Since we're sharing Russia-Ukraine War related Wikipedia links, let's take a look at the other side in this conflict too, shall we? Wagner Group is especially interesting considering they are also...
Since we're sharing Russia-Ukraine War related Wikipedia links, let's take a look at the other side in this conflict too, shall we?
I think one can reasonably oppose Russian imperialism while simultaneously not supporting a government that has neo-Nazi groups that execute minorities and implement pogroms against Roma and LGBTQ...
I think one can reasonably oppose Russian imperialism while simultaneously not supporting a government that has neo-Nazi groups that execute minorities and implement pogroms against Roma and LGBTQ people [0] as part of its official armed forces. I think these are fully compatible positions.
I don’t think this is a controversial thing to say: yes, the far right is a problem in Ukraine, but it doesn’t in any way justify the actions of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, as he threatens Ukraine with military intervention.
The best known, though not best understood, name on Ukraine’s far right — the Azov movement, the subject of my latest book — is being more frequently dropped online by people who want to give Putin a free pass to do what he wants in Ukraine.
The basics: Ukraine’s far right, particularly the Azov movement, has long been able to operate with a degree of impunity and openness that makes it the envy of its international peers. The movement grew out of the Azov Regiment (originally a Battalion), formed in the chaos of war in early 2014 by a ragtag group of far-right thugs, football hooligans and international hangers-on — including dozens of Russian citizens — becoming an official unit of Ukraine’s National Guard.
With estimates of membership as high as 10,000 members — thankfully nothing near the numbers of fascist parties of the 1930s, with whom it shares more ideological affinity than it will publicly admit — the Azov movement has been able to take advantage of a general “patriotic” turn in Ukrainian mainstream discourse since Russian aggression began in 2014. The movement’s leaders have been adept at playing up their own status as veterans, insulating themselves from criticism as mere “patriots” who voluntarily took up arms in the earliest days of the war when Ukraine’s military was a shambles. Still, they’re not invincible; Azov’s alleged longtime patron, the former interior minister Arsen Avakov, left office in July 2021. Since then at least some of the impunity the movement had enjoyed has appeared to fall by the wayside.
What even makes up the Azov movement can depend on who you ask. In 2019 the movement’s former international spokesperson publicly described the Azov Regiment as the “military wing” of the Azov movement. These days the regiment and its defenders act like it’s a totally unrelated entity, but one that still openly recruits at movement events; witness the Azov movement leader Andriy Biletsky, the regiment’s first commander, at its cultlike yearly honouring of its fallen.
The movement’s most public face is the National Corps political party, which won barely 2 per cent of the vote in a coalition with other far-right parties in parliamentary elections in 2019. It’s more a brand than a party, a polished PR-focused outfit that isn’t above coyly referencing the so-called “14 words”, a white supremacist slogan. From Centuria, the black-clad paramilitary that’s been part of the movement’s civil defence training sessions, to youth camps, book clubs and sports classes, the Azov movement tries to be a one-stop shop for all things far right. There’s also a bevy of loosely affiliated but more extreme subgroups under its umbrella as well, including open neo-Nazis who praise and promote violence.
The Azov movement has used the current crisis to try and make itself appear more mainstream, hosting public civil defence training sessions and positioning itself as the force that can best protect Ukraine from its enemies, particularly in the case of a full-scale invasion.
There’s long been a real fear in Ukraine of feeding into Kremlin propaganda by talking about the far right; I expect to get heat online for this article, not because of what I’ve said here, but because I’ve said anything about the far right at all. It’s a fear that, understandably, isn’t helped by Putin and company’s nonsensical claims about “genocide” in Donbas and its obvious willingness now more than ever to fabricate pretexts for further intervention in Ukraine.
But pretending the far right isn’t an issue won’t make it go away, and it won’t stop people outside Ukraine from talking about it. I know that policymakers in Washington, DC, Berlin, London and Brussels, to name a few capitals, are more concerned about the issue of the far right in Ukraine than a lot of people might realise, even if these concerns don’t always percolate out into public. The existence of a well armed, well trained, committed group of far-right extremists and friends is a factor in Ukraine’s future, no matter what Putin decides to do in the next few weeks. When the most extreme fringes, for example, muse openly about making lists of “internal enemies” to be killed during the chaos of the first days of a full Russian invasion, refusing to pay attention shouldn’t be an option.
As we creep close to the bloodiest of outcomes thanks to Vladimir Putin — the ultimate causa prima of the current situation — there’s a question I’d pose to Ukrainians and their international defenders. Are these guys from the far right really on your side? After all, these guys don’t like the European Union or Nato; many see the West as just as big an enemy as the Kremlin.
There are also, ironically enough, a few curious, if unproven, Russia connections. Some in the Azov movement, such as Sergei Korotkikh, have been publicly accused of being agents of Russian security services in one form or another. They’ve appeared to be OK working with Vladimir Putin’s friends when it suits them. From Biletsky on down, in 2019 and 2020 senior Azov movement figures flocked en masse to appear on television channels associated with the pro-Kremlin politician Viktor Medvedchuk (Putin is godfather to his daughter). They happily made appearances on channels whose closure by President Volodymyr Zelensky they’d later cheer.
Still, it has to be stressed — and it’s sad that it has to be — none of this justifies or merits Russian intervention in Ukraine. As the scenarios that I considered impossible weeks ago become reality, I’m struck by the dismissiveness from some elements of the compulsively online left about the current situation, as if somehow Ukraine deserves to be invaded, occupied and sectioned up because of the existence of the far right.
I’ll ask this, then: is your attitude to Ukraine’s current situation, and to Ukrainians as a whole, to abandon them to the whims of a former imperial power simply because there’s a far-right problem in the country? It’s really not that hard to be critical of the issue of the far-right in Ukraine, and recognise it as a real issue, without justifying a paranoid authoritarian’s grasps at the last remnants of a dying empire.
The problem isn't that Ukraine has "a far-right problem" (even the US has one of those) it is that they incorporate explicitly neo-Nazi organizations into their military. I really don't understand...
