Putin was the font of all evil while the militants of Euromaidan were ordinary people fighting for freedom and democracy. While Svoboda bore watching, its rise was not the fault of the Ukrainians, but a problem imposed from without. Putin’s sweep was no less global than Stalin’s, and unless Europe did something to stop him, he would impose slavery across all Eurasia.
But the best way to understand such arguments is as a case of psychological projection in which the aggression that Snyder attributes to Russia is really a reflection of his own. After all, NATO has added a dozen countries to its roster since the collapse of the USSR, all within the former Soviet sphere of influence. Neocons such as Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams, Kenneth Adelman, Midge Decter, Frank Gaffney, Michael Ledeen, and James Woolsey attempted to drum up support for the Chechen rebels beginning in the 1990s while, in August 2008, John McCain encouraged Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili to launch an “ill-planned reconquista” of the breakaway province of South Ossetia, which, had it proved successful, might well have led to the unraveling of Russia’s entire southern tier.
This was far more aggressive than anything Russia has done in return.
Source: Timothy Snyder’s Lies | Jacobin.
I agree with most aspects of the article but can see that while one is anti-neocon, as I am, one must remain on guard against whitewashing Bolshevism or Nazism. Both Bolshevism and Nazism were and remain unrighteous.
The key to reading the history is to understand that both pro- and anti-Jewishness are used as tools by the same people, many of whom are neocons, many of whom are Jews. So neocons will overlook Nazism in Ukraine and elsewhere in Europe while those neocons take on Russia for the sake of themselves, the neocons.
To understand neoconservatism, one must understand Machiavellianism. Machiavelli is their favorite political "philosopher." He taught the way of deception. He taught, and still teaches those who read him as followers, that morality is always secondary to expediency for the sake of wealth, power, and control.
Many view this as simply realism. However, it is decidedly anti-Christ. It is for this reason that a number of Jewish neocons have wondered aloud whether Machiavelli was not actually a Jew.
Machiavelli preaches the opposite of what Jesus teaches. Here's Jesus's teaching about what he, Jesus, went through, as given to us via the Gospel:
Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
(Matthew 4:8-10 KJV)
What Jesus was doing there was overcoming any temptations to become a sociopath, a megalomaniacal sociopath.
Contrary to Jesus's teaching and self-sacrifice for the sake of the absolute truth, Machiavelli preaches to fall down and to worship evil for the sake of fleeting personal gain at the direct loss of the soul.
"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" — Jesus (Mark 8:36 KJV)