💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › crimethinc-war-and-anarchists.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 08:55:56. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: War and Anarchists Author: CrimethInc. Date: February 15, 2022 Language: en Topics: Ukraine, war, anti-authoritarianism, Russia, fascism, anti-fascism Source: Retrieved on 16th February 2022 from https://crimethinc.com/2022/02/15/war-and-anarchists-anti-authoritarian-perspectives-in-ukraine
This text was composed together by several active anti-authoritarian
activists from Ukraine. We do not represent one organization, but we
came together to write this text and prepare for a possible war.
Besides us, the text was edited by more than ten people, including
participants in the events described in the text, journalists who
checked the accuracy of our claims, and anarchists from Russia, Belarus,
and Europe. We received many corrections and clarifications in order to
write the most objective text possible.
If war breaks out, we do not know if the anti-authoritarian movement
will survive, but we will try to do so. In the meantime, this text is an
attempt to leave the experience that we have accumulated online.
---
At the moment, the world is actively discussing a possible war between
Russia and Ukraine. We need to clarify that the war between Russia and
Ukraine has been going on since 2014.
But first things first.
In 2013, mass protests began in Ukraine, triggered by Berkut (police
special forces) beating up student protesters who were dissatisfied with
the refusal of then-President Viktor Yanukovych to sign the association
agreement with the European Union. This beating functioned as a call to
action for many segments of society. It became clear to everyone that
Yanukovych had crossed the line. The protests ultimately led to the
president fleeing.
In Ukraine, these events are called “The Revolution of Dignity.” The
Russian government presents it as a Nazi coup, a US State Department
project, and so on. The protesters themselves were a motley crowd:
far-right activists with their symbols, liberal leaders talking about
European values and European integration, ordinary Ukrainians who went
out against the government, a few leftists. Anti-oligarchic sentiments
dominated among the protesters, while oligarchs who did not like
Yanukovych financed the protest because he, along with his inner circle,
tried to monopolize big business during his term. That is to say—for
other oligarchs, the protest represented a chance to save their
businesses. Also, many representatives of mid-size and small businesses
participated in the protest because Yanukovych’s people did not allow
them to work freely, demanding money from them. Ordinary people were
dissatisfied with the high level of corruption and arbitrary conduct of
the police. The nationalists who opposed Yanukovych on the grounds that
he was a pro-Russian politician reasserted themselves significantly.
Belarusian and Russian expatriates joined protests, perceiving
Yanukovych as a friend of Belarusian and Russian dictators Alexander
Lukashenko and Vladimir Putin.
If you have seen videos from the Maidan rally, you might have noticed
that the degree of violence was high; the protesters had no place to
pull back to, so they had to fight to the bitter end. The Berkut wrapped
stun grenades with screw nuts that left splinter wounds after the
explosion, hitting people in their eyes; that is why there were many
injured people. In the final stages of the conflict, the security forces
used military weapons—killing 106 protesters.
In response, the protesters produced DIY grenades and explosives and
brought firearms to the Maidan. The manufacturing of Molotov cocktails
resembled small divisions.
Contrary to the opinion that the Maidan was a “manipulation by the EU
and NATO,” supporters of European integration had called for a peaceful
protest, deriding militant protesters as stooges. The EU and the United
States criticized the seizures of government buildings. Of course,
“pro-Western” forces and organizations participated in the protest, but
they did not control the entire protest. Various political forces
including the far right actively interfered in the movement and tried to
dictate their agenda. They quickly got their bearings and became an
organizing force, thanks to the fact that they created the first combat
detachments and invited everyone to join them, training and directing
them.
However, none of the forces was absolutely dominant. The main trend was
that it was a spontaneous protest mobilization directed against the
corrupt and unpopular Yanukovych regime. Perhaps the Maidan can be
classified as one of the many “stolen revolutions.” The sacrifices and
efforts of tens of thousands of ordinary people were usurped by a
handful of politicians who made their way to power and control over the
economy.
Despite the fact that anarchists in Ukraine have a long history, during
the reign of Stalin, everyone who was connected with the anarchists in
any way was repressed and the movement died out, and consequently, the
transfer of revolutionary experience ceased. The movement began to
recover in the 1980s thanks to the efforts of historians, and in the
2000s it received a big boost due to the development of subcultures and
anti-fascism. But in 2014, it was not yet ready for serious historical
challenges.
