In short, neo-Nazis are completely marginalized from any sort of power in Ukraine. But, as is so often the case with propaganda, there has to be just a large enough grain of truth to be plausible to Russian audiences.
There really was widespread Ukrainian collaboration with the Nazis during WWII. This is somewhat understandable, given the way Stalin had treated Ukraine. But it is also true that Ukraine had a longstanding history of antisemitism dating back at least to the 17th Century.
None of that should mean that Ukraine is permanently tainted and, as discussed above, in the leadup to the invasion the far right in Ukraine was completely marginalized and unimportant. Except that, as in so many countries, the far right is vastly over-represented in paramilitary.organizations. These organizations offered valuable resistance to Russia when it invaded Donbas. They recaptured Mariupol from Russian forces in 2014. And given the shattered condition of the Ukrainian military in 2014, there was little choice but to absorb such organizations and make use of them.
But make no mistake, such groups are increasing their power as arms proliferate throughout Ukraine. In case of an insurgency, they would play a disproportionate role. Insurgencies destroy the institutions of society. They bring about whole generations who know nothing but war. And they empower the most extreme elements. This is one reason to be altogether pleased about conventional forces preventing the Russians from occupying most of Ukraine. And it is a reason to fear even a low-level war and insurgency in Russian-occupied territories.
And it is also why in the end, the Ukrainians will have to be the ones who decide when to end the war, no matter how rash their decision may seem to us. I want to see the war end quickly, both as a general humanitarian matter, and to avoid the risk of escalating into WWIII. But countries being attacked do not tend to think in humanitarian terms. Bombing of civilians and other harm from the war tend (to a point) to strengthen, rather than weaken, resolve. Only the long, weary grind ultimately undermines resolve. (This applies to Russia, to their losses and to the sanctions as well). Whatever the terms of this war's end, they will have to be something that Putin can spin as a win. Such are the unfortunate facts of life in dealing with a deranged man with nuclear weapons.
Whatever the terms of the end of the war, President Zelensky will also no doubt try to spin it as a win, and with some plausibility. But invariably there will be second guessing. Zelensky is refusing to make territorial concessions because Ukrainian public opinion is dead set against such concessions. But in the end, Russia will, no doubt, gain some territory, and certainly Ukraine will not retake Crimea and Donbas. (And it would have to deal with its own insurrection in that case). There will be second guessing, ultra-nationalists denouncing any terms as a sell-out and insisting they could have done better. Recriminations of this kind are inevitable when a country loses a war. Remember, both Putin and Hitler arose out of their country's defeat and humiliation. Zelensky is the hero of the hour now, but when the war ends, the rally-round-the-chief effect will also end. Zelensky will doubtless emerge angry and embittered at NATO for not saving his country. Many countrymen will no doubt be more so.
My guess is that a prolonged insurrection would have been the ruin of Ukrainian society for a generation to come and more. Ending the war less than favorable terms will weaken liberal democracy and strengthen far right nationalist elements. That does not mean all is lost. Liberal democracy has taken blows, lost wars, an recovered. The best we can do is twofold. First, let the Ukrainians decide when to end the war. And second, do all we can to help the country rebuild. Prosperity will make defeat seem not so bad.
No comments:
Post a Comment