> Please describe how the statement you quoted is untrue
One we're arming Kyiv. That they've incorporated members with a problematic past is known and, frankly, rational. (Can't be choosy when an actual fascist neighbor is invading.) Characterizing aid to the entire Ukrainian military as "arming literal nazi corps" is selectively, misleadingly and incorrectly reductive.
Two, the Azov Brigade was destroyed (after fighting bravely) at Mariupol [1]. We can't be literally arming them because they've been dead or captured for a year.
Finally, the the Congress literally banned arming the Azov regimen inter alia in 2018 [2]. War is messy, so results won't be perfect, but there is a clearly-understood consensus across NATO and in Kyiv about what will and won't be tolerated.
> One we're arming Kyiv. That they've incorporated members with a problematic past is known and, frankly, rational. (Can't be choosy when an actual fascist neighbor is invading.)
If you're arming Kiev and Kiev is arming these "members with a problematic past" (nice euphemism) then you're also arming them.
Looks like this logic worked well for Iraq and Afghanistan, it only caused milions of deaths and decades of destruction.
> Two, the Azov Brigade was destroyed (after fighting bravely) at Mariupol
Get up to date, the Azov Brigade has been long restored and rearmed. They have new members and they trained them already.
> If you're arming Kiev and Kiev is arming these "members with a problematic past" (nice euphemism) then you're also arming them
Which, again, is (largely) not happening. The Azov regiment fell last May; our weapons had barely begun arriving in Kyiv then.
> this logic worked well for Iraq and Afghanistan
You're comparing a dictator and terrorist insurgencies with a democracy. Ukraine is closer to WWII. We aren't trying to create a state where one never existed, destroy a state that was previously stable or cause an insurgency to annoy someone; we're helping an extant state fight for survival.
(Also, are you arguing nobody in Britain or France or Poland in WWII had problematic views? Does that mean the American war effort, and subsequent Marshall Plan, was in support of those elements?)
> the Azov Brigade has been long restored and rearmed. They have new members and they trained them already
So a new group of people adopted fallen symbols, and we're supposed to assume ideological continuity [1]?
I'm not going to argue there is no far-right element in Ukraine, or even in the Ukrainian military. In an ideal, world, they'd be expelled. But in an ideal world, Moscow wouldn't be launching a land war in Europe. It's misleading to the point of incorrectness to say we're arming neo-Nazis in Ukraine, or that these people form a significant amount of the present Ukrainian military or state, or that they have material influence over Kyiv.
The fascist party has zero seats in parliament. Both the president and prime minister of Ukraine are Jewish and there was discussion about prosecuting Azov before they were wiped out in the fighting. Every country has fascists, overstating their number in Ukraine is Russian propaganda.
Lets use another example to say why it's misleading, even if it's true.
> The US is arming Nazis and Nationalists inside of the United States.
This statement is true. There are Nazis and Nationalists inside of the US Military and inside of various police departments.
This statement is also misleading. It implies that we're giving arms directly to nazis and nationalist, rather than it being a byproduct of poor screening. It also implies that we're doing this on purpose, but that isn't the case.
Now lets try the same thing with Ukraine. If you look at the infamous Azoz battle group you will find nazis. Therefore, it is true that we're arming nazis. However, you'll also find muslims, jews, and other groups that are decidedly not nazi. At the same time the Wagner group, which is on the Russian side of things, has a lot of nazi and nationalist inside.
So yes, the statement is true, but it also misleading. It tries to make a simple point, when the reality is far more nuanced. It's just not a good faith argument because it's made to push people into believing something that isn't true- namely that ukraine is a nazi/ultranationalist hotbed that we're arming, while russia is trying to fight off the nazi threat. This is propeganda that Russia has been pushing for over a year now, but anyone who looks at the situation can see a nazi threat on the russian side and a bunch of people defending their homes on the other.
The complexity of such a situation seems to escape some. Instead they assume (and accuse) we are making a dedicated effort to arm Nazis in Ukraine. This is clearly not the case, it's more akin to collateral damage. In that regard, there is one point we should keep in mind though:
Once weapons are brought into any theatre of conflict they are very hard to control.
