• Kieselguhr [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Doesn’t mean it’s more than the fringe

    I guess you didn’t pay attention. Whenever they post pictures of Ukrainian soldiers there’s a good chance that you will see a Totenkopf or a Black Sun badge. When western news interviews lesser known Ukrainian politicians, there’s a good chance that you will see a Bandera portrait in the background.

    The rise of the ukrainian far right has been well documented in western media before the invasion. Hell, google “Western media before February of 2022”

    a sovereign democracy[Citation needed]

    In fact it’s neither sovereign, since the US couped Ukraine in 2014, nor it is a democracy, but an extremely corrupt oligarchic capitalist country. The contrast with Russia lies in the absence of a single pivotal leader like Putin, and they fully adhere to Western interests.

    This doesn’t make the invasion “good” as in “Aragorn is a good guy”. The NATO encroaching makes it understandable. Which is completely different from “good”. Understandable means that there is some kind of rationality at play. Which means it was probably preventable. Which means that some kind of solution is to be had. Hopefully…

    spoiler

    "Then came Russia’s invasion. Within months, many of these same institutions had plunged into an Orwellian stampede to persuade the West that Ukraine’s neo-Nazi regiment was suddenly not a problem.

    It wasn’t pretty. In 2018, The Guardian had published an article titled “Neo-Nazi Groups Recruit Britons to Fight in Ukraine,” in which the Azov Regiment was called “a notorious Ukrainian fascist militia.” Indeed, as late as November 2020, The Guardian was calling Azov a “neo-Nazi extremist movement.”

    But by February 2023, The Guardian was assuring readers that Azov’s fighters “are now leading the defence of Mariupol, insisting they have shed their previous dubious politics and rapidly becoming Ukrainian heroes.” The campaign believed to have recruited British far-right activists was now a thing of the past.

    The BBC had been among the first to warn of Azov, criticizing Kyiv in 2014 for ignoring a group that “sports three Nazi symbols on its insignia.” A 2018 report noted Azov’s “well-established links to the far right.”

    Shortly after Putin’s invasion, though, the BBC began to assert that although “to Russia, they are neo-Nazis and their origins lie in a neo-Nazi group,” the Azov Regiment was being “falsely portrayed as Nazi” by Moscow." link

      • Kieselguhr [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        38
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        bollocks

        I see the cognitive dissonance is kicking in for you. Hopefully you will recover, and you’ll read western mainstream narratives more critically.

        How funny is this bit though?

        "The BBC had been among the first to warn of Azov, criticizing Kyiv in 2014 for ignoring a group that “sports three Nazi symbols on its insignia.” A 2018 report noted Azov’s “well-established links to the far right.”

        Shortly after Putin’s invasion, though, the BBC began to assert that although “to Russia, they are neo-Nazis and their origins lie in a neo-Nazi group,” the Azov Regiment was being “falsely portrayed as Nazi” by Moscow."

        They suddenly became not-nazis in February 2022? But they kept the wolfsangel? Was BBC spouting Russian misinfo in 2014? Or was it a Russian time travelling double agent who wrote all those articles for prominent western papers about the concerning rise of neonazis in Ukraine? If they are so fringe, why are they giving them so much airtime?

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Azov has been getting denazified ever since it became an official battalion. A huge number of Nazis left, regular people joined, are there still Nazis left? Probably, yes, but they’re not running around with SS runes on their helmets that shit doesn’t fly.

          As far as the Wolfangel is concerned: It’s not a clear Nazi symbol. Tons of German tows have it on their coat of arms.

          • xXthrowawayXx [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            21
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Stop trying to rehabilitate the wolfsangel. If your town had it for three centuries then maybe that’s not nazi symbolism. If you join a nationalist right wing regiment and get it tattooed on yourself, that’s Nazi symbolism.

            Think about it like the swastika. If someone is choosing it now, in Europe, in a right wing military organization, they’re nazis, not fans of Indian symbols and culture. Do you know how I can tell?

            • barsoap@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Think about it like the swastika.

              No. Then we can also throw away pretty much all of Germanic culture as the Nazis appropriated all of it. It would mean we’d let them win after the fact.

              It’s more like the number 88: Sure, might be a Nazi, might also be a guy born in 88. People not knowledgeable about Nazi symbolism don’t actually recognise it as Nazi symbolism which is a gigantic difference to the Swastika. But that’s about the Wolfsangel in general.

              Regarding Azov, should the logo have been changed? On balance, I say it would’ve been a good idea, especially since it’s 1:1 the Svoboda Wolfsangel.

              • xXthrowawayXx [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                17
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                oh no, not germanic cultutre appropriated by the nazis and wideley seen as dogwhistles! how will the world move on?

                your’e absolutely right that the wolfsangel is like the number 88. maybe someone with it in a username or email was born or married that year. but when they’re joining a nationalist right wing militia the number 88 means they’re a nazi

                we’re not talking about random people on the street with tee shirts that have wolfsangels on em (btw they’d be nazis too). we’re talking about people joining a famously right wing, nationalist militia in a country with a long history of nazism. they didn’t pick those symbols out because they just love interesting history!

                when people choose symbols associated with nazis now they’re nazis. i’m sorry, that’s just reality.

                • barsoap@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  No, we’re not talking about that. You are. All I said about the Wolfsangel is that it’s not an unambigiously nazi symbol, which you just agreed to, the rest is you foaming at the mouth.

                  Yes, Azov at the beginning was a Nazi org, otherwise it would hardly had to have get denazified when getting rolled into official state structures, now would it. What’s your fucking problem.

                  • xXthrowawayXx [none/use name]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    8
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    My problem is that we’re not talking about this in a vacuum. We aren’t having a nice little hypothetical conversation about weather or not you can judge the town of burgweldel for having a wolfsangel on their town coat of arms.

                    We are talking about people joining a right wing nationalist militia using the wolfsangel. In the context of this conversation it is unambiguously a Nazi dogwhistle and indefensible, unless you want to defend Nazis. Do you want to defend Nazis?