Nestor Makhno: Ukraine’s Anarchist Cossack and the Battle for the Ukraine, 1917-1921

alexft in #anarchy • 6 years ago

 Of the many violent and often grandiose and dramatic revolutionist/reactionary heroes and/or tyrants of the Russian Civil War 1917-1921 perhaps none is as controversial or infamous as the Ukrainian anarchist-peasant turned revolutionary warlord, "Batko" (Father) Nestor Makhno (b.1889-1934). 

 Nestor Makhno in 1919

The influence and the impact of the greater culture of the irregular guerrilla insurgent and cavalrymen cannot be overstated in regards to the Russian Civil War and its corresponding conflicts from 1917-1923. Though essentially outlaw bandits in some cases, there were some units who were legitimate military forces  as well, whether they be ‘Red’, ‘White’, revolutionary or reactionist, anarchist or nationalist, all were a product of Russian culture and the general socio-economic & cultural turmoil of the fall of the old Russian Imperial regime.

Makhno and his anarchist Makhnovist faction were revolutionaries by doctrine and yet they were counter revolutionaries and also anti-reactionary as well. They were anti-monarchy as well as anti-imperialist. Makhno and his men waved the black flag of anarchism, his men fought their oppressed families. For their militant & semi collectivist-anarchist stance alone the Makhnovists were markedly unique amongst the many different armies, movements, and political factions which developed in not just the Ukrainefrom 1917-1920, but in all of corners Russia and central Europe and in partsAsia as well during the same period.

The Early Life of Makhno, Ukraine during & after World War I

A hero and near folk-hero, Nestor Makhno, was born in the year 1889, spending his formative years in the fields of Guliai Pole, Ukraine, then a territory of the Russian Empire as a farmhand and later factory worker. Ukraine in this era was an important part of Russia's economic output, long called the "breadbasket of Eastern Europe", Ukraine had been established on the hard labor of Ukrainians working the vast farm-estates of the Czar's Southern Russian Empire. By the age of 17, Makhno had left for the city at the height of the Revolution of 1905 which would eventually shake the foundation of the old Russian Empire. Russia had lost the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905, its people demanding a say in the government and an end to their collective sufferings. Taking to the streets of St. Petersburg in January, the Russian poor & middle class were met by Imperial bullets and Cossack Sabres. Soon after, those who had survived the war would return from the Far East began to and the Revolution petered out.

Having been arrested in 1908 for being a member of a revolutionary/anarchist cell (his service may or may not have entailed assassinating a local politician) Makhno spent eight years in a Moscow prison before his release in 1917 under the political prisoner pardon under the new Provisional Government of Georgy Lvov and later Alexander Kerensky. Makhno left Russia and returned home to the Ukraine an even more hardened revolutionary and anarchist that he had been in 1905. Returning to Gulia Pole, Makhno must have been surprised to see that his hometown had now become a hotbed for revolutionary activity. Even before the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in March 1918 which allowed the Austro-German armies into the Ukraine as occupiers, Makhno had organized peasant unions to protect and punish the hated landowning kulaks. The kulaks, many of whom were German Mennonites loyal to the Czar or the Austro-Hungarians were most hated by the ethnic Ukrainians because of their societal status and at times poor treatment of Ukrainian farmers during the 18th and early 19th centuries. Other Mennonite farmers and settlers were the targets of revolutionary and anti-revolutionary reprisals including atrocities committed by Makhno's army.

 Ukraine 1919

Immediately after Brest-Litovsk, Pavlo Skoropadsky (b.1873-1945), a former Tsarist cavalry officer was installed as Hetman, a military warlord/puppet regime figurehead of occupied Ukraine. A German by birth and a veteran of Russo-Japanese War and the Great War, Skoropadsky formed the Ukrainian National Union in March of 1918, fleeing in December of that year after the Central Powers collapsed in November.

The Black Flag Rises: Makhno and the Battle for Ukraine

Makhno raised the black flags of the Revolutionary Insurrectionist Army in the spring and summer of 1918 when German Hetman puppet government still controlled part of the Ukraine with the partial military support of German heer. Though young and by no means a proven military commander in even a modest sense, armed men had begun to flock to the young but charismatic and brave Makhno. In the skirmish near the Dibrivki Forest, Makhno earned the title Batko (Ukrainian for father: in this meaning the literal father of the insurrectionist army itself) for his heroic, inspired, and seemingly fearless & improbable victory over a 1,000 strong kulak militia armed and supported by hated the Austro-German occupiers. Rallying his small force of 30 men or more, they rushed the enemy shooting and cutting their way through their lines in a fierce charge.

  Makhno and his officers during the War

With their leader at the front the Makhnovists killed perhaps hundreds of kulaks during the violent charge and subsequent retreat, riding them down in the rout and slaughtering them, the battle ending with the drowning of the survivors by angry local peasants who had now joined the insurrection of Batko Makhno.

The Ukrainian Socialist Republic had also been declared by this point, with the Russians preparing Red Army and Red Guard units from the North for an expedition south. Their primary objective was to defeat the White army of Lt. General Anton Denikin occupying Ukraine in 1919.

