Categoria: English version

With a negotiation, which could be defined as alternative, Orban’s Hungary, opting for constructive abstention, as it has been imaginatively defined, allowed the European Council to proceed with the opening of negotiations for accession to the Union of Moldova and Ukraine. After repeated threats, the Hungarian president absented himself from the vote, with an unprecedented procedural innovation, which made it possible to achieve the result approved by twenty-six European countries, which also includes the start of Georgia’s candidacy and the postponement of the evaluation to March of the accession process of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Orban, the only European leader to meet Putin since the beginning of the Ukrainian conflict, has always said he is against the start of Kiev’s accession process, arguing that it does not meet the conditions for joining the EU, however, apart from the affinities with the regime of Russian and therefore political, Budapest could fear sharing European resources, which, in fact, financially support the Hungarian country, with the new members, with a consequent decrease in revenue from Brussels. Naturally, Orban’s abstention was not free: beyond the threat of a request for funding of 50 billion for the functioning of the Hungarian administration for 2024, President Orban was “satisfied” with the release of 10 billion in funding, which they had been blocked due to the violation of fundamental rights by the Budapest government; rights that will certainly not be restored and this fact will also constitute a further dangerous precedent for the functioning of European politics, which can be overcome, as always, with the end of unanimity voting, a mechanism that needs to be corrected more and more urgently. The approach of the summit was entirely aimed at the result, where, in fact, it was preferred to create dangerous precedents to achieve the set goal, with a political vision, which necessarily had to sacrifice something, but which brought a result that was rightly celebrated. If the process is successful, the political value will certainly be successful, not only for the enlargement of the common European home, but also for the geostrategic containment of Russian ambitions. Nor should the fact of having accepted the ambitions of Georgia be underestimated, which could become a European member without geographical continuity with the other member countries and which could constitute an outpost of the Union capable of attracting other countries in the region. The decision strengthens European credibility and prestige, allowing us to interrupt the diplomatic obfuscation, which Brussels has demonstrated with decisions that are not always too congruent with its principles. President Zelensky averted an indirect victory for Putin, which would have raised Moscow’s morale in the event of refusal towards Ukraine. The opening to Kiev means an unequivocal political result on a global level, which compensates, at least in part, for the refusal of the US Congress to release the 60 billion dollars for military aid; moreover, the Ukrainian situation in the conflict with Russia is at a standstill, the front is immobile and the progress that the Kiev government had promised to the West has not been recorded, while the Russian armies seem to be holding on to their positions. The European decision, combined with the consistent promise by some individual European states to provide military aid, can boost Ukrainian morale; Kiev and Moscow’s commitment in the coming winter months should be to maintain their positions and prepare for decisive operations when weather conditions improve. In this period, European commitment may also be more incisive in the diplomatic field, despite Putin having declared that Western isolation has not produced major repercussions on the Russian economy and there is no further need to mobilize new military personnel; these declarations must be interpreted partly as justified by the upcoming Russian elections and partly by Moscow’s ability to have been able to carve out a dialogue with powers both adverse to the USA, such as Iran, and close to Washington, such as Arabia. Europe, therefore, must know how to play an increasingly autonomous role from the USA, also in preparation for an unfortunate re-election of Trump, of which the admission of Ukraine, Moldova and also Georgia must be read as a process that is part of a plan superior capable of uniting European countries in an increasingly federal and political sense with autonomy in foreign policy and equipped with its own army, capable, that is, of overcoming the financial logic to be able to truly interpret the role of an international subject of primary importance.

