A-Infos (en) NZ, Aotearoa, AWSM: A Kiwi Dies in Ukraine: The War Between Empires and the People Sent to Fight It (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

The death of a New Zealand man, Samuel Haines,  fighting in Ukraine was 
reported in the familiar language used whenever ordinary people are 
consumed by war. He was described through his personal history, his 
motivations, his family and his decision to travel across the world to 
take part in a conflict that had nothing to do with the daily lives of 
most people in Aotearoa. What was not highlighted was the fact that the 
tragedy of war is that those who suffer most are usually not the people 
who create wars. Politicians, generals and corporate interests make 
decisions from offices far away from the front lines, while 
working-class people are asked to sacrifice their bodies in the name of 
nations they did not create and systems they do not control.

The death of a Kiwi volunteer in Ukraine raises questions that go beyond 
one individual. Why are people from countries on the other side of the 
world being drawn into a conflict between major powers? Why has a war 
involving Russia, Ukraine, NATO and competing geopolitical interests 
been presented to millions of people as a simple battle between good and 
evil? And what does the presence of far-right nationalist forces within 
Ukraine's military tell us about the way states use ideology and 
violence when they prepare societies for war?

For anarchists, the answers do not begin with choosing which flag 
deserves our loyalty. The history of the twentieth and twenty-first 
centuries shows that nationalism has repeatedly been used to convince 
ordinary people that the interests of their rulers are their own. 
Workers who have more in common with each other than with their own 
governments are encouraged to see each other as enemies because states 
require obedience, sacrifice and the willingness to kill. The war in 
Ukraine is no exception. It is a conflict shaped by Russian imperial 
ambitions, Ukrainian nationalism, NATO expansion, Western strategic 
interests and the wider competition between global powers. The people 
trapped inside this struggle are paying the price for decisions made by 
governments that claim to represent them.

Sam Haines ended up fighting and dying as a volunteer militia as part of 
the Azov battalion that emerged in 2014 during the conflict in eastern 
Ukraine. Its early period was associated with individuals and 
organisations connected to far-right nationalist politics. Some of its 
founders had histories linked to ultranationalist movements, and the 
organisation used symbols and imagery that attracted criticism because 
of their associations with European fascist traditions. Scholars, 
journalists and human rights organisations have documented these 
connections. When Azov was incorporated into Ukraine's National Guard, 
it became an official military unit rather than an independent militia. 
Some argue that integration changed the organisation and that its 
fighters have since played a significant role in defending Ukrainian 
territory. Critics sttae that formal incorporation does not erase its 
ideological origins or the influence that nationalist movements gained 
through wartime conditions. Denying or minimising the reality of these 
movements serves the interests of those who want war narratives to 
remain simple and unquestionable.

The uncomfortable truth is that states have often relied on extremist 
movements when those movements are useful. Governments that present 
themselves as defenders of civilisation have repeatedly made alliances 
with forces they would condemn under different circumstances. During 
wartime, groups willing to use violence are often granted influence 
because military effectiveness becomes more important than political 
principles. This pattern is not unique to Ukraine. It has appeared 
throughout history wherever states have faced crises and sought to 
mobilise society around national struggle. The machinery of war creates 
conditions where authoritarian ideas can grow because war rewards 
hierarchy, obedience and the belief that violence can solve political 
problems.

The debate around NATO's role in Ukraine is another area where 
discussion is often reduced to slogans. One side argues that NATO is a 
defensive alliance whose support for Ukraine is a necessary response to 
Russian aggression. The other argues that NATO expansion after the 
collapse of the Soviet Union created a security crisis that helped 
produce the conditions for war. An anarchist analysis should be 
sceptical of both state narratives because both begin from the 
assumption that the interests of governments and military institutions 
should determine the future of ordinary people.

NATO expansion did not happen in a vacuum. After the end of the Cold 
War, Western governments continued to extend their political and 
military influence into Eastern Europe. Countries that had once existed 
within the Soviet sphere joined a Western military alliance that Russia 
had long viewed as a strategic threat. From Moscow's perspective, NATO's 
movement closer to its borders represented a challenge to its regional 
power. From the perspective of countries that had experienced domination 
by the Soviet Union, joining NATO represented a search for security 
against future Russian aggression.

Great powers have always justified their actions as defensive. The 
United States has built military bases around the world while claiming 
to protect global security. NATO presents itself as a shield against 
authoritarianism while expanding its influence through military 
alliances. States rarely describe themselves as aggressors. They present 
their actions as necessary responses to the actions of others. This is 
how imperial competition operates. Each power claims it is responding. 
Each claims it is acting reluctantly. Each claims that its violence is 
necessary because the other side started it. Meanwhile, ordinary people 
are sent to die.

