Critics say the Kremlin is to blame for the rise in neo-nationalist movements, arguing they have been allowed to flourish in recent years.

Unlike many human rights activists and the country’s marginalized gay community, neo-nationalists have been allowed to hold rallies -- a right guaranteed by the Russian constitution.

Yet amid this crackdown, President Vladimir Putin’s government has also sought to forge its own state nationalism – and used elements of the ultra-nationalist agenda in its increasingly anti-Western, neo-conservative and isolationist ideology

many ultra-nationalists fled Russia – sometimes preferring to fight in eastern Ukraine on both sides of the conflict.

The largest players in the field of official, Kremlin-sanctioned nationalism are the deeply conservative and immensely powerful Russian Orthodox Church, the resurgent “armies” of Cossacks, czarist-era paramilitary forces, and right-wing parties.

the Kremlin cultivates ties with [far right groups] in the European Union to promote Moscow’s agenda. (...) representatives of Western far-right political parties, including neo-Nazi groups from Germany, Greece, and the UK, met for a Kremlin-funded conference in St Petersburg

Very strong antifascist culture indeed.

It's largely arms and ammunition.

And the idea that we are saving money by provoking a nuclear power has got to be one of the craziest things I have read in quite some time.

What does them having nuclear weapons have to do with anything? Either they're in the wrong for invading a sovereign country or not (although international politics is never about right and wrong, but it's about power). Just because they have nuclear weapons they should be allowed to do whatever they want? So the US should be free to invade any other nation without consequences too, right? What a joke.

If we're removing the need to maintain old equipment, it's removing a cost. The cost was maintained to fight Russia, and this weakens Russia, so future costs are decreased. It saves money, right? It doesn't matter who is provoked. It doesn't change that fact. Sure, we're also sending aid and other things, but the goal is to create a good outcome for the US. Ukraine produces a lot of food, so securing them is in our benefit, along with any other agreements. You can disagree with this if you want, but that's international politics. Russia wanted the same except with total annexation and subservience. I'd say remaining autonomous is a better outcome for them.