[flagged]
This is a blatant mischaracterisation of our military aid to Ukraine.
One we're arming Kyiv. That they've incorporated members with a problematic past is known and, frankly, rational. (Can't be choosy when an actual fascist neighbor is invading.) Characterizing aid to the entire Ukrainian military as "arming literal nazi corps" is selectively, misleadingly and incorrectly reductive.
Two, the Azov Brigade was destroyed (after fighting bravely) at Mariupol [1]. We can't be literally arming them because they've been dead or captured for a year.
Finally, the the Congress literally banned arming the Azov regimen inter alia in 2018 [2]. War is messy, so results won't be perfect, but there is a clearly-understood consensus across NATO and in Kyiv about what will and won't be tolerated.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Mariupol
[2] https://thehill.com/policy/defense/380483-congress-bans-arms...
If you're arming Kiev and Kiev is arming these "members with a problematic past" (nice euphemism) then you're also arming them.
Looks like this logic worked well for Iraq and Afghanistan, it only caused milions of deaths and decades of destruction.
> Two, the Azov Brigade was destroyed (after fighting bravely) at Mariupol
Get up to date, the Azov Brigade has been long restored and rearmed. They have new members and they trained them already.
Which, again, is (largely) not happening. The Azov regiment fell last May; our weapons had barely begun arriving in Kyiv then.
> this logic worked well for Iraq and Afghanistan
You're comparing a dictator and terrorist insurgencies with a democracy. Ukraine is closer to WWII. We aren't trying to create a state where one never existed, destroy a state that was previously stable or cause an insurgency to annoy someone; we're helping an extant state fight for survival.
(Also, are you arguing nobody in Britain or France or Poland in WWII had problematic views? Does that mean the American war effort, and subsequent Marshall Plan, was in support of those elements?)
> the Azov Brigade has been long restored and rearmed. They have new members and they trained them already
So a new group of people adopted fallen symbols, and we're supposed to assume ideological continuity [1]?
I'm not going to argue there is no far-right element in Ukraine, or even in the Ukrainian military. In an ideal, world, they'd be expelled. But in an ideal world, Moscow wouldn't be launching a land war in Europe. It's misleading to the point of incorrectness to say we're arming neo-Nazis in Ukraine, or that these people form a significant amount of the present Ukrainian military or state, or that they have material influence over Kyiv.
[1] https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/2022-06-01/ty-arti...
> The US is arming Nazis and Nationalists inside of the United States.
This statement is true. There are Nazis and Nationalists inside of the US Military and inside of various police departments.
This statement is also misleading. It implies that we're giving arms directly to nazis and nationalist, rather than it being a byproduct of poor screening. It also implies that we're doing this on purpose, but that isn't the case.
Now lets try the same thing with Ukraine. If you look at the infamous Azoz battle group you will find nazis. Therefore, it is true that we're arming nazis. However, you'll also find muslims, jews, and other groups that are decidedly not nazi. At the same time the Wagner group, which is on the Russian side of things, has a lot of nazi and nationalist inside.
So yes, the statement is true, but it also misleading. It tries to make a simple point, when the reality is far more nuanced. It's just not a good faith argument because it's made to push people into believing something that isn't true- namely that ukraine is a nazi/ultranationalist hotbed that we're arming, while russia is trying to fight off the nazi threat. This is propeganda that Russia has been pushing for over a year now, but anyone who looks at the situation can see a nazi threat on the russian side and a bunch of people defending their homes on the other.
Once weapons are brought into any theatre of conflict they are very hard to control.
And quite the minority in the country considering how high their Jewish president poll right now.
> And quite the minority in the country considering how high their Jewish president poll right now.
They are not your classic Nazists. Groups like the Right Sector are best described as a "generic form of Ukrainian ultranationalism", which allowed the inclusion of ethnic minorities, including Muslim Crimean Tatars and Chechens, and ethnic Jews, Poles, Hungarians, Greeks, and Romani[0]. I call them Nazis as a simplification, as they adopt the same symbology, most of their values and modus operandi.
Also consider how everyone proudly adopted "Slava Ukraini" even if it's the official slogan of Stepan Bandera's wing of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. Imagine milions of Italians saluting with "Duce mia luce", or Germans resurrecting "Sieg Heil".
You're ignoring the entire rest of the Ukrainian military and state we've upgraded in the process.
We (religion/ethnic group/nationality) are intrasequely better than (the out-group: French/lybians/Serbs/Anglo-Saxon/muslims/whatever) and the reason why they (are living better/are richer/are more powerful) is because we have traitors in our midst (jews/socialists/communists/anarchists/tzigan/liberals/whatever) who work against us.
If you do not have the second part, you will have a more standard cesarism (that can be left-wing too, like leninism or early trotskism). A recent example in my country would be Gaullism, in a way.
Are they nazi, or 'just' cesarists (with even more nationalism on top) ? Do you know who their internal enemy is? It should be designated and different from their actual foreign enemy. Example : in France, the far-right foreign enemies are muslims, but the traitors/internal ennemies are left-wingers/academia. If they do not design 'traitors', I wouldn't classify them far-right (because they wouldn't be).