% in Russia since the war started. — boethius

Putin is grasping for all kinds of pretexts. Starting from an non-existent genocide. The US, NATO and neo-nazis are the mix for today. And even when there obviously is support for him, I would be critical of just how objective those polls are in a country where being against the country and the war can get you into jail. In 2014-2015 you could see Russians here in Finland carrying the St. Georges ribbon. Now a lot of them are simply shocked. It is very different.

EU and NATO have taken direct force off the table (for I think good reason), so the constructive thing left to do is diplomacy. Putin bashing I don't think will save any lives. — boethius

The Ukrainians have to defend their country, halt the Russian attacks and inflict losses enough to get Putin to honestly talk about an armistice or peace. And then likely they have to make concessions, like accepting that Crimea is part of Russia. Or then they can surrender...which they surely won't.

That is the way to peace. Now it's time for war.

(A Russian tank crew getting into the right war mood in Southern Ukraine...)

The problem of Ukraine being “neo-Nazi” when President Zelensky and many Ukrainian oligarchs (Pinchuk, Kolomoyskyi, Bogolyubov, Khan, Surkis, Rabinovich, Tymoshenko, etc.) are Jewish, seems a bit puzzling. — Apollodorus

Not really puzzling.

Nor more puzzling as the US arming jihadists and supporting jihadists to fight Assad or Qaddafi, as I've already mentioned. If there's only one kind of person who's going to fight your battle, then you either support that kind of person or your battle isn't fought.

However, the fact is that though genuine neo-Nazis are a minority, there are large numbers of Ukrainian nationalists of all shades from moderates to ultras, and they tend to be anti-Russian, especially in the current climate. — Apollodorus

Definitely agree.

So, when Putin says “neo-Nazis”, he doesn’t mean neo-Nazis in the West European or US sense – except perhaps as a general hate term - but in the Russian sense of “anti-Russian nationalists”. — Apollodorus

Yes, as I mentioned in my exchanges with @ssu, the neo-Nazi claims, regardless of the "real truth", is certainly also exaggerated propaganda.

I'm more interested in whether this argument is really working in Russia as a whole, than whether we can really measure "Naziness" and also construct some threshold of "too much Naziness" etc. which I think is still an interesting moral-political theory to get into, but not too relevant at this stage (more academic than helping deescalate the situation and end the war).

In fact, there seems to be more to the story, but I think it is pretty clear that powerful Ukrainian business and media groups with links to the West are behind Zelensky’s government. — Apollodorus

Yes, I totally agree, and in terms of "rights", certainly Ukraine had a right to join the EU and NATO ... using that as a basis to criticize Russian policy against that, seems to make little sense.

If EU and NATO want Ukraine in the club, by all means let them in the club a year ago and prevent all this bloodshed at the risk of nuclear war being a shell away.

Western media has been obsessing over the idea of "Putin's miscalculation" but certainly these Zelensky and his supporters miscalculated in calling Putin's bluff.

If I call your bluff and go all in at the poker table, and you win because you're not bluffing ... I've never been praised as a hero for such a decision.

You know these things because you said them? — Book273

Vice versa rather, I said them because I know them. Are you not aware of these facts?

I think that Western journalists have little knowledge on Syria (as they had on Libya) as these have been quite closed authoritarian countries from the start. But considering what a genuine fiasco the whole US operation was... yeah. — ssu

I think we're totally in agreement that a failure to understand (or even take interest) in regions before, during and after involvement in military conflict isn't a good basis of decision making.

Putin is grasping for all kinds of pretexts. Starting from an non-existent genocide. The US, NATO and neo-nazis are the mix for today. And even when there obviously is support for him, I would be critical of just how objective those polls are in a country where being against the country and the war can get you into jail. In 2014-2015 you could see Russians here in Finland carrying the St. Georges ribbon. Now a lot of them are simply shocked. It is very different. — ssu

Completely agree there's as much (sure, perhaps even more, who knows) propaganda coming from Russia as from Ukraine or Western media.

Why I'm very slow in my analysis; it's extremely difficult to evaluate things with so much propaganda in all directions.

What I can be more certain of is that the West only has diplomacy to try to reduce the bloodshed, and getting into the Putin / Kremlin / Russian perspective (regardless of what is absolutely true of all these questions) is necessary for any successful diplomatic process.

The Ukrainians have to defend their country, halt the Russian attacks and inflict losses enough to get Putin to honestly talk about an armistice or peace. And then likely they have to make concessions, like accepting that Crimea is part of Russia. Or then they can surrender...which they surely won't.

That is the way to peace. Now it's time for war.

(A Russian tank crew getting into the right mood in Southern Ukraine...) — ssu

This is a difficult question. Certainly it's what's happening. What is the "best thing" to do for a negotiated settlement is unclear to me.

Maybe if Zelensky signed a paper committing not to join Nato (who did not and is not letting him in the club nor establishing a no-fly zone for him) before the war, there would be no war and all this madness and suffering, not just in Ukraine but globally as these events cause never-before-seen commodity price increases in never-before-seen number of commodities.

