The indescribably beautiful line between life and death:
Interview with Azov volunteer fighter Carolus Löfroos

Aki Cederberg

Carolus Löfroos, a Swedish Finn, was a volunteer fighter in the Azov Regiment against Russian-minded separatists in 2014-2015. Löfroos has written a memoir of his experiences in the war, titled The Foreigner Group – Our War in Ukraine 2014-2015, soon to be published in both English and Finnish language editions. Löfroos has received much media attention both internationally and in Finland, but Porvoon kipinä features is his first longer interview. The interview was conducted by the chief editor Aki Cederberg via email in April 2022.

Could you begin by telling us something about yourself and your background?

I was born in Sweden to a Swedish father and a Finno-Swedish mother. Grew up in a small town, spent the summers in Finland, nothing special really. Got a bit tired of school in my late teens so I dropped out and instead volunteered for early conscription service in Finland about a month after my 18th birthday. Today I have dual citizenships, but at that time, my only passport was Finnish, so I would have been forced to do it at some point anyway. Not that it bothered me, though. I had always entertained the thought of being a military man and was looking forward to it, a lot more so than studying art in Sweden anyway. As I didn't speak any Finnish, Nylands Brigad was the obvious place where I landed in January of 2007. Ending up at the NCO-school and later the Coastal Jäger Company, I spent a total of 12 months of service. The training was tough and demanding, but all in all it was good and I enjoyed it. I would have liked to continue after my conscription service ended but, alas, even though I had learned some Finnish during my time in the military it was far too little to start even a modest military career in Finland. Instead I returned to Sweden where I got my Swedish citizenship and joined the Home Guard in 2008. While my Finnish military service was enough to join as a simple guardsman, my lack of a formal Swedish military background however made it impossible to advance any further (that I on some occasions may have told higher ranking officers, whom I viewed as lazy and/or incompetent, to fuck off may also have aided in this).

What was your motivation for wanting to go into war for Ukraine as a foreign volunteer?

There were many reasons, but the biggest one was probably the inadequacy of Western nations on every conceivable level. I became extremely frustrated at everyone from politicians giving useless verbal support for Ukraine to fellow colleagues in the Home Guard. Everyone talking about how "someone should do something", while nobody did anything. While the Ukrainian army and volunteer battalions had been slowly beating the Russian-created "people's uprising" called the separatists during the early summer of 2014, they got completely smashed when the regular Russian army intervened in the mid-late summer of the same year. Still, everyone was saying how "someone" had to do something, to which nothing still happened. It was unbearable to watch and even worse to be a part of, so I decided to go fight myself.

How did you end up joining the Azov Regiment?

While in recent years its been a quite simple procedure for a foreigner to join the regular armed forces of Ukraine, this was not the case back in 2014. The only real opening was with the volunteer battalions and from what I managed to read into, the easiest (and thereby quickest way into the fight) was Azov, as they had been vocal about accepting foreigners. They also, compared to others, gave a rather good militarily professional impression. They were, in short, among the few ways in, the quickest and the best.

What was the reaction of your family and friends to you decision to volunteer?

I didn't tell that many people initially, as my plan was to go as a faceless and anonymous soldier. This, however, ended abruptly as a fellow guardsman, my platoon commander, told the higher ups about my plans. After this I lost contact with many acquaintances and friends. My family and closest friends however remained pretty chill about it though, and that's really all that matters.

Were you concerned about how joining Azov would potentially affect your life in Sweden, in terms of harming your chances of getting work later, etc.? I understand that the Swedish media branded anyone volunteering with Azov as a neo-nazi. In hindsight, how did this affect your life when you returned to Sweden?

I knew, especially when it became official information that I intended to join, that I could kiss any chance of further duties in the Swedish military goodbye. Maybe the same with the any kind of work. As the Ukraine-volunteers where described by the media as same-as-or-worse than the immigrants joining the Islamic State, my biggest concern was the possibility of even being jailed on charges of terrorism in the future. All this, however, seemed like issues for a future day at the time - the War in Ukraine was a more pressing matter. Besides, at the time of joining the war, the Minsk ceasefire had not yet come into play and the Russians where pushing hard. There was nothing saying they wouldn't destroy all of Ukraine, and I didn't really expect much to be alive long enough to deal with possible problems on a return journey home.

