Decolonisation: Bernard-Henri Lévy on decolonisation and the future of democracy

In this interview, Mr. Lévy discusses how the West’s failure to support emerging democracies has fueled the rise of authoritarianism, how the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan paved the way for Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and what distinguishes helping fledgling democracies from colonial interference.

Considering the recent developments in the Middle East, I’d like to begin by discussing your latest work. You recently published a book called Israel Alone. Could you share a bit about it?

I decided to write about the events on 7 October (the Hamas attack on Israel – ed.). The following day, 8 October, I rushed to the south of Israel, taking the first available flight. I visited the villages and kibbutzim that had suffered devastation, meeting survivors amidst ongoing conflicts and terrorists organising ambushes. I was horrified by what I witnessed, and it triggered the same reflex I experienced in Ukraine ten years ago, shortly after the war began, and two and a half years into the full-scale invasion. In Ukraine, I felt compelled to shoot footage and create films; in Israel, I chose to write. For me, this is part of the same struggle: two fronts in the battle for liberty, freedom, democracy, and human rights against tyranny, barbarism, and genocide.

Can you explain why you chose to focus on Ukraine and Israel, and elaborate on your idea of these being two fronts of the same war?

Because in both cases, I understood that something huge was happening — something that I call “an Event” with a capital E in my philosophical work. You have a lot of events in history; there are millions of events a day. But suddenly, there is one event that has some strange characteristics. First, nobody expects it to be in the shape it takes. Second, it is somewhat unprecedented. Finally, it not only has enormous consequences but also reshapes the world map. I felt this immediately on 7 October and on 24 February 2022 (the start of Russia’s all-out war against Ukraine – ed.). When the Russians launched the full-scale invasion, I realised that we had entered an entirely new world — that it would never be the same for Ukraine, Europe, or the paradigm of political affairs that arose from there. Both cases felt like such “Events”, which are pretty rare — there may be two, three, or four of them in a century. You can count them on one hand. Two of them are there.

Since the 1970s, you’ve criticised communism, and you predicted the totalitarian approaches demonstrated by leaders like Putin, Erdoğan, and Xi Jinping before anyone else. How did you manage to be right about so many issues that others failed to see?

It may have been a chance — or perhaps because I inhabit, mentally and intellectually, the crossroads between philosophy and the ground. I reference my book from ten years ago, The Empire and the Five Kings, which articulated precisely what you mentioned. Democracies — not only in the West, but the democratic spirit in general — had to confront a new international of totalitarian states. This includes Russia, first and foremost; China in the background; Iran, a key ally; the Islamist international represented by Qatar, the Taliban, and so on; and Turkey. These five kings, akin to the five kings in the Bible, decided to dismantle the empire of freedom. The distinguishing characteristic of these five kings was that they were once great empires — brilliant civilisations that declined, collapsed, and now, before our eyes, sought to revive themselves. They aimed to restore their power because they sensed a weakness — a void in the world of democracies. When I wrote the book, my focus was not on Ukraine but on Kurdistan. I was involved with the Kurdish liberation movement at the time and embedded in their war against the Islamic State. I saw how brave the Kurds were, how they prevailed against ISIS, how they did the job alone and for all of us — Western Europeans and Americans. They were our shield and sword. However, when the job was done, we in the West — Europe and America — did something incredible. We abandoned them. Our leadership said, “They did the job; it’s finished. We don’t need them any longer.” And then I saw how Turkey, Syria, Iran, Russia, and China — all these dark forces — realised the West couldn’t protect its allies. They saw our weakness in abandoning those who had shed blood for us as an opportunity to move forward. This segment of Kurdish history provided me with insight. I envisioned a new world emerging, marked by weak America and Europe, which the five former empires aimed to exploit. I firmly believe that the full-scale invasion of Ukraine would never have happened if Putin had not interpreted our betrayal of the Kurds as a signal of the West’s decline. When Putin saw how we treated our allies — how we abandoned the Kurds, betrayed the Afghans, and neglected the democrats in Syria, like when Trump decided to pull out troops and sent a clear signal to Bashar al-Assad — he recognised these as three clear signals. The signal was clear: “We, the empire of freedom, are withdrawing. The time is yours now, five kings.”

