You may not even be able to express calls for peace and be a conscientious objector! https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/china-censors...

War makes unlikely alliances. If you're fighting for the existence of your country you're not going to say no to the help of nazis. And if you're using the biggest social media platform on the planet to organize that war, you're going to want your allies on it.

What you've just discovered is that a unified policy across the entire world isn't actually the right policy. In one country you may want to ban some stuff you wouldn't ban in another one.

I just hope no one ever uses the catchy rule of thumb that"if 9 people sit around a table with 1 nazi, there are 10 nazis around that table" again seriously after this haha. It's that not even 1 month ago if one person at a protest had a nazi flag everyone protesting there was also labeled a nazi. But you got NATO publicly glorifying soldiers with literal nazi insignia (the black sun) and that's just being the good guys now.

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

I had never heard of Oliver Stone's "Ukraine On Fire" documentary until YouTube banned it, so I watched it last night to see what the problem was. It seemed to be a well documented summary of the events in Ukraine in the last 25 years or so. One notable thing was the number of times Nazis were entered into the picture, and it is strange that no one is talking about it.

I can say my perspective has changed a little bit on the subject.

Those Nazi groups may have been established by a certain foreign nation primarily to discredit the civil movement and to establish cause for military intervention.

I don't disagree, they are the perfect boogeyman. The problem is that if they may have started as just a boogeyman, they have undeniably grown to be an actual problem with huge institutional power.

That's why if you support ukraine, making excuses instead of wanting them gone is just playing right in the hands of russian propaganda. The more those groups grow in influence (like they have been doing since the start of the invasion), the more it's going to be hard to deny for western powers by just claiming it's a Russian red hereing.

Doesn't seem likely, TBH. Azov Battalion is apparently part of the Ukraine's national guard [1].

[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion

Somehow, that particular page doesn’t seem trustworthy at this point in time.

Ok, so I took a look, and it doesn't seem like that it was created (or made more biased) in response to the recent events. Here's the history of that Wikipedia page if you'd like to see older versions: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azov_Battalion&of...

> One notable thing was the number of times Nazis were entered into the picture, and it is strange that no one is talking about it.

The violent phase of the Maiden square riots looked like postapocalyptic neonazi live action roleplaying. Clear nazi esthetics. I guess many of them were to, in hindsight.

It is strange becouse I guess the Ukraine gov. does not need the Azov batallion anymore. They probably can't get rid of them (easely) even if they wanted.

As long as Ukraine fighting a war, that would be impossible. If they will sign peace and focus on economic development to join EU, neo-nazi topic will change its polarity and become toxic again. There is no way Ukraine can join EU with "Pravy sector" being legal organization.

With "war" do you mean 2014+ or the full invasion?

I understand that the gov. can't disband them now since they will just disobey orders and there is no resources to arrest them, but there was plenty of time before that.

Using more or less neonazis as a separate unit is just begging for problems, even if you are fighting separatist militia. Thinking about it, it is total madness. There is a insane internal security risk having them in a unit.

2014+, but that doesn’t really matter.

Was Russia invading that protest at the time?

Does that matter? So national socialist groups are okay in times of war? Associating with Neonazi groups is suddenly fine when they are fighting on the side you cheer for?

Fuck the russian government and their war of aggression, unequivocally. Ive lost a distant friend in syria during The russian government's intervention there, and some of my current refugee friends lost their homes to their bombs. So yes I have no love for putins regime.

But can we please stop making excuses for literal nazis ? It's so weird to basically normalize or even encourage such groups because you don't want to agree with anything russia says. Those groups have been growing for the past 2 weeks because of that completely passive attitude where no one wants to be criticizing "our team". They can openly wear insignia designed by Himmler in front of cameras and still be praised by NATO. I think we should realize that this is not a marvel movie with a clear good vs bad plot. So there's nothing wrong with admitting there is a huge far right problem and still be against the invasion. The "good side" can be criticized without support the "evil side"

For the past few years I've been hearing that we can focus on more than a single issue at the time, so why not do that? Because wow this completely insane 180° on far right groups in a mere 2 weeks really really make the craze around anti fascism and nazism accusations in the past 5 years look like complete poltical theater. At this point I won't even be surprised if we start justifying actual war crimes if the Good side does it.

Yes. When you're fighting for literal survival, if you're so married to virtue signaling at that point that you don't fight the existential threat first, you're probably fucked.

Do I like nazis? No. Do I associate with them? No. If working together with one is how I stop some jackass from killing us both, am I going to do it? Sure as hell yes.

What you don't seem to realize is that those aren't your LARPer nazis that roam around on discord just to sound edgy and cool. They have literally committed war crimes, rapes and torture. And that's been documented since 2015.

