We kept our experience during St.Imier congress to ourselves on purpose. There were a lot of good things and solidarity, but there was a lot of dirt poured on us and comrades from different parts of Eastern Europe for their position on the war in Ukraine. Taking in account that most of the people who write criticism about us and our ideals barely make it through several sentences of our texts, let’s make it very clear – we are against the war in Ukraine and against militarization of society. However, what we’ve learned in past years is that those simple values have different interpretation depending on from which part of the world/political camp you come. You can be Sarah Wagenknecht, who is opposing war in favor of russian empire. You can also be a russian soldier who is opposing war in Ukraine with a weapon in his hands committing genocide and killing hundreds of innocent people, believing that peace can be achieved only through complete destruction of ukranian people. You can be a western intellectual leftist, who opposes the war because it is written so in books, but in reality for you the social revolution and war are just words without any meaning attached to it.
This war, as many other wars, should be over, but there are so many different scenarios that have so many different consequences not only for people in Eastern Europe, but for the rest of the world, that we can’t ignore them and just continue repeating the same sentences again and again. For example, end of war with huge territories given to russian state will send an example to other states with imperial ambitions that this is possible and doable in 21st century despite all the talks about peace and deescalation. Partial victory for Russia will mean further militarization of russian state and spread of ideology of “russian world” that already has effect on different parts of the planet. And this is just one of the scenarios on the table. As political activists, we can not ignore the reality and possible future in favor of some ideological statements proclaimed to be the only way for anarchists.
Let’s also make it clear that we oppose militarism – an ideology of the state to expand its power through military forces inside and outside its borders. However, as anti-militarist we acknowledge that any militarist power can be opposed only through power of the people. We also acknowledge that western societies preferred to ignore militarization of dictatorships through their governments in Germany, France, England, Spain, US. The atrocities committed by russian state in Ukraine, Syria, Georgia and other places around the planet is just a tip of the iceberg. The war business was running well, while westerners, among whom are anarchists and leftists, were enjoying the peace of the so called first world. If we genuinely want to stop militarization of the western countries we have to oppose the process of militarization of such countries with imperial ambitions like China, Turkey, Russia and others. We strongly believe that preoccupation of western left and some parts of anarchists movement with weapons to Ukraine seems to be indicating further influence of russian and other states propaganda in specifying accents in international struggle.
Putting this in first lines, we will move further to the text that was written about ABC Dresden and our friends and comrades during one of the events in St.Imier. In meanwhile, this text got a lot of traction in some anarchist medias. We would like to address it and share our perspective on the event, not to leave space for further manipulation and disinformation spread within the movement.
Simple wrong facts
In last years, we learned a lot about how disinformation works – it mixes certain bits of truth and bends unwelcomed facts into new shape. It is unclear for us if the authors of the text did it on purpose (which is disturbing) or out of ignorance (which is even more disturbing, as spreading false rumors can hurt anarchist movement very easy). So let’s just go through very simple wrong parts of the text:
- First thing that hits us in the face is the statement about some WOZ journalists who were sitting at the panel discussion – we double-checked with every person from the collectives participating and didn’t get any information on that. It might be that one of the WOZ journalists infiltrated one of the groups at the panel discussion, but this is utter nonsense. Apparently, authors try to use this event for their own problems with political perspectives from WOZ journal. Unclear what it has to do with original focus of the text, Solidarity Collectives or other anarchist groups.
- The event during St.Imier congress was originally registered by ABC-Belarus and organized by multiple different anarchist solidarity groups and individuals. It is incorrect to put responsibility of the event and how it went exclusively on the shoulders of Solidarity Collectives.
- Solidarity Collectives as any other non-state non-military player has no access to weapons. No anarchists or other groups have access to buying weapons for comrades in Ukraine – all the weapon production and delivery is done via a typical military-industrial complex where civilians have no access at all. The closest to weapons raised by Solidarity Collectives that might be considered “military” is buying optics for gear that was already given to soldiers. Apart from that money is used for cars, medical equipment, protection gear (that can be used both by soldiers and medical personnel or volunteers). In fact one of the reasons why activists went to the army was impossibility of anarchists and other anti-authoritarians to organize weapons for the fight against russian imperial invasion.
