Which hell are we going to? We don’t ask ourselves this question often enough when we think about the conflict in Ukraine.
Of course, from the first hours of the invasion, we in the West wondered what we could do to support the Ukrainians without getting into a frontal war with Moscow.
With reason. This invasion was repulsive.
But as the weeks go by, the caution of the first few days fades.
It even disappears, and a direct confrontation between the Westerners and the Russians looms on the horizon. Or more precisely, perhaps between the Americans and the Russians, with Europe as the battlefield.
Anyone who is not prepared to take the next step in the escalation of the conflict each time is accused of falling into culpable cowardice. Going to extremes without becoming inevitable is increasingly being presented as a credible hypothesis.
We don’t know which face it would take. But we do know that it would potentially represent a point of no return, as if the world spiraled forever.
This is what drives Henri Guaino, the French intellectual and former special adviser to Nicolas Sarkozy, to say that we are approaching war like sleepwalkers.
Some consider negotiating with an authoritarian regime, and even more so with an authoritarian and intrusive regime, to be a morally acceptable gesture.
I understand you.
But we have to wonder if the climb to the extremes is more like that.
One has to ask oneself, three months after the invasion, if there is a way out to prevent the world from igniting.
This means that we have to imagine a scenario where each of the main players in this conflict saves face.
Because the other side is well known: an authoritarian regime in disorder can be tempted by absolute supremacy. Need we remind you that this superiority with Russia could be nuclear?