Russia/Ukraine: A Brief Overview of the Resistance to War

via sansnom Translated by Act for freedom now!

Brief overview of the Resistance to war in Russia and Ukraine

nowarsolidarite, April 2, 2022

(Article written by Russian anarchosyndicalists)

The current Russian-Ukrainian military conflict has led to a wild explosion of the most disgusting and cavernous nationalism on both sides of the front. In Russia, Power calls to “crush” the enemy, in Ukraine – to fight for the “motherland” to the last man. In both states, propaganda seeks to “dehumanize” the enemy as much as possible, and unfortunately, many ordinary citizens fall into this trap set by the leadership. Even many “leftists” and “anarchists” eagerly rush to support the bloodshed, intoxicated by the patriotic poison. Unfortunately, this is always the case at the beginning of wars waged by states. One need only recall the hysterical processions of the masses marching [shouting “To Berlin” or “To Paris”] on the eve and in the first weeks of World War I. Then several years of war passed – and [in 1917] the masses, exasperated by hardship, deceit and suffering – almost suppressed the world of the States and the Capital, which had given rise to that war … Now, alas, we are infinitely far from all that. Certainly, it also seemed very far in August 1914…

The actions of the people of Russia and Ukraine against “military operations”, hostilities, destruction and bloodshed, deserve all the more attention and respect. The month since the invasion of Ukraine by Russian troops already allows a brief overview of the main forms and methods of anti-war protests.

Let’s start with Russia. Here, from the very first day, mass demonstrations against the war began, and continued non-stop for two to three weeks. At the beginning, they were usually held daily, and all over the country. All these rallies were illegal and consequently brutally dispersed. In addition to street rallies and demonstrations, other methods were also used – putting up posters, drawing graffiti, handing out leaflets, distributing stickers and handing out anti-war materials.

There were also some more radical actions. For example, in Moscow, student Anastasia Levashova threw a Molotov cocktail at the police on February 24; the court sentenced her to 2 years in prison. On the night of February 28, a military recruitment office in Lukhovitsy near Moscow was set on fire. In St. Petersburg, a policeman was sprayed with pepper spray. On the night of March 1, in Smolensk, a police station was set on fire. On the night of March 3, a Molotov cocktail was thrown at the windows of a recruitment center in Voronezh. It was also reported that two Molotov cocktails were thrown at the wall of the Kremlin in Moscow. On March 5, an attempt was made to set fire to the recruitment office in Berezovsky (Sverdlovsk region) with a Molotov cocktail…

Most protests are spontaneous. In a number of cases they are called by the bourgeois liberal opposition, and on March 8 it was called by feminist organizations. Unfortunately, not all demonstrators can be considered truly anti-war, that is, truly opposed to all warmongers. Among the demonstrators (especially liberals) there are many supporters of the government of Ukraine and there were also some NATO sympathizers.

The exact number of demonstrators is unknown, but the number of cities in which demonstrations took place and the number of people detained and suppressed during the demonstrations speak volumes about the scale of the movement. In total, demonstrations were held in more than 100 towns and villages. According to human rights activists, on March 13 alone, police arrested approximately 15,000 people during the demonstrations.

Only a few people were released with a simple “warning” [especially in the first days of the anti-war protests]; but thousands were fined or administratively arrested. In St. Petersburg alone, as of March 25, the courts have considered 3,710 cases: 861 people were fined, 2,456 were subjected to administrative arrest, 123 were sentenced to hard labor [TIG].

Some protesters face even harsher penalties, namely criminal sanctions. New laws on spreading “false information” and “discrediting the army” carry prison sentences of up to 15 years. In the month since the outbreak of hostilities, 60 criminal cases have been filed in some way related to the protests. 46 people have been criminally prosecuted (in connection with this new law). Nine of them are in detention, three are under house arrest, and two are banned from certain activities. At least five of the defendants have fled from Russia. In total, trials have been held in 22 regions of Russia: Adygea, Tatarstan, Karelia, Moscow, Ingushetia, St. Petersburg, Kemerovo, Tomsk, Tyumen, Belgorod, Vladimir, Moscow, Tula, Sverdlovsk, Pskovskaya, Samara, Rostov, Novosibirsk regions, Crimean territories, Primorsky, Krasnodar and Trans-Baikal.

