Introduction

I suppose that just like me, for some time, you have been bombarded with information about the war in Ukraine and are starting to get fed up. Whether in the mainstream press or in independent media, the war in Ukraine is constantly being talked about. As a result, after becoming experts in epidemiology, then in managing the European electrical grid, then on climate change, most bloggers and other influencers have become experts in geopolitics.

But how can we blame them when the events we are experiencing seem historical. This week, which saw J.D. Vance's speech at the Munich conference and Zelensky's public humiliation by Trump (even though, for me, it was rather the USA that was humiliated by Trump during this sequence), will probably go down in European history books as the beginning of a complete upheaval of the alliances that ensured Europe's security and prosperity since the end of World War II. An upheaval that will likely lead to profound economic and political changes in the European Union and its member states.

As exasperating as it may be, it is therefore normal and even desirable to talk about it extensively and for everyone to give their opinion.

However, until now, I thought I would remain silent on this subject for two reasons. The first is that until very recently, I didn't have much original to say on the topic. The second is that despiteYou are a professional translator. Directly translate this text into English, without adding anything.A recent binge of opinions and sometimes contradictory information about this war left me unsure of what to think and which position to support. Indeed, even though I felt closer to those unconditionally supporting Ukraine, defending this position made me feel an unease that I could not explain. This unease was exacerbated when I listened to the arguments of the self-proclaimed "peaceful" ones who, even if they did not convince me, made me seriously doubt (and who are also largely from my political camp).

Indeed, I didn't really know how to respond to their main arguments, which are:

Putin and Russia will not disappear like magic one day, peace will have to be negotiated with them, and apart from thousands more deaths, what can we really hope to achieve by prolonging this war? Besides a slow and deadly nibbling of Ukrainian territory by Russia, what can be expected from the continuation of this war? What are the chances that more weapons and time will upset the balance of power? And above all, at what point will it be considered that the balance of power is sufficiently in our favor to finally start negotiating? Do the territorial gains that Ukraine could wrest from Russia, if it negotiated from a more comfortable position, really justify sacrificing so many men? And besides, are the Ukrainians really in agreement with this, or are they just deceived by years of war propaganda that portrays the Russians as monsters they are not (which is not hard to swallow given the atrocities committed by Russia against Ukrainians during this war)?

And then recently, I had a revelation. I understood what was bothering me and formed an opinion that I believe is original about this conflict, so I decided to share it.

But to talk about the future of Ukraine, it will be necessary to briefly detour through its past and my vision of international relations. And on this occasion, I will make a mea culpa. My position on the origins of the conflict has, until very recently, been the one propagated by Russian propaganda and relayed.(among other things)by France Insoumise (and the media close to it).

My vision of international relations

Indeed, for me and more generally for a large part of the alter-globalist left, whether at the national or international level, the world is made up of different groups with shifting boundaries that defend their interests by all means at their disposal.

In other words, contrary to the view propagated by many media and geopoliticians, for me, the world is not organized into culturally homogeneous peoples who organize and act on the international stage according to their own values and worldviews that change very slowly (or not at all). For me, on the contrary, peoples are divided into multiple social groups that have very different cultures, worldviews, and interests.

For me, what motivates states is not the defense of values or ways of doing things intrinsic to the culture of their people, but the defense of the interests of the social group that controls the state. Or rather a compromise between the interests of several social groups within that state (because generally, there is not a group numerous or powerful enough to impose its will on all the others).

To be clearer, let's take an example. For me, what motivated France to intervene in Libya to overthrow Gaddafi was not the defense of humanist values or human rights. What motivated this intervention was that the most influential social groups in France found their interest in it or were indifferent to it. For example, the leaders and shareholders of large French groups like Total felt threatened by Gaddafi's attempts to renationalize Libyan oil (source:mouammar-kadhafi-menace-de-nationaliser-les-entreprises-petrolieres-travaillant-en-libye And politicians like Sarkozy saw war as a good way to gain military prestige and to focus public debate on something other than the economic crisis (and to get rid of an annoying figure).

