Last week, the Biden administration said it would allow the Azov Brigade, a Ukrainian military unit, to receive U.S. weaponry and training, freeing it from a purported ban imposed in response to concerns that it committed human rights violations and had neo-Nazi ties.
A photo posted by the unit itself, however, seems to suggest that the U.S. was providing support as far back as December of last year.
The photo, in tandem with the administration’s own statements, highlights the murky nature of the arms ban, how it was imposed, and under what U.S. authority. Two mechanisms could have barred arms transfers: a law passed by Congress specifically prohibiting assistance to Azov, and the so-called Leahy laws that block support to units responsible for grave rights violations.
“My guess is that the Department found that the Brigade is a ‘new unit,’ distinguishable from the Battalion and the Regiment.”
The State Department said this month that weapon shipments will now go forward after a Leahy law review, but won’t comment on if and when a Leahy ban was in effect. The congressional prohibition, the U.S. says, does not apply because it barred assistance to the Azov Battalion, a predecessor to the Azov Brigade. The original unit had earned scrutiny for alleged human rights violations and ties to neo-Nazi and white supremacist ideologies.
The U.S. has not made clear about when the apparent ban started, but a deputy Azov commander and media reports indicate some type of prohibition has been in effect for nearly a decade — though the congressional ban has only been in effect since 2018.
“There was a request for resources for the 12th Special Forces Brigade, which prompted a Leahy vetting process, in which they were found to be eligible,” a State Department spokesperson told The Intercept, suggesting the approval process did not deal with any existing bans. (The State Department did not respond to questions asking for clarity if that was the case.)
One former American official said that because of the unit’s byzantine history of reorganizations and official status, the State Department should better explain its decisions.
“Given the history of the Azov Regiment, the Azov Battalion, and the Azov Brigade, the State Department’s ought to provide a more detailed rationale for the finding that the Brigade is eligible pursuant to the Leahy law,” Charles Blaha, the former director of the State Department’s Office of Security and Human Rights, told The Intercept. “My guess is that the Department found that the Brigade is a ‘new unit,’ distinguishable from the Battalion and the Regiment. If that’s correct, the Department should say so.”
U.S. Special Ops Training
Restrictions on U.S. military support may have been in effect when the Azov Brigade’s official Telegram channel and X account announced in March that the unit’s personnel recently completed an American military training. The course, on civil–military cooperation, was provided by U.S. Special Operations Command Europe, or SOCEUR, according to the posts.
One attached photo shows a captain in the Azov unit being presented with a certificate dated December 2023 by a person with a blurred face in U.S. military fatigues. A second photo shows a group of people in U.S. military apparel holding an American flag next to a group of several dozen others, some of whom are holding a flag with the Azov insignia.
Department of Defense spokesperson Tim Gorman would not comment on the SOCEUR training, including whether or not it was legal, and referred The Intercept to the State Department. (The Azov unit did not respond to a request for comment.)
The State Department also declined to answer repeated questions about the SOCEUR training and its legality, or whether there had been other U.S. military training with Azov before clearing the group under the Leahy laws.
The spokesperson told The Intercept that it found no evidence of the Azov Brigade committing violations of human rights that would bar American aid under the Leahy laws.
Russia has tried to discredit the Azov Brigade, the State Department spokesperson said, by conflating it with its predecessor, the Azov Battalion militia. The Azov Battalion, which is under congressional sanctions, was absorbed into the Ukrainian National Guard in 2014 then underwent several more reorganizations before becoming a brigade in 2023. Others have echoed concerns of propaganda against Azov, pointing to Russia’s amplification of claims about Nazis in Ukraine to justify its invasion.
“That militia disbanded in 2015 and the composition of Special Forces Brigade Azov is significantly different,” the spokesperson noted. Another spokesperson, meanwhile, said, “The Battalion was disbanded in 2014 and the United States has never provided security assistance to the ‘Azov battalion.’”
With the State Department leaning on the distinction between the “battalion” and the “brigade” to get around congressional sanctions, some representatives are moving to shore up the statutory ban on military support to Azov. In recent days, the proposed defense appropriations language was updated.
“None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to provide arms, training, intelligence, or other assistance to the Azov Battalion, the Third Separate Assault Brigade, or any successor organization,” the new language reads, gesturing to a brigade created by Battalion veterans, as well as the Azov Brigade itself.
The current language in effect only pertains to the Azov Battalion.
A former House staffer, who was involved in efforts to ban support to Azov but wishes to remain anonymous for safety reasons, expressed to The Intercept, “The fact that Congress is moving swiftly to confirm that the ban applies to ‘successor organizations’ like the Azov Regiment, Azov Brigade, or any other name changes, demonstrates that the White House’s perspective is unfounded.”
The State Department’s justification for lifting arms restrictions is based on the argument that the composition of the battalion and brigade are “significantly different.” This determination would be made under provisions of the Leahy determinations, which allow for differentiation between old and “fundamentally different units,” such as changes in leadership and culture.
Despite claims of the battalion being disbanded and the brigade being different, the unit’s own statements contradict this. Their website celebrates their 10-year anniversary and acknowledges the transition from volunteers to a special purpose brigade, indicating continuity rather than significant change.
Josh Paul, a former director in the State Department’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, stated that he was not aware of any standing restriction on Azov and believed the unit had been eligible for aid since at least 2022. However, Ukrainian officials suggested to the Washington Post that there was indeed a ban on Azov receiving US weapons.
Two months ago, Azov commander Prokopenko mentioned on X that Azov is still blacklisted from receiving any US aid. He also complained about the lack of resources and outdated weapons due to the congressional ban on aid during the defense of Mariupol in 2022.
The former House staffer emphasized, “The unavoidable reality is that there is a current ban on US arms and training going to the Azov units. If the White House wants to arm and train the most neo-Nazi-linked group in Ukraine, it should push for Congress to remove the ban.”
Overall, Congress is looking to strengthen the law rather than weaken it, making it challenging to lift the ban on Azov. Please provide me with a rewritten sentence or paragraph to assist you.
Source link