I think it's important to know more about the "partisans" because the Azovs, for example, appear to be (a small) part of the formal command structure of the Ukrainian forces, as special forces. I initially made the mistake of calling them "partisans," but--while I'm not certain what the exact definition of a partisan is--some distinction is one supposes, appropriate between special forces and partisans as such. A lot of politics and negotiation on some level--perhaps a not very exalted one, but still--must has gone into getting a NYT reporter sat down in a lemonade parlor talking to a masked fighter from behind the lines--all of which adds elements of staging and propaganda to an account that therefore has to be taken with one or more grains of salt. One thinks of guerrilla fighters as more independent, though still, obviously, in most cases with a command structure and war aims that mesh with the aims of one or more larger strategic entities. What in fact are we looking at here?
Do the Azovs deserve sole credit for the massive behind-the-lines explosions that have grabbed so many headlines in recent days and the many undocumented acts of sabotage for which credit is taken in the interview? That is an impression that they might very well want to give, but it shouldn't be taken as written. I rather doubt this.
I don't think there's a lot of doubt that if the war ends badly for Ukraine--for example, with the concession of territory already occupied--that the neoliberal Zelensky government' with its drastically unlovable inclination to austerity could be in big trouble politically. Has anyone ever loved a neoliberal government who didn't get rich under it? If some form of fascism is all that's on offer at that point, there is a good chance that support for fascism might mushroom. At that point, the political complexion of Ukraine could shift drastically. But the existence of a single possibly "embedded" piece on the Azovs--in the New York Times or not--does not signify that we have yet reached that point or anything close to it.
The Ukraine-haters as well as those who advance the truistic slogan of first defeating the enemy at home ought to recognize that support for the Ukrainian cause is justified on the sole grounds of the unparalleled atrocity of the invasion, with its policy of monolithic assault, mass murder, rape, and the scorching of the very earth itself. The shite that might flow down politically post bellum is another matter.
Beyond that, however, a very good and necessary tactic for defeating the "enemy at home" is to smash and discredit Putin and Putinism, which are the de facto vanguard of the worldwide red-brown political wave at present threatening at least the United States and Europe with a renewed form of fascism.--though I would suggest that this fascism may prove more right-wing anarchy than totalitarianism. The decisive defeat of the red-brown ideological monstrosity--which indeed effectively controls the thinking not only of many on the worldwide right but also of many self-denominated leftists, would IMO be a great gift to the working class.
When the likes of John Reimann and Anthony Boynton are smeared as enemies of the working class, things have reached a condition of absurdity beyond which it is nearly impossible to go.