By not trying to root them out now they will inexorably take over whatever will be left of ukraine. That's almost always what happens with radical armed elements, and as I said they are getting way more comfortable with not even hiding anymore. I can't think of any example where fighting side by side with radical extremists didn't end up backfiring. And beyond that I mean if the UA government can't even get their soldiers to not wear black sun pins openly and openly & explicitly promotes azov on social media, that really does not sound like they are even reluctant to have them on their side.

It's a war and I totally get that it's dirty and that you can't pick and chose your allies everytime. But nazis are an easy line to draw.

> They have literally committed war crimes, rapes and torture. And that's been documented since 2015.

A month ago all the alleged war criminals were sitting in jails (convicted ones are still incarcerated). This doesn't equal to rehabilitation.

>What you don't seem to realize is that those aren't your LARPer nazis that roam around on discord just to sound edgy and cool.

Fully aware of this, thing is, given their circumstances, I can't really give half a shit. It's amazing easy to wax lyrical about "morality" when you've got the safety guarantee of the most powerful military on the face of the earth. A bit harder when they're literally dropping shells on your head and driving tanks into your cities. I cannot, and will not judge them for compromising when facing a literally existential threat.

Can't exactly get anywhere else when you're just a Russian puppet government. Historically speaking, that's bringing a hell lot worse of a future to anyone in the region than the Azov ever could.

So supporting AL Qaida was morally right in the context of the American invasion/interference in the middle east? They were after all at the forefront of the fight against the invaders too.

That isn't really the gotcha you think it is. The world isn't some simple good/bad binary; one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist after all.

Moreover, when the US went to Afghanistan, I certainly didn't judge Al Qaeda for using "terrorist" tactics like IEDs, or non-uniformed combat, in violation of the Geneva convention. They could have gone with honourable conventional warfare. Then they'd be honorable corpses relatively quickly.

In the end, when war comes, compromise is inevitable. You might regret the consequences down the line, but without that compromise to begin with, you might not have had that future.

It wasn't a gotcha, and I don't disagree with the spirit of your comment. I really appreciate the consistency at least, but do you agree that you'd have been in a pretty tiny minority during the iraq or Afghanistan war?

In the US? Sure. In afghanistan? I'm not so sure.

But I think that's besides the point. You'd be a minority in Russia too if you opposed the war in the Ukraine right now.

I strongly dislike the lens of morality here, because especially in this case, its coming from those who are insulated from the... Extenuating circumstances the Ukrainians find themselves in.

Furthermore I belive that most would do the same given similar circumstances. Historically speaking, it wasn't THAT long ago that the West aligned with the rather brutal Soviets to defeat their nazi greater enemy.

Why do you think nazis are so despised, because they write nasty things on twitter?

Arming literal nazis with weapons and letting them loose in a lawless context is a criminally stupid thing to do. These guys have no problem harming civilians or anyone who they feel like, that’s what makes them bad guys.

> War makes unlikely alliances.

That is certainly true. There are many examples of that. Israel provided weapons and advisers to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. They even bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor for them. [1] A more widely known example is the alliance between US and the Soviets during the WW2.

> What you've just discovered is that a unified policy across the entire world isn't actually the right policy.

I disagree with that. The ideal "public square" platforms should be neutral. The best policy (which I think will work in almost all cases for general platforms like FB) is to stick to supporting free expression as much as the law permits, don't manipulate people's feeds, and develop tools to let people filter out the content they don't want to see.

[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%27s_role_in_the_Iran–...

But the laws are different in different countries ( duh!). Antisemitism isn't illegal in the US, but is an actual crime in France just to give one example.

Right, that's a contentious area. The extent of jurisdiction of e.g. France over FB seems very nebulous to me.

And even then, I'm sure they have a court process to determine who's guilty of "hate speech" (or thoughtcrime or whatever), and FB is capable of challenging the cases or complying with the rulings for French residents. I assume blanket prior restraint is frowned upon in freer countries of the world.

There are efforts to pass Draconian laws to limit free expression online though [1].

[1]: e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/18/world/europe/france-inter...

How should Facebook adjust policies on a country by country basis? Should Facebook ban content on homosexuality or marijuana use in countries where those things are illegal?

Yeah, probably. You might not like it, but if you want to do business in a country, you generally need to follow their laws. That's how this shit works. Don't like it? Don't do business there.

Of course they do.

>War makes unlikely alliances. If you're fighting for the existence of your country you're not going to say no to the help of nazis.

Well said. When Nazi Germany occupied Denmark it was a far-right conservative Danish resistance movement that helped Danish Jews flee to Sweden.

Where in the hell are you getting 10% from? Ukraine has a multi-party government and their neo-nazis don't have even a single seat in their rather large parliament.

I saw this yesterday but I do not know how accurate it is https://twitter.com/AngletonOrchids/status/15010254143865241...

