Have we entered a new Middle Ages, as the analysts of the American think tank Rand Corporation write, which does not foresee castles and armor, but presents itself with social fragmentation, the weakness of National States, unbalanced economies, natural disasters and professional wars? While citing the suggestive analysis, Professor Stefano Silvestri, a great expert in geopolitics and military affairs, chooses one word to describe the historical period we are experiencing: disorder. It seems impossible for states, even the most important ones, to find a coherent political line that can be followed by everyone. While the two ongoing wars, those in Ukraine and the one in Gaza, appear endless because they are led by two weak leaders who, in order to stay in the saddle, are forced to continue them. The only hope is Europe, which despite having many problems and is still a creation in progress, considering its history and its civilization can become a point of reference for the stability of the world.
Professor Silvestri, let's start with the attack in Moscow. A first observation: despite his bombastic words against terrorism, since Putin has been in power, the most terrible attacks have occurred on Russian soil. In Moscow, in 2002, there were 334 deaths; in Beslan in 2004, 334; in Rostov on Don, again in 2004, 90 deaths and finally this year, at the Crocus City Hall, 139. Which leads us to conclude that an oppressive regime does no better than democracies in the face of terrorism. But above all: why has terrorism been resurrected?
“The attack in Moscow comes in the wake of the Hamas attack on October 7th against Israel. In my opinion, the rave massacre has reawakened the competition between the various terrorist centers, Isis and Al Qaeda first and foremost, pushing them to leave their comfortable zones of influence, such as Africa, to carry out attacks that have a wider media and political echo. great. For this reason I expect there to be a risk of attacks also in our countries, where it was right to raise the level of guard. In the case of Russia, Putin demonstrated his weakness by trying to blame the Ukrainians, even though this attack had all the characteristics of an Islamic fundamentalist attack whose methods appear to be an exact copy of the attack on the Bataclan in Paris.
His stubbornness made me think of Aznar's attempt, in 2004, to pass off the attacks on the Atocha station in Madrid as ETA attacks. The Spanish leader did so because he feared the judgment of the vote, rightly so, having supported Bush in the attack on Iraq after the attack on the Twin Towers. But Putin certainly didn't have this problem having already won the elections by a landslide. Yet, he did not want (could) face the truth, why? Because not only is his country full of Muslims, but above all because a large part of his army is made up of soldiers and militiamen from regions with an Islamic majority and the attack has called into question his ability to control this vast Russian population of Islamic religion. Even the fact that he wanted to interpret the warnings that the USA had sent him as a cover for the desire to sponsor the attack, as his henchmen claim, is another indication of weakness, of inability to get out of the tunnel of war in which it is using up all its international credibility."
Let's get to the war then: is Russia winning?
“Russia's victory in Ukraine, which is not on the horizon at the moment, would be disastrous for the entire Western system, especially for NATO because it would force it into a defensive position while controversies would open up within the various countries over who did what and who didn't. did. If we add the prospect of Trump's possible re-election in the US, the picture would be one of total confusion."
Will super-fast missiles change the situation on the ground?
“Certainly even without the super-fast missiles, the Russians never stopped bombing Ukraine. I would not exaggerate the importance of these weapons even if it is necessary to equip the Ukrainians with more appropriate means to defend themselves, which is not easy because these are not only expensive means, but long to build, at a time when the industry in the West is still an industry of peace. As for what's happening on the ground, we've been in a war of position for months now."
A broad peace front has opened up in the West, which is pushing us to look for a solution to end the war: can it lead to a withdrawal of aid to Kiev?
“This front has a significant problem, and that is Putin. Putin doesn't want peace, he wants Ukraine. Unless he decides to give it to her, there are no other alternatives so far because Putin refuses any dialogue. And his attitude towards the attack also shows that he has no intention of discussing peace. He could have seized the opportunity to say: let's collaborate on terrorism even if we have different points about Ukraine, which was the side the Americans offered him. The fact that he deliberately ignored it, choosing the Ukrainian path, suggests that he has no intention of dialogue. On the other hand, the real internal opposition that Putin has is not more liberal than him, on the contrary, they are more warmongering, which prevents him from backing down."
So there are no glimmers of hope?
“When politics stops before weapons, all we can do is wait for more mature times. We also find ourselves in a similar situation in Israel because the destruction of Hamas, the target of the attacks launched by Netanyahu, is a completely theoretical program, like that of the destruction of Isis or Al Qaeda. They are terrorist organizations, not states: you can inflict very serious losses on them, but you will never succeed in destroying them. Having set the entire strategy on an abstract military objective is an indication of an inability to think politically and not only militarily. And this reveals Netanyahu's weakness: it is clear that Israel must address the Palestinian issue, but it cannot do so by eliminating the Palestinians. We are faced with another weak leader who most likely would not be re-elected if there were elections, but who continues to be the head of a country and who is waging a war that keeps him alive more than Israel. As in Russia we are in the presence of a leader who does not want dialogue. The hope is that, being a democratic country, Israel will be able to find the strength to get rid of Netanyahu, the difficulty is that no Israeli will agree to open a dialogue with Hamas after what happened on October 7th."
