Azov vs. Azov
'Criminal-style showdowns within the Azov movement are escalating.'
Two weeks ago, masked men attacked Major Andriy Korynevych, a recruitment officer from the Azov Brigade in the National Guard of Ukraine (NGU), and beat him in broad daylight near his home in Ivano-Frankivsk, western Ukraine. About ten days later, he dropped a bombshell: police identified his attackers and their accomplices, all of them from the Azov movement’s 3rd Assault Brigade (AB3). Furthermore, Korynevych suggested that the assault took place on the orders of Andriy Biletsky, the leader of the Azov movement, who he said is “closely connected” to the attackers. NGU Azovites are evidently furious—their unit published a statement denouncing the alleged assailants—and many AB3 Azovites are no less enraged at their counterparts’ betrayal, for going to the police and airing their dirty laundry.
Clearly, the conflict is about much more than Korynevych, or else it probably would have stayed private. The situation apparently threatens to spiral into a sort of civil war in the Azov movement, evoking the violent feud that split the far-right Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) in World War II. I think the postwar conflict within the Banderite (OUN-B) faction is more relevant, but we’ll come back to that.
As a reminder, Andriy Biletsky was the founder and first commander of the Azov Battalion/Regiment in 2014, which grew into the Azov Brigade of today under the leadership of Denys Prokopenko (since 2017). Biletsky formally left the unit, but remained (more than!) its spiritual leader, and founded the National Corps and other groups that make up the broader Azov movement, which largely coalesced in the 3rd Assault Brigade under his command. As of this year, Prokopenko leads the 1st Azov Corps in the National Guard, and Biletsky heads the 3rd Army Corps, with the latter apparently still in formation. Since the full-scale Russian invasion, there have been some signs of tension between their units, but not enough to justify “pro-Ukraine” propaganda about the “depoliticization” of the NGU Azovites.
Almost exactly two years before the attack on Korynevych, I wrote about “a potential rift” in the Azov movement, which until now seemed to have aged poorly. On Biletsky’s initiative, the “Support Azov” charity was established in mid-2022, but later changed its name after the newly upgraded NGU Azov Brigade launched “The One and Only” charity “Azov One” in early 2023. As somebody said recently, “‘Support Azov’ collects millions, and the [NGU] Azov fighters see zero. Has anyone noticed where the cache is disappearing?”
Until last September, the Azovite units shared a patronage service, “Azov’s Angels,” which grew out of the Azov Battalion and partnered with “Azov One.” Last September, the NGU Azov Brigade launched a separate patronage service, blindsiding the “Angels” and the rest of the movement. Dmytro Kukharchuk, one of Biletsky’s most prominent lieutenants, appeared to be talking about Prokopenko and his entourage when he reacted to this news: “the ambitions of certain individuals cannot be the reason for our oblivion.” Nowadays, Kukharchuk might be the most divisive figure in the Azov movement, who has said that the attack on Korynevych “looks like a provocation of enemy intelligence agencies.”