Zelensky wouldn't be a hero ... but literally the entire planet wouldn't suffer, and he'd be considered by historians a selfless wise man.

Now, if he signed, didn't get into NATO which wasn't on offer anyways, and Russia still invaded then he'd be both wise and a hero.

Certainly there must be some basis for introspection of Ukrainian leadership of how they got their country, and the entire world, into this mess as well.

As with Russia and as with the EU / NATO.

For example, flooding Ukraine with Javelin and Manpads and other Western military donations (from people not willing to actually fight in Ukraine) may not have any chance of changing the outcome and can backfire in many ways.

Or, maybe, it will force Putin to the negotiation table and a resolution is found sooner rather than later.

We'll certainly find out.

Why I'm very slow in my analysis; it's extremely difficult to evaluate things with so much propaganda in all directions. — boethius

I see that you make honest question and do think about it. Your not a preacher here, but open at thinking.

The fact is that raising a topic like right-wing extremism in Ukraine now can send many the wrong message when there is this Russian leader that has invaded Ukraine and talking about de-nazification of the country lead by neo-nazis. I think you understand this too.

But people hear dog-whistles everywhere.

The fact is that raising a topic like right-wing extremism in Ukraine now can send many the wrong message when there is this Russian leader that has invaded Ukraine and talking about de-nazification of the country lead by neo-nazis. I think you understand this too. — ssu

Clearly, I make the counter argument here as Western media I think makes the former in abundance.

As I say, could be true that Putin "planned all this" since 2014 and is the one that wants the new cold war and just import Chinese totalitarian technology.

It could also be a more messy process with plenty of opportunities, in particular the EU, to have avoided this truly disastrous war.

Obviously, Putin did start the war and it's a disaster for the world.

Strategically, could easily benefit Russia in medium / long term (such as super increase in commodity prices which Russia's economy is based on, seizing the bread basket of Ukraine), and from Putin's perspective West isn't doing him any favours so he's not doing them favours.

True, insane amounts of risk in this move and can be a total disaster for Russia ... but that is also not necessarily a good outcome for the world with so many nuclear weapons (both escalating Putin to use of nuclear weapons as well as an unraveling of the Russian state and losing nuclear weapons to the black market ... which, presumably, is the whole point of extreme sanctions is to collapse the adversaries economy and cause a failed sate situation, which Western leaders literally say is their goal).

For example, flooding Ukraine with Javelin and Manpads and other Western military donations (from people not willing to actually fight in Ukraine) may not have any chance of changing the outcome and can backfire in many ways.

Or, maybe, it will force Putin to the negotiation table and a resolution is found sooner rather than later.

We'll certainly find out. — boethius

That we surely will know.

What the timetable for that is, nobody knows.

Another week, a month, six months, a year or more, who knows...

What history tells us that a war fought with this kind of intensity will likely last something like few weeks, but less than a year:

Six day war: as the name says
Russo-Georgian war: 12 days
Yom Kippur war: 2 weeks and 5 days
2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war: 1 month 2 weeks
1982 Lebanon war: main phase 4 months, in all three years (with low-intensity part)

What history tells us that a war fought with this kind of intensity will likely last something like few weeks: — ssu

Yes, hopefully sooner rather than later.

Also, though we need to try to understand the Putin / Kremlin / Russian perspective for the best chance of peace, I honestly don't know what it is.

Could be Putin blundered into this ... or maybe the Kremlins looking at these sky high commodity prices and high fiving each other, as, if the war lasts weeks as you say it might and costs some tens of billions seems the estimate, the legacy of commodity prices may last years or decades and net Russia trillions.

The problem with the "boohoo commodity price increase global economic disaster; the war is such a terrible disaster" is that if you provide no incentive for Russia to participate in the global economy ... but are going to buy their commodities anyways, and China isn't going to leave a fellow tyrant hanging, then this isn't a "bad result" for the Kremlin. Certainly immoral to cause such a disaster, but if the world plays hardball with Putin ... what's the argument that Putin should play softball back.

And indeed, once the war is over and Western leaders are dealing with even worse inflation, people may not accept the argument "their suffering is necessary for Ukrainians to have prolonged a war for a true apex of virtue signaling on social media; literal victory through defeat" for long.

Of course, everything could unravel over night for the Kremlin, but that doesn't seem a good result either.

Certainly, you have in mind Finland's defense against the Soviet Union.

... However, Finland did "lose" the war and cede land for the sake of a resolution, and the Soviet Union was more worried about the Nazi's.

The Finn's fought courageously and successfully defended most of the country ... but also had an element of political realism, adapted to the wider political context (Soviet Union did have a reachable tolerance for losses) and also carried out successful diplomacy to ultimately resolve the conflict.

Finland also did not make "virtue signalling" but dangerously irrational political moves such as invade Russia itself, even when Finland had the opportunity during the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union.

Finland's survival was not based only on sending people to fight and die, but also political realism, non-escalation even at the apex of the war, and of course diplomacy.

Also of note, the debate of whether Finland could have avoided the war entirely by making some relatively small concessions to Stalin (compared to the land and lives ultimately lost) continues to this day.