The tragic events of October 7, which occurred on Israeli territory on the border with the Gaza Strip, were a preordained plan by Hamas and there is no doubt about this. What we must ask ourselves is the attitude of the Israeli border forces, alerted by its own members and by probable intelligence news, evidently underestimated, with the borders undefended thanks to the decrease in numbers present. Have these warnings really been underestimated or are they part of a plan by the government in office to encourage the creation of a legitimate reason to unleash repression on Gaza and its eventual conquest and the further facilitation of the expansion of settlements in the West Bank? We need to go back in time and remember that Benjamin Netanyahu’s management of the Palestinian problem has always been characterized by an ambiguous attitude, made up of broken promises and a behavior that has favored the growth of the most radical movements, those that have always denied the legitimacy of the existence of Israel and of the two-state hypothesis, to the detriment of the moderate ones, which could favor dialogue, but to the detriment of the policy of expanding the colonies; in fact, the effective search for an agreement that could favor the achievement of the purpose of the two states would have penalized the politics of the far right which makes illegitimate colonial expansion, illegitimate because it is outside of international law and common sense, its own political program . Netanyahu’s political position and sensitivity has increasingly shifted to the right, bringing together increasingly radical movements and parties in the various governments that have followed, which with their actions have favored the growth of similar sentiments in Palestinian areas, with a growth of radical movements, among which the leadership of Hamas emerged. At the same time, however, Netanyahu’s personal situation has worsened due to various problems with the justice system in his country and the increasingly rightward shift of his political positions, which has put the anti-Palestinian action at the center, both in domestic and international sphere, a very strong reason for distraction from his judicial indictments. Currently, in the phase of the war in Gaza, the country’s sensitivity towards Netanyahu is strongly negative. For the attack on the kibbutzim, public opinion sees Netanyahu as the person most responsible, but the emergency situation prevents his replacement, even if he is It has been repeatedly underlined that after the end of the war in Gaza there should be no political future for the current prime minister. In the meantime, however, an increasingly aggressive attitude of the settlers in the West Bank is permitted and several questions are legitimate about the future of Gaza. At the beginning of the invasion by Israeli troops, the declared desire was to annihilate Hamas and leave the situation in the Strip unchanged, but as the conflict progresses, an unexplicitly declared desire to exercise effective control over the territory seems to emerge. This would imply the denial of the political and administrative autonomy of the Palestinians who will be lucky enough to remain alive in the face of the brutal repression that Israel is carrying out on the civilian population. An extreme solution could be the movement of the inhabitants of Gaza towards the Sinai, a solution to which Egypt has always said it is against, thus freeing a significant portion of territory to be allocated to new settlers. This is not an impossible eventuality, precisely because the survivors of Gaza are at the complete mercy of the Israeli armed forces, not defended by any state or international organization, capable of opposing, even politically, Tel Aviv. The fact that these are the civilian population, who have already paid the price of over 18,000 deaths, the entire destruction of their belongings, hunger and disease, produces nothing more than verbal solidarity, where the Arab countries lead interested in having international relations with Israel. In the end, the legitimate doubt is this: if Netanyahu were to expand Israeli dominion over Gaza and increase the territorial space of the colonies, something carried out with impunity, he would have definitively decreed the two-state perspective, an argument particularly appreciated by part of Israeli public opinion. , and he would therefore have created an insurance capable of preserving his political future which would also allow him to overcome his legal problems, in short he would have a leadership structure that is practically unassailable even by those parties and movements which hope for his political end. Will all this be possible? The solution will also depend on how the main international players want to behave, adopting new forms of approach to the Palestinian issue.

