To examine the characteristics of Azov in comparison to fascism, this paper will use Michael Mann’s short definition of fascism in his book, Fascists (2004). Michael Mann is a distinguished research professor of Sociology. Mann received his D.Phil in Sociology from Oxford and has written extensively on comparative sociology and history (The British Academy, n.d.). Mann’s short definition is: “fascism is the pursuit of a transcendent and cleansing nation-statism through paramilitarism” (Mann, 2004, p. 13). The paper will first draw comparisons by focusing on the aspect of escalated nationalism, which has a strong sense of “organic” or “integral” nation as well as extreme aggression towards its enemies, foreign or internal (Mann, 2004).

The Azov Battalion and Its Minority Targets

Azov is a self-described ultra-nationalist organization, generally focused on Ukraine’s ongoing conflict with Russia, as well as the nation’s independence and dignity. The immediate external enemy for these nationalists is Russia, which threatens and undermines their country’s autonomy and has done so since before the 2014 separatist conflict. However, as eastern Ukraine has become more stable on the war front, Azov has shifted its emphasis inward, focusing strongly on opposing anti-fascists, liberals, LGBT+, Roma, and feminists within Ukraine as well as promoting xenophobic views (Miller, 2018). This extreme form of nationalism, as well as a focus on hatred towards both internal and external enemies, fits Mann’s nationalist aspect of fascism.

Mann points to the coercion of the opposition as an aspect of fascist paramilitarism. Azov has been connected to violence symagainst an anti-fascist march in Kyiv in 2018, a violent intervention in a lecture about discrimination in film in Mariupol, and an attack against feminist demonstrators and liberals on International Women’s Day (OpenDemocracy, 2018). These are only a few examples of the violence carried out against their opposition, and while “they do not possess a complete monopoly on violence, Azov has certainly established political control of the streets in Mariupol. To maintain this control, they have to react violently… to any public event which diverges sufficiently from their political agenda” (OpenDemocracy, 2018, para. 42). Azov has clearly demonstrated violence against opposing groups in its own country.

Another part of the definition of fascism is cleansing: the removal of opponents and enemies, whether ethnic or political (Mann, 2004). In the 20th century, the Nazis targeted specific ethnic groups, while Italian Fascists targeted political groups (Mann, 2004). In the case of Ukraine, anti-Roma pogroms are an example of ethnic cleansing. One of the groups responsible for the multiple deadly attacks on Roma camps in the spring of 2018 was the National Druzhina. This street patrol and militia is arguably a component of the Azov movement, as it is a volunteer paramilitary group formed under the National Corps, which is a political party created by Azov leadership (Miller, 2018).

While there has not been outright anti-Semitic violence linked to Azov, the group’s blatant neo-nazism can be addressed. In 2016, Azov entered the political arena with its new leader, Andrew Biletsky. Biletsky has a history of being involved with the far-right and once said in 2010 that the nation’s mission was to “lead the white races of the world in a final crusade… against Semite-led Untermenschen [subhumans]” (Miller, 2018). Biletsky also had a leadership role in the ultranationalist organization, Patriot of Ukraine, which according to the Kharkiv Human Rights Group “espoused xenophobic and neo-Nazi ideas and was engaged in violent attacks against migrants, foreign students in Kharkiv, and those opposing its views” (Miller, 2018). Biletsky has not made an openly racist or anti-semitic statement since the beginning of Azov in 2014, however, this is likely part of his attempt to shed more radical assets of his ideology as Azov enters the public eye (Reporting Radicalism, 2020). This phenomenon was addressed by Azov’s international secretary, Olena Semenyaka, who explained that neo-Nazi and far-right imagery “vanished quite quickly [in Azov], because when you have a chance to create history yourself, you cannot be just like a bad caricature” (Colborne, 2019).

To add to the problematic neo-nazism present in the group, Azov’s symbol is highly similar in appearance to the Nazi Wolfsangel; however, the group denies such claims and says it is an amalgam of “N” and “I” representing “national idea” (Miller, 2018). Although the group denies connections to neo-nazis, Azov itself formed from two neo-nazi groups. Individual members of Azov have openly acknowledged being neo-nazis, and the fondness the group has for symbols, salutes, and swastikas that can be called, at least, “nazi-reminiscent” are telling of their anti-Semitic beliefs (Golinkin, 2019)

Another key part of Mann’s definition of fascism is transcendence (Mann, 2004). Fascists did not accept the conflict that was a part of the existing social order. “They rejected liberal and social democratic notions that the conflict of interest groups is a normal feature of society” (Mann, 2004, p. 14), and they sought to transcend this conflict by “first repressing those who fomented strife… and then incorporating classes and other interest groups into state corporatist institutions” (Mann, 2004). In the case of Azov, there is not a clear aspect of class conflict that the group seeks to overcome, as is seen with other fascist movements. However, Azov’s intolerance as a group and anti-democratic facets fit with the fascist rejection of liberal democratic institutions.

Azov’s Rhetoric in Light of Changing Ukrainian Discourse

It has been observed that “in light of daily reports from the front lines and weekly tallies of war victims, Ukrainian official political rhetoric, mass media discourse, cultural policies, and memory affairs have become more militant and nationalistic” (Umland, 2020, para. 30). This mainstreaming of a nationalist message will likely allow ultra-nationalist groups such as Azov to be more tolerated and accepted, if not supported, in Ukraine.

There has been a state-sponsored glorification of Nazi collaborators in Ukraine. In 2015, Ukraine made it a criminal offense to deny the heroism of two WWII paramilitaries, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. Both of these “fascist organizations collaborated with Nazi Germany, carried out ethnic cleansing and mass murder on a massive scale,” (Rudling, 2011). Furthermore, state officials have publicly made anti-semitic statements, including a parliament deputy going on an anti-semitic rant on television and a far-right politician remarking that Hitler didn’t finish off the Jews (Golinkin, 2019). The Israeli state’s recent report on antisemitism noted that Ukraine had more instances of anti-Semitic activity than all other post-Soviet countries combined (Golinkin, 2019). This increasingly anti-semitic climate within the Ukrainian government may allow for more tolerance or even acceptance towards groups with neo-Nazi associations, such as Azov. This is dangerous for Jewish people living in Ukraine, and it weakens the developing legitimacy of Ukraine’s government.

Statism is another part of Mann’s definition of fascism (Mann, 2004). Azov does not precisely fit this aspect, as it lacks national political representation and the agenda of controlling the state at this time. However, the group itself has been described as a “state within a state.” Azov has worked hard to “monopolize the nationalist sector of Ukraine’s political field” (OpenDemocracy, 2018, para. 28). By recruiting other far-right groups and young people, Azov has tried to create its own consolidated state of power in far-right politics in Ukraine. Azov’s network can unite various far-right organizations and supporters to increase their reach and numbers.

This mobilization of the right by Azov is particularly concerning given the ways that Azov exercises control and influence within the state. The Interior Minister in Ukraine, Arsen Avakov – the second most powerful person in the state – has close ties to Azov through Biletsky. The police in Ukraine also have far-right supporters and sympathizers (Golinkin, 2019). By having these connections, the far right can act with impunity, and this seeping of power into the state could pose a threat to Ukraine’s citizens and societal development.