Later the new nationalist minded Polish Republic under Jozef Pilsuduski attacked the Ukraine capturing Kiev for a brief time, inadvertently starting the Polish-Soviet War of 1919-1921. Poland captured Western Ukraine for a time following their victory but an eventual stalemate ensues, ending with Poland's stunning victory on the Vistula in 1920.  Makhno took advantage of the chaos and the complexity of the multi-sided conflict being fought around him to wage his own war on all those who he felt opposed the peasants of Ukraine. His Makhnovists burned estates, bourgeois mansions, and tge farms of the rich German kulaks or the Russian overlords who had oppressed peasant Ukranians for years, in some cases stripping opulent country houses and estates bare of their provisions and extravagances.

Though unfounded Soviet propaganda later attributed anti-Semitic violence to the Makhnovists which had been most likely committed by reactionary White forces or by apolitical bandit or reactionary groups. Makhno never condoned such killings but may have secretly or unknowingly perpetrated massacres against Jewish, Mennonite, or other minority communities in the Ukraine. Counter revolutionaries and especially Tsarist (White) officers were almost never spared however and no mercy was given or received. Makhno even killed Tsarist officers himself in summary executions with his sabre.

 Makhnovist Army, c.1919

Makhnovists staged raids and ambushes everywhere capturing White army munitions and supplies, killing and harassing any Tsarist-Monarchist army forces they could find in ambushes and raids-weakening the White grasp on the Ukraine before their total collapse in the Fall of 1920. Makhno’s first great enemy was the White general Anton Denikin (b.1872-1947) who was constantly at war with Makhno, overextending his supplies and manpower fighting a brutal insurrection against the Makhnovists while attempting to launch a campaign to take Moscow from the Bolsheviks.

Lieutenant-General Denikin, decorated for his service in the Brusilov Offensive of 1916 which had been fought in parts of the Ukraine during World War I handed title of Supreme Commander of the 'Volunteer Army' to General-Baron Pyotr Wrangel (b.1878-1928) upon his defeat in the Ukraine in the spring of 1920. Makhnovist forces had helped destroy White influence in Russia though Bolshevik oppression kept them from enjoying the White's demise. By April-May 1920 the White armies were losing ground whilst the Nationalists of Petliura were fleeing to safety in Poland. On 28 April the Bolshevik 14th division assaulted "Makhnograd" (Guliai Pole) and routed 2,000 Makhnovist partisans.

Makhnovist Warfare

Makhnovists would typically raid, burn, loot, destroy and then continue on to their next battle or skirmish. Attacks of German Mennonite estates were particularly brutal, arguably because Makhno himself had suffered cruelty at the hands of these same land owners as a youth. Kulaks, as they were called in Russia and the Ukraine also received harsh treatment at the hands of the Makhnovists and later the Bolsheviks. Tactically they fought strictly on the offensive; preferring to charge, retreat, and charge again, waiting for another moment to strike or counter charge to either break the enemy in their center or retreat in order to make guerrilla attacks again at a later date.

Despite their hard charging fighting style the Revolutionary Insurrection Army was really a defensive minded force, fighting a considerable amount of rearguard actions against much better equipped and organized forces. Against the under-equipped ex-Tsarist armies and the local Mennonite militias however, Makhno triumphed more frequently and held a distinct advantage. He won in style and often in brutality; routed and captured tsarist officers were often summarily executed with bullets from rifles or revolvers or were cut down with the sabres. Makhno was a master of intelligence as well and on several occasions disguised himself as an old women and even a bride at a wedding to gain intelligence.

 Fyodor Schuss, center-right, poses with other Makhnovists during the Insurrection

The Soviets took the credit for the Makhnovists victory over the generally despised White officer-warlords in the Ukraine, often demonizing the Makhnovists for any real or imagined crimes and atrocities committed by the Whites against the populace. During their offensive in April & May they took to hanging partisans and setting up individual soviets in the villages they "liberated" from the Whites and Makhnovists.


The fact remained that the Makhnovists had fought for longer against the White Guard's all the while the Red Army was mobilizing and organizing a force from within a revolutionary society still teetering on the brink of collapse. Most of the Makhnovist army fought from horseback each man armed with multiple automatic pistols, a heavily favored weapon of the Makhnovist “officers” and irregular cavalrymen, assorted sabers, daggers and improvised 'peasant' weapons were used as well. Stolen or captured rifles were also very popular amongst the Insurrectionist rebels, including the reliable, accurate, and plentiful M1891 Mosin-Nagant rifle.

Makhnovist officers liked to carry as many weapons as possible as a sign of both rank and prowess in combat. It was a practical solution as well in order to negate reloading in the thick of a charge on horseback. Ammunition and cartridge shortages were a serious problem throughout the Makhnovists campaigns from 1919-1921 so attacks on supply depots and railroad lines were essential for resupply. The Insurrectionists were continually pursued and molested by Red Army cavalry, an arm of the Trotsky's new revolutionary army which would become the most effective fighting force of Soviet Russia.

 Schuss (d.1921), a former sailor and one of Makhno's best cavalry commanders

Makhno’s most ingenious tool of war was the tachanka, a very potent and effective mobile weapons platform which the Makhnovists employed heavily. Basically it was a somewhat crude but highly effective horse-drawn heavy weapons system utilizing a “light, sprung cart drawn by two horses (used by Ukrainian peasants), on which Makhno mounted a machine-gun, with two men to work it, plus the driver-The Tachanki gave Makhno a powerful combination of mobility with fire-power, and the device was copied by the Red Army.” –Leon Trotsky .

