Reflections on the Russo-Ukraine War
An article to the author has been published, responding to criticisms made to the current article. You may find the response here.
The current conflict happening in Ukraine has not only disrupted the material situations of many, but has also disrupted and put to the test our moral foundations. What are we to make of this conflict, and the parties involved? Many paths of action are available, many of us going in separate directions; how are we to decide who is right?
There is no easy choice to make, no surefire answer right off the bat. From the same principles, we have diverged to different conclusions; and while in the past we may have been able to wave off certain disagreements, still we face the dilemma, those impassable contradictions. Many other subjects indeed have brought into the light such dilemmas, examples ranging from open borders, abortion, decriminalization of prostitution, LGBTQ+ issues, and so on and so forth. Each of those issues deserves their own investigations: indeed, many an article, a study, a book, has been written on such issues; and in truth, there is, more likely than not, already quite a few articles on the War. However, if it is of any worth, perhaps the following ruminations presented may help create a different thinking on the conflict, or at least a new perspective.
One need not know the many monikers given to war; its evil is apparent. “What is so detestable about war,” wrote David Goscyne, during the Munich Crisis of 1938, “is that it reduces the individual to complete insignificance.” For the lover of freedom, there is no logical choice but to despise war.
In the Russo-Ukraine War alone, there is an abundance of examples showing its many terrors. Near the end of 2022, drone video showed the resting bodies of multiple dead soldiers; before that, multiple hospitals were destroyed, including a maternity hospital in Mariupol. Tens of thousands of soldiers, young men, dead within the last year; thousands of civilians as well, including hundreds of children. Many widows never to see their lovers ever again, many sons lost forever from their fathers and mothers. From this loss of life alone, war should be rightfully rejected. The other facets of it, the conscription and forced assignment of individuals to fight in the wars, the curbing of individual rights such freedom of protest, the expansion of state power, are just more reasons for defying such conflicts.
Indeed, many, if not all, libertarians or anarchists are opposed to war for those very reasons. No exception is to be made for the war in Ukraine: it is the same story played out in a different environment. This should result in a group of people, a movement, who are united in their opposition to war and their advocacy of individual rights and human dignity.
And yet, there is fracture.
Which side are you on?
Three camps have formed in reaction to the War: those who rally on the side of Ukraine; those who rally on the side of Russia; and those who choose not to support either side of the conflict. Generally, the distribution of people, even among libertarians, is to be in either of the first two camps. I have seen few consistently be in the third; it will not be treated until later in the essay.
Those who argue on the side of Ukraine make the argument that, simply put, Russia is the aggressor in the conflict. They have chosen to invade Ukraine for the purpose of growing the reach of the Russian state, and seek for the destruction of Ukraine as a sovereign nation, and of the citizenry as a sovereign and free people. Thus it is the right of the Ukraine and its people to defend their homeland against the foreign invaders, and that we should support their fight to retain their independence from Russian imperialism. The logic is simple, and a libertarian would not be at fault for supporting that reasoning.
The logic of those who support Russia has its appeal to libertarians as well. For them, Ukraine was not an independent nation; on the contrary, it is an extension of the American state. Ukraine’s alliance with the United States of America, as well as its membership in NATO, has empowered the United States to have more dominion and influence over the geopolitics of Europe. With that influence, they instigated the war, as the advances made it seem that the U.S. was preparing to spread its influence further, even to Russia. A refurbished tale of American imperialism at work, with Russia responding in the way nations under threat would respond.
Both are critical of the imperial attitudes of nations; both understand the destruction and banality of war; both make arguments on the grounds of certain libertarian principles, and both would, more likely than not, prefer a peace where Ukraine is an independent and sovereign state, influenced by neither Russia or the U.S. Yet even then, they differ greatly by who they support in the conflict, who is more justified in their actions. They are croisés comme ça, across and at odds with each other, in a way that would be laughable if it weren’t so serious a matter. For whichever side we choose has heavy consequences on how we apply our values.
That Russia is an authoritarian state is no surprise. An example: during the current War, it suppressed and arrested over 500 anti-war protestors, threatening them with 15 years imprisonment for participation in “unauthorized” protests against the Russian government. Such threats are backed by laws made in Russia that criminalize independent reporting of the war and criticisms against the Russian government, under the reasoning that such was “fake news” intent on discrediting the Russian government and armed forces. At least 60 cases have been opened by the Russian state on those grounds.
