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.

About the organization of anarchists in Ukraine

Jan 10, 2025



(This interview was originally published in Kapinatyöläinen magazine issue 61 in Finnish language. English translation was done later for Takku website)

In this article, a comrade in Kyiv talks about the current state of anarchist activities and future prospects in Ukraine. She also points out what could be learned in Finland from the Ukrainian experience. The interview was done verbally, and in this text the comrade's narration is tried to be presented as it was.

First, I'll tell about my background and myself. I'm Ksusha, an anarchist from Ukraine. I currently live in Kyiv and am involved in Solidarity Collectives. Ideas near to anarchism started to interest me during the Maidan of 2013 and 2014 in Kharkiv, where I was born and lived at the time. In the post-Maidan period, when Russia attacked Luhansk and Donetsk and the first wave of refugees from those areas started, anarchists in Kharkiv started running a squat accommodated some of the refugees. The purpose was to help them get back on their feet and to offer instantly a place to stay for the beginning. A friend of mine, who was a member of an anarchist collective, invited me to participate in the renovation of an occupied building. So I joined anarchist activities. From then on, I constantly took part in anarchist projects, I was involved in various actions and, for example, demonstrations against the police state. I also joined an eco-anarchist group that worked against construction projects and deforestation, took action to stop fur production and organized free markets.

Six years passed like that. Then I moved to Kyiv, and my anarchist activity faded away because I couldn't find a suitable collective. When the full-scale war started in 2022, I still had no active connections with the local anarchists. It wasn't until about a month later that I got in touch with a mate, through whom I joined the platform organized by anarchists, still at that time called Operation Solidarity. It was a civic action platform, the purpose of which was to support comrades who went to the front lines. The people supported were, broadly speaking, of the anti-authoritarian left and the spectrum was quite broad. We supported socialists, anarchists, punks, hard core subculturers, anti-fascists, feminists – anyone united by some kind of progressive leftist views. That was the beginning of my active work in the collective. However, Operation Solidarity later split up, and most of the activists reorganized themselves, forming the Solidarity Collectives.

I will now tell you a little more about the Solidarity Collectives group and its activities. Solidarity Collectives consists mainly of anarchists. The activity is divided into three main directions. The direction of military focuses on equipment assistance for the anti-authoritarians currently on the front. We get for these comrades clothes, tactical first aid equipment, technology, such as walkie-talkies and night vision devices, as well as tablets, laptops, cars, and even expensive airplanes and drones – in other words, everything that is now necessary for soldiers, but that the army cannot provide. The army still has major shortcomings in the maintenance of soldiers and a very large part of the necessary basic equipment comes through civilian volunteers. People who support their friends, relatives, acquaintances and colleagues who are at war have formed a wide mutual aid network, which Solidarity Collectives is also a part of, but with the difference that we exclusively support anti-authoritarians. At the moment, we support 80-100 people. Among them are anarchists, anti-fascists, punks, eco-anarchists, feminists, squatters, LGBT+ people and union activists. In this way, quite a lot of comrades to be supported have multiplied.

The second activity direction of Solidarity Collectives is humanitarian aid. We support people who suffer from the direct consequences of war: who have lost their homes or who do not receive help from the government for their basic needs, such as medicine or the technical equipment they need. We participate in house repairing projects, for example, in the Kherson region, where the flood caused enormous damage after Russian forces destroyed the Kahovka dam. We assist schools in war zones by, among other things, supplying laptops for teaching use. We visit the areas close to the front every month to help residents in a way or another.

The third activity direction is media work. The purpose of our media group is to make visible the activities of anti-authoritarians in war. Instead of being marginalized, we want to be a part of society, communicate our activities in the direction of society, be in contact with our comrades in the West and report on our activities.

Solidarity Collectives is not a centralized unit. It has always been important to us that we operate as a network. We work with a wide variety of people. Some have political potential, plans to start an organization or a project, some have ongoing political projects. Others have been active in the past, in e.g. organizing demonstrations and opening social centers, but have decided in this war situation to focus only on their own immediate tasks. So we don't have such a limitation that we only support politically active comrades who are currently building something social. What is important to us is decentralized action, support for political projects and a healthy desire to help, but we do not exclude those who are not currently politically active or planning for the future. We have received criticism for that, but our original priority was to help our comrades survive this war. Their current prospects for social activity are secondary.

Solidarity Collectives strives to have a social impact by cooperating with workers’ unions. We emphasize this because unionism is not very popular these days. With the neoliberal reforms in Ukraine, the whole activity is in danger of being suppressed, but we try to support the remaining projects and their participants. We don't have enough resources for other kinds of actual socio-political activities. However, all our actions can be seen as political. When we support workers’ union activists, they can influence workers' rights and disrupt the neoliberal reforms that are now so popular in Ukraine. But mutual aid to comrades at the front and supporting local communities is also political.

