People’s Wars: The Greater Implications of Individual Actions
Gabriel Flouret
The response to President Putin’s invasion of Ukraine signifies a clear rupture from generally-accepted 21st-century norms regarding borders and conflicts on the Eurasian continental area. The event is a clear physical rupture of European sovereignty and the horrors of war are posted online. Flexibility within the European Union and, quite simply, the internet have allowed not just increased visibility, but actual access. The greater role that individual actors have assumed suggests that there are a multitude of new variables nations will have to contend with and process in an already complex global climate.
A large part of this war has slipped out of the control of the leading democratic governments currently supporting Ukraine. Though the situation in Ukraine is dire, it has not yet fully unfolded. Younger generations’ want for immediate action, likely stemming from a technology-induced craze for immediate gratification, remains unfulfilled. Millennials and Gen-Z have served as catalysts for what may be a new facet of warfare. Civilians’ overwhelming responses to President Volodymyr Zelensky’s cries for help may have set a remarkable new precedent.
Russia invaded Ukraine, therefore, logically, it is a war for the Ukrainian people to fight. However, alongside the traditional support, which it is receiving from charitable organizations in the form of medicine, clothes, and food, private citizens from around the world have found creative ways to support Ukrainians. Neighboring Poles have volunteered to host Ukrainian refugees—a drastic change in response compared to the last waves of refugees which speaks to a greater issue in Europe as a whole. Another similar trend started in Utah when a woman booked stays at Airbnbs in Ukraine. Airbnb identified the trend and waived booking fees for Ukrainian properties. The effort has reportedly raised over $2 million.
As well-intentioned as these donations may be, people open themselves to the risks of scamming. Companies’ IT personnel have taken it upon themselves to send reminders to all employees to make them aware of a surge of ‘phishing’ emails—of course, phishing emails are sent to private accounts as well. People are eager to send money, whatever the motivation behind it, somewhat recklessly or without thorough research backing their decision-making. Some Instagram meme pages have their own five-figure fundraisers. The seemingly decreasing commitment to established organizations and blind trust in more scattered organizations is alarming because it shows trends towards a lack of effective cohesiveness.
Individuals searching for a way to have a purposeful impact from afar may believe that donating in a supposedly more ‘niche’ way is more meaningful. Small charities and NGOs support noble causes and have their strengths, but the recurring theme of individuality in the Ukraine-Russia war has given small, unproven organizations excess visibility and perhaps led to the collection of a higher market-capture. They are not guaranteed to have more relative or widespread success than donations sent to longstanding, reputable organizations like UNICEF, the World Central Kitchen, or the Red Cross.
People have gained the power to not just send financial aid, but fund war through what is still labeled as donations. Private money flows straight into the state-owned National Bank of Ukraine. That money is directed towards the war effort. In short, private citizens from around the world are helping a foreign government purchase weapons, ammunition, and military equipment to combat another nation’s military. While private donations may be a display of solidarity, they are a far cry from structured, government-issued war bonds.
Ukrainian embassies have opened their doors to volunteers and openly recruited foreign nationals for their resistance. At least 36 Senegalese and as many as 70 Japanese citizens have attempted to join the fight. Japan has dissuaded its people from going to Ukraine, and the Senegalese foreign ministry condemned the Ukranians’ call to action and cited laws prohibiting foreign recruitment of its people for war-like activities. President Zelensky condoning such physical participation on the part of private citizens in the confrontation is comparable to two organizations: ISIS and, as depicted in Ernest Hemingway’s For Whom the Bell Tolls, the Spanish Republic during its civil war against the right-wing Nationalists. Similarities can be drawn in the cross-border recruitment and the expression of the war effort as a cause with a moral backing.
Zelensky has admirably rallied the Ukrainian people and the world, but the situation is desperate. Russia has destroyed Ukrainian air bases and Ukraine’s primary warship was voluntarily sunk by Ukraine to avoid the possibility of Russia capturing it and adding it to their fleet. Both events have committed Zelensky to a ground war. While this narrows the ways he can fight back, it also makes volunteer fighting for Ukraine less daunting and more meaningful. A more guerilla-style ground force is more approachable for people without training and offers a perceived lower bar for people to concretely help.
Paired with a massive social media media movement, what these desperate, but decisive, calls for help do is take power away from governments who have structured visions and are more educated on topics specifically related to the war. While it could be said that NATO, and particularly, the United States, are not doing enough in terms of supporting Ukraine, their position appears to be one of containment, where troops have been deployed in NATO countries neighboring Ukraine.
People’s frustrations arise because the United States, on paper, could do more. It could establish a no-fly-zone, create a lend-lease program similar to that which Winston Churchill requested in World War II, or send Warthog A-10 planes perfectly designed for a scrappy war in the European environment. Each feat could be accomplished in a short timeframe and deter Russia from thinking about a one-mile convoy, much less deploying one 40 miles long, as seen in an image captured and published by satellite company Maxar Technologies. NATO countries recognize the greater geopolitical implications and have a greater grasp on the situation than civilians wanting to help.