Criminal cases are investigated under 14 different articles of the Criminal Code: 10 under the new Article 207. 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on “false military information”, 9 under Article 214 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Part 2) “Hate-motivated vandalism” (used against at least three street artists – in Moscow, Vladimir and Yekaterinburg), 9 – under Article 318 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Part 1) on “the use of violence against representatives of the authorities”, 2 – on charges of “justification of terrorism” (in Kazan and Petrozavodsk), etc… In addition, there are charges of “hooliganism”, “insult to a government official”, “incitement to extremist activities”, “incitement to hatred”, “stockpiling ammunition”, “incitement to mass riots” and even “desecration of the bodies of the dead and their burial sites”.

In Ukraine, anti-war demonstrations are even more difficult than in Russia. In addition to repression by the authorities, who have begun to ban and arrest political opponents and pass anti-terrorist laws (including sentences for “collaboration with the aggressor,” “looting” and “high treason” ranging from 15 years to life imprisonment), the conditions of the hostilities themselves prevent protests. How can you go to street actions under a hail of Russian missiles and shells that directly threaten your life? However, it is possible, on the basis of fragmentary information, to present at least a general picture of what is going on.

One of the most common actions objectively directed against the consequences of military conflict is the so-called “looting”, of which many cases have been reported in many cities of Ukraine. Of course, a wide variety of incidents of different natures can be included in this category – from banditry, murders and robberies against the civilian population to real social protests, when the inhabitants of cities and villages, deprived of food and other essential goods, simply expropriate them from stores. Such “popular expropriations” and “food riots” have been reported in cities controlled by Ukrainian authorities, and in those occupied by Russian troops.

There were attempts by the population to stop the entry of Russian military equipment into residential areas to avoid their destruction. For example, in Koryukovka (Chernihiv region), on February 27, local residents came out to meet the Russian tanks, stopped the column and began negotiations with it. As a result, they agreed that the army would not enter the city. [We also saw the images of the Ukrainians chasing the Russian soldiers who were trying to occupy their houses, or the crowds who were pushing back the military trucks and telling them to go back home.]

On March 26, the mayor of the Ukrainian town of Slavutych held talks with the Russian troops who entered the town and agreed with them on demilitarization. He assured them that there were no soldiers or weapons in the city and persuaded the soldiers to leave. The Russian army promised “not to search the houses”, but people must voluntarily hand over weapons not intended for hunting. In Slavutych, the local Ukrainian authorities remained in place, to which the Russian side is transferring humanitarian aid. [However, this is not the case everywhere …]
On the other hand, there are testimonies that the residents also demand that the Ukrainian army does not install military equipment in their residential areas. A video of a similar demonstration in Kharkov circulated on social networks.

Besides this, it is worth talking about disobedience to orders and desertion on both sides. Unfortunately, there is no way to verify the reality of the many rumors circulating. The media have been talking about low morale and low desire to fight of Russian military units sent to Ukraine. The Ukrainian side claimed that about 200 Russian sailors from the 155th brigade refused to participate in military operations, but this claim cannot be verified. It was also reported that military personnel of the 810th Marine Brigade stationed in Crimea refused to participate in the landing in the Odessa region.

There are other testimonies, very fragmentary, which do not allow one to judge the extent of the phenomenon. The mother of one of the soldiers assigned to a unit in the Leningrad region said that her son, like many others who had been drafted into the army, had been forced to sign a contract with the army. In January, a unit was sent to Kursk, then to Belgorod, and then they began to be sent to fight in Ukraine. “According to the woman, soldiers are taken to Ukraine to fight, but some of them refuse, they are threatened with a trial for desertion.”

A contract soldier from Ufa, Albert Sakhibgareev, said that his brigade, which was in late February on exercises in the Belgorod region, was given machine guns and orders to fire from artillery facilities “when ordered.” The soldiers began to doubt that they were training when return fire flew in their direction. After that, Sakhibgareev watched the news on his cell phone and discovered that Russia had sent troops to Ukraine. A week later, he was beaten by a sub-officer, left the unit and returned home to Ufa. He faces 7 years in prison for desertion.

12 fighters of the OMON [special forces of the Russian Ministry of the Interior, depend on the National Guard] from Krasnodar, as well as the commander Farid Chitaev, refused to enter Crimea. The Russian Guard fighters explained that they refused to carry out an illegal order – none of the fighters had been informed about the tasks and conditions of the special operation. No one agreed to participate. The fighters were dismissed from the service.

After the destruction of their platoon by heavy equipment, several surviving fighters of the Izhevsk OMON left the Ukrainian territory and sent their letters of resignation.
At the end of March, the former president of South Ossetia admitted that some of the soldiers, from the 4th military base of the Russian Federation Guard, recruited from this republic to participate in the hostilities in Ukraine had returned from the front without permission.