- Mentioned t-shirt in the article with Kalashnikov is part of fundraising efforts for Resistance Committee and has nothing to do with Solidarity Collectives.
- On multiple occasions, authors of the article connected names of people to Solidarity Collectives or to our group. Those are incorrect assumptions. In general, it is considered a good tone not to name members of the anonymous groups in public sphere.
Let’s talk about posters…
The main issue of authors is an attack on the antimiltarist poster before the beginning of the talk. The content of the panel discussion seems to be of no interest at all. To understand what people were talking about, you can listen to the whole presentation here – https://abcdd.org/en/2023/09/14/anarchists-at-war-critical-analysis-of-solidarity-in-context-of-war-in-ukraine/. As for the poster there is something extra to point.
First of all the problem for most of the people in the room was not the poster itself, and its content, but the message the authors of the poster tried to transfer during the whole period of congress. It was clear that anti-militarism of this poster has a very specific direction, and “against every war” has more of a message of giving up the current struggle against russian invasion to satisfy the needs of peace in Western Europe. One of the people who describe themselves as transwoman made it very clear during other presentations prior to St.Imier and during the congress. It was not the first event this person visited, where members of Solidarity Collectives participated. It was also not the first event of Solidarity Collectives this person tried to sabotage with some actions.
In fact, just before the panel discussion there was a public meeting of self-proclaimed anti-militarist group, part of which came in a disturbing way to the event. A lot of people, who participated in presentations/workshops on Ukraine prior to the panel discussion, witnessed a lot of attempts to disturb those events from so called anti-militarist activists. From rushing into rooms loudly shouting in your own language without any attempts to give space for translation or hear other voices up to spreading some rumors about war propaganda distributed via ABC info tables (one of the people visited our table after one of those anti-militarist sessions and said that we were presented as clear militarist of the story).
Taking in account all of that, it would be naive to think that such actions from the authors will be considered as provocation. In fact, we deeply doubt that there was this honest innocence in the action, but rather it was expected by the person themselves. Unfortunately, the authors of the article fail to point that this was not the only conflict prior and during panel discussion. For example, some group of italians speaking people who took one of the first rows were already making faces before we even started talking. We were deeply shocked to hear a laugh from so called “italian anarchist” when a minute of silence was called to remember all the victims of russian imperialism. Apparently, degradation of solidarity in some anarchist circles came to such extent that some allow themselves to laugh over the dead comrades. This is what at least some of so called anti-militarist consider real anarchism in 21st century.
As for how the situation with the poster went… The person who took off the poster is a nonbinary person from Ukraine who deserted from the army. They did not intend at all to attack anybody, they just got off the poster. The reasons were the general destructive appearance of the so-called antimilitarist, ignorance of the situation in Ukraine, as described before. By the authors of the text they are described as aggressive young man trying to attack a transwomen. This description seem to fit in the general narrative of militarist and aggressive eastern europeans… We are in solidarity with trans people and the misgendering happened accidentally, for which we are apologizing. People did not want to question their identity.
Also, the fact that the person packed posters and left is a bit of broken “truth” of the situation – in fact during the conversation one of the people offered that every person from the audience takes the posters, and we just finish this conversation. Taking in account the whole text, apparently that was the point of bringing agitation to the event – so people can pick it up? But this was not the case: as soon as some people started taking posters, the person decided to pack them up and finish the provocation.
After this conflict, that happened before we couldn’t begin the panel discussion as a comrade from Solidarity Collectives who was supposed to talk had to leave the panel for some time to have a couple of minutes off. In the text this situation is described with arrogance hard to imagine, but this arrogance also shows how much respect or lack of it the authors have towards activists from Ukraine despite their attempts to show themselves neutral in their conversations. Attacking people who left the war zone in such a manner has nothing to do not only with anarchist but with a concept of a decent human being.
