💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › mike-ermler-defend-ukraine.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 12:40:22. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Defend Ukraine! Author: Mike Ermler Date: December 15, 2014 Language: en Topics: Ukraine, Russia, Imperialism, anti-imperialism, The Utopian, nationalism Source: Retrieved on 7th August 2021 from http://utopianmag.com/archives/tag-The%20Utopian%20Vol.%2013%20-%202014/defend-ukraine-fight-russian-imperialism Notes: Published in The Utopian Vol. 13.
Editors’ Note: The article below deals with the crisis that began in
Ukraine last fall with the Maidan uprising and the peaceful overthrow of
the Russian-allied Yanukovych government.
The crisis intensified with Russia’s annexation of Crimea in March, and
has continued with Russia’s arming and aid of separatists in Ukraine’s
east. Since Russia sent additional units in late summer to stop the
Ukraine government’s recapture of the separatist region, there has been
a bogus ceasefire which Russia is all but openly violating by sending
additional weapons and commandos to the separatists, interventions that
have continued since the article was written.
Mike Ermler is a longtime anarchist in Detroit who follows the situation
closely. Here, he argues that revolutionaries should defend Ukraine’s
independence through a tactical bloc with any and all forces resisting
Russia, while maintaining their own independent revolutionary politics
and goas. Readers wishing additional detail and historical background
will find an accompanying set of posts by Mike and others, originally to
the discussion site of the First of May Anarchist Alliance, on our
website, www.utopianmag.com.
---
The last days of August saw a large scale direct employment of Russian
regular troops, artillery and armored units inside Ukraine’s borders.
This development in the Russian government’s six months long violent
assault on Ukrainian sovereignty resulted in a fragile and not entirely
popular September ceasefire agreement. All need be clear that this is
not only a challenge by the Russian state to Ukraine’s new ruling
circles. It is an attack on a majority of the Ukrainian peoples’
democratic aspirations.
Internationally all partisans of justice and self-determination for
oppressed peoples, truly democratic organizations of social self defense
and anti-authoritarian revolutionaries need to rally to defense of
Ukraine. Sharp condemnation and clear opposition to the Russian regime’s
ongoing imperialist attempts to weaken, subordinate and now dismember
Ukraine is well past due from anarchist and anti-authoritarian
groupings.
Events not only demand an unequivocal anarchist political defense of
Ukraine’s territorial integrity but solidarity with military actions
aimed at defeating Putin’s adventure. Additionally, the need for
anti-authoritarians to get their act together in regards to
understanding and intervening in ”imperfect” anti-elite movements with
strong nationalist, religious or liberal sentiments was dramatically
highlighted by this winter’s popular Maidan insurgency.
In such situations, the advance of social revolutionary developments
with a strong anti-authoritarian component requires flexibility. It will
not come about by anarchists adopting a class reductionist and pacifist
abstentionism. In the case of Ukraine to their discredit many anarchists
appear to have done so.
Adherence to the principle of self determination alone requires defense
of Ukrainian independence. Ukraine became independent through a
referendum in August 1991, supported by 92 percent of the voters, with
majorities in all regions, even Crimea. Over the 23 years since that
initial referendum and the resulting declaration of independence, the
overwhelming majority of the peoples of Ukraine have and continue to
support independence. This applies not only to the more traditionally
nationalist Ukrainian speakers but to the Russian speakers as well.
Experience and political world view, not ethnicity or tongue, determines
one’s stance on independence and Russia.
Principle and common decency aside, there is a practical political
purpose/objective for not remaining neutral in this clash between the
two nation states. A defeat for Putin and his ”Eurasian/Russian World
project” in regards to Ukraine, a geopolitical linchpin, can only have a
positive impact throughout the region. A serious challenge to his moves
would break his string of ”successes”, heartening and fueling all
domestic opposition to his authoritarian grip on Russia itself.
Likewise, the internal opposition to neighboring neo-Soviet dictator
Lukashenka in Belarus would receive a lift and more widely the terrain
on which social movements from the Baltic to the Caucasus and through
the Central Asian republics operate would open up.
