“Neither winners nor losers. It is the necessary compromise to start negotiating». Edgar Morin from his century of life suggests this solution to the Russia-Ukraine crisis. Solution that at the moment appears more utopian than realistic. But this is the task of the great old men: to mix utopia and realism. Morin does not give up the intellectual battle and his role of critical conscience. From war to warfrom today in the library (Raffaello Cortina publisher) is a distillation of reflections on an interminable twentieth century lived as a witness.
«I wanted to recall not only the terrible physical evils, but also the intellectual evils caused by wars, namely the lies, the unilateral visions, Manichaeism, hatred for the entire enemy people, for its culture, its language , his literary and artistic masterpieces and I wanted to help myself and the readers to develop this awareness, in the face of a war that risks leading to the worst, through a process of escalation and radicalization».
Monsieur Morin, are we entering World War III or are we already in it?
“We are in a war that is already globalized, but still militarily localized: we are being drawn towards a new world war, but it is still possible to escape from it”.
Putin is the “obvious” aggressor, as you write. After the annexation of Crimea, the escalation was predictable. Did the West not understand or did not want to understand?
«After the collapse of the USSR and the early years of Putin, there was a possibility of understanding between Russia and the USA, between Russia and Europe. Putin also came to Germany to make a very pro-European speech. But the will of the United States to maintain the monopoly of the world power, on the one hand, and, on the other, the wars of reconquest led by Russia in Chechnya and Georgia have led the United States, moreover at the request of Russia’s neighboring countries , to extend NATO up to an encirclement that the leaders have perceived as a threat”.
And what happened in Ukraine?
«The pro-Western Maidan revolution prompted the separatism of the Russian-speaking Donbass and the annexation of Crimea by Russia. Since 2014, a continuous and bloody war has continued between the Ukrainian power, supported by the United States, and the separatist provinces, fed militarily by Russia. In 2014 I raised the alarm about the risk of this abscess becoming generalized. In fact, in conditions of increasing tension, Putin decided to invade Ukraine with the aim of annexing it».
In his essay he openly criticizes certain aspects of Ukrainian power. Why?
«Ukraine, during the Soviet revolution, wanted to emancipate itself from Russia, but it was reconquered and integrated into the USSR. Bandera’s independence movement, a refugee in Germany, collaborated with Nazism during the German invasion and participated in the massacres of the Jews. By the Ukrainian authorities after the Maidan, Bandera is glorified as a hero of independence, concealing his dependence on Nazism under German occupation. The radicalization of the war led the Ukrainian authorities to develop an anti-Russian hypernationalism that went so far as to prohibit literature and music, that is, what Russia has produced best against the tsarist and Soviet despotisms, from Pushkin, Tolstoi, Chekhov to Solzhenicyn and Grossmann ».
What is your opinion of Zelensky?
«Zelensky turned out to be an extraordinary warrior leader and managed to get the economic and military aid which, together with the strategic prowess of the Ukrainian military leaders, saved Ukraine from annexation. But he now seeks victory more than liberation and I fear he refuses to negotiate, while the balance of current forces would permit negotiation, which unfortunately mutual hatreds make difficult. I fear that there is only a short view of the risks that he contributes to running on the world, not seeing that a generalization of the conflict would be a disaster first and foremost for Ukraine”.
And what is your opinion of Putin?
«Putin is at the same time the heir of the worst aspect of Stalinism, the police one, and, by resurrecting Holy Russia, of tsarist despotism. He has progressively become a cynical and cruel despot, and this character of him grows. But he is also a realist and knows how to back off and reduce his ambitions. It is not certain that a possible ousting of Putin will bring pacifist democrats to power. There is also the risk that he will be replaced by the worst ».
You are a scholar and a theorist of complexity and the Ukrainian situation is objectively complex. What is the realistic scenario for conflict resolution?
«The Russified Donbass should be recognized in its specificity: only a federal Ukraine could integrate it, not the present Ukraine. Whatever the political outcome for its territory, Donbass industry could depend on a Russian-Ukrainian condominium. Port cities such as Mariupol, and others too, could become free ports like Tangier was. Crimea, which during the war was populated by Tatars by Stalin, has recovered a part of its original population, but it is more Russified than Ukrainianized. It could be demilitarized and remain Russian. In short, all I do is indicate the possibilities for a compromise, which is necessary in any war where there are neither winners nor losers».
You lived through the Second World War as a young fighter and resistant. Do you think it is correct to compare Germany then with Russia today and Putin with Hitler?
“It is disproportionate to Hitlerize or Stalinize Putin. Hitler’s ideology was founded on the superiority of the Aryan race over all of humanity. Putin’s ideology is that of Great Russia.”
Monsieur Morin, you are of Jewish origins and lived as an agnostic with a passion for truth, Cartesian and Spinozian. How does she approach the 102 years of her birthday on July 8th?
«I want to continue being who I am, doing what I do, trying to offer my contemporaries a thought that addresses the complexity of the world and of human history, and this until my last breath».