Talk:Azov Brigade

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why has this been removed from the lede?

Why has the fact that Azov battalion is a far-right, neo-nazi group been removed from the lede? Could it be that such a thing became politically inconvenient? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.230.141.24 (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

You would need to ask the wp:rs that changed their opinions. We go by what RS say, and RS seem to now say they no longer are Neo-nazi. Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

No they do not. What they say is that Azov has been incorporated into Ukraine's armed forces. Western liberals take this to mean that Azov is no longer fascist, which is not the case. KetchupSalt (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Wrong, if you'd actually look at the references you'd see the references saying it depoliticised, not just being incorporated into the armed forces. TylerBurden (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

While reliable source may and do change their opinion, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and we should not disregard everything published before 2022 since now the media no longer use the N-word. Alaexis_¿question? 13:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

True, but then the problem becomes what do we say "used to be "alledged to be" "Used to be alleged"? Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

"Historically characterised as" would do the job. Alaexis_¿question? 15:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The lede is already providing this information, and we also had an rfc on this. There were also multiple strong sources prior to 2022 that pushed back on the neo-nazi label Tristario (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

As in "the group has drawn controversy over its early and allegedly continuing association with far-right groups and neo-Nazi ideology", so yes we already say it has these roots historically. This is what you get for AGF, and assuming people have actually read the lede before asking a question. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The first issue is acting like neo-Nazis are "far right" when they blatantly push for extreme left wing political positions. At least Nazism itself is extreme left wing anyway.

Second, the currently cited source is some dubious publication. I won't get into its value, but seems to have some serious bias.

Third, Wikipedia is well known to support confirmed biased sources. One of the issues of having self-appointed moderators I suppose. Especially on a political issue like this that desperately needs a different narrative. And just like the rest of hot topic Wiki, it's whoever is willing to sit there all day and "correct" the article against "vandalism" is who wins. This is one great example. Tempting as it is to at least remove "right wing" from the article since there's absolutely no right wing involvement of Azov, there's a garbage citation that is used. And using direct sources is prohibited on Wiki. You can only use secondary and opinion pieces. Sarstan (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Nazism itself is extreme left wing

This is so hilariously wrong I suggest you read the words of Adolf Hitler himself as to the NSDAP's political position and the way they deliberately appropriated socialist rhetoric because it was popular at the time. Good grief. KetchupSalt (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Source for your claim? Vedisassanti (talk) 10:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

If we assume for a moment that Hitler himself knew more about Nazi-ideology than modern randoms on the internet, then the following quote disproves your entire argument. Nazis and more broadly fascists in general have always been a far-right ideology.

"Our [Referring to the NSDAP] adoption of the term 'socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian socialism." -Adolf Hitler, December 28th, 1938 Valdorel (talk) 05:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@Vedisassanti: Try reading the post below yours, which you might have seen had you added your contribution at the end of the discussion (as is conventional) rather than inserting it retrospectively into the middle. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

militaryland.net

Militaryland.net does not pass WP:BLPSPS, I will be removing all citations by them in this article, please do not re-add them. Scu ba (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Which Azov?

@TylerBurden following the beginning of the invasion new "azov" units (formed by and asssociated with veterans of the azov regiment) began to be organized, which aren't actually part of the Azov Regiment/Brigade. These new units are part of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, rather than the National Guard of Ukraine. Given that the "Azov" referred to in this source is talking about a battle near Kyiv, whereas the Azov regiment of this page was located in mariupol, this is likely one of these new units. As far as I can tell these units already existed by April 2022, this source says they began to be organized on February 24, for instance. It's also questionable whether this should be in here since it's just a quote from a spokesperson for the National Corps political party Tristario (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Tristario Thanks for the clarification, I agree the source is rather vague so with that in mind I guess it'd be ok to remove. TylerBurden (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

No problem. Multiple entities using the name "Azov" makes things confusing Tristario (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2023

