How Mariupol was deprived of modern weapons
Defense Appropriations bill
July 2015
In July 2015, congressman John Conyers from Michigan and Ted Yoho from Florida prepared an amendment to the defense Appropriations bill that “limits arms, training, and other assistance to the neo-Nazi Ukrainian militia, the Azov Battalion.” It was unanimously passed in the House of Representatives. It’s worth noting that “Azov” was never in the status of a militia; from the very beginning of its existence, it has been part of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and officially joined the National Guard of Ukraine in November 2014, already as a regiment. But the specter of the “Azov battalion” wanders through Europe.
November 2016
In November 2016, this amendment was removed from the law at the insistence of Pentagon representatives, stating that such assistance was precluded by another law — these were rather legal subtleties. It was only a matter of time.
Meanwhile, new information campaigns to discredit the unit are emerging, Meta recognizes Azov as a dangerous organization, and attempts to represent the unit as part of the so-called “Azov movement” thrive.
Attempt to designate Azov as an FTO
In October 2019, 40 members of the U.S. House of Representatives from the Democratic Party signed a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo demanded Azov be included in the list of foreign terrorist organizations (FTO). That is to put the mythical “Azov battalion” next to ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, and Hamas. In the letter, published by the initiator, Max Rose, a congressman from New York, Azov is made part of a network of organizations committing violence based on hatred.
“Today, if an American citizen pledges allegiance to the Islamic State and spreads their messages of terror, the government has a number of tools to counter the threat. However, if that same American citizen pledges allegiance to a violent white extremist group abroad and spreads their terrorist rhetoric, the federal government does not have access to the same tools,” the letter says.
In this letter, an attempt is made to connect Azov with an ultra-right terrorist in New Zealand:
“In his manifesto, the shooter mentioned that he trained with the Azov Battalion in Ukraine and constantly wore a symbol associated with them.”
This claim has no documentary evidence. In the report of The Soufan Group, the basis for considering the terrorist an Azov member is the depiction of the “black sun” symbol in his over 100-page manifesto.
Shortly afterward, the initiator of the amendment, Congressman Max Rose, along with former FBI agent Ali Soufan, published a joint article in The New York Times, calling Azov an “armed formation” and accusing Azov of “training American extremists.” However, until the full-scale invasion, citizens of the United States have never served or underwent basic training in Azov.
Following this, an article by Anton Shekhovtsov is published on the Atlantic Council, where the author systematically refutes the presented theses and notes the “depoliticization” of the unit.
“Addressing his potential followers in his hateful manifesto, Tarrant made his only reference to Ukraine in the following passage: ‘You will find no reprieve, not in Iceland, not in Poland, not in New Zealand, not in Argentina, not in Ukraine, not anywhere in the world. I know, because I have been there.'”
The perpetrator of the New Zealand attack mentions Ukraine only once in his manifesto — and there is no mention of Azov. Attributing the “black sun” symbol specifically to Azov is also incorrect, despite its use in the early days of the unit’s existence.
“My concern is that people, especially far-right extremists in Europe, (will gain) combat experience and training in the Ukrainian theater and then use that for terrorist attacks in Europe proper,” says Colin P. Clarke, Director of Research at the Soufan Center.
Another phenomenal information manipulation involved an American citizen, Sean Fuller, who was not accepted into Azov. However, this did not stop Simon Shuster from writing a “devastating” article for The Times about the threats of the mythical “Azov movement” to American and Western security, purely based on the fact of the unit’s existence.
However, it is impossible to label a structural unit of another state’s regular army as a terrorist organization. Therefore, no attempts were successful. Ultimately, the accusations were not only unfair but also insufficient, and they pertained to the Azov constructed from Russian propaganda. However, even the precedent itself was a considerable success for the Russians. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov continues to use the “recognition of Azov as a terrorist organization in America” as an established fact.
2018
In 2018, the amendment is passed again. One of the most combat-ready units receives no modern weapons or assistance on the eve of the bloody battle in Mariupol in 2022. This amendment remains in force even after the start of Russia’s full-scale aggression against Ukraine.
Numerous Russian manipulations, lobbying, and an information campaign to discredit Azov have cost a lot of Ukrainian blood.
green light from the U.S. State Department
2024
On June 11, 2024, The Washington Post, citing the US State Department, reported that the 12th Special Forces Brigade Azov had been removed from the ban on the US military assistance. According to the journalists, the State Department conducted an evaluation of the military unit for compliance with the criteria of the Leahy Law, and having found no violations, lifted the existing restrictions.
In general, the respective ban existed in amendments to the US laws from 2017 to 2024. A long 7 years.
In April 2024, Brigade Commander Denys “Redis” Prokopenko published an article on the Ukrainska Pravda website outlining the range of problems that arose from this ban:
“How many lives of personnel could have been saved and what would have been the results of the city’s defense if, in addition to high motivation, cohesion and professionalism, the Azov fighters had modern armored vehicles and artillery systems at their disposal?”
The ban was one of the biggest victories in Russia’s campaign to discredit the Ukrainian defense forces, allowing it to gain a strategic advantage in the key object of Russia’s interest and territorial appetite, Mariupol. “Azov and the entire Mariupol garrison under the command of Denys “Redis” Prokopenko held the line with limited resources in a complete encirclement for almost 3 months in the spring of 2022.
From 2022 to the present day, representatives of the Azov Brigade have made a number of international trips: they have met with leaders of international organizations, a number of Western politicians, religious leaders, and at the top universities in the United States and Europe. The advocacy campaigns helped to convey the truth about the unit and its military achievements to the general public in the West. The result was not long in coming: the US removed Azov from the Defense Appropriations Act.