When war breaks out, tendencies that already existed but could be hidden or denied become fully apparent. Before war, it is easy to mask statist attitudes with anti-authoritarian rhetoric, but in times of war, it becomes clear how false and hypocritical this rhetoric can be. In the following commentary, we demonstrate this using the example of Solidarity Collectives and their supporters.
/ Česky /
In an article by Solidarity Collectives, we can read passages referring to Foucault’s thesis on biopower: “The biopower of the modern state is not limited to punitive or prohibitive functions; it monitors birth and death rates, mandates vaccinations, enforces quarantines and mobilization measures.”
While this statement is true, in the case of Solidarity Collectives, it is applied in a manipulative and selective manner only to the invading Russian army and the Russian state authorities. Their article draws attention to the abduction of children and their forced assimilation. However, neither this nor any other of their articles pays the same amount of attention to the abductions of men by the Ukrainian army and their forced deployment to the front lines, where they often die, even though they would prefer to leave and go to safety.
Solidarity Collectives continue their war propaganda by claiming: “Thanks to a Yale University study conducted as part of the Bring Kids Back UA campaign, we currently know of 19,546 children who have been forcibly transferred or deported to the territory of the Russian Federation — but the actual number of children cannot be calculated under conditions of occupation and active hostilities.“
Why do we call it war propaganda? Because it involves selective use of information with the aim of portraying one state at war as the aggressor and other state (or pro-state) actors as innocent victims. They talk about 19,546 forcibly displaced children. Although the number of men in Ukraine forcibly displaced to the front exceeds this number, they do not mention this figure or write about the fact that this is happening and that it is necessary to fight against it, just as it is necessary to fight against the abduction of children by the Russian Federation.
Solidarity Collectives continue: “This is a textbook example of biopolitics in a totalitarian style: under the pretext of “rescue” or “evacuation,” the child becomes an object of state policy — their life is planned, altered, and utilized, as if they are not a person but a tool. In essence, it is the colonization of the future.”
Again, one can agree. And again, one can ask the question: Why don’t Solidarity Collectives take the same perspective on the proletarians who are becoming the subject of Ukrainian state policy in Ukraine—whose lives are planned, altered, and utilized as if they were not a person but a tool?
There are many examples from the past and present that war destroys human beings not only through extermination, but also through pressure to change the personal character of those who manage to survive. Victims of war often become aggressors themselves or open or “silent” supporters of aggressors. They are sensitive to specific suffering, but remain indifferent to others. For example, they express sympathy for children kidnapped by the invading army, but men who are kidnapped and sent to their deaths by the “domestic” army do not receive such sympathy. There is a distorted bipolar view here: the invading army is absolute evil, the army of the occupied state is pure good. Only two poles are seen, and nothing in between. Moreover, these poles are often described in abstract rhetoric of good versus evil or by reproducing false opposites such as fascism versus anti-fascism, dictatorship versus democracy, imperialism versus anti-imperialism, etc.
If the perception of the war situation is so distorted, it is no wonder that while the abduction of children by the Russian army is portrayed as a war crime—which it undoubtedly is—the abduction of men of military age is labeled as necessary defense or even ignored altogether. Those who advocate this logic accuse their critics of Putinism or of sharing pro-Russian propaganda. According to them, we must not draw attention to the abductions and forced sacrifice of men in Ukraine because Putin uses this phenomenon in his war propaganda. As if our reasons for talking about something were the same as Putin’s motivations. We must talk about important issues, even if our enemy exploits the same issues. We must clearly reveal our different motivations, thereby contributing to a comprehensive solution that, in addition to combating abductions—carried out by both Russia and Ukraine—also includes combating Putin’s propaganda and the practices of all imperialist blocs.
We criticize here what is well known to those who look back on the events of World War II. Hitler, the Nazis, gas chambers, the Holocaust, war expansion—all of this was used to justify silence about Stalin’s gulags or repression of the labor movement in America and Great Britain. But not only to remain silent, also to join forces with American, British, and “Soviet” imperialism in the name of the anti-fascist popular front. Different times, different wars, but still the same tendency to “defend” or downplay domestic tyranny because the “external” enemy is portrayed as the greatest, most threatening of all and, moreover, exploits tyranny in certain territories in its propaganda to “defend” its own tyranny.
Solidarity Collectives say: “Russia often masks its aggression as “anti-fascist struggle,” invoking liberation rhetoric, but the practice of deportation, forced Russification, and erasure of children’s identities is no humanitarian mission. It is an act of imperial violence, justified by the logic of biopolitics.”
We agree with this. However, we would like to add an important fact: Ukraine often masks its aggression as an “anti-imperialist struggle” invoking liberation rhetoric, but the practice of deportations, forced conscription, and travel bans from the war zone is not a humanitarian mission. It is an act of imperial violence, justified by the logic of biopolitics.
And to all those who would like to downplay this violence by questioning its imperialist nature, we would like to remind them of one fact: the Ukrainian army is dependent on military supplies from European and American imperialism, so it is difficult to argue that on the one hand there is an imperialist aggressor — Russia — and on the other, a defending non-imperialist victim — Ukraine. An ally of the imperialist powers can hardly deny its participation in imperialist aggression. The imperialist actors providing military equipment to Ukraine are also providing it to Israel, which is committing genocide in Gaza. Ignoring these connections will certainly not help us develop a serious analysis that would enable us to constructively change reality. Bad analysis leads to bad conclusions, and bad conclusions lead to tragic practices.
– Anonymous anarchists
– February 2026
source: https://anarchistnews.org/index.php/content/biopolitics-war-and-distorted-bipolar-vision