Military “Anarchists”

From antimilitarismus by Alexander Ametistov. Translated from Russian by a friend of Anarchist News.

We are publishing a translation of an article criticizing pseudo-anarchists who call for support of participation in the war on the side of the Ukrainian state. It was published in the German anarchist anti-militarist newspaper Graswurzelrevolution.

Volunteering for war in the name of the nation and democracy? The growing rift among anarchists over the question of war.

A text that has been circulating online since November clearly demonstrates just how deep the chasm has grown between people, organizations, and media outlets that call themselves “anarchist.” “On the Suppression of Eastern European Voices at Anarchist Events in the EU,” reads the title of a complaint drafted by “Solidarity Collectives” and signed by numerous groups, collectives, and individuals. The list of signatories to the English-language version is longer and includes, among others, FAU Frankfurt, the French CNTF, and well-known authors such as Peter Gelderloos and Philipp Kellermann.

The text laments that the anarchist community accuses those who voluntarily take up arms to fight in the war of “supporting the war.” The following conclusions are drawn from this: in recent years, many organizations and groups have emerged within the anarchist community that either actively exclude of block the participation of “Solidarity Collectives,” AChK-Belarus, and many other anarchist and anti-authoritarian organizations from public events. In addition, numerous “statements” have been published condemning the work of these groups and their support for the Ukrainian resistance against the Russian invasion. This behavior is often based on misrepresentations of the positions on the war held by activists from Eastern Europe. Anarchists are accused of having become militarists, of supporting the war, or of not being sufficiently critical of the Ukrainian state.”

What draws the most serious attention is the very surprise that anyone would oppose supporting Ukrainian nationalism against Russian nationalism. Evidently, there has never been—and there still is not—consensus within contemporary anarchism regarding the nature of states and nations. The text not only uses the euphemism “Ukrainian resistance against the Russian invasion” (but what else is war? One state attacks, another resists with its military force), but it also stays mum over the fact that as recently as August 2025, “Solidarity Collectives” attempted to disrupt an event organized by the Assembly collective from Kharkiv. In a statement issued in connection with this, “Solidarity Collectives” and their supporters were convincingly characterized as exactly what they are—“anarcho-militarists” (https://communaut.org/de/von-winnyzja-bis-berlin).

Are deserters and opponents of military service (from all warring sides), along with all those who do not want to die or kill for either side in this war, not “Eastern European voices”? Or is the identity card only in play when it comes to positions that fit into one’s own worldview? Or is memory so short that no one can recall how unceremoniously consistent opponents of the war were treated in Saint-Imier? (https://www.graswurzel.net/gwr/2023/09/ueber-militarisierung-ukrainesol…)

“We do not see any support for war or state militarism in any form in the work of ‘Solidarity Collectives’ and ACHK-Belarus,” the text continues. “Furthermore, we categorically condemn any attempt to isolate anarchist collectives from Eastern Europe on the issue of resistance against the Russian regime’s military expansion.”

On the one hand, this is untrue; on the other, it contradicts the assertion made in the same breath. Anyone who attended the “[Russian] opposition marches” in Berlin in November 2024 (https://knack.news/11396) and in December 2025 could have seen the “anarchist bloc” demanding arms deliveries to Ukraine (https://www.woz.ch/2447/russische-opposition/fuer-ein-ende-des-imperium…). Clearly, a military victory over Russia requires ever-increasing arms production, arms deliveries, and the use of weapons. And foremost, it requires more and more people who will allow themselves to be senselessly slaughtered in the struggle between various capitalist states. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter whether their justifications are anarchist, feminist, socialist, religious, liberal, conservative, or fascist—what matters is that they are armed, trained, and ready for battle.

Anyone seeking a military victory over Putin must not want their comrades from right-wing volunteer units to be killed in battle: that would reduce their own firepower. For those on the Russian side who believe they are fighting “against fascism,” it is also unthinkable to consider neutralizing private military companies or the Rusich group. When it comes to national sovereignty, political camps instantly close ranks. War is a national cause, and the citizens of a state dare not place their own special interests or party preferences above it. And you are participating in this.

Perhaps the “anarchists” who go to war as part of the Ukrainian army convince themselves that they are fighting and killing not for the state at all, but for the people. But that doesn’t make it any better. “The people” is a coercive community. The Ukrainian people exist because the Ukrainian state exists, not the other way around. The same is true of the Russian, Belarusian, and any other “people,” however you define them—by origin, language, culture, or citizenship.

