Not P.....but Seymour Hersh admitting his self-blocked blindness....

[Martin Dietze]

> On 4. Jan 2026, at 08:34, Hübschräuber <huebschraeuber at protonmail.com> wrote:
[…]

I will try to make this more readable organising stuff a bit more like an essay rather than walking through endless quotes.


1. Andriy Biletskyi (head of the 3rd Army Corps)

He has the reputation of being an able commander. Looks like for Ukraine in its current siutation this counts more than his political convictions.


2. Oleksandr Alfiorov (head of the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory)

Alfiorov is a nationalist, but not a nazi. To prove otherwise you may want to come up with citations of what he said or wrote which are clearly nazi. Him having worked with Biletskyi in the past does not count.


3. Bandera

You claim that Bandera were a Nazi collaborator and mass murderer. 

In fact, Bandera was a fascist (of which “nazi” is a sub category which does not apply to Bandera), a terrorist and leader of a nationalist liberation front with often fascist ideology.
Between 1939 and 1941 his organisation, the OUN, was an ally to nazi Germany who had - while never stated explicitly - indicated support for a Ukrainian state by hints and deliberate ambiguity. This alliance was terminated by the OUN/B in June/July 1941, shortly after the begin of German occupation.
Hence, the term “Nazi collaborator” is questionable. 

There is no proof of Bandera being personally involved in or ordered atrocities committed by OUN/B forces. 
Since he was arrested by the Gestapo in 1941 and was then kept in a German concentration camp from 1942 to 1944 he was only pro forma, but not de facto leader of the OUN/B for most of the war.
Most historians nowadays consider his responsibility as “indirect”. 


4. Celebration of Bandera’s birthday

You claim Ukraine were celebrating Bandera’s birthday with the "Blut und Boden" flag of the UPA.

First of all: funny tweet in which Craig Murray about some guy “Banderas”. This, unfortunately, characterises his knowledge about Ukraine. While being a historian he has a reputation for his views on Ukraine being selective, uneven, and not based on professional expertise.

Now in up to 9 Ukrainian cities there were parades celebrating his birthday. For you this seems to be the same as "the country", and seeing the black-red flag seems to be proof enough that all the people there were nazis. 
This is where arguments will fail, because here belief kicks in.

Let me however state that (a) people have a right to parade as long as they don’t violate the law, and (b) Bandera is seen by these people as a symbol of anti Soviet resistance while widely ignoring (or even not believing) historic facts about his actual political beliefs.
Hence, it is impossible to establish the political convictions and motives of all those marchers. 

However, this isn’t even relevant, because marches in 9 cities, many of which with only a few hundred people, don’t represent a country. 


5. Dirlewanger patches

Again, an anecdote. There have been occasional and isolated cases where Dirlewanger patches were spotted on Ukrainian servicemen, and these were of course exaggerated by Russian propaganda and and multiplied by Western “alternative media” who usually copy most material confirming their bias of nazi influence on Ukraine.

Whether or not people using this are actually nazi is actually difficult to establish without talking to those people directly. 
I understand that you firmly believe in use of symbolism equaling full understanding of its historical meaning and according political convictions. 
However this is not how these things work in the real world. In Ukraine, from 2014 and far more from 2022, some (!) people have an affinity for everything symbolising fight against Russia, and nazi Germany’s forces, Wehrmacht and SS, are amongs examples for this.
It most of all reflects poor understanding of history.


6. Germany’s AfD

You claim that Germany’s AfD’s leaders like Weidel (oops, almost wrote “Weigel”, haha) Chrupalla and were not compable to Biletskyi and Yarosh.

This was a very selective pick of names. First of all, Dmytro Yarosh is a nationalist, but not a nazi. But apart from that:

The AfD hold 24% of seats in the German Bundestag. If I’m not mistaken, in every single German “Bundesland” (federal republic, you know) they have 2-digit percentage of seats in the respective parliaments. They are strongest in the Eastern provinces:
- Brandenburg: ~32.5%
- Thuringia: ~38.6%
- Saxony: ~37.3%
- Saxony‑Anhalt: ~37.1%
- Mecklenburg‑Vorpommern: ~35%
They are a real strong political force in Germany.

Now, how dangerous are they? 
First of all, AfD has a significant spectrum of political views in their supporters - 	moderate conservatives, nationalists, hard-right / völkisch / extremist individuals.
One of their leaders, Björn Höcke, is somebody I would consider a nazi (statements minimizing the Holocaust - “monument of shame” controversy).
More worrying are members, in particular in the Eastern provinces and even nore the youth organisation where a good portion are actual nazis.

Hence, AfD is actually very well comparable to the Ukrainian far-right. And that’s my point - our problem with far-right influence in Germany is bigger than Ukraine’s.


Summary: Predjudice and Exaggeration

This is my personal assessment of your post. 
You assume that historical symbols and protagonists are seen and used in modern Ukraine exactly according to their actual historical meaning.
This is incorrect. 
Ukraine being a post Soviet country has a different tradition of interpreting history, often paired with lack of knowledge and deep distrust of historians. 
What a good number of people usually clings to are myths, not actual historic facts.
When talking to Ukrainians I often get unpopular by pointing this out. 
It is however not our job to teach them, we have enough stuff to fix in our own countries.

Ukraine is a democratic country where extremist views have far less influence than in Western democracies. 
It has been brutally attacked by a fascist state, and deserves our support, in particular because Western negligence and appeasement when dealing with Russia have actually made this invasion seem feasible to Putin.


Cheers,

Martin