You mentioned that the withdrawal from Afghanistan is directly linked to the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. You were actually in Afghanistan and saw the situation firsthand. Could you briefly explain what was happening there before the US withdrawal?

I was in Afghanistan a few months before the Taliban takeover. I was in Kabul and Panjshir with the son of the legendary commander [Ahmad Shah] Massoud (an Afghan military commander who led the anti-Soviet resistance in the 1980s and fought the Taliban until his assassination in 2001 – ed.). I witnessed a civil society rising, a free press developing, and women unveiling their faces. At that time, the Taliban were hiding in the villages, only sticking their noses out at night. They were defeated. Then suddenly, the Americans, under Trump, decided to organise discussions with the Taliban in Qatar. Why? For what purpose? Nobody knew. The Americans decided that enough was enough and they had too many troops there. Even today, there are tens of thousands of them in Western Europe. In contrast, they only had 8,000 in Afghanistan, entrenched in their barracks with no casualties in the past two years. And that was sufficient to provide a climate of security that allowed women to unveil and a free press to emerge. But the Americans suddenly decided to deliver the country to the Taliban on a silver platter. It was so unexplainable that it could only have served as a green light, a signal to leaders like Kim Jong Un in North Korea, Khamenei in Iran, and most importantly, Putin in Russia. So, mechanically, Putin interpreted this story as authorisation to move.

Western intervention — whether military, financial, or diplomatic — is often framed as colonialism, especially in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Should the West persist in its efforts to build democracies around the world, or should it only intervene when the local population genuinely seeks democracy?

To build democracy out of nothing, without genuine desire from the people themselves, is useless, and there’s no need to do it. However, to help people build democracy when they wish for it, fight for it, ask for help, and genuinely need assistance is what we must do. This is why, for example, there’s a difference between the U.S. war in Iraq and the half-hearted efforts in Afghanistan. The 2003 U.S. intervention in Iraq was a mistake because, for various reasons, there was no democratic movement starting from the country itself. This led to a kind of democratic messianism, as if democracy could just appear out of the blue, imposed by the West. This approach does not work. In Afghanistan, the situation was very different. My first trip to Afghanistan dates back to 1981. I saw a growing desire for democracy. I witnessed people expressing the will to share our values — the values of Europe. They were saying, “Those values are not yours – they are universal; they are our values too.” They felt that we belonged to the same family, the same club, and that we were together. What they were asking for was just help. Given this, we had a duty to intervene. Qualifying that as colonialist or imperialist only proves that those who make such claims have lost their moral and political compass. When Americans or Europeans support Ukraine — though not to the extent I would like, but they do support it — it is not colonialism. What Russia does, however, is colonialism. It is conceptually accurate to label it imperialism and colonialism. So, people who make these arguments have lost not only their morals but also their intellectual compass.

You mentioned the support for Ukraine, which is significant. However, as you also noted, it often feels slow and sluggish — not just in military aid but also in areas like information warfare. What do you think is the role of political and civic leaders in explaining this threat? Why aren’t they doing enough to bring this message to the public — that the West is already at war with Russia, Iran, and China?

I see my country, for example. We have well-meaning allies, like President Macron, who is a true ally of Ukraine and a good friend of your president. He has a lot of goodwill, and it’s not just him — civil society in France is supportive too. There are many people in France, with demonstrations happening in the streets of Paris, particularly at Place de la République (a major public square, traditionally used for holding demonstrations and public events – ed.), most Saturdays. Sometimes, the crowds are quite significant. So, there is widespread support, but we are being held hostage in a way. We, those who understand, are caught between two powerful forces. The first is the so-called political elite — experts in diplomatic affairs who often know very little but pretend to be specialists. The second is the pro-Putin faction in France, which has two sides: one on the right, led by Madame Le Pen (the leader of France’s largest far-right political party – ed.), and one on the supposed left, led by Mélenchon. If you look at our recent elections in France — both parliamentary and presidential—you’ll see that two-thirds of the population either supports or votes for pro-Putin parties. So, those who try their best to raise their voices have to fight against two-thirds of the country. On top of everything, you have so-called experts who know nothing but claim to know better than the people on the ground, advising what Zelenskyy should do in Toretsk (one of the key battlefields of the Russo-Ukrainian war as of October 2024 – ed.). The same is true in America. You have the “America First” crowd, the MAGA supporters, who seem convinced that Putin deserves “triple A” status and that he is a good man to talk to. They might even be in the White House in a few weeks.

