Experience of serving in the Armed Forces of Ukraine: an anarchist's perspective

In this short essay, I would like to share my experiences of libertarian observations and practices during my service in the Armed Forces of Ukraine. This experience is, of course, very subjective and limited; it could probably only have occurred under specific conditions. However, some of the observations are general in nature, they can be reproduced, and I hope that my personal experience may be useful to someone on their own path. 

I have previously written about my experience of military service in “Notes of Ukrainian Conscript on Painful Issues,” which was published by the magazine Spilne/Commons in March 2024. Since then, this experience has expanded and reached its logical conclusion — last fall, I was legally demobilized, which allowed me to rethink it from a new perspective. For context: I served for 1.5 years in one of the mechanized brigades, spending most of my service as a platoon sergeant. My duties were related to military intelligence.

The decision to mobilize was voluntary, as I had previously worked as a schoolteacher, but it was largely inspired by my friend I., who was the commander of that very platoon. Having libertarian (or rather “labourist,” in his words) views, he actively promoted the experiments described below. Without him and the other platoon members — mostly apolitical but wonderful and sincere individuals — this experience would have been impossible.

First, a few general thoughts.

Hundreds of thousands of mobilized Ukrainians, who often had no previous connection to military service, brought their civilian lives with them to the army. I saw how a young tractor driver easily mastered a tracked APC, how former small business owners successfully set up logistics networks, and how IT specialists wrote special programs for radio intelligence at the lowest level. People brought their temperament, communication skills, and outlook on life with them. In this kaleidoscope of life experiences, army ranks seemed random. Indeed, is it fair and justified by anything other than internal statutory logic that a “freshly minted” military academy graduate aged 21 or 22 commands (in some cases, literally disposing of life and death) a newly mobilized professor of quantum physics, a car repair shop owner, a former village council chairman, or simply a plumber with 20 years of experience? I have met young commanders who were a little older, but who were truly worthy officers, wisely distributed authority, and were ready to lead. Unfortunately, however, they were rather exceptions, and their skill was related to difficult life experiences before the army and/or previous participation in the ATO/OOS.

One way or another, the army hierarchy simply could not remain as it was prescribed in the statutes of the Armed Forces of Ukraine (the question inevitably arises: was this “utopia of rules” ever real?). Internal ties and relations between military personnel became flexible, fluid, and informal. I have seen cases where a soldier or sergeant — an expert in his field — organized the work of a platoon or company, while the commander appointed “from above” only nominally held this position.

Horizontal ties between different units at the level of soldiers, sergeants, or lower-ranking officers have, in my observation, enormous importance. Thanks to such ties between friends, godparents, and former colleagues, neighboring brigades and battalions exchange ammunition and supplies (the paperwork for these exchanges is done much later, if at all). I think everyone knows about volunteer networks. Active soldiers who are acquainted with volunteers can often obtain the necessary equipment for their units much faster than passive commanders through the brigade supply network. As symbolic retribution, these soldiers and sergeants usually gain authority, although there are also sad cases when they receive reprimands as retribution for their activity (one of the nastiest principles that civilian activists face in the army is “the initiative fucks the initiator”).

Even people who were far from social activism and volunteer networks could easily contribute something unique to the organization of frontline life or the accommodation of their comrades if the rotation took place in their native region.

The institution of sergeanthood itself may be quite interesting for libertarians in the Armed Forces of Ukraine. While officers are usually appointed from above (and only in rare cases “grow” from within the unit itself), sergeants are selected, and sometimes literally elected by the team as the “natural” leaders of a particular section, platoon, or company. In fact, “leadership” is the direct responsibility of sergeants, and even the relevant training courses are called “leadership courses.” However, I have never seen these courses have a significant effect, and most sergeants — the “engines” of this army machine — are “uncertified,” that is, appointed de facto.

Although this leadership is, so to speak, official, it often means sincere care, especially for confused conscripts who have just arrived from training, or comrades who have been wounded in battle or during combat operations. To a certain extent, a sergeant can be compared to the head of a trade union, which military personnel are prohibited from organizing. Of course, he can also be “yellow” and, as they say, walk under the commander, or he can defend (although worthy lower-ranking officers do the same).

