“In words, the military are “our heroes, our cats,” in practice, they are the most discriminated minority in society.” Interview with Artem Chapai

Artem Chapai — Ukrainian writer, translator and reporter, member Ukrainian PEN. Artem Chapai’s books were among the BBC’s top 5 books of the year in 2011, 2014, 2015 and 2018, and his reports and stories have been published in English, Czech, Polish, Romanian, Slovenian and Lithuanian.

In February 2022, Artem Chapai was mobilized to the ranks of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, where he is still serving. He authored a petition for voluntary demobilization after a year of service. In 2022, she won the necessary 25,000 votes for consideration. In his response to this petition, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy noted that the conscription of conscripts for military service during mobilization, their military service and the release of the mentioned category of servicemen is carried out in accordance with the procedure defined by the laws of Ukraine On military duty and military service and On mobilization training and mobilization.

“Military servicemen who undergo military service under conscription during mobilization are released from military service during martial law on the grounds specified in Art. 26 of the Law on military duty and military service, in particular by age, by health, in connection with the entry into force of a guilty verdict of the court, due to family circumstances or due to valid reasons defined by the above-mentioned Law of Ukraine. Therefore, under the conditions of the legal regime of martial law, the release of mobilized servicemen from military service on other grounds is not provided for,” says the response to the petition.

Why the state has not yet resolved the issue of establishing clear terms of service for Ukrainian servicemen, and how this affects the general motivation to serve in the army, Artem Chapai tells in an interview with NV before 1000 days of full-scale war.

— In an interview you gave to Chitomo in the summer of 2022, you were asked who you are, a writer or a military man, and there you answered that “I still consider myself a civilian”, “I realize that I am in the army only until demobilization” . Has your self-positioning changed in any way more than two years later?

— First of all, as a writer and as a civilian who was forced to take up arms because he saw no other options. I understand that we do not know when the demobilization will be, but nevertheless, my dream from the first day is to take off this uniform and never wear it again. My dream is that my children never have to wear a uniform and that was probably my main motivation for wearing a uniform myself.

Photo: Artem Chapai via Facebook

— Some, joining the Armed Forces, leave something from civilian life in order to associate themselves with it as well — for example, they take a call sign that reminds them of their profession in civilian life or something. However, others, according to my observations, on the contrary, after mobilization refuse all associations with civilian life: they say, one stage is over, I left or left this role, and now I am a serviceman or a servicewoman. What is more according to your observations, and how is it easier for you personally?

— I think it is critically important to understand that most people in the army are people who are civilians and remain civilians at heart. Because otherwise it turns out that someone is born for war, and someone is not. No one is born for war.

No one should have to end his previous life. We all remain fathers or sons, brothers, sisters or mothers. And likewise, our civil, professional life is also not disappearing anywhere and should not disappear.

The absolute majority of people participate in the defense of our country because it is necessary. And this should also apply to those who are not currently in the army. I am in every way in favor of not dividing people into military and non-military. There are people who have a greater conscience, and there are people who have a lesser conscience, somewhere like that. Or there may be different circumstances, this must also be recognized.

— Many cultural figures were mobilized to the army during this time. Some of them are actually fighting, and some are mainly artistic, rather than performing combat tasks. There are also many who during this time did not mobilize in principle, but, for example, continue to make large tours, thus collecting funds for the Armed Forces. This gives rise to a great debate in society – should all writers, musicians, go to war? Let them do their work better where they are more useful?

— I also have an unequivocal opinion here: cultural figures are not someone special. Where we start to separate cultural figures, we will also separate whether it is necessary to mobilize sportsmen and scientists. And if necessary, let’s not mobilize specialists in physics or chemistry, but mobilize sociologists. Where is the distinction? Shall we mobilize novelists, not mobilize poets? It is a very slippery slope.

— And how do you feel about those cultural figures who, for example, go to the army, but as a result do not perform direct combat tasks, but engage in cultural activities, let’s say so?

— In the army, everything is quite, surprisingly, decentralized, and to a large extent at the discretion of the commander. From what I see of, let’s say, writers, those I know personally, almost all of them are really doing their job. I remember there was a lot of hate for Pavel Vyshebaba, who went abroad for 20 days. Well, as far as I know, Pavlo Vyshebaba actually works in the brigade, he is really engaged in his official duties. The fact that he decided to use 20 days of his vacation to present his poems shows his ambition. I was also on vacation for 20 days in a row, but I decided to spend them not publicly, but with my family. Therefore, it is a matter of everyone’s choice.

Photo: Artem Chapai via facebook

As far as I can see, almost all male writers of a suitable age are already in the army. Serhii Zhadan, passes I was the last one [з відомих українських письменників]who joined [до лав ЗСУ]. And I don’t see among writers in particular that they are constantly somewhere in the turakh. That is, yes, sometimes they use their vacations for this. Sometimes the commander decides that it is profitable to send this person for a week on some conditional tour, if she collects for him drones, for example. This is a commander’s question and, as far as I know, it is also quite difficult to reconcile. Therefore, I do not see a problem in this.

