Zelensky is the new Hitler and Nazis are Globalists
by Ian Kummer
The Reading Junkie
Western mainstream media outlets habitually refer to Ukrainian nazis in softer terms like “right-wing nationalists.” However counter-intuitive this might seem, nazism is not nationalism. If anything, it is the opposite of nationalism. Here’s why.
Let’s compare Hitler and Zelensky. Can we truly call them nationalists? I think these two guys actually have a lot in common. They’re both nazis, of course. Hitler is dead and Zelensky is probably about to be dead. But beyond that, they were (past tense) both bright, intelligent guys who loved attention. And they were both put in a similar situation with Russia, and both made the same choice. Yes, you read that correctly. Zelensky made the same choice as Hitler. Not only that, what happened with Zelensky I think actually provides some insight about Hitler as well.
First, Hitler. Let’s look at a parallel universe where Hitler was a nationalist, not a nazi. This different Hitler doesn’t even have to be a good guy, just not a nazi. A normal guy trying to do what’s best for Germany. Now put yourself in this Hitler’s shoes in 1941. Wouldn’t any remotely sensible person have finished crushing Great Britain? Instead he did the opposite and started a second front. This choice led to Germany being conquered and millions of Germans killed. The damage to Germany went deeper than deaths and destruction. The idea of German pride and patriotism was permanently tainted.
How could Hitler have been doing what’s best for Germany if his actions directly resulted in Germany’s destruction and subordination? Even if he was just a greedy dictator, that still doesn’t add up. Isn’t the whole point of being a dictator that you get to stay in power for life and die in bed? Suiciding yourself in a bunker while your capital is being destroyed isn’t exactly a success story.
Now let’s look at Zelensky. Ukraine had every chance to be a strong, independent country. They were given every chance to be independent until Feb. 24, before the first Russian soldier crossed the border. At any time until that last moment, Zelensky could have established Ukraine as an independent, prosperous, sovereign nation. Instead, he did the opposite.
Now it’s come out, in Zelensky’s own words, that Ukraine had been refused a roadmap into NATO. A lot of writers (see this article from Moon of Alabama) have critiqued the USA, Germany, and NATO for not giving Russia a guarantee that Ukraine wouldn’t join. That’s an interesting idea, but completely missing the point. I don’t think such a guarantee would have even prevented Russian military action. Only one country could save Ukraine from destruction… Ukraine. Only Ukraine could promise Ukraine would never join NATO. More importantly, only Ukraine could stop shelling civilians in Donbass and start respecting the Minsk agreement.
Hitler could have saved Germany, instead he destroyed it. Likewise, Zelensky could have saved Ukraine. When he was told that Ukraine couldn’t join NATO, there was a very obvious alternative and Zelensky has no excuse for not taking it. He himself could have assured Russia of Ukraine’s neutrality. Take this a step further. Why do Russia and Ukraine have to be in an antagonistic relationship anyway? If Ukraine is truly a sovereign nation, then she should be free to choose her own allies, including Russia.
It amazes me that we have millions of analysts (see my post about Tom Cooper) and they are so blinded by ideology and hatred they have less common sense than a child. Imagine you’re playing a strategy board game with your family. You hold Ukraine, while your sister holds Russia and your brother holds Europe. You know you can’t win without an ally so you ask for a partnership with your brother in Europe. He refuses. Again, you know you can’t win without an ally and one of your two choices has already refused. Wouldn’t any sensible person, even a child, be smart enough to ask for an alliance with your sister in Russia?
So I have to ask, why didn’t Zelensky ask for an alliance with Russia? Well, for the same reason Hitler didn’t! If that question sounds strange to you, it shouldn’t.
In my post comparing Ukraine to 1919-39 Poland, I said this:
“Think about how weird this is. On paper, his strategy seemed insane. The combined French and British armies were larger and more mechanized than Germany’s and could easily win. Hitler’s invasion of Poland was so controversial, even some of his own generals considered overthrowing him. What did Hitler know that they didn’t?”
When the Battle of Britain started to go poorly, imagine if Hitler was a sensible and pragmatic leader. Think of all the sensible solutions he could have come up with. Why didn’t Germany bring the Soviet Union back to the negotiating table? Why not say “Hey, that Poland thing worked out pretty good. The British are really annoying and nobody likes them. Sell us some more steel and oil so we can get rid of them.”
Even western academics acknowledge the Soviets were trying to deflect European aggression westward. The longer Hitler spent fighting other Europeans, the more time the Soviets had to prepare their defenses. If he had offered further economic cooperation to beat up Churchill, who’s to say the Soviets would have refused?
But of course that help would have come at a price. If Hitler spent another year or two subjugating Britain, it would have been too late to invade the Soviet Union. They would have finished modernizing their army and no invasion could ever work.
At the end of the day, Hitler had to make a choice. He could defeat Britain, or he could defeat the Soviet Union, but not both. So Hitler had to give up on the Battle of Britain and attack the Soviets while he still could. I have to ask… what did Hitler know that we don’t? Who was pressuring him to do that? What promises were made to him behind closed doors?
So in short, Hitler had his chance to do his masters’ bidding and destroy the Soviet Union, but by December 1941, he had screwed that up and there was no recovery from it (see my post about why Hitler declared war on the USA). He was doomed, and the only question left was how much damage could he do on his way down. But still, even while technically an enemy, nobody in the West tried very hard to stop him. After all, there was no Western front until June 6, 1944, 2.5 years later.