Moreover, governing documents (in particular, the “Regulations on Military Service in the Armed Forces of Ukraine,” section 7.16) provide for the creation of Sergeant Councils at the level of individual military units. In the army, which by definition is based on the principle of single command (although in practice this often does not work) and hierarchy, the Council of Sergeants is almost the only elected, collegial, and advisory body. The problem, of course, is that its powers are largely limited to “assessing the moral and professional qualities of personnel,” but in general, the governing documents allow for a wider range of activities for it. Another problem is that these Sergeant Councils either exist on paper or do not exist at all, although progress in this direction, it should be noted, is being observed. In January 2024, the Ministry of Defense approved the Model Regulations on Sergeant Councils in the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the State Special Transport Service. We will only be able to see the fruits of this decision in the future.

Now let me describe the experience of (semi)libertarian experiments in the military, in which I myself was involved.

First, I should note that our platoon performed mainly administrative and analytical functions, provided communications, and sometimes — not very often — carried out combat reconnaissance missions.

During our first trip to the combat zone (on the eve of the so-called “counteroffensive”), Commander I. implemented the meetings of the platoon's work collective. Every few days, we gathered in a circle and discussed work and everyday issues. For civilians, this may not be so obvious, but even in combat units, a significant part of service is taken up by everyday routine and organizing daily life. Therefore, for example, we very lively discussed the rules of collective coexistence: for example, it was decided that any music, except for "Radio Roks" and, for some reason, "Radio Bayraktar", as well as watching movies and playing games, should be done exclusively with headphones. Another decision was that all food in the refrigerator was common, and personal food should be kept in backpacks or bedside tables (if anyone had them). This is, of course, quite funny, but, first of all, it really matters, and secondly, there were later much more meaningful meetings concerning conflicts between ourselves and with the company commander. The decisions of the meetings were mostly carried out.

Also, throughout my service, there was a wonderful practice in the platoon – a schedule of absence. Military personnel rarely go on leave. In the best case scenario, which almost never happens, they get 15 days twice a year, plus 3-10 days for family circumstances (except for those who are wounded). It would seem that this is more than in many civilian jobs, but military service in a combat unit means constant separation from family, stress, and risks that are obvious to everyone. Therefore, fortunately, many units practice absences ("uval") — short trips home, agreed upon only by the immediate commander. They are not supported by any documents and can be interrupted at any time, but they differ from desertion in that they require minimal coordination. Absence usually lasts 2-3 days. In our platoon, there was a practice that applied to everyone without any privileges, to go home in turn. When there was no heavy workload or special tasks, everyone could take advantage of this informal right. Of course, it was possible to refuse or swap turns with someone else. There were even attempts to formalize this literally as a color chart in Excel, but this was quickly abandoned because the order was constantly disrupted by various circumstances. Nevertheless, the practice itself existed and was indeed one of the factors that made military service easier to bear.

During one of the rotations in the Zaporizhzhia region, an interesting situation arose. The company was rarely involved in combat missions, and in over a month there were no casualties or serious injuries. For some reasons, the brigade commander wanted to transfer the young company commander to the infantry, but he, as they say, “went on sick leave” and effectively removed himself from command of the unit for the next five months. It should be noted that this was the right decision on his part.

Several officers – platoon commanders, one officer, responsible for the “moral and psychological state” of the soldiers (MPS-officer), and a bunch of sergeants remained in the company, who, in fact, collectively commanded the company. Every evening, all these people gathered in one room, stood in a circle, and discussed pressing issues. The MPS-officer and one of the sergeants, a friend of the young commander, had the final say, but the opinions of representatives from all platoons were taken into account. At these meetings, the hierarchy was very weak (if it existed at all), and the statutory rules of conduct were even weaker. However, as far as I remember, the main issue was how to more humanely remove from the company sick people, deserters, and those who had been undergoing treatment for months after being wounded. If you want to look at this issue in comparison, you can easily find information about, how our opponents treat these same categories of people.

Our platoon was going through its best times. Commander I. and another soldier went to “zero,” but not for long and without any dramatic consequences for their health. We lived in a large rural house with a 92-year-old man who had served in the army under Stalin and used the word “Makhnovists” as a swear word (but had a surprisingly clear and practical mind). The daily routine was quite free, and there was not much work to do. For this essay, it is important to mention the ideological discussions that we began to hold from time to time on autumn evenings. They usually began as a spontaneous dialogue between me and I. on a specific meaningful topic, and the conversation gradually involved other brothers. Some made funny comments, others tried to understand the topic. On other evenings, we watched movies together, deciding together which one to watch this time. So, in a few weeks, we “mastered” important films with radical messages — Fight Club, Captain Fantastic, and the first part of The Matrix.