Bolshevik betrayal: Makhno’s final ride and escape

While allied with the Bolsheviks during three separate periods Makhno and his forces were fundamentally anti-Leninist and anti-Bolshevik etc., conforming to their leader’s own ideas of a “stateless communist society.” A position which Makhno more or less presented to Lenin in a trip to Moscow in 1918. Ultimately the Red Army’s military might and the political will of the new leadership in the Kremlin succeeded in crushing White resistance in mainland Russia from 1919-1920. Any well organized Tsarist resistance ceased when the ‘Black Baron’ Pyotr Wrangel (b.1878-1928) fled to the Crimean peninsula in November of 1920 following a failed summer offensive in the Ukraine. Makhno had some 20,000-40,000 men in arms in the Insurrectionist army in the year 1919.

 Makhnovist banner


By mid October 1920 however Makhno could field a force possibly as large 10,000-16,000 armed riders and again was allied formally with the Red Army command on the Southern Front trying to prevent Wrangel from escaping the Ukraine to fight again. He had lost hundreds to battle wounds, tuberculosis, and Bolshevik arrests and summary execution. A second front had opened in the Ukraine during this late period with various armies riding through the Ukraine to attack Poland and the Ukraine during the Russian Civil War and the Polish-Soviet War of 1919-1921. Only weeks after the treaty Bolshevik peace treaty, Makhnovists were targeted for summary executions by the the communists.

The end for Makhno; his exile and ideological triumph

Ukraine had been virtually pacified and the Makhnovists all but vanquished saved for Makhno and his remaining die-hards of 6,000-10,000 men. He and his cavalry forces were now engaged in day to day fighting with the Bolsheviks-supposedly fighting 25 battles in 24 days in January of 1921 alone. They managed to best or at least stay one step ahead of the Red Army every time but they were unable to make any real strategic gains. Makhno and his "children" were fighting for their lives in a lost cause. By the middle of winter Makhno and his hundred or so remaining insurgents in arms escape Bolshevik territory into the mountains and plains of Romania or elsewhere. Wounded grievously the Batko left his beloved country for permanent exile in foreign lands.

Ukraine’s chance for independence was all but crushed by the rapidly rising power of the victorious and entirely imperialist Soviet congress of Russia and the might of the Red Army seemingly overnight. Using his connections with academics, writers, and anarchist/socialist activists, Makhno wound up in Paris where he became an active writer and debater of the Anarchist cause. Composing recollections of a great deal of his own experiences and composing other essays on anarchism and other various revolutionary ideologies, he became a politico and historian in later life. Troubled by old war wounds and a never healed bout from tuberculosis from his years spent in tsarist prisons, Nestor Makhno died in Paris on 6 July 1934.

Though his revolution had ultimately failed, Batko Makhno would forever tout the black flag of anarchism, supporting anarchism for the people of Ukraine and in Russia until his death with his writings and speeches. One of his frequent subjects was the corruption of Bolshevik-communism in theSoviet Union and elsewhere which he felt had re-enslaved the proletariat yet again, as was true in his country of birth and in neighboring countries as well.He also wrote on the socio-political situation in Spain at the time as well, predicting a left wing-right wing socialist inspired conflict upcoming in the Spanish Civil War. 

 Insurgent guerrilla, general, and writer, 'Batko' Nestor Makhno

Makhno continued writing on the history of the Makhnovist movement and its greater ideals throughout his exile, defending it from criticism often in his writings and speeches. When he met the famed Spanish Anarchist and revolutionary martyr José Buenaventura Durruti (b.1896-1936) in 1927, Makhno exclaimed to the young anarchist and his companions before they left the gathering, "Makhno has never shirked a fight! If I am still alive when you begin [Spanish revolution/civil war] I will be with you."

  

The State will, though, be able to cling to a few local enclaves and try to place multifarious obstacles in the path of the toilers’ new life, slowing the pace of growth and harmonious development of new relationships founded on the complete emancipation of man.

The final and utter liquidation of the State can only come to pass when the struggle of the

toilers is oriented along the most libertarian lines possible, when the toilers will

themselves determine the structures of their social action. These structures should

assume the form of organs of social and economic self-direction, the form of free “anti-




authoritarian” soviets. The revolutionary workers and their vanguard — the anarchists —

must analyze the nature and structure of these soviets and specify their revolutionary

functions in advance. It is upon that, chiefly, that the positive evolution and development

of anarchist ideas, in the ranks of those who will accomplish the liquidation of the State on their own account in order to build a free society, will be dependent.

Dyelo Truda No.17, October 1926

Makhnovist Flag (trans.)

 

A voice from Ukraine: “It’s time to organize”

Aug

03

2024

7comments

By anon (not verified)

From Takku
August 2, 2024

In the end of July 2024 an anarchist member of Ukrainian armed forces shared their thoughts with Takku as follows.

My name is Ljosha. I lived in Sweden before the war, but I came to Ukraine after Russia launched its full-scale invasion. Together with my comrades, I wanted to develop anarchist organizing and activities, to defend the Ukrainian people and nature, and to strengthen the anarchist movement in the revolutionary struggle. Originally I entered the extra-parliamentary leftist movement in 2004 by joining a Russian organization that included various left-wing opposition groups. In 2009 I moved to Ukraine. As an anarchist, I have adopted anarcho-communism as my approach and am in favor of an organized anarchist movement.

