Vitalik Buterin shared in a long post on X on Feb. 12, originally written in Russian, his views on Russia’s war against Ukraine and what Russia’s future could look like under a “decentralized governance” model.

In the first half of the post, published ahead of the fourth anniversary of Russia’s invasion, the Ethereum co-founder called the war “criminal aggression,” not a “complicated situation” where both sides are equally at fault. He then argued that real, lasting security for Ukraine and Europe will not come from a temporary ceasefire alone, but from change inside Russia itself.

In his view, the strongest guarantee of peace would be for Russia to transform into a different kind of system. To do that, he said, the country would need deeper structural reform based on decentralized governance.

Buterin’s post underscores a broader trend of applying crypto ideas, especially decentralization and transparency, to geopolitics. As crypto adoption grows around the world, its core principles are increasingly being discussed as models for both financial and political systems.

“People often speak about ‘decentralized governance’ and ‘radical democracy’ in very abstract and idealistic terms, but far too rarely do they talk about what concrete problem it can actually solve,” Buterin wrote, via translation.

He listed ideas such as quadratic voting, zero-knowledge (ZK) systems and online discussion platforms like pol.is. These tools, he said, can help large groups find common ground instead of leaving decisions to a small, centralized elite.

“In the crypto industry, some people like to say that we need to move from ‘don’t be evil’ to ‘can’t be evil’. In human society, achieving this goal 100% is completely unrealistic, but achieving 25%? That would already be a very good result,” Buterin wrote in Russian.

He added that this point matters for two reasons: First, when building any new system, people must be clear about the real goal. Second, both ordinary Russians and members of the political elite who would need to “cooperate in order for there to be any success” must understand why these ideas are worth supporting.

In the final part of his essay, Buterin focused on decentralized governance as a process, highlighting digital tools and AI-driven discussion platforms. He argued that the Russian opposition needs new ideas and leaders, and that the best way to find them is to involve more people directly.

Instead of relying on a small group, he suggested using online systems like pol.is, where large numbers of citizens can post views and vote on proposals.

“This makes it possible to find societal compromises — or even consensus — directly, without intermediaries (such as elected representatives), so that officials are left only with the task of turning that compromise/consensus into an official document or law,” Buterin wrote.

He emphasized that “this is all long-term,” and that the Russian people need to think deeply about what happens after Putin. “Having a concrete roadmap — a plan that can convince a broad coalition, both ordinary people and politicians, both inside Russia and in other countries — is an important first step,” he concluded.