In retrospect, being alive and returning home, it turned out sort of as I had expected. Myself and the few others who joined were treated more or less the same as the ISIS-terrorists by the Swedish state and media, but without the pity, as we were all white. Luckily though, the Swedish way of handling those they considered terrorists was pretty mild - be they ISIS or Azovians - so no jail-time for terrorism. The only serious issue was the media coverage, which often called us out as nazi war criminals. Not many employers interested in that minority of applicants. Thanks to family and friends however, I have been able to get by regardless however.

You have written a war memoir, The Foreigner Group – Our War in Ukraine 2014-2015. Why did you decide to write this book?

It began in 2017 or 2018, I think, after my last tour of combat in Ukraine. A friend whom I had been telling different stories to said he wanted to have me tell the same stories as short segments in a podcast. Writing these stories as scripts before recording them, they became longer and longer. After a while I already had a lot of texts laying around, in themselves looking more and more like a complete book. In early 2021 I went back to the beginning, rewriting them into a continuous story instead of a lot of short ones. As the project grew bigger I also interviewed the guys who I had served with to make sure I got their views and angles on situations as well, in order to make the story as true to life as possible. It would, however, prove impossible to find a publisher in Sweden who would even consider looking at the script, so by mid-late 2021, I began translating it into English myself in order to look for international publishers.

I understand that the publisher of the English language edition of your book cancelled its publication, when upon announcing it they faced some backlash. Do you want to expound on what happened? Do you have a new publisher for the English version? I understand that the Finnish language edition is published by Kiuas Kustannus.

Yes, the first attempt to publish the book only survived hours as the publisher was fiercely attacked by an internet mob, mainly composed of leftists and Russians, both claiming the book to be a piece of neo-nazi propaganda or similar. While Azov's supposed nazi ideology was largely excused by Western media during the first years of the war as the Russians were the main threat, during the slow years of trench warfare 2016-2021 Azov became more and more a focus of Western media as a propaganda tool to use themselves. All sorts of insane things were claimed, everything from an absurd claim by a US senator that Azov was made up of 17 000 foreign trained nazi extremist terrorists (while the entirety of the Regiment Azov totaled a few thousand at maximum), to the equally bogus claim that Azov had trained the New Zealand mosque shooter. Western liberals, at this time, obviously believed all this nonsense and therefore attacked the publisher in order to have the book canceled, and successfully so.

The irony is that many of the Westerners who joined in on this successful attempt at cancel culture are most likely posting articles saying Azov isn't a nazi organization right now, as the new and current Russian invasion have Western media shift back to the 2014 narrative on Azov again.

As you mention in your book, Azov has dominantly been characterized by Western media as far-right and neo-nazi. This is, however, also a key aspect of the Russian narrative. Azov has also been accused of war crimes. How truthful is this characterization and is there basis for these accusations nowadays?

The Western media view on Azov's nazi-stuff being sort of covered already, I'll go straight to the juicy war crimes. In short, there is always war crimes in war, but curiously enough, I've seen very little of serious accusations against Azov. For example, when us foreign volunteers were first accused of war crimes in the Swedish media in 2014 and early 2015, the media cited Amnesty International as the source of these claims. When I couldn't find any actual source of this, I contacted Amnesty directly, and they responded there were (by that time) no accusations against Azov. The Swedish media had lazily (or, more likely, on purpose) confused Azov with another volunteer battalion called Aidar.

After a while though, some actual claims of crimes began showing up. The first one was, and I'm not even joking here, about a mentally ill man who claimed that (if I recall correctly) eight Azovians had attacked and raped him. There were no witnesses or hard evidence to this seriously strange supposed event, only the testimony of a man suffering from severe mental illness. It was, however, nonetheless cited as a war crime.

As time passed other claims began dropping in, and some of them may be true, I don't know. However, I have yet to be presented with a case where a military unit sized thousands of men have been at war for over 8 years without a single case of a single man taking things a bit too far. If anyone can present that unit, I will without hesitance agree to and say that this unit has a far higher moral standard than Azov.

Also, for the record: The prisoners I myself saw taken by Azov were treated fairly, better than they deserved or international laws ever called for. That being said, if, for example, some unmarked civilian (in other words: a spy) aided the Russians with leading in artillery fire on either other civilians or Azov infantrymen, and got caught doing it, and ended up getting beaten up for it by a bunch of militant Ukrainian football hooligans, I would not be losing any sleep over it.

Azov has used the so-called Schwarze sonne (Black sun) and Wolfsangle as their emblems. I am interested in why they have used such infamous, albeit powerful symbols. I have read that the Azov Wolfsangle derives from the letters N and I, standing for National Idea (Ukrainian: Ідея Нації). Do you know from where the usage of these obviously provocative symbols derives?

