I would prefer revolutionary internationalism

An AI-generated image of a Yankee Chickenhawk

A response to Wayne Price's ‘Should Anarchists Defend Ukraine? A Response to Bill Beech’ in Black Flag, Autumn 2024, Vol4.

Author
Submitted by Bo de Ligt on December 8, 2024

‘The struggle for class and self-liberation is not to be compared with national conflicts. It is the function of the impersonal State to squander lives in war, or of a superior class to regard lesser humans as expendable; thus any war of the nation-state must in itself be in the nature of an atrocity. [...] [C]ompared with other conflicts, social liberation is the most difficult of all to achieve, beside which national liberation is a divertissement. For class struggle implies not merely collective action but the breaking down of that sequence of events ingrained in our society as command-and-obey. Any form of social protest may be useful as an attempt to destroy this sequence, which saps the lifeblood of mankind and makes it possible for the few to govern the many.’

The Floodgates of Anarchy - Stuart Christie & Albert Meltzer

To those who read the pages of Black Flag, it will be clear from Wayne Price’s response to my essay ‘War on Anarchism’, that his arrogance can only be matched by his ignorance.1 It is hard to debate someone who is fully committed to remaining ignorant and who persistently avoids any discussion of specifics, while retreating into abstract slogans and idealistic positions. In response to the many facts I present and the 48 footnotes, Wayne Price offers a stale reference to Bakunin, an oblique reference about Ukrainian anti-semitism (to quarrel with an argument I didn’t make), and a reference TO HIMSELF, Wayne Price. He also gives a potted history of Ukrainian struggle for national self-determination, which is as vague, as it is emotive. And makes a baseless claim that Nestor Makhno was a nationalist. It’s clear that Price and the Natopolitans2 are much more comfortable in the giddy heights of abstract, ahistorical, non-factual idealism, than the blood and piss and vomit of the Ukrainian trenches, or the realpolitik of inter-imperial conflict. Or the realities of class struggle.

Because he doesn’t dare touch the facts, Price quarrels with points I haven’t made, such as Ukraine being a hotbed of anti-semitism, that I subscribe to a Russian view that Ukraine has no right to exist, or that the lesser evil in this conflict would be to support Russian imperialism against NATO. None of them are positions I hold, so there is no need to defend them. What Price doesn’t and cannot engage with are the points I do make: about the origins and causes of the war, about the nature and course of it, its ongoing realities.

I will comment on a few of Price’s arguments before outlining as precisely as I can the ideological differences between the Natopolitan-defencist-nationalist position on one hand and the antimilitarist-defeatist-internationalist position on the other. For those who want to skip to the summary, see the last section below.

The Final Crusade

Let’s start with the anti-semitism question, since it is a common refrain and since it is of some interest. Also, it is worth considering, since Wayne Price was at pains to introduce it into the debate. Considering that in the last year, we’ve heard the most monstrously grotesque imperialist and racist excuses for Zionism shielded by charges of anti-semitism, I am greatly tickled that Price chooses to whitewash Ukraine, which is to all intents and purposes the world champion of armed Hitlerian and Banderite folklore.

The ultimate gotcha by the Ukrainian nationalists and Natopolitans is that Zelensky himself is Jewish, so therefore anti-semitism cannot be a strong force in Ukraine. There is as much truth to this, as Obama ushering in an end to racism, as anyone with even the basic interest in the facts will acknowledge. However, how do we explain the fact that this Jewish president led a standing ovation to Yaroslav Hunka, a bona fide Ukrainian Nazi of WWII stature? The simple reason is that Ukrainian fascism’s main enemy is Russianness. It can therefore shelve the Jewish Question until Ukraine has dealt with Russia and its Russian minorities – it is the same principled deferral that Wayne Price advocates: defend the nation, and the revolution comes afterwards.

But while Price is happy to remain a keyboard warrior, the blood-steeped Azov Battalion is touring Europe (its 2024 mini-tour got quite a bit of pushback along the way), spreading their boot-shiny ideas and making links with likeminded individuals and groups. Its founder Biletsky famously stated that Ukraine’s national purpose is to ‘lead the white races of the world in a final crusade… against Semite-led Untermenschen’3 This charming lad was a Maidan ultra, then a fascist paramilitary in the Donbas (trained by NATO on how to operate grenade launchers and other US weapons) who finally graduated to being a member of the Ukrainian parliament. He is but one in a gallery of ghouls that populate the Ukrainian state and para-state formations. For those who want to follow the deep currents of Ukrainian fascism, I would point them to the two blogs of Moss Robeson: Bandera Lobby Blog and Ukes, Kooks and Spooks. There, you can read how Neo-Nazis train Ukraine’s Presidential Brigade, and its top instructor calls Ukrainians slaves that must be weaponized. About Ukraine’s Nazi paganism. About Azov Nazis visiting NATO HQ. About Holocaust denial. About Ukrainian Nazi paramilitaries invading Russia. Etc. etc. etc.

At risk of repeating myself, I want to underline that the point I am making here is not that all Ukrainians are Nazis, or that Ukraine is a Nazi state. What I am saying is that the Ukrainian fascists are playing an oversized role in shaping the Ukrainian national project, that they were directly involved in some of the worst violence of the civil war and that they continue to be the spearhead against everything Russian. They are the sharpest tools of US imperialism because their hatred of Russia and everything Russian is maniacal. To deny the size of this problem (as Price does) is to deny that these people have been strengthened by the post-Maidan governments and by the NATO sponsors of the proxy war with Russia. It is also to deny one of the causes of the war: Russia’s refusal to accept a fascist-friendly regime in Ukraine. Any regime which rehabilitates fascists from WWII4 , which incorporated Nazis into its state and military structures, is unacceptable to the Russian state, this is a simple fact. Especially, if they are to be armed with NATO weapons and could become a station for nuclear missiles. But because we aren’t allowed to understand the motivations of the Russian state, we can only accept the Natopolitan analysis of why Russia invaded (to erase Ukraine!). Therefore Putin is Hitler and this is a cosmic fight to the death, on which there can be no debate. We must abandon all principles in the struggle against Russian fascism and defend the Ukrainian state. The truth is much more dirty and unpleasant: Ukraine is a tool, and every tool must be kept sharp.

