From Militant Wire by The WannabeWonk
Exclusive Interview with an Anarchist Fighter of the Territorial Defense Forces of Ukraine
Militant Wire's Tom Lord Speaks with a Member of The Resistance Committee
TL: From your perspective, should we know anything about fighting anarchist formations in Ukraine that are not
TL: There is tremendous fascination outside Ukraine with anarchists “fighting on the same side as fascists” in this war. Acknowledging that this is a major mischaracterization, what is the Resistance Committee’s position on overtly fascist formations within the Territorial Defense Forces and within the regular Armed Forces of Ukraine?
TL: Thank you, very much, for your time.
There are 38 Comments
In other words... Yet another
In other words... Yet another gang of supermacho militarists (ahem) who've put an @-inspired badge on their uniforms and decided to call themselves "anarchists".
Because they are anarchists.
Coz you'd better believe they are.
Coz they sure can't be bullshitting about this to potential Westerner recruits and benefactors.
Coz you'd better believe that.
What's macho about it? Do you
What's macho about it? Do you even know what militarism means? How is it not anarchistic to fight fascists?
Where've you been? There's
Where've you been? There's that tuff macho dude right on the pic in full military gear, and his group is a platoon that is part of the Territorial Defense Forces, who are under the Ukrainian Army's wing, and most likely chain of command too.
So now... What is NOT macho and militarist here?
What is macho about it?
What is macho about it? Militarism means supporting a strong national military to be used aggressivily, something anarchists do not do. Anarchism is not pacifism.
"Militarism means supporting
"Militarism means supporting a strong national military to be used aggressivily, something anarchists do not do."
clear and convenient. brilliant definition of militarism!
do you mean joining ucranian army, or supporting it, is not militarism?
bravo!!
1. The Ukrainian army is not
1. The Ukrainian army is not the aggressor. They defend Ukraine from the Russian invasion army.
2. The Ukrainian anarchists do NOT support the state. The many who join the army do so to fight against the Russian invasion.
the failed binary logic of externalities...
#2- anarchist groups fighting within state-sanctioned paramilitaries are fighting for Ukraine. There is no beyond binaries unless they are also rebelling against the Ukrainian state and its apitalist interests as well.
But to be just defending civilians doesn't require to be part of these state-related volunteer militias, like the TDF.
Please explain how they fight
Please explain how they fight against the Ukrainian state and at the same time fight the Russian invasion. I think they would like your advice.
yeah ... think you can go
yeah ... think you can go ahead and assume you're not talking to somebody with combat experience so ... they just have "opinions" like they have a butthole
How much you bench bro?
How much you bench bro?
how much is a normal amount?
how much is a normal amount? i don't ... bench?
He benches the breakfast tray
He benches the breakfast tray they bring him every moning brah!
"anarcho"-communist flirting
"anarcho"-communist flirting with war games. totally macho militarists. scary if they would ever get ahead with their revolutionary project...
"Macho" is a broad psycho
"Macho" is a broad psycho-social identity persona with the usual illusional motives and drives giving it a culturally-approved-of purpose in life. A mostly dull and predictable spook best avoided if one hopes to not have their hands bloodied ;)3
Macho feels good man!
Macho feels good man!
