This statement appeared in Russian on avtonom.org, a media project that grew out of the libertarian communist network Autonomous Action.

Yesterday, on February 21, an extraordinary meeting of the Russian Security Council was held. As part of this theatrical act, Putin forced his closest servants to publicly “ask” him to recognize the independence of the so-called “people’s republics” of the Luhansk People’s Republic [LPR] and Donetsk People’s Republic [DPR] in eastern Ukraine.

It is quite obvious that this is a step towards the further annexation of these territories by Russia—no matter how it is formalized (or not formalized) legally. In fact, the Kremlin ceases to consider the LPR and DPR part of Ukraine and finally makes them its protectorate. “First the recognition of independence, then annexation”: this sequence was already worked out in 2014 in Crimea. This is also clear from Naryshkin’s stupid reservations at the meeting of the Security Council (“Yes, I support the entry of these territories into the Russian Federation “).
1
Since the meeting, as it turned out, was broadcast on tape [rather than live], and these “reservations” were not cut out, but left in—the hint is clear.

In an “appeal to the people” that same evening, Putin seemed to “agree” with these requests and announced the recognition of the LPR and DPR as independent states. In fact, he said the following: “We are taking a piece of the Donbass, and if Ukraine rocks the boat, then let it blame itself, we don’t consider it a state at all, so we’ll take even more.” According to Putin’s decree, Russian troops are already entering the territory of the LPR and DPR. This is a clear gesture of threat towards the rest of Ukraine and especially towards the parts of the Lugansk and Donetsk regions still controlled by Ukraine. This is the actual occupation [in the sense that until now, Luhansk and Donetsk were only occupied by proxy].

We do not want to stand up for any states. We are anarchists and we are against any borders between nations. But we are against this annexation, because it only establishes new borders, and the decision on this is made solely by the authoritarian leader—Vladimir Putin. This is an act of imperialist aggression by Russia. We have no illusions about the Ukrainian state, but it is clear to us that it is not the main aggressor in this story—this is not a confrontation between two equal evils. First of all, this is an attempt by the Russian authoritarian government to solve its internal problems through a “small victorious war and the accumulation of lands” [a reference to Ivan III].

It is quite probable that the Kremlin regime will stage some kind of spectacle of a “referendum” on the annexed lands. Such performances already took place in the DPR and LPR in 2014, but not even Moscow recognized their results. Now, apparently, Putin has decided to change that. Of course, there can be no talk of any “free and secret voting” in these territories—they are under the control of militarized gangs completely dependent on Moscow. Those who were opposed to these gangs and against integration with Russia were either killed or forced to emigrate. Thus, any “referendum on the return of Donbass like a lost ship to its native harbor” will be a propaganda lie. The residents of Donbass will be able to formulate their decision only when the troops of all states—and first of all the Russian Federation—leave these territories.

The recognition and annexation of the DPR and LPR will not bring anything good to the inhabitants of Russia itself.

First, in any case, this will lead to the militarization of all spheres of life, even greater international isolation of Russia, sanctions and a decline in general well-being. Restoring the destroyed infrastructure and taking the “people’s republics” into the state budget will not be free, either—both will cost billions of rubles that could otherwise be spent on education and medicine. Have no doubt: the yachts of the Russian oligarchs will not become smaller, but everyone else will begin to live worse.

Second, the likely aggravation of the armed confrontation with Ukraine will mean more dead and wounded soldiers and civilians, more destroyed cities and villages, more blood. Even if this conflict does not escalate into a world war, Putin’s imperial fantasies are not worth a single life.

Third, this will mean the further spread of the so-called “Russian world”: a crazy combination of neoliberal oligarchy, rigid centralized power, and patriarchal imperial propaganda. This consequence is not as obvious as the rise in the price of sausages and the sanctions on smartphones—but in the long run, it is even more dangerous.

We urge you to counter the Kremlin’s aggression by any means you see fit. Against the seizure of territories under any pretext, against sending the Russian army to the Donbass, against militarization. And ultimately, against the war. Take to the streets, spread the word, talk to the people around you—you know what to do. Do not be silent. Take action. Even a small screw can jam the gears of a death machine.

Against all borders, against all empires, against all wars!

-Autonomous Action

Αυτή η ανακοίνωση εμφανίστηκε στα ρωσικά στο avtonom.org, δικτυακό ενημερωτικό τόπο του ελευθεριακού κομμουνιστικού δικτύου Αυτόνομη Δράση.

Ενάντια στις προσαρτήσεις και την επίθεση της αυτοκρατορίας

Ανακοίνωση Ρώσων αναρχικών κατά της ρωσικής επίθεσης στην Ουκρανία

Αυτή η ανακοίνωση εμφανίστηκε στα ρωσικά στο avtonom.org, δικτυακό ενημερωτικό τόπο του ελευθεριακού κομμουνιστικού δικτύου Αυτόνομη Δράση.

Χθες (στμ. 21 Φεβρουαρίου), πραγματοποιήθηκε έκτακτη συνεδρίαση του Ρωσικού Συμβουλίου Ασφαλείας. Ως μέρος αυτής της θεατρικής πράξης, ο Πούτιν ανάγκασε τους πιο στενούς του υπηρέτες να του «ζητήσουν» δημόσια να αναγνωρίσει την ανεξαρτησία των λεγόμενων «λαϊκών δημοκρατιών» της Λαϊκής Δημοκρατίας του Λουχάνσκ [LPR] και της Λαϊκής Δημοκρατίας του Ντόνετσκ [DPR] στην ανατολική Ουκρανία.

Είναι προφανές ότι πρόκειται για ένα βήμα προς την περαιτέρω προσάρτηση αυτών των εδαφών από τη Ρωσία — ανεξάρτητα από το πώς επισημοποιείται (ή δεν έχει επισημοποιηθεί) νομικά. Στην πραγματικότητα, το Κρεμλίνο παύει να θεωρεί τις LPR και DPR μέρη της Ουκρανίας και τελικά τα καθιστά προτεκτοράτα του. «Πρώτα η αναγνώριση της ανεξαρτησίας, μετά η προσάρτηση»: αυτή η σειρά είχε ήδη επεξεργαστεί το 2014 στην Κριμαία. Αυτό φαίνεται επίσης από τις ηλίθιες επιφυλάξεις του Naryshkin στη συνεδρίαση του Συμβουλίου Ασφαλείας («Ναι, υποστηρίζω την είσοδο αυτών των εδαφών στη Ρωσική Ομοσπονδία»). 1

Δεδομένου ότι η συνάντηση, όπως αποδείχθηκε, μεταδόθηκε μαγνητοφωνημένη [και όχι ζωντανά], και αυτές οι «επιφυλάξεις» δεν διακόπηκαν, αλλά αφέθηκαν - η υπόδειξη είναι σαφής.

Σε μια «έκκληση προς το λαό» το ίδιο βράδυ, ο Πούτιν φάνηκε να «συμφωνεί» με αυτά τα αιτήματα και ανακοίνωσε την αναγνώριση των LPR και DPR ως ανεξάρτητων κρατών. Μάλιστα, είπε τα εξής: «Παίρνουμε ένα κομμάτι από το Ντονμπάς και αν η Ουκρανία ταρακουνήσει το καράβι, τότε ας κατηγορήσει τον εαυτό της, δεν τη θεωρούμε καθόλου κράτος, οπότε θα πάρουμε ακόμα περισσότερα.» Σύμφωνα με το διάταγμα του Πούτιν, τα ρωσικά στρατεύματα εισέρχονται (στμ. έχουν εισέλθει ήδη) στο έδαφος των LPR και DPR. Αυτή είναι μια σαφής χειρονομία απειλής προς την υπόλοιπη Ουκρανία και ιδιαίτερα προς τα τμήματα των περιοχών Λουχάνσκ και Ντόνετσκ που εξακολουθούν να ελέγχονται από την Ουκρανία. Αυτή είναι η πραγματική κατοχή [με την έννοια ότι μέχρι τώρα το Λουχάνσκ και το Ντόνετσκ καταλαμβάνονταν μόνο από πληρεξούσιο].

Δεν θέλουμε να υπερασπιστούμε κανένα κράτος. Είμαστε αναρχικοί και είμαστε ενάντια σε οποιαδήποτε σύνορα μεταξύ εθνών. Αλλά είμαστε ενάντια σε αυτήν την προσάρτηση, γιατί καθορίζει μόνο νέα σύνορα, και η απόφαση γι’ αυτό λαμβάνεται αποκλειστικά από τον αυταρχικό ηγέτη — τον Βλαντιμίρ Πούτιν. Αυτή είναι μια πράξη ιμπεριαλιστικής επιθετικότητας από τη Ρωσία. Δεν έχουμε αυταπάτες για το ουκρανικό κράτος, αλλά είναι σαφές σε εμάς ότι δεν είναι ο κύριος επιτιθέμενος σε αυτήν την ιστορία - δεν πρόκειται για μια αντιπαράθεση μεταξύ δύο ίσων κακών. Πρώτα απ’ όλα, αυτή είναι μια προσπάθεια της ρωσικής αυταρχικής κυβέρνησης να λύσει τα εσωτερικά της προβλήματα μέσω ενός «μικρού νικηφόρου πολέμου και συσσώρευσης εδαφών» [αναφορά στον Ιβάν Γ’].

