The predictable consequence of Putinism and the deafness of a part of the right-wing

I began denouncing Vladimir Putin's dictatorship on this blog 16 years ago, following the Russian invasion of Georgia.

The questions that Tucker Carlson did not ask Putin, who even justified Hitler
Yesterday Churchill, today Zelensky: the raison d'être of certain critics in a time of war

During this time I have warned not only against Putin's dictatorship, but against the ideological drift of a certain part of the right (fortunately a minority) to justify this criminal, with arguments that would serve perfectly to justify mass criminals like Hitler and Stalin. I do not know if these warnings have served any purpose, but I fear that a part of the right has decided to turn a deaf ear to any warning about Putin and his atrocities.

In February of this year I criticized Tucker Carlson's interview with Putin, in which the Russian dictator went so far as to justify Hitler without Carlson questioning him. Specifically, Putin blamed Poland for the start of World War II, accusing Poland of having been "intransigent" with the Nazi dictator's demands to hand over the Danzig corridor. In other words, Putin blamed the German invasion of Poland on the invaded country for not giving in to Hitler's wishes: it is the same thing that the Putinists do with Ukraine.

This week, Carlson once again displayed his bias by interviewing Darryl Cooper, a Putin defender who used the opportunity provided by the popular journalist to portray Churchill as the greatest "villain" of World War II (a war provoked, let us not forget, by two dictators and mass criminals, Hitler and Stalin), and also trivialize the Holocaust, downplaying it and claiming that the Germans "went in with no plan for that and just threw these people into camps. And millions of people ended up dead there." As he did with Putin, Carlson did not question these infamies.

All this is not a coincidence or a whim. It is part of a discourse that is not new. Last year I already pointed out here the similarity between the smear campaigns against Zelensky and those suffered by Churchill. Of course, neither the Ukrainian president is perfect nor was the British prime minister. But some attack Zelensky because he is imperfect, but because he personifies the Ukrainian resistance against the Russian invasion, which is the same reason why Churchill suffered (and, as we have seen, still suffers) the attacks of some: for being a symbol of the British resistance against Nazi Germany.

And now what do some people suggest? Is their idea of ​​a new right to promote a discourse that serves to whitewash criminals like Putin, Stalin and Hitler? Are we supposed to necessarily come to terms with this right-wing movement, ignoring the fact that it supports an enemy of the West who is committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Ukraine, and who in his own country is dedicated to imprisoning and killing those who oppose him?

I refuse to share a trench with those who support a criminal like Putin, and I don’t give a damn if that forces me to be alone. I have been criticizing the so-called moderate left for many years for allying itself with admirers of tyrants like the Castro brothers and Nicolás Maduro, and it would be inconsistent to say that I can turn a blind eye to a part of the right that considers Putin as the greatest role model for a conservative to follow. I want the best for my country, and the best thing is not to imitate a tyrant like Putin, or to be part of his criminal club of allies (Iran, communist China, North Korea and others).