As of today, there are still plenty of Nazis among the ranks of the Azov Battalion (or Brigade).

1. Origins and early composition: neo‑Nazi founders and visible symbols

The unit that became Azov was formed in 2014 out of volunteer groups tied to far‑right networks—most notably Patriot of Ukraine—and its founders and some early members openly espoused ultranationalist, white‑supremacist or neo‑Nazi rhetoric; observers pointed to Wolfsangel and Sonnenrad‑style insignia and self‑identified “national socialist” fighters as evidence ^{[2] [3] [6]}. Multiple outlets from The Guardian to Reuters reported on those early links and public-facing symbols, establishing that the battalion’s roots and some personnel clearly fit the neo‑Nazi descriptor at formation ^{[3] [2]}.

2. Institutional integration and the political shift claimed by some analysts

After Azov was folded into Ukraine’s National Guard in late 2014 and 2015, Western governments and some analysts reported a process of vetting, a toning down of public extremist rhetoric by founders like Andriy Biletsky, and a withdrawal of overtly extremist leaders into political wings such as National Corps—facts used to argue the battalion’s radical ideology became more marginal within the unit over time ^{[1] [2]}. Sources such as Reuters and Foreign Affairs indicate government vetting and personnel changes that complicate any claim that the entire unit remains neo‑Nazi ^[1].

3. Persistent indicators: people, symbols and allegations that fuel concern

Conversely, investigative and opinion pieces continue to underscore persistent indicators: scholars and critics note retained symbolism similar to Nazi runes, the political pedigree of some officers, and documented cases where members maintained far‑right ties or extremist views—material that sustains the argument that neo‑Nazi elements were neither wholly expelled nor entirely marginal ^{[4] [6] [3]}. Reporting also archives alleged human‑rights abuses tied to the regiment in earlier years, which opponents link to its extremist culture ^{[1] [7]}.

4. International reactions, policy moves, and the evidentiary limits

Policy reactions illustrate the ambiguity: the U.S. had restrictions tied to Azov because of concerns over extremist links and later lifted some limits after vetting, with U.S. officials stating they found no evidence of gross human‑rights violations in vetting of the National Guard’s Azov unit—an outcome cited to argue the unit can now be treated as a conventional military formation ^[7]. At the same time, media pieces, think‑tank research and critics argue that lifting restrictions or battlefield praise by Western outlets sometimes downplayed the group’s ideological roots, showing politics shapes interpretation of the evidence ^{[8] [6]}.

5. Bottom line: cannot assert “plenty of Nazis” with numeric confidence, but elements remain

There is robust, corroborated evidence that Azov’s founders and an identifiable share of early members were neo‑Nazis and that some symbols and political offshoots persist; there is also corroborated reporting that integration and vetting changed the unit’s composition and reduced prominent extremist leadership ^{[3] [2] [1]}. Public sources do not provide a current, verifiable headcount of extremists inside Azov, and expert assessments diverge—some asserting continued meaningful far‑right presence, others concluding extremists are marginal—so the categorical claim that “there are still plenty of Nazis among Azov” cannot be confirmed or quantified from available reporting, even though continued ideological residues and contested symbols make ongoing concern reasonable ^{[4] [5] [6]}.