Russia: The Anarcho-Communist Combat Organization

Russia: The Anarcho-Communist Combat Organization

From CrimethInc.

An Interview with a Clandestine Anarchist Group

When the Russian military invaded Ukraine at the end of February 2022, anarchists and other anti-war demonstrators defied draconian anti-protest measures to take the streets to express opposition. Over the months since those protests were crushed, resistance to the invasion has assumed new forms. Clandestine attacks across Russia have targeted railroads, military recruiting centers, vehicles belonging to pro-war zealots, and Russian state propaganda messaging in favor of the war.

One of the groups promoting these attacks is known as the Anarcho-Communist Combat Organization. In the following interview, they speak about how they see their predecessors in the regional history of anarchist movements, how the political situation in Russia deteriorated to such an extent that it was possible to suppress social movements and invade Ukraine, and what kind of organizing is possible under the prevailing conditions. We also asked them to go into detail about some of their operational protocol, in case this is ever useful for anarchists elsewhere who may be compelled to adopt similar strategies as state repression intensifies around the world.

We, not the author(s), have added the hyperlinks and the notes between brackets that appear below for the purpose of assisting the reader.


“We, the Anarcho-Communist Combat Organization, sabotaged the railway tracks (coordinates: 56 16’44”N 38 12’40.5”E) leading to the 12th Chief Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation—unscrewed a several bolts and dragged the rails apart…”



As we understand it, the Anarcho-Communist Combat Organization maintains various social media pages, maintains a fund to support groups carrying out clandestine direct action, and helps publicize direct action reports and information about prisoners captured in the course of struggle. Tell us how you see your publishing work, as that is the chief way many people encounter your efforts.

From some comrades, we have encountered critiques regarding social media activity as such: that it is an endless stream of short messages, which does not leave any impact in the readers’ minds.

We consider our social media efforts to be an important part of our media work, understood in the sense of our efforts to propagate our ideas. Our preferred platform for that purpose is Telegram, as it is less censored and it offers a somewhat more intellectual and politicized environment.

At the same time, we understand that the owners of any social media platforms, not to mention service providers, can cooperate with the repressive apparatus of any state. Therefore, is an important principle for us to ensure anonymity in our media work. We use an operating system based on Linux, which provides connection to the Internet exclusively through TOR. That goes for Telegram as well—we use it only this way. To register needed accounts for our activity, we use anonymous and virtual numbers and email at riseup.net, which is the project in the field of Internet technology that we trust most. We also consider it important to erase the metadata of media files—images, video, and texts. Some operating systems based on Linux allow you to do this within two clicks; with others, you need to install particular programs. In any case, it is always accessible and essential.



One of your roles is to report direct actions and the like in Russia. How do you confirm reports and news items that reach you before sharing them?

Regarding news items that we encounter online or which are sent to us—if the news is sent to us directly, we start by evaluating how plausible it is based on our own experience. We factor in the authenticity and clarity of the communiqué text (usually those who try to fake a communiqué are quite bad at pretending to be anarchists); the legibility of photo or video footage; and the precise coordinates regarding the place, date, and target of an attack. If the information we have received can be trusted according to these criteria, we consider it to be true and publish it. If the event is also reported on in mass media, including corporate media, that can serve as an additional confirmation that the event in question actually happened.



What process do you use to decide who to support with your action fund when there is no way to make direct contact?

Deciding who to support from the fund we have started is not easy, especially considering that it is rather small-scale. At first, we sent minor amounts to all who requested assistance. Soon, we discovered that in most cases, we did not receive in return any sort of confirmation that any real action was taken by these people. For this reason, we have now started to provide support from the fund post factum, when there is evidence that actions have taken place.

The transfers take place between BTC cryptowallets. With that, we send the recipients instructions regarding how to anonymize the cryptocurrency when buying fiat money for it.

We want to make one important recommendation to all future participants in partisan resistance: conduct preliminary tests of all the means of combat that you plan to use in your actions. Whether you are using Molotov cocktail or more advanced means, this will enable you to avoid unfortunate mistakes and problems in the moment of direct action.



Looking back at the history of Russia and the surrounding regions, what organizations and struggles do you consider to be your predecessors?

We see ourselves within the revolutionary anarchist tradition in Eastern Europe. We see the militant anarchist groups of the beginning of the last century as our predecessors: Chernoe Znamia [“Black Banner,” a federation of cadres founded in Białystok in 1903], “Beznachaliye” [“Without Authority,” the principal anarchist circle in Petersburg at the opening of the 20th century], and the “Southern Russian Anarchist-Syndicalist Group.” What inspires us in these organizations is their commitment to resolute militant activity and their desire to involve the broad masses of the people in combat work, to unite the political and economic struggle into a single struggle for social revolution. We also consider ourselves to be the successors of the Revolutionary Insurgent Army of Ukraine (RPAU) [the forces associated with Nestor Makhno, also known as the Black Army] and the anarchists of the underground who, during the Civil War, opposed the reactionary and Bolshevik dictatorship with arms in their hands.

In regards to more recent times, our partisan anarchism brings creative approach to ideas and practice of New Revolutionary Alternative from the 1990s [a Russian insurrectionary anarchist group that carried out a series of attacks on government targets during the Chechen war] and groups organized around «Black Blog» around the end of the 2000s and the beginning of the 2010s. Besides that, we are inspired by heroic self-sacrifice of Mikhail Zhlobitsky, who bombed the FSB headquarters in Arkhangelsk on October 31, 2018, and we admire what he did.