The "National Idea" part of what looks suspiciously like an Wolfsangle is true, but the symbolism is obviously a provocation against the Russians, who have called all their enemies and all non-Russian nationalists "nazis" or "fascists" for almost a 100 years now. Personally, I like the artistic style of Azov, including its symbolism. The unit patches all became instant classics.

On the other hand, I have read some recent articles on Finnish mainstream media about Azov, and they have been surprisingly positive. It seems that in light of the recent Russian invasion of Ukraine, the perception of Azov might be changing for the better. Would you agree?

Like I said, yes. The current war and the threat of Russia being real (which us few volunteer fighters have been saying for over 8 years in front of mostly purposely deaf individuals) has definitely changed the media and political perspective on Azov. That is not to say that if the Russian threat suddenly went away, if only to become dormant again, it would change back just as it did after 2015 again. Everything would be forgotten about, and the Azovians would become the bad nazis again.

I find it fascinating how nazis are still supposedly at the center of this conflict somehow. Russia says that it aims to ”de-nazify” Ukraine, while the West portrays Putin as Hitler. It seems that still, almost 80 years after the end of the Second World War when the nazis were defeated, they remain the negative epicenter of the West and Russia.

Well, for Russia 1941-1945 was the only time in history they were ever close to be considered "the good guys" by the rest of the world, so they will always cling to that. As for the Western journalists narrative that Putin is literally Hitler, it's just because they are uneducated (outside of reading Marx perhaps, if that counts), lazy and lack imagination.

You know and have contact with many people in Ukraine personally. What do you think is the current morale among the peoples of Ukraine, both civilians and soldiers?

Ukrainian morale has never been higher. In a way this war is a cursed blessing the country needs. Ukraine has been a corrupt and failed state because whatever history they had connecting the people to each other was either too ancient to feel and touch, or too complex to define. This war will create a new Ukrainian history full of heroes they can all unite around, not too differently from how the Winter War molded and shaped the then young, poor and divided Finland into the strong, unified and confident nation that is today.

A narrative that I keep hearing is that this war is a response to NATO expansion and American influence. What is your view of this?

In the way that many Russians believe this, it is true. It is true that a Ukraine that moves closer to the West is a threat to Russia. What is false about is in what way and how it weakens Russia, that it in itself becomes an existential threat for the Russia. Neither the US nor NATO has ever had a serious interest of invading Russia for the sake of doing so alone. A Ukraine that moves into the Western sphere is, however, a threat in that it becomes difficult if not impossible for Russia to control, and in the end incorporate back into the Russian Empire - just as happened with the Baltic States when they joined NATO. The Russia of today aspires to become the Russia of yesterday - the Empire that collapsed 30 years ago. It cannot hope to become this without Ukraine, and that alone meant that this war was inevitable.

Russia always had plans to recapture what they considered their territory of Ukraine (this is true for Finland as well, by the way), and through corruption and control of the Ukrainian political stage they had prepared to do so for decades. Russia did everything they could fueling the rot of the Ukrainian independent state from within, so that the tree would fall from a mere light push once the timing was right.

However, the Maidan revolution of 2013 forced them to begin this push earlier than expected. Crimea was the number one primary objective, and was thus well prepared. They also had an easy way of moving their own troops into Ukrainian territory from their naval base of Sevastopol - the first Russian invasion of Ukraine. While the operation to capture Crimea ran almost flawlessly, the eastern parts of the country went less smoothly. There was no easy way to get regular Russian forces into these parts, and the "separatists" were forced to do everything themselves. This failed almost everywhere, forcing the second Russian invasion of Ukraine in the late summer. Despite this, the Russians simply didn't have the preparations in order for a military conquest of the country, and was forced to halt with only a fraction of the territory they planned on getting. These, the "Donetsk and Luhansk Peoples Republics", would however serve the purpose of keeping Ukraine locked in constant conflict, blocking NATO membership. The so-called republics would also serve as a way to keep a constant military presence inside the country. This way Russia could in the future stage a new, better planned and executed (well, that was the plan anyway...) proper military invasion to finalize their capture of the important Ukrainian lands.

This, the third Russian invasion of Ukraine, is what happened on February 24th 2022, but it wasn't because of NATO expansion or any other outside force provoking the Russians into it. The main Russian plan was always to reincorporate Ukraine into the Empire, and they would have tried it anyway, no matter what, when or where, in one way or another at some point.