Είναι πολύ πιθανό το καθεστώς του Κρεμλίνου να οργανώσει κάποιο είδους θεάματος τύπου «δημοψηφίσματος» στα προσαρτημένα εδάφη. Τέτοιες παραστάσεις πραγματοποιήθηκαν ήδη στην DPR και τη LPR το 2014, αλλά ούτε η Μόσχα αναγνώρισε τα αποτελέσματά τους. Τώρα, προφανώς, ο Πούτιν αποφάσισε να το αλλάξει αυτό. Φυσικά, δεν μπορεί να γίνει λόγος για οποιαδήποτε «ελεύθερη και μυστική ψηφοφορία» σε αυτά τα εδάφη - βρίσκονται υπό τον έλεγχο στρατιωτικοποιημένων συμμοριών που εξαρτώνται πλήρως από τη Μόσχα. Όσοι ήταν αντίθετοι σε αυτές τις συμμορίες και κατά της ενσωμάτωσης στη Ρωσία είτε σκοτώθηκαν είτε αναγκάστηκαν να μεταναστεύσουν. Έτσι, οποιοδήποτε «δημοψήφισμα για την επιστροφή του Ντονμπάς σαν χαμένο πλοίο στο λιμάνι της χώρας του» θα είναι ψέμα προπαγάνδας. Οι κάτοικοι του Ντονμπάς θα μπορέσουν να διατυπώσουν την απόφασή τους μόνο όταν τα στρατεύματα όλων των κρατών -και πρώτα απ' όλα της Ρωσικής Ομοσπονδίας- εγκαταλείψουν αυτά τα εδάφη.

Η αναγνώριση και η προσάρτηση των DPR και LPR δεν θα φέρει τίποτα καλό στους κατοίκους της ίδιας της Ρωσίας.

Πρώτον, σε κάθε περίπτωση, αυτό θα οδηγήσει σε στρατιωτικοποίηση όλων των τομέων της ζωής, ακόμη μεγαλύτερη διεθνή απομόνωση της Ρωσίας, κυρώσεις και μείωση της γενικής ευημερίας. Η αποκατάσταση των κατεστραμμένων υποδομών και η εισαγωγή των «λαϊκών δημοκρατιών» στον κρατικό προϋπολογισμό δεν θα είναι επίσης δωρεάν — και τα δύο θα κοστίσουν δισεκατομμύρια ρούβλια που διαφορετικά θα μπορούσαν να δαπανηθούν για την εκπαίδευση και την ιατρική. Μην έχετε καμία αμφιβολία: τα γιοτ των Ρώσων ολιγαρχών δεν θα γίνουν μικρότερα, αλλά όλοι οι άλλοι θα αρχίσουν να ζουν χειρότερα.

Δεύτερον, η πιθανή όξυνση της ένοπλης αντιπαράθεσης με την Ουκρανία θα σημαίνει περισσότερους νεκρούς και τραυματίες στρατιώτες και πολίτες, περισσότερες κατεστραμμένες πόλεις και χωριά, περισσότερο αίμα. Ακόμα κι αν αυτή η σύγκρουση δεν κλιμακωθεί σε παγκόσμιο πόλεμο, οι αυτοκρατορικές φαντασιώσεις του Πούτιν δεν αξίζουν ούτε μια ζωή.

Τρίτον, αυτό θα σημαίνει την περαιτέρω εξάπλωση του λεγόμενου «ρωσικού κόσμου»: ένας τρελός συνδυασμός νεοφιλελεύθερης ολιγαρχίας, άκαμπτης συγκεντρωτικής εξουσίας και πατριαρχικής αυτοκρατορικής προπαγάνδας. Αυτή η συνέπεια δεν είναι τόσο προφανής όσο η άνοδος της τιμής των λουκάνικων και οι κυρώσεις στα smartphone — αλλά μακροπρόθεσμα είναι ακόμη πιο επικίνδυνη.

Σας προτρέπουμε να αντιμετωπίσετε την επιθετικότητα του Κρεμλίνου με όποιο μέσο κρίνετε κατάλληλο. Ενάντια στην κατάληψη εδαφών με κάθε πρόσχημα, ενάντια στην αποστολή του ρωσικού στρατού στο Donbass, ενάντια στη στρατιωτικοποίηση. Και εν τέλει, ενάντια στον πόλεμο. Βγείτε στους δρόμους, διαδώστε το, μιλήστε με τους ανθρώπους γύρω σας—ξέρετε τι να κάνετε. Μην μένεις σιωπηλός. Ανάλαβε δράση. Ακόμη και μια μικρή βίδα μπορεί να μπλοκάρει τα γρανάζια μιας μηχανής θανάτου.

Ενάντια σε όλα τα σύνορα, ενάντια σε όλες τις αυτοκρατορίες, ενάντια σε όλους τους πολέμους!

Αυτόνομη Δράση
avtonom.org

Περαιτέρω υλικά για διάβασμα:
-War and Anarchists: Anti-Authoritarian Perspectives in Ukraine
-Ukraine: Between Two Fires
-Kazakhstan after the Uprising
-Belarus: “When We Rise”—A Critical Analysis of the 2020 Revolt against the DictatorshipSergey

1. Ο Naryshkin, είναι επικεφαλής των ρωσικών μυστικων υπηρεσιών στο εξωτερικό.

*Η αγγλική μετάφραση του ρωσικού κειμένου δημοσιεύτηκε και πάρθηκε από εδώ: https://crimethinc.com/2022/02/22/against-annexations-and-imperial-aggression-a-statement-from-russian-anarchists-against-russian-aggression-in-ukraine
**Μετάφραση: Ούτε Θεός-Ούτε Αφέντης.

This text was composed together by several active anti-authoritarian activists from Ukraine. We do not represent one organization, but we came together to write this text and prepare for a possible war.

Besides us, the text was edited by more than ten people, including participants in the events described in the text, journalists who checked the accuracy of our claims, and anarchists from Russia, Belarus, and Europe. We received many corrections and clarifications in order to write the most objective text possible.

If war breaks out, we do not know if the anti-authoritarian movement will survive, but we will try to do so. In the meantime, this text is an attempt to leave the experience that we have accumulated online.

At the moment, the world is actively discussing a possible war between Russia and Ukraine. We need to clarify that the war between Russia and Ukraine has been going on since 2014.

But first things first.

The Maidan Protests in Kyiv

In 2013, mass protests began in Ukraine, triggered by Berkut (police special forces) beating up student protesters who were dissatisfied with the refusal of then-President Viktor Yanukovych to sign the association agreement with the European Union. This beating functioned as a call to action for many segments of society. It became clear to everyone that Yanukovych had crossed the line. The protests ultimately led to the president fleeing.

In Ukraine, these events are called “The Revolution of Dignity.” The Russian government presents it as a Nazi coup, a US State Department project, and so on. The protesters themselves were a motley crowd: far-right activists with their symbols, liberal leaders talking about European values and European integration, ordinary Ukrainians who went out against the government, a few leftists. Anti-oligarchic sentiments dominated among the protesters, while oligarchs who did not like Yanukovych financed the protest because he, along with his inner circle, tried to monopolize big business during his term. That is to say—for other oligarchs, the protest represented a chance to save their businesses. Also, many representatives of mid-size and small businesses participated in the protest because Yanukovych’s people did not allow them to work freely, demanding money from them. Ordinary people were dissatisfied with the high level of corruption and arbitrary conduct of the police. The nationalists who opposed Yanukovych on the grounds that he was a pro-Russian politician reasserted themselves significantly. Belarusian and Russian expatriates joined protests, perceiving Yanukovych as a friend of Belarusian and Russian dictators Alexander Lukashenko and Vladimir Putin.

If you have seen videos from the Maidan rally, you might have noticed that the degree of violence was high; the protesters had no place to pull back to, so they had to fight to the bitter end. The Berkut wrapped stun grenades with screw nuts that left splinter wounds after the explosion, hitting people in their eyes; that is why there were many injured people. In the final stages of the conflict, the security forces used military weapons—killing 106 protesters.

In response, the protesters produced DIY grenades and explosives and brought firearms to the Maidan. The manufacturing of Molotov cocktails resembled small divisions.

In the 2014 Maidan protests, the authorities used mercenaries (titushkas), gave them weapons, coordinated them, and tried to use them as an organized loyalist force. There were fights with them involving sticks, hammers, and knives.

