The problem with this opinion, which has influenced you and your political party, is that the speakers you met in Paris not only cannot represent or know the peoples of Russia and Ukraine, they do not even represent any significant leftist force in Russia, Ukraine, or the leftist diaspora. Most leftist activists from Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia distance themselves from the
political programs of these individuals and from the political organizations they have created (
PSL, Mir Snizu [“Peace from Below”]).
Another problem is that these organizations
cynically use activists from so-called “men’s movements, ” incels, and radical masculinists in their “political struggle, ” presenting them to European leftist politicians and comrades as “Ukrainian oppositionists and dissidents.” They mobilize these activists for rallies in EU cities and prepare long-term programs of political collaboration with masculinist and radical misogynist movements in the diaspora. Under the guise of speaking about “violations of Ukrainian men’s rights, ” these activists then spread various conspiracy theories — for example, publicly claiming that Russia’s war against Ukraine was actually instigated by “females” and women to “organize an androcide, ” and promoting disgusting racist stories that Ukraine is not actually governed by Ukrainians, but by other “cunning peoples, ” “Jews, ” and “disgusting dwarves.”
The leaders of these groups, such as Sergey Khorolsky, who cooperate with PSL and Mir Snizu, publicly and openly call for physical and sexualized violence against women and girls, and incite hatred against Ukrainian refugees, referring to them as cynical “subhuman beings” who left Ukraine not to escape bombings but to “sleep with migrants, Arabs, and Muslims, ” whom they also despise. At the same time, they (
including Andrey Konovalov himself) produce cruel and humiliating antisemitic caricatures of Zelensky and liberal Ukrainian journalists with Jewish cultural identities. Their political views represent a combination of neo-fascist and alt-right narratives, conspiracy theories, and prohibited methods of promoting their misogynistic and anti-Ukrainian agenda, which goes far beyond anything acceptable even in the field of harsh political criticism.
None of them are “Ukrainian deserters” and none have any experience participating in combat. Andrey Konovalov, who presents himself as a “conscientious objector from military service, ” in fact cannot be considered one, since he left Ukraine in 2021, and no one here was calling him up for military service. In Ukraine, men under 25 and students are not subject to mobilization.
Furthermore, Andrey Konovalov, speaking at the congress on October 5 and at other European platforms, claimed that there are repressions against leftist organizations and movements in Ukraine, that the leftist movement is weakened, and cannot assert its will to dialogue with Russia.
In reality, however, Konovalov has no connections or contacts with Ukrainian leftist movements or organizations, of which there are many in Ukraine at present, none of which are banned. I spoke with activists from a number of Ukrainian leftist organizations, platforms, and movements, as well as with human rights organizations documenting human rights violations in Ukraine—and none of them confirmed any cooperation with PSL, Mir Snizu, or Andrey Konovalov. Moreover, they do not know this person and have never heard of him before.
I also think it is important to note that in their public statements and contacts with European politicians, PSL, Mir Snizu, and their leaders (Liza Smirnova, Alexey Sakhnin, Andrey Konovalov, and others) criticize the mobilization strategies in Russia, which are currently carried out through a “neoliberal system of contracts” and effectively turn the aggressor’s army into motivated mercenaries. Yet, in their statements to a Russian audience, while criticizing mobilization in Ukraine, they urge Ukraine to take Russia as an example and create exactly the same system of “neoliberal” military contracts and financial incentives for the Ukrainian people in order to “solve the problem of men’s rights.” I see this rhetoric as manipulative, contradictory, and cynical.
A heavy and large-scale war of attrition without sufficient support from allies always generates mobilization crises. However, many Ukrainians of diverse political views continue to serve voluntarily. Ukrainians cannot be turned into an army of calculating mercenaries, because for them this is a national liberation, anti-colonial war—a war for survival and the preservation of everything they hold dear.
In turn, money and contracts can only motivate the aggressor’s army, because despite the intensity of fascist propaganda among its citizens, the Russian regime still cannot offer its people clear ideological principles or political motivations capable of compelling broad poor masses to kill their neighbors simply out of conviction.
It was also sad to hear how Konovalov, in his speech on October 5,
manipulated the tragedy in Gaza and the hearts of thousands of leftist activists who sympathize with the people of Palestine. In his speech, he referred to Ukraine as a cruel state, comparable to Israel. Following this logic, does it mean that Russia is Palestine? Why did 4,500 critically thinking leftists in that hall not only swallow this terrible bait but also respond with applause to manipulations that have nothing to do with the historical and political realities of the states mentioned? What do you think about this?