It seems these ideas are nothing new in Russia. When philosopher Alexander Dugin was asked if his vision of Imperial Russia included retaking Finland, his response was ”not now”. What do you make of Dugin and his influence, both in Russia and the West?
I have never understood the supposed greatness of Dugin. He always seemed to me like a big nothing burger, saying obvious shit like "unregulated Third World immigration will hurt Europe" and then getting praise for it, as if that was mind blowing or something? In my opinion, he is just some old Russian imperialist fantasizing about Russian power and domination in a childish way. Nevertheless, saying one thing in Russian and something else in English (just like the Russian propaganda apparatus in general), he has clearly been able to make some Westerners like the idea of his dream Russian Eurasian superpower. That's of course only because these Westerners, simple and naive and not knowing Russia, believe they can somehow be a part of this sphere, rather than the American one. They believe they can be equal to the Russians under Russian dominance, because they believe they're alike. It has never been like this, though, and a Russian with power will never view a non-Russian as his equal. They fail to understand that their dream, just like the Western communists who travelled to the Soviet utopia, is a voluntary submission to slavery under a Russian yoke at best.

Another narrative I have seen repeatedly – mostly among Americans – is that Russia and Putin are somehow more ”based” than the ”degenerate” West, and that they should therefore be supported. It seems that a lot of the pro-Russia arguments are fundamentally based on an absolute resentment of the US, and it is seen that anything that harms the US is good. What do you think of this?

Russian propaganda aimed at Western audiences has always been professional and, thanks to a Western mainstream media which isn't below lying about current problems in the West itself, it hasn't been difficult for Russia to influence people here. When Western media lies about, say, immigration-related problems, Russian propaganda tells the real story. This, in the average consumers eyes, makes them a trustworthy source of information. Afterwards, the Russian propaganda channel can basically tell whatever lie it wishes - the consumer will automatically trust it as true and whatever counter claim that comes from the West is disregarded as false. With all the faults of the West, it isn't really difficult to represent Russia as a counterpart to it. Most of these Westerners don't speak Russian anyway and they don't know Russians. They have likely never even been to Russia and if by any chance they have, they've been to the tourist areas of Saint Petersburg or similar. Even Third World countries in Africa can come off like beautiful places by building expensive hotels in gated locations that way.

The only thing to say really is that this image is false, and it shows when Russian soldiers are literally stealing fucking toilets in Ukraine to bring back home with them, because they view toilets as luxury items. That's the real Russia, where anyone who speaks up against a one party government that can't provide running water to the people suffering from the worst HIV-epidemic in Europe are jailed. Russia isn't based, it's just Russia - the way Russia always has been. It doesn't matter if they've got a Tsar, a communist party chairman or a president. The logotype and name may be different, but the terrible Empire remains the same as it's always been.

When this war started, Russia announced that it was some kind of quick ”special operation”, but now the war is dragging on and clearly it has not gone as Russia had hoped. There has also been incredibly disturbing reports and footage of large scale war crimes – bombings, executions, rape and torture – committed against civilians in Ukraine by Russian soldiers. What do you see as the possible scenarios of the outcome of this war?

As of writing this (15th April 2022), the Russians have clearly failed at almost all their military objectives. They didn't manage to even surround the capital Kyiv despite trying for a month. They never managed to land forces in Odessa (an important objective since 2014), and even lost their flagship "Moskva" while trying, nor did they reach it by land through Mykolaiv east of it. Kharkiv remains in Ukrainian hands despite being almost on the Russian border in the north-east. The old frontline in the Donbass has in many places not moved more than what can be counted in hundreds of meters at best. Not even the absolutely most vulnerable Ukrainian position of Mariupol, defended by Ukrainian Marines and the Azov Regiment, has fallen yet. Despite having been surrounded by superior Russian forces for 1,5 months. The only win they have so far is basically the capture of the relatively small city of Kherson, which really was only a stepping stone to capturing Odessa. The Russians are moving forces previously engaged in combat around Kyiv eastwards, hoping this will give additional strength in these areas. I am however skeptical how much fight they have left in them, as they took some really horrendous beatings around Kyiv for over a month. They left completely demoralized, and they will need time to refit and regroup - if that's even possible at this point. In short: they have so far achieved basically nothing, and that at the cost of both sanctions and very heavy military losses, losses they can't really replace.

At this point, I really doubt they can turn this around. Their morale is low and whatever units they've lost so far were among the best they could bolster. Whatever replacements they can source will be less effective than the ones which have already performed incredibly poorly. They can't take Ukraine, and even if they can take parts of it, I doubt they can hold on to them at this point. The best the Russians can do is a Phyrric victory, where they gain only a fraction of their initial goals at a terrible cost.