The problem isn't that Ukraine has "a far-right problem" (even the US has one of those) it is that they incorporate explicitly neo-Nazi organizations into their military. I really don't understand Nazi apologia, even if the apologia benefits western interests
And I don't understand your blatant attempts to paint the entire country of Ukraine as somehow undeserving of support against Russia's latest invasion of it due to a fringe political movement...
And I don't understand your blatant attempts to paint the entire country of Ukraine as somehow undeserving of support against Russia's latest invasion of it due to a fringe political movement within it. A movement which only formed, rose to prominence, and gained their position as an official element of the national guard as a result of Russia supporting separatists in Eastern Ukraine, and annexing Crimea. Especially when Russia itself has a history of supporting and utilizing similarly ideologically aligned paramilitary groups. So I guess we will just have to agree to disagree about what constitutes apologia in this particular situation.
They have a literal NAZI battalion who has committed multiple human rights atrocities. Yes, the rise and fall of every ideology is contingent on a specific historical and political context. I...
A movement which only formed, rose to prominence, and gained their position as an official element of the national guard as a result of Russia supporting separatists in Eastern Ukraine, and annexing Crimea. Especially when Russia itself has a history of supporting and utilizing similarly ideologically aligned paramilitary groups. So I guess we will just have to agree to disagree about what constitutes apologia in this particular situation.
They have a literal NAZI battalion who has committed multiple human rights atrocities. Yes, the rise and fall of every ideology is contingent on a specific historical and political context. I still don't support Nazis. I don't support any military that deliberately integrates explicit Nazi organizations into their ranks. I don't support giving arms to Nazis under any circumstances, context be damned. There's a line in the sand, and while I may not know exactly where it is, it's somewhere before arming, training, and fighting alongside literal goddamned NAZIs.
So let's be clear about exactly what you mean by that. What do you actually suggest we should currently be doing and not doing in Ukraine as a result of the Azov battalion's existence? Do you...
I don't support any military that deliberately integrates explicit Nazi organizations into their ranks.
So let's be clear about exactly what you mean by that. What do you actually suggest we should currently be doing and not doing in Ukraine as a result of the Azov battalion's existence? Do you think we should revoke our support for the current government, stop our defensive weapons shipments, and essentially abandon the Ukrainian people to their fate because the former government incorporated a neo-nazi militia into its ranks?
I think people are getting very heated in this thread. Look, I don’t like the Azov battalion. Nobody here does. However, the Russian government is pushing the idea of the battalion’s importance to...
I think people are getting very heated in this thread. Look, I don’t like the Azov battalion. Nobody here does. However, the Russian government is pushing the idea of the battalion’s importance to justify the narrative of the invasion as a denazification. I can understand if people view the link being randomly dropped with minimal context as feeling like Russian propaganda.
Edit: @Deimos, can we just lock this thread? It’s an absolute clusterfuck, and I don’t see it getting better.
Agreed. As more of a meta point, I think it would also help if people relied less on what they think they understood and more on what is actually said. I'm not going to pick out any examples; I...
Agreed. As more of a meta point, I think it would also help if people relied less on what they think they understood and more on what is actually said. I'm not going to pick out any examples; I know how that will end. Symmetrically, it would help if people said explicitly what they want to be understood and not rely on subtext as much.
But as a helpful exercise, maybe you (not you, nukeman, ofc) could make the "thesis" of your comment more explicit. For example, what do you expect the Ukrainian government to do? I think a lot of the heat of the discussion lies in the misunderstandings about that what is not said. And I'm not even getting into the difficult part where raising a topic but then not elaborating might easily look like there's a quiet part one refuses to say.
Also see: Ukraine Releases Prisoners With 'Combat Experience' To Help Fight Russia It seems that whatever people have done, if they can fight then they will worry about it after the war is over.
The Azov Battalion is a de jure neo-Nazi branch of the Ukrainian National Guard. It is the unit foreign fighters go to and directly funded by the US. They've committed numerous human rights...
The Azov Battalion is a de jure neo-Nazi branch of the Ukrainian National Guard. It is the unit foreign fighters go to and directly funded by the US.
They've committed numerous human rights atrocities in the Donbas region of Ukraine.
Good neutral article on the Azov Battalion is this one from Al Jazeera [0]. There are a lot of critical western media pieces on this terrorist Nazi group, but none I've seen in 2022.
Well, the line should be drawn somewhere before arming Nazis who implemented pogroms against Roma and LGBTQ people. [0] This may be a matter of it entering your and the public conscience, but the...
Well, the line should be drawn somewhere before arming Nazis who implemented pogroms against Roma and LGBTQ people. [0]
I see a lot brought up about the Azov Battalion lately, significantly more than in the preceding 5-6 year of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and it has me questioning whether or not the sudden attention is authentic or synthetic.
This may be a matter of it entering your and the public conscience, but the fact that the Ukraine is the only military with an active neo-Nazi component [1] which has committed civil rights atrocities including exterminating minorities [2] is an issue that both congress [3] and civil rights organizations [2] have taken very seriously over the past decade.
We're not talking about just a street movement, this is the Ukrainian military. [4] Western media sounded the alarm all the way up to the moment they went radio silent. [5]
On link 2, this doesn't really support the narrative you're trying to establish here. The Azov Battalion didn't attack a Roma settlement in western Ukraine and exterminate a bunch of people. The...
On link 2, this doesn't really support the narrative you're trying to establish here. The Azov Battalion didn't attack a Roma settlement in western Ukraine and exterminate a bunch of people. The link states that:
The suspects are reported to be members of a radical group called Sober and Angry Youth. Some members of this group have ties to the former volunteer battalion Azov, which fought in eastern Ukraine and is implicated in numerous allegations of unlawful detention, torture, and other abuses.
Don't get me wrong, this kind of behavior is atrocious and it should be stamped into the fucking dirt where it belongs, but focusing on this kind of issue in Ukraine now (and ignoring the actions of all the other far right groups in Western nations) looks to be muddying the waters and supporting the Russian narrative of "denazification" of Ukraine.
Edit: Link 0 does. I put the reference numbers next to the claims for a reason. This isn't simply "emboldened far right elements" which exists even in the US, this is a massive militant neo-Nazi...
Edit: Link 0 does. I put the reference numbers next to the claims for a reason.
This isn't simply "emboldened far right elements" which exists even in the US, this is a massive militant neo-Nazi organization given the blessing of Ukraine and is now officially part of the Ukrainian military.
Their "National Militia" branch has been approved to perform law enforcement since 2017 and performs street patrols in Ukraine.
Link 0 doesn't support that either. They didn't kill anyone at any of those: Note that's the National Militia, a group of mostly Azov Battalion veterans, not the Azov Battalion directly. They're...
Link 0 doesn't support that either. They didn't kill anyone at any of those:
Swinging axes and sledgehammers as a camera rolled, members of the far-right Azov National Druzhyna militia destroyed a Romany camp in Kyiv's Holosiyivskiy Park on June 7.
According to the State Register of Legal Entities, the founders of the National Druzhyna non-governmental organization (NGO), which is registered in Kyiv, are three veterans of the Azov regiment: Ihor Kashka, Artem Klimin and Maksym Klymka.
They're bad people and Ukraine shouldn't support them the way they do, but don't fabricate claims to make them look worse than they are. This conflation of the two and playing loose with the facts is why this stance supports the "denazification" propaganda narrative from Russia.
This is a distinction without a difference. From your linked article: This is a Nazi organization, a nationally recognized "NGO" that implemented pogroms against the Roma and LGBTQ people and is...
This is a distinction without a difference. From your linked article:
As Ihor Bober explained to Hromadske, National Druzhyna now has NGO status in Kyiv. However, in other cities like Lutsk or Cherkasy, they are considered to be a civic formation for the protection of public order.
This is a Nazi organization, a nationally recognized "NGO" that implemented pogroms against the Roma and LGBTQ people and is permitted by the government to fill a law enforcement role in the country. This is absolutely disgusting and shameful. (As an aside, if a bunch of Proud Boys lead a violent riot targeting minorities, then subsequently claimed the riot wasn't affiliated with the Proud Boys, I'd be more than skeptical.)
On January 28, around 600 “druzhynnyky” — a term that refers to members of civilian patrols during Soviet times — from across the country swore a so-called oath in Kyiv. They marched through the center of the capital dressed in masks and camouflaged uniforms reminiscent of the paramilitary groups of 1920s Germany, which went on to become the National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazi Party).
It's a reasonable position to be neutral in this war, the way most are neutral during various wars in Africa, Azerbaijan invading Armenia, etc. It is very much in the interests of NATO, the West, and neoliberal society at large for Ukraine to win, and maybe these reasons are moving, but I can't be moralized into support of either side of this engagement.
This is not a reasonable position. Russia made fabricated claims and invaded another country for the sole purpose of eliminating its sovereignty and the elected government of 44 million people....
It's a reasonable position to be neutral in this war, the way most are neutral during various wars in Africa, Azerbaijan invading Armenia, etc. It is very much in the interests of NATO, the West, and neoliberal society at large for Ukraine to win, and maybe these reasons are moving, but I can't be moralized into support of either side of this engagement.
This is not a reasonable position. Russia made fabricated claims and invaded another country for the sole purpose of eliminating its sovereignty and the elected government of 44 million people. The Ukrainians are fighting for their self determination; something every human should have a right to. Choosing to ignore this plight of 44 million, because of the morality of a few thousand, is questionable at best. We can choose to support the Ukrainian people's self determination and condemn the Ukrainian government's use of the Azov Battalion.
This is a distinction without a difference.
It does matter. The Ukrainian government funds the Azov battalion directly as it is part of the National Guard of Ukraine. It doesn't fund a group founded by former members.
How are they dealing with fighting for a Jewish president?
In 2010, Biletsky said Ukraine’s national purpose was to “lead the white races of the world in a final crusade … against Semite-led Untermenschen [inferior races]”.
How are they dealing with fighting for a Jewish president?
I don't really understand why you're so determined to paint the entire country with the brush of a small para-military group. They're awful human beings, and it's perfectly fine to point that out...
I don't really understand why you're so determined to paint the entire country with the brush of a small para-military group. They're awful human beings, and it's perfectly fine to point that out -- but all you're doing is carrying water for an actual fascist state. Ukraine has been increasingly westernizing in the last decade (e.g. LGBT rights in Ukraine) and Putin invaded Ukraine in part to prevent the continued westernization of a Russian-speaking state which would serve as a platform to amplify those views into Russia.
Re: being part of the national militia: you don't think if a piece of your country was annexed by your neighbour and launched you into a decades long period of on/off conflict that at some point militias of all political stripes would be deputized?
Sure it is. But not in the context of an invasion by a hostile fascist state that would criminalize free speech, movement, and homosexuality. How do you think Ukrainian LGBTQ+ people are feeling...
The continued tolerance, endorsement, and supply of the Azov Battalion by the Ukrainian government is a severe and dangerous issue.
Sure it is. But not in the context of an invasion by a hostile fascist state that would criminalize free speech, movement, and homosexuality. How do you think Ukrainian LGBTQ+ people are feeling about their future if they lose the war? Do you think they have time to be concerned about the Azov battalion right now?
The only reason Ukraine is putting up this hard of a fight is because the Russian military, which dwarfs it, is poorly organized. Are a good portion, maybe even a majority of the Azov Battalion...
Everyone here seems to be under the impression that Ukraine absolutely needs this unit of neo-nazis. That's not true, as I would have thought the last two weeks of war would have demonstrated.
The only reason Ukraine is putting up this hard of a fight is because the Russian military, which dwarfs it, is poorly organized.
Are a good portion, maybe even a majority of the Azov Battalion terrible people? Yes. But in the context of a war, where the people of the Azov Batallion are pointing their guns not at me, but at my enemies, they are unfortunately an ally. And since NATO has decided to not step in with it's soldiers and only provide materiel, Ukraine must draw from it's own sources. They have already released prisoners with combat experience to join the fight, they are barring men from leaving the country that are in a position to fight. I feel like Ukraine is very much in a position where they need everyone who can, fighting.
The influence they might take after the war is second place when the bullets are still flying.
Ukraine doesn't have perfect information. Three weeks ago everyone predicted this war would be over in days. Maybe they don't "need" them but they couldn't have known that before the war unfolded.
Everyone here seems to be under the impression that Ukraine absolutely needs this unit of neo-nazis. That's not true, as I would have thought the last two weeks of war would have demonstrated.
Ukraine doesn't have perfect information. Three weeks ago everyone predicted this war would be over in days. Maybe they don't "need" them but they couldn't have known that before the war unfolded.
Where are you getting that timeline from? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas So the longest ceasefire lasted a grand total of 6 weeks, and that was back in 2016. And worth noting is that...
After the cessation of major hostilities between Ukraine and the separatists, the government had at least five years in which they could have disbanded the unit...
As a result of the Russian invasion, DPR and LPR insurgents regained much of the territory they had lost during the Ukrainian government's preceding military offensive.[39] Ukraine, Russia, the DPR and the LPR signed a ceasefire agreement, the Minsk Protocol, on 5 September 2014.[48] Violations of the ceasefire on both sides became common. Amidst the solidification of the line between insurgent and government-controlled territory during the ceasefire, warlords took control of swaths of land on the insurgent side, leading to further destabilisation.[49] The ceasefire collapsed in January 2015, with renewed heavy fighting across the conflict zone, including at Donetsk International Airport and at Debaltseve. Involved parties agreed to a new ceasefire, called Minsk II, on 12 February 2015. Immediately following the signing of the agreement, separatist forces launched an offensive on Debaltseve and forced Ukrainian forces to withdraw from it. In the months after the fall of Debaltseve, minor skirmishes continued along the line of contact, but no territorial changes occurred. The stalemate led to the war being labelled a "frozen conflict".[50] Despite this, the area remained a war zone, with dozens of soldiers and civilians killed each month.[51] In 2017, on average one Ukrainian soldier died in combat every three days,[52] with an estimated 6,000 Russian and 40,000 separatist troops in the region.[53][54] By the end of 2017, the OSCE observatory mission had counted around 30,000 individuals in military gear crossing from Russia to Donbas at the two border checkpoints it was allowed to monitor.[55] The OSCE has also documented many cases of military convoys crossing from Russia into the occupied Donbas on dirt roads, away from official border crossings and usually at night.[56]
Since the start of the conflict there have been 29 ceasefires, each intended to remain in force indefinitely, but none of them have stopped the violence.[57][58][59] The most successful attempt to halt the fighting was in 2016, when a ceasefire was held for six weeks.[59] Ukraine, Russia, the DPR, the LPR and the OSCE agreed to a roadmap for ending the conflict on 1 October 2019.[60] However, the conflict did not thaw since then and, by late summer 2020, remained unresolved.[61][57] The latest ceasefire (29th)[57] came into force on 27 July 2020, which led to no Ukrainian combat losses for more than a month.[62][63][57] According to Ukrainian authorities, from 27 July until 7 November 2020 Ukrainian losses dropped tenfold (three Ukrainian soldiers were killed) and the number of attacks dropped five-fold.[64] The first trimester of 2021 saw a large rise in Ukrainian fatalities (25, compared with 50 deaths in the whole of 2020) and the buildup of a large Russian military force on the Donbas-Russian border from late March to early April 2021 and from late October and November 2021 onwards.[65]
Russia officially recognized the DPR and LPR on 21 February 2022, and on 24 February launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
So the longest ceasefire lasted a grand total of 6 weeks, and that was back in 2016. And worth noting is that Zelensky wasn't even elected until 2019, but amongst his central campaign promises was to end the conflict there (which was still ongoing!), where in attempting to do so he even verbally clashed with Azov's commander.
In October 2019, Zelenskyy announced a preliminary deal struck with the separatists, under which the Ukrainian government would respect elections held in the region in exchange for Russia withdrawing its unmarked troops.[114] The deal was met with heavy criticism and protests by both politicians and the Ukrainian public. Detractors noted that elections held in Donbas were unlikely to be free and fair, that the separatists had long driven out most pro-Ukrainian residents out of the region to ensure a pro-Russia majority, and that it would be impossible to ensure Russia kept its end of the agreement.[114] Zelenskyy defended his negotiations, saying the elections would not be held before a Russian withdrawal.[118] The agreement failed to ease the conflict, as the separatists continued their attacks and Russia continued providing them with weapons and ammunition.[119] Several Ukrainian nationalist militias and former militias also refused to accept the agreement, including the far-right Azov fighters in the Luhansk region of Donbas. Zelenskyy met personally with some of these groups and tried to convince them to surrender their unregistered weapons and accept the peace accord. Andriy Biletsky, the leader of the far-right National Corps and first commander of Azov, accused Zelenskyy of being disrespectful to army veterans and of acting on behalf of the Kremlin by leaving Ukrainians vulnerable to Russian aggression.[120][121] Ultimately, the peace deal failed to reduce the violence, much less end the war.[119]
In December 2019, Russia and Ukraine agreed to resume talks mediated by France and Germany under the so-called Normandy Format, which had been abandoned in 2016; it was Zelensky's first face-to-face meeting with Vladimir Putin.[122] In July 2020, Zelenskyy announced a formal ceasefire with the separatists — the more than twentieth such attempt since the war began in 2014.[123] Although the ceasefire was frequently violated over the next few years and overall violence remained high, ceasefire violations in 2020 did decrease by over 50% compared to the previous year.
So when and how, in all that mess, do you honestly propose that the Ukrainian government should have attempted to disband the Azov battalion? Also keeping in mind that Russia was still an existential threat all throughout that time, and the Azov commander held a seat in Parliament from 2014 until 2019 too, further complicating matters.
The battalion should have never been incorporated. They should never have been allowed to exist in an official capacity, let alone for eight years.
On that much we can agree, but that's not exactly the current government's fault now is it? And Zelensky has had his hands full since being elected (e.g. dealing with Russia, separatists, reforming the government, rooting out corruption, etc), and at the moment is probably a bit more concerned with the survival of his people than anything else.
Even ignoring that a portion of their country was being occupied by a hostile foreign power, 2015-2022 was a period that had multiple rapid buildups of Russian forces as well as open hostilities...
Even ignoring that a portion of their country was being occupied by a hostile foreign power, 2015-2022 was a period that had multiple rapid buildups of Russian forces as well as open hostilities in the Donbas.
I don't think it's fair to criticize a nation fighting for its continued existence for the last decade to break bread with whoever will take up arms for them. We're talking about a group that got...
Please stop trying to justify the existence of an officially endorsed and armed neo-nazi military unit.
I don't think it's fair to criticize a nation fighting for its continued existence for the last decade to break bread with whoever will take up arms for them. We're talking about a group that got 2% of the vote last election and failed to get a single candidate elected into the government, I don't think the government nor the people of Ukraine need to be worried, in the context of an invasion, about a far right militia of a few thousand people. That's something that can (and should be) be dealt with in peacetime.
I'll also add the fact that we're so laser focused on the Azov battalion when Russian nazi and far right paramilitaries are both more numerous and exert more influence on Russia and the Russian armed forces is one of the few successes Russia has had in its propaganda this war.
Very fair point about standards but that doesn't mean Russian propaganda isn't trying to amplify the existence and impact of Azov. We can agree to disagree but I don't think that's realistic. If...
It's absolutely not a "success" for Russia that discussions are being had about the Azov Battalion. Ukraine is being held to higher standards of scrutiny than Russia because Ukraine is actively seeking to join the European Union and integrate with western liberal democracies.
Very fair point about standards but that doesn't mean Russian propaganda isn't trying to amplify the existence and impact of Azov.
Then this is where we fundamentally disagree. I don't think it's justifiable, in any context, to endorse and arm neo-nazis.
We can agree to disagree but I don't think that's realistic. If Ukraine loses the war the results for the people of Ukraine are far worse than a democracy where nazis wield limited influence. The west may have not won WWII without providing lend lease equipment to the Soviets, a brutal dictatorship that killed millions of its citizens and imprisoned even more. Should they have not done that?
You said So I assume it's justifiable if they are large enough in operational size then? The point wasn't to equivocate their status, the point was to illustrate the wartime necessity for the...
You said
Then this is where we fundamentally disagree. I don't think it's justifiable, in any context, to endorse and arm neo-nazis.
So I assume it's justifiable if they are large enough in operational size then?
The point wasn't to equivocate their status, the point was to illustrate the wartime necessity for the lesser of two evils.
You're misunderstanding my point. You claimed its always indefensible to provide arms to nazis (and equivalents) no matter the context. I wholly disagree with this as its not realistic and point...
You're misunderstanding my point.
You claimed its always indefensible to provide arms to nazis (and equivalents) no matter the context. I wholly disagree with this as its not realistic and point to the lend lease program as a time when the West got into a bigger bed with worse people as an example.
If you'd like to change your mind and accept that it's sometimes acceptable then it becomes an argument on the necessity of arming Azov, with which reasonable people can disagree and I think everyone has made their stance clear above.
Regardless, I think everyone here agrees that these people are terrible and that the presence of a far right paramilitary getting access to Western weapons is a cause for concern and shouldn't be glossed over. But in my opinion (and popular sentiment in Ukraine) there are bigger causes for concern at the moment, with higher stakes than the presence of a nazi paramilitary.
The Soviets had already massacred ~5.5 million of their own people at the time the lend lease program was started. How much of that Western intelligence knew about at the time is up for debate but...
The lend-lease program to the Soviet Union, more than anything else, helped bring an end to the Holocaust faster than otherwise would have been possible. So yes, I think the lend-lease program was justified.
The Soviets had already massacred ~5.5 million of their own people at the time the lend lease program was started. How much of that Western intelligence knew about at the time is up for debate but certainly they had an inkling. But even if they knew about it all I don't think it would have changed anything. War breeds necessity, that's my underlying point here.
It certainly helped the USSR survive the war. That's a better outcome than a German victory but not one in which both are defeated or the USSR doesn't have the military strength to initiate the...
The lend-lease program did not enable further Soviet massacres (they were already more than capable of continuing to do that).
It certainly helped the USSR survive the war. That's a better outcome than a German victory but not one in which both are defeated or the USSR doesn't have the military strength to initiate the Cold War.
Endorsing and arming the Azov Battalion as an official military unit, allowing them to gain valuable combat experience and amplify their presence in the country, to recruit and organize foreign extremists into the country, are all things that the Ukrainian government has enabled.
Certainly a valid criticism in a vacuum but thankfully they've actually lost political influence and support over time.
I think your opinions are ultimately predicated on perfect information and assumptions we don't have the answer to. Recent estimates of Azov puts them at about 4% of Ukraine's active duty forces. That seems like a significant fraction of capability to dissolve, never mind disarm which would likely be an armed intervention itself. How can you be sure they aren't necessary for the survival of Ukraine? Because the calculus is much the same as in my Soviet example, which is why I think it's relevant.
How do you know this? Why are you so confident in your assessment? From here Wikipedia lists UAF active duty forces at 245,000, which would put Azov at a hair over 4% if the 10,000 number is...
I don't know where you're getting that figure from, but it's a gross overestimation
How do you know this? Why are you so confident in your assessment?
With estimates of membership as high as 10,000 members
Wikipedia lists UAF active duty forces at 245,000, which would put Azov at a hair over 4% if the 10,000 number is correct. Keep in mind that the 2,500 number you originally cited was an estimate from 5 years ago.
OK fair point, I misread that. It seems nobody has current information of the size of the regiment: I think the larger point still re: necessity still stands, it's something not able to be...
For comparison, Azov membership was estimated to be anywhere from 900 to 2,500 prior to the Russian invasion, while the Ukrainian standing military in total was composed of about 200,000 troops. It’s important to note here that these numbers are outdated, given that as of this writing, every facet of Ukraine’s defenses have recruited new volunteers in the ongoing effort to fend off the invasion.
I think the larger point still re: necessity still stands, it's something not able to be determined at present time, and certainly not by us. Thus it's hard to fault the decision to equip them.
Charity only goes so far, especially when someone posts a contextless Wikipedia article that just so happens to mirror a major Russian talking point and war justification. And that's especially...
Charitable interpretations.
Charity only goes so far, especially when someone posts a contextless Wikipedia article that just so happens to mirror a major Russian talking point and war justification. And that's especially true when the OP clearly had no desire to actually start a nuanced discussion about this issue either, and instead just keeps repeating the same points over and over while completely ignoring the counterpoints made in other people's replies (as happened with Loire), and accusing others (me) of Nazi apologia.
Yes, and the person in charge of Bellingcat Monitoring, who wrote a significant portion of those articles, is also the person who wrote the New Statesman article I linked in my second comment. So...
Bellingcat for instance has posted several articles highlighting these people and their positions in Ukrainian society.
Are we just supposed to stop talking about this problem now that Russia has attempted to pick up on it for the purpose of spreading lies?
No, it absolutely does need to be talked about and dealt with, and the article I linked to even mentions that. However, when such a topic comes up here via a contextless Wikipedia link, made by an OP who doesn't appear to have any interest in actually having "reasonable discussion" about it, I have to question the reasoning, timing, and level of good faith behind it.
Frankly, it is nazi apologia to advocate, under any context, the integration of nazis into society, politically or militarily. Giving them a place at the table is unacceptable.
WTF? Now who is being uncharitable!? When did I say anything remotely resembling any of that? If I had my way they would all be rotting in a cell under The Hague awaiting trail for their war crimes, along with the Wagner shitheads too... but I also don't hold it against the current Ukraine government for having to continue put up with them either. Their very existence as a nation is under direct and immediate threat, and so there are unfortunately bigger fish to fry at the moment.
I absolutely would not tolerate a neo-Nazi organization being made an official part of my armed forces, and I wouldn't funnel weapons and money to an organization that commits human rights...
you don't think if a piece of your country was annexed by your neighbour and launched you into a decades long period of on/off conflict that at some point militias of all political stripes would be deputized?
I absolutely would not tolerate a neo-Nazi organization being made an official part of my armed forces, and I wouldn't funnel weapons and money to an organization that commits human rights atrocities against minorities. How is it so unimaginable that there's a line in the sand where the arming of literal, actual Nazis who we have no reason to believe will hesitate in turning these resources against minorities, is something that can be conditionally tolerated?
I blame liberals to a degree for calling every rightist politician a Nazi; the term is stripped of all meaning and the necessary taboo against directly arming literal Nazi commandos who have implemented pogroms has been somehow broken.
[...] I'd check out the "Human rights violations and war crimes" and "Ideology" sections of this group as well.
In 2015 and 2016, the regiment gained attention after allegations of torture and war crimes, as well as neo-Nazi sympathies, and usage of associated symbols by the regiment, as seen in their logo featuring the Wolfsangel, one of the Nazi symbols used by the 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich.
[...]
According to The Daily Telegraph, the Azov Battalion's extremist politics and professional English social media pages have attracted foreign fighters, including people from Brazil, Italy, the United Kingdom, France, the United States, Greece, Scandinavia, Spain, Slovakia, Czech Republic and Russia. About 50 Russian nationals are members of the Azov regiment. The group has used Facebook to recruit far-right individuals from other countries within Europe. In 2019, under Facebook's Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy, support for the group was not allowed, although this was temporarily relaxed during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.
I'd check out the "Human rights violations and war crimes" and "Ideology" sections of this group as well.
Since we're sharing Russia-Ukraine War related Wikipedia links, let's take a look at the other side in this conflict too, shall we?
Wagner Group is especially interesting considering they are also neo-nazis, and were allegedly sent to Ukraine with the goal of assassinating Zelenskyy. So apparently Russia is attempting to "de-nazify" Ukraine by attempting to assassinate their Jewish President using a band of neo-nazi mercenaries with their own history of committing war crimes.
And another paramilitary group that the Russians have also sent to Ukraine, the Kadyrovites, are about as brutal as they come.
And the latest wave of troops being recruited to join the war, courtesy of Assad.
I think one can reasonably oppose Russian imperialism while simultaneously not supporting a government that has neo-Nazi groups that execute minorities and implement pogroms against Roma and LGBTQ people [0] as part of its official armed forces. I think these are fully compatible positions.
[0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/1/who-are-the-azov-regiment
While that's true, they're not incompatible positions, IMO you're missing some much needed context and would probably benefit from reading this: https://www.newstatesman.com/international-content/2022/02/silence-wont-make-the-ukrainian-far-right-go-away
(copied here due to paywall)
p.s. About the author
The problem isn't that Ukraine has "a far-right problem" (even the US has one of those) it is that they incorporate explicitly neo-Nazi organizations into their military. I really don't understand Nazi apologia, even if the apologia benefits western interests
And I don't understand your blatant attempts to paint the entire country of Ukraine as somehow undeserving of support against Russia's latest invasion of it due to a fringe political movement within it. A movement which only formed, rose to prominence, and gained their position as an official element of the national guard as a result of Russia supporting separatists in Eastern Ukraine, and annexing Crimea. Especially when Russia itself has a history of supporting and utilizing similarly ideologically aligned paramilitary groups. So I guess we will just have to agree to disagree about what constitutes apologia in this particular situation.
They have a literal NAZI battalion who has committed multiple human rights atrocities. Yes, the rise and fall of every ideology is contingent on a specific historical and political context. I still don't support Nazis. I don't support any military that deliberately integrates explicit Nazi organizations into their ranks. I don't support giving arms to Nazis under any circumstances, context be damned. There's a line in the sand, and while I may not know exactly where it is, it's somewhere before arming, training, and fighting alongside literal goddamned NAZIs.
So let's be clear about exactly what you mean by that. What do you actually suggest we should currently be doing and not doing in Ukraine as a result of the Azov battalion's existence? Do you think we should revoke our support for the current government, stop our defensive weapons shipments, and essentially abandon the Ukrainian people to their fate because the former government incorporated a neo-nazi militia into its ranks?
I think people are getting very heated in this thread. Look, I don’t like the Azov battalion. Nobody here does. However, the Russian government is pushing the idea of the battalion’s importance to justify the narrative of the invasion as a denazification. I can understand if people view the link being randomly dropped with minimal context as feeling like Russian propaganda.
Edit: @Deimos, can we just lock this thread? It’s an absolute clusterfuck, and I don’t see it getting better.
Agreed. As more of a meta point, I think it would also help if people relied less on what they think they understood and more on what is actually said. I'm not going to pick out any examples; I know how that will end. Symmetrically, it would help if people said explicitly what they want to be understood and not rely on subtext as much.
But as a helpful exercise, maybe you (not you, nukeman, ofc) could make the "thesis" of your comment more explicit. For example, what do you expect the Ukrainian government to do? I think a lot of the heat of the discussion lies in the misunderstandings about that what is not said. And I'm not even getting into the difficult part where raising a topic but then not elaborating might easily look like there's a quiet part one refuses to say.
Also see: Ukraine Releases Prisoners With 'Combat Experience' To Help Fight Russia
It seems that whatever people have done, if they can fight then they will worry about it after the war is over.
The Azov Battalion is a de jure neo-Nazi branch of the Ukrainian National Guard. It is the unit foreign fighters go to and directly funded by the US.
They've committed numerous human rights atrocities in the Donbas region of Ukraine.
Good neutral article on the Azov Battalion is this one from Al Jazeera [0]. There are a lot of critical western media pieces on this terrorist Nazi group, but none I've seen in 2022.
[0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/1/who-are-the-azov-regiment
Well, the line should be drawn somewhere before arming Nazis who implemented pogroms against Roma and LGBTQ people. [0]
This may be a matter of it entering your and the public conscience, but the fact that the Ukraine is the only military with an active neo-Nazi component [1] which has committed civil rights atrocities including exterminating minorities [2] is an issue that both congress [3] and civil rights organizations [2] have taken very seriously over the past decade.
We're not talking about just a street movement, this is the Ukrainian military. [4] Western media sounded the alarm all the way up to the moment they went radio silent. [5]
[0] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/1/who-are-the-azov-regiment
[1] https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/neo-nazis-far-right-ukraine/
[2] https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/06/26/ukraine-fatal-attack-roma-settlement
[3] https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/congress-has-removed-a-ban-on-funding-neo-nazis-from-its-year-end-spending-bill/
[4] https://thehill.com/opinion/international/359609-the-reality-of-neo-nazis-in-the-ukraine-is-far-from-kremlin-propaganda
[5] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis
On link 2, this doesn't really support the narrative you're trying to establish here. The Azov Battalion didn't attack a Roma settlement in western Ukraine and exterminate a bunch of people. The link states that:
Don't get me wrong, this kind of behavior is atrocious and it should be stamped into the fucking dirt where it belongs, but focusing on this kind of issue in Ukraine now (and ignoring the actions of all the other far right groups in Western nations) looks to be muddying the waters and supporting the Russian narrative of "denazification" of Ukraine.
Ukraine kind of has a bigger problem right now than the emboldened far right elements within its country. Those elements that were possibly encouraged by the very invader it faces (pdf).
Edit: Link 0 does. I put the reference numbers next to the claims for a reason.
This isn't simply "emboldened far right elements" which exists even in the US, this is a massive militant neo-Nazi organization given the blessing of Ukraine and is now officially part of the Ukrainian military.
Their "National Militia" branch has been approved to perform law enforcement since 2017 and performs street patrols in Ukraine.
Link 0 doesn't support that either. They didn't kill anyone at any of those:
Note that's the National Militia, a group of mostly Azov Battalion veterans, not the Azov Battalion directly.
They're bad people and Ukraine shouldn't support them the way they do, but don't fabricate claims to make them look worse than they are. This conflation of the two and playing loose with the facts is why this stance supports the "denazification" propaganda narrative from Russia.
This is a distinction without a difference. From your linked article:
This is a Nazi organization, a nationally recognized "NGO" that implemented pogroms against the Roma and LGBTQ people and is permitted by the government to fill a law enforcement role in the country. This is absolutely disgusting and shameful. (As an aside, if a bunch of Proud Boys lead a violent riot targeting minorities, then subsequently claimed the riot wasn't affiliated with the Proud Boys, I'd be more than skeptical.)
It's a reasonable position to be neutral in this war, the way most are neutral during various wars in Africa, Azerbaijan invading Armenia, etc. It is very much in the interests of NATO, the West, and neoliberal society at large for Ukraine to win, and maybe these reasons are moving, but I can't be moralized into support of either side of this engagement.
This is not a reasonable position. Russia made fabricated claims and invaded another country for the sole purpose of eliminating its sovereignty and the elected government of 44 million people. The Ukrainians are fighting for their self determination; something every human should have a right to. Choosing to ignore this plight of 44 million, because of the morality of a few thousand, is questionable at best. We can choose to support the Ukrainian people's self determination and condemn the Ukrainian government's use of the Azov Battalion.
It does matter. The Ukrainian government funds the Azov battalion directly as it is part of the National Guard of Ukraine. It doesn't fund a group founded by former members.
How are they dealing with fighting for a Jewish president?
I don't really understand why you're so determined to paint the entire country with the brush of a small para-military group. They're awful human beings, and it's perfectly fine to point that out -- but all you're doing is carrying water for an actual fascist state. Ukraine has been increasingly westernizing in the last decade (e.g. LGBT rights in Ukraine) and Putin invaded Ukraine in part to prevent the continued westernization of a Russian-speaking state which would serve as a platform to amplify those views into Russia.
Re: being part of the national militia: you don't think if a piece of your country was annexed by your neighbour and launched you into a decades long period of on/off conflict that at some point militias of all political stripes would be deputized?
Sure it is. But not in the context of an invasion by a hostile fascist state that would criminalize free speech, movement, and homosexuality. How do you think Ukrainian LGBTQ+ people are feeling about their future if they lose the war? Do you think they have time to be concerned about the Azov battalion right now?
The only reason Ukraine is putting up this hard of a fight is because the Russian military, which dwarfs it, is poorly organized.
Are a good portion, maybe even a majority of the Azov Battalion terrible people? Yes. But in the context of a war, where the people of the Azov Batallion are pointing their guns not at me, but at my enemies, they are unfortunately an ally. And since NATO has decided to not step in with it's soldiers and only provide materiel, Ukraine must draw from it's own sources. They have already released prisoners with combat experience to join the fight, they are barring men from leaving the country that are in a position to fight. I feel like Ukraine is very much in a position where they need everyone who can, fighting.
The influence they might take after the war is second place when the bullets are still flying.
Ukraine doesn't have perfect information. Three weeks ago everyone predicted this war would be over in days. Maybe they don't "need" them but they couldn't have known that before the war unfolded.
Where are you getting that timeline from?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Donbas
So the longest ceasefire lasted a grand total of 6 weeks, and that was back in 2016. And worth noting is that Zelensky wasn't even elected until 2019, but amongst his central campaign promises was to end the conflict there (which was still ongoing!), where in attempting to do so he even verbally clashed with Azov's commander.
So when and how, in all that mess, do you honestly propose that the Ukrainian government should have attempted to disband the Azov battalion? Also keeping in mind that Russia was still an existential threat all throughout that time, and the Azov commander held a seat in Parliament from 2014 until 2019 too, further complicating matters.
On that much we can agree, but that's not exactly the current government's fault now is it? And Zelensky has had his hands full since being elected (e.g. dealing with Russia, separatists, reforming the government, rooting out corruption, etc), and at the moment is probably a bit more concerned with the survival of his people than anything else.
Even ignoring that a portion of their country was being occupied by a hostile foreign power, 2015-2022 was a period that had multiple rapid buildups of Russian forces as well as open hostilities in the Donbas.
I don't think it's fair to criticize a nation fighting for its continued existence for the last decade to break bread with whoever will take up arms for them. We're talking about a group that got 2% of the vote last election and failed to get a single candidate elected into the government, I don't think the government nor the people of Ukraine need to be worried, in the context of an invasion, about a far right militia of a few thousand people. That's something that can (and should be) be dealt with in peacetime.
I'll also add the fact that we're so laser focused on the Azov battalion when Russian nazi and far right paramilitaries are both more numerous and exert more influence on Russia and the Russian armed forces is one of the few successes Russia has had in its propaganda this war.
Very fair point about standards but that doesn't mean Russian propaganda isn't trying to amplify the existence and impact of Azov.
We can agree to disagree but I don't think that's realistic. If Ukraine loses the war the results for the people of Ukraine are far worse than a democracy where nazis wield limited influence. The west may have not won WWII without providing lend lease equipment to the Soviets, a brutal dictatorship that killed millions of its citizens and imprisoned even more. Should they have not done that?
You said
So I assume it's justifiable if they are large enough in operational size then?
The point wasn't to equivocate their status, the point was to illustrate the wartime necessity for the lesser of two evils.
You're misunderstanding my point.
You claimed its always indefensible to provide arms to nazis (and equivalents) no matter the context. I wholly disagree with this as its not realistic and point to the lend lease program as a time when the West got into a bigger bed with worse people as an example.
If you'd like to change your mind and accept that it's sometimes acceptable then it becomes an argument on the necessity of arming Azov, with which reasonable people can disagree and I think everyone has made their stance clear above.
Regardless, I think everyone here agrees that these people are terrible and that the presence of a far right paramilitary getting access to Western weapons is a cause for concern and shouldn't be glossed over. But in my opinion (and popular sentiment in Ukraine) there are bigger causes for concern at the moment, with higher stakes than the presence of a nazi paramilitary.
The Soviets had already massacred ~5.5 million of their own people at the time the lend lease program was started. How much of that Western intelligence knew about at the time is up for debate but certainly they had an inkling. But even if they knew about it all I don't think it would have changed anything. War breeds necessity, that's my underlying point here.
It certainly helped the USSR survive the war. That's a better outcome than a German victory but not one in which both are defeated or the USSR doesn't have the military strength to initiate the Cold War.
Certainly a valid criticism in a vacuum but thankfully they've actually lost political influence and support over time.
I think your opinions are ultimately predicated on perfect information and assumptions we don't have the answer to. Recent estimates of Azov puts them at about 4% of Ukraine's active duty forces. That seems like a significant fraction of capability to dissolve, never mind disarm which would likely be an armed intervention itself. How can you be sure they aren't necessary for the survival of Ukraine? Because the calculus is much the same as in my Soviet example, which is why I think it's relevant.
How do you know this? Why are you so confident in your assessment?
From here
Wikipedia lists UAF active duty forces at 245,000, which would put Azov at a hair over 4% if the 10,000 number is correct. Keep in mind that the 2,500 number you originally cited was an estimate from 5 years ago.
OK fair point, I misread that. It seems nobody has current information of the size of the regiment:
I think the larger point still re: necessity still stands, it's something not able to be determined at present time, and certainly not by us. Thus it's hard to fault the decision to equip them.
Charity only goes so far, especially when someone posts a contextless Wikipedia article that just so happens to mirror a major Russian talking point and war justification. And that's especially true when the OP clearly had no desire to actually start a nuanced discussion about this issue either, and instead just keeps repeating the same points over and over while completely ignoring the counterpoints made in other people's replies (as happened with Loire), and accusing others (me) of Nazi apologia.
Yes, and the person in charge of Bellingcat Monitoring, who wrote a significant portion of those articles, is also the person who wrote the New Statesman article I linked in my second comment. So perhaps you should give that a read too, especially since you seem to put stock in his previous assessments.
No, it absolutely does need to be talked about and dealt with, and the article I linked to even mentions that. However, when such a topic comes up here via a contextless Wikipedia link, made by an OP who doesn't appear to have any interest in actually having "reasonable discussion" about it, I have to question the reasoning, timing, and level of good faith behind it.
WTF? Now who is being uncharitable!? When did I say anything remotely resembling any of that? If I had my way they would all be rotting in a cell under The Hague awaiting trail for their war crimes, along with the Wagner shitheads too... but I also don't hold it against the current Ukraine government for having to continue put up with them either. Their very existence as a nation is under direct and immediate threat, and so there are unfortunately bigger fish to fry at the moment.
I absolutely would not tolerate a neo-Nazi organization being made an official part of my armed forces, and I wouldn't funnel weapons and money to an organization that commits human rights atrocities against minorities. How is it so unimaginable that there's a line in the sand where the arming of literal, actual Nazis who we have no reason to believe will hesitate in turning these resources against minorities, is something that can be conditionally tolerated?
I blame liberals to a degree for calling every rightist politician a Nazi; the term is stripped of all meaning and the necessary taboo against directly arming literal Nazi commandos who have implemented pogroms has been somehow broken.
[...]
I'd check out the "Human rights violations and war crimes" and "Ideology" sections of this group as well.