The conclusion we should draw is precisely the opposite of Wayne Price’s. He believes that by minimising Ukraine’s fascist problem, we are refusing to play into the Russians’ hands, and we are supporting the ‘democratic’ Ukrainian state which must be defended against imperialist invasion. On the contrary, as anarchists, we must oppose fascism, because it is the enemy of all libertarian principles, because it is the sharpest manifestation of nationalism (and its crybully victimhood), because it is steeped in militarism and fantasies of racial purity.5 It is also the triumph of capitalism and the interests of capital. Ukrainian oligarchs Ihor Kolomoyskyi and Serhiy Taruta are bankrolling the Azov Battalion (and other paramilitary organisations) with the aim of keeping out Russian oligarchs. Their patriotism doesn’t extend to protection from US/EU capital, e.g. the Ukraine ‘reconstruction bank’, which has been set up by BlackRock and JPMorgan Chase to buy up the country cheaply and arrange for concessions to extract its wealth. We compromise ourselves as anarchists and we compromise all that is good in Ukraine, and we give the Russian state a legitimate line of attack, by giving Ukrainian fascism a free pass.6

The danger of Wayne Price’s position which advocates the defence of the nation, is the notion that there is a good nationalism and a good state, which simply and naturally emerges out of opposition to the invader and occupier. Because self-determination can only be achieved and articulated through the nation, and because self-determination precedes anarchist revolution/liberation, anarchism must be deferred until a clear, untroubled national space is secured. The complete imbrication of state and nation is something that passes Price by. He’s an anarchist committed to bolstering a state, only to tear it down. And he is prepared to go rogue, either by state collaboration or collaboration with Nazis, by joining NATO-controlled brigades, for years on end, until Russia is defeated (whatever that means, since Russia holds the world’s greatest nuclear arsenal). Then he will emerge as the anarchist that he is, and by Jove! he will show the Ukrainian ruling class what he’s made of. Only he won’t, because he’s a keyboard warrior, and the Ukrainians and the anarchists will do the dying for him.

The fatherland of the rich

In discussing the ‘national question’ and the problems of self-determination, Rosa Luxemburg proved more of an anarchist than Wayne Price or his quote from Bakunin. Her pamphlet from 1909 boldly states:

In a word, the formula, ‘the right of nations to self-determination,’ is essentially not a political and problematic guideline in the nationality question, but only a means of avoiding that question.7

Luxemburg holds fast to the class struggle, and refuses to be blindsided by floating notions of freedom and self-detemination. The nation is an instrument of class rule, national rights are expressed by the ruling class, they are expressed through ruling class interests, which come at the expense of the working class. Put simply: ‘In a class society, “the nation” as a homogeneous socio-political entity does not exist.’8

And, in a spicy retort to anarchists, she defends the class struggle:

In this case, as in many others, anarchism, the supposed antagonist of bourgeois liberalism, proved to be its worthy child. Anarchism, with characteristic “revolutionary” seriousness, accepted at face value the phraseology of the liberal ideology and, like the latter, showed only contempt for the historical and social content of the nation-state, which it set down as nothing else than an embodiment of “freedom,” of the “will of the people,” and of similar empty words.9

If you prefer this stated in an anarchist voice, we can turn to Rudolf Rocker in his big book ‘Nationalism and Culture’ (1933) - the content is broadly the same:

It is, therefore, quite meaningless to speak of a community of national interests; for that which the ruling class of every country has up to now defended as national interest has never been anything but the special interest of privileged minorities in society secured by the exploitation and political suppression of the great masses. Likewise, the soil of the so-called “fatherland” and its natural riches have always been in the possession of these classes, so that one can with full right speak of a “fatherland of the rich.” If the nation were in fact the community of interests which it has been called, then there would not be in modern history revolutions and civil wars, because the people do not resort to the arms of revolt purely from pleasure — just as little do the endless wage fights occur because the working sections of the population are too well off!10

Class struggle traverses every aspect of the nation state, it cannot be shelved in deference to the interests of the ruling class, or some fatherland of the rich. But this is exactly what Price is advocating. He starts by boilerplate libertarian statements, only to throw them all away:

Anarchists oppose their statist ruling classes. In Ukraine, anarchists do not support Zelensky’s party, nor run in elections, nor give any political support to his government. They oppose the government’s austerity policies and its anti-union laws. They do not endorse the conscription laws and the bureaucratic army. But they do not condemn the government and army for fighting against invasion and occupation! With this they can cooperate (so long as they are too weak to overturn the capitalist state).

Who are these anarchists Price speaks of? No example is given. To him ‘anarchists’, like ‘Ukrainians’ are a monolithic, united mass. These anarchists do not endorse conscription (because presumably conscription is slavery), but they also don’t condemn the government and the way it fights (through conscription!). Because they are too weak, these anarchists will and do and should abandon their anarchism, to submit to the ‘capitalist state’ which will lay claim to their bodies and send them to fight in their ‘bureaucratic army’ which they don’t endorse. Because they are too weak to fight the state, they should abandon all class war and submit to the state’s war for its own survival. As if this will increase their capacities for class struggle! Instead it’s much more likely to land them dead in a ditch. But even dead in a ditch, they will have retained their principles of cooperating with a state, as long as they denounce it. In the words of Wayne Price: ‘I would prefer revolutionary internationalism.’ But… the nation comes first.

