We are publishing an interview with a solidarity network that helps refugees a deserters from Ukraine. Visit the initiative’s website for more information. solidarityactivities.noblogs.org
/ Русский / український / Česky / Español / Italiano / Ελληνικά /
1) Your initiative helps people fleeing the war in Ukraine. Why do you help these people in particular?
Mutual aid is a fundamental factor in our lives. And because we cannot help everyone, we help primarily where we have the resources and capacity to do so. We also realize that inter-
imperialist tensions are escalating in various parts of the world. War may soon come to the places where we now live. But it’s not just about empathy. It’s also very practical. If we show solidarity with people in war zones, it is part of the process of self-organization of the working class, which opposes wars and their possible escalation into another world war. The ruling classes of all imperialist blocs have their alliance strategies that help them organize wars. Their strategies are not local but depend on the global exchange of information, resources, and experience. For this reason, the working class’s 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 have greater capacity to fight global threats and enemies.
2) Why do you think people who need help prefer not to contact official institutions or authorities? Does your solidarity network have any advantages that make people contact you and seek your help?
Official institutions often require information that people fleeing war zones do not want to share. For example, refugees have logical reasons for not wanting to give their real names and link them to the places they are fleeing from. Our solidarity network does not ask people for sensitive information such as their names, original place of residence, criminal records, the name of the company they worked for, the name of the unit they deserted from, or information about their family circumstances, etc. We understand that when crossing borders illegally or deserting, it can be extremely dangerous to share such information. It increases the risk of persecution, deportation, physical aggression, or harassment of friends or family who remain in the war zone. Therefore, at a certain stage of their escape, some people prefer to ask for help from informal networks rather than official authorities, which can sometimes help them but can also cause them great harm with their bureaucratic approach.
Of course, the situation is different when refugees subsequently apply for political asylum. At this stage, they are likely to contact the official authorities. However, even in this situation, our network can provide free information that will increase their chances of success. Official institutions often operate mechanically and withhold important information in order to speed up the application process or save money from the budget. As a result, many asylum seekers end up “stuck” in temporary protection status, which means fewer resources for living and a greater risk of deportation or persecution by the Ukrainian authorities.
We know that no state can guarantee permanent protection to anyone. For example, we know of cases where the French state deported refugees with asylum status to their country of origin on the African continent, where they were subsequently tortured or killed. Therefore, we must not have any illusions about states, authorities, and legislation. Official institutions can help us temporarily, but when state policy changes, those same institutions can harm us. We must therefore look for ways to help each other even without the authorities or even in spite of these institutions. This is the direction we are taking. We believe that people who have had negative experiences with institutionalized “solutions” want to cooperate more with informal networks like ours.
3) Do you want your network to be as large as possible and involve as many people as possible? Is that your goal?
We don’t want the network to be as large as possible, but to function as well as possible. There is no direct correlation: the more people there are in the network, the greater the efficiency. It is better to organize in a small network of people who know each other, trust each other, and know how to respond flexibly than to have a large network that is paralyzed by internal disagreements about basic program positions or endless discussions about what to do or not to do.
Let’s look at other examples: Traditional trade unions are often obsessed with having a large membership, but then we see that the membership pays with their money for union leaders who sit at the table with bosses and negotiate agreements that are advantageous to capitalists. The result will be no different if the union has more members. In the past, small solidarity networks involving a few dozen people have been able to help workers more than unions with tens of thousands of members. Unions often organize mass ritual marches through the city, which politicians and bosses laugh at because such spectacular events do not force them to back down. We also believe that small groups that sabotaged arms shipments to the front lines did more to fight the war than mass demonstrations that merely appeal to politicians to ban arms exports to Israel, Russia, Iran, Ukraine, etc.
Expanding the network can, of course, also be beneficial. However, growth should not mean a quantitative mania. Expansion must be based on the needs of the struggle and current capacities. If there is no mass, organized anti-war movement of the working class, we cannot change that “by inviting the masses” to join our network. Quantitative expansion must be consistent with qualitative progress.
4) It may also be necessary to provide material humanitarian aid directly in Ukraine. Do you also organize such aid? As far as we know, there are informal groups in Ukraine that share material aid. Do you cooperate with them?
Humanitarian aid is definitely needed in Ukraine. The Russian army often attacks civilian homes or energy sources and infrastructure that are important for supplying the population. The problem is that humanitarian aid is often blocked by Ukrainian border guards. There is much talk in European Union countries about the damage caused by Putin’s invading army, but there is almost no mention of how Ukrainian state institutions are contributing to the suffering of the local population. Humanitarian aid from neighboring countries is often stopped at the Ukrainian border, confiscated, or allowed only on condition of paying 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 flee Ukraine. We want to reduce the risk of our resources being confiscated by corrupt officials at the border or by scoundrels who are exploiting the war for their own enrichment. We have seen similar situations in other wars. For example, humanitarian aid sent to Gaza is blocked by Israeli soldiers, and when something does get into Gaza, a large part of the humanitarian resources is confiscated by groups such as Hamas. Only a small portion of food, medicine, etc. reaches the poor.
As for the war in Ukraine, it is truly an absurd situation. People can easily transport military equipment to Ukraine, but when someone decides to deliver humanitarian aid to the massacred population, it is extremely difficult and often prevented by someone. It is just as absurd as when supporters of Ukraine mourn the dead but ignore the fact that the state has closed its borders, thereby contributing to the death toll being much higher than it would have been if people had been able to leave freely to safety.