Despite the potential Russian supremacy, the scenario of the Ukrainian conflict appears to be in constant evolution, which is becoming less positive for Moscow. According to Washington, the Kiev offensive is constant and planned, thanks to the progress made by the Ukrainian military in the actions carried out in the south of the country against Russian troops. Parallel to these successes for Kiev, the good news is the renewed military aid, not only from the US, but also from those countries that fear the Russian invasion. After the start of hostilities, dating back to six months earlier, the West sees positive signs on the ground, thanks to the reconquest of some Ukrainian cities that had been stolen from the occupation of Moscow; this allows us to glimpse a scenario different from the one so far present, where Kiev had limited itself to resisting the Russian invasion, but with an evolution towards a possible reconquest of the lost ground. This perspective has been certified by the US Secretary of Defense in front of the defense ministers of the countries belonging to the Atlantic Alliance and the representatives of fifty nations who support Ukrainian efforts. The scene of the meeting was the military base of Ramstein, where aid for 675 million dollars relating to special weapons, armored vehicles and light weapons was formalized; in particular the rockets, howitzers and anti-tank systems, which are proving to be fundamental for the recovery of Kiev. These supplies are needed to supply Ukrainian armories after Soviet and Russian production arsenals are running out. The US also advocated the need for greater participation in aid for Ukraine to achieve the goal of defeating Putin. From the point of view of the duration of the conflict, analysts hypothesize a scenario that can contemplate a duration of several years, far from the predictions of a rapid conclusion, for this reason it is necessary to implement and modernize the weapons equipment for Ukraine and train large light and heavy ammunition reserves. This factor is considered strategic, not only for the containment of Russia, but also to continue the process of regaining the Ukrainian territories stolen from Moscow and to arrive at favorable conditions to end the conflict. The United States is confirmed as the country most committed to the financial effort to support Kiev, the current administration of the White House has signed a commitment for the supply of approximately 13.5 billion dollars of armaments compatible with the artillery systems of the Atlantic Alliance, weapons considered more modern than those used by the Russians and which are providing the desired results against Moscow. Certainly the supply of armaments alone is not enough, equipment is also needed against the harsh climate, which the fighters will have to face next winter and the increasingly intense training of the Ukrainian military in the use of new weapons systems, so different from the setting up of Soviet and Russian armaments. This new turn of the conflict, which highlights the concrete possibility of overturning a prediction that was all in favor of Russia, invests a whole series of reflections on a military and geopolitical level, on the possible behaviors of Moscow, which must be taken into great consideration, both by Ukrainian and Western strategists. Putin can no longer go back: his prestige and that of his circle of government would be greatly compromised: a defeat in Ukraine was not even foreseen and not having solved the special military operation in his favor in a short time appears as a half failure. Moscow always has the nuclear option, the consequences of which are not foreseeable, except in an all-out war, in which the Chinese would hardly give their support. The American arms supplies are far qualitatively higher and the determination of the Russian soldiers is not comparable to that of the Ukrainians; the sanctions put a strain on the West, which, however, from an energy point of view, albeit slowly, are reorganizing their supply systems, while Moscow, already in default, will soon prove the shortage of Western products, it will hardly be replaceable with similar products from other areas of the world: these are not luxury goods, but products without which companies will not be able to function, furthermore the financial blocks and the sale of energy materials at discounted prices will reduce the availability of maneuvers of a economy already in trouble before the war, like the Russian one. These perspectives risk inducing Putin to extreme gestures capable of bringing the world back many years, to avoid this it is necessary to combine the current measures with a diplomatic strategy that can be a shortcut to allow the conflict to end.