Looking back on the experience and example of our predecessors, we conclude that successful revolutionary work requires a disciplined organization composed of determined, selfless, and dedicated comrades.


“When the anarchist movement revives, it will regularly face tactical and strategic tasks that can only be solved by armed means. You have to be ready for this.” -An article by Anarchist Combatant about the history of Russian anarcho-syndicalism.


Over the years of your activity, you have seen Putin’s government become more and more repressive. When the government tightens repression, the anarchist movement faces a dilemma: should we become more public, taking more risks, in order to try to prevent a backlash in society? Or should we go underground to prepare for repression? Is it possible to do both? How do we balance the need for community organization with the need to keep our projects secure?

We are aware of examples in which some comrades have managed to balance between publicity and the underground for quite a long time, and to be quite active in both. However, this is the exception to the rule. A certain division into “above-ground” and “underground” wings is inevitable. The experience of many revolutionary movements of the twentieth century attests to this.

It is important for both wings to exist and to be strong. At the same time, we insist that there must be ties between them, including the possibility for militants to transfer from one wing to the other. In the past, we sometimes heard an opinion that for “security reasons” the public and underground wings should be completely isolated from each other. In our experience, there are always transitional links and channels of communication of some kind.



What advice can you give to anarchists in other parts of the world who are not currently organized in underground structures, but who may have to organize them? What steps should they take now that might be more difficult in the future?

It is very difficult to answer this without being intimately familiar with the specific realities of the parts of the world that we are talking about. Consequently, we can only emphasize the most general points.

First of all, comrades need to agitate within the anarchist movement itself for the creation of underground armed structures—as far as we know, the anarchists in most countries have no understanding of the need for this at all.

Then, the primary organizations of such structures need to be created, and more broadly, a network of reliable contacts in different regions of the country—of course, taking all the necessary security measures.

At the same time, comrades need to organize training and drills in various military fields.

It is never too early to start saving up money, weapons, and equipment. And to prepare fully secure frameworks for both public and non-public information and media activity, as well as non-cash money transfers. These seem to be the basics.



Looking back at the last fifteen years in Russia, could any sort of international solidarity and support have enabled anarchists in Russia to prevent Putin from gaining enough control over Russian society to be able to invade Ukraine?

Perhaps it makes sense to look back at an even earlier period—back to 1993 and 1996, when Yeltsin and the oligarchs consolidated power and crushed their political rivals. As unlikable as those rivals may have been, it now seems that the path to building an authoritarian state that could suppress any political alternative was already mapped out at that point. Putin only followed this logic, and he already faced fewer obstacles than Yeltsin. Then came the apolitical (or “satiated,” as people call them) 2000s, when there was hardly any possibility of rocking the boat. Perhaps, in theory, the political crisis of 2011-2012 could have ended Putin’s rule, if all the opposition forces had acted more cohesively and radically. The anarchists tried to radicalize the protest, but our forces were not enough, and the authorities decided to launch the first serious waves of repression.

It is hard for us to say what sort of international support could have made our movement stronger back then. The seizure of Crimea and the outbreak of war against Ukraine in 2014 caused a great upsurge of reactionary sentiments in Russia, and the country went straight to the current disaster.



In the US, some “anti-imperialists” (including a small number of alleged anarchists) believe that everyone who supports Ukrainian anarchists involved in military resistance to the invasion is fighting “side by side” with Ukrainian fascists, supporting the Zelensky government, and advancing the interests of NATO. Please explain your own position regarding how you think Russian and Ukrainian anarchists should act in this situation and what anarchists in other parts of the world should do in solidarity.

The defeat of Ukraine will bring about the triumph of the most reactionary forces in Russia—finalizing its transformation into a neo-Stalinist concentration camp, with unlimited power concentrated in the FSB [the Federal Security Service, successor to the KGB] and a totalitarian Orthodox imperial ideology. In occupied Ukraine, every sprout of civil society and political freedom will be destroyed and the very existence of Ukrainian culture will be called into question. On the other hand, if Russia is defeated, there will inevitably be a crisis for Putin’s power and a prospect of revolution. For anarchists, the choice between these alternatives seems clear.

In any case, we here in Eastern Europe see all this as much more urgent and real than the arguments (which people can have without committing to anything) about the geopolitical games of the United States and NATO, which we prefer to leave to Putin’s propagandists. So, solidarity with us means solidarity with Ukraine, with its victory.

You have had over half a year to evaluate the various anarchist strategies in Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine in response to the invasion. What did you expect and what surprised you? For example, what do you think was the outcome of the public anti-war protests in February and March 2022? Can you share any thoughts on the effectiveness of Operation Solidarity, the Resistance Committee, the Feminist Anti-War Resistance, the Autonomous Action, or other organizations on both sides of the border that tried to respond to the invasion?

To be honest, in six months it is still unclear which combination of strategies is most effective. All the actions of the comrades have been of great importance, and still we cannot yet say that the anarchist movement in Russia/Belarus or Ukraine is on the rise, although in Ukraine we see an inspiring mobilization.

