[Yes, both Trump and Zelensky were Reality TV stars before they were political leaders! What a world…]
Predictably, the stoush in the Oval Office last Friday 28/2, has congealed into two narratives.
The Dems on how Trump is destroying western civilisation, tearing NATO asunder, giving in to Putin and green-lighting his takeover of the rest of Europe. And of China’s invasion of Taiwan. It’s 1938 and Munich appeasement all over again.
The Reps on how Trump and JD Vance stood up to Zelensky's demands for more money, for ongoing US "security guarantees"; how they kicked him out of the Oval for his intransigent and disrespectful attitude, making us all proud to be American.
Me, I'm rather on the latter side, though I did find the demands from Trump and Vance for Zelensky to “show gratitude, say thank you”, a touch on the ick side.
I watched the whole press conference, which was all of near an hour, most of which was nothing like the contentious spat at the end; it was fine and cordial.
What are we to make of it all? The mainstream media — CNN, MSNBC, BBC, abc, NBC, New York Times, and the rest of the— have settled on the narrative above. Trump and Vance embarrassed America, they are destroying the post-war establishment, they are selling out the west. So I don’t need to cover that side. It’s well covered.
The non- legacy media takes a variety of views, many in support of the second of the narratives above. Here are some of them: The Blackbelt Barrister. Black Conservative Perspective. Victor Davis Hanson. Bill Whittle. It’s 1938 forever. Body language analysis.
When Russia first invaded Ukraine I thought, hello, no fair! I was totally anti Putin and pro Zelenskyy. I knew the argument that he was totally anti the expansion of NATO, but I also thought that that was irrelevant, because he would have invaded at some time anyway. Why? Because he's a revanchist.
Revanchist? Mirriam-Webster: ... one who advocates or fights for the recovery of lost territory or status...
So there's that argument. But it's an argument of alternative history. It's a counter-factual. Which be definition you can't test. And is rendered moot in the situation where we, the west, did indeed provoke Russia, provoke Putin, by the continued expansion of NATO.
No, Putin's attack was not unprovoked. When the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, and the Cold War ended, there were 16 members of NATO. Germany and the west wanted to absorb East Germany into the West, and to reassure Russia that that would not be a threat to Russia we, the west, undertook not to expand NATO.
When the Berlin Wall fell there were 16 members of NATO. We, the west, argued at the time that we would not expand east, to ease the fears of Russia. But we went ahead anyway and expanded NATO at an all-time fastest rate to the current 32 members.
We argued that the assurances given to then Mikhail Gorbachev by German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and US Secretary of State James Baker, were not really assurances, because they were never written down. When pressed we argued other lurks and perks. Grok it!
Still, you can imagine how Russia felt. And continued to feel, ever more deeply, under Putin.
Putin demanded again and again that NATO not expand and that specifically it not expand to include Ukraine. The west, instead, rubbed Putin's nose in it, by saying that whether Ukraine joined NATO was a choice of Ukraine, and not Russia. (Technically true, but…).
We need not be Putin lovers to understand that we did indeed provoke the man. Perhaps he's over sensitive. Perhaps he's too nervous. Perhaps he’s being unreasonable. Perhaps it’s none of his business. But his feelings were clear and he made them clear, repeatedly, consistently, on many occasions.
Which is why I've come around to the Jeffrey Sachs version of events here, namely that the west did indeed provoke Putin. Not that it's right to invade Ukraine, but he's at the end of his patience.
Other factors. Putin claimed that there were Nazis in Ukraine which were harassing ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine. I did not believe this at the time. I'm like, wtf? It's a lie. There's no evidence. Turns out there was plenty of evidence. The Azhov Gang are still there. With Nazi insignias on their uniforms.
I asked latest Grok AI about this. Rad it or skip. The short version TL;DR, is: Yes, Nazi influence existed in eastern Ukraine, but Putin exaggerated its scope:
Putin did claim there were Nazis in Ukraine as a key justification for his invasion, launched on February 24, 2022. He framed it as a mission to "denazify" the country, pointing to alleged neo-Nazi elements to argue Russia was protecting people from a fascist threat. So, let’s break this down: was there any truth to his claim about Nazis in Ukraine at that time?
