Need Debunking: US & Ukraine oppose UN Resolution condemning Nazism

Hi everyone! It appears that one claim that is floating among some far left circles is that there was a UN resolution proposed that condemned Nazism, in which all Western powers and some other nations (49 in total) abstained from voting, 130 nations (including Russia) voted for it, and the US and Ukraine voted against it. The following graphic illustrates the claim rather well:
1646007074422.png
This is the resolution this graphic alludes to, and here is the vote count, and it appears that the graphic is correct, right?

Not so fast. The resolution itself was first drafted by the Russian mission to the UN. Thus this explains why the US representative to the UN Economic and Social Council, Nicholas Hill, has the following to say about the resolution in question:
We have again attempted this year to improve this resolution by engaging in negotiations on the draft text. Despite consistently expressing our concerns with the Russian delegation and proposing revisions to improve the text and protect against unacceptable restrictions on freedom of expression, most of these recommendations were ignored. We discourage States from invoking Article 4 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in order to either silence unwelcome opinions or to excuse their failure to combat intolerance.

For these reasons, the United States has voted against each new version of this resolution since 2005 and is, again, compelled to vote “No” on this resolution, and calls on other States to do the same.
But for good measure, let's look at the resolution itself and what it says. According to article 49 of the resolution, it states that it:
Reaffirms article 4 of the Convention, according to which States parties condemn all propaganda and all organizations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination and, to this end, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of the Convention, inter alia:

(a) Shall declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, and incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financing thereof;

(b) Shall declare illegal and prohibit organizations, and also organized and all other propaganda activities, which promote and incite racial discrimination, and shall recognize participation in such organizations or activities as an offence punishable by law;
So the main points of concern that Hill brings up likely pertain to the vagueness of the definitions of racial hatred and superiority, or incitement to racial discrimination. Given the US's very strong protections for freedom of speech for even the most morally reprehensible opinions, this will likely conflict with the US' laws and thus this is why the US never signed it. Regarding Article 20, the Resolution has the following to say:
Notes with concern the significant number of racist incidents worldwide, including the rise of skinhead groups... as well as the resurgence of racist and xenophobic violence targeting, inter alia, persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, or on any other grounds, including arson attacks on houses and vandalization of and violence in schools and places of worship and cemeteries

Reaffirms that such acts may, in certain circumstances, be qualified as falling within the scope of the Convention, that they may not be justifiable as exercises of freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of association and freedom of expression and that they will often fall within the scope of article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and may be subject to certain restrictions, as set out in articles 19, 21 and 22 of the Covenant;
Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights mostly reiterates Article 4 of the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination:
Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
Article 24 of the resolution also has the following interesting quip that legally prohibits stuff like holocaust denial:
Takes note of the conclusions of the Special Rapporteur that revisionism and attempts to falsify history may, in certain circumstances, fall under the prohibition of hate speech under article 4 (a) of the Convention, which States are required to declare as offences punishable by law
So Hill kinda has a point regarding the fact that this resolution is a trojan horse. I'd guess that Ukraine's no vote is also based on similar justifications. Whaddya guys think? I find it rather confusing to read it all. So any help deciphering this mess would be appreciated.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
I'd like to know how the debate in the Third Committee and in the General Assembly went.

The committee adopted a draft that had "combating Nazism" in the title, and pretty much the same countries abstained/voted against.

Article:
Elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance : report of the 3rd Committee, General Assembly, 75th session

6. At its 12th meeting, on 18 November, the Committee had before it a draft resolution entitled “Combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance” (A/C.3/75/L.49), [...]

8. Also at its 12th meeting, the Committee adopted draft resolution A/C.3/75/L.49 by a recorded vote of 122 to 2, with 53 abstentions (see para. 23, draft resolution I).
The voting was as follows:
[...]
Against:
Ukraine, United States of America.
[...]

9. Before the vote, a statement was made by the representative of the Russian Federation; statements in explanation of vote were made by the representatives of the United States and Ukraine.

10. After the vote, statements in explanation of vote were made by the representatives of Germany (on behalf of the European Union and its member States, Albania, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia) and Switzerland (also on behalf of Australia, Canada, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway).

It was adopted by the General Assembly as resolution 75/169.

