Categoria: English version

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.

The Madrid meeting of the Atlantic Alliance sanctioned the change of setting and purpose of the Brussels organization, but above all, it allowed for a new vitality dictated by the contingencies of the moment, which are assumed as a long-term and difficult solution, for which an official acknowledgment is required, which requires practical decisions to counter the opponents. One of the major novelties is the abandonment of neutrality by Sweden and Finland to join the Atlantic Alliance, the differences with Turkey have been resolved, with a rather rapid timing if related to the behavior of Erdogan, which allows a significant enlargement of the ‘area of ​​potential operations, where the border that the Finnish country shares with Russia, now encircled to the west of its borders, is very relevant. The importance of the involuntary role of Moscow as a propeller for the momentum of the Atlantic Alliance, has allowed a strong acknowledgment of the need for the protection of borders and the consequent territorial integrity, as well as the sovereignty of the individual states that belong to the Alliance. . Although Russia represents the most current emergency, which obliges us to consider the present crisis as the worst since the end of the Second World War and which consequently requires a massive rearmament and, probably, a great military mobilization, the vision of The Atlantic Alliance must necessarily be much broader. The general world scenario, beyond the European one, sharpens strategic competition in the global context and the present and future challenges on the economy will become increasingly exasperated, but not only: the multipolarity of the diplomatic scene includes considerable risks for the geopolitical assets, the presence of terrorist emergencies and nuclear proliferation are increasingly concrete threats to respond to. If Russia is the most urgent present, the relationship with China is not neglected, with which it needs to find a dialogue in order not to end the relationship as with the Kremlin; however it is recognized that Beijing uses violent and coercive methods to achieve results, internally, in open contrast to Western values, while externally it uses, in analogy with Russia, systems to influence Western countries and insists on exporting the its political and economic influence towards poor states; while on the issue of proximity to Moscow it represents an objective danger for the West on which it must be warned of its possible consequences. The problem of relations with authoritarian states will undoubtedly accompany the future, with issues that are difficult to solve, such as the proliferation of weapons, not only nuclear weapons, but also chemical and bacteriological ones and also the consequences of global warming: if the intentions are those of using diplomacy, it is necessary to foresee situations of confrontation in which very tough positions are required and which may also include the potential use of force. Africa too, however, represents an emergency, because it undergoes favorable conditions for the development of extremism that thrives thanks to famines and the food and humanitarian crises, furthermore investing in the black continent means stopping the expansion and ambition of China and Russia, which are progressively filling the empty spaces left by Westerners. The conclusions of the summit concern the end of the project to establish friendly relations with the heirs of the Soviets, as stated in 2010 in Lisbon, the Atlantic Alliance becomes fully aware that currently Moscow is acting directly to alter the stability of Europe and the Atlantic Alliance, with modalities, even subtle ones, ranging from the search for the establishment of spheres of control through aggression, annexation and subversion, with conventional means of war, for now, but also computerized. The Kremlin’s rhetoric, which systematically breaks the rules of international coexistence, can only be an obstacle to any relationship with Russia and the declaration of readiness to keep the channels of communication open, appears as a non-programmatic and substantial declaration, but only a formality due to diplomatic necessity.

