it wasn’t a civil war, they were Russian backed separatists
i.e. Ukrainians, therefore engaging in a civil war
who had so little public support that they only gained ground after Russian soldier boots hit the ground
They weren’t trying to “gain ground”, they were trying to separate the ground they had from Ukraine! Why would a minority in Ukraine seek to totally defeat the Ukrainian military like Russia is doing? That would be suicide to attempt. This dude is a fucking rube.
There is a right wing presence in Ukraine but it is not that pervasive, especially not in the military and government.
Citation fucking needed that Azov does not represent a pervasive issue, or that Holocaust-denying ambassadors don’t. This fucker can only make a claim like this by rewriting history to claim banderites were progressive and then on top of that ignoring the Nazi iconography and actual hate crimes and war crimes committed against other ethnicities. Worthless perspective.
The Red and Black flag is literally “blood and soil”, this isn’t hard. Jesus . . .
These arguments are so bad they refute themselves. Unfortunately, that doesn’t help you all that much since he’s dumb enough to assert them. This guy reminds me of some other well-meaning de facto liberal historians I’ve known. You’re better off trying to find solidarity with students than professors most of the time, unless you can find the odd immigrant or someone whose lived experience encourages them to take a perspective more like yours. It sucks, but you can probably find at least one or two allies.
Even if everyone at your school does suck, remember that you aren’t alone and you aren’t crazy. Being “fringe” is to be expected of decent and informed people when the status quo is monstrous, and in fact I’d say it’s necessary.
Then it’s just a [citation needed] issue since they did just fine on the referendums that neoliberals reject out of hand, the Azovites still saw fit to butcher thousands, and the East is consistently interested in a conciliatory stance towards Russia. It’s still a weak argument. What happened? The public only gained enough confidence in them once they got the direct support of one of the larger militaries in the world? Is that an own somehow? Anyone would gain more public confidence when they went from being shelled to shit to actually winning because Russia put its whole fist on the scale.
Some people are much easier to disabuse of their shit than professors. Even the person you mention here might be able to be dissuaded. I once dissuaded a student who said “Ukrainians greeted the Nazis as liberators” in a single conversation after class. It’s just a matter of certain stories being normalized and never challenged, but often students are much less attached to specific positions than academics are. If someone takes a rhetorically flimsy point but you don’t feel up to fighting it during class, consider just approaching them after class and just expressing concern. Avoid being mad or confrontational even if you are frustrated and speak to them like they’re a fellow human who is also doing their best but may have been let down by people they trusted to guide them on the right path.
Also consider that there may be people (perhaps like yourself) who don’t agree but just don’t speak up. Sometimes you need to look for more subtle tells than someone shouting in the middle of class “The Maoist peasant uprising against landlords was the most successful and comprehensive land reform in history . . .” etc.