Going back a few pages....
EGO_Aut wrote: ↑Sun, 2. Oct 22, 14:12
@Chips
I am amazed about your Whataboutism, that you look so far into the past and mention Austria and WW2. Israel, Azerbaijan, Türkiye would be much more obvious in terms of time.
Btw every nation has his neo nazis, not only UKR or RU.
Indeed, neo-nazi's are everywhere. The thing is, only one side brought them up to start with; those explaining away Russia's actions.
So - to address this fairly fully. Russia gave it's reason to invade as NATO. That's it, there was no mention of nazi's or other until post invasion. We've previously posted links where they examined the frequency pre/post invasion and found it wasn't mentioned until a week after the war started and Putin started bringing it up.
Yes, Azov Batallion is broadly speaking "neo nazi". I previously posted a Youtube video which followed reporters examining it's links, and how they ran "summer camps" for kids with militaristic training themes. That was broadly in response to someone saying the UK is training neo nazis.
So any mention of Nazi is because it's being repeatedly levelled at Zelensky and a justification (by some in this thread) for invasion based upon how "Russian citizens" were being persecuted in Eastern Ukraine - therefore mandating the requirement to invade. Further references by posters are questioning that and pointing out that behaviour wise, Putin is exhibiting behaviour more fitting than Zelensky, is precisely that. Zelensky isn't exhibiting nazi tendencies, though obviously there are both supporters and elements of military that do. Posting blurry-as-hell pictures of an image on someone's back does not make him a nazi sympathiser, nor a nazi either. To try and paint a picture as such is laughable in the extreme and precisely the misinformation being peddled by certain segments of certain media propaganda elements. Unsurprisingly, this link to the a Guardian article about one such person... may give some enlightenment to others in this thread
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2022/ ... propaganda
Anyway, I previously pointed out that Ukraine had shelved the idea of joining NATO in 2010, and even following the flee of Yanukovych after the Maiden protests, it was reiterated that there were plans to remain neutral and not join NATO.
That was until Russia (invaded and) annexed the Crimea, at which point they determined joining NATO should be a priority due to the threat posed by Russia and remaining unaligned.
In other words, Russia caused the very reasoning they used to justify a war. On top of that, you have Putin stating Ukraine should never have existed and shouldn't... so that leaves little doubt as to why Ukraine was correct in determining it should join NATO; self defence.
Talk about nazi's is a post invasion construct to give extra justifications for actions, but were never part of the original "special operation" reasoning. Meanwhile, they're continually referred to in this thread by some who claim that by trying to point out actions taken by groups and individuals, it's "highlighting our hypocrisy."
So highlighting azov battalion does not remain justifications for what is going on whatsoever. Whatabouttery allegation thrown, yet when people engage in going "you castigate Russia, but look, in 2018 60 civilians died in public unrest within Odessa, but you've not accepted this as a reason why Russia must do what it is doing and therefore is hypocrisy to condemn Russia bombing civilians and I'm highlighting this to you because you refuse to see Russia's perspective".
As said, we've heard Russia's original justification, we've heard their ongoing reasoning, and we've been repeatedly told in this thread other justifications/reasoning too.
But the bottom line is... Russia signed up to the Geneva conventions in 1954, and has violated them repeatedly. Whatabouttery with references to civilian unrest/issues in areas of Ukraine, the Azov battalion, doesn't excuse Russia's violating Geneva conventions by blowing up civilians. Nor does saying the USA have done so in Iraq and Afghanistan either. Trying to claim hypocrisy for not accepting the "nazi" line as justification for Russia's military actions against civilians; those aren't miscalculation/accidents, or civil unrest led - they're intentional. The murder of hundreds in a village isn't "accidental deaths".
But honestly, there's zero point explaining this because this thread is 158 pages long and still we have people trying to explain Russia's actions as being just with
actual whatabouttery.
I'm afraid in this instance I'll side with the UN (who also has commented upon Ukraine and ethnic Russians in the east and their treatment -- but didn't ask for Russia to invade and kill civilians to protect those people) who voted overwhelmingly to call for Russia to stop and withdraw from the Ukraine.
That's literally that needs to be said. But still we have people trying to explain Russia's right to "defend" itself by attacking, or has to in order to protect civilians, or is right to take back land that is theirs. Or bafflingly, that Zelensky is a nazi and therefore the nation needs invading? I don't get that line I have to admit.
(p.s. Read a few articles on the Grayzone, to be very blunt, if that's the only source someone has for certain information - there's a reason for that).