Uriel Araujo, Anthropology PhD, is a social scientist specializing in ethnic and religious conflicts, with extensive research on geopolitical dynamics and cultural interactions.
The pursuit of peace in Ukraine, a divided nation facing conflict since 2014, remains elusive. A critical yet underreported obstacle is the United States’ long record of supporting far-right nationalist groups in Ukraine: these factions arguably hold de facto veto power over peace. Such dynamic, coupled with the recent assassination of Andriy Parubiy, raises unsettling questions about the future of Russian-Ukrainian peace talks.
As I have written before, the specter of an internal far-right coup has long haunted Ukraine. Already in 2019, nationalist leader Dmytro Yarosh — then commander of the Ukrainian Volunteer Army — warned the recently-sworn Volodymyr Zelensky that he would “lose his life” and end up “hanging on a tree on Khreshchatyk” if he dared to “betray” nationalists by negotiating with Moscow or with the Donbass rebels. Less than two weeks ago, nationalist activist Serhii Sternenko warned that Zelensky would become “a corpse — politically, and then for real” — should he agree to any land-for-peace deals.
Such threats against one’s Commander-in-Chief are not mere bluster. One may recall that far-right forces, although numerically a minority, played a decisive role in the 2014 Ukrainian revolution and remain armed, organized, and influential. As I have noted elsewhere, whether under Zelensky or in the event of, say, a Poroshenko comeback, Ukraine’s troubles will persist so long as ultranationalism remains the state’s de facto ideology and neo-Nazi formations hold real power in military and paramilitary structures.
Far from being a “Russian talking point,” this violent strand of nationalism is real enough and has spilled over into Ukraine’s relations with neighbors such as Hungary, Poland, and Romania, thus fueling regional tensions and instability
No wonder, then, that Andriy Parubiy’s assassination on August 30, in Lviv, has stirred speculation that these same currents of radicalism could be at play. The former parliamentary speaker and Euromaidan organizer was shot in broad daylight by a gunman disguised as a courier.
Ukrainian authorities, predictably enough, were quick to suggest there is a “Russian trace” in this murder; yet thus far no conclusive evidence has been released. The lack of transparency does leave ample room for other suspicions.
Parubiy himself was a polarizing figure. In the 1990s he co-founded the Social-National Party of Ukraine, a fascist group (according to experts such as Ivan Katchanovski of the School of Political Studies & Conflict Studies at the University of Ottawa) openly flirting with neo-Nazi symbolism. He later made it into the “mainstream” politics, or whatever that is in post-Maidan Ukraine, with Petro Poroshenko’s European Solidarity party.
One should keep in mind that Ukraine’s far-right is hardly monolithic: Svoboda, Right Sector, and Azov have long been divided by ideology and tactics, often turning their aggression inward. The assassination of another nationalist, Iryna Farion, in Lviv as recently as July 2024, under similar circumstances, reinforces suspicions of internecine purges.
In any case, the suspect, 52-year-old Mykhailo Stselnikov, only deepened the ambiguity. He confessed to the killing but denied Russian involvement, claiming instead it was an act of “personal revenge” against the authorities, not Parubiy personally. The affair remains unclear and the death of Stselnikov’s son, in Bakhmut, could indicate domestic grievances.
Interestingly enough, Parubiy had requested state security protection six months earlier but was refused — a decision that, combined with the brazenness of the Lviv attack, raised some eyebrows, with rumors about insider negligence or even state complicity. Ukrainian MP Artyom Dmytruk has thus blamed Zelensky for the episode.
Some observers go further, suggesting Zelensky’s political camp could directly benefit from such killings as a means to weaken Poroshenko’s allies. While speculative, such hypotheses reflect the real and the bitter rivalries dividing Ukraine’s nationalist factions and the incumbent presidency, plagued as it is by political infighting and corruption.
Be as it may, the Ukrainian secret services are no stranger to using neo-Nazi paramilitary militias as political weapons: one may recall the C14 (also known as Sich) scandal under former President Poroshenko: this violent group, infamous for attacking Gypsy (Roma) communities, was working with Ukrainian intelligence against the opposition.
Moreover, the broader context makes the Parubiy affair even more combustible. As journalist Harrison Berger has noted, writing for the American Conservative, US support for Ukraine’s ultra-nationalist and neo-Nazi-linked groups since 2014 has undermined diplomatic efforts, empowering violent anti-Russian actors and thereby imperiling any potential avenues for peace.
For one thing, the US-funded Azov Corps (formerly the Azov Brigade) alone fields between 20,000 and 40,000 fighters, making them too significant and powerful to sideline, with their notorious neo-Nazi links.
As a matter of fact, Washington last year resumed funding and support — including lifting a weapons ban — for the same Azov forces albeit “reconstituted” (not even a proper rebranding). They remain linked to neo-Fascism, the cult of Stepan Bandera and other controversial ideologies, with deep roots in its cultural ecosystem.
In this context, Zelensky’s 10-point peace remains unacceptable to Moscow (as was his ethnocratic “Victory Plan”), while far-right threats at home render even modest concessions politically suicidal for the Ukrainian leader — and perhaps not just politically.
In the end, Parubiy’s death and the controversy around it is not only a tragedy but also a reminder: notwithstanding who actually is behind this assassination, the fact remains that the US-backed forces unleashed in 2014 are still at large, and their capacity for violence and radicalization is undiminished. Whether Ukraine can survive their grip may prove as decisive for its future as the war with Russia itself — not to mention the future of Europe.