Yes, Ukraine has had neo-Nazi and far-right groups, but their scale and influence don’t match Putin’s portrayal. The most prominent example is the Azov Battalion, formed in 2014 to fight Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine. Some of its founders, like Andriy Biletsky, had ties to white supremacist and neo-Nazi ideologies—Biletsky once led a group called Patriot of Ukraine that espoused racist views. Azov used symbols like the Wolfsangel, associated with Nazi SS units, and attracted foreign far-right extremists. By 2022, it was a regiment in Ukraine’s National Guard, numbering about 900 to 2,500 fighters depending on estimates. That’s a tiny fraction of Ukraine’s military, which mobilized over 200,000 troops after the invasion.
Beyond Azov, Ukraine’s far-right political scene exists but is marginal. In the 2019 parliamentary election, parties like Svoboda and Right Sector—often labeled ultra-nationalist or neo-Nazi—scored just 2.15% combined, failing to win a single seat in the 450-member legislature. Compare that to far-right parties in Europe like Germany’s AfD (10-15% in recent polls) or France’s National Rally (around 30%). Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky, elected with 73% of the vote in 2019, is Jewish, and his family lost relatives in the Holocaust—hardly the profile of a Nazi regime.
Putin’s claim leans heavily on historical distortions too. He’s referenced Ukraine’s World War II collaboration with Nazi Germany, like the role of Stepan Bandera’s nationalists, some of whom aided the Nazis against the Soviets. But that’s 80 years ago—modern Ukraine isn’t a Nazi state by any stretch. Scholars, from the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum to dozens of genocide experts, have called Putin’s "denazification" narrative baseless, pointing out there’s no evidence of state-sponsored Nazism, genocide, or rampant antisemitism in Ukraine’s government or society.
So, were there Nazis in Ukraine? Yes, in the sense of small, fringe groups like Azov with neo-Nazi leanings—real, but overstated. Putin’s assertion of a Nazi-controlled Ukraine, though, is a gross exaggeration, weaponizing a kernelof truth for propaganda. The reality is, these groups were neither running the country nor a credible threat justifying invasion. It’s more likely a pretext for geopolitical goals—like undermining Ukraine’s sovereignty—than a reflection of boots-on-the-ground facts. What do you think—does the presence of a few extremists validate his argument, or is it just a convenient excuse?
This puts the “Nazis in Ukraine” claim somewhere between my initial “Pooh-Pooh” and my later “OMG!”. Putin wasn’t lying; he was exaggerating. Gosh! A politician exaggerating! (By the way the Grok sources were all left-of-centre. Musk has demanded that Grok be as fact-based as possible, but I guess most of the media that Grok can get to is left-of-centre).
Then there's the fact the territories Ukrainian lands captured by Russia — the Donbas and Crimea — are large minority to large majority Russian. Crimea is 73% Russian and only 7% Ukrainian. The Donbas is almost half Russian, and the main language spoken is Russian. There is zero evidence that their populations, especially those in Crimea, would prefer to be back in the embrace of Zelensky's Ukraine.
This doesn’t excuse invasion, but surely mitigates it.
No, it's not 1938 and Munich appeasement
Trump has reset the framing of the war. From the "battle for democracy, Europe supports plucky Ukraine against revanchist Russia" to the "Stop the Killing”. 1,000,000 casualties is quite enough.
This is not 1938 all over. First because it’s 2025. Then because it’s not unprepared U.K. vs well war-prepared Germany. It’s prepared U.S. vs weakening Russia.
If there’s a peace deal, but for some reason Putin decides to go on a revanchist raid against, say, Poland, he’s invading a NATO country. That’s a very different thing from invading an Ukraine. NATO members are obliged to come to Poland’s defence. I can’t prove a negative, that Putin would not do this. But hes hardly had a resounding victory against a non-NATO member so must surely — he’s a logical man — be very wary of attacking a NATO member, after the long and exhausting trench warfare in Ukraine. He’s made his point. He’s got some lame, mostly occupied by Russians. He’s stopped the membership of Ukraine in NATO, his primary goal. So my guess, just a guess, no one can do more, is that he won’t proceed on a revanchist rampage.
What if you think he will? What is your alternative strategy? To allow the meat grinder o go in, grinding up young ,ems lives on both sides? For what? Or fighting on forever, another forever war? Or, third alternative, putting in huge arms on the ground to try to defeat Russia and risk another world war? A nuclear one? And for what?
The lie lies alternative if the Trump plan doesn’t go ahead is the more of the same. Which is “we Europeans and Americans will fight to the last Ukrainian”.
Thomas Sowell again: “There are no ideal solutions. Only trade-offs”.
It’s time for the trade off. Time for peace. Time to end the killing. Time to give up our delusions.