Near the end of his text, Price upbraids me for not raising the standard of anarchist revolution. He even accuses me of pacifism. The indignity! To be honest, I’d rather be a pacifist committed to creative libertarian forces, than someone who advocates for the pressganging of working class men abroad, in the defence of soil and nation, all the while hiding behind a computer screen. As things stand, we class struggle anarchists aren’t pacifists, we are antimilitarists and internationalists. We understand the state as the mechanism of nationalist command-and-obey which claims the monopoly on violence, enshrines the justness of its wars, and the monopoly on killing machines (from tanks all the way to nuclear weapons). We don’t issue plucky and manly calls for the slaughter of our working class brothers and sisters. In fact, we see this as hopelessly compromised. We see all the politicians, all the nation states and the media and their little Natopolitans baying for hate and industrial murder. We see the racket which is the arms manufacturing and trade and the revolving doors of the military-industrial-political-media complex. We see the global system of imperial domination and economic exploitation by Western states, i.e. the NATO bloc. We see how our states are hard-wired for armed domination, war and genocide. We know the history of NATO wars and US crimes and we work against them. We understand very well that a strengthened state, engaging in war abroad will turn its sights on us domestically, at the first given opportunity.

To rhapsodise about armed revolution when our numbers are small, when our movement is divided by identity politics, separated from the mass of working class people and split by support for statist, nationalist projects like the Ukrainian one, would be unseemly. Moreover, it seems that Price can only think of revolution as an armed uprising, a Maidan-like putsch, which is why he cannot understand that antimilitarism is one of the pillars of social revolution, that undermining the control of the state and disarming it is what anarchists are working for. Until militarism is weakened, discredited and dismantled, the state’s and the nation’s stranglehold on the working class and its free liberatory forces will continue. For Price, antimilitarism is an interesting pastime, perhaps a page from history, perhaps even outside of the domain of revolutionary activity. For us, it is one of the main pillars of working class liberation, because, as Rudolf Rocker says:

War not only affects human nature calamitously in general by constant appeal to its most brutal and cruel motives, but the military discipline which it demands at last stifles every libertarian movement among the people and then systematically breeds the degrading brutality of blind obedience, which has always been the father of all reaction.11

Dreams of Ukrainian Agency

The above quoted passage from Price about cooperation with the government and the army, is the clearest expression of the position of ‘defencism’ which says that the nation comes first, libertarian struggle second. And because the nation – i.e. the Ukrainian ruling class – has allied itself with NATO12 , it is also a Natopolitan defencism. In his response, Price gets exercised about being called a Natopolitan, which surprises me. He openly advocates allying with NATO against Russia. Perhaps a ‘Tactical Natopolitan’ would suit him better and his taste for paradox? Strategically anti-imperialist and libertarian, but tactically a NATO shill.

In the Black Flag issue from Spring of 2023, Price wrote: ‘That they take arms from the Western governments means little – they need arms and where else can they get them?’ In the Black Flag issue from the Autumn of 2024: 'Is the NATO involvement so great that the Ukrainians cannot be regarded as fighting for their country?’ In typically deceptive language, Price speaks of ‘Ukrainians’, never the Ukrainian state, and of ‘weapons’ instead of complete NATO training-logistics-targetting-command. In this kindergarten world, ‘Ukrainian agency’ is a notion with some currency. Which agency is that? The one that was denied when Boris Johnson was sent to tear up the Istanbul Accords in Spring of 2022? The one that sees NATO deciding on when and where Ukraine should launch its catastrophic offensives, such as Summer of 2023? The one which drives Ukrainian women to fill German brothels?13 What I see is brutal exploitation of a people in the service of NATO interests and with the aim of bleeding Russia, and ideally regime change and Russia’s Balkanisation. And their ultimate exploitation is the cynical use of their country and resources as a NATO proxy. Here, for once, Wayne Price and I agree:

‘Ukrainians, not Americans, or Germans, or French people, are doing the fighting and dying. For them it is not a “proxy war”.’

And therein is the tragedy of the thing: they are cheap meat which the American and European ruling class are using to fight Russia. For keyboard warrior Wayne Price, laying down your life is priceless. And because you are fighting in a real army, for a real nation, that means that your death can never be for the interests of your ruling class and state, which is a client state of US Empire. All is pure in this azure sky.

All is clear for Ukrainian Defense Minister Aleksey Reznikov also, who spoke openly about his country being a NATO proxy. He reflected on how Ukraine is defending ‘the entire West’ and how Russia was seen as the greatest threat to NATO:

‘Today, Ukraine is addressing that threat. We’re carrying out NATO’s mission today, without shedding their blood. We shed our blood, so we expect them to provide weapons.’14

That’s the Ukrainian ruling class. Here’s a sample from the British one, from the mouth of the Prime Minister who torpedoed the peace talks in the spring of 2022 and who hosts Ukrainian Nazis in the English Parliament - Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson:

‘Mate, let's face it. We're waging a proxy war!’15

Another reason, according to Price, this cannot be a proxy war, is because this is not an inter-imperial conflict. Why then is the US deciding if Ukraine can use long-range weapons to strike into Russia? Why is the whole NATO alliance committed to this war? Hasn’t every NATO war been an imperialist one? It would be an uncomfortable truth exposing interests so large that they cannot be hidden behind the fig leaf of ‘a small country’s struggle for national self-determination’. One final reason the war in Ukraine cannot be understood as a proxy conflict, is that, in that case, Wayne Price and his Tactical Natopolitans would look like US Empire’s useful idiots. But sooner or later they will have to accept the reality, since even Jens Stoltenberg, NATO’s (then) Secretary General has openly spoken of the inter-imperialist origin of the war. He also confirmed that it was the actions of NATO (which Ukraine isn’t a member of), which provoked the Russian invasion. So much for ‘Ukrainian agency’:

‘President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement,’ Stoltenberg told a joint committee meeting of the European Parliament on September 7 [2023]. ‘That was what he sent us. And [that] was a pre-condition for not invade [sic] Ukraine. Of course we didn't sign that. He went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite.’16

This is the casus belli, and therein lie the seeds for an end to this war, or a fatal escalation. Far from the question of a few weapons and provisions, the question of NATO is at the heart of the geopolitical and inter-imperialist nature of this conflict. As John Mearsheimer correctly analysed the post-Maidan moment in 2015, it was ever an inter-imperialist competition:

‘The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked.’17

That was ten years ago – there is presently no basis or justification for Wayne Price and his Tactical Natopolitans holding the views that they do.

