A-Infos (en) Russia, AIT: "Solidarity is the way" (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

The Czech Republic-based Anti-Militaristic Initiative interviewed the 
Solidarity is the Way network, founded last year and dedicated to 
assisting refugees, deserters, and draft dodgers from Ukraine. ---- 
Question: Your initiative helps people fleeing the war in Ukraine. Why 
are you helping these people in particular? ---- Answer: Mutual 
assistance is a fundamental factor in our lives. And since we cannot 
help everyone, we help primarily where we have the resources and 
capabilities. We also understand that inter-imperialist tensions are 
intensifying in various parts of the world. War may soon come to the 
places where we now live. But it's not just a matter of empathy-it's 
also a matter of practice.

Showing solidarity with people in war zones is part of the working 
class's self-organization, which opposes wars and their potential 
escalation into a new world war. The ruling classes of all imperialist 
blocs have their own alliance strategies that allow them to organize 
wars. These strategies are not local-they depend on the global exchange 
of information, resources, and experience. Therefore, working-class 
resistance to wars must also be global.

For example, when people living in Hungary or Romania help deserters 
from Ukraine, a transregional alliance is created. When we are 
connected, we are stronger and more capable of confronting global 
threats and enemies.

Question: Why do you think people in need of help prefer not to turn to 
official institutions or the authorities? Are there any advantages to 
your solidarity network that make people turn to you?

Answer: Official institutions often demand information that people 
fleeing war zones are reluctant to share. For example, refugees have 
perfectly legitimate reasons for not disclosing their real names or 
associating them with the places they're fleeing.

Our solidarity network does not request sensitive information, such as 
names, previous places of residence, criminal records, the name of the 
company where a person worked, the name of the military unit from which 
they deserted, or information about family circumstances. We understand 
that in the case of illegal border crossings or desertion, sharing such 
information can be extremely dangerous. This increases the risk of 
persecution, deportation, physical violence, or pressure on friends and 
relatives remaining in the war zone.

Therefore, at a certain stage of their flight, some people prefer to 
turn to informal networks for help rather than to official bodies, which 
can sometimes help, but can also cause serious harm with their 
bureaucratic approach.

Of course, the situation changes when refugees subsequently apply for 
political asylum. At this stage, they typically interact with official 
structures. However, even then, our network can provide free information 
that increases their chances of success. Official institutions often act 
mechanically and conceal important information in order to speed up the 
process or reduce budgetary costs. As a result, many asylum seekers 
become "stuck" in temporary protection status, which means fewer 
resources for living and an increased risk of deportation or persecution 
by Ukrainian authorities.

We know that no state can guarantee permanent protection to anyone. For 
example, there are known cases of the French state deporting refugees 
with asylum status back to African countries, where they were 
subsequently tortured or killed. Therefore, we must have no illusions 
about states, authorities, and legislation.

Official institutions can provide temporary relief, but if government 
policy changes, these same structures can cause harm. That's why we're 
looking for ways to help each other even without government 
involvement-and sometimes even in spite of it. This is the direction 
we're moving in.

We believe that people who have had negative experiences with 
institutionalized "solutions" are more willing to collaborate with 
informal networks like ours.

Question: Do you want your network to be as large and reach as many 
people as possible? Is that your goal?

Answer: We don't strive for the network to be as large as possible-we 
strive for it to function as well as possible. There's no direct 
correlation: the more people in the network, the more effective it will 
be. On the contrary, it's often better to organize into a small network 
of people who know each other, trust each other, and are flexible than 
to have a large network paralyzed by internal disagreements over core 
programmatic positions or endless debates about what to do and what not 
to do.

Let's look at other examples. Traditional trade unions are often 
obsessed with membership numbers, but ultimately, these members pay 
their own way for union leaders who sit at the negotiating table with 
"employers" and negotiate agreements that benefit the capitalists. The 
result won't change even if the union has more members. In the past, 
small solidarity networks of just a few dozen people were able to help 
workers more than unions with tens of thousands of members. Trade unions 
often organize massive ritual marches through the city, which 
politicians and bosses merely scoff at, since such spectacular actions 
don't force them to make concessions. We also believe that small groups 
that sabotaged arms deliveries to the front lines did more to combat the 
war than mass demonstrations that merely appeal to politicians with 
calls to ban arms exports to Israel, Russia, Iran, Ukraine, and so on.

