Understanding the Nature of War: Lessons from Raymond Aron and the Ukraine Conflict
Four years into the Russian war against Ukraine, a critical question remains: has Europe truly understood the nature of this conflict, and defined a clear objective for its support of Ukraine? Drawing on the work of French philosopher and political scientist Raymond Aron, it’s becoming increasingly clear that a fundamental misdiagnosis of the conflict hinders effective strategy. To effectively aid Ukraine, Europe must recognize this war as one of civilizational annihilation, a realization currently obscured by hesitant formulas and a lack of strategic clarity.
Raymond Aron and the Essence of War
Raymond Aron, in his 1968 book Democracy and Totalitarianism, emphasized the importance of accurately understanding the nature of a war before defining its objectives. His work, based on lectures given in 1957 and 1958 at the Sorbonne, highlighted the dangers of projecting one’s own categories onto an enemy, a mistake made by European monarchies facing the French Revolution. They failed to grasp the revolutionary nature of their opponent, leading to strategic missteps. Aron argued that politics must accurately determine the end, conditioned by a precise appreciation of the war’s circumstances.
Echoes of 1792: A Failure of Understanding
The current situation in Ukraine mirrors this historical pattern. Initial responses to the 2022 invasion were characterized by ambiguous goals: “as long as it takes,” “don’t humiliate Russia,” and attempts to position Ukraine for negotiation. These formulas, while seemingly supportive, lacked a clear articulation of the desired end state. This echoes the errors of 1792, where European powers underestimated the revolutionary fervor and total mobilization of France.
Putin’s Russia: A Neo-Totalitarian Regime
Aron’s analysis extends to understanding the adversary. Putin’s Russia, he would argue, is not merely an authoritarian regime, but a neo-totalitarian one. Driven by the ideology of the “Russian World” – the belief that all Russian-speaking territories belong to Moscow and that Ukraine lacks legitimate nationhood – the regime is engaged in a war of civilizational annihilation. This manifests as a total war aiming to destroy the adversary, encompassing terrorism against civilians, denial of Ukrainian identity, and cognitive warfare to subvert and demoralize.
The West’s Conceptual Failure
The West’s persistent characterization of Russia as a mere “authoritarian regime” and the invasion as a “territorial conflict” represents a critical failure of diagnosis. This mirrors the historical tendency to impose comforting categories onto a reality that defies them. This mischaracterization prevents the formulation of an effective strategy, leading to hesitant actions and a lack of decisive support for Ukraine.
A Reversal of Roles
Interestingly, Putin also miscalculated. He anticipated a swift victory over a corrupt and divided state, failing to recognize the patriotic and revolutionary mobilization of the Ukrainian people. While Putin wages a totalitarian war, he underestimated the strength of the Ukrainian response, where the people, army, and government are aligned.
The Need for a Clear End State
Aron’s work underscores the importance of defining a clear political end state. Simply providing aid “as long as it takes” or seeking to avoid Russian humiliation is insufficient. A coherent strategy requires specific goals: the withdrawal of Russian forces from all Ukrainian territory, the return of deported children, and Ukraine’s integration into European security architectures. Without a defined end, strategy devolves into a series of disconnected actions.
Beyond Formulas: A Call for Strategic Clarity
The current approach, characterized by empty formulas and a reluctance to define Putin’s defeat, is akin to a “half-measure,” as Clausewitz would describe it. Europe must move beyond procedural debates and embrace a political intelligence that accurately assesses the nature of the war and the adversary. This requires recognizing the conflict as a civilizational struggle and committing to the complete defeat of Russian aggression. Only then can Europe transform its expressions of support into a meaningful strategy and break the cycle of repetition that currently defines its response.
As Volodymyr Zelenskyy noted, the situation feels like reliving the same day repeatedly. Breaking this cycle requires a clear diagnosis, a defined end state, and a commitment to action. The lessons of Raymond Aron, and the echoes of history, demand nothing less.