Add the slogan of the Azov battalion "Unbreakable, unconquerable, unstoppable!" (in Ukrainian: Незламні, нескорені, неспинні) to the Infobox military unit at the top

sources: https://gur.gov.ua/content/nezlamni-neskoreni-nespynni.html

https://mvs.gov.ua/news/nezlamni-neskoreni-nespinni-legendarnomu-azovu-vipovniujetsia-9-rokiv

https://krrda.dp.gov.ua/novini-ta-podiyi/novini/nezlamni-neskoreni-nespynni-azov-prodovzhuie-trymaty-rubezhi-na-pivdennomu-napriamku Ihor Frex (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. 73.93.5.246 (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Summary of new sources

There is a source summarizing latest expert articles on the subject https://lens.monash.edu/@politics-society/2022/08/19/1384992/much-azov-about-nothing-how-the-ukrainian-neo-nazis-canard-fooled-the-world
The “What about Azov Nazis?” canard has become a ubiquitous tu quoque that Russia deploys to problematise Western support for Ukraine, and distract from its own record of atrocities. Literally meaning “you also” in Latin, this logical fallacy is more informally known as “whataboutism”, and has been deployed in Russian propaganda for decades. In cruder terms, one might recall the playground retort, “I know you are, but what am I?”
Multiple expert assessments made in 2022 conclude the modern Azov Regiment is a fairly typical fighting unit, with little, if any, political bent.
Both Shekhovtsov and Gomza describe Azov as “depoliticised”, with Umland writing “its recruits now join not because of ideology, but because it has the reputation of being a particularly tough fighting unit”.
The Azov-Nazi obsession demonstrates a remarkable failure to engage with Ukrainian sources, including the experiences of its Jewish community, which has long been scathing of the Russian claim that neo-Nazim is widespread in Ukraine. Likhachev notes from that from 2014-2022 there were exactly zero reports of anti-Semitic incidents committed by Azov in Mariupol, despite the city’s sizeable Jewish community.
Shekhovtsov observes that the “Azov Nazi” narrative allows a sense of “moral procrastination” regarding Russia’s invasion. If the war pits two equally problematic sides against each other, inaction becomes morally justified. Manyareasexpert (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Lev Golinkin

Can you oppose an expert with a journalist? This is regarding latest edit [1] where we appeal Shekhovtsov with Lev Golinkin. Manyareasexpert (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

In the article Golikin brings several pieces of evidence to argue that the battalion has not been depoliticised, they are not mere opinions. Moreover, what he says is not a solitary point of view, in fact he thinks like Kuzmenko of Bellingcat. Mhorg (talk) 10:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Which expert are you referring to? Shekhovtsov? It's hardly like being an academic makes one immune to bias. What Golikin is highlighting is the fact that Western media before 2022 openly admitted that Ukraine has a neo-Nazi problem, a point that they have since silently dropped. The Guardian goes so far as to take fascists at their words. KetchupSalt (talk) 10:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

This all is summarized in an article by another expert - https://lens.monash.edu/@politics-society/2022/08/19/1384992/much-azov-about-nothing-how-the-ukrainian-neo-nazis-canard-fooled-the-world - Our media’s “obsession” with the Azov Regiment (the volunteer militia the Azov Battalion no longer exists) – a single unit of the Ukrainian National Guard – is based largely on superficial or out-of-date research.
Multiple expert assessments made in 2022 conclude the modern Azov Regiment is a fairly typical fighting unit, with little, if any, political bent.
There isn’t space to canvas all these in a short piece, but this is the conclusion of Anton Shekhovtsov, Ivan Gomza, Anders Umland, and Vyacheslav Likhachev. For a concise summary, Likhachev’s point-by-point rebuttal of the Azov-Nazi narrative comes highly recommended. Manyareasexpert (talk) 10:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Amusingly this text employs the same kind of tu quoque argumentation that it itself accuses people who rightfully problematize Ukraine's use of neo-Nazi freikorps of doing. Because Russian forces have reactionaries in their midst that makes it OK for Ukraine to do the same. Amazing. KetchupSalt (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