As long as capitalism exists as a global system, there will be countries such as Sudan and Syria, Ukraine and Armenia, Greece and Bolivia. You can’t approach peace everywhere [else] as you do in wealthy nations. The way the European Union and NATO, Russia and China treat countries like Ukraine is unambiguous: the local population, the land, and everything that grows on it or can be extracted from it, must serve to multiply the wealth of capital. It is unclear exactly which capital—Russian or German, American or Chinese—will subsequently take an interest in this or decide that all of this can be obtained more cheaply in another sovereign state. What is clear is that, for states with strong economies, regions beyond their own borders are becoming increasingly attractive for their own economic growth. The entire world of sovereign states must make markets, production sites, and investment opportunities available to their capital. This is the very point at which the interests of states converge. Capitalist growth is unthinkable without violence between states. If we do not achieve theoretical consensus on this issue, joint action is impossible and meaningless. Anyone who is outraged that Putin is using violence against Ukraine, but fails to recognize that the dictates of austerity are also a form of violence, has failed to understand anything about capitalist domination. Those who believe that Russia’s imperial ambitions must be stopped, yet at the same time accept the subjugation of the world to the interests of democratically governed capitalist states as the norm, are no better than those who attribute something “anti-imperialist” to the imperialism of Russia or China. Those who are willing to “understand Putin” and those who advocate for arms deliveries are two sides of the same coin. Drawing a line in the sand against them is not dogmatism. It is perfectly clear that entirely different goals are being pursued here.

Organizations such as the Belarusian AChK have taken a perfectly clear stance. Armed struggle for the “lesser evil” is viewed as a source of experience, is praised in every possible way, and has become the main point of distinction from those who “do nothing in practice.” [According to them, w]hile the state is rounding up young men who are trying to to evade military service, we must focus our attention on the “heroics” of a small handful of anarchists, rather than supporting deserters and draft dodgers from all warring sides. Of their own incapacity to stand up to the invading army alone, they are perfectly well aware.

At the same time, the Dresden AChK is not stingy with propaganda: “You can be Sara Wagenknecht, who opposes the war and supports the Russian Empire. You can be a Russian soldier who, with a weapon in hand, is fighting against [sic] the war in Ukraine, committing genocide, and killing hundreds of innocent people because he believes that peace can only be achieved through the complete annihilation of the Ukrainian people. You can be a Western left-wing intellectual who opposes the war because that’s what the books say, but in reality, social revolution and war are just empty words to him, devoid of any meaning” (https://abcdd.org/2023/10/24/keine-verwendung-fur-solche-leute-weder-in…) (We have ultimately come to understand in recent years that these simple words can be interpreted in different ways, depending on which part of the world or political camp people come from).

But why, all of a sudden, is a nation-state better than an empire? How do you know that Russia is striving for the “complete annihilation of the Ukrainian people”? To fight and kill on the orders of the Ukrainian state, which is supposed to be reformed for adaptation to the global market—what does that have to do with a social revolution?

Yes, Oleksandr Kolchenko, who also signed this appeal, was imprisoned in Russia. No one can criticize him for opposing Putin’s state. But it’s time for us to have a serious conversation about the fact that, during his trial, he sang the Ukrainian national anthem and shouted “Glory to Ukraine!” “National anarchism” under the Ukrainian or any other national flag is something unlike solidarity with people who are suffering because of Russia’s policies. If you believe that the nation-state is a good response to discrimination, we should agree with one another on what exactly “domination” means.

There is also no shortage of voices in Eastern Europe’s public sphere calling for the war to continue at any cost—including “anarchist” ones. Maksym Butkevych, who, as an anarchist, became an officer in the Ukrainian army, is traveling across Europe and campaigning for arms deliveries (https://www.woz.ch/2506/maxim-butkewitsch/dann-macht-man-sich-mitschuld…). Marina Weisband, a Green Party politician, considers herself “an anarchist in her heart of hearts,” but for her, this specifically means insisting on fighting the war to a victorious end (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpg0KUmgRo).

Enough. Please don’t lecture us about “privileges” and “west-splaining” while deserters are being killed at the border in Ukraine (https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article252528332/Ukrainischer-Deser…).

Alexander Ametistov