By adopting the Kremlin’s talking points, Trump has also performed a major reversal of meaning: the Russian aggressor would be a victim, and also the most fervent supporter of peace. This gift handed on a silver platter to his “misunderstood” comrade Vladimir must nevertheless fit into Trump’s media agenda in return: a 30-day ceasefire proposal, accepted by Ukrainians, as further proof of Trump’s genius for quickly securing good deals.

Peace According to Putin: Crushing a Free and Independent Ukraine

Putin’s late response was particularly evasive, suggesting that more discussions with his American partner were needed. Thus, the ceasefire is no longer a prerequisite for negotiation, but an opportunity for Moscow to set maximalist prerequisites conditioning any ceasefire. According to the Washington Post, these are Putin’s imposed conditions: formal recognition by Ukraine of Russian sovereignty not only over Crimea but also over the four regions partially occupied by the Russian army (from 20% of territories currently occupied by the Russian army, this would increase to 30% of Ukrainian territory...); Zelensky’s removal through new elections, accompanied by Kyiv’s obligation to renounce NATO membership and the immediate cessation of Western military aid to Ukraine; the prohibition of deploying European peacekeeping forces in Ukraine and the drastic reduction of Ukrainian army personnel, from approximately one million soldiers to a few tens of thousands.

This is indeed a way of paving the way for other invasions to come. Peace for Putin consists of purely and simply ending a free and independent Ukraine.

Concrete Support for Ukraine

There is more than ever an urgency to support politically—and, inseparably, militarily—the Ukrainian resistance. Rather than the national rearmament plans promoted by European governments, which discard ecological transition and social rights, Ukraine needs concrete support to continue resisting: immediate investments in Ukrainian industries that desperately lack resources, provision of military production instead of massive exports to dictatorships in Gulf countries, cancellation of Ukrainian debt, and seizure of 200 billion in Russian assets that legitimately belong to Ukrainians.

The Nationalist Responses of the Left

While there is little hope of seeing this internationalist policy implemented by liberal and conservative governments, one might expect something different from the propaganda of the European radical left. It can be found in practice in the Finnish, Polish, or Danish left. But at the heart of Western imperialism, as in France, it is nationalist responses, marked by contempt for Ukrainians and Eastern European peoples, that predominate in the so-called radical left. The defence of “French agriculture,” “French interests,” or “historical relations with Russia” is a spit in the face of the cardinal principles of working-class internationalism.

It is also a way of preparing tomorrow’s defeats. The dynamics of international neofascism are inextricably linked to those of French neofascism. One cannot fight one without fighting the other. Ukrainians are on the front line against neofascist violence; to set the interests of Ukrainians against the interests of French workers is a historic mistake with potentially dramatic consequences.

Elias and Gin Vola

Click here to subscribe to ESSF newsletters in English and or French.