Fascists, Fascism and the Invasion.

[Cid]

If you look back as I just did, the earlier posts by two or three posters were not out of context quotes, two other Twitter accounts were linked to and posters expressed their view quite clearly.

Actually it reminds me why I posted it; those posts didn't mention that the source was Azov. I could have made it clearer I suppose 'Source is Azov, see below, remember to be cautious around what they say' or something... But think I kept it neutral deliberately precisely because I think/thought people were capable of interpreting that.

 

[The39thStep]

Again, the article effectively has no substance because it's tainted by being posted on a site that deals in propaganda, and that likely influenced it. As I said, I'll have another look at the BBC article and maybe read around it a bit.



1. Yes, well I may have misjudged urban.
2. Which original sources did I ignore? I think the only one you've posted is Winter's brother... I'm not arguing she isn't fash.
3. I'd rather be aware of what Azov's positions are, see what they're saying on twitter etc. There's value in keeping an eye on that... It is possible they come out of this as a resurgent political force. To be clear I don't want that, but think it's worth keeping an eye on what they're saying/doing etc.

I don't understand this business about an article having no substance 'because it's tainted by being posted on a site that deals in propaganda, and that likely influenced it'.It either has substance or not . The rest is entirely speculative. We've had posters putting up stuff by governments of the UK, USA , Ukraine and others which to all intent and purposes aren't going to be public information broadcasts, not to mention a catalogue of tweets from retired generals and talking heads who post on think-tanks sponsored by all sort of promoted interests.

Yes fine to keep an eye on Azov and others , great pity that some argue that we shouldn't in case it aids the Russians. Yes quite possible the far right could come out of this as a resurgent force as they did in 2014 which partially explains why their position today. Azov itself dunno , it's going to be about the body count, isn't it.?

 

[Pickman's model]

Actually it reminds me why I posted it; those posts didn't mention that the source was Azov. I could have made it clearer I suppose 'Source is Azov, see below, remember to be cautious around what they say' or something... But think I kept it neutral deliberately precisely because I think/thought people were capable of interpreting that.

Is there some obscure reason why you had to link to the Azov tweet, instead of simply saying that was the source? And if you had to show the tweet, was it necessary to link to it rather than taking a screen grab?

 

[strung out]

What's wrong with linking to a tweet? If that's the source, that's the source.

 

[Cid]

I don't understand this business about an article having no substance 'because it's tainted by being posted on a site that deals in propaganda, and that likely influenced it'.It either has substance or not . The rest is entirely speculative. We've had posters putting up stuff by governments of the UK, USA , Ukraine and others which to all intent and purposes aren't going to be public information broadcasts, not to mention a catalogue of tweets from retired generals and talking heads who post on think-tanks sponsored by all sort of promoted interests.

Effectively has no substance. Not that there's nothing true in there, just that what is true is being distorted by the lens of the author's alignment. That's fine if it's state propaganda (or indeed an Azov tweet)... we're on relatively solid ground there. I'll be sceptical by default if I see 'Ukraine claims x' etc. Usually stuff that you can get some alternative takes on pretty easily too, even from mainstream media. But opinion pieces require a lot more unpacking, particularly if from somewhere that doesn't get great coverage at the best of times. E.g I'm relatively familiar with China (which means familiar enough to know that I haven't scratched the surface, but hey), and even then would be extremely wary of drawing any conclusions from an article published on a site like that. I'd first go to sources I know are generally reliable, check in with friends and a few posters on here... then I'd probably try and find a take from someone I'd read previously before considering sharing it without a bunch of caveats and personal interpretation. In all honesty though I think that site throws up so many red flags that I'd probably write off the author regardless.

 

[The39thStep]

Effectively has no substance. Not that there's nothing true in there, just that what is true is being distorted by the lens of the author's alignment. That's fine if it's state propaganda (or indeed an Azov tweet)... we're on relatively solid ground there. I'll be sceptical by default if I see 'Ukraine claims x' etc. Usually stuff that you can get some alternative takes on pretty easily too, even from mainstream media. But opinion pieces require a lot more unpacking, particularly if from somewhere that doesn't get great coverage at the best of times. E.g I'm relatively familiar with China (which means familiar enough to know that I haven't scratched the surface, but hey), and even then would be extremely wary of drawing any conclusions from an article published on a site like that. I'd first go to sources I know are generally reliable, check in with friends and a few posters on here... then I'd probably try and find a take from someone I'd read previously before considering sharing it without a bunch of caveats and personal interpretation. In all honesty though I think that site throws up so many red flags that I'd probably write off the author regardless.

