Any sort of "far right" opposition in Russia is vapour. Groups that could be seen to fit the description, in regards of symbols, reputation etc, are in fact people who vote for Putin and their only "issues" are that Putin is seen as too cautious at times. Great over Georgia and Crimea, but too cautious over Donbass. If there was seen to be any serious issues with some of these groups, then why are they allowed to hold meetings in prestigious locations such as Museum of Great Patriotic War, where nazis will hardly be wellcomed, or to exist as uniformed armed groups carrying out military training at Moscow, and as military formations engaged in war in Donbass, such as "Rusych". If these groups are seen as potential "far right" opposition, they simply would not be allowed to exist. Being noisily patriotic, or using combinations of orthodox and rodnover symbols does not make anybody a nazi. At the "worst", such groups could be used as "lightning rods" to deflect potential opposition into places that are not really any sort of oppostion, simply look like it to outsiders. It is same in a sense as the function of Zhirinovsky. Is Nikolai Emelin a "far right opposition" figure simply because of symbolism?, if so, then what about Maria Arkhipova? and on and on. IMO, more "dangerous" are the extreme orthodox fanatics such as Chaplin, who of course like to slur those who do not have the same God, or any god at all. To me, and I simplify this somewhat, it is not so much an issue of "nazis" in Russia, it is an issue of the consequences of 1917 and then of 1991 still being played out, of people wanting to exercise personal freedom to believe publicly again what was supressed during Soviet times, and what was surpressed before the revolution, and the hedonism that has taken over the entire world, the desire for the latest gadget etc. So it can be seen as not a serious political issue such as it was in early 20th century with competing ideologies, and certainly not an issue of "nazis" or even Communists storming Kremlin when Putin eventually begins to fail in health or mind, but a religious issue combined with personal freedom and some taking advantage to simply be idiots in a way that they could not before 1991.
After writing all that, I do accept that it is more nuanced than I have portrayed it, but any serious far right opposition to Putin in Russia, no. The issues will be what comes after Putin, who comes after Putin. Do not take this out of context and as any attack on Putin, but while he retains physical and mental health, all will be well, but if he begins to fail but still keeps power, then that could lead to a bad situation, like after Brezhnev with succession of zombies and eventually a traitor. I suspect Putin will retire and as long as the right man can follow him, no revolutions, no nazis storming Kremlin. A question is to seperate a nazi, real or imaginary, from a man like Girkin, who is clearly not a nazi, but not liked due to his involvement with K25, and his being rather pompous, who also cannot be seen as nazis, more like anarchist monarchists, if such a contradiction can exist. So forget nazis in Russia, it is either communists returning, which is unlikley but not impossible if Zyuganov is replaced by somebody far more dynamic, or somebody like Girkin, but not him, who may look like some sort of nazi, but only due to symbolism and the misinterpretation of nazism with nationalism with patriotism. The first is wrong, the second two have always been seen as normal in all countries, until modern times and the advent of "political correctness", the contrived conceit of American champagne socialists who would faint in horror if told to get their hands dirty and do real work like the "proles" they insulting patronize.