"neo-nazi": Galen Carpenter, Ted (17 May 2022). "The News Media's Ukraine Whitewash Grows Worse". Cato Institute. Retrieved 20 May 2022. The Azov battalion was notorious for years before the Russian invasion as a bastion of extreme nationalists and outright Nazis. That aspect proved to be more than just a source of embarrassment for Ukraine's supporters when the unit became a crucial player in the battle for the city of Mariupol. [...] However, the coverage of the Ukraine war threatens to achieve a new low in media integrity and credibility. When the establishment press whitewashes the behavior of outright neo‐Nazis, something is terribly amiss.Note: some users question this author's scholarly credibility
"formerly": Gomza, Ivan (April 2022). "Too Much Ado About Ukrainian Nationalists: the Azov Movement and the War in Ukraine". Krytyka. Retrieved 23 April 2022. It is certainly true that Azov was an ultra-nationalist and even neo-Nazi organization at its founding." and "However, like any militant and social movement, it has evolved beyond its origins." and " The best sign of Azov's pro-democratic evolution is, ..." and "It is the first step, and many more should follow, including those to understand why pundits spent efforts speculating about Azov instead of warning about a real fascist threat.Note: some users do not consider this to argue that Azov is "formerly neo-nazi."[1]
"formerly": Ritzmann, Alexander (12 April 2022). "The myth far-right zealots run Ukraine is Russian propaganda". Euronews. Retrieved 23 April 2022. ... the Azov regiment, a former Nazi-insignia-carrying extreme-right street militia that has become integrated into Ukraine National Guard." and "However, the Azov regiment that is fighting against Russian invaders in Mariupol literally today, is something completely different." and "The extremist leadership mostly left the regiment in 2015 and ...
"formerly": Shekhovtsov, Anton (2 April 2022). "How the West enabled genocide in Mariupol with its misguided Azov obsession". Euromaidan Press. Retrieved 29 April 2022. Figures for the National Corps and other Ukrainian far-right parties in public opinion polls were devastatingly low. The National Corps kept on referring to Azov as its affiliated organization, and naïve Western journalists and experts took all that bluster at face value instead of realizing that Azov was not a political organization and that its command structure was completely separate from the National Corps.
"neo-nazi": Pratt, Simon Frankel; LaRoche, Christopher David (29 March 2022). "Ukraine's Refugees Are Close Enough for European Solidarity". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 13 May 2022. Minority media narratives focusing on the activities of the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion participating in Ukraine's defense have not generated broader fears that Ukrainian refugee flows harbor potential terrorist elements or that weapons sent to Ukraine will eventually be turned against European communities—fears that stoked suspicion of Syrian refugees fleeing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the Islamic State, and indeed Russia.
2019
"says not neo-nazi" / "with neo-nazi elements": Ben, Bohdan (11 April 2019). "Is the Azov Battalion a terrorist organization as 40 US House Democrats claim?". Euromaidan Press. Retrieved 13 May 2022. Regarding the inclusion of neo-Nazis, it's important to mention that Azov, as well as other regiments of Ukraine's Armed Forces and National Guard has no selection by ideological criteria. A battalion of the National Guard of Ukraine can't have any ideology or favor right or left-wing activists or liberals to be enrolled. Ihor Lutsenko, former member of the Azov Battalion and Ukrainian parliament, told Euromaidan Press that he met people having various ideological opinions among the personnel of the detachment and that it's a private matter for each volunteer. The issue of ideology was not important for Azov when they "were doing real practical things." ...To sum up, Azov's personnel indeed includes an above-average number of right-wingers, but does not entirely consist from them. However, the battalion doesn't force following any ideology and a person holding any views can join it. Azov never called for violence or radicalism, although in 2014-2015 it was implicated in war crimes...
Discussion of ScholarOpEd sources, quotations, and assessments
Krytyka source - does it argue Azov is formerly neo-Nazi
I am not sure that Gozma's piece in Krytyka really supports the view that Azov is formerly neo-Nazi. Instead, he argues that Azov has "evolved beyond its origins', undergone a "pro-democratic evolution" and "moderated their ideological fervor or modified it altogether". There is no explicit argument that Azov is no longer a neo-nazi but that they are different in some way to when they started. What that difference is is not elucidated very clearly apart from allusions to things like democracy and animal rights - neither of which preclude an organisation from nazism. The piece does give support to the idea that Azov was founded as a neo-Nazi organisation. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Authoritarianism, or even totalitarianism, are pretty important parts of nazi ideology, and fascism in general. "Pro-democratic evolution" is pretty much exact opposite to what nazism stands for.--Staberinde (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Might be better to file this as had neo-Nazi elements in the past as it is clear that Azov was already ideologically diverse and only included neo-Nazi elements to start with. He talks about a mix of apolitical football hooligans, anti-liberal counterculturalists who flirted with "recognizable Nazi paraphernalia", and anti-Nazi Ukrainian nationalists. He cites the 10-20% Nazi figure to be clear that the majority were not neo-Nazi in the past. He explicitly says that the claim that it is still neo-Nazi are not "well-grounded". It's true he doesn't give a neat answer to how to characterise Azov today, but it's clear that he sees it as pro-democratic and turning moderate, which means it might still be on the further right but definitely isn't neo-Nazi. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cato Institute
I question whether Ted Galen Carpenter of the Cato Institute thinktank should be included in this section, as not a scholar or scientist. I'd even question if it should feature in this source review as per RSP there is no consensus on whether Cato has any reliability for anything other than the opinions of its authors. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
