Articles

The Left and the Question of Defence, by Hanna Perekhoda – 24 August 2025

Slogans calling for the abolition of war no longer belong to the realm of politics. A serious discussion must start from the reality of threats and not confuse militarism, which must be rejected, with the defence of a democratic space in which it remains possible to fight neoliberalism.

A recent discussion on rearmament and militarisation helped me clarify my thoughts. I am aware that my position is not shared by many on the left, and that does not bother me. I simply hope that it will open up a space for honest reflection, both for myself and for others.

Before we even begin to talk about defence, we must ask ourselves a fundamental question: are we facing a real threat? And to answer that, we must define what we mean by ‘we’.

At the national level, for most countries in Central and Western Europe, there is no risk of direct military invasion. And many populists on the left and right speak only in national terms: ‘There is no military threat to our nation, so why spend money on defence?’

But this position is counterproductive. By stoking isolationist sentiments, the left is playing into the hands of the far right. The far right is more consistent because it promotes selfishness in all areas, so the left will always lose this game.

If we take a European perspective instead, we have to admit that yes, Europe as a whole is under threat. However, the form of this threat varies from place to place.

The threat? Russian domination in the East, far-right governments in the West

If we include Ukraine in our conception of Europe, then the war is already here, and it is enormous. However, European arms production is far from sufficient to cover even Ukraine’s immediate needs. This means that production must be increased and weapons sent where they are needed.

For countries west of Ukraine, the danger does not come from tanks rolling towards Berlin. A plausible scenario would be a provocation in the Baltic states, designed to test the credibility of European deterrence. What constitutes an invasion and what does not is always a matter of interpretation. Do not forget that Russian fighter jets are already violating the airspace of other countries. Step by step, they are testing how far they can go.

From Putin’s point of view, the scenario is tempting. Because he believes that Western Europe will not fight for a few million Estonians, Lithuanians or Moldovans. And he has good reasons for believing this. If the major states do indeed decide that it is not worth it, then their deterrence will collapse.

For decades, Europeans have relied on US military power. But this security mechanism is crumbling. The problem is that the strategic sectors necessary for the functioning of European armies depend almost entirely on the United States: air transport, satellite intelligence, ballistic missiles, air defence, etc.

If the United States withdraws, European countries’ defence systems will become completely inoperative. The reality today is that the existence of European countries depends on Trump’s far-right regime, which is unlikely to respond in the event of an invasion. They are also vulnerable to Putin’s far-right regime, which is rearming, mobilising and actively seeking confrontation.

The Baltic states, Poland and Finland must therefore rebuild their stocks and strengthen their infrastructure. When your neighbour is the world’s second largest military power, bombs cities on a daily basis, devotes a third of its budget to war and describes your country as a ‘mistake of history’, the ability to defend yourself cannot be dismissed as an arms race. It is a matter of survival. But this survival is only possible with the help of Western European allies, as no Eastern European country is capable of producing the necessary weapons and facing the Russian army alone.

In Western Europe, the threat is different. It is less about invasion than the rise of the far right. For Putin, Trump and J. D. Vance, the ideal scenario is clear: an Eastern Europe under Russian domination, a Western Europe led by far-right governments that accept their vision of a world divided into authoritarian spheres of influence.

Here, defence takes on a different meaning: fighting disinformation, protecting infrastructure, blocking foreign money in politics, defending against cyberattacks, sabotage and energy blackmail. And helping those who immediately need weapons to survive.

In short: we must adapt our tools to the threats. And above all, we must stop thinking solely in narrow national terms. For it is precisely this national logic that has fuelled centuries of war, destruction and division on the European continent.

Defence and militarism

So where does this leave us? I think we need to distinguish between militarism and defence.

Militarism is war as a commercial opportunity, motivated by capitalist profit. It also means placing war at the centre and subordinating the whole of society to it. Defence is society’s ability to protect itself against aggression. And today, when the three greatest military powers are openly threatening to invade other countries – China wants to annex Taiwan, the United States has mentioned Greenland, and Russia is already waging war in Ukraine – we cannot pretend that the issue of defence does not exist.

The problem is not production itself. The problem is letting the market decide what is produced, for whom and according to what rules. That is where the real battlefield lies. Who decides? For what purpose? Under what conditions? And that is where the left has a crucial role to play when it comes to weapons: imposing strict rules on exports, transparency in contracts, democratic control over their destination.

Today, even within my own organisation, I hear people say, ‘We don’t have the capacity to impose such rules.’ And I reply, ‘Do we have more capacity to abolish war and weapons across the planet?’

At this point, we must be honest. Slogans about abolishing war are no longer political. They are much closer to religion, insensitive to the demands of reality. When we make supposedly radical demands without any means of achieving them and without any mass organisation in sight, the practical result is simple: we leave the field open to those who are already in power. They will then organise their defence entirely according to their own rules and interests. And we will get exactly the militarism we claim to be fighting.