My 8-10% figure is quite conservative when compared with recent polling data. The Neo-Nazi movements are popular enough that Zelenskyy had to walk back his anti-Banderite rhetoric that was a decent part of his comedic act pre-2015-ish (I have only seen a few of his comedic specials from before that year so this timeframe is a rough guess).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Bandera#Attitudes_in_Uk...

>A poll conducted in early May 2021 by the Democratic Initiatives Foundation together with the Razumkov Centre's sociological service showed that 32% of citizens consider Stepan Bandera's activity as a historical figure to be positive for Ukraine, as many consider his activity negative; another 21% consider Bandera's activities as positive as they are negative. According to the poll, a positive attitude prevails in the western region of Ukraine (70%); in the central region of the state, 27% of respondents consider his activity positive, 27% consider his activity negative and 27% consider his activity both positive and negative; negative attitude prevails in the southern and eastern regions of Ukraine (54% and 48% of respondents consider his activity negative for Ukraine, respectively).

>Monuments dedicated to Stepan Bandera have been constructured in a number of western Ukrainian cities, including a statue in Lviv, as well as Staryi Uhryniv, Kolomyia, Drohobych, Zalishchyky, Mykytyntsi, Uzyn, Buchach, Hrabivka, Horodenka, Staryi Sambir, Ternopil, Ivano-Frankivsk, Strusiv, Truskavets, Horishniy, Velykosilky, Sambir, Velyki Mosty, Skole, Turka, Zdolbuniv,Chortkiv, Sniatyn, and in such cities and villages as Berezhany, Boryslav, Chervonohrad, Dubliany, Kamianka-Buzka, Kremenets, Mostyska, Pidvolochysk, Seredniy Bereziv, Terebovlia, Verbiv, and Volia-Zaderevatska.

>In 2010 and 2011, Bandera was named an honorary citizen of a number of western Ukrainian cities, including Khust,Nadvirna, Ternopil, Ivano-Frankivsk, Lviv, Kolomyia, Dolyna,Varash, Lutsk, Chervonohrad, Terebovlia, Truskavets, Radekhiv, Sokal,Stebnyk, Zhovkva,Skole, Berezhany, Sambir,Boryslav, Brody, Stryi, and Morshyn.

Term "Nazi" originally and in modern Russian [propaganda] have a different meaning. "Being Ukrainian (speaking the language, knowing the history, preserving the culture)" is equal to being "Nazi" in the eyes of Russians.

So 10% are those, who would not make compromises related to language, history and culture to have some economic or political gains.

>Term "Nazi" originally and in modern Russian [propaganda] have a different meaning.

The militia that Stepan Bandera was a leader of exterminated an estimated ~200,000 Jews. I don't think the term "Nazi" is as different as you claim.

Please provide sources for any counterarguments you make. I welcome legitimate pushback to this polling data and the public historical claims.

> The militia that Stepan Bandera was a leader of exterminated an estimated ~200,000 Jews

That would constitute a crime against humanity. Can you point to any trial against members of this organisation?

>Can you point to any trial against members of this organisation?

That question is a canard, US allies are generally always given a pass.

The Imperial Japanese got a slap on the wrist for mass murders in Asia during WW2 criminal trials, since they were helping destabilize China.

Ukrainian Nazi groups were given similar treatment since they were helping fight the USSR.

This is common knowledge that any observant historian can verify.

Here are some details of the horrific history of Ukrainian Banderites committing genocide against innocent Jewish civilians.

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

TL;DR the link is about Ukrainians vs. Poles, not about Jews and/or Holocaust

Ukrainians and Poles were enthusiastically massacring each other for hundreds of years for various reasons (Catholics vs. Orthodox, serfs vs. land owners, nationalists vs. nationalists and so on). This part of history is accepted by both sides. It's true, that collateral damage included Jews sometimes. Some Eastern European Jewish historians describe it as "always choosing the wrong side". Jews were targeted for managing estates of Polish nobility, participation in establishment of Communist rule in Ukraine in 1920s, participation in establishment of Soviet rule in 1939-1941 in Western Ukraine. But they were never targeted for being Jews.

>But they were never targeted for being Jews.

I'm not sure why you are making so many ahistorical claims that are extremely easy to refute. Do you have an agenda?

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

>During the first year of the German occupation, the OUN urged its members to join German police units. They were trained in the use of weapons so they could assist the German SS in the murder of approximately 200,000 Volhynian Jews.

This page has links to 18 separate massacres where people in Ukraine were killed specifically because they were jews. Stop spreading disinformation and engaging in holocaust denial. The famous Simon Weisanthal even survived one of the massacres.

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

>The most notorious massacre of Jews in Ukraine was at the Babi Yar ravine outside Kiev, where 33,771 Jews were killed in a single operation on 29–30 September 1941

>According to The Simon Wiesenthal Center (in January 2011) "Ukraine has, to the best of our knowledge, never conducted a single investigation of a local Nazi war criminal, let alone prosecuted a Holocaust perpetrator."