Do you think that the left in Europe today has become a new vehicle for antisemitism and, in general, for the whitewashing of some anti-democratic tendencies?

Absolutely. First of all, I refuse to call them the left. They are right-wing. When you support dictators around the world — Putin, Kim Jong-un, and Maduro in Venezuela — when you say that Bashar al-Assad, the butcher of Syria, is doing a great job, and when you express condolences for Hassan Nasrallah of Hezbollah, how can you still be considered a leftist? For me, it’s an ethical refusal. These individuals are part of the extreme right now. They are, of course, the primary vehicle for pure and straightforward antisemitism in France. Antisemitism cannot have a place in our cities. Just a few days after 7 October, when Israel was still in shock, Mélenchon claimed that the demonstration against antisemitism was the “great rendezvous of the partisans of genocide” in France.

They occupy the same space as the extreme right; the only difference is that the right claims to be the “new saviours of Israel” while also stating that Putin is their friend. Can you explain why Putin and Russia are not friends of Israel?

Because they hate democracy, liberalism, civilization, and they hate Jews. This was one of Benjamin Netanyahu’s significant mistakes: he bought into Putin’s fake friendship. I remember in April 2022, after returning from my first trip to Ukraine and making my first documentary, Why Ukraine, I was horrified by what I witnessed. I had been close to Mariupol and met people from Azovstal. When I went to Israel, I urged the leadership, saying, “Open your eyes, open your ears — don’t be deaf and blind. Something huge is happening there. The real friendship and brotherhood is with Ukraine, not with Putin; otherwise, you will be the next target.” Two years later, Putin’s people were quietly preparing for 7 October in Beirut with Hezbollah and Iranian officials. We know this for sure. These preparation meetings included Russian officials. Furthermore, after 7 October, the Kremlin, Lavrov (Russia’s foreign minister – ed.), and others welcomed Hamas killers with congratulations and felicitations. Only then did Israeli leaders start to understand, but by that time, it was too late.

You were in Ukraine during the Orange Revolution in 2004, then during the Maidan, and since 2014, you’ve spent much time on the front line. You’ve often spoken about how the Ukrainian people are fighting for freedom, seeking democracy, and are willing to fight for it. Why do you think it took the West so long to understand this?

It always takes a long time for the West. How long did it take to acknowledge the Armenian genocide? How long did it take to recognise that, in 1936, during the Spanish Civil War against fascism, the world was at stake? How long did it take to understand that Hitler was a threat to the entire world? How long did it take to understand that the post-Stalinist regimes in Eastern Europe were fascist? Berlin in ’53 (suppressed civic protests for liberal reforms in Soviet-controlled East Germany – ed.) — we didn’t move. Budapest in ’56 (nationwide anti-Soviet rallies suppressed by a Soviet military invasion – ed.) — we didn’t move. Poland in ’56 (mass protests, demanding political reforms and autonomy from the USSR – ed.) — we didn’t move. Prague, Czechoslovakia, in August ’68 — we still didn’t move. And in Poland in 1981, during the workers’ revolt led by Lech Wałęsa, we had a foreign minister under François Mitterrand who said, “Nothing happens; it’s not our business.” Paradoxically, democracies are less late in supporting Ukraine than they have ever been. However, they still deliver weapons within this incremental support, as they call it, with a delay. It helps Ukraine prevent losses but does not aid in winning.

Hence, the West is always late; you could characterise it as one of its parameters. In the West, you have democracy, human rights, and being late. This is something we have to fight against. Maybe for the first time, people like me have been somewhat heard when it comes to Ukraine. In 2014, I was there and had the great honour of speaking on the Maidan twice. I told the West: “Please understand that there is more civilisation on this square than in all of Russia.” I said, “Consider that the fate of the West, our fate in France and Europe, is being decided here on this square.” My words fell into a void. The world woke up only in March 2022 — not even in February.