If, on the contrary, the Libyan government had pursued a policy very favorable to large French groups and they were afraid that its replacement would be less accommodating, for me, the repression of the revolts in Libya would have been treated like those in Egypt or like the war in Yemen. That is to say, it would have been little talked about in the media. Or as a distant and regrettable slaughter, but one that does not concern us and to which we have no means of opposing. In short, as an internal matter for Libya. And incidentally, we would have taken advantage of the conflict to try to sell weapons to Gaddafi.

To conclude this digression, for me, there is no moral or peaceful State. There are just propagandas that make it seem that way, and more rarely, States led by groups that have (temporarily) an interest in a moral or peaceful policy.

My view of the recent history of Ukraine

And the war in Ukraine in all this?

Well, for me, since World War II, Ukraine has been treated by Russia as a colony. That is to say, in the USSR, Ukrainians were treated as second-class citizens. This implies, among other things, that the majority of the wealth produced by Ukrainians was seized by Russians, that positions of power were largely reserved for Russians, and that on a daily basis Ukrainians suffered harassment from the Russian authorities.(like a repression of the Ukrainian language).

And this, not because the Russians were mean, but because the leaders of the USSR and a good part of the Russians considered that it was in their interest. At the fall of the USSR, the relationship between Russia and Ukraine became similar to that between France and its former colonies. That is to say, on paper, Ukraine had become independent, but in fact, Russia used various means to impose leaders in Ukraine who were favorable to Russian interests (or rather to the interests of the Russian leaders). And when,For one reason or another, the Ukrainian ruling elites were going against Russian interests, the Russian government took retaliatory measures to force them back on the right path.

And once again, all the states do the same. France and the USA do the same wherever they can. And speaking of the Westerners, this situation displeased many people. First of all, it displeased most Ukrainians because the leaders imposed by Russia were corrupt, incompetent, and not kind to those who dared to express opposing opinions. But above all, it greatly displeased Western leaders who found it very unpleasant to see Russian companies systematically grabbing markets or very lucrative contracts (among other things, the motivations of the powerful are not only economic). As a result, for years, the West has supported pro-Western opposition groups. Yes, it is the same interference as that of which Musk is accused today, and for me, it is neither exceptional nor wrong when it does not exceed certain limits (like delivering weapons to violent opposition groups) and the promoted groups are not far-right (and yes, the USA has regularly supported far-right rebel movements like the Taliban in Afghanistan in the 1980s).

Then, when a revolt broke out in Ukraine, the West supported it with all its might. Without being able to determine if the West's support for these revoltsaPlayed a role or not, the Ukrainian population massively rallied to this movement of anger and thus the revolt transformed into a revolution that brought to power groups supported by the West (as they were the best organized and funded). These groups then sought to stabilize their power by finding a balance between satisfying Western demands, democratizing the country, fighting corruption, enriching Ukrainians (primarily the most powerful), and responding to the social demands of Ukrainians in order to create a social base that supports the new regime. Basically, even if this revolution was not the grand night, it was an improvement in the living conditions of most Ukrainians. By supporting the revolution in Ukraine, for once, the position of Western states was rather well aligned with the values they claim to defend.

On the other hand, this change did not please Russia at all. In response, it sent its army to try to put its vassal back on the right track. It very easily regained control of Crimea. However, in other regions, the Russian army faced strong Ukrainian resistance, and Putin had to accept that he could not retake the rest of Ukrainian territory without sacrificing a lot of men, time, money, and prestige. Conversely, the Westerners could not hope for Ukraine to militarily reconquer its territories lost to Russia. Therefore, there were negotiations between the Russian, Western, and Ukrainian governments, which resulted in the Minsk agreements, which essentially state that Russia can keep Crimea and that Ukraine will become a federal state divided between an eastern part,under Russian influence, and a western part under Ukrainian influence. In exchange, Russia promises to respect Ukrainian borders and to withdraw its troops from the area.

Russia did not sign this out of kindness or respect for the right of peoples to self-determination, but because it allowed them to secure their gains and a war that was too long would have been costly and would have harmed their trade relations with Germany (and the Russian leaders need the money from gas trade with Germany to stay in power). Conversely, the Westerners signed this agreement because it allowed them to secure their gains and continuing the war would have also been very costly for them (with a strong chance of losing). As for the Ukrainian government, it was not the deal they dreamed of, but they had no choice but to accept it.