Bitter Pills

Because Price is so thoroughly NATO-pilled, he cannot accept the responsibility of Zelensky’s regime and the Ukrainian state for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian conscripts. To Price, it is all very simple: the invading Russians are killing them and they are to blame – any acknowledgement of the role of the Ukrainian state in the slaughter of the Ukrainian working class betrays what he calls ‘an imperialist mindset’.

But let’s see how a local anarchist group describes this regime which Wayne Price is working for. In their circular from November 11th 2024, the Kharkov-based anarchist group Assembly calls it ‘the agonizing dictatorship in Ukraine’. They report graffiti from the city of Zaporozhye: ‘Zelensky is an executioner’.18 Far from an imperialist mindset, this is the mindset of class struggle. And it is the support for inter-state and inter-imperial war, which is statist, militarist, nationalist, and imperialist.

To give him some due, Wayne Price acknowledges the positioning of the Ukrainian state: ‘The Ukrainian state has leaned toward the Western imperialists against Russian imperialism.’19 But this was to be expected, Price writes, after centuries of Russian domination. Our Tactical Natopolitan is so blinkered that he can’t see that something which is against Russia, isn’t automatically pro-Ukrainian. And like with the question of government and state military collaboration, this is for Price a necessary evil: one ends up in a state army which is part of an imperialist bloc, such is life, we must soldier on ‘for national self-determination’. Nothing stops us from Abracadabra! declaring that as anarchists we oppose imperialism and ‘our statist ruling classes’. It is just that these statements have been made meaningless through our actions. There is no greater support for your ‘statist ruling class’ and imperialism than to offer your body and life for it. And there is no greater hypocrisy than Wayne Price’s which calls for someone else to die in your stead.

The conservative estimate by the capitalist press is 500,000 dead, maimed and missing-in-action Ukrainians.20 The reality is surely much higher, for anyone who has followed the front lines. Since February 2022, three Ukrainian armies have been killed off by the Russian one. This is why young Ukrainian men are being pressganged by Zelensky’s heavies in a desperate bid to send 160,000 more into death’s jaw (this is a target figure they released in November 2024). Ukrainian soldiers are some of the oldest in the world, with an average age of 43 in November 2023, 10 years older than in March of 2022. A battallion commander of the 65th Brigade says:

‘I’m being sent guys, 50 plus, with doctors’ notes telling me they are too ill to serve. At times it feels like I’m managing a day-care centre rather than a combat unit.’21

60,000 cases of desertion have been launched in the courts in the first 10 months of 2024 – the total numbers are surely higher.22 Poorly trained, the soldiers are abandoned in positions which are impossible to defend, such as Vuhledar. Here is what a soldier who deserted from the 123rd brigade said: ‘No one fucking needed Vuhledar.’ It had been reduced to rubble, more than a year ago, he is convinced there was no need to leave those Ukrainian soldiers there. He puts the blame on the Ukrainian army: ‘They’re just killing them, instead of letting them rehabilitate and rest.’ But this is not enough, Ukraine’s overlords (Wayne Price’s spiritual leaders) are demanding from the client state that it lower the conscription age to 18.23 Even those ‘unfit’ for health reasons will no longer be excluded from military registration and will remain in the register.24 If you have a pulse, you are able to offer your life for the nation.

And because Price mentally lives deep in Natostan, he cannot understand that the war, as waged by Russia is an attritional one.25 This is why he makes the claim that the war is ‘stalemated at best’. Apparent small movements of the front lines are interpreted as a stalemate. But the Russian army is following the dictums of Clausewitz who advocated for the destruction of armies and not the conquest of territories:

What do we mean by the defeat of the enemy? Simply the destruction of his forces, whether by death, injury, or any other means—either completely or enough to make him stop fighting. . . . The complete or partial destruction of the enemy must be regarded as the sole object of all engagements. . . . Direct annihilation of the enemy's forces must always be the dominant consideration.26

This is why the Russians have pursued the strategy of sucking Ukrainians into cauldrons and fire pockets to devastating effect. The killing field near Robotyno, also known as Bradley Square, and the completely impregnable Surovikin Line. Bakhmut. Vuhledar. Chasiv Yar. Avdeevka. Kursk. Over 1000 days the Russians have been destroying scores of Ukrainian men and NATO machines, because they know that Ukraine’s imperial overlords, and cheerleaders like Wayne Price, are forcing them to advance despite the odds, to prove that they are a viable client and demonstrate the investment made in them by taking territory back.

Price quibbles with me quoting Noam Chomsky because he is ‘a philosophical anarchist’, who doesn’t believe or propose a strategy for anarchist revolution. Wayne Price’s strategy for anarchist revolution is to (temporarily!) give up your autonomy and enlist in a NATO proxy army. Chomsky, on the other hand, understands that adding fire to an inter-imperial conflict under the banner of ‘fighting to the last Ukrainian’ is a disaster for any kind of libertarian movement or social revolution there. Chomsky is also aware of the pernicious effect of silencing antimilitarist and anti-imperial voices in our imperial NATO heartlands.27 Of course, Chomsky is a threat to Price’s world view, because for Price, the carrot of (Global) anarchist revolution, like the ultimate threat of (Russian) fascism – are both used to justify whatever he wants: conscription, imperialism, nationalism.

