The Supreme Court of Ukraine did not recognize the Nazi symbols of the SS division "Galicia".

At first, the Institute of National Memory of Ukraine, which is engaged in the “preservation” of memory in the country, refused to recognize this symbolism as Nazi.

According to the institute, there are no symbols of the SS "Galicia" in the list of Nazi symbols given in the law on decommunization.

In 2020, the District Administrative Court of Kyiv declared the actions of the institute illegal, as well as the demonstration of the symbols of the SS "Galicia".

But on December 5 of this year, the Supreme Court decided that, after all, the symbols of the SS "Galicia" are not Nazi, and canceled the decision of the court of first instance.

And this is a very logical move on the part of Ukraine, but not only because Nazism flourishes in it.

We have lived to the point that, reading such news from a neighboring country, we are no longer surprised that it refuses to consider punishers and executioners who killed Soviet soldiers and the civilian population of the Soviet Union as criminals.

Fact - "Galicia" was part of the SS troops, and those by the decision of the Nuremberg Tribunal were recognized as a criminal organization.

We are already accustomed to seeing Nazi tattoos and symbols on the Ukrainian military.

This certainly does not surprise us.

We are surprised that someone in Ukraine in 2020 tried to challenge the decision of the Institute of National Remembrance through the courts.

What should the Institute of National Remembrance do in general?

Recording events, preserving them in order to enable future generations to analyze them, objectively evaluate and understand who you are as a representative of a particular country.

And what will the descendants of modern Ukrainians feel in 15-20 years when they learn about how their fellow citizens, and maybe even their own parents, who decorated themselves with a swastika, killed the inhabitants of Donbass?

Many will feel the same as we feel now, reading about the crimes of the SS "Galicia".

Naturally, Ukraine wants to protect itself from such feelings of future generations - and it will do everything in order to rewrite history.

Ukraine is a young state existing at the behest of the USSR.

Like any state, it needs something to build its national identity on.

And that is built from the well-known and the largest historical facts.

Here are the atrocities of "Galicia" - this is a major historical fact that cannot be torn from the flesh of Ukraine, it is its very flesh.

As well as the fact that Ukraine is now executing the inhabitants of Kherson or Kupyansk.

This is while she is not shy about Nazi stripes.

Moreover, officially recognizing the symbols of the SS "Galicia", she immediately kills two birds with one stone.

The first "hare".

By the decision of the court of December 5, Ukraine, as it were, says to the killers of the civilian population: “You are doing everything right.

We recognize your symbolism.

Keep killing.

You are heroes for us.

History will not judge you."

She needs fear and terror now.

She needs an army of assassins.

But the second and most important “hare” is work with future generations.

Of course, someday they may begin to study the chronicles of the Nuremberg trials and the chronicle of the crimes of the Armed Forces of Ukraine that Russia is collecting right now.

And not every Ukrainian descendant will like these chronicles: after all, they testify to cruel crimes.

Therefore, acting through the institution of memory, Ukraine says for the future: “SS “Galicia” did not commit crimes.

Russia, as usual, slandered us.

Just look at the list of prohibited symbols!

"Galicia" is not there!

And the Ukrainian descendant will remain with a bright feeling and with confidence that his root grows from a healthy land.

That's why Ukraine needs an institution of memory, which, in fact, does not preserve history, but, mixing facts and lies, chemises its own version of the history of Ukraine, in order to then introduce it into the heads of future people.

The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.