Eight years passed during which Ukraine took advantage of the peace to heal its wounds and benefit from the weak and fragile gains of its revolution. However, the Minsk agreements were not respected. There was no disarmament of Ukraine and no reform towards greater autonomy for the eastern regions of Ukraine.

On the contrary, during these eight years, Kiev tried to strengthen its grip on the west, repressed Russian-speaking minorities perceived as supporters of Russia and not true Ukrainian citizens. But above all, it began to rearm, cultivated its ties with the USA, and tried to join NATO (which is seen by Moscow as a significant threat to its security and a red line not to be crossed). Consequently, after several ultimatums where it demanded respect for the Minsk agreements and guarantees that Ukraine would never join NATO, Russia, whose army had significantly gained in strength and was convinced that a large part of Ukrainians was not radically opposed to returning to the Russian fold, decided to invade Ukraine, convinced that the war would be so swift that the West would not have time to protest. However, Russia greatly overestimated the power of its army and underestimated the Ukrainians' attachment to their recently acquired independence.

The rest, you know. Seeing a golden opportunity to increase its influence in Europe, weaken Russia, and eliminate a rival in the gas market, the USA massively supported Ukraine and forced its allies to do the same. And in the process, with England, they allegedly sabotaged the peace negotiations that took place a few months after the conflict began and were about to reach an agreement between Ukraine and Russia (honestly, I never knew whether to believe this part or not).

If one believes in this vision of the conflict, then Russia is no more a threat to Europe than the USA or China. If one believes in this version of history,Then the responsibility for this war lies as much with Russia, which declared war, as with the West and Ukraine, which pushed it to this decision. In the same way that it is both no one and everyone who is responsible for the First World War.(and not only the first country to have declared war)It is both no one and everyone who is responsible for the war in Ukraine.

However, the camp whose claims seem the most legitimate and reasonable appears to be that of Russia, and the course of action for us French seems to be to demand an immediate ceasefire under the threat of stopping sending weapons to Ukraine (again, if we agree with this version of the story). Then to negotiate peace with a Putin who is no more monstrous, unreasonable, or untrustworthy than any other major power leader.

In my defense, it should be noted that the alternative explanation promoted by mainstream media of a Nazi Russia that has always believed it will disappear if it does not increase its living space by invading all its neighbors to make them colonies (and therefore will never accept negotiating peace with its neighbors since conquest is an existential issue for it), is not very credible.

Already because it seems unthinkable that the government of a large country like Russia would think like that, but especially because in the years preceding the war in Ukraine, Russia was nothing like an ultra-nationalist state or opposed to the West. I recall that until 2014, Russia was working closely with NATO, to the point that leftist groups and Russian ultra-nationalists demonstrated in Moscow to denounce Russia's excessive aid and collaboration with NATO.russians-protest-plan-for-nato ).

And then his speeches would strangely resemble low-grade Russian propaganda about a Ukraine that needs to be denazified to ensure security. However, I had forgotten that, unlike fiction, reality does not need to be credible.

As for the cries of indignation from our leaders against Russia, because it attempts to overthrow a democratically elected government or opposes the rights of peoples to self-determination, they are just pathetically ridiculous as their hypocrisy is glaringly obvious to anyone with even a little memory. Firstly, because Ukraine is no more a democracy than France (as strange as it may seem to editorialists and other propagandists, democracy and dictatorship are not the only existing regimes, and trying to forcibly include France among democratic regimes when it is not even a parliamentary regime makes one wonder if we really live on the same planet). But especially because theWestern states regularly violate the sovereignty of other states, the decisions of the UN, and the international treaties they have signed.

Okay, I agree, I'm exaggerating a bit (a lot), but I'm not that far from the truth. For a slightly more honest (and much less funny) presentation of the mainstream position on the origins of the conflict and Russia's motivations, I encourage you to listen to this recent podcast from Collimateur (a show I really like):Que négocie-t-on avec Vladimir Poutine ?  

