In my view, Hitler long shadow is still présent in many ways. He has never been historicised, and his figure continues to serve as a pretext to “angelicize” the western geopolitical behaviour, that remains steeped in a sort of suprematism less and less hypocritically veiled. That’s a sort of paradox … seeing Hitler in others and keep hidden, or not wanting to see, the “Hitler inside”
please also investigate about the double genocide revisionists.
dovid katz is a critical author about that.
this serves deeper context on the integral nationalists, ie. OUN, anti-bolshevik bloc, and generally, heirs of the nazi-collaborators of eastern europe.
the black&red flag, etc.
they have global connections, to the neocons, likud, kuomintang, and more, today even elites in brussels.
it is not a monolithic force but a form of congruent, shared but tribalistic viewpoint on identities and enmities. they make peace impossible.
Munich teaches us not so much to compare a contemporary dictator to Hitler but to recognize the inevitable failure of appeasement. John Mearsheimer, a very smart man, has many insights, but where Ukraine is concerned, I cannot agree with his idea that Russia cannot permit NATO to advance to its doorstep. Comparison with the US in the Cuba crisis or in South America is misleading because the US was the predominant power in its hemisphere, as was the USSR; but once the USSR disintegrated, Russia no longer enjoyed that dominance. Putin wants to restore a Soviet empire that no longer exists, and pushing BACK against his ambition is not the same as pushing INTO the USSR. Putin’s intentions are similar to Hitler’s in 1938: both want to expand from a position that is not (yet) dominant, with a view toward further expansion. Czechoslovakia was not Hitler’s, but getting it made him stronger and paved the way to Poland and France. An independent Ukraine and NATO threaten Putin's imperial ambitions, not Russia’s borders. Nor is there reason to suppose that his ambition stops with Ukraine. History (not only Munich) shows one should contain this kind of ambition, not humor them (see Donald Kagan’s illuminating book On the Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace, 1994). On policy toward Russia and Ukraine, see Alexander Vindman's fine new book,The Folly of Realism. How the West Deceived Itself about Russia and Betrayed Ukraine (2025). To understand Putin’s Russia, read Masha Gessen and Garry Kasparov.
I disagree with your assessment that Russia pursued Ukraine to be in its “sphere of influence”. Russia's concern was its own security, not Ukraine being in someone else's sphere of influence. Ukraine being a de facto member of an aggressive hostile military block, NATO, violates the principle of indivisibility of security. Ukraine and NATO can't simply increase their own security disregarding Russia's concerns over military buildup on its borders. This case is nothing like the American (on behalf of Israel, America's master) Great War on Terror in the Middle East, where no amount of military buildup in that region half way across the planet from the US would ever threaten America's security. The Russia-Ukraine-NATO situation is indeed similar to the Cuban missile crisis, which was not a crisis of spheres of influence, but a crisis of indivisibility of security.
"Russia's concern was its own security, not Ukraine being in someone else's sphere of influence"
These concerns are both one and the same in this context, so you're objections are mostly semantic imo. Prior to 2014 Ukraine already was in the Russian sphere of influence, certainly economically, but also in other ways. The 2014 coup served to sever the trade relationship between Russia and Ukraine thus removing it from the Russian sphere of influence. That said, Putin at the 2022 Istanbul talks had been prepared to allow Ukraine to join the EU, just not NATO.
Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote about Ukraine in The Grand Chessboard, arguing that Ukraine's relationship to Russia is what made Russia an "empire". He considered Ukraine to be "a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard...a geopolitical pivot because it's very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire." Tearing Ukraine out of Russia's sphere of influence in order to diminish Russia's power was the goal of the US. A neutral Ukraine still ultimately benefits the US more than Russia.
America's sphere of influence stretches across most of the world, and across the middle-east, which is why it considers any deviation from US policy in this and other regions to be a "threat to it's security".
"The Russia-Ukraine-NATO situation is indeed similar to the Cuban missile crisis, which was not a crisis of spheres of influence, but a crisis of indivisibility of security."
Again, semantics. The problem was that Turkey, which sat within the US sphere of influence, hosted US nuclear missiles aimed at the Soviet Union, and so the Soviets in an attempt to close the nuclear gap reciprocated by arming Cuba. However this was unacceptable to the US. Thus proving that the US sphere of influence was far greater than the Soviets.
I agree with you in principle, it just sounds like you are splitting hairs.
Thank you very much for the article and also for the interesting interviews you do on YouTube. I have been very confused the last two years finding myself siding more end more with the national right in my country (Denmark) that I have always considered myself strongly in opposition to. But concerning Russia/Ukraine we see totally eye to eye (as soon as it comes to Gaza and the Middle East we don’t 🤗), while my old leftwing palls from the beginning of the Ukraine war have been totally on the side of the warmongers and have rejected any attempts of understanding the background for the war, the right now hold the peace signs and are the ones who try to mediate and bring clarity. I was glad to learn that you also considered you self a lefty and with a European outlook. Thumbs up 👍
Of course Putin is not Hitler. But neither is München 1938 the one-dimensional narrative we have been fed all our lives and that has been propagandized ad nauseum.
Thank you, excellent analysis as usual !
