Žižek on Alikhanov, Kant, and the Politics of “Deeds and Words”

The dispute over Kant and the war in Ukraine

Žižek revisits his earlier criticism of Anton Alikhanov, who had argued that Kant and German philosophy helped create the ethical conditions behind the war in Ukraine. Žižek treats these claims as politically significant and as a reminder of the deeper metaphysical stakes in the conflict.

Alikhanov’s defense of his speech

In his reply, Alikhanov says Žižek misread his argument by assuming hidden ideology where none was intended. He insists his speech was not meant to blame Kant directly, but to criticize the instrumentalization of Kantian ethics and the West’s use of universals to justify power and expansion.

Responsibility, autonomy, and Christian values

Alikhanov argues that true autonomy can include choosing tradition responsibly, and that Christian ethics offer an alternative to what he calls Western irresponsibility and utilitarian pragmatism. He presents Russia, along with Iran and China, as acting openly within its own ethical system rather than hiding its aims.

Žižek’s final irony

Žižek closes by pointing to what he sees as an irony in Alikhanov’s reasoning: if Ukraine is resisting Russia at great cost, that resistance itself seems to contradict the claim that Ukraine has simply chosen Western utilitarian pragmatism.

Key takeaways

• The essay is a philosophical and political exchange centered on Kant, interpretation, and the war in Ukraine.
• Žižek challenges the idea that Russia’s stated goals should be read as innocent or self-evident.
• Alikhanov frames his comments as a critique of Western pragmatism and a defense of responsibility and autonomy.
• The piece uses irony to question the consistency of claims about values, freedom, and resistance.
• The broader debate turns on whether political language should be read literally or as ideology in disguise.