A change in the meta: the rise of fascism

However, recent events have made me realize that the rise of the far right makes this model obsolete. Indeed, if you follow the news, you have probably noticed that this reasoning is in total contradiction with what Russian officials say. Indeed, if we pay attention to what Russian leaders say or write, we realize that the mainstream media thesis of a Nazified Russia for whom the conquest of its neighbors is a vital issue is not unfounded.

Until now, I dismissed this objection by comparing these speeches to those of Sarkozy, Attal, Retailleau, or Darmanin. They too, if taken literally, could be concluded to be Nazis who wouldn't mind a good genocide. However, when comparing their actions and words, one is forced to admit that even if they are quite the #*$@ (this is not an insult, but the technical term for this type of irresponsible politicians), they are not Nazis. They are just demagogues willing to do anything to be talked about in the media, as they are convinced (and rightly so, in my opinion) that the best way to make a career in politics is to be omnipresent in the media.

Well, I thought that these excesses from Russian officials and even from Putin were just that: excesses. For me, it was simply unthinkable that they could actually believe in such nonsense, that at such a level of responsibility one could be so disconnected from reality and the most basic logic. Especially since, I repeat, in the 2000s, Putin had pursued a completely conventional policy and miles away from the ultranationalism he advocates today.

However, the beginning of Trump's term forces me to reconsider my position. As absurd as it may seem, some people sincerely make these speeches and find a mass of idiots to follow them. Once again, this is not an insult, but the technical term to use to designate these idiots (there, however, it was an insult). And in Europe, we are not lagging behind.

When I was a student, there are pmore of10 years ago, I was regularly talking with a PhD student from China. One day, when the news was focused on the tensions between China and Japan over the sovereignty of some islands.uninhabited and fishermen who had the audacity not to care about the invisible line separating Chinese and Japanese waters, he told me that China must arm itself and be firm to avoid being invaded and enslaved by Japan. That day, I said nothing, but I found the idea particularly absurd that asmallaging countryand weakly armed180 million inhabitants like Japan can threaten a nuclear giant of 1.4 billion inhabitants like China.MoreToday, I note that the 500 million Europeans are only talking about massively arming themselves to resist the terrible threat posed by the 140 million Russians.

So yes, of course, it's positive that Europe is finally making efforts to become independent from the USA (especially with Trump in power) and that we coordinate more. However, even assuming that Russia would want to attack us, how can we seriously think it could do so? Besides the fact that the Russian population is one of the oldest in Europe and has already lost a good part of its youth capable of serving in Ukraine,there is especially the fact thatEven in 2025, its military budget is nearly three times lower than the combined total of the countries.membersof the EU (source:consilium.europa.eu and130-milliards-d-euros-la-russie-prevoit-un-budget-militaire-record-pour-2025 while, unlike Russia, the EU is at peace and most of its member states devote very few resources to their army.Conclusionthe disproportion ofYou are a professional translator. Directly translate this text into English, without adding anything.forceYou are a professional translator. Directly translate this text into English, without adding anything.is just too important for one to rationally feel threatened (unless we consider the number of Russian nuclear warheads, but that's a slightly separate issue). What will change if we move from a military budget three times larger than Russia's to a budget five times larger? At what multiple will we finally feel secure?

Of course, at first, I told myself that, like most statements from European leaders, it was just empty words.Qwhere noise does notdeservednotYou are a professional translator. Directly translate this text into English, without adding anything.retainourAttention. But actually, it seems that this time, they are completely serious. They really think that one of the EU's prioritiesThis.to arm oneself further.

For our leaders, what most strengthens the security and sovereignty of the EU is not to make the energy transition as quickly as possible in order to no longer be dependent on Russian, Saudi, and American gas or oil (and thus to finance the war in Ukraine through our gas purchases or Islamic fundamentalism through our oil purchases).

For our leaders, what allows us to fight against the fascist threat is not to subject the rich to the same tax rate as the middle classes so that we can finance ambitious social policies and restore our public services.