We support the decision of the anarchists in Ukraine to take up arms and join the military confrontation with imperialism. Any revolutionary political movement must be combative, must demonstrate its fighting ability in times of war and participate with society at large in its struggle. We are pleasantly surprised at the level of logistical success, the collection of material aid and necessary items, and the media resonance that the “civil wing” of the libertarian movement in Ukraine has managed to achieve.

However, we would like to see more organization and structure among anarchists on the Ukrainian side, as well as a more clearly and actively expressed political position. The manifesto of the Resistance Committee alone is insufficient for this.

As for Russia, we think that all actions—peaceful, violent, symbolic, and informational—are very important. Anything that can touch the minds and souls of people in our society. At the same time, we are supporters of partisan methods: sabotage, direct action, partisan war against the fascist regime. In our opinion, these will produce the greatest resonance and have the greatest political and revolutionary potential under the present conditions.

Do you think that people outside of Russia could have done something to make the first stage of the Russian anti-war movement go differently?

It must be said that although few believed that a full-scale invasion would take place, a huge international solidarity movement emerged within the first hours of the war. Anti-authoritarians who joined the armed resistance to Putinism in Ukraine were quickly provided and equipped with most of the necessary items. Volunteers, including members of anarchist initiatives, also helped Ukrainian refugees. There were solidarity actions, meetings, and discussions. A lot of work was done, and here we can only thank the comrades.

But there is almost always more we can do in the sphere of solidarity actions or fundraising for the libertarian movements in Ukraine and in Russia. We often hear that people in the West are gradually “getting tired of the topic of war,” and we don’t see the same consensus on the question of the international isolation of Putin’s regime that used to exist. What is important now is to maintain a “tone of solidarity,” to maintain a high level of awareness and activity.



Ever since Bakunin left Russia in 1840, and possibly before that, generation after generation of Russian radicals have had to flee Russia and organize outside of it. Can you share any thoughts on the problems of organizing movements that include political émigrés in exile? For example, how do you maintain connections between people inside and outside Russia? How do you balance between the influence of Russian comrades who “represent” the movement as émigrés in Western Europe and the perspectives of those who are still inside the country and are exposed to more risk as a result?

As far as we can see, one of the important problems in emigration is remaining politically active, maintaining a radical perspective, and finding a balance between integrating into a new community and staying connected to the realities and the movement back home.

The current community of exiles from Russia is, as far as we can see, quite dispersed. However, there are several groups of Russian anarchists abroad. This is a very positive thing, which needs to be developed.

In our view, we can only talk about “representation” if we are speaking of an organization with branches both in Russia and abroad. Otherwise, we are not talking about representation, but only about the opinions and perspectives of particular groups and individuals.

As for connections between emigrants and those who are active inside Russia—they do exist. The Internet and the means of anonymous communication contribute greatly to their existence. Here again, it would be appropriate to say that we need more organization in order for these connections to become systematic and politically significant, rather than sporadic individual communication. There are moves in the right direction, but we cannot reveal the details.


Upon close inspection, the viewer can see that someone has scratched the letters “BOAK,” for “Anarcho-Communist Combat Organization,” into the side of the sabotaged rail.


The split in Operation Solidarity has raised questions about conflict resolution and how people in the movement can cooperate with each other under intense pressure. How do the values ​​and ideologies of the ruling order—such as capitalism, patriarchy and liberal individualism—manifest themselves in the activities and behavior of revolutionaries in the former Soviet republics?

It is difficult for us to judge the split we have not witnessed. However, we can share a common vision of the “culture of splits,” which flourishes not only in the anarchist movement, but in contemporary society in general.

Sometimes we hear from comrades: “Splits are good; if people have contradictions between each other, they should part their ways.” You can’t build a strong movement with that kind of logic. By experience, we can say that behind “ideological splits” there are always not only theoretical and practical differences, but also conflicts of ambition, a struggle for power and resources, and egoism. This is typical not only for novices who just have joined the movement, but also for old and seasoned revolutionaries who have been involved for many years.

We do not know of a surefire formula to prevent such splits. Unfortunately, every movement we know of has gone through dramatic conflicts, including some that were quite massive and successful. If anything probably serves to protect against splits, it is collective self-discipline—the understanding that the interests of the struggle are above individual desires and preferences, that collective decisions are not always what any particular individual would like, but that they are still important to keep the group together.

This may sound naïve, but comradely love and warm relationships in the collective can also protect against splits. But we know for a fact that these won’t guarantee anything, that they cannot completely eliminate conflicts. However, even if splits cannot be avoided completely, we should strive to minimize them.



Outside of Russia, we get the impression that Putin is drawing recruits from small towns in order to minimize the effects of the war in Moscow and St. Petersburg. What can be done to disrupt a political strategy that is designed to contain the impact of the war? How, in the face of powerful repression, can anarchists convey something to those who have reason to be outraged by the war?

This is a very correct impression, in our view. And here, the war itself, by its fatal inevitability, acts as the main agent of the regime’s overthrow. This role cannot be undone, cannot be rolled back, neither by the Russian government if it wanted to, nor by the opponents of the regime—no other factor will be able to overshadow this war.

As to how we might bring our message to the people in these conditions of repression… we are trying to put our vision into action. Supporters of Putin’s policy and those who are indifferent need to be shown that the war may be very close to them. Opponents of war need to be shown effective ways to fight it.