Contrary to the opinion that the Maidan was a “manipulation by the EU and NATO,” supporters of European integration had called for a peaceful protest, deriding militant protesters as stooges. The EU and the United States criticized the seizures of government buildings. Of course, “pro-Western” forces and organizations participated in the protest, but they did not control the entire protest. Various political forces including the far right actively interfered in the movement and tried to dictate their agenda. They quickly got their bearings and became an organizing force, thanks to the fact that they created the first combat detachments and invited everyone to join them, training and directing them.

However, none of the forces was absolutely dominant. The main trend was that it was a spontaneous protest mobilization directed against the corrupt and unpopular Yanukovych regime. Perhaps the Maidan can be classified as one of the many “stolen revolutions.” The sacrifices and efforts of tens of thousands of ordinary people were usurped by a handful of politicians who made their way to power and control over the economy.

The Role of Anarchists in the Protests of 2014

Despite the fact that anarchists in Ukraine have a long history, during the reign of Stalin, everyone who was connected with the anarchists in any way was repressed and the movement died out, and consequently, the transfer of revolutionary experience ceased. The movement began to recover in the 1980s thanks to the efforts of historians, and in the 2000s it received a big boost due to the development of subcultures and anti-fascism. But in 2014, it was not yet ready for serious historical challenges.

Prior to the beginning of the protests, anarchists were individual activists or scattered in small groups. Few argued that the movement should be organized and revolutionary. Of the well-known organizations that were preparing for such events, there was Makhno Revolutionary Confederation of Anarcho-Syndicalists (RCAS of Makhno), but at the beginning of the riots, it dissolved itself, as the participants could not develop a strategy for the new situation.

The events of the Maidan were like a situation in which the special forces break into your house and you need to take decisive actions, but your arsenal consists only of punk lyrics, veganism, 100-year-old books, and at best, the experience of participating in street anti-fascism and local social conflicts. Consequently, there was a lot of confusion, as people attempted to understand what was happening.

At the time, it was not possible to form a unified vision of the situation. The presence of the far-right in the streets discouraged many anarchists from supporting the protests, as they did not want to stand beside Nazis on the same side of the barricades. This brought a lot of controversy into the movement; some people accused those who did decide to join the protests of fascism.

The anarchists who participated in the protests were dissatisfied with the brutality of the police and with Yanukovych himself and his pro-Russian position. However, they could not have a significant impact on the protests, as they were essentially in the category of outsiders.

In the end, anarchists participated in the Maidan revolution individually and in small groups, mainly in volunteer/non-militant initiatives. After a while, they decided to cooperate and make their own “hundred” (a combat group of 60-100 people). But during the registration of the detachment (a mandatory procedure on the Maidan), the outnumbered anarchists were dispersed by the far-right participants with weapons. The anarchists remained, but no longer attempted to create large organized groups.

Among those killed on the Maidan was the anarchist Sergei Kemsky who was, ironically, ranked as postmortem Hero of Ukraine. He was shot by a sniper during the heated phase of the confrontation with the security forces. During the protests, Sergei put forward an appeal to the protesters entitled “Do you hear it, Maidan?” in which he outlined possible ways of developing the revolution, emphasizing the aspects of direct democracy and social transformation. The text is available in English here.

The beginning of the War: The Annexation of Crimea

The armed conflict with Russia began eight years ago on the night of February 26-27, 2014, when the Crimean Parliament building and the Council of Ministers were seized by unknown armed men. They used Russian weapons, uniforms, and equipment but did not have the symbols of the Russian army. Putin did not recognize the fact of the participation of the Russian military in this operation, although he later admitted it personally in the documentary propaganda film “Crimea: The way to the Homeland”.

Here, one needs to understand that during the time of Yanukovych, the Ukrainian army was in very poor condition. Knowing that there was a regular Russian army of 220,000 soldiers operating in Crimea, the provisional government of Ukraine did not dare to confront it.

After the occupation, many residents have faced repression that continues to this day. Our comrades are also among the repressed. We can briefly review some of the most high-profile cases. Anarchist Alexander Kolchenko was arrested along with pro-democratic activist Oleg Sentsov and transferred to Russia on May 16, 2014; five years later, they were released as a result of a prisoner exchange. Anarchist Alexei Shestakovich was tortured, suffocated with a plastic bag on his head, beaten, and threatened with reprisals; he managed to escape. Anarchist Evgeny Karakashev was arrested in 2018 for a re-post on Vkontakte (a social network); he remains in custody.

Disinformation

Pro-Russian rallies were held in Russian-speaking cities close to the Russian border. The participants feared NATO, radical nationalists, and repression targeting the Russian-speaking population. After the collapse of the USSR, many households in Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus had family ties, but the events of the Maidan caused a serious split in personal relations. Those who were outside Kyiv and watched Russian TV were convinced that Kyiv had been captured by a Nazi junta and that there were purges of the Russian-speaking population there.

Russia launched a propaganda campaign using the following messaging: “punishers,” i.e., Nazis, are coming from Kyiv to Donetsk, they want to destroy the Russian-speaking population (although Kyiv is also a predominantly Russian-speaking city). In their disinformation statements, the propagandists used photos of the far right and spread all kinds of fake news. During the hostilities, one of the most notorious hoaxes appeared: the so-called crucifixion of a three-year-old boy who was allegedly attached to a tank and dragged along the road. In Russia, this story was broadcasted on federal channels and went viral on the Internet.

In 2014, in our opinion, disinformation played a key role in generating the armed conflict: some residents of Donetsk and Lugansk were scared that they would be killed, so they took up arms and called for Putin’s troops.

Armed Conflict in the East of Ukraine

“The trigger of the war was pulled,” in his own words, by Igor Girkin, a colonel of the FSB (the state security agency, successors to the KGB) of the Russian Federation. Girkin, a supporter of Russian imperialism, decided to radicalize the pro-Russian protests. He crossed the border with an armed group of Russians and (on April 12, 2014) seized the Interior Ministry building in Slavyansk to take possession of weapons. Pro-Russian security forces began to join Girkin. When information about Girkin’s armed groups appeared, Ukraine announced an anti-terrorist operation.

A part of Ukrainian society determined to protect national sovereignty, realizing that the army had poor capacity, organized a large volunteer movement. Those who were somewhat competent in military affairs became instructors or formed volunteer battalions. Some people joined the regular army and volunteer battalions as humanitarian volunteers. They raised funds for weapons, food, ammunition, fuel, transport, renting civil cars, and the like. Often, the participants in the volunteer battalions were armed and equipped better than the soldiers of the state army. These detachments demonstrated a significant level of solidarity and self-organization and actually replaced the state functions of territorial defense, enabling the army (which was poorly equipped at that time) to successfully resist the enemy.

The territories controlled by pro-Russian forces began to shrink rapidly. Then the regular Russian army intervened.

We can highlight three key chronological points:

1. The Ukrainian military realized that weapons, volunteers, and military specialists were coming from Russia. Therefore, on July 12, 2014, they began an operation on the Ukrainian-Russian border. However, during the military march, the Ukrainian military was attacked by Russian artillery and the operation failed. The armed forces sustained heavy losses.
2. The Ukrainian military attempted to occupy Donetsk. While they were advancing, they were surrounded by Russian regular troops near Ilovaisk. People we know, who were part of one of the volunteer battalions, were also captured. They saw the Russian military firsthand. After three months, they managed to return as the result of an exchange of prisoners of war.
3. The Ukrainian army controlled the city of Debaltseve, which had a large railway junction. This disrupted the direct road linking Donetsk and Lugansk. On the eve of the negotiations between Poroshenka (the president of Ukraine at that time) and Putin, which were supposed to begin a long-term ceasefire, Ukrainian positions were attacked by units with the support of Russian troops. The Ukrainian army was again surrounded and sustained heavy losses.

For the time being (as of February 2022), the parties have agreed on a ceasefire and a conditional “peace and quiet” order, which is maintained, though there are consistent violations. Several people die every month.

Russia denies the presence of regular Russian troops and the supply of weapons to territories uncontrolled by the Ukrainian authorities. The Russian military who were captured claim that they were put on alert for a drill, and only when they arrived at their destination did they realize that they were in the middle of the war in Ukraine. Before crossing the border, they removed the symbols of the Russian army, the way their colleagues did in Crimea. In Russia, journalists have found cemeteries of fallen soldiers, but all information about their deaths is unknown: the epitaphs on the headstones only indicate the dates of their deaths as the year 2014.

Supporters of the Unrecognized Republics

The ideological basis of the opponents of the Maidan was also diverse. The main unifying ideas were discontent with violence against the police and opposition to rioting in Kyiv. People who were brought up with Russian cultural narratives, movies, and music were afraid of the destruction of the Russian language. Supporters of the USSR and admirers of its victory in World War II believed that Ukraine should be aligned with Russia and were unhappy with the rise of radical nationalists. Adherents of the Russian Empire perceived the Maidan protests as a threat to the territory of the Russian Empire. The ideas of these allies could be explained with this photo showing the flags of the USSR, the Russian Empire, and the St. George ribbon as a symbol of victory in the Second World War. We could portray them as authoritarian conservatives, supporters of the old order.

