Michael Green made two important points, one of which at least (the latter) is self-evidently true (both the West and Russia are "impossibly bourgeois"): "There is no enduring meaning in a Russian victory at this point, IMO, other than to thwart an American victory. But they're both playing for the same team, actually. IMO, that kind of victory is Pyrrhic. It is also stupid, petty and, as Marx would put it - though I am not a Marxist - impossibly bourgeois ...."
The recognition of the oligarchic nature of today's Russia is a basic, fundamental political fact which any honest and truthful analyst and analysis has to recognize and even to begin with. The Western left or most of what identifies itself with the "left" in the West is also admittedly bourgeois.
The essential political nature of today's Russia also greatly explains why official Moscow was never happy about or supportive of anti-oligarchic demands and the anti-oligarchic aspirations of the Novorossiya revolution and why, instead, one could see in any of its "peace" initiatives to be reintroducing either some oligarchs or oligarchic interests back into the game and back into Novoroosiya.
Colonel Cassad said already twice at least (again just yesterday) that Putin represents the interests of Russia's big capital. A good number of people on the left did not like to hear it, but a personal dislike for something does not necessarily count against the truth.
The US demands and demands very severely that Russian oligarchs stop playing and fussing around and that, instead, they do what the highest priests of the system demand from them--either total subordination or suicide.
To this effect, the US is also trying to frame and set up the game so as to leave to Russian oligarchs and the Russian leadership only these two "options."
In all this, tragically and sadly, for the Russian leaders it has been more about Kerry this or Kerry that, about Poroshenko, the "good cop" of the Nazi junta in Kiev, whom they laud as a very good person to talk to (as if they never bothered to listen to what he is actually saying about Russia), and about calling the anti-Russian oligarchs and the Nazis in power in Kiev "partners" ...
At the same time, Putin, Lavrov, and Medvedev have been audibly numb and loudly deaf when it comes to listening to the political will and voice of the people of Novorossiya themselves. Instead, the Russian leadership struck a deal with the US (and Kiev) behind the scenes (the Minsk "accords") and called it "the beginning of an all-Ukrainian dialogue."
As Michael says, "at this point" (emphasis on "at this point"), there is no clear, enduring or solid meaning or stance formulated or expressed by the Russian elite tied very tightly to the interest of Russia's big capital and Russian oligarchy.
Recently, Lavrov argued that the US did not make a socio-political analysis of the situation in Ukraine. I think the US policymakers did that. For not only the New Left was successfully infiltrated from the level of its leading thinkers, but the first generations of neo-conservatives started first by posing as leftist intellectuals as well, and Marxism and Trotskyism were plundered for clues and ideas of how to defeat one's enemy with his own ideological and political weapons turned against him. At the same time, the US establishment tried to learn from its enemy as much as it could, while much of the left replaced genuine political know-how and education with a load of post-modern (self)deconstruction--its own neo-colonization. So when it comes to knowing oneself, it is not given that, between the Russian and American elites, it is the latter that needs to be worse off.
Thus, ironically and paradoxically, but understandably, it is the US establishment that has a very realistic and, if you want, even a class based (of sorts) view of the Russian oligarchs who shared and share with their class brothers in the West more than ventures, accounts, tastes, vices or beds. But this, of course, does not mean that the US capital does feel a great urge and desire to treat Russian oligarchs similarly to how Cain handled his brother Abel.
As to the original question asked whether "Nazism can be fought and defeated by an 'impossibly bourgeois' (and hence corrupt) system and leaders," we can say that this question has already been answered in World War II. Nazism cannot be defeated "half-as" or by half-as men ... Nazism cannot be defeated by men and women who are corrupt or "impossibly bourgeois."
While Nazism is not merely the darkest of the Western civilization's shadows, but also an extreme prejudice to life, the spirit of money is and remains the spirit of Judas. Imperialism is not the last stage of capitalism. Imperialism was the first stage of capitalism and its continuous character. Its last stage is Nazism and its morbid desires, sadism, and will.
When the night comes, man kindles his fire and if he and others truly care, then the fire--the fire of human spirit--endures,