Content
Who the characters actually are
"The first casualty when war breaks out is the truth," as they say. 1 Unlike war propaganda, literature can overcome this principle: The novel L'angle mort du destin Antoine Rault's novel employs a daring structure to construct an uchronia, contrasting the fates of the same characters in two alternative narrative strands: Scenario A ("Ce qui n'arriva pas"), peace, and Scenario B ("Ce qui arriva"), war. In this way, the work illuminates the vertigo ("vertige") that arises when one measures what "decisions beyond our control" inflict on our lives. The juxtaposition is not merely a literary thought experiment, but a profound moral and existential exploration of post-Soviet society, in which the characters either break or grow from their corruptibility in peacetime or from their purification in the face of invasion. Rault's novel uses the dual structure of an uchronia not only to narrate the war in Ukraine, but also to make it conceivable as one possibility among others. Thus, the novel reveals how fragile chance determines the fate of entire lives. This juxtaposition of peace and war reveals the "blind spot of fate": that violence is never natural, but rather a choice that can destroy humanity—empathy, morality, love—just as easily as it can allow it to flourish in peace. But it's not quite that simple:
The novel title L'angle mort du destin (“The Blind Spot of Fate”) refers to the central existential and structural theme of the work: the unpredictable, often catastrophic role of external historical forces in shaping personal lives. The “blind spot” is that area beyond the protagonists’ visibility and control, yet it determines the inexorable direction of their destinies. The entire structure of the novel, which contrasts the two scenarios “Ce qui arriva” (war, reality) and “Ce qui n’arriva pas” (peace, fiction), serves to illuminate this blind spot of fate. The characters—whether embarking on a brilliant architectural career in Kyiv, dreaming of a career as a fashion influencer, or trying to “cure” their autistic son in Israel—are all subject to the inexorable (“à l’inexorable”). This relentlessness manifests itself as an abrupt geopolitical decision, the Russian invasion of February 24, 2022, which suddenly shatters individuals' life plans. The title thus evokes a veritable vertigo in the reader, as it measures the extent to which decisions beyond our control shape our entire existence. It illuminates the fundamentally unknown and the shocking power of history, casting a harsh but revealing light upon the... condition humane to meet.
The “blind spot of fate” also functions as a moral yardstick, revealing the characters’ true integrity in the face of different forms of trial. In Scenario A, peace, the struggle is more subtle and ethical in nature: the characters are exposed to the virus of fear and hatred (“virus de la peur et de la haine”) that poisons post-Soviet Russian society, or they grapple with the pervasive corruption in Ukraine. Roman Paschenko must weigh his ethical concerns as an architect against the need to protect ancient grottoes, and Yulia reflects on her own cowardice and lack of self-determination in peacetime Moscow: “Your problem is that you didn’t dare to be yourself.” However, fate in the blind spot (the war in Scenario B) eliminates the possibility of moral compromise and forces a clear, existential stance. The “decisions that escape us” determine not only the external course of life but also our inner morality: While Roman almost sinks into the glue (“glue”) of corruption in times of peace, he finds heroic resolve in the face of war. The title thus illustrates the duality of human freedom and determinism: In the shadow of blind spot Political powers decide on war and peace, but only the confrontation with this external force drastically reveals who the characters really are.
Corruption of peace vs. purification through war
In Scenario A, the path of peace, we see the characters in a world defined by opportunism, corruption, and personal advancement—an environment where post-Soviet elites are re-cementing power structures. Roman Paschenko, the aspiring architect, initially embodies the enthusiastic builder of the new Ukraine. He dreams of transforming Mariupol's industrial wastelands, specifically Azovstal, into cultural projects: "Perhaps I will be the architect of this project." To realize these ambitions, however, he must submit to the milieu of the powerful, dominated by Petro Nikonov and the architect Riznyk. This path leads him to painful moral compromises.
The turning point in his integrity in the peace scenario is the pool project for Lioubov Rubinska, the mistress of a regional administrator. Here, Roman becomes embroiled in a conflict in which he is expected to accept the potential destruction of archaeologically valuable grottoes in Kyiv to secure the project. Although he struggles internally ("an architect must have an ethic. Must progress by considering the past"), he allows himself to be reassured by Riznyk, who cynically asks him whether he is an architect or an archaeologist. Ultimately, Roman himself becomes the scapegoat when Riznyk, through a deliberate false statement in the press, portrays him as the one who concealed the existence of the grottoes out of fear for the project. Roman realizes that he is trapped in the glue of corruption and unwittingly serves the "assassins de Tetiana," the system that Tetiana (the investigative journalist who is later murdered in Scenario A) fought against. Roman's escape to Dubai and his work for the unscrupulous partners Nikonov and Riznyk is the bitter consequence of his compromises, although later, after returning home to Kharkiv, he takes a more modest but honest path and begins a new life in his homeland that is finally in accordance with his conscience.