At the beginning of the war I was in contact with Dmitry Petrov. He was one of the organizers of the anti-authoritarian military unit and was looking for comrades all over the world who would be ready to participate in armed struggle against the Russian invasion, above all comrades who had revolutionary views and a desire for influencing the society as well. I left for Ukraine in March 2022. I was still on my way at the end of March, when the position of the anti-authoritarian unit in the Ukrainian Armed Forces changed due to the organizational reform of the army and it lost the opportunity to recruit new members.

I finally arrived in Ukraine only in June 2022, when the anti-authoritarian unit was already being completely terminated. The comrades in it were dispersing to different troop sections. However, Dima still held on to the idea of ​​forming a new anarchist unit. I tried to help him with the organizing work. We were looking for a part of the army that we could join to start forming our own unit in a new place of the army's organization. Finally, a group of comrades, including Dima and I, joined an assault unit, with which we fought from the end of summer to the end of winter. Our intention was still to form an anarchist unit and invite other comrades to join. We didn't succeed in that, however, because the commanders of our department opposed the joining of people identified as women as well as foreigners who didn't know the language. It became clear that establishing our own unit in this department would not be possible, and we began to investigate other options.

Criticism and self-criticism are always inseparable part of revolutionary activity and thinking. We have to constantly evaluate our environment, review our methods of action, and see what works and what doesn't. The revolutionary strategy must be constantly developed and its implementation must be reflected upon. In 2022, the strategy, mainly formulated by Dima, was based on the idea that Russia would suffer a defeat in the war, which would lead to a revolutionary situation there and in Belarus. If, under these conditions, we would have an organized anarchist movement and an anarchist military unit in Ukraine as part of it, we could seize the revolutionary situation and realize our social project. I wouldn't say this strategy is outdated even now. I think we can still organize our activities according to this strategy, but in the assessment of the situation according to criticism and self-criticism, of course we see that there has been no anarchist military unit in Ukraine for two years. In different places within the army, there are anarchist comrades in smaller groups and individually, who for various reasons have not been able to organize into a single force. Also, looking at the course of the war, there can no longer be any certainty that Russia would face such losses that would lead to a revolutionary situation. A revolutionary situation may emerge, but the process has significantly slowed down. Of course, the new situation requires new approaches, updating strategy and tactics. For example, it may prove reasonable to return to economic struggle, to draw attention again to the injustice created by the capitalist system, and to consider the current perspectives of strikes or other economic struggle. Criticism, self-criticism and the search for new ways must be constantly present.

At the beginning of 2023, we left the unit where we had been fighting as volunteers and thus free to leave at any time. I left for Sweden because our joint plan included that I would work on some things there for a while. Dima, on the other hand, as agreed, began to look for opportunities to re-establish an anarchist military unit. Such an opportunity opened up. Dima gathered a group of a few comrades, and they joined a military unit, where they had been offered the opportunity to form their own media, on the condition that they first participate in battle and, in doing so, demonstrate their readiness for military action. They were promised that after this they could establish their own unit with its own media, to which they could invite more comrades, and which would have its own media. Unfortunately, Dima and two other comrades died during their first mission, in the Battle of Bahmut on April 19, 2023.

If we are serious about the revolutionary struggle, I think we must continue the efforts that our fallen comrades could not complete. Therefore, I took it for granted that I had to return to Ukraine and try to continue Dima's efforts. I returned here in June 2023. We have developed networking between separated anarchist comrades, but we have not succeeded in creating a new unit of our own, because it is not possible at this time due to the army bureaucracy, among other reasons. I myself am currently in the Ukrainian army as a regular soldier, so no longer as a volunteer. I was injured in November last year and in March this year and I am going to Sweden for some time for treatment, because my injuries are quite serious. The wrist is badly broken and a bone had to be moved from the rib to the hand. Above all, healing requires time, and I aim to use it by participating in the international anarchist struggle in Europe.

As it is well known, after the war started, Finland and my country of residence, Sweden, with the communities of which I have strong connections, joined NATO. Of course, I consider this a negative development both for our movement and for the societies of these countries. Anarchists must oppose NATO, first of all, because it is of course an imperialist war organization. Secondly, it is a matter of solidarity. The joining process of Finland and Sweden included many kinds of agreements with the imperialist state of Turkey. Turkey is trying with all its might to suppress the most successful revolutionary project of our time: the Kurdish revolution and the self-governance in Rojava. If we accept joining NATO, we will betray our comrades in Kurdistan. As revolutionaries, we cannot be in favour of NATO, and certainly not in support of Ukraine or any other country joining it. Ukraine's rapprochment with the Western imperialist bloc also poses a threat to the working people of Ukraine, because with rapprochement the exploitation of workers will probably increase. The rapprochement of the Ukrainian political leadership with Turkey would be harmful in every way. The expansion of NATO is of course harmful for the global revolutionary movement. Although we now defend ourselves also with NATO weapons against Russian imperialism, we cannot under any circumstances sympathize with the Western imperialist bloc, which also includes the state led by Erdogan.