One of the consequences of the Gaza war is the suspension of the Abraham Accords, however, Saudi Arabia has only suspended its approach to Israel, waiting for a more favorable moment. Of the other Arab states that have already signed relations with Israel, there has not been any that has merely threatened to interrupt them, only criticism has arrived in Tel Aviv for the exaggerated response to the Hamas action of last October 7th, together with the request of a ceasefire, especially for humanitarian reasons. This is a situation clearly favorable to Tel Aviv, which cannot but highlight the substantial silence of the Sunni world. This scenario, which has actually been underway for some time, may only be favorable to Israel in the short term, but in the medium and long term it favors the radicalization of the Palestinians and the protagonism of the Shiites, with Iran as the leader, followed by Yemen and Hezbollah . In particular, Tehran becomes the defender of the Palestinians as the sole representative of Muslims. Netanyahu has in fact achieved what he wanted: a radicalisation, with the marginalization of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, a secular and more moderate organisation, of the Palestinians can avoid the discussion on the two states and Tehran’s protagonism forces the Americans into a new collaboration with the Israeli nationalist government; in fact, the American withdrawal from the Middle Eastern region has been rethought, forcing Washington to deploy a large quantity of armed vehicles, especially at sea, to protect the advance of the Israeli army and also to protect the American bases in the Persian Gulf from possible Iranian attacks. The evident desire to deter potential dangers from Tehran, but not only, has led to the deployment of several missiles capable of reaching Iranian territory; this implies that no progress will be made in the negotiations with the Ayatollah regime, on the nuclear issue or even on the easing of sanctions. Iran, despite having publicly stated that it has no interest in engaging in a conflict with the USA and Israel, will only be able to continue pursuing its strategy of destabilizing the area, to assert its objectives of control over Syria, together with Russia and part of Lebanon, territories essential to continue to put pressure on Tel Aviv. Washington will, however, have to consider Israel’s responsibilities for having had to give up a progressive reduction of its diplomatic activity in the Middle Eastern region in favor of a greater concentration on the Ukrainian question. It should be specified that various administrations of the White House are, at the very least, guilty of complicity with Tel Aviv, for not having committed themselves to the definition of the two-state project and not having fought the action of the governments of the Israeli nationalist right, which operated towards the Palestinians a policy of occupation and abuse in contempt of all civil and international rights. Only Washington could put adequate pressure on Israel, but this was not the case and the two-state solution, which could have avoided the current situation, was not achieved, also thanks to Netanyahu’s false availability and his unscrupulous policies. But once again the strategy proved to be short-sighted and at an international level it provoked an anti-Zionist and even anti-Semitic wave, which put Jews in difficulty in various countries around the world. At this moment the question of the two states does not appear viable due to Israeli hostility, yet it would still be the most valid antidote to the constant danger the Israeli-Palestinian issue causes in world balances. Envisioning the possibility of control of the Gaza Strip by the Tel Aviv army implies highly dangerous developments, which, once underway, could become unstoppable and drag the world into total conflict. We have already seen that actors such as Russia are taking advantage of the change in international relevance to divert attention from the Ukrainian issue and, similarly, China could decide to change its attitude with Taiwan and take action, as could terrorist groups who are operating in Africa could raise the level of conflict. Without the Gaza issue these phenomena would be more manageable and even the relationship with Tehran would be better. This is why the need to achieve peace in the shortest possible time implies a responsibility that Tel Aviv cannot refuse, under penalty of a bad fate, especially in the medium term.

The position of the Kremlin, since the times of the USSR, has been pro-Palestinian and in this context we must place the visit of Hamas representatives to Moscow, not received by Putin, but by the Russian Foreign Minister and, in any case, welcomed in a unequivocally symbolic, in the Kremlin headquarters, thus conferring the maximum degree of officiality and relevance of the meeting. This is a clear political signal aimed both at the USA and the West, and at Israel itself. Moscow is directly involved in the hostage situation, because there are six people of Russian nationality kidnapped, three of whom have dual nationality; while the number of Russian citizens who died in the bombing of the Gaza Strip reaches 23 people. In addition to Hamas, the Russian foreign minister also confirmed an upcoming meeting with the leader of the Palestinian Authority. Despite the difference in views with Hamas, which is against the two-state solution, Russia must exploit the moment to reposition itself as a relevant player in the Middle Eastern area and has every interest in maintaining relations with all the subjects involved in the current issue. If we want to have a broader vision of Moscow’s interests in the Near East, we need to consider the particular relations it has with Iran, Syria and Israel itself. Putin’s desire would be to play a role as mediator in the conflict, which could allow Russia to emerge from the current diplomatic isolation caused by the aggression against Ukraine. Moscow’s action aims to avoid the American monopoly on the management of the crisis, also through accusations against Washington of not supporting Palestinian aspirations for their own state nor the various UN resolutions, which have repeatedly condemned Israel. The Russian proposal in the Security Council was not accepted, because it did not include the condemnation of Hamas, but violence against all civilians on both sides, implying Tel Aviv’s violence towards Gaza; this has resulted in a deterioration of relations between Russia and Israel, which, however, cannot be compromised