Why Comparing Putin to Hitler Prolongs the Ukraine War

Governments in major EU states, including Germany, France, and England, are pursuing a strategy to increase costs for Vladimir Putin until he surrenders, according to a recent analysis of diplomatic efforts. While officials claim a desire for negotiations, critics argue the current approach prioritizes military weakness over immediate peace.

A recent editorial in the FAZ reports that Chancellor Merz believes a “window for diplomacy” could slowly open. However, the text notes that the prevailing strategy among large EU nations is to weaken or defeat Russia militarily before negotiations begin.

Why is the EU’s strategy for Russia criticized?

Critics argue that EU governments are using the language of diplomacy to mask a goal of military capitulation. The text compares this approach to letting gas leak into an apartment simply to justify opening a window later.

Another point of criticism is the use of “evil” rhetoric. By comparing Vladimir Putin to figures like Adolf Hitler or the fictional Lord Voldemort, the text claims governments justify a refusal to negotiate, as negotiating with “evil” is framed as pointless.

How does nationalism impact diplomatic negotiations?

The analysis asserts that Putin’s war against Ukraine is a nationalist war. According to the text, nationalism is inherently hostile to “strangers” and often contradicts the human rights claims made by some national representatives.

The text suggests that peace research is primarily conflict research. To end the war, the underlying conflicts must be understood, similar to how the 30-Year War was eventually resolved by addressing overlapping conflicts.

The author proposes that negotiations could occur if leaders assume Putin retains “forces of reason” despite his nationalism. This would involve negotiating while explicitly rejecting and naming nationalist behavior during the process.

What is the difference between the Putin and Hitler comparisons?

The text rejects the comparison between Putin and Hitler, arguing that Hitler represents a specific historical extreme where negotiation became impossible. This process was fueled by the Treaty of Versailles and the subsequent economic crisis of 1929.

Historian Wolfgang Altgeld’s research indicates that Hitler’s path was paved by long-term nationalist fantasies from the 19th century. This included the systematic exclusion of Jews and Catholics, who were viewed as “anti-nations” or “foreign nations.”

According to the text, Hitler’s nationalism eventually evolved into fascism and “National Socialism.” This extreme condensation of nationalist processes is what made him, in the words of the Stauffenberg circle, someone who had to be “shot like a mad dog.”

What could happen next in diplomatic efforts?

If EU leaders shift from viewing the opponent as purely “evil” to viewing the situation as a manageable conflict, diplomatic paths may open. The text suggests that attacking nationalism explicitly—wherever it appears—could be a necessary step toward peace.

A possible next step would involve treating Putin as a leader “infected” by nationalism but still capable of reason. This approach would allow for a sustainable solution for all parties without denying the presence of “evil” structures.

The text also suggests that internal European politics, such as the conflict between the BSW and the “lifestyle-left,” may reflect broader struggles over whether to live nationally or “westernly.”

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the primary goal of the current EU strategy regarding Russia?
According to the FAZ editorial mentioned in the text, the strategy is to increase the costs for Vladimir Putin to the point that he eventually gives up.

Why does the author argue that Hitler was non-negotiable?
The text states that Hitler’s nationalism escalated into fascism and National Socialism, driven by the fallout of the Treaty of Versailles and the 1929 economic crisis, creating a level of “evil” that precluded diplomacy.

What role does capitalism play in this analysis?
The text, citing Pope Francis’s claim that “this economy kills,” argues that politicians embody the “evil” of societal structures, specifically the link between capitalism and nationalism.

Do you believe that framing political leaders as “evil” helps or hinders the possibility of achieving a lasting peace?