The pro-Russian side consisted of police, entrepreneurs, politicians, and the military who sympathized with Russia, ordinary citizens frightened by fake news, various ultra-right indivisuals including Russian patriots and various types of monarchists, pro-Russian imperialists, the Task Force group “Rusich,” the PMC [Private Military Company] group “Wagner,” including the notorious neo-Nazi Alexei Milchakov, the recently deceased Egor Prosvirnin, the founder of the chauvinistic Russian nationalist media project “Sputnik and Pogrom,” and many others. There were also authoritarian leftists, who celebrate the USSR and its victory in the Second World War.

The Rise of the Far Right in Ukraine

As we described, the right wing managed to gain sympathy during the Maidan by organizing combat units and by being ready to physically confront the Berkut. The presence of military arms enabled them to maintain their independence and force others to reckon with them. In spite of their using overt fascist symbols such as swastikas, wolf hooks, Celtic crosses, and SS logos, it was difficult to discredit them, as the need to fight the forces of the Yanukovych government caused many Ukrainians to call for cooperation with them.

After the Maidan, the right wing actively suppressed the rallies of pro-Russian forces. At the beginning of the military operations, they started forming volunteer battalions. One of the most famous is the “Azov” battalion. At the beginning, it consisted of 70 fighters; now it is a regiment of 800 people with its own armored vehicles, artillery, tank company, and a separate project in accordance with NATO standards, the sergeant school. The Azov battalion is one of the most combat-effective units in the Ukrainian army. There were also other fascist military formations such as the Volunteer Ukrainian Unit “Right Sector” and the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, but they are less widely known.

As a consequence, the Ukrainian right wing accrued a bad reputation in the Russian media. But many in Ukraine considered what was hated in Russia to be a symbol of struggle in Ukraine. For example, the name of the nationalist Stepan Bandera, who is considered a Nazi collaborator in Russia, was actively used by the protesters as a form of mockery. Some called themselves Judeo-Banderans to troll supporters of Jewish/Masonic conspiracy theories.

Over time, the trolling got out of control. Right-wingers openly wore Nazi symbols; ordinary supporters of the Maidan claimed that they were themselves Banderans who eat Russian babies and made memes to that effect. The far right made its way into the mainstream: they were invited to participate in television shows and other corporate media platforms, on which they were presented as patriots and nationalists. Liberal supporters of the Maidan took their side, believing that the Nazis were a hoax invented by Russian media. In 2014 to 2016, anyone who was ready to fight was embraced, whether it was a Nazi, an anarchist, a kingpin from an organized crime syndicate, or a politician who did not carry out any of his promises.

The rise of the far right is due to the fact that they were better organized in critical situations and were able to suggest effective methods of fighting to other rebels. Anarchists provided something similar in Belarus, where they also managed to gain the sympathy of the public, but not on as significant of a scale as the far right did in Ukraine.

By 2017, after the ceasefire started and the need for radical fighters decreased, the SBU (Security Service of Ukraine) and the state government co-opted the right-wing movement, jailing or neutralizing anyone who had an “anti-system” or independent perspective on how to develop the right-wing movement—including Oleksandr Muzychko, Oleg Muzhchil, Yaroslav Babich, and others.

Today, it is still a big movement, but their popularity is at a comparably low level and their leaders are affiliated with the Security service, police, and politicians; they do not represent a really independent political force. The discussions of the problem of the far-right are becoming more frequent within the democratic camp, where people are developing an understanding of the symbols and organizations they are dealing with, rather than silently dismissing concerns.

Anarchists’ and Anti-Fascists’ Activity during the War

With the outbreak of military operations, a division appeared between those who are pro-Ukrainian and those who support the so-called DNR/LNR (“Donetsk People’s Republic” and “Luhansk People’s Republic”).

There was a widespread “say no to war” sentiment within the punk scene during the first months of the war, but it did not last long. Let’s analyze the pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian camps.

Pro-Ukrainians

Due to the lack of a massive organization, the first anarchist and anti-fascist volunteers went to war individually as single fighters, military medics, and volunteers. They tried to form their own squad, but due to lack of knowledge and resources, this attempt was unsuccessful. Some even joined the Azov battalion and the OUN (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists). The reasons were mundane: they joined the most accessible troops. Consequently, some people converted to right-wing politics.

People who didn’t take part in the battles raised funds for the rehabilitation of people injured in the East and for the construction of a bomb shelter in a kindergarten located near the front line. There was also a squat named “Autonomy” in Kharkiv, an open anarchist social and cultural center; at that time, they concentrated on helping the refugees. They provided housing and a permanent really free market, consulting with new arrivals and directing them to resources and conducting educational activities. In addition, the center became a place for theoretical discussions. Unfortunately, in 2018, the project ceased to exist.

All these actions were the individual initiatives of particular people and groups. They did not happen within the framework of a single strategy.

One of the most significant phenomena of that period was a formerly large radical nationalist organization, “Autonomnyi Opir”(autonomous resistance). They started leaning left in 2012; by 2014, they had shifted so much to the left that individual members would even call themselves “anarchists.” They framed their nationalism as a struggle for “liberty” and a counterbalance to Russian nationalism, using the Zapatista movement and the Kurds as role models. Compared to the other projects in Ukrainian society, they were seen as the closest allies, so some anarchists cooperated with them, while others criticized this cooperation and the organization itself. Members of the AO also actively participated in volunteer battalions and tried to develop the idea of “anti-imperialism” among the military. They also defended the right of women to participate in the war; female members of the AO participated in the combat operations. AO assisted training centers in training fighters and doctors, volunteered for the army, and organized the social center”Citadel” in Lviv where refugees were accommodated.

Pro-Russians

Modern Russian imperialism is built on the perception that Russia is the successor of the USSR—not in its political system, but on territorial grounds. The Putin regime sees the Soviet victory in World War II not as an ideological victory over Nazism, but as a victory over Europe that shows the strength of Russia. In Russia and the countries it controls, the population has less access to information, so Putin’s propaganda machine does not bother to create a complex political concept. The narrative is essentially as follows: The USA and Europe were afraid of the strong USSR, Russia is the successor of the USSR and the entire territory of the former USSR is Russian, Russian tanks entered Berlin, which means that “We can do it again” and we’ll show NATO who is the strongest here, the reason Europe is “rotting” is because all of the gays and emigrants are out of control there.

The ideological foundation maintaining a pro-Russian position among the left was the legacy of the USSR and its victory in World War II. Since Russia clams that the government in Kyiv was seized by Nazis and the junta, the opponents of the Maidan described themselves as fighters against fascism and the Kyiv junta. This branding induced sympathy among the authoritarian left—for example, in Ukraine, including the “Borotba” organization. During the most significant events of 2014, they first took a loyalist position and then later a pro-Russian position. In Odessa, on May 2, 2014, several of their activists were killed during street riots. Some people from this group also participated in the fighting in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, and some of them died there.

“Borotba” described their motivation as wishing to fight against fascism. They urged the European left to stand in solidarity with the “Donetsk People’s Republic” and “Luhansk People’s Republic.” After the e-mail of Vladislav Surkov (Putin’s political strategist) was hacked, it was revealed that members of Borotba had received funding and were supervised by Surkov’s people.

Russia’s authoritarian communists embraced the breakaway republics for similar reasons.

The presence of far-right supporters in the Maidan also motivated apolitical anti-fascists to support the “DNR” and “LNR.” Again, some of them participated in the fighting in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions, and some of them died there.

Among Ukrainian anti-fascists, there were “apolitical” anti-fascists, subculturally affiliated people who had a negative attitude towards fascism “because our grandfathers fought against it.” Their understanding of fascism was abstract: they themselves were often politically incoherent, sexist, homophobic, patriots of Russia, and the like.

The idea of supporting the so-called republics gained wide backing among the left in Europe. Most notable among its supporters were the Italian rock band “Banda Bassotti” and the German party Die Linke. In addition to fundraising, Banda Bassotti made a tour to “Novorossia.” Being in the European Parliament, Die Linke supported the pro-Russian narrative in every possible way and arranged video conferences with pro-Russian militants, going to Crimea and the unrecognized republics. The younger members of Die Linke, as well as the Rosa Luxembourg Foundation (the Die Linke party foundation), maintain that this position is not shared by every participant, but it is broadcasted by the most prominent members of the party, such as Sahra Wagenknecht and Sevim Dağdelen.

The pro-Russian position did not gain popularity among anarchists. Among individual statements, the most visible was the position of Jeff Monson, a mixed martial arts fighter from the USA who has tattoos with anarchist symbols. He previously considered himself an anarchist, but in Russia, he openly works for the ruling United Russia party and serves as a deputy in the Duma.