I will now try to answer your question about the organizing of anarchists in the Ukrainian army. Some comrades were in the beginning of full-scale war striving for a centralized organization that would unite all the fighting anti-authoritarians in Ukraine into one squad or platoon, company - however big it would grow. Dreams about this still exist. At least one comrade is still actively working towards the realization of this dream, and some other anarchists also hope for it. However, after talking with several soldier comrades, I have come to the position that it is much more sustainable when we have a hundred comrades spread over a thousand kilometer front line. They have started small projects in different units, and are sowing the seeds of anti-authoritarian cooperation methods in their own locations. First, it's much safer this way. If one anarchist team of nearly 50 people would be sent to the hottest point of battle, it is very possible that the entire team would be destroyed. In any case, the comrades' own unit would be part of the Ukrainian army, as independent units cannot exist in such a war, where we defend ourselves against a full-scale attack. This is not partisan warfare. You cannot be an armed force in this war without being under the control of the Ukrainian army.

Of course, I'm not against an anti-authoritarian unit in principle. It sounds wonderful. But when it was organized in the first months of the full-scale offensive, most of the anti-authoritarians and anarchists had lived only civilian life, and we had no military experience. Almost none of the founders of the anti-authoritarian unit had any background in interacting with the Ukrainian army or in organizing military divisions and military operations. There were no relationships with any structures. All in all, we had bad cards in our hands. When the war started, we were not ready for it. The anti-authoritarian unit could be established thanks to a familiar commander, Yuri Samoilenko. He had connections with the Territorial Defense Forces, a volunteer unit of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Within these forces, Samoilenko managed to organize a kind of sub-unit. However, due to the attitude of the higher army management, the group got stuck. It could not develop its skills or participate in battles, even if the majority wanted it. That's why people started to disperse into different units.

Now that it's been two and a half years since the full-scale attack began, we have about three promising projects. I won’t now describe in more detail where and how they are formed. Anti-authoritarian comrades are settled in their own units. They have people at different levels of the army, connections, understanding of war operations and how to work with people in the army. An understanding has been formed about what kind of things can be developed and what can be dangerous. Overall, a combination of understanding and experience has been achieved. The projects are developing little by little, and some of them will be joined by more anti-authoritarians, also from abroad. These projects do not have the scale that the founders of the antiauthoritarian unit were aiming at, but they are viable under wartime conditions. This kind of organization is progressing slowly but surely. I think practice is more important than a big and beautiful political plan. Small projects within the army are possible for us and we can develop them with our existing resources.

Regarding the nuances of anarchist military formations in Ukraine, it should be taken into account that in the last century the Soviet Union destroyed the entire political anarchist culture with repression, terror and hunger. Moreover, in today's Ukraine the word "leftist" is demonized. Leftist, red, communist - everything is associated with Soviet communism in people's minds. So our anarchist movement is quite young compared to, say, the Spanish anarchist movement or the Kurdistan liberation movement. Anarchist activity here is related to the libertarian left-wing movement that is only about 20-30 years old. Everything had to be started from a scratch, and it was not possible to lean on any background, institutions that would have already been in operation for a long time. When we start projects in the military or in the civil society, we face demonization of our ideas. There is distrust towards us."Leftists, that is, communists. Communists, that is, Soviet Union.” And the Soviet Union is a big trauma. It is quite a good achievement that, despite these obstacles, we now have a hundred people in the army. It's not a big amount, but they create and develop projects there. Of course, these projects are still much younger than the movement itself, but I have confidence in their potential, because they have gained strength quickly. In two years, the prospects of a few groups have become promising.

I will tell a little about what we have learned from the time before the war. Perhaps these experiences have similarities to situations in countries that share a border with Russia or Belarus, such as Finland, the Baltic countries and Poland. Before the start of a full-scale war, society had no idea that we could be attacked with such force. No one could imagine anything as big and bloody as the attack that started in 2022. In my view, the leftist movement was then divided into two camps. One foresaw some sort of military escalation, though not full-scale war. It was thought that the war in Luhansk and Donbass could expand. However, I think no one expected missiles, infrastructure sabotage and attack from all directions. Those who expected a certain degree of escalation practiced tactical skills and were of the opinion that society should invest in war preparedness and people should prepare themselves by acquiring military and first aid skills.