Do you think that the invasion of Ukraine is a sign of things to come around the world—a future in which war becomes more widespread, as capitalism enters a series of economic and environmental crises? What should people be doing now to prepare?

This is a very likely scenario. Of course, the universal answer we can give is that we should make an anarchist revolution as soon as possible :)).

The more “realistic” advice should still refer to the strengthening of democratic control of the broad popular masses over the authorities—the more effective such control will be, the more problems can be avoided in the future. But this is still a relatively optimistic scenario—it is likely that society will not be strong enough, and the elites will bring their peoples to disaster. What remains to be done here is probably to try as hard as possible to develop comprehensive horizontal ties, including among the ideologically motivated members of the anarchist movement, so that these connections are not confined to activism, but work in the economic sphere as well. Such groups based in trust can help greatly to survive difficult times, and people from outside, from the atomized social chaos, can gather around them.



Finally, please explain how you think people outside the region can best support anarchists in Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine.

Participate in initiatives that support the revolutionaries of Eastern Europe materially and in the field of information. In particular, we encourage you to donate to our Revolutionary Anarchist Fund—this helps tremendously when it comes to to carrying out the struggle and covering its costs.

It is important that the anarchist revolutionary strategy is not limited to one country or region. The state and capitalism must be attacked all over the world.

You can follow the Anarcho-Communist Combat Organization on Telegram at BOAK and Anarchist Combatant.

Adaptation, a punk band from Kazakhstan, playing their song, “Stop the War.”

There are 46 Comments

There has been a good deal of debate on the anarchistnews site over whether to support the Ukrainian people in their resistance to the Russian invasion. It is very interesting that these revolutionary Russian anarchists are in support of the Ukrainian anarchists who have overwhelmingly found ways to participate in the war for Ukrainian independence.

Wayne is soooo excited that a half-dozen Russian neo-Platformists agree with him. Finding macho posturers is pretty easy during a war, even among self-described anarchists. Armed conflict appeals to (and is reinforced by) the basic limbic neurotransmitters in charge of aggression and clan defense. Well done, Wayne and these Russian fools, for meeting all the expectations of your species-being. No transcendence/transmutation necessary -- it's all about in-group survival on a molecular level. As my German friends would say: kannst du gar nichts gegen machen...

"The defeat of Ukraine will bring about the triumph of the most reactionary forces in Russia—finalizing its transformation into a neo-Stalinist concentration camp, with unlimited power concentrated in the FSB [the Federal Security Service, successor to the KGB] and a totalitarian Orthodox imperial ideology. In occupied Ukraine, every sprout of civil society and political freedom will be destroyed and the very existence of Ukrainian culture will be called into question. On the other hand, if Russia is defeated, there will inevitably be a crisis for Putin’s power and a prospect of revolution. For anarchists, the choice between these alternatives seems clear.

In any case, we here in Eastern Europe see all this as much more urgent and real than the arguments (which people can have without committing to anything) about the geopolitical games of the United States and NATO, which we prefer to leave to Putin’s propagandists. So, solidarity with us means solidarity with Ukraine, with its victory."

This is a perfect articulation of why people don't, and often, can't take anarchists seriously. The war is clearly a US proxy war and to view that as insignificant shows how ridiculous and ungrounded the movement is now. Anarchists need to articulate a clear position in conflict and not just jump into the arms of reaction. With silliness like this it's probably good they remain insignificant.

Umm, let's drop the nationalist rhetoric and look at the pragmatics within the region. Leading international mega-Agricultural Corporate Complex dominating European and African markets

be aware that there are anarchists in russia that do not support this militarist rethoric. CrimeThink prefers to put the focus on the pro-NATO ones...

U.S. and NATO interests are but one factor in this conflict and the obsession with centering this flattens the complexity of the situation. And accusing anarchists in Ukraine/Belarus/Russia of being "pro-NATO" is an extremely lazy move.

Related point of curiosity for me in this debate: I can agree with your point in accusing Ukrainian resistance to the invasion (along with the anti-war movement in Russia) of militarist rhetoric. What I don't understand is how people with your perspective consider denouncing Ukrainian resistance to be the anti-war/anti-militarist position. You are simply deferring to the aggression and militarism of the other side. I simply don't think choosing a side and claiming it to be *the* anti-war position makes sense in this conflict.

And make some fancy Boss black uniforms with some red... no wait.

So yea, anarcho-syndicalist fools getting fooled by their avoidance of historical context, probably confusing today's Ukraine war with the Makhnovschina.... So sad.

05:12 -- Stick to applying for S.S.I. -- that's all 'Murikans like you are good for.

"Murikans like you"

Fail, haha. I am by all measures not American.

Also was camping under bridges when it was still underground.

> camping

Fucking tourists. No dumpster poutine for you!

Aaaaaaah! So this is what the "dumpster poutine* edgy reference was about.

This was *well-informed*, yes, tho it came with the BS allusion that I'm dismissing Native struggles as ID pols. But you, not me, are the one equating Native struggles with liberal ID pols, with those ASSumptions.

Also "tourism" is what normies like you do, not me. On my part I just spent a great, quiet night of camping by an abandoned lot on a hill next to a big shopping mall at the outskirts of town. Good luck doxxing THAT, huh!

Bye, sweetie pie.

I see you’re still playing the “the anti-fascists are the real fascists!!” game of privilege. Perhaps don’t expect that to FLY so well in certain circles.