Article:
Third Committee
Summary record of the 12th meeting


8. Mr. Mack (United States of America), speaking in explanation of vote before the voting, said that the United States expressed opposition to the draft resolution on account of its attempts to legitimize longstanding Russian disinformation narratives that smeared neighbouring nations under the guise of halting Nazi glorification. The United States, which together with its democratic allies had made decisive contributions to the victory over Nazi Germany in 1945, condemned the glorification of Nazism and all modern forms of racism, xenophobia, discrimination and related intolerance. In fighting against the tyranny of Nazism, the United States had also fought for the freedom and human rights of all, including the right to freedom of expression.

9. The United States Supreme Court had consistently affirmed the constitutional right to the freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly, including of self-avowed Nazis whose hatred and xenophobia were widely scorned by the American people. His country also defended the constitutional rights of those who exercised their rights to combat intolerance and express strong opposition to the odious Nazi creed and to others who espoused hatred.

10. During negotiations on the draft resolution, although his delegation had consistently expressed concerns to the Russian delegation and had proposed revisions to protect against unacceptable restrictions on freedom of expression, his country’s recommendations to improve and strengthen the resolution had been ignored. The United States encouraged States to refrain from invoking article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in an attempt to either silence unwelcome opinions or excuse a failure to combat intolerance. The United States, which had voted against each new version of the resolution since 2005, would again vote against it and called on other Member States to do the same.
11. Mr. Mialkovskyi (Ukraine), speaking in explanation of vote before the voting, said that Ukrainians had made an enormous contribution to the victory over Nazism, showing exemplary heroism in the struggle to liberate their country and Europe. Although Ukraine strongly condemned all forms of Nazism, neo-Nazism, racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, the draft resolution reflected an attempt by the main sponsor to manipulate history. Having failed to introduce its political propaganda into the draft resolution on the seventy-fifth anniversary of the end of the Second World War at the 22nd plenary meeting of the General Assembly at the current session, that delegation had introduced into the draft resolution new language that had nothing to do with combating Nazism, but rather glorified the symbols of the criminal Communist party led by Stalin. The MolotovRibbentrop Pact had delineated the spheres of interest of the Nazi regime and the Soviet Union. It had foreshadowed further division in Europe that would last for decades and had led to occupation, unprecedented human suffering and the commission of crimes against humanity. His delegation condemned the cynical attempt by the Russian Federation to present itself as a champion of the struggle against Nazism and neo-Nazism, while glorifying modern-day Stalinism, which had caused those same crimes to be committed against entire nations.

12. Given that the name of the United Nations was first used by the Allies that fought against Nazism in the Second World War, it was regrettable that the majority of those States were once again unable to support such a prominent draft resolution because of its manipulative language. The Russian delegation, although aware of that fact, had no intention of making the text generally acceptable, but was manipulatively using it for its State propaganda, fuelling an unprecedented rise in radicalism, hatred, enmity, aggressive nationalism, neo-Nazism and xenophobic manifestations in the Russian Federation. It was also regrettable that on the seventy-fifth anniversary of the United Nations, the Russian Federation was exploiting the General Assembly as an instrument of its State information campaign, disguising its aggressive international policy and illegal actions that had led to tens of thousands of deaths and injuries in conflicts in which it had directly participated. Although a draft resolution on combating the glorification of Nazism deserved to be adopted by consensus, Ukraine had no choice but to vote against it and encouraged other delegations to do the same.
18. Mr. Heusgen (Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union and its member States, and the candidate countries Albania, Montenegro and North Macedonia, said that the European Union remained fully committed to the global fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, antisemitism and related intolerance. Its member States had taken extensive legal and policy measures to combat related acts, and equality and non-discrimination were core values of the European Union. The fight against contemporary forms of all extremist and totalitarian ideologies, including neo-Nazism, must be a priority for the entire international community, including through the full implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Initiatives to eliminate racism from societies should unite the international community, rather than creating divisions due to selective and biased approaches. The European Union continued to believe that all contemporary forms of racism and discrimination should be addressed in an impartial, balanced and comprehensive way in the draft resolution, with a clear focus on human rights.