Every school child in the West, possibly the whole world, is taught this story about Hitler being a madman and it doesn’t make any sense. If Hitler was crazy and stupid, nobody would have listened to him. He never would have risen to power.
Now as silly and appalling as this sounds, I have to go back to an underlying issue – why was Hitler bad? This should go without saying, but people seem to get it wrong, and more often than they used to.
In my article about fake news killing the Ukrainians, I quoted professional Russia hater Julia Ioffe, who has repeatedly and endlessly compares the Russian operation in Ukraine to the Holocaust. No, sweetheart. Hitler wasn’t bad because he invaded other countries. Yes, war is bad but it isn’t that bad. There are thousands of famous leaders throughout history who fought wars of aggression and are still celebrated as heroes. If invading other countries was the only bad thing Hitler ever did, there would still be statues of him in Berlin. Hitler was bad because he killed tens of millions of people! Why do I have to explain this, and to a “professional journalist” no less?
Here’s the truth. Hitler wasn’t a nationalist. He was a globalist. He served the interests of the “collective West.” German nationalism was nice and he paid lip service to it, but Hitler always subordinated the interests of Germany to the interests of the collective West. More specifically, he obeyed the commands of western bankers.
There is nothing worse for a country than nazism. Germans had every right to be angry, and of course they wanted a strong leader who would say a lot of nationalistic things and start standing up for Germany. Hitler was a trojan horse. On the surface, he looked like that perfect candidate. He spoke of a strong, rejuvenated Germany, and the normal German person had a lot of reasons to like him. But in reality, Hitler didn’t have any ideas of his own and was a pawn of outside forces. He preached hate and racism, and there was no substance to his ideas. He reached for the easiest, lowest common denominator of human nature – finding someone else to hate and blame for their problems.
Think about it and I don’t care about theory, this isn’t an issue that needs to be over-complicated. Just think in practical, common-sense terms. What happened to Nazi Germany? Destroyed and subordinated. What is happening to Ukraine now? Destroyed and subordinated. There are more examples. Consider my previous post about Poland. Their government’s actions in 1939 resulted in their country being destroyed and subordinated. The same happened to Mussolini’s regime in Italy. Destroyed and subordinated.
Or also the Polish government in exile in 1944. Again. Why instigate a doomed rebellion in Warsaw and deliberately refuse to coordinate it with advancing Soviet forces? I’m not mincing words here. Polish authorities tricked their own people into dying by the thousands for no reason, and did it all from the safety of their London penthouses. What kind of government does something like that? If their plan was to show Stalin they were retarded and couldn’t be trusted, call it a success.
Or how about Hungarian fascists in 1944? What’s the point of seizing power and starting a genocide right when you’re about to get steamrolled by the Red Army?
If nazis are nationalists, they’re really bad at their jobs!
No nation can adapt nazism and not be destroyed. But why? Here’s the underlying, poisonous nature of nazism that brings death to anyone who adapts it. Every national idea, no matter how objectively “bad” it was, had something good about it. But not nazism, there was nothing good about it. Nobody can look at Germany’s nazi era and think of even one good thing from it. The problem with the idea of nazism is that it isn’t an idea at all. It is an ideology built in opposition against another ideology.
During my visit to Moscow in December, I wrote a post about the Soviet and German entries in the 1937 Paris Expo. The Soviets built a fitting symbol to represent their communist ideals of the time, Worker and Kolkhoz Woman (Рабо́чий и колхо́зница). The Germans represented their own culture not as an idea at all, but as opposition to the Soviet idea. See, “Europe” and “Defender of Europe” are two very different things. A wall isn’t a culture. A weapon isn’t a culture either. Nazi Germany was an ancient culture that had been weaponized, corrupted, and ruined.
That’s the problem with nazism. Evil cannot create anything new, they can only corrupt and ruin what good forces have invented or made. Nationalists create an idea, but nazis can’t. They can only take existing ideas and corrupt them.
Is Nazi Ukraine, Ukronazistan, a real country and idea? Their national anthem is about killing Russian people, which is pretty weird for an anthem. Or consider their flag. Blue-yellow is a very peculiar color scheme, especially for a Slavic country. Where’s the red? Now look at the color wheel, and it all makes sense.
Blue + Yellow is opposite of Red. Ukraine is not an idea. It’s opposition to an idea.
Next time you run into a pro-Ukraine troll on the internet, or in person, I want you to ask him something. What does he like about Ukrainian culture and history? What’s good and beautiful about it? Does he have a favorite Ukrainian artist or filmmaker? Here’s the reality. You could talk to a thousand people with Ukrainian flag filters on their social media profiles, and none of them will be able to say even one thing they like about Ukrainians, besides that they’re good soldiers (cannon fodder). That’s really sad, isn’t it? The reality is that none of these people in the West care about Ukraine. They see Ukraine as human weapons against the Russian people. “Fight to the last Ukrainian!”
Like the Nazi regime that infected Germany, Zelensky’s regime in the Ukraine (borderland) isn’t a real country either. I’m not sure we should even give this regime the privilege of a name anymore. We should call it “404_country not found”