Regarding Russophobia in Ukraine, I would say that it is more of a cultural than a political phenomenon. Talks about the sameness of all Russians or that "a good Russian is the one who cannot be seen with a thermal camera" are cultivated by actors in the cultural sector who have material interests in this. Even after 2014, the Maidan and the start of the war, the products of the Russian culture and entertainment industry have played and still play a significant role in the Ukrainian market. From the point of view of Ukrainian cultural production, this is disadvantageous. Banning Russian language and culture is probably more the work of the cultural elite than the political elite, although it is also driven by politicians. Ukrainian mass entertainment and cultural production has not reached the level of Russian production in Ukraine in terms of popularity. For example, in the winter a new TV-series about a criminal gang in 1980s Kazan was shown in Russia. I think the whole of Ukraine was watching it. It was very popular. A few cultural leaders and also politicians in Ukraine publicly condemned its watching, pointing to the war and to the imperialist narratives in the series. Despite everything, it was watched. So it seems to me that hatred against Russian people, contempt for everything Russian and Russian-speaking is being incited specifically by the actors of the cultural industry, motivated by their own material interests. In society, the situation is different. Also, a significant part of the Ukrainian army is Russian-speaking. The former MP and philologist Iryna Farion, who was recently murdered in Lviv, was widely regarded as a freak due to her loud and ultra-nationalist activities against Russian language, and she was expelled from Lviv University because of public pressure.

On the other hand, in Ukraine the creation of a nation-state and the nation-building project are of course present. Ukraine was not a nation-state until 1991, when several countries that broke away from the Soviet Union began the process of building their own states. The creation of a nation-state continues in Ukraine, and we, as anarchists, have without doubt a negative attitude towards it. Another nation-state building project is also underway on the territory of Ukraine – Russia's colonialist project. Views according to which the Ukrainian language is not really a language and the Ukrainian people are not really a people, and according to which Ukraine should remain under Russian control, have been spread diligently and have had a great impact on society through business and a certain part of the Ukrainian political elite. A significant part of the political elite was strongly pro-Russia at least until 2013. A competition between the Ukrainian nation-building project and the Russian colonialist project is taking place in the territory of Ukraine. Both projects are harmful from anarchist perspective, as both an empire and a nation-state are instruments of subjugation, exploitation, repression and injustice. So of course we have to oppose both.

In Ukraine's history there are previous nation-building projects. During the Ukrainian civil war or war of independence, in which various left-wing and right-wing groups were involved, the People's Republic of Ukraine was founded, among others. However, as a result of the war in 1921, the territory of present-day Ukraine was divided between Poland and the Soviet Union, and the nation-building project ended for a time. In 1991, one of the conditions for forming a nation-state was fulfilled, i.e. the emergence of a national elite. In this case, it was created by the party machinery. In the last years of the Soviet Union, nation building projects were already underway in all Soviet republics. When Ukraine became independent, a ready-made local party-elite took the lead of the nation-state project. A bureaucracy had also been created, which could also be adopted as the national state bureaucracy of Ukraine. The establishment of the Soviet party leadership and local Soviet bureaucrats as rulers of an independent state took place in Ukraine in the same way as in many other former Soviet republics in 1991. The imperialist and colonialist project was replaced by the nation-state project. As said, anarchists of course oppose to both of these.

To the question of what I think comrades in Western Europe should do now, I would say that it depends on the local context. In Sweden, for example, there are only a few collectives that define themselves specifically as anarchists. The dynamics of the movement are variable there. At one time, there were strong left-wing groups in Sweden that worked impressively on anti-fascism, for example the Revolutionary Front, which dissolved under the pressure of the state. Also in the West, states suppress revolutionary activity. Many members of the Revolutionary Front got prison sentences, mainly for attacks on the far-right. In Sweden, there has also been a strong solidarity movement supporting the Rojava revolution. There, the strength of the left-wing movement in general varies considerably. Of course, in Sweden too, anarchists should strive, and are striving, for a situation where the movement is as strong as possible, organized and ready to take on historical challenges.

It is unlikely that the war would lead to the complete defeat of Ukraine. Earlier there were hopes that it would lead to a military victory for Ukraine. Now there is no longer the same certainty of victory, but it seems that Ukraine will not completely lose the war. It may be that the war acts as an enforcer of the Ukrainian nation-state and the artificial unification of its society’s upper layers.

As for the support of Western comrades for Ukraine, I think people should approach the issue considering that we have comrades here in difficult situations. As a movement, we should show solidarity to comrades in difficult situations. I think now is the time to put efforts on organizing work, both in the West and in Ukraine. Here, Solidarity Collectives is a good organization and volunteer network, whose activities, in addition to humanitarian aid, specifically aim at organizing the movement. Solidarity Collectives can be contacted directly to support such activities.

In addition to Ukrainians, Russians and Belarusians, the anti-authoritarian military unit also included Western comrades. Some had military experience in Kurdistan as well. There were comrades who did not know Russian or Ukrainian and could only communicate in English. The language problems were solved collectively and they were also overcome on the battlefield. Harris and Ciya, the comrades who fell at the same time as Dima, had been here already for a while. Ciya, who had also been in Kurdistan, was involved in the Solidarity Collectives, and Harris fought in the International Legion – which was not an anarchist or anti-authoritarian unit – before joining Dima's new endeavour. There is currently no anarchist military unit to join in Ukraine. If one is considering joining the armed defense of Ukraine, it is of course morally justified in the sense that the Ukrainian people must be defended against the aggressor. If one wants to join, it is good to contact the local comrades first. However, I personally would not invite comrades to join the Ukrainian army now that we do not have our own unit within which to strive towards our own goals. If one can be created, the situation will be different, and then of course it would be great if comrades from the West would join in as well. Now, however, I think it's really the time to put our efforts on forming a unified, organized anarchist movement everywhere.

