link for you libs: https://web.archive.org/web/20220414030337/https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/04/13/world/ukraine-russia-war-news/why-putin-invokes-nazis-to-justify-his-invasion-of-ukraine

  • Leper_Messiah [he/him]
    ·
    2 years ago

    I mean, at least they described it as a nationalist group, instead of most lib news outlets that just refer to azov as "ukrainian national guard"

    Nationalist is only a partial description of their fucked up ethos, but it's better than just proclaiming them heckin lil patriotic good boys who are just super into viking runes for some reason

    • HauntedBySpectacle [he/him, comrade/them]
      ·
      2 years ago

      it's still too benign IMO, libs reading will just accept nationalist as meaning pro-Ukrainian sovereignty.

      maybe ultra nationalist would be an acceptable neutral term, but honestly I hate the term nationalist itself and added prefixes don't help much. A political term so broad that it can describe both Adolf Hitler and Sun Yat-sen is functionally useless.

      • Awoo [she/her]
        ·
        2 years ago

        Their fucking flag is blood and soil. Calling them anything other than UkroNazis lacks neutrality, calling a nazi anything other than a fucking nazi is support for nazis.

        • HauntedBySpectacle [he/him, comrade/them]
          ·
          2 years ago

          I agree, the NYT obviously isn't going to appropriately call them Nazi or fascist when the narrative is that any claim to that effect is Kremlin disinformation. the press are not going to allow liberals to consider that "denazification" could be necessary.