Prior to the beginning of the protests, anarchists were individual
activists or scattered in small groups. Few argued that the movement
should be organized and revolutionary. Of the well-known organizations
that were preparing for such events, there was Makhno Revolutionary
Confederation of Anarcho-Syndicalists (RCAS of Makhno), but at the
beginning of the riots, it dissolved itself, as the participants could
not develop a strategy for the new situation.
The events of the Maidan were like a situation in which the special
forces break into your house and you need to take decisive actions, but
your arsenal consists only of punk lyrics, veganism, 100-year-old books,
and at best, the experience of participating in street anti-fascism and
local social conflicts. Consequently, there was a lot of confusion, as
people attempted to understand what was happening.
At the time, it was not possible to form a unified vision of the
situation. The presence of the far-right in the streets discouraged many
anarchists from supporting the protests, as they did not want to stand
beside Nazis on the same side of the barricades. This brought a lot of
controversy into the movement; some people accused those who did decide
to join the protests of fascism.
The anarchists who participated in the protests were dissatisfied with
the brutality of the police and with Yanukovych himself and his
pro-Russian position. However, they could not have a significant impact
on the protests, as they were essentially in the category of outsiders.
In the end, anarchists participated in the Maidan revolution
individually and in small groups, mainly in volunteer/non-militant
initiatives. After a while, they decided to cooperate and make their own
“hundred” (a combat group of 60–100 people). But during the registration
of the detachment (a mandatory procedure on the Maidan), the outnumbered
anarchists were dispersed by the far-right participants with weapons.
The anarchists remained, but no longer attempted to create large
organized groups.
Among those killed on the Maidan was the anarchist Sergei Kemsky who
was, ironically, ranked as postmortem Hero of Ukraine. He was shot by a
sniper during the heated phase of the confrontation with the security
forces. During the protests, Sergei put forward an appeal to the
protesters entitled “Do you hear it, Maidan?” in which he outlined
possible ways of developing the revolution, emphasizing the aspects of
direct democracy and social transformation.
The armed conflict with Russia began eight years ago on the night of
February 26–27, 2014, when the Crimean Parliament building and the
Council of Ministers were seized by unknown armed men. They used Russian
weapons, uniforms, and equipment but did not have the symbols of the
Russian army. Putin did not recognize the fact of the participation of
the Russian militarys in this operation, although he later admitted it
personally in the documentary propaganda film “Crimea: The way to the
Homeland”.
Here, one needs to understand that during the time of Yanukovych, the
Ukrainian army was in very poor condition. Knowing that there was a
regular Russian army of 220,000 soldiers operating in Crimea, the
provisional government of Ukraine did not dare to confront it.
After the occupation, many residents have faced repression that
continues to this day. Our comrades are also among the repressed. We can
briefly review some of the most high-profile cases. Anarchist Alexander
Kolchenko was arrested along with pro-democratic activist Oleg Sentsov
and transferred to Russia on September 6, 2019; five years later, they
were released as a result of a prisoner exchange. Anarchist Alexei
Shestakovich was tortured, suffocated with a plastic bag on his head,
beaten, and threatened with reprisals; he managed to escape. Anarchist
Evgeny Karakashev was arrested in 2018 for a re-post on Vkontakte (a
social network); he remains in custody.
Pro-Russian rallies were held in Russian-speaking cities close to the
Russian border. The participants feared NATO, radical nationalists, and
repression targeting the Russian-speaking population. After the collapse
of the USSR, many households in Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus had family
ties, but the events of the Maidan caused a serious split in personal
relations. Those who were outside Kyiv and watched Russian TV were
convinced that Kyiv had been captured by a Nazi junta and that there
were purges of the Russian-speaking population there.
