In regards to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, while some people who claim to be “anti-war” or “pro-peace” are covertly pro-Russia, most such advocates are simply naive to the fact that the Russian government would never negotiate peace in good faith (given their irredentist views and incredulous claim of the country being run by “Nazis”).
While the parallels to “peace in our time” from the 1930s are clear as day, some people are unfortunately too isolationist, shortsighted, or simply tricked by Russian propaganda into thinking that Russia’s territorial ambitions bear any legitimacy in the slightest, versus the democratic aspirations of a country that, for once, is actively requesting Western military assistance with the popular support of its people, in contrast to the pro-Western regimes propped up during the Cold War.
Beyond the importance of supporting democratic institutions, those who’d see the war concluded abruptly in Russia’s favor (gaining territory with substantial grain production, natural gas fields, and several warm water ports), rather than continuing with full Western support until the country’s borders are restored, should consider the lives that will be lost if Russia’s ambitions are not kept in check, whether it be the continued invasion of Ukraine, or potential irredentist invasions Moldova, Georgia, or Kazakhstan to “protect” Russian speakers beyond the country’s borders.
did you even read the piece?
I skimmed, but I disagree wholeheartedly with the notion of any anti-war message that discourages support in and for Ukraine without putting at least that much emphasis in the need for Russian soldiers to get out of Ukraine (its borders restored, including Crimea, with tangible guarantees secured against further Russian aggression) and stay out. Anything less than that undermines the argument as being one of ‘class solidarity’ against a ruling elite conducting conscription, but rather one of people willing to sell out their country just to save their own skins.
Reading the piece more than I did at first, it reads extremely much like a pro-Russia propaganda piece, in terms of framing the Ukrainian government as an ‘authoritarian militarist country’, a notion that is laughable when you not only compare Ukraine to Russia, but also consider that it is Russia that invaded Ukraine, after having already illegally annexed Crimea, not the other way around. Realize that Russia’s territorial aspirations do not end with what they’ve seized so far, and ‘pacifism’ will just lead to another “peace in our time”.
Furthermore, framing NATO as part of the problem, rather than an inevitable safety net against Russian aggression, is parroting the false narrative the Russian government spun as an excuse to invade Ukraine in the first place.
framing the Ukrainian government as an ‘authoritarian militarist country’, a notion that is laughable when you not only compare Ukraine to Russia, but also consider that it is Russia that invaded Ukraine, after having already illegally annexed Crimea
the way they treat protesters and antiwar activists, according to the interviewee, indicates it’s a valid criticism. Russias actions don’t change that.
it’s an anarchist outlet. they’re not pro Russia. they’re antigovernment.
Per the text, they’re not equally anti the Russian government as they are the Ukrainian government though. As there is no outcome in which any of Ukraine will end up in the hands of no government, a pragmatic anarchist should still be able to recognize that a democratic society will result in a greater level of personal freedom than one with a regime such as Russia’s.
Conscription when one’s country is being invaded does not diminish the value of that democracy, as nothing less than that will keep Ukrainians from being forcibly assimilated into Russian society.