So we criticize a PhD Candidate, School of Social Sciences, but we prefer a journalist. Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Shekhovtsov says the Azov Battalion has been depoliticised, Golikin brings evidence that one of the most notorious commanders such as Propkopenko "came out of the White Boys Club, superfans of the Dynamo Kyiv soccer team (far-right groups organized around soccer teams are common across Europe), who celebrated him when he was given an award in October 2022. The group’s Facebook posts have typically included phrases like “100% White” and “88” (code for “Heil Hitler”), praise for Holocaust perpetrators, and Waffen-SS insignia. During his time in Azov, Prokopenko’s platoon was unofficially called the Borodach Division. Its insignia was the Totenkopf, the skull-and-crossbones design used by the SS, which has become a popular neo-Nazi symbol. (Azov’s version added some fascist whimsy by giving the skull a beard and hipster mustache.)".

It seems that what Golikin claims is verifiable, while what Shekhovtsov says is just his opinion. Mhorg (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you realize “the group’s” refers to a Dynamo Kyiv fan club, c. 2013–2023? When was Prokopenko supposed to be an active member of this club? What is the source about this Borodach patch? Golinkin is pulling threads pretty hard but that doesn’t make this a cogent argument about anything in particular, even if the scattered factoids were demonstrated as verifiable. Can you boil the tortured logic of this paragraph down to what it actually proves about Azov Brigade that’s worth adding to the article?  —Michael Z. 16:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Golinkin is saying that one of the most notable Azov commanders, which according to Shekhovtsov is now depoliticised, cames from neo-Nazi ultras groups who continue to celebrate him. Golinkin therefore means that if you want to depoliticise a battalion, it is at least strange that you make it commanded by people with such background in politics.

About Borodach patch, photos from official Azov page on VK[2][3] and Twitter.[4]

It would be interesting to find out if Shekhovtsov also talked about Borodach Division, since he is an expert on the subject. I couldn't find anything about it, could you? Mhorg (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

So if verified, Golinkin’s paragraph (sorry I haven’t read the article yet) would demonstrate that 1) an officer serving in Azov to 2022 used to be in a soccer club (in 2013?) of which some members (who?) have used neo-Nazi slogans on websites (when?). Is it important to also write about the brigade that 2) the White Boys Club soccer fan club celebrated a certain (ex?-)member of theirs when he was decorated in one of the most famous battles of the war?

It also says that 3) a platoon in Azov used an image derived from the Nazi totenkopf (in 2016–17?). This is potentially scandalous. I hear Australian soldiers were recently reprimanded for something similar.

Which of these facts are notable and DUE about Azov Brigade, if we can confirm the details?

Does this say Azov Brigade is Nazi? Golinkin’s paragraph is not saying that. Does he want readers to think it? Do some readers want to see that in it?

I don’t think the long quote above supports the passage in the first post above.  —Michael Z. 17:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The article is full of information, if you want to criticise it, you'd better read it first:

• "Palamar’s neo-Nazi roots reach back even further—he belonged to the Patriot of Ukraine gang that formed Azov."
• "Azov’s current acting commander—who took over in June 2022, after Prokopenko surrendered to Russian forces—is also an original Azov veteran."
• "Maksym Zhorin, an Azov TDF commander in Kyiv who’s a veteran of the 2014 battalion and a leader in the National Corps (Azov’s far-right party, which the Western media assures us has been severed from the military units) worked closely with Biletsky."
• "Rodion Kudryashev, the deputy commander of Azov’s army brigade, is also a 2014 veteran and a National Corps leader; he says Biletsky is the first person he turns to for guidance. An Azov SSO Regiment commander, Denys Sokur, previously headed the National Corps’ Sumy branch."
• "Dmytro Kukharchuk, one of the main commanders of Azov’s army brigade (he commands the unit’s Second Battalion), is another 2014 veteran who worships Biletsky and has been photographed with a T-shirt of the Reconquista Club, a thinly veiled reference to the white supremacist movement to “reconquer” Europe."
• "Azov runs its own military school, an example of the enormous autonomy that Kyiv grants the movement. Its commander, Kyrylo Berkal, is another 2014 veteran whose social media featured Nazi symbols."

This does not look like an 'opinion piece' at all, but almost like an academic article, given the amount of data and sources offered. We only have to attribute this part to Golinkin and there is no problem. Mhorg (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

> but almost like an academic article
We the wikipedia editors shall not criticize sources but let other sources criticize sources.