Russia launched a propaganda campaign using the following messaging:
“punishers,” i.e., Nazis, are coming from Kyiv to Donetsk, they want to
destroy the Russian-speaking population (although Kyiv is also a
predominantly Russian-speaking city). In their disinformation
statements, the propagandists used photos of the far right and spread
all kinds of fake news. During the hostilities, one of the most
notorious hoaxes appeared: the so-called crucifixion of a three-year-old
boy who was allegedly attached to a tank and dragged along the road. In
Russia, this story was broadcasted on federal channels and went viral on
the Internet.
In 2014, in our opinion, disinformation played a key role in generating
the armed conflict: some residents of Donetsk and Lugansk were scared
that they would be killed, so they took up arms and called for Putin’s
troops.
“The trigger of the war was pulled,” in his own words, by Igor Girkin, a
colonel of the FSB (the state security agency, successors to the KGB) of
the Russian Federation. Girkin, a supporter of Russian imperialism,
decided to radicalize the pro-Russian protests. He crossed the border
with an armed group of Russians and (on April 12, 2014) seized the
Interior Ministry building in Slavyansk to take possession of weapons.
Pro-Russian security forces began to join Girkin. When information about
Girkin’s armed groups appeared, Ukraine announced an anti-terrorist
operation.
A part of Ukrainian society determined to protect national sovereignty,
realizing that the army had poor capacity, organized a large volunteer
movement. Those who were somewhat competent in military affairs became
instructors or formed volunteer battalions. Some people joined the
regular army and volunteer battalions as humanitarian volunteers. They
raised funds for weapons, food, ammunition, fuel, transport, renting
civil cars, and the like. Often, the participants in the volunteer
battalions were armed and equipped better than the soldiers of the state
army. These detachments demonstrated a significant level of solidarity
and self-organization and actually replaced the state functions of
territorial defense, enabling the army (which was poorly equipped at
that time) to successfully resist the enemy.
The territories controlled by pro-Russian forces began to shrink
rapidly. Then the regular Russian army intervened.
We can highlight three key chronological points:
specialists were coming from Russia. Therefore, on July 12, 2014, they
began an operation on the Ukrainian-Russian border. However, during the
military march, the Ukrainian military was attacked by Russian artillery
and the operation failed. The armed forces sustained heavy losses.
advancing, they were surrounded by Russian regular troops near Ilovaisk.
People we know, who were part of one of the volunteer battalions, were
also captured. They saw the Russian military firsthand. After three
months, they managed to return as the result of an exchange of prisoners
of war.
large railway junction. This disrupted the direct road linking Donetsk
and Lugansk. On the eve of the negotiations between Poroshenka (the
president of Ukraine at that time) and Putin, which were supposed to
begin a long-term ceasefire, Ukrainian positions were attacked by units
with the support of Russian troops. The Ukrainian army was again
surrounded and sustained heavy losses.
For the time being (as of February 2022), the parties have agreed on a
ceasefire and a conditional “peace and quiet” order, which is
maintained, though there are consistent violations. Several people die
every month.
Russia denies the presence of regular Russian troops and the supply of
weapons to territories uncontrolled by the Ukrainian authorities. The
Russian military who were captured claim that they were put on alert for
a drill, and only when they arrived at their destination did they
realize that they were in the middle of the war in Ukraine. Before
crossing the border, they removed the symbols of the Russian army, the
way their colleagues did in Crimea. In Russia, journalists have found
cemeteries of fallen soldiers, but all information about their deaths is
unknown: the epitaphs on the headstones only indicate the dates of their
deaths as the year 2014.
The ideological basis of the opponents of the Maidan was also diverse.
The main unifying ideas were discontent with violence against the police
and opposition to rioting in Kyiv. People who were brought up with
Russian cultural narratives, movies, and music were afraid of the
destruction of the Russian language. Supporters of the USSR and admirers
of its victory in World War II believed that Ukraine should be aligned
with Russia and were unhappy with the rise of radical nationalists.
Adherents of the Russian Empire perceived the Maidan protests as a
threat to the territory of the Russian Empire. The ideas of these allies
could be explained with this photo showing the flags of the USSR, the
Russian Empire, and the St. George ribbon as a symbol of victory in the
Second World War. We could portray them as authoritarian conservatives,
supporters of the old order.
