Comments by "zjeee" (@zjeee) on "Are Putin's Claims About Ukrainian Nazis Real? - TLDR News" video.

  1. 12
  2. 9
  3. 3
  4. 3
  5. ​ @v-vinz6869  Socialism and Fascism are definitely similar in some regards and it's not a coincidence that the man that coined the term Fascism (Benito Mussolini) was a Socialist politician before resigning and creating his own ideology. His family were die hard socialists If you don't believe me check his name: He was named after leftist Mexican President Benito Juárez. His two middle names, Amilcare and Andrea, came from Italian socialists Amilcare Cipriani and Andrea Costa. Of course there are maaaany differences between the two and I am not going to pretend they are the same even though they share many similarities but - in my opinion - in practice it's very hard to label ideologies on a right or left spectrum. For example nationalism is usually placed on the right while communism is placed on the left spectrum, China is extremely nationalistic which should make them right wing but if you ask them they would proclaim they are die hard communists which would put them on the left. In my country (Sweden) our right wing party received 17.5% of the votes yet there are more similarities to fascism between the Communist regime in China which we can all agree should be on the far left spectrum and a self proclaimed right wing party in my country which we (at least in my country) put on the extreme right. So yes, in theory Fascism should traditionally be on the right side of the political spectrum but in reality it's not as easy as that and in many cases you can find more fascist tendencies on the "left" and in communist countries than you can in governments that are considered far right.
    2
  6. 2
  7. 2
  8. 2
  9. 2
  10. 2
  11. 1
  12. 1
  13. 1
  14. 1
  15. 1
  16. 1
  17. 1
  18. 1
  19. 1
  20. 1
  21. 1
  22. 1
  23. 1
  24. 1
  25. 1
  26. 1
  27. 1
  28. 1
  29. ​ @Xsomono Just look at it this way through the lens of political theory realism, "Decision-makers are rational actors in the sense that rational decision-making leads to the pursuit of the national interest. taking actions that would make your state weak or vulnerable would not be rational". Disbanding and prosecuting Azov would weaken the state as they need every man they can get fighting the Russians and lower western support for the Ukrainian army if they would admit their soldiers have committed human rights violations. It's in the Ukrainian state's best interest to support Azov as they are doing a good job holding off the Russians. Why is the US allied to the Saudis even though they are probably one of the worst when it comes to human rights? Because they share a common enemy, Iran. They have a shit ton of oil that the US needs and can get at a discount. Is it correct to ally with the Saudis from a moral perspective? No. Then why? Because the alliance makes the US stronger and gives them a presence in the middle east to counter their enemy, Iran. Getting cheaper oil is not a bad thing either. Of course there will always be a balancing act about pros and cons but right now Azov has more pros than cons for the Ukrainian state so they will continue to support them. Perhaps after the war there will be more cons than pros and they might change their stance. But for now not supporting them would make the Ukrainian state weaker and would not serve Ukraine's national interest and would therefor not be a rational decision. Obviously this is one of many political theories but sometimes acting morally is not in the best interest of a state and it's better to come at it from a rational approach. Not always but in this case it can make a good example to explain a state's behaviour, In my opinion anyway.
    1
  30. 1
  31. 1
  32. 1
  33. 1
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1