“Living torches of revolution”

At the beginning, the author wants to quote himself, one paragraph from the previous article, “The public – both those who identify themselves as Erzyan Mastor, and just decent people of the Republic of Mordovia of any nationality – will help the activist with the collection of money to pay a Jesuit fine, almost three times higher than her pension. After all, no heroism is needed here, even publicity is not needed, just silently transfer money in any way … Someone from the Erzya or representatives of other Finno-Ugric peoples of the Russian Federation needs to take over the organization of this event and conduct it carefully, thoughtfully, with safety net. With motivation “out of pity for an elderly person, a colleague who “made an unfortunate miscalculation.” There is nothing shameful here, such a wording is acceptable in the fight against the imperial leviathan, and no one has canceled military cunning. The main thing is to save the fighter who went on the attack.”

After the publication, some readers had an idea: is it right for dissidents in dealing with Russian security forces and officials to “consciously say what they really disagree with?” My critics put forward the argument: it is impossible, then we will become the same as the representatives of the regime.

Let’s try to analyze the dilemma. What task do we have at the moment? Maintain the spirit of revolutionary romanticism or achieve specific goals in the fight against the regime? The problem of moral choice is the essence of world culture and civilization. Here, on the one hand, Dostoevsky with his ideologeme “Eternal Paradise is not worth a tear of an innocent child”, and on the other hand, the quote “The end justifies the means!”, attributed either to the Jesuit Ignacio Loyola, or to Adolf Hitler. I don’t want to be on either side. A talented Russian writer, but at the same time a half-crazy sadist Dostoevsky puts the question in such a way that it’s impossible to do a damn thing at all. And to stand in solidarity with Hitler means dooming the case to failure in advance, pushing away all the sympathizers. Here is dilemma! Sometimes the author feels like it doesn’t have a solution. Simply no!

What to do then? The answer to this philosophical question is to act without violating basic humanitarian principles and international laws. The same humanitarian law that governs the rules of war.

Let’s look at some historical and political precedents.

British intelligence during WWII was able to decipher the German codes and learned about the upcoming bombing of one of the small English cities. A difficult decision had to be made. To warn the population, to carry out an evacuation means to disclose yourself and push the Nazis to change the ciphers, respectively, to lose a huge advantage that allows to save the lives of many of their soldiers and sailors in further military actions. As a result, the city was bombed, the Intelligent Service further used the cracked codes, the British fleet continued to smash the Nazi submarines.

In fact, there are dozens of such examples in the history of wars and revolutions! Did the 18-year-old patriot Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya, now unpopular and denounced, act correctly by setting fire to the houses of civilians? And did the Soviet military leaders near Kursk act correctly when they gave the order to dismantle the houses of Soviet citizens in winter in order to build fortifications? And did the hero of the WWI, French Marshal F. Pétain, act correctly by making an agreement with the Nazis and heading the Vichy regime? And did the government of the USSR, headed by I. Stalin, act correctly in not agreeing to retreat from Leningrad, which caused numerous casualties during the defense of the city?

Questions, questions, questions…

Of course, in a war or in a revolutionary struggle, one cannot be intentionally brutal, one cannot violate basic human principles, international humanitarian laws, but at the same time, if you want to achieve the results of your efforts, you should forget about romanticism. Otherwise you will lose in the confrontation with a cruel, strong and insidious enemy. And on the way to the concentration camp, you will only have to console yourself with your purity and political innocence. And the famous Cuban revolutionary Ernesto (Che) Guevara in his diaries posed the question as follows, “In any revolution, there comes a moment when you need to decide what you will bring to your comrades in arms who are fighting off a superior enemy – medicines or bullets?” You have to be pragmatic!

Once, sorting through the things of his late father, the author came across two of his notebooks with telephone numbers. In both, for some reason, a  quote, strange at first glance, from Xena, the Warrior Princess, the movie of the late 90s – early 2000s, was written. Literally, this phrase looked like this, “In war there is no right decision. There is only the best!” Father did not fight because of his age, but, obviously, he understood quite well how difficult it was to decide on a program of action in a war. Therefore, he wrote the quote, although he had never done this before.

One of the British military experts in the organization of guerrilla warfare gave advice, “Fight dirty!”. Obviously, he insisted on non-standard methods of fighting for the rebels or troops not strong enough for trench warfare, but not willing to sit idly by. Military cunning is one of the main elements of guerrilla tactics, one cannot do without it. To catch the enemy one by one, to attack on the way home, when the enemy has already relaxed and reduced his vigilance. To deceive by any means, to look for the most painful places, to strike and dissolve among outsiders, civilians. To protect and save the fighters who fell into the hands of the regime, appeal, if possible, to any instances – from judicial to international humanitarian ones. We repeat once again: the main thing is to save a combat unit, to save a comrade in the fight. And the beautiful-hearted idealistic calls for nobility in military operations, in the partisan movement and underground struggle will inevitably lead to defeat.

The same principles apply to the work of urban underground workers. Chilean patriots said that it was necessary to start agitation and propaganda work among the proletariat with appeals to the owners of the plant, factory or representatives of the junta, masking the true goals. To ask permission to create a trade union to solve purely everyday issues. For example, where to put a water cooler or how to lock the dressing room.

Let me give one more quotation to support the author’s opinion. It belongs to W. Churchill at the time of his premiership during WWII, “You must not die for Britain, you must kill for Britain!”

Let’s remember Albert Razin, Udmurt scientist, who, in protest against the policy of Russification, set himself on fire near the building of the State Council of Udmurtia on September 10, 2019. His sacrifice was not in vain, no matter how long the struggle for national liberation continued, he would be remembered. Oh, they did not save the fighter!

The author, on the other hand, wants the imperial courts, military registration and enlistment offices, police departments and other government bodies to burn – symbols of the oppression of the people, and not its best representatives.