For them, what is most useful is to have even more weapons. Question: if the 300 French nuclear warheads are not enough to guarantee ourSecurity, so what are they for? How many would it take for our nuclear deterrence to finally be effective?

So, all around me, I observe that completely delusional militaristic rhetoric is rising and, moreover, it comes from people who, until now, were totally opposed to this kind of discourse and had even supported the military budget cuts decided by Hollande in order to further shower billionaires with public money and tax cuts (it wasn't a very cheerful policy, but I preferred it). As a result, I am beginning to think that it is conceivable that similar rhetoric coming from Russia should be taken at face value and that the Russian regime has indeed shifted into ultranationalism.

Especially since I recently discovered that there is a rather credible alternative version of Ukraine's recent history, stating that the Minsk agreements are unenforceable and that all signatories knew it. I won't go into details, but this destroys the Russian narrative I previously exposed of a Russia that had reasonable demands in exchange for not invading Ukraine.

Which means that as suicidal and crazy as it may seem, it is quite possible that in the coming years, Russia will declare war on an EU member country or vice versa that an EU member country will declare war on Russia (all these weapons have to be used, and I don't believe our leaders are more virtuous or peaceful than the Russians').

And this perspective terrifies me. To the point that my first reflex was to tell myself that selfishly, the current policy of our leaders was the lesser evil. After all, the more weapons we supply to Ukraine, the longer the war will last and the more the Russian army will be weakened when the day of the final confrontation comes. And the higher our military budgets have been, the lower the risk that civilians like me will suffer inconveniences (provided that this increase in military budgets is not used as an excuse for new austerity policies). A very Rufinist position.(which proves that it is a bad position).

One solution: non-violent civil deterrence

Then, as often happens, I got bored at work and started scrolling through social media and discovered this site:Mouvement pour une alternative non-violente and in particular this documentUne dissuasion civile non-violente And I understood that there was an alternative.

Before continuing to read this post, I urge you to read this document on non-violent civil deterrence, as I will not take the trouble to summarize its content.

Then, I warn you right away that I do not agree with them that civil deterrence could replace military deterrence. Civil deterrence could indeed prevent a state led by the classical right from attacking us, but it is totally ineffective in dealing with the irrational violence of fascists.

Fascists don't care if a war isn't profitable. For them, the existence of the other is an existential threat, and they will do everything in their power to subjugate and eliminate it. And none of the security guarantees given to them will change their minds (the only thing that makes them back down is brute force).

However, for me, if implemented, this non-violent civil deterrence would be a revolution far more significant than AI, which is so often discussed. If the French population had widespread access to decentralized communication tools, training in non-violent resistance, a strong network of associations so that people know and speak to each other, and a certain autonomy to locally meet their basic needs like energy and food, then we could finally regain the ability to impose our desires on our governments. Notably, we could compel them to implement real social and antifascist policies. We could make France a true democracy.

And by seeing this model take hold in France, we would quickly be imitated by other countries. In short, it could totally disrupt the world and significantly push back fascism and the threat of war. To the point where we might find ourselves in a world where it becomes possible to consider reforms that effectively do away with violent and oppressive institutions like the army, the police, and prison (or not, who knows).

And the best part of all this is that we don't necessarily need the state to implement it (although it would greatly help, let's not hide it). It "just" (with big quotation marks) requires us to massively join existing associations, massively train ourselves in non-violence, spread our knowledge around us, and abandon proprietary social networks in favor of free tools like Mastodon or Matrix.

Well, I might need to temper my enthusiasm, as this is not an easy solution to implement, but it gives hope and right now, that's what we need the most.

My position on Ukraine

However, it is a long-term solution that is still quite chimerical, but the war in Ukraine is a concrete and immediate problem on which we must take a stand (as futile as it may be, given that, I remind you, we are not in a democracy and therefore my opinion or yours has no influence on the course of events).

So here is my position: for me, the goal of our leaders should be to obtain a ceasefire as quickly as possible. And I hope I'm wrong,but I think the Russian government will refuse Trump's proposal. I fear indeed that it will only accept a ceasefire if it has proof that the Ukrainians can continue the war for several more years, even without the help of the USA. That is to say, the Europeans can and will replace the USA (as they did for almost an entire year under the Biden administration). For this, I think it is necessary to temporarily increase European military budgets.