TLDR

To conclude, let’s summarise the position of the Tactical Natopolitans. It is premised on:

denial of the origins of the war (NATO expansion),
denial of the nature of the war (a proxy war), and therefore
denial of US/NATO imperialism, which is supported by
denial of the primacy of class struggle,
under the banner of defending the nation as the ultimate vessel to defend peoples, communities, individuals.

Our position as class struggle anarchists is that this is an inter-imperial conflict, where the working class is being slaughtered, exploited and lied to. Nothing can be gained for the working class or the cause of libertarian revolution by allying ourselves with any of the states or imperial blocs. Such an alliance only weakens our cause and forces, and fatally compromises anarchism.

Lastly, we need to resolutely and completely abandon the idea that the nation is the ultimate vehicle for self-determination and liberation. There is a richness of traditions, experiences, institutions, communities, languages and cultures which exist apart from and despite the nation and the state. This is our libertarian legacy. This is where the wellsprings of anarchy stem from. We should be guided by them, and not by the siren voices of chickenhawkish imperialist ultras like Wayne Price.

Comments

adri

1 week 2 days ago

Submitted by adri on December 21, 2024

A nice response. I would have also noted that you can't really speak of "self-defense" or "self-determination" when Kiev is trying to reclaim largely Russophilic territories like Crimea and the Donbass; it's just ridiculous and completely detached from what's currently happening in Ukraine.

Also from Price:

Price wrote: Bill Beech’s article is an attack on anarchists (and other socialists) who support Ukraine in its war of defense and self-determination [!] against Russian imperialist invasion.

Once again, Crimea is overwhelmingly more sympathetic towards Russia rather than the post-Maidan government in Kiev, and is in fact mostly inhabited by ethnic Russians (even before the Russian annexation). You're not supporting "self-determination" by backing the Ukrainians who want to reclaim such territory and impose their discriminatory and ultra-nationalist/fascistic policies on people who don't even desire so-called "liberation" in the first place.

Incidentally, Chomsky, who Price dismisses, has similarly noted Crimeans' Russophilic views in numerous places, such as in this interview with Bill Fletcher:

Chomsky said: It’s not pretty, but it’s very logical. You’re skipping what happened in 2014. In 2014, there was an uprising or coup, call it what you want, which threw out the elected government, parliamentary government, refused the offer of the president to have a referendum or a vote and caused him to flee the country and return to the country with direct US involvement. Do I have to repeat to you the leaked material about Victoria Nuland? Now our point person on Ukraine discussing secretly who we are going to work to bring to be the next president. Should it be Yats? Should it be somebody else? Direct US involvement to establish a government that would be pro US instead of the former pro Russian government.

Well, Russia could have just stood by and clapped, as we could have stood by and clapped if a pro Chinese government was established in Mexico calling for a military alliance with China. I rather doubt that we would’ve done that. You can decide. But Russia didn’t do it. They moved in and supported the Eastern sections, mostly Russia oriented population, mixed population, and they moved to take Crimea for reasons that every strategic analyst understands. You want to go back to Chas Freeman? Yeah. He just described it. Every Western analyst understands it. Crimea, which incidentally is very pro Russian and accepted the annexation, Crimea is the base for the only Russian warm water port. They’re not like the United States.

There's also nothing really unique about Chomsky's perspective, seeing as how Western media itself have also (reluctantly) conceded that the majority of Crimeans sympathize more with Russia rather than the post-Maidan government in Kiev.

Reddebrek

1 week ago

Submitted by Reddebrek on December 22, 2024

"Crimea, which incidentally is very pro Russian and accepted the annexation, Crimea is the base for the only Russian warm water port"

Yeah, Chomsky should cite his sources here, Crimea has a long history of not wanting to belong to Russia which is understandable given that it was occupied brutally with multiple forced removals of populations to replace them with more loyal ones, whom also go on to prove to be truculent.

In 1990 during the New Treaty Referendum, Crimea voted to be independent of both Ukrainian and Russian SSRs, then in 1991 it voted in favour of an independent Ukraine. Incidentally, leaving aside the racist logic of you and Chomsky of just assuming ethnic Russians automatically pine for Moscow because of their ethnicity, the same bullshit logic which smears Jews as being loyal drones of Zionism, when the majority of them voted for Zelensky the pre-2014 demographics were what they were due to the forced relocation of the Crimean Tartar population who were banned from returning during the Soviet period until 1989 after widespread protests against the refusal to allow them to return. Since the 2014 annexation, the new Russian authorities have taken lands belonging to them and repeatedly targeted the population for legal and extra legal persecution.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/11/14/crimea-persecution-crimean-tatars-intensifies
https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-society/2362880-un-documents-torture-and-arrests-of-crimean-tatars-by-russia.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-ukraine-crimea-putin-human-rights-abuses-un-accusations-claims-a7421406.html

Turns out, you can't just look at census data and determine political views. Since the 2014 referendum was found to be fraudulent, we don't actually know what the people who lived there would've chosen if given the option, we know that the majority party in Crimea the Party of Regions publicly stated its willingness to work with Kyiv which is probably why it was dismissed when the Russian army took over, and replaced with new people who immediately announced a referendum. And the largest explicitly "join Russia" party had won less 4% of the vote. Before the take-over by the Russian army there were both pro and anti-Russian and pro and anti Ukraine demonstrations, none of which gained mass size, the largest I've seen was a pro-Ukraine one organised by Tartars, and we know the Ukrainian government requested international observers and negotiations.