The Chinese attitude towards Russia, regarding the invasion of the Ukrainian country, has so far been ambiguous from a political point of view, but clearer from an economic point of view. This reflection, in fact, explains the behavior adopted by Beijing since the beginning of the hostilities against Kiev, regarding the rejection of the sanctions against Moscow, intended as an unexpected opportunity for economic benefits for China. Of course, political closeness with Russia exists anyway, but it is to be framed more in an anti-American function, rather than with genuinely shared motivations, if not as a fact that has created a sort of precedent for an eventual invasion of Taiwan. This possibility, albeit concrete, is nevertheless still considered distant by most analysts. It all starts with Moscow’s need to find other markets for raw materials, after the fact that it lost the European one in retaliation. China has always been looking for energy supplies to support the growth necessary to raise the country to the level of a great power and to create the internal wealth necessary to avoid too many challenges to its system of government. The Chinese country is thus the market that Moscow needs to sell its raw materials, even if heavily discounted, due to the lack of demand. The two countries have reached an agreement on exchange currencies that excludes both the euro and the dollar, in favor of the yuan and the ruble: with a payment system that provides for the use of half of the two currencies for each transaction. If for Russia the intent is to give a political signal to the West, avoiding the use of the currencies of hostile countries, which have frozen Moscow’s reserves abroad, for China the increase in the use of the yuan on the international level it has a very significant economic significance, because it allows its currency to reach fifth place after the dollar, euro, British pound and Japanese yen, in the ranking of the most used currencies. The ambition is to overcome the Japanese currency and get closer to the podium, as a functional tool for its foreign policy, with a view to favoring its expansion in the emerging markets of Asia and Africa and therefore exercising an even greater share of soft power in these regions. The ruble, on the other hand, has even dropped out of the twenty most used currencies and, with this agreement, it could try to move up the rankings, even if at the moment, with the country subjected to sanctions, this more than remote possibility seems unattainable, even if Moscow’s intention is to enter into a similar agreement with Turkey, which, despite being a member of the Atlantic Alliance, has not joined the sanctions. Ankara has practical reasons to take advantage of the Russian gas sale because its economy is in great difficulty and having favorable access to energy raw materials could favor a development of its production system. Currently, Russia’s position vis-à-vis China on supplies of energy materials ranks as the top supplier, having overtaken even Saudi Arabia on supplies to the oil sector. The trade balance between the two states is clearly in favor of Moscow, which exports goods for 10,000 million euros to Beijing, of which eighty percent relates to the energy sector, while China exports only goods to Russia for 4,000 million euros. EUR. Beijing does not seem to suffer from this imbalance because it allows access to Russian energy resources at favorable conditions and, at the same time, does not consider the export of its products to the former Soviet country potentially convenient. Facilitated access to Russian resources, on the other hand, favors greater productivity of Chinese companies, which could favor competition from Western, US and European companies, generating an indirect consequence of the very dangerous sanctions. On the other hand, interrupting the policy of sanctions and aid, including military aid, for Ukraine is certainly impossible, despite some right-wing politicians in the West who have expressed this intention. The unity and compactness of the West is also a protection against Chinese expansionism, which fears more than anything else the blockade of its goods to the richest markets, which continue to be those of the West lined up against Russia.