The only question — are they playing in the dark, or are they doing it consciously. Although it doesn't surprise me anymore. After:
statements of the command of the 12th Brigade in the world media against our unit
disruption of exchanges due to unauthorized departure from Turkey, contrary to agreements
apartments for 600 thousand euros on Novopecherskie Lipki — against the background of hundreds of homeless brothers
bullying of the wounded who could not get up from the trenches near Bakhmut, when we were called "the third mud"
outright spitting in the direction of the patronage service
I'm not surprised at anything anymore. The command of the [NGU] unit, which holds less than 10 kilometers of the front, hype on throwing mud at the [AB3] brigade, which holds sixty. They accuse top intelligence officers who have been fighting since 2014 of participating in a "special operation" against no-name [Korynevych], who is just someone’s driver without any combat experience. I believe in the decency of many in the NGU 12th [Azov] brigade. But those who tolerate such behavior have no right to call themselves either azovites or nationalists. Show yourself on the battlefield, not inventing provocations steeped in your wet fantasies. [My emphasis]
The “statements … in the world media against our unit” might refer to a March 2022 CNN article, according to which the NGU Azov leadership said it “appreciates and respects Andriy Biletsky … but we have nothing to do with his political activities and the National Corps party.” The “disruption of [prisoner] exchanges” is a quite serious accusation, because Kukharchuk is essentially blaming the NGU Azov leadership for the fact that hundreds of Azovites remain POWs; Prokopenko and others were supposed to remain in Turkey for the duration of the war after their release in September 2022. Last December, the news broke that Rinat Akhmetov, the richest man in Ukraine, purchased elite apartments for several NGU Azov commanders. This is the only scandal to plague the unit since 2022, and Kukharchuk twists the knife by contrasting their good fortune with the economic plight of rank-and-file Azov veterans. Perhaps most outrageous for the NGU Azovites, widely regarded as Ukraine’s most glorious fighters, is Kukharchuk’s statement, “Show yourself on the battlefield.” He also implies that Prokopenko and other famous NGU Azov officers “have no right to call themselves either azovites or nationalists.” At the same time, he seems to praise Korynevych’s attackers as “top intelligence officers.”
Others Biletsky loyalists have taken their gloves off, such as Serhiy Bevz, a former deputy commander of the NGU Azov Regiment (2016-19), who also led the Kyiv branch of the neo-Nazi paramilitary group “Patriot of Ukraine” (2006-10). “Gentlemen! It's time to call a spade a spade, not a convenient euphemism. Talks about a united Azov movement have long had nothing to do with reality. No matter how painful it is. No matter how shameful it is in front of those who have completed their earthly journey with dignity.”
A movement, as a phenomenon, presupposes the presence of certain signs. One of the key ones is loyalty to the leader. Both branches of the OUN declared their loyalty to [OUN founder] Konovalets after the split. And this is the main difference between what happened 85 years ago and what is happening now. Now the “revolutionary youth” [—this is a reference to the Banderites, which called themselves the “revolutionary” faction—] has denied the authority [of Biletsky] and is trying to devalue everything that Konovalets did and is doing in the twenty-first century. … I think it is absolutely clear to anyone who knows how to analyze who is the Konovalets of the twenty-first century and who is Bandera, who staged a mutiny in the Organization (movement) while Konovalets was alive.
Among other things, Bevz indirectly pushes back against the March 2022 statement of the NGU Azov Regiment that it had “nothing to do with” Biletsky. According to him, “as a former deputy of Redis [the call-sign for Denys Prokopenko], I know that at least every Thursday he had a report to Andriy [Biletsky] on the state of affairs in the regiment.” When might this have ended? Bevz also reminds his followers that Biletsky allegedly organized the “attempt to de-blockade” Mariupol during the Russian siege of spring 2022 that transformed the NGU Azovites into Ukrainian superheroes, suggesting there is lingering resentment that Biletsky does not get enough credit or respect for his behind-the-scenes role in the unit and defending the city. Perhaps most importantly, the battle for Mariupol transformed Prokopenko into the greatest military commander in Ukraine, at least in the eyes of his loyal fighters. But many of them have moved on to the 3rd Assault Brigade, and in the meantime, some Azovites have gone in the opposite direction, so it will be interesting to see if there are major defections from either side.
3rd Assault officer "Dock" (more about him later) shared the above videos on Instagram yesterday. The second clip shows fictional Mafia boss Tony Soprano superimposed over footage of the attack on Korynevych: "I see some guy walking down the street with a clear head. You know the type, his always fucking whistling, like the happy wanderer. I just want to go up to him and rip his throat open. I want to fucking grab him and pummel him for no reason, why should I give a shit if a guy's got a clear head? I should say 'good for you.'"Meanwhile, prominent NGU Azovites have also weighed in on the situation, accusing their counterparts of being corrupted by the “Russian criminal world.” Apparently Prokopenko’s wife Kateryna even labeled those from the 3rd Assault Brigade as “bandits,” which evokes the use of “Banderite” as a pejorative. In return, she has been accused of being a corrupt pro-LGBT activist, which reminds me of OUN leaders accusing each other of marrying Jewish women at the height of their quarrels.
