There aren’t any Nazis to de-nazify

A phrase that we often hear from the Kremlin to justify their invasion of Ukraine. The above phrase mainly refers to two main points, which is demilitarisation, meaning the disarmament of Ukraine as a country and restricting it from having their own military, and denazification, the belief that there are neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine, and such groups should be eliminated. The aim for demilitarization of Ukraine in Putin’s mind is mainly because of his belief that the Ukrainians are committing genocide against the Russian speaking population in Ukraine. Following the Revolution of Dignity in Ukraine in 2014, anti-revolution and proRussian protests began in the Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts in Ukraine. Armed, Russianbacked separatists seized government buildings in the two regions and proclaimed themselves independent. This led to the Ukrainian government using its military to fight back against the Russian-backed separatists in these regions. This conflict in Eastern Ukraine has caused many casualties for both military and civilian personnel and is the main backdrop for Russia’s claim that the Ukrainians are committing a genocide against the local Russian-speaking population. Another claim on “denazification” refers to the far-right paramilitary organizations and groups in Ukraine needed to be removed. However, these far-right organizations are fringe elements in Ukraine’s society, and Zelenskyy’s landslide victory in the 2019 presidential elections proves otherwise. Zelenskyy is also Jewish himself, with his grandfather fighting in the Red Army during the Second World War, and his family losing relatives during the Holocaust. Moreover, the term “denazification” simply does not apply in this context, simply because there aren’t any Nazis to “de-nazify”. Putin’s use of the term “denazification” is likely more of a propaganda and slogan for the war, instead of a concrete justification. Russia lost millions of men to Nazi Germany during the Second World War,. Therefore, Putin may have hoped by using terms such as “denazification”, he would be able to increase the legitimacy of his invasion and gain more domestic support from the population.

Assessing the two terms, it is not hard to conclude that these justifications are likely fabricated by the Kremlin to persuade and convince the local population about the invasion’s legitimacy, more than justifying the invasion towards foreign countries. Conflicts and war cause casualties to both civilian and military personnel, and it is inevitable that innocent people are caught in the crossfire. It is simply insensible and absurd to call these a deliberate attempt at performing a genocide against a certain population. The point on denazification is similar, with the Kremlin providing no evidence on their claims, it is complete nonsense how a democratically elected government is now being accused of being Nazis.

“Whataboutism”

Whataboutism refers to the point in an argument, when one draws comparison of one act towards the other in attempt to justify its legality. Whataboutism has also been used by the Kremlin to justify its invasion of Ukraine. The Kremlin has cited foreign interventions by NATO countries such as the 2003 Iraq War, Kosovo War and Syrian Civil War as examples of Western military actions that they claimed were illegal. The Kremlin also expresses the viewpoint that powerful countries such as the USA can undermine international law without significant repercussions. Russia have been constantly drawing comparisons of these interventions towards its current invasion in Ukraine, basically trying to justify along the lines “if they can do it, why couldn’t we?”

Whataboutism has seen prevalent use in propaganda, and it is not something that is new to the political stage. However, different arguments exist to discuss whether such arguments, are merely a deflection of one’s responsibility, or in certain situations, useful for justifying acts. When we put the context of the Russian invasion of Ukraine into this discussion, we can see a reason for the Russian media to use such arguments. There is no denying that NATO and western powers have had their own controversial decisions in the past, most notably the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. Such acts do contradict the West’s statement on defending other’s countries sovereignty, and Russia does have a reason to use such explanations for their acts. However, one illegal act does not justify the other. You cannot argue that just because someone else was speeding on the highway, therefore you should be allowed to do it. International laws are codified in formal documents and clearly outline rules and regulations that countries should follow regarding their sovereignty and territorial integrity. The act of invasion itself was already on the wrong, and Russian’s justifying their invasion using another illegal invasion only paints the picture that Russia fully understands the invasion being unjustified.

So is there actually any truth to it?

The Russian justifications we have discussed so far, all point to the Invasion being an unjustified violation of another country’s sovereignty. Justifications such as “denazification”, “demilitarization”, and “what about Iraq” all hold little to no value in reasonings to invade a fellow neighbour. It is no doubt that the Russian Invasion of Ukraine is an unjustified and illegal conflict that holds no actual valid reasoning. However, when researching the justification on NATO breaking the eastward expansion claim, I must say that I do see some degree of truth in such a reasoning. Despite no official records, it is understandable why the Russians and then Soviet Union would feel betrayed when NATO suddenly rapidly expanded eastwards after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. When a military alliance that has been fighting you for the last 50 years suddenly expands itself hundreds of miles eastward towards your border, it is understandable why Russia would feel threatened in a way, albeit NATO being a defensive alliance. Thought it should also be emphasized that just because there is some truth behind one of the reasons, it does not mean that the invasion is justified. In conclusion, despite seeing some truth and logic behind one of the reasons, it is not strong enough to warrant a full-scale invasion of a neighbouring country. Hence the invasion itself is illegal and unjustified in nature.