UKRAINIAN REVOLUTION CENTENARY 1917-2017

UKRAINESOLIDARITYCAMPAIGN.ORG

The following articles deal with the history of the forgotten Ukrainian Communist Party (Bolshevik) aka The Borotbitski (Ukrainian for Fighters).

The Party was formed in Kiev and was urban based and dealt with both its own reformist wing  in the Social Democratic Party of the Ukraine, and in the Ukraine Rada, or Congress, where they faced the real right wing nationalists around Anti Semitic pseudo Aristocrat Simon Petlurya (Petluria).

In the countryside closer to Russia the CPU(B) or as it is sometimes known CP(B)U held less power in the local soviets of peasants who gathered under the banner of the Revolutionary Anarchist Army of Nestor Makhno, the Social Democratic Party and the Social Democratic Revolutionaries, as well as Hetmanite bandit groups of Anti Semitic Anti Russian thugs and racists, and Petluraites aligned with the White Army against the Revolution.

The Russian Bolshevik Party under Trotsky's military leadership also used the Ukraine as a battle ground, with his Red Train of troops moving in out and across Ukraine fighting the Germans and White Russians who were combined to defeat the Revolution as part of their expansion into Russia during WWI.

Here then are the resources on the CPU (B) Borotbiski 

I have found on the Internet in English. 

The party continued to be the CP of the Ukraine until Stalin eliminated its leadership and absorbed it into the All Russian CP when he dissolved National Communist Parties in the 1930's.

CENTENARY OF UKRAINIAN REVOLUTION

2017 marks the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution, a decisive turning point in world history.  But the revolution was not only in Russia but across the entire Russian Empire, and Ukraine saw the largest and most powerful of the resurgence of all the oppressed nations of the Empire.   With the fall of Tsarism in February 1917 Ukraine witnessed unprecedented popular self-organisation and mobilisation of the masses of peasants, soldiers and workers to achieve social and national liberation.  Events in Ukraine would be decisive in deciding not only the fate of the Russian Revolution but events in Europe as whole.  Before the Revolution in the mind of Moscow there was no Ukraine; only the province of Malorossia — ‘Little Russia’ – the revolution shattered that colonial position – and challenges it to this day.  

To mark the Centenary of the Ukrainian Revolution we will be republishing histories, analysis and documents of the time.  Below we publish for the first time in English a section of the most important histories of the by Pavlo Khrystiuk, the four volume Zamitky i materiialy do istoriï ukraïns’koï revoliutsiï 1917–1920 rr. (Comments and Materials on the History of the Ukrainian Revolution, 1917–20, 4 vols, 1921–2).  

Khrystiuk was a Central Committee member of the million strong Ukrainian Party of Socialist Revolutionaries (UPSR) and a deputy in the autonomous parliament the Central Rada, he held positions in the Ukrainian Peoples Republic and later he worked for the Society of Scientific and Technical Workers for the Promotion of Socialist Construction Kharkiv.  A publisher of several studies Khrystiuk was arrested in 1931 and perished in the Stalinist terror in a in a Soviet labor camp.  Reproduced here is section of Part I, The National Cultural Period of the Revolution, Chapter I, The Beginning of the Revolution.

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE UKRAINE

Borotbists [Боротьбісти; Borotbisty]. The Ukrainian Party of Socialist Revolutionaries-Borotbists (Communists) was the left faction of the Ukrainian Party of Socialists Revolutionaries (UPSR). At the fourth party congress on 13–16 May 1918 this faction gained control of the Central Committee of the UPSR. It advocated a form of government based on workers' and peasant's councils and demanded co-operation with the Bolsheviks.

These views were propagated by its weekly Borot'ba, edited by Vasyl Blakytny (see also Borotba).

After the Bolshevik occupation of Ukraine at the beginning of 1919, the Borotbists collaborated with the Bolsheviks, and several Borotbists participated in Khristian Rakovsky's Workers' and Peasants' Government of Ukraine (Mykhailo Poloz, Hnat Mykhailychenko, Mykhailo Panchenko, M. Lytvynenko, and M. Lebedynets).

At the fifth party congress on 8 March 1919 in Kharkiv the Borotbists adopted a communist but independentist platform and changed their name to the Ukrainian Party of Socialist Revolutionaries (Communists). Then in August 1919, after merging with a left group known as the Ukrainian Social Democratic Workers' party (Independentists), they founded the Ukrainian Communist party (of Borotbists) and demanded admission to the Communist International as an independent ‘national-communist’ party. Their application was rejected, however.

At this time the Borotbists had 15,000 members. Because the Borotbists had a strong following among the peasants, Vladimir Lenin accepted a compromise: he promised an independent Ukrainian SSR if the Ukrainian Communist party (of Borotbists) voluntarily abolished itself by merging with the Communist Party (Bolshevik) of Ukraine. In March 1920 the Borotbists joined the CP(B)U. They played an important role in promoting Ukrainization in the 1920s. In the 1930s former Borotbist members were politically persecuted and many were executed.

