In support of comrades in Ukraine

From Avtonom

Alongside the general decline in attention to the war in Ukraine, a so-called "internationalist" position has been visible in the anarchist milieu in Europe. Basically, it consists of two points: the first rests on the equalization of the forces of the aggressor and the invaded country, presenting this conflict as yet another capitalist war in which one cannot take sides; and the second is based on the view that NATO wages war against Russia, in which Ukraine is seen mainly as an opportunity for Western countries to fight Russia at the expense of Ukrainian lives. Ukrainian anarchists who participate in armed resistance to Russian aggression as part of the army are criticized.

As we heard from one comrade, anarchists in the West are more ready to see the struggle in Russia as "pure", "like in the times of the First World War" (meaning romanticism around the revolution in Russia; repression after demonstrations or speaking out and supporting prisoners is closer to the Western reality). At the same time, the Ukrainian reality and experience - cooperation with the army, aiming for a long-term perspective - can be difficult to understand from the Western point of view; the practice of activity in war is far from the Western reality, which for some reason some European comrades forget.

This position is taken by some individuals, anarchist collectives and organizations from the Czech republic, Italy and other countries. In Russia, this position can be found in the syndicalists of KRAS-MAT. This position was criticized in detail in an posted on the Pramen website. Observing the situation, we too decided to contribute our view.

The groups we have mentioned are unlikely to change their position, or at least not in the near future. This text is our humble analysis of the situation and an expression of solidarity with our comrades in Ukraine.

Geopolitics of solidarity

Criticism from some European organizations towards Ukrainian comrades seems to us to be a dead end: generally the counter-proposal brings the recommendation to oppose any war on principle and call for all soldiers to lay down their arms or turn against their commanders and governments.

But being fundamentally opposed to war and defending against Russian invasion, and seeking Russian defeat, are not contradictory to each other. Ukrainian comrades have repeatedly made it clear that it is a question of survival, including political survival. In addition, unsolicited, inconsiderate advice from Europe (often from people who have never been to Ukraine and are not currently experiencing military aggression) about what to do if one does not resist the Russian invasion in the ranks of the Ukrainian army is nonetheless unspecific, abstract, and far from reality.

The vast majority of anarchists and anarchist collectives we know from Belarus, Ukraine and Russia have first-hand knowledge of the crimes of Putin's regime and support anarchists fighting in the AFU and participants in the resistance to the Russian invasion.

That is the position we take. For us, this war is an imperialist war. The Russian state is based on wars of conquest, great-power myths, colonization of vast territories and genocide of indigenous peoples. One need only look at even the Russian propaganda itself to realize that the Ukrainian people are fighting for their subjectivity, if not for the right to exist at all. The Russian world will bring with it poverty and destruction, xenophobia and police lawlessness, the scale of which is not comparable to any country in Europe, including Ukraine. This is how both many Russians and residents of Russian-occupied territories live now. The real internationalism now is to support the Ukrainian people in the face of Russian aggression.

At the same time, we have no illusions about European states or the United States: they are based on exactly the same logic as Russia and are doing the same thing while having different set of patterns and strategy. We should not make false moral distinctions on the axis of East - evil, West - good. This prevents us from understanding the situation holistically and strategically in the interests of the international anarchist movement. At the same time, because of our location, history and heritage of struggle - in Siberia, inside an imperial colony-province - our perspective is centered here and we speak mainly about Russia, while in Europe and the United States local parts of the international anarchist movement are actively struggling and are most familiar with and writing about their contexts.

We can stand in solidarity with the anarchist struggle in Europe and the USA, as well as with the revolutionary struggle in other regions and countries. We know that in the event of a revolutionary situation in Russia, our comrades in other countries will support us in word and practice. Can they be criticized for such support, saying that they are helping to overthrow Putin's regime and that this plays into the hands of NATO, the U.S., China or other forces's geopolitical interests in the region? Of course not. This picture is incomplete, this criticism lacks strategy and a long-term perspective.