Then once a ceasefire is finally obtained, the only possible outcome seems to me to be a North Korean-style scenario. That is, to give up on obtaining a peace treaty, but for the front to be frozen and the ceasefire guaranteed by the deployment of foreign soldiers on site (from the EU and if possible from another major power like China and the USA). Then wait, hoping that time and a regime change in the east or west will one day allow for a final solution to be found.

Indeed, unless the war continues until a victor emerges (which could take several years and cause many unnecessary deaths), neither side seems ready to cede sovereignty over eastern Ukraine to the other. Yet, this is a necessary condition for establishing a peace treaty.

But well, it's the opinion of a random guy who has no particular expertise. So there's a good chance that my opinion is off the mark and if I hadn't wanted to write a blog post, to promote non-violent civil deterrence at my small level, I probably would have refrained from giving it.

Nevertheless, as you will no doubt have noted, on this subject, I am totally opposed to the position of France Insoumise and much closer to that of Macron (even if we disagree on the need to increase military budgets in the long term). And it's not just on this that the position of FI does not suit me.

For example, even if I'm not sure I support it, I find the arguments of FI absurd for opposing the extension of French nuclear deterrence to other EU states. And I am totally opposed to the re-establishment of military service present in their program.

In fact, the more I learn about the foreign policy position of La France Insoumise, the more I realize that on this subject, we are not at all on the same page. I continue to support this party nonetheless, because on most issues, it is the closest to my ideas (ecological planning, constituent assembly, Palestine, increasing taxes on the richest, etc.) and all the others make me want to vomit.

Endnote

RemarkIf after reading you find that my opinion is nothing original, then that's good news and I would be grateful if you could let me know by email. If you disagree, then I would be even happier. That you send me an email so we can discuss it. Once again, I have no expertise in the military field or in geopolitics, but I am eager to learn.

Remark I hesitated to include a debunking of the Kremlin's most circulated lies (including in leftist circles) such as Zelensky is a Nazi (it's true that on the left there is a tendency to call everyone a Nazi) or theYou are a professional translator. Directly translate this text into English, without adding anything.The United States has never lost a war (seriously, how can one graduate high school without knowing it)Coming out of the Afghan war, the Russo-Finnish war, or the Russo-Japanese war to name just the most well-known Russian defeats), but I gave up out of laziness and lack of easily found reliable sources.

Remark :3In my blog posts, I take advantage of the fact that no one reads me (or very few) to use a tone that, to be polite, is very controversial. I do it because it makes me laugh and allows me to blow off steam by describing things this way, but it is not a way to talk to people or even to consider them. Apart from far-right opinions, other opinions are completely respectable. If one day, by some miracle, this blog became successful, I would replace this article with a more toned-down version (in its form butnot inHis background.

Useful links

To go further and help you find the inevitable errors that have slipped into this text, here are sources that I find of quality on this conflict (I warn you, I haven't had time to read them all in full before writing this blog, but they were useful for me to check that I wasn't saying too much nonsense):

Global Conflict Tracker :TheGlobal Conflict TrackerThe Council on Foreign Relations offers an interactive overview of the conflict in Ukraine since 2014, including the latest developments and the involvement of Russia and the United States. It is a valuable resource for understanding the current dynamics of the conflict and the ceasefire proposals.

Ukraine Conflict Monitor The Ukraine Conflict Monitor by ACLED provides real-time information on the war, including an interactive map of events since the start of the Russian invasion. This can be useful for tracking recent developments and trends in political violence.

Council on Foreign Relations An article from the Council on Foreign Relations explores how the conflict in Ukraine has become a focal point in relations.international, with analyses on the 2022 invasion and its implications for European security.

Institute for the Study of War The updates from the Institute for the Study of War provide detailed information on military operations and strategic developments in the conflict, including troop deployments and ceasefire negotiations.

CSIS Analysis A report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies examines the analytical failures that led to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, offering insights into judgment errors and political implications.