19. The European Union had constructively engaged in consultations on the draft resolution to strengthen the human rights aspects of the text, and some of the changes were based on its proposals. Nevertheless, a number of important concerns remained, and several European Union proposals including compromise language had been dropped. In some cases, problematic and politicized language had been negatively reinforced. It was regrettable that the draft resolution still did not address contemporary forms of racism comprehensively and continued to place emphasis on issues unrelated to combating racism and discrimination in a selective and biased way.

20. Although the fight against racism should centre on the teaching of history, it should not focus on the renaming of streets, monuments, memorials and symbols, erroneous references to national liberation movements or other politically motivated issues that not only were outside the scope of the human rights agenda, but also provided a one-sided view of history, as shown by attempts to justify the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. The draft resolution also included divisive elements referring to revisionism and the falsification of history, which contributed to its politicization.

21. The European Union paid tribute to the historic role of the allied forces in the defeat of Nazism during the Second World War, whose end had brought painful divisions in many European countries, with occupation and more crimes against humanity rather than freedom. It was therefore regrettable that his delegation’s proposal to include references to all totalitarian regimes and ideologies had not been taken on board. Although the facilitator of the draft resolution had incorporated language acknowledging the importance of the right to the freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly and association in the prevention of racism, the language throughout the text remained too restrictive in comparison with the description of those rights in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

22. To improve efficiency and ensure comprehensive reporting, he recommended that the draft resolution should be submitted biennially and on the basis of a single independent report by the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. The European Union was prepared in the future to work constructively and transparently with the sponsors to address its concerns, but at the current session, States members of the European Union had abstained from voting.
24. Ms. Wagner (Switzerland), speaking also on behalf of Australia, Canada, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, said that those States unequivocally condemned any form of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia or related intolerance, including Nazism and neo-Nazism. They had ratified the relevant international conventions, were fully committed to their implementation and urged States that had not already done so to ratify the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and make the declaration referred to in article 14 of the Convention. The group of States also emphasized their strong commitment to protecting the right to the freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly and association.

25. While the draft resolution contained important elements that contributed to the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, it was regrettable that during negotiations, proposed revisions to broaden its scope and reflect more contemporary issues had not been sufficiently taken on board. In addition, the manner in which the text mischaracterized the obligations of Member States with regard to international human rights law and the Charter of the United Nations remained a matter of serious concern.

tl;dr "we hate Nazis, but we also hate Russia, and think Russia will label its opposition/opponents as Nazis to silence them."
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
As they just did with Ukraine.
in fairness, everybody is being labeled "nazi" or "fascist" or "racist" these days. heck America is supposedly "systemically racist" which would mean... what? (according to those resolutions).

Pelosi suggested Putin is a Nazi.
Several on the right have likened Pelosi to a Nazi.
Trump, of course, is a Nazi.
Biden is a Nazi.
Macron is a Nazi.
Boris said the EU (and Russia) are Nazis.
Merkel is the daughter of a Nazi.

I wonder if there are any leaders not accused of being Nazis these last few years.
 

Woolery

Active Member
Isn't this what Lewis Black once termed Nazi Tourette?
Nazi Tourettes
A condition in which one makes compulsive and often illegitimate comparisons between political figures or practices of Nazi Germany and current politics.

Coined by Lewis Black on his segment, "Back in Black" in reference to Glenn Beck who frequently compares Obama Administration policies and democratic politicians to policies and figures in Nazi Germany
Source: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Nazi Tourettes&amp=true
 

Rory

Senior Member.
See also Reductio ad Hitlerum:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

Reductio ad Hitlerum, also known as playing the Nazi card, is an attempt to invalidate someone else's position on the basis that the same view was held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party. Coined by Leo Strauss in 1953, it borrows its name from the term used in logic called reductio ad absurdum. According to Strauss, reductio ad Hitlerum is a form of ad hominem, ad misericordiam, or a fallacy of irrelevance. The suggested rationale is one of guilt by association. It is a tactic often used to derail arguments because such comparisons tend to distract and anger the opponent.
Content from External Source
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
As they just did with Ukraine.
Article:
Examining the Threat of the Azov Movement in Ukraine


Members of nationalist movements, including Azov Movement, carry their flags and banners as they participate in an official state parade celebrating the anniversery of the foundation of the Ukrainian Army, of which Azov is now a part.

