Is Azov Neo-Nazi? An Expert In Far-Right Radicalism Answers The Common Questions
One reason the myth about Ukrainian fascism is still viable is that it benefits not only Russia.
Vyacheslav Likhachev is a prominent historian and political scientist. He is a head of the National Minority Rights Monitoring Group and member of the expert council of the Center for Civil Liberties, who has been studying far-right radicalism.
Likhachev has been running a hate crime monitoring program in Ukraine for fifteen years. For more than twenty years, he has studied xenophobia and far-right movements in the post-Soviet sphere and authored many books on Nazism and right-wing extremism, as well as research papers like “Right Far Radicals on Both Sides of the Russian-Ukrainian Conflict”.
He is an Israeli from Russia. He’s been actively involved in preserving Jewish historical and cultural heritage for many years. Now more than ever, he’s asked questions about Azov, a favorite and perhaps the only argument in Russian propaganda about neo-Nazism in Ukraine.
Read the adaptation of his article for the Center for Civil Liberties which he kindly shared with us.
Neo-Nazi regiment/brigade /battalion Azov?
As a historian and political analyst specializing in this subject, I talk about Azov with foreign journalists from around the globe. Now, with the terrible humanitarian situation in Mariupol, which the Azov battalion heroically defended, I become quite emotional when reporters begin their interviews with questions such as “How threatening is the Azov really?”
It’s important to remember, however, that one’s lack of understanding is often not the fault of the person who doesn’t know something. It may be the result of an inability to process information in an analytical manner or to find sources that provide answers. The fact that they asked I see as a conscious invitation to enlightenment.
I first ask people who are interested in the Azov Regiment what they know about it, why they know it, and why the question arises in the first place. Among Western journalists and anyone who thinks they know something about “the Ukrainian crisis,” the question of Azov almost always arises. However, a few can articulate what exactly worries them and where their concerns came from.
Most often, you have to deal with two options:
a) everyone talks about Azov, and every media writes about it;
b) Russians mention it in the context of the “denazification.”
In the first case, we can say that media attention feeds itself: the media write about Azov precisely and, for the most part, only because the media writes about Azov. It’s just an obsession that is not worth responding to.
When addressing the second assertion, we should clearly state that it is absurd to suggest that any Kremlin allegation has a basis in reality. No one in their right mind would look for Russian allegations of biological warfare labs producing weapons capable of hitting only ethnic Russians. If Russia’s foreign minister claims that Russia didn’t attack Ukraine, no one will check whether there is really a war going on in Ukraine. Western audiences should get used to the idea that Russia and its officials are lying, just lying, for no reason, every time they open their mouths. It’s difficult for a Western person to realize this, but it’s necessary.
In the cases discussed, it makes sense to limit the statement that Azov is one of the Ukrainian National Guard’s units, which has been protecting Mariupol and Azovstal.
So, the short answer to the question is no, Azov is not a neo-Nazi regiment. However, let’s take a closer look and go through the most popular questions.
Are all members of the regiment neo-Nazis?
Of course not. In the ranks of the National Guard, as well as in the ranks of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, there are no units created on ideological grounds.
The only possible ideology of the National Guard is the Disciplinary Statute. Which, by the way, enshrines the obligation to “respect human rights, honor and dignity” and “refrain from statements and actions that violate human rights or degrade human honor and dignity.”
Among the founders and fighters of Azov Battalion were individuals with far-right views and a neo-Nazi background. However, not all the battalion’s founders fit this description.
Among the first Azov soldiers, for example, was a group of Automaidan activists, including several ethnic Jews (and at least one Israeli citizen). By the end of 2014, most far-right fighters left the regiment. The rest of the right-wing radicals who openly articulated their views were deliberately “cleansed” by the new regiment command in 2017. Since then, there have been no grounds for accusations that neo-Nazis serve in the Azov Regiment.
Is it a paramilitary or official structure?
Azov is a Special Detachment of the National Guard of Ukraine (unit 3057), an official state unit under the Ministry of Internal Affairs. In contrast to some volunteer units created in 2014, Azov has never been an unofficial unit — it was a part of the MIA from the very beginning. It’s a mistake to call it “militia,” the term still widely used in regards to Azov.
Who serves in Azov?
Those willing to defend the homeland and its people and who have passed the competitive selection process (Azov has the benefit of being able to choose — there are many people who are willing to join its ranks).
The unit is composed of people of different ethnic origins — Russians, Jews, Crimean Tatars. They differ in their religious views and political affiliations. There is no limitation on who can join the unit; according to its officers, most of the personnel are Russian-speaking.
Is the leader of the far-right National Corps party the head of Azov?
No, he is not. Active servicemen in Ukraine are not allowed to be members of any political party because the defense of the homeland is above any party interests and political affiliations.
