Columns

On mobilisation and alternative service

Taras Voznyak, cultural and political scientist

It seems that now it has become clear to everyone that Russian aggression against Ukraine is a long-term, if not forever, thing. That is, we are facing the well-known fate of Israel. And there is no way to evade it.

It should also finally become clear that this is a war to destroy not only everything Ukrainian, but also Ukrainians as such – and this is not a metaphor, but literally. At the very least, all those who are more or less sane will be simply destroyed. Look at how many Ukrainians and Ukrainians have remained in the territories occupied for nine years now, and you will understand.

The conclusion is that the struggle will be merciless and constant. Otherwise, it will be death.

How can this be avoided as far as possible?

There is no way to avoid deaths. Our losses are a bloody price to pay for being killed in hundreds or thousands, not millions. Yes, yes – in millions, as in 1933. Today we are paying for thirty years of illusions and thoughtlessness.

That is why I am very upset by the extremely harmful mobilisation campaign. In my opinion, it is a combination of a super-effective Russian information and psychological operation and our stupidity. And also the fear of those who care only about their ratings. I can’t stand to see this topic being smeared by gentle creatures who have had nothing to do with the war, or any troops, or mobilisation.

The massive harassment of employees of territorial recruitment and social support centres, who are often quite tough, but war is war, is also upsetting – people are trying to do the work that each of us needs, from infants to the elderly. Someone has to stand up to the rapists and murderers. It is time to stop this arrogant bullying. Put yourself in their shoes and you will understand a lot.

Mobilisation is not a whim, but a necessity.

Mobilisation is an element of the social contract and the status of a citizen. A citizen has to pay his or her duty (not a whim) as a citizen – because such are the tragic circumstances of being a citizen of the state of Ukraine.

However, not everyone is able to drop everything and go to the front without any words. Not everyone is capable of doing so for various reasons – I’m talking about objective reasons, not simulacra ones.

Not everyone is capable of killing – yes, killing other people, because that is what a soldier’s job at the front is all about.

At the same time, not everyone is needed at the front.

Some will simply be an unnecessary burden due to age, illness, or simple uselessness.

And some will be much more useful for the defence of the country in the so-called “home front”, although in a situation of war to destroy there is no home front in reality – these are our illusions that we desperately cling to. Well, you can mobilise the developers of missiles or drones into the infantry. But why? You can take all the power engineers to the front. But who will repair the power lines? You can, but why hammer nails with a microscope…

I understand that the Law on Mobilisation will be adopted any day now. I also understand that it is almost impossible to reach out to those who formulate it, because most of those who come under the glass dome of the Verkhovna Rada immediately sincerely consider themselves Newtons.

Therefore, I think that this law will need to be supplemented by the Law on Alternative Service and Alternative Defence Assistance.

For some reason, we hardly ever hear about alternative service and assistance.

What can it consist of and who can it apply to?

Let me just give you a few examples:

Given that we will increasingly be forced to develop our own military production, we will increasingly need labour resources mobilised for the military industry. I think that mobilisation to military enterprises may well be interpreted as an alternative military service – a kind of labour front. However, in an honest way, and not with the aim of mobilising these employees directly to the front. This mobilisation should be equated with alternative military service with all the social obligations of the state. And all of these employees should have the status of an employee with all that it entails.

It would also be reasonable to organise the construction of a kind of Mannerheim line (starting from Shatsk to Sumy, and then parallel to the front line to Kherson and Reni – several thousand kilometres), which is a huge job that requires huge human resources. Isn’t this another type of alternative military service – engineering and fortification troops (not to be confused with the engineer troops that the Armed Forces have). But again, it should be fair, and not to mobilise these servicemen directly to the front. This mobilisation should be equated with alternative military service with all the social obligations of the state. And all these employees should have the status of an employee with everything that comes with it.