To summarize the pro-Russian “left” camp, we see the work of the Russian special services and the consequences of ideological incapacity. After the occupation of Crimea, employees of the Russian FSB approached local anti-fascists and anarchists in conversation, offering to permit them to continue their activities but suggesting that they should henceforward include the idea that Crimea should be a part of Russia in their agitation. In Ukraine, there are small informational and activist groups that position themselves as anti-fascist while expressing an essentially pro-Russian position; many people suspect them of working for Russia. Their influence is minimal in Ukraine, but their members serve Russian propagandists as “whistleblowers.”

There are also offers of “cooperation” from the Russian embassy and pro-Russian members of Parliament like Ilya Kiva. They try to play on the negative attitude towards Nazis like the Azov battalion and offer to pay people to change their position. At the moment, only Rita Bondar has openly admitted to receiving money in this way. She used to write for left-wing and anarchist media outlets, but due to the need for money, she wrote under a pseudonym for media platforms affiliated with the Russian propagandist Dmitry Kiselev.

In Russia itself, we are witnessing the elimination of the anarchist movement and the rise of authoritarian communists who are ousting anarchists from the anti-fascist subculture. One of the most indicative recent moments is the organizing of an anti-fascist tournament in 2021 in memory of “the Soviet soldier.”

Is There a Threat of Full-Scale War with Russia? An Anarchist Position

About ten years ago, the idea of a full-scale war in Europe would have seemed crazy, since secular European states in the 21st century seek to play up their “humanism” and mask their crimes. When they do engage in military operations, they do so somewhere far away from Europe. But when it comes to Russia, we have witnessed the occupation of Crimea and subsequent fake referendums, the war in Donbas, and the MH17 plane crash. Ukraine constantly experiences hacker attacks and bomb threats, not only in state buildings but also inside the schools and kindergartens.

In Belarus in 2020, Lukashenka boldly declared himself the winner of the elections with a result of 80% of the vote. The uprising in Belarus even led to a strike of Belarusian propagandists. But after the landing of Russian FSB planes, the situation changed dramatically and the Belarusian government succeeded in violently suppressing the protests.

A similar scenario played out in Kazakhstan, but there, the regular armies of Russia, Belarus, Armenia, and Kyrgyzstan were brought in to help the regime suppress the revolt as part of the CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organization) cooperation.

Russian special services lured refugees from Syria to Belarus in order to create a conflict on the border with the European Union. A group of the Russian FSB was also uncovered that was engaged in political assassinations using chemical weapons—the already familiar “novichok.” In addition to the Skripals and Navalny, they have also killed other political figures in Russia. Putin’s regime responds to all accusations by saying “It’s not us, you all are lying.” Meanwhile, Putin himself wrote an article half a year ago in which he asserts that Russians and Ukrainians are one nation and should be together. Vladislav Surkov (a political strategist who builds Russian state policy, connected with the puppet governments in the so-called DNR and LNR) published an article declaring that “the empire must expand, otherwise it will perish.” In Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan over the past two years, the protest movement has been brutally suppressed and independent and opposition media are being destroyed. We recommend reading more about Russia’s activities here.

All things considered, the likelihood of a full-scale war is high—and somewhat higher this year than last year. Even the sharpest analysts are unlikely to be able to predict exactly when it will start. Perhaps a revolution in Russia would relieve tension in the region; however, as we wrote above, the protest movement there has been smothered.

Anarchists in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia mostly support Ukrainian independence directly or implicitly. This is because, even with all the national hysteria, corruption, and a large number of Nazis, compared to Russia and the countries controlled by it, Ukraine looks like an island of freedom. This country retains such “unique phenomena” in the post-Soviet region as the replaceability of the president, a parliament that has more than nominal power, and the right to peaceful assembly; in some cases, factoring in additional attention from society, the courts sometimes even function according to their professed protocol. To say that this is preferable to the situation in Russia is not to say anything new. As Bakunin wrote, “We are firmly convinced that the most imperfect republic is a thousand times better than the most enlightened monarchy.”

There are many problems inside Ukraine, but these problems are more likely to be solved without the intervention of Russia.

Is it worth it to fight the Russian troops in the case of an invasion? We believe that the answer is yes. The options that Ukrainian anarchists are considering at the present moment include joining the armed forces of Ukraine, engaging in territorial defense, partisanship, and volunteering.

Ukraine is now at the forefront of the struggle against Russian imperialism. Russia has long-term plans to destroy democracy in Europe. We know that little attention has yet been paid to this danger in Europe. But if you follow the statements of high-profile politicians, far-right organizations, and authoritarian communists, over time, you will notice that there is already a large spy network in Europe. For example, some top officials, after leaving office, are given a position in a Russian oil company (Gerhard Schröder, François Fillon).

We consider the slogans “Say No to War” or “The War of Empires” to be ineffectual and populist. The anarchist movement has no influence on the process, so such statements do not change anything at all.

Our position is based on the fact that we do not want to run away, we do not want to be hostages, and we do not want to be killed without a fight. You can look at Afghanistan and understand what “No to War” means: when the Taliban advances, people flee en masse, die in the chaos at the airports, and those who remain are purged. This describes what is happening in Crimea and you can imagine what will happen after the invasion of Russia in other regions of Ukraine.

As for the attitude towards NATO, the authors of this text are divided between two standpoints. Some of us have a positive approach towards this situation. It is obvious that Ukraine cannot counter Russia on its own. Even taking into consideration the large volunteer movement, modern technologies and weapons are needed. Apart from NATO, Ukraine has no other allies who can help with this.

Here, we can recall the story of Syrian Kurdistan. The locals were forced to cooperate with NATO against ISIS—the only alternative was to flee or be killed. We are well aware that support from NATO can disappear very quickly if the West develops new interests or manages to negotiate some compromises with Putin. Even now, the Self-Administration is forced to cooperate with the Assad regime, understanding that they don’t have much of an alternative.

A possible Russian invasion forces the Ukrainian people to look for allies in the fight against Moscow. Not on social media, but in the real world. Anarchists do not have sufficient resources in Ukraine or elsewhere to respond effectively to the invasion of Putin’s regime. Therefore, one has to think about accepting support from NATO.

The other standpoint, which others in this writing group subscribe to, is that both NATO and the EU, in strengthening their influence in Ukraine, will cement the current system of “wild capitalism” in the country and make the potential for a social revolution even less feasible. In the system of global capitalism, the flagship of which is the USA as the leader of NATO, Ukraine is assigned the spot of a humble frontier: a supplier of cheap labor and resources. Therefore, it is important for Ukrainian society to realize the need for independence from all the imperialists. In the context of the country’s defense capability, the emphasis should not be on the importance of NATO technology and support for the regular army, but on the potential of society for grassroots guerrilla resistance.

We consider this war primarily against Putin and the regimes under his control. In addition to the mundane motivation not to live under a dictatorship, we see potential in Ukrainian society, which is one of the most active, independent, and rebellious in the region. The long history of resistance of the people over the past thirty years is a solid proof of this. This gives us hope that the concepts of direct democracy have a fertile ground here.

The Current Situation of Anarchists in Ukraine and New Challenges

The outsider position during the Maidan and the war had a demoralizing effect on the movement. Outreach was hampered as Russian propaganda monopolized the word “anti-fascism.” Due to the presence of the symbols of the USSR among the pro-Russian militants, the attitude towards the word “communism” was extremely negative, so even the combination “anarcho-communism” was perceived negatively. The declarations against the pro-Ukrainian ultra-right cast a shadow of doubt on anarchists in the eyes of ordinary folks. There was an unspoken agreement that the ultra-right would not attack anarchists and anti-fascists if they did not display their symbols at rallies and the like. The right had a lot of weapons in their hands. This situation created a feeling of frustration; the police did not function well, so someone could easily be killed without consequences. For example, in 2015, the pro-Russian activist Oles Buzina was killed.

All this encouraged anarchists to approach the matter more seriously.

A radical underground began to develop starting from 2016; news about radical actions started to appear. Radical anarchist resources appeared that explained how to buy weapons and how to make caches, as opposed to the old ones, which were limited only to Molotov cocktails.

In the anarchist milieu, it has become acceptable to have legal weapons. Videos of anarchist training camps using firearms began to surface. Echoes of these changes reached Russia and Belarus. In Russia, the FSB liquidated a network of anarchist groups that had legal weapons and practiced airsoft. The arrestees were tortured with electric current in order to force them to confess to terrorism, and sentenced to terms ranging from 6 to 18 years. In Belarus, during the 2020 protests, a rebellious group of anarchists under the name “Black Flag” was detained while trying to cross the Belarusian-Ukrainian border. They had a firearm and a grenade with them; according to the testimony of Igor Olinevich, he bought the weapon in Kyiv.

The outdated approach of anarchists’ economic agenda has also changed: if before, the majority worked at low-paid jobs “closer to the oppressed,” now many are trying to find a job with a good salary, most often in the IT sector.

Street anti-fascist groups have resumed their activities, engaging in retaliatory actions in cases of Nazi attacks. Among other things, they held the “No Surrender” tournament among antifa fighters and released a documentary entitled “Hoods,” which tells about the birth of the Kyiv antifa group. (English subtitles are available.)

