This is not a joke. This is not hyperbole. This is not clever framing and not a fringe conspiracy. This is a verifiable reality that many Americans do not know, but ought to know, especially as they cheer on US foreign policy actions that morally undermine everything America stands for.
World War II and 9/11 are often given as decisive and conclusive historical examples that justify US foreign policy: We had to fight the Nazis and we had to fight the al-Qaeda terrorists. Foreign policy debates notwithstanding, what most Americans do not realize is that the current US foreign policy (especially over the last two decades)—far from fighting modern-day Nazis and terrorists—gives them money, equipment, and support. For the sake of clarity, let it be stated very simply: American, your newly-inflated tax dollars go, in part, to support neo-Nazis in Ukraine and Islamic extremist, al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists in the Middle East.
While the US regime, and many Americans following suit, often attempts to fashion every conflict into the fill-in-the-blank paradigm of World War II—every conflict is the next WWII, every dictator is “Hitler,” everyone questioning the war is “Neville Chamberlain,” an “isolationist,” in favor of “appeasement”—many of Americans unknowingly supported and continue to support the US sending money to support true neo-Nazis.
While Americans also recall the trauma of 9/11—an event that will forever define history for the US and is comparable in its significance to Pearl Harbor—and while 9/11 has been the definitive moment for US foreign policy for the last several decades in the global War on Terror, many Americans unknowingly supported and continue to support the US sending money to support al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist groups in Libya, Syria, and Yemen, and other places.
These facts totally undermine the underlying narratives of the US foreign policy regime. If an interventionist foreign policy is morally required because of WWII and 9/11, then why are we being forced to support the very types of “monsters” we are told we are fighting?
The Neo-Nazis in Ukraine: The Azov Battalion
Since almost all foreign conflicts are cast in the mold of WWII, many Americans assume that the Russia-Ukraine war fits that simple “Mad Lib” template—Putin is Hitler, his forces are Nazis; anyone critical of this war, questioning the wisdom of this conflict, or attempting to provide more historical context are “isolationists” or “Neville Chamberlain.”
Setting aside the issues of NATO expansion and a proxy war with a nuclear power, Americans should be informed that the $61.4 billion sent to Ukraine since Russia’s invasion in February 2022 and the $64.1 billion sent since the initial invasion in 2014, has, in part, armed groups like the Azov Battalion, even hosting founders of neo-Nazi Ukrainian parties. The US government supported a coup in Ukraine in 2014. In doing so, the instability that followed from the 2014 coup brought these already-problematic neo-Nazi/fascist forces into the open. The Azov Battalion was already accused of human rights abuses, including torture.
Though often dismissed as “Russian propaganda” (e.g., “Putin’s Imaginary Nazis”) the Atlantic Council reported the following: “Ukraine’s Got a Real Problem with Far-Right Violence (And No, RT Didn’t Write This Headline)” (2018). The C14 neo-Nazi militia perpetrated attacks throughout Ukraine, aided by state funds. In the US in 2014, Senate Republicans launched a bill to support arming Ukraine, despite these known elements.
Andriy Parubiy was the founder of Social-National Party (named after Hitler’s original National Socialist Party, but later renamed Svoboda) of Ukraine in 1991. He also founded the Patriot of Ukraine—another neo-Nazi party. Parubiy played a major role in the 2013 Maidan demonstrations that brought down the government in 2014 (which was supported by Obama and John McCain). As for the Azov Battalion and other similar groups, they were originally a paramilitary group of right-wing Ukrainian nationalists under the Ukrainian Social National Party, but later, the Azov Battalion was incorporated into Ukraine’s Interior Ministry.
In the US Congress, language had been put into HR 2685 by John Conyers and Ted Yoho attempting to limit “arms, training, and other assistance to the neo-Nazi Ukrainian militia, the Azov Battalion,” which passed by a unanimous vote in the House. Who could possibly object? However, “Under pressure from the Pentagon, Congress has stripped the spending bill of an amendment that prevented funds from falling into the hands of Ukrainian neo-fascist groups.” Yes, you read that correctly—Congress removed a provision that attempted to prevent giving arms and assistance to known neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine. James Carden reported,
What is clear is that by stripping out the anti-neo-Nazi provision, Congress and the administration have paved the way for US funding to end up in the hands of the most noxious elements circulating within Ukraine today.
Nor did this only happen once. House-passed spending bills had such language banning government spending to these groups, but each time the language was removed before final passage. Furthermore, the State Department announced in June 2024 that the US has lifted a weapons ban on a certain Ukrainian military unit—the Azov Brigade. In an interview entitled, “America’s Collusion With Neo-Nazis” (2018), professor emeritus of Russian studies at both NYU and Princeton said, “Among the omissions, few realities are more important than the role played by neofascist forces in US-backed, Kiev-governed Ukraine since 2014.”
