That's the party line. But not shared everywhere. More and more expert forecasting a stalemate in Donbass. So Ukrainian sovereignty isn't in danger.
While Ukraine rebuilds its strength, Russia could deepen its defensive works along the frontlines and likewise rebuilding its fighting power.
www.19fortyfive.com
Which party line? Russia tried to invade the entirety of Ukraine, with its plans changing only due to operational necessity - e.g. they were getting slaughtered.
What did the party spokesman (Lavrov) only imply the other day: it has expanded its objectives further from the east.
He was the leader of the Soviet Union, a different state.
What's a bit more problematic here is that they integrated the batallion (still linked to a controversial movement) into their own ranks during peacetime. It was poor judgement; they should've been fully integrated within the armed forces and nobody would've cared anymore. (But did the government have enough pull to exact such demands?)
Would the UK ever integrate the IRA (very hypothetical I know)? And let them wave an Irish flag and let them use their old insignia? Or would Spain allow for Basque or Catalonian brigades?
Aye, it was a clumsy comparison, but the point was that countries make uneasy and amoral alliances/connections due to the neccesity of their situation.
The Azov regiment's far-right ideology (fascism, Neo-Nazi etc.) is incompatible with the values of a western, open democracy, which is akin to the IRA link.
On the other hand, they're pro-Ukrainian and support the patriotic views, which in this case has been the key factor. IRA and Basque would never fly under the flag.
If we're talking about integration, a closer comparison (although again, not perfect) was the formation of the UDR and its ties to the UDA.
It's clearly not a like-for-like case as the UDR was not the UDA and UVF et al, yet from the outset the UDR was riddled with members of loyalist paramilitaries,
They flew under the same flag and were a convenient association due to having the same opponent, whereas other ideological views were non-compatible.
To some extent, the BA did banish many soldiers from the UDR due to their ties to loyalists: UDA association was forbidden and UVF members etc. were arrested.
However, to completely rid the regiment of members with questionable views would have been needed it to be disbanded hence why it was unofficially tolerated.
Morally, this was wrong - collusion with loyalists undermined the government, the regiment and the army. It was wrong then and it's wrong now.
Yet from an operational standpoint and the position NI was in, I can accept why those in charge tolerated it, and this comes back to the Ukrainian point.
We don't have to agree with the many dubious decisions that governments make to acknowledge why they did so due to the conflict they found themselves in.
english.almayadeen.net
www.ft.com
www.dw.com