The Russian Invasion of Ukraine

[Frustration]

Yeah, the whole "blood and soil" mentality would seem to obviously lead to support for Ukraine. Beleaguered ethnicity fighting back against an evil imperialist empire?

What I don't understand are the people who are praising Putin. Arguing that the West hasn't handled Russia well, sure. Arguing that Putin's actions (if not his explicit arguments) have a certain amount of valid realpolitik in them? Perfectly reasonable. Claiming that this whole mess is a good idea that Putin's in the right? I don't... I don't comprehend that at all, even superficially. This looks to me like an epic disaster in the process of occurring.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Yeah, the whole "blood and soil" mentality would seem to obviously lead to support for Ukraine. Beleaguered ethnicity fighting back against an evil imperialist empire?

What I don't understand are the people who are praising Putin. Arguing that the West hasn't handled Russia well, sure. Arguing that Putin's actions (if not his explicit arguments) have a certain amount of valid realpolitik in them? Perfectly reasonable. Claiming that this whole mess is a good idea that Putin's in the right? I don't... I don't comprehend that at all, even superficially. This looks to me like an epic disaster in the process of occurring.

Domestically, the only thing I can gather is that there is a due claim by Moscow that Ukraine had up to a leg up in redeveloping post cold war. That's based on loose information in a britanica link I posted earlier. Sovereignty lines are rather absolute, but economic lines can make things volatile especially when mixed with conditions of national polarities.

More importantly though, it's right wing coalition ideology and rationalization therefor.

Ukraine wants to join the EU.

[Riedquat]

Those are the same terms as before, except keeping Zelensky in a powerless figurehead-position. I see what they are trying to do there. Placating the Ukrainians. They're afraid of having to slog through this quagmire.

Couple of points:

1. Given the PM is after the President, I wouldn't be surprised if Zelensky "fell down the stairs" after the PM was appointed. Its just Zelensky wasn't stupid enough to fall for it.

2. Putin's terms before included the complete demilitarization and replacement of the government so it is progress.

People need to understand how insane the first terms were. These are still horrible but less so.

Yes, there is a shift, and it's in a favourable direction even though it's a long way short of a favourable destination. It gives me some hope at least that this can come to an end without armageddon. People are understandably worried by the idea that Russia might go on to cause trouble elsewhere but this whole episode really will make them think twice, since it's not exactly going brilliantly well. They're also understandably reluctant to deal with the idea of Russia gaining anything at all as a result of such dreadful behaviour, but that's realpolitik for you unfortunately. And in any case Russia's final position, even if they got what Putin's demanding right now, is still overall weaker than it was a month ago.

[Mickey_Rat15]

In the immortal words of Q, "Oh please."

Oh please, yourself. There are few practical differences between the Soviet and Nazi autocracies, and the ones that exist mostly center around the methods used. The Nazis wanted to exterminate other ethnic and cultural groups, while the Soviets wanted to homogenize and absorb them. The intended end results are pretty much identical.

Psychologically speaking, the preference for strong authoritarian rule exists across the Left and Right.

It's not like the coalition between the axis powers wasn't overt. They were each about expanding empires. That kind of territorial pursuit is comparatively unheard of today except for tight grip claims on nationally ambiguous international state lines.

I think though in time you'll hear from extreme rights groups in America being pro-Ukraine on the matter in spite of liking Putin for more contemporary political circumstances.

In September 1939, the Soviet Union was Nazi Germany's ally in dismembering Poland. They also made territorial demands on Finland and started a nearly disastrous and bloody war to achieve them before Hitler's unexpected but inevitable betrayal.

Totalitarian ideologues are vicious, whether nationalist or internationalist.

[CharlesPhipps]

Yeah, the whole "blood and soil" mentality would seem to obviously lead to support for Ukraine. Beleaguered ethnicity fighting back against an evil imperialist empire?

What I don't understand are the people who are praising Putin. Arguing that the West hasn't handled Russia well, sure. Arguing that Putin's actions (if not his explicit arguments) have a certain amount of valid realpolitik in them? Perfectly reasonable. Claiming that this whole mess is a good idea that Putin's in the right? I don't... I don't comprehend that at all, even superficially. This looks to me like an epic disaster in the process of occurring.

If you're not anti-imperialist but just anti-NATO and anti-USA then it makes perfect sense. There's a reason that Tankies are the enemies of the progressive left.

[CharlesPhipps]

I confess, I do not get the need these two ideas:

1. That the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany have to be similar in some respect instead of wholly different but both still evil regimes.

2. That if you side with one, you have to side with the other by default.

I mean where is, "They are very different and both suck."

[Frustration]

They were very, very similar in many key respects. They weren't "wholly different" at all. Both were hierarchical, totalitarian states that believed their destiny was to convert the world to societies like their own, that the world was perfectible and they represented perfection, and that individuals existed in order to be subordinated to the interests of the state.

Why do you feel the need to consider them totally different?

[CharlesPhipps]

They were very, very similar in many key respects. They weren't "wholly different" at all. Both were hierarchical, totalitarian states that believed their destiny was to convert the world to societies like their own, that the world was perfectible and they represented perfection, and that individuals existed in order to be subordinated to the interests of the state.

Why do you feel the need to consider them totally different?

Because one is a race-based Far Right organization and the other is a communist Far Left authoritarian organization.

I feel stupider every time someone says National Socialists meant the Nazis were socialists.

[Riedquat]

Yes, there were significant differences. There were also significant similarities in practice; you were in trouble for stepping out of line in both.

There's a great deal in between "identical" and "completely different," an argument about which extreme is the correct one doesn't make much sense.

[TGLS]

Yes, there were significant differences. There were also significant similarities in practice; you were in trouble for stepping out of line in both.

Also in Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and Elizabethan England. Being punished for stepping out of line is a feature of pretty much every non-Liberal Democracy. Arguing that all these governments are effectively identical is willfully blind.