The Russian diplomatic situation is complicated

The statement by the Russian defense minister, relating to the fight against the transport of weapons in favor of Ukraine, risks being a further element capable of raising the tension between Moscow and Brussels. The leading exponent of the defense department of Moscow has expressly declared that any means of the Atlantic Alliance that will transport weapons and ammunition for the Ukrainian army will be destroyed; convoys arriving in the Ukrainian country carrying armaments will be considered legitimate targets. These statements, although not new, because some convoys have already been hit, are very serious because they are addressed directly to the Atlantic Alliance, which cannot react passively to the threat of having become an explicit target. For the moment we are still at the stage of threats, which, in a certain sense, is a political situation, albeit at the limit; very different could be the case of an Atlantic Alliance convoy hit by the Russians, especially after these threats. Certainly it is not to be anticipated that Brussels will renounce arms supplies to Kiev, also due to the substantial allocations already foreseen by Biden and, at the same time, it is certainly not possible to think of possible reprisals, in case a convoy is hit. With the current situation, any retaliation would be entrusted to the Ukrainian army itself and not carried out directly by the forces of the Atlantic Alliance, however it is easy to identify opportunities for Moscow to threaten NATO members, which border on Ukraine and increase the possibilities of a clash capable of triggering the third world conflict. Moreover, Moscow has already repeatedly threatened Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and the Baltic countries because they host American military bases and the instrumental search for an accident would be a functional move to proclaim itself an attacked country. In the meantime, Helsinki has again reported an incident involving the trespassing of a Russian military aircraft, which entered the Finnish territory for at least five kilometers; this border breach represents the second episode in just under a month and aims to threaten the Nordic state for its willingness to abandon its status as a neutral country to join the Atlantic Alliance. As we can see, even on this front Moscow is always close to creating an accident capable of precipitating the current state of things towards even more serious consequences. The Russian tactic is probably part of an attempt at attrition, which seems to be a wrong calculation, such as the one that NATO and the European Union would have split up and which has led the Russian country to become a sort of international pariah. From a diplomatic point of view, the actions and declarations against the aggression of Moscow are multiplying: the Portuguese Prime Minister, announcing his visit to Kiev, requested a greater capacity to react to the European Union, especially on the issue of emergencies concerning the Ukrainian people, but also for financial and military support, even independently of the Union accession process. During the visit of the Japanese Prime Minister to Rome, Japan and Italy reiterated the need for the defense of the world order, based on the rules of international law, an implicit condemnation for Moscow, but also a warning for China, because international rules must also apply to maritime issues, to which Tokyo is particularly sensitive due to Beijing’s violations in the neighboring sea. The fear of Japan and other international subjects is that the violation of international law perpetrated by Russia will set an example for resolving other international issues with the use of military means, rather than with diplomacy. Moscow has violated a custom that could still be broken in similar ways and it is the duty of the international community to work to ensure that this does not happen again; this theme will be central for a long time and must also concern a necessary revision of the functioning of the United Nations, too conditioned by the vetoes of permanent members; a similar problem that concerns the European Union bound by the unanimity rule in the decisions of the measures. The issue of the decisions of supranational bodies becomes increasingly central in the contrast between the actions of countries where democracy is little or no and authoritarianism has the advantage of the speed of decisions.