It might also be germane to the conversation to point out that there were plenty of Russian and Ukrainian anarchists who were leery of the Makhnovists -- because of their too-east slide into militarism (hierarchy and discipline). Voline spent enough time with Makhno and company to get a pretty good idea of the differences between the Makhnovists and others anarchists.

And yet the point remains: Ukrainian anarchists overwhelmingly support the Ukrainian people in their defensive war against Russian invasion. The Ukrainian anarchists have participated in the struggle, in ways which range from the distribution of food and medicine to joining in the military fight. The Ukrainian anarchists are supported by at least one group of Russian anarchists, as well as anarchists in other nearby countries. This is, as I have repeatedly shown, consistent with the mainstream history of anarchism, from Bakunin and Kropotkin onward.

But this anarchist support for the self-determination of an oppressed people is sneered at and pooh-poohed, not taken seriously, by U.S. Canadian, and Western European anarchists, even Latin Americans. These display their ignorance and arrogance and a total lack of concern for an oppressed people which is heroically fighting back against imperialist oppression.

I completely agree with Anon 04:36. You peace-loving anarchists "consider denouncing Ukrainian resistance to be the anti-war/anti-militarist position. You are simply deferring to the aggression and militarism of the other side.."

And yet the lies continue. Wayne magically knows what every Ukrainian anarchist believes and does -- because he's channeling the ghosts of dead Russians. Wayne magically knows that the dead Russians would recognize the pro-US/NATO neoliberal Ukrainian state as an authentic representative of the Ukrainian people in their struggle for national self-determination against the Russian invasion.
Again and again Wayne needs to be reminded that NOBODY here is sneering at or pooh pooing the efforts of Ukrainian (and other) anarchists. People continue to call into question their choices to join or subordinate themselves to a military and paramilitary forces that are being supported and armed by Western imperialism. NOBODY is dismissing or denouncing the real life and death decisions of the couple dozen Ukrainian anarchists. People are just calling into question many of their tactics. Those are legitimate questions to raise at any time, but Wayne doesn't want any anarchist to bring a critical eye to the situation because war. So he and Luke and now 04:36 create strawmen to deflect any and all legitimate critiques, making any question into providing aid and comfort to Putin's marauders. Bad faith and deliberate misreading plus dishonest accusations are their only answers to principled critique.
Ukrainians are not a historically oppressed people -- according to Wayne', that must have begun six months ago. Whenever idiotic Cold War Anti-Imperialists invoke the "oppressed people" excuse for shit politics I generally think of Irish Catholics or Afghans or Palestinians or Kurds or Tibetans. Those folks have suffered oppression for generations, a little longer than six months. Wayne's use of the term should be offensive to anyone involved in subaltern solidarity work.
Stop lying.

Anon 17:22 writes, "Ukrainians are not a historically oppressed people -- according to Wayne', [??] that must have begun six month ago."

Actually Ukrainians have been oppressed for centuries, as every Ukrainian knows. By the Czarist empire. By the Polish and German states. By the Stalinist Russian state. By Putin's Russian state. And now Putin is trying to recreate the worst of Russian oppression, to wipe out Ukraine as a nation with its own culture, language, and history, as well as self-rule.

Sorry Wayne you can’t just reas stuff on the bbc or whatever and pass that off as knowing history. Oppressed as peasants and proles, not as speakers of one of several dialects who had no nationalist politics or identity. Even Taras Shevchenko was not a nationalist but advocated a leftist pan-Slavic federation. There’s never been a Ukrainian nationalist movement that wasn’t intimately tied to fascism. Not 100 years ago when it first appeared and not today. Try again. What’s a “nation” Wayne???

Watch me! Only by embracing The Ukrainian Peoples' Nationalist Struggle will the Power of Revolutionary NATO back anarchist-Communist Order be established! Embrace the anarchist-Communist Platform, comrade. There is no escape!

Ukrainian nationalists point to and celebrate the uprisings of Khmelnetsky and Pugachev as antecedents. Both were characterized by the amalgamation of various ethic groups in opposition to other ethic and political groups. The former targeted Poles and Germans, while the latter targeted mostly Russians. Some pro-peasant marxists point to both as uprisings against the depredations of landlords and incipient bourgeois clusters. But just like the modern Ukrainian nationalists Petliura and Bandera, they all targeted Jews for special targeted violence -- the word pogrom was invented to describe it. So yes, manifestations of Cossack-Ukrainian nationalism have always contained the seeds of fascism if not embracing it outright. But sure, Wayne, let's keep insisting that Ukrainians are oppressed and therefore innocent of being oppressors or perpetrators of ethic violence. Because war. Fucking imbecile.

Just like crimethinc, this comment refers to a majority of anarchist opinion, as if that makes it clear it is the correct position. The fact of the matter remains, a significant portion of the anarchists in Ukraine have joined an enemy military in a nationalist conflict. The Resistance Committee statement makes that unequivocally clear and parrots western elite propaganda.

It's also clear that crimethinc has an allegiance to Western, white world domination and this is just the latest incarnation. Support for Michael Reinhoel was out the window. No militant struggle for black liberation in the US. Supprt for NATO war and expansion of the western imperial project? Of course! Crimethinc, igd and the rest all are content to March forward, lock step, to ensure their political project, western hegemony continue. Price too evidently.

