Talking about actual Neo-Nazis is hard for Americans, because it makes it so much more difficult to paint the political opponent of the day here with that label. What we call a "nazi" is often totally indistinguishable from a social liberal when compared to the real thing.
Who would have thunk that the US and Europe would be fighting on the side of actual Nazis in 2022 after spending a decade labeling every political opponent a nazi.
These people have no shame and no sense of morality and they weaponize those feelings within those that do.
Doesn't Russia has its own Nazi problem at the domestic level? I think it's disingenuous to conflate the different problems. It does not justify the invasion at this scale against a functioning democracy.
The article said the Neo Nazis are effectively part of the actual armed forces. It showed them being given mainstream acceptance too.
How does this relate to Russia’s nazi problem?
—-
If you want to try talking about “what about Y”. What about the children being murdered every hour by the backing of the US and parts of Europe in Saudi’s assault on Yemen? How does any of that square with the morality you are espousing here of it being so wrong to go to war, and so on. Which it most certainly is for Russia to do. They are bad for this.
I am not saying what “what about Y”. My whole point is he is conflating internal problem and regional conflict with external war - i.e, I am pointing out his “what about Y” which tried to justify Putin's action. And I fear the day where Taiwan get invaded.
Based on the same logic, I would agree that you are right on Yemen too! I would blame Saudi and US's preferential treatment. Do you see my point now?
> Doesn't Russia has its own Nazi problem at the domestic level?
Every western country has some localized neo-nazi phenomenon. But I don't think any of them have official sanction or form part of that country's armed forces. This might be a first.
> It does not justify the invasion at this scale against a functioning democracy.
The only thing that matters here is Putin's words because he has the military power to back them. He says Russians have been murdered in large numbers. And there is some evidence that things like that happen.[1][2]
But starting a total war and trying decapitate the capital vs local conflicts is completely different.
NATO and US did not fight side by side either(at least for now). They just provide equipment and money. And it's very clear from the start only Putin wanted this war proactively and there is only reaction from the other side.
No. He could have done this any time he wanted over the last 8 years. So why now? I don't know what, but some thing has changed in the strategic calculus after the Trump administration went out. That is when he wrote about the historical unity of the Rus peoples. And everything else follows from there.
> there is only reaction from the other side.
They lit the fuse with the eastward expansion of NATO and the attempts to place ABMs close to Russia back in the 2000s. It is not as if Russia invaded some country in Africa or South America. It has invaded a neighbor, a former Soviet state for reasons of national security.
You only list what are favors Putin's stance while totally writes off all the other points like nuclear agreement, mirrored Taiwan situation. How about Russia tried to join NATO too? I am not going through every points in such biased manner.
None of the above justify the total war and kill civilians of another sovereign state like this, end of story. You can keep wasting your time on this site.
Why does NATO exist? Your bias is possibly just as much as your claiming of the other person.
> nuclear agreement
How was Ukraine ever going to use the nukes on their land? They didn’t have control of them, did they?
—-
You brought up different conflicts and issues again. So again. What about America and part of Europe’s involvement with the ruthless murdering of innocents in Yemen? Or Palestine? Or the downfall and continued problems of Libya after taking out Gaddafi?
