Nazi symbols prevalent in Ukrainian military
In its report, published on Wednesday, Le Monde identified nearly 350 Ukrainian troops posting neo-Nazi imagery online, including Nazi salutes, swastika tattoos, Black Sun emblems, and Totenkopf insignias. According to the research, at least 200 of those identified serve in Kiev's 3rd Assault Brigade.
Russia has repeatedly accused Kiev of fostering neo-Nazi ideology and glorifying WW2-era Hitler collaborators and has demanded the 'denazification' of Ukraine as part of a negotiated peace agreement.
Formed in 2023, the 3rd Assault Brigade is a direct successor of the Azov Regiment – originally created in 2014 by far-right figure, Andrei Biletsky. Azov has been accused by multiple human rights groups, as well as the UN, of war crimes and torture and has been widely criticized for its use of symbols tied to the Waffen-SS.
According to Le Monde, the 3rd Assault Brigade has received military training from several NATO countries, including France, Spain, Germany, the UK and Canada, who have also poured in billions in military support to Ukraine. The paper noted that some soldiers sent to France in 2023 bore visible SS tattoos. When questioned, the French Ministry of the Armed Forces stated that it was the responsibility of Ukraine to vet the personnel.
The report also stated that a number of foreign volunteers who have joined Ukraine's forces, including French nationals, have affiliations with far-right groups. Some were shown posting Nazi tributes and displaying related tattoos online.
Le Monde further stated that the 3rd Assault Brigade, now expanded into a full corps under Biletsky's command, has been playing an increasingly central role in Ukraine's military. The outlet reported that its units continue to use Nazi-associated emblems and feature commanders with visible far-right markings.
Moscow has long condemned Kiev's elevation of Nazi collaborators to national hero status and has accused Western governments of deliberately ignoring continued neo-Nazi activity in Ukrainian ranks.
In April, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev stressed that the rebirth of Nazism cannot be allowed and outlined the destruction of the 'Kiev neo-Nazi regime' as a necessary outcome of the Ukraine conflict. He insisted that 'a real de-Nazification is required' and that the ideology 'needs to be rooted out not only in Ukraine, but in all of Europe.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
24 minutes ago
- Russia Today
Putin-Zelensky meeting should cement peace deal
A summit between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky should only take place to finalize a peace settlement, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said. Zelensky has repeatedly called for a face-to-face meeting with Putin in the past several months. The Ukrainian delegation has also proposed the idea during rounds of bilateral talks in Istanbul, framing such a summit as essential to ending the conflict. While the Kremlin has not ruled out a possible Putin-Zelensky meeting, Russian officials have consistently emphasized that the groundwork must be laid first. 'A summit meeting can and should put a final point in the settlement and record the modalities and agreements that are to be developed in the course of expert work. It is impossible to do the opposite,' Peskov told reporters on Friday. Following the third round of Russia-Ukraine talks in Istanbul this week, the Kremlin spokesman accused Kiev of prematurely pushing for a summit. 'They are trying to put the cart before the horse,' Peskov said, stressing that 'work needs to be done, and only then can the heads of state be given the opportunity to record the achievements that have been made.' Moscow has consistently pointed to concerns about Zelensky's legal authority. While Russia has stated it is open to negotiations with him, officials have warned that any documents signed under Zelensky's name could face legal challenges in the future. Zelensky's presidential term expired in May 2024. He has refused to hold new elections, citing the ongoing state of martial law in Ukraine. Russia has argued that his status as head of state is no longer valid and that legal authority in Ukraine now lies with its parliament. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has suggested that Zelensky's insistence on meeting both Putin and US President Donald Trump may be aimed at getting 'a massive legitimacy boost' and using the meetings as a pretext to further delay elections.
Russia Today
15 hours ago
- Russia Today
Germany looks to reinvent warfare with spy cockroaches
Germany is heavily investing in futuristic warfare technologies, including surveillance cockroaches and AI-powered robots, as part of a sweeping rearmament plan, Reuters reported Wednesday. The outlet spoke to two dozen executives, investors, and policymakers to examine how the EU's largest economy aims to play a central role in the rearming of the continent. Chancellor Friedrich Merz recently announced plans to increase Germany's overall military budget to €153 billion ($180 billion) by 2029, up from €86 billion this year. He pledged to allocate 3.5% of GDP to defense under a new NATO framework to counter what he called a direct threat from Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin has dismissed Western concerns about Russian aggression as 'nonsense,' accusing NATO of using fear to justify increasing military budgets. According to Reuters sources, Merz's government views AI and start-up technology as critical to its plans. This week, the cabinet approved a draft procurement law designed to streamline the process for startups developing cutting-edge technologies, from tank-like robots and unmanned mini-submarines to surveillance cockroaches. The law aims to help such companies quickly contribute to the modernization of Germany's armed forces. Публикация от Cerebral Overload (@cbrovld) Startups like Munich-based Helsing, which specializes in AI and drone technology, alongside established defense contractors such as Rheinmetall and Hensoldt, are now leading Germany's military innovation, the article said. Critics of the German government's policies warn that continued military spending could strain the national budget and further damage the country's industry, already burdened by rising energy costs, the fallout from sanctions on Russia, and trade tensions with the US. Germany has been the second-largest arms supplier to Kiev since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022, surpassed only by the US. Russia has consistently denounced Western weapons deliveries, saying they prolong the conflict and risk escalating tensions. Moscow has warned that Berlin's policies could lead to a new armed conflict with Russia, decades after the end of World War II.