I'm a nihilist, from a so called post-colonial country. I just can't comprehend how white or American anarchists doesn't understand the geopolitics of this, even the fundamental understanding of people's autonomy! You would consider that West Papuan guerrilas, buying weapons from other imperial countries are just puppets? If the Spanish Civil War ended up being supported by the allies with weaponry what would it be? Just because of your guilty of being white doesn't mean that Ukrainian people and anarchists, even in Russia and most of eastern Europe, understand the gravity of the Russian aggression? And you guys still trapped in this no war but the class war? I'll be damned that moronic white American anarchists still thinks that supporting ordinary people in Ukraine against an invasion are just mere a spectacle of opposition? It's not that simple. Your analysis simply just repeat the same anti-war position of anarchists during the first world War, even though they context is very different now. I don't care if the Russian combat anarchist flirts with the spirits of old ancom in the past, but they do really good job in sabotaging the invasion than all of your useless words of saying you're against stupid war. It's not a war! It's a fucking invasion for fuck sake. If my part in Asian are invaded like Ukraine, I would not think second time to try to join the army so I can get my own arms and to armed my community. You're double standard just cos they're not Ocalans or Zaaptistas are pathetic. Down with platforms! Down with stupid class war anarchism! Defend your autonomy, your community, fuck everyone who said otherwise. They don't live like you. They don't experience the same thing ike you. Fucking missionary anarchists, just rot with your newspaper and empty statements

Your command of English grammar is admirable, comrade. Here's a nickle, get yourself a soda pop. Be the nihilist you'd like to see in the world.

What's remarkable is that your white ass can't understand how anarchists supporting imperialist war is untenable and ridiculous! The idea that joining a NATO army has anything to do with furthering revolutionary political ideals is counter revolutionary. West Papua has been fighting a decolonial project. Rojava is a far left political project based on decades of Marxist armed struggle. The war in Ukraine is the culmination of a fascist coup/uprising, promoted and expanded by Washington with the goal of expanding Western capitalist/military power. To join into that is a total betrayal. If anarchist are to fight against the Russian state, which is great, it should be to further the goals of a revolutionary project, not to give the white man a leg up in world affairs.

Reactionary ass 'anarchists.'

Again, just empty words who dont shit even about west papua struggle that are connected with us since years ago. To say decolonial, damn dude, you gotta be so expert on this archipelago. your approach is simplistic at best. and to those who ridicule my grammar, well at least I can write some english, you cant write my languange. Youre doubling down on getting up arms on Nato are so hyporcritical, why? ROJAVA relies weaponry from western states, especially USA. Their special forces are so militaristic, that is not to say to abandon all of Rojava revolutionary potential. But are you seriously think this as just another proxy war? Even if it is, just like in Rojava, theres ordinary people there too, who are willing to fight for their communities. NAIVE.

Please do use weapons save orangutang then arm orangutang for make revolutionary war. Orangutang are best fight strategy in all Asia. Also gentle friend. Terima kasih!

The struggle in Rojava is not above criticism for the collusion with the West. There is an internal conflict going on as we speak about that error. You clearly ignored the main crux of the argument. These conflicts are over vastly different things. You can ignore the facts and continue to cheerlead for Western hegemony like crimethinc. But yall should stop pretending like yall are revolutionaries, or anarchists or whatever. Be the puppets you are!

I am a sociolinguist and language analyst for MIT. You are faking. Go touch grass.

I am pleased that Anon 00:25 agrees that the "majority of [Ukrainian] anarchist opinion...a significant portion" agrees with me in supporting the Ukrainian war of defense. This does not prove they are correct. But it does show that we cannot simply deny that this is an opinion held by many anarchists--here (Crimethinc) and abroad (Ukraine and Russia). We cannot simply assume that *your* opinion is the only true, anarchist, one.

I am not a political supporter of Crimethinc and have disagreed with them in the past. But to state that "their political project [is] western hegemony" is just slander.

It seems, yes, most US and European anarchists and maybe a lot of European leftists have allied themselves with Western imperialism and capitalism. That is true. And hardly something to be pleased about.

Crimethinc has come out against militant struggle for black liberation and for NATO expansion. Hence they are allies of western hegemony. You can disagree all you want but it's clear to anyone who has any stake in liberation..

"Crimethinc has come out against militant struggle for black liberation "

wat? Not that I'm calling bullshit on you, but when did that happen? I don't recall anything to that matter... or are you referring to their dismissal of the Black Panthers?

Also its curious that you and the other NATO war supporters from the anarchist position totally ignored this text from the Greek comrade Dimitris Chatzivasileiadis. He went into great detail about the scope of this political betrayal.

https://abolitionmedia.noblogs.org/post/2022/06/18/anarchist-prisoner-d-...

https://athens.indymedia.org/media/upload/2022/06/11/When_the_Machnovite...

"The only reason that anarchists are allowed to have free political activity in the ukrainian
territory, while communist ideas and anti-fascist memory are persecuted, is the fact that some have
supported the regime, some actively and others passively. What does the political survival of
anarchists matter if their politics are nationalist and pro-imperialist? What does the survival of
anyone matter, when the price for this survival is the burial of revolutionary struggle? In conclusion,
pro-bourgeois anarchists, in the ranks of the national militarism, sacrifice themselves for the sake of
the bosses, after having sacrificed social emancipation."

