OP linked the Politico article (it should be under the title/image on most clients) but having read it, this is one of those rare headlines that's actually worse in context. As OP mentioned it's about a recent controversy that was stirred up when Canada's parliament honored Yaroslav Hunka for fighting against Russia in Ukraine, despite his history as a volunteer for the Waffen-SS (an armed paramilitary group that played a major role in the Nazis seizing power and combat throughout WWII).

The article defends Hunka with the absurd claim that joining the muscle of the Nazi party doesn't make you a Nazi, maybe you just really didn't like the USSR! Even if you buy that excuse, the article provides no evidence whatsoever that it actually applies to Hunka, they don't even attempt to make that case. It then tries to draw an incredibly bad-faith equivalency between the USSR and Nazi Germany (and while I'm not going to say that Stalin was anything resembling a platonic ideal of leadership, there's a pretty big gulf between the USSR and Nazi fucking Germany). After that we get some nitpicking of the claims against Hunka (bringing up the fact that his unit was never convicted of war crimes, which completely glosses over the fact that his unit was, again, part of the Nazi's armed paramilitary). It then dismisses any criticism of Hunka or the Canadian Parliament's ovation for him as people being fooled by Russian propaganda through a series of absurd logical leaps. I think things are best summed up by this little nugget towards the end of the article:

However, any further discussion of the error has to be carefully phrased, as any suggestion that Canada is showing contrition for “honoring a Nazi” would acquiesce to the rewriting of history by Russia and its backers, and concede to allegations of Hunka’s guilt that have no basis in evidence.

Again, they are talking about a volunteer for the Waffen-fucking-SS. The muscle for the Nazi party.