Russia Today
19 hours ago
- Russia Today
Ivan Timofeev: We're close to the war nobody wants but everyone's preparing for
US President Donald Trump's recent push for peace in Ukraine highlights a troubling reality: the options for resolving the conflict are narrowing. Kiev continues to rely on NATO military support, while member states are ramping up defense spending and bolstering their arms industries. The Ukraine war may yet spark a broader confrontation between Russia and NATO. For now, the chances remain low – thanks, in large part, to nuclear deterrence. But how strong is that deterrent today? It's difficult to gauge the role of nuclear weapons in modern warfare. Their only combat use – the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 – occurred under vastly different political and technological conditions. Nonetheless, most international relations experts agree that nuclear weapons serve as powerful deterrents. Even a small nuclear arsenal is seen as a shield against invasion: the cost of aggression becomes unthinkable. By this logic, Russia, as a nuclear superpower, should be nearly immune to external military threats. The use of nuclear weapons has become a political and moral taboo – though military planners still quietly game out scenarios. The dominant belief holds that nuclear weapons are unusable – and that no rational actor would challenge a nuclear-armed state. But is that belief grounded in reality? For Russia, this is becoming an increasingly urgent question as the risk of direct confrontation with NATO – or individual NATO members – grows, especially in the context of Ukraine. There are political flashpoints aplenty. Both Russia and NATO have made their grievances known. Whether these tensions erupt into conflict will depend not just on intent, but on military-industrial capacity and force readiness. And these are changing fast. Russia has expanded defense production since 2022. NATO countries, too, are rearming – and their collective industrial base may soon surpass Russia's conventional strength. With that shift could come a more assertive posture – military pressure backed by material power. Several pathways could lead to a NATO–Russia war. One scenario involves direct NATO intervention in Ukraine. Another could stem from a crisis in the Baltics or elsewhere along NATO's eastern flank. Such crises can escalate rapidly. Drone strikes, missile attacks, and cross-border incursions are now routine. In time, NATO regulars – not just volunteers – could be drawn in. Could nuclear deterrence stop that? At first glance, yes. In a direct clash, Russia would likely begin with conventional strikes. But the war in Ukraine has shown that conventional weapons, even when effective, rarely force capitulation. NATO possesses Ukraine's defensive tools – but at greater scale. Its societies are less prepared to endure casualties, but that could change with sufficient political mobilization and media messaging. Russia has amassed significant military experience – especially in defensive operations – but NATO remains a formidable opponent. If Russia ever considered using nuclear weapons, two broad scenarios exist. The first is a preemptive tactical strike on enemy troop concentrations or infrastructure. The second is a retaliatory strike following NATO escalation. The first is politically perilous: it would frame Russia as the aggressor and trigger diplomatic isolation. The second also violates the nuclear taboo but might be seen differently in global opinion. Either way, NATO can retaliate – with conventional or nuclear force. A Russian strike could provoke a devastating counterattack. Moscow would then face a grim choice: fight on conventionally and risk defeat, escalate with more nukes, or unleash strategic weapons – inviting mutual destruction. The belief that Russia would never go nuclear – fearing retaliation – has created a false sense of security among some NATO leaders. That illusion could tempt escalation by conventional means, starting in Ukraine and spreading beyond. It would require NATO to abandon its Cold War caution. Who would suffer most in such a scenario? Ukraine – which would bear the brunt of intensified fighting. Russia – which could face missile barrages and a possible ground invasion. The Eastern NATO states – potential targets of Russian retaliation, or even invasion. The United States might escape the initial consequences, unless strategic nukes are deployed. But escalation is rarely predictable. If tactical exchanges spiral, even the US could be drawn into a nuclear conflict. There are no winners in nuclear war. Only survivors – if that. Betting that the other side will blink is a dangerous gamble with civilization at stake. Both Russia and NATO understand the catastrophic costs of war. Any large-scale conflict would require massive social and economic shifts and would devastate Europe on a scale not seen since World War II. But history shows that fear alone doesn't always prevent disaster. We cannot rule out a return to extremes. Nuclear weapons still function as a deterrent. But the taboo against their use – and their ability to guarantee peace – is being tested once again. The more leaders gamble with assumptions, the closer we come to finding out whether the old rules still hold.