While in America, terms like “Hitler,” “Nazi,” “fascist,” and “neo-Nazi” were pushed into meaninglessness through overuse and absurd application. It is supremely ironic that those who use WWII, Hitler, Nazis, and fascism as justifications for every foreign intervention—those who often advocated to “punch a Nazi,” called themselves “antifascists,” called Trump “Hitler,” claimed Trump held a Nazi rally, etc.—also dutifully, unquestioningly displayed their Ukraine flag on social media, and unknowingly threw their support behind real neo-Nazis in Ukraine in a proxy war against Russia. While thinking they were supporting fighting the “Nazis” of our time, the American people were traitorously tricked into funding neo-Nazis in a dangerous conflict against a nuclear power. American, for the last decade, your tax dollars have been going, in part, to Nazi groups.
The Terrorists in the Middle East
Besides Pearl Harbor and WWII, no single event has been used as justification for ongoing foreign intervention like 9/11. After al-Qaeda struck the US on 9/11, the grieving country unified behind one simple sentiment: “Never Forget.”
Popular sentiment claimed the War on Terror was necessary and effective to prevent more 9/11’s and was the reason for interventionist foreign policy. We’re “fighting them over there, so we don’t have to fight them over here.” Whether that statement is entirely correct, if it is truly believed, then surely years of arming al-Qaeda-like terrorists (“arming them over there”) is not only counterproductive, but a betrayal.
George W. Bush and the neoconservative war hawks in his administration seized on the public’s pain and confusion in the wake of 9/11 to launch several unrelated wars in the Middle East. When Washington sent the troops into Iraq in 2003 and overthrew Saddam Hussein, it destroyed the balance of power and handed Iran a significant amount of influence over the region.
The regime in Iran is an old enemy of Washington and the primary adversary of Israel, the American government’s closest ally. A more powerful Iran was deemed unacceptable by the very people who had just brought it about. The American military was bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Iran possessed a much more advanced military than either of those countries, so a full-scale invasion of Iran was off the table.
Instead, as Seymour Hersh laid out in a detailed New Yorker article at the time, the Bush administration decided to use the US government’s covert elements to bankroll armed revolutions against some of Iran’s most important regional allies, even if similar to al-Qaeda in ideology and practices and sometimes aligned with them (e.g., Libya, Yemen, Syria, etc.). The popular euphemism for that period was “moderate rebels.”
In light of the January 1, 2025 terror attack in New Orleans, this becomes even more relevant. The typical discourse will likely suggest that, because of this attack and others, what is needed is more foreign intervention by the US in the Arabian Peninsula and/or more restriction of Americans for our own “security.” Instead, what is necessary is to realize that our government has been—and continues—funding and arming our enemies in foreign countries. This includes bombings, wars, and sanctions and we experience these shocking consequences later. At bare minimum, we ask that our government stop funding and arming our enemies.
For example, while information is still coming out about the New Orleans attack by Texas-born Shamsud-Din Jabbar on New Year’s Day, it has been reported that there was an ISIS flag in his vehicle. While it is difficult to be sure of the exact motive yet, the policy of the US government has been an increased bombing campaign against ISIS and simultaneous support for the overthrow of the Assad regime in Syria by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which is an offshoot of al-Qaeda and has a very similar ideology to ISIS.
After the US-supported overthrow of the regime in Syria—to the detriment of many in Syria and the region, especially Christians—a process of “terrorist rebranding” began to take place. Julani fought for al-Qaeda in Iraq and founded HTS in 2017, which had been designated (correctly) as a terrorist organization by the US government. Kyle Anzalone writes,
HTS was given the terror designation shortly after Julani founded the organization in 2017. The organization grew out of the al-Nusra Front, al-Qaeda’s Syria affiliate. At the time, Washington and London recognized Julani’s reorganization of his militant group as an effort to obscure its al-Qaeda origins.
Following the US-assisted overthrow of the Assad regime (which has taken place over years), there was discussion about whether to consider HTS a “terrorist” organization. While we should be shocked, we should not be surprised, the US regime has covertly been working with such characters since at least the Carter administration, when the CIA, Osama bin Laden, and the mujahideen teamed up against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Similar to the issues of sending American guns and money to the Azov Battalion, Tulsi Gabbard put forward a “Stop Arming Terrorists Act” (March 6, 2017).
How can it be the case that—because of WWII and because of 9/11—our current foreign policy somehow justifies sending American aid and comfort to “monsters,” neo-Nazis and terrorists? These are the very elements we are told we must oppose via interventionist foreign policy. These actions are not only dangerous and counterproductive, but breathtaking acts of betrayal.