The fact is that raising a topic like right-wing extremism in Ukraine now can send many the wrong message when there is this Russian leader that has invaded Ukraine and talking about de-nazification of the country lead by neo-nazis. I think you understand this too. — ssu

Where has this approach ever worked? It seems the latest fashion in information management but I don't see any precedent for it actually working. All it does it make you sound like you've got something to hide and as such pour petrol on the flames of conspiracy theories.

If there's a neo-nazi problem in Ukraine, and it's being used to justify war, we can oppose it being used that way without having to deny it exists, or suppress all talk of of it. We don't need to sink to his level and pretend that all Ukrainians are now Martin Luther King.

The leader of one of the largest countries in the world has just used the neo-nazi problem in Ukraine as a justification for war. If the best we can come up with by way of response is "shhh..." then we've lost all credibility as rational commentators.

The fact is that raising a topic like right-wing extremism in Ukraine now can send many the wrong message when there is this Russian leader that has invaded Ukraine and talking about de-nazification of the country lead by neo-nazis. I think you understand this too.

This reminds me of the Orwell essay “Through a Glass, Rosily”.

The recent article by Tribune's Vienna correspondent provoked a spate of angry letters which, besides calling him a fool and a liar and making other charges of what one might call a routine nature, also carried the very serious implication that he ought to have kept silent even if he knew that he was speaking the truth. He himself made a brief answer in Tribune, but the question involved is so important that it is worth discussing it at greater length.

Whenever A and B are in opposition to one another, anyone who attacks or criticises A is accused of aiding and abetting B. And it is often true, objectively and on a short-term analysis, that he is making things easier for B. Therefore, say the supporters of A, shut up and don't criticise: or at least criticise "constructively", which in practice always means favourably. And from this it is only a short step to arguing that the suppression and distortion of known facts is the highest duty of a journalist.

Many Russians fear that marshal law will be implemented, which Putin has denied. Just like he denied that he had any intention to attack. — ssu

Don't believe a rumor until it has been officially denied.

Joking aside, I fear that Putin, cornered and desperate, will turn to the tried and true solution - perhaps the only one that he has left: terror, the likes of which we haven't seen since Stalin.

I doubt that he is suicidal enough to go nuclear, as some suggest, but then after so many unthinkable things have come to pass recently, nothing is out of the question.

Battlefield managers can not wait several days to get clarity, of course. But we who are far distant from the battleground should not take every report we hear as settled truth. — Bitter Crank

But we're not all that distant from the battleground. If they throw the a-bomb, I am close enough to be affected. I can forget about growing fruits and vegetables for the rest of my life. If I survive.


There are still big airplanes flying overhead, several per hour. Hungary said it won't allow transit of weaponry and soldiers over its territory. But what are those airplanes carrying? They won't say on the news.

About the denazification of Ukraine... let's also hear what the Ukrainian Jews have to say about it:

Ukrainian Jews Angry and Appalled at Putin's 'Denazification' Claim

After the Russian leader evoked the term 'denazification' to explain his invasion of Ukraine, local Jews call him 'totally nuts' and say they have not experienced antisemitism under the current government

(source)

"We believe that talk of 'fascists', a rise in 'followers of Bandera' (a nationalist who collaborated with the Nazis during World War II) and the return of Jewish pogroms is intended to frighten people," said the signatories, who included businessmen and artists as well as the president of the federation of Jewish organisations in Ukraine, Iosif Zisels. "The claim... that there is rising anti-Semitism in Ukraine does not in any way correspond with reality." While Kiev kept a close eye on nationalists in Ukraine, "the same cannot be said of neo-fascists in Russia who are given official encouragement," the petition concluded, calling on Putin to "stop interfering in Ukraine and encouraging pro-Russian separatism".

(source)

The leader of one of the largest countries in the world has just used the neo-nazi problem in Ukraine as a justification for war. If the best we can come up with by way of response is "shhh..." then we've lost all credibility as rational commentators. — Isaac

Rest assured that these allegations by a country waging war on its neighbour have been addressed here by rational commentators. Neonazis are not a significant factor in today's Ukraine. They are a more significant problem in the US or Russia in fact.

Neonazis are not a significant factor in today's Ukraine. — Olivier5

Firstly, we're talking in the first instance about the allegations (the speech act and it's function in global diplomacy) not the facts of the case. If you drop the tribalistic cheerleader act for 30 seconds and actually read you might have recognised as much.

Secondly, the very question of how significant is 'significant' is the one @boethius asked. So all your comment does is beg the question.

But we're not all that distant from the battleground. If they throw the a-bomb, I am close enough to be affected. I can forget about growing fruits and vegetables for the rest of my life. If I survive. — baker

Yep. The lives and livelihoods of millions are at stake if Putin launches anything nuclear.

But hey... Let's keep provoking him, see if we can't get him to do something really stupid. I think we should insult his mother next, maybe that'll do it.

I'm sure Putin's got to be thinking about how the USSR's demise was related to its protracted war in Afghanistan.

Could Ukraine be his Afghanistan? :grimace: