In the context of the War, I think it's a little disingenuous to look at Azov as a fair indication of the average Ukrainian's political views, however far-right they may be. The war started in...
In the context of the War, I think it's a little disingenuous to look at Azov as a fair indication of the average Ukrainian's political views, however far-right they may be. The war started in 2014 by the Russians took away a lot of the ability of Ukraine to be as critical towards far-right attitudes as the average citizen there would probably like to be.
Consider what would happen if, say, China invaded California. Would the U.S. continue pushing so hard on tearing down Confederate monuments? Probably not, because that would be seen as the far lesser of two evils... I hate Confederate imagery, but honestly in that situation I'd be likely to say "You know what? Keep your General Lee statue for another 50 years or so, just use some of those guns you got piled up there to keep the invading army from sacking my house"...Which would suck, but hey that's war. Which is yet another reason that war is the worst thing... Which takes us back to Square 1 in 2014 when Russia started a war.
"You let your far right-wingers on too long of a leash" in that context is not nearly as clever or astute a criticism as this author seems to think it is, in my honest opinion.
I don't think the author (or Jacobin in general) is trying to argue that your average Ukrainian is a rabid Nazi, just that the far right in Ukraine is a genuine threat and it's not worth...
I don't think the author (or Jacobin in general) is trying to argue that your average Ukrainian is a rabid Nazi, just that the far right in Ukraine is a genuine threat and it's not worth downplaying that simply because they're the victims of Russian aggression.
Their main target is western media completely flipping on how they portray this issue, not Ukrainians currently more concerned with not getting bombed.
The analogy is dis-analogous; the situation would be far different if the US Military had an official, large Neo Nazi division whose members have committed numerous atrocious including...
The analogy is dis-analogous; the situation would be far different if the US Military had an official, large Neo Nazi division whose members have committed numerous atrocious including implementing pogroms against LGBTQ and Roma people.
There is only one nation in the world with an official Neo Nazi organization with full state recognition and support in its ranks.
This is not support of Russian brutality and imperialism, I strongly denounce this invasion, but the people of the DNR and LNR legitimately, overwhelmingly hate the Ukrainian State, and in no small part due to the human rights atrocities perpetrated by Ukrainian state-supported Nazis.
One, I'm not sure this is true. Two, I'm not sure this is bad. The fact that the Azov Regiment is a UA military unit now is a double edged sword if you ask me. On the one hand, yes, you're...
There is only one nation in the world with an official Neo Nazi organization with full state recognition and support in its ranks.
One, I'm not sure this is true. Two, I'm not sure this is bad. The fact that the Azov Regiment is a UA military unit now is a double edged sword if you ask me. On the one hand, yes, you're supporting politically questionable people. On the other hand: This gives the government vastly more control and oversight over activities within. It's hard to hold a privately-funded volunteer unit accountable. That gets much easier once you're the one paying the bills. I imagine something like this could be contributing to the Ukraine course in this matter.
If you're able to carefully control the narrative within the unit, you might even be able to effectively remove neonazis from a neonazi unit without outright disbanding it: If you can prevent political radicalization within the unit and then flood the unit with non-nazi soldiers, you're essentially removing a Nazi unit from service without actually disbanding the unit. Just going in and disbanding the unit might cause too big of a ruckus for a country that's been at war the entire time, considering soldiers are typically right-of-center. (Doesn't make them nazi sympathizers, they might just have a mistaken perception of Azov. Disbanding such a unit is risky on perception alone.)
Also consider Wagner group. Also a nazi military unit, but this one without official government recognition. The consequence? They're Putin's unit for wet work with plausible deniability. He or the Russian government can always say "wasn't us!". Russia supports Wagner PMC, but refuses to police them. That way, Wagner is worse than Azov because it is not recognized by the government. Ukraine on the other hand supports the Azov Regiment, but also prosecutes their members. (The OP article mentions this in an offhand comment, but refuses to elaborate, and the source is in Ukrainian.)
(I'm making some assumptions above about things that might be happening behind the curtains. I have no info to confirm nor refute my assumptions thus far, so if you have, let me know.)
As for my take on the situation: I think Ukraine hasn't really put a foot wrong here. They're stuck in between a rock and a hard place, and both disbanding the unit and letting it exist outside of government control seem to be, for all I know, worse options currently. How Ukraine deals with Azov after the war will be way more telling, as then the government will have room to maneuver. As for western media... let's say I value both perspectives, the ones this piece criticizes and this piece itself, and after the war I'm more than happy to consider this an important issue, but I think now is not the time.
Whelp, I'm going to peace out of this one before it ends up like the last thread on the topic. You don't seem to be engaging in the kind of discussion I'd want to participate in.
Whelp, I'm going to peace out of this one before it ends up like the last thread on the topic.
You don't seem to be engaging in the kind of discussion I'd want to participate in.
Very interesting read. Only interesting thought, and it's a half-cooked one, is that I'm not sure the distinction between imperialistic and defensive nationalism is a very firm or durable one. For...
