I don't think there's anyone on the planet that doesn't understand that the aim here is to put Ukraine under effective Russian control. But the article is interesting for a number of other reasons.
Oh no - people really do believe the propaganda. Russian citizens are told that Zelensky regime are 'Nazis and drug addicts' and the the population hates them.
The Russian propaganda narrative has many, many believers around the world, and it has partial momentum in America.
Certain elements of the right have very cynically been using it as wedge issue - notable Tucker Carlson. I don't think he really believes what he was saying about Russia, he's just a liar in it for the money (of course, everyone in the press is playing a game, but he takes it a notch higher than even his Fox or even MSNBC colleagues). While nobody in the press actually believes it, it does have an affect as those talking heads are all quite influential.
On comments section in YouTube and TikTok I see regular plebes from around the world making the 'NATO/border security' case etc., I think unwittingly rehashing the canard arguments of Putin. Not necessarily taking their side but rather rehashing the false justification.
It's literally an invasion and they don't realize it. Putin is using the term 'limited military operation' to 'liberate Ukraine' effectively from a 'Nazi, drug addict corrupt leadership' - and they buy it. It's the only source of information they have.
It's really easy to mislead people if you can control they information they receive.
I don't think Russians quite support the 'incursion' but they'd be fine with the outcome, and probably wouldn't think of the puppet/client state leader as being subjugated.
Putin murders his political opponents and journalists, but because he can't be implicated or investigated, the citizenry just goes on roughly believing the propaganda at least to a certain degree.
Regular people don't have the time to parse through this complex world. 'Good' news is so important.
I wouldv'e said he is a drug addicted puppet with no political experience and money in UK's fiscal heaven. But nazi? That doesn't seems right.
Hopefully it doesn't end like Makhnov did. "History doesn't repeat itself, but sometime it rhyme" (Mark Twain i guess?)
It's an emotional/rhetorical ploy -- an appeal to WW2-era patriotism, and the relative sense of greatness and prosperity that flourished in the SU after the sacrifices made in that war, specifically.
It's not supposed to be rational or correct or make any other kind of sense.
As everyone's noticed, the situation in Ukraine is complicated. Yes, Putin's claim that he's invading Ukraine to denazify it is clearly bs. BUT, Ukraine has a Nazi problem, largely due to the internal alliances the government has to make in order to stand a chance against Russia. If Putin managed to get Ukraine's military to coup their government and then negotiate with him, that coup would probably be from the neonazis. Luckily for Ukraine, it turns out so far that its White Nationalists still care about the "nation" part.
I think to counter such narratives and honest acknowledgment is necessary. Then you can highlight how an invasion of a country dwarfs these tendencies.
Ever since then the memory of this “betrayal” has been kept alive in Russian culture. There’s no greater enemy than nazis, so the image of a Nazi Ukrainian oppressing Russians is a powerful one. Utter and complete bullshit propaganda of course, but it’s not an accident that Putin uses this particular image.
The fact that Zelenskiy is a Russian speaking Jew is, I guess, either not widely known in Russia or not considered sufficient proof of his innocence…
I think the arguments about NATO are plainly correct. It does not warrant an invasion, but you have to be quite ignorant if you believe that it cannot be seen as a form of aggression. They wanted to install missiles in eastern Europe a while ago. They wanted Georgia and Ukraine associated. You just have to look at a map and see the developments after WW2. Acknowledging that fact does not mean you agree with an invasion. It means that there needs to be better heads at NATO or we need other alliances.
Ultimately the country invading is responsible for doing so of course. It is only right to protest against the war.
> I think unwittingly rehashing the canard arguments of Putin.
I wonder why he even tries to seek a justification. But anyway that should not be your concern. NATO did expand in eastern Europe, quite aggressively at times. I am not sure who is driving the wedge if you deny the fact that there are now many countries in NATO east of Germany. Even without any contractual obligation, you can still behave aggressively. Bush trying to be a strong man just like Putin tries now made him force the association with Georgia and Ukraine because of the war on terror. It is what it is. Any deescalation with Russia will put that on the table. The sooner we can acknowledge this fact, the sooner the conflict can end again.
NATO is not a material threat to Russia.
NATO is a defence pact - not a cohesive military unit. NATO does not have the ability in terms of material and equipment, coordination, and certainly political backing to do such a thing, and they never have.
They have never threatened Russias borders. There is no advantage, gain or benefit from invading Russia. Nobody in the world believes that NATO could take and hold any meaningful parts of Russia.
There is a bit of legitimacy in Russia not wanting NATO on it's borders, after all, why would it want that - but I don't think it changes the equation that much.
"I wonder why he even tries to seek a justification. But anyway that should not be your concern."
Because 'hearts and minds' matter a lot. The reason European leaders are joining the fight is because there is 'net momentum' to do so. European politicians are watching the coverage, they see what is happening. They are moved.
Particularly in Ukraine - it is not a united country. They definitely know they have cultural resonance with Russia. They are not united in joining the EU. There was every possibility that Ukranians just 'kind of gave up and accepted joining Neo Russia'. Propaganda matters.
" NATO did expand in eastern Europe, quite aggressively at times. I am not sure who is driving the wedge if you deny the fact that there are now many countries in NATO east of Germany."
It's not 'aggressive' to join a defence pact.
I'm not 'denying' anything.
"Bush trying to be a strong man just like Putin tries now made him force the association with Georgia and Ukraine because of the war on terror."
No - there is no comparison. There was literally a 'war on terror'. 9/11 happened. Islamic terrorism was a global threat. The world adapted in a lot of ways to overcome that issue.
All of this is becoming moot as Ukranians are mutilating Russian forces on the ground in Ukraine, it's exposing the Russian Army as a paper tiger: bad gear, little support, poor planning, unable to mount a truly effective coordinated campaign against a fairly weak enemy.
No need to go to YouTube or TikTok, those comments are made right here on HN as well.
https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=pydry
https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=dukeofdoom
https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=kkfx
https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=freebuju
And quite a few others, and that's before we get to the people that are quite literally wishing for Ukraine to roll over and capitulate so they can get on with their lifestyle.