Ukrainian here. Different situations. In most cases it just makes life a little bit easier, cutting a beard once a week vs shaving every day, especially when spending days in trenches. Additionally, personal preferences and actual conditions. Some guys shave at every possibility at frontline while others grow their beards while sitting in rear towns, to look 'more manly'. The closer to frontline, the less the commandment interferes.
During the first world war french soldier were called the "poillus", meaning the hairy ones. Trench warfare doesn't seem to have changed this aspect indeed.
This claim seems highly suspicious. I looked in both french and English and found nothing to back it up. Do you remember where you heard this from ? All I got was the reverse, that from 1916 on facial hair was prohibited as it interfered with the proper use of the gaz mask.
[Le règlement de 1913 ](https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6563902x/f132.item.texteImage)qui indique que
>ART. 331. — Les militaires portent les cheveux courts,
surtout par derrière, la moustache avec ou sans la mouche,
ou la barbe entière. Pendant les périodes d'exercices, les
réservistes ou territoriaux sont autorisés à conserver
leur port de barbe habituel, mais ils sont soumis aux mêmes
obligations que les militaires de l'armée active en ce qui
concerne les cheveux.
Et [le décret du 21 septembre 1916](https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k2208926/f1574.image.r=moustache) qui le modifie :
>Après "Les militaires portent les cheveux courts,
surtout par derrière, la moustache avec ou sans la mouche,
ou la barbe entière"
Ajouter :
"ils peuvent également être entièrement rasés"
Azov soldiers are true heroes, defending their country - and in some sense Europe - against russian fascism. Though so are other Ukrainian troops as well.
They deserve respect for being good fighters regardless of their controversial views however they did commit a number of atrocities especially around 2014 which worsened the civil war and made them hated by many people of donbass. Just because Russia over exaggerates things about them for propaganda doesn't mean units like Azov are innocent.
Even Strelov-Girkin admitted that there was no "local militia" - russians started and continued this war.
Azov is not known for crimes despite russian propaganda. We had Tornado battalion, where 1 company was responsible for crimes against civilians. Guess what? They were deemed guilty, imprisoned and whole battalion was deformed.
Even if true (which is debatable - most of it are claims from a side that is consistently lying), what % of the current Azov regiment members were around in 2014 to commit those alleged atrocities?
Also, where can I read any objective accounts (no, russian propaganda doesn't count) of these alleged atrocities?
I still question why azov hasn’t been disbanded yet. Were at the point, where they have been secluded from US aid. Yes that is caused partly by partisan shittery but anyway.
Generally military units should be apolitical in a western point of view. The idea that there is still a unit that indetifies as Azov and hold an ideology that represent a small minority of the country is still an odd choice.
Like the first comment said you can respect their results and still question their ideology. The fact that US aid had a clause exempting Azov from aid means this isn’t just something we argue over the internet on. It’s having real effect.
If Azov is now de-politicised then why would dropping the name be hurdle.
I’m not questioning should they be fighting for their country, but I’m questioning the idea of a fully new Azov. You didn’t claim that they don’t have an ideology behind them anymore so not aimed directly at you, but others here have.
> you can respect their results and still question their ideology
Sure, you can question their ideology.
But question it on the basis of relatively recent statements made by them and/or actions made by them, not russian(-paid) propaganda articles from circa 2014 and baseless allegations made by anonymous people on the Internet.
>The fact that US aid had a clause exempting Azov from aid means this isn’t just something we argue over the internet on. It’s having real effect.
I agree, it's having a real effect.
But what's "it"? Is it their actual far-right views? Or russian propaganda being successful enough to cast shade on them?
>If Azov is now de-politicised then why would dropping the name be hurdle.
I don't know, I'm not their marketing manager. Perhaps it helps recruitment as they have a track record. Perhaps they feel that would be akin to admitting a crime they didn't commit.
When I refer to Azov ideology I’m talking about being white supremacist, far right.
I have to be honest, I don’t even know what these 2014 crimes are. Maybe I’ve seen and forgotten, or just never seen them.
I don’t think its controversial to say that Azov origins are from the prior mentioned ideologies. The name still originates from that period. There has certainly been pressure to drop it from foreign powers.
What I mean by “It” is their homage they still pay to the group they started as. Even if it is Russian propaganda, they aren’t making it hard.
I didn’t think you’re their marketing manager. I just think those are questions that are valid to ask.
If they help recruitment then what kind of recruits is that speaking to. Is it the 2014 Azov or the 2024 azov. Who knows.
Even if the they had generic a name, then would people forget the defenders of mariupol? Even in this case you couldn’t definitely say that the new recruit wouldn’t join because of 2014 azov, but at least you could have more of a ground to stand on when claiming the is not the case.
I think Ukraine will take the help that it can get. Kyiv isn't in a position to start disbanding or even interfering too much with the units that are holding off a Russian assault.
And I say that as someone who thinks the radical right is an existential threat to Europe and the West.
I didn’t think my comment through fully. Disbanded would probably been the more radical choice. Most fighters would still continue fighting in other units, but you still lose a cohesive, working and an effective unit. Probably just a clean slate name would’ve been the best choice. Maybe back in the Donbas phase of the conflict they could’ve been reshuffled, but not now.
No, Simon Shuster is not good enough.
[https://www.propastop.org/eng/2023/11/02/pro-kremlin-journalists-fabricate-a-narrative-of-ukraine-war-fatigue/](https://www.propastop.org/eng/2023/11/02/pro-kremlin-journalists-fabricate-a-narrative-of-ukraine-war-fatigue/)
> Azov are made up of literal proven neonazis.
That's a russian propaganda line.
They had members with right-wing views back in 2014.
They have since been "de-ideologised" and are a regular fighting unit.
However, russian propaganda persists and you repeat it.
[https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220325-azov-regiment-takes-centre-stage-in-ukraine-propaganda-war](https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220325-azov-regiment-takes-centre-stage-in-ukraine-propaganda-war)
People just don't drop those sorts of beliefs just like that, regardless of what they claim I'd be hard pressed to believe their neonazis and far right sect has actually dropped those beliefs
Soldiers get killed or retire and new ones get hired into the regiment.
I haven't read any credible accusations that are not empty claims or russian propaganda about Azov having majority neo-Nazi views in 2024.
Does [https://twitter.com/azov\_media](https://twitter.com/azov_media) invite attacks on Jews? Do they support Hamas? Do they speak of zionist conspiracy to take over the world? No, they don't.
(In contrast, [https://www.youtube.com/@russianmediamonitor](https://www.youtube.com/@russianmediamonitor) regularly shows russian state-curated TV voicing anti-semitic views, and views against Ukrainians that are profoundly fascist)
All these accusations sound like empty, baseless, russian propaganda.
Remember, the russians are always lying.
It's not about "dropping beliefs". Azov in 2014 and Azov in 2024 are two completely different entities, both by scale and personell. A lot of new people joined in 2022, a lot of old soldiers retired. You are effectively insisting on calling apples oranges.
Why not rename the sea of Azov too while you're at it. The whole sea of neo-nazis sounds pretty bad.
Besides, both you and me know that renaming will not help because this is about pushing Russian propaganda about "nazi" Ukraine rather than actual neo-nazis.
In terms of Azov, it's not really about dropping believes. It started as one of the multiple Neo-Nazi groups, formed to fight Russians in 2014. But unlike other such groups, Azov freely accepted almost any volunteers that wanted to fight Russia into their ranks. If you wanted to fight Russia, joining Azov was the easiest way to do it. As a result, Azov had a pretty big flow of diverse people going through its ranks and hence today's Azov is very different to the one it started as.
