(Military) Resistance is Futile

On why military solutions will not work and the need to be anti-war.

Watching the unforgivable invasion of Ukraine, most feel the want to help. Most Ukrainians are asking for help. The question has just become how to help. With increasing calls for military aid or intervention, it requires a step back to see that war will only lead to more widespread death. When you tell people this, they feel helpless. They want to do something for the Ukrainian people. Something to make the pain stop. War will only spread this pain to more people, and so alternative solutions are needed.

Before I start, I want to point out that I will not be covering other wars. I do not have the time nor am I as smart as people who have written excellent stories about NATO’s imperialist wars of the past. I am also not touching on the reasons for Russia’s invasion, as that has been covered in many places better than I could. I will also not be talking about sanctions today. Sanctions are economic warfare, and you can read about their failure to do anything (in many wars for decades) in other places.

Military Interventions

The calls for military support to Ukraine have come in many different forms. Some are more forward than others, but all lead to more death.

First, we have the calls for direct military intervention by NATO (or NATO countries’ militaries) against Russian forces. Calling for direct conflict between nuclear superpowers, and thinking that this would be limited to just Ukraine. Some imagine that this would lead to war limited to NATO troops fighting Russian troops in Ukraine, fighting to a ceasefire, and then both sides withdrawing. There is simply no way this could happen. If NATO was to get involved, the conflict would spiral quickly. What is the best-case outcome? That Ukraine becomes a war zone for the most powerful militaries on Earth and somehow that does less damage to the country than is already being done? And the worst outcomes are even scarier. If NATO gets involved, why would Russia not invade neighboring NATO nations it sees as threats to its border security (Poland, Latvia, etc.) and why would NATO countries not attack Russia (and Belarus) directly? The people of these surrounding nations would have their lives completely destroyed, as well as all those who were sent to fight. If the conflict escalates, nuclear arsenals are likelier to be used. At best, that would completely destroy the nations involved in nuclear exchanges. At worst, the entire world. Direct military intervention between NATO and Russia and its allies would be madness.

Second, the Ukrainian government is asking for a no-fly zone over Ukraine. The theory is that if Russian aircraft cannot fly over Ukraine, less bombs will fall, fewer people will die, and the Ukrainian forces will have a better chance of fighting back against the Russian invaders. This sounds like a good way to stop innocent civilians from being killed, and a way to give the Ukrainians a chance. The problem is what it requires to enforce a no-fly zone. In order to stop the Russian air force from flying in Ukraine, you have two options. You can ask them nicely and hope they stop, or you can shoot down planes that violate the no-fly zone. If NATO forces were to shoot down those planes, this would simply lead us back to point one of direct conflict between the nuclear superpowers of NATO and Russia. There is no way to force Russia to comply with a no-fly zone other than direct conflict with Russia.

The third option for military intervention is one that many countries have already taken, and that is to send weapons to Ukrainian forces and militias. This is something countries have done to support military outcomes they desire for decades. The problem is that the outcomes of this military aid have more often than not created more problems than intended, so much so that it has it’s own term: “blowback.” For example, CIA arms support for the mujahideen in Afghanistan against the USSR leading to the rise of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, as well as other extremist groups. Now we know that not all Ukrainians are Nazis. I am not suggesting that. Russia’s claim that they are invading Ukraine to “denazifhy” it is a sham. What I am saying is that there are very prominent neo-Nazi militias in Ukraine, such as the Azov Battalion. This group, and others like it, have clear Nazi roots and wants. They may not be the majority now, but the longer this conflict goes on, the more people will be driven to supporting the extremist parts of society who are leading the fight against the Russians. The problem with sending arms to these regions is that once they get there, there is no way to control who they get sent to, and they will prolong the conflict. The longer the conflict goes on, the more people will join groups like the Azov Battalion. The more arms sent to Ukraine, the more likely they are to end up in the hands of extremist groups. This will lead to them becoming more powerful in the region, and allow them to carry out their racist ultra-nationalist goals further (for example: this video of Azov Battalion soldiers covering their bullets in pig fat to fight Muslim soldiers, who they call “orcs”). Sending arms to Ukraine means that more people will be killed by those arms, whether during the conflict now or by strengthening groups who will use them for atrocities later.

