You can trust theItaly in foreign policy? Let's take the warof Russia against theUkraine. From Draghi to Meloni, the Italian government has clearly stood by Kiev, forging a strong axis with Western countries, primarily the USA, against Putin and his imperial policy. Yet, as soon as the Ukrainian soldiers, with a blitz that surprised and embarrassed the Tsar, crossed the border, bringing the war to Russian soil, an unexpected statement came from Defense Minister Guido Crosetto who, arguing that "no country must invade another”, puts the attacked and the aggressor on the same level. Among other things, it clashed dramatically with the Western chorus and in Europe, whose official declaration was "Ukraine has the right to attack the enemy wherever it deems necessary"; and both in the USA, where the Americans have reiterated that "it is up to Ukraine to decide on this offensive".
And therefore, although after the controversy caused by his statement Crosetto declared in a letter to Corriere della Sera that Italy remains "reliable, serious and firm" alongside Ukraine, the question on the positioning of our country remains more current than ever. In short, who are our allies in foreign policy?
If he asks Stefano Silvestri, acute observer of geopolitics and expert in military affairs, former President of the IAI during a conversation with FIRSTonline to take stock of the Russian-Ukrainian war.
How do you judge this hesitation on Italy's part, Professor Silvestri?
“It had already happened after the European vote when, despite a good electoral success, Meloni was unable to count in the construction of the new political structure, locking herself into reckless choices that weakened and isolated her. Now you also risk losing the credit obtained in America thanks to the clear position you have had so far on Ukraine. In short, if the prime minister does not agree with European politics and she does not agree with American politics, I wonder who she agrees with. Assuming he's not even on Putin's side. Who does Italy side with? Not only with Orban I hope..."
Why does this happen? Ideological question? Is the real skin of the right coming out?
“I sincerely hope that it is not a question of ideology but just of inexperience, a kind of lack of geopolitical practice. And I'm fine with a bit of jealousy, of misplaced pride, who called who. All venial peccadilloes, after all. But if the choices were ideological it would be a serious problem for the country. I want to believe that this is not the case because inexperience and character problems can be remedied, but ideology cannot, as we have learned from our history."
Let's get to the war: what led the Ukrainians to decide to break through and penetrate Russian territory?
“The attack has many reasons, I'll try to list the main ones. The first is entirely military: Ukraine wanted to practice what is called diversion and lightening of the front, to force Russia to move troops from the invaded territories to another sector. The second reason, however, is entirely political: they wanted to deal a blow to Putin's internal image by reminding Russian citizens that not only are they waging a war, but they are also suffering it, with destruction and people evacuated, with territories taken and to be regain. An action that shows the Russians that the king is naked and that the special operation is not a police operation, but a war, with all its consequences. The curious position of Putin, who defined the attack as a terrorist act, is not very credible even seen from Moscow, since a terrorist act is normally a single, surprise blow, it also hurts a lot, but it does not force people to leave their homes. own homes, to escape. This thing can only be called by one name: war. Third reason: since we are talking about negotiations, this offensive strengthens the Ukrainians' negotiating position because they have something to give in return to Moscow, territory for territory. Not to mention that all this brings the strategic direction of the conflict back into balance, because it is impossible that a war can be won by being only on the defensive. Just as the offensive cannot only be about reconquering one's own territory, but also attacking where the enemy does not expect it. Finally, fourth and final reason: the offensive strengthens the Ukrainians also towards their allies, in the sense that many of the limitations imposed on them have been swept away, as demonstrated by the rapid adhesion of the most important countries to the new situation which now allows Kiev to be able to use the new armaments in an offensive manner."
Why now? What has changed?
“Meanwhile, the arrival of new armaments was important; and then there was Kiev's awareness of not being able to break through the now over-fortified Russian lines; which led to the classic decision foreseen by the military school: when you fail in the frontal attack you must proceed to envelop the enemy. That is, you hit him in another place. Which happened."
In your opinion, were the allies, the USA for example, alerted by the Ukrainians to the change in strategy?
“In my opinion yes, the opposite would seem strange to me; even for political reasons, you don't risk embarrassing your allies by perhaps making incorrect statements. And it is clear that the Ukrainians had the green fire."
How much will this offensive weigh on the future of the war?
“It all depends on how many forces the Ukrainians have decided to invest in this offensive and where they want to go, taking into account that the Russians at this point are forced to react to push them back. However, I don't believe that the Ukrainians will push very far into Russian territory, as it is too complicated and costly in terms of men and equipment to maintain. And then, from what we know, they didn't use many men, a couple of brigades in total. That is, a war with a consistent but limited force, which means an opportunistic offensive, to humiliate, not to conquer a region."
Symbolic offensive then?
“Symbolic, yes but also substantial. Because it greatly embarrassed Moscow."
What should we expect at this point?
“The Russians absolutely must react, they cannot keep the dishonor; therefore, they will do everything to push the Ukrainians back into their borders. But in the meantime they will waste time and men, not to mention the problems they have with the civilians who have been put to flight, at least 200 thousand people it has been said. The idea of breaking through Russian territory to the Ukrainians must have been given to them by the semi-coup, that is, the advance of Prigozhin's mercenaries towards Moscow without meeting anyone to stop them. In my opinion they studied that gallop which may have been allowed by Putin for political reasons, but there certainly would have also been difficulties for the army in blocking those rebels. And so it was: the Ukrainians encountered no resistance."
Will this help lead to peace?
“The Ukrainians are trying to force Putin to rethink his strategy with a tactic that would once have been called “running war”, better known as “corsairs”. That is, when you want to cause as much damage as possible to the enemy, "running" in search of weak nerves, in the era of ships full of riches, today with raids on its territory. Normally this happens when a lesser protagonist clashes with a greater one. The little ones are perhaps not decisive, but they often hurt a lot. The sooner the Tsar understands this, the sooner the war will end."