again, anarchists are treated
again, anarchists are treated to the do-or-die macho militancy of those who choose to fight with arms. anarchists will do what they need to do to resist whatever faces them directly (from war in Ukraine to police repression as well as tankie and fash attacks elsewhere and everywhere), but to reduce all militancy and resistance to picking up arms (in this case supplied by... NATO and the US, those famous pro-anarchists). despite his otherwise well-known idiocy and cravenness, that boob Lavrov is right when he says that the US will fight Russia to the last Ukrainian. east european anarchists are caught up in an anti-imperialist struggle in Ukraine that definitely began with a lot of grassroots recruitment of volunteers into irregular and self-organized formations but after a month or so, these paramilitary outfits became fully integrated into the territorial defense forces, which are under the command and control of the Ukrainian military. whatever self-organized aspects they might retain are being temporarily tolerated due to the overriding exigencies of a regular inter-state military conflict (aka, war). as soon as the paramilitaries are no longer needed to fight the Russians, the leftist ones will surely be disbanded and disarmed. aside from some combat experience and temporary access to the weapons of war, what will these anarchists have gained from their participation other than early graves, traumatic injuries, and post-traumatic stress? there are no anarchist counter-institutions to defend (other than efforts akin to food not bombs -- in this case, food AND bombs) with force of arms, there are no autonomous working class projects to defend, there are no self-organized revolutionary experiments to defend in Ukraine. there's just territorial integrity and political sovereignty.
anarchists who decide to fight in this war by subordinating themselves voluntarily to Ukrainian state orders should do so without scolding other anarchists who remain leery of or definitively opposed to war. as is the case with too many anarchists who abandon their alleged principles by voting for representatives, these pro-war anarchists should be ashamed rather than proud. it's understandable for anarchists to abandon anarchist principles when faced with impossible choices (in this case, there's martial law and young Ukrainian men of military age are prohibited from leaving the country), and it's understandable that other anarchists would risk their own lives to stand up for anarchist principles, but it's baffling to me to continue to read pleas from anarchists for other anarchists to abandon their principles in order to risk their lives.
False statements
Anon 12:31 accuses the Ukrainian anarchists of "macho militancy"--without giving any evidence of the "macho-ness." I don't see any male chest-thumping in this interview. Nor is there any tendency to "reduce all militancy to picking up arms." Not in this statement. Nor does the interview include any "scolding other anarchists who remain leery of or definitively opposed to war." On the contrary, it is Anon who is scolding those anarchists who are using different tactics from those they recommend.
What are the alternatives?
The question is what Ukrainian anarchists should do. They do not have enough forces from before the invasion to form mass independent guerrilla armies under the black flag. So should they fold their arms and hide in basements? try to sneak over the border? form service groups to distribute food or provide medical aid? (some have done this and I certainly don't criticize it) Or should some of them find some way to participate in the fight to drive out the Russian invaders? This does require some compromise with absolute principles, being associated with the state's official armed forces to a greater or lesser degree. Its advantage is that (a) it gives a way to fight the imperialist invader and (b) it provides a way for *anarchists* to participate in the popular struggle. If they are open about who they are and what they are for it gives them the possibility of raising anarchist ideas.
Flee, before you become a
Flee, before you become a weapons test subject.
The US has no exit strategy. Its only goal is to weaken Russia. A lot of people are going to get hurt in reaching that goal.
What a mess. Settle the border dispute. Maybe that's the only way to end up a total pawn for either outside regime. Neither the US nor Russia seem to care how many Ukrainians get killed. So why be used? Why play along?
"it provides a way for
"it provides a way for *anarchists* to participate in the popular struggle."
This is true. But in fact joining a militarist formation is not the only option for anarchists who want to participate in a "popular struggle." Also, why do anarchists need to participate in things just because they're popular? Should anarchists have been involved in that reactionary trucker convoy? That was pretty popular. Here in California there was a mass mobilization against same-sex marriage (the proposition passed with a majority); should anarchists have been involved in that campaign because the majority of voters made it popular? This position of bizarre wishful thinking is completely baffling. Talking to a stranger in a cafe provides the possibility of raising anarchist ideas too, but I suppose that's not interesting to Wayne, who seems to want a mass popular armed movement to create his version of an Anarchist Revolution (tm). Some anarchists see such a strategy as horrifying, not because of a naive faith in pacifism (the charge Wayne continually deploys despite a continual refusal of the label by his critics) but because some anarchists are wary of mass movements (which tend to devolve into a lowest-common-demoninator strategy to keep the mass a mass), wary of militarism (which tends to devolve into institutionalized hierarchy with the loudest and "bravest" leading). Some anarchists are more interested in communicating with individuals rather than masses, mainly because we prefer comrades instead of followers. Wayne, in true Marxist fashion, prefers people who don't ask questions.