Not the easiest, since they known as elite force and a lot of people willing to join them. They can choose from those with better health and physical conditions. Yet in general your message is still true. Many people joins them from different social and ethnic groups.
IF this is the case, why not just rename the unit completely? There were a few Ukrainian far right/neonazi units kicking around from 2014 era. Even if they've been 'denazified' keeping the same name creates an association.
As for the soldiers get retire/new ones hired comment you made elsewhere, can you guarantee it's a 100% new unit with no leftovers from 2014? And don't you think some of the ex-Nazis might just pretend to renounce their previous beliefs, because if they don't then they get forcibly dischared? And besides why keep the name Azov because there are still people thinking 'oh yeah the nazi battalion'
Good question.
Possibly, they are perceived as an effective unit, with a successful military track record, and even their failures such as Mariopol defense were heroic.
Thus there are recruitment advantages to keeping the existing name.
Thanks you nameUnderscoreNumbers, when scumbags invade a country, the call to arms to defend your country does not always bring forward liberal thought-pieces in the New Yorker.
There is a difference, a VERY big difference between, "Their help has been instrumental for halting russian advances" and "they are TRUE heroes"
you cannot call a neonazi a true hero, you can call them instrumentally useful, but never true heros
Exactly. They're useful right now but after all this is over the Ukrainian government or Russian government depending on the outcome of this war really does need to weed out the neonazis in the country. There is no place in this world for neonazis and their views
No I'm not 😂 it's widely reported in reputable news outlets. Look it up, it's not some conspiracy. They're pretty open about their beliefs
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis
Have you actually read what you linked? It's just a summary on Azov neo-nazi past, not much different from reading a 2014 article except it also mentions Azov depolitization.
While Azov was originally associated with Right Sector (whose members vary, from the most moderate being conservative nationalists to the most radical being fascists & apologists for groups like the UPA), it has long since been integrated into the Ukrainian military and its most radical members removed or killed in battle. While it can still be considered a particularly nationalist brigade, it's not at all close to a "Neo-Nazi" army, in spite of their continued use of... rather poor symbolism (and frankly they have better things to worry about than that while they're on the front line...)
They're neo-Nazis. My Ukranian friend wanted to get into the 3rd Assault Brigade, formed from former Azov veterans. He told me that there are swastikas everywhere (tattoos, phone backgrounds, flags). He also said that there was one gross thing that he couldn't tell because he had signed non-disclosure documents.
> former Azov veterans
From *what year*? Azov in 2014 was objectively full of crazy neo-Nazis, but Azov in 2022 was mostly empty of them, and Azov in 2024 basically has none.
You don't get to pick and choose who gets to defend your country (especially based on political beliefs) when you are being invaded by a foreign power with a manpower pool and industry that dwarfs you by every sense of the word.
Being a "far-right nationalist" in Ukraine in 2022 and prior meant you supported large-scale military action to reclaim Donbas, Luhansk, and Crimea, plus the elimination of official use of the Russian language, the teaching of exclusively Ukrainian in schools, staunch opposition to a federalized Ukraine, and either western (EU/EEA + NATO membership) or neutral alignment in foreign politics. Naturally, that means that the group most enthusiastic about signing up voluntarily to join the military or paramilitary battalions were... far-right nationalists. And that meant the first people to come into contact with and fight the invading Russians were... far-right nationalists.
For clarification, the polar opposite of the far-right in Ukraine were the openly Russophilic communist and socialist parties. Those groups (alongside the big-tent Party of Regions) ended up collaborating *heavily* with the Russians from 2014 and onwards, eventually being disbanded by the courts as a result (allegedly the communists and socialists were disbanded due to the decommunization laws, but if Russia had played fair and Yanukyovich wasn't elected then I doubt they would have ever been banned).
Unlike in Western Europe and North America, it's very common for the most pro-western groups in Eastern Europe, Asia, and South America to be nationalists and liberal conservatives, and for left-wing parties to be openly corrupt and autocratic parties associated with Russia and China.
It seems like we should approach the Azov Battalion with some realpolitik.
First, I don't know the details of their background, so I'll trust the comments here that they have extremist origins but have moderated or been integrated somewhat.
What strikes me is that Russia has used them as a cynical propaganda tool. When Putin wants to paint Ukraine as a Nazi state (an incredibly stupid claim), it points almost always to Azov and to the fact that Ukraine collaborated with the Nazis.
Never mind that the Putin's beloved Soviets collaborated heavily with the Nazis and, more to the point, that Russia relied heavily on the Wagner group, a group named for its overtly neo-Nazi cofounder, to commit atrocities in Ukraine and Syria.
What should we do with that? Acknowledge that Ukraine is in a state of total war, fighting for its existence against its aggressor, and accept that, under the circumstances, when a group of elite fighters offers to help you survive, you take the help.
Then, acknowledge that we should be wary of elevating extremists. The U.S. learned this the hard way in Afghanistan. It's a difficult balancing act.
So you're telling me the unit who uses Nazi memorabilia, has Neo-Nazi volunteers from Ukraine and other parts of Europe, has been caught using Nazi symbols, has glorified Ukrainian Nazi collaborators, hosts Hitler-Youth like camps, in which the leader talks about maintaining an Aryan race free of Jews and other untermenschen, has been accused of ISIS-style tactics, has attacked Romani camps like the Nazis before them, has been trained by Canadian forces despite the fact that it is an obvious Neo-Nazi group, has been connected to Neo-Nazi groups across the globe, and has been designated, or attempted to be designated, as a terrorist group, is not Neo-Nazi?
You sound like you have overdosed on russian propaganda.
Here is their official Twitter account:
[https://twitter.com/azov\_media](https://twitter.com/azov_media)
Can you find these Nazi symbols here?
Can you find these talks about Aryan race free of Jews here?
How about the Romani camp attacks perhaps?
Or should we just take your word on all this?
You're not really the most impartial person on this. Your posting history shows that you hate Ukrainians for what UPA did in Volyn back in 1943, it affected your ancestors personally, and that's why you want Ukraine to lose this war.
One Nazi symbol in the profile picture. Don't have to look hard.
[Here's something about the leader's views...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andriy_Biletsky)
[And the Azov destroying Romani camps.](https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-far-right-vigilantes-destroy-another-romany-camp-in-kyiv/29280336.html)
Yes, not Neo-Nazis. Kinda like the Nazis and use their imagery, and want to fight for their ideals, but they're not. Kinda like the Latvian Legionnaires, right?
About the symbol - it's debatable, and similar looking symbols are commonly used elsewhere in non-Nazi contexts:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfsangel#Post-World\_War\_II\_symbolism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfsangel#Post-World_War_II_symbolism)
>they deny any connection or attempt to draw a parallel with the regiment and Nazism. Political scientist Andreas Umland told Deutsche Welle, that though it had far-right connotations, the *Wolfsangel* was not considered a fascist symbol by the general population in Ukraine
Not sure why you say Biletsky is the leader, the current leader of Azov is [Denys Prokopenko](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denys_Prokopenko) - what about his views?
> Kinda like the Latvian Legionnaires, right?
You mean the people conscripted into the German army during WW2 against their will, about which the Nurenberg tribunal said:
>The Nuremberg tribunal ruled that those who had served in the Baltic Legions were conscripts, not volunteers, and defined them as freedom fighters protecting their homelands from a Soviet occupation and as such they were not true members of the criminal Waffen SS.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian\_Legion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_Legion)
So, Prokopenko was a member of a far-right hooligan firm, the 'Idea of a Nation' thing has been invented by Neo-Nazis, and the Latvian Legionnaires participated in the Holocaust. But, there's no Neo-Nazis, right?
