What you've just discovered is that a unified policy across the entire world isn't actually the right policy. In one country you may want to ban some stuff you wouldn't ban in another one.
https://www.newsweek.com/nato-says-it-didnt-notice-ukraine-s...
I can say my perspective has changed a little bit on the subject.
That's why if you support ukraine, making excuses instead of wanting them gone is just playing right in the hands of russian propaganda. The more those groups grow in influence (like they have been doing since the start of the invasion), the more it's going to be hard to deny for western powers by just claiming it's a Russian red hereing.
The violent phase of the Maiden square riots looked like postapocalyptic neonazi live action roleplaying. Clear nazi esthetics. I guess many of them were to, in hindsight.
It is strange becouse I guess the Ukraine gov. does not need the Azov batallion anymore. They probably can't get rid of them (easely) even if they wanted.
I understand that the gov. can't disband them now since they will just disobey orders and there is no resources to arrest them, but there was plenty of time before that.
Using more or less neonazis as a separate unit is just begging for problems, even if you are fighting separatist militia. Thinking about it, it is total madness. There is a insane internal security risk having them in a unit.
Fuck the russian government and their war of aggression, unequivocally. Ive lost a distant friend in syria during The russian government's intervention there, and some of my current refugee friends lost their homes to their bombs. So yes I have no love for putins regime.
But can we please stop making excuses for literal nazis ? It's so weird to basically normalize or even encourage such groups because you don't want to agree with anything russia says. Those groups have been growing for the past 2 weeks because of that completely passive attitude where no one wants to be criticizing "our team". They can openly wear insignia designed by Himmler in front of cameras and still be praised by NATO. I think we should realize that this is not a marvel movie with a clear good vs bad plot. So there's nothing wrong with admitting there is a huge far right problem and still be against the invasion. The "good side" can be criticized without support the "evil side"
For the past few years I've been hearing that we can focus on more than a single issue at the time, so why not do that? Because wow this completely insane 180° on far right groups in a mere 2 weeks really really make the craze around anti fascism and nazism accusations in the past 5 years look like complete poltical theater. At this point I won't even be surprised if we start justifying actual war crimes if the Good side does it.
Do I like nazis? No. Do I associate with them? No. If working together with one is how I stop some jackass from killing us both, am I going to do it? Sure as hell yes.
By not trying to root them out now they will inexorably take over whatever will be left of ukraine. That's almost always what happens with radical armed elements, and as I said they are getting way more comfortable with not even hiding anymore. I can't think of any example where fighting side by side with radical extremists didn't end up backfiring. And beyond that I mean if the UA government can't even get their soldiers to not wear black sun pins openly and openly & explicitly promotes azov on social media, that really does not sound like they are even reluctant to have them on their side.
It's a war and I totally get that it's dirty and that you can't pick and chose your allies everytime. But nazis are an easy line to draw.
A month ago all the alleged war criminals were sitting in jails (convicted ones are still incarcerated). This doesn't equal to rehabilitation.
Fully aware of this, thing is, given their circumstances, I can't really give half a shit. It's amazing easy to wax lyrical about "morality" when you've got the safety guarantee of the most powerful military on the face of the earth. A bit harder when they're literally dropping shells on your head and driving tanks into your cities. I cannot, and will not judge them for compromising when facing a literally existential threat.
Can't exactly get anywhere else when you're just a Russian puppet government. Historically speaking, that's bringing a hell lot worse of a future to anyone in the region than the Azov ever could.
Moreover, when the US went to Afghanistan, I certainly didn't judge Al Qaeda for using "terrorist" tactics like IEDs, or non-uniformed combat, in violation of the Geneva convention. They could have gone with honourable conventional warfare. Then they'd be honorable corpses relatively quickly.
In the end, when war comes, compromise is inevitable. You might regret the consequences down the line, but without that compromise to begin with, you might not have had that future.
But I think that's besides the point. You'd be a minority in Russia too if you opposed the war in the Ukraine right now.
I strongly dislike the lens of morality here, because especially in this case, its coming from those who are insulated from the... Extenuating circumstances the Ukrainians find themselves in.
Furthermore I belive that most would do the same given similar circumstances. Historically speaking, it wasn't THAT long ago that the West aligned with the rather brutal Soviets to defeat their nazi greater enemy.
Arming literal nazis with weapons and letting them loose in a lawless context is a criminally stupid thing to do. These guys have no problem harming civilians or anyone who they feel like, that’s what makes them bad guys.
That is certainly true. There are many examples of that. Israel provided weapons and advisers to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. They even bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor for them. [1] A more widely known example is the alliance between US and the Soviets during the WW2.
> What you've just discovered is that a unified policy across the entire world isn't actually the right policy.
I disagree with that. The ideal "public square" platforms should be neutral. The best policy (which I think will work in almost all cases for general platforms like FB) is to stick to supporting free expression as much as the law permits, don't manipulate people's feeds, and develop tools to let people filter out the content they don't want to see.
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%27s_role_in_the_Iran–...
And even then, I'm sure they have a court process to determine who's guilty of "hate speech" (or thoughtcrime or whatever), and FB is capable of challenging the cases or complying with the rulings for French residents. I assume blanket prior restraint is frowned upon in freer countries of the world.
There are efforts to pass Draconian laws to limit free expression online though [1].
[1]: e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/18/world/europe/france-inter...
Well said. When Nazi Germany occupied Denmark it was a far-right conservative Danish resistance movement that helped Danish Jews flee to Sweden.