Therefore, we follow the same logic in case of our involvement in revolutionary events in other countries. In geopolitical terms, all states and the various political forces linked to their interests take advantage of moments of instability, war, revolution, and extract benefit for their goals from any situation. The anarchist movement in this respect cannot stand aside under the pretext of ideological inconsistencies and contradictions, and must always pursue its goals despite ethical and other challenges. Various forces will always enter the field, and they will mostly be hostile to freedom movements.

To sit and wait for a situation where the anarchist movement will have a significant advantage against fascists, states and other unfriendly forces is to condemn ourselves to inaction and defeat. No situation favorable to us will arise on its own out of vacuum. Firstly, because if we are not capable and ready to use such situations to seriously advance our cause, they are more likely to play into the hands of other political forces who will be ready for them. Second, we believe that situations favorable to the revolutionary movement will be made possible by factors such as decades of hard work and organizational activity, experience, strong ideology, training, the good standing of the movement and its organizations in society, coherent structure, methods and standards, strong camaraderie, ample resources, and connections with other revolutionary movements. If these marks have not yet been reached, then we need to continue the struggle and reach that level.

Therefore, we consider direct involvement of various types to be correct and necessary, and we support the activity and initiative of the comrades in Ukraine. From our point of view, the right step from the anarchist individuals and organizations in Europe, which have been scolding comrades in Ukraine, would be to discuss any questions and contradictions directly with Ukrainian comrades, with respect and understanding for their tragic and difficult situation. And, for example, to make arrangements and come to Ukraine to provide the necessary support, if appropriate - like many other comrades, groups and organizations did.

Approach to the media and statements

We also need to pay close attention to what and how we, as anarchists, write about the war. There are many nuances in delivering a view from Russia on the Russian war in Ukraine, as there are in commenting from Europe.

First, we believe that all anarchist organizations should adhere to the basics of comradeship and stand firmly behind the comrades in Ukraine, be in solidarity with them, and provide various kinds of support in all possible ways, regardless of how they feel about the position of the Ukrainian comrades or from what angles they analyze Russian aggression.

Secondly, one has to pay attention whether what is being written is not playing into the hands of Russian propaganda and the line it is pursuing.

Third, public statements, analysis and comments about the situation in Ukraine should be coordinated directly with collectives and people involved in the resistance in Ukraine in order to get a check with reality and to take into account the requests of comrades in Ukraine.

Fourth, we believe that the movement should work out its sharp disagreements and conflicting positions internally, without making all its disagreements and weaknesses public. By doing so, we give more information to the enemy, increase disunity and separation, fail to reach useful conclusions, and show the movement in a non-serious way, but we gain nothing. The ability to resolve serious, sensitive and stategic disagreements, disputes, conflicts and contradictions without taking these things to the public, instead working through them with well-established internal organizational mechanisms and extracting results and agreements from these processes is, in our view, a quality of a strong revolutionary movement.

Comradeship is the priority

We think that European comrades who have serious ideological objections to the activities of anarchists in Ukraine should prioritize a comradely approach and solidarity, and approach their objections or criticism with caution and make sure that a dialogue and understanding is established first. We are confident that in 10-15 years, if not sooner, this approach will be appreciated in hindsight. At the very least, it will manifest itself in the quality of relationships and connections within the movement at the international level. Moreover, looking at the political situation in Europe and the world, the ongoing militarization and the growth of military conflicts, it is hard to predict what will happen in Europe in the future years. There is a possibility that many comrades, for example in Italy or the Czech Republic, will themselves face war, death and destruction in new military conflicts, crises and natural disasters. With such an optic for the future, strong ties and exchange of experience with anarchists in Ukraine are not only politically, humanly, but also in a practical sense necessary. In other words, we see that there are issues of ideological purity, dogmatism and political contradictions, but there is also the unpalatable reality, the question of survival, relevance and success of anarchism or a libertarian future in general in Europe and elsewhere.