Cornering Putin is dangerous, which is why NATO’s cautious approach is most appropriate for this delicate crisis. Despite the destruction and loss of livelihoods, a degree of patience remains the central tenet of the West’s plan of action knowing that, according to Retired Four-Star Admiral William McRaven, identified that Ukrainian forces have advantages in urban areas, will not subject themselves to Russia’s will, that there is an absence of motivation in the Russian troops, and poor supply-line logistics. The focus will be instead on limiting Putin’s abilities and deterring China from any advances. However, many in younger generations seeing truthful but gutting images and narratives online cannot stand what is perceived as an antiquated approach. Yet academics and expert strategists at think tanks, military branches, and in the intelligence community recognize that Putin is in a position, like many autocrats, where he would rather double-down than look weak. Having seen Putin make many irrational decisions, it would be a greater threat to the West if they applied too much pressure. Putin lashing out with his back against the wall in response to a minimal escalation could manifest itself in an increase of strikes against Ukraine, the war expanding, a cyber attack on the United States and its allies with perhaps “pre-positioned malware,” or an elevation of his nuclear posture by positioning nuclear weapons farther west into Lukashenko’s Belarus. The Ukraine war has much greater implications and is more complex than just the direct actions Putin has taken against the Ukrainian people.
Nevertheless, the war has become a people’s war against Putin with everyone from veterans to Youtubers and hackers joining the fight—wildcards who can die for the war or leave at any point because they have no binding obligation besides their perceived sense of duty to humanity. While each contributes positively in their own way, every action also takes control away from, say, the French, American, British, and German governments. The biggest threat to the global warfare ‘standard’ beyond civilians-turned quasi-mercenaries is the recruitment of hackers in a connected world dependent on cyber-systems. Ukraine’s Minister of Digital Transformation tweeted that, “We are creating an IT army.” Recruiting a foreign hacking force and directing the abilities of at least 300,000 against the Russian government and Russian entities as well as offering a $100,000 dollar reward is a concerning precedent. These citizen-hackers have shut down government websites, that of oil giant Gazprom, spread information, and identified flaws in Russian code. The notable hacker group Anonymous supposedly attacked Roscosmos and shut down their spy satellites. Roscosmos Director Rogozin offered an unusually tame response, especially given the gravity of the situation, and merely commented denying the alleged success of the cyber attack by, “…these scammers and petty swindlers.”
Rogozin is also quoted to have said that an attack on Russian satellites would be considered an act of war. Without a formal declaration of war or identifying marks representative of their nations, these people have attacked a foreign government which leaves too much open to interpretation. In the midst of the confusion, governments not involved in the bilateral war with strong cyber-programs can use the fog of war to launch their own under-the-radar cyberstrikes against opponents.
The assembled volunteer Ukrainian hacker force shows the strength a movement can have, but also demonstrates a greater phenomena in warfare. In a physical domain, wars may be fought bilaterally. The cyber domain, however, blasts the door off the hinges of the traditional concept of fighting for one’s homeland. The Ukraine-Russia war is a representation of war transitioning towards becoming an ideological fight with participants from around the world regardless of their nationality, expertise, or qualifications. They acquire the ability to choose to what extent they can contribute. ISIS and the Spanish Republic’s recruitment was symbolic, but the effect a thousands of foot soldiers with minimal training can have in wartime pales in comparison to what 300,000 hackers can accomplish today. Regular people have transcended governments and militaries’ ability to dictate war, policy, strategy, and diplomacy.
Elon Musk’s decision to grant Ukraine access to his internet-providing Starlink satellite constellation is illustrative of the people’s war waged on Putin—perhaps a glimpse of what is to come in future conflicts where citizens have a supplementary, if not greater, impact than the official stances of militaries and governments. Governments are still seen as the primary actors and they have maintained their respective positions and strategies while Zelensky crowd-sourced civilian action and ability. The ambiguity in who can fight and how brings about many questions. Should private citizens send money to be used for weapons? Is Senegal correct on an ethical level to prohibit their citizens from fighting in a foreign war? Do governments have the obligation to withhold their citizens from participation in foreign conflicts which can affect their military and diplomatic strategies? Do democratic governments have the power to do this? Even if they wanted to, could governments restrict civilian involvement in the cyber domain? Are ideologies transcending patriotism and borders? What happens when the next war does not have unified domestic support?
Going forward, offensive and defensive military strategies will be forced to take into account a volatile unknown variable: the people of the world.
Sources:
How is Anonymous Attacking Russia, Disabling, and Hacking Websites
CNN Ret. Admiral McRaven Interview
Washington’s Newest Worry: The Dangers of Cornering Putin
Hackers Claim to have taken control of Russian Spy Satellites
Russia Space Agency Head Says Satellite Hacking Would Justify War
Photos 40-mile-long Russian Military Convoy North Kyiv Maxar
Ukraine Sinks its own Flagship Frigate in Port to Avoid Possible Capture
Senegal Blasts Kyiv Over “Illegal” Call for Fighters
Around 70 Japanese Have Volunteered Fight Ukraine
For this border crisis, Poles extend a warm welcome, unlike last time.
Volunteer Hackers Converge on Ukraine Conflict With No One in Charge
The Americans Soldiers of the Spanish Civil War