Believe me I am aware of how strange it may seem that I, an old-fashioned peace activist who spent years working with Quaker pacifists, stand 100% with Ukraine as it wages a war of self-defense.
My approach to this situation arises from discussions I’ve had with other activists about the nature of pacifist beliefs, and what it means to engage in nonviolent resistance. The discussions back then mostly focused on objections from those of us who were committed to a feminist vision of the future, a vision that definitely included the right of women to defend ourselves from predation.
But I had many Quaker friends who were so committed to pacifism that they would refuse to resist violence against themselves or others if it meant engaging in violent acts themselves, no matter the circumstances in which the violence occurred. They believed deeply in the radical power of love alone, of forgiveness even for those doing them harm, and pledged themselves to remain peaceful to the best of their ability, no matter what violence they encountered.
Many feminists saw that variety of pacifism as complicity in oppression. We believed that, in a world where violence against women was foundational to the culture itself, the right to protect ourselves from violence is as necessary as our commitment to nonviolent actions. The struggle against violence against women was the first resistance movement I ever took part in, and for me the right of self-defense in whatever form must always be part of the strategic equation.
There are clearly moments when allowing yourself to be harmed will inevitably be a component of nonviolent resistance, for example when those in Selma made the conscious choice to continue walking across that bridge. Refusing to respond to violence with violence is a powerful statement and a powerful tool. But it’s a tool that must be chosen freely, and not one that is necessarily useful in every violent situation. War is one of those violent situations where even a person who believes in nonviolent action might find it necessary to violently resist.
Personally, I wouldn’t hesitate to use weapons or violence if I needed them to defend myself from a rapist. And I see Putin and his mercenaries as exactly that, invaders and murderers and yes, literally, rapists. This isn’t the first time they have invaded Ukraine and if we can’t force them to stop I believe they will return to war and murder again and again.
These issues of theory won’t be settled here. But I don’t see any nonviolent way forward that will stop Putin’s bombs and other depredations. I say this in sorrow, but I think it’s clear Putin does not want peace, he wants the subjugation of the Ukrainian people and the utter destruction of their culture. I know there are those (some among my own friends) who believe in negotiating for peace even if it means giving in to some of Putin’s unlawful demands. They want this war to end and for peace to return. But I don’t believe that there will be any sort of lasting peace if we take that path. Putin will not be satiated; he will not be deterred.