And when the referendum came we know it was boycotted by many groups and the results were inflated we know that thanks to the Russian Human Rights Council a government body publishing the data that conflicted with the announced 97% on an 83% https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/05/05/putins-human-rights-council-accidentally-posts-real-crimean-election-results-only-15-voted-for-annexation/

And ever since 2014 there have been repeated partisan attacks on the Russian authorities with a regime of repression targetting Ukrainian and Tartar culture, media and education as well as abducting and imprisoning or murdering activists of all types.
https://adcmemorial.org/en/articles/the-discrimination-and-persecution-of-crimean-tatars-in-2014-2022/
These are not characteristics of a population that are pro-Russian and accept Russian military coup de Mains.

So I don't know what the Crimean population as a whole in 2014 would've done if men with guns weren't running the show, because they weren't given the chance, and neither do you, so you stop speaking on their behalf.

In addition, neither you nor Chomsky know anything about Sevastopol, it isn't the only Russian warm water seaport, that isn't remotely true it isn't the 1880s they have multiple year round warm water ports. The Black Sea Fleet is currently based in Novorossiysk, they've had the option to build a much larger base on the Abkhazian coast for years, and their most strategically important naval base was the Tartous base in Syria. They also had through negotiations secured access to that naval base until 2042 with the option to extend it forever. And already had enough troops to secure not only the naval base but the entire city.

If the invasion of Ukraine was motivated by either a desire to protect the brother Russians or the Sevastopol harbour it was the worst decision he could've made. By bringing war to these regions, it destroyed "Russophilism" in those areas, and it's done a lot of damage to it in regions within Russia too. I know first hand that is the case since every Ukrainian I know lives in those areas spoke Russian as a first language and often only, and now all of them despise Russia, and despite fighting since 2014 there have been no mass demonstrations of spontaneous support for annexation by Russia and its armed forces have been battering most of those settlements regardless of how many ethnic Russians live there.

adri

6 days 19 hours ago

Submitted by adri on December 23, 2024

Reddebrek wrote: Yeah, Chomsky should cite his sources here, Crimea has a long history of not wanting to belong to Russia which is understandable given that it was occupied brutally with multiple forced removals of populations to replace them with more loyal ones, whom also go on to prove to be truculent.

There is actually a significant amount of scholarly agreement, particularly among non-propagandist scholars, regarding Crimeans’ overwhelming support for the 2014 Russian annexation (or reunification) of Crimea, which was especially the case in cities like Sevastopol. It might be regrettable from a socialist perspective, but those are still the facts of the matter. I can cite some academics if you would like, since you seem to think that I am only spewing Russian propaganda, an accusation that I'm growing a bit weary of.

Here’s Mark Steinberg in his mostly bourgeois history of Russia (i.e. A History of Russia, 9th ed.), co-authored with the late Nicholas Riasanovsky:

Steinberg wrote: The accession of Crimea into the Russia Federation in March 2014 was viewed by most Western powers as the annexation of the sovereign territory of Ukraine in flagrant violation of international law and led to years of diplomatic and economic sanctions against Russia and deepening isolation. For Putin’s government and most of the Russian-speaking majority in Crimea, even after the role of Russian troops (initially disguised) was acknowledged, this was a just and proper act. (618)

Here are the scholars John O'Loughlin and Gerard Toal in their lengthy article dealing specifically with Crimeans' views on the annexation, in which the authors conclude by writing:

O'Loughlin and Toal wrote: Crimea has experienced considerable transformation and turmoil since the annexation (de Stefano 2017). At present, however, there is no indication that a majority of current residents of the peninsula question or regret the annexation. It is viewed as a closed subject. Researchers would do well to acknowledge this as an essentially contested issue in international affairs rather than a subject that immediately requires recitation of a standard litany of plots and offences by the opposing sides. The foundations for contemporary and future peaceful conflict resolution can only be built by acknowledging that irrespective of the controversial means by which Crimea became part of Russia, the majority of its residents appear happy about this fact and want it to stay there. Russia’s annexation of Crimea may not have widespread legitimacy but at this point in time it has it where it counts, within Russia and within Crimea. (18-19)

(Incidentally and somewhat predictably, there is also widespread support for the Russian annexation of Crimea within Russia.)

And lastly here’s Richard Sakwa's rather informative Frontline Ukraine (his newer book, The Lost Peace, probably contains more up-to-date information):

Sakwa wrote: Anti-Maidan sentiment was strongest in Crimea, leading to its incorporation into Russia, which will be discussed in the next chapter, as well as in the putative ‘Novorossiya’ in the Donbas, which will also be discussed later. (93)

Sakwa wrote: According to the referendum commission, 83 per cent of Crimea’s eligible voters cast their ballot (1,274,096), of whom 96.7 per cent backed reunification with Russia (1,233,002). Thus, 82 per cent of the total Crimean population apparently voted in favour. There were no independent Western observers, and thus the vote inevitably attracted widespread criticism. […] Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume that even in perfect conditions a majority in Crimea would have voted for union with Russia, and in Sevastopol the vote would have been overwhelming. (104-105)

It’s also worth noting that Sakwa is the scholar who Chomsky has cited in the past with respect to Ukraine, and Sakwa actually references Chomsky in the above work as well.

I can also point again to Western media like NBC news, and other sources, who have reluctantly acknowledged that there is actually a sizable amount of Russian sympathy within Crimea, especially following the 2014 Maidan coup. Some Ukrainian propagandists like to point to how there wasn't much of a separatist movement in Crimea in the years leading up to the annexation. They seem to forget that the annexation coincided with the clashes between pro- and anti-Maidan protesters and the rise of an ultra-nationalist government in Kiev, so of course there was a shift in attitudes among Crimeans, who were mostly against the overthrow of Yanukovych and the post-Maidan government's Ukrainizing policies.