Also in Ukraine, not everyone is willing to “defend the fatherland”. This is evidenced by the posters seen in the early days of the conflict in Odessa. In black and white, the command of the Ukrainian Armed Forces sternly asks: “You don’t want to fight? That means you don’t love your country”. Of course, the very appearance of such agitation testifies to the fact that there are a number of “unloving” people.

The Ukrainian authorities announced the general mobilization and that they would not let men aged 18-60 leave the country. Nevertheless, as fellow anarchists in Ukraine report, in reality, large-scale mobilization is not working, unlike in 2014-2015, when mass raids to enlist those liable to military service in Ukraine were commonplace. In the first week of hostilities, they tried to give summonses to people passing through checkpoints, but this was later declared illegal.

However, many men are attempting to cross the border illegally into neighboring countries. In early March, a BBC Ukrainian correspondent said that at the Mogilev-Podolsky checkpoint on the border with Moldova, “every second, if not in every first car, there were men of service age trying to flee abroad, but they were turned back.” As the border guard told me, “some cars just turned around, in others, the women took the wheel and the men left.

According to a deputy of the Mukachevo city council in Transcarpathia, every day hundreds of men, contrary to the current martial law, cross the border with the EU countries. The crossing costs a lot of money. In Transcarpathia, this parallel trade has already reached an industrial scale. The cost of a certificate and transfer to Poland reaches 2,000 euros [for the record, in 2021 the average salary of a doctor was 9,000 hryvnia, about 260 euros, and 7,000 hryvnia (about 203 euros) for registered nurses].

In the Odessa region, smugglers take 1,500 dollars per person. The news website “Edition LIGA.net”, which has studied this “market”, indicates that it can even reach sums ten times higher. Those fleeing the war are sent to Poland, Romania, Moldova, to a lesser extent – to Hungary. More than 1,000 men of military age were arrested at the border during the 21 days of the conflict, according to the Ukrainian border service.

Recently, the press has reported the existence of organized channels for transporting people across the border in the Vinnitsa, Chernivtsi, Odessa and Lviv regions.

Of course, not all men who seek to leave the country illegally should be considered anti-war. There are many rich people among them [the Ukrainian companions of the Black Flag group had reported that already on February 16, a week before Putin started the war, Ukrainian oligarchs had started to send their families abroad for safety]. Finding money to pay for the border crossing is not an easy task. Maybe someone will sell everything, but the rich don’t care. They start and provoke wars, then hide safely abroad, leaving ordinary people to kill each other and die for them. The same phenomenon can be observed among the Russian “elite” who have started to emigrate.

As of March 28, more than 340 criminal offenses have been registered in Ukraine on the grounds of “reduction of Ukraine’s defense capacity under martial law”, of which about 100 are for high treason and collaboration. More than 1,700 Ukrainian male citizens of conscription age have been identified as wishing to illegally cross the country’s border. This was announced by the communications adviser of the State Bureau of Investigation, Tatyana Sapyan.

In an attempt to crack down on desertion, the authorities have submitted to the parliament (the Verkhovna Rada) the draft law No. 7171, which threatens up to 10 years in prison for men of military age who illegally left Ukraine under martial law.

Finally, residents of the Donetsk Republic also report forced mobilization. Men are seized in the street, armed and sent to the front without any preparation. Those who can, try to hide in their homes and do not go out. This is also one of the ways to resist the war!

[Translation: Solidarity Initiative Olga Taratuta, translator’s comment in brackets]

Note of Sansnom: the original article contains many clickable links to various sources, which can be found in the original.

———————————————————————

via:sansnom Translated by Act for freedom now!

There are 26 Comments

So a Russian anarchist equates the Russian state's invasion of the Ukrainian people with he resistance of the Ukrainians to the aggression. The writer equates the Ukrainian-Russian war with that of two imperialist states such as France vs. Germany or US vs Russia. But the Ukrainian "leftists and anarchists" who live " under a hail of Russian missiles and shells that directly threaten your life" have good reason to fight back against the invading army, despite the current rule of a Ukrainian capitalist state. And the townspeople who used methods of nonviolent resistance to keep Russian troops out probably thought they were resisting the invasion.

thank god the Ukrainians (and anti-Putin Russians!) have Wayne Price writing on the internet from the comfort of a non-war-torn city in their corner to explain what's *really* happening on their doorsteps and in front of their eyes. what a relief it must be for the ones making life and death decisions every day for the past 6 weeks (and longer if we count the shit in Donbas, which Wayne studiously ignores) to know that they have a self-described anarchist champion in NYC who's ready to jettison over a century of anarchist opposition to war for the sake of some "people's war of national liberation" that none of them are fighting.

