Zaporizhzhia: 33 dead at a humanitarian aid centre as war hits civilians

According to Le Monde, at least 33 people died the day after a Russian attack on a humanitarian aid distribution centre in the Zaporizhzhia region. Volodymyr Zelensky said more than 50 people could still be trapped under the rubble. The UN's human rights monitoring mission in Ukraine judges that the attack "appeared to have violated the most fundamental principles of international humanitarian law". The toll is provisional and could rise.

What we do not yet know: the precise circumstances of the strike, the weapon used, any justifications Moscow may offer. The dispatch does not give them. We will not invent them.

What is established is enough to assign a first responsibility. A site where people queue for food was hit. Civilians who were waiting for the means to live have died or are buried. The Russian state, which is waging this war, answers for its strikes. No fog needs to be maintained on that point.

But cui bono, this war? What follows is our reading, not an established fact. A war of this length cannot be explained by the will of one man alone, or by a "clash of values". It sits within the rivalry of great powers over territories, resources, markets and spheres of influence. Lenin saw in it the logic of capitalism at its monopoly stage: large corporations, backed by their states, seek outlets and carve up the world. When the carving-up no longer holds, it is redone by force.

Sanctions, arms contracts, military alliances, energy routes: all of this forms the political envelope of these rivalries. The people of Zaporizhzhia sit on none of these boards. They pay the bill.

States that speak of "international law" also have accounts to settle. Those that arm, finance and profit from the prolongation of the conflict: defence industries, suppliers, intermediaries. Each side invokes the defence of the homeland. Lenin already mocked such phrases, which serve to cover the interests of "its" bourgeoisie. The point here is not to erase the aggressor's responsibility, but to refuse to let outrage stop at the latest strike.

The UN observes, documents, qualifies. That is useful, and that is all. No binding mechanism is mentioned in the dispatch. Humanitarian law exists on paper; its application depends on the balance of power among those who are contesting the ground itself.

For now, teams are sifting through the rubble. The names of the victims, the final count, any judicial follow-up: all of this remains to be established. The underlying question, however, is well known: who benefits from this lasting?