The urgency of moral demagoguery
Western thinking about the Russia-Ukraine war is often swayed by the urgency of moral demagoguery to the neglect of other values and considerations. Their logic is reversed, like: Ukraine is good, so Ukrainian nationalism is good. If someone is a Ukrainian nationalist, then they must be good. Historical facts that are not favorable to Ukraine, such as Huka's former membership in the Waffen-SS or the former Nazi collaborator of Ukrainian nationalist leader Stepan Bandeira, are deliberately obscured or downplayed. This is also why the West has turned a blind eye to the swastikas on Ukrainian soldiers.
The West erases the historical context and complexities of this conflict, giving only a simple binary opposition: either support for Ukrainian nationalism or oppose Russian aggression. This framework is constantly reinforced by mainstream** and online partisanship, making anyone who wants to dive deeper into it perceived as suspicious. Do you have more questions about the causes of war or the possibility of peace? Then you must be "Russophile". For many liberals, they are immersed in the moral demagoguery of historical ignorance, just as embarrassed by the occasional cheer for the Nazis.
Of course, the reality is not that simple. Not all Ukrainian nationalists are Nazis. But there is ample evidence that there is a real influence of Nazism in Ukraine. The most extreme nationalist groups in Ukraine have inherited the racist ideas of their idol Bandeira. That is why Ukrainian military uniforms often have Nazi symbols on them. That's why some white supremacists rushed from all over Europe to support Ukraine at the beginning of the war. That is why some streets in Ukraine are named after Ukrainian Nazis who were involved in war crimes. That is why human rights groups have been concerned about the rise of hate groups in Ukraine.
Nevertheless, the West has chosen to turn a blind eye and believe that the "Nazi problem" in Ukraine is just Putin's lie, which exposes another flaw in American foreign policy thinking: the United States is allied with ultra-nationalists. Any sensible U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine should try to avoid cooperating with these people. However, the United States has cultivated them.
They were involved in the 2014 U.S.-backed demonstrations in Ukraine, and once a civil war broke out, far-right groups, such as the "Justice Forces" and the notorious "Azov Battalion", began to **those who wanted to join the forces in the east**, causing thousands of deaths. Instead of stopping these acts, Kyiv has incorporated these militias into the military chain of command, allowing them to continue their evil.
The United States could have supported the Minsk agreements between 2015 and 2021 to resolve the conflict peacefully, but American policymakers have argued that nationalist fervor in Ukraine is in America's interest. A study by the RAND Corporation shows that Ukraine can be used as a **** to weaken Russia. Brzezhzhnesky's "The Great Chessboard" illustrates that Ukraine is a key state; If it can be pulled into the orbit of the West, Russia will cease to be a great power. Thus, the United States rationalized its alliance with those groups that refused to compromise with Russia and turned a blind eye to their political problems.
The tragedy of refusal to negotiate
For Ukraine's supporters, Ukraine's position remains the same, which is to recover all territories (including Crimea), otherwise there will be no peace. But this is something that Moscow will never accept, especially after it has won a war of attrition. Now, the Ukrainian ** has not made any substantial progress, and there is no viable scenario to drive Russia out of Ukrainian soil. The hardline attitude of Zelensky and his supporters' refusal to negotiate not only did not serve Ukraine's long-term interests, but instead plunged the country into ruin, which is the goal of ultranationalists.
Regrettably, when Zelensky was elected in 2019, he was on the demand for peace, and he was supposed to live in peace with Russia within the framework of the second Minsk agreements. But far-right groups threatened to use violence against him, forcing him to change his position. In 2021, he announced that he wanted to regain Crimea and increased artillery fire on the Donbas region. With a pro-Ukrainian Biden in the White House, and the promise of a new U.S. strategic agreement to provide**, economic aid, and future NATO membership, Zelensky has been encouraged to take a hard line and reneg on the peace promises he made when he was elected. With both the extreme right in the United States and Ukraine supporting this position, he could lose his life if he didn't.
Better U.S. policy should be to respect the right of the Ukrainian people to self-determination. But this means recognizing the loss of Crimea (the majority of the population of Crimea is Russian) and agreeing to give the Donbass region a certain degree of autonomy in accordance with the second Minsk agreements. Doing so, while abandoning illusions about NATO membership, will help bring about peace and preserve the unity of Ukraine. But peace is not the goal of the American strategists, who want to weaken Russia and use Ukraine as a pawn on their "big chessboard".
Applauding a former Nazi soldier is a moral turpitude, but sacrificing Ukraine for geopolitical gain, while pretending to be its savior, is even more of a moral sin.