Skip to content

Denazification

Tagswar justificationdehumanizationhistorical distortiondisinformation tactic

EquivalentsRUденацификация

Definition

Section titled “Definition”

“Denazification” (Russian: denatsifikatsiya) is the claim that Ukraine is governed by Nazis or neo-Nazis whose removal requires military force. On 24 February 2022, Vladimir Putin named the “demilitarisation and denazification” of Ukraine as a primary goal of the full-scale invasion, framing the assault as a defensive operation to protect people from a regime he likened to the Third Reich.1

The word borrows the moral authority of a real historical programme — the Allied effort to purge Nazism from Germany after 1945 — and redirects it against a sovereign democratic state whose president was elected with 73 percent of the vote and is himself Jewish. Unlike the post-war Allied policy, which acted against the institutions and personnel of an actual defeated totalitarian regime, Russian “denazification” identifies no coherent object. It names no definition of who counts as a “Nazi,” and that vagueness is the point: it sets a war aim that can never be objectively satisfied and therefore never declared complete, licensing an open-ended campaign against Ukrainian statehood and identity.

Origin and history

Section titled “Origin and history”

The term has a specific and legitimate historical meaning. Entnazifizierung (“denazification”) was the programme launched by the four Allied powers after the Second World War to remove the members and influence of the National Socialist Party from German and Austrian public life — government, the judiciary, education, the press, and the economy. It was formalised by the Potsdam Agreement of August 1945. As the historian Frederick Taylor documents, the real process was uneven, often corrupt, and shaped by emerging Cold War priorities, but it referred to a concrete object: a regime that had actually held power, launched a world war, and perpetrated the Holocaust.2

The Soviet Union built its central legitimising myth around the victory in that war — the “Great Patriotic War” — and within that myth the words “fascist” and “Nazi” gradually detached from their historical meaning to become elastic labels for any enemy of Moscow. The historian Timothy Snyder describes the resulting inversion — in which an authoritarian state that itself deploys fascist themes brands its democratic neighbours “fascist” — as schizofascism.3

The transfer of the “Nazi” label specifically onto Ukrainians draws on Soviet-era treatment of the wartime nationalist Stepan Bandera and the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists as the archetypal “fascist” traitors (see Banderites). After Ukraine’s 2014 Revolution of Dignity and Russia’s annexation of Crimea, Russian state media systematically recast the Ukrainian government as a “fascist junta” (see Kyiv Junta), preparing the ground on which the 2022 “denazification” pretext would be built.

Function in propaganda

Section titled “Function in propaganda”

Russian propaganda uses the “denazification” frame to:

  • collapse Ukrainian national identity into a single “Nazi” category, so that the existence of a separate Ukrainian nation can be presented as an illegitimate, hostile fiction;
  • claim the moral legitimacy of 1945, casting Russia as the heir to the Red Army’s role as liberator and transferring the unimpeachable status of the anti-Hitler coalition onto a war of aggression in 2022;
  • set an open-ended, unmeasurable war aim, since “Nazism” is never defined, allowing the objectives of the war to expand and the conflict to be prolonged indefinitely;
  • license violence against civilians and an elected government, recast as a criminal Kyiv Junta rather than a legitimate state, and to pre-justify the atrocities documented in occupied territory;
  • discredit Western support for Ukraine by implying that the Collective West is arming and shielding Nazis.

The claim is counterfactual on every level. Ukraine is a democracy whose president, Volodymyr Zelensky, was elected in 2019 with 73 percent of the runoff vote; he is Jewish, and members of his family were murdered in the Holocaust while his grandfather fought in the Red Army against Nazi Germany.4 Ukraine’s organised far right is electorally marginal: in the 2019 parliamentary election a united nationalist bloc of Svoboda, the National Corps, and Right Sector won just 2.15 percent of the vote, far below the 5 percent threshold for representation.5 In March 2022, more than 300 scholars of genocide, Nazism, and the Second World War issued a joint statement rejecting the Kremlin’s “cynical abuse of the term genocide… and the equation of the Ukrainian state with the Nazi regime” as “factually wrong, morally repugnant and deeply offensive to the memory of millions of victims of Nazism.”6

Key examples

Section titled “Key examples”

The declaration of war (24 February 2022). In his pre-dawn address announcing the Special Military Operation, Putin defined the operation’s aims as the “demilitarisation and denazification” of Ukraine and claimed Russia was acting to stop a “genocide” against Russian-speakers in the Donbas (see Genocide in Donbas). The speech supplied no evidence of Nazi rule and named no Nazi institutions to be dismantled — the term functioned purely as a moral licence for invasion.1

The RIA Novosti programme (3 April 2022). Days after the Russian retreat from around Kyiv, the state news agency RIA Novosti published “What Should Russia Do with Ukraine?” by the propagandist Timofey Sergeytsev. The article spelled out what “denazification” meant in practice: the “Banderite” elite was to be “liquidated,” the population subjected to mass re-education, censorship, forced labour, and decades of “de-Ukrainisation” until Ukrainian national identity itself ceased to exist. Genocide scholars and human-rights lawyers widely read the text as an open blueprint for the destruction of a national group.7

The historians’ rebuttal (March 2022). The joint statement by scholars of genocide, Nazism, and World War II — hosted by institutions including the Fritz Bauer Institute — directly refuted the equation of Ukraine with Nazi Germany and warned against the instrumentalisation of Holocaust memory to justify aggression.6

The “Azov” talking point. Russian messaging leans heavily on the Azov movement, which began in 2014 as a far-right volunteer militia before its military unit was absorbed into Ukraine’s National Guard. Its associated political party, the National Corps, was part of the bloc that took 2.15 percent in 2019. The existence of a marginal far-right fringe — present in many democracies, including Russia — is generalised into the claim that the entire state is “Nazi.”5

The domestic record

Section titled “The domestic record”

The “denazification” charge is most striking for what it conceals: a documented Russian record of the very practices — ethnic deportation, collective persecution, the destruction of a people’s presence on its land — that the word is supposed to condemn.