for common reasons. It should be remembered that Israel did not condemn Russia for the Ukrainian invasion and did not even join the international sanctions. It also did not provide Kiev, whose president Zelensky is Jewish, with the anti-missile system normally used to protect itself from rockets launched by Hamas. At the same time, Russia does not hinder Israel in its defense actions against Hezbollah, coming from Syria, despite the protection that Moscow continues to provide to the Damascus regime. Tel Aviv also needs Moscow’s help to contain Iranian politics in the region, which is a common interest as Tehran has long proclaimed the need to eliminate the Jewish state and implements this strategy through its ever-increasing influence on fundamentalist Shiite militias, Hezbollah and Hamas itself, because, in some ways, the only possible ally is Iran, which has remained to materially support the Palestinian liberation struggle, compared to the increasingly evident withdrawal of the Sunni Arab states in supporting the Palestinians. Tehran implements a policy of material aid in the countries of Lebanon and Syria, which, especially with regard to Damascus, can compromise Russian interests, as well as delicate regional stability. Regarding the conflict with Kiev, Moscow has every interest in international attention shifting to the Middle East and for this reason the Ukrainian president went so far as to state that the Russian country was behind the Hamas attacks. Supporting this hypothesis is very difficult, Hamas’ action was prepared over a long period of time and with substantial supplies, which seem to come from other countries. However, a tangible fact remains that this crisis between Israelis and Palestinians works in Moscow’s favor, even if the attention of the Atlantic Alliance has certainly not waned, but the greater commitment of the US military, especially with naval means, to protect Israel from ‘Iran implies a more diversified commitment and even diplomatic action is no longer focused only on the European objective.

Israel was very annoyed by the words of the Secretary of the United Nations, who, explicitly condemning the cowardly attack by Hamas several times, however, contextualized it in a context of violent abuse by the country of Israel perpetrated over more than fifty years against the Palestinians, especially civilians. This statement is true throughout history, but even more extreme over the years, which are many, of Netanyahu’s various governments, which have increasingly moved closer to the nationalist and Orthodox right, a political party with the sole objective of subtracting, through illegal settlements, land not only for Palestinians but even for Bedouin tribes. The Israeli president has implemented a policy of dividing the Palestinians, favoring the extremists of Hamas, who have gathered the consensus of the Palestinians, accrediting violence as the only possible solution. It must be said that this was favored by Netanyahu’s ambiguous attitude, who first allowed a glimpse of the two-state solution, and then moved increasingly towards a decisive denial of this solution, thus disadvantaging the moderate parts of Palestinian politics, several times accused of inability to achieve the goal of establishing a Palestinian state through diplomatic means. It must also be said that American interests, increasingly directed towards Southeast Asia, have led to an absence, which has favored Netanyahu’s action, which has led us to today. But the USA is not the only one responsible for this situation: the list is not short, Europe has maintained a condescending attitude towards Tel Aviv, condemning the Israeli action ineffectively and no less guilty are the Arab states which have remained declarations of convenience, without ever acting with a united policy to put pressure on the USA and the Israelis themselves, without even taking advantage of the recent rapprochement. All this contributed to determining an increase in tension, which occurred without fanfare, with Iran becoming the sole official defender of the Palestinian cause with its increasingly decisive support for the radical forces. Tehran was able to fill the void left by various subjects, who could favor a peaceful solution, to exploit the Palestinian case for its own geopolitical and strategic needs. Iran, through Palestine, can operate on two fronts: the first is the fight against Saudi Arabia, which is political and religious, the second, broader, is against the USA and the West in general, a factor that it can allow him a greater rapprochement with Russia and China. As can be seen from the Israeli responsibilities for not having pursued the two-state policy, but, indeed, for having contradicted it, we have reached a state of heavy global destabilization. It was not difficult to predict these developments, but the USA and Europe literally relied on chance, leaving too much freedom for Netanyahu’s action. It is necessary that the Israeli-Palestinian situation is not in a state of tension like the current one, so as not to alter the already fragile world balance, and this is why Israel must be convinced not to use such intense violent repression, which disqualifies it as a democratic state, placing it on the same level as a terrorist organization; the number of civilian deaths recorded in the Gaza Strip is already much higher than those caused by Hamas and the same ground operation feared in the Gaza Strip risks being enormous carnage for the two sides. Furthermore, there is the possible opening of a northern front, with Hezbollah ready to intervene, an increasingly overheated situation in the West Bank and explicit Iranian threats to strike Haifa. The presence of military ships in the Persian Gulf risks triggering a confrontation with Tehran, with the consequence of activating the dormant and unpredictable cells present throughout the world. Never before has peace been in the unfortunate hands of Netanyahu, who, honestly, cannot be relied on. Biden’s action, marked by moderation, however late, seems to be the only one capable of having some possibility of averting the principle of degeneration, which truly risks leading to the outbreak of a world conflict. Only by silencing the noise of weapons and unconditional bombings on Gaza can we hope to start again from a sort of negotiation, which will restore strength to the two-state solution and make opposing extremisms retreat. Time is running out but the possibilities are there, only with adequate reflection on everyone’s part, beyond that there is only the abyss.