”But Russia is bigger”, people say. ”They can conscript their population, and then they will outnumber Ukraine.” Well, that's sort of true. But anyone who knows Russia knows that not appearing weak is incredibly important for them, perhaps the most important thing there is. Sure, they could go into a full wartime economy mode, but for what? To beat Ukraine? Their – as far as they're concerned – "weak retarded little brother to the southwest"? That's still showing weakness.

Ukraine has also obviously taken heavy casualties, but they have an easier time replacing them. Many of their replacements will be less well equipped and trained than the initial force, but the same is true for the Russian replacements. And even if Russia has the greater numbers, and went into full mobilization, they would still only outnumber Ukraine about 3 to 1 - and a single soldier with a burning heart is stronger than three with broken ones. The greatest difference is the Ukrainian morale, which remains high, while the already low Russian morale keeps dropping.

Russia has already lost the war, its just a matter of when they are willing to admit it to themselves. Knowing the Russians though I don't think they will do that easily. Time will tell what the exact outcome will be. It's going to get worse though, for sure.

The invasion of Ukraine has radically shifted people's perception of the geopolitical world situation and its stability and safety – especially in countries close to Russia, like Finland. What is the general atmosphere like in Sweden with regards to Russia and the threat that it again represents?

To be perfectly frank, I'm not really sure how much I take Sweden and the Swedes in general seriously about anything. They will join NATO if Finland does, but still claim to be the leader of the two countries, if anyone asks. That's about it.

How should European countries respond to the current invasion of Ukraine?

Ukraine has a large population, so simple manpower alone isn't an issue. Their biggest need lies in heavy equipment, tanks, artillery and so on. The problem is that even if there are trained, let's say tankers in Ukraine, the best they can get from the West is old, obsolete Soviet era equipment that the old Warsaw Pact countries kept in storage. These aren't completely useless, but pretty close to it. Again, with tanks as an example, sending more modern Western vehicles would require the Ukrainian crews to be trained in them to make them anything more than roadblocks - this takes time and time is precious.

For years, the Russians lied saying that the separatists were either locals or "Russian soldiers on vacation", soldiers who could apparently go on vacation bringing their modern Russian tanks with them. Let's just say I wouldn't cry if Western nations allowed their own servicemen, again with tankers as an example, to go on vacation to Ukraine and bring their Leopard 2 main battle tanks with them.

What is your view of the president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskyi? I have seen him mocked by people on the right for being a Jewish comedian and actor playing the president, but since this war started, he has undoubtedly shown true courage and integrity as a leader, for instance by staying in Kiev when many in his position would have left.

Personally, I don't follow Ukrainian politics other than as a general outsider. I don't know the language and the culture well enough to understand it on a detailed level. That being said, I do understand people and democracies. It's interesting to note that Zelenskyi was elected with a huge margin after having played a very good Ukrainian president in a comedy sitcom show. This was obviously as most people voted for him because, in their feeble minds, they thought he would be the same president in reality which he was in the show. Needless to say, when it turned out he wasn't, that reality was different from fiction, public opinion dropped very quickly.

That being said, yes, I would say nobody can blame him for being a coward of a defeatist at least. Any other president could easily have signed a peace deal in the first hours of the Russian attack, that way signing over the Ukrainian future to Russia. Yet, he didn't, he hasn't and it doesn't seem like he will. Many know-nothings are calling him out on this instead, saying he is somehow responsible for prolonging the war, and that this way, he is responsible for Ukrainian lives being lost (unlike Putin who, like, attacked the country).

When this sentence is being said, it is good to keep in mind that one of the main Russian goals of the war is and remains "Denazification". This word means deukranization, which means Russification, which means the death and end of the Ukrainian nation and the identity of all Ukrainians. Another word for it would be genocide. There is nothing in between victory or death for the Ukrainians, much similar to Finland's situation many years ago. Even the sweeter Russian terms proposed, that of a demilitarized Ukraine, similar to the Weimar Republic after World War I, would only postpone it - opening up for a future Russian invasion which, when that inevitably will come, would leave the Ukrainians defenseless against it.

Surrender to any Russian terms simply cannot be an option. The Ukrainians know this and would likely not surrender even if Zelinsky had signed some ultimately pointless paper, so it doesn't really matter much. In that way, good or bad, I think people overestimate his ultimate importance here. This is the ordinary Ukrainians fight for Ukraine, not Zelinsky's fight against Russia.

