Thank you for actually bringing sources. I've tried to find them myself, but search engines heavily favor current events, so it's difficult to find anything as old as these. I've probably asked literally a dozen times for sources in an honest attempt to engage with the subject, and so far, I'm FAR more likely to be verbally abused for not blindly agreeing than to actually receive information. Only one person before you has even done so much as to provide a couple names as decent starting points for research. The sheer amount of vitriol combined with a complete lack of genuine evidence was making me increasingly sure it was completely baseless.

https://www.reuters.com/article/opinion/commentary-ukraines-neo-nazi-problem-idUSKBN1GV2TC/

This one makes it clear that the Nazis exist in too large a capacity, but it also outright states that some of the claims that it's a Nazi regime are just not true. While few in number, they do seem to be receiving a concerning amount of freedom and power. This one makes it seem like the problem is bigger than I expected but still certainly not at the level people here like to portray it as. I can understand the inclination to make a deal to set aside differences temporarily and enable what they perceive to be a lesser threat to aid them against a greater mutual threat, but I'm not so sure it's a good idea.

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/359609-the-reality-of-neo-nazis-in-the-ukraine-is-far-from-kremlin-propaganda/

This one paints about the same picture, more prominent than I expected but still nowhere near the system issue portrayed by Russia.

https://www.fairobserver.com/region/europe/the-ukrainian-revolutions-neo-fascist-problem-14785/

This is the first thing I've seen that tries to construct a timeline that attempts to pin revolution at the culmination of Euromaidan on the fascistic elements of Ukraine. I've certainly heard the accusation here before, but nobody could ever offer anything resembling evidence of it, so this is interesting to see.

I've had a bit of trouble following just because the author uses a bunch of unfamiliar names and just assumes I understand them, so I may be misinterpreting things a bit, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it does sort of diminish its own message to some extent. For example,

Having gotten word of this radicalization and quasi-militarization, Yanukovich’s Berkut special police forces paid informal titushki thugs to beat up demonstrators on the night of November 30. The result was the radicalization and militarization of Maidan, and a vindication for the creation of the sotniki and Right Sector.

They're kinda trying to gloss over it, but it sounds like the government was brutalizing protesters, and a more militant wing of the protests eventually decided that wasn't gonna fly anymore. Sounds about right for a faction trying to suck up to Russia.

But the Maidan’s sotniki violated the February 21 agreement within hours. Rather than withdrawing from buildings and squares in Kiev, they occupied more buildings and threatened to take the presidential administration and kill Yanukovich. When Yanukovich fled Kiev for Kharkiv, the radicals stormed the parliament and oversaw the president’s illegal impeachment in violation of the constitutional procedure for such. They helped prevent the required quorum and kept down the pro-Yanukovich vote in the impeachment by detaining and sometimes beating deputies from his Party of the Regions. In other words, the ultra-nationalists and neo-fascists spearheaded the revolutionary seizure of power using significant force.

This actually raises an interesting question for this community. My understanding is that the unrest began primarily because the president defied the will of both the legislature and the people to overrule an attempt to build closer ties with the EU and move away from Russia. Feel free to correct me on that if you can provide good evidence for that, but it's my understanding of the cause.

So you have a president defying pretty much everyone to build ties with a nation that the majority want to move away from. It seems to be pretty widely accepted in this community that violence is an acceptable remedy to that sort of situation. Then is it acceptable for the wrong people to do the right thing here? Let's accept the premise that the violence of the revolution was driven by the fascist elements. If the government blatantly defies the people it governs and the legislature, is it acceptable for fascists to help correct that, assuming they correct the problem and stop? Obviously, Nazis aren't prone to stopping when they're winning, so that's a problem in its own right, but the waters become murky, and I'd never really considered the possibility of a Nazi faction ending up on the right side of... Anything at all. I really don't like the idea of working with the Nazis, but which is easier to deal with later, them or the government you've yet to overthrow? Do we let the broken clock be right twice a day, or do we step in to make sure they get absolutely no power at all?

