Snopes has a pretty good summary of what Azov is and isn’t: https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/03/02/what-is-ukraines-azov-battalion/
It can't be denied that the situation in Ukraine is complicated and involves unpleasantly motivated ideologues on both sides. It should be recognised however that must always be the case. Even the USA had large rallies of Nazis at the beginning of WW2 but that did not compromise the fact that Hitler eventually declared war on the USA because it threatened Hitler's ambitions in Europe. This made the USA broadly anti Nazi as a nation even though many of its citizens sympathised with Hitler and his Nazi regime. I think it quite possible that many of those previously Nazi American citzens fought bravely for their country against the Japanese after Pearl Harbour yet some may have even still retained their Nazi sympathies. War and allegiances are complicated. It can’t be denied also that Russia invaded Ukraine and Ukraine is a sovereign state, even though many of its people speak Russian. It has suffered unprovoked attack by a hostile force and the labelling of some of its resistance to an obvious enemy as Nazi elements within its military is merely sophistic obfuscation and an attempt to justify the insane actions of a Russian tyrant. One cannot label Jewish victims of pogroms neo-Nazis but even the memorial to the manny thousands of victims of Nazi genocide at Sobibor has been attacked by the "Liberating Russian forces", repeating the fact that in WW2 the "Liberating Russians" continued their own anti Semitic pogroms there, after the Nazis left off. Yes, the situation is complicated but let's not see any attempts to justify Putin's warmongering and empire building aggression by labelling as Nazis the forces trying to defend Ukraine from unprovoked attack masterminded by a psychopathic tyrant, novichock murderer and intimate aquaintance of ex-President Trump. .
We can all agree the Azov Battalion is repugnant, but surely we can also respect in times of total war some decisions can get very murky and gray. I don't know if I would have made the decision to break bread with neo-nazi military units (or perhaps more accurately nazi-like), especially because you don't want to make heroes out of them and then be forced to give them agency and political power in a reconstructed Ukraine, but that's a lot easier for me to say when my country is not on the brink of collapse. Given they're a trained and capable military force it is at least comprehensible why in such a time of crisis it makes sense to turn a blind eye. I don't think it's fair to "withdraw prayers" for the Ukrainian people on the basis of a fringe group of extremists. Pray for the people of Ukraine, and trust God to ensure the delivery of your request is just.
Yeah but if you see the articleI provided, neo-Nazi groups like Right Sector began to be employed long before the war. Some during the last year, and some being close friends of the administration and going as far back as 2015 and such.
Was it really unprovoked? Let's remember the Warsaw Pact nations, the USSR's answer to NATO. The Warsaw Pact was abandoned in the 1990s under the Budapest Agreement, in which Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons and all parties, east and west, agreed that Ukraine would remain neutral (would never join NATO). Ukraine thereby was supposed to be a 'buffer zone' that keeps NATO missiles farther away from Russia's borders in that part of the area; this helped Russia feel somewhat safer from potential attack by the West (remember Russia's paranoia stemming from WWII). Ukraine has been agitating to join NATO for a while now. This past Feb. 20, VP Kamala Harris attended the Munich Security Conference, where she told Ukraine they should join NATO (which would violate the Budapest Agreement). Four days later, Russia invaded Ukraine. BTW, one of the top sticking points in current negotiations is that Ukraine refuses to say it will not join NATO! People call Putin a bully (and worse), but he's logical. I can't say that for our current US administration. Zelenskyy is Tweedle-Dee to Biden's Tweedle-Dum and Harris' Tweedle-Dumber.
Tell me, did that ACTUALLY violate the Budapest Agreement? I'd like to know. I'm not sure he IS logical, judging from his actual behaviour, like Hitler's begaviour at the end, in the bunker. Maybe he's just cunning and feels cornered. .
Guide on how to term any leader in the world: Leaders that invade countries we don't like: Churchill Leaders that invade countries we like: Hitler Where countries we like are defined as democracies™ and countries we don't like are defined as those nations outside of the Global American Empire.
To clarify, I'm not saying definitely that Harris' statement to Ukraine violated it (although it may have, but I don't know the technicalities). I'm saying that it would violate the agreement for Ukraine to join NATO or be officially offered membership in NATO. For VP Harris to suggest this course of action was, at best, stupid, reckless, and provocative. The US is the most powerful member of NATO, so Harris' action could easily have been construed as intent on the part of the US government to push the other NATO allies into accepting Ukraine in the fold... essentially a fait accompli.
