Aotearoa Workers Solidarity Movement
The death of a New Zealand man, Samuel Haines, fighting in Ukraine was reported in the familiar language used whenever ordinary people are consumed by war. He was described through his personal history, his motivations, his family and his decision to travel across the world to take part in a conflict that had nothing to do with the daily lives of most people in Aotearoa. What was not highlighted was the fact that the tragedy of war is that those who suffer most are usually not the people who create wars. Politicians, generals and corporate interests make decisions from offices far away from the front lines, while working-class people are asked to sacrifice their bodies in the name of nations they did not create and systems they do not control.
The death of a Kiwi volunteer in Ukraine raises questions that go beyond one individual. Why are people from countries on the other side of the world being drawn into a conflict between major powers? Why has a war involving Russia, Ukraine, NATO and competing geopolitical interests been presented to millions of people as a simple battle between good and evil? And what does the presence of far-right nationalist forces within Ukraine’s military tell us about the way states use ideology and violence when they prepare societies for war?
For anarchists, the answers do not begin with choosing which flag deserves our loyalty. The history of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries shows that nationalism has repeatedly been used to convince ordinary people that the interests of their rulers are their own. Workers who have more in common with each other than with their own governments are encouraged to see each other as enemies because states require obedience, sacrifice and the willingness to kill. The war in Ukraine is no exception. It is a conflict shaped by Russian imperial ambitions, Ukrainian nationalism, NATO expansion, Western strategic interests and the wider competition between global powers. The people trapped inside this struggle are paying the price for decisions made by governments that claim to represent them.
Sam Haines ended up fighting and dying as a volunteer militia as part of the Azov battalion that emerged in 2014 during the conflict in eastern Ukraine. Its early period was associated with individuals and organisations connected to far-right nationalist politics. Some of its founders had histories linked to ultranationalist movements, and the organisation used symbols and imagery that attracted criticism because of their associations with European fascist traditions. Scholars, journalists and human rights organisations have documented these connections. When Azov was incorporated into Ukraine’s National Guard, it became an official military unit rather than an independent militia. Some argue that integration changed the organisation and that its fighters have since played a significant role in defending Ukrainian territory. Critics sttae that formal incorporation does not erase its ideological origins or the influence that nationalist movements gained through wartime conditions. Denying or minimising the reality of these movements serves the interests of those who want war narratives to remain simple and unquestionable.
The uncomfortable truth is that states have often relied on extremist movements when those movements are useful. Governments that present themselves as defenders of civilisation have repeatedly made alliances with forces they would condemn under different circumstances. During wartime, groups willing to use violence are often granted influence because military effectiveness becomes more important than political principles. This pattern is not unique to Ukraine. It has appeared throughout history wherever states have faced crises and sought to mobilise society around national struggle. The machinery of war creates conditions where authoritarian ideas can grow because war rewards hierarchy, obedience and the belief that violence can solve political problems.
The debate around NATO’s role in Ukraine is another area where discussion is often reduced to slogans. One side argues that NATO is a defensive alliance whose support for Ukraine is a necessary response to Russian aggression. The other argues that NATO expansion after the collapse of the Soviet Union created a security crisis that helped produce the conditions for war. An anarchist analysis should be sceptical of both state narratives because both begin …