So even if Netanyahu was eliminated, Israel would continue the war?
“No, because you can carry out anti-terrorism operations and at the same time address the Palestinian issue which does not mean dialogue with Hamas, but with other entities. The fact is that the more the war continues, the more it seems that the Palestinians are just Hamas. And this is a tragedy. The Americans have been telling Netanyahu this for some time, but he doesn't listen to them. Among other things, the USA waited too long to differentiate itself as it did in the UN Security Council by abstaining on the approved resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire for Ramadan and the release of the hostages. They could have done it even before."
However, the situation did not change with the UN resolution
“In fact, both Israel and Hamas responded in spades: Netanyahu is only interested in continuing the war, Hamas agrees with him and furthermore wants the exchange of hostages for prisoners.”
While anti-Semitism grows everywhere in the world, even in American universities
“It's a wrong side effect that comes out of the general confusion. And by the fact that social media works on this confusion, being uncontrolled and expressing positions influenced by centers of power interested in growing this type of chaos. The truth is that we are witnessing a progressive loss of cohesion and strength of nation states, even the largest, as demonstrated by the assault on Capitol Hill in Washington: there is a fragmentation of the situation which makes it difficult for states to coagulate a national policy. A more far-sighted international policy would be needed to address both these serious crises and above all the great global environmental, health and good governance problems of the ongoing technological and economic revolutions, but the difficulty is that the very weakness of the national states prevents them from coagulating the internal consensus necessary.
Some take refuge in warlike advances, like Putin's Russia, others do not; but the result is the same, there is no consensus. And then there is the fact that the way of waging war has also changed. Before there was the mass army, compulsory conscription, today we no longer think in these terms. Putin uses almost more militiamen than soldiers; the Ukrainians also have the same difficulties, less because they are under attack, but they have it too. I'm not saying that we are in the company of mercenaries but we are in situations in which specialized groups wage wars, some even completely illegal like terrorists. This loss of the effectiveness of great nations is the characteristic of these times, whatever you want to call them, neo-medievalism or not. Some are alarmed by a return to the Cold War when they describe relations between China and the USA. Maybe we were going back to the Cold War. The cold war is a stable regime, while we are faced with some hot wars and a situation of general government difficulty.”
We are facing what type of war?
“It is a more anarchic and more fragmented type of war such that phenomena that seem local have global effects. Let's take the two ongoing wars that should be contained, but are not. The one in Ukraine has already changed the global energy market. The one in Gaza has disrupted maritime communications. They are apparently small and localized, but they connect to each other because our system is global."
In your opinion, Putin wants to attack Estonia, according to the alarm raised by Tallinn?
“I don't think he wants to open another front. If he were to win, but I don't think he will, he could attempt provocations, but I point out that nuclear deterrence works both ways. The risks faced by Russia are total. You can do all the scenarios, even those that Trump allies with Putin, or that Putin brings down the temple with all the philistines, but we're talking about science fiction."
Why is Trump dangerous?
“If there is a neo-medievalist in the world, Trump seems tailor-made: just think of his obsessive desire to build defensive walls! But, more simply, Trump is an isolationist, he could decide not to deal with Ukraine or Europe anymore, although I don't think he will. But he is above all unreliable. And therefore it is a risk. For all his America First thunder, he is another weak leader who could plunge us into new disastrous adventures. In any case, Europeans should take care of their own home without expecting to be totally protected by the American umbrella. I say to those who imagine issuing bonds that pay for European defense: perhaps it would be appropriate, before thinking about how to pay or who should pay, to identify two or three defensive priorities to be satisfied in the short term on which we can all agree: for example the security of the border in the East or that of the seas. Let's establish priorities first and then we'll see how to pay for them."
The picture appears very dark: how do we get out of it?
“We must try to understand what is happening and not lose heart. We still have the resources and capabilities to govern the crises of globalization. We must try to concentrate on overcoming our fragmentations and try to bring the political debate to a higher level and talk about big problems. Europe is our greatest hope. She has made huge strides. It is a creation in progress, but I believe it is one of the great hopes of the international system. The first serious attempts to give global rules to new technologies, such as artificial intelligence, for example, are an effort that reminds me of that of great Renaissance jurists, such as Grotius, who in the 17th century invented freedom of navigation and trade. The foundation of our civilization is a remarkable strength."