Anti-fascism in Ukraine is an important front, because in addition to a large number of local ultra-right activists, many notorious Nazis have relocated here from Russia (including Sergei Korotkikh and Alexei Levkin) and from Europe (such as Denis “White Rex” Kapustin), and even from the USA (Robert Rando). Anarchists have been investigating the activities of the far right.

There are activist groups of various kinds (classical anarchists, queer anarchists, anarcho-feminists, Food Not Bombs, eco-initiatives, and the like), as well as small information platforms. Recently, a politically charged anti-fascist resource has appeared in the telegram @uantifa, duplicating its publications in English.

Today, the tensions between groups are gradually smoothing out, as recently there have been many joint actions and common participation in social conflicts. Among the biggest of these is the campaign against the deportation of the Belarusian anarchist Aleksey Bolenkov (who managed to win a trial against the Ukrainian special services and remain in Ukraine) and the defense of one of the districts in Kyiv (Podil) from police raids and attacks by the ultra-right.

We still have very little influence on society at large. This is largely because the very idea of ​​a need for organization and anarchist structures was ignored or denied for a long time. (In his memoirs, Nestor Makhno also complained about this shortcoming after the defeat of the anarchists). Anarchist groups were very quickly dashed by the SBU [Security Service of Ukraine] or the far right.

Now we have come out of stagnation and are developing, and therefore we are anticipating new repression and new attempts by the SBU to take control of the movement.

At this stage, our role can be described as the most radical approaches and views in the democratic camp. If liberals prefer to complain to the police in the event of an attack by the police or the far right, anarchists offer to cooperate with other groups that suffer from a similar problem and come to the defense of institutions or events if there is a possibility of an attack.

Anarchists are now trying to create horizontal grassroots ties in society, based on common interests, so that communities can address their own needs, including self-defense. This differs significantly from ordinary Ukrainian political practice, in which it is often proposed to unite around organizations, representatives, or the police. Organizations and representatives are often bribed and the people who have gathered around them remain deceived. The police may, for example, defend LGBT events but get mad if these activists join a riot against police brutality. Actually, this is why we see potential in our ideas—but if a war breaks out, the main thing will again be the ability to participate in armed conflict.

Όπως κάθε παγκόσμια υπερδύναμη που σέβεται τον εαυτό της, έτσι και οι ΗΠΑ ξέρουν ότι η παραμικρή ένδειξη αδυναμίας θα δώσει κουράγιο στους ανταγωνιστές της. Τα πράγματα έχουν ζορίσει όμως και κάθε κίνηση απαιτεί ιδιαίτερη προσοχή: Οι ΗΠΑ γνωρίζουν καλά ότι οι εποχές που έκαναν ανενόχλητες τα cowboyλίκια τους έχουν περάσει ανεπιστρεπτί και βλέπουν τον «Κόκκινο Δράκο» της Κίνας να ετοιμάζεται να ανέβει στην κορυφή της πυραμίδας. Η Δύση δεν θέλει σε καμία περίπτωση να επιτευχθεί μία συμμαχία μεταξύ Κίνας και Ρωσίας διότι θα επιταχύνει τις εξελίξεις και θα αλλάξει τους συσχετισμούς στα διεθνή πράγματα.

Τα σύννεφα του πολέμου στην Ουκρανία

Την ώρα που η πολιτική ηγεσία της Αμερικής θεωρεί ότι η ρωσική εισβολή στην Ουκρανία είναι θέμα χρόνου να συμβεί και να πυροδοτήσει στρατιωτικές συγκρούσεις που έχουν τη δυναμική να καταλήξουν μέχρι και σε παγκόσμιο πόλεμο, εντείνονται οι επαφές ανάμεσα στις δύο μεριές σε μια φιλόδοξη προσπάθεια επανέναρξης του διαλόγου. Ενός διαλόγου που, όπως πολύ εύστοχα περιέγραψε ο Ρώσος υπουργός Εξωτερικών Σεργκέι Λαβρόφ στην πρόσφατη συνέντευξη Τύπου με τη Βρετανίδα ομόλογό του Λιζ Τρας, μοιάζει με διάλογο του μουγκού και του κουφού: Δεν υπάρχει διάθεση να ακούσει ο ένας τον άλλο και κατ’ επέκταση να βρεθεί έστω και κάποιο μικρό σημείο επαφής που θα αποτελέσει αφετηρία για διπλωματικές διαπραγματεύσεις.

Τα γεγονότα έχουν ως εξής: Εδώ και μήνες, όλα τα σημάδια προμηνύουν πόλεμο. Η Ρωσία έχει μεταφέρει έναν τεράστιο όγκο στρατευμάτων στα σύνορα με την Ουκρανία (τα στοιχεία μιλάνε για πάνω από 100.000 στρατιώτες) και έχει στήσει νοσοκομεία στην περιοχή. Από την άλλη πλευρά, το ΝΑΤΟ και οι δυτικές δυνάμεις απειλούν με αντίποινα σε περίπτωση εισβολής και περιμένουν με το δάκτυλο στη σκανδάλη. Μπορεί ο αδίστακτος Πούτιν να έχει δείξει πάμπολλα σημάδια απολυταρχισμού εντός και εκτός Ρωσίας, μπορεί η Ρωσία να είχε ανέκαθεν επεκτατικές τάσεις προς τις γειτονικές χώρες, μπορεί η Ουκρανία και κάθε χώρα να έχει το αναφαίρετο δικαίωμα να επιλέξει τους συμμάχους που θέλει και το οικονομικό/κοινωνικό μοντέλο που προτιμά αλλά οι προθέσεις των δυτικών απέχουν πολύ από το να χαρακτηριστούν αθώες. Η επέκταση του ΝΑΤΟ δίπλα στα ρωσικά σύνορα δεν γίνεται να περάσει απαρατήρητη και αποτελεί στρατιωτική απειλή.

Επειδή η ιστορία έχει την σαδιστική και ταυτόχρονα διδακτική τάση να επαναλαμβάνεται, η κατάσταση που επικρατεί σήμερα στα σύνορα Ρωσίας-Ουκρανίας έχει ανατριχιαστικές ομοιότητες με την «Κρίση των πυραύλων της Κούβας» (Cuban Missile Crisis) που σημειώθηκε τον Οκτώβρη του 1962. Για πολλούς αναλυτές, αυτή η αλληλουχία στρατιωτικών, διπλωματικών και πολιτικών ενεργειών, ήταν η κορυφαία στρατιωτική αντιπαράθεση στην πολυετή διάρκεια του Ψυχρού Πολέμου. Όταν οι ΗΠΑ ξεφτιλίστηκαν στην αποτυχημένη επέμβαση στον Κόλπο των Χοίρων που στόχευε στην ανατροπή του Φιντέλ Κάστρο, επέβαλαν εμπορικό εμπάργκο στην Κούβα και η CIA αύξησε την εμπλοκή της σε υπονομευτικές επιθέσεις κατά της Αβάνας. Αυτό ανάγκασε τον Φιντέλ Κάστρο να στραφεί προς τη Μόσχα για βοήθεια. Η, τότε, παντοδύναμη Σοβιετική Ένωση βρήκε μία εξαιρετική αφορμή να αποκτήσει έρεισμα σε μία περιοχή που απέχει λίγες εκατοντάδες χιλιόμετρα από το Μαϊάμι.

Η Σοβιετική Ένωση συμφώνησε στην προμήθεια πετρελαίου στην Κούβα με αντάλλαγμα κάποιους τόνους ζάχαρης και έβαλε οικονομική πλάτη παρέχοντας στήριξη στον δοκιμαζόμενο λαό της Κούβας. Η κρίση ανάμεσα στις δύο υπερδυνάμεις ξέσπασε όταν μία αναγνωριστική πτήση αμερικανικού αεροπλάνου εντόπισε την παρουσία πυραυλικών βάσεων στην Κούβα. Πράγματι, οι Σοβιετικοί είχαν εγκαταστήσει βαλλιστικούς πυραύλους, μέσου και μεγάλου βεληνεκούς, με πυρηνικές κεφαλές στον Κόλπο των Χοίρων. Μετά από μερικές δύσκολες μέρες, γεμάτες με μπόλικο παρασκήνιο, φτάσαμε στις 29 Οκτωβρίου του 1962: Εκείνη την ημέρα, οι ΗΠΑ και η Σοβιετική Ένωση αποφάσισαν την απομάκρυνση των πυραύλων και η ανθρωπότητα γλύτωσε τον πυρηνικό όλεθρο και την απόλυτη καταστροφή. Πώς όμως φτάσαμε στο σήμερα, 60 χρόνια μετά την κρίση της Κούβας στο ίδιο σημείο ή έστω σε μία τόσο τεταμένη κατάσταση;

