For, towards the end of his article, Schindler suddenly starts arguing:
"Comparisons to Hitler are always to be used sparingly but some apply here. Fascism never became an international movement because of the inherent contradictions of the competing nationalisms among Hitler’s wartime allies. For instance, Horthy’s Hungary and Antonescu’s Romania were happy to fight Bolshevism but they really hated and feared each other more. Neither did the Germans deal well with political figures seeking to be partners, not vassals, of Nazi Germany. Narrowly focused on themselves and their nationalism, the Germans failed to develop any sort of pan-European coalition against the West and Bolshevism, even though there were millions of right-wing Europeans who would have joined them. It never seems to have occurred to Berlin that the more than thirty divisions of the Polish army would have been very helpful in the Wehrmacht‘s (ultimately failed) drive on Moscow in 1941, not to mention that there were many Poles who were as eager to crush the Soviets as anyone in Germany. Poles were inferior Slavs, Untermenschen, and had to be crushed, per Nazi dogma ...
Close to the end of the World War II, as Nazi dreams of empire were collapsing in flames, a noted French collaborationist explained how the Germans did it all wrong. Pierre Drieu la Rochelle, a fascist who became disillusioned with the Germans’ imperial project, shortly before taking his own life, thereby missing a date with an Allied hangman, castigated the “imbecilic” Hitler and Germany’s “extreme political incompetence”: These military failings followed from Hitler’s total lack of imagination outside of Germany. He was [essentially] a German politician; good for Germany, but only there. Lacking political culture, education, and a larger tradition, having never traveled, being a xenophobe like many popular demagogues, he did not possess an understanding of what was necessary to make his strategy and diplomacy work outside Germany. All his dreams, all his talents, were devoted to winning the war of 1914, as if conditions [in 1940] were still those of 1914."
And so, as we can see, in trying to correct Hitler's "xenophobic," overtly anti-Slavic Nazism, the Empire tried to develop more of Slav-friendly, Slav nationalistic type of Nazism (clearly built on the basis of the originals from World War II), one, which could use those alleged Polish (or now Ukrainian) divisions deemed "very helpful in the [new] Wehrmacht's drive on Moscow" as part of a new anti-Russian "pan-European coalition," which is otherwise known as NATO and the EU.
In this way, the Empire is trying, to use the expressions used by Schindler above, to rectify and correct "Hitler's total lack of imagination outside of Germany," Hitler's too open anti-Slavic "imbecility," and Hitler's "extreme political incompetence." Schindler's passionate "critique" of Hitler and Nazism in order to suggest how it should be done and should have been done, thus helps us see that, like Khodorkovsky, his son and the "special project" of regime change in Russia and NATO's renewed Drang nach Osten are, indeed, Nazism 2.0.
Nazism 2.0 wants and is trying to use the same "inferior Slavs" more effectively and boldly. And, for the same goal--to destroy Russian civilization and Russia and to enslave the rest together with the willing Slav Nazis.