Melons ha mistaken a Don't vote for Ursula von der Leyen as president of the European Commission, she has excluded herself from the assembly of those who count in Europe, while it is not certain that Trump will be elected in November. And then the war in Ukraine, the direction China is taking, Iran with moderate but not too much traction, the new Labor-led Great Britain and Macron's France after the early dissolution of Parliament.
Bird's-eye conversation about the changing world with the professor Stefano Silvestri, a great expert in geopolitics and military issues, former president of the Institute of International Affairs.
Professor Silvestri, what do you think of Prime Minister Meloni's decision not to vote for von der Leyen as president of the European Commission?
“Meloni plays two roles, government and party. Having locked yourself into a right-wing ideological position, also in light of the results of the European elections which did not exactly go as these parties perhaps expected, weakens you, also and above all as Prime Minister of the Italian government.
You shouldn't be surprised if other parties that, instead, have chosen to side with the new majority, don't listen to you. In short, it seems to me that it has excluded itself from the European government and, most serious of all, it has excluded Italy from the assembly of the Greats. I don't know if he didn't understand how European politics works; therefore, I don't understand whether he acted out of ignorance of the rules, or whether he did it out of political will. In both cases, however, it was a mistake. Because even if it had been out of political will, because perhaps he decided to focus on the great Trump-Orban-Meloni sovereignist axis, he made a wrong assessment because Trump is not interested in European politics. And if it were, his policy would be to divide Europeans, pitting them against each other, as he did in the previous presidency. In short, Meloni has practiced backyard maneuvers that weaken the country. And the fact that he felt the need to explain himself in an interview with Corriere della Sera is proof of this, because in fact he did not clarify any of the major issues. Indeed, to the journalists' question about the accusation of having sided with Italy in opposition to the new European government, she responded by placing the "blame" for the choice on the entrepreneurs and industrialists who, according to her, asked her to oppose a Europe “who doesn't look at the context in which he moves and thinks that his mission is simply to hyper-regulate everything”. The usual sovereignist refrain, nothing new."
You mentioned Trump, do you think he has already won the elections?
“I refuse to think that Trump has already won the election. I hope the Democrats know how to react. We'll see what happens with Biden, who has terrible press and seems to no longer have the energy to regain the political initiative. I hope that between now and the Democratic Convention in August something will be decided. Trump is ahead, it's true, but we'll see. However, what I would like to say to those who focus on Trump is that the former president has already demonstrated that he is not predictable, and that in any case his policy is, as the Americans say, "transactional", that is, negotiational. That is to say that he negotiates everything to gain an advantage: what can Italy give him? What can Orban give him? It is almost certain that apart from a general weakening of the major European countries, he will practically give nothing. I believe that we must be very careful to consider this policy useful and above all it must be judged beyond Trump's perspective."
Even more so for the war in Ukraine…Shall we make a point?
“We are essentially in a stalemate position. It is a very tough war, but above all we must be aware that a war cannot be won by being only on the defensive, as happens to the Ukrainians, although for them going on the offensive without attacking Russian territory is doubly difficult. One because Ukraine probably doesn't have the strength; two because she is limited in her freedom of action being forced to fight only on her territory. Which gives Russia a huge advantage, in addition to the ones it already has from a numerical and positional point of view. It is clear that sooner or later a solution will have to be reached, but it does not seem to me that Putin is willing to negotiate. So it probably won't happen even if Trump is in the White House. Putin could accept a possible armistice, with a solution in which Ukraine is under Russian control, directly or indirectly. But I fear that accepting this solution will be difficult even for Trump. While it is completely unacceptable for Europeans, not to mention that it risks putting NATO in crisis. The other solution, the one with Ukraine inside NATO, with new security treaties, cannot be accepted by Putin, given that he also waged war to distance NATO from its borders. In short, we are not yet ready to break the deadlock."
Zelensky took a step by inviting Putin to the next meeting of peace negotiators: was he right?
“He did well, he must give perspective to this very harsh war that has already brought the country to its knees. So it's right, but it doesn't correspond to Putin's wishes. And I remember that not even the tail-wagging Orban seems to have gotten anything from Putin."
Let's talk about China: where is it headed?
