Summary
Former Ukrainian boxing champion Wladimir Klitschko accused podcaster Joe Rogan of “repeating Russian propaganda” after Rogan criticized U.S. military aid to Ukraine and suggested it could escalate into World War III.
Klitschko defended Ukraine’s resistance against Russia, highlighting the country’s fight for freedom and condemning Rogan’s remarks as aiding Putin’s agenda.
He invited Rogan to discuss their differences on the podcast “like free men.”
Rogan, who recently endorsed Donald Trump, called the war a “proxy war” and criticized Biden’s decision to allow Ukraine to strike Russian soil with U.S.-supplied missiles.
From the article you provided:
"In a statement, the Ukrainian Defense Ministry said that, as a country that suffered greatly under German occupation, “We emphasize that Ukraine categorically condemns any manifestations of Nazism.”
“…Questions over how to interpret such symbols are as divisive as they are persistent, and not just in Ukraine…”
“The Anti-Defamation League considers the Totenkopf “a common hate symbol.” But Jake Hyman, a spokesman for the group, said it was impossible to “make an inference about the wearer or the Ukrainian Army” based on the patch.” “The image, while offensive, is that of a musical band,” Mr. Hyman said."
*Ihor Kozlovskyi, a Ukrainian historian and religious scholar, said that the symbols had meanings that were unique to Ukraine and should be interpreted by how Ukrainians viewed them, not by how they had been used elsewhere. “The symbol can live in any community or any history independently of how it is used in other parts of Earth,” Mr. Kozlovskyi said.
See: Swastika in SEA.
I can keep going from this article alone. Did you read the whole thing?
Yeah, the article is Nazi apologia. The point is it’s ubiquitous enough that even the pro-NATO folks keep having to address it. Whereas you’re downplaying its existence.
And the Ukrainian government spending millions erecting monuments for famous Nazis? What’s the apologist spin on that?
LOL
In your previous comment you used the article as proof that Ukraine was a Nazi state because The NYTimes was a credible third party observer I should rely on.
The second this is pointed out, they’re no longer reliable and are infact apologists? Why use the article as evidence anyway?
How much was spent on Mt Rushmore? Confederate statues? War Monuments? Statues of John A. Macdonald? Napoleon? Churchill, Stalin, Lenin, Sadam, Mao, Hirohito, Eisenhower, Sherman?
There’s no apologism that exists for them. The true answer, is that at the time of their installation, these people were considered heroes and their bad deeds were overlooked due to circumstance. As I said earlier; as time goes on and peace prospers our eyes open to the broader world. Right now, Ukraine’s heroes are “dirty” heroes to us. Because we aren’t suffering the way they are. Due to circumstance the heroes they have are the only heroes Ukraine can rely on because even the right to have scholars as heroes has been taken from them by Russia.
Can you name me a nation builder with a clean record?
No, that was just your misinterpretation.
We’re not talking about old monuments. We’re talking about new ones they are continuing to erect.
Quoting you:
Are you now saying that Nazi apologism is a Kremlin talking point or not? Because earlier you said the article would prove Ukraine is Nazi but now the article is apologism. Which is it?
No, you claimed acknowledging the existence of widespread Naziism in Ukraine to be a Kremlin talking point. Presumably, that extends the western defense of it.
What about the US Congress lifting the ban on arming Nazis in order to arm Ukraine. Were they also engaging in Kremlin propaganda?
Because there is no widespread Nazism in Ukraine. I asked you to prove it, you provided the article as proof but the article refuted your point. You then said it was apologist. So which is it? Irrefutable evidence supporting the kremlin’s position or Apologism?
Hmm let me wrack my brain here. You’ll have to point me to the specific wording. The US congress literally said “Nazis can use our weapons”? Or is Nazi a label that Russia has attributed to certain fighters and you’re now repeating?
It didn’t refute my point at all. It acknowledged there is widespread Naziism, and then made excuses for it.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1vv6p9k1z1o.amp
What are you trying to prove with this article?
That several groups could no longer substantiate weapons bans to Azov because they could not find any long lasting or significant ties to hate crimes or Gross Violations of Human rights originally tabled by the Kremlin?
This article is further evidence that Russia used Azov’s early ties to Ukrianian Nationalism in the East as as a tool to claim Ukraine is a Nazi state.
If that alone is evidence to condemn the whole of Ukraine then this image is enough to condemn the whole of Russia.
You keep trying to provide evidence that russia’s claims are true but your evidence simply proves my point.