So let’s make it clear that the problem was not with a poster, but with the personality that brought those posters. The content of poster if shared by other people/groups would actually be supported by most of the anarchist supportive of ukrainian peoples. But attempts to hide behind slogan “against all wars” your very questionable position on how you see this opposition is exactly the reason that provoked other people together with a long-lasting attempt to sabotage solidarity with ukrainian people from different parts of anarchist movement in the west.
Should I stay or should I go…
Now, let’s shortly talk about such a disturbing argument for the author of the text about possibility of going to Russia or Belarus. This is seen by many anti-militarists as just a trick to end conversation. But it is unclear why. Most of the europeans have quite easy access to both Russian and Belarus as well as Ukraine. The criticism of this argument would make sense if the activists couldn’t go to those countries due to high risks of being arrested, prosecuted or killed, but for western activists this risk is close to zero. So why are some getting offended by this simple offer? First it came from a comrade from Belarus, where they said that they can help organize the whole trip. Later it came from comrades from Ukraine who are ready to show the reality of war to every person who are interested from anarchist circles. However, we noticed that a lot of self-proclaimed anti-militarists prefer to stay away from danger zones calling for laying down weapons from the safe distance of Fortress Europe. How did it happen to the revolutionary movement, activists of which were diving into social and political conflicts for generations to understand the world through struggle?
There is nothing polemic about going to countries of former soviet union. In fact, even inside our own collective we see a big difference of understanding social and political organizing of those places between people who were in Russia/Belarus/Ukraine and who never visited those places. Sometimes next to political ideology, you actually have to see things to understand them properly. That’s why going to Ukraine or Russia or even Belarus is essential in understanding russian war in Ukraine. After all there is a reason why most of the activists east from Germany have no problems with supporting comrades in Ukraine fighting even in the most precarious conditions.
But apparently the calls for peace and supporting those suffering from war is more polemic for certain parts of the anarchist movement, than actually doing something. From the conversation, we understood that it is us who have to abandon our work and start supporting of famous deserters. It is ukrainian people and only them who should risk their lives by given themselves up to mercy of the victorious Kremlin troops. Why is that? How come we have such a strong push from the people to abandon solidarity, who even in their demands call that anarchists who collect money and organize solidarity with ukrainian people should go to trenches themselves, while the same people have no courage to even go to Ukraine for short period of time to see with their own eyes what the modern war looks like? This is an honest question and not an attempt to take away any argumentation those people might have…
Quite often when you read the texts of modern pacifists, as well as the text about this event in St.Imier you hear calls for discussion. We have to sit down and talk it through. In the same text, people from our group and other collectives organizing solidarity with ukrainian people are accused of aggressive rhetoric and impossibility to talk. Our experience in St.Imier completely shattered such myths. Instead of attempts to talk we see continues attempts to spread misinformation and obvious lies to sabotage solidarity with those who have no power over resources in so called first world. And the text on the event in St. Imier shows very well how open this “anti-militarists” are for discussion: the text with criticism of a collective from Ukraine was published only in german, demands made to that collective were made only in german, questions to the collective were made in German. Comments forbidden in the specified article. We are sorry, but this is not a way to start an international discussion in any way. It is a way to make a statement to show your superiority but clearly in a very limited space of german speaking leftists and anarchists…
The reality of “discussion” was that a group of people from Eastern Europe preferred to leave the presentation space through the back door because “anti-militarist” were staying at the main exit with intention to “confront” (whatever that means) the people from our collective and other participants of the panel discussion. How this can be considered a discussion is hard to understand. At the same time, no people from those groups tried to approach us at other points of congress nor at our infotables.
We do not believe that these groups of people are searching any discussion as we continuously see them seeking a platform to present their views and not have a conversation on how to proceed with the war situation as well as deep crisis of the anarchist movement. The “discussion” actually ends after “anti-militarists” would state we are against all wars. There is no space for other positions than pacifism. And this position comes together with ignorance and no empathy for the activists from the regions and their experiences who don’t align with “anti-militarist” perspectives.
