Strike on an Aid Distribution: 29 Dead, and Peace Still Held Hostage by States

According to Mediapart, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky accused Russia on Monday of torpedoing any "progress towards peace" after a strike that killed at least 29 people during a humanitarian aid distribution in south-eastern Ukraine. Civilians who had come to fetch something to eat. That is the fact. We know no more than that: the dispatch does not say what Moscow replies, nor what independent sources say about the exact circumstances of the shooting. We will not invent it.

The dead first. Twenty-nine people, at least, whose lives ended in a queue. No diplomatic phrase brings them back.

Then comes the ritual. Kyiv accuses, Moscow will no doubt return the accusation, and every capital will talk about peace while preparing what comes next. What follows is our reading, not an established fact: the game of mutual blame serves first those who have an interest in nothing being settled quickly.

Cui bono? Let us ask it plainly. A long war profits the arms industries, whose order books fill up. It profits states that gain influence, markets, and a neighbour weakened or dependent. It also profits leaders who, in the name of national unity, push back the reckoning their peoples might demand of them. The dispatch does not give these figures; the structure, however, is well known.

The most useful framework remains that of imperialism. Lenin saw great powers and financial blocs competing for markets, raw materials and spheres of influence, then dressing that rivalry up in sanctions, alliances and arms contracts. Applied here, the idea is simple: what is at stake in a peace is not only a ceasefire, but the division of what lies behind the front line. Land, ports, corridors, reconstruction. Who will control what, and who will cash in?

This is where "hopes for peace" collide with state interests. A state is not a neutral arbiter. It manages the affairs of its ruling classes, and it negotiates accordingly. As long as each side judges that a compromise would cost it more than it brings, talks serve mainly as a shop window. Phrases are exchanged; on the ground, strikes are exchanged.

We will be told of an "order based on rules". On that day, the rules did not protect a line of people who had come to collect aid. Nor did the agendas of the chancelleries.

What we still do not know weighs heavily: who fired exactly, with what intention, and which independent inquiry will establish the facts. This must be established, named and documented. But an inquiry will not be enough. As long as peace depends on calculations between rival states rather than on pressure from those who suffer the war, on both sides of the front, the dead will continue to serve as rhetorical ammunition. The 29 of Monday deserve better than an escalation of communiqués.