In Scenario A, Anastasia Datchychin chooses the direct path of business dealings and glamour. She uses her attractiveness and connections to rise quickly, distancing herself from Roman's romantic love, which she dismisses as "romantism, finally... from another time." She becomes the mistress of the influential deputy Pavlo Teremets, who, in return, facilitates her career as a television presenter. This connection is an open secret of nepotism. When she is exposed after the publication of an investigative article, she leaves Kyiv and secures her advancement in Moscow through a strategic marriage to the powerful producer Vladimir Paevski. Her success is based on a facade of traditional Russian values, which she promotes in glossy magazines such as... Moskvitchka staged. Their freedom in scenario A is the freedom of opportunism and complicity with the corrupt system.
In stark contrast is Scenario B, in which the invasion on February 24, 2022, destroys all peacetime ambitions. For Roman, the war represents a radical existential turning point. He must evacuate his family (mother Mariana, sisters Kira and Olexandra, grandmother Baba Polia) from bombed-out Kharkiv. At the Polish border, he makes the crucial, morally charged choice not to go into exile in the safety of Germany, but to remain in Kyiv: "Je ne viens pas avec vous" (I am not coming with you). This act transforms the "pacifist Bobo" into the determined sniper of the Territorial Defense. In the fighting, he finds a profound sense of community and duty, and a new, pure love for the doctor Mila. At the same time, the war unleashes within him a burning, identity-defining hatred for the invaders ("rachistes," a Ukrainian compound of Russians and fascists), which leads him to abandon his mother tongue: "Plus jamais il ne parlerait russe. Sa langue maternelle." The necessity of survival and resistance forces a moral purification that the corrupt peace could never offer him.
Anastasia, however, is immediately gripped by fear and isolation in Scenario B. Her stay in Kyiv becomes untenable, as her Russian heritage makes her suspect. The brutality of reality forces her to undergo a lonely, desperate abortion amidst the bombs. Her escape to Moscow does not lead to success, but rather to the hell of personal oppression: she marries Mark and experiences psychological and physical violence, including beatings and rape, in the toxic environment of Russia. Her fate in Scenario B thus embodies the victim role from which she escaped in Scenario A through her calculated ascent.
The illusion of security and the power of the “virus of fear and hatred”
The contrast between the two scenarios becomes particularly evident in Yulia's story, as it focuses on the intellectual and emotional confrontation with the Russian regime. In Scenario A, Yulia initially plans to emigrate to Israel to have her autistic son, Ivan, undergo therapy. In Moscow, she perceives a gradual intellectual poisoning of society, an "old virus that attacked the mind, troubled it, inflamed it, drove it mad: the virus of fear and hatred." Ultimately, she escapes this atmosphere, finding love and the illusion of complete freedom with Thomas in Paris. Her worries are now those of an exile: the fear of being judged as "Russian" in France or confronted with stereotypes. She believes the worst has been averted and lives a fulfilling life, albeit one burdened by the worry for her son, in a world where major conflicts now only play out on television.
In scenario B, this illusion of security shatters. On February 24, 2022, Yulia experiences the shock of "It's arrived," while her mother, Olga, immediately adopts the Kremlin's propaganda rhetoric, justifying the invasion as a "special military operation" to end a genocide and denying that Russia is killing civilians. Yulia's resistance is initially subdued and limited to small, symbolic gestures, as she senses the growing danger and the brutality of the repression. Her life in Moscow becomes a psychological tightrope walk, as she must conceal her true opinions. Eventually, her small act of resistance—her refusal to collect socks for the soldiers—is reported to the FSB by her childhood friend, Elena. Yulia, who had previously openly declared her opposition to the "special operation" at an alumni gathering, is arrested at the airport as she attempts to leave for Israel. During interrogation, she is confronted with her friend's betrayal and her moral stance ("You have denounced the bombing of the Marioupol theater"). Her punishment is physical imprisonment in the Mordovia penal colony. Yulia's fate in the war illustrates the paradox of moral freedom under a dictatorship: she loses her physical freedom to preserve her inner and ethical integrity, as she refuses to repent or deny that Russia is at war.
