And which reviewer or publishers verifies how "significant" a contribution is beyond seeing some initials matched with tags like "visualization" or "experimental design"? That's right, nobody. It's not even remotely traceable who did what if you're a reviewer.
Academia is full of fraud and people trying to secure their share of credit because in academia it's all about names, as the twitter exchange above illustrates so profoundly. And the other driver for the sad state of academia is of course having the quantity of published papers as the most important criterion for academic success. The more papers, the more citations, the bigger your name will become. It determines your chances of getting funding and therefore your career. If you want to make a career in science you have little options but to comply with this system.
There may be parallels but there are also such huge differences that I cant really buy into that comparison. Most of all before WW2 no one had nuclear weapons. It's a difference that can't be underestimated. You may think that Putin is a lunatic but you can be sure that above all he cares about his own survival. So why should he do anything that could provoke a 3rd world war? The moment that there's an open war with NATO... He knows that he's a dead man.
Moreover, Russia is in no position to fight against let alone occupy any NATO country. They couldn't even occupy half of Ukraine so far and they've lost so many troops. Yes they're trying to build a war economy but Russia has no population that's expendable. They're already in a deep demographic crisis and this war will only cripple their economic outlook for a long time to come.
I really don't see how Russia is supposed to pull of the Hitler playbook. Putin would risk everything without a prospect of success. They'll keep fighting in Ukraine and continue their hybrid FUD war but that's all there is.