We assume responsibility for the grenade assault on the Russian Consulate on Tzavella Street in Chalandri [suburb in Northern Athens] on March 22.
Each state seeks continuity, which is of particular importance both for its existence and for the preservation and expansion of its vital space. We define the vital space of a state structure as a concept that raises every economic and spatial interest. Applying this policy to us is what we commonly call imperialism. This policy is not a strategic choice of a state, but it is indistinguishable from its very existence. Automatically, each state applies or follows the imperialist policy of an alliance in that country. This position comes to overthrow the rhetoric of the holy fellowship of the smaller ones in dynamic states towards the more powerful ones, which the left has been trying to make for years and parts of the anarchist space embraces. Over the years, many alliances have been built up and, as a result, many skirmishes, depending on the interests at stake. Under the veil of these inter-axiomatic contrasts in combination with the economic and political conjuncture, discrepancies in the dynamics of each state are created or adjusted. Relationships between states have always been a dynamic condition that is modified on the subject rather than a static situation.
On the basis of the above parameters, since the middle of the last century, there are two states that have predominantly dominated the world chessboard, the US state and the state of Russia (up to 1991 as the USSR). A common mistake we find in leftist approaches is that these two states are two poles of continual conflict, deliberately disregarding the synthetic (geo) political strategies they have drawn over the years from the division of political influence zones into the Yalta conference in February 1945, as well as political support for military interventions inside Syria. A piece of the same narrative carries a highly unilateral critique of so-called “American imperialism,” while turning a blind eye to Russia’s expansive politics by burying many of the war crimes it has committed. We do not make any distinction between these two states, as we consider our policies equally hostile.
Recalling the ghosts of the past
Bourgeois democracy in Russia was established in 1991 after the fall of the communist regime. For so many years, we have perceived a pervasive nostalgia for the political management of the Soviet Union, which seems totally stupid to us because, with the justification of any political changes to the regimes, some seem to consciously ignore the same power of authority that governs the existence of the state itself. These nostalgists also ignore and often defend the USSR’s expansive aspirations by flushing this strategic choice of a state-friendly country, since they consider it a “red” war to enforce the socialist regime. They have attempted to break the criminal policy of the 1979 military intervention in Afghanistan, the long-suffering repression of the 1956 rebellion of Hungary, the violent interference and enforcement of Czechoslovakia (1968), and especially the invasion of Poland 1939, where millions of people were massacred in collaboration with Nazi Germany. Somewhere here we want to point out that when we talk about military tactics and military interventions, we mean the constant strategy of terrorizing and murdering the civilized people for the more effective enforcement of the occupying army. It is obvious to us that an army invading another country, apart from the direct frontal confrontation with the rival troops, has the political choice to diffuse the feeling of fear and insecurity in the civilian population. This is achieved through multiple bombings in various parts of the public domain (often in schools and hospitals), while at the same time destroying production structures with the ultimate goal of physically depriving citizens. It seems ridiculous and hypocritical to read tearful analyzes of the bombing of the US state, while ignoring Russian crimes.
Another tangible example of the practices of this troubled state was the management of relations with Ukraine’s anarchist black army of Nestor Machno. The then Communist leadership took advantage of the dynamics and the fighting skills of this army by doing joint ventures against the White Army Nationalists. Then, when it felt that it had nothing more to gain from this partnership, it realized that the ideological and political interests of the two sides were in conflict, since the anarchists of Ukraine did not support the communist model, and the Bolsheviks decided to exterminate them politically, of course. The Communists did not want to allow the existence of an anarchist structure in such a near-spatial field, as they had to deal with their own internal political opponents. The regime itself had mobilized, for the domestic repression of political opponents of every political origin, the Cheka (an identical organization of the Greek Communist Party’s GUN), which initially assassinated nationalists and defenders of the Tsarist regime and later anarchists, Trotskyists, and even Stalinists who chose to disagree with any decisions of the central political line in the name of sociopolitical uniformity and totalitarianism.
Power is “regenerated”, rot is perpetuated
Russia, after the restoration of the free market system in the country and the fall of communist totalitarianism, has evolved into a new type of autocracy with a democratic mantle. To rebuild its economic and political prestige, as expected, it has continued and continues to date geopolitical demands and defending its interests in transnational skirmishes. At the top of the political leadership, the same president, who is faithful to the tradition of Russia, has been steadfastly committed to creating for himself a profile as a leader who is something of a glorious tsar and a robust general secretary. At the top of the economic elite, there is a powerful class of wealthy oligarchs, which is a new version of the aristocracy. Orthodoxy, conservatism and old traditions have remained unchanged in time, despite the change of regimes and are the pillars of the new seemingly reborn Russia. These pillars have been well established since socialist times and have been preserved in a suffocating environment of very intense governmental autarchism. The above concepts compose the puzzles of an incomparable social ethics, resulting in the disciplining, apathy and inactivation of the most deprived social groups to date. While nationalism and chauvinism dominate the social sphere of Russia; at the same time, every sign of opposition to the dominant norms, every radical expression, every kind of activism, any aggressive mood for power is mercilessly hit by a powerful state mechanism that retains the reflexes of socialist repression. In particular, in February 2018, several anarchists were arrested, tortured and jailed for hanging banners saying “The FSB is the main terrorist” and for participation in Narodnaya Samooborona. A few months earlier, FSB arrested and tortured 8 anarchists to confess that they were part of the Network. The craze of state repression to eliminate anarchist action did not stop there. Last February, 10 comrades were put in state hostage, during which they were beaten and electric shocked to confess their guilt and “give up” their companions. Azat Miftahov, who is accused of building explosives and joining Narodnaya Samooborona, remained in the hands of the state in opposition to his comrades, who were eventually tortured and released.
On Oct. 31, 17-year-old anarchist Mikhail Zhlobitsky invaded the offices of the FSB (Federal Security Office and successor to the KGB) in Arkhangelsk, triggering an explosive device, causing serious damage to the building, injuring three officials and losing his own life. When the news came to our ears, there was a feeling of deep sorrow in the death of our brother who we may never have known, but we feel we’ve known for years because our choices are common to the same hateful enemies. Our feelings about Mikhail made these words, words that are not just hollow and wooden, words that are soaked and charged with rage, words that when spilled on the paper flew sparks and triggered our desire to pull the fork from the grenade and send it to the Russian Consulate’s office, giving shape to our most rabid need for revenge. The nightmare that the comrade gave birth to FSB federal cops, will be revived every time we or some other comrade decides to attack. Mikhail, like any comrade who gave his life for Anarchy, will again take flesh and bones through retaliatory actions and sow terror into the pathetic journalists and the worried cops and judges. As a minimum sign of respect for our deceased partner, we chose to give his name to the attack we made.
Strength and solidarity to the anarchists Yuliy Boyarshinov, Vasiliy Kuksov, Dmitriy Pchelintsev, Arman Sagynbaev, Andrey Chernov, Ilya Shakurskiy, Igor Shishkin, Viktor Filinkov, those arrested on February 1, 2019 and Azat Miftahov.
Do you hear the noise coming from far away? They are desperate screams from torture rooms. The harsh blows of the bullets in body. The creepy sound made by the body when the current passes through it during the electric shock. They are nearby, asking for their lost comrades and wondering if they are still alive or if they are in a secret detention center. It is mourning, angry, but also numb for the little one who took revenge by giving his own life. They are our comrades and they suffer. Listen carefully…
FAI / FRI Revenge Cell ‘Mikhail Zhlobitsky’
(via AMW English)