That 8-10% sounds wildly overestimated. Furthermore, neo-Nazis tend to be young males, who can't even quit the country now and are mobilised in the army, not to mention that a neo-Nazi is the type of person to die for their country(really not saying that as a positive), so the number of neo-Nazi refugees should be in the tens of people, not hundreds of thousands.

Yes, mass refugee movements are laden with problems.

Ukraine's war is literally a dispute about what one country's policy should be.

Surprised to see no talk about revenue. I am highly cynical about it - This hate that we're talking about sells. It sells like hotcakes. The entire world is on a binge with it.

The other kind of hate that gets banned brings no revenue and upsets the core audience by the means of PR damage of the platform.

That's just it though. The position was never that it was BAD per-se.

It's just... They wanted to control who was permitted to express nationalist sentiment, who were acceptable targets of "hate", and who was allowed to own guns.

Ah no. Nazis are bad. But it’s okay to praise Nazis for doing good things.

This is perfectly internally consistent.

I think the saying is "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Notice that when that second enemy isn't there, the friendship vanishes as well.

Nazis can be accepted while fighting a bigger enemy without having to accept them when the enemy is defeated.

As Stalin said during WWII about working with the west: "You can walk with the devil to the end of the bridge."

But I think Schlock Mercenary has a better take on this: "The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more; no less."

Controversial take.

"Nazis who travel to Ukraine to fight Russians are less bad people doing morally and ethically ambiguous things. Once they leave Ukraine, the actions they performed involving Russians are both unethical (because they willingly travelled there to murder conscripted teenagers) and ethical (because they willingly travelled there, presumably to defend the sovereignty of a nation they have tenuous cultural links with)"

Just wait 'til the Ukrainian Foreign Legion starts to be accused of things like massacres (whether legitimate or false reports for propaganda), then guys who were marching in BLM counter protests who went to Ukraine (again, running with the bad nazis doing good things) will have their social media histories paraded about to defame the entire foreign legion.

But most of the nazis people speak of in the context of Ukraine are not foreigners traveling there, but Ukrainian citizens.

That changes things quite a bit, and definitely goes into the "none of our business, let the Ukrainians decide who is on their side" line of thinking for me, since all most of us are doing is putting blue and yellow on things and pretending that makes a difference.

I wouldn't be comfortable working with a Nazi on a line in a kitchen, just as I'm sure they'd say the same about me, but if Russia invaded here, I'd be quite comfortable "walking with him to the end of the bridge," as the other poster said. Deal with the day-to-day bologna after you've dealt with the once-in-a-century bologna.

Or the defense that they "can't" censor for the government.

That's not the point, really. This is real, hard proof, courtesy of Facebook and Instagram, that the West are a bunch of rabidly anti-Russian Nazis just like Putin has been saying all along! It's hard to think of a worse move. Now, if they had simply clarified that calls to military self-defense in the face of an internationally-condemned "military operation" don't count as "calls to violence", that would be a very different matter. But that's not what they did!

What's awkward right now is how people in the west say "nazi" because some Ukrainians are wearing some pagan symbols while defending their land.

While Russians are actually committing was crimes saying Ukrainian nation is not a real one.

The back sun isn't just a pagan symbol. This is pure revisionism, the exact version they use was literally designed by Himmler for the SS. Are we really doing " the swastika is just a religious symbol" or "the confederate flag is just about historic heritage" now?

Oh no, I'm just saying a lot of people concentrate more on symbols than they do on actions.

Nazism is evolving like everything else, and the new nazi symbol is Z.

They are going to have a hard time trying to explain themselves as to why they are praising Nazis on their platform and why they did not 'de-platform hate' especially those ones.

For companies like Facebook and Instagram, outrage sells; especially during a war. So why not squeeze out extra ads while they are at it?

I suspect this is the real reason. Condone "Outrage" whenever you think you can get away with it.

> boarders

I think you meant "borders".

edited

The Israeli military is arming and training the neo-nazi militias in Ukraine. There are even Orthodox Jews who joined the Azov neo-nazi militias to defend Ukraine. Sometimes it can be complicated.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/ukrainian-jews-push-back-again...

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/rights-groups-demand-isr...

Israel sells weapons to anyone, it's just business.

As for the "orthodox jews fighting alongside nazis", that is just an unfounded claim, without any evidence other than double hearsay in a third-rate newspaper.

Orthodox jews often don't serve even in Israel (inb4: yes, yes, ulta-orthodox, etc etc, but still, and yeshiva students are still exempt).

I'd like to see stronger evidence than hearsay for this extraordinary claim, does it exist?

Israel refused to sell the Iron Dome and similar systems to Ukraine, so not everyone.