In the first six months of this year, asylum applications to the twenty-seven countries of the European Union, added to Norway and Switzerland, reached the figure of 519,000 applications, marking an increase of more than 28%, compared to the reference period of the last year. Of these requests, 30% concern Germany, 17% Spain and 16% France. With these data, the figure of over one million requests could tend to be reached, a number similar to the record figure of 2016. 13% of asylum requests come from Syria, equal to about 67,000 people, with an increase compared to the same period last year, by 47%. The causes of this real migration are to be found in the worsening of the civil war, which caused the worsening of economic conditions and the hostility of the Turks, who in past years had absorbed a large part of the emigration from Damascus, against the Syrian population. The migratory route most followed by Syrian citizens is the Balkan one and this affects the nations that collect asylum requests, such as Bulgaria, with 6%, and Austria, with 10%, even if these destinations increasingly represent transit solutions to Germany, which has a percentage of requests of 62%, thanks to the roots of the Syrian community, favored in previous years by Chancellor Merkel. Immediately after Syria, the second country for asylum applications is Afghanistan, with 55,000 applications; despite being a migratory basin that has always ensured substantial quotas of migrants, the US decision to abandon the country has favored the return of the Taliban, who, once in power, have considerably reduced human rights and practiced a disastrous economic policy, which it has aggravated an already difficult situation, forcing the country to rely almost exclusively on international humanitarian aid. While the origin of migrants from African and Asian areas does not come as a surprise, there is an increase in requests from areas of Latin America, such as Venezuela and Colombia, which together reach 13% of the requests, in their totality practically directed towards Spain, thus explaining Madrid’s second European position in the ranking of asylum requests. These very worrying data are recorded shortly after the closure of the pact on immigration and less than a year after the European elections. The now customary resistance of Poland and Hungary to the distribution of migrants aggravate the internal situation of the European Union and highlight the lack of effectiveness and foresight of policies to regulate the inflows. The June agreement between EU foreign ministers provided for a sort of tax, in the amount of 20,000 euros per person per year, for those countries that refuse to contribute to the distribution of migrants and was conditioned by the vote against of Budapest and Warsaw; in Poland, in October, a referendum will be held on the issue of welcoming migrants, called by the right-wing government in office. Once again Brussels presents itself with internal divisions and without sanctions capable of dividing the migratory load, presenting itself to world public opinion as weak and easily blackmailed by anti-Western dictatorships, which use the migration issue as a real weapon of pressure for the ‘Europe. This state of things determines, in a period where Western cohesion is increasingly necessary, a vulnerable side to the detriment not only of the Union, but also of the Atlantic Alliance. Agreements such as the one between the European Union and Tunisia, in addition to being ineffective, are signed with dictatorial regimes, which take advantage of the individual weakness, in this case of Italy, and the global weakness of an institution that cannot be united and which allows the prevailing of national rather than supranational interests. The Italian case, a real southern border of Europe, clarifies the situation even more: 65,000 arrivals equal to 140%, if compared with the same period in 2022, yet Rome receives very little aid from the members of the Union, worried about safeguard their own individual situations. Until this logic is overcome, with an increasingly serious situation, due to wars, famines and climatic emergencies, Europe and the West will always be under blackmail.

