Russia has established a coordinated far-right network spanning multiple European countries, according to intelligence assessments and investigative reporting, marking an evolution in Moscow's hybrid warfare strategy from covert influence operations to openly organized transnational extremist movements.
The network, called the Paladins, was formally launched at a conference in St. Petersburg's Mariinsky Palace in fall 2025, bringing together more than 50 delegates from ultranationalist groups across Europe. The organization was co-founded by Konstantin Malofeev, a Russian oligarch who operates Tsargrad TV, and philosopher Aleksandr Dugin, whose neo-Eurasianist ideology has influenced Russian foreign policy for decades.
The Paladins represent a shift from deniable operations to brazen organization. Unlike previous Russian influence campaigns that operated through cutouts and social media manipulation, this network brings European extremists directly into contact with Russian state-linked figures, provides ideological coordination, and seeks to normalize radical positions within mainstream political discourse.
According to the Baltic Sentinel investigation, the network explicitly promotes neo-Nazi ideology, frames itself as defending "the white race," and calls for a "new Reconquista" targeting Muslims, Jews, and other minorities. Sample messaging includes attacks on European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen for allegedly "betraying white Europeans."
To understand today's headlines, we must look at yesterday's decisions. Russia has a documented history of supporting European far-right movements, from financial backing for France's National Rally to coordination with Italian neo-fascist groups. But those efforts typically maintained plausible deniability. The Paladins dispense with such pretense, operating as an open Russian-led international organization.
Major General Viktor Yagun, a Ukrainian counterintelligence veteran, characterized the network as "a platform whose goal is to synchronize ultraright movements in different countries, standardize their ideology, and legalize contacts among radicals." The assessment suggests Russian intelligence views the Paladins as infrastructure for long-term destabilization rather than a short-term electoral tool.
Reported participants include representatives from Germany's Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, French ideologues Alain de Benoist and Alain Soral, and various smaller nationalist organizations. A separate congress of European and Russian neo-Nazi groups convened in Madrid in November, indicating expanding geographic reach.
Western intelligence services have tracked the network's development with concern. The strategic purpose appears less focused on electoral success than on eroding EU cohesion, normalizing extremist rhetoric, and creating conditions for chronic political instability. By legitimizing transnational extremist coordination, Moscow aims to replicate across Europe the polarization and gridlock that has paralyzed governance in several member states.
European governments face a difficult response. Many of the domestic groups cooperating with the Paladins operate legally under free speech protections, and tracking foreign influence without infringing civil liberties presents ongoing challenges. Some security officials advocate designating the network as a foreign influence operation subject to enhanced scrutiny, while others warn this could drive activities further underground.
The Paladins also reflect broader Russian strategic thinking about the nature of 21st-century conflict. Rather than conventional military confrontation, Moscow increasingly emphasizes political warfare, exploiting democratic openness to empower movements that, once in power, would likely curtail the very freedoms that allowed them to organize. It is asymmetric warfare conducted through ideology rather than arms.
Whether European societies can defend against such influence while maintaining democratic norms remains an open question. The Paladins represent a test case for whether open societies can resist coordinated attacks on their legitimacy, or whether the very openness that defines them will prove to be an exploitable vulnerability in an era of hybrid conflict.