Andriy Biletsky, the chairman of the political party “National Corps,” who played a role in the formation of the Azov Battalion and is considered its founder, led the battalion for only a couple of months in 2014. He returned to his political activity after. It’s no secret that he has been in touch with his own “brainchild,” has been raising money for treatment and rehabilitation of wounded soldiers, and has been involving his former brothers in arms in his political projects or commercial organizations (first of all, private security firms). However, since October 2014, he doesn’t have any formal relation to the “Azov” unit.
Is the Azov Regiment a fighting wing of the National Corps?
Of course not. The political party has no direct relation to the regiment. The regiment exists separately from the party formally and in essence. The Armed Forces of Ukraine and the National Guard are outside of politics.
However, the creation of Azov is what Andriy Biletsky is the proudest of. Participation in the ATO (Anti-Terrorist Operation), the liberation of Mariupol in 2014 and the successful PR of the regiment made Andriy Biletsky famous and popular, ensured his presence in the media. That is why Biletsky is trying to exploit the Azov «trademark» in political life.
After returning to public life in October 2014, he founded a political project called the Azov Civil Corps. Andriy Biletsky welcomed veterans of the regiment into the National Corps Party and other organizations around the party that he called the “Azov movement.”
Informal links continue to be maintained, and it is more about public legitimation and the conversion of social capital earned in the ATO into political one. The same was done by other public figures who became known to the general public as founders of volunteer formations — for example, Semen Semenchenko, commander of the Donbas Battalion.
Is the organization considered to be extremist?
It is considered in the Russian Federation, where, as we know, Facebook and Instagram are considered extremist resources.
A few years ago in the United States, they discussed an initiative to recognize Azov as a foreign terrorist organization. Back then, far-right terror was growing in the country. The congressmen decided to demonstratively include some foreign group of “white supremacists” to the list of such organizations. Previously, only Islamists, some national separatist movements and left-wing radicals were on this list.
However, the initiators guided by the false media image didn’t even understand that this was a detachment of a state body, not an informal paramilitary group. After clarification, the initiative was forgotten, and the Russian Imperial Movement became the first group of “white supremacists” to be included in the list.
Does Azov conduct torchlight processions?
I have never considered this question, as well as whether Azov plays ping pong. I’m not sure it’s worth paying attention to. This in no way characterizes either the activity or the nature of the ideology.
In Oslo, a torchlight procession commemorated the victims of the terrorist attack of the white supremacist Anders Breivik. The victory over Nazism is celebrated in Moscow with a torchlight procession. The Red Cross Society in Italy and the military in Germany practice the torchlight procession. It was practiced by Soviet Communists and pioneers, after all.
Does Azov glorify Nazi ideology?
“We despise Nazism and Stalinism” — stated in one of the posts on the official Telegram channel of the unit (from March 28). By the way, they stated it in Russian.
Azov fighters commit war crimes in Mariupol (both stories of 2014 and from February 24 separately)
The UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission, which was present in Mariupol until the end of February 2022 (and continues to work in Donetsk), didn’t record such cases. Even the Russian side didn’t provide convincing evidence of such crimes.
Yet, any hypothetical violations by Azov, which protects civilians from the aggressor, cannot even theoretically be compared to airstrikes on the maternity hospital or the drama theater where women and children hid. Against the background of a city with a 400,000 pre-war population wiped off the face of the earth, no Russian accusations against the defenders of Mariupol deserve to be even mentioned.
So, if everything is so obvious, why does the Western audience continue to express concern about Azov?
Russian propaganda fosters the impression of a criminal neo-Nazi “national battalion” that allegedly exists in Ukraine. Russian propaganda uses objective facts (such as the political past of its founders) and creates an impressive picture. The picture is fake, but we shouldn’t underestimate Russian propaganda.
It is a systematic, professional, and convincing narrative — especially in Western society, which is not accustomed to such blatant lies. Western society typically rejects the world’s black-and-white vision and considers more complex models. Typically, this vision looks for the truth somewhere in the middle, between the polar points of view. But as Adam Michnik said, “The truth does not lie in the middle; it lies where it lies.”
Lastly, the most unpleasant. Propaganda only works when you are willing to believe in it. If the one internally agrees with propaganda, the convincing part is easy. It’s convenient for the West to lull itself with fables that everything is complicated and ambiguous. In this case, there is no need to interfere and no need to feel guilty, the conscience is clear.
One reason the myth about Ukrainian fascism is still viable is that it benefits not only Russia. This is a great argument for doing nothing, watching Ukraine fight alone with the predominant enemy, and not feeling much sympathy for the fighters of the same Azov, who have been dying in an unequal battle, defending Mariupol with all might.