Network expansion can, of course, also be beneficial. However, growth 
must not devolve into quantitative mania. Expansion must be based on the 
needs of the struggle and current capabilities. If there is no mass, 
organized anti-war movement of the working class, we cannot change this 
by simply "inviting the masses" to join our network. Quantitative 
expansion must correspond to qualitative development.

Question: There may also be a need to provide material humanitarian aid 
directly in Ukraine. Are you organizing such assistance? As far as we 
know, there are informal groups in Ukraine that distribute material aid. 
Do you cooperate with them?

Answer: Humanitarian aid in Ukraine is absolutely essential. The Russian 
army frequently attacks residential buildings or energy sources and 
infrastructure essential for supplying the population. The problem is 
that humanitarian aid is often blocked by Ukrainian border guards. In 
the European Union, much is made of the damage caused by Putin's army's 
invasion, but little is said about how Ukrainian state institutions 
themselves contribute to the suffering of the local population. 
Humanitarian aid from neighboring countries is often stopped at the 
Ukrainian border, confiscated, or allowed through only after the payment 
of a large bribe. Most of the people in our network do not live in 
Ukraine, so we prefer to provide humanitarian aid to those who have 
managed to leave Ukraine. We want to reduce the risk of our resources 
being confiscated by corrupt border officials or war profiteers. We have 
seen similar situations in other wars. For example, humanitarian aid 
sent to Gaza is blocked by Israeli soldiers, and when it does reach 
Gaza, a significant portion of the humanitarian supplies is confiscated 
by groups like Hamas. Only a small portion of food, medicine, and other 
supplies reaches the poor.

Regarding the war in Ukraine, the situation is truly absurd. People can 
transport military equipment into Ukraine without any problems, but when 
someone decides to deliver humanitarian aid to the affected population, 
it proves extremely difficult and is often prevented. This is just as 
absurd as the fact that Ukraine's supporters mourn the dead while 
ignoring the fact that the country has closed its borders, thereby 
contributing to a death toll significantly higher than would have been 
the case had people freely traveled to safer places.

Distributing humanitarian aid directly within Ukraine is much easier 
than trying to transport it from other regions. However, the problem is 
that some organizations distributing humanitarian aid in Ukraine are 
also organizing aid for the Ukrainian army, which executes deserters and 
forcibly conscripts men, sending them to die on the front lines. One 
example is Solidarity Collectives, but there are other similar 
organizations. We do not cooperate with such groups. Fortunately, there 
are also informal networks in Ukraine that understand that supporting 
the state army is not humanitarian activity-even when this army is 
declared to be fighting against the invading army of Russian imperialism.

Question: Your website states that you support deserters from the 
Ukrainian army or war refugees from Ukraine. But why don't you also 
support deserters from the Russian army or other armies involved in the war?

Answer: In answering the first question of the interview, we already 
said: "We help primarily where we have resources and opportunities."

In principle, we also support deserters from the Russian army and other 
armies involved in wars. For us, this is just as important as supporting 
deserters from the Ukrainian army or refugees from Ukraine. However, 
most of us find it easier to provide practical assistance to people who 
have crossed the Ukrainian border.

If we were people who emigrated from Russia, lived in Russia, or near 
the Russian border, we would probably focus more on helping deserters 
from the Russian army. If we lived in the Middle East, our practical 
solidarity would likely be directed toward deserters from the Israeli 
army, or toward helping people fleeing Gaza, or those rebelling against 
Hamas.

It's essential to support all deserters, war refugees, and war 
opponents. In principle, we support everyone, but in practice, we can 
currently only help some. At the same time, we try to link our 
activities with other projects operating in other regions and offering 
more suitable support for "local" deserters and refugees. For example, 
we are familiar with the Idite Lesom initiative, which helps deserters 
from the Russian army. We disagree with this organization's liberal 
orientation, but we believe the solidarity it shows toward deserters is 
extremely important. Perhaps, over time, we will be able to help 
deserters from the Russian army as well. This is one of our goals.