Azov being normalised goes back to the 2014 annexation of Crimea and invasion of Donetsk. That's when sentiment began shifting away from those groups being dangerous splinter factions in the military that might ignite a civil war, to being necessary evils in the fight against Russia. Increasingly year on year fewer and fewer people saw them as more immediate threats than Russia and so quietly began to ignore their views "for the greater good". This is still war being murky. In Ukraine's eyes this war didn't start this year, Russia has been occupying Ukrainian territory for 8 years. In the West we pretend like this is a new war, because it makes us feel like we haven't been leaving Ukraine out to dry and ignoring their pleas for nearly a decade, but it's the same war just at different levels of escalation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances According to the memorandum, Russia, the US and the UK confirmed their recognition of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine becoming parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and effectively abandoning their nuclear arsenal to Russia and that they agreed to the following: Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders. Refrain from the threat or the use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine. Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine to influence their politics. Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used". Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments. Clearly one of the problems with this is that it is unworkable, and in particular item 4 seems pointless given that Russia has a veto on the security council.
You're getting this backwards. Russia is violating the Budapest Memorandum. Ukraine (arguably) have violated the Minsk agreements. Budapest was an agreement by the European nuclear powers that they would never threaten force against the buffer states, never threaten their territorial integrity, and never interfere in their governance. In exchange for this mutual protection from the major powers they either destroyed or handed over their nukes to Russia. It never said the buffer states couldn't pursue their own destinies, it was a bunch of security guarantees to them in exchange for getting rid of their nuclear weapons. Russia invading Ukraine (both in 2014 and today) is Russia breaching the Budapest Memorandum. If Ukraine had never disposed of their nukes, Russia never would have breached Ukraine's territorial integrity. Russia is only confident in running their current military operation because Ukraine cannot level Moscow. This is a clear violation of what Russia promised. The Minsk protocols are what Putin has actually argued Ukraine have breached. Minsk was a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine in Donetsk and Luhansk. This essentially gave the Russian separatists control over the Donbas and ended fighting. Both sides have breached this ceasefire dozens of times, it's functionally impossible to know who is at fault, but its Ukraine's breaches that Russia has argued are illegal and justify retaliation. Putin getting uppity about NATO is not based on any treaty. He has simply said they would not tolerate it, as it compromises Russia's security. It would be like Mexico forming a military alliance with China, likely leading to a military buildup on the US's southern border - Mexico has never promised the US they would not, but the US would likely still tell Mexico that's a no-go. Ukraine has never signed an agreement with Russia that it would not join a defensive alliance stopping Russia from being able to invade Ukraine, obviously.
Some more grist for the mill: video of a Ukrainian neo-Nazi youth camp, funded by American money aimed at “opposing Putin” See young people raise their Seig Heils and have the hair stand on the back of your neck: https://twitter.com/maajidnawaz/status/1500584104479309828?s=21
But did Russia's invasion of Ukraine ACTUALLY violate the Budepest Agreement? I don't think Ukraine or any NATO country signed up to it has YET, have they? But has Russia violated it? I've no idea what's in it. Anyone know what and who signed up for what? Perhaps if we knew it might clarify who's at fault here. But of course it has long become fashionable since the invasion of Iraq for anyone to invade anyone else's country on scant evidence, (eventually often proven falsified), in order to pursue their own national objectives to their own supposed advantage nowadays. .
Russia has indisputably violated Budapest multiple times. It's within scope to say that the UK, France and the US have violated Budapest with respect to their sanctions on Belarus. To some extent past and current sanctions on Russia are also in effect economic attacks on Belarus and Kazakhstan for being close to Russia, and so also breach Budapest on that basis.
Okay, I finally came across the text of the document and you are correct that Budapest didn't include a promise from Ukraine to stay out of NATO. But didn't the US promise Russia in 1990 that NATO would never move farther east? And hasn't NATO done just that (Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland were admitted to NATO in 1999; Bulgaria, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia were admitted to NATO in 2004; Albania and Croatia in 2009)? Therefore, VP Harris' statement of support for Ukraine to join NATO was incendiary. I also read somewhere that (allegedly, I can't confirm) even before Zelensky took office, Ukraine had made the goal of joining NATO part of their constitution. In addition, military bases (US-specific or NATO, not sure which) were added around 2014-'15 in several of those admitted-to-NATO nations I listed above. My statement that Russia understandably feels threatened still stands. The buffer that existed in the 1990s has almost entirely eroded.
