This issue is one which divides many sincere and good people and which I rarely see addressed directly. And yet, it is a crucial one. Today, I want to address is head on.
The realistic argument (version one)
As Otto von Bismarck said, "politics is the science of the possible". It is all well and dandy to hope for the best, but unless you are delusional or believe in magic-thinking, you have to prepare for the worst and settle for anything in the middle. There are plenty of conflicts which end in some kind of compromise which neither side likes, but which both sides accept simply because the alternative is even worse. And as Andreas Walsh correctly points out, a "united federated Nazi-free Ukraine" (to use Bezler's words) is a very tall order. In fact, there are growing signs that the support for the so-called "anti-terrorist operation" (ATO) is *growing*, that the zombificaton if the Ukrainian people is very successful. For example, just two days ago I was watching yet another videoconference between the some citizens of Kiev and some citizens of Donetsk and I was horrified to see that the folks from Kiev still seriously spoke, apparently with all sincerity, about the "Russian army being involved in the battles in Novorussia". As for the latest Ukie Rada, it is chock-full of Nazi field commanders, death-squad leaders, clearly Nazi politicians and, of course, oligarchs. The truth is that there are no signs of even a slight de-Nazificaton in the Ukraine, quite to the contrary, all the signs are of a rapid and strong Nazification of the Ukrainian society.
That is all true, but that is only part of the picture. A small part.
The realistic argument (version two)
The big problem with the realistic argument above is that is is completely focused on the short term. Worse, it replies to the wrong question which is this: "are there any signs of de-Nazification in the Ukraine or not?" The correct question is very different, and it is this one:"is a Nazi regime in the Ukraine viable?". That is also a realistic argument, I would argue more realistic than the first one. To answer this question, we really need to answer to sub-questions:
a) Is a Nazi regime in the Ukraine intrinsically viable? That is, in the best of external circumstances, could a Nazi regime remain in power in the Ukraine? In practical terms this means this: can the Nazis prevent the total "somalization" of what is left of the Ukraine? Could they, if given enough support from abroad, stabilize and somehow rebuilt some form of statehood?
b) Even if a Nazi regime in Kiev is viable, can the countries around the Ukraine accept a Nazi Ukraine as a long-term neighbor? After all, Hitler was never voted out of power, it took the Soviet military (with some late assistance by the Anglo powers) to get rid of him. I would argue that there are some regimes which are inherently so terrible that nobody can ever accept them (ISIS for example).
Now let's begin by the first question.
I don't think that anybody will deny that the Ukraine is a sinking ship. The Ukrainian economy is gone, finished, dead. There is no money left, no cash, no gold. Right now, the Ukraine is literally "coasting by inertia on an empty tank" and when it finally comes to a standstill things will get really, really ugly. Right now, the regime in power is busy doing all sorts of very "patriotic" but utterly useless things. They are re-writing history books (even though they lack the money to print them), they are accepting non-citizens in top government positions (Americans, Poles, Germans, Lithuanians, Georgians, etc.) and they are changing the name of WWII. Great stuff, for sure, but it is painfully clear that they Junta has no plan to fix the economy and that it won't even pretend. So we are dealing with a sinking ship whose crew is not even pretending to make an effort to prevent her from going to the bottom of the ocean. How viable is that?
Now let's look at the second question:
It is also undeniable that neither Europe nor Russia can simply turn away from the Ukraine like they have from sub-Saharan Africa and pretend that it does not exist. No matter how much the Ukraine will end up resembling Somalia, the Congo or Liberia, the Ukraine does exist, millions of people live there, and they don't want to die. And they have guns, lots of guns. So no matter what the politics are, the EU and Russia will have to rescue the Ukrainian people and neither side has the means or the will do to so alone. That, in turn, means that both sides have a veto power on any rescue plan for the Ukraine. Including Russia.
Russia, by the way, has the option of rescuing only the Donbass, which is the richest and best educated part of the Ukraine anyway, and leave the rest of it to the EU bureaucrats. Russia is also far more capable of isolating herself from a "africanized" Ukraine then the EU. In other words, the EU is far more threatened by chaos in the Ukraine than Russia, and far less capable of dealing with the consequences of that chaos than Russia. And the Russians understand that.
Last, but most certainly not least, no matter who is in power and no matter what the politics of the situation, geography dictates a simple reality: Russia will always be the Ukraine's biggest trading partner. To think otherwise simply ignores the nature of market forces. In other words, any, and I mean any, plan for the reconstruction of the Ukraine will have to center on the reestablishment of economic ties with Russia.
All of the above can be very simply summed up like this: in the long run, no regime in Kiev is viable unless it has the support of Russia. It is really that simple.
Of course, in the short term and even mid term, the AngloZionists can prop up a Nazi regime in Kiev, but in the long run this is futile, they simply don't have anywhere near the resources needed to make that happen.
Pretend wars and real wars
The recent flurry of pretend-wars presented to us by CNN have resulted in a complete misconception by the general public of how real wars are fought. We are used to the US attacking, the "bad guys" shooting something back, then the US wins, and everybody goes on to the next pseudo-war. This is not how real wars happen.
First, real wars take years to resolve. I don't mean pseudo-wars like Desert Storm or the bombing of Serbia. I mean *real* wars. Like WWI and WWII. Or the US war against Japan in the Pacific. Or the Korean war (which technically is still ongoing).