Question: What are the most serious restrictions that complicate your 
activities?

Answer: There are many restrictions, but we will list only a few of them.

A) An atmosphere of mistrust.
War is an extreme form of conflict that brings out the worst in people: 
neighbors report each other to the police, friends become enemies, and 
people try to preserve their own comforts at the expense of others. 
Moreover, during war, the state's secret and security services gain such 
powers that they can imprison people on trumped-up charges or even 
execute them on speculative grounds. In such an atmosphere, fear is 
understandable.

The problem is that this fear either paralyzes people, depriving them of 
the ability to act, or makes them paranoid, causing them to see danger 
even where there is none. In a situation where "no one trusts anyone," 
it's extremely difficult to help each other. At the same time, it's 
dangerous to trust everyone, as police and border guards often take 
advantage of the desperation of gullible people, luring them into traps, 
and then arresting them. The army and the state then use such incidents 
to deter others from attempting to desert or illegally leave the 
country, which has closed borders during wartime.

B) Lack of information.
This problem is directly related to the previous one. If people don't 
trust each other, they don't share information vital to escaping a war 
zone. As a result, our network may have resources-money, housing, 
cars-but lack basic information about who exactly needs help and how to 
get them those resources.

Furthermore, people who have already managed to escape Ukraine possess 
important knowledge that could assist those who are just preparing to 
flee or defect: where border patrols are located, how to avoid checks, 
when is the best time to leave, how to obtain fake documents, what to 
take with you when crossing the border through remote mountainous areas, 
etc. Having such information would significantly increase the 
effectiveness of our operations.

C) Lack of funds.
We are an informal network of volunteers, and no one receives a salary 
for their work. However, we need more resources to operate more 
effectively. We understand that this is due to our level of security 
culture. For example, we don't have public fundraising campaigns where 
people can transfer money electronically from their phones. The process 
of transferring funds to us is lengthy, requiring energy and careful 
planning.

However, this approach has its positive aspects. Besides a higher level 
of security, it has other advantages: people are returning to forms of 
organization that are not dependent on technologies controlled by 
transnational corporations, military developers, or companies that share 
sensitive information with third parties. We may receive less money than 
we need, but we gain more mutual trust and more genuine relationships. 
This is important not only psychologically but also for operational 
effectiveness. We know of cases where banking providers have blocked the 
accounts of solidarity groups that relied on public online collections, 
under various pretexts. This partially paralyzed their activities. We do 
not face such a risk.

D) War propaganda.
When we help refugees and deserters in one region, some portray it as 
aiding the enemy on the other side of the front line. This is the view 
of all sides in the war. This traditional element of war propaganda 
seriously complicates our work. Some claim that we are facilitating 
Putin's invasion of Ukraine because we are helping deserters from the 
Ukrainian army. People who don't understand the context believe this, 
and we are losing support among the "public."

From a military perspective, this logic is understandable: if "our" 
army is weakened by desertion, another army gains the advantage. 
However, we are not interested in the victory of one state over another. 
We seek to strengthen the position of the working class so that it can 
organize everywhere against "its" states and "its" bourgeoisie, thereby 
in practice weakening the ability of all states to wage war, organize 
it, and supply it with resources. This is the only way to end wars while 
simultaneously abandoning the pacifist illusion of a capitalist "peace," 
which is in fact a continuation of war by non-militarized means.

We don't believe that war can end wars. We also don't believe that 
diplomatic peace can stop the tendency of states to initiate new 
military conflicts.

The interview was published: 
https://antimilitarismus.noblogs.org/post/2026/01/17/%d0%b8%d0%bd%d1%82%d0%b5%d1%80%d0%b2%d1%8c%d1%8e-%d1%81-%d1%81%d0%be%d0%bb%d0%b8%d0%b4%d0%b0%d1%80%d0%bd%d0%be%d1%81%d1%82%d1%8c-%d1%8d%d1%82%d0%be-%d0%bf%d1%83%d1%82%d1%8c/ 


Solidarity is the Way network website: 
https://solidarityactivities.noblogs.org/

https://aitrus.info/node/6355
_________________________________________
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