17 SEPTEMBER 2021

The Azov movement has gained in reputation and power, not only in their home country of Ukraine, but across the world. The group, which began as a volunteer paramilitary organization, has evolved and expanded since its conception. Now an integrated part of Ukraine’s formal military forces, its leaders are currently active in local and national politics. Although they have been only marginally successful at the polls, they have been very visible in the national discussion of how to form a new, post-Maidan Ukrainian identity through physical protests, online discussion, and active recruiting to their nationalist organizations. Comparing facets of Azov to 20th-century fascism reveals concerning similarities that should not be overlooked, as modern-day fascism and its violence could pose a threat to the current Ukrainian government’s efforts to establish itself as a democratic, European state.

[...]

While there has not been outright anti-Semitic violence linked to Azov, the group’s blatant neo-nazism can be addressed. In 2016, Azov entered the political arena with its new leader, Andrew Biletsky. Biletsky has a history of being involved with the far-right and once said in 2010 that the nation’s mission was to “lead the white races of the world in a final crusade… against Semite-led Untermenschen [subhumans]” (Miller, 2018). Biletsky also had a leadership role in the ultranationalist organization, Patriot of Ukraine, which according to the Kharkiv Human Rights Group “espoused xenophobic and neo-Nazi ideas and was engaged in violent attacks against migrants, foreign students in Kharkiv, and those opposing its views” (Miller, 2018). Biletsky has not made an openly racist or anti-semitic statement since the beginning of Azov in 2014, however, this is likely part of his attempt to shed more radical assets of his ideology as Azov enters the public eye (Reporting Radicalism, 2020). This phenomenon was addressed by Azov’s international secretary, Olena Semenyaka, who explained that neo-Nazi and far-right imagery “vanished quite quickly [in Azov], because when you have a chance to create history yourself, you cannot be just like a bad caricature” (Colborne, 2019).

This is rather more tolerant of neonazis than I'm comfortable with.

Ukraine is currently releasing prisoners to fight in the war, and I expect it's going to be some of these who might have gone to prison for what we'd call hate crimes.

Calling the Ukrainian government a "nazi junta" is a blatant exaggeration, but they're not all that anti-nazi, either. (Obviously they're not alone in this, as a country.)

P.S. Apparently neonazis from other countries have been coming to Ukraine to train with the Azov soldiers.
 

Attachments

  • Azov-Ukraine-Nationalist-March-777x437.png.webp
    60.4 KB · Views: 334
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
This is rather more tolerant of neonazis than I'm comfortable with.
i saw mention of that with the "79 year old grandmother" learning to shoot an ak-47 story that was viral in America mid month.
and a claim that this is a neo-nazi badge on this Azov soldiers arm. does anyone know if this is a neo-nazi badge? i can't find it anywhere online.

1646089682766.png
source
 

Rory

Senior Member.
i saw mention of that with the "79 year old grandmother" learning to shoot an ak-47 story that was viral in America mid month

The 'Babushka Battalion', apparently:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/14/babushka-battalion-ready-to-protect-ukraine-from-russia

1646090505288.png

Organised by far-right movement Azov, the training offered basic lessons in first response medical care, survival and evacuation, weapons safety and how to shoot a weapon.
Content from External Source

and a claim that this is a neo-nazi badge on this Azov soldiers arm.

It looks quite similar to Azov Battalion logos:

1646090613343.png 1646090695607.png

The Azov Battalion has been described as a far-right militia with connections to neo-Nazism, with members wearing neo-Nazi and SS symbols and regalia and expressing neo-Nazi views. The group's insignia features the Wolfsangel and the Black Sun, two neo-Nazi symbols.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion#Neo-Nazism
Content from External Source

In fact, I think it's just a standard Azov logo - just the small picture makes it look more like three distinct shapes. But in this video from the same time as the photo it's more distinguishable:

1646091063734.png
Source: https://www.euronews.com/2022/02/13/ukraine-far-right-group-offers-training-to-civilians
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
The group's insignia features the Wolfsangel
thanks. i like proof vs wiki just saying stuff (re: ties to neo-nazi) but the symbol name helps alot, thanks!