Let us revisit the point we made at the beginning of this text: in the criticisms we hear from some European anarchist groups, we see a dead end. We want to see a greater push for cohesion and organizational integrity in the anarchist movement, especially when it comes to events such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the defense against it. Even if there are fundamental disagreements between us about the role of the anarchist movement in these events, the alternatives proposed should not only be realistic, but should be also based on the understanding that we will not always be able to adopt an ideal position that will not encounter any contradictions, challenges and failures along the way. Even if there are no realistic and reasonable proposals for an alternative, there is the minimum necessary, in our opinion: understand that people will do what they deem necessary in their own context, and to support our comrades in Ukraine by all available means, to stand up for them in front of other people and organizations, and never sabotage their work and efforts of those who actively provide them with practical assistance and somehow act along the lines agreed with them. And this is not just for no reason, but because we are talking about people who, like us, have chosen to fight for liberatory ideas, ideals of freedom and justice, and put them into practice.

In our opinion, these thoughts also apply to the Russian anarchist milieu. Despite the fact that the problem of the "internationalist position" which we criticize in this text is not particularly present in the Russia, we still have a big gap in the organized interaction and support of Ukrainian comrades, to which they have drawn attention and about which they have repeatedly criticized. This needs to be corrected. We are also part of this problem, and we are trying to solve it.

Inaction and neutrality are unacceptable, especially when it comes to the survival of Ukrainian society and our comrades in the face of Russian invasion. The word "comradeship" should not be disconnected from the practice, when there are personal and ideological differences in the movement. Besides, let's look at a long-term perspective: many frictions between people fade over the years; people, circumstances and points of view change, and the participants in conflicts themselves do not always remember what the fuss was about; often old frictions begin to seem less serious over time, their sharpness fading into the past. Of course, this is not the case at all with some problems and incidents.

But comradeship and mutual support, backed up by the necessity of coming face to face with a deadly threat, will leave a significant mark and a pledge for the future of the common struggle. And these things that leave that mark are the things we need to look for between us as much as possible.

DIAna (Movement of Irkutsk Anarchists)

February 2024

Photo from Collectives of Solidarity channel

LINKS:

Support comrades from , an anti-authoritarian volunteer network.

A on the topic of the war in Ukraine from various anarchists.

with Ukrainian anarchists Anatoliy Dubovik and Serhiy Shevchenko.

There are 19 Comments

"The real internationalism now is to support the Ukrainian people in the face of Russian aggression."

No, that's nationalism. Pure and simple.

What is internationalism, on the other hand, is to be discussing this stuff online and allowing to know about where anarchists elsewhere are at, and to support them when needed.

"discussing this stuff online" is... just discussing this stuff online! Nothing else than words, again and again. While Ukrainian people is diyng

And whilst Russian speaking Ukrainians on the border were harrassed and murdered by neo-Nazi Ukrainian army brigades on the eastern border.

Once again, I’m not aware of anyone “scolding comrades in Ukraine,” but I’m very familiar with people criticizing the nato war machine from within its states. Why the constant rhetorical maneuvering around this? Who is the audience for this, liberals?? Do they simply not understand the difference in contexts, or what?

In St. Imier, gathering summer 2023, an "internationalist" comrade laughed during the commemoration of comrades killed in war(and later their gang acted provocativelly against comrades from Ukraina, East Europa and Germany). You can easily find reports of that online;

a smug asshole at an anarchist gathering you say?! perish the thought!

The anarchists in question are not simply engaged in "cooperation with the army" (as claimed here), or an "alliance" with the army (as Gelderloser initially, spuriously claimed in '22, IGD), but instead have enlisted under the military hierarchy of the Ukrainian state. They in fact are cooperators in the sense of a police informant but only insofar as they must pass information to their employer, the State, but are different from informants in that they are regular, publicly-known grunts (or officers) in a State institution of repression, not confidential sources.

sort of reminds one of the anarchists who got betrayed and murdered in the international brigades back in the day, after getting absorbed in to state militaries for "efficiency" or whatever the flimsy rationalization was at the time

Sort of, sure, to that extent that getting mixed up with the State is contrary to anarchist principles as well as being folly in practice, but there are also differences. The anarchists in Spain had their own organizations with significant numbers and power, asked for weapons from the Catalonian government then stole them when refused, and some explicitly argued against militarization.
https://mgouldhawke.wordpress.com/2022/05/31/militians-yes-but-soldiers-...

thanks for the link! interesting stuff

yeah, i'm open to how large, powerful, militant anti-authoritarian formations MIGHT be able to successfully negotiate with their enemies or the enemies of their enemies BUT having any success there is a fukin miracle. that much more impressive because it's extremely rare.

