You can see why Putin so often characterises Russia’ s enemies as ‘Nazis’. The label immediately provokes revulsion; except of course among Neo-Nazis, who the Russian President seems to think are more influential – in Ukraine, the Baltic States (see https://www.propastop.org/en/2024/02/01/decoding-putins-accusations-of-nazism-against-baltic-states/), the USA, and even the whole of Europe – than they probably are.
There are of course historical reasons why Putin chooses this particular stick to beat the Ukrainians with. In its ‘Great Patriotic War’ (1941-45) the Soviet Union’s main enemy was a Nazi-dominated Europe; the Soviets’ heroic victory over which cost around 26 million Russian lives. (For comparison, Britain lost ‘only’ 450,000 dead, and the USA 418,000.) So you would expect the Russians to remember that war more, for longer, and rather differently from the way we in the West remember it. And since it ended we’ve never sufficiently acknowledged the Soviets’ vital contribution to our Allies’ war effort, and have been pretty beastly to them in other ways – albeit with good reasons, to be sure. So in these circumstances the ‘Nazi’ charge is an understandable prejudice, as well as being a useful propaganda tool for Russia.
And of course it’s not entirely groundless. There will undoubtedly be some genuine neo-Nazis in Ukraine today, as there are everywhere in the West; in Ukraine’s case feeding the resistance against Russia. (See https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-is-there-any-truth-to-russias-ukrainian-nazis-propaganda/a-63970461.) How strong and influential they are I have no means of knowing – it’s not my area of historical expertise; but it’s an obvious nail to hook Russia’s Europhobia on. But of course not to explain the latter’s invasion of Ukraine, exactly four years ago. Or even to excuse Putin’s motive behind it; which to a historian in my field looks far more like 19th-century imperialism.
Porter’s Pensées 
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v48/n04/jackson-lears/globaloney?utm_campaign=4284939_20260225NewIssue&utm_medium=email&utm_source=LRB%20email&dm_i=7NIQ,2JUA3,2E27ML,5L93Q,1,0,0,0
LikeLike
Last paragraph should read “it DOESN’T want to”…
LikeLike
Surely the 19th century imperialism is by the US Empire, ie US “big capital”?
It has used its standard CIA “playbook”.
First organise a “spontaneous demonstration” against the rulers of the first target country, in this case Ukraine, (against a duly elected President) latterly Iran (against repressive rulers…but with no chance of success). That thousands of people get killed matters not at all to the Empire.
Second apply sanctions against any country objecting in order to try to break it’s economy ie Russia.
Third provoke military action by the actual target country, Russia, by agreeing the first target will become part of the Empire ie NATO with US troops and missiles inevitably stationed there. The missiles being there to negate any counter strike against a first strike by the US Empire.
Fourth, supply arms to the “taken over” first target and further sanctions to the actual target. Excellent business, of course, for US “big capital”.
Regrettably for the US Empire, Russia didn’t succumb to sanctions and isn’t being bled dry on the battlefield. In any event China won’t let it lose because it knows it would be next on the menu…which is why the Empire is disengaging. Still selling expensive arms to Ukraine of course…and it’s vassal the EU which has been brought to heel rather well.
Russia doesn’t threaten any other country whatsoever. It does want to, and can’t; it isn’t strong enough. But pretending it will sells weapons and makes our rulers feel important.
LikeLike