The Russian speakers are not a monolith. Ethnic Russians were sent or
migrated into Ukraine over the long years of Russian domination to work
or, particularly as in the case of Crimea, for military deployment. Many
Russian speakers, however, are from Ukrainian communities whose ability
to speak Ukrainian was severely limited or extinguished over the long
stretch of Tsarist and Soviet rule and Great Russian bias. Ironically,
some of the hard core Ukrainian nationalist groupings in the center and
eastern regions conduct their meetings in Russian. Surzhyk a mixture of
Ukrainian and Russian, like intermarriage is widespread.
Post independence many people from nationalities around the region have
decided to build their lives in Ukraine. These individuals and
communities are amongst the most avid defenders of independence. Ethnic
Russians, Jewish people, Armenians, Azeris, Georgians and others could
be found among the fighters and martyrs in the Maidan and presently
amongst the volunteers fighting and dying against the reactionary
separatists and Putin’s troops in the east.
Clearly, the government in Kyiv and much of this pro-Ukraine population
has a Western and European orientation. Deepening entanglement with the
EU, IMF and possibly NATO is a mistake from a working class and
anarchist viewpoint. We should not soft peddle our opposition to these
institutions. This opposition, however, does not condone standing aside
or apologizing for Putin’s use of economic or military force to bludgeon
Ukraine or others onto a path they reject.
Given the past and recent history of the region it is understandable why
many Ukrainians look westward in their search for economic security and
human rights. Without a clear defense of their right to self
determination why would they trust to hear us out on our anarchist
perspectives for the road forward.
Ukrainian and Russian nationalisms are not equivalent, notof the same
dynamics. In the past and in this present situation Ukrainian
nationalism overall has a decentralizing, democratic thrust whatever its
outward forms. Ukrainian national resistance despite its present
political limitations and some brutally tragic past episodes has the
potential to open space for future democratic and social revolutionary
developments. Proponents of a narrow ethnic Ukrainian nationalism do not
dominate the movement. This place is held by an inclusive civic
nationalism whose political center of gravity to present is a
conservative liberalism, hence its attraction to the EU.
Russian nationalism, whether Tsarist, Soviet or in Putin’s packaging was
and remains a vehicle for the subordination and exploitation of
Ukrainians and other peoples. It is authoritarian and imperialist. Its
militant supporters in the now independent nations ringing the Russian
Federation are of a reactionary and colonial settler mindset whatever
their class position.
The Russian government and others steadily repeat nonsense about the
Maidan uprising being a fascist coup orchestrated by the West. They deny
its broad based popular and democratic nature. Unlike the Maidan
insurgency the so called separatist revolt, they defend, is greatly
narrower in support, has a putsch like character and is thoroughly
ridden with fascists, Stalinist types and hybrids of the two.
No one should be taken in by false claims of victimization of Russian
speakers, being anti-fascist or somehow having an autonomous
revolutionary working class thrust, as some on the left put forth. As
anarchists we are for decentralization and local autonomy but in this
case these purported “people’s republics” must be condemned as agencies
of the Russian state and its sordid allies. The language of autonomy and
anti-fascism is cynically being employed in the service of a Great
Russian imperialist and chauvinist offensive.
In March, Russian troops seized the Crimea long home to the Russian
Fleet and other Russian military installations, military families,
retirees, vacationers and generations of spin off settlers. Since
independence an arrangement had Moscow paying Ukraine for continuing its
military facilities on the peninsula. Overnight over 40% of Crimea’s
population, its ethnic Ukrainian and Muslim Tatar people found
themselves against their wishes under Moscow’s rule. The Russian
majority ( including Russian citizens ) voted to approve this amidst an
hysterical “anti-fascist” media campaign and the presence of armed
pro-Russia gangs everywhere. Prior to and during the vote by the Crimea
legislature to secede from Ukraine each representative was constantly
watched over by two armed agents.
Now that Crimea is part of Putin’s Russia, two respected leaders of the
Tatar community have been barred from returning home and a Tatar scholar
physically assaulted and his passport stolen attempting to block his
attending a UN World Conference on Indigenous Peoples in New York. Tatar
homes, cultural and political institutions have been subject to search
and seizure and individuals have disappeared. The Mejlis, governing body
of the peninsula’s Tatar community, which was recognized by the
Ukrainian state is now in effect banned by the new Russian authorities.