We find it disturbing that anarchist movement from revolutionary becomes a pure theory that looses more and more touch with reality. In over a year, we haven’t seen any reasonable offers from so-called defeatist position that would take in account real people and their lives. We see certain parts of the anarchist movement completely distanced from objective reality in favor of unclear goals. Are you willing to have peace with Russia, no matter costs for people inside and outside of it? Are you willing to show that anarchists are not going to participate in any wars, doesn’t matter historical and political background? In that case, are we going to condemn everyone who was fighting against nazis in the second world war? Or those who took arms to fight against colonial rule of France, Germany, Britain and many others? Does anarchism become an ideology of radical pacifism that abandons struggles of peoples for their freedom in favor of peace in the West?
For us, the answer is very clear – no. We are not going to sit in our comfortable peace of german state enforced by economical and political domination of the western empires that burn wars around the globe every year. We are going to do our best to show our solidarity with people in Ukraine and other countries by word and action. As we believe that it is the only way for anarchists to participate in the struggle for freedom from oppression and states. It is our duty as anarchists in the West to learn from struggles around the world as we fail to produce anything reasonable in our own homes to stop not only capitalist exploitation, but ecological catastrophe created mainly by our way of life and imposed on the rest of the world.
Demands, demands, demands!
It is in general quite problematic to see some activists from the West demand something from people at war. And judging from the current discussion on the internet somehow demands are made mostly in direction of ukrainian comrades and not anarchists in Russia. Ukrainian anarchists should do this and should do that. But we haven’t seen such demands to the anarchist movement existing in Russia. Apparently it is ukrainian people who are doing things wrong and russian society is doing its best in resisting Putin in the eyes of so called anti-militarists…
But in general, we don’t see the point of going through every demand that is dropped in the text. It is clearly made for polemic reasons and shows once again that people are interested not in finding practical solutions to the problems of war, but rather making a statement. It doesn’t matter that this statement might be based on broken reality or clear lack of any grounding to existing political and social situation. In that context, you can as well demand complete demilitarization of Ukraine and urgent Putin’s surrender. Your absurd theater will be taken seriously by those who might share your opinions and don’t really care about anarchist struggles and further strategies. But this kind of imaginary world alienates even more people from revolutionary ideas that were bringing masses together for a free society in the past. Instead of being preoccupied with developing our movements, we see people interested in creating a world in which they sit on anti-authoritarian throne of anarchism inside Fortress Europe and decide who is a real anarchist and who should be sent into exile to the trenches of colonial wars.
We believe that anarchists in the western countries should be a little bit less preoccupied with demands to comrades in other countries and start paying a bit more attention to the needs of those committing their life to struggle and revolution. We have to give way more efforts to solidarity then we are giving and stop searching for excuses to continue our comfortable life as it is. The world is in crisis, and we can’t continue organizing as if nothing happens and we are slowly moving to success. It is not the case and with such anarchists activists we are risking of drowning in disinformation and polemic conversation instead of revolutionary movement.
And we have to take back and reclaim anti-militarism from those who abuse the idea in favor of their fears and personal ambitions. Political anti-militarism is impossible without solidarity with those suffering from militarism around the planet. The calls for abandoning ukrainian people in favor of “peace” as the only true anti-militarist position push us back into the past, as if we do not even try to understand power dynamics behind the whole militarization of the modern world.
It is time to say that we are anti-militarist and that’s why we support resistance of ukrainian people against russian war machine that for generation feeds on lives of those who have no power. We are anti-militarists and that’s why we believe that russian military-industrial complex has to be defeated, or it will continue its expansion in Eastern Europe, Central Asia and Africa. We are anti-militarists because we believe that in the times of crisis anarchists have to stand with the oppressed against oppressors even when the time comes to take arms. Furthermore, we are anti-militarists because we believe that empires should fall and on their ruins a free and just world could be built.
Anarchist Black Cross Dresden
October 2023