The breaking apart and reconstitution of interpersonal bonds
The two scenarios also illuminate the nature of human relationships under extreme conditions. In the peace scenario (A), relationships are often functional, characterized by distance and mistrust. Family ties are strained by the political divide. Roman struggles with the corrupt system in which his boss Riznyk operates, and Yulia suffers from her mother Olga's political blindness and the superficial social life of Moscow.
In war scenario (B), the post-Soviet schizophrenia of the "brotherly peoples" becomes definitively manifest. Roman breaks with his father in Donetsk, who has internalized Russian propaganda and calls his own son a "Nazi." Anastasia is considered an enemy by Ukrainian society and is given an ultimatum by her Ukrainian friend Macha: either fight "with us against yours" or be seen as guilty. The break is irreversible: "Vitaly, je ne lui parlerai plus jamais de ma vie." Yulia is devastated by the betrayal of her friend Elena.
At the same time, however, the war also forges existential and indestructible new bonds. Roman finds camaraderie in the trenches and a profound sense of purpose in their shared survival. His love for Mila, the surgeon, is a connection forged through the extreme experience of death. Mariana, Roman's mother, also learns in Berlin how crushing the burden of having to be strong can be, and through her therapist Irina, she learns that it is permissible to be human and to allow herself to grieve—an act of emotional liberation that was unnecessary in peacetime (A).
The novel's non-chronological structure allows it to reveal the ambivalence of post-Soviet life: while peace (A) rewards corruption, moral decay, and superficiality, war (B) forces the protagonists to undergo a harsh but necessary reckoning with their values. Yulia's imprisonment in Mordovia and Roman's survival at the front contrast sharply with Anastasia's brilliant but empty career in Moscow (A) and Yulia's hard-won bourgeois freedom in Paris (A). The work demonstrates that the characters' fates ultimately depend on external, uncontrollable decisions and poses the philosophical question of whether moral integrity in a dictatorship comes at a higher price, but also possesses a higher value, than the prosperity bought through compromise in a corrupt peace. The quote by Lessia Oukraïnka, “Sans espoir, malgré tout, je vais espérer, Je vais vivre ! Dehors les sombres pensées !”, takes on a far more urgent and existential meaning in scenario B, where hope must be actively fought for in the face of destruction, than in the world of silent compromise.
Performance of the uchrony
"You have to know what you want in life." 2 This is what Anastasia says in scenario A. In contrast, Yulia says in scenario B: “Yes, because of these views I was sentenced to six and a half years in prison, because I said at my trial that Russia is at war and not in a special operation, that it has attacked a country and is waging a cruel war…” 3 These two excerpts represent the extreme endpoints of the uchronic bifurcation. Anastasia, the fashion influencer, embodies opportunistic freedom and the will to rise in scenario A. The quotation, her internal repetition, justifies her utilitarian relationships (with the MP Pavlo Teremets), through which she obtains a TV show and builds her career. Her success is based on the abandonment of romantic love (Roman) and the conscious application of calculation. She achieves fame but pays the price of inner emptiness and self-loathing ("Something she disliked"). Yulia's statement in scenario B, on the other hand, demonstrates moral freedom in physical captivity. She was sentenced to six and a half years in a penal colony because she refused to describe Putin's war as a "special operation." Yulia chooses purity of conscience by speaking the truth – “Russia is at war and not in special operation” – even if it means her condemnation. The confrontation of these two lives – Anastasia’s material success through moral submission versus Yulia’s physical loss through moral resistance – is the ultimate measure of what the novel seeks to reveal through its daring structure: external circumstances dictate the conditions, but the true quality of existence is manifested in the choice of response to the dictates of fate.
The uchronic structure of the choral novel L'angle mort du destin It enables a well-founded, multifaceted analysis that goes far beyond a simple anti-Russian stance. While the book is radical and comprehensive in its condemnation of the Russian regime and the invasion, it also provides a complex and critical dissection of Ukrainian life, particularly in the context of peace ("Ce qui n'arriva pas"). The critique of Russian society and the regime is profound and systemic. The sources reveal Moscow as a place infected by the virus of fear and hatred, which the state has used to poison its own people. This ideology is disseminated by a massive propaganda machine ("chaînes du Kremlin") that makes absurd claims, such as that Ukrainian nationalists are killing children, while denying the actual bombing of civilians. The novel vividly depicts the dictatorship and repression: Yulia is arrested and put on trial for refusing to collect socks for the soldiers and for liking a post featuring the colors yellow and blue, which even leads to betrayal by her childhood friend Elena. This poisoning is also evident in private life, as young adults like Ivan Sidorov adopt the war rhetoric, while others remain silent out of fear.
