NP: On the Ukraine thread

[Martin Dietze]

I really did not want to get involved into this anymore, but nevertheless a
few words on Azov which seems to be somebody's obsession here....

Things are not as easy as some may think.

First: Azov was founded by a neonazi, and indeed it was joined by more
like-minded people. But this is not the whole truth. Unlike some may want
to make us think, Azov is *not* a political organisation. It is a combat
unit. People joined Azov because it was well-equipped (thanks to fundings
from some oligarchs) and had a reputation of having quite competent
commanders. Hence taking Azov as a "proof" for the (not existing)
"Ukrainian nazi problem" is nonsense. As one of the world's leading experts
on nationalism in the post soviet space, Andreas Umland, once put it: "*Azov
Battalion Is Not Neo-Nazi, But Some People In Battalion Are*
<https://web.archive.org/web/20150223211906/http://int.hromadske.tv/articles/show/Azov_Battalion_Is_Not_Neo_Nazi_Some_People_Are>
".

Second: as a combat unit Azov has proved to be quite successful. They
successfully defended Mariupol against the Russian aggressors and are held
in high regard over there (so the Mariupoleans are all neo nazi???). By the
way many of their fighters are from that very region. Guess why? Because
they're all neo nazis?

Third: they got integrated into the Ukrainian forces. They are no longer an
independent organisation. And because some people in it, not the whole unit
can be considered neo nazi, this does not prove that the Ukrainian forces
or government structures have a nazi problem any bigger than any other army
in the world.

Fourth: there have been reports of war crimes committed by Azovians.
Whether or not these war crimes were systematically committed or rather by
individuals is difficult to prove, but it looks more like the latter is
true. In this context Azov does not look particularly worse than other
units on either side. In particular the Russian "hybrid" forces have a
reputation of systematic torture and killings, see for instance the case of
their late commander Arsen Pavlov ("Motorola"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsen_Pavlov#War_crimes>) and all the other
nationalist units fighting on their side (Prizrak, Vostok, Rusich, Legion
St Istvan, RNU "Russian National Unity", Russian Orthodox Arme, etc.). But
with Azov these stories are just so much juicier, because, hey, they're
said to be a neo nazi unit, so they must be extraordinarily brutal, seems
fairly reasonable to outsiders, sells well.

In the political discussion with friends of pro-Russian views you will
eventually always hear things like "and what about Azov?" followed by "and
what about May 2 in Odessa?" - which is quite clever, because for both
these rhetorical questions one will usually feel the need to dive into a
lengthy lecture, not a good idea when talking to people who just love
simple truths, easy to repeat, not requiring a lot of background knowledge.

Hence, summarising: the case of Azov is not a problem for Ukraine because
it "proves" any "nazi problem" as many claim. It does not. Ukraine does not
have a nazi problem. It has a problem with a very powerful and aggressive
neighbour. However, not the least thanks to the latter's skills in
information warfare, Ukraine has an image problem that is very difficult to
get rid of.

Nuff said. And really no need to repeat all that blurb about nazi symbols
at Azov etc. I've seen them. I don't like them, and I'd prefer more
ordinary Ukrainians taking offense at them, but they just don't, at least
not in the same way we do. Different country, different history, different
culture. Not easy to understand for outsiders.

Yup. And sometimes I prefer not to reply to this, at least not atm, because
given the whole situation I can easily get sarcastic and offensive. I guess
you know why.