Article:
These display a sinister, jagged symbol called the ‘Wolfsangel’. This is an explicitly Nazi emblem, originally used by Hitler’s ‘Das Reich’ Waffen SS division.

This unit is still famous for murdering 200 people in Serbia, for a massacre of 920 Jews in Minsk, now in Belarus, for hanging 99 people in retaliation for French Resistance operations in Tulle.

But above all it is notorious for the mass murder in the French village of Oradour-sur-Glane, in which the SS men machine-gunned or burned to death 642 civilians, including women and children. The Wolfsangel can be seen in archive pictures of the Das Reich division’s tanks.


i still havent found that symbol on any actual german photos..but i guess it doesnt matter if it is actually a nazi symbol, if the whole world now believes it is. They must know the world thinks its a nazi symbol.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
The most common neo-Nazi emblem you will find in Ukraine today is the inverted version of the Wolfsangel - an old German heraldic emblem. Both Wolfsangel and its mirror image have been used in insignia designs of various SS and Wehrmacht units. The inverted Wolfsangel forms letters "N" and "I", which in Nazi symbolism represented the term "Nationale Idee" - a concept frequently used by NSDAP ideologists.

The inverted Wolfsangel seen on a flag during a demonstration in Kiev
The inverted Wolfsangel seen on a flag during a demonstration in Kiev.

The exact reason for the popularity of the Wolfsangel among Ukrainian neo-Nazi is not known. The most likely explanation is that the symbol may be perceived as bearing similarity to Ukraine's coat of arms - the trident.

https://venik4.livejournal.com/42389.html
Content from External Source
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
@Rory thanks! i believe the first 2..so that works. unfortunately without one of those boring history buff sources, i dont really know if those soldiers with the tanks are German. it always amazes me in war how soldiers can tell each other apart in battle.

But like i said, it doesnt matter, the Avoz should know by now it is considered a nazi symbol.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
The Waffen-SS was the military arm of the NSDAP (Nazi party), different from the Wehrmacht.
Using their insignia marks you as a Nazi.
The 2nd division had the name "Das Reich" (the empire).

I'm also seeing a mirror image of the SS runes in the Azov emblem.
scaled-444x400-waffen_ss_fahnw.jpg1646090695607.png
They also have the Black Sun in the background of their emblem.
Article:
The Black Sun (German: Schwarze Sonne) is a Nazi symbol, a type of sun wheel (German: Sonnenrad)[1][2] employed in a post–Nazi Germany context by neo-Nazis and in some strains of Satanism.
BlackSun.svg.png
 
Last edited:

Rory

Senior Member.
Azov fellas being even more explicitly 'Nazi':

1646194455891.png

twitter.com/JimmyMcHugh_OH/status/1498768209310326785/photo/1
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Are we supposed to conclude from that photo that NATO are Nazis?
Well, logically, them showing a NATO flag means they endorse NATO; to see NATO endorsing them, you need to look elsewhere:
Article:
Kuzmenko said that the Military Order Centuria has ties to the international Azov movement,

The report says the Military Order Centuria members describe themselves as an “order of ‘European traditionalist’ military officers” that share a goal of reshaping Ukraine’s military with right-wing ideologies, and defending what they call the “cultural and ethnic identity of European people."

Detailed evidence in the report, including photos taken from social media and posts from messaging platforms, show members of Centuria performing Nazi salutes. They also bragged online about receiving training from foreign military forces including those of Canada, Germany, the U.S. and the U.K.

Kuzmenko detailed one example of his past research on Twitter that shows the proximity of extremists in the Ukrainian military with the Canadian Armed Forces, where a man he describes as an “in-your-face neo-Nazi” graduated from a tactical medical program in 2018 run by the Canadian Armed Forces and the U.S. military and later trained other cadets. The soldier, who is not a part of Centuria, Kuzmenko says, appears on several social media posts holding Nazi flags and in others posing with Canadian instructors. CTVNews.ca has not independently verified the photos or Kuzmenko's allegations.

A member of Centuria received officer training in 2020 at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in the U.K., according to the report, and another attended Germany’s Army Officer Academy in Dresden in 2019.