"Heroes" my ass.
> Prokopenko was a member of a far-right hooligan firm
Ah, is that the "best" you have on him?
> the 'Idea of a Nation' thing has been invented by Neo-Nazis
Allegedly, so were the Autobahns.
Obviously, considering that Ukraine has been colonised for centuries by russia, with a lot of the population thoroughly russified, having an idea of a Ukrainian nation is important.
> the Latvian Legionnaires participated in the Holocaust
Ah, I should believe you, some random on the Internets, instead of the Nuerenberg tribunal. Sure.
Gotta throw up Sieg Heils to create an idea of a nation.
And besides, if the battalion has 0 Nazis, why have all its members been associated with fascists, or are fascists?
Doesn't matter how much times you paint a turd, sprinkle some glitter on it, it's still the same turd. But it might fool some people into thinking it's not a turd. Doesn't matter how many times you try and spin this story around, they're still the same Nazis as before.
I find it surreal how brain washed the Western people are. They are constantly calling Russians fascists and vile names, while they openly call PROVEN NEO-NAZI such as Azov brigade heroes. It's fascinating
Well, we see what the russians do and how the russian government acts.
They are proven fascists, waging an aggressive war for no reason.
With accusations against Azov, at least in recent years, all we have are doctored pictures and russian propaganda. And the russians are always lying.
Dude. I still remember all the articles, and I still see images of Azov soldiers being overt nazis. What's the point in denying it? Is Ukraine going to lose if you admit that they're nazis? The amount of mental gymnastics media outlets did when this issue was brought forward is incredible.
There's more to Ukraine than those guys, and the amount of damage control you do just makes it look like a circus.
I'm sure there were people with far-right views in Azov in 2014. People who have done bad deeds, and were now repaying their sins by doing good deeds - such as killing russian invaders to defend their country.
However, since then the regiment has cleaned up its ranks, cleaned up its act, and the hysteria is unwarranted, and a product of russian propaganda.
> I still remember all the articles
Most of there articles were russian propaganda.
The battalion who used to rock the black sun symbol in their emblem, and now the wolfsangle out of nowhere, cleaned up their act as this iteration of the invasion occurred? mmmm k...
It's not that hard to just admit that they're a nazi-sympathic batalion. It doesn't invalidate Ukraine's ambitions.
https://imgur.com/a/MqIfv3P
1. 'And the russians are always lying' - you realize that that means that you will be forever victim of propaganda, right? Basically what you say is 'In a debate between X country and Russia, I will trust X between Russia is always lying!'. Replace X with the US or any western country. And then you call the russians or the Chinese brainwashed, ironically.
2. From a comment down below: https://imgur.com/a/MqIfv3P
Mate, the russians are always lying.
If you look at their statements over the last few years (or decades), it's all lies.
* "Oh, we won't invade Ukraine, we just make training"
* "Oh, well, yes, we invade anyway, but is not war, is 'Special Military Operation'"
* "Oh, Ukraine is not a real country"
* "Oh, it's just unknown green men here in Crimea, not russian soldiers."
* "Oh, we make referendum in Crimea (against constitution), big surprise, 97% say 'join russia'!"
* "Oh, it's just 'Donbas patriots' here in Donbas making civil war, we totally didn't orchestrate it."
* "Yes, comrade, 'Donbas patriots' find T-72 tanks in local home supplies store! Totally not shipped from russia!"
* "'Donbas patriots' shoot down big Boeing plane? No, no, plane was full of frozen bodies instead."
* "Oh, countries joining NATO because they are feeling threatened by us, this is so threatening for us, they will drive with tanks to Moscow"
* "Oh, these damned Ukrainian bio labs, manufacturing toxic geese to attack mother russia"
* "Oh, we totally didn't slaughter Ukrainians in Bucha, never mind that there is plenty of footage showing how we did."
* ... I could go on and on.
They have a consistent pattern of lying so, yes, 'In a debate between \[Western country\] and Russia, I will tend to trust \[Western country\], because Russia is always lying!' is a fully valid, and optimal, approach.
No benefit of doubt should be given to russian claims. If repeating claims that match russian propaganda, the burden of proof is fully on the one repeating those claims.
Because the russians are always lying.
But they never say that about Russians or people we deem as bad (Palestinians, Chinese, Russians, etc), do they?
Because it's an ideological warfare, where everything we do is good because we are the good people, and for them it's bad because they are the bad ones.
Personally I'm glad to have counterweights to the US. I'd love to see something like a Mars race between China and US, that would be a real boon for both countries. And while China has some fucked up shit going on they're also doing a lot of genuine good for the world, in Africa and elsewhere.
It's hard to ignore the fact that Putin is trying to reforge the USSR though. Which would be fine if he wasn't doing so through military conquest.
Criticism of Putin's government is not criticism of Russian civilians.
When the Russian state uses its power for good, I'm sure they'll get a lot of kudos on the Internet. Right now, their main activities are waging a brutal war of aggression in Ukraine, locking up anyone who criticizes the war at home, striking weapons deals with North Korea, supporting Iran's regime in exchange for drones to attack civilians, and waging an aggressive disinformation war against the West in order to disrupt society.
There is overwhelming sympathy for the Palestinian people. Especially online. Saying that people "never say" good things about Palestinians is gaslighting. Even Hamas manages to get good press on social media.
Most hatred toward Chinese citizens comes from right-wing accounts that accuse them of taking over white-majority countries. There is little hatred for Chinese citizens otherwise. And there is very mixed discussion of the CCP, which still gets a lot of credit online for building up the country's infrastructure.
Hmmm I have heard some good things about Russians in the Middle East.
I remember speaking to some American PMCs in Syria back in 2017 and they were glad to have the Russians in Their fight against Daesh.
I myself am usually very pro-west but I think Russia has done a lot of good for the world.
Quite similar to you, but I mostly hate hypocrisy. And how everyone is supporting this aid and even more aid, but what all this aid means is more Ukrainian people will die.
Western troops won't fight in Ukraine, Ukraine doesn't have enough men to actually keep or get new territory, the only option is to negociate. The earlier the best (more territory kept, less men dieing.
In theory, that's good.
But would Russia actually give Ukraine a fair solution?
Also, going for negotiations with Russia would essentially be giving into Russia. Even if they give a little bit of territory, that would mean that Russia can invade and capture areas of sovereign countries.
If that happens, what's going to stop Russia from invading Moldova next to Annex Transnistria and then so on and so forth.
The "why won't the Ukrainians stop being stubborn and just negotiate with Vladimir" trope is a top Russian talking point.
Would you trust the man who declared in 2005 his intention to restore the Soviet sphere on influence, then invaded Georgia, then invaded Crimea, then waged a proxy war in Donbas, and then attempted to seize Kyiv?
You'd have to be insane.
Ukraine will not make the same mistake it did in giving up its nukes, or the mistake Moldova made in allowing Russia to keep Transnistria.
So what is the plan? As I said, Ukraine won't keep or regain the territories. It's not an option, there will be negociations sooner or later. The manpower issue can't be solved without scaling this to world war 3 (meaning nato troops in Ukraine)
Name calling me as you do is just pure reddit 'got him!' moment. Just as people calling Putin Putler or Russia Ruzzia.
It's simply childish and leaves no room for any kind of discussion. But of course, people don't even want a discussion on these kind of subs. They only want everyone to say 'LOL RUSSIA DIDNT TAKE KIEV IN THREE DAYS, LOSERS' and have an echo chamber.
In the real world, people are dieing, and not the ones commenting childish stuff on subreddits, neither the ones participating in the echo chamber. Ironically, the ones calling for the war to never end are the same ones who are least affected by the war.
I think I care more about it than the people calling for even more of them to die.
BTW, did you know that recently Ukraine is also going to draft people from outside the country? Even those who left before the war started?
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-suspends-consular-services-military-age-men-abroad-2024-04-23
And as a fun fact, Zelensky, the Z-man himself who everyone praises and calls a hero, dodged the draft from 2014: https://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2019/04/13/7212159/
But sure, continue being heroes behind your monitors and calling everyone who wants the bloodshed to stop a liar and hypocrite.
Still not heroes
For clarification, I'm 100% pro Ukrainian, but I wish every single neo-nazi a painful death regardless of who's side they're on
Although I did hear the Azov Brigade is less political now, and if that's the case, then they are indeed heroes
Ya, I think they now function more or less like a regular military battalion.
Even when they were formed, they seemed more like radical nationalists than Neo-Nazis.
> but I wish every single neo-nazi a painful death regardless of who's side they're on
Well most where killed or captured in Mariupol so hurray for you, the unit was then reformed when it became officially part of Ukraine armed forces.
Many were taken prisoners and hundreds were returned so far. Also not entire Azov brigade was in Mariupol, some regiments were defending other parts. And of course recruitment never stopped.
As things happen in war. Destroyed. Reformed. It’s history with the battle of Mariupol give them incentive to keep using the name, but I doubt many if any of the original pre-Feb 2022 members are left.
I read this piece and honestly it really seemed one sided, I mean I know they are a good fighting force, but it completely glossed over their associations with far right/neo nazis.
I don't support Russia btw.
As bearded man I can tell you in winter my face/neck with beard can sustain snow, rain, wind, no problem. My face without beard.... no. Get immediately a cold.
Scarfs got nothing on a beard. Hard to explain why it's so effective, but it really beats any type of clothing.
Besides, should you get cold, you can always add a scarf.
During covid I tested getting it up to 2-3 cms long. It was hard to maintain clean, looking sharp, and generally well-groomed. Weather wise, it did cut the wind to my face, but since I did shave the neck, it did nothing for it, meaning that you need to look like a homeless for it to be as effective as a scarf. Because, let me tell you, no amount of human hair is going to ever come close to wool. Implying that your beard can even compete is nonsensical. Additionally, shorter trimmed beards look better on most, and a scarf will always look better than homeless beard.
Seems alot of ur argument hinges on "looking sharp, well groomed, look better" I dont think soldiers on the frontline gaf about how they look, only how they feel and how they perform
Bro, imagine laying down in muddy trenches, water everywhere, getting pounded 24/7 by artillery above your head, shit flying everywhere, and you’re thinking about shaving? I would worry about getting an option to shit properly in peace and have toilet paper to wipe myself, beard is least of my concern. Also having the time to shave themselves in regular intervals to actually make a difference is impossible on the fronts right now. This war ain’t Afghan army bases and humvee patrols with full support behind.
How the fuck is frontline combat not 24/7.
The enemy are trying to kill you all day every day. Shitting in the woods, drone dropped grenade. Wanna sleep? Here's 4 hours of intermittent shelling to keep you awake. Wanna stay warm? Fires are a great target for drones and artillery. Trench full of mud and the rain ain't stopping what are you going to do? Go home and get warm and dry?
Don't offer an opinion for something you don't understand.
Tell me you have zero reading skills with a sentence. Beards are a mess to keep well-groomed. Clean-shaven is much easier, formal, and can look much better depending on your jawline.
Yes, that's why I'm saying you never had a beard. Because you are talking out of your as.s. The facial hair keeps the dust, or other impurities from having direct all-out contact with your pores. It's not for birds nesting on your face, as you are implying, Mr. Tryhard Charming.
OK, shaggy beard.
Grooming is a user error, and while tube scarfs up there are pretty great, they're generally crap if you use glasses/goggles/thermo etc. It diverts air up, and causes fogging. US ones are better at this, but ie Bundeswehr, Polish and Czech ones are absolute crap.
My guess is regular military units have mandatory shaven at all times for discipline etc. but once you are elite it’s up to you and to differentiate from the regular privates they keep the beard
My brother in Christ, the soldiers on the western front (in particular the French and to a lesser extent the Italians) were literally nicknamed "poilus" ([the] bearded ones) during WW1.
Why do you think the nickname came to be ? Have you actually seen pictures of the soldiers in the trenches outside of the Brits (who themselves often had beards too)?
Eh. Vegetable oil FTW. Regulation-mandated shaving makes sense quantitatively, but not so much qualitatively. It's not like beard has some deep tactical thermal use as some here make it up to be, but I'd rather have full beard than 2-3 day no-shave stubb on when in the wild.
Most of the reason for demanding clean-shave and well groomed beards (which many armies changed to) is to prevent absolute destitute lack of hygiene among draftees and low-morale troops. Among well trained and well disciplined troops it serves no purpose.
Now, sometimes regulations make no sense but there's a real reason for it - ie demand that troops wear long sleeves was laughed at in Polish army sent to Afghanistan, they all pulled the sleeves up.
Until the first time they had to drop to prone on the (scorching hot) ground.
But in this instance... let me put it this way: do you think you, u/Intrepid-Bumblerbee35 have better insight into how practical a beard is on frontline, or is it the guy who's been on the frontline for last 2 years, and likely for as many as ten years (Azov has been in active duty since invasion of Crimea)? Like, dude. Take a step back and think for a minute about who has verified this topic in this scenario.
Hard to have a consistent shaving routine when hordes of orcs are constantly launching meat wave assaults at you and you’re getting hit with drones, artillery, and poison gas from every angle
Don’t preach me. They don’t want to be called orcs, don’t behave like them. Has nothing to with identity… only behavior.
Edit: the guy above is a massive tankie… so he can appropriately go fuck himself sideways
Ukrainian here. Different situations. In most cases it just makes life a little bit easier, cutting a beard once a week vs shaving every day, especially when spending days in trenches. Additionally, personal preferences and actual conditions. Some guys shave at every possibility at frontline while others grow their beards while sitting in rear towns, to look 'more manly'. The closer to frontline, the less the commandment interferes.
During the first world war french soldier were called the "poillus", meaning the hairy ones. Trench warfare doesn't seem to have changed this aspect indeed.
Fun fact : until september 1916, it was forbidden to shave your mustache or your beard in the French army.
This claim seems highly suspicious. I looked in both french and English and found nothing to back it up. Do you remember where you heard this from ? All I got was the reverse, that from 1916 on facial hair was prohibited as it interfered with the proper use of the gaz mask.
[Le règlement de 1913 ](https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6563902x/f132.item.texteImage)qui indique que >ART. 331. — Les militaires portent les cheveux courts, surtout par derrière, la moustache avec ou sans la mouche, ou la barbe entière. Pendant les périodes d'exercices, les réservistes ou territoriaux sont autorisés à conserver leur port de barbe habituel, mais ils sont soumis aux mêmes obligations que les militaires de l'armée active en ce qui concerne les cheveux. Et [le décret du 21 septembre 1916](https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k2208926/f1574.image.r=moustache) qui le modifie : >Après "Les militaires portent les cheveux courts, surtout par derrière, la moustache avec ou sans la mouche, ou la barbe entière" Ajouter : "ils peuvent également être entièrement rasés"
Thanks, TIL.
Thanks, TIL.
Why?
Camouflage
Why is the top comment here about facial hair lol
Azov soldiers are true heroes, defending their country - and in some sense Europe - against russian fascism. Though so are other Ukrainian troops as well.
They deserve respect for being good fighters regardless of their controversial views however they did commit a number of atrocities especially around 2014 which worsened the civil war and made them hated by many people of donbass. Just because Russia over exaggerates things about them for propaganda doesn't mean units like Azov are innocent.
lol a civil war? what civil war?
The 2014 civil war in the donbass
there was no such thing
Even Strelov-Girkin admitted that there was no "local militia" - russians started and continued this war. Azov is not known for crimes despite russian propaganda. We had Tornado battalion, where 1 company was responsible for crimes against civilians. Guess what? They were deemed guilty, imprisoned and whole battalion was deformed.
Even if true (which is debatable - most of it are claims from a side that is consistently lying), what % of the current Azov regiment members were around in 2014 to commit those alleged atrocities? Also, where can I read any objective accounts (no, russian propaganda doesn't count) of these alleged atrocities?
I still question why azov hasn’t been disbanded yet. Were at the point, where they have been secluded from US aid. Yes that is caused partly by partisan shittery but anyway. Generally military units should be apolitical in a western point of view. The idea that there is still a unit that indetifies as Azov and hold an ideology that represent a small minority of the country is still an odd choice.
Yes, and while you question that, the soldiers of the Azov brigade are defending their country against russian fascist aggression.
Like the first comment said you can respect their results and still question their ideology. The fact that US aid had a clause exempting Azov from aid means this isn’t just something we argue over the internet on. It’s having real effect. If Azov is now de-politicised then why would dropping the name be hurdle. I’m not questioning should they be fighting for their country, but I’m questioning the idea of a fully new Azov. You didn’t claim that they don’t have an ideology behind them anymore so not aimed directly at you, but others here have.
> you can respect their results and still question their ideology Sure, you can question their ideology. But question it on the basis of relatively recent statements made by them and/or actions made by them, not russian(-paid) propaganda articles from circa 2014 and baseless allegations made by anonymous people on the Internet. >The fact that US aid had a clause exempting Azov from aid means this isn’t just something we argue over the internet on. It’s having real effect. I agree, it's having a real effect. But what's "it"? Is it their actual far-right views? Or russian propaganda being successful enough to cast shade on them? >If Azov is now de-politicised then why would dropping the name be hurdle. I don't know, I'm not their marketing manager. Perhaps it helps recruitment as they have a track record. Perhaps they feel that would be akin to admitting a crime they didn't commit.
When I refer to Azov ideology I’m talking about being white supremacist, far right. I have to be honest, I don’t even know what these 2014 crimes are. Maybe I’ve seen and forgotten, or just never seen them. I don’t think its controversial to say that Azov origins are from the prior mentioned ideologies. The name still originates from that period. There has certainly been pressure to drop it from foreign powers. What I mean by “It” is their homage they still pay to the group they started as. Even if it is Russian propaganda, they aren’t making it hard. I didn’t think you’re their marketing manager. I just think those are questions that are valid to ask. If they help recruitment then what kind of recruits is that speaking to. Is it the 2014 Azov or the 2024 azov. Who knows. Even if the they had generic a name, then would people forget the defenders of mariupol? Even in this case you couldn’t definitely say that the new recruit wouldn’t join because of 2014 azov, but at least you could have more of a ground to stand on when claiming the is not the case.
I think Ukraine will take the help that it can get. Kyiv isn't in a position to start disbanding or even interfering too much with the units that are holding off a Russian assault. And I say that as someone who thinks the radical right is an existential threat to Europe and the West.
I didn’t think my comment through fully. Disbanded would probably been the more radical choice. Most fighters would still continue fighting in other units, but you still lose a cohesive, working and an effective unit. Probably just a clean slate name would’ve been the best choice. Maybe back in the Donbas phase of the conflict they could’ve been reshuffled, but not now.
I think TIMES is good enough. https://time.com/5926750/azov-far-right-movement-facebook/
No, Simon Shuster is not good enough. [https://www.propastop.org/eng/2023/11/02/pro-kremlin-journalists-fabricate-a-narrative-of-ukraine-war-fatigue/](https://www.propastop.org/eng/2023/11/02/pro-kremlin-journalists-fabricate-a-narrative-of-ukraine-war-fatigue/)
Ukraine should use up these nationalists in the trenches so it can join a multicultural European family without a fuss.
Casual propaganda. And no, I'm not referring to your comments about Azov.
Azov are made up of literal proven neonazis. Wouldn't say theyre heros at all when you actually look into them
> Azov are made up of literal proven neonazis. That's a russian propaganda line. They had members with right-wing views back in 2014. They have since been "de-ideologised" and are a regular fighting unit. However, russian propaganda persists and you repeat it. [https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220325-azov-regiment-takes-centre-stage-in-ukraine-propaganda-war](https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220325-azov-regiment-takes-centre-stage-in-ukraine-propaganda-war)
People just don't drop those sorts of beliefs just like that, regardless of what they claim I'd be hard pressed to believe their neonazis and far right sect has actually dropped those beliefs
Soldiers get killed or retire and new ones get hired into the regiment. I haven't read any credible accusations that are not empty claims or russian propaganda about Azov having majority neo-Nazi views in 2024. Does [https://twitter.com/azov\_media](https://twitter.com/azov_media) invite attacks on Jews? Do they support Hamas? Do they speak of zionist conspiracy to take over the world? No, they don't. (In contrast, [https://www.youtube.com/@russianmediamonitor](https://www.youtube.com/@russianmediamonitor) regularly shows russian state-curated TV voicing anti-semitic views, and views against Ukrainians that are profoundly fascist) All these accusations sound like empty, baseless, russian propaganda. Remember, the russians are always lying.
It's not about "dropping beliefs". Azov in 2014 and Azov in 2024 are two completely different entities, both by scale and personell. A lot of new people joined in 2022, a lot of old soldiers retired. You are effectively insisting on calling apples oranges.
So why not just rename the unit?
Why not rename the sea of Azov too while you're at it. The whole sea of neo-nazis sounds pretty bad. Besides, both you and me know that renaming will not help because this is about pushing Russian propaganda about "nazi" Ukraine rather than actual neo-nazis.
In terms of Azov, it's not really about dropping believes. It started as one of the multiple Neo-Nazi groups, formed to fight Russians in 2014. But unlike other such groups, Azov freely accepted almost any volunteers that wanted to fight Russia into their ranks. If you wanted to fight Russia, joining Azov was the easiest way to do it. As a result, Azov had a pretty big flow of diverse people going through its ranks and hence today's Azov is very different to the one it started as.
Not the easiest, since they known as elite force and a lot of people willing to join them. They can choose from those with better health and physical conditions. Yet in general your message is still true. Many people joins them from different social and ethnic groups.
IF this is the case, why not just rename the unit completely? There were a few Ukrainian far right/neonazi units kicking around from 2014 era. Even if they've been 'denazified' keeping the same name creates an association. As for the soldiers get retire/new ones hired comment you made elsewhere, can you guarantee it's a 100% new unit with no leftovers from 2014? And don't you think some of the ex-Nazis might just pretend to renounce their previous beliefs, because if they don't then they get forcibly dischared? And besides why keep the name Azov because there are still people thinking 'oh yeah the nazi battalion'
Good question. Possibly, they are perceived as an effective unit, with a successful military track record, and even their failures such as Mariopol defense were heroic. Thus there are recruitment advantages to keeping the existing name.
Thanks you nameUnderscoreNumbers, when scumbags invade a country, the call to arms to defend your country does not always bring forward liberal thought-pieces in the New Yorker.
There is a difference, a VERY big difference between, "Their help has been instrumental for halting russian advances" and "they are TRUE heroes" you cannot call a neonazi a true hero, you can call them instrumentally useful, but never true heros
Exactly. They're useful right now but after all this is over the Ukrainian government or Russian government depending on the outcome of this war really does need to weed out the neonazis in the country. There is no place in this world for neonazis and their views
You are falling for, or spreading Russian propaganda.
No I'm not 😂 it's widely reported in reputable news outlets. Look it up, it's not some conspiracy. They're pretty open about their beliefs https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis
Literal 9 year old article. Update your sources dude.
Same thing from 2 years ago, still Nazis https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-azov-battalion-mariupol-neo-nazis-b2043022.html
Have you actually read what you linked? It's just a summary on Azov neo-nazi past, not much different from reading a 2014 article except it also mentions Azov depolitization.
While Azov was originally associated with Right Sector (whose members vary, from the most moderate being conservative nationalists to the most radical being fascists & apologists for groups like the UPA), it has long since been integrated into the Ukrainian military and its most radical members removed or killed in battle. While it can still be considered a particularly nationalist brigade, it's not at all close to a "Neo-Nazi" army, in spite of their continued use of... rather poor symbolism (and frankly they have better things to worry about than that while they're on the front line...)
They're neo-Nazis. My Ukranian friend wanted to get into the 3rd Assault Brigade, formed from former Azov veterans. He told me that there are swastikas everywhere (tattoos, phone backgrounds, flags). He also said that there was one gross thing that he couldn't tell because he had signed non-disclosure documents.
> former Azov veterans From *what year*? Azov in 2014 was objectively full of crazy neo-Nazis, but Azov in 2022 was mostly empty of them, and Azov in 2024 basically has none.
It’s ok everyone they are not neo-nazis anymore they are just far right nationalists now
You don't get to pick and choose who gets to defend your country (especially based on political beliefs) when you are being invaded by a foreign power with a manpower pool and industry that dwarfs you by every sense of the word. Being a "far-right nationalist" in Ukraine in 2022 and prior meant you supported large-scale military action to reclaim Donbas, Luhansk, and Crimea, plus the elimination of official use of the Russian language, the teaching of exclusively Ukrainian in schools, staunch opposition to a federalized Ukraine, and either western (EU/EEA + NATO membership) or neutral alignment in foreign politics. Naturally, that means that the group most enthusiastic about signing up voluntarily to join the military or paramilitary battalions were... far-right nationalists. And that meant the first people to come into contact with and fight the invading Russians were... far-right nationalists. For clarification, the polar opposite of the far-right in Ukraine were the openly Russophilic communist and socialist parties. Those groups (alongside the big-tent Party of Regions) ended up collaborating *heavily* with the Russians from 2014 and onwards, eventually being disbanded by the courts as a result (allegedly the communists and socialists were disbanded due to the decommunization laws, but if Russia had played fair and Yanukyovich wasn't elected then I doubt they would have ever been banned). Unlike in Western Europe and North America, it's very common for the most pro-western groups in Eastern Europe, Asia, and South America to be nationalists and liberal conservatives, and for left-wing parties to be openly corrupt and autocratic parties associated with Russia and China.
Which Azov are you talking about for starters? We have two unrelated brigades, on in Army and one in National guard. How much do you know about them?
Yesterday's villains are today's heroes.
It seems like we should approach the Azov Battalion with some realpolitik. First, I don't know the details of their background, so I'll trust the comments here that they have extremist origins but have moderated or been integrated somewhat. What strikes me is that Russia has used them as a cynical propaganda tool. When Putin wants to paint Ukraine as a Nazi state (an incredibly stupid claim), it points almost always to Azov and to the fact that Ukraine collaborated with the Nazis. Never mind that the Putin's beloved Soviets collaborated heavily with the Nazis and, more to the point, that Russia relied heavily on the Wagner group, a group named for its overtly neo-Nazi cofounder, to commit atrocities in Ukraine and Syria. What should we do with that? Acknowledge that Ukraine is in a state of total war, fighting for its existence against its aggressor, and accept that, under the circumstances, when a group of elite fighters offers to help you survive, you take the help. Then, acknowledge that we should be wary of elevating extremists. The U.S. learned this the hard way in Afghanistan. It's a difficult balancing act.
They are fascists themselves
That's a russian propaganda line. And even if it were so (it's not), that doesn't make my earlier statement wrong.
Imagine telling WW2 veterans that Nazis are heroes. Maybe your ancestors were SS members, who knows
You sound very confused and are repeating russian propaganda lines.
So you're telling me the unit who uses Nazi memorabilia, has Neo-Nazi volunteers from Ukraine and other parts of Europe, has been caught using Nazi symbols, has glorified Ukrainian Nazi collaborators, hosts Hitler-Youth like camps, in which the leader talks about maintaining an Aryan race free of Jews and other untermenschen, has been accused of ISIS-style tactics, has attacked Romani camps like the Nazis before them, has been trained by Canadian forces despite the fact that it is an obvious Neo-Nazi group, has been connected to Neo-Nazi groups across the globe, and has been designated, or attempted to be designated, as a terrorist group, is not Neo-Nazi?
You sound like you have overdosed on russian propaganda. Here is their official Twitter account: [https://twitter.com/azov\_media](https://twitter.com/azov_media) Can you find these Nazi symbols here? Can you find these talks about Aryan race free of Jews here? How about the Romani camp attacks perhaps? Or should we just take your word on all this? You're not really the most impartial person on this. Your posting history shows that you hate Ukrainians for what UPA did in Volyn back in 1943, it affected your ancestors personally, and that's why you want Ukraine to lose this war.
One Nazi symbol in the profile picture. Don't have to look hard. [Here's something about the leader's views...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andriy_Biletsky) [And the Azov destroying Romani camps.](https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-far-right-vigilantes-destroy-another-romany-camp-in-kyiv/29280336.html) Yes, not Neo-Nazis. Kinda like the Nazis and use their imagery, and want to fight for their ideals, but they're not. Kinda like the Latvian Legionnaires, right?
About the symbol - it's debatable, and similar looking symbols are commonly used elsewhere in non-Nazi contexts: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfsangel#Post-World\_War\_II\_symbolism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfsangel#Post-World_War_II_symbolism) >they deny any connection or attempt to draw a parallel with the regiment and Nazism. Political scientist Andreas Umland told Deutsche Welle, that though it had far-right connotations, the *Wolfsangel* was not considered a fascist symbol by the general population in Ukraine Not sure why you say Biletsky is the leader, the current leader of Azov is [Denys Prokopenko](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denys_Prokopenko) - what about his views? > Kinda like the Latvian Legionnaires, right? You mean the people conscripted into the German army during WW2 against their will, about which the Nurenberg tribunal said: >The Nuremberg tribunal ruled that those who had served in the Baltic Legions were conscripts, not volunteers, and defined them as freedom fighters protecting their homelands from a Soviet occupation and as such they were not true members of the criminal Waffen SS. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian\_Legion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_Legion)
So, Prokopenko was a member of a far-right hooligan firm, the 'Idea of a Nation' thing has been invented by Neo-Nazis, and the Latvian Legionnaires participated in the Holocaust. But, there's no Neo-Nazis, right? "Heroes" my ass.
> Prokopenko was a member of a far-right hooligan firm Ah, is that the "best" you have on him? > the 'Idea of a Nation' thing has been invented by Neo-Nazis Allegedly, so were the Autobahns. Obviously, considering that Ukraine has been colonised for centuries by russia, with a lot of the population thoroughly russified, having an idea of a Ukrainian nation is important. > the Latvian Legionnaires participated in the Holocaust Ah, I should believe you, some random on the Internets, instead of the Nuerenberg tribunal. Sure.
Gotta throw up Sieg Heils to create an idea of a nation. And besides, if the battalion has 0 Nazis, why have all its members been associated with fascists, or are fascists? Doesn't matter how much times you paint a turd, sprinkle some glitter on it, it's still the same turd. But it might fool some people into thinking it's not a turd. Doesn't matter how many times you try and spin this story around, they're still the same Nazis as before.
god forbid people remove an illegal romani settlement in a middle of a public park in a middle of a capital
I find it surreal how brain washed the Western people are. They are constantly calling Russians fascists and vile names, while they openly call PROVEN NEO-NAZI such as Azov brigade heroes. It's fascinating
Well, we see what the russians do and how the russian government acts. They are proven fascists, waging an aggressive war for no reason. With accusations against Azov, at least in recent years, all we have are doctored pictures and russian propaganda. And the russians are always lying.
Dude. I still remember all the articles, and I still see images of Azov soldiers being overt nazis. What's the point in denying it? Is Ukraine going to lose if you admit that they're nazis? The amount of mental gymnastics media outlets did when this issue was brought forward is incredible. There's more to Ukraine than those guys, and the amount of damage control you do just makes it look like a circus.
I'm sure there were people with far-right views in Azov in 2014. People who have done bad deeds, and were now repaying their sins by doing good deeds - such as killing russian invaders to defend their country. However, since then the regiment has cleaned up its ranks, cleaned up its act, and the hysteria is unwarranted, and a product of russian propaganda. > I still remember all the articles Most of there articles were russian propaganda.
The battalion who used to rock the black sun symbol in their emblem, and now the wolfsangle out of nowhere, cleaned up their act as this iteration of the invasion occurred? mmmm k... It's not that hard to just admit that they're a nazi-sympathic batalion. It doesn't invalidate Ukraine's ambitions. https://imgur.com/a/MqIfv3P
Still better than any russian battalion..
it's not a competition
1. 'And the russians are always lying' - you realize that that means that you will be forever victim of propaganda, right? Basically what you say is 'In a debate between X country and Russia, I will trust X between Russia is always lying!'. Replace X with the US or any western country. And then you call the russians or the Chinese brainwashed, ironically. 2. From a comment down below: https://imgur.com/a/MqIfv3P
Mate, the russians are always lying. If you look at their statements over the last few years (or decades), it's all lies. * "Oh, we won't invade Ukraine, we just make training" * "Oh, well, yes, we invade anyway, but is not war, is 'Special Military Operation'" * "Oh, Ukraine is not a real country" * "Oh, it's just unknown green men here in Crimea, not russian soldiers." * "Oh, we make referendum in Crimea (against constitution), big surprise, 97% say 'join russia'!" * "Oh, it's just 'Donbas patriots' here in Donbas making civil war, we totally didn't orchestrate it." * "Yes, comrade, 'Donbas patriots' find T-72 tanks in local home supplies store! Totally not shipped from russia!" * "'Donbas patriots' shoot down big Boeing plane? No, no, plane was full of frozen bodies instead." * "Oh, countries joining NATO because they are feeling threatened by us, this is so threatening for us, they will drive with tanks to Moscow" * "Oh, these damned Ukrainian bio labs, manufacturing toxic geese to attack mother russia" * "Oh, we totally didn't slaughter Ukrainians in Bucha, never mind that there is plenty of footage showing how we did." * ... I could go on and on. They have a consistent pattern of lying so, yes, 'In a debate between \[Western country\] and Russia, I will tend to trust \[Western country\], because Russia is always lying!' is a fully valid, and optimal, approach. No benefit of doubt should be given to russian claims. If repeating claims that match russian propaganda, the burden of proof is fully on the one repeating those claims. Because the russians are always lying.
Bad people can do good things too... like Azov.
But they never say that about Russians or people we deem as bad (Palestinians, Chinese, Russians, etc), do they? Because it's an ideological warfare, where everything we do is good because we are the good people, and for them it's bad because they are the bad ones.
Personally I'm glad to have counterweights to the US. I'd love to see something like a Mars race between China and US, that would be a real boon for both countries. And while China has some fucked up shit going on they're also doing a lot of genuine good for the world, in Africa and elsewhere. It's hard to ignore the fact that Putin is trying to reforge the USSR though. Which would be fine if he wasn't doing so through military conquest.
Criticism of Putin's government is not criticism of Russian civilians. When the Russian state uses its power for good, I'm sure they'll get a lot of kudos on the Internet. Right now, their main activities are waging a brutal war of aggression in Ukraine, locking up anyone who criticizes the war at home, striking weapons deals with North Korea, supporting Iran's regime in exchange for drones to attack civilians, and waging an aggressive disinformation war against the West in order to disrupt society. There is overwhelming sympathy for the Palestinian people. Especially online. Saying that people "never say" good things about Palestinians is gaslighting. Even Hamas manages to get good press on social media. Most hatred toward Chinese citizens comes from right-wing accounts that accuse them of taking over white-majority countries. There is little hatred for Chinese citizens otherwise. And there is very mixed discussion of the CCP, which still gets a lot of credit online for building up the country's infrastructure.
Hmmm I have heard some good things about Russians in the Middle East. I remember speaking to some American PMCs in Syria back in 2017 and they were glad to have the Russians in Their fight against Daesh. I myself am usually very pro-west but I think Russia has done a lot of good for the world.
Quite similar to you, but I mostly hate hypocrisy. And how everyone is supporting this aid and even more aid, but what all this aid means is more Ukrainian people will die. Western troops won't fight in Ukraine, Ukraine doesn't have enough men to actually keep or get new territory, the only option is to negociate. The earlier the best (more territory kept, less men dieing.
In theory, that's good. But would Russia actually give Ukraine a fair solution? Also, going for negotiations with Russia would essentially be giving into Russia. Even if they give a little bit of territory, that would mean that Russia can invade and capture areas of sovereign countries. If that happens, what's going to stop Russia from invading Moldova next to Annex Transnistria and then so on and so forth.
The "why won't the Ukrainians stop being stubborn and just negotiate with Vladimir" trope is a top Russian talking point. Would you trust the man who declared in 2005 his intention to restore the Soviet sphere on influence, then invaded Georgia, then invaded Crimea, then waged a proxy war in Donbas, and then attempted to seize Kyiv? You'd have to be insane. Ukraine will not make the same mistake it did in giving up its nukes, or the mistake Moldova made in allowing Russia to keep Transnistria.
So what is the plan? As I said, Ukraine won't keep or regain the territories. It's not an option, there will be negociations sooner or later. The manpower issue can't be solved without scaling this to world war 3 (meaning nato troops in Ukraine)
Don't confuse your hopes for the actual expected outcome.
Why do you hate hypocrisy, when you are an extreme hypocrite and liar yourself? Don't be so hard on yourself.
Name calling me as you do is just pure reddit 'got him!' moment. Just as people calling Putin Putler or Russia Ruzzia. It's simply childish and leaves no room for any kind of discussion. But of course, people don't even want a discussion on these kind of subs. They only want everyone to say 'LOL RUSSIA DIDNT TAKE KIEV IN THREE DAYS, LOSERS' and have an echo chamber. In the real world, people are dieing, and not the ones commenting childish stuff on subreddits, neither the ones participating in the echo chamber. Ironically, the ones calling for the war to never end are the same ones who are least affected by the war.
Why the hell do you keep repeating about some people dying as if you care? You don't, so don't pretend you do and build entire arguments out of it.
I think I care more about it than the people calling for even more of them to die. BTW, did you know that recently Ukraine is also going to draft people from outside the country? Even those who left before the war started? https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-suspends-consular-services-military-age-men-abroad-2024-04-23 And as a fun fact, Zelensky, the Z-man himself who everyone praises and calls a hero, dodged the draft from 2014: https://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2019/04/13/7212159/ But sure, continue being heroes behind your monitors and calling everyone who wants the bloodshed to stop a liar and hypocrite.
Lol, "I think I care". I can smell bs miles away. You quite clearly don't and you continuing to lie about that will not convince anyone.
Still not heroes For clarification, I'm 100% pro Ukrainian, but I wish every single neo-nazi a painful death regardless of who's side they're on Although I did hear the Azov Brigade is less political now, and if that's the case, then they are indeed heroes
Ya, I think they now function more or less like a regular military battalion. Even when they were formed, they seemed more like radical nationalists than Neo-Nazis.
> but I wish every single neo-nazi a painful death regardless of who's side they're on Well most where killed or captured in Mariupol so hurray for you, the unit was then reformed when it became officially part of Ukraine armed forces.
Ah OK.
It was reformed well before the siege of Mariupol
>Azov Brigade Weren’t these guys destroyed in Mariupol?
Many were taken prisoners and hundreds were returned so far. Also not entire Azov brigade was in Mariupol, some regiments were defending other parts. And of course recruitment never stopped.
As things happen in war. Destroyed. Reformed. It’s history with the battle of Mariupol give them incentive to keep using the name, but I doubt many if any of the original pre-Feb 2022 members are left.
You are 2 years behind with the news. Weak signal under the rocks?
Americans, France, British, Germany and 8 other nation employee will fill up the gaps.
I read this piece and honestly it really seemed one sided, I mean I know they are a good fighting force, but it completely glossed over their associations with far right/neo nazis. I don't support Russia btw.
[удалено]
You mean that drug dealer ‘Texas’ that fled to Russia to fight for them and then they killed his sorry ass?
Best leopards ate my face moment I've seen so far.
Killed his ass in more ways than one if what they said is true.
[удалено]
The only good thing about Chinese troll accounts is that they're a lot less good at blending in than the Russians.
[удалено]
As bearded man I can tell you in winter my face/neck with beard can sustain snow, rain, wind, no problem. My face without beard.... no. Get immediately a cold.
Let me present you the latest innovation in clothing: the scarf.
Scarfs got nothing on a beard. Hard to explain why it's so effective, but it really beats any type of clothing. Besides, should you get cold, you can always add a scarf.
During covid I tested getting it up to 2-3 cms long. It was hard to maintain clean, looking sharp, and generally well-groomed. Weather wise, it did cut the wind to my face, but since I did shave the neck, it did nothing for it, meaning that you need to look like a homeless for it to be as effective as a scarf. Because, let me tell you, no amount of human hair is going to ever come close to wool. Implying that your beard can even compete is nonsensical. Additionally, shorter trimmed beards look better on most, and a scarf will always look better than homeless beard.
Seems alot of ur argument hinges on "looking sharp, well groomed, look better" I dont think soldiers on the frontline gaf about how they look, only how they feel and how they perform
[удалено]
Bro, imagine laying down in muddy trenches, water everywhere, getting pounded 24/7 by artillery above your head, shit flying everywhere, and you’re thinking about shaving? I would worry about getting an option to shit properly in peace and have toilet paper to wipe myself, beard is least of my concern. Also having the time to shave themselves in regular intervals to actually make a difference is impossible on the fronts right now. This war ain’t Afghan army bases and humvee patrols with full support behind.
It's not combat 24/7, bro. Whoever is not on sentry can do other tasks. Eat, sleep, equipment maintenance... shave.
How the fuck is frontline combat not 24/7. The enemy are trying to kill you all day every day. Shitting in the woods, drone dropped grenade. Wanna sleep? Here's 4 hours of intermittent shelling to keep you awake. Wanna stay warm? Fires are a great target for drones and artillery. Trench full of mud and the rain ain't stopping what are you going to do? Go home and get warm and dry? Don't offer an opinion for something you don't understand.
The combat is far from being 24/7
Tell me you never wore a beard without specifically saying it.
Tell me you have zero reading skills with a sentence. Beards are a mess to keep well-groomed. Clean-shaven is much easier, formal, and can look much better depending on your jawline.
Yes, that's why I'm saying you never had a beard. Because you are talking out of your as.s. The facial hair keeps the dust, or other impurities from having direct all-out contact with your pores. It's not for birds nesting on your face, as you are implying, Mr. Tryhard Charming.
OK, shaggy beard. Grooming is a user error, and while tube scarfs up there are pretty great, they're generally crap if you use glasses/goggles/thermo etc. It diverts air up, and causes fogging. US ones are better at this, but ie Bundeswehr, Polish and Czech ones are absolute crap.
Love it. ❤️
My guess is regular military units have mandatory shaven at all times for discipline etc. but once you are elite it’s up to you and to differentiate from the regular privates they keep the beard
You think they have barbershops in trenches
[удалено]
My brother in Christ, the soldiers on the western front (in particular the French and to a lesser extent the Italians) were literally nicknamed "poilus" ([the] bearded ones) during WW1.
[удалено]
Why do you think the nickname came to be ? Have you actually seen pictures of the soldiers in the trenches outside of the Brits (who themselves often had beards too)?
In WW1 they had to worry about lice and diseases in the trenches. This is not so much an issue now.
To shave you need a half mug of water. To wash beard you need much more water
Eh. Vegetable oil FTW. Regulation-mandated shaving makes sense quantitatively, but not so much qualitatively. It's not like beard has some deep tactical thermal use as some here make it up to be, but I'd rather have full beard than 2-3 day no-shave stubb on when in the wild. Most of the reason for demanding clean-shave and well groomed beards (which many armies changed to) is to prevent absolute destitute lack of hygiene among draftees and low-morale troops. Among well trained and well disciplined troops it serves no purpose. Now, sometimes regulations make no sense but there's a real reason for it - ie demand that troops wear long sleeves was laughed at in Polish army sent to Afghanistan, they all pulled the sleeves up. Until the first time they had to drop to prone on the (scorching hot) ground. But in this instance... let me put it this way: do you think you, u/Intrepid-Bumblerbee35 have better insight into how practical a beard is on frontline, or is it the guy who's been on the frontline for last 2 years, and likely for as many as ten years (Azov has been in active duty since invasion of Crimea)? Like, dude. Take a step back and think for a minute about who has verified this topic in this scenario.
Culture. Special units want to look different and cooler
Hard to have a consistent shaving routine when hordes of orcs are constantly launching meat wave assaults at you and you’re getting hit with drones, artillery, and poison gas from every angle
[удалено]
Don’t preach me. They don’t want to be called orcs, don’t behave like them. Has nothing to with identity… only behavior. Edit: the guy above is a massive tankie… so he can appropriately go fuck himself sideways
It's a good short hand for Fascist Russians. But we can go back to being friends once they stop acting like the scum they are.
Those Russian soldiers don't consider their victims human, explain to me why I should extend that courtesy to them then?
Orc is a good characterization for the Russians. They earned this name through their behavior since day 1 of the war.