"During the
Black Revolt, Crimethink was one of the public voices trying to deny the existence and legitimacy
of civil war, i.e. open class warfare. At the epicenter of historically incoherent scholastic definitions,
was posed the belief that a military confrontation between the social movement and the US armed
forces would result in senseless slaughter. But now Crimethink has put forward a call for a military
confrontation with another modern army. What has changed? Perhaps one parameter is distance.
The farther away, the better; others will put their hand in the fire. I don't want to settle for such an
undervaluation of the political criteria of the publishers. There are deeper issues underneath the
apparent difference in risk.
Why is it that in one case armed conflict is classified as unacceptable militarism, while in
the other case it is acceptable for the struggle to be identified entirely with state militarism? There is
a common thread. Crimethink has to convince that some other coherent thread underlies its
thinking, capable of explaining away the apparent common component: In both geographies we are
called upon to not confront American militarism and, in addition, we are called upon to recognize it
as our ally outside its borders. Pacifism within the local movement is upgraded to a manifest
collaboration with the enemy outside. No to civil class war, yes to nationalism and imperialism.
Deep down the two positions are not contradictory in terms of militarism; they are equally
militaristic and, indeed, under the same boss. As I explained in the brochure "Antimilitarism and
revolutionary anarchism " xvii , the idealist antimilitarism of avoiding class-political war (which
requires political-military organization) is a fetishistic submission to state militarism, a
manifestation of the domination of its terrorism. Simple as that, the argument for enlisting in
ukrainian nationalism and NATO imperialism was the same for refusing the civil war in the US: the
social forces are not capable."

I sense a note of hysteria in the arguments of anarchist capitulators-to-Putin. A charge that " most US and European anarchists ...have allied themselves with Western imperialism and capitalism. That is true." If by "allying with Western imperialism" you mean supporting the people of Ukraine against the Russian invasion, then I wish it *were* true. Alas, I do not think this is true, from the statements I have seen by Italian, Irish, and British (and Australian) and others. Incidentally, despite US and NATO aid to Ukraine, it is not a "NATO war," since U.S. and NATO soldiers are in fact not actually fighting in Ukraine.

Whatever this "Greek comrade" thinks, to call the Ukrainian anarchists "nationalist and pro-imperialist....pro-bourgeois anarchists," is still slander, as is saying that Crimethinc's "political project is western hegemony."

Crimethinc's opinions on other topics are being dragged into the discussion. I have written essays disagreeing with Crimethinc on a couple of topics. I don't know anything about their stance on other subjects, although it seems reasonable to me to oppose a "civil war" between demonstrators and the US military (at this time). I originally brought up Crimethinc only to point out that there are US anarchists who agree with me in supporting the Ukrainian people .

hey Wayne, don't you know the misogynist history of the term "hysteria"? it was coined in the early 1800s as a Latinized version of the Greek word for womb, since the medicalized patriarchal presumption was (is?) that women are the only ones who suffer from fits of excessive emotion? didn't you learn anything in your Feminism 101 classes?

and there you go with your strawmanning again, calling those who disagree with you "capitulators-to-Putin". if we are to believe you that you are not a supporter of the US/NATO *proxy* war against Russia (nobody is stupid enough to assert that US/NATO forces are actually fighting -- another Wayne deflection... but just for shits and giggles, what do you call it when the US pledges $3million worth of military aid for the next three months?), then you have to believe that anarchists who are against war are pro-Putin. that is a complete fabrication on your part. there was a time when you relied on reasoned argument to make your points, where despite disagreeing with you about virtually everything you've ever written, i could appreciate that you were serious. but apparently those days are gone -- or at least are on hold, because war.

As I get older, no doubt my brain gets mushier. No doubt this is why I have no idea how the misogynist origins of the word "hysteria" have anything to do with the mood of our discussion about the war with Ukraine! Rather, I think that your referring to it is an illustration of what I was talking about.

I was not accusing you or anyone else of believing that NATO troops are fighting in Ukraine. I was pointing out that it was inappropriate to refer to the Ukrainian war for self-defense as a "NATO war," precisely *because* NATO forces are not fighting in Ukraine. (During the U.S.-Vietnamese War, radicals did not refer to it as the U.S.-Soviet Union War, despite the military aid which Stalinist Russia sent Vietnam.)

I can hardly deny that the conflict between U.S. imperialism and Russian imperialism (and their allies) is a major, if background, factor. But I maintain that the Ukrainian-Russian conflict is still central. This could change. During World WarI, the national liberation struggle of Serbia (which might be said to have set off the big war) was overwhelmed by the European-wide and world-wide war. On the other hand, I would argue that in World War II, the national liberation struggle of China against Japanese imperialism did not cease to be one of national independence once Japan and the US began their war, despite its important background to the defensive war against the Japanese invaders. Right now, I think that the Ukrainian war is closer to the China-Japan example.

It's not my fault that Wayne can't see the explicit and implicit connections between misogyny, patriarchy, and war. The anarchist rejection of war and militarism is clearly a women's game to Wayne, who prefers to ignore the way language influences thought and action. Dismissing those who stand against war as womanly, overly irrational, and dominated by emotions is one of the oldest lies of the patriarchy, and Wayne is all-too enthusiastic about deploying it when his ludicrous pro-state and pro-war revisionist history no longer has any traction. Clearly, Wayne's support of oppressed people only goes so far; the insufficiently masculine (those who resist an almost instinctive attraction to being aggressive, bellicose, violent, and xenophobic) are denounced as suffering from "hysteria." Well done, Wayne; your version of anarchism is sure to attract only the best and bravest.
Pro-war Pro-state Anarchism (tm): Definitely Not for Pussies!

