"Nope. That is: sure, Putin is (mis)using the Azov for his backgrounds, no doubt - just like many in the West were conditioning their aid to Kyiv with Azov either being disbanded or not receiving any of Western arms. And yes, Azov was established by white supremacists and Nazis of all sorts. And yes, no doubt, at least 10-15% of its personnel can still be considered as such.
However, successive Ukrainian govs did a lot to de-nazify Azov. Which is why the 'regiment' was eventually integrated into the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
Atop of this: it's only one battalion of Azov that's inside Mariupol. At least 3-4 other battalions are outside, and new sub-units are in the process of bering established. With other words, at most, Putin might manage to destroy one fifth of 'Azov'.
Foremost, the mass of Ukrainian garrison of Mariupol are no neo-Nazis, nor white supremacists or anything of that kind, but Naval Infantry, Territorial Defence, and Special Police."
"However, when it comes to the territory of Ukraine, it is not just the Ukrainian government that has a Nazi problem. Unreconstructed Nazis have always also had a presence on the other side. Currently, much publicity is given to the Wagner Group of mercenaries and their Nazi symbology, which may be explained by typical mercenary “badass” machoism, but, for instance, the involvement of the Russian National Unity organization – whose logo is a stylized swastika and who have made no bones about their national socialism – on the side of the separatists has been quite a bit more substantial. And, of course, there has been a steady stream of European Nazis – not mere right-wing populists, but organizations like the Forza Nuova and the British BNP – offering their support to Russia in word and deed.
There’s a simple explanation for this incongruency. The definition of “Nazi” used by the Russian regime and its supporters is essentially different from any standard one. It can be summed up as: Being fundamentally opposed to the goals of the Russian regime makes you a Nazi, and if your interests are aligned with the Russian regime, you cannot be a Nazi.
This doesn’t mean one cannot be a Nazi and also be called a Nazi in accordance with the Russian definition. There are surely many far-right nationalists fundamentally opposed to Russia and the Russian regime, even more so nowadays with Russia’s stock falling in generally in the eyes of rest of Europe. Still, the fundamental problem with the Azovites in this discourse is not Nazi symbology, by any objective criteria. Rather, it is their refusal to accord with the Russian interests and, instead, fight against Russia."
"It is safe to say that the overwhelming majority of current Azov Regiment fighters were not a part of the original Azov Battalion. (The many changes in its makeup include gender: while the original Azov had a “men-only” policy, the unit started admitting women in early 2015; watching videos of the Azovstal defenders’ surrender a few days ago, I was struck by the number of young women among them.) Do some of them harbor extremist views? No doubt. But it’s ludicrous to refer to the regiment as “openly neo-Nazi”—words really should mean something!—and it is equally absurd to claim that no one in the mainstream media ever questioned Azov’s Nazism. As documented above, the extent of its extremism, and its evolution, has been the subject of debate and polemics almost from the moment of its founding. The “Azov Nazis” trope has been invaluable for the Kremlin, of course; it is an essential part of the “Nazi Ukraine” narrative in which, these days, anyone with a Ukrainian national identity separate from Russia qualifies as a Nazi. They provide a convenient scapegoat for atrocities: the Russian propaganda machine has tried to frame Azov fighters for the murders in Bucha (where Azov troops arrived shortly after the withdrawal of Russian forces) and is already trying to blame them for the death and destruction in Mariupol. This trope is, of course, screamingly hypocritical, considering the prominence of far-right extremists in Russia’s own war effort. But it is also actively damaging. In an article in April, Shekhovtsov argues that some Westerners’ “misguided obsession” with Azov’s alleged white supremacism, and the resulting ban on arming and funding it, resulted in Mariupol’s defenders being tragically underequipped for their battle against Russian invaders. Those fighters, who have surrendered after performing an incredible feat of bravery in holding out as long as they did, are now in serious danger. Russia, which originally seemed open to a prisoner exchange, has now made noises about designating them as “terrorists” or “Nazi criminals” outside the normal protections of international law. (Whatever abuses may have been committed by Ukrainian troops in the course of the war, “find the war criminals” is really not a hard task in this case.) Western support for the “Azov Nazis” trope unquestionable emboldens the Russians to do their worst. Under those circumstances, continuing to collectively attack those fighters as neo-Nazis is not only false but staggeringly irresponsible."
Garbage talking points. Entire Ukraine is NAZI regime and west is supporting Nazis.
Wagner is a PRIVATE MILITARY CONTRACTOR THAT WAS DISBANDED.
Secondly Russia unlike Ukraine and West never had white supremacy ideology over "subhuman" Ukrainians.
NATO and west provided this ideology to Ukranians.
They are degenerate bastards. and you too.
Bandera isnt a HERO in Russia and NEO nazis are not celebrated in Russian government and by officals.
And Russian language history was prohibited in Ukraine and also the dehumanization of Russian people. Speaking aboput SWASTIKA itrs literally on Russian Church Patriarch closing. Its not Swastika. What make you NAZI is your Ideology and Heroes. Heroes of Ukraine are Nazis.
However:
"Nope. That is: sure, Putin is (mis)using the Azov for his backgrounds, no doubt - just like many in the West were conditioning their aid to Kyiv with Azov either being disbanded or not receiving any of Western arms. And yes, Azov was established by white supremacists and Nazis of all sorts. And yes, no doubt, at least 10-15% of its personnel can still be considered as such.