We will have no fewer problems with the medical sector and rehabilitation and social services for thousands of wounded soldiers. Civilian social services will not be able to cope. Isn’t this another type of alternative military service – alternative medical and social service. However, again, it should be fair, and not to mobilise these employees directly to the frontline. This mobilisation should be equated with alternative military service with all the social obligations of the state. And all of these employees should have the status of an employee with all that it entails.

If the war is going to be long, then we must raise warriors, not diverse metrosexuals. And this education begins with primary school, secondary school, and vocational schools. The problem here is that the corps of teachers, mostly decent older women, are not oriented to this task. In general, given the “non-prestige” of salaries, this area is left to its own devices. Therefore, it is essential to fill this area with young teachers, and this service in education can also be reformatted as an alternative educational and pedagogical military service. And we are not talking about “sitting out” for a few months, but about a long-term binding contract. However, again, it should be fair, and not in order to mobilise these employees directly to the frontline. This mobilisation should be equated with alternative military service with all the social obligations of the state. And all of these servicemen should have the status of an employee with everything that comes with it.

And the next thing is that hundreds of thousands of men of conscription age, either by force of circumstances (as it happened) or deliberately evading mobilisation, went abroad or ended up abroad. How to deal with them? Because the time will come (or not) and they will want to return and be “amnestied”. Will we punish them for evasion? Will we not allow them to enter the territory of Ukraine with expired and invalid passports? In this way, we will stimulate their final emigration, which we do not need at all. Or maybe it’s better to give them a chance? How can we do that? For example, by voluntarily paying a certain decent compensation amount to the Ukrainian budget. After all, even when they work abroad, they pay tax at best to the budget of their host country, but not to the budget of Ukraine. Payments can be made without crossing the border (because many are still afraid to return), possibly together with the issuance of an updated passport at our diplomatic missions. Perhaps other forms of “compensation” can be found that can be credited to these individuals abroad – for example, given the amount of volunteer assistance they have provided to the front, why not? However, again, in a fair way, and not with monthly changes in legislation.

And the last, most controversial point. Again, it is about the funds that Ukraine so desperately needs. Perhaps a monthly voluntary payment of a really significant amount, despite mandatory taxation, could be the basis for booking a person who pays it. I understand that this is perceived (and ultimately is) a severe social injustice: “the rich will pay off” – but its sharpness is removed by the realisation that this money will reduce the loss of the most valuable thing – human life at the front… These are the harsh realities that we have created for ourselves over the past thirty years – now we are redeeming them. The poor wanted to get rich overnight and do nothing but vote for cheese in a mouse trap, for the Communists, for the Party of Regions, for…, for… – so we have to somehow get out of this.

I think that the introduction of these norms could greatly strengthen our defence capabilities and at the same time reduce tension in society. On the other hand, the situation with mobilisation would become more honest and free of corruption.

With the previously listed corps of alternative military services, we would become a much more effective, much more resilient modern society against external aggression. And we need it badly, because there is no end in sight to the war. Just as there will be no end to our millennial confrontation with Russia. And, judging by the change in the mood of our fellow travellers in the fight against Russia, we must refocus on relying on our own strength. We are not a small country. We are a huge and, as it turned out, powerful state in every sense. We are afraid of us, and that is why all the political pygmies are playing childish games of blocking funding and borders. That’s why they are afraid of our social and military power.

I am convinced that there are enough warriors in our society who are ready to go to the front in spite of everything. All the more so if we create an army that aims not only at victory, but also at the survival of all soldiers and officers without exception. But this is the subject of another article.

To conclude the list of these proposals, I would like to remind you once again that alternative military service should be legalised by a separate law “On alternative service and alternative assistance to defence”, as the law “On mobilisation” seems to have already passed.

And finally, I would like to thank you for the intelligent thoughts that prompted me to write down these – perhaps unsystematic, but, in my opinion, relevant – opinions of Ihor Yukhnovsky, Taras Stetskiv, Yaroslav Mandruk, and Andriy Guliy.

Source: blogs.pravda.com.ua