No support to the state--For an anarchist revolution!
There is one aspect of the above interview and other reports of Ukrainian anarchists which has not been focused on. While finding ways to participate in th.e war against the Russian invaders, none have made political compromises with the government or the state as such. That is, they have not voted for Zelensky or endorsed his presidency or run in elections at all or formed coalitions with his party or any other party. They have not made the key mistake of the Spanish anarchists in the thirties Spanish civil war of joining a government with capitalist, social-democratic, and Stalinist parties. In short, they have not given any *political* support to the state and have remained *anarchists,* opponents of the state. They take no responsibility for the government's policies. To my mind, this is the key dividing line between revolutionary anarchism and reformism.
Anon 21:03 prefers "talking to a stranger in a cafe" (which I all for!) and accuses me of "want[ing] a mass popular armed movement to create his version of an Anarchist Revolution (tm)." Well, it does not have to be *my version*--I'll take any version of an anarchist revolution. But yes, I admit--oh the sorrow and the shame of it!--to wanting a popular overthrow of capitalism and the state before there is an environmental cataclysm or nuclear war. No accounting for tastes.
For some reason not stated, this Anon also accuses me of "prefer[ing] people who don't ask questions." Why then, pray tell, am I engaging in dialogues with other anarchists on this site?
Is there one Ukrainian nation?
Just from the bit that I've read, Ukraine seems to have some major cultural, linguistic and ethnic divisions, with a lot of inhabitants, especially in the eastern regions bordering Russia either speaking Russian as their native language, inter-marrying with Russians, or just feeling some cultural or political affinity with Russia. The regime that came into power after the Yanukovich administration was overthown are reportedly hostile to Russian cultural influence, and try to discourage the learning or use of the Russian language.
> I am Makhno
> I am Makhno
LMFAO. Nice nickname, nerd.
Nice attempt at irony Noob;
Nice attempt at irony Noob; he's been using that screen name for the past 20 years
> irony
> irony
Nice attempt at using a word you obviously don’t know the meaning of, bro.
Imagine posting as “I am Makhno” on anews for 20 years and having learned nothing about Makhno. Imagine defending someone named that on anews. LOL
nations are fictions, the
nations are fictions, the fiction of a single, united nation just doesn't hold up as well in places that have a long history of colonization and groups within it that have stronger identities that supersede it. there is no nation stronger than its ability to insist upon its existence. this is anarchy 101.
like other places around russia ukraine has a long history of colonization by russia, including moving masses of russian-speaking, russian-identifying settlers onto the land. "cultural influence" isn't a passive thing here, the russian government used "russification" including the banning the ukrainian language to enforce its domination. Russia has exploited these long-rooted divisions to further divide people in Ukraine into ethnic groups which can weaken the ukrainian claim to nationhood and incorporate parts of the population into russia, as it is doing now.
All of this could be gained through reading a wikipedia article or being a little less dense, but perhaps this is beyond you
The Ukrainian Imaginary
Actually, I've probably been using that pseudonym for closer to thirty years, and I would have it copyrighted on the @News site, if their collective hadn't blocked me from logging in (four times, as I recall). While it is true, in a trivial sense, that nations are "fictions", so are all group identities; the more interesting point is that these group identities have such strong influence on our beliefs and actions, as well as providing a powerful propaganda tool for States and other groups. So what does "Ukraine" signify to someone who was born into a Ukrainian-speaking household that views Russian culture and history with suspicion? Does it mean the same thing as it does to a separatist in Donetsk or Luhansk, fighting forpolitical autonomy and a federated State, with close economic and social ties to Russia?
