[aprilthird2021]

Why do you do all this twisting and turning to try to excuse these symbols "Ah it's a reverse orientation, ah it's just a nationalist symbol with far-right connotations, it's not Nazi!"

Why not just change the symbols because your biggest supporters and allies have issues with it and the history behind it (you know very well the history of Ukrainian collaboration with Germany in WWII and where these symbols come from. Sure it's complicated but that's where it comes from). If NATO can't show pictures of soldiers due to the insignia, if journalists have to ask the soldiers to remove certain patches before interviewing them, why do they wear them at all?

Just because they stand next to Jews doesn't mean they aren't the kinds of people who love far-right Nazi symbols and what they mean. Said Qutb moved to the US and spent lots of time around Americans before starting an anti-Western ideological group.

But all this could be eliminated if the insistence of Azov on their tarnished names and symbols were removed. Why do they cling to them so much? Why are they so resistant to such a sensible request? These are the things that make people hesitant to support them, and they are extremely aware of it. This is the reason the US had a ban on arming Azov for years till very recently. They know what it looks like and they fight to keep it that way. That should raise some concern for anyone.

[racional]

The one doing the twisting and turning on this subject is you.

The simple fact is -- you didn't do your homework on Azov, and so within minutes you got debunked. Own it, and move on.

[aprilthird2021]

> you didn't do your homework on Azov, and so within minutes you got debunked

So it's not true that many Ukrainian regiments assisted the Nazis in WWII? It's not true that that is where these symbols come from? It's not true that the US had a ban on arming Azov for years for exactly this reason? It's not true that NATO can't post pictures of Ukrainian soldiers defending a sovereign territory from invaders because they wear Nazi insignia? It's not true that journalists have to ask the soldiers to remove their Nazi insignia when being photographed?

In fact all are true. Here are the sources:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/29/europe/ukraine-azov-movement-...

An image of a Ukrainian historical newspaper with a Nazi swastika and "Slava Ukraini" written at the top: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nove-zhittya.jpg#m...

https://www.newsweek.com/nato-says-it-didnt-notice-ukraine-s...

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/05/world/europe/nazi-symbols...

Don't close your eyes to facts and truth. The world is complex. Try to find the truth in that complexity

[racional]

So it's not true that many Ukrainian regiments assisted the Nazis in WWII?

As in every country under the Nazi occupation. Including Russia, by the way -- and in significantly larger numbers than in Ukraine.

But this was 80 years ago and is a completely different topic. Do you actually think this provides some kind of chain of implication as to anything happening on the ground today? Or are you just trying evoke an image of Ukrainians as basically congenital Nazis, and that's the your big subliminal message here?

It's not true that that is where these symbols come from?

In fact it's not true. The Azov insignia is not derived from the Wolfsangel, or any of the symbols used by the Galicia Division or any other collaborationist units.

An image of a Ukrainian historical newspaper with a Nazi swastika and "Slava Ukraini" written at the top

Seriously -- what's the logic here? What is this supposed to prove?

Check in any American Nazi rally from the 1930s to the present; the photos are all over the place -- and (get ready to start trembling now) you'll invariably find prominent displays of swastika banners right along side the Stars and Stripes. Does that make it a Nazi flag?

[aprilthird2021]

You're deliberately misinterpreting what I said and ignoring half of my argument and it's plainly obvious. The newspaper is not the only proof. It's just to show that Ukrainian collaboration with the Nazis was very widespread and understood. Hell, even the Canadian parliament accidentally honored a Nazi Ukrainian War veteran and the speaker had to resign over it.

To complete the analogy, if an American military unit used the same symbols the Nazis used while collaborating with the Nazis during WWII and then a modern-day American military unit proudly used those same symbols while constantly being told by all their allies, NATO, various allies journalists, etc. that these symbols cannot be shown to the public, they should absolutely be disbanded and never allowed to use such symbols again.

Why doesn't that happen in Ukraine? It's such a an obvious thing to do, you never ever answer this question, just always pick on minor things and make up strange interpretations of minor parts of what I'm saying

[racional]

Didn't mean to ignore your half of your preceding post; just that takes time to unpack and respond to these points, and honestly, it seems a lot of your arguments just aren't well-constructed.

But leaving that aside, and to address just the first line, if I may, of your post above:

I'm quite familiar with Ukraine's collaborationist history in WW II. Of course callaboration was widespread, and the occupation forces had substantial support (or at least acquiescence) throughout the population -- again, as in all occupied countries. There's a reason they were able to pull of the multi-year Babyn Yar operation just outside the center of Kyiv, were able to recruit so many Trawniki to do the dirty in their camps, and so on. This isn't a revelation to me at all.

My question to you is -- how does any of this history move the needle (serve as "proof" in your words) -- or have any other kind of bearing, for that matter -- in regard to any of the assertions you're making about Azov today? As I asked in my most recent response (and you "ignored"): what is the actual chain of implication and substantiation here?

I'm just not seeing any. If you can enlighten me as to why I should, perhaps we can continue with the other points. But in any case that's all I have time for right now.

Because it actually takes a lot of time to answer you carefully and patiently like this, you know.

[racional]

And about that guy they put in front of the Canadian parliament (even though he has absolutely nothing to do with Azov, and hence nothing one might say about him can have any bearing on the original assertions you were making) -- just to get him out of the way:

If you think that anyone who fought or otherwise worked for the Germans -- even if they served in the camps and did horrific things there (which this guy did not apparently), or served in a nominally elite military unit (as he did) -- is ipso facto a Nazi -- then it seems you haven't taken stock of one of the cardinal rules by which the Nazis operated in these countries (or any long-lived dictatorship operates for that matter, including certainly Putin's).

Which is: they don't need you to join the Party, or even believe the ideological flim-flam (and in the Nazis' case -- they definitely didn't need you to be antisemitic). You can even be a bit skeptical, or outright disdainful under the hood. At the end of the day, they don't really care about what your think as an individual. And they don't need you to be hip to their Master Plan.

They just need you to go along with it.

[racional]

"Check in on", "alongside"