So then what exactly are you advocating for?

So what are you advocating for? A full scale NATO invasion of Russia?

What kind of peace would have been negotiated? One where Russia gets to keep the territory they had already taken? Proving that all they have to do is begin an invasion and their victims will just hand them territory with the world’s blessing?

Or do we live in a fantasy world where Russia invades a country with the goal of annexing it, only to immediately accept a peace deal where they hand back all the territory they just took and pay reparations for all the damage they caused? Do Unicorns poop candy and fart rainbows in this magical wonderland?

The notion of a negotiated peace between Russia and Ukraine is ridiculous, and - short of some sort of meaningful capitulation from Russia - anyone talking about it with a straight face should not be taken seriously.

I’m not really sure what they’re trying to raise as a specific issue here.

Azov are a part of the Ukrainian military. That’s Ukraine’s decision. If we give arms to Ukraine there’s a good chance some of those arms will end up in the hands of Azov members.

There’s not really any way to avoid that. We need to put diplomatic pressure on Ukraine to deal with the problem of far right extremists in their country (and, y’know, it would probably help if we were leading the way by doing more to deal with far right extremists in our own country), but abandoning them to the Russians just because they’re not perfect paragons of progressive idealism isn’t helping anything.