Solutions

Reading above can feel hopeless. How do we help Ukraine if we do not step in and fight for them? As anti-war activists, we must find other ways to put an end to this conflict.

First, helping war refugees. Now, this cannot be limited to refugees only from Ukraine. We are seeing the racist coverage of the war in Ukraine already in Western media. This has extended to racist selection of which refugees will be accepted into countries all over the world. This has been the case for a long time, as refugees fleeing other conflicts (most often conflicts created by NATO: Afghanistan, Libya, etc.) have been refused for decades. Allowing Ukrainian refugees to flee to other places is good. It is one of the best ways to provide safe places for Ukrainians and countries should be doing everything they can to help as many people escape the conflict zone as possible. But they should be doing this for anyone, anywhere in the world who needs this support. Refugees should be welcomed and supported. This is step one to helping lessen the effects of the conflict.

Second, diplomacy is key. Russia has legitimate security concerns. This is NOT supporting the decision taken by Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine. The is an immoral and indefensible position, as aggressive war is evil. But Russia has been concerned with the expansion of NATO ever since the collapse of the USSR. The biggest concern was adding more NATO nations on it’s border. There was already an agreement between NATO and Russia for a solution to this problem in the form of the MINSK II agreement:

The key military element of Minsk II is the disarmament of the separatists and the withdrawal of Russian “volunteer” forces, together with a vaguely worded suggestion for the temporary removal the Ukrainian armed forces (exclusive of border guards). The key political element consists of three essential and mutually dependent parts: demilitarization; a restoration of Ukrainian sovereignty, including control of the border with Russia; and full autonomy for the Donbas in the context of the decentralization of power in Ukraine as a whole.

MINSK II was signed by France, Germany, Russia, and Ukraine, and was endorsed unanimously by the UN Security Council. Trying diplomacy based on this agreement, with a declaration by NATO that Ukraine will remain a neutral country and will not be allowed to join NATO, could provide Russia with answers to enough of it’s security concerns to leave Ukraine. If not, it opens the door to further diplomacy to ending this conflict.

Military solutions will only make this war worse, and diplomacy and providing safe haven for all refugees are the only ways to avoid more death.

Avoiding Future Conflicts

In the future, we should also be calling for the end of NATO and military expansion by all powers. NATO only creates more military forces and raises tensions with those not a part of the pact. NATO has been causing tensions in Ukraine and around the world since it’s creation, and it’s possible expansion to Ukraine is one of the key security concerns of Russia. NATO was

founded in 1949, at the height of the cold war, six years before the Warsaw pact, supposedly as a defensive treaty against a Soviet threat. It's often claimed the alliance maintained peace in Europe for 40 years, when in fact there is not the slightest evidence the Soviet Union ever intended to attack.

After the USSR collapsed, the Warsaw Pact was duly dissolved. But Nato was not, despite having lost the ostensible reason for its existence. If peace had been the aim, it could have usefully been turned into a collective security arrangement including Russia, under the auspices of the United Nations.

If NATO was ever really a defensive pact, it would have ended already and would not have expanded further towards Russia, while waging wars in countries such as Libya.

At the end of all this, war is a horrible thing and leaves those on the insides lives completely destroyed. I am so sorry to all people impacted by war. This article focuses on a European conflict, but the people impacted by imperialist conflicts all over the world are on my mind writing it. The conflicts in Yemen and Somalia, and the impacts of the 20 year war on Afghanistan, or the invasion of Iraq, Libya, and all other countries are just as important. I am privileged enough to be able to write this article in a safe place, and there are many all over the world who cannot say the same. All those who feel the horrors of war should be supported, and peaceful solutions to wars must be supported wholeheartedly.