“To be clear I don't suggest that Ukraine is run by neo-Nazis, or that the Ukrainian military is dominated by the far-right…what I say is that there are strong indications that Ukraine ignores an evident issue and so do its Western allies.”

Article:
NATO’s think tank the Atlantic Council, funded by the US and European governments, promoted Ukraine’s neo-Nazi Azov Battalion in 2014, depicting its far-right extremist fighters as anti-Russia heroes while whitewashing their fascist ideology.

When some US lawmakers launched a campaign to try to get Azov listed as a terrorist organization, due to its close links to violent white-supremacist fascist groups inside the United States, the Atlantic Council pushed back.

The swastika in the group picture may be fake, per photo forensics:
Article:
The Nazi-cross DOES look very different, similar as the black areas on the faces. So that might indeed be an indication that that flag has been edited in?

Now that we can safely conclude that the NAZI-flag was edited in later
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
As they just did with Ukraine.
The Russian perspective is that of the separatists in Luhansk and Donezk.
After these seceded from Ukraine in 2014, Ukraine fought them.
Ulraine sent the Azov batallion to do it, and they pushed the boundary back.
From the separatist perspective, half of "their" "ethnic Russian" territory is occupied by neo-nationalist Ukranian soldiers (and their Western neonazi friends come for training). It sounds like a recipe for ethnic conflict.
Map_of_Donbass_Republics.jpg
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.
The Russian perspective is that of the separatists in Luhansk and Donezk.
After these seceded from Ukraine in 2014, Ukraine fought them.

Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah - you need to step back 8 years and replay things at a slower speed. Who were "the separatists"? Did they have the right to "secede"? Can your neighbour "secede" from wherever you live and shoot you for disagreeing?
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah - you need to step back 8 years and replay things at a slower speed. Who were "the separatists"? Did they have the right to "secede"? Can your neighbour "secede" from wherever you live and shoot you for disagreeing?
The separatists thought they could, and did.
Russia points out that Kosovo did as well.

My post isn't about your perspective, or the "right" perspective, it's about Russia's.
Solving conflicts without acknowledging each other's perspectives rarely works out well.

And from Russia's perspective, Ukraine sent the nazi soldiers to suppress the ethnic Russian minority.
 
Last edited:

Rory

Senior Member.
The swastika in the group picture may be fake, per photo forensics:

Not really per FotoForensics but rather per somebody's untrained eye thinking there's something in it.

As Deirdre said, that's a very lame analysis. For example:

The Nazi-cross DOES look very different, similar as the black areas on the faces. So that might indeed be an indication that that flag has been edited in

Inverting the image in Photoshop shows more clearly that the black on the Swastika is very different to the black used to obscure the faces:

1646437296871.png

There is a fake version of that image in existence (from 2014):

1646437736258.png
Source: twitter.com/Ukroblogger/status/538664778450087936

But it's the Azov flag that was changed and it's very easy to tell (lots of Photoshop blurring and glitches).

Here's how good FotoForensics is at identifying that:

1646438063808.png
http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=9d7a8933820ffc19073d44bf49815f4be6d7d0b4.1389931
 
Last edited:

Rory

Senior Member.
Yes really per fotoforensics. Look up the source of my quote, it's literally that site, and an expert opinion.

I'm not sure he's really an "expert", even if he did make the app. Certainly possible that he could be wrong on this one (several on his Twitter feel that's the case).

If it's photoshopped, it's a tremendously good job. But curious that the original has never shown up. And probably it's only an argument because there was a fake photoshopped version (the one with the pro-Russia flag in it).

If the Swastika was added it raises the question as to why Azov were holding up an Austrian or Leuven flag. Unless one of the red bands was changed from some other colour.

Seems much more likely and straightforward it was one of these:

1646495054528.png
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Russia introduced the anti-nazi resolution. Yet they, too, have neonazis fighting in this war. I'm excerpting a list, the source has more details on each.
Article:
Because some people are eager to ignore all of the Nep-Nazi/Fascist/Third Positionist/Generally reactionary forces aligned with Russia in this conflict, here is a thread of them:
  1. Russian National Unity
  2. Russian Orthodox Army
  3. Russian Imperial Movement
  4. Taskforce Rusich
  5. Wagner Group
  6. The Other Russia
  7. Eurasia Party
  8. Night Wolves
media_FNWtZpSVQAEF_1t.jpeg.jpg
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
I'm not clicking some suspicious link (ie nitter)
I've been linking there because it has the whole twitter thread on a single page (couldn't find it on threadreaderapp), but you can also read it on Twitter itself.