I see you nestor! one
I see you nestor! one embarrassment to their pseudonym, to another! do you feel seen?
lol "blocked you from logging in 4 times" ... not even close to how that works ... AND you're here saying it?!
so brave makbro
Imagine using anews for
Imagine using anews for thirty years and still not being able to thread your replies LOL. Copyright the Revolution!
What is a fiction?
I don't know what is meant by saying that "nations are a fiction." Does this mean that nations really don't exist, like God? Or just that nations are socially and historically created by the actions and beliefs of a great many people?
Are "races" a fiction? Surely they are not biological realities. But does that mean that anarchists should not support the struggles of African-Americans for equality and freedom?
Are you new here Wayne?
Are you new here Wayne? "Races", as a previous deleted poster mentioned, is a construct, a fiction. its a categorizing term used by social engineers (socialists or corporatists) to organize society into managable entities which do not exist in the natural world. For example, a corporate or State run industry might say that all menial work should be performed by illiterate immigrants or Afro-Americans, and a hierarchical division in labor is created with an unequal distribution of wages determined by skills or literacy.
Whether anarchists support the struggles of African-Americans for equality and freedom is a subjective call Wayne. If you don't know what that means, it means its up to the individual themselves, their own circumstances. Like, would an Afro-American risk protesting against a powerful armed racist oppressor and die in the attempt, leaving a defenceless family to struggle on themselves, or would they flee and look for better living conditions, or just love their lot and endure the hardship stoically?
Hope this helps Wayne,
Regards, Johnny
Is Anti-Racism a "subjective call" for Anarchists?
Johnny tells me, in a condescending manner, "Whether anarchists support the struggles of African-Americans for equality and freedom is a subjective call Wayne.... it's up to the individual themselves...."
I was not asking about whether anarchists should get involved in any particular demonstration or action against white supremacy. I was asking whether anarchists should--as a major part of anarchism--oppose racism and support the struggles of African-Americans, in general and overall. I assumed the answer would be, "Of course!" But Johnny trivializes the issue by turning into a question of tactics rather than principle.
"Race" may be a "fiction" to Johnny--and I agree it is not a biological category but a socially created division of people, used to maintain an exploitative society. But once having been created it is "real" in the sense that people base their thinking and actions on it. It cannot be simply ignored, as some other fictions can.
Ask any Black person if they think "race" is a fiction. Or suggest to African-Americans that they " just love their lot and endure the hardship stoically." Wow! I don't know what to say about that.
Trivialing fiction
Doesn't help anti-racist struggles or tendencies. What "matters" will always be subjective, just because you can ignore some aspect of a narrative/story doesn't mean those who you want to show solidarity for will be able to.
I saw Matthew McConaughey saying that the state needs to make the recent shooting matter when it already did matter, there's no central legitimacy/credibility, I'm not saying you are Matthew, just pointing out the problem with attempting to universalize values.
Well, sometimes what
Well, sometimes what "matters" is objective, like the solar object called the Sun, and like, it matters that it rises up in the morning.
Also brah, "Trivialing" = "Trivializing" ;)
The existence of the eco-extremists, Brian Jonestown
Killers, child molesters, nazis, candice Owens, Robin D'Angelos, maoists, suicide bombers, not-so-ideological mass shooters all contradict your insinuation that life has objective value.
Oh, and caves themselves make surviving without the sun entirely possible. You can't have nervous systems without lifeless space.
Damn, stirnerites here seem to carry around authenticity like an albatross on here. Absolute stirnerism contradicts stirner's existentialism and/or praxis. I don't even think stirner can easily be conflated with anarchism either for historical/etymological reasons.
Another poster here, "race"
Another poster here, "race" is like "class", you can get around with a race or class consciousness, why not add a cultural identity, but if you carry these spooks you can't be a real anarch !
It can be a really rough thing to deal with to
Understand that humans often filter what they encounter through their ideas of it after the fact, this is why there has been so much interest in John Zerzan and the many other versions of earthy-ness.