Pacifism and interventionism, as well as pacifist indirect interventionism, seem to have become, with the passing of days, the discordant interpretations of a "resistance" to alternating currents and in many ways de-contextualized, since it became an expression of phenomenon, also discordant and in many other ways out of tune, of an exasperated and exasperating search for "armed peace" that has not been able (and / or perhaps wanted) to find the first reason beyond the use of war force and last of the possible negotiations with the Russian competitor.
The gap between the different positions therefore ends with representing the dividing measure between different points of view within which, any potential misalignment with respect to the "single dominant thought" which seems to recognize armed support for Ukraine as the only way escape to be able to counter the advance of Vladimir Putin, is systematically conceived as a denial attitude carried out to the detriment of the one who appears in the collective imagination (whether or not it is another discourse), as a "romantic hero" of our days: Volodymyr Zelensky.
But, beyond any imaginative representation on the "personification" of the "warlords" (and they are not the only two contenders on the field), it is right and / or intellectually honest, on a conceptual level, to align the resistance of the Ukrainians to what was an unforgettable historical experience in the hearts of Italians that developed in an “other” context and undoubtedly different from the one that currently sees the Russia of Vladimir Putin and the Ukraine of Volodymyr Zelensky opposed? Is it not true that, when our "resistance" was formed, countries such as the USA, the USSR, Great Britain were already fighting against the Axis where today, with all due respect to the interventionists of the occasion, both the European Union, as much as NATO, with a probably ambiguous attitude (which some could even define irritating), and despite the constant armed support at a distance, proudly affirm that they do not want to go to war against Russia? Is it not true that one of the constitutionalized outcomes of the "resistance", the Italian one about eighty years ago, was the "refusal" of war which, in the current context, would seem to be (the conditional is a must) one of the "conditio sine qui non ”to negotiate peace? What value can the ancient adage “si vis pacem, para bellum” have today? Isn't it a question of an anachronistic and extemporaneous communication paradigm when compared to the dialectical impact of negotiations between nations? Could war be a useful expedient to keep a people together in order to better govern them through the image of an external (and / or internal) enemy by leveraging the so-called "metus hostilis"?
It is clear that such questions are such only in form, but evidently, and positively, they "betray" in themselves the obviousness of the answer they would like to imply. However, let's be clear on a fundamental point, in order to avoid misunderstandings of any kind: there are no “resistances” of series A and “resistances” of series B, but only different historical experiences. The ideological "misunderstanding" arises and develops when any useless, and politically incorrect, parallelism is proposed by the centers of power for the sole purpose of "legitimizing" questionable political lines as they are very far from the direct and concrete interest of their own people who , perhaps, after two years of pandemic and prevailing economic and health crisis, it would have, as in fact it would seem to have, other priorities than that of the Russian-Ukrainian armed conflict which, I play hard, only amplifies, leading to incalculable consequences, the economic problem and its repercussions on the real and social level.
The time has come to understand that military power can no longer be the determining factor for regulating international relations. Compared to the "special military operation" that sees Russia and Ukraine opposed, what really seems to be lacking is that political-diplomatic intelligence necessary and useful to put an end to a war, conflict, military operation, if you prefer, which seems to propose itself as a authentic and fatal ideological denial of the fundamental values arising from the constituent phase with specific reference to the Western actors metaphorically in the field. Entrusting the fate of two countries to the "barbaricidal" outcomes of arms means consciously removing any prospect of peace. Only on such a circumstance would the various nations be required to confront each other, beyond and beyond any personal interest aimed at the potential and improbable geopolitical elimination of the Russian competitor.
If we really wanted to provide concrete support to populations at war, we should be the first to ask ourselves about the value of "resistance" in order to contextualise its profound meaning within a globalized world panorama that unquestionably sees us as part of a "whole" which, far from 'being circumscribed within narrow national borders, forces us to confront in the wider circuit of a frame faded by the inexistence of certain “limits”, made such precisely in consideration of the fluid nature of the various nations' affiliations to different international organizations.
If this were not the case, on the other hand, we will find ourselves indebted to history and to the teaching that we should have learned from it and which, probably, still today, we find it hard to draw from it. Meanwhile, because the resistance conceived and interpreted to current events can only indicate the desire to survive events, to interpret the past with awareness and intellectual honesty to make it a tool for the construction of the future. Therefore, why, the (apparent) lack of any diplomatic initiative of an international character aimed at resolving the Russian-Ukrainian conflict in the best collective interest can only be conceived as the distortion of that desire for survival that would like to flourish in the rubble of destructive impact of weapons. Finally, because only by putting in place the conditions for the cessation of this useless and painful conflict will it be possible to lay the foundations for an authentic constituent phase that does not only affect the populations at war, but the entire globalized world which, probably first, will have to reprogram himself and the dynamics of the so-called gentile "force" relationships, basing them solely on the impact of general disarmament and the persuasive energy of the negotiation. Resistance, therefore, only as a resilient and unarmed survival to events to direct the change in an ameliorative sense in the best general and collective interest.
Giuseppina Di Salvatore - Lawyer, Nuoro