Here's an example item from The Times, showing that Russia has "neonazis fighting in this war":
Article:
More than 400 Russian mercenaries are operating in Kyiv with orders from the Kremlin to assassinate President Zelensky and his government and prepare the ground for Moscow to take control, The Times has learnt.

The Wagner Group, a private militia run by one of President Putin’s closest allies and operating as an arm-length branch of the state, flew in mercenaries from Africa five weeks ago on a mission to decapitate Zelensky’s government in return for a handsome financial bonus.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
but you can also read it on Twitter itself.
thanks! i would have read your "imgur posts" in the info control thread, if you had just linked the actual twitter thread too.

Here's an example item from The Times, showing that Russia has "neonazis fighting in this war":
How is that showing neo-nazis? (and an article of someone just saying something is not proof, we need like pics of insignias on shirts or something)

although if Zelensky and his government friends end up decapitated i might believe your link.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
One more image for the "Azov like swastikas and skulls" archive:

1654194317646.png
Source: reddit.com/r/vexillology/comments/q7387h/reason_for_the_different_colors_im_sorry (though originally on pikabu.ru)

Article about the "Misanthropic Division" here:

https://newcoldwar.org/death-wotan-extremist-militias-ukraine/

Within the Azov Battalion we find the Misanthropic Division, founded in October 2013 from within the Social-National Assembly (SNA), seen by its members as a “National Socialist paramilitary group” and which passed its baptism of fire in the “Ukrainian revolution,” as they call Euromaidan. The group is driven by a racist cult-like ideology that has its foundations in Nazi fascism, in “paganism” and a stress on hero cult and death fantasies.

“National Socialism is more than a doctrine, it is a philosophy of life and religion,” says an anonymous spokesman for the group.
Misanthropic Division follows a crude death and war cult, much like its Russian sister organization “Wotan youth”. The war will become an end in itself as the development of “supermen” who kill and die “in the service of the cause” is transfigured into the supreme duty.
Content from External Source

“Töten für Wotan” means “Killing for Odin".
 

FatPhil

Senior Member.
Within the Azov Battalion we find the Misanthropic Division, founded in October 2013 from within the Social-National Assembly (SNA), seen by its members as a “National Socialist paramilitary group” and which passed its baptism of fire in the “Ukrainian revolution,” as they call Euromaidan. The group is driven by a racist cult-like ideology that has its foundations in Nazi fascism, in “paganism” and a stress on hero cult and death fantasies.

“National Socialism is more than a doctrine, it is a philosophy of life and religion,” says an anonymous spokesman for the group.
Misanthropic Division follows a crude death and war cult, much like its Russian sister organization “Wotan youth”. The war will become an end in itself as the development of “supermen” who kill and die “in the service of the cause” is transfigured into the supreme duty.
Content from External Source
“Töten für Wotan” means “Killing for Odin".

Why do they put "paganism" in quotes? There's nothing unusual about holding nationalistic and pagan beliefs simultaneously. Respect for the country and respect for the land and nature almost go hand in hand. (I probably seem to be elevating their attitudes/behaviour to being "respect" more than they deserve, I'm not intending to imply I hold their views in any great regard by that.)

Local to here, our "Odin"-themed bunch of nationalist vigilantes are (in their respective tongues) the "Soldiers for Odin", who started in Finnish Lappland, but has since spread over the country and to both Sweden and Estonia (apparently in 2016 - but I only saw a gang of them for the first time about two weeks ago, they probably live and gather in different districts of town from where I am).
The Estonian branch declared itself apolitical, and said only Muslims, those under-18, and those with criminal records involving offences against women and children were barred from joining. It said it plans to set up groups of 10-20 vigilantes in several Estonian cities.
Content from External Source
-- https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/vigilante...mmigrant-tallinn-torch-lit-procession-1544405

Now, where was that apologist dude who suggested - of his own free choice - Finland is a less Nazi country than Ukraine? I may have a few more datapoints for him to stew over...
 
