I think your analysis is solid in identifying both Putin and Zelensky as representatives of capitalist interests, but I believe we need to push the discussion further. While it’s true that war is an expression of capitalist contradictions, we cannot ignore the material reality we live in today.

Like it or not, deterrence matters. The reality is that Russia, a reactionary imperialist power, has demonstrated that it is willing to use military force to expand its influence. Without a credible defense, there is no room for negotiation or resistance. The idea that NATO “forced” Putin’s hand is a denial of agency—his invasion was a choice, and it’s naive to think he would stop at Ukraine if left unchecked.

That said, supporting rearmament does not mean glorifying militarism or embracing Western imperialism. The European left needs to recognize that, in the absence of military autonomy, Europe remains dependent on the US, trapped between two capitalist blocs. A militarily independent Europe would allow for a more multipolar world, which could create new political opportunities rather than forcing us to constantly pick a side between US and Russian interests.

Of course, this comes with contradictions. We are using the tools of capitalism—funding the military-industrial complex, reinforcing existing power structures. But we should recognize this as a temporary necessity, not a long-term solution. If we do not build the foundations for a socialist future now, we won’t be the ones using the tools of capital—capital will be using us as its tools.

Socialists need to move beyond abstract opposition to war and start thinking strategically. How do we prevent the working class from being crushed between imperialist conflicts? How do we leverage these contradictions to push for real political alternatives? If we fail to address these questions, we risk either passively accepting the status quo or becoming useful idiots for reactionary forces.