Talk:Azov Brigade

“Sham trials”

“Sham Trials” section should be removed due to bad sourcing and little relevance. ~2025-41672-26 (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

The title is maybe a bit unencyclopedic, I'd prefer something along the lines of "Treatment of Azov prisoners of war in Russia" which would cover not only the trials themselves but also very real abuse they suffer while imprisoned.

The sources used in the section seem to be reliable. Which of them do you consider bad? Alaexis_¿question? 09:43, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Denis Kapustin (militant) has an RfC

Denis Kapustin (militant) has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Helpful Cat {talk} 07:19, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

in lead, reduction to "associations" with far-right, reads like soft-pedaling

No shortage of RSes indicate that Azov is a far-right group; that the issue is their "association" with far-right groups seems a rather aggressive attempt to downplay, and to distance Azov from the heart of the issue, which is not their "associations" (who?) but Azov themselves. This is paired with a full paragraph nearly about them being at the center of Russian Propaganda. The reader is left to assume this is just part of a bad-faith propaganda argument at worst, and "guilt by association" (fallacious) at best. That's not the issue, Azov's ranks up through leadership have boasted countless neo-Nazis, evidenced by among many other things their tattoos and symbolism employed. How can this be reduced to just a spectacle of guilt by association? ~2026-11443-42 (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

And there is no shortage of RSes indicating it is no longer a far-right group, so since WP:NPOV exists, both views need to be presented. TylerBurden (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

The propaganda is real but I think that this section can be pared down. We can keep scholarly sources while reducing duplication and removing some of the media ones. Alaexis_¿question? 15:40, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ; there was an RFC on this just last year. Helpful Cat {talk} 15:42, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Lol you guys sound like straight up Nazis. Is this what happened to all my comrades? Back during COVID we used to fight the fascist far right and win. You used to punch Nazis. No you actively cover up their literally fascist past so Raytheon can sell them bombs without bad press. Wow ~2026-26999-50 (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

You need to read wp:npa and wp:soap. Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 March 2026

In the History section of the page, under the subsection titled "Russian Invasion of Ukraine", the first paragraph of that subsection contains a statement not verified by the cited source:

"Others have noted how their participation in the war and defense of Mariupol have increased national and international notoriety and popularity of the unit"

The source cited makes no mention of an increase in national or international notoriety.

I suggest changing the cited source. The following CNBC article (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/us-lifts-ban-azov-brigade-ukraine-american-weapons-russia-rcna156487) has this quote which verifies the battalion has had an increase in popularity within Ukraine following the 2022 invasion by Russia:

"The unit has become a symbol of Ukraine’s resistance after the Russian invasion in Feb. 2022, with many of its fighters holding out to defend the Azovstal steel plant in the occupied city of Mariupol for months. Many of those fighters remain prisoners of war in Russia, but the steadfast defense of Mariupol propelled the brigade to a new level of fame and respect within Ukrainian society."

The following Al-Jazeera article (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/1/who-are-the-azov-regiment) also contains the following quote which supports that the popularity of the group internationally has increased:

"Transnational support for Azov has been wide, and Ukraine has emerged as a new hub for the far right across the world. Men from across three continents have been documented to join the Azov training units in order to seek combat experience and engage in similar ideology."

I think these sources would go to verify the statement that the Azov Battalion's profile has been raised domestically and internationally following the invasion of Ukraine and ought to be cited instead of the current source. Maybe the wording should be changed from "notoriety" to something else. KrimpleEast (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Partly done: Thanks for pointing this out. I removed the old source, added the NBC source and changed the sentence to Others have noted how their participation in the war and defense of Mariupol have increased the national popularity of the unit, also removing "notoriety" because no source says that defending Mariupol has increased their negative reputation.
I didn't add the Al Jazeera source because as far as I can tell, it's not clear if the paragraph you quoted about international popularity is before or after the 2022 invasion. The article it links to about Ukraine as a far-right hub is from 2021, and the paragraph is preceded and followed by discussion of pre-2022 events. Since it's unclear if this source supports the statement that defending Mariupol has increased Azov's international popularity, and there's currently no source in the article saying so, I removed the word "international" from the text for now. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 06:46, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Moving Other Azov Units

The subsection on other Azov Units did not seem to fit the history section as it started a chronology over again. It felt best moving it under "Structure," even though that is the Brigades current structure. If other editors feel it fits better under history, I would not object to it moving back. Jgmac1106 (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2026 (UTC)