Mourning call: people gather to remember pro-Russian militants killed in Odessa, southern Ukraine, 10 May. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Ukraine: as the death toll rises, a collective psychosis is taking hold

David Patrikarakos reports from Odessa, scene of the bloodiest incident of the Russia-Ukraine conflict so far. 

On 2 May, a fire in the historic city of Odessa in southern Ukraine killed dozens of pro-Russian separatists, increasing fears of an all-out war. At dusk, as pro-Ukraine activists stormed a trade union office occupied by separatists in the city centre, the building was set alight.

It was the bloodiest incident of this conflict so far. People choked to death on smoke or died jumping from windows as they tried to escape the flames. Russian TV aired graphic footage of the fire and its aftermath – charred bodies in pools of blood, including a woman who was reportedly pregnant – relentlessly over the weekend. Many fear that this could give Vladimir Putin, who already claims that Russia might be “forced to act” to “protect” Ukraine’s Russian-speaking population, the pretext he needs to begin an invasion. Others argue that he doesn’t need a pretext; if he wants to invade, he will.

The tragedy came amid mounting violence in the east as the Kyiv government launched its latest counterterrorism operation, the first that has seriously tried to clear pro-Russian separatists from their strongholds. Over the past weeks, the Ukrainian army has advanced steadily towards the occupied cities and fighting between the two sides has intensified.

In the small industrial town of Sloviansk, the centre of the east’s continuing crisis, Ukraine special forces engaged local separatists in hours of heavy gunfire on its northern outskirts on 5 May. Four Ukrainian soldiers and at least 20 separatists were killed. The defence ministry also reported that one of its helicopters had been shot down during the assault – the third to be downed by separatists in a matter of days.

The counterterrorism operation remains confused. Soldiers alternate between intense bouts of violence and long periods of inaction as the Kyiv government alternates between the need to restore order in what is still – barely – a sovereign state and the desire to avoid giving the Kremlin any excuse for further invasion. The army, underfunded and underequipped, also faces the problem of the local population, sections of which form human shields by mingling with the armed militia or gathering around occupied buildings, making it harder for the army to attack.

Back in Kyiv’s Maidan Nezalezhnosti (“Independence Square”), the scene of the February revolution that overthrew the then president, Viktor Yanukovych, the atmosphere has darkened. Maidan is still filled with members of the militia left over from the uprising who have refused to leave until the presidential elections on 25 May. Dressed in camouflage and carrying bats and sticks, they loaf on the streets by day and spend their nights in the tents around the square. Maidan remains cosmetically militarised – ringed by barricades of tyres and sandbags – but it has become little more than a tourist trap, selling souvenirs of the revolution to the trickle of foreigners who still visit.

Now the barricades are being reinforced and expanded. On 5 May, access into the square via a neighbouring street was controlled by a blonde militia girl of no more than 17, who manned a makeshift gate allowing vehicles access in and out. The armoured personnel carrier parked incongruously in the middle of the street – which some of the more enterprising militiamen had been charging people 50 hryvnias a turn to sit in and have their photo taken – was being cleaned and tested.

Both sides are adopting a war mentality, the most obvious – and ominous – aspect of which is the dehumanisation of the enemy. Pro-Russians describe the Odessa fire as “inhumanity . . . last seen by the Nazis in the Second World War”, while the more extreme pro-Ukrainian elements post memes that mock those who died.

A collective psychosis, born of machismo and paranoia and fuelled by rumour, is taking hold. The latest story gaining traction in the capital is that thousands of Russians – solitary males of military age – have begun to appear in Kyiv, renting rooms and just waiting. “Let them come,” says Maksym, my wiry and intense landlord. “I’ve got body armour and I’m cleaning all my guns.”

It is a phenomenon I have seen repeatedly: in Lebanon, in Congo, in Israel. Men sit in the cafés and bars of Kyiv vowing to smash “Putin”. Machine-gun-wielding sep­aratists tell me they will “cleanse” Ukraine of the “fascist junta” in Kyiv. “If the Russians come, I’ll be up there with my Kalashnikov,” an ex-soldier friend tells me, pointing to the gaudily lit roof terrace of my local sushi restaurant.

Many members of the camouflaged militia are unemployed young men from small towns, who have a new purpose and sense of belonging. It’s hard to imagine them willingly returning to their previous lives now.

Whether or not the two sides will face each other in the coming weeks remains to be seen. What is clear is that the further destabilisation of Ukraine is Moscow’s goal, at least in the short term.

Central to Russian propaganda and the arguments of the separatists is that the Kyiv government is an “unelected junta”. By democratically electing a new president, some legitimacy would be restored, which is what Putin fears. One of his spokesmen recently said that it would be “absurd” to proceed with the polls.

Even if the elections do go ahead, the winner is likely to have only a slim mandate. Pro-Russian sympathisers in the east will boycott the elections on principle and it is difficult to see the militants who control the occupied cities allowing the citizens there to vote unmolested.

The two sides are now divided by un­mitigated hate. It is difficult to envisage a future for Ukraine free from further chaos and violence.

This article first appeared in the 08 May 2014 issue of the New Statesman, India's worst nightmare?