At the same time, the novel unflinchingly criticizes the reality of life in Ukraine under peacetime conditions (Scenario A), exposing the rampant corruption and moral opportunism of the elites. Roman Paschenko, the architect, must recognize that his dream of building a new Ukraine can only be realized by making painful compromises with corrupt oligarchs like Nikonov and politicians like Beznichenko. The novel explores Roman's ethical dilemma as he is prepared to accept the destruction of archaeologically important caves for a swimming pool project. This system of "connivence" (backroom deals or complicity) is ubiquitous.
The war (“Ce qui arriva,” Scenario B) then acts as a moral catalyst, forcing the characters to confront existential questions and revealing the differing moral foundations of the societies. External aggression destroys the corrupt ambitions of peace (A) and, in Ukraine, forces a purification through resistance: Roman, almost corrupted by peace, chooses to fight, finds meaning, and experiences a “burning, identity-forming grove” (“haine brûlante”) against the invaders, which even leads him to abandon his native language. In contrast, the Russian resistance (Yulia) leads to moral integrity but to physical imprisonment in the “abyss” of the system.
Thus, it can be concluded that while the book is fundamentally critical of Russia, portraying the Russian regime as the source of aggression, lies, and oppression, and that this criticism escalates in Scenario B with the horrors of war, it simultaneously offers a complex critique of Ukrainian reality: Peace in Scenario A was not an ideal state, but rather a corrupt breeding ground for opportunism. Only the existential threat of war forces the moral clarity and national cohesion that were undermined in Scenario A by internal societal deficiencies (corruption).
Through its non-chronological structure and the stark contrast between "what arrives" and "what does not arrive," the novel clearly positions itself against Vladimir Putin's stance on the Ukraine war, portraying it as an act of unprovoked aggression that subjugates the individual to the "unrelenting." The narrative condemns the invasion as the work of a "furious madman," driven by megalomania and the dream of an imagined past, whose aim is to deny the existence of the Ukrainian nation ("it does not exist"). The official Russian rhetoric of "special military operation" is thus exposed as a cynical lie that infects its own people with the "virus of fear and hatred," creates a society in which deviation is immediately punished with persecution, and leads the country to the brink of becoming a "fascist" state. The regime's stance is portrayed as that of a tyranny waging a war of aggression and extermination.
The novel's ambivalence towards people living in peacetime is centrally manifested in its critical portrayal of Ukrainian society, which was spared the war ("Ce qui n'arriva pas," Scenario A). The novel by no means idealizes Ukraine before or without the invasion, but rather dissects post-Soviet reality as riddled with systemic corruption and moral opportunism. Roman Paschenko, the architect, discovers that his ambitious plans for the "new Ukraine" can only be realized through painful ethical compromises within the oligarchic and power circles of Riznyk and Nikonov. The novel condemns these abuses as a system that disregards morality and the law.
This unflinching analysis, contrasted with Scenario B (war), serves to deepen the moral ambiguity. While the existential threat becomes clear in wartime, forcing heroic decisions (Roman becomes a determined soldier), it also creates new internal divisions. This ambivalence manifests itself in the stigmatization and mistrust of those with Russian roots or family ties. Anastasia, who remains in Kyiv, is given an ultimatum by her friend Macha: either fight "with us against yours" or be considered guilty. She feels condemned "simply because she is Russian." Ultimately, the exposure of Ukrainian weaknesses in peacetime serves to emphasize the magnitude of Ukrainian resistance in war: those who, like Roman, stand up to the corrupt Status quo Those who leave behind, or those who, like the murdered journalist Tetiana in the peace scenario, fight corruption, demonstrate a double heroism by wanting to free their country from both internal decay and external aggression.
This article is written in German and can be found at https://rentree.de. Automatic translations into English and French are available. English, French.
Notes- The quote is attributed to US Senator Hiram Johnson (1917) in connection with the First World War: “The first casualty when war comes is truth.”>>>
- “Il faut savoir ce qu'on veut dans la vie.”>>>
- “Oui c'est parce que j'ai ces idées que j'ai été condamnée à six ans et demi de prison, c'est parce que j'ai dit à mon procès que la Russie est en guerre et pas en opération spéciale, qu'elle agressé un pays et mène une guerre atroce…”>>>
