"As long as Putin is in the Kremlin, the war will not end": Fire Point co-owner Shtilerman, in an op-ed for Le Monde, called on the West to make Putin's removal

As long as Vladimir Putin remains in the Kremlin, Russia’s war against Ukraine will not truly end—even if he signs a ceasefire and talks about “peace.” Therefore, Europe and the United States must set the removal of Putin from power as a strategic objective. Denis Shtilerman, co-owner and chief designer of Fire Point, writes this in a column for the French newspaper Le Monde, reports UNN.

Details

Shtilerman begins with a parallel to the film "The Death of Stalin": a regime that had seemed unshakable just a day earlier began to falter as soon as the dictator was gone. In his view, this is precisely how the West should look at Putin—not speculate about who might oppose him, but take concrete measures capable of accelerating his fall: in the political, economic, military and intelligence spheres.

Ukraine and its partners have learned to strike Russia’s war machine, while sanctions, isolation and diplomatic pressure are necessary, the author notes. But neither missiles nor sanctions alone eradicate Russian militarism: they weaken the Kremlin’s means, while its core remains intact. Putin may well sign a ceasefire, Shtilerman writes, but that will change nothing.

As long as he remains in the Kremlin, the war against Ukraine will not truly end

Why Putin needs war

In the author’s view, Putin needs a permanent conflict—not necessarily an armed one: an open war in Ukraine, a hybrid or even open war in Europe, and a global one against the West. His rule requires an enemy, a sense of a besieged fortress and constant mobilization. If Putinism previously secured loyalty through stability and rising incomes, it is now sustained by fear, revanchism and the myth of restoring the empire.

Peace would confront Putin with questions that would be more dangerous to answer than continuing to fight: what hundreds of thousands of people died and were wounded for, what will happen to the armed and traumatized veterans who return home feeling betrayed, and how to explain that Ukraine, which he promised to “break,” survived.

What Shtilerman proposes

The co-owner of Fire Point emphasizes that this is not about invading Russia or installing a pro-Western puppet there—who governs the country will be decided by Russians themselves. But weakening Russia is not enough; Putin’s personal power must be weakened. To this end, he proposes four steps.

Destroy the myth of Putin as the “defender of Russia.” According to Shtilerman, strikes on Russian territory have not only a military but also a political objective: they disprove Putin’s promise that Russians can wage war without consequences for themselves.

Not a week goes by without my drones and missiles striking his country

Russians, he adds, must understand: the war came to them because Putin brought it to Ukraine first.

Turn Putin’s inner circle from his shield into a weak spot. Those who finance the war, carry out criminal orders or conceal his wealth must lose their assets, freedom of movement and their families’ future in the West. The author recalls that after Putin’s March meeting with business leaders, Russian billionaires reportedly transferred about 400 billion rubles (€4–4.2 billion) to the budget in “voluntary” contributions to cover the deficit and military expenditures—and must be held accountable for it.

Strip Putin of legitimacy in the West. The ICC arrest warrant against him and the special tribunal concerning the crime of aggression must not remain a formality: the tribunal must bring charges against named individuals, and the warrant must be enforced.

Negotiations with Russia, Shtilerman suggests, may be necessary, but not Putin’s rehabilitation: no summit should restore the status quo with the person responsible for the biggest war in Europe since 1945.

Make the prospect of a future without Putin a reality. The allies must agree on an offer for post-Putin Russia: gradual easing of sanctions, restoration of economic ties and security dialogue—in exchange for the withdrawal of troops, the return of abducted Ukrainian children, reparations and a commitment to comply with international law.

Stilerman acknowledges that Putin’s departure does not guarantee a democratic Russia: his successor could turn out to be brutal, revanchist, and hostile toward the West. But it would no longer be Putin—and in his view, that is the crucial difference. Putin’s disappearance does not promise lasting peace, he concludes, but his remaining in power guarantees that there will be no peace.

We remind you

In July, Stilerman stated that the war could end only after a full return to the 1991 borders, and warned that freezing the war at its current stage would have negative consequences for Ukraine’s security and economy. At the time, he also confirmed that a Flamingo missile had struck the Avitek plant in Kirov, which produces components for the Tor air defense system and Kh-101 missiles.