Very interesting read. Only interesting thought, and it's a half-cooked one, is that I'm not sure the distinction between imperialistic and defensive nationalism is a very firm or durable one. For one, I think German nationalism started defensively, against a perceived threat from Jews and the Versailles treaty. While the Versailles treaty was perhaps not a stroke of genius, the Jewish threat was fabricated. German nationalism didn't exactly start out as imperialist, it was maneuvered into position to seize power on a mostly defensive platform. (Subjectively at the time anyway; it's not defensive at all in an objective sense) And only with time it changed into a more and more openly imperialist nationalism. So I'm not sure the distinction is a material one.
However, I see that the distinction is maybe still important. I think Support for an imperialist platform wouldn't have existed in '33 (various reasons, I can defend that statement if need be). A defensive nationalism will almost always draw more support. Once Ukraine loses its existential threat, it can be argued, nationalist sentiment will subside and support will wane. Hence why maybe that distinction does matter, even if there isn't a clear and crisp decision boundary between the two.
That said, this is a half-cooked take. I could well have missed something.
This is an insightful thread. If you read nothing else about nationalism and racism in Russia and in Ukraine, read this. This is also the first time I hear the phrase "person of color" in a...
This is an insightful thread. If you read nothing else about nationalism and racism in Russia and in Ukraine, read this.
This is also the first time I hear the phrase "person of color" in a conversation about Russia. We don't talk about racism in this country: we simply exercise it. (It decidedly did not help that my parents are racist.)
This is kind of bizarre to read, as I feel like the danger of the far-right in Russia has been shouted from the rooftops in every possible space in the western media lately, and for good reason....
This is kind of bizarre to read, as I feel like the danger of the far-right in Russia has been shouted from the rooftops in every possible space in the western media lately, and for good reason. Within Russian media and such I'm sure it's true that the far right in Ukraine is getting more attention, but I could not possibly see that as being the case in US media and the English-speaking internet.
My “traditional” news source is ABC World News in the evenings after I get home from work. Every time they show footage from the Azov Battalion, they explicitly mention it is a far-right part of...
My “traditional” news source is ABC World News in the evenings after I get home from work.
Every time they show footage from the Azov Battalion, they explicitly mention it is a far-right part of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
The operative word being "lately". No source I follow have suggested even remotely that Russia is "far-right" or "neo-Nazi", or any of the related terms. They talk about how there's a serious lack...
I feel like the danger of the far-right in Russia has been shouted from the rooftops in every possible space in the western media lately
The operative word being "lately".
No source I follow have suggested even remotely that Russia is "far-right" or "neo-Nazi", or any of the related terms. They talk about how there's a serious lack of freedom in Russia, how the economy is becoming stagnant, how the LGBTQ+ folks are being abused and have their rights violated... etc. etc. etc.. Not a word on the fascist behavior, in the government or among the people.
It's clear now where everyone stands.
Before the war, every news outlet I've read of Putin appeared to have treated him with either a cold, logical approach, or painting him as vaguely villanous without ever really pointing out the bits that stick out. (Granted, I haven't read all publication there is about the man.) Nobody really got him in a way that the 20/20 hindsight wouldn't blow out of the window. (Timothy Snyder's gotten pretty close, as far as I'm concerned.)
In the context of the War, I think it's a little disingenuous to look at Azov as a fair indication of the average Ukrainian's political views, however far-right they may be. The war started in 2014 by the Russians took away a lot of the ability of Ukraine to be as critical towards far-right attitudes as the average citizen there would probably like to be.
Consider what would happen if, say, China invaded California. Would the U.S. continue pushing so hard on tearing down Confederate monuments? Probably not, because that would be seen as the far lesser of two evils... I hate Confederate imagery, but honestly in that situation I'd be likely to say "You know what? Keep your General Lee statue for another 50 years or so, just use some of those guns you got piled up there to keep the invading army from sacking my house"...Which would suck, but hey that's war. Which is yet another reason that war is the worst thing... Which takes us back to Square 1 in 2014 when Russia started a war.
"You let your far right-wingers on too long of a leash" in that context is not nearly as clever or astute a criticism as this author seems to think it is, in my honest opinion.
I don't think the author (or Jacobin in general) is trying to argue that your average Ukrainian is a rabid Nazi, just that the far right in Ukraine is a genuine threat and it's not worth downplaying that simply because they're the victims of Russian aggression.
Their main target is western media completely flipping on how they portray this issue, not Ukrainians currently more concerned with not getting bombed.
The analogy is dis-analogous; the situation would be far different if the US Military had an official, large Neo Nazi division whose members have committed numerous atrocious including implementing pogroms against LGBTQ and Roma people.
There is only one nation in the world with an official Neo Nazi organization with full state recognition and support in its ranks.
