One year after the Russian invasion ofUkraine with the intention of expelling the legitimate government of Kiev in a few days and putting "respectable people" in its place, as he said Berlusconi, some fixed points can be summarized: the military blitz of Putin it failed, theWest that Moscow paint as cowardly, corrupt, paedophile and unbeliever and therefore incapable of any reaction, instead he stood up to the challenge, he compacted himself, he understood that democracy and freedom must be defended, that the rules of international coexistence cannot be trampled on with impunity. From a political point of view, the game is more open than ever. Russia e China they want to subvert what they call American "domination", and they want to be the ones to dictate the rules, to command by indicating the direction of travel to the entire globe. In Putin's sights is a militarily weak Europe, and until a few months ago totally dependent on Russia's energy sources. Putin's men said it clearly: the USA retire to their Continent leaving theEurope free to decide with whom to play the game of the new world order. Implied the European countries should replace the mentorship of the USA with that of Russia equally capable of offering a nuclear umbrella for the security of disarmed states such as the Europeans are.
RUSSIA-UKRAINE: EUROPE IS IN PUTIN'S SIGHTS
These are clear plans to which the American president has responded in recent days speaking in Warsaw, with great clarity: the West is bound by a common feeling for democracy and freedom. And he has no intention of lowering his flags.
Many citizens throughout Europe and especially in Italy find it difficult to understand the profound meaning of the challenge we face. So much nonsense is said that it ends up muddying the waters. In the first place, the aggressor and the attacked are placed on the same level. Of course – it is said – Putin bears the greatest faults, but also Zelensky it is not without blame for the war against the secessionists of Donbass, and because its democracy is fragile and corrupt. It is not possible to say that they are Nazis, but they are certainly infiltrated by fanatical and evil nationalists. Thus everyone becomes evil and it becomes useless to commit oneself to defending the weakest. Might as well wash your hands of it and let them sort it out for themselves. And so no more arms shipments.
Then it is said that what is actually being fought on Ukrainian soil is a proxy war wanted by the USA to weaken Russia. Putin made it clear in his last speech in front of the nomenclature: we are attacked by the West and we had to make a preventive military move to avoid being crushed. Biden responded forcefully to this point in a passage of his speech that was not greatly valued by commentators: NATO has never taken aggressive attitudes, it has not barked at the gates of Moscow, it does not want to break up Russia or force it to adopt Western ways of life.
Then there is the complaint of our pacifists that Europe is dominated by the United States and that it is not making any strong peace initiatives. That the war is costing us a lot and that the stubborn resistance of the Ukrainians is causing an enormous number of deaths, displaced persons and material destruction. The West is accused, even by many former generals of our army (but where did they study?) of the fact that we started a war without having any idea how it could end. Apart from the fact that the war was not started by us and that the facts show that it took us some time before starting any reaction which has always been moderate and non-aggressive, in reality we have clear ideas and the all the Western leaders reiterated: Putin must convince himself that he cannot win on the battlefields and therefore must show himself available and deal with the security problems of his country and his leadership on a realistic basis, restoring correct relations with his neighbors and with the Western partners who, it will be recalled, welcomed Russia with open arms at the beginning of the century.
And here we arrive at a fundamental point for understanding the meaning of what is happening.
RUSSIA-UKRAINE WAR: EUROPE'S WEAKNESS IGNITE PUTIN'S AMBITIONS
Putin did not move – as he says – to prevent the aggressiveness of the West, to contain its expansive force, but on the contrary he decided to strike a blow on Ukraine and then perhaps on other countries of the former Soviet orbit, because he assessed the WEAKNESS of Europe, the willingness to disengage by the USA demonstrated by the disastrous retreat from Kabul, the abandonment of the Middle East to the sights of the first comer, including Saudi Arabia, the retreat from Africa of the French and Italians who they have left Libya and the Sael countries unopposed to the influence of Russia and Turkey. In essence, it is our weakness that has nourished Putin's ambitions as head of a poor country that possesses only a considerable military force (less than imagined) and which therefore has only one way to assert itself in the world: that of demonstrating that it can frighten everyone else.
Now how does it come out? The battlefield and diplomacy are closely intertwined. Beyond the Chinese peace plan, which may perhaps be a step towards real negotiations, it is clear that on the one hand it will be necessary to continue to support Ukraine, and on the other to demonstrate with facts (i.e. by limiting direct attacks in Russian territory) and with the diplomacy that NATO does not have as its objective that of a change of the Russian regime, nor that of a dismemberment of the federation. On the ground it will then be seen what the borders of the nations at war will be and what autonomy can be granted to the minorities of the border regions.
RUSSIA-UKRAINE WAR: HOW DO YOU GET OUT OF IT AFTER A YEAR OF TRAGEDY?
One thing is clear: as long as the European ruling classes and those of other democracies, not to mention the Italian ones, show uncertainty, give the impression of making goat's wool distinctions between defensive and offensive weapons, that is, as long as they give hope to Putin that continuing the war could lead to dividing the western camp, then there won't be a real peace table nor a truce that makes no sense for either of the two contenders. Our political leaders should think carefully before speaking and even the various peace marches must not serve to put the aggressor and the attacked on the same level, the freedom of the West with the illiberal regimes of the East where journalists are killed and opponents sent to prison or exile.
Europe will have to learn a lesson from this dramatic war. For centuries she ruled the world. Now he must certainly not aim to restore past glories, but if he wants to play a role in the new world order he will have to acknowledge that he must emerge from his sloth and have a reasonable, diplomatic, but also adequately armed voice. In international relations even arms have a diplomatic role because they give security to friends and instill fear in enemies.