Η Ρωσία δεν είναι τόσο δυνατός παίκτης που να μπορεί να σταθεί από μόνη της σαν αντίπαλος στις ΗΠΑ και τους ευρωπαϊκούς δορυφόρους της, αλλά δεν είναι και στα τραγικά επίπεδα που βρισκόταν στις αρχές της δεκαετίας του 1990. Η Ρωσία παραμένει η χώρα με τη μεγαλύτερη έκταση στον πλανήτη, έχει 146 εκατομμύρια πληθυσμό, διαθέτει έναν τεράστιο και καλά εκπαιδευμένο στρατό και πυρηνικά οπλικά συστήματα. Μπορεί να προσδέθηκε και αυτή οικειοθελώς στο άρμα του καπιταλισμού, αλλά είδε την ηγεσία του ΝΑΤΟ να ψεύδεται διαρκώς όταν υποσχόταν στον Μπορίς Γέλτσιν τη «μη επέκταση» της Βορειοατλαντικής Συμμαχίας προς την Ανατολή και αντιλήφθηκε τις ύπουλες δυτικές προθέσεις που χρόνο με το χρόνο έφερναν όλο και περισσότερες στρατιωτικές βάσεις δίπλα στα σύνορά της. Αποδείχτηκε στην πράξη φίλε αναγνώστη ότι το ενιαίο πολιτικό και οικονομικό σύστημα δεν αρκεί για να βρεθούν όλοι μαζί στο ίδιο στρατόπεδο. Το πέρασμα του χρόνου και οι γεωπολιτικοί ανταγωνισμοί φρόντισαν για τα υπόλοιπα.

Όπως κάθε παγκόσμια υπερδύναμη που σέβεται τον εαυτό της, έτσι και οι ΗΠΑ ξέρουν ότι η παραμικρή ένδειξη αδυναμίας θα δώσει κουράγιο στους ανταγωνιστές της. Τα πράγματα έχουν ζορίσει όμως και κάθε κίνηση απαιτεί ιδιαίτερη προσοχή: Οι ΗΠΑ γνωρίζουν καλά ότι οι εποχές που έκαναν ανενόχλητες τα cowboyλίκια τους έχουν περάσει ανεπιστρεπτί και βλέπουν τον «Κόκκινο Δράκο» της Κίνας να ετοιμάζεται να ανέβει στην κορυφή της πυραμίδας. Η Δύση δεν θέλει σε καμία περίπτωση να επιτευχθεί μία συμμαχία μεταξύ Κίνας και Ρωσίας διότι θα επιταχύνει τις εξελίξεις και θα αλλάξει τους συσχετισμούς στα διεθνή πράγματα. Και σε μία εποχή που η Αμερική αποσύρει τα στρατεύματά της από τις ξένες χώρες στις οποίες είχε εισβάλλει, γιατί δεν αντέχει το οικονομικό και πολιτικό κόστος συντήρησης, είναι λογικό να μοιάζει πιο ευάλωτη από ποτέ στα μάτια των ανταγωνιστών της…

*Το κειμενο δημοσιεύηκε εδώ: https://www.alerta.gr/archives/24843?fbclid=IwAR2mIAB3iOjYZOnKitLVWgzvSCU9DXILZwsYhJuGUgg-IY2u6-AyV9lsz1I

«Όλοι έχουμε φλερτάρει με την ελευθερία, και βαθιά μέσα μας όλοι έχουμε την τάση να κάνουμε πιο σταθερή αυτή τη σχέση. Οι αναρχικές αξίες της ατομικής ελευθερίας, της δημοκρατίας από τα κάτω, και της αποκέντρωσης από κάθε μορφής εξουσία είναι, αν μη τι άλλο, πιο επίκαιρες σήμερα από ποτέ. Τα λέμε στα οδοφράγματα.»

1917-1921, Το Ουκρανικό Μαχνοβίτικο Κίνημα

Εισαγωγή

Η επανάσταση στην Ουκρανία ήταν μια ελευθεριακή επανάσταση: εργάτες και χωρικοί αγωνίστηκαν από κοινού ενάντια στην αντίδραση των τσαρικών και στην κυριαρχία των μπολσεβίκων.

Ζήτω η επανάσταση

Τον Φεβρουάριο του 1917 συνέβη μια λαϊκή εξέγερση στη ρωσική αυτοκρατορία. Ο τσάρος παραιτήθηκε και τα κύρια πολιτικά κόμματα -τα περισσότερα απ τα οποία ήταν σοσιαλιστικά ξεκίνησαν να οργανώνουν μια πρόχειρη κοινοβουλευτική δημοκρατία, διοικούμενη από τους μενσεβικους. Αλλά η Ρωσία ήταν μια αχανής αυτοκρατορία, που απλωνόταν σε 5 ωριαίες ατράκτους, και η επικοινωνία ήταν δύσκολη: οι εξεγέρσεις συνεχίστηκαν. Ριζοσπάστες απελευθερώθηκαν από τη φυλακή, αντιφρονούντες επέστρεψαν από την εξορία και απλοί πολίτες άρχισαν να συνειδητοποιούν τις δυνατότητές τους ως κοινότητα. Οι χωρικοί εκδίωξαν τους γαιοκτήμονες, οι εργάτες κατέλαβαν εργοστάσια και πολλοί αυτοοργανώθηκαν δημοκρατικά μέσα από τοπικά συμβούλια- σοβιέτ.

Ο αέρας μύριζε ελευθερία. Ο περισσότερος κόσμος την είχε ήδη γευτεί, έμοιαζε σαν να ήταν εκεί και να περίμενε να την αρπάξεις. Έμοιαζε πως δεν υπήρχε τίποτα να φοβηθείς, πέρα απ’ τον φόβο της ίδιας της ελευθερίας. Ο Λένιν (της μειοψηφίας των μπολσεβίκων) ήταν ένας από τους πρώτους πολιτικούς που διαισθάνθηκαν την διάθεση του λαού. Συνειδητοποίησε πως υιοθετώντας τα δημοφιλή σλόγκαν των μαζών – «η γη στους χωρικούς», «εργατικός έλεγχος», «όλη η εξουσία στα σοβιέτ», οι μπολσεβίκοι, κάτω από την ηγεσία του, θα μπορούσαν να πάρουν την εξουσία και να προχωρήσουν στην επόμενη φάση της «μαρξιστικής» επανάστασης- στη δικτατορία του προλεταριάτου.

Τους ακόλουθους μήνες, ο Λένιν έπεισε τους μπολσεβίκους για την απάτη του, και συγκέντρωσαν όλες τους τις προσπάθειες στο να κερδίσουν επιρροή στα σοβιέτ και τον στρατό. Η επανάσταση του Οκτώβρη του 1917 ήταν ένα αυθόρμητο γεγονός. Έμοιαζε σαν οι μπολσεβίκοι απλά να πέρασαν μέσα απ’το πλήθος φωνάζοντας « Κάνετε στην άκρη! Δεν υπάρχει τίποτα να φοβάστε- εμπιστευτείτε με, είμαι γιατρός!» Οι ελευθερίες περιορίστηκαν αυστηρά. Σύντομα, με την Μπολσεβίκικη Μυστική Αστυνομία, την Τσεκά, να επιβλέπει τη διαχείριση των σοβιέτ και των συνδικάτων, οι ελευθερίες εξαφανίστηκαν εντελώς.

Αναρχία στην Ουκρανία

Στην διάρκεια των εξεγέρσεων και της αντίδρασης που ακολούθησε την Οκτωβριανή Επανάσταση, το εύφορο έδαφος της Νότιας Ουκρανίας πάτησαν οι μπότες τουλάχιστον τεσσάρων διαφορετικών στρατών, που προχωρούσαν κι οπισθοχωρούσαν, αναλόγως τις εκάστοτε συνθήκες. Εμπλεκόμενοι όπως ήταν σε ποικίλους πολέμους μεταξύ τους [και] αντιμετωπίζοντας το δυνατό πνεύμα ανεξαρτησίας των ντόπιων επαναστατημένων χωρικών, κανένας από αυτούς δεν κατέκτησε την περιοχή, ούτε έμεινε στην περιοχή αρκετό καιρό ώστε να οργανώσει οποιουδήποτε είδους κυβέρνηση.

Η κυρίαρχη ιστορία απέτυχε να καταγράψει τη στρατιωτική ιδιοφυΐα του Νέστωρ Μάχνο και τις ηρωικές πράξεις των συντρόφων του στον Επαναστατικό Εξεγερσιακό Στρατό της Ουκρανίας. Αν οι Μαχνοβίτες, όπως έγιναν γνωστοί, αναφερθούν ποτέ, αναφέρονται ως «ληστές» ή (περιέργως) ως μέλη του τοπικού ακροδεξιού κινήματος των «Κουλάκων». Αλλά, αν σε έναν πόλεμο, η πρώτη που πληγώνεται είναι η αλήθεια, τότε η ιστορία του πολέμου πρέπει να είναι ένα μάτσο ψέματα.