Practically on the eve of the end of her mandate as Commissioner for Human Rights, which expires on August 31, Michelle Bachelet, former president of Chile, revealed that she was pressured not to publish a ready-made report, which would denounce Beijing’s abuses against the Muslim Uyghur minority, which has a population of about twelve million people present in the northern region of Xinjiang. China has reportedly sent a letter, also signed by forty other countries whose names have not been revealed, in which the intent was to dissuade the Commissioner for Human Rights from not publishing the report. The drafting of the report in question has been underway for three years, but also includes the results of the Commissioner’s visit last May, which provoked heavy criticism from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and also from the US State Department. for the attitude considered too accommodating on the part of the UN envoy towards the Chinese authorities, which have been criticized with tones considered too moderate. Despite the rather long processing period for the preparation of the report, publication has been postponed several times for unknown official reasons, although it is assumed that Beijing and its allies have materially operated in this sense. A justification provided by the Commissioner herself is that the delay is due to the need to integrate the results of the disputed May visit into the report, in any case the objective of publication would be by the end of the Commissioner’s mandate, i.e. by the end of the month of August, even if there is no official confirmation to this effect. Many Western countries have specifically requested the publication of the report but the Chinese government has expressed requests to examine the research results more closely; to complicate the situation, a search by fourteen international newspapers intervened, which managed to examine official Chinese documents that would have confirmed the persecution of Uyghurs, through continuous and systematic violations of human rights suffered by at least more than two million people with the practice of internment, also suffered by minors, in re-education centers, where in addition to the administration of physical and psychological violence, the Uighurs are used as a workforce without pay, in a condition comparable to slavery. Beijing denies these allegations by defining the detention centers as vocational training institutes. The accusation against Bachelet by the US Secretary of State is that he did not ask China for news of missing Uyghurs and those deported to other Chinese regions, uprooted from their places of origin, even some human rights organizations have defined the management of the Commissioner as too compliant towards China and asking for her to be replaced by more determined people. The willingness to step down from her role as Commissioner for Human Rights would materialize right after her return from the mission in China and would be justified on personal grounds. The coincidence appears at least suspicious, it could have been the case of too strong Chinese pressure to determine the real reason for the resignation and the awareness of not knowing how to face such a test, that is, not being able to face the consequences of a too little severe relationship on the part of Western countries or the opposite on the part of the Chinese. In any case, an inglorious end to his mandate as Commissioner of Human Rights, which in one way or another will mark the political figure of Bachelet.
Concerning the attack that killed the daughter of the main ideologue of Russian supremacy over Eurasia, there can be no doubt about its instrumentality in supporting the revitalization of the consensus for the war against Ukraine. The almost immediate resolution of the case by the Russian secret services, which took place with a rapidity, which could be used to prevent the incident in a preventive manner, also contributes to reinforcing these doubts. The most extremist area that supports President Putin is affected, the one that responds to the victim’s father who refers to the theory, developed with the collapse of the Tsarist empire and set aside in the communist period, of a Russia buttress of the liberal west. Although the father of the victim, to whom the attack could have been directed, has been indicated by many as Putin’s ideologue, there is no concrete evidence of this link, nevertheless the active presence of this extremist part of the Kremlin his supporters is directly functional to what has always been his electoral program, based on restoring Russia to what is believed to be its role as a great power and, currently, the military and geopolitical program of reconquering the Ukrainian country and bringing it back directly under its influence, to put into practice to re-establish the zone of influence that already belonged to the Soviet Union. The war against Kiev, which was supposed to go the other way, is also a war against the West, but for importance Putin considers it the primary objective as more functional to become an example for all peoples and nations than what is considered from Moscow its own zone of exclusive influence: submitting Ukraine is a warning to all those countries that have ambitions to break away from Russian domination and, perhaps, go to the West. Of course, the objective is also to stop the expansion and the Western presence on the Russian border, but the objectives, of course, go hand in hand. The general consensus of the Russians towards the special military operation appears less and less convinced, despite the ban on public protest, there are signs of malaise for the sanctions, which have caused a lowering of the quality of life of the population, and, above all, the difficulty to find the necessary fighters to carry on the conflict in Ukraine. The obligation to address the poorest populations who supply unprepared soldiers from the eastern part of the country is an eloquent signal of the refusal to enlist and, therefore, to share Putin’s war, on the part of the wealthiest and most educated Russian populations; furthermore, the hostility of the relatives of the fallen and of the soldiers taken prisoner of the Ukrainians is growing, who increasingly resort to every means to get news of their relatives. Putin finds himself in a situation with no way out: a possible withdrawal would be equivalent to a defeat and a defeat could bring down the entire power plant of Russia, this assessment leads to two considerations on the attack: despite Moscow immediately accused Ukraine, it seems unlikely that Kiev have completed such a difficult operation, without even claiming it. There is also the possibility that the bomb may have been placed by Russian terrorists opposed to the Putin regime, but this possibility appears even more difficult in a regime where the control of the security apparatus is very stringent and uses high-level technological tools, such as facial recognition. If these hypotheses are excluded, therefore, one cannot but assume an attack provoked by the Russian apparatus itself to solicit greater resentment towards the Ukrainian country, after all, the threatening statements of the sovereign and nationalists present at the funeral were particularly violent towards Kiev. If this were to be true, however, it would mean that Putin is also feeling the collapse of even the most nationalist and war-friendly side of his supporters: a very worrying fact because it denounces the distance from the Russian president from his followers who are more convinced of the rightness of the military operation. , so much so that they need a provocative act to arouse the outrage necessary to support the conflict. The other hypothesis is that with the attack, the hope of securing greater support in the most war-reluctant sections of the population, but still sensitive to Russian nationalism, is given concrete form. In any case, a desperate gesture by the Kremlin regime that signals a growing difficulty on the battlefield and on that of approval at home, which could represent the beginning of the end for the head of the Kremlin and his gang.