Of course, the Azov movement has always harbored criminals. This is partially why the conflict reminds me of the postwar split in the OUN-B (just as likely instigated by western intelligence agencies as their Soviet counterparts) more than its wartime feud with the OUN-M. Stepan Bandera, the spiritual leader of the Banderites’ Ukrainian Insurgent Army, was a fascist control freak who insisted on remaining the movement’s dictator, whereas many of his longtime comrades became fed up with him, and they wanted to adopt a new strategy of appealing to western powers with a superficial “liberal” makeover. For Bandera, this was unacceptable, and yet, some of the top “reformers” were even bigger Nazi collaborators and war criminals than Bandera and his people — and there are still plenty of high-ranking neo-Nazis in the NGU Azov Brigade. Framing either conflict as “moderate” vs. “extremist,” or “law-abiding patriots” vs. “criminal thugs,” is misleading—“pragmatic Nazis” vs. “uncompromising Nazis” is more like it. (Guess which ones the CIA preferred?) And of course, both sides now question the others’ right to call themselves “Ukrainian nationalists.”
Whereas Bandera and company accused his postwar rivals of turning into “neo-Marxist CIA stooges” during the Cold War, a neo-Nazi officer from the 3rd Assault Brigade, “Dock” (who co-stars in the Azovite propaganda film “We Were Recruits”), says “it will be clear who is for the idea of the nation, and who is on the dick of Soros.” He writes, referring to the NGU Azovites who have formed an alliance with the “Sorosites” (western-funded NGO activists, or so-called “liberal nationalists”) in Ukraine, “all who support LGBT are enemies of our country and are subject to destruction.” At the same time, the head of the openly neo-Nazi “Neptune” squad in the NGU Azov Brigade, who also serves as first deputy commander of the training battalion of the Azov Corps and played a role in creating the 3rd Assault Brigade, remains loyal to Prokopenko. As he sees it, “after the attack, there were two options.”
The first was to eliminate the attackers, which would have led to an escalation of the conflict, revenge, and most likely an armed confrontation within the movement. The second is to act within the framework of the law, for which we are all publicly fighting. The second path was chosen, and I consider it a manifestation of responsibility. The public announcement of the attack is a chance to stop the catastrophe. This is an opportunity for the movement to recover, to analyze what should not have happened in the first place. The next time it will not be about fractures, but about deaths, and then the point of no return will be passed.
The neo-Nazi paramilitary group “Centuria,” more or less the spiritual successor of “Patriot of Ukraine,” and the real “revolutionary youth” of the Azov movement, of course are standing by Andriy Biletsky, the head of their “family.” Furthermore, they “are extremely disappointed with the unmanly behavior of the representatives of the [NGU Azov] unit from which their older brothers came.” Meanwhile, a prominent ideologist affiliated with the 3rd Assault Brigade writes, “Chiefdom [Vozhdyzm] is an integral part of our ideology.” This refers to the cult-like “Leadership Principle” that the OUN cribbed from Nazi Germany. As Marta Havryshko commented, “Once upon a time, the Führer was Bandera. Now it’s Biletsky. Just the kind of boys Europe can’t wait to welcome into their living rooms.” Leave it to a historian to notice, “Criminal-style showdowns within the Azov movement are escalating.”
(I’m running late for work, so stay tuned for more updates on this conflict… Next time, we will take a closer look at the 3rd Brigade/Corps. If you want to support my [real] work, you can “Buy Me a Coffee” or pledge to become a paid subscriber.)
Devils fighting Demons. Ukrainian Nazi moms must be so proud.