Όσον αφορά την καταγωγή του, ο Μάχνο ήταν ένας φτωχός χωρικός, κι ένας αναρχικός που πέρασε πολλά χρόνια στη φυλακή για «τρομοκρατικές δράσεις» ενάντια στον Τσάρο. Απελευθερώθηκε όταν του δόθηκε αμνηστία τον Φλεβάρη και μέχρι τον Οκτώβρη είχε ήδη χωθεί στα βαθιά- αναδιανομή της γης και των προμηθειών. Το μπολσεβίκικο κόμμα δυσκολεύτηκε να στρατολογήσει ή να οργανωθεί στην Ουκρανία, κι έτσι ο Λένιν αποφάσισε να χρησιμοποιήσει τη δημοκρατία για να διαπραγματευτεί με τη Γερμανία κατά την αποχώρηση της Ρωσίας από τον πρώτο παγκόσμιο πόλεμο.

Απειλούμενος από ισχυρούς εχθρούς από κάθε πλευρά, ο Μάχνο και χιλιάδες από τους χωρικούς ξεκίνησαν μια καμπάνια ένοπλης αντίστασης τόσο άγρια και δημιουργική που έγινε αμέσως θρύλος. Θεατρικές επιθέσεις «αστραπή» μεταμφιεσμένοι ως αντίπαλοι αξιωματούχοι, τολμηρές δολοφονίες, ληστείες εναντίον των πλουσίων, διανομές στους φτωχούς, όλα ακούγονται σαν μια συνέχεια των περιπετειών του Ρομπέν των Δασών. Κι ο Μάχνο, μόλις στα 28 του, τιμήθηκε με τον τίτλο του Μπάτκο (πατερούλη), καθώς ήταν μόνο 1,64.

Ο Επαναστατικός Εξεγερσιακός Στρατός σύντομα έγινε ένας πλήρως λειτουργικός στρατός εθελοντών, που αριθμούσε 50.000 άτομα, και για τρία χρόνια, οι περίπου ένα εκατομμύριο χωρικοί της Ουκρανίας έμαθαν να ζουν σε μια κοινωνία χωρίς νόμους. Μια κοινωνία βασισμένη στην συνεργασία, χωρίς κρατική εξουσία, χωρίς πολιτικούς, και κατ’ επακόλουθο, χωρίς την ιδέα της ιδιοκτησίας- ουσιαστικά, σε μια αναρχική κοινωνία.

Στο βορρά, ο Επαναστατικός Εξεγερσιακός Στρατός απελευθέρωσε πολλές πόλεις από τους ουκρανούς εθνικιστές. Άνοιξαν τις φυλακές, ανατίναξαν τα αστυνομικά τμήματα, ξεφορτώθηκαν τα αφεντικά και επέστρεψαν την εξουσία κατευθείαν στους εργάτες. Αγνόησαν τους ντόπιους μπολσεβίκους και άλλους εξουσιαστές σοσιαλιστές.

Το 1918 με την ήττα της Γερμανίας στον πρώτο παγκόσμιο πόλεμο, οι Μπολσεβίκοι έστρεψαν για άλλη μια φορά την προσοχή τους στην Ουκρανία. Οργανώθηκαν πολιτικά στις βορειότερες πόλεις και κινήθηκαν προς το νότο με τον Κόκκινο Στρατό, φαινομενικά για να υπερασπιστούν την επανάσταση ενάντια στους τσαρικούς «Λευκούς» και τους εθνικιστές.

Πολεμώντας κάτω από τη μαύρη σημαία τς αναρχίας, ο Επαναστατικός Εξεγερσιακός Στρατός φημίζονταν για την γενναιότητά του, και κέρδιζε τον σεβασμό για την εντιμότητά του και την επαναστατική του ηθική- εξέλεγαν τους διοικητές τους, είχαν αυτοπειθαρχία και ήταν αφοσιωμένοι μόνο στους επαναστατημένους χωρικούς. Η στρατιωτική συμμαχία με τους Μπολσεβίκους άρχισε να μπλέκεται με την πολιτική των ντόπιων ελεύθερων κομμούνων.

Ο σεβασμός για τον ιδεαλισμό του Επαναστατικού Εξεγερσιακού Στρατού έκανε χιλιάδες στρατιώτες του Κόκκινου Στρατού να αυτομολήσουν εκεί. Ο Τρότσκι, ο Μπολσεβίκος Κομισάριος του πολέμου, σύντομα τους αντικατέστησε με κινέζους και λεττονούς στρατιώτες, που μιλούσαν γλώσσες διαφορετικές από τους ουκρανούς, για να αποτρέψει τις συναναστροφές και να αντιμετωπίσει τις αποστασίες. Στην υπόλοιπη Ρωσία, ιδεολόγοι ξεκίνησαν να προσφέρουν τις υπηρεσίες τους στο Μάχνο και το κίνημα μεγάλωσε, αναπτύσσοντας έναν εκπαιδευτικό και πολιτισμικό τομέα και δημοσιεύοντας εφημερίδες και προπαγάνδα.

Γύρω στα 1920, οι τακτικές του Τρότσκι χειροτέρεψαν. Διέταξε τη δολοφονία χιλιάδων χωρικών, πιστών στον Επαναστατικό Εξεγερσιακό Στρατό, και απέσυρε τις μονάδες του Κόκκινου Στρατού από το μέτωπο επιτρέποντας στους τσαρικούς κοζάκους να κατακλύσουν τη νότια Ουκρανία. Οι Μαχνοβίτες οπισθοχώρησαν, με ένα συνεχώς αναπτυσσόμενο καραβάνι από υποστηρικτές και πρόσφυγες να ακολουθεί πίσω τους, ώσπου τελικά αυτό το τεράστιο νομαδικό χωριό τους βρέθηκε περικυκλωμένο από κάθε πλευρά, από διαφορετικούς εχθρικούς στρατούς. Ο Κόκκινος Στρατός περίμενε.

Με ένα ιδιοφυές χτύπημα, ο Επαναστατικός Εξεγερσιακός Στρατός επιτέθηκε στους εχθρούς του όπου ήταν δυνατότεροι, έστρεψε τα όπλα τους εναντίον τους, και προχώρησε στην απελευθέρωση της νότιας Ουκρανίας για άλλη μια φορά. Ο Τρόσκι πρόσφερε ξανά μια στρατιωτική συμφωνία. Ο Μάχνο συμφώνησε, αφού συζητήθηκε η απελευθέρωση όλων των αναρχικών φυλακισμένων στη Ρωσία. Για άλλη μια φορά, προδόθηκε. Στις 26 Νοεμβρίου 1920, οι μαχνοβίτες διοικητές προσκλήθηκαν σε ένα κοινό συνέδριο- και συνάντησαν το εκτελεστικό απόσπασμα.

Ο Μάχνο, πάντα ρομαντικός ήρωας, ξέφυγε και συνέχισε να αγωνίζεται αλλά οι μπολσεβίκοι είχαν αποδυναμώσει τη λαϊκή του υποστήριξη, και οι εξαντλημένοι από τον πόλεμο ουκρανοί χωρικοί μάζευαν αργά αργά τα κομμάτια τους. Το σύντομο ειδύλλιο τους με την ελευθερία είχε τελειώσει.

«Όλοι έχουμε φλερτάρει με την ελευθερία, και βαθιά μέσα μας όλοι έχουμε την τάση να κάνουμε πιο σταθερή αυτή τη σχέση. Οι αναρχικές αξίες της ατομικής ελευθερίας, της δημοκρατίας από τα κάτω, και της αποκέντρωσης από κάθε μορφής εξουσία είναι, αν μη τι άλλο, πιο επίκαιρες σήμερα από ποτέ. Τα λέμε στα οδοφράγματα.»

-Τόνι Άλλεν, Σεπτέμβρης 1990

Οι εναπομείναντες του Επαναστατικού Εξεγερσιακού Στρατου κατάφεραν να ανοίξουν δρόμο πολεμώντας ως την Ρουμανία, και από εκεί πολλοί συνέχισαν την εξορία τους σε άλλες χώρες. Λίγοι έμειναν να αναδιοργανωθούν και να πολεμήσουν στην Ουκρανία. Σε απάντηση προς την αιματηρή και μαζική σφαγή των συντρόφων αναρχικών από τον Λένιν και τους αιμοσταγείς του χασάπηδες, τα κεντρικά του Κομμουνιστικού Κόμματος στη Μόσχα ανατινάχθηκαν το Σεπτέμβρη του 1921.

Πηγή: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/zabalaza-1917-1921-the-ukrainian-makhnovist-movement

Μετάφραση: συντακτική ομάδα του anarchism.espivblogs.net

Εμείς το πήραμε από εδώ: https://anarchism.espivblogs.net/2021/12/19/zabalaza-1917-1921-to-oykraniko-machnovitiko-kinima/?fbclid=IwAR2LUydq4pZrnVJ4tlsD8K0mzXLHm5paSDjgjxXj3Wt...bf6iw