To see through the screens behind which fascism is kept in cages only to be unleashed at the right moment
When Russia launched its attack on Ukraine at the beginning of 2022, Moscow, as expected, presented a whole array of its “reasons” for going to war. From a strictly geopolitical perspective, there was really only one: the fact that NATO had confirmed itself as a military alliance antagonistic toward Russia, with a tendency to expand toward its borders. In the fall of 2021, Russian President Vladimir Putin issued a very clear ultimatum to his American counterpart, Joe Biden, during a conference call — the United States, as the key (and de facto leading) power in the NATO alliance, must publicly pledge that it will not admit Ukraine into its ranks. After Biden just as clearly stated that no such promises would be made, war became almost inevitable and would erupt a few months later.
But there were also numerous other “reasons” emphasized by Moscow, including Putin himself. In his military “Urbi et Orbi” addresses, especially at the beginning of the war, Putin would often speak at length about the historical causes of the conflict, going back several centuries. It was already clear at that time that Russia would rely only on itself, as these lengthy monologues (one of which was delivered to Tucker Carlson when he managed to arrange an interview with Putin in Moscow) could not gain either sympathy or support from the world (which is much larger than the so-called West). The historical development of the region now known as Russia and Ukraine is, as expected, highly complex and should be a matter of interest only for passionate historians — not policymakers. Any dive into history beyond our collective memory (let’s say a century, maybe two) is fertile ground for revisionism and, simply put, the creation of conditions where there are none.
We see the same thing daily as the ideological foundation for the defense of horrific crimes committed by the state of Israel. By reaching back centuries, in this case murky millennia, a terrifying narrative is created that, through a mix of religious and territorial confusion, aims to justify even the worst of the worst. We are largely helpless witnesses to this time.
Kievan Rus’ was a state that emerged in the 9th century and adopted Christianity through Byzantium in the 10th. It was the primordial soup from which today’s Ukraine, Russia, and other regional nations emerged. As said, these are all interesting historical stories, but as soon as they are used to justify war — claims that certain peoples are “one and the same people” — we enter the slipperiest possible terrain, a realm of fertile imagination from which any convenient narrative can be composed.
Reaching into history, relying on nationalism — these are methods Moscow has used before when needed. Stalin himself (though Georgian) called the defense against Hitler the “Great Patriotic War,” understanding that such terminology would be highly motivating.
As for Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and his reasons, a significant part of the world could understand the defense against NATO expansion. That endlessly complex historical argument — no one understood it, except Russian nationalists who think they did. But there was at least one more “major” reason put forth, which Russians still mention today: the need for the “denazification” of Ukraine.
This so-called “third major reason” perhaps caused the most confusion among observers far from the war zone. It sounded utterly absurd, almost comical (if it weren’t so tragic) — what process of eliminating Nazism is the Russian leadership talking about? Are concentration camps appearing across Ukraine where some ideologically defined untermensch are being taken? Are there Nazi-fascist salutes? Are swastikas being displayed?
The world dismissed this and chalked up the call for “denazification” to Russian conquest rhetoric meant to generate maximum threat in order to mobilize forces under the guise of a so-called “special military operation” (even though it’s been a war from day one, Russia’s mobilization isn’t total).
War is a tragedy that should have been avoided much more sensibly, but a potentially even greater tragedy — one on a continental scale — would be if it turns out that, in his most radical “pretext,” Putin was actually right…
It’s true that Nazi flags don’t fly over Ukraine, and there’s no state-sanctioned Hitlerite iconography — except for a few battalions that have appropriated it. But when warnings of a reawakening of Nazism in Europe are viewed in a broader context, time shows us that uncomfortable truths are piling up.
It began with the trivialization of clearly pro-Nazi military units in Ukraine. It didn’t take long for Europe to move away from its previously cautious stance on neo-Nazism. Suddenly, they’re all “heroes,” no matter what slogans or insignias they wear into battle — as long as the battle is against the Russian army.
These were the early signs of what could be called Putin’s self-fulfilling prophecy. Since the war began, we’ve seen growing tolerance for fascism throughout Europe, both large and small.
These tendencies, which have always existed, were for decades kept locked away, in ideological cages. States simply kept their fascist enclaves out of sight. Like a deadly virus that could ravage the world and destroy humanity — yet is preserved deep in a lab. This evil, sealed in capsules across the Old Continent, is simply too useful to be entirely destroyed. Power structures have always been delighted by tendencies that can lead to massive mobilization and directed hatred. It’s a weapon like no other.