Evicted from its building it is declared “improperly registered”. Non
Tatar activists and others get detained and falsely branded as “Right
Sector” agents. This amidst a reported general disarray in delivery of
public services and benefits.
In April actions broke out across the south and east of the country
attempting to duplicate the Crimean events. Municipal buildings were
sometimes stormed and local Maidan spawned activities and pro-Ukraine
demonstrations were physically attacked. However, throughout most of
these heavily Russian speaking regions, this movement, while attracting
some numbers, failed to reach anywhere near critical mass and soon
retreated.
It was only in the Donbas region that this revolt gained any footing.
The Donbas wa s once the center of both Tsarist Russia’s and the Soviet
Union’s coal and steel industry. The region now suffers from a
pronounced economic stagnation and lack of modernization. It is
comprised of the Oblasts (provinces) of Donetsk and Luhansk both
bordering Russia. The area in the past has supported Ukrainian
independence but by lesser margins than elsewhere except Crimea. There
is a widespread nostalgia for both the Soviet and even Tsarist times.
Conspiracy theories abound and anti-cosmopolitan feelings leave it the
most hostile area in Ukraine for foreigners, minorities, LGBT people and
others.
Toppled President Yanukovych and his circle known as “The Family” have
deep roots in this region. Loyalists are plentiful amongst municipal
officials, police, established patronage and long allied criminal
networks. Money for maintaining influence and recruiting new local and
outside mercenaries is no issue. The Family and friends amassed huge
sums through bribes and looting of both regional and national public
treasuries.
As throughout the Russian “near abroad” there exist in the Donbas a
variety of Russian based hardcore nationalist and fascist groups. These
networks geared up funneling volunteers across the border constituting
the backbone of the armed separatists. These activities were publically
sanctioned in several “patriotic” and ironically “anti-fascist” state
sponsored celebrations in Moscow and elsewhere. Key figures in these
Pan-Russian rightist and Stalinist groups have backgrounds in the
Russian military and special forces. This facilitated their
collaboration with Russian intelligence and special operations teams.
The Donbas is home to communities nervous and questioning of occurrences
in the rest of Ukraine. Support for measures of autonomy is strong.
This, however, never congealed into a solid large scale support for the
two so called “Peoples Republics” and their “militaries”. Many in the
population including potential sympathizers became alienated by actions
they engaged in. There also ended up being much contention between the
separatist factions. Igor Girkin, a.k.a. Igor Strelkov, a key rebel
commander complained of the inability to gain near enough volunteers
from the local communities to match the more than adequate supply of
Russian provided weapons and technical aid.
Just prior to events going full tilt, it appeared that around 70% of the
region’s population was for remaining in Ukraine but with a range of
differing specifics and fervor. Those who backed militant separatism or
unity with Russia stood at 30%. The latter were concentrated in and
around specific cities.
Earlier in the spring before all manifestations of being pro-Ukraine had
been repressed in these so called liberated areas, demonstrations and
marches by the most active elements of the contending camps were
comparable in size. The risks and possible resulting downward pressure
on numbers were overwhelmingly with the Ukraine unity and Maidan
partisans. They were subject to a wave of assaults, targeted killings,
kidnappings and other forms of intimidation.
The separatist advance was halted and slowly turned, largely by units
comprised of volunteers from the Donbas itself and adjacent areas of the
east. Units that were increasingly augmented by volunteers from across
Ukraine. After some delay units of the Ukrainian armed forces employing
heavier weaponry and aircraft were brought to bear and under this
pressure and the internal weaknesses discussed above the separatist
insurgency began to more rapidly lose ground and seemed doomed. As a
result by mid-August the operation needed to be rescued through thinly
disguised Russian military intervention.
At this time Russian citizens who played prominent roles in either the
so called peoples republics or the armed wings began to resurface in
Moscow and local figures suddenly were raised to fill their positions.
Russian troops then crossed the border in force securing the separatist
position and inflicting severe losses on the Ukrainian side.