In my view, Hitler long shadow is still présent in many ways. He has never been historicised, and his figure continues to serve as a pretext to “angelicize” the western geopolitical behaviour, that remains steeped in a sort of suprematism less and less hypocritically veiled. That’s a sort of paradox … seeing Hitler in others and keep hidden, or not wanting to see, the “Hitler inside”
please also investigate about the double genocide revisionists.
dovid katz is a critical author about that.
this serves deeper context on the integral nationalists, ie. OUN, anti-bolshevik bloc, and generally, heirs of the nazi-collaborators of eastern europe.
the black&red flag, etc.
they have global connections, to the neocons, likud, kuomintang, and more, today even elites in brussels.
it is not a monolithic force but a form of congruent, shared but tribalistic viewpoint on identities and enmities. they make peace impossible.
Munich teaches us not so much to compare a contemporary dictator to Hitler but to recognize the inevitable failure of appeasement. John Mearsheimer, a very smart man, has many insights, but where Ukraine is concerned, I cannot agree with his idea that Russia cannot permit NATO to advance to its doorstep. Comparison with the US in the Cuba crisis or in South America is misleading because the US was the predominant power in its hemisphere, as was the USSR; but once the USSR disintegrated, Russia no longer enjoyed that dominance. Putin wants to restore a Soviet empire that no longer exists, and pushing BACK against his ambition is not the same as pushing INTO the USSR. Putin’s intentions are similar to Hitler’s in 1938: both want to expand from a position that is not (yet) dominant, with a view toward further expansion. Czechoslovakia was not Hitler’s, but getting it made him stronger and paved the way to Poland and France. An independent Ukraine and NATO threaten Putin's imperial ambitions, not Russia’s borders. Nor is there reason to suppose that his ambition stops with Ukraine. History (not only Munich) shows one should contain this kind of ambition, not humor them (see Donald Kagan’s illuminating book On the Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace, 1994). On policy toward Russia and Ukraine, see Alexander Vindman's fine new book,The Folly of Realism. How the West Deceived Itself about Russia and Betrayed Ukraine (2025). To understand Putin’s Russia, read Masha Gessen and Garry Kasparov.
I disagree with your assessment that Russia pursued Ukraine to be in its “sphere of influence”. Russia's concern was its own security, not Ukraine being in someone else's sphere of influence. Ukraine being a de facto member of an aggressive hostile military block, NATO, violates the principle of indivisibility of security. Ukraine and NATO can't simply increase their own security disregarding Russia's concerns over military buildup on its borders. This case is nothing like the American (on behalf of Israel, America's master) Great War on Terror in the Middle East, where no amount of military buildup in that region half way across the planet from the US would ever threaten America's security. The Russia-Ukraine-NATO situation is indeed similar to the Cuban missile crisis, which was not a crisis of spheres of influence, but a crisis of indivisibility of security.
"Russia's concern was its own security, not Ukraine being in someone else's sphere of influence"
These concerns are both one and the same in this context, so you're objections are mostly semantic imo. Prior to 2014 Ukraine already was in the Russian sphere of influence, certainly economically, but also in other ways. The 2014 coup served to sever the trade relationship between Russia and Ukraine thus removing it from the Russian sphere of influence. That said, Putin at the 2022 Istanbul talks had been prepared to allow Ukraine to join the EU, just not NATO.
Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote about Ukraine in The Grand Chessboard, arguing that Ukraine's relationship to Russia is what made Russia an "empire". He considered Ukraine to be "a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard...a geopolitical pivot because it's very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire." Tearing Ukraine out of Russia's sphere of influence in order to diminish Russia's power was the goal of the US. A neutral Ukraine still ultimately benefits the US more than Russia.
America's sphere of influence stretches across most of the world, and across the middle-east, which is why it considers any deviation from US policy in this and other regions to be a "threat to it's security".
"The Russia-Ukraine-NATO situation is indeed similar to the Cuban missile crisis, which was not a crisis of spheres of influence, but a crisis of indivisibility of security."
Again, semantics. The problem was that Turkey, which sat within the US sphere of influence, hosted US nuclear missiles aimed at the Soviet Union, and so the Soviets in an attempt to close the nuclear gap reciprocated by arming Cuba. However this was unacceptable to the US. Thus proving that the US sphere of influence was far greater than the Soviets.
I agree with you in principle, it just sounds like you are splitting hairs.
Brilliant!!
Thank you so much.
Thank you very much for the article and also for the interesting interviews you do on YouTube. I have been very confused the last two years finding myself siding more end more with the national right in my country (Denmark) that I have always considered myself strongly in opposition to. But concerning Russia/Ukraine we see totally eye to eye (as soon as it comes to Gaza and the Middle East we don’t 🤗), while my old leftwing palls from the beginning of the Ukraine war have been totally on the side of the warmongers and have rejected any attempts of understanding the background for the war, the right now hold the peace signs and are the ones who try to mediate and bring clarity. I was glad to learn that you also considered you self a lefty and with a European outlook. Thumbs up 👍
Of course Putin is not Hitler. But neither is München 1938 the one-dimensional narrative we have been fed all our lives and that has been propagandized ad nauseum.
excellent bridgings ...