The anarchists in question are doing what they can in their context. Western "anarchists" are before their screens criticising them. That's the difference.

That's a fake difference you made up in your bullshit mind, or for your foolhardy target audience, sure.

In reality, noone can tell exactly what people do off the internet by what they do on it. People can do more than one thing. We all contain multitudes, disgusting as that may be.

If we really could only do one thing, personally, I'd also rather an anarchist type on a screen than become a cop. Or simply enlist in the army as an individual and then shut the hell up about it instead of begging all anarchists on earth to abandon anti-state/anti-war anarchism in favor of collective anarchist cheerleading for western states' wars.

If you don't like anarchists typing anything about Ukraine, make sure to tell the soldiers and the safe-at-home DoublethIncers to shut the fuck up as well, and in DoublethInc's case, head to the frontlines themselves and get some sense knocked into their heads firsthand instead of singing Onward Christian Soldiers from a safe distance while others die for their marxist cause of using the state to create statelessness.

“Fourth, we believe that the movement should work out its sharp disagreements and conflicting positions internally, without making all its disagreements and weaknesses public.”

What a dumb thing to say! Yes, indeed, there are many anarchists who disagree completely with your perspective (and many of the Ukrainian “comrades” too) and they will continue to state that (loudly and publicly) so that in 10-15 years the relevancy of revolutionary anarchism isn’t totally lost to the next generations b/c of the hypocrisy and liberalism of European and American anarchists regarding Ukraine/Russia/NATO, especially during a genocide they’re funding and directly/indirectly supporting - but elsewhere and out of their sight.

You write about genocide. I guess you are thinking at the Holodomor, when 3 ti 5 million people died of famine ? Just because your beloved Stalin wanted them ti starve for the sake of communism ?

I have gotten my comments deleted here in the past for criticizing the historiography of the so called holodomor, but here goes… because it’s actually Nazi propaganda. Yes, there was famine in the early USSR, after years of war and sanctions. There’s no proof it was caused intentionally by the leaders much less as an act of deliberate “Ukrainian genocide.” There IS evidence that Nazis and their western allies like the Hearst media empire were very active in spreading disinformation about these events in order to establish the idea that Jews (bolsheviks) were committing genocide against gentiles in Eastern Europe, to preemptively justify the holocaust. The right wing has kept these theories alive for decades for Cold War propaganda. But don’t take my word for it…

It was Stalin's Collectivization agro reforms... That were not targeting Ukrainians (who didn't even exist as an ethno-national identity back then), and affected the entirety of peasants under the Soviet Union.. Just turned out that the region now known as Ukraine was already the most fertile farming area of the USSR, hence these reforms affected its inhabitants the most.

Yes, these reforms were brutal and deprived farmers of most of their lands, and Stalin gave zero shits about mass famines. But kinda like the other anon said, there is ruthless management due to monopolization of power... and there is planned, intentional genocide (like what Nazis did in the Final Solution, that was part of a eugenics program in which Ukrainian nationalists actively took part during WW2). These are two kinds of awful politics.

No, Adolf wasn't trying to liberate Europe... don't bring that poo on this site.

also the definition of genocide has expanded along with the study of it, which is obviously a good thing!

i only mention it because i often see people with reactionary leanings trying to run the goalposts in the opposite direction but why wouldn't a better understanding include more things? who benefits from an artificially narrow definition?

Genocide completely means the systemic murder of an ethnically-defined population. The Soviets did not define Ukrainians as a distinct ethnic group... the Nazi Ukrainians did, as they despised commies and ruskies, which they conceived as a different ethnic group to exterminate.

This is one of the marvelous magic tricks that nationalism achieves in the minds of dispossessed normies. And yours (?).

i don't think you understood my point. the scope of the definition has expanded a lot in the past 50 years and that's a good thing

Add new comment