The idea that a worker from New Zealand, Britain, Poland, Russia or 
Ukraine should risk their life because of disputes between governments 
is one of the central illusions of nationalism. Nationalism asks people 
to identify with a territory, a flag and a ruling structure rather than 
with the people who share their workplaces, communities and struggles. A 
Ukrainian worker and a Russian worker may be told they are enemies, even 
though both face similar problems created by economic systems that 
concentrate wealth and power among elites.

The same applies to those who travel overseas to fight. Foreign 
volunteers often believe they are acting according to their values. Some 
are motivated by genuine opposition to invasion. Some are driven by 
adventure, ideology or a desire to find meaning through conflict. Some 
are drawn towards nationalist movements that promise belonging and 
purpose. War attracts people who are searching for something because war 
offers a powerful illusion, that that individual struggles can be 
transformed into a heroic mission. But the reality of war is rarely 
heroic. It is exhaustion, trauma, injury and death. It is young people 
being transformed into weapons by governments that will replace them 
when they are gone.

The arms industry understands this better than anyone. Every modern war 
creates opportunities for those who profit from weapons production. 
Governments spend billions on missiles, tanks, aircraft and military 
technology while claiming that such spending is necessary for security. 
The companies that manufacture these weapons do not lose when wars 
continue. Conflict becomes an economic system in itself, with entire 
industries dependent on permanent preparation for violence.

This is one reason anarchists have always opposed militarism. The 
problem is not simply that wars are tragic. The problem is that war is 
built into a political and economic order where power is concentrated in 
the hands of states and corporations. A society organised around 
competition, domination and profit will repeatedly produce conflicts 
because those conflicts serve the interests of powerful institutions.

The ordinary soldier is placed in an impossible position. They may 
genuinely believe they are defending their community. They may believe 
they are standing against injustice. They may have personal reasons for 
being there that outsiders cannot understand. But individual courage 
does not change the nature of the systems that send people into battle. 
A worker carrying a rifle does not become powerful because a government 
gives them a uniform. They become a tool of someone else's power.

This is why anarchists reject the idea that the answer to imperialism is 
simply supporting a different imperial power. Opposing Russian 
aggression does not require celebrating NATO militarism. Criticising 
NATO expansion does not require supporting Russian nationalism. 
Rejecting far-right movements in Ukraine does not require accepting the 
authoritarian politics of the Russian state. A consistent anti-war 
position must reject the logic that ordinary people should become 
soldiers in struggles between competing rulers.

The tragedy of Ukraine is that millions of people have been forced into 
a conflict where their choices are shaped by forces far larger than 
themselves. Ukrainian civilians face the consequences of invasion and 
destruction. Russian civilians face the consequences of their 
government's decisions and international isolation. Soldiers on both 
sides experience the reality of industrialised warfare. Refugees are 
displaced. Families lose loved ones. Meanwhile, political leaders 
continue to speak the language of victory.

The lesson anarchists draw from wars like Ukraine is not that people 
should ignore oppression or accept domination. The opposite is true. 
People have every right to resist invasion, exploitation and 
authoritarianism. But resistance does not have to mean replacing one 
hierarchy with another. The liberation of ordinary people will not come 
from stronger states, bigger armies or more powerful alliances. It will 
come from solidarity across borders.

The working class has no interest in endless competition between 
national elites. A Russian factory worker and a Ukrainian factory worker 
do not benefit from each other's deaths. A New Zealand worker travelling 
thousands of kilometres to fight in someone else's war is not advancing 
the interests of ordinary people here or anywhere else. The interests of 
workers are not found in the success of governments, military alliances 
or corporations. They are found in the possibility of a world where 
people no longer have to choose between obedience and destruction.

The death of a Kiwi in Ukraine should not simply be used as another 
piece of evidence in a debate between rival states. He was a person, not 
a symbol. His life mattered beyond the politics that surrounded his 
death. The question we should ask is why a world organised around 
borders, armies and competing powers continues to create situations 
where people believe that a meaningful path available to them is to 
travel across the world and risk dying in another country's war.

The answer is not more nationalism. It is the opposite. The future 
belongs not to the flags that divide us, but to the solidarity that 
connects us.

https://awsm.nz/a-kiwi-dies-in-ukraine-the-war-between-empires-and-the-people-sent-to-fight-it/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en