Why the fuck are nationalist spooks like Wayne Price and Ziq still so far away from the Ukraine battlefront, out of the very fight they're promoting from the safety and comfort of their computer armchairs?

This qustion could be way more relevant than we think!

Unable to make political arguments, two "anon" writers make personal attacks: I am supporting the Ukrainian people's resistance because I am safe in my armchair far from the war. Of course, the same argument could apply to them: they are able to advocate that the Ukrainians do not resist the Russian invasion because they do not live in Ukraine; they will not suffer the consequences of Russian victory, occupation, and domination. They (like the Russian citizen who wrote the essay) are safe from foreign aggression and rule, so they have no reason to be in solidarity with the Ukrainian resisters. --But these personal attacks are irrelevant to the political issues.

One Anon accuses me of being 'ready to jettison over a century of anarchist opposition to war for the sake of some "people's war of national liberation"'. This is a typically ignorant statement. Actually what anarchists opposed for over a century was imperialist war or counterrevolutionary war. Anarchists supported wars for freedom, such as revolutionary and wars of national liberation. For example, see Bakunin's advocacy of guerrilla war by the French against the Prussian occupation, or the Spanish anarchists in the Spanish revolution/civil war of the thirties, or the anarchists in France who gave support to the Algerian nationalists (which did not mean that they agreed with their politics).

reading comprehension fail, Wayne. nobody is recommending that Ukrainians not resist the Russian military invasion of their homes. your continual implicit equation of resistance to the invasion with abandoning anarchist anti-militarism and anti-war principles by having Ukrainians and their supporters join in some chimerical "people's war of national liberation" under the auspices of the Ukrainian military and the paramilitary territorial defense force is the issue. your constant invocations of Bakunin and others who allegedly supported national liberation -- certainly not since the heyday of cold war Anti-Imperialism (which you've constantly condoned since at least from the time you were in Love and Rage) -- are hollow. along with anti-clericalism and anti-capitalism, anti-militarism has been an anarchist principle since the beginnings of anarchism as a discrete political philosophy.

unlike you, the Spanish anarchists were clear about the differences between fighting in an army versus the militias, and they had many internal discussions about the problems and contradictions of even fighting in militias. not all the French anarchists supported the FLN, as you must know, and the public expressions of support from some French anarchists exacerbated the intra-anarchist conflicts that already existed among them. during every major war in Europe, there have been some anarchists vocally supportive of one side or another (Kropotkin during WWI, Rocker during WWII), but that support has elicited rebukes and condemnations from other, principled, anarchists who recognize that anti-militarism, like anti-statism, is a non-negotiable foundation of anarchist philosophy. like the several of us who continue to give you shit for promoting Ukrainian nationalism and militarism -- which, even without bringing up the neo-nazi Azov Battalion, has always had a distinctly right-wing flavor.

it's perhaps understandable for anarchists to abandon their principles in order to survive in situations where there's a clear risk to their lives. it's commendable for anarchists to stand up for their principles at the risk of coming to harm. but it's completely absurd for anarchists to abandon their principles in order to risk their lives, or to encourage others to risk theirs. that's what you're doing, Wayne, and it's despicable. but hey, can't wait to read your next post doubling down on your pro-militarism, pro-nationalism, and other untenable claims of anarchist legitimacy.

For any newbie folk who are new to this site or to anarchism in general, this infighting between different factions is a longstanding anarchist tradition and will continue into eternity, unless all anarchists become individualist anarchs, exponents of their own unique creative potentialities and the techniques of avoiding all external influences upon your actions born out of your own desires.

As a former elementary school teacher (among other things), I am cut to the quick by the charge that my reading comprehension fails!

But it is difficult to comprehend this passage: "your continual implicit equation of resistance to the invasion with abandoning anarchist anti-militarism and anti-war principles" whereas I am the one who insists that resistance to the invasion is NOT abandoning anarchist principles!

Anon writes, "nobody is recommending that Ukrainians not resist the Russian military invasion of their homes." But apparently they must not do so by joining the volunteer Territorial Defense units, let alone the official army. They are only allowed to defend themselves by meeting Anon's criteria of a popular militia, which does not exist at this time.

