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
for groups that have "zero political influence and number in the apparent low hundreds" they sure do seem front and center in every piece of media that comes out of that country. must just be some weird coincidence or like synchronicity or something
pisses me off that they use a black and red flag. Every time I see it out of the corner of my eye in Ukraine news I have hope for a second that some neo-Makhnovist group has sprung up
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
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.
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.
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.