Foaming at the mouth, you rant, "Dismissing those who stand against war as womanly, overly irrational, and dominated by emotions is one of the oldest lies of the patriarchy, and Wayne is all-too enthusiastic about deploying it...."

Made up out of whole cloth, this is really over the boundary of rationality. Talk about becoming "hysterical"! Is there no depth to which you won't sink?

NATO has in Ukraine:

- Special Forces agents, from at least the UK and the US
- Ukrainian forces also being trained by NATO forces, like in/by the UK for instance
- countless, seemingly unlimited armament and munitions shipped to the cuntry.... not to say at arms dealers' supermassive profits (just too bad I didn't invest soon enough in Raytheon, BAE & co? Ok maybe not...)
- logistics support through surrounding NATO cuntries
- widespread economic support, with major businesses cutting ties with Russia, but also gas supplies which made gas prices go across the roof in most Western countries, to the detriment of their populations, just coz governments vowed unconditional support to Ukraine.

Ukraine literally is a war front against Russia, and Ukrainians (for the most part) are fighting and dying for NATO, not just against the Russian invader.

THERE IS NO END IN SIGHT FOR THIS WAR, other than the destruction of either Ukraine or Russia, as this is what it's about... an Ukrainian war front is the ONLY way NATO can fight and possibly win a war against Ukraine, avoiding as much as possible a nuclear confrontation. This is the most insane part of this thing... it can keep going on as long as Russia can fight. But if China is backing Russia covertly, well this means a fucking war lasting for years, if not decades.

And yet U.S. forces are not fighting Russian forces, by deliberate decision. So it remains just short of a U.S.-Russian war. The Ukrainians continue to fight for their independence and you continue to deny that they are doing so.

Where does the above comment says otherwise, or reading comprehension fail? Here's a brain helper:

Ukraine's forces are being used to fight *in the place* of the US/NATO. The latter is providing them with all the hardware, ammo and training so they fight Russia, in order to avoid a direct conflict with Russia! This a proxy war, ever heard of a "proxy war", Wayne? Where were u during the Cold War days... LARPing already about stuff that happened 100 years ago? The US, UK and Russia know very well how to make proxy wars.. they been doing it for decades.

You write, "Ukraine's forces are being used to fight *in the place* of the US/NATO." Gee, and I thought that Ukraine's forces got into a war with Russia because the Russian forces invaded Ukraine! Without that, no war, "proxy" or otherwise. If the Russians leave (or are forced out) that ends the war, including its "proxy" aspects. That the Western imperialists are taking advantage of this Russian-initiated war, is hardly surprising although they didn't after Russia seized Crimea. But that doesn't make it a war between Russia and the U.S. unless troops are fighting each other.

You complain that I am going on "about stuff that happened 100 years ago" while simultaneously referring me to "Cold War days". I assure you, the wars in Korea and then Vietnam were not proxy wars for the U.S.

Wayne once again continues his slide into incoherence -- if more were possible. Arguing about terms like proxy war and hysteria instead of acknowledging anarchist principles and rejecting nationalism and war. Then creating false binaries (and are there really any other kind?) and condemning those who dare to disagree with his incoherence and takes a stand against war as pro-Putin. The taint of pre-WWII trotskyist anti-imperialism is unmistakable, as are straw manning, appeals to authority, and other logical fallacies. Then there are the details he deliberately ignores: the prohibition on Ukrainian military age men emigrating or choosing to become refugees; the existence of conscription; various "emergency" decrees by the Ukrainian state dispensing with basic legal rights, show trials of captured Russian NCOs... Wayne just casually defends and supports Ukrainian "self defense" and "national liberation" like other pro-NATO clowns. It's truly embarrassing.

"I assure you, the wars in Korea and then Vietnam were not proxy wars for the U.S."

Holy fuck... Wayne just outed himself as a state tool after all! lol

Vietnam was 100% an imperialist proxy war by the US against the Communist Bloc and the Non-Aligned countries. Same for Korea, that was also above it for the and last war under the umbrella of the United Nations.

How da fuick can you pretend being anti-imperialist while denying the US (and the CIA's) involvement in dozens of proxy wars all through the Cold War? I suppose, simply, by just being a mouthpiece of US imperialism! How convenient...

I am not sure how you define "proxy war." But when I write that Vietnam was not a "proxy war" I mean that the U.S. did not get others to fight for it (serve as proxies for the U.S.) but (by a certain point) directly sent its own solidiers to Vietnam to themselves fight with the Vietnamese (there were others, such as South Koreans, Australians, etc., but they were marginal). . No doubt the U.S. leaders thought that this would have an impact on Russia and China (which both sent military aid to the Vietnamese--not enough--but not soldiers) and the "Third World" also. But the immediate issue was the clash of U.S. soldiers fighting the Vietnamese, which is what made it an imperialist invasion, not a proxy war.

Your leap from a disagreement on the term "proxy war" to the charge that I am "a mouthpiece of US imperialism" is--again--both slanderous and plain nuts.

Add new comment