Spoiler alert: I really don’t know.
Philosophically, the Pacifist position is to oppose all war. George Fox, founder of the famously Pacifist Quaker movement, said in 1660, “We utterly deny all outward wars and strife and fighting with outward weapons, for any end or under any pretence whatsoever." As a Society, Quakers have adhered to this principle while actively (and peacefully) opposing such abominations as slavery and Nazism.
I’m told that Quakers in Kiev/Kyiv are still holding their silent, meditative, spiritual Meeting for Worship this morning, it being Sunday there. Such devotion is to some admirable, but it will obviously do nothing to stop the invasion or the massive violence perpetrated by Putin.
What are the other options? Fleeing has been chosen by hundreds of thousands, understandably terrified of the seemingly inevitable violence, occupation and oppression to come. The great writer Ursula K Le Guin, in her lesser-known novel The Word for World is Forest (definitely worth a read, if such questions interest you), [Spoiler Alert] came up with no better solution for her fictitious Pacifist extra-terrestrial colony. (The novel is also an eco-novel.)
Will white Ukrainian refugees receive better treatment than their Syrian or Sudanese counterparts? Sadly, one suspects that they will. Lord knows they’ve been through enough already, and certainly need and deserve the World’s support – but the same is equally true of all refugees, and it is so often not happening that way.
What about staying and fighting? It is their homeland, and almost anyone would say they have a right to do that. Two days ago, I and most other people would probably have thought that a suicide mission: Russian forces are overwhelmingly larger. We might have thought, It’s hopeless – get out while you can. And we might have been wrong, as the Ukrainian people have put up a resistance that has impressed nearly everyone.
At the same time as we cheer in our hearts – even many Pacifists – we are aware that this is not a football match. We want Ukraine to win, but we don’t want the massive number of deaths, on both sides, the inconceivable destruction, the possibly insuperable lifetime of PTSD. We are appalled by the inevitable Civilian deaths, injuries, loss and trauma. Most Russian soldiers are barely adults; are we okay with killing them, even if they are on the wrong side? Do they experience any sense of choice in this conflict? How terrified are they? How brainwashed? How do they feel about killing? What unimaginable Hell are their families living in right now? Already we have seen one whole company (I am unsure of the number) of soldiers surrender en masse to Ukrainians, saying they were unaware they were being sent there to kill. We can also see their reluctance, perhaps, in the sheer ineffectiveness of Putin’s mission. Russian soldiers deserted the front in WWI en masse; might these do the same?
I am not going to pretend to have the answers to these questions. I do not believe that there are any definitive answers; any such musings are subjective and many-sided, if they are done thoughtfully.
My own view is that the Ukrainians have every right to do their best to defend their homeland, and I am not the one – none of us are the ones – to tell them the acceptable way to do that. As a Pacifist, I grieve at the thought of every innocent life, soldier or civilian, in this horrible war. I stand firm in the belief that War is a supreme evil, that massive suffering will come of it, that it must somehow be brought to an end forever and for everyone. And equally firm in the conviction that monstrous evils like Putin’s atrocities, like Nazism, like slavery must not be tolerated, ever, by anyone. I do not know how to reconcile the two.
I am very keen to hear your kindly worded insights on the topic, if you wish to share them. We do not have to have Answers; Questions are often just as important.
In Peace and Justice,
Joel
Also: a megasource of links with ways you can help out:
UPDATE: A Ukrainian poll from 2015 shows a surprising response to the question of how people would respond to a foreign occupation.
26% — Civil resistance (unarmed)
25% — Armed resistance
19% — Unsure of response
15% — would leave the area, or the country (only 3%) chose the latter
The figures for civil response to “foreign aggression” were even higher: 29%
Civil resistance was defined as “actions such as demonstrations, marches, boycotts, strikes, civil disobedience”.
This poll is cited in an impressive article in Waging Nonviolence: “Ukraine’s secret weapon may prove to be civilian resistance”, with the subheading: “Unarmed Ukrainians changing road signs, blocking tanks and confronting the Russian military are showing their bravery and strategic brilliance.”
The survey article observes:
“Putin’s belief that Ukrainians would rather go home and do nothing in the face of military aggression may be his biggest and politically most costly miscalculation.”
Russian soldiers have already been seen, on numerous occasions, to be reluctant to attack Ukrainian civilians. They are young guys who mostly have no real sense of what the mission is. Ukrainians, to many of them, are ethnic cousins. Ukrainian civil resisters appear to be very savvy at taking advantage of this ambivalence.
A key point of the article is that “the mainstream press cannot be relied upon to lift up stories of civilian resistance.” Although such stories have appeared in the media, the emphasis is still on the traditional war coverage.
Finally a note to those using the term “passive resistance”. The term is misleading; I would say it’s wrong. This type of resistance is very much active, not passive. Better terms are “Civil Disobedience”, or “Non-Violent Direct Action”.
