The article does not claim nor imply that "denazification" is laudable or essential; rather, it dryly remarks how the way the invasion has currently unfolded makes such a process practically inevitable, along with hypothetical outcomes regarding how far-right elements of Ukraine's military would react.
In fact, the author remarks how this stated goal of Putin's makes it more difficult for him to back down: Ironically, one of the reasons that Putin claims led to his decision to invade could also make it more difficult for him to withdraw Russian troops. That Ukraine is significantly infused with neofascism and ultranationalism means that he has taken on a fight with the kind of country that is more likely to fight hard. If the Ukrainian army is defeated, it will disperse and elements will team up with dispersed members of the often neofascist dominated ‘national battalions,’ who will carry on the fight by means of partisan guerrilla warfare and terrorism. This will make it difficult for Moscow to fully withdraw from a Ukraine that will be overwhelmed with reconstruction once war proper winds down.
This does not sound like an "essential" outcome in the sense you describe, much less a "laudable" one. (In fact, you were the first person to use those words in this entire thread.)
Disagreeing with someone's analysis as to how the war will unfold gives you no right to mischaracterize their opinion.
(Nor does it make the people who happened to take something away from it "Russian shills".)
The article:
1. Implies that something like "denazification" even exists - and that Ukraine is in need of it.
2. Characterizes this alleged "denazification" as a "minimal war goal" - which makes it sound prudent and modest.
3. Refers to "eight years of humiliation and terror in the breakaway regions of Donbass" - implying that Ukraine was not acting entirely within its rights, using appropriate means, to suppress a foreign-backed separatist movement.
4. Refers to "Donbass's exuberance" in seizing additional Ukrainian territory, as though the Separatists were merely overzealous schoolboys.
The article is saturated with a pious air of "concern," but is in fact a shameless piece of hackwork in support of the unprovoked Russian invasion and land-grab.
Regards,
That’s the way it is with some people on this subject. Either you must fully agree with their narrative or the name calling starts. Putin Shill, Putard, Putin Puffer. It’s no different than the Left calling people racist, white nationalist or insisting for years that Trump is a Russian asset.
I’ve never seen any pro Putin freepers but merely pointing out the fact that Ukraine is a screwed up place full of corruption or might have a nazi problem makes one a Putin Shill. Likewise with pointing out that Ukraine is and has been a puppet of the globalist left, Obiden admin and NATO that took over Ukraine in 2014 in a coup, much like the one we’re going through.
The pro jab people act similarly and I also notice there’s some overlap between the pro Ukraine people and the pro jab people. Some of the same screen names. Say anything bad about either one and the name calling starts.
That’s ok though. Comes with the territory of being an ultra maga deplorable pureblood realist.