Thank you for actually bringing sources. I've tried to find them myself, but search engines heavily favor current events, so it's difficult to find anything as old as these.

Go to a search engine. Select custom date range (desktop mode if on mobile). FIlter to before 2022. Easy. Very, very easy. There are also article written about this exact phenomenon of the shift of bourgeois media coverage once there was a chance for liberals to feel righteous in being Russophobic.

You did not try very hard. I spent literally 10 seconds on Google and found these kinds of articles.

I've probably asked literally a dozen times for sources in an honest attempt to engage with the subject, and so far, I'm FAR more likely to be verbally abused for not blindly agreeing than to actually receive information.

Because you present yourself as obstinate and combative. You say you want sources, but act like it's a demand or a bar for others to emet rather than a favor being done for you by people who aren't paid to educate you.

Only one person before you has even done so much as to provide a couple names as decent starting points for research. The sheer amount of vitriol combined with a complete lack of genuine evidence was making me increasingly sure it was completely baseless.

Then you need to rework the way you think.

This one makes it clear that the Nazis exist in too large a capacity, but it also outright states that some of the claims that it's a Nazi regime are just not true. While few in number, they do seem to be receiving a concerning amount of freedom and power. This one makes it seem like the problem is bigger than I expected but still certainly not at the level people here like to portray it as. I can understand the inclination to make a deal to set aside differences temporarily and enable what they perceive to be a lesser threat to aid them against a greater mutual threat, but I'm not so sure it's a good idea.

The article leads with a description of neo-Nazis forcing a town to change their budget at gunpoint. Those neo-Nazis were given this leeway by Kiev, they were shock troops for ethnic cleansing campaigns. As the people willing to do that work against "separatists" (people opposed to their own ethnic cleansing), they enjoyed and enjoy high posts in military and interior matters as well as state cover. From the article, "Since the Crimean crisis, the militias have been formally integrated into Ukraine’s armed forces [...]". Azov was later integrated more than described. "According to Schaaf and the Institute Respublica, Ukrainian extremists are rarely punished for acts of violence. In some cases — such as C14's January attack on a remembrance gathering for two murdered journalists — police actually detain peaceful demonstrators instead." THey toe the line of "To be clear, the Kremlin’s claims that Ukraine is a hornets’ nest of fascists are false: far-right parties performed poorly in Ukraine’s last parliamentary elections", focusing on the Duma as the only seat of political power, whereas the fact they are in the ministires and have carte blanche for violence is somehow not considered contradictory of this. Again, electoralism brain prevents thinking correctly, politically. "In an ideal world, President Petro Poroshenko would purge the police and the interior ministry of far-right sympathizers, including Interior Minister Arsen Avakov, who has close ties to Azov leader Andriy Biletsky," now where have you heard that name before? And look who is close to him. The far-right is "not a hornets' nest of fascists" but the interior minister has close ties to neo-Nazis and the neo-Nazi future deputy minister. "as well as Sergei Korotkykh, an Azov veteran who is now a high-ranking police official." are you getting a sense for how political power is not just elections?

"As one Ukrainian analyst noted in December, control of these forces make Avakov extremely powerful and Poroshenko’s presidency might not be strong enough to withstand the kind of direct confrontation with Avakov that an attempt to oust him or to strike at his power base could well produce. Poroshenko has endured frequent verbal threats, including calls for revolution, from ultranationalist groups, so he may believe that he needs Avakov to keep them in check. Avakov’s Peoples’ Party status as the main partner in Ukraine’s parliamentary coalition increases Avakov’s leverage over Poroshenko’s Bloc. An attempt to fire Avakov could imperil Poroshenko’s slim legislative majority, and lead to early parliamentary elections. Given Poroshenko’s current unpopularity, this is a scenario he will likely try to avoid."

Hmmmm. WHy do you think they say the Duma is not a hornets' nest of fascists but then go on to explain how their most powerful leader is beholden to a neo-Nazi?

Who is Josh Cohen? What is USAID? Do you know?

Anyways I'm not going to go through the rest. I just want to point out that you are not being media critical nor understanding the content at hand. This is what pro-Ukraine, anti-Russia liberal propagandists were saying about the Kiev regime before 2022, this is how little they could work with and how hard they had to work to paper over contradictions. This is in stark contrast to post-2022 articles that were fully Kiev regime apologetic, seeminglyc ould not take pictures of soldiers without neo-Nazi insignia, tried to fully ignore the preceding ethnic cleansing years in Donbas, and literally, very literally, celebrated actual Nazis as heroes. And yet, your response is to try and poke holes and to buy the propaganda narrative easily with not one whit of critical analysis.

See, you could be asking questions. You could say, "Okay I read that first one and it seems to be saying X, Y, Z. What do you think about that? Am I missing something?". But no. It's confident, 'it's not that bad and doesn't match what you all are saying'.