Jesus , how do you ever manage to cross a road?

 

[Rimbaud]

Well no surprise there then that Winters claims it was in her past , don't they all? No one's buying that tbh.

I'm not going to waste your time or mine in defending the politics of a website that I have frequented once . I have posted up enough material from other sources that clearly supports most of the original article and I'm grateful for you pointing out three factual errors. We are going to have to agree to disagree about the author's motives/intentions.You think its framed to align with the interests of Russian foreign policy , I think its framed to align with the interests of those opposed to Bolsnaro ( who incidentally has come out in favour of Putin) . We are going to have to agree to disagree.

However we clearly now agree on the substantial facts ' Winters was a fascist, far-right groups in Brazil were recruiting for far-right militas in Ukraine, and the Brazilian far-right took inspiration from how the Ukrainian far-right were perceived to have made gains through participation in the Maidan movement' My intention and good faith when I posted the article on this thread was to convey that.

Yeah I believe you posted it in good faith, I'm not meaning to have a go at you personally - but given the source I think it was necessary to take a critical eye to it. I think we probably aren't in disagreement here.

 

[The39thStep]

Yeah I believe you posted it in good faith, I'm not meaning to have a go at you personally - but given the source I think it was necessary to take a critical eye to it. I think we probably aren't in disagreement here.

I've enjoyed the discussion tbh . Thanks

 

[zahir]

Podcast recorded in September but maybe still of some interest.

Elephant in the room #31 – Ukraine, antifascism and anarchism – AND

a-dresden.org

A lot of leftists and antifascists believe that there is a fascist junta in Ukraine that came to power after 2014 Maidan protests. To break that myth and talk in details about the current politics in Ukraine we got together with an anarchist comrade from the country who tells us a bit about what was happening in last years there, why the police is working together with local fascists and what anarchists and antifascists are doing to fight back.

 

[The39thStep]

Podcast recorded in September but maybe still of some interest.

Elephant in the room #31 – Ukraine, antifascism and anarchism – AND

a-dresden.org

Thanks. Of interest but not a particularly insightful interview tbh and very much hindered by the interviewer prompting the agenda. There was some interesting potential in the interviewee's comments about how some fascist groups were being protected and Azovs influence ( also their PR which I'll return to on a future post) and the far rights intervention as a 'police force' in the profitable land disputes over real estate.
The influence of the far right in Ukraine is a worthy if complex subject but to boil it down to 'have they any MPs?' isn't helpful in a serious discussion. Btw Are there really 'anarchists ...who believe that there is a fascist junta in Ukraine' aside from the oddball types who see everything as fascist ?

 

[ska invita]

The influence of the far right in Ukraine is a worthy if complex subject but to boil it down to 'have they any MPs?' isn't helpful in a serious discussion.

I think people try to rationalise the threat of the far right anywhere in the world by using size as a key marker...of course that has relevance but I think the increasingly interconnected nature of the modern world makes size and scale less relevant...it is much easier to punch above your weight and spread influence now.

The creeping fascism argument rests on this interconnectedness, can include things like the Brazil-Ukraine thing mentioned above, or for example parliamentary right wing politicians giving succour or nods to outright fascists, and so on...creating a murky spectrum that feeds and breeds on itself

I do worry about even the most seemingly cosmetic accommodation of fascistic forces by any state. The idea they can be used but "kept on the leash" feels particularly risky at this historic moment.... I dont know, maybe its always been like this, but there's a degree of instability/insecurity/inequality/impending crisis about the coming years that makes it feel particularly dangerous

 

[The39thStep]

I think people try to rationalise the threat of the far right anywhere in the world by using size as a key marker...of course that has relevance but I think the increasingly interconnected nature of the modern world makes size and scale less relevant...it is much easier to punch above your weight and spread influence now.