  • Forcibly deporting children. On 17 March 2023 the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and his children’s-rights commissioner, Maria Lvova-Belova, for the unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children to Russia — the first ICC warrants ever issued against the leadership of a permanent UN Security Council member. The forcible transfer of a group’s children is one of the five acts enumerated in the 1948 Genocide Convention.8
  • The genocide of Georgians in Abkhazia. During the 1992–1993 war in Abkhazia, Apsuan proxy forces and Russian-backed North Caucasian militants killed thousands of ethnic Georgians and expelled up to 250,000 — a campaign recognised by OSCE summits in Budapest (1994), Lisbon (1996), and Istanbul (1999), and condemned by Georgia as genocide.9 Among the homes destroyed was that of Meliton Kantaria, the Georgian Red Army sergeant who had raised the Soviet Victory Banner over the Reichstag in 1945; driven from Abkhazia, he died a refugee in Moscow in December 1993. The state that styles itself the heir of 1945 burned out the very soldier who embodied that victory.
  • Deportation as a recurring instrument. Mass ethnic deportation has deep Soviet roots: in 1943–1944 Stalin deported entire nations — Chechens, Ingush, Crimean Tatars, Kalmyks, and others — to Central Asia and Siberia, with enormous loss of life. The collective-punishment methods the Allies fought to end in 1945 were being perfected inside the USSR at the same moment.
  • Sheltering its own far right. While branding Ukraine “Nazi,” the Russian state fields and tolerates openly neo-Nazi formations, such as the Wagner-linked “Rusich” unit and the Russian Imperial Movement — the latter designated a terrorist organisation by the United States in 2020.10

These are not the acts of a state purging fascism but the methods of one practising it — the inversion Timothy Snyder calls schizofascism.

Why it matters

Section titled “Why it matters”

“Denazification” is not a marginal slogan; it is the master frame that made a war of conquest sound to domestic audiences like a continuation of the sacred war against Hitler. By appropriating the vocabulary of 1945, the Kremlin converts an unprovoked invasion into an act of anti-fascist defence and inoculates its public against evidence to the contrary: any atrocity can be reinterpreted as a regrettable necessity in a struggle against ultimate evil.

The frame is also uniquely dangerous because of its open-endedness. A war aim defined as the elimination of an undefined “Nazism” cannot be met by any negotiated settlement, only by the dismantling of Ukrainian sovereignty and the suppression of Ukrainian identity — which is precisely the programme the Sergeytsev article described aloud. For this reason a number of genocide scholars have argued that “denazification,” as elaborated in Russian state media and enacted in occupied territory, supplies evidence of intent that is directly relevant to the legal question of genocide. Stripping the term of its real historical referent also corrodes Holocaust memory itself, turning the gravest crime of the twentieth century into a reusable rhetorical weapon.

Naming it accurately

Section titled “Naming it accurately”

See also

Section titled “See also”

Sources

Section titled “Sources”

Mentioned in

Section titled “Mentioned in”

Footnotes

Section titled “Footnotes”

  1. Address by the President of the Russian Federation, 24 February 2022 (kremlin.ru): the operation’s stated goals are the “demilitarisation and denazification” of Ukraine. ↩ ↩2

  2. Taylor, F. (2011). Exorcising Hitler: The Occupation and Denazification of Germany. Bloomsbury. On the Allied programme formalised by the Potsdam Agreement (August 1945) and its uneven implementation. ↩

  3. Snyder, T. (2018). The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America. Tim Duggan Books, on Russian “schizofascism” and the politics of eternity. ↩

  4. “Ukraine’s Jewish president Volodymyr Zelensky lost family in the Holocaust,” The Washington Post, 25 February 2022. ↩

  5. “The Far Right and the 2019 Parliamentary Election,” Reporting Radicalism in Ukraine: the united far-right bloc (Svoboda, National Corps, Right Sector) won 2.15% of the vote, below the 5% threshold. ↩ ↩2

  6. “Statement on the War in Ukraine by Scholars of Genocide, Nazism and World War II” (2022), signed by 300+ scholars. ↩ ↩2

  7. Sergeytsev, T., “What Should Russia Do with Ukraine?” RIA Novosti, 3 April 2022 (English translation, National Museum of the Holodomor-Genocide); widely analysed as a genocidal blueprint. ↩

  8. “Situation in Ukraine: ICC judges issue arrest warrants against Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin and Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova,” International Criminal Court, 17 March 2023. The forcible transfer of children of a group is enumerated in Article II(e) of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. ↩

  9. On the genocide of Georgians in Abkhazia (1992–1993): the campaign of killing and expulsion of ethnic Georgians, recognised in the OSCE summit declarations of Budapest (1994), Lisbon (1996), and Istanbul (1999) and by resolutions of the Georgian Parliament; and the destruction of Meliton Kantaria’s home in Abkhazia, after which he died a refugee in Moscow in December 1993. ↩

  10. U.S. Department of State, designation of the Russian Imperial Movement as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist organisation, April 2020 (the first white-supremacist group so designated); on the neo-Nazi “Rusich” reconnaissance and sabotage group attached to Russian forces. ↩