I am in favor of their resisting by whatever means they can, including joining government forces (giving them a chance to propagandize for anarchism among the soldiers). BTW, the militias which the anarchists formed in the Spanish civil war coordinated with the state's armed forces. They would have been nuts not to. Their failure was not coordinating with the government but not preparing to overthrow it when they got the chance.

"Anti-militarism" has been an anarchist principle--in the sense of being against the military policies of the bourgeois state. Anarchists have always advocated armed struggle when necessary. As is demonstrated by Anon's reference to anarchist-organized militias.

The second Anon appears to recommend an end to disputes among anarchists, by anarchists joining their anarchist school of individualist anarchism. Actually this just adds another anarchist faction to the mix of differing libertarian views.

There is nothing about resisting violent invasion that requires aligning with the most rigidly hierarchical type of institution on the planet (military/militias). Loosely related individuals with well thought out strategy and tactics, and whatever tools/weapons/materials are required, can accomplish much in such scenarios. Those that can only see "mass" will of course use a mass-based approach.

Just as an obvious example: it would only take one person - albeit a very well prepared and skilled one, with all the right help - to assassinate Putin. I know that's a tough one, but just showing how military action is only one of many tools available; sanctions being the only other one being used so far that I'm aware of (leaving aside propaganda on all sides).

Ukrainians and others will resist the Russian invasion in whatever ways make the most sense for them; neither of us disputes this. The majority of people who are not fleeing are aligning themselves with the Ukrainian military and/or its territorial defense force. Some anarchists in Ukraine are subordinating their own formations to those of the Ukrainian military and/or the territorial defense force, while individuals who are not part of an affinity group or organization and doing the same. They are being armed by the imperialists at NATO. This is -- or at least should be -- a problem for anarchists; but you are willing to use the argument of expedience to minimize it.

Nowhere have I suggested that anarchists should not resist the Russian invasion; that is your reading comprehension fail.

However, I have reminded you that anti-militarism and being against war (not as a pacifist) are fundamental anarchist principles. Guerrillas and insurgents and saboteurs and militias have all been organizational strategies that some anarchists have employed over the years in various struggles for "freedom" (your quote), all of which have been critiqued from the inside during the fighting as well as from the outside.

The subordination of anarchist fighters -- from individuals to militias -- to the hierarchical command structures of government militaries is -- or at least should be -- a huge problem for anti-authoritarians. They should be encouraged to critique their positions within such structures, but not, as you coyly say, to agitate for anarchism within the military and paramilitary forces when fighting an invasion, which is patently absurd. The issue of voluntarily subordinating oneself to a hierarchical command structure is -- or at least should be -- a problem for anarchists; but again you fall back on the argument of expedience.

Expedience is the opposite strategy from sticking with one's principles. Your arguments sound like those used by the pro-government anarchists in Spain. They were labeled "circumstantialists" by their critics, because their pro-government positions -- that were a clear abandonment, if not betrayal, of anarchist ideas and projects, let alone principles -- were due to unforeseen and dire circumstances. As a particularly bright other anon put it recently, "i can understand an anarchist betraying their anarchist principles in order to survive, and i can understand an anarchist standing by their principles at a risk for their survival. what i don’t understand is an anarchist betraying their anarchist principles in order to risk their life." Or in your case, the lives of others.

Like others who demand that we follow their shining examples (anarchists who vote for representatives in government, for example), you want others to be convinced of the rightness of your positions, positions that are antithetical to the anarchist tradition. Nobody can stop you from imagining that there's a "people's war for national liberation" happening in Ukraine, even though nobody is talking about it, let alone fighting it -- but I'll keep challenging you. Nobody can stop you from twisting anarchist history to suit your own agenda -- but I'll keep challenging you. Nobody can stop you from promoting expedience instead of principles, even though it is transparently shitty. But I'll be damned if won't challenge you when you say that expedience demands that Ukrainian anarchists gleefully accept (and anarchists elsewhere celebrate) being armed by NATO imperialists, and that anarchists everywhere should support Ukrainian anarchists joining the Ukrainian military and/or the territorial defense force to get their hands on those weapons. This is a pro-war and pro-nationalist argument, and has nothing -- I repeat, NOTHING -- to do with an anarchist analysis or anarchist philosophy or anarchist history. It is weak cold war-era anti-imperialism, the other socialism of fools.