The pro-Russian side consisted of police, entrepreneurs, politicians,
and the military who sympathized with Russia, ordinary citizens
frightened by fake news, various ultra-right indivisuals including
Russian patriots and various types of monarchists, pro-Russian
imperialists, the Task Force group “Rusich,” the PMC [Private Military
Company] group “Wagner,” including the notorious neo-Nazi Alexei
Milchakov, the recently deceased Egor Prosvirnin, the founder of the
chauvinistic Russian nationalist media project “Sputnik and Pogrom,” and
many others. There were also authoritarian leftists, who celebrate the
USSR and its victory in the Second World War.
As we described, the right wing managed to gain sympathy during the
Maidan by organizing combat units and by being ready to physically
confront the Berkut. The presence of military arms enabled them to
maintain their independence and force others to reckon with them. In
spite of their using overt fascist symbols such as swastikas, wolf
hooks, Celtic crosses, and SS logos, it was difficult to discredit them,
as the need to fight the forces of the Yanukovych government caused many
Ukrainians to call for cooperation with them.
After the Maidan, the right wing actively suppressed the rallies of
pro-Russian forces. At the beginning of the military operations, they
started forming volunteer battalions. One of the most famous is the
“Azov” battalion. At the beginning, it consisted of 70 fighters; now it
is a regiment of 800 people with its own armored vehicles, artillery,
tank company, and a separate project in accordance with NATO standards,
the sergeant school. The Azov battalion is one of the most
combat-effective units in the Ukrainian army. There were also other
fascist military formations such as the Volunteer Ukrainian Unit “Right
Sector” and the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, but they are
less widely known.
As a consequence, the Ukrainian right wing accrued a bad reputation in
the Russian media. But many in Ukraine considered what was hated in
Russia to be a symbol of struggle in Ukraine. For example, the name of
the nationalist Stepan Bandera, who is considered a Nazi collaborator in
Russia, was actively used by the protesters as a form of mockery. Some
called themselves Judeo-Banderans to troll supporters of Jewish/Masonic
conspiracy theories.
Over time, the trolling got out of control. Right-wingers openly wore
Nazi symbols; ordinary supporters of the Maidan claimed that they were
themselves Banderans who eat Russian babies and made memes to that
effect. The far right made its way into the mainstream: they were
invited to participate in television shows and other corporate media
platforms, on which they were presented as patriots and nationalists.
Liberal supporters of the Maidan took their side, believing that the
Nazis were a hoax invented by Russian media. In 2014 to 2016, anyone who
was ready to fight was embraced, whether it was a Nazi, an anarchist, a
kingpin from an organized crime syndicate, or a politician who did not
carry out any of his promises.
The rise of the far right is due to the fact that they were better
organized in critical situations and were able to suggest effective
methods of fighting to other rebels. Anarchists provided something
similar in Belarus, where they also managed to gain the sympathy of the
public, but not on as significant of a scale as the far right did in
Ukraine.
By 2017, after the ceasefire started and the need for radical fighters
decreased, the SBU (Security Service of Ukraine) and the state
government co-opted the right-wing movement, jailing or neutralizing
anyone who had an “anti-system” or independent perspective on how to
develop the right-wing movement—including Oleksandr Muzychko, Oleg
Muzhchil, Yaroslav Babich, and others.
Today, it is still a big movement, but their popularity is at a
comparably low level and their leaders are affiliated with the Security
service, police, and politicians; they do not represent a really
independent political force. The discussions of the problem of the
far-right are becoming more frequent within the democratic camp, where
people are developing an understanding of the symbols and organizations
they are dealing with, rather than silently dismissing concerns.
With the outbreak of military operations, a division appeared between
those who are pro-Ukrainian and those who support the so-called DNR/LNR
(“Donetsk People’s Republic” and “Luhansk People’s Republic”).
There was a widespread “say no to war” sentiment within the punk scene
during the first months of the war, but it did not last long. Let’s
analyze the pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian camps.
Due to the lack of a massive organization, the first anarchist and
anti-fascist volunteers went to war individually as single fighters,
military medics, and volunteers. They tried to form their own squad, but
due to lack of knowledge and resources, this attempt was unsuccessful.
Some even joined the Azov battalion and the OUN (Organization of
Ukrainian Nationalists). The reasons were mundane: they joined the most
accessible troops. Consequently, some people converted to right-wing
politics.