So, on RNU, just because a organization isn't literally registered somewhere, has absolutely 0 standing on anything surrounding it. None of the cyber crime groups RIS calls on to do CNA are registered at all. If we held up the same view there, them not being registered at all means we can't attribute their state affiliations, which is no where near accurate. No, RNU was not registered in Russia, it's not registered anywhere, although it was created in Russia by Russians living in Russia to conduct acts in Russia and sometimes adjacently in other former soviet nations.
With that said, presenting that alongside a claim that "neonazis are fighting in Ukraine" is misleading. There's nothing indicating RNU has participated in kinetic activities inside Ukraine. What RNU has been connected too is relations with the Russian Orthodox Army (indicated in the picture), not that they themselves participated in fighting. And tagging onto that because it got skewed a bit also, Azov was not registered in its original form, same as RNU isn't registered. It is a comparable example in terms of registration existence, just that Azov has since developed official and formal connections with a host government, RNU has not.

And on the point of releasing neo nazis from prison, well, they are fighting for their countries independence from someone they (fairly) believe is trying to erase their culture and peoples. It's a whole of society battle. Same thing would happen in most countries really, being a neo nazi is very low on the list of reasons not to release a prisoner to fight against an invasion and possible erasure of their society. So, it's not entirely accurate to state that as a specific reason that they're "friendly" to them.

And on Russia, Rusich absolutely hass supremacists, you can find pictures of those folks online and some pretty disturbing videos I'm not comfortable linking. DPR&LPR also has folks fighting for it that hold such views.

1, 2, 3, 4


Screenshot (12147).pngScreenshot (12148).pngScreenshot (12151).pngScreenshot (12150).pngScreenshot (12149).png
 
it would be helpful if you (selectively) quoted posts you're replying to, explained abbreviations, and sourced your claims.
I was replying at large, didn't realize you could quote multiple people in the same post originally, my apologies.
RNU is an abbreviation your very source used, it stands for Russian National Unity, everything about it as is indicated in the very source you posted, alongside the follow up tweet by by deirdre. CNA stands for cyber network attack.
The claims I made wrt supremacists being present in pro-Russian forces was also sourced, as seen by the 4 twitter posts and the 5 screenshots. I posted them because only you had posted sources claiming as such, but all of them were purely commentary and had no actual corroborating materials that any specific person with those views were involved in fighting inside Ukraine, so I sourced some corroborating examples that do actually showcase specific people with relevant imagery or objects.


The part about the original form of Azov not being registered cannot really be source because there was no registration, and you don't register to be unregistered. It became a formal organization with registration and enrollment into Ukranian forces in the end of 2014 around September-Novemberish, not sure the specific date in re the day. Azov in its original form was a volunteer group that was *not* integrated into Ukraines military, but rather was *supported* by their Ministry of Internal Affairs, there is nothing indicating at this point that it was an actively registered entity. And neither of us have access to the restricted databases that would host that material if it existed, so can't really source that directly. At the point they officially formed under the name of Azov, it is indeed clearly insinuated that the registration would be included alongside that "integration", as two split offs from the original group were then recombined into a volunteer police force.
https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/mappingmilitants/profiles/azov-battalion "
"After months of fighting in 2014, the Azov Battalion cemented its status as a core defense unit. On September 17, 2014, Ukraine designated the Azov Battalion “regiment” status.[18] This gave it official recognition as an auxiliary security force. In October 2014, Biletsky left the group to participate in politics. He used his unit’s victory in Mariupol to launch a successful political campaign. Biletsky was elected to Ukrainian Parliament as an independent in November 2014, and remained a member until 2019.

On November 12, 2014, Ukraine designated the Azov Battalion “Special Purpose Regiment” status and formally integrated it into the National Guard.[19] In December 2014, the Patriot of Ukraine formally disbanded and remaining members integrated into the Azov Battalion.[20]"

https://web.archive.org/web/2015011...tuznika-v-komandira-batalona-Azov--17031.html
https://www.unian.info/politics/1526119-azov-regiment-announces-creation-of-own-party.html
https://hromadske.ua/posts/my-namah...o-vsiaki-mozhlyvosti-iak-azov-staie-partiieiu
 
Last edited:
Top