It’s mostly war-mongering Ukrainian nationalists, along with their Western sponsors, who claim that Crimeans desperately want the post-Maidan regime to “liberate” them from Russia,[1] or they ignore the opinions of Crimeans altogether and simply insist on Ukraine reclaiming Crimea. From the “socialist” side, there are also adventurist anarchists like Pramen, Crimethinc, and others who like to play revolutionary by pretending that the Russo-Ukrainian War is like the Civil War of 1917-23. Pramen in particular hosts an interview in which one Ukrainian anarchist cites their Crimean buddies as "evidence" of Crimeans' anti-Russian views, which doesn't really deserve commenting on; they live in a fantasy world. Do you want to listen to these fools or actual scholars who have spent the better part of their lives studying Russian and East European history?

Reddebrek wrote: https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-society/2362880-un-documents-torture-and-arrests-of-crimean-tatars-by-russia.html

Ukrinform is literally a state news agency of Ukraine… That would be like me citing Russia’s TASS. If you want to reference the historical or contemporary Russian persecution of Tatars in Crimea—which nobody has disputed and which I’m not even sure why you’re bringing up—then maybe don’t cite the people who are currently engaged in a war with Russia.

Reddebrek wrote: And ever since 2014 there have been repeated partisan attacks on the Russian authorities with a regime of repression targetting Ukrainian and Tartar culture, media and education as well as abducting and imprisoning or murdering activists of all types.

You think repression, murdering, and targeting of Russian speakers doesn't also happen within Ukraine?? Ukraine passed an entire language-law discriminating against Russian speakers in 2019, which required the use of Ukrainian in nearly all areas of public life, despite the fact that many Ukrainians (such as in Crimea and the southern and eastern portions of Ukraine) don't even speak Ukrainian. Have you also not come across any of the videos or reports of Ukrainian military recruiters beating Ukrainian men for refusing to enlist in the Ukrainian military? Ukraine was similarly far from some saint in terms of their treatment of the Tatar community in Crimea, and some Tatar groups, like Milli Firka, have also actually welcomed the Russian annexation. Nonetheless, the historical and contemporary persecution of Tatars in Crimea by Russia is real and something nobody here is denying.

Reddebrek wrote: In addition, neither you nor Chomsky know anything about Sevastopol, it isn't the only Russian warm water seaport, that isn't remotely true it isn't the 1880s they have multiple year round warm water ports. The Black Sea Fleet is currently based in Novorossiysk, they've had the option to build a much larger base on the Abkhazian coast for years, and their most strategically important naval base was the Tartous base in Syria. They also had through negotiations secured access to that naval base until 2042 with the option to extend it forever. And already had enough troops to secure not only the naval base but the entire city.

It's one of Russia's only major warm-water sea ports for naval ships. Novorossiisk is a commercial port, which as Sakwa notes "simply does not have the capability to house a major naval fleet" (69). Nonetheless, Russia has been expanding the port in recent years to better accommodate military ships in light of the war in Ukraine. Besides that, as I mentioned, Russia has also maintained their naval base in Sevastopol since the days of the Russian Empire, so it is not something that they would easily part with. I'm also not sure why you're interested in nit-picking over Chomsky's phrasing when his point was simply that the Sevastopol port is a major Russian asset, which was also one of the chief reasons for the Russian annexation of Crimea. Yes—there are other warm-water ports available to Russia, but Chomsky's broader point still stands.

1. Here’s the pro-Ukrainian patriot—“scholar” wouldn’t be an appropriate word—Taras Kuzio discussing the “liberation” of Crimea in one of his latest contributions to the Jamestown Foundation, which is a conservative anti-“communist” American think tank:

Kuzio wrote: The liberation of Crimea will be impossible without Russia first being defeated in Ukraine’s southeast, principally in eastern Kherson and southern Zaporizhzhia. (43)

Kuzio wrote: Only Russia’s military defeat in southeastern Ukraine and the removal of Russia’s grip over Crimea will ensure that Russian imperialism will not move further west. (46)

It’s also fitting that a war-monger like Kuzio should condemn Russia’s so-called “imperial” ambitions yet write for a reactionary foundation that is literally named after the British Empire's first major colony in the so-called "New World," with the colony itself of course being named after King James I. Kuzio, I imagine, is also well aware of the substantial support for Russia within Crimea. He just chooses to mislead people by portraying Crimeans as all “hostages” because he’s a Ukrainian patriot first and a second-rate scholar.

westartfromhere

6 days 14 hours ago

Submitted by westartfromhere on December 23, 2024

adri wrote: There is actually a significant amount of scholarly agreement, particularly among non-propagandist scholars, regarding Crimeans’ overwhelming support for the 2014 Russian annexation (or reunification) of Crimea...

Your exaltation of scholarly opinion is odd, at best. Are not most published scholars in the pay of bourgeois institutions? Besides which, what do you mean by most Crimeans'? It sounds like we are in the realm of Opinion Polls, and everybody knows whose interests these defend.

...Ukrinform is literally a state news agency of Ukraine… That would be like me citing Russia’s TASS.

Marx cites British parliamentary reports in Das Kapital. Should we discount the book on this account? adri, you played the same trick in discounting the information contained within Intifada: Palestinian Uprising — Israel's Third Front, by Ze'ev Schiff and Ehud Ya'ari.

The working class has no country of its own to defend. Period.

adri

6 days 11 hours ago

Submitted by adri on December 23, 2024

westartfromhere wrote: Your exaltation of scholarly opinion is odd, at best.

It's not.

westartfromhere wrote: Are not most published scholars in the pay of bourgeois institutions?

Yeah, like most of the working class. If you meant "in the service," then that's true to some extent, but that certainly doesn't characterize all scholars or make all research useless. There has also been a growing number of radical scholars since the 1960s and '70s, a period which also coincided with the growth of entirely new fields like women's/feminist studies in places like the US.

westartfromhere wrote: It sounds like we are in the realm of Opinion Polls, and everybody knows whose interests these defend.