People who didn’t take part in the battles raised funds for the
rehabilitation of people injured in the East and for the construction of
a bomb shelter in a kindergarten located near the front line. There was
also a squat named “Autonomy” in Kharkiv, an open anarchist social and
cultural center; at that time, they concentrated on helping the
refugees. They provided housing and a permanent really free market,
consulting with new arrivals and directing them to resources and
conducting educational activities. In addition, the center became a
place for theoretical discussions. Unfortunately, in 2018, the project
ceased to exist.
All these actions were the individual initiatives of particular people
and groups. They did not happen within the framework of a single
strategy.
One of the most significant phenomena of that period was a formerly
large radical nationalist organization, “Autonomnyi Opir”(autonomous
resistance). They started leaning left in 2012; by 2014, they had
shifted so much to the left that individual members would even call
themselves “anarchists.” They framed their nationalism as a struggle for
“liberty” and a counterbalance to Russian nationalism, using the
Zapatista movement and the Kurds as role models. Compared to the other
projects in Ukrainian society, they were seen as the closest allies, so
some anarchists cooperated with them, while others criticized this
cooperation and the organization itself. Members of the AO also actively
participated in volunteer battalions and tried to develop the idea of
“anti-imperialism” among the military. They also defended the right of
women to participate in the war; female members of the AO participated
in the combat operations. AO assisted training centers in training
fighters and doctors, volunteered for the army, and organized the social
center”Citadel” in Lviv where refugees were accommodated.
Modern Russian imperialism is built on the perception that Russia is the
successor of the USSR—not in its political system, but on territorial
grounds. The Putin regime sees the Soviet victory in World War II not as
an ideological victory over Nazism, but as a victory over Europe that
shows the strength of Russia. In Russia and the countries it controls,
the population has less access to information, so Putin’s propaganda
machine does not bother to create a complex political concept. The
narrative is essentially as follows: The USA and Europe were afraid of
the strong USSR, Russia is the successor of the USSR and the entire
territory of the former USSR is Russian, Russian tanks entered Berlin,
which means that “We can do it again” and we’ll show NATO who is the
strongest here, the reason Europe is “rotting” is because all of the
gays and emigrants are out of control there.
The ideological foundation maintaining a pro-Russian position among the
left was the legacy of the USSR and its victory in World War II. Since
Russia clams that the government in Kyiv was seized by Nazis and the
junta, the opponents of the Maidan described themselves as fighters
against fascism and the Kyiv junta. This branding induced sympathy among
the authoritarian left—for example, in Ukraine, including the “Borotba”
organization. During the most significant events of 2014, they first
took a loyalist position and then later a pro-Russian position. In
Odessa, on May 2, 2014, several of their activists were killed during
street riots. Some people from this group also participated in the
fighting in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, and some of them died
there.
“Borotba” described their motivation as wishing to fight against
fascism. They urged the European left to stand in solidarity with the
“Donetsk People’s Republic” and “Luhansk People’s Republic.” After the
e-mail of Vladislav Surkov (Putin’s political strategist) was hacked, it
was revealed that members of Borotba had received funding and were
supervised by Surkov’s people.
Russia’s authoritarian communists embraced the breakaway republics for
similar reasons.
The presence of far-right supporters in the Maidan also motivated
apolitical anti-fascists to support the “DNR” and “LNR.” Again, some of
them participated in the fighting in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions,
and some of them died there.
Among Ukrainian anti-fascists, there were “apolitical” anti-fascists,
subculturally affiliated people who had a negative attitude towards
fascism “because our grandfathers fought against it.” Their
understanding of fascism was abstract: they themselves were often
politically incoherent, sexist, homophobic, patriots of Russia, and the
like.
The idea of supporting the so-called republics gained wide backing among
the left in Europe. Most notable among its supporters were the Italian
rock band “Banda Bassotti” and the German party Die Linke. In addition
to fundraising, Banda Bassotti made a tour to “Novorossia.” Being in the
European Parliament, Die Linke supported the pro-Russian narrative in
every possible way and arranged video conferences with pro-Russian
militants, going to Crimea and the unrecognized republics. The younger
members of Die Linke, as well as the Rosa Luxembourg Foundation (the Die
Linke party foundation), maintain that this position is not shared by
every participant, but it is broadcasted by the most prominent members
of the party, such as Sahra Wagenknecht and Sevim DaÄźdelen.