Although Beijing has never strayed from the “one China” rhetoric, which considers Taiwan to be part of its own nation, the unofficial limits of territorial waters and airspace have until now been more or less continuously respected. The occasion of the unscheduled visit of the speaker of the American House, Nancy Pelosi, to Taipei sparked the reaction of China, which has undertaken the simulation of the invasion of the island with exercises that, it has been announced, will continue on a regular basis. The voluntary use of live bullets increases the risk of a military accident, which includes the voluntary tactic of unleashing a reaction from the side of the Taiwanese forces, which would provide Beijing with an alibi for the much-heralded attack. Meanwhile, Chinese intentions are increasingly evident, given that the announced end of the military blockade of the island, which has already lasted for 72 hours and has never happened before, has been prolonged with further exercises that represent a show of strength and put in place I threaten peace in a consistent way. The Chinese justification for these exercises, which, according to Beijing, take place in compliance with international regulations, lies in the objective of warning those who harm Beijing’s aims, essentially the US, and intensify actions against those who are considered secessionists. . The exercises touch the territory of South Korea and some Chinese missiles have entered the exclusive area of the sea of Japan, indirectly the intention is to intimidate the allies of the Americans and demonstrate to Washington that it does not fear the US armed forces present in neighboring countries. to China. On the part of Tokyo there were official protests and the Secretary General of the United Nations, visiting the Japanese capital, was also involved; the danger of a nuclear confrontation has returned to concrete after decades and the highest office of the United Nations has publicly called on states that are equipped with nuclear weapons to refrain from using it, to avoid a nuclear escalation. However, Taiwan has also conducted exercises for its artillery, using US-made weapons: yet another fact that jeopardizes the peace in the region due to the possibility that these launches could hit Beijing targets. From a diplomatic point of view, Beijing has interrupted the common dialogue on security with Washington, established precisely to avoid military incidents, potentially capable of bringing the two powers to conflict; according to the Chinese Ministry of Defense, this fact is the direct consequence of the American conduct, which with the visit of Nancy Pelosi, contravened the agreements between the two countries. In reality, the American move was carried out as a precise political calculation, which testifies the desire to protect Taiwan from a military invasion, which could come dangerously close and that China could undertake due to the American commitment more focused on the Ukrainian war: also in this the case could be a dangerous calculation because the US has repeatedly declared that in the event of an invasion of Taiwan, Washington’s military commitment will be directed, as opposed to that towards Kiev, which was limited to supplies, even large ones, of armaments . The White House, for the moment, continues not to officially recognize Taiwan, even if the visit of the Speaker of the House is an implicit recognition, just as, for now, it has not yet questioned the Chinese principle of one nation, which also includes Taiwan; however, formal recognition could be a diplomatic barrier to Beijing’s aims, even if there are a number of arguments to be made about the economic implications of relations between West and East. Europe should also take a more decisive role on the issue, rather than always remaining in the sidelines. Stopping trade from China would certainly be a more disadvantageous decision for Beijing, especially at a time like the present where economic growth is severely contracted; it is clear that the diplomatic effort should be enormous, especially if coupled with the question of the Ukrainian conflict, but Brussels must find a way to play a leading role in this affair if it is to increase its political weight globally. The time has come for Chinese intrusiveness to be contained in some way and the diplomatic and economic path is the one that appears to be more viable.
The Italian political crisis, which saw the resignation of Prime Minister Mario Draghi, has origins, which reside in an unsuitable and incompetent political and also social class, in populism and sovereignty and not least in an international situation where the friends of Russia are been silenced by the extreme violence used by Moscow against the Ukrainian civilian population. The Italian political class has dropped further in level after the 2018 elections, which saw the success of a movement that brought in parliament a number of people absolutely unsuitable to fill the role of representative of the Italian people, however this result was then revealed to be similar in most of the elected officials also in the other parties: a group of inexperienced people with the sole objective of looking for an alternative to a job they could not find. It is significant that no elected representative has managed to hold the office of Prime Minister and has had to search outside the Chamber and Senate. To remedy the mediocrity of the political class, as a last resort the President of the Republic had to resort to a personality who constituted a world-class excellence for his career so far. The prestige of Italy has increased and so the economic and political advantages for the Italian country and the government, albeit in a context of internal difficulty, due to the presence of parties of opposite tendencies, and international for the current context, has succeeded, at least in part, to carry out essential reforms. Certainly not all the social partners could be said to be satisfied, but it was the best solution, however the need to chase after the only opposition party “Brothers of Italy”, a far-right formation that led to the collapse of the government: first the former Prime Minister Conte at the helm of the left populists has submitted to the government a list of requests, even correct, but not admissible by the ruling center-right parties. The intention was obviously to exacerbate an already complex situation precisely to try to improve strongly negative polls by appealing to a spirit of the movement that is increasingly reduced. This attempt has provoked a run-up to the polls of the parties of the center right in the government, which already feared the too positive estimates of the far right and have chosen to no longer support the government, without having the courage to vote openly against, to improve their appreciation in strong descent. A government was thus sacrificed which had plans for reforms and aid to families and businesses only to allow, perhaps, the election of the usual suspects and with the threat of having a far-right premier in times of pandemic, war, inflation and drought. she only has experience as a youth minister, certainly not enough experience to lead a country at a time like this. In addition, it should be noted that the parties that brought down the Draghi government, apart from Forza Italia, Lega and the Five Star Movement, have always sympathized with Russia and this suspicion can only be considered. Not that it was a deliberate action to that effect, but the positions against arms supplies to Ukraine came precisely from these political parties, in the name of peace, actually in favor of pro-Moscow and Putin convictions. Italy comes out very badly from this affair at an internal and international level and loses an important opportunity to return to count in Europe and in the world, the future of the Italian country promises to be very difficult with the autumn challenges that lie ahead both for the pandemic, that, above all, due to the economic challenges that risk definitively disrupting a social fabric afflicted by profound inequality.
Russia has emerged from international isolation since it began the war of aggression against Ukraine. In the Iranian capital, Putin met Erdogan and the landlord, the president of Iran Raisi. In addition to the excuse of the negotiations to unblock the transport of grain, the three heads of state talked about issues about cooperation between the three countries to definitively eradicate terrorist organizations to guarantee the civilian population in compliance with international law. It is curious that precisely three countries that have continued to violate international law for some time are referring precisely to its respect. In reality, the three countries have a particular vision of respect for international standards, that is, one that is functional to their individual interests; at this stage Russia wants to take part of Ukraine, if not all of it, because it considers it as an area of its own influence, Turkey wants to defeat the Kurdish militias in Syria and Iran to defeat the Islamic State, not as such, but because formed by Sunnis. Erdogan and Putin held a bilateral meeting, which had wheat as its main theme, but where the Russian president complained about the presence of sanctions, in this case on fertilizers, which block agricultural production, helping to increase the problems of world malnutrition. however, the presence of Turkey appears extremely singular because it is still a component of the Atlantic Alliance: it is clear that Erdogan’s strategy has as its objective an international relevance but it is a behavior that cannot have been agreed with NATO and that qualifies Turkey as a less and less reliable member. Meanwhile, Iran has stressed the legitimacy of Moscow’s invasion of the Ukrainian country, motivating it with the need to stop the Western advance and the American goal of weakening Moscow. For Iran, the organization of this trilateral summit is the answer to Biden’s visit to Israel and Saudi Arabia, historical enemies of Tehran. One of the other reasons for the meeting was Syria: Russia and Iran support the Assad regime, while Turkey’s ambitions on Syrian Kurdistan are now sadly known: the goal would be to end the Syrian war, which, by now, it has been going on for eleven years and, precisely to this end, Moscow and Tehran have pressured Ankara to stop Washington from providing more aid to the rebels who control the areas where Assad is unable to reestablish his rule. The minimum objective for Turkey is to have a strip of territory of thirty kilometers between the Turkish border and the area occupied by the Kurds, to achieve this, Erdogan has threatened an armed intervention, which, however, both Russia are against. that Iran, in favor of a return to the area of Assad’s sovereignty and because they were both urged by the Kurds to have protection from any attacks by Ankara. The three countries form the guarantee committee for Syria, known as Astana, and recognized by the United Nations; according to the Syrian regime, Turkey is taking advantage of this role to pursue its own ends, rather than working towards the end of the Syrian conflict. The meeting also served to try to increase trade by four times, from 7,500 to 30,000 million dollars, between Turkey and Iran. It should be remembered that Ankara has definitely positively changed its relations with Saudi Arabia, after the murder of an opposition Arab journalist on its territory, ignoring the issue and developing trade agreements with the Saudis, to revive the Turkish economy in crisis. The resumption of these relations had caused the Iranian protest, which the recent summit also aimed at re-establishing positive contacts between the two countries. In fact, the development of a commercial expansion serves both sides: for Iran it is a way of circumventing sanctions and for Turkey it constitutes yet another attempt to revive an economy in serious crisis, however from a geopolitical point of view it is not it is clear whether Ankara is an unreliable ally of the West or whether these contacts, both with Iran and with Moscow, are not an attempt to maintain a sort of connection with these countries on an unofficial mandate from the West. The difference, of course, is very significant and can determine Turkey’s political future.
Beyond the war power of Russia or China, there is a much more worrying factor for the West: the lack of conviction and determination of its populations to oppose an alternative idea in a negative sense, through the founding element on which the whole construction is based. Western, about democracy. The practices through which the democratic system is exercised and put into practice are not in question, but rather its lack of renewal and the lack of vitality of democratic practice, which is given as an acquired fact, without a necessary renewal. One of the most evident signs is the increasing lack of participation in the vote, a factor already well present in the United States, which is also gaining momentum in Europe, by electing institutional representatives with increasingly reduced percentages of voters. The phenomenon is growing sharply and derives from the lack of confidence in politicians, who have not been able to deal with the current times with due expertise, where economic and technological transformations have led to a general worsening of conditions, thanks to the lack of contrast of an inequality. more and more increased. Economic disparity has led to social disparity with an understandable resentment that has not been sheltered and which represents the central issue in the deterioration of democratic systems. If populism has had objective facilitations to assert itself, leaving however more than negative perceptions due to the inability to exercise adequate government policies, the parties and movements that have moved in the opposite direction to this trend have not been able to give a positive push for troubleshooting. A sort of immobility has arisen, which has often forced unnatural collaborations, compromises that have done nothing but favor immobility and substantial postponement of the problems. On the contrary, in contingent situations a speed of decision appears necessary which is necessary against dictatorial or autocratic regimes. Then, when this need for speed of decision moves from the state to the supranational sphere, the slowdowns even increase, blocked by regulations now outdated by the times, with absurd rules such as those relating to unanimity on every decision. Certainly already in normal conditions this constitutes a perception of failure of the democratic system and the suspension, albeit slight, dictated by the pandemic has highlighted how democratic rules have not offered alternatives to face the health emergency to decisions taken, forcibly, in restricted areas. . With a military confrontation in progress, it is impossible not to notice how Putin and his authoritarian system are more efficient against a myriad of states with their own rules and which require continuous parliamentary debates. The problem is that we arrived unprepared for a situation like that of the Ukrainian conflict, a war in Europe, without an organization capable of maintaining democratic effectiveness combined with the needs of the situation. Putin has bet a lot on this aspect, actually obtaining the opposite effect on the political side, while for the military aspect the result appears different, even China has tried, as a policy functional to its purposes, to divide the Union while maintaining a constant criticism of democratic systems, both powers have also acted in an unorthodox way through information systems and by financing populist groups and anti-democratic order. These signals have been received by Western governments, but have remained in the restricted field of professionals, without becoming real alarms for the social classes, especially the middle and lower ones, increasingly grappling with economic difficulties. This is why a reduction of inequalities together with the improvement of services and therefore of the quality of life, can be a valid method to make those who are moving away from it more and more appreciate democracy and be preparatory to action at the level of states to the strengthening of the libertarian idea against the increasingly emerging dictatorships.
As a prologue to the G20, which will be held next November in Bali in Indonesia, the G20 is being held in the same location, which concerns the foreign ministers of the top twenty economies in the world. This is a remarkable opportunity, especially for Russia, which can gain the visibility it is lacking as the Ukrainian conflict progresses. The foreign minister of Moscow, after the beginning of the invasion called a special military operation, which took place on February 24, carried out several diplomatic missions which, however, were almost exclusively bilateral summits, without ever having the opportunity to be able to attend a multilateral event of global significance. Being present for Russia represents an unmissable opportunity, even if it has raised a lot of criticism from Western countries, which have boycotted talks with the top foreign policy representative of Moscow, stressing the need not to sign any joint declaration and coming to express opinions in favor of the exclusion of Russia from all G20 meetings. The reason is that it does not provide such an important audience and that provides wide international resonance to a country that, by invading another, has violated every rule of international law. This opinion, widely shared by Western countries, is not shared by nations such as China, Indonesia, India and South Africa, which have taken more conciliatory attitudes towards Moscow, especially on the issue of sanctions. In this, Russia is explicitly supported by China in denying the legitimacy of the economic and political sanctions against Moscow, adopted by the West, because it was decided outside the United Nations. This objection does not seem worthy of a possible acceptance, even beyond the blatant Russian violation and for having committed war crimes against the civilian population, precisely because the functioning mechanism of the United Nations Security Council provides that the permanent members, including there are China and Russia, they can exercise the right of veto on the resolutions, in this case in open conflict on the objectivity of the judgment and on the conflict of interests of Moscow. Despite the resistance of his Western colleagues, the Russian minister was able to attract attention, not only for his presence, but for the meeting with his Chinese counterpart, where various points of convergence were found, especially against the United States , accused of practicing a policy expressly aimed at containing Moscow and Beijing, including through the subversion of the world order. The Chinese minister underlined how, despite the difficulties represented by the weight of the respective sanctions, the two countries remain united in a common strategic perspective. West, raises serious questions about the Chinese attitude towards the continuation of the conflict and about the position of Beijing. China, although opposed, to protect its commercial interests, in the state of war does not like Washington’s invasion of Taiwan, a case very similar to the territories of eastern Ukraine or Crimea and furthermore the aversion has increased after the USA they again explicitly accused the Chinese of practicing industrial espionage. The problem, however, is concrete and has forced the United States to tackle even those Western companies that collaborate with Beijing. China sees in this attitude an American behavior similar to that practiced against Russia with the expansion of the Atlantic Alliance and therefore of the US influence in the former Soviet countries, which Moscow considered areas of its influence: the potential American arrival on the borders Russians, at least partially justifies the Russian reaction. The analogy with American activity in Russia has a double significance for China and concerns both Taiwan and the commercial expansion that allows the growth of gross domestic product, considered an indispensable necessity for the government of the People’s Republic. If we understand the US reasons for a similar growth of the economy in the global context, in evident competition with China, some reasons could be mitigated by removing support, which seems to be increasing, from Beijing to Moscow. Removing Chinese support, at least in part, would force Putin to review his positions in the Ukrainian war and could be the quickest way to a truce and the consequent end of the conflict.
The reopening of pilgrimages to Mecca, after the two-year suspension due to the pandemic, precedes the visit of American President Biden to Saudi Arabia. The expected number of pilgrims is around one million and a visit to the holy city of Islam is mandatory for Muslim faithful at least once in their life. The pilgrimage of these days is the most important of the year and for the anniversary, Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman intends to exploit all the potential that he can obtain, especially at the political level. If in normal conditions, for the Arab country the religious celebration brings an increase in earnings and provides greater legitimacy to Riyadh within the Islamic world, this year the pilgrimage could be functional, if not for rehabilitation, at least for a sort of suspension of the judgment on the crown prince in relation to the murder of the dissident journalist in Turkey, of which Bin Salman was accused of being the instigator. Precisely for this fact, US President Biden himself had described Saudi Arabia as a pariah. Meanwhile in Saudi Arabia a trial was held in which some members of the secret services were sentenced to death for the death of the journalist, but this did not serve to eliminate doubts about the crown prince, despite an increase in his public activity and the the granting of some reforms towards women, which actually seemed more apparent than substantial; however, the international situation with the war in Ukraine which led to the sanctions, especially on energy supplies, imposes the need to resume relations with the Saudi regime, above all to facilitate the increase in oil supplies from Riyadh to American allies penalized by the blockade from imports from Russia. This is a clear episode of realpolitik, which, in order to achieve immediate objectives, sacrifices the condemnation of one of the most repressive countries in the world, which, among other things, is the protagonist of the fierce war in Yemen, where Saudi interests have unarmed civilians sacrificed and which has created one of the most serious health and hygiene situations in the world. Moreover, a similar case is represented by the sacrifice of the Kurdish cause, which with its fighters has practically replaced the American soldiers against the Islamic State, in favor of Erdogan, a dictator clearly in difficulty within his country, who seeks rehabilitation international with its diplomatic action for the resolution of the war between Kiev and Moscow. International analysts predict that Biden, precisely to justify his visit and with it the rehabilitation of the Arab country, will be committed to praising the reforms promised by Bin Salman to reform the rigid state structure of the Islamist type. If these political twists have always existed and have also been justified by contingent needs, however, it is necessary to arrive, albeit not immediately but progressively, at a fixed point where certain nations that have certain conditions can no longer be among the reliable interlocutors. The discourse is certainly very broad because it involves various sectors, if not all, of the political and economic aspects that concern Western democracies. The case in question highlights the peculiarity of providing international credit to an instigator of an assassination, a crime committed on the ground of a foreign country and also against the freedom of the press, a person who has violated a series of rules that cannot qualify him as interlocutor up to the standards required, however the moment of necessity, also due to a possible, even if not probable, potential collaboration with enemy states, obliges the highest Western representative to validate the promise of any improvements in laws, which in all likelihood , they will be only facade operations. From a diplomatic point of view it can represent a success, but from a political point of view, it represents a sort of delegitimization, not of the single American president, but of the whole West. The need to eliminate relations of this type, or, at least, to have them from a point of strength, must be developed in a programmed and progressive manner with a general policy capable of investing both political and economic aspects, starting right from within the West. , maintaining the peculiarities of the individual States but finding non-derogable common points regulated by international agreements and treaties regularly ratified by national parliaments.