The creeping fascism argument rests on this interconnectedness, can include things like the Brazil-Ukraine thing mentioned above, or for example parliamentary right wing politicians giving succour or nods to outright fascists, and so on...creating a murky spectrum that feeds and breeds on itself

I do worry about even the most seemingly cosmetic accommodation of fascistic forces by any state. The idea they can be used but "kept on the leash" feels particularly risky at this historic moment.... I dont know, maybe its always been like this, but there's a degree of instability/insecurity/inequality/impending crisis about the coming years that makes it feel particularly dangerous

I think in the case of Ukraine there are a lot of barriers that are erected that reduce any discussion about their far right

 

[Dogsauce]

There was that article from a Ukrainian possibly earlier in this thread (but posted around quite a lot) where they compared the vote of fash-connected parties in Ukraine (about 2% iirc) with votes for the far right across other European countries. But I didn’t think this was entirely fair, in the U.K. they cited the vote of UKIP as a comparison, which doesn’t really stand up, cunts as they are, they aren’t really fash cunts. A fairer match would be comparing to the vote share of For Britain and similar carpet-chewing loons, which is significantly less.

 

[strung out]

Neo Nazi musician visiting Russian troops in Eastern Ukraine

 

[ska invita]

Neo Nazi musician visiting Russian troops in Eastern Ukraine

Task Force Rusich is a Wagner unit right? Not really"Russian Troops"

 

[DaveCinzano]

Task Force Rusich is a Wagner unit right? Not really"Russian Troops"

Yeah, they're just coincidentally on a caravan holiday in the area thanks to a great Groupon deal

 

[frogwoman]

That's a bit of a stretch

 

[frogwoman]

The Russian state uses Wagner when it doesn't want to get its hands dirty with the official army. The idea its a private military company with nothing to do with putin is somewhat suspect

 

[ska invita]

The Russian state uses Wagner when it doesn't want to get its hands dirty with the official army. The idea its a private military company with nothing to do with putin is somewhat suspect

of course - i think we all know who Wagner are and what they do - im not saying 'nothing to do with Putin' - but theyre not "Russian Troops", which if this was a visit to the regular standing Russian army would be a different story

 

[strung out]

Task Force Rusich is a Wagner unit right? Not really"Russian Troops"

Troops backed by Russia then.

 

[DaveCinzano]

Russian troops paid for by the Russian government, deployed by the Russian government, acting in the interests of the Russian government, under the command and control of the Russian government.

Or Russian troops for short

 

[strung out]

of course - i think we all know who Wagner are and what they do - im not saying 'nothing to do with Putin' - but theyre not "Russian Troops", which if this was a visit to the regular standing Russian army would be a different story

In what way would it be a different story?

 

[ska invita]

Russian troops paid for by the Russian government, deployed by the Russian government, acting in the interests of the Russian government, under the command and control of the Russian government.

Or Russian troops for short

Well thats true but there is a distinction though which is worth not blurring for sake of accuracy.

With Wagner Group Kremlin is playing the dangerous game of using neo-nazi forces "on a leash", whilst also stirring far right sentiments in the rest of Europe and US as a destabilising tactic, as well as fostering their own brand of ultra-nationalism at home of course.

In what way would it be a different story?

Openly allowing neo-nazi culture to proliferate amongst the rank and file of the Russian army would seem an escalation to me. Wagner Nazis and a Russian Army with underlying Russian ultra-nationalism are different things - seemingly deliberately separated by the Russian state - both scary - but different.
Thats my understanding of it anyway

I presume people would make a distinction between Azov and Ukrainian standing army likewise

 

[frogwoman]

I don’t think it would be that much of an escalation tbh , Dimitri Rogozin is part of the government/head of the Russian space programme and he used to be involved in organising the 'Russian March' (look it up) as well as in the leadership of the extreme right Rodina party. I do agree with you in that Wagner gets used by the Russian state for 'plausible deniability' type reasons (except not that plausible). There's also the phenomenon of using contract soldiers supposedly privately but actually the company is entirely owned by the Russian army

 

[Dystopiary]

RT interviewed a Russian volunteer and asked what motivated him to go and fight in Ukraine:

"Every man deserves respect for protecting other people's children, whom we treat as our own, if they have white skin, if they were born on our Slavic soil".

 

[frogwoman]

 

[Flavour]

That is far out

 

[Cid]

Remember noticing this logo back when Russia was claiming Bucha atrocities were fake...

(from the intercept, not read, just first article I found with pic).

 

[keybored]

Task Force Rusich is a Wagner unit right? Not really"Russian Troops"

There's me thinking that "plausible deniability" aspect couldn't possibly fool anyone.

 

[The39thStep]

BBC now describing the Azov regiment as 'controversial'