At the start of the fifth year of the full-scale war, the question arises again: what can an individual do against armed aggression when the state has an army, prisons and security services, while civilians must first think about their families’ safety. In the interview, Ukrainian public figure Pavlo Zhovnirenko says the experience of the 20th century shows that resistance is possible without weapons.
He defines nonviolent resistance as pursuing political goals without the use of force. At the same time, he says, this approach is not always opposed to armed self-defense. Zhovnirenko recalls the 2014 Maidan: as long as the protest remained peaceful, it was nonviolent, but once force was used by Berkut and other formations, Ukrainians, in his view, had no option left but to resist in kind.
He stresses that no one has the right to demand that a civilian be ready for death, prison or torture. He refers to a 2015 study conducted jointly with the Kyiv Institute of Sociology: at that time, those ready to use nonviolent methods outnumbered supporters of armed struggle by about three and a half times.
Zhovnirenko also addresses life under occupation. In his words, if a person is forced to take a Russian passport in order to work, receive medical care, keep property or simply survive, that does not negate their position.
“Do not cooperate with the occupation regime, do not do what the occupation authorities want from you,” he says, summing up the basic principle of resistance.
He argues that hidden and individual forms of action are safer today. As a historical example, he cites the behavior of people in Czechoslovakia after 1968, and among current practices he mentions, for example, putting symbols on banknotes instead of acting under surveillance cameras. In his words, “the optimal nonviolent resistance unit is one person.”
Zhovnirenko adds that Ukraine has published and is updating civil resistance guidelines, drawing in part on the methods of Gene Sharp and the experience of Lithuania. His main conclusion is that even those not ready for open protest can still resist by refusing to take part in lies or assist what they consider evil.