We can, of course, claim that adopting maximalist positions will sharpen contradictions, deepen social divisions and precipitate the collapse of the bourgeois state. And that this collapse will bring revolution, the final struggle. Despite the fact that the far right is strong. Even if this leads to a militarised dictatorship rising up alongside us. Because we are betting that when our state collapses, the populations of neighbouring militarised dictatorships will rise up – and that in our country, it will be us, not the far right, who will take power.

Okay… But let’s be serious for a moment. What are the chances of people revolting in militarised, far-right, illiberal states subject to mass surveillance? And in a world of naked violence, where power is decided by force of arms, what chance does today’s left really have against the far right?

Politics is not a matter of fantasy. It is about analysing the real balance of power and advancing one’s goals within that framework. The question before us is therefore simple: what is the realistic position of the European left under the current conditions?

For me, it must start from two simultaneous requirements:

* First, to guarantee the structural survival of a democratic space.

* Second, to fight from within this space to redefine its political and social content.

This means fighting twice as hard against neoliberal policies, but without abandoning the democratic framework in which this struggle is still possible.

Indeed, the European project – and, in fact, the model of liberal democracy in general – is completely contradictory. It protects against arbitrary political power, but leaves people defenceless against the arbitrariness of capital. Incidentally, the contradiction was reversed in so-called socialist states: there was some protection against economic arbitrariness, but no protection against political power.

The problem is that those who today have the capacity and the declared will to dismantle this project are regimes in which citizens are protected neither from political oppression nor from economic oppression.

We began by asking ourselves what we mean by ‘we’. Of course, from the left’s point of view, this does not refer to a nation state or a European community, but to a global working class. However, I think we must bear in mind that neither human life, nor workers’ rights, nor the environment can be protected in a state that falls within the ‘sphere of influence’ of autocratic, extractivist imperialist powers such as Putin’s Russia, Trump’s United States or Xi Jinping’s Party-State China.

In a world dominated by unchecked great power politics, progressive organisations and their values are always destroyed, first politically and then physically.

Liberal democracy is full of contradictions. But these are contradictions against which we can fight from within. Freedom to form trade unions, women’s rights, social policies, international solidarity – none of these are abstract concepts, but refer to material infrastructures that depend on our ability to preserve the small space of freedom that has been opened up in our societies at the cost of great sacrifice.

Breaking free from identity filters

In this regard, it should be emphasised that there is no clear dividing line between domestic and foreign policy when it comes to trivialising brutality. This applies to the right… as well as to the left.

Neoliberals who condemn abuses of power abroad while promoting a Darwinian logic at home are thus in total dissonance. Worsening inequalities and a growing sense of injustice are undermining the legitimacy of so-called democratic states. This creates fertile ground for the rise of fascist and populist forces, which exploit these divisions by claiming that governments are sacrificing the interests of the people for the sake of causes presented as distant — such as support for Ukraine.

But Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s rhetoric, which denounces social injustices but is soft on authoritarian regimes that present themselves as ‘anti-American’, is also discordant. A society that tolerates — or even encourages — cynicism on the international stage will inevitably end up normalising these same dynamics in its internal social relations, and vice versa.

Public opinion is also becoming fragmented. For some, there is ‘genocide in Gaza’ but not ‘war in Ukraine’. For others, it is the opposite. Positions are filtered by identity affiliations, which are themselves amplified by social media algorithms, producing almost impermeable information bubbles. The real double standard is therefore not only found in institutions: it is also found in our own identity filters. This is not inevitable, but it does require effort. The effort to view victims of aggression as individuals in their own right, and not simply as opportunities to score points in French politics.

***

Now a few words about the concrete measures that can be taken in Switzerland, where I live. Switzerland is not an island. Instability in the EU immediately affects Swiss security. Once again, Switzerland seems to be reverting to its old role: that of a refuge for war criminals and their money.

That is why we must take action:

• Against Switzerland’s strategy of hiding behind its ‘neutrality’ while doing business with war criminals. Against banking secrecy and tax havens that make Switzerland a haven for the corrupt and criminals.

• For tougher sanctions and maximum diplomatic measures against states that commit war crimes and violate international law.

• For the confiscation of hundreds of billions of frozen Russian assets and their use to finance Ukraine’s defence and European security. Some fear that this will set a dangerous precedent. They are right! Justice is always a dangerous precedent in a system designed to protect the rich. But it is the only precedent worth setting.

• For the re-export of arms to Ukraine and against the sale of arms to dictatorships and states that violate international law.

• Against spending billions on ‘national defence’. Switzerland is not threatened by Germany, France or Italy. This money should instead contribute to collective European security.

• For the abandonment of Russian fossil fuels and massive investment in renewable energies. Energy independence is synonymous with security. Every franc spent on Russian gas is a franc spent on Putin’s war.

Hanna Perekhoda is a historian from Donetsk, Ukraine, and a doctoral student at the Institute of Political Studies at the University of Lausanne.

The French original of this article originally appeared on Hanna Perekhoda’s blog. This English translation, by Daniel Mang, first appeared on the Left Renewal Blog.

, , , ,
Views: 153
More content from this blog
, , , ,