There seems to be no end to the escalation of violence on Ukrainian territory. Vladimir Putin carries on his plan with cold conviction, weaves his own network of "conquest" with severe and decisive determination to want to demonstrate that, despite the passing of decades, the USSR has never "passed away", but has continued to exist in a condition of programmed latency that seems to have reached its cynical "clinical manifestation". Today, on the border between Ukraine and Belarus, however, the announced "conversation" between Putin and Zelensky seems to be expected, who, indeed, does not hide his doubts about the success of the same. Let's be clear: on the fact that Ukraine, for the Vladimir Kremlin, is only a satellite "statelet", a pure and simple "pre-condition of access" to the European continent, I do not think there can be any doubts, also in consideration of the persistent weakness of the Union, subjugated "aborigine" by its non-existence on the internal political and international geo-political level.
What happened to the so-called "Western" political decision makers? Admitted and not granted that, in our day, in the era of globalization, it still has a sense, any sense, to continue wanting to relive a distinction, even if only verbal, as anachronistic as it is misleading, between "East" and "West" that it would risk reflecting on our realities on the not exactly edifying level of the historical "vice versa" and in the severe terms of an ideological "retaliation" of circumstance. Joe Biden's "paresis" (embarrassing) of the Old Continent and America begins to cause concern, especially when their respective political representatives demonstrate, day after day, that they are unable to go beyond repetitive and banal "speeches" of "contingency": that is the "non-existent political" that does not seem to want to miss the opportunity to become a "verb" only to mask the total absence of strategy.
In the meantime, because all the issues relating to foreign policy (including those relating to identity conflicts) have been gradually declassified and placed in the variegated and complex cauldron of marginalization, as if the surrounding world were an empty frame to be filled at will when we would have (and if we ever had) desire and inspiration. Therefore, because by operating in this way, and certainly not because of the pandemic emergency which occurred only when the degenerative circumstances of national and European political management had reached their peak, it has culpably failed to consider the discomfort of those, at the border with Europe, they continued, in a more or less intense way, to live "in perfect solitude" the usual conflicts of (re-) territorial affirmation, extemporaneous in the context of a world that wants to be called globalized, but fully subsistent and reasonably conditioning in the "middle" territories still bound by the concept of the "limit" which seemed (but evidently not so) definitively fallen back in 1989. Finally, because every political decision appears strongly influenced by the new energy emergency, with reference to which, and so much to change, it is not currently possible to identify strong unitary positions with any pejorative consequence on the level of short term that the conflict with Russia will only exacerbate.
Let's face it all: if Vladimir Putin was able to go so "further" it is only because the unpreparedness of his so-called "Western" competitors has revealed, once again, his own substantial and uncertain political and diplomatic weakness. Threatening sanctions, as Mario Draghi did recently, and not even being able to be concretely consequent is useless. The ideological and strategic dwarfism that afflicts an old "West" still distracted, lazy and wait-and-see, basically revealed itself precisely in its desire to redefine the Russian military advance with threats of an economic nature certainly taken into account by the mighty Kremlin and considered negligible as they are destined to dissolve in the wind. The Ally, contrary to what one would have thought, is down, and the "gong" is about to be sounded. Is it possible that we have not been able, and are unable, to go beyond pure and simple façade declarations? Is it possible that European diplomacies (and I feel quite embarrassed to define them as such) have resigned themselves to allowing themselves to be heavily influenced by Moscow operations without wanting to give any sign of resistance? Is it possible that our alleged leaders are so unprepared that they are unable to grasp the icy strategic clarity of a head of state perfectly contextualized on a geopolitical level and definitely aware of his own strength?
European immobility is the true infallible weapon of Vladimir Putin who can advance undisturbed: without ifs and buts. The old Russia is still there and is making itself felt, roaring again. Today's attempt to negotiate the crisis with President Volodymyr Zelensky, left to himself, will give us the opportunity to understand, perhaps, at least a part of the Kremlin's expansionist project which, probably, could contemplate, in the absence of precise strategic objectives on the part of the Old Continent considered as a unit, also the "conquest" and "colonization" of its territories. It is hardly necessary to remember, in fact, that for Vladimir Putin the concept of "border" takes on concrete value only if self-referenced while, on the other hand, it is completely inconsistent when it comes to "moving it" at will, to the detriment of his " neighbors". Let us also dismiss the idea that it is a manifestation of pathological "psychiatric omnipotence". It only serves to justify, even badly, our condition of minority. Lucidity is certainly not lacking in the Russian autocrat: the position of Ukraine, between the European Union and Russia, represents the ideological alpha and omega, the complete meaning, of the military action launched in recent days. In other words: relations between Kiev and Moscow have been variously influenced, in recent years, not only by relations between Western European countries and Ukraine itself, but also by the Crimea "dossier" which, with the collapse of the Soviet Union , came under Ukrainian sovereignty. What is most perplexing, however, is the position taken by China which, indeed, despite the numerous proclamations aimed at soliciting a peaceful and diplomatic resolution of the conflict, decisively rejecting the use of force and the imposition of sanctions, however, such as " A Friend Country "both of Russia and of Ukraine, it is careful, at least in the short term, from declaring a clear position, knowing full well that, however the" conflict "evolves, it will always be the proverbial" third party who enjoys ". After all, not weapons, but the economic "noose" has always been its strength.
Therefore, if the whole situation was able to trigger and degenerate, the responsibility, to a large extent, would seem to lie precisely in the European political instability and the current strategic weakness of the "Stars and Stripes" Allied (in other words, if the "Crutch", that is America, the "giant", so to speak, that is, the European Union, does not stand). But in spite of whom has Russia hatched such an operation over the years? And what if Vladimir Putin's visionary dream, in the long run, were precisely that of a "Russian Europe"? Someone said that "thinking badly makes you sin but sometimes you get it right".
Giuseppina Di Salvatore
(Lawyer - Nuoro)