An unsteady ceasefire leaves one third of Donetsk’s and Luhansk’s area
and one half of the two provinces population under the control of Russia
and its allies. They are pressing their positions on numerous questions
in the ensuing talks. Noting the anemic responses from the US and EU
states Putin continues to at times brandish military threats while
claiming for himself the role of peacemaker. Seeking to further weaken
the EU front, Russia remains combative in the areas of economic threats
and propaganda aimed at the various EU states’ bodies politic.
Post-Maidan, the importance of the question of national
self-determination has come into sharp focus. Likewise, issues of a
military-political character have come to the fore. Moscow’s actions and
those of the Party of Regions, the Communist Party of Ukraine and others
within the country out to regain or retain some measure of power or
fearing consequences of their involvement with the hated Yanukovych
regime have made this so.
The top levels of the ruling clique may have fled but sympathizers are
still in place throughout various levels and arms of the bureaucracy.
There are also undoubtedly outright agents of the Russian state still in
key positions.
Under Yanukovych the official armed forces were allowed to decline in
size, upkeep and preparedness. His regime, however, expanded the numbers
of internal and special police forces and their benefits. These internal
security forces came to number 200,000 while the army, navy and air
force personnel slipped to nearly 100,000. Military journals assess that
the Ukrainian Army while numbering 68,000 had only 6,000 infantry
remotely fit for combat service.
Some of the security police such as the Berkut have melted into safe
populations. They fear prosecution or retribution given their
involvement in murderous events at the Maidan and other acts of
repression.They are angered at a loss of employment in a bleak economy.
Glimpses of many individuals wearing pieces of Berkut uniforms were
visible playing roles in mobs that attacked pro-Maidan forces from
Kharkiv to Odessa and into the Donbas. In the year leading to Maidan
these police were an active component in an “anti-fascist” campaign
launched by the Yanukovych directed at all opposition activities and the
independent press. Throughout the country they directed and worked in
tandem with federations of fight clubs and sports associations such as
Oplot (Stronghold ) paid to be the “popular anti-fascist” street force.
This spring Oplot was openly involved in attacks on the Kharkiv Maidan
movement and one of its important figures Alexander Zakharchenko has now
assumed a leadership position in the Donetsk Peoples Republic.
Future provocations/interventions by Russia into other parts of Ukraine
fomented through such networks are a real possibility.
The present Kyiv government did not initiate the events that have
militarized the situation. In fact they stood like deer in the
headlights as Russian and separatist provocations and violence unfolded.
The Right Sector took the step of agitating for a Revolutionary National
Guard, the arming of the people and confronting the armed gangs in the
east. Prodded by John Kerry and the Russians in Geneva Kyiv’s response
was to discuss disarming and outlawing Right Sector. Once it was
apparent no military help was coming from the US or honest peace making
from Moscow, any ideas of blanket repression of the militant wings of
the Maidan movement were dropped by the provisional government. With
little alternative, a version of the arming of volunteers was adopted.
Steps to cobble together a somewhat reliably secure and functioning
force out of the existing official armed services were begun while a mix
of political forces assembled volunteer forces to defend or reclaim
areas and populations under the separatist gun.
Ukraine wide there has been a movement of young men and women, veterans
and others from across the political spectrum volunteering for military
training, defense preps and service in the east. Whole units/sotnya of
various Maidan defense groups enlisted together. There are popular
initiatives to collect supplies, funds and provide support for these
fighters and the military effort. One example is union members from a
medical workers affiliate of the independent KPVU collecting and
transfering supplies to the war zone, conducting medic training for
volunteer and regular military units and working in front line hospital
units.
Anarchists and anti-authoritarians should be active in all aspects of
this movement to the fullest degree possible. Internationally our
networks and organizations must be supportive of comrades upholding a
position of military-technical support or defensive coordination of all
groupings opposing Russian imperialism and its Ukrainian allies and
agents. This tactical bloc extends to the Ukrainian government and its
official forces. It entails no political support to that government or
its constituent parties, proposals or plans to organize society. Nor
does it mean relinquishing the right to criticize, debate and act on
strategies to further autonomous popular initiatives and defeat our
immediate common enemy. Neither should it blind comrades to the need to
be prepared to physically defend themselves and others from this
government or temporary allies among rightists and others. in the course
of this alliance.