The main thing is the division between people who are actually in the army and those who are only listed there. I just can’t say about anyone in particular.

— During the time that the full-scale war continues, we see that the Russian army actively destroys not only critical infrastructure, energy facilities, but also strikes cultural heritage sites, buildings of historical significance, destroys libraries, and fires at a printing plant in Kharkiv, etc. Is this also a conscious element of waging war on their part—attempts to destroy our culture and history, to separate from it?

— And I don’t know what goes through the minds of those who make such decisions. Among the examples that surprised me at one time was when the Skovoroda museum in Kharkiv region was bombed. It is quite obvious that there were no strategic objects there. And in this particular case, I thought to myself that this only strengthens the cultural influence, it corresponds to the very figure of Skovoroda. As for the printing press, we don’t know what actually happened there, or what Russia’s reasoning was in this case.

— In 2022, you created a petition about the possibility of demobilizing the military at will. Since then, there have been several more similar petitions to set clear deadlines for demobilization, some of which have also garnered 25,000 votes and are currently pending, street rallies are regularly held, and there is generally a lot of public talk about this topic. Is it really something that can change?

— I am a philosopher by education, so I will speak based on general philosophical considerations. Now it turns out that the state, whether forced or not, is the main violator of its own basic functions enshrined in the Constitution. I do not believe that this is a problem specifically, as some believe, of “green government”. I think that this is a forced step, which would be similar under any government, or it would be worse. But the fact remains that the state at the moment, as a structure as a whole, again, whether forced or not, violates such a principle as the equality of citizens before the law.

Despite the fact that in words the military are “our heroes, our cats”, in practice they are the most discriminated minority. And it’s literally a minority because it’s one in a million that is being discriminated against for the sake of discriminating against others less. It turns out that the military has much more legal responsibility for the same things compared to civilians. A civilian who evades mobilization faces, in most cases, a fine. A soldier who tries, in fact, to restore his independence as a person, as a unit, is immediately threatened with prison. Therefore, it is clearly discrimination.

In addition, the military is more limited in many rights, including the right to express one’s opinion. Military personnel are obviously restricted in their right to travel, since you cannot simply say that I went somewhere, you have to do it through a report.

In my opinion, it is very difficult to declare forced mobilization without clear terms of service. I totally understand people shying away given what is happening to those already in the military. They perceive it as if it is not forever, but indefinitely.

— To what extent do all these circumstances affect the motivation of servicemen to fight, as well as the motivation of civilians to mobilize to the army?

— In my opinion, this has a great impact on general motivation. On the other hand, I want to emphasize: I understand why this is happening. A lot of resources are needed to mobilize those who no longer want it. Far fewer resources are needed to retain those already in the military. That is, the state, let’s say, is strained to the limit, it is difficult for it to strain even more, and, in addition, mobilization will lead to a significant loss of democracy. The state thus balances, in fact, saving resources.

I also understand the opposite side, and I understand the side of the dodgers, but we have a situation where, in fact, a discriminated minority has appeared. A minority living in a state similar to that of serfdom. Although, of course, for other reasons than serfdom or slavery.

— On September 21, 2024, soldier Serhiy Gnezdilov publicly announced that he was voluntarily leaving the unit, and was detained on October 9. His actions were received ambiguously in society: there were many who agreed with his decision and showed understanding, and many who condemned him. What do you think about this move by Gnezdilova?

— Serhiy Hnezdilov tried to draw attention to the problem by his act. And judging by the fact that you and not only you are asking about it, he succeeded. It is obvious that he broke the law – there are no objections. However, he tried to regain his freedom, one might say, as a person.

I am currently reading a book that is a retelling Huckleberry Finn from slave Jim’s point of view. And here is such an analogy: slave jim constantly thinks that, in fact, he broke the law when he ran away. But he violated the law, which, in turn, is a violation of the general principle of human equality. The same applies to Hnezdilov — again, taking into account that we have a different motivation. Most people [військових] are in a situation of limited freedom in order to prevent this freedom from being further restricted in the event of occupation.

— Hnezdilov’s main goal was to try to influence the system in general by his act, to change something in it. Do you think he communicated correctly, does he communicate his main messages publicly? Is it really something that can change globally?

– He has no way to communicate this story now. The state took over communication. Again, here we come back to the fact that the state, whether forced or not, violates its own fundamental principles. One of the legal principles is indiscriminate punishment.

I personally know many people who went to SZCH, unfortunately, and most of them did it quietly, they did not get anything for it. In the case of Serhii Hnezdilov, we have selective justice, when politics, not law, intervenes, because it was necessary to demonstratively punish him. This question is philosophical, since the punishment should be the same for everyone. Selective justice is a terrible thing. It shows that the state is either unable to punish everyone, or punishes some demonstratively.

Photo: Artem Chapai via Facebook

I try not to make value judgments about what I think, but pay attention to the general fundamental principles. And this is equality before the law, this is constitutional equality of citizens, this is sameness justice. Everything is enshrined in the Constitution of Ukraine, and are general legal principles in the theory of law. Again, I don’t think this is a problem of any particular government, but in a situation of extreme tension, principles such as the equality of citizens before the law, according to the Constitution, are not limited to martial law.