The only girl in our platoon started cooking delicious dinners, explaining that we didn't force her to do so. In other camps where she had lived before, she was regularly hinted at to do “women's work,” even though she was actually a good communications specialist. Here, no one mocked her or made fun of her gender, so she took on these responsibilities herself. Of course, we also helped prepare dinner together, but to a lesser extent.

I have heard this explanation – “I work well because I am not forced to” – more than once from other soldiers in the platoon.

There was also a deliberate dissemination of libertarian symbols. At the beginning of my service, I ordered a black flag with the classic inscription “Death to all who stand in the way of freedom for the working people” and hung it above my bunk in various “camps.” When I had to live with the company commander, he scratched his head, asked why there were grammatical “mistakes” in the inscription, and received a mini-lecture on the history of the Ukrainian Revolution and the codification of spelling. After that, the questions usually disappeared. In the fall, I almost accidentally got a whole batch of similar chevrons, and we quickly distributed them among the personnel. For several weeks, at least half of the platoon walked around with anarchist chevrons on their sleeves; then they gradually moved them to less useful items (trunks, backpacks). The presence of a young man in the platoon with a tattoo of a recognizable letter “A” in a circle added spice to the situation. During my first interview with him, I asked him about his views, but he evaded a direct answer, saying that he had “done it for fun.” However, when the conversation later turned to the ideological anarchists in the platoon, he was indignant that he had not been counted among them. He also liked to listen to songs by Yegor Letov, and one evening in the summer, he, Commander I., and I sang at the top of our lungs on the farm where we were living at the time, “Kill the state within yourself...” [famous song of the punk band “Grazhdanskaya oborona”] :)

The question may arise as to whether there were any conflicts with the far-right soldiers on this basis. In fact, no, because in that brigade it was difficult to find not only an far-right person, but also a person with clear political views in general. A girl from our platoon, whom I mentioned earlier, once called herself a “national socialist,” but it turned out that she was much more supportive of feminist ideas than even myself and our commander I.

How did it all end?

Commander I. soon transferred to another brigade, and the company was directly commanded by the head officer of intelligence for some time, who gradually promoted his friend, a former police officer, to the position of commander. This is another aspect of non-statutory, informal relations that permeates the entire structure of the Armed Forces of Ukraine — the promotion of “their own persons,” the displacement of “unwelcome,” as well as micromanagement, when a higher-ranking commander does not delegate but directly controls the actions of lower-ranking personnel.

At first, this former policeman took the position of group leader in our platoon, then took the place of commander I., and a few months later took charge of the entire company, loyally carrying out the orders of his superiors. Several times I had to defend my comrades from his plans to “get rid” of some of them by transferring them to another unit. The reason for these plans was mostly personal animosity, and because of the same animosity towards him, I was later transferred to the brigade headquarters. For some time, we continued to live and work side by side with our brothers in arms; there were good attempts to introduce board games (in particular, historical taverns and “Munchkin”) and knife fighting training among our team.

However, that is now in the past. In conclusion, I would like to highlight some points from which, in my opinion, libertarian perspectives could be developed in our army. I emphasize that these are just dreams based on my experience, but these dreams could increase the attractiveness of military service and make it more consistent with the values we went to defend against Russian imperialism:

1. Establishing clear terms of service for those who have been mobilized. Many people now say that this is impossible without the collapse of the front. However, in my opinion, it is both possible and necessary, and it should have been done yesterday. There are various options: one-year contracts without automatic renewal; a format of “two years of service, one year of rest” (you can substitute your own terms), etc.

2. Guaranteed annual leave and rotation on the front line for soldiers.

3. Election of commanders, at least at the lower level.

4. Real and severe punishment of commanders whose orders have led to significant personnel losses.

5. Prevent the misuse of personnel, i.e., cases where specialists in UAVs, communications systems, or other specialized military professions are involved in purely infantry tasks.

6. Deploy Sergeant Councils in units and expand the powers of these collegial institutions.

7. Simplify the document management system and bureaucratic procedures (fortunately, some progress in this direction is already being observed).