Speak for yourself. Opinion polls are actually quite useful for assessing people's views, which isn't to say that they're without their flaws.

westartfromhere wrote: Marx cites British parliamentary reports in Das Kapital. Should we discount the book on this account?

Marx cited the reports of factory inspectors and other government officials because they reported honestly on the conditions of the British working class and were actually quite critical of manufacturers and other capitalists. He in fact showered praise on these same officials in the preface to the first edition of Capital for their nonpartisanship:

Marx wrote: The social statistics of Germany and the rest of Continental Western Europe are, in comparison with those of England, quite wretched. But they raise the veil just enough to let us catch a glimpse of the Medusa's head behind it. We should be appalled at our own circumstances if, as in England, our governments and parliaments periodically appointed commissions of inquiry into economic conditions; if these commissions were armed with the same plenary powers to get at the truth; if it were possible to find for this purpose men as competent, as free from partisanship and respect of persons as are England's factory inspectors, her medical reporters on public health, her commissioners of inquiry into the exploitation of women and children, into conditions of housing and nourishment, and so on. Perseus wore a magic cap so that the monsters he hunted down might not see him. We draw the magic cap down over our own eyes and ears so as to deny that there are any monsters.

On the other hand, citing a state news agency for their opinions/commentary on someone who they're currently at war with has the strong potential for bias—why am I even having to point this out??—and is best avoided.

westartfromhere

6 days 6 hours ago

Submitted by westartfromhere on December 23, 2024

Everything written has potential for bias, including government factory inspectors, state news agencies and police reports, or individual accounts. We take this into account when reading whatever sources are available to us, and glean whatever information we can, 'But they raise the veil just enough to let us catch a glimpse of the Medusa's head behind it.' As for Opinion Polls, the bias is inherent from the get-go in the questions posed.

To the point you don't raise, regarding the reliability of IDF reports on arrestees of the intifada. If these reports stated that the insurgents were by and large from the top echelons of Palestinian society we would have serious doubts as to their truthfulness and we would disregard them. As these reports stated quite the opposite, that the arrested insurgents were almost all day labourers with little or no political affiliation to any of the bourgeois Palestinian political parties—which happens to coincide with our own experience of working alongside these workers—we included this material in our bulletin.

adri

5 days 1 hour ago

Submitted by adri on December 25, 2024

Reddebrek wrote: In 1990 during the New Treaty Referendum, Crimea voted to be independent of both Ukrainian and Russian SSRs, then in 1991 it voted in favour of an independent Ukraine. Incidentally, leaving aside the racist logic of you and Chomsky of just assuming ethnic Russians automatically pine for Moscow because of their ethnicity, the same bullshit logic which smears Jews as being loyal drones of Zionism, when the majority of them voted for Zelensky, the pre-2014 demographics were what they were due to the forced relocation of the Crimean Tartar population who were banned from returning during the Soviet period until 1989 after widespread protests against the refusal to allow them to return.

There are also just so many lies here. First off, the disputed Donetsk and Luhansk Republics, along with Crimea, never participated in the 2019 presidential election, so the ethnic-Russian populations in these territories certainly did not vote for Zelensky, and likely would not have even if they could. The Russophilic Party of Regions, later officially banned in 2023, had long dominated in these regions prior to the 2014 Maidan coup, so it is unlikely that the more pro-European Zelensky would have been a favorite. It was actually Yuriy Boyko of the Opposition Platform who was widely considered to have been the favorite in these regions, but he polled poorly overall largely because these territories were ineligible to vote. Zelensky, in other words, was hardly some "unifying candidate" who enjoyed wide support among "all Ukrainians," especially if we're including the Donbass and Crimea. Secondly, it isn't even true that the majority of ethnic Russians in Ukraine, excluding the above mentioned regions that didn't vote, favored Zelensky. It was again Boyko who dominated during the first round of voting among this portion of the electorate who were eligible to vote (in the second round, the only candidates to choose from were Zelensky and Petro Poroshenko). See here or here for an electoral map of the first round of voting, based on official government data.

I bet you'll try worming your way out of this blatant falsehood by claiming that you meant "Jews" in Ukraine, and not ethnic Russians, voted for Zelensky—which would be hilarious because that has nothing to do with Crimea, the Donbass, or anything else.

I also never claimed that being an ethnic Russian in Ukraine automatically makes one sympathetic towards Russia. However, the two often go hand in hand for obvious reasons (e.g. shared language and traditions, familial connections, and so on), and in the particular case of ethnic Russians in Ukraine (including the territories annexed by Russia), it's undeniable that many ethnic Russians in fact do sympathize with Russia. I also base this sympathy on things like the scholarship I cited above, the Russophilic voting history of people in the southern and eastern portions of Ukraine, polling data from organizations like the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology,[1] and other types of sources—I don't at all base it on ethnicity alone.

With respect to the 1991 independence referendum, it's worth noting that Crimea was also the region with the lowest amount of support for separating from the USSR, totaling at around 54% (Sakwa 101). Crimeans' desire to separate from the USSR, again by a slim majority, similarly said more about their attitudes towards the Soviet system rather than Russia itself, especially considering how the USSR was not identical to Russia. How Crimeans voted in a 1991 referendum also has little to do with Crimeans' views on the 2014 Russian annexation. As I mentioned before, Ukrainian propagandists love to bring in this largely irrelevant information while ignoring Crimeans' contemporary views on the 2014 Maidan protests and the overthrow of Yanukovych; if you're talking about the annexation, then you shouldn't be reaching back to the '90s for information on how Crimeans think.

1. Incidentally, a survey by KIIS in 2014, following the Maidan coup, showed that Donbass residents were mostly in favor of different forms of greater regional autonomy, which reflected how many residents were upset with the Ukrainizing agenda of the ultra-nationalist government that came to power in Kiev.