In this war, evil has a name: Putin. That makes assigning blame easier, but not the way to end this war.
The world is becoming more and more complicated, it has often been said over the past thirty years since the fall of the Berlin Wall. And that was true: the crises since then have not had just one trigger, one reason or one “culprit”. Who or what was responsible for the financial crisis of 2008, that of the euro or the wave of refugees in 2015/16? The interrelationships were far too complex for a clear and reasonable answer to be given. Black and white were rare, there were just many different shades of gray.
This is different now. A year of war in Ukraine is also a year of the return of “good and evil”. Of black and white.
It starts with the question of guilt: Vladimir Putin clearly wanted this war, prepared it and started it a year ago. If he hadn’t, it wouldn’t have happened. Or does anyone think that Ukraine would then have attacked Russia?
The circumstances of the war are also clear: Putin allows this war to be waged almost without restraint against a defenseless civilian population, he lets the hatred and brutality of his soldiers and mercenaries run free. At the same time, he lets them die senselessly by the thousands at the front, as if their lives were worth nothing. He charges the whole of Russia with racism and fascism, and that too is clear: in the end, nothing, absolutely nothing, should be left of Ukraine. “There are no words for the pain and cruelty experienced by millions of Ukrainians,” said the Federal President.
As medieval as it sounds: “Evil” has a name and a face – Vladimir Putin.
This clarity is probably an important reason why the willingness to help has been great in Germany and why support for Ukraine has remained largely stable this year. The clear definition of “good and evil” has made it possible for a more left-wing government to quickly overcome its own political taboos in an emergency and to expect the country to undergo a “turning point” including military build-up and a drastic inflationary shock – without losing its followers just as drastically had. “Good and evil” held Germany together in this situation.
Not even those who call for immediate negotiations with Putin can avoid it – regardless of what that would mean for Ukraine and its people. Because “good and evil” is so clearly divided, there is so much criticism from those who want to blur the line between perpetrator and victim (for whatever reason). At the weekend, at the rally by Sahra Wagenknecht and Alice Schwarzer, both will be observed: the malicious or criminal blurring of cause and effect. And the justified outrage about it.
But it is also true that in other conflicts people started to think about how to “help” one or both warring parties “off the tree”. How to construct compromises that allow both sides to “save face”. How is that supposed to work now? What face should Ukrainians “let Putin save”? On the other hand, there is currently nobody, not even in the USA, who is seriously demanding a “regime change” in Moscow as a condition for the peace talks. So if Putin stands for “evil,” then he would bring it to the negotiating table — and Ukrainians would have to be willing to endure it. That’s going to take time.
As cynical as it sounds: the return of “good and evil” makes some things clearer. But not the way to the end of this war.