But a journalist shall not criticize nor Shekhovtsov nor a PhD Candidate, School of Social Sciences. Manyareasexpert (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

No problem, because Golinkin never criticises Shekhovtsov. And Golinkin's opinion deserves to be in the article for NPOV. Mhorg (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The thing is, this article [5] tells us there is academic consensus [WP:RS/AC] regarding Azov accusations. Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

How many academic publications does Alasdair McCallum have? I can't find much on Google Scholar. Mhorg (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/informit.953518003137783 Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

From your link it[6] appears that he has 2 publications. Let's say that he is not yet definable as an 'expert' in this subject. Mhorg (talk) 10:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Let's apply the same conditions to Golinkin. Manyareasexpert (talk) 10:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

It resembles an academic article. Golinkin’s “sources” in the editorial include a link to Esquire magazine to support the thesis that former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke remains a white supremacist, therefore Azov Brigade was, is, and is destined to remain Nazi. Shall we cite both Golinkin and Esquire on this one to prove it’s true?  —Michael Z. 19:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

And misleadingly associating German-language Nazi terminology for a collection of irregulars with an established regular Ukrainian National Guard brigade is so amusing. What’s the Latin for that?  —Michael Z. 15:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

A collection of irregulars perfectly describes them up until their incorporation into the Ukrainian fighting forces. Then we have the case that the Ukrainian leadership knowingly incorporated said freikorps which Western media now tries to pretend isn't the case, even though they had no trouble reporting on this prior to 2022. Which is precisely what Golinkin is pointing out. KetchupSalt (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I checked five dictionaries and can’t find a definition of the English word freikorps. Are you writing about German Freikorps from the eighteenth to mid twentieth centuries?

Them? Do you think Azov Brigade in 2023 is a set group of people that went to soccer games together in 2013?  —Michael Z. 17:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I also think we need to be careful about giving too much weight to Golinkin, a journalist who has a very distinctive Russian-sympathetic take on the conflict that has made him popular with publications such as The Nation, but whose analysis is out of step with the majority of expert commentators on this question. I wouldn't remove him from the article altogether, but we need to be careful not give him too much space in comparison to the more consensual views. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The same issue is with Oleksiy Kuzmenko of Bellingcat, who in our article is made to argue from 2020 with 2022 Shekhovtsov -
He also told the Financial Times that though it was originally formed by leadership of a neo-nazi group, "It is certain that Azov [the battalion] has depoliticised itself. Its history linked to the far-right movement is pretty irrelevant today."[204] In a 2020 article on the Atlantic Council's website, however, Oleksiy Kuzmenko of Bellingcat argued that "the Regiment has failed in its alleged attempts to 'depoliticize.'"[205] Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

All: can we also look at Kuzmenko as per above. Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Manyareasexpert could you explain what you would like to do? Would you like to delete all the parts of the text that say that the Azov battalion has not been depoliticised? Mhorg (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

First off we should put those multiple statements into correct chronological order, as per message above. Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I just checked this and I don't think it's a problem. The article says that from 2015 it was described as depoliticised, and then chronologically lists a series of sources saying that from 2015 onwards, with a couple of disagreements. There's just one out of sequence Shekhovtsov quote, which is easily fixed. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh but the Golinkin insertion is chronologically out - we need to move that down. I'll do so. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I've done that now. Hope that's OK with everyone (didn't touch the text under discussion) BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits. There is also the following part
Anton Shekhovtsov, an expert on Russia's connections to Europe's far-right, told the Financial Times that though it was originally formed by leadership of a neo-nazi group, "It is certain that Azov [the battalion] has depoliticised itself. Its history linked to the far-right movement is pretty irrelevant today."[204]

Other experts, however, disagree with these assessments, and point to specific cases where there have been interactions between the regiment and the broader movement. Oleksiy Kuzmenko of Bellingcat in a 2020 article, noted that soldiers from the regiment appeared together with leaders of the "National Corps" political party in a 2020 video ad for a rally, and that a 2017 YouTube video appeared to show the émigré Russian neo-Nazi Alexey Levkin giving a lecture to the regiment.

