I’ve said before that the Azov movement, or just that shorthand ‘Azov,’ is one of the most widely discussed yet poorly understood far-right movements in the world. I’d describe the movement like this: it’s a multi-pronged, heterogeneous far-right social movement that grew out of its namesake military unit, the Azov Regiment, and exert at least some influence on Ukrainian politics and society despite its small numbers (e.g., at most 20,000 members estimated at some points in the past). It continues, even during the current invasion, to evolve and grow and adapt, and is probably one of the most PR-savvy far-right movements I’ve ever seen. But it’s not some invincible far-right force — it’s had its struggles, its ups and downs, and isn’t about to take over Ukraine in some flight of Russian propaganda fancy or become some mass Fascist movement of hundreds of thousands like the 1930s. Discourse on Azov tends to be black-and-white — it’s either nothing to be concerned about and uninfluential, or it’s literally the NSDAP redux — but there’s all sorts of shades of grey in there that get painted over. And studying it helps us, I’d argue, understand other far-right movements around the world