Sometimes, as Ukrainians, we place too much significance on Russian propaganda in the West and these imperial narratives. When we see delays in support, we often say, “Well, this is Russian influence, Russian propaganda.” Does the Russian imperial narrative about Ukraine and the region persist in the West, or is it more marginalised than before?

Yes, it is more marginalised. You have other voices advocating for Ukraine. For example, there’s the organisation Stand with Ukraine (an international solidarity movement that organises protests, social media campaigns, and fundraising efforts – ed.), which is very strong in France. The main speaker of this organisation, Mrs. Aline Le Bail-Kremer, is a powerful voice here. You also have intellectuals like Nicola Tanzer (a French political analyst and expert in international security issues – ed.), who is a strong advocate. Organisations like Desk Russie (a French online platform that focuses on Russia’s global influence – ed.), led by Galia Ackerman, are doing great work. Sarah Daniel in Le Observateur (a major weekly news magazine in France – ed.) contributes as well. Additionally, my films have been released on a major channel of French state television. When you see hundreds of thousands of people exposed to those images, it makes a difference; it has a mechanical effect. When a million people see the flooding in Kherson, the bravery of soldiers in Pokrovsk, the resilience of a small shelter in Toretsk, or the battle of Klishchiivka (the embattled cities in the east of Ukraine – ed.), these repeated exposures create an impact. So, in this regard, Putin’s propaganda is certainly countered. However, it still retains some influence.

But what about academia? Regarding Ukraine, academia still primarily relies on imperial narratives, often citing Russian sources. The concept of Ukraine and Eastern Europe is generally poorly articulated in universities.

It’s an ideological battle. The university is one of the battlegrounds, but it is overwhelmed by fake leftists who hold strong positions there. Yes, they are ready to buy into the propaganda that portrays Ukraine as a puppet of NATO, and NATO as a tool of American imperialism. One of their talking points is cultural appropriation. These fake leftists reject universalism; they don’t want what they call cultural appropriation. They don’t want a French or an American man speaking for Ukraine, so you should come and speak for yourself.

When we talked about the places you’ve reported from, like Afghanistan and the Kurds and their fight, you mentioned that these underrepresented nations are essential. Can you explain why you believe their stories need to be heard in the West?

Because no one cares, and it infuriates me. When no one cares, I feel it is the job of an intellectual to raise their voice. I remember being in Darfur during the genocide. The UN and NGOs stopped counting after 400,000 deaths — the counter was blocked. I was also in Rwanda, where genocide occurred, which is a direct responsibility of the French. I’ve been in other countries that are even less documented. I remember one day, about twenty years ago, the director of Le Monde (France’s largest national daily newspaper – ed.) came to me and asked me to do some reporting. I said I would do it, but with some conditions. My first criterion was that the war I wanted to cover had to last for at least ten years. The second criterion was at least 100,000 deaths. The third criterion was that Le Monde, the greatest magazine in Europe, had not covered it. They said, “Okay, don’t deal, let’s see.” The next day, I devised a program of six reports that corresponded precisely to those criteria.

In one of your interviews, you mentioned the liberation of Auschwitz and specifically pointed out that it was a Ukrainian unit that did it. I think it’s the first time I’ve ever heard someone say it that way, especially not from a Ukrainian. Why did you choose to be so specific?

Because it is true. Auschwitz was liberated by the First Ukrainian Front, which was predominantly composed of Ukrainians. The first person to enter Auschwitz was Anatolii Shapiro, a Jewish Ukrainian, who was the first to witness the horrific scenes inside. So why did I choose to emphasise this? First, it’s accurate and often overlooked. Second, it serves as a powerful counterargument against the Russian propaganda that claims to be denazifying Ukraine. Russia’s attempts to hijack the memory of the fight against Nazism are disgusting. While they were part of that fight, Ukrainians were another part and made the biggest sacrifice. A Ukrainian captain was involved in liberating Auschwitz.

We must stop the appropriation of anti-Nazi memory by those who perpetuate Nazism, like Putin. I remember when they launched an attack on Babyn Yar (Russian missiles hit Babyn Yar on 1 March, 2022 – ed.), I stated on French television that Ukrainians are the ones who liberated Auschwitz. Now, as the Russians bomb Babyn Yar, they prove themselves to be criminals and outright fascists. So I say it and I think it is more than important.