Getty
Show Hide image

A new German law wants to force mothers to reveal their child’s biological father

The so-called “milkmen’s kids law” would seek protection for men who feel they have been duped into raising children they believe are not biologically theirs – at the expense of women’s rights.

The German press call them “Kuckuckskinder”, which translates literally as “cuckoo children” – parasite offspring being raised by an unsuspecting innocent, alien creatures growing fat at the expense of the host species’ own kind. The British press have opted for the more Benny Hill-esque “milkmen’s kids”, prompting images of bored Seventies housewives answering the door in negligées before inviting Robin Asquith lookalikes up to their suburban boudoirs. Nine months later their henpecked husbands are presented with bawling brats and the poor sods remain none the wiser.

Neither image is particularly flattering to the children involved, but then who cares about them? This is a story about men, women and the redressing of a legal – or is it biological? – injustice. The children are incidental.

This week German Justice Minister Heiko Maas introduced a proposal aimed at to providing greater legal protection for “Scheinväter” – men who are duped into raising children whom they falsely believe to be biologically theirs. This is in response to a 2015 case in which Germany’s highest court ruled that a woman who had told her ex-husband that her child may have been conceived with another man could not be compelled to name the latter. This would, the court decided, be an infringement of the woman’s right to privacy. Nonetheless, the decision was seen to highlight the need for further legislation to clarify and strengthen the position of the Scheinvater.

Maas’ proposal, announced on Monday, examines the problem carefully and sensitively before merrily throwing a woman’s right to privacy out of the window. It would compel a woman to name every man she had sexual intercourse with during the time when her child may have been conceived. She would only have the right to remain silent in cases should there be serious reasons for her not to name the biological father (it would be for the court to decide whether a woman’s reasons were serious enough). It is not yet clear what form of punishment a woman would face were she not to name names (I’m thinking a scarlet letter would be in keeping with the classy, retro “man who was present at the moment of conception” wording). In cases where it did transpire that another man was a child’s biological father, he would be obliged to pay compensation to the man “duped” into supporting the child for up to two years.

It is not clear what happens thereafter. Perhaps the two men shake hands, pat each other on the back, maybe even share a beer or two. It is, after all, a kind of gentlemen’s agreement, a transaction which takes place over the heads of both mother and child once the latter’s paternity has been established. The “true” father compensates the “false” one for having maintained his property in his absence. In some cases there may be bitterness and resentment but perhaps in others one will witness a kind of honourable partnership. You can’t trust women, but DNA tests, money and your fellow man won’t let you down.

Even if it achieves nothing else, this proposal brings us right back to the heart of what patriarchy is all about: paternity and ownership. In April this year a German court ruled that men cannot be forced to take paternity tests by children who suspect them of being their fathers. It has to be their decision. Women, meanwhile, can only access abortion on demand in the first trimester of pregnancy, and even then counselling is mandatory (thereafter the approval of two doctors is required, similar to in the UK). One class of people can be forced to gestate and give birth; another can’t even be forced to take a DNA test. One class of people can be compelled to name any man whose sperm may have ventured beyond their cervix; another is allowed to have a body whose business is entirely its own. And yes, one can argue that forcing men to pay money for the raising of children evens up the score. Men have always argued that, but they’re wrong.

Individual men (sometimes) pay for the raising of individual children because the system we call patriarchy has chosen to make fatherhood about individual ownership. Women have little choice but to go along with this as long as men exploit our labour, restrict our access to material resources and threaten us with violence. We live in a world in which it is almost universally assumed that women “owe” individual men the reassurance that it was their precious sperm that impregnated us, lest we put ourselves and our offspring at risk of poverty and isolation. Rarely do any of us dare to protest. We pretend it is a fair deal, even that reproductive differences barely affect our lives at all. But the sex binary – the fact that sperm is not egg and egg is not sperm – affects all of us.

The original 2015 ruling got it right. The male demand for reassurance regarding paternity is an infringement of a woman’s right to privacy. Moreover, it is important to see this in the context of all the other ways in which men have sought to limit women’s sexual activity, freedom of movement and financial independence in order to ensure that children are truly “theirs”.  Anxiety over paternity is fundamentally linked to anxiety over female sexuality and women’s access to public space. Yet unless all women are kept under lock and key at all times, men will never, ever have the reassurance they crave. Even then, the abstract knowledge that you are the only person to have had the opportunity to impregnate a particular woman cannot rival the physical knowledge of gestation.

We have had millennia of pandering to men’s existential anxieties and treating all matters related to human reproduction, from sex to childbirth, as exceptional cases meaning women cannot have full human rights. Isn’t it about time we tried something new? How about understanding fatherhood not as winning gold in an Olympic sperm race, but as a contract endlessly renewed?

What each of us receives when a child is born is not a biological entity to do with as we choose. It is a relationship, with all of its complexities and risks. It is something worth contributing to and fighting for. Truly, if a man cannot understand that, then any money wasted on a Kuckuckskind – a living, breathing child he could get to know – has got to be the least of his worries. 

Glosswitch is a feminist mother of three who works in publishing.