The day 24 of February of the year 2022 represents, in its dynamic moment, and in its gradual "escalation" of terror, a historical watershed that will not fail to mark our lives for the years to come. The unstable (but apparently crystallized) "cold" equilibrium created in the aftermath of 1989 had to yield to the disruptive force of the "hot" imbalance, now in continuous and constant evolution, pursued with the use of weapons by of a power, the Russian one, which the "mighty" "West" has made the mistake of considering not only dormant, but even "inadequate" with respect to the evolution of the times.
Yet, the Russian missiles have arrived in the vicinity of the European Union and, as the pages of the major national newspapers report, the hypothesis of a widening of the conflict seems to be becoming increasingly probable. Are we still convinced that the policy of exemplary sanctions is the useful way to "impose" the "ceasefire"? We are truly convinced that the specter of a conviction against Putin's Vladimir by the International Criminal Court in The Hague, should it ever intervene, and I sincerely doubt it, will discourage the tactical decision-making of the one whom many insist on calling recklessly "Tsar"? Are we really sure that impunity does not constitute the epilogue known to all, but artfully concealed, which will trace the destinies of the whole world in the near future? It is particularly difficult to try to mask an obvious embarrassment: that of the so-called "righteous" (admitted and not granted that this category may correspond to a precise defining profile), all too fond of the static formalism of the reassuring walls of comfortable "radical chic" lounges. less useful, however, with their leftist manner, and in the context of their misleading elegance, to justify the substantial inability of leaders to affect human affairs by directing events. If this were not the case, what sense could it ever have in sending weapons to a people, the Ukrainian (visibly unprepared), contextually accompanied by the declaration of wanting to remain neutral with respect to war operations decided and conducted by others and with reference to which it would have been Is it necessary to find the strength and the courage to intervene "face to face" as wise and decisive peacemakers?
The answer can only be revealed in its consequentiality: it is better to pose as supporters and promoters of flashy and unrealistic political and social reforms or changes rather than surrender, in the eyes of the world, for substantial ignorance. Better to throw the stone and hide your hand, better hold your nose in front of the understandable "psychological blackmail" of Volodymyr Zelens'kyj, who, in the course of his numerous interventions, has not failed to "blame" the West, and Europe in particular, for its "lack of" interventionism. Despite the disharmony and the expressive dysfunctionality have become the linguistic constant of the entire war event, one continues undeterred to allow oneself to be discovered unprepared, and the punitive actions carried out, self-punitive even before being decisive and deterrent towards the recipients, are the so-called "proven test". Wanting to act through the International Criminal Court could almost be reduced, in its practical effects, to a red herring when one pauses to consider that ascertaining the potential responsibilities of Vladimir Putin and his material perpetrators could require not just a lapse of a very long time, but it could even hesitate, probably, in a stalemate, ie in the absence of formal indictments and trials.
Meanwhile, because Russia, among other things, even wanting to concede everything, has never ratified the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court and, consequently, has never accepted its jurisdiction. Therefore, given the superior circumstance, Russia is released from the legal obligation to offer its cooperation to the Court through the eventual "surrender" of the suspects to be put on trial for "war crimes". Finally, because any and potential perpetrators cannot be sentenced "in absentia" and the Court, for its part, does not have its own "police" body. Likewise, it is clearly illusory, and counterproductive, to continue to believe that the economic sanctions already inflicted on the Russian power could constitute a valid alternative to war since their deterrent effectiveness, as considered by many, is rather doubtful in consideration of recent historical precedents.
In other words: the sanctions, given the Chinese position on this specific aspect, could have the boomerang effect of consolidating the Putin regime with every conceivable prejudice for the poorest fringes of the population (and not just the Russian or Ukrainian) on the planet. Where it had not yet been understood, and it really is not the case to bother Lapalisse, the real problem continues to be the divisionism that winds its way through the international community which, even if you want to consider everything, represents the first and incontrovertible reason for insecurity. and instability, both further compromised by Beijing's unconditional support for Moscow.
Let's be clear: if from an ideological point of view sanctions seem to constitute a valid instrument of persuasion useful for punishing a certain country to induce it, forcibly but not too much, to change its orientation, however, from a practical point of view, the most important one. , the effects almost always end up betraying the expectations due to the inability of that specific tool to deeply affect its direct recipients. The reason is even obvious when we consider that those same sanctions have never had the ability to affect the world's geopolitical balances, rather, they are inclined to respond to other types of solicitations. For this reason, the careless and elementary strategy of the Old West, visibly in difficulty, will have the effect of strengthening Vladimir Putin's identity and patriotic profile, and consequently will have the further effect of consolidating his internal politics by offering him on a plate of d ' silver the possibility of playing undisturbed in terms of strategy, which has always been a winner for him, tending to identify him as a constant "victim" and privileged target of stereotyped Westernism. We are in a "cul de sac".
Giuseppina Di Salvatore
(Lawyer - Nuoro)