The other camp, on the other hand, did not consider escalation likely, and had an extremely negative attitude to demands for militarization. In their view, preparation efforts and calls for militarization supported highly undemocratic values. This more pacifist camp saw authoritarian features in practicing military skills. In their opinion, Ukraine should not be militarized, as it would provoke violence, and the movement should not be oriented towards military action. This camp wanted to focus on solving Ukraine's internal problems – on the fight against neoliberalism and the struggle against the extreme right. The two factions were thus in a state of vague discord until Putin announced his decision to show his military might against Ukraine. That's when the two groups merged. A day before the full-scale attack began, they gathered and decided to discuss how to proceed in the event of an attack. I would say that some deadlines had been missed in preparing the movement for such a war.

Both those who called for preparedness and those who opposed it were unprepared. The group that did the exercises may have had basic military skills, but they were not prepared for airstrikes and artillery fire. The possible know-how was more suitable for guerrilla warfare. It can perhaps be concluded from this that in the European bordering countries of Russia, which are now living in a time of peace, it is necessary to take into account that Russia is an imperialist state, an aggressor that tries to solve everything by force and not by diplomacy. One should not rule out the possibility that the country you live in will fall under the grip of terror similar to what Ukraine has fallen into. There is no point in dreaming about democracy-promoting and diplomatic means of self-defense when it comes to a state like Russia. Narratives of pacifism and peace and avoiding provoking violence do not work when you are targeted by violent attacker. If there is any interest in self-defense among comrades in Finland, the Baltics or Poland, I would say that some kind of practical preparation and acquiring of theoretical knowledge can have positive effects. Practicing first aid skills and attending public defense courses, building drones, as well as many other civilian hobbies can create a good basis for being ready to act in the event of an attack.

Those left-wing activists in Ukraine who practiced tactical skills and took first aid courses were certainly not ready for the massive Russian attack, but they nevertheless had some kind of background and readiness and thus the opportunity to join specialized military units. They were a step ahead of those who joined military defense without any basic knowledge and skills. There were many like the latter. However, some had practiced tactical skills in the terrain, weekly for three years. These exercises included weapons handling, advancement moves, camouflage, and other basic skills that certainly gave an advantage over having no knowledge on armed action. Some kind of mental preparation can also be helpful. If you don’t exclude the possibility that an attack may be directed at you, your communities and your country of residence, you can prepare in advance to take a role that is not that of a victim, a refugee or a passive recipient, but that of a person participating in the resistance.

Some comrades justify participating in the war by arguing that it brings us social "points" that will enable us to act in the future. We can say that we also took part in the war, and we will be appreciated. We assume that the war will end someday and the time will come to push for social change and start social projects. We will be asked: “And what did you do during the war? What was your contribution?” It may be that there will be such unpleasant tones in society after the war that those who took part in military activities rise higher in the hierarchy and will be valued more than civilians and refugees. The view that we participate in the war in order to gain visibility and the right to act in the post-war society, speaks of the assumption that Ukrainian society will go in a more hierarchical and increasingly militarized direction. I'm not saying that it won't happen, and I'm not denying that by going to war, supporting soldiers and helping civilians suffering from war, you can, so to speak, score political points for future actions. However, for me, both personally and as an anarchist, the motivation to do these things is practice: the practice of horizontal relations, the practice of the here and now. I consider even small-scale mutual aid to be a political activity, a realization of the philosophy of anarchism. I would not like to get stuck in theory and pondering on what is good and what is bad to do in this situation. When you feel the need for help from your comrades and people affected by the war, it is very humane to want to participate in support activities and decide to counteract the anti-humane values represented by the attacking regime.

I would say that this small reality - Solidarity Collectives - that we are currently creating and that has had its own experiments, can grow and develop. It can offer new opportunities for groups: drone cooperatives, rehabilitation of the war injured, cultural projects, squats for refugees - this is what I dream of. These dreams can come true, because we have a project like this, in which the people involved are now putting a lot of effort, and which I think is making good results. This is my essential prospect as an anarchist. When it comes to big political slogans, tendencies and projects, I would say that building a movement has never been an absolute value for me. A movement gets built by itself when there is activity. Now it is been built in very decentralized way, but in cooperation. As far as I can see, there are six–seven left-wing projects in Ukraine. Some are small groups of three to four people, others are larger. One of the groups wants to establish a left-wing party in Ukraine. So we have quite different values, but still we cooperate. The projects work autonomously, but help each other in one way or another. The process of building a movement cannot be accelerated by force, new resources do not appear out of nowhere. You can invest in a project and develop it only at the stage it is in at the given time.

---

Read also:

Greetings from Ukraine: "We need to think together about self-defence and security"
https://takku.net/article.php/20250101151830732

A voice from Ukraine: “It’s time to organize”
https://takku.net/article.php/20240731203116157

Source : https://takku.net/article.php/20250106233015550

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