The next G20 summit, which will be held in New Delhi, India, registers, even before starting, a very important absence, that of Chinese President Xi Jinping. This is the first time that this has happened because, for Beijing, the G20 meetings have always been considered as important occasions to present a modern image capable of representing the only alternative to US hegemony and, precisely for this reason, the presence of the highest Chinese authority was considered essential for the participation of the People’s Republic. Many speculations and hypotheses have already been made about this absence, which, however, do not fully explain the reasons for such a significant absence. Some experts have provided the explanation that the Chinese president, with his absence, wanted to devalue the institution of the G20, seen as a Western emanation, to get closer, also from a diplomatic point of view, to the emerging economies of the southern hemisphere and to even more relations with Russia. This explanation, however, appears to be in contrast with the Chinese needs to maintain commercial relations with the richest areas of the planet: Europe and the United States, despite significant differences of views. If it is true that Chinese expansion is developing in Africa, Beijing cannot give up the outlet of its goods towards the most profitable markets, especially in a phase, such as the current one, where the contraction of the internal economy generates compensation needs, that can only be found in the richest markets. Even the question of relations with Russia, which undoubtedly exists, must be framed in a diplomatic context, which serves to balance geopolitical relations on a global level with the West, in a non-symmetrical framework, however, with Moscow, which appears to be the weak partner of the alliance. The most correct answer to Xi Jinping’s absence must instead be sought, in the relations between China and India, in a historical moment where Beijing feels its historical enemy approaching where the overtaking of the population and the expedition to the Moon represent only the cases more recent than the comparison. The absence of the highest Chinese office is intended to diminish the relevance of the Indian G20 and deprive it of any possible visibility that could highlight it, such as the meeting with President Biden, who had to compare their respective positions on commercial and geopolitical relations and which will probably be postponed in November to San Francisco, during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum. It should also be remembered that the top officials of China and India recently met in South Africa at the BRICS summit and that at the time the meeting with Narendra Modi had not been boycotted, precisely because it was in neutral territory. On the other hand, the Indian president was hoping to obtain a great advantage in terms of international image, precisely because of organizing the G20 and the absence of Xi Jinping, potentially, can invalidate a good part of these expected consensuses. It must also be added that, precisely in the South African meeting, the tensions between the two personalities were exacerbated due to the age-old issue of borders in the Himalayan area. Despite these strategic reasons, China cannot completely snub the G20 summit, also to accurately preside over the meeting, which will focus on issues of primary importance: thus it will be Li Qiang, number two of the regime, who will represent Beijing; this choice is meant to be an unequivocal signal, both for the West and for India itself, with which Beijing intends to demonstrate that it still wants to be at the center of the discussions that will be the center of the summit.

Viktor Orban made an ideological speech, which places him more as a potential ally of Putin, than an actual member of the European Union, after all his electoral program, which allowed him to win, was focused on the opposition of the European Union, of which, however, Hungary enjoys robust contributions. The lack of coherence of the Magyar politician seems to coincide with the majority of his fellow citizens, who exploit the absurd regulation of the Union of the approval of measures on the basis of unanimity and not of the majority. Orban prophesied predicting the dissolution of the European Union and the fall of the USA; if the second seems like a wish, for the first the solution would be easy: do like Great Britain and get out of Brussels. However, this eventuality does not fall within Orban’s plans, who, perhaps, has given himself the political task of facilitating the dissolution from within, with his absurd behavior totally contrary to the founding values of the European Union. For Orban, the West is a collection of rich but weak states, which have no intention of facing competition with world powers. If, from a certain point of view, this statement has parts of the truth, it seems equally true that characters such as the Hungarian politician contribute not a little to a common vision, which can raise the qualitative level of Brussels against the major world powers, in fact Orban’s vision defines Europe as a sort of economic, political and cultural ghetto with a future of decadence without any hope, despite high consumption, which will lead it to a destiny of desolation. The juxtaposition with the forecast of the International Monetary Fund, which provides for the exit from the top ten economies in the world and the passage of Germany from fourth to tenth by 2030, with the supposed degradation of the Union, summarized in the values: migration, LGBT and war, appears an unfortunate rhetoric, which goes against world trends and a low-level replica of what is said in the Russian places of power; even the persecutory attitude, implemented with the opposition to the entry into the Atlantic Alliance of Sweden and Finland, carried forward only because the two countries contested the populist drift of Orban’s government, well frames the low political value of the character. The aversion to the United States, seems to replicate Putin’s reasons, the alleged loss of Washington’s position as world leader towards China, could risk bringing the world into