The summit of the Atlantic Alliance in Madrid promises to be the most difficult in its history; with the end of the dualism of the cold war, with a bipolar world, which was based on the balance of terror, the acceleration of contingent evolution forces the Western military alliance to think and act in a preventive and more incisive manner than in the past. Nuclear deterrence is no longer enough in a scenario where we have returned to traditional warfare models, which we no longer imagined could occur. If in the background remains the Chinese question and that of Islamic terrorism, which is exploiting the increased attention on the Ukrainian war to regain consensus among the increasingly poor populations, the urgency to contain Russia is the most urgent issue, both from the point of view political, than military. A possible affirmation of Moscow would create a deleterious precedent for the world scene, with the non-respect of international law as a method of affirming the projects of the strongest states: it would mean a concrete danger for democracies, with governments increasingly obliged to respond quickly and not. mediated by parliamentary logic and, consequently, even more delegitimized. The temptation of almost autocratic executives would be a logical result in a situation where absenteeism and distrust of the electoral body signal a progressive detachment from the institutions. It is not impossible that within Putin’s project, an accessory result to the result of the reconquest of Ukraine, is precisely that of weakening Western democracies, an objective, moreover, traveled several times with the intrusion of Russian hackers, is in phase of electoral recurrence, and in trying to direct the approval of Western public opinion towards sovereignties. In this general framework, which is perhaps less urgent than the war in progress, but is equally important, the Atlantic Alliance intends to take a further measure to contain Moscow, in addition to continuing to supply Kiev with increasingly sophisticated weapons, to profoundly change the structure the rapid intervention force, which will increase from 40,000 to 300,000 units; this does not mean, for now, that all the troops will be concentrated in the areas bordering Russia, however, the request for active protection by the Baltic countries and Poland, Romania and Bulgaria, in this phase determines an increase in the soldiers of the Alliance in these territories, as well as a greater capacity to mobilize in case of need. In practical terms, it is not a question of recruiting new military units, but of contributing with already trained soldiers, belonging to the national armies that make up the Atlantic Alliance, and ready for combat with a rotating presence system. From a political point of view this is a clear signal to Putin, who thus sees an increase in the presence of opponents right on the Russian borders: a result obtained only with his completely wrong calculations: what will need to be verified will be whether the Kremlin will be able to contain its own opposition without exceeding with provocations: the probability of an accident will be more and more possible if Moscow continues to fly over the skies of the Baltic countries with its air vehicles. At the point where the military situation in Ukraine has developed, the measure adopted by the Atlantic Alliance appears necessary but brings a potential clash with the Russian military forces even closer, also because from Moscow they proceed to make the meetings of Western leaders coincide with acts completely outside the normal military logic, such as indiscriminately hitting targets of an exclusive civil nature, causing free deaths and devastation, which have the sole purpose of terrorizing the Ukrainian population, but also of making public the threat to Westerners. If this tragic practice reveals an intrinsic weakness of Russia, both military and political, the impression is that Putin has realized that he cannot carry out his goal and that therefore he will intensify the violence in spite of everything: it is a question of a tactics already tested in Syria, where, however, the opponents were much weaker and less organized; if Russian military strength has been overestimated by the Kremlin itself, this could lead to a refusal of any compromise towards peace by deliberately dragging the West into war, precisely because Putin, at this point, cannot afford to be defeated. In any case, the US must be credited with an error similar to that of not having intervened in Syria, that is, that of not having involved Ukraine in the Atlantic Alliance or in some other form of protection: Putin, in that case, probably would not have moved.

Speculation on Ukrainian wheat, to reduce the shortage of reserves of African countries, hides a series of problems that make it functional to a series of conflicting interests, not only of the parties involved, but also of international actors, such as Turkey, which pursue their own purposes. The Russian press says that Moscow and Ankara, thanks to the mediation intervention of the United Nations, have reached a preliminary agreement to allow the export of Kiev’s genus through a maritime corridor departing from the port of Odessa. The first condition is the demining of the port of Odessa, formally to ensure maximum safety for ships leaving the Black Sea, however the Kremlin’s intention is clear: to free the Odessa coast from the threat of marine bombs to prepare and favor a landing of the Russian military; in addition, another rule imposed by Moscow is to inspect merchant ships to avoid any transport of weapons for the Ukrainian armed forces. The fears of Kiev can only be founded, Putin intends to use future famines in an instrumental way to remove the legitimate Ukrainian defenses of Odessa, this is a method used several times by the Kremlin, which is now totally unreliable on its promises. Turkey also moves in a similar way: the bad economic situation imposes distraction strategies towards the Turkish people, international activism is functional to cover the poor administration of the country’s economy, to seek diplomatic relevance, which also serves to cover the moral defeat given by the US willingness to include the countries of Sweden and Finland in the Atlantic Alliance, to which Ankara is against because it considers them a refuge for Kurds. Turkish support in the wheat negotiation is fundamental for a country now isolated on the international scene like Russia and precisely through Ankara, Moscow is also trying to blame a possible failure of the project on the opposition of Ukraine, certainly not convinced by the possibility of to discard Odessa from maritime defenses, in this case it would be a natural consequence for the Kremlin to blame Kiev for the failure to supply cereals to African countries; even if the evidence of the facts is there for all to see it should be remembered that most African and Asian countries did not take an official position against Moscow after the invasion of Ukraine and would probably not recognize Russian responsibility for the lack of grain supplies . Along with this