Moscow does not want to give in to Crimea and Donbass and is threatening Moldova

As things currently stand, Moscow places its objectives as essential factors for any peace negotiations: the Kremlin, in fact, does not intend to withdraw from the acquisition of sovereignty, and therefore of the relative official recognition, of Donbass and Crimea as belonging materially and formally to the Russian Federation; despite this, the negotiations with Kiev seem to continue, albeit difficult, even if on premises that do not provide any guarantees. On the part of Ukraine and the western international community, a yielding on these issues, even if justified with the aim of ending the conflict, would provide Putin with a sort of proof of weakness, with the aggravating circumstance that Russian promises could easily be disregarded. It remains to be assessed how the military confrontation can continue, after the concrete possibility exists that there is an enlargement of the Ukrainian border to the West, with the involvement of Transnistria, a Russian enclave between Moldova and the Ukrainian country, which could be assimilated by Putin in the same way of Donbass and Crimea. Raising the tension is a sort of political diversion from Moscow, which suffers from military aid to Kiev, because it allows the Ukrainian forces an increasingly effective defense; the Russian foreign minister explicitly accused the Atlantic Alliance of already being at war with Moscow, precisely because of the supplies of military equipment; the reasoning is that a third world war represents much more than an eventuality, but that it is becoming a concrete possibility, especially after the claims coming from the United Kingdom, which has supported the legitimacy of an attack on Russia. The risk of a nuclear escalation is possible, but Moscow has expressed the concept that an atomic war is unacceptable, being well aware of an unpredictable result, however, the latest Russian rocket launches have hit areas very close to Ukrainian nuclear power plants and an eventual impact with a reactor could trigger consequences equal, at least, to the use of tactical nuclear devices, that is, of short range and less destructive potential; on the Russian hesitation to use atomic force, in one way or another, it is good not to trust too much, especially after the massacres perpetrated by the Kremlin military, in disregard of international conventions and with armaments in turn prohibited by the same agreements. Kiev reacted to the Russian threats of a third world war, as a sign of the weakness of Moscow, which expected a quick and painless conquest of the Ukrainian country, without reactions from Kiev and the West: on the contrary, Putin managed to compact the Western allies, to restore value and political importance to the Atlantic Alliance and to combine the Ukrainian country in the defense of its territory. In reality, the reading of the Ukrainian government appears to be acceptable, because it shows a military and political difficulty of Russian action, which seems to find ever new difficulties at every level, this impression, however, reinforces the idea that Putin has put himself on a path without exit and that this risks making it more and more unpredictable and dangerous. The move to threaten a widening of the conflict beyond Transnistria, to involve Moldova already appears to be a consequence of the Kremlin chief’s difficulties in getting out of the current impasse. Moreover, even the attempts of the Secretary General of the United Nations have not brought results, if not highlighting his slow reaction, given that he moved well after the war had started two months ago; questioning about the real usefulness of the United Nations now appears superfluous: without an adequate and radical reform, the emptying of the powers and effects, even if only potential, of the United Nations is a sure fact on the international scene, which determines the absolute unreliability of supranational body, now a mere facade. The poor results of the diplomatic action, meanwhile, prevent the creation of humanitarian corridors to allow civilians to escape to safety, but behind this block there is a precise Russian tactic, which intends to use the population as a hostage in a way that is functional to its own modalities. of combat. Meanwhile, Moscow’s action focuses on bombing the railways, identified as the main carrier of arms transport, thus creating an additional obstacle for civilian escape.