However, successive Ukrainian govs did a lot to de-nazify Azov. Which is why the 'regiment' was eventually integrated into the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
Atop of this: it's only one battalion of Azov that's inside Mariupol. At least 3-4 other battalions are outside, and new sub-units are in the process of bering established. With other words, at most, Putin might manage to destroy one fifth of 'Azov'.
Foremost, the mass of Ukrainian garrison of Mariupol are no neo-Nazis, nor white supremacists or anything of that kind, but Naval Infantry, Territorial Defence, and Special Police."
https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/nope-that-is-sure-putin-is-mis-using-the-azov-for-his-backgrounds-no-doubt-just-like-many-in-4ad6485a7bc8
--------------------------
"However, when it comes to the territory of Ukraine, it is not just the Ukrainian government that has a Nazi problem. Unreconstructed Nazis have always also had a presence on the other side. Currently, much publicity is given to the Wagner Group of mercenaries and their Nazi symbology, which may be explained by typical mercenary “badass” machoism, but, for instance, the involvement of the Russian National Unity organization – whose logo is a stylized swastika and who have made no bones about their national socialism – on the side of the separatists has been quite a bit more substantial. And, of course, there has been a steady stream of European Nazis – not mere right-wing populists, but organizations like the Forza Nuova and the British BNP – offering their support to Russia in word and deed.
There’s a simple explanation for this incongruency. The definition of “Nazi” used by the Russian regime and its supporters is essentially different from any standard one. It can be summed up as: Being fundamentally opposed to the goals of the Russian regime makes you a Nazi, and if your interests are aligned with the Russian regime, you cannot be a Nazi.
This doesn’t mean one cannot be a Nazi and also be called a Nazi in accordance with the Russian definition. There are surely many far-right nationalists fundamentally opposed to Russia and the Russian regime, even more so nowadays with Russia’s stock falling in generally in the eyes of rest of Europe. Still, the fundamental problem with the Azovites in this discourse is not Nazi symbology, by any objective criteria. Rather, it is their refusal to accord with the Russian interests and, instead, fight against Russia."
https://www.ahponen.fi/p/on-denazification
--------------------------
"It is safe to say that the overwhelming majority of current Azov Regiment fighters were not a part of the original Azov Battalion. (The many changes in its makeup include gender: while the original Azov had a “men-only” policy, the unit started admitting women in early 2015; watching videos of the Azovstal defenders’ surrender a few days ago, I was struck by the number of young women among them.) Do some of them harbor extremist views? No doubt. But it’s ludicrous to refer to the regiment as “openly neo-Nazi”—words really should mean something!—and it is equally absurd to claim that no one in the mainstream media ever questioned Azov’s Nazism. As documented above, the extent of its extremism, and its evolution, has been the subject of debate and polemics almost from the moment of its founding. The “Azov Nazis” trope has been invaluable for the Kremlin, of course; it is an essential part of the “Nazi Ukraine” narrative in which, these days, anyone with a Ukrainian national identity separate from Russia qualifies as a Nazi. They provide a convenient scapegoat for atrocities: the Russian propaganda machine has tried to frame Azov fighters for the murders in Bucha (where Azov troops arrived shortly after the withdrawal of Russian forces) and is already trying to blame them for the death and destruction in Mariupol. This trope is, of course, screamingly hypocritical, considering the prominence of far-right extremists in Russia’s own war effort. But it is also actively damaging. In an article in April, Shekhovtsov argues that some Westerners’ “misguided obsession” with Azov’s alleged white supremacism, and the resulting ban on arming and funding it, resulted in Mariupol’s defenders being tragically underequipped for their battle against Russian invaders. Those fighters, who have surrendered after performing an incredible feat of bravery in holding out as long as they did, are now in serious danger. Russia, which originally seemed open to a prisoner exchange, has now made noises about designating them as “terrorists” or “Nazi criminals” outside the normal protections of international law. (Whatever abuses may have been committed by Ukrainian troops in the course of the war, “find the war criminals” is really not a hard task in this case.) Western support for the “Azov Nazis” trope unquestionable emboldens the Russians to do their worst. Under those circumstances, continuing to collectively attack those fighters as neo-Nazis is not only false but staggeringly irresponsible."
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/heroes-of-mariupol-or-neo-nazi-menace
Garbage talking points. Entire Ukraine is NAZI regime and west is supporting Nazis.
Wagner is a PRIVATE MILITARY CONTRACTOR THAT WAS DISBANDED.
Secondly Russia unlike Ukraine and West never had white supremacy ideology over "subhuman" Ukrainians.
NATO and west provided this ideology to Ukranians.
They are degenerate bastards. and you too.
Bandera isnt a HERO in Russia and NEO nazis are not celebrated in Russian government and by officals.
And Russian language history was prohibited in Ukraine and also the dehumanization of Russian people. Speaking aboput SWASTIKA itrs literally on Russian Church Patriarch closing. Its not Swastika. What make you NAZI is your Ideology and Heroes. Heroes of Ukraine are Nazis.
Citation the bulwark, no worries champ.
These Neo Nazi's sure are inconvenient, better run some apologetics in the comment section... maybe white wash em down say 80, 85 percent.