Whether it is more appropriate to adopt a muscular type policy, or to cultivate the path of diplomacy and dialogue, is not an easy question to understand and decide, especially when the equilateral triangle of power contemplates, at its corners, leading actors such as Joe Biden, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. The fate of the West seems to be inextricably linked, by a double iron wire, to that of Ukraine which, in turn, and probably in spite of itself, finds itself acting as a fragile, but decisive, scales of a "World Order ”Which is about to take a very different shape from the past, even to the one immediately pre-pandemic.
Probably, a large part of the "misunderstanding" stems from Washington's unclear attitude towards Kiev since while not encouraging its membership of NATO, it would still seem to subtly support it, almost as if to exercise "occult power", but "physically" subsisting, on the Ukrainian border. All the more so when the European Union does not act as a reliable partner to foster an effective and persistent understanding, despite itself having valid reasons to make its voice heard, given the global geopolitical situation which, in turn, finds itself acknowledging a pre-constituted “disorder” more due to the strategic inclination of those same third parties than to circumstantial determinism.
But nothing more seems to surprise us now, since the continuous power games, far from defining dubious situations, seem to have the sole objective of making the reference "gray area" even more smoky and dark, namely Ukraine and its coveted "Border", suitable, due to its location, to act as a watershed between two Worlds: the West with American traction and the East with Chinese traction, both bearers of a different management of the phenomenon of "globalization" and its socio-economic effects -economic, and an equally different management of the relationships of reciprocal inter-connection and external relational. "Tertium non datur" for there is no Third that can act as a "Middle World", as a "center balance" suitable for making the two needles of the balance coincide: in this sense, the European Union poses itself as a geo- politics in constant "proud", but always dramatically "not received".
Meanwhile, because the entire "Ukrainian question" should, as in fact, be resolved only through the diplomatic line, that is, through a negotiation with Putin's Russia made extremely complicated due to the endemic fragmentation existing in the context of the Old Continent, incapable , to date, to be devoid of a charismatic leader of reference, to acknowledge the constant "becoming" of the "inter-dependent" transformations existing within the main power blocks of which, evidently, both Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin and Xi-Jinping appear to be full members. Therefore, because translating the European "non-presence" into a banal and demeaning "organic identification" with the Atlanticism personified by Joe Biden, it is clear that it is destined to remain confined to the margins, absorbed by the American voracity indeed projected in achieving a an attempt, poorly concealed, of NATO expansion towards the East, never "contracted".
Finally, because if the European Union really wanted to become a privileged interlocutor, to be naturally legitimized there thanks to its flourishing geographical location suitable for making it a strategic point of observation and control between the two "Worlds", then it should find the courage to "Alienate" from the Anglo-American position in an attempt to frame the whole story in the right context, that is, and only that, of a controlled and "lively" neutrality, very far from the staticism imposed by an "Ally" that seems to have become too cumbersome and voracious to be simply and uncritically indulged. After all, Vladimir Putin's Russia would have every interest in maintaining good neighborly relations with the Old Continent and with its greatest (perhaps still non-existent) institution.
Let's understand each other better. The question, beyond the economic interest that underlies it and as all too trivially understood, actually seems to concern a much more relevant gleaning: the possibility, or not, of using the territory of a Third State (in this case the 'Ukraine) for the sole purpose of preparing an armed attack against its real competitor. If, then, the whole matter is really posed in these terms, it is well understood how European "silence" appears not only as guilty, but even as directly aimed at sharing the US marginalist policy "ad excludendum alios". Josef Borrell, as High Representative for Foreign Affairs, would seem to have understood the gravity of the European wait-and-see attitude, but he seems to lack any legitimizing delegation for the participation of the European Union at the Tables in order to be (in) happily represented, in reality, from Washington. In other words. If it is true, as it is true, that the European Union must supervise the preservation of the stability of its borders, however, it is equally true that this supervision must first of all impose the reshaping of the terms of its Atlantic partnership through the elimination of any compromise to the downside son of a position of "subjection" as anachronistic as it is pretext. The Russian action, in the specific case, is extremely linear, and I doubt that it is merely the result of a demagogic choice aimed at soliciting the American arm wrestling in order to be able to find a justification for the possible invasion of Ukraine.
It would be too banal and not very decisive in terms of Russian intelligence's "internal mentis". Like it or not, Vladimir Putin seems more willing to give back to his country the "context of domination" that it had before the fateful collapse of the USSR, that is, of the Soviet-State. And I believe, beyond the reciprocal relations of power, with respect to which Xi-Jinping would be called to take sides openly in the hypothesis of their degeneration, Vladimir Putin's Russia could be a candidate to get the better of this pseudo-conflict, establishing a new and unprecedented international balance in order to which, at that point, the European Union would be obliged to make its weight felt through its leaders, finally revisited and finally effectively representative of a neutral and actively representative geopolitical "context" of a "independent" established order. The Ukrainian question is actually the question of a new world order, in which the superiority of the so-called Western paradigm appears anything but obvious and, indeed, almost outclassed by the new Russian-Chinese "Westernism".
Giuseppina Di Salvatore
(Lawyer - Nuoro)