The existence of strong workplace and community based defense groups
organized on anti-authoritarian lines with a political as well as
physically independent working class perspective would be ideal in the
present situation. If such independent radical-revolutionary formations
existed on some scale or cohere out of the present struggle, the
position of a military and tactical alliance would still hold true. That
is until influence and forces are accumulated through this tactic and a
clearly revolutionary crisis and necessity to act presents itself. If
this doesn’t come about the bloc is dissolved as the common threat is
either defeated or dissipates.
This phase of struggle may not be overtly social revolutionary but
anti-elite feelings run strong among the rank and file fighters and
those mobilizing in their support. In the east entire communities are
resisting an armed terror made possible by Moscow. Anarchists cannot
stand aside while people’s democratic aspirations are subject to violent
assault. For Ukrainian comrades who throw themselves in this fight, the
experience, personal ties and trust gained with a range of responsible
non anarchist militants can only prove helpful in future struggles.
Internationally anarchism as a purportedly revolutionary current opposed
to all oppression must be able to support comrades who choose this path.
It must be clear to the Ukrainian people that we actively oppose Russian
imperialism.
Defense of Russian imperialism proved widespread throughout the past
year. There are those who quite consciously support Putin. A range of
European right wing nationalist parties like the FN, Jobbik and the BNP
support Russia as do those on the left such as various Communists or Der
Linke in Germany. Others accept the imperialist carve up of the world as
natural and necessary and believe Russia and all large states have a
right to their spheres of influence and domination. Additionally there
are those on the anti-Stalinist left who in simplistic ignorance can
only see US and Western imperialism and Ukrainian nationalism, blind to
the impact of Russian imperial power and appetites.
A group of Bosnian anarchists issued a statement taking on this focus on
one imperialism and expressing solidarity solidarity with the military
resistance to Russian imperialism. The reaction amongst anarchists
entailed no responses of substance. Charges of being in contact with
rightist autonomous nationalists were bandied about and a call to not
post their statement was issued. These associations may exist and a
fuller discussion of their nature if true is warranted. I believe,
however, the character of discussion in this instance is indicative of
how difficult a discussion of Russian imperialism vs. Ukrainian
resistance within the anarchist movement may prove.
Several anarchist groups have refused to agree to possible common action
such as the Bosnians advocate. Apparently this is because they feel the
idea of actual coordination in action with rightist groups defending the
country deviates too far from a model of independent anarchist and
syndicalist action. They have limited themselves to opposing “Russian
imperialism,” in an overall way.
Opposition to Russian imperialism however should mean coordination in
action against the Russian campaign. It doesn’t mean not attacking the
US, NATO and the EU. We educate people as to the shortfalls of these
societies. We use peoples’ disappointment and anger with their role vis
a vis defending Ukraine to agitate against relying on them and on
themselves and for building solidarity with anti-imperialist and
anti-authoritarian social movements regionally and more widely.
Ukrainian independence did not come about out of a radical-revolutionary
break with the institutions and culture of Soviet/Russian society. The
oligarchs, the political elites and the bureaucracy are a reflection of
this fact. Ukraine is a textbook case of incomplete national and state
formation. Twenty plus years on there were many in the ruling strata
themselves as ambivalent, contemptuous and hostile to Ukrainian
statehood and culture as to the people they govern.
This was crystalized over Yanukovych’s term in office. His regime came
to power on the heels of the political fragmentation and demoralization
that followed the failings of the forces that governed post the 2004
Orange Revolution. Abusive government increasingly hostile to things
Ukrainian became increasingly entrenched as the Donetsk based “Family”
clique brought its exceedingly criminal methods to the wider nation
after assuming power in Kyiv.
The Revolution of Dignity as the Maidan uprising was called, was a
popular attempt at trying to pursue a solution to a range of social,
political and cultural issues never realized out of the events of
either1990 or 2004. In short it can be seen as a national and bourgeois
democratic revolution now with all the problems and shortfalls such a
project entails. With this incomplete revolution now on a war footing,
as anarchists we should continue to solidarize with it and defend it
while pointing out at every turn the need for deeper social
revolutionary measures to secure the security and justice people are
striving for.
To abstain because it is far too removed from a comforting syndicalist
scenario/template is criminal.