During “normal” functioning, it is kept in a state of excommunication. Fascism exists, but must not come near the public sphere — at least not until it’s called upon. It’s not an easy job. That simmering pot must be constantly calibrated, held at a steady temperature. Fascism must not come out, or it would immediately reach for the highest levels of power. At the same time, it must not completely disappear — drowned in the quiet routines of 21st-century life. So, it is sustained in small doses, with silent tolerance — for example, through the acceptance of fan groups who, in their insulated spaces, are allowed — and know they are allowed — to express fascist tendencies. In such scenarios, even sports in certain forms becomes a screen behind which those being prepared for future needs are groomed.
In front of the screen are the usual illusions — freedom of speech, democracy, human rights. When things go well, all the pre-screen agendas can freely entertain the population. When things go poorly, the screen tilts, and the forces of concentrated fascism, simply by appearing, can quickly destroy everything that stands in the way. Sometimes that’s freedom of speech — when it opposes the interests of the business-political class. Sometimes it’s democracy — when the people dare to vote the “wrong” way.
In the relatively normal years we’ve been lucky to live through, the screens were thick and had excellent soundproofing. Now they’re already very thin — because the need for what’s hidden behind is growing.
We live in a Europe psychotically mounted on militarism. That tragic urge, repeating at least once a century, to seize Russia’s vast resources, is active again. The West remains deeply possessed by the idea that Russia simply cannot have all those resources to itself. “The colossal resources of Siberia should not belong only to Russia,” former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright allegedly once said — though there’s no hard evidence she actually did. Still, the quote has taken on a life of its own as part of the rhetoric of antagonism between the West and Russia. Regardless of who said it, the principle is part of the agenda.
In such times — when Russia is demonized to the extreme (as it had been for years even before the war in Ukraine!) — within the reawakened European militarism, which still won’t say it out loud because the thin layer of the screen still holds, there is a budding admiration for figures like Napoleon and Hitler. Both tried to conquer Russia and both failed, but since Russia remains unconquered, the attempts become part of a mythology of ultimate ambition.
We came of age in a time when revising the image of criminals like Adolf Hitler seemed impossible, but geopolitical opportunism doesn’t care. With time, both fascism and Nazism will be relativized and ultimately normalized. We’ve already seen this in other parts of the world — Europe just hadn’t come up yet. Saddam Hussein committed numerous war crimes and was branded a criminal — only to later be praised, once Iran was seen as the main enemy, as the late dictator who “did everything to stop the spread of the Iranian revolution.”
Even today we see far-right forces, guardians of the screen, grinding down European history to paint the USSR as the “greater evil” compared to Nazi Germany. That’s the first and main move of revisionism — the foot that keeps the door from ever closing again. In the final stage, even the worst of the worst — Adolf Hitler himself — will be declared a man who “did everything to stop the spread of Bolshevism.” He just, they’ll say, made a small mistake in trying to assimilate the West too.
Beneath all of it — for Hitler, Napoleon, and now all new incarnations of European militarism — Russian resources are the prize. At its core, the story is this simple: resources are needed, and they will go after them (including the U.S., already trying to grab as much as it can from a wounded Ukraine). And that means Europe is preparing for war with Russia.
The key to preparing for war is the decision to remove the screen and normalize fascist tendencies. It’s fascinating how these decisions are made suddenly, almost overnight. One morning we simply notice that fascism is suddenly free, welcomed, present, and represented. Everything that for years was tactically kept at the margins, fed only in a cage, has now been unleashed — and like that deadly virus never destroyed, it rapidly spreads, whether through media, politics, or territory.
Among the former socialist bloc countries, those admitted into EU-NATO integration are expected to do the most — because they must “justify” their membership by proving they’ve rid themselves of their former socialist-communist identities. Moreover, these same countries — as the least loved in the club — must also prepare to be the first sacrificed when the time comes for total war. These countries are equivalent to Russian prisoners or Russian-speaking Ukrainians — that is, cannon fodder first sent to the front lines of elimination.
The governments of these states must show readiness and submission. That’s in their job description. They must demonstrate that they have purpose and that their people are already quite prepared for tragic outcomes. As a reward, the petty elites of petty countries will enjoy, for a little longer, what they believe is opulence, while the people they’re leading to ruin will chalk it all up to their strange fate.
The tragedy lies in failing to see the continental from the local. Many don’t see it because their sight has been systematically taken. For those who do, a heavy burden remains: waiting for the inevitable. Still, seeing through the screens is the only correct way to exist.
About the Author