conflict, without remembering that his friend from Moscow is putting world peace in much greater danger. The Hungarian position is the only one in Europe to be correct, because it rejects hedonistic values and does not intend to proceed with the replacement of the population with immigrants who reject Christian values; not only that, he reserves increasingly insistent criticisms of Romania, because more than 600,000 Magyar-speaking people faithful to traditions reside in Transylvania, covertly threatening another country’s right to this territory. There is enough for the leaders of the Union to intervene, as they should have done a long time ago, in a harsh manner against this character and the majority of the country, which, despite everything, supports him. It is not possible to allow politicians who do not share the principles on which the Union is based to allow such arrogance, which follows the denial of democratic rules in their own country, with the introduction of censorship and the denial of the judiciary to exercise its function autonomously. It also seems useless to recall how Budapest, together with other countries of the former Soviet bloc, has rejected the principle of mutuality and solidarity in the division of migrants and has been in total disagreement with the European policies approved by the majority of states. Such a presence constitutes a brake on common political action and automatic and immediate solutions must be envisaged, which can sanction from the pecuniary penalty of funding, up to suspension and even expulsion from the European assembly. The current challenges must be faced on the basis of the founding ideals of the Union, without allowing these to be altered by contrary and retrograde visions, if all the members cannot be kept together it is better that those who do not share the common political action are removed.

Poland’s military deployment on the Belarusian border unnerved Putin, who threatened Warsaw, even quoting Stalin; for the head of the Kremlin, the threat to Poland is due to the fact that the Belarusian country forms the supranational alliance between Russia and Belarus with Moscow. The Polish military deployment is seen as a tangible threat to the very existence of Belarus, because it is operated by a country of the Atlantic Alliance. The reason for the fear of Warsaw lies in the presence in the Minsk area of the Wagner private militia, who after the failed coup d’état, took refuge in Lukashenko’s country with his authorization. An unfortunate joke by the Belarusian dictator, about the possibility of crossing the border with Poland, has triggered a very high state of tension, which brings ever closer the possibility of a clash between the Atlantic Alliance, of which Poland is a part, and Russia, of which, in fact, Belarus is more a vassal state than an ally. Of course, Putin specified that an attack on Minsk would be equivalent to an attack on Moscow. The Russian president also hypothesizes a joint dispatch of Polish and Lithuanian soldiers within Ukrainian territory, in the Lviv area. According to Putin, the intention of the two ex-Soviet countries that have become adversaries would not be to lend aid to the Ukrainians, but to deprive them of territory: this is, evidently, an attempt to bring disorder to the coalition that supports Kiev with information capable of destabilizing relations between the three governments. In reality, these statements have no international credit and are rather aimed at Russian public opinion, in an extreme attempt to revitalize the popularity of the population towards the special military operation, which seems to be receiving less and less consensus. Always identifying new enemies and giving particular prominence, even by distorting history, with narratives constructed for one’s own use and consumption, reveals that the isolation of Moscow is increasingly tangible even within the walls of the Kremlin. The emphasis that is given to the next visit of Lukashenko, certainly not a leading international actor, but a character dominated by Putin, constitutes further information on how Russia accuses its international solitude and tries to circumvent it, exploiting every slightest opportunity. From a military point of view, however, it is a fact that Warsaw’s decision, however legitimate, because it was made within its own borders, constitutes an aggravation of the situation, due to the concrete possibility of an expansion of the conflict, both in terms of the number and entity of the actors involved, and also due to the enlargement of the territory involved. A development of the war in the northern part of the Ukrainian country, the one on the border with Belarus, could ease the pressure of Kiev on the Russian army, which is struggling to contain the breakthrough of Zelensky’s army in the areas occupied by the Red Army. Now an expansion of the conflict in those areas could also involve the border with Poland, while the possibilities of an expansion towards the borders of Lithuania and Estonia are more remote. The Western fear is that this is a strategy that Putin intends to adopt, using his Belarusian ally and the Wagner militia, currently engaged only in training the soldiers of Minsk, but which could rehabilitate itself in the eyes of the Kremlin, becoming the protagonist of actions against Ukraine led by Belarus. A possible scenario, from which Ukraine could hardly emerge victorious; however, in this possible scheme, the weak point is precisely the proximity of Poland, which could not tolerate the presence of invaders within the regions of Ukraine close to Polish territories near its borders. Herein lies the dilemma, what will be Putin’s willingness to carry out such a risky plan as to oblige the Atlantic Alliance to be directly involved in the conflict. It is a hypothesis that risks being ever closer and leading to the outbreak of the third world war, with all the imaginable consequences. For now, the USA is silent, but to prevent the conflict from advancing westward, it will be necessary to maintain the greatest possible balance in a scenario that is certainly not easy, where the guide must be that a world war cannot be beneficial to any actor involved.