In Ukraine the All-Ukrainian Congress of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies, which convened in Kyiv on 17–19 December 1917, endorsed the Central Rada. The Bolshevik delegates rejected this action, however, and left Kyiv for Kharkiv to join an alternate congress of soviets from the Kryvyi Rih Iron-ore Basin and Donets Basin.

Calling itself the All-Ukrainian Congress of Soviets, this body proclaimed Soviet rule in Ukraine and established the All-Ukrainian Central Executive Committee (VUTsVK). Ukrainian democratic and nationalist parties generally rejected the soviet system of government on the grounds that it gave too much power to Russian or Russified workers and soldiers at the expense of the peasantry; they advocated a single parliament elected on the basis of universal suffrage.

Eventually the Bolsheviks, with the support of the Borotbists and then the Ukrainian Communist party, were able to establish soviet power throughout the cities and towns of Ukraine. At the same time they were able to assert their authority over rural soviets, most of which had been organized and controlled by the Ukrainian Party of Socialist Revolutionaries.

Ukrainian Communist party (Ukrainska komunistychna partiia, or Ukapisty). 

A Communist group of no more than 250 members who in 1920–4 supported Soviet rule but opposed Russian domination of Ukraine through the CP(B)U. Its most prominent leaders were Yurii Mazurenko, Mykhailo Tkachenko, and Andrii Richytsky.

In January 1919, at the Sixth Congress of the Ukrainian Social Democratic Workers' party, a group called the nezalezhnyky [see Ukrainian Social Democratic Workers' party (Independentists)] walked out and began to function as a separate party with its own press organ, Chervonyi prapor. It adopted an ideology of national communism, favoring a Soviet regime in Ukraine but rejecting both the Directory of the Ukrainian National Republicand the Communist Party of Ukraine. In June 1919 it formed a revolutionary committee under the protection of Otaman Danylo Zeleny, who had revolted against the Bolshevik regime. In August the group split: its left faction joined the Borotbists, and the majority co-operated in military matters with the Directory for a short period.

The Red and the Black - Anarchism and Marxism in The Russian Civil War

Edoardo Richard Grasselli Moyse

Published 2016

24 Pages

1 File ▾

Marxism,

Russian Politics,

Anarchist Studies,

History of Anarchism,

Marxist theory

 ...more ▾

Show more ▾

Most of the criticism and academic material related to the 1917 Russian Revolution is devoted to Bolshevism, Marxism and in part, Counter-Revolutionary forces. By contrast, not much attention has been paid to other revolutionary forces such as Anarchism. My aim is to show that Anarchism played a significant role in the Russian Revolution to the extent that it posed a critical challenge both at the theoretical and at the practical level, and that the two levels are closely interconnected. I will start by looking at what Anarchism is and how it relates to Marxism on a theoretical level, and then proceed to analyse the interplay between the two different ideologies during the course of the Revolution. In doing so I will retrace the episodes of the Revolution back to the debates of the 19th century and analyse the difference between theory and practice in both ideologies. As the period under consideration is very long, I will focus on the main events that saw the two factions facing each other, namely the peasant uprisings after the Revolution, involving mainly the Kronstadt Uprising in 1921 and Nestor Makhno in Ukraine. Many factors shaped the events that took place, and I will try to gain an understanding of how the two political theories, Anarchism and Marxism related to the general situation, and how their actions in practice, followed from their respective ideologies.

https://www.academia.edu/41133664/The_Red_and_the_Black_Anarchism_and_Marxism_in_The_Russian_Civil_War?auto=download&email_work_card=download-paper

BONUS

History of the Makhnovist Movement (1918–1921)  PETER ARSHINOV

https://www.academia.edu/32475535/History_of_the_Makhnovist_Movement_1918_1921

Why Ukraine lost a hundred years ago and why It can and should win today

Mon, June 13, 2022
The New Voice of Ukraine

And the lessons of defeat are even more valuable than victories – because they can help us avoid mistakes.

So why did the Ukrainian state collapse a hundred years ago?

Let’s quickly reject the simple answers. Because simple answers to complex questions are simply wrong.

Read also: A history of adversaries, not brothers. Why did this war happen?

Ukrainians are not worse than other nations which also rebuilt their states on the ruins of empires after the First World War. We are no less zealous than Poles, Lithuanians, or Finns. No less sacrificial.

The political elite of Ukrainians was not slow or indecisive, as some say. We were second after the Finns to declare independence. The challenges faced by Ukrainians were more serious than those of our neighbors.


But I do not call for idealizing our politicians of that time or the general state of Ukrainian society. Mistakes played a significant role in their defeat.

So let us try to understand the objective and subjective reasons for the fall of the Ukrainian state, born out of the 1917-1921 revolution. To understand what mistakes we must not repeat.

Let’s start with the objective circumstances, which were almost impossible to influence.

The national consciousness of Ukrainians gradually grew along with the national movement of the 19th century. This was the potential that leaders had to deal with.

Read also: Seven popular myths about Russia's aggression against Ukraine

By the beginning of the revolution, the movement had already entered the political stage of development. That is, its main spokesman was not only poets, writers, and artists. At the beginning of the 20th century, Ukrainian political parties were formed.

The Revolutionary Ukrainian Party, led by Mykola Mikhnovsky, outlined in 1900 its main task – to create an independent Ukrainian state. It defined its direction for the next century.