Second, in most real wars the attacked side is mostly unprepared to defend itself, hence the attack. This is very true of Russia, as some of correctly deduced from the Khazin Q&A: by 2014 Russia was not ready to fight the AngloZionist Empire (Russia would have preferred to have the conflict happen in 2020). But when you get attacked, you don't get to chose the time of the attack, that advantage is inherently for the attacker.
Third, because of this, most real wars begin by a retreat of the attacked party. That directly flows from the second point above. Right now, Russia has "retreated" to less than the full Donetsk and Lugansk regions and she had to "give up" not only most of historical Novorussia, but the entire Ukraine. This is normal and entirely predictable. It is, in fact, quite amazing that the entire Ukrainian military has not managed to subdue two fairly small regions.
But anybody who seriously believes that this is were this war will end is completely naive and does not understand what is at stake here: the very existence of Russia as a nation and a state. Russia will never ever allow this conflict to just freeze anywhere near the current line of contact. In fact, Russia will never allow a Nazi regime in Kiev to remain in power and, as I have explained above, Russia does have the means to prevent that.
The old folks in the Donbass who immediately compared the current war to WWII are correct. In both cases, these wars were about the very survival of Russia not only as a nation and a state, but even as a civilizational realm. The fact that WWII was fought mainly with the German Wehrmacht while the modern war is fought primarily by advanced propaganda techniques makes absolutely no difference. In both cases we are dealing with an attempt to destroy "Russia" in the largest sense of the word. Having met a lot of people who lived through WWII, including Russians who lived in Germany, and having studied the history of that war, I would argue that today's level of russophobia is even worse then during Hitler's times. At least during WWII most Germans were not brainwashed into hating Russians (that kind of crap was only believed by NSDAP Party members, and that not even by all!), whereas nowadays the russophobia has become generalized and completely hysterical, especially in the USA and the Junta-controlled Ukraine.
If you can, read the Ukrainian nationalist press, listen to their speeches, read their websites, including social ones, try to expose yourself to as much real Ukrainian nationalist thought as you can and you will come to realize a simple thing: at its very core, the "Ukraine" is nothing but an "anti-Russia". The Ukraine as a concept does not have a positive content, in fact, it does not even have any inherent reality. The Ukraine is only anti-Russian, it is defined by its opposition to Russia.
Historically, the Ukrainian project was first created by the Papacy as an "anti-Orthodoxy", but following both the decline of Christianity in the West and the rise of nationalism the "Ukrainian project" turned from being primarily anti-Orthodox to its modernized, secular, version - being anti-Russian.
Just like Judaism is, in historical, cultural and religious terms, nothing but an anti-Christianity, so is "Ukrainianism" just an "anti-Russism". You think that I am kidding?
Just look at the freaks in power in Kiev: US-born immigrants, Jewish oligarchs, bona-fide Nazis, Uniat priest, "Gay-rights" activists, death-squad commanders and pro-European students. Tell me, is there any idea, any real value which unites this freaks zoo? Only one: hate, rabid hate for Russia.
The ontological relationship betwen Russia and the Ukraine is similar to the one of a electron and positron: combined the explode and release a lot of energy (in the form of violence, hopefully without gamma-rays). The good news for Russia is that it's mass of matter is way bigger than the mass of the Ukrainian anti-matter, by several orders of magnitude. In plain English this simply means that the "Ukrainians positrons" (the real hardcore Russophobic Nazis) will lose, at least in the long run. Russia's mass is bigger in economic, demographic, geographic, intellectual, cultural, social, spiritual and, of course, economic terms. The Nazis don't stand a chance.
So Bezler, far from being naive, is simply looking further in the distance. Of course, the immediate task at hand is to protect Novorussia and allow it to survive the Winter. Then the short term task will be to rebuilt Novorussia (which you should think of as "liberated Ukraine" as opposed to "occupied Ukraine" i.e. Banderastan). The mid term task will then be do reach some kind of deal with whoever is in power in Kiev which will provide temporary but good security for Novorussia. Lastly, the long term task will be to apply the correct political pressure to covertly foster a process of de-Nazification of the Ukraine while appearing to be doing almost nothing (let the Ukies think that they are "de-Nazifying themselves").
Yes, this will take years, just like any war does. But there is no other solution. It is the hight of naiveté to believe Russia can afford to live next to an "anti-Russia", nevermind the tiny Novorussia. And, finally, the people of the Ukraine, most of them at least, deserve so much better than to live under a Nazi regime! Yes, the Imperial propaganda today appears to be winning, but the first cracks are already appearing, especially in Europe, and the more the freaks in Kiev show their true face, the harder it will be for the Europlutocrats to sell them as the "good guys" to an already impoverished and mostly hostile European population. This will be just as with the "heroic Afghan Mujahideen" who began as "freedom fighters", but who were then downgraded to "Islamic Fundamentalists", then to "al-Qaeda terrorists" and now "ISIS Über-villans".
After all is said and done, and the dust settles, and the war is over, two things will remain: the fact that the Ukraine is an artificial entity and the fact that nobody will want to re-start that war. In theory, breaking the Ukraine up into several parts is possible, but presents huge risks: the issue of borders is potentially the best way to restart violence and terror. A far better solution is to make sure that each region is allowed to maintain and develop its identity. So for all these reasons, a "A united federated Nazi-free Ukraine" is not only a possible solution, it is the only solution.
Bezler is right.