But Kuzmenko's article is from 2020 preceding Shekhovtsov's (2022). Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

This is an opinion piece isn't it? What makes Golinkin's opinion due? He doesn't have any expertise as far as I can tell, he seems to primarily write contrarian opinion pieces Tristario (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The article is full of information about this alleged depoliticisation and you want to remove 2 lines produced with first-class reliable sources because they claim the opposite? This violates WP:NPOV. Mhorg (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:RS says Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact, and When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.

And the listing for the nation at WP:RSP says The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from The Nation constitutes due weight in the article. This is why I'm asking these questions. Tristario (talk) 01:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

What is "Russian-sympathetic" in Golinkin's article? Golinkin even points out that the invasion has been a boon to Ukrainian fascists, something that runs counter to the Kremlin's stated aims. I also see his name is misspelled as "Golikin" in one place. KetchupSalt (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Golinkin is not pro-Kremlin. He wrote quite a good piece about Ukraine right after the big invasion[7] (hard to believe it’s the same writer). But his Nazis in Ukraine! pieces are mainly run by The Nation which associates him with the editorial position of Stephen F. Cohen, Noam Chomsky, and others that have a reputation as the “anti-globalist,” pro-Russian, anti-Ukrainian liberal fringe. His opinion pieces can be cited to say that there is a range of opinions, not to say what they say.  —Michael Z. 17:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• I completely agree with BobFromBrockley. He may be cited somewhere, but certainly not as appear in the diff under discussion [8], i.e. as a highly biased opinion (essentially an accusation), without a reference to any facts. My very best wishes (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  "without a reference to any facts" The article is full of links to verify each of Golinkin's assertions. Please, before you give your support to some other user, could you at least read the article? Mhorg (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

So, after all that, and reviewing the disputed edit in context, I stand by everything I’ve written above but I’m not opposed to the proposed edit (except that “is of the same opinion [as Shekhovtsov]” is obviously wrong), as long as Golinkin is clearly identified as an editorial journalist opposing statements by subject experts.  —Michael Z. 20:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Why include Golinking when we can include Umland who says
"In 2014 this battalion had indeed a far-right background, these were far-right racists that founded the battalion," said Andreas Umland at the Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies. But it had since become "de-ideologised" and a regular fighting unit, he told AFP. Its recruits now join not because of ideology but because "it has the reputation of being a particularly tough fighting unit," Umland said. ... The unit, numbering 2,000 to 3,000 troops, has kept the same wolf-hook insignia, but Umland said in Ukraine there was little confusion about its links to the past."It doesn't have the connotation of being a sort of fascist symbol anymore," he said. https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220325-azov-regiment-takes-centre-stage-in-ukraine-propaganda-war Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

All I see is continued desperation to press association between Ukraine and Nazis, by an editor that is partially topic banned due to their disruption in this area. The Nation doesn't seem like a good source when it comes to the Ukraine conflict, just type in "Russia" as a keyword and see how selective they are with their coverage. Being included on WP:RS/P doesn't automatically make something a "first-class reliable source". TylerBurden (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• I've actually now read Golinkin's article more carefully and this whole discussion. My view is that the new article should be mentioned, and in more or less the place where it is now, but that the text we have is not useful. It accuses the West of having an agenda, which isn't helpful in this article. Better to use the words to say something like "Lev Golinkin, writing in 2023, believes that there has never been a true depoliticisation, giving examples such as---", and then concisely precis the key info that is in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobfrombrockley (talk • contribs) 12:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  I think I'm fine with including this briefly, but we should be giving it very little weight. It's an opinion piece in a biased source from someone that has no expertise on the topic (see some of the relevant guidance about this I quoted above). We should not be treating it as equal as to the views of established subject matter experts. Tristario (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

NPOV and WEIGHT issues

The Neo-Nazism section starts with
The Azov Battalion has been described as a far-right militia,[63][14] with connections to neo-Nazism[236] and members wearing neo-Nazi and SS symbols and regalia, and expressing neo-Nazi views.[61][237]
introduction and proceeds with elaborating on it.

