Abstract. A comparison of Daesh (“Islamic State in Iraq and Syria”) and Azov Battalion – and violent Salafist–jihadist and white suprematist/ultranationalist extremism in general – may seem non-trivial, as they are not typically paired in the mainstream research or expert analysis. However, it provides an interesting angle for exploring not only potential parallels and similarities, but also divergences between them. The two terrorist organisations – Daesh and “Azov” – have been selected as some of the most notorious in their respective ideological–motivational categories and as the phenomena standing out in many other respects in their respective regions – the broader Middle East and (Eastern) Europe. Both Daesh and “Azov” also turned into the leading regional hubs for foreign terrorist fighters (FTFs) attracting the largest influxes of FTFs in the 2010s. Roughly simultaneously, both became extremely politicised internationally. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of two organizations and compare them by identifying aspects and areas of convergence and divergence by examining the historical background, both domestic and regional, that gave rise to these organizations, as well as their ideologies and the use of foreign fighters.

It is concluded that it is the scope of their goals, agenda and activity where the two groups differ most: while Daesh was guided by and promoted a supranational, religiously-based imperative and ideology, “Azov” focuses on the national and regional levels through the lens of ultranationalism. While in Daesh’s envisioned “caliphate”, the population was to be comprised of equal “brothers and sisters in Islam” regardless of race, nationality, age, etc., “Azov”, in contrast, advances a clear societal and racial hierarchy at the core of which lies the belief that men are naturally unequal. However, the two groups display interesting similarities in several respects, including some ideological parallels. In both cases, a group of “the chosen ones” is “to lead by example”, “enlighten” and mobilise the masses, and the concept of perpetual battle without an option of possible defeat lies at the core of both ideological systems. While the two groups’ ultimate political-ideological goals diverge completely, they have also both actively engaged foreign terrorist fighters and employed many similar terrorist tactics, e. g. abductions, killings, torture, and the use of civilians as a human shield.