Even before the war, the Russian state had a track record of silencing political opposition and infringing on the rights of individuals. The 2013 report by Amnesty International, a human-rights group with an international focus, showed Russian police forces regularly using excessive force to disperse non-violent groups of protestors. Even individual picketing, without authorization from the Russian government, can lead to fines and imprisonment. That’s not going into the multiple suspect killings and assaults of critics of the Russian state or of minorities, such as members of the LGBTQ+ community being detained and extrajudicially killed by authorities in Chechnya.
While the depravity of the Russian state is clear, Ukraine also has dirty hands: there have been numerous reports of the torture of prisoners, with Amnesty International reporting, in its 2021 entry on Ukraine, that “the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) had to date ruled in the applicants’ favour, and against Ukraine, in 115 cases regarding conditions of detention amounting to torture…” While the government is more liberal than Russia in regards to treatment of media, they still also cracked down on outlets and publications perceived to be pro-Russian; importations of books from Russia were also banned; and most recently, the Ukrainian government has put a ban on certain religious organizations that are supposedly “‘affiliated with centers of influence’ in Russia.”
What we have is two governments, both known for their human rights abuses, fighting a war that could put us on the brink of apocalypse. Both go against the ideals of freedom that we value; both are sending many to their deaths. There seems no point in supporting either side: the last camp mentioned earlier takes that position. Why should we sacrifice our principles to either of these leviathans, these immoral beasts of tyranny? We can choose to be for peace, for freedom, simple as that. There is no need to choose a side.
This position is the most reasonable of the three: there is a consistency within it that the other two camps lack. And yet, there is an emptiness or coldness to it, a lacking: it is logically sound and quite in line with libertarian ethics; but is it moral?
There is, there must be, more to it. Further inquiry must be done: perhaps there is some source, some authority or expert, to look to.
Whom can we trust?
Off the bat, we know we cannot use either the Ukrainian government or the Russian government as an authority. The corruption and evils of both are blatant. We cannot use the U.S. government as our moral authority either: it is as much stained with blood, and has its own agenda to fulfill.
Perhaps we may look to prominent libertarian thinkers or groups for some guidance: the Libertarian Party, for example, who are planning an anti-war rally, Rage Against The War Machine. Such speakers include Scott Horton, a libertarian historian, known for his books on the wars in the Middle East. While they may not be as consistent as certain anarchists, would they not still adhere and argue in good faith against the war?
Yet the LP, with their rally, has aligned with individuals vocally against liberty or libertarian principles: Jackson Hinkle, a self-proclaimed “patriotic socialist” and a scheduled speaker for Rage Against The War Machine, not only argued against Ukraine and NATO, but has proudly defended Russia in its military ventures, even selling merchandise with “Z”, a sign used on Russian military vehicles and a symbol of support for Russian militarism and conquest. Not only that, but one of the sponsors for the event, the Center for Political Innovation, is a Marxist-Leninst organization staunchly in support of the Russian invasion. What credibility is there for an anti-war rally funded and with speakers who are in support of the war, just only the non-NATO or non-American side? What does that say of the LP and Horton, who are willing to align themselves with people whose philosophies are antithetical to theirs?
Some of the criticisms of Horton, and of others in the LP, are of importance: the criticism of U.S. intervention in the War, the showing of militarism from Ukrainian and U.S. officials, and the advocacy for peace and agreements between Russia and Ukraine to create such, are all values that libertarians should have. There is wisdom in what they may say; but they have tainted themselves, and we cannot trust them to have full virtue in their judgment.
Perhaps looking for revelation from within the U.S. will lead us astray; we may need to look abroad for our answer. The people living in the conflict are our best chance of a source; we may possibly find our salvation there.
Can we trust the soldiers fighting in the war?
The ranks of the Ukrainian and Russian forces, being at the frontlines, may be of great use. However, we cannot trust that they are fully reliable: within both their ranks, especially of the Ukrainian forces, are regiments guided by ideologies comparable to Neo-Nazism. In fact, there are many images circulating of Ukrainian soldiers using the Roman Salute in front of banners displaying Ukrainian Neo-Nazi symbolism. Russia as well has its own infection, with Putin’s personal mercenary force, the Wagner Group, being commonly known for their Neo-Nazism. In either case, there is a nationalism that guides them to militarism, contradictory to principles of peace.
Perhaps we may trust the media of those countries? Likely not: as said earlier, the Russian government has, for all intents and purposes, made any coverage or questioning of the Russian state and its role in the war illegal. Ukraine’s media has its own limitations with what can be reported, though there is more freedom than Russia. The medias of both will argue for that which supports their nation; thus, we cannot glean much of a superior moral choice.