There seems to be a consensus however that Multiple expert assessments made in 2022 conclude the modern Azov Regiment is a fairly typical fighting unit, with little, if any, political bent. There isn’t space to canvas all these in a short piece, but this is the conclusion of Anton Shekhovtsov, Ivan Gomza, Anders Umland, and Vyacheslav Likhachev. For a concise summary, Likhachev’s point-by-point rebuttal of the Azov-Nazi narrative comes highly recommended. - [9] .

This contradicts to what our wiki article suggests. Let's work on fixing that. Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Article written by Alasdair McCallum, 2 pubblications.[10] He does not look like an expert in the field. Mhorg (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Right now the article suggests that The Azov Battalion has been described as a far-right militia,[63][14] with connections to neo-Nazism[236] and members wearing neo-Nazi and SS symbols and regalia, and expressing neo-Nazi views.[61][237] . Let's check dates and reliability of sources for this claim and compare to Shekhovtsov, Ivan Gomza, Anders Umland, and Vyacheslav Likhachev. Manyareasexpert (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Some sources, like this article from The Nation, say that the Western media started white-washing Azov after the war started, so we should be careful with using only recent sources. Alaexis_¿question? 18:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Is he a candidate in Social Sciences, like McCallum? Manyareasexpert (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know but Euromaidan Press where Likhachev's rebuttal was published is much more likely to be biased than an outlet like The Nation. Alaexis_¿question? 19:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

The article originally published here https://ccl.org.ua/en/claims/euromaidan-sos-honest-answers-to-the-most-common-questions-about-azov-in-the-west/ and there is more
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220325-azov-regiment-takes-centre-stage-in-ukraine-propaganda-war The Azov now function like other regiments "but with better PR," said Vyacheslav Likhachev, a research analyst at the ZMINA Centre for Human Rights in Kyiv.
https://www.jpost.com/international/article-725351 In 2016, when the US decided to lift its ban on funding for the regiment, antisemitism researcher Vyacheslav A. Likhachev, speaking on behalf of the Vaad of Ukraine, stated that "It must be clearly understood: there is no kind of ‘neo-Nazi Ukrainian militia’ now. Azov is a regular military unit subordinate to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. It is not an irregular division or a political group. Its commanders and fighters might have personal political views as individuals, but as an armed police unit Azov is a part of the system of the Ukrainian defense forces."
In an article in the Euromaiden Press from earlier this year, Likhachev stressed that most of the far-right members of the regiment left the regiment by the end of 2014 and the rest were discharged in 2017. "As of today, there are absolutely no grounds for accusations that neo-Nazis serve in the Azov Regiment." Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, here Ted Galen Carpenter who holds a PhD makes the same point [11] Alaexis_¿question? 19:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

This opinion could be included. He doesn't addresses Likhachev however but
Amazingly, Melchior let that absurd, self‐​serving statement pass without making an effort to provide a clarification or rebuttal. Even a brief counterpoint might have mentioned that the Azov regiment uses banners and insignia that bear a striking resemblance to counterparts used by the Nazi SS and other portions of Adolf Hitler’s regime. Most Americans (much less the US military) do not openly display KKK regalia. The rest of the story is nearly as defective, allowing Krotevych to come across to readers as a heroic figure. Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Hilarious: unglossed “the Ukraine issue” in the lead.

The author of the opinion piece explicitly frames himself as WP:FRINGE when he writes that his opinion is different from that of the Washington Post and New York Times, and “throughout much of the US news media.” Elsewhere he argues that Ukraine should give up its territory to appease Russia,[12] that responding to Ukraine’s request for support is “the last thing Ukrainians need,”[13] and advocating permanently carving up Ukraine and making it a Russian vassal just days after the invasion.[14] All his works on the site are political advocacy, not analysis.

The publisher is a “libertarian think tank.” There’s a top-line bragging that “This article appeared in Antiwar.com.”  —Michael Z. 21:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, I don't see anybody referring to Carpenter while historian refers to McCallum https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00085006.2023.2202565 Manyareasexpert (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)