Response To Criticisms of “Reflections on the Russo-Ukraine War”
In our most recent article, a few have responded in the comments, criticizing certain aspects of the article. The main point is that, while the article overall was okay and that the conclusion was correct, there was a bias towards Russia. We may firstly say that we have no love for Russia, and did not intend to be biased towards them. It is the hope of this response to make clear that, if there were any biases towards Russia, that they were due to ignorance rather than malice. I am liable to mistakes, and am willing to admit that freely.
Firstly, in regards to the claims of Ukrainian Neo-Nazis: Dylan Combellick, one of the critics, has pointed out that I have over-exaggerated the influence of neo-nazism in the regiments of Ukraine, specifically pointing to how the Azov Battalion, which is the main example of such, was de-politicized or de-nazified in 2014, when it was assumed into the Ukrainian National Forces. This appears to be true, in that there was a process done by the Forces to de-politicize the regiment. The claim is further supported by testimony of experts, such as Anton Shekhostov, a Ukrainian scholar on right-wing extremism in the European continent, who has stated in the Financial Times that “It is certain that Azov [Batallion] has depoliticized itself.” He has also written an article for the Atlantic Council, criticizing and pointing out the logical contradictions and factual errors within Congressman Max Rose’s argument for designating Azov a terrorist organization.
There have been criticisms as to whether that was fully attained: Oleksiy Kuzmenko, a reporter for Bellingcat, wrote a response to Shekhostov (also published by the Atlantic Council), arguing that, while Shekhostov made sound criticisms, that he had brushed off the relations between the battalion and Ukraine’s National Corps, a far-right political party described by Shekhostov as aligned with Neo-Nazism. The article goes on to describe some of those relations.
The original wording in my article, on “regiments guided by ideologies comparable to Neo-Nazism,” may have been too strong, as there is more nuance and complications within the situation than was initially thought. As well as that, I may have not given enough voice to the extent in which Neo-Nazism is present in the Russian forces, beyond the Wagner Group and its clear affiliations. I accept all fault for that.
Another criticism was in regards to the three camps I had delineated in the article. Mr. Combellick argues against the validity of the third camp (which sides neither with Ukraine or Russia), arguing that it is an immoral stance that ignores genocide, and simply supporting Russia “without the courage to say so.” While I ma not as fervent in such a belief, I admit that it is not the moral choice to make; I argued as such in the article. However, I cannot follow in his belief that it ignores genocide and is just implicitly supporting Russia: while there may indeed be individuals who fit this description, there are as well others who don’t share those qualities, even while not supporting either nation.
Dmytro Polovynka, another critic, argues that my comparison between the camp supporting Ukraine and the camp supporting Russia was unfair towards the former: that while the pro-Ukrainian position was based on facts, the pro-Russian position was based on conspiracy theories; that I had automatically accepted the idea that Ukraine was an expansion of U.S. imperialism, which, compared to the clearly present Russian imperialism, was simply a lie; and that, due to such, I had given both the same amount of authority and credence that was not deserved.
While the criticism is understandable, it is based on a misunderstanding: while the pro-Russian position is based on that premise, I do not adhere to it. I only explained the position as it is, in a way so as to understand what the reasoning of that camp was. I made no claim to whether it was true or whether I personally held that position, or at least made no intentional claim of such.
As for giving both sides credence, I gave what was the most reasonable explanation on the beliefs of both camps, so as not to simply shame one as wrong, but to understand that the foundational principles (such as anti-imperialism) were shared, and that the difference in opinions is a dilemma that needs solving, as those positions (being pro-Russian or pro-Ukraine) cannot both be correct at the same time. Thus, I gave what I perceived to be as fair of a balance as I could make between positions, without just dismissing one camp as wrong, even if it is, in the end, the wrong choice.
In regards to the situation at the Donbas, it was brought up that the majority of people did not want to separate from Ukraine and join Russia. I admit that I should have done more research in that regard, and that I was incorrect to presume that a majority of them did want to secede. Mr. Polovynka provided a study by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, showing that a majority of residents in the Southern and Eastern regions of Ukraine wished to remain independent from Russia.
Criticism has also been made on my remark on Ukraine possibly being blamed for prolonging the war. That was bad wording on my part, and put more blame on Ukraine unfairly in that regards. The remark was made with the context of offers made by Russia towards Ukraine for peace talks, which were turned down; however, there were also times where Russia refused peace talks with Ukraine. For that reason, that remark shall be removed, so as to be as fair as possible to both sides.
Mr. Combellick criticized as well my statement on the corruption of the Ukrainian and Russian governments dismisses them as authorities to be trusted, saying that I had made a false equivalence, and that the Russian government was much more corrupt than the Ukrainian government. That may be true; and in hindsight I may have done better to not have used the term “corruption” in that statement. My point remains that we cannot use either of them as valid authorities for what side to choose on the war, as they have both acted against and infringed upon the rights of peoples, including their own citizenry.
This includes the bans placed on certain political parties, religious organizations, and imports, which Mr. Polovynka argues were logical, as to limit relations with Russia and to curtail possible infiltration and traitorous tendencies, possibly saving lives. Again, such a viewpoint is understandable; however, while I cannot comment on the political beliefs of Mr. Polovynka, I must say forthright that, as a libertarian and anarchist, I hold such rights as freedom of exchange, freedom of association, and freedom of speech as absolutes; thus, even with such pretenses as mentioned above, I cannot support such bans, and will label them as is fit: they are violations of the rights of individuals and the people at large.
I am thankful to Mr. Combellick and Polovynka for the criticisms, even if we do not fully agree or see eye-to-eye on certain situations. I do not question their experience and knowledge of the conflict, especially Mr. Combellick’s, who calls Ukraine his home (though currently living in Poland, for the safety of his family). I wish the best to both of them, and would recommend looking to them for perspectives on the war (though, as they have done with my own perspective, with a critical and understanding eye).
One final note: an individual by the name of Bob Surenko commented on the article, critical of some of the facts presented but approving of the methodology used. He had told the story of his grandmother fleeing from Russian-controlled Lithuania during the First World War, as well as having met survivors of the Soviet gulags, learning about their experiences. Those experiences, he claims, are a few examples of the banality of Russia; that, while there were perhaps some good Russians, the country is an evil place; and that those facts should have been part of my analysis.
I am sympathetic to Mr. Surenko’s claims: my mother had been raised during the latter years of the Soviet Union, when Poland was still under its control. That the government of Russia is and has committed evils, whether it be the Tsarist, Soviet, or current regime, is blatantly obvious. I cannot, however, call the country of Russia evil: blame is not to be put on the land, but by those who rule over that land. That is where the evil resides.
I am appreciative of Mr. Surenko’s input, as it offered a differing position, one that has the warmth of personal stories as its foundation. My great thanks to all the critics: a writer, especially a political or moral one, must be kept steadfast, honed towards virtue by the criticism and questioning of others. No less of a standard should be held.