“China is perhaps the country most worried about Trump's possible arrival in the White House because he could significantly tighten the US closure policy already followed by Biden. Apart from the fact that this policy also damages American markets, it damages those of China much more. Probably, if Xi is forced to close China on defense, his problem will be to win over the greatest number of allies among the countries of the global South, those that would once have been called the Third World. Or perhaps he could even attempt an opening towards Europe if Trump really were to lash out against the Europeans. Of course, with its geopolitical ambitions in Asia, starting with the Taiwan case, to its policy in the Yellow Sea, towards Korea, and Japan, China has locked itself into an aggressive position. All this may perhaps not worry Brazil or South Africa, two countries in the global South, but it certainly worries the Asian countries closest to the Chinese: Vietnam, India, Indonesia, which I don't think are willing to follow China in this aggressive policy. Perhaps Xi took a step too far by inaugurating a season of great solidarity with less than presentable allies, such as Putin's Russia, Iran and North Korea. We will see if he will be able to pick up the thread of his long and fruitful experience of diplomacy from his predecessors. We also wish him the same for the future of the rest of the world."
You mentioned Iran, does a new season begin with the election of the new president?
“It's too early to say. Certainly his first statements on Gaza give rise to hope for some change of direction, given that he spoke of peace and not just solidarity with the Palestinian cause. Something could change at an international level also in the nuclear relationship with the Americans, but this is not the time for Washington to deal with the problem given that it now has other problems to solve. And even for Europeans, Iran does not seem to be high on the priority agenda. However, it would be a signal if something changed in internal politics, that is, the Pasdaran's grip on the population loosened. However, it seems difficult to me. But it will be understood soon."
How did you read Labour's victory in Great Britain?
“They had a great victory, especially in terms of number of seats. It could be said that the English electoral system helped Great Britain to keep Farage's populist right in the cellar, which despite having received more votes than the Liberals, obtained only 4 seats while the Liberals won almost 70. Which, however, explains the collapse of the Conservatives: the votes that Farage took from them are those that allowed the Liberals and Labor to win in many seats. Which means: a) that the populists will be able to continue to blackmail the conservatives, probably contributing to ensuring their very long stay in opposition; b) that following extremist sirens can do a lot of damage to government parties. And in any case it seems clear that the English had enough of conservative governments given that as soon as a reasonable Labor member like Starmer arrived on the political scene they immediately sent him into government.
What will this new government do?
“It will certainly try to get closer to Europe, but it is too early to imagine that it will cancel Brexit. So he will negotiate to have closer relations, with treaties and pacts. While he will undoubtedly continue the policy of privileged and ancient relations with the USA. And yet the time is no longer right, neither on this side of the Atlantic nor on the other, for this type of relationship, the two countries have completely changed, as is obvious with the passage of time. Especially since the English dream of having a presence in the Pacific as well, in memory of the imperial times of yesteryear. A presence that might not displease the Americans, but is destined to be of little relevance. However, Britain maintains its true residual special relationship in the Pacific, that of the Anglophone alliance between the USA, Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The latter seemed to have moved away from the old familiar bed, but the rise of China necessarily brings it back home. We are talking about a political, intelligence and military alliance that was consolidated already during the two world wars. In the meantime, I consider Starmer's victory to be a very positive thing for the English, especially because these last conservative governments have been truly inadequate."
I also wanted to ask you for your opinion on France after Macron's decision to dissolve the Assembly early, a choice that divided French people and political observers.
“I don't think Macron made a mistake, because I don't think he had many alternatives. After Le Pen's statement he had to react, and he reacted by calling on the French to defend the republican positions. And there was a reaction. Macron was not a bad president but he is not loved, this is clear. France is actually split into two noisy minorities, the Lepenists and the Mélenchonists. Macron is in the middle. It is difficult to understand what can be done now. I hope that the Macronists, the Gaullists, the Socialists and the Greens will agree to form a legislative government and not just one that will last until the next elections, which is possible next year. Macron still has the powers of the president which I hope he uses in accordance with the Constitution. And I hope that French politicians reflect on whether it is better to live in a country that oscillates between Le Pen and Mélenchon or in a different country. Of course, governing France is very difficult, just think of the senseless protests against the increase in the retirement age. In short, France should learn to think, after all it is the country of the Enlightenment and that of Descartes, it shouldn't be difficult for them."
The second phase of Europe has begun: what do you think of Ursula von der Leyen's speech?
“The president is aligned with the positions of the People's Party, who emerged victorious from these elections. These are positions that do not completely satisfy the left or even the right, but that's it, it's called politics. The ecologists who voted for her understood that it is better to be in the majority that governs rather than playing Pinocchi outside the government and not counting for anything. Meloni, on the other hand, didn't understand it and stayed outside to act like a capricorn. Sin".
