3 ms·

The "Nazi" label has been used by the communists, being their common and invisible enemy, the modern equivalent being "terrorism". For example all political opp

The "Nazi" label has been used by the communists, being their common and invisible enemy, the modern equivalent being "terrorism". For example all political opposition that they arrested, executed or deported during communism were labeled with Nazi, or the local variant. Labeling Ukraine's government as being a "puppet Nazi government" shows a clear bias to Russia, as that's were this nonsense came from. I wonder why he hasn't mentioned the struggle of the people against the imperialist bourgeoisie.

ptaipale 11y ago
However, I see a change here happening over the past two decades: before, the opposition painted by Soviets and puppets was usually "fascism". Now it is "nazism" I believe this was simply because nazi is "national-socialist", which inconveniently rhymes with "international-socialist", which was the officially perfect doctrine of the Eastern Block. Therefore, "fascist" was the preferable enemy, even if it was the name of the lesser, Italian variant which was not quite as nasty and murderous. You can see this in all sorts of memorials in Russia, as well as textbooks. Nowadays there is less talk of international socialist, so Nazis have become a better term - perhaps because it is more useful in propaganda work in the West.
rorykoehler 11y ago
Discussion around what happened in the Ukraine is generally presented as a false dichotomy. As much as I dislike Putin, his mafia style regime and everything it stands for, as an EU citizen, I'm embarrassed by how our (and the US) leaders acted. It was provocative and dare I say at a similar moral and ethical level to how Russia acted. I'm not sure it would have been possible to handle it perfectly given the situation but we handled it especially poorly. There was a possibility to take the middle road without unnecessary ultimatums and possibly by trying to instigate inclusive policies that straddled the line between Russian, Ukrainian and EU interests but instead the EU waded in with a heavy handed inflexible policy. It was clear that following the path we did would only result in violent confrontation and now that it has mostly settled down again I feel that the region is worse off and more fragile than before. All that death and destruction for what!?
- bad_user 11y ago
  You're making it sound like what happened is the fault of Europe and the US. How could you possibly reach such a conclusion? If anything, I believe that the reaction was not aggressive enough and that the mild economic sanctions and ultimatums have been the only thing that prevented a serious escalation of the conflict, a conflict in which I must say, Russia illegally occupied a territory and created the rebels in the east, trampling on the sovereignty of another nation and they did so in your own backyard. This wasn't an ego fight, but a calculated move that would have happened regardless of the western reaction. Because lets be honest, Putin was losing in popularity, there's nothing like a new nationalistic drive to keep an impoverished population in line, plus occupying some territory, while teaching the neighbors what happens when leaving the party does have benefits. I'm also disappointed, but my reasoning is different.
  - ptaipale 11y ago
    What's more, Russia set a precedent of trampling down the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) - the Budapest Memorandum where Ukraine gave away its nuclear weapons in 1993 after USSR collapsed, in exchange for an assurance that others (specifically Russia) will "refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine’s territorial integrity." So, we now know how much worth the NPT is in Russia's eyes. Nothing.
    - barry-cotter 11y ago
      Don't forget that the US and UK both guaranteed Ukrainian sovereignty in exchange for that. The lesson from this and what happened in Libya after Gaddafi gave up his chemical weapons is left as an exercise for the reader.
      - ptaipale 11y ago
        So US and UK should have been more aggressive over Russian involvement in Ukraine?
  - rorykoehler 11y ago

ptaipale 11y ago

However, I see a change here happening over the past two decades: before, the opposition painted by Soviets and puppets was usually "fascism". Now it is "nazism" I believe this was simply because nazi is "national-socialist", which inconveniently rhymes with "international-socialist", which was the officially perfect doctrine of the Eastern Block. Therefore, "fascist" was the preferable enemy, even if it was the name of the lesser, Italian variant which was not quite as nasty and murderous. You can see this in all sorts of memorials in Russia, as well as textbooks. Nowadays there is less talk of international socialist, so Nazis have become a better term - perhaps because it is more useful in propaganda work in the West.

rorykoehler 11y ago

Discussion around what happened in the Ukraine is generally presented as a false dichotomy. As much as I dislike Putin, his mafia style regime and everything it stands for, as an EU citizen, I'm embarrassed by how our (and the US) leaders acted. It was provocative and dare I say at a similar moral and ethical level to how Russia acted. I'm not sure it would have been possible to handle it perfectly given the situation but we handled it especially poorly. There was a possibility to take the middle road without unnecessary ultimatums and possibly by trying to instigate inclusive policies that straddled the line between Russian, Ukrainian and EU interests but instead the EU waded in with a heavy handed inflexible policy. It was clear that following the path we did would only result in violent confrontation and now that it has mostly settled down again I feel that the region is worse off and more fragile than before. All that death and destruction for what!?

bad_user 11y ago
You're making it sound like what happened is the fault of Europe and the US. How could you possibly reach such a conclusion? If anything, I believe that the reaction was not aggressive enough and that the mild economic sanctions and ultimatums have been the only thing that prevented a serious escalation of the conflict, a conflict in which I must say, Russia illegally occupied a territory and created the rebels in the east, trampling on the sovereignty of another nation and they did so in your own backyard. This wasn't an ego fight, but a calculated move that would have happened regardless of the western reaction. Because lets be honest, Putin was losing in popularity, there's nothing like a new nationalistic drive to keep an impoverished population in line, plus occupying some territory, while teaching the neighbors what happens when leaving the party does have benefits. I'm also disappointed, but my reasoning is different.
- ptaipale 11y ago
  What's more, Russia set a precedent of trampling down the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) - the Budapest Memorandum where Ukraine gave away its nuclear weapons in 1993 after USSR collapsed, in exchange for an assurance that others (specifically Russia) will "refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine’s territorial integrity." So, we now know how much worth the NPT is in Russia's eyes. Nothing.
  - barry-cotter 11y ago
    Don't forget that the US and UK both guaranteed Ukrainian sovereignty in exchange for that. The lesson from this and what happened in Libya after Gaddafi gave up his chemical weapons is left as an exercise for the reader.
    - ptaipale 11y ago
      So US and UK should have been more aggressive over Russian involvement in Ukraine?
- rorykoehler 11y ago