Oh, one more thing. Saying that anarchists have resisted the militarism of bourgeois states betrays your Marxist pedigree. What anarchist is only against the bourgeois state? Anarchists are against the militarism of aristocratic states, monarchist states, comprador states, corporatist states, one-party socialist/communist states, nationalist states, and even states-in-formation. If you got the impression that there's only one form of military that anarchists oppose, then your reading comprehension failure goes back a lot farther than the disputes we're having here in 2022. The most disappointing thing for me is that I know you're smarter than that.

Anon (why don't you give a name?) says that they will continue to "challenge" me. Great! I love a challenge. It means that someone is reading my comments and even thinking about them. This is better than mindless agreement. I could not ask for more. And I learn the most from people who disagree with me.

When I refer to the "bourgeois state," I am not denying that there have been other class types of state (feudal, slave, tributary, etc.) nor am I endorsing the possibility of a "workers' state" (whatever the hell that would be). I am just specifying what type of state we are dealing with: a state within the structures and dynamics of capitalism.

I do not accept the sharp distinction which Anon makes between principles and expediency. In relation to Ukraine, anarchists there and abroad should have two goals: (1) defeat and drive out the Russian army, (2) spread the program and methods of anarchism, with the ultimate goal of a popular anarchist-socialist revolution in Ukraine, Russia, and internatioally. The question is how best to achieve these goals under these circumstances.

Not to split hairs: anarchists have always opposed the military and the way it is organized, which is part of opposing the state. Anarchists (non-pacifists anyway) have always supported the popular use of mass violence against oppressors, which is part of advocating revolution.

Anarchists have always opposed wars between imperialist states (with a few exceptions; I am planning to write an essay on why Kropotkin was wrong to support one side in WW I, contrary to new writers). We have opposed wars of conquest by imperialists. We have opposed wars to put down revolutions. But we have supported and participated in (and even organized) revolutionary wars (which have expanded beyond immediate insurrections). We have supported wars of indigenous and "native" peoples opposing foreign conquest (also called "anti-imperialism").

The question is what to do when there is a justified war but the anarchists are in a minority, unable to form significant militia or guerrilla style forces. This was partially the case in the Spanish revolution (anarchists formed militia columns but they were within the overall coordination of the state's military) and is certainly the case in Ukraine. There anarchists have formed local forces where possible, generally integrated under the Territorial Defense forces, or non-military mutual aid groups, or joined the regular army. Since they are the ones under the gun (literarily), I will not tell them which tactics to use. I will just state my general support in their fight with the imperialist invader and their longer run struggle with the Ukrainian state.

Wayne, I suppose I should have been less ambiguous in my language; since you continue to espouse a pro-war, pro-Ukrainian nationalist, pro-NATO position, I will continue to denounce you as a fake anarchist. You are a Cold War Anti-Imperialist, as distinct from a 19th and early 20th century anti-imperialist. There is such a thing as history, and, your objections notwithstanding, you're misunderstanding it to the point that you're on the wrong side of it. Or maybe you really think this is 1922.

The choice to be (and remain) anonymous is the prerogative of any writer. I'm sorry that the three or four of us anons who consistently denounce you cause you to be confused or unhappy. Nah, not really sorry actually.

The reports from Ukraine are getting uglier and uglier: multiple sources state chemical weapons have been used, maybe "riot" agents but maybe not, and no way to check in the ongoing battlezone just what that Russian drone delivered. Now we have some of the top pro-Putin Russian media scumbags talking about concentration camps and "30-40 years re-education" for Ukraniains who oppose Putin's invasion, plus an erasure of the name "Ukraine," the local culture etc as well as the government in question. That is fucking genocide, and the time for arguing about how many "pure" anarchists can dance on the head of a pin has come and gone.

On top of all else, Putin has invoked an obscene (yes, rape is obscene) version of an old nursery rhyme dating to about the 1920's to glorify rape by Russian soldiers. "Fucking genocide" indeed.

Those in both Ukraine AND in Russia who are fighting back against Putin need to know in most certain terms that the rest of the world has their backs. No more bullshit, NO to genocide, murder, rape, and bombing cities beyond recognition: by any means necessary!

