Criticism of the demand for solidarity with Ukraine // NC-UHH #3

16 May 2023, by Frederike Engelhardt

In this country, the discussion about the war in Ukraine usually coincides with the question of who to support. Two state powers are resorting to war to assert their own interests against the other, sending their countrymen armed into battle and the only question being asked is: which side do I root for? As a distant observer, we are confronted with images of the destruction of the country and its people and instead of asking the question “Why all this?”, we ignore every reason for war in order to know which party deserves our undivided moral support.

In this case, the answer to the question of partisanship is quite clear: Ukraine is, after all, the victim of a war of aggression on the part of Russia and is doing nothing other than defending itself. And any demand for a reason for the attack is seen as a relativization of that attack and partisanship for Russia and thus all further discourse is consistently rejected.

Even withholding one's own opinion on the war in Ukraine is outrageous. One, and one has identified oneself as a good citizen, must show a united stance against the threat to Russia, with everything that goes with it. It is well known that this means heavy war vehicles and dead people. While the state is discussing the reintroduction of compulsory military service in order to be able to justly force its citizens to defend their interests with weapons in their hands in the event of war, people even volunteer to go to the war front and are celebrated by the state and their fellow citizens as defenders of “the good”. Because this much is certain: Russia as the aggressor is the evil that wants to destroy the good rule of the West. This is not only how the state powers of the West see it, but also how their good deeds are freely trumpeted. They are against Russia because Russia is “an aggressor”. An aggressor against what, actually? It is abstracted from an actual war between major powers with state interests, with which one has nothing to do anyway except to appear as a means of using one's state in the event of war, to an attack on “the good”. As the ruled, you simply take the position of your ruler. How stupid can you be?

The ideological masterstroke of the loyal subjects, the state that dominates and uses them in its conflict with another state, to twiddle their thumbs and even demonstrate on the streets for the rearmament of its defense alliance in the East, of course, also finds bourgeois critics. Those who believe they have realized that more war against war cannot help. So these “radicals” take to the streets to demonstrate for “peace”. However, their demands also reflect nothing more than a fervent desire to be ruled. To be ruled justly, of course. For the difference in their demand, in contrast to the position of the loyal subject just discussed, is that they do not approve of the state's method of defending its interests and wish for a different, peaceful one. As if it were up to the subjects to decide whether or not their state uses them as a means of enforcing its interests. This also becomes clear in the case of Ukraine, as the Federal Foreign Office writes: “Male Ukrainian citizens between the ages of 18 and 60 have been banned from leaving Ukraine since the general mobilization.” Here you can clearly see how the subjects of states appear in their wars, namely as war material.

And what do people who watch the spectacle from afar do? In view of their own powerlessness as distant observers of the bloody power struggle between states, they long for another state. One that is not supposed to wage war, but - what? Be nice to its subjects? That would be asking too much. It is highly surprising that these friends of peace only find their way onto the streets in the face of war. The fact that people go to pieces every day and even fail completely to obtain the means to satisfy their needs (money), are neglected in the process, live without shelter, die slowly or quickly in poverty and starve to death en masse all over the world, obviously doesn't strike them as funny. Certainly not, otherwise they would not be crying out for someone to secure these conditions.

True, the radical friend of peace is different from the one who crosses his fingers to NATO, but only in the quality of his idealism. Granted, he is not calling for heavy shells for Ukraine, he is, after all, a friend of the people, and weapons are known to kill people. But his appeal to his state to please pause in the name of humanity and bring peace to bear bears witness to his state's utter ignorance of the purpose of his state and its warmongering. As a people, the friends of peace turn to their state and demand that their interests be heeded. As if the reason for the war had ever been the war mood of the people. This is found, as already discussed, on all sides, and this is surely further fueled by the government and the media, but it is not.

Those who claim that there is no need for war in this world simply haven't looked at the world properly. And those who think the world is a good one, if only states didn't slaughter each other to advance their interests, have a funny idea of "good," if that includes all the other suffering that exists on all corners. If such a person calls himself a "friend of humanity," then that's anything but comfort.