The pro-Russian position did not gain popularity among anarchists. Among
individual statements, the most visible was the position of Jeff Monson,
a mixed martial arts fighter from the USA who has tattoos with anarchist
symbols. He previously considered himself an anarchist, but in Russia,
he openly works for the ruling United Russia party and serves as a
deputy in the Duma.
To summarize the pro-Russian “left” camp, we see the work of the Russian
special services and the consequences of ideological incapacity. After
the occupation of Crimea, employees of the Russian FSB approached local
anti-fascists and anarchists in conversation, offering to permit them to
continue their activities but suggesting that they should henceforward
include the idea that Crimea should be a part of Russia in their
agitation. In Ukraine, there are small informational and activist groups
that position themselves as anti-fascist while expressing an essentially
pro-Russian position; many people suspect them of working for Russia.
Their influence is minimal in Ukraine, but their members serve Russian
propagandists as “whistleblowers.”
There are also offers of “cooperation” from the Russian embassy and
pro-Russian members of Parliament like Ilya Kiva. They try to play on
the negative attitude towards Nazis like the Azov battalion and offer to
pay people to change their position. At the moment, only Rita Bondar has
openly admitted to receiving money in this way. She used to write for
left-wing and anarchist media outlets, but due to the need for money,
she wrote under a pseudonym for media platforms affiliated with the
Russian propagandist Dmitry Kiselev.
In Russia itself, we are witnessing the elimination of the anarchist
movement and the rise of authoritarian communists who are ousting
anarchists from the anti-fascist subculture. One of the most indicative
recent moments is the organizing of an anti-fascist tournament in 2021
in memory of “the Soviet soldier.”
---
Position
About ten years ago, the idea of a full-scale war in Europe would have
seemed crazy, since secular European states in the 21^(st) century seek
to play up their “humanism” and mask their crimes. When they do engage
in military operations, they do so somewhere far away from Europe. But
when it comes to Russia, we have witnessed the occupation of Crimea and
subsequent fake referendums, the war in Donbas, and the MH17 plane
crash. Ukraine constantly experiences hacker attacks and bomb threats,
not only in state buildings but also inside the schools and
kindergartens.
In Belarus in 2020, Lukashenka boldly declared himself the winner of the
elections with a result of 80% of the vote. The uprising in Belarus even
led to a strike of Belarusian propagandists. But after the landing of
Russian FSB planes, the situation changed dramatically and the
Belarusian government succeeded in violently suppressing the protests.
A similar scenario played out in Kazakhstan, but there, the regular
armies of Russia, Belarus, Armenia, and Kyrgyzstan were brought in to
help the regime suppress the revolt as part of the CSTO (Collective
Security Treaty Organization) cooperation.
Russian special services lured refugees from Syria to Belarus in order
to create a conflict on the border with the European Union. A group of
the Russian FSB was also uncovered that was engaged in political
assassinations using chemical weapons—the already familiar “novichok.”
In addition to the Skripals and Navalny, they have also killed other
political figures in Russia. Putin’s regime responds to all accusations
by saying “It’s not us, you all are lying.” Meanwhile, Putin himself
wrote an article half a year ago in which he asserts that Russians and
Ukrainians are one nation and should be together. Vladislav Surkov (a
political strategist who builds Russian state policy, connected with the
puppet governments in the so-called DNR and LNR) published an article
declaring that “the empire must expand, otherwise it will perish.” In
Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan over the past two years, the protest
movement has been brutally suppressed and independent and opposition
media are being destroyed.
All things considered, the likelihood of a full-scale war is high—and
somewhat higher this year than last year. Even the sharpest analysts are
unlikely to be able to predict exactly when it will start. Perhaps a
revolution in Russia would relieve tension in the region; however, as we
wrote above, the protest movement there has been smothered.