Luke, do you call the cops? Do you vote/campaign for elected representatives? Those are voluntary actions that go against anarchist principles, unlike paying rent and taxes, which have legal consequences for non-compliance. If you jettison anarchist principles *voluntarily* when there are no repercussions for sticking with them -- like cheerleading for one side in a war between states, then it's obvious that you're an anarchist-of-convenience. This discussion about war has nothing to do with "purity" -- the slur tossed at anyone who has principles and proudly stands by them. You and Wayne and all the other pro-war anarchists-by-convenience can fuck right off. If we aren't anarchists in dire and emergent situations, then what good is our anarchism? When you say "by any means necessary!" it can still apply to principled "pure" anarchists if you make a single exception: by any means necessary -- except pro-government and nationalist militarism, which always destroys anarchists and anarchist content. Yes, even if there's a genocide. We still stand with those who resist invasion, those who feed and care for the displaced, wounded, and dying, those who refuse to fight, those who desert, those who off their officers, those who fraternize. Principled anarchists refuse assistance from NATO imperialists, refuse to be in the same formations as the nazi scum of the Azov Battalion and their allies. Those who choose to join or support the Ukrainian military and is territorial defense force are not acting as anarchists, but are putting aside whatever anarchist principles they might have -- at least temporarily. That's their choice, and I actually don't object to that. What I DO object to is ammosexuals like you and Wayne (and who knows how many other anarchists-of-convenience?) saying that anarchists here and elsewhere have to support the Ukrainian military and its NATO suppliers *as anarchists* because there's nothing wrong with anarchists supporting wars between states. Fuck that -- anarchists have never supported wars between states. Your argument, especially invoking all the usual shit that happens in wars between states (murder of non-combatants, rape) is the same argument used by NATO/US imperialists to defend their policies of humanitarian military interventions. It was bullshit in Kosovo, and it's bullshit now.

But I also didn'r whine about the faction of the cops that fought the Proud Boys on Jan 6.

Some.cops fought the Proud Boys and 3%er's at the Capitol, while other cops threw open doors and generally stabbed them in the back.

While that went down I was on Black Lives Matter Plaza with local fighters, in the one place the Proud Boys wete decisively defeated. Eventually I had to withdraw after friendly fire pepper spray put one eye out of action (w no medic support) but made it home on my own.

The Capitol waa not our place to protect, BLM Plaza was and we did our job.

The Azov Battallion is a hard fash militia a prior government (the one Zelinsky replaced) incorporated into their military. If that's all Putin was fighting this would be fash on fash and popcorn time, like watching PB and 3%'ers fight each oher. Unfortunately that is NOT the case, and most of Putin's bombs and shells are.not falling on soldiers at all but civilians instead

In Ukraine there are explicitly anarchist units as well as anarchists who lack the connections to fimd them and thus joined the terrirorials or the regular army instead to fight the same enemy.

This time Anon seems to be really worked up, They denounce me as "pro-war, pro-Ukrainian nationalist, pro-NATO, ... a fake anarchist.... a Cold War Anti-Imperialist" To this venom I respond (1) I am not "pro-war" in general, but I do support the war of defense of the Ukrainian people. Should this degenerate into a war between U.S. and Russian imperialism, I would oppose both sides.

(2) I support the Ukrainian people in their fighting against the Russian invading army. This is a war supported by the people, as grandmothers track the movements of Russian tanks and small, locally-organized, groups move about the countryside, with much initiative from below. Of course this is all under the coordination of the national state At present that cannot be helped, if the Russian invasion is to be stopped. I will not refuse to support the Ukrainian people against an invader because they also suffer from the Ukrainian state.

(3) I am not a nationalist of any kind. Recognizing that nations exist (due to historical social factors) does not make one a nationalist anymore than recognizing that "races" exist (also due to historical social factors) makes one a white supremacist. I support the Ukrainian people against Russian attack while giving no support to the Ukrainian state or capitalist class. Them I want the people to overthrow.

(4) Since I support the Ukrainians struggle, I support them getting weapons from wherever they can. Unfortunately the Martian Workers' Federated Commune is not available to ship them anti-aircraft guns. If the Western imperialists are willing to send arms (for their reasons, which are not the same as the Ukrainian state (which is also not the same as the Ukrainian workers)--then I want the Ukrainians to take them. This by no means makes me pro-NATO. During the Vietnam war, I was in favor to he Vietnamese taking arms from Russia and China, even though they were Stalinist dictatorships, which my friends and I denounced openly Finally I am against Ukraine joining NATO and have said so.

(5) I don't know what Anon means by a "Cold War anti-imperialist." During the Cold War (I am showing my age here) I opposed the imperialism (and states) of both the "West" and the "Communist" states. This made me unpopular among many "anti-imperialists."

(6) Am I a "fake anarchist"? On the one hand I don't know what this means, considering that I have been repeatedly quoting historically significant anarchists who agree with me. This you brush aside. But on the other hand, I don't really care whether I am an orthodox anarchist. What if I am not? The question is whether my arguments are valid.

