In a 2014 interview with "Der Spiegel", conducted after the annexation of Crimea, German historian Jochen Hellbeck is asked what he thinks about the fact that some Ukrainians, but also some Westerners, call Putin a fascist. His answer: “That is disgraceful. It looks like a tit-for-tat. The Kremlin thinks in imperial terms, but that does not make Putin a fascist. Fascism always culminates in war, and all of its politics is geared toward it. I can't see that in Russia.“ ⬇️

Es sei „wunderbar und lehrreich”, dass #AfD und #BSW als „Erben der beiden deutschen Diktaturen” zusammenhielten, sagt Liedermacher Wolf Biermann: „Das ist wie eine Lektion in Geschichte, die passen zusammen, ein Liebespaar, einer des anderen Strafe, wunderbar.” #maischberger

This was one of the most interesting moments of our @DohaDebates on Al Jazeera: why do more and more countries, including the U.S., refer to themselves as civilizations? Many view this as nationalistic or chauvinistic rhetoric, but I made the point that it's close to the opposite, that it's actually the world moving towards a healthier balance. Why? Because, by definition, when you define yourself as a civilization you're implicitly accepting that there are other civilizations too, with their own values and their own ways of seeing the world. As I argued, this marks a turning point after decades of liberal universalism when you never heard the word "civilization" because everything was about "universal values," with the assumption that there was only one legitimate way of seeing the world that everyone was expected - and often pushed - to adopt. Talking of civilizations means it becomes acceptable to say "you are the way you are, I am the way I am, let's coexist," rather than trying to impose your model on everyone else. Which is inherently less conflictual. And, as such, far from being chauvinistic, it's at heart more genuinely respectful of diversity than the liberal hegemony mindset where "diversity" was welcome as long as everyone ended up sharing the same values: ours. My contradictor, Isabel Hilton, countered that liberal ideas have genuine grassroots support in China and are debated there by the Chinese themselves. Which I don't dispute in the slightest: as I replied to her, a country debating its own future internally is the most normal thing in the world. When it starts to become wrong is when outsiders are trying to settle that debate from abroad. As I put it to her, if China tried to spread socialism with Chinese characteristics in Britain, the British would rightly have a problem with it. You can watch the full debate here below 👇 or on YouTube: youtube.com/watch?v=C_GZKMC5…

Sad but true. Putin was happy to let Ukraine keep its 1991 borders (including Crimea and the Donbass) as long as it remained neutral outside of NATO. Ukraine's mad pursuit of NATO membership has transformed it from a sovereign, independent and secure nation of 45 million with 100 percent of its territory to a devastated, war-torn rump state of 22-25 million people entirely dependent on Western financial and security assistance for its continued existence. Ukraine has lost 2.5 million of its brave troops including killed in action, seriously wounded and desertions since the war began along with half its population, one-fifth of its territory and one-fifth of its GDP since the CIA-backed Maidan coup overthrew its democratically elected president. This is the price it paid for its failed attempt to join NATO. The question is was the price worth it to the Ukrainian people the vast majority of whom did not want to join NATO before the coup? The truth is that if Ukraine had actually succeeded in joining NATO, the outcome of the war would have been no different as the Article Five security guarantee provisions of the Atlantic Charter have been a farce for the past couple decades.