Anarchists in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia mostly support Ukrainian
independence directly or implicitly. This is because, even with all the
national hysteria, corruption, and a large number of Nazis, compared to
Russia and the countries controlled by it, Ukraine looks like an island
of freedom. This country retains such “unique phenomena” in the
post-Soviet region as the replaceability of the president, a parliament
that has more than nominal power, and the right to peaceful assembly; in
some cases, factoring in additional attention from society, the courts
sometimes even function according to their professed protocol. To say
that this is preferable to the situation in Russia is not to say
anything new. As Bakunin wrote, “We are firmly convinced that the most
imperfect republic is a thousand times better than the most enlightened
monarchy.”
There are many problems inside Ukraine, but these problems are more
likely to be solved without the intervention of Russia.
Is it worth it to fight the Russian troops in the case of an invasion?
We believe that the answer is yes. The options that Ukrainian anarchists
are considering at the present moment include joining the armed forces
of Ukraine, engaging in territorial defense, partisanship, and
volunteering.
Ukraine is now at the forefront of the struggle against Russian
imperialism. Russia has long-term plans to destroy democracy in Europe.
We know that little attention has yet been paid to this danger in
Europe. But if you follow the statements of high-profile politicians,
far-right organizations, and authoritarian communists, over time, you
will notice that there is already a large spy network in Europe. For
example, some top officials, after leaving office, are given a position
in a Russian oil company (Gerhard Schröder, François Fillon).
We consider the slogans “Say No to War” or “The War of Empires” to be
ineffectual and populist. The anarchist movement has no influence on the
process, so such statements do not change anything at all.
Our position is based on the fact that we do not want to run away, we do
not want to be hostages, and we do not want to be killed without a
fight. You can look at Afghanistan and understand what “No to War”
means: when the Taliban advances, people flee en masse, die in the chaos
at the airports, and those who remain are purged. This describes what is
happening in Crimea and you can imagine what will happen after the
invasion of Russia in other regions of Ukraine.
As for the attitude towards NATO, the authors of this text are divided
between two standpoints. Some of us have a positive approach towards
this situation. It is obvious that Ukraine cannot counter Russia on its
own. Even taking into consideration the large volunteer movement, modern
technologies and weapons are needed. Apart from NATO, Ukraine has no
other allies who can help with this.
Here, we can recall the story of Syrian Kurdistan. The locals were
forced to cooperate with NATO against ISIS—the only alternative was to
flee or be killed. We are well aware that support from NATO can
disappear very quickly if the West develops new interests or manages to
negotiate some compromises with Putin. Even now, the Kurds are forced to
cooperate with the Assad regime, understanding that they don’t have much
of an alternative.
A possible Russian invasion forces the Ukrainian people to look for
allies in the fight against Moscow. Not on social media, but in the real
world. Anarchists do not have sufficient resources in Ukraine or
elsewhere to respond effectively to the invasion of Putin’s regime.
Therefore, one has to think about accepting support from NATO.
The other standpoint, which others in this writing group subscribe to,
is that both NATO and the EU, in strengthening their influence in
Ukraine, will cement the current system of “wild capitalism” in the
country and make the potential for a social revolution even less
feasible. In the system of global capitalism, the flagship of which is
the USA as the leader of NATO, Ukraine is assigned the spot of a humble
frontier: a supplier of cheap labor and resources. Therefore, it is
important for Ukrainian society to realize the need for independence
from all the imperialists. In the context of the country’s defense
capability, the emphasis should not be on the importance of NATO
technology and support for the regular army, but on the potential of
society for grassroots guerrilla resistance.
We consider this war primarily against Putin and the regimes under his
control. In addition to the mundane motivation not to live under a
dictatorship, we see potential in Ukrainian society, which is one of the
most active, independent, and rebellious in the region. The long history
of resistance of the people over the past thirty years is a solid proof
of this. This gives us hope that the concepts of direct democracy have a
fertile ground here.