One startling thing I noticed when Russia began its invasion of Ukraine was how liberals and even leftists were suddenly very nationalistic, posting Ukrainian flags and the slogans Glory to Ukraine! and Glory to the heroes! on their profiles. The same people that only weeks ago were proponents of multiculturalism and diversity were suddenly essentially defending nationalism, the idea that a people has the right to sovereignty, to its own land and culture, and to defending its borders.

Well, these mindless people will support or think whatever they're told. Like the soulless creatures they are, they'll shift back when the war is over and they're told to, forgetting everything they've thought and spoken during it in the flash of a switch being turned.

Is this war fundamentally a conflict between imperialism and nationalism?

Just like the American Civil War was never a war about slavery only, the Russo-Ukrainian war is also more complex than being able to fit into a single sentence. But needless to say, yes, that is a large part of it.

Another interesting aspect of the war is that suddenly there seems to have emerged a reignited sense of broader European consciousness – a sense of ”us” as a family of nations and peoples – and that the invasion of Ukraine was an attack on Europe. Do you see that this war might spark a wider self-reflection among Europeans, and lead to a heightened sense of who Europeans are as a culture and civilization that shares a common destiny?

The same way it does this for the Ukrainians, it's bound to rub off on others in one way or another. Or at least, I hope it does.

You have said in an interview about your experience in the Ukrainian war: ”It was fun fighting the Russians. I miss it.” (Suom. ”Oli hauska taistella venäläisiä vastaan. Minulla on sitä ikävä”.) [1] I think this might be hard for many, if not most, modern people to fathom – that war can be something else than absolutely dreadful and traumatic, and in fact positive in some sense.

I think what I said wasn't "fun", but that I had a great time. Nevertheless, I think most men, unless they have some serious hormonal deficiencies or whatever, would enjoy war if they only: 1.) had a chance to experience it and 2.) allowed themselves to enjoy it while doing so. Despite the tiring "war is hell" narrative that's been pushed down the throat of Western culture for generations, men are by nature designed to fight. The brutality of war can be both terrifying and beautiful – it's mostly dependent on how a man chooses to view it.

The chance to exist in the absolute reality that is the thin line between life and death is indescribably beautiful. It is a place where a blind man can finally see everything, with eyes wide open. He can see who people really are, where no facades exist. Nobody can lie about their character in the face of death. You get to know the reality of everyone around you, if he is false or truthful, a coward or brave. All lies we are surrounded by in everyday life disappear, and only the absolute truth remains. The absolute reality of you and those around you becomes total. Who you are, and who everyone around you are, suddenly become real. And that's not to mention to actually be able to witness the astounding bravery of man, that which most people will only experience through stories. You get to see actual death defying bravery with your own eyes. All this accompanied by the bright colors of tracer fire and flashes from explosions. The smell of burned powder and the shockwaves of powerful artillery strikes vibrating through your body while the sound of bullets and shrapnel keeps snapping through the air around you.

Everyone I know and fought together with in the war would say the same. It was the best moments of our lives. If I had the chance to go back and change something, I would not do so.

We had a great time.


Could you tell us about a particular moment or event from the war which for you stands out as a crystallization of the ” indescribably beautiful thin line between life and death” you speak of above?

The one that always comes to mind is a counter-attack we performed back in early 2015. After our company had been badly beaten up by a superior Russian assaulting force in the village of Shyrokyne, whatever remained and could be spared was hastily assembled to attack right back at them the following morning. About 40 men or so and a pair of damaged infantry fighting vehicles, doing a frontal attack against an enemy force probably numbering well above 100 men, supported by several main battle tanks and other fighting vehicles inside the village.

Not a clever plan by any means, but that's beside the point. The point is to see men whom, not because they were ordered, but of their own free will, gladly charge uphill against an enemy they cannot hope to defeat, cheering loudly and defiantly while assaulting through the enemy fire. Its unreal, but also the most real thing anyone can ever witness.

The small battle of Shyrokyne in many ways shaped Azov into the unit that the Russian armies are now struggling to break. The death defying bravery they showed that morning many years ago, and other Ukrainians have shown both before and since, is why Russia will lose this war. I am ever humbled to have been allowed to witness this with my own eyes, beauty and bravery like that from Tales of Ensign Stål or other poems, and it remains the greatest privilege I have ever had in my life.

______________
[1] Mikko Leppänen, “Kiistanalaiset sankarit”. Yle.fi, 4/2022.