This is not support of Russian brutality and imperialism, I strongly denounce this invasion, but the people of the DNR and LNR legitimately, overwhelmingly hate the Ukrainian State, and in no small part due to the human rights atrocities perpetrated by Ukrainian state-supported Nazis.
One, I'm not sure this is true. Two, I'm not sure this is bad. The fact that the Azov Regiment is a UA military unit now is a double edged sword if you ask me. On the one hand, yes, you're supporting politically questionable people. On the other hand: This gives the government vastly more control and oversight over activities within. It's hard to hold a privately-funded volunteer unit accountable. That gets much easier once you're the one paying the bills. I imagine something like this could be contributing to the Ukraine course in this matter.
If you're able to carefully control the narrative within the unit, you might even be able to effectively remove neonazis from a neonazi unit without outright disbanding it: If you can prevent political radicalization within the unit and then flood the unit with non-nazi soldiers, you're essentially removing a Nazi unit from service without actually disbanding the unit. Just going in and disbanding the unit might cause too big of a ruckus for a country that's been at war the entire time, considering soldiers are typically right-of-center. (Doesn't make them nazi sympathizers, they might just have a mistaken perception of Azov. Disbanding such a unit is risky on perception alone.)
Also consider Wagner group. Also a nazi military unit, but this one without official government recognition. The consequence? They're Putin's unit for wet work with plausible deniability. He or the Russian government can always say "wasn't us!". Russia supports Wagner PMC, but refuses to police them. That way, Wagner is worse than Azov because it is not recognized by the government. Ukraine on the other hand supports the Azov Regiment, but also prosecutes their members. (The OP article mentions this in an offhand comment, but refuses to elaborate, and the source is in Ukrainian.)
(I'm making some assumptions above about things that might be happening behind the curtains. I have no info to confirm nor refute my assumptions thus far, so if you have, let me know.)
As for my take on the situation: I think Ukraine hasn't really put a foot wrong here. They're stuck in between a rock and a hard place, and both disbanding the unit and letting it exist outside of government control seem to be, for all I know, worse options currently. How Ukraine deals with Azov after the war will be way more telling, as then the government will have room to maneuver. As for western media... let's say I value both perspectives, the ones this piece criticizes and this piece itself, and after the war I'm more than happy to consider this an important issue, but I think now is not the time.
Whelp, I'm going to peace out of this one before it ends up like the last thread on the topic.
You don't seem to be engaging in the kind of discussion I'd want to participate in.
Very interesting read. Only interesting thought, and it's a half-cooked one, is that I'm not sure the distinction between imperialistic and defensive nationalism is a very firm or durable one. For one, I think German nationalism started defensively, against a perceived threat from Jews and the Versailles treaty. While the Versailles treaty was perhaps not a stroke of genius, the Jewish threat was fabricated. German nationalism didn't exactly start out as imperialist, it was maneuvered into position to seize power on a mostly defensive platform. (Subjectively at the time anyway; it's not defensive at all in an objective sense) And only with time it changed into a more and more openly imperialist nationalism. So I'm not sure the distinction is a material one.
However, I see that the distinction is maybe still important. I think Support for an imperialist platform wouldn't have existed in '33 (various reasons, I can defend that statement if need be). A defensive nationalism will almost always draw more support. Once Ukraine loses its existential threat, it can be argued, nationalist sentiment will subside and support will wane. Hence why maybe that distinction does matter, even if there isn't a clear and crisp decision boundary between the two.
That said, this is a half-cooked take. I could well have missed something.
This is an insightful thread. If you read nothing else about nationalism and racism in Russia and in Ukraine, read this.
This is also the first time I hear the phrase "person of color" in a conversation about Russia. We don't talk about racism in this country: we simply exercise it. (It decidedly did not help that my parents are racist.)
This is kind of bizarre to read, as I feel like the danger of the far-right in Russia has been shouted from the rooftops in every possible space in the western media lately, and for good reason. Within Russian media and such I'm sure it's true that the far right in Ukraine is getting more attention, but I could not possibly see that as being the case in US media and the English-speaking internet.
My “traditional” news source is ABC World News in the evenings after I get home from work.
Every time they show footage from the Azov Battalion, they explicitly mention it is a far-right part of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
Just wanted to give some context.
The operative word being "lately".
No source I follow have suggested even remotely that Russia is "far-right" or "neo-Nazi", or any of the related terms. They talk about how there's a serious lack of freedom in Russia, how the economy is becoming stagnant, how the LGBTQ+ folks are being abused and have their rights violated... etc. etc. etc.. Not a word on the fascist behavior, in the government or among the people.
It's clear now where everyone stands.
Before the war, every news outlet I've read of Putin appeared to have treated him with either a cold, logical approach, or painting him as vaguely villanous without ever really pointing out the bits that stick out. (Granted, I haven't read all publication there is about the man.) Nobody really got him in a way that the 20/20 hindsight wouldn't blow out of the window. (Timothy Snyder's gotten pretty close, as far as I'm concerned.)