The outsider position during the Maidan and the war had a demoralizing
effect on the movement. Outreach was hampered as Russian propaganda
monopolized the word “anti-fascism.” Due to the presence of the symbols
of the USSR among the pro-Russian militants, the attitude towards the
word “communism” was extremely negative, so even the combination
“anarcho-communism” was perceived negatively. The declarations against
the pro-Ukrainian ultra-right cast a shadow of doubt on anarchists in
the eyes of ordinary folks. There was an unspoken agreement that the
ultra-right would not attack anarchists and anti-fascists if they did
not display their symbols at rallies and the like. The right had a lot
of weapons in their hands. This situation created a feeling of
frustration; the police did not function well, so someone could easily
be killed without consequences. For example, in 2015, the pro-Russian
activist Oles Buzina was killed.
All this encouraged anarchists to approach the matter more seriously.
A radical underground began to develop starting from 2016; news about
radical actions started to appear. Radical anarchist resources appeared
that explained how to buy weapons and how to make caches, as opposed to
the old ones, which were limited only to Molotov cocktails.
In the anarchist milieu, it has become acceptable to have legal weapons.
Videos of anarchist training camps using firearms began to surface.
Echoes of these changes reached Russia and Belarus. In Russia, the FSB
liquidated a network of anarchist groups that had legal weapons and
practiced airsoft. The arrestees were tortured with electric current in
order to force them to confess to terrorism, and sentenced to terms
ranging from 6 to 18 years. In Belarus, during the 2020 protests, a
rebellious group of anarchists under the name “Black Flag” was detained
while trying to cross the Belarusian-Ukrainian border. They had a
firearm and a grenade with them; according to the testimony of Igor
Olinevich, he bought the weapon in Kyiv.
The outdated approach of anarchists’ economic agenda has also changed:
if before, the majority worked at low-paid jobs “closer to the
oppressed,” now many are trying to find a job with a good salary, most
often in the IT sector.
Street anti-fascist groups have resumed their activities, engaging in
retaliatory actions in cases of Nazi attacks. Among other things, they
held the “No Surrender” tournament among antifa fighters and released a
documentary entitled “Hoods,” which tells about the birth of the Kyiv
antifa group. (English subtitles are available.)
Anti-fascism in Ukraine is an important front, because in addition to a
large number of local ultra-right activists, many notorious Nazis have
relocated here from Russia (including Sergei Korotkikh and Alexei
Levkin) and from Europe (such as Denis “White Rex” Kapustin), and even
from the USA (Robert Rando). Anarchists have been investigating the
activities of the far right.
There are activist groups of various kinds (classical anarchists, queer
anarchists, anarcho-feminists, Food Not Bombs, eco-initiatives, and the
like), as well as small information platforms. Recently, a politically
charged anti-fascist resource has appeared in the telegram @uantifa,
duplicating its publications in English.
Today, the tensions between groups are gradually smoothing out, as
recently there have been many joint actions and common participation in
social conflicts. Among the biggest of these is the campaign against the
deportation of the Belarusian anarchist Aleksey Bolenkov (who managed to
win a trial against the Ukrainian special services and remain in
Ukraine) and the defense of one of the districts in Kyiv (Podil) from
police raids and attacks by the ultra-right.
We still have very little influence on society at large. This is largely
because the very idea of ​​a need for organization and anarchist
structures was ignored or denied for a long time. (In his memoirs,
Nestor Makhno also complained about this shortcoming after the defeat of
the anarchists). Anarchist groups were very quickly dashed by the SBU
[Security Service of Ukraine] or the far right.
Now we have come out of stagnation and are developing, and therefore we
are anticipating new repression and new attempts by the SBU to take
control of the movement.
At this stage, our role can be described as the most radical approaches
and views in the democratic camp. If liberals prefer to complain to the
police in the event of an attack by the police or the far right,
anarchists offer to cooperate with other groups that suffer from a
similar problem and come to the defense of institutions or events if
there is a possibility of an attack.
Anarchists are now trying to create horizontal grassroots ties in
society, based on common interests, so that communities can address
their own needs, including self-defense. This differs significantly from
ordinary Ukrainian political practice, in which it is often proposed to
unite around organizations, representatives, or the police.
Organizations and representatives are often bribed and the people who
have gathered around them remain deceived. The police may, for example,
defend LGBT events but get mad if these activists join a riot against
police brutality. Actually, this is why we see potential in our
ideas—but if a war breaks out, the main thing will again be the ability
to participate in armed conflict.