In fact, we have a deviation from the principle of equality of citizens before the law. And this is a violation of the Constitution of Ukraine, including in the conditions of martial law.

— As far as I know, in fact, we have quite a few cases when the military goes to the SZH “quietly”, are not as public as Gniezdilov, so these cases are practically not talked about anywhere. There are no official statistics on this for obvious reasons, and in general, such things should be communicated very carefully, so that it is not used by Russian propaganda against us. But the fact that they do not talk about the scale of the problem does not mean that it does not exist. How should the authorities communicate this issue, so as to highlight the problem as delicately as possible?

– A little or a lot is a value judgment. That is, there are such cases, as well as the fact that there are people who are punished, and there are people who are not punished. I would like to emphasize one more thing: most of those people who do not go to the SZH now do so not because of fear of punishment, but for moral and ethical reasons.

First of all, it’s solidarity, it’s the idea of ​​what we’re here for, and also doubts at the level of a micro-collective – what will your immediate environment say about you, how can you frame your department or your platoon with this. That is, this is what actually holds, and not so the law, because most of the people I know, they understand that, roughly speaking, not everyone will be transplanted, not everyone will be refished, there is no such resource. People, including me, really don’t want to be in the army, but I’m unlikely to go [в СЗЧ].

The state and society think that this punishment should be strengthened. But if it cannot be applied to everyone, it is also a so-so idea.

— Is the mobilization in Ukraine a failure or not? And do you think there are any chances to save her?

– No, I think the mobilization has not failed. She just goes as far as she can go. It seems to me that under a democratic government, it could hardly have gone better, because we already see that every case when, to put it bluntly, they are dragged by force, it receives publicity. Just as you cannot punish everyone who joined the SZCH, you cannot mobilize everyone. In order to demobilize everyone now, 500,000 people must be brought into the army by force, and this is also impossible. There are certain objective circumstances why this happens. And, unfortunately, they reinforce each other in a spiral.

The fact that there is no term for demobilization increases the impossibility of new mobilization. The fact that people do not understand what awaits them and how long it will last makes it impossible to form a queue to demobilize some and mobilize others. The worst is when they refer to the examples of the First or Second World War. Because in democratic countries so many people did not serve in the army. Even during the Second World War, people had the opportunity to be in the army not until the end of the war. If you read Joseph Heller’s book Catch-22they dream of completing their 25 sorties and returning home. Instead, there was no rotation in countries such as the Soviet Union, that is, in authoritarian countries. And this is the question of who we want to be like.

Photo: Artem Chapai via facebook

The longer it lasts, the more difficult the situation becomes. Fixing it may require more resources than we actually have. Do we have the resources to force 500,000 people into the army and release the other 500,000? Unfortunately, it is necessary to recruit not only because of the so-called sanitary losses, but also because of people who either go to the SZCH or start looking for all kinds of the possibility of being discharged from the army by issuing disability certificates to relatives. This is a moral issue: many people go for it, but at the same time, they themselves become part of corruption.

— I have also heard of such cases when fighters, being tired, deliberately go on very risky tasks, realizing that they can either die or get injured. Because if they, for example, get injured and end up in the hospital, it will be something for them “a break” from service.

– Yes, there are many options, but you understand that this is a small suicide. You can go for it and not come back. Such examples show how far people have reached the edge, “to the handle”.

Recently, I read in the news that civilians can deliberately break the law in order to have a criminal case opened against them and to prevent them from being mobilized. And for that [скоєний злочин] you can go to prison, as a result, even longer than you would have stayed in the army. That is, people, in fact, are playing Russian roulette with their own lives.

— You talked about the fact that military personnel today are perhaps the most discriminated group in society. This is from the point of view of the state’s attitude towards this group. What about society’s attitude? Has it changed recently?

– I don’t see that respect has decreased in any way, but it is combined with fear. People do not understand chevrons. You see that women treat you with respect, and men with fear. More precisely, women – with respect, and men with fear, if they see in person, and with respect when it is on the Internet.

Several times I noticed that when I walk down the street somewhere in the rear town in uniform, and if not one, but next to me, for example, six or ten men, they start to run away from us. Once, straight from the outfit, we came to the gym in uniform with another brother — it was in Ivano-Frankivsk. But they don’t know who we are – all these bodybuilders, ducks and crossfitters – and they start running away. And we just came to see the gym. However, the same people can donate, for example. The same people treat you with respect on the Internet.

– As they say, they hold the economic front, right?

– I also understand these people. I recently moved from the Donetsk region to the rear. And he noticed that he began to give more. I started collecting for REBs for other people, because even I, as a military man, as a person who is currently in a better situation, have a certain sense of guilt.

And, by the way, I do not believe at all when they say that “there is no shame in being a dodger.” When they say that, it’s actually so embarrassing that it’s embarrassing to even admit your shame. As a military man, I am so ashamed that I, along with my comrades who were transferred to the infantry, simply collect money. This is a way to atone a little from your conscience. But I say this without depreciating. Of course, without the logistical support of the civilian population, it would be even more difficult for the majority.