I stand with the oppressed and exploited, the working class, women, LGBTQ people, immigrants, minority religions , and others. I am in solidarity with the working and ordinary people of Ukraine. As Luke points out, they are being invaded, bombed, shelled, massacred, tortured, and driven from their homes. I am on their side as they fight bravely against the agents of the Russian imperial state. If that makes me a "fake anarchist," then so be it (but I don't think so).

it is not *that* the Ukrainians are fighting (which i also support, as i've continued to repeat despite your continually clumsy attempts to paint me and others as pacifists), it's *how* they are fighting. virtually all Ukrainians are fighting under the command of the military and their adjacent volunteer territorial defense force, even the few anarchists who've set up their own outfits. whatever commands they're given are given within the framework of the Ukrainian state and made for the advantage of the Ukrainian state. this is just how wars work. if you are against war, then you must necessarily be an anti-militarist. being an anti-militarist doesn't mean you don't or won't fight; the Spanish militias are a good example of this -- and sorry, Wayne, but the militias were dissolved when those fighters were incorporated into the Republican Army, and the ones who remained on the front lines (standing by their anti-militarist principles, many left the front) became regular soldiers. and that's fine. anarchists can become regular soldiers -- or like you guys, cheerleaders for regular soldiers -- but don't dare tell me that anarchists can remain principled anarchists by becoming part of a rigidly hierarchical military, because that is absurd on its face. that's akin to anarchists voting in representational elections: do it if amuses you, but don't dare to tell other anarchists that they should as well, and that they can remain proper anarchists by doing so. just as anarchism is historically opposed to electoralism as a strategy, it is opposed to the militaries of all nations because they prop up the state by killing the workers and peasants of other states.

oh, and misquoting old dead 19th century anarchists to bolster your position in the 21st is in bad taste; the world has changed a little in the intervening years.

"Should this degenerate into a war between U.S. and Russian imperialism, I would oppose both sides."

hey wayne, i'm not going to strawman the shit out of what you're saying like some but what criteria would you use to decide when the war has "degenerated" exactly? plenty of reasonable people would argue this conflict has been a proxy war from the jump.

isn't this what you're arguing about? other anarchists are already at the point where they feel it's appropriate to "oppose both sides".

^oh, forgot to add: NOT THAT INTERNET SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION MEANS ANYTHING

To Lumpy: The debate on the Internet among a small group of anarchists is not irrelevant. It is part of a broader discussion on the Left and within the peace movement, which does have an effect. In particular the pro-Putin wing of the movement (Jacobin, Socialist Action, etc.) and the critical-of-the-invasion-but-negotiations-will-settle-everything wing have had a terrible effect in weakening the Left, while the "principled" non-response of the anarchists can only weaken their influence.

When would the Russian-Ukrainian war become overwhelmed by a Russian-U.S. war? asks Lumpy. When the U.S. and its NATO allies are in a shooting war with Russia, soldiers crossing borders, and bombs going off in different countries. In this way, the Serbian struggle for independence from Austro-Hungary was overwhelmed by WW I.

Anon writes of me, "misquoting old dead 19th century anarchists to bolster your position in the 21st is in bad taste; the world has changed a little in the intervening years." True but the basic system of capitalism, imperialism, and statism has not changed in its fundamentals. That's why we still call ourselves "anarchists," because we base ourselves on the ideas and struggles of the original anarchists. Otherwise we should stop calling ourselves anarchists and use some new label. But then we would have to reinvent the wheel so to speak. When you say I am not a "real" anarchist but a "fake," I answer that I hold the opinions of the mainstream of the revolutionary class-struggle anarchist-socialists.. If you say that this does not matter, then I do not understand what you mean by calling yourself (or anyone) an "anarchist"?

heh! well that's a real answer and i appreciate it but holy shit, do we ever NOT AGREE sir.
legitimate fundamental disagreement! perhaps the funniest part of which is that your tipping point would likely involve everybody needing 20,000 SPF sun block followed by the nuclear winter with the whole cannibalism kit and kaboodle! hope to not see everybody there!

think i'll stay slightly more conservative in my casual anarchist endorsements ...

> nuclear winter cannibalism kit

LBC should jump on this.

A spork, salt & pepper, iodine tablets, etc.

nice! yeah. and those little fuel tabs that can boil your irradiated water or fry up some long pork in a pinch!

"within the peace movement" -WP
"I support war" -WP
"Not all wars are bad." -WP

??

Freedom is slavery?

Add new comment