Mayhaps the Church, that traditional institute of moral virtue, will shed some light? Sadly not: the Moscow Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church has proclaimed the war as part of a “metaphysical struggle” against the encroachment of western liberal ideology on Russia, justifying the conflict as a holy war. Thus it follows the tradition of all national Churches when their country is at war with another: uncritical support, and a fervent Christian nationalism. They are virtuous no more.
On and on we find flaws, more and more we see the pervasive corruption inherent within these institutions and groups. One loses hope the more one looks. Perhaps there is no justifier at all, no moral authority to look to.
Or maybe, we’re looking for the wrong thing.
In the eyes of the least favored
Jean-Paul Sartre once outlined his ethical theory thusly: we must choose to act in a way with the whole of humanity on our shoulders, depending on us to make the right choice. There is nothing that can justify us, no one that can tell us what is right or wrong. We must make the decision ourselves. In that sense, we are alone on the precipice.
Yet Sartre did give a guideline later on, or at least something that can be used as a rule of thumb: what is the situation in the eyes of the least favored? Through the lens of those who are most oppressed in a conflict or side, we may determine then what the best action may be, so as to alleviate the oppression of those groups, to further the goal of freedom. It may be a difficult principle to adhere to consistently; but I be damned if it is not a thoroughly, whole-heartedly libertarian principle.
The Russo-Ukrainian War is clear with who is most oppressed: Ukrainian civilians, living under fear of either annihilation or a greater tyranny under Russian rule; Russian activists, protesting against their government and under fear of heavy retaliation and suppression; and the prisoners, the injured, the homeless, the dead, all have been oppressed by this blasted war. In their eyes there perhaps is both blame for Ukraine and Russia; but it is Russia who has the most responsibility: they have aggressed first, invaded first. We cannot, in any good faith, take any side with Russia; indeed, while we may justly criticize the Ukrainian government, NATO, and the U.S. for its role to play, we cannot reject the plea, and the right, of those living in Ukraine to defend their homes. We may reject the U.S. for supplying arms, and rightfully so; we cannot reject or shame those who, either by personally giving support or aid, or by personally going to fight in defense of Ukraine, while still being in the right.
There is no virtue in forcing the Donbas to remain in Ukraine, if they wished to be part of Russia; there is no righteousness in the expansion of American power throughout the world; but there is vice in supporting a state bent on regaining the power it used to have as an empire. Adherence to our principles, consistency in our virtues, requires us to support none of the states or empires involved in this war. Who should be supported are those victims of this conflict, and of those actively trying to protect their homes and ending this conflict. All wish for peace, and ones that would simply let them live in peace and freedom.
From Ukraine with Love
I failed to mention earlier another, more subtle group: the anarchists of Ukraine. Indeed, I have not been able to mention all the groups involved: the Libertarian Party of Russia, which has voiced their opposition to the Russian state’s policies and the war, is an example of many. If I could write more, I would gladly show the good actions of these groups, but I must limit myself, and will at least give light to some of our many comrades across the world.
Throughout the last decade, Ukrainian anarchists have been fighting against the authoritarianism and statism of the Ukrainian and Donbas governments, either by creating networks of mutual aid and direct action, or by participating in violence against the state. When Russia invaded, two new groups were formed, the Resistance Committee and the Black Flag, in order to fight back against the invasion. It is perhaps their situation that makes their choices the most prescient: what does one choose to do, when faced with invasion from one state, while being against the state being invaded? An ultimate dilemma; but a choice must be made.
Thus they decided to fight for Ukraine: as one anarchist put it, while there are great flaws and wrongs within the Ukrainian state, they were “fighting to protect the more or less free society that exists.” One may question his reasoning, but, with all laid out, even Ukraine, a nation not estranged from the violation of human rights and dignity, is at least relatively more free than Russia. It is not an illogical or odd choice; but it was a greatly difficult one.
What I can say on the matter may mean nothing: I am not fighting in the war, I am at no risk of dying, of losing everything. Perhaps, however, a new perspective has been opened: a story revealed of the challenges of war, and the people who, living in such a situation, make an ultimate choice, one in which they indeed feel the weight of all of humanity upon their backs. It is their story, too briefly outlined here, that may give us hope in our future, in how they live, in how they care for each other and the people that need help the most. It gives us the fortitude, even in fear, to make the ultimate decision: to choose between an either/or of imperceptible heights.