Ultimately, I think it's a dangerous game at best to work with them, so probably not the right call. Still, Nazis are evil because they do Nazi shit, but that doesn't make everything a Nazi does evil by default. I dislike the can of worms this has opened. I'll have to think on this more. My gut reaction says tell the Nazis to fuck off, but... I dunno.

More importantly, for his organizational efforts on the Maidan, radical nationalist Parubiy was given the key post of chairman of Ukraine’s Security and National Defense Council. He would focus much of his activity on recruiting his “hundreds” and Right Sector-like groups into the Ukrainian army and National Guard prior and during the “antiterrorist” operation in the east.

This is the first evidence I've actually seen that the problem could be considered systemic to any extent. It sounds like it's not to the extent people try to portray it as, but this does sound like the sort of thing that festers into rot if left untreated. The good news is he only seems to have held the position for a few months, so that was addressed. The bad news is he seems to have gotten elected into parliament. I would hope that was for his aid in the revolution, not for his fascistic views, but it's still concerning he'd be elected. Somewhat understandable given the recent revolution, that sort of thing can build a cult of personality, but still concerning and a mistake.

None of the above should be construed as a claim that all the forces in the post-Maidan government are neo-fascist, as some Russian statements state or imply.

Even this article denies the Russian stance that Ukraine is just swarming with Nazis, though.

That said, this does paint a picture of Nazis being given far too much leeway, which is concerning in its own right. I'd be interested in an update on the topic given this article is 12 years old.

https://socialistproject.ca/2019/01/why-does-no-one-care-that-neo-nazis-are-gaining-power-in-ukraine/

This is one I have some issues with, primarily because of the sources they're using. Many are gone, which makes the claims hard to verify, and some of the rest are using sources somewhat questionably. For example,

They’ve marched by the thousands through the streets to commemorate WWII-era nationalist formations who took part in ethnic cleansing. They’ve acted as vigilantes with little to no negative reaction from state authorities.

The source linked as "vigilantes" doesn't mention anything about vigilantes. Still, the claims seem mostly reasonable, but they'd take a little extra verification.

Members of Ukraine’s far-right also offer themselves up as thugs for hire – sometimes with deadly consequences. This summer, anti-corruption activist Kateryna Handziuk was the victim of a horrifying acid attack. In July, several extremists – who apparently were paid by corrupt local police to carry out the attack – doused her with sulfuric acid, burning her over 40 per cent of her body. She died from her injuries in November.

This is tragic, but it does seem to suggest Ukraine is trying to do something about corruption and has been for the last 7 years at least.

It’s time to talk about why Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, up for re-election in March, is happy to flirt with hardline nationalist rhetoric and hasn’t bothered to condemn incidents like last month’s attack on a peaceful protest.

The good news here is that Zelenskyy won instead, so the populace seems to have opted not to endorse that.

Like the last article, this one does make it seem that nationalists in Ukraine are a bigger problem than I expected but not the problem as it is frequently presented here.

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/ukraine-anti-semitism-racism-and-the-far-right/

This one actually seems to downplay the issue more than the others. It still openly admits that there is definitely a problem with nationalist factions in Ukraine, but it goes out of the way to highlight that there's little public support compared to other countries like Germany, France, and Italy, so this actually gives me a little hope that the problem can be cleaned up once things are over with Russia.

Overall, my takeaway is that the truth was closer to the middle than I expected. Ukraine is most certainly not crawling with Nazis, but they have allowed nationalists and Nazis to operate with too much impunity. I would be very interested in seeing more up-to-date info if you know of anything worth looking at. I'm concerned that this is a case of trying to weaponize a rabid dog, but I'm holding out hope it can be fixed once they have the stability to look inward again.

Thank you again for taking the time to find some quality information for me to look over.