Though apparently having amassed 120,000 strong army on the border of Ukraine was not? The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and The United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ukraine._Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances There can be little doubt that the Russian Army, and Putin in particular has used the Russian Army in ways that would clearly to to be an absolute violationof the agreement. Is there any real substance that NATO can not move further East, as a promise by NATO or indeed by the USA. On balance it seems probably not. https://www.politifact.com/factchec...hecking-claims-nato-us-broke-agreement-again/ If you think that Ukraine is a Sovereign Nation, then one would imagine as a sovereign nation it is free to act as a sovereign nation: A sovereign state, also known as sovereign country, is a political entity represented by one centralized government that has sovereignty over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states. It is also normally understood that a sovereign state is independent. According to the declarative theory of statehood, a sovereign state can exist without being recognised by other sovereign states. Unrecognised states will often find it difficult to exercise full treaty-making powers or engage in diplomatic relations with other sovereign states. I would think that Ukraine's membership of NATO is a matter for Ukraine and NATO to decide. Anything else would simply be sideline commentary. What Zellenskyy has brought to the table is a significant loss of power to the Olligarchs in both Russia and the Ukraine. This is one of a number of factors driving this conflict. We somehow need to ensure that we are not bullied by Putin to think that he is in the right, when clearly he is not, now are sold slipshod by an opiniated and lazy western media that does not want us to understand all the issues. Remember the Patriarch of Moscow and the Patriarch of Kyiv are on either side of this conflict, and they both have vested interests at stake as well. The level of Russia's perceived threat is questionable. NATO has not conucted wars per se, and Russia has the fifth largest standing army. I am not sure that VP Harris was well enough briefed (an not for the first time) but need to need to make sure that we are not simply against anything she says just because she is on the other side.
But would those sanctions have been after or before the violation of Ukraine and other nations anexed by Russia since the agreement was first drawn up? .
But that 'buffer' was countries that had been occupied against their will by the USSR, not Russia. That 'buffer zone' did not want to be a 'Russian' buffer zone and feared being once again controlled by 'Russian' Leaders and 'Russian' forces unwelcome in their, in effect, 'annexed by Russia', countries. Russia's paranoia about being invaded is admittedly a product of historical experience, under attack from Napoleon, Hitler and Imperial Japan from the east, but Russia was not entirely innocent of its own empire building ambitions under its own much vaunted, legendary ‘Great’, tzars. Putin is on record as having ambitions of turning his 'empire reclaiming' clock back to them. He probably very much sees himself as a Napoleon a Hitler or Hirohito himself, but 'nice' ones not 'nasty' ones. His military adventure is already getting out of hand for him. He has yet to have his Moscow moment in Ukraine like Napoleon and Hiler did in Russia, but I hope it is coming soon and it brings all his 'friends' down with him. .
Plenty of finger-pointing is happening, and there's plenty of blame to go around. The old maxim, "two wrongs don't make a right" applies. Just because a country can "legally" do something doesn't mean they should, and doesn't necessarily make it right. I am not trying to justify Russia here, because I agree they've done things that were wrong; I'm trying to explain why certain other countries should have known that they were poking the bear in its own den. You know what will happen sooner or later when you do that. What really gets me is that people are saying, "The bear came out! Bad bear! Let's poke it harder!" and they think it will make the bear stop.
The first wave of sanctions would be post Russia's invasion of Georgia - which is not a signatory to Budapest as they never had nuclear weapons. The second and third waves were post invasions of Ukraine. Regardless, Russia invading Ukraine doesn't mean Kazakhstan has invaded Ukraine, so it's sort of a moot point. The more relevant point is "should the letter of the Budapest agreement preclude acting in the spirit". That is, obviously the current sanctions on Russia are financially penalising Russia's close economic partners, and as a consequence is steering Kazakhstan away from Russia. That's likely a breaching of the wording of the Budapest Memorandum. However, this action is being taken to defend Ukraine from hostile attack by Russia. Which is the spirit of the agreement. So should some clumsy wording in the agreement stop us from acting fully to ensure it does its job? Of course not. So who cares that some people might argue our sanctions breach Budapest, if we don't sanction Russia we may as well throw the thing out anyway.