But the low level of education or its complete absence, the catastrophic economic situation of a large mass of Ukrainians left them behind in the process of national self-awareness or even active participation in the national movement.

Another objective problem was too little awareness of us in the world. At that time, there was no political emigration that could talk about Ukrainians. It began to form just after its defeat.

And those of our compatriots who left their homeland earlier because of poverty and moved to Europe or America, fought for their survival abroad. Their first public association started to appear. Ukrainians in the world were still far from being lobbyists for the Ukrainian national movement.

And finally, the last and most important problem was a large number of powerful enemies. Those who created the Ukrainian state in the early 20th century were opposed by:

The Russian Bolsheviks – the strongest enemy who also counted on the support of some Ukrainians;

UKRAINIAN BOLSHEVIKS THE BOROBITZ WERE AUTONOMOUS FROM THE RUSSIANS

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: UKRAINIAN REVOLUTION CENTENARY 1917-2017 

Military formations of the so-called “White Russia”, which was supported by some European states; ANTI SEMITIC REACTIONARIES

The restored Polish state also enlisted the help of other Europeans. ANTI SEMITIC CATHOLICS

None of the other nations that won their independence had to face such strong, multifaceted and large-scale external aggression.

And now let’s talk about the mistakes that could have been avoided.

First of all, insufficient attention to the development of the armed forces. The creators of the Ukrainian army not only did not have the necessary support from the political elite – they were forced to prove the need for the army.

Politicians believed that after the bloody First World War, all nations would refuse to resolve issues using force, and Ukraine would be the first in this process. These romantic ideas cost Ukrainians dearly.

The lost time and potential of the first months of the revolution were difficult to make up. And it was not possible to “get together in the middle” with the aggressor, so we had to form an army after a full-scale invasion.

The leaders’ belief in the possibility of reaching an agreement with Russia was a gross mistake. It didn’t matter if it was “red” or “white” Russia. None of them were going to put up with the existence of an independent Ukraine.

An even more dangerous delusion was that many Ukrainians believed that this war for independence did not concern them. They believed that their lives would not change much from the victory or defeat of either side.

That it was possible to sit quietly and imperceptibly in a “house on fire”. The decades following this showed that the occupiers will come to the last house and take whatever they want. Including your life.

But the most important mistake was the inability of Ukrainian politicians to distinguish political rivals from enemies of the state. Fierce discussions about different visions of Ukraine’s future were inevitable and quite natural. The problem became that at some point, these disputes became more important than confronting the enemy.

This mistake was very costly to everyone – Hrushevsky, Petliura (ANTI SEMITE), Vynnychenko, Skoropadsky (ANTI SEMITE), Makhno ANARCHIST ARMY OF UKRAINE – they rethought this only in exile. Ukrainians who remained in their homeland paid even more for this mistake – decades of bloody repression awaited them.

And now let’s compare this with today’s Ukraine, to understand why we can win this war with Russia.

The vast majority of Ukrainians today consider themselves Ukrainians. Thus, there are almost no issues with national self-awareness that our predecessors faced.

They don’t just know about Ukraine. We are a state whose independence and integrity are recognized by almost all countries of the world. The Ukrainian diaspora works effectively in many of them. The struggle of Ukrainians for freedom is one of the main topics of the world media.

For the first time in our history, we receive not only economic but also military assistance, including offensive weapons.

The degree of Russian aggression today and a hundred years ago is roughly comparable. But we are dealing with only one enemy, even if he attacks from the territories of two countries. And against this enemy is the whole civilized world. And so, it is easier for us than for our ancestors.

As for the mistakes of the past, which we cannot repeat, the situation is worse here. Society and government began to realize the importance of the army only after the start of the war in Russia in 2014. Having wasted two decades of independence on wasting its military potential.

But even after the start of the war, Ukrainians weren’t consistent. In 2019, Volodymyr Zelensky won, claiming that the war could not be ended by military means. And most Ukrainians believed this was possible.

And so they agreed that the priority of state policy was the construction and repair of roads, not the development of the army and the purchase of weapons.

A new wave of aggression in 2022, which reached Kyiv, changed the situation. Parliament began to allocate more resources to the Armed Forces. The President spoke about the Ukrainian army as the main guarantor of independence.

Most Ukrainians are actively involved in the war – in the Armed Forces, the Territorial Defence, and volunteers. A well-known proverb sounds different now: “I’ll meet the enemy first as my house is on the edge.”

But what about the main political problem of a century ago – the inability of political leaders to cooperate? Unfortunately, the further away from the beginning of the full-scale Russian invasion, the less confident they are that they have learned this lesson.

Do Ukrainian politicians really understand that they can have friends, allies, competitors, rivals, and opponents? But our enemy outside the country, in Russia, is waging a war against us all.

Competitors, rivals, opponents may see a different Ukraine in the future. Enemies simply do not see a future for us. They can pretend to be allies or even friends, formulate tempting proposals to fight opponents, but we must not forget – their goal is to destroy our state.

Read also: Top five Russian propaganda WWII myths debunked

And so comparing Ukraine a hundred years ago and today, we have better objective circumstances for victory. And even better conditions for overcoming subjective obstacles. We have a chance for our children to read about our era. Unlike our predecessors, we know what defeat in the war with Russia means. We know that peace can cost more than a war.

After all, we have learned our lessons, haven’t we?