Historically, relations between Japan and South Korea have been difficult due to the issues that occurred with Japan’s occupation of the Korean peninsula from 1910 to 1945 and the enslavement of more than 800,000 Koreans as forced laborers in Tokyo factories. and forcing at least 200,000 women to become sexually abused on behalf of Japanese occupation soldiers; moreover there have been disputes over some islets, controlled by Seoul after the defeat of the empire of the rising sun. The Korean Supreme Court brought these issues back to the fore when it ruled in 2018 that the Japanese companies involved should compensate Korean people who are victims of slavery, which resulted in Tokyo’s restrictions on imports of Korean products, which undermined relations between the two states until the dialogue is blocked. One of the points of Shinzo Abe’s program was to change the pacifist constitution, as a first step towards an approach that could allow China to be contained, in this perspective also the relationship with South Korea had to become collaborative, both from the point of diplomatic point of view, and from the economic one, precisely to fight Beijing also on the production level. Abe’s work was only started, but which, for relations between the two countries, was fundamental and which, in the current scenario, allowed the start of a reconciliation between the two nations. In this context, the first official visit of a Japanese head of government, since 2011, to South Korean soil takes place. Of course, the threat from Pyongyang is the primary urgency of the discussions, because the atomic threat has not been defused, but other topics will be on the table at the meeting. To further facilitate the resumption of contacts, the Tokyo government has planned a project to compensate enslaved workers, as requested by the Korean Supreme Court and this has determined the new judgment of Seoul, which has defined the Japanese state from a militaristic aggressor to a partner who shares universal values from south korean country. This increasingly relaxed atmosphere had already favored the visit of the president of Seoul to Japan, which took place last March and after twelve years of absence. The normalization of diplomatic relations has made it possible to address issues of common development such as defence, the economy and finance. At the moment, what worries the two executives the most is mutual security, given the threat of North Korea’s growing ballistic and nuclear capability, but also the attitude of Moscow and the expansionism of China, which has made large investments in military sector to strengthen its war apparatus. Behind this rapprochement, as well as the reasons already stated, there is the diplomatic action of Washington, which has for some time placed the contrast to China for the supremacy of the eastern seas at the center of its international interest, both for Japan and Korea South, the USA represents the major ally, but the distance between Seoul and Tokyo has not so far allowed a synergy to develop a closer trilateral relationship, especially against the more immediate threat represented by Pyongyang; but also the developments of the Ukrainian war, with Russia openly against the Western bloc, is a serious cause for concern, considering Moscow’s progressive rapprochement with Beijing. If North Korea is the closest threat, the real bogeyman are Chinese ambitions, which with a potential action against Taiwan would jeopardize the already fragile regional balances, risking dragging the two countries into a conflict; beyond these concrete threats, the general attitude of Beijing, increasingly determined to establish a zone of influence under its control, must be the decisive argument for putting aside the distances between the two countries and convincing them to establish ever closer relations to unify efforts to safeguard their mutual safety. From China’s point of view, the resumption of dialogue between the two countries will not be seen in a positive way, because it favored its policy in the area, even if indirectly, on the contrary now, Beijing will also have to deal with the synergy with the United States and it will certainly not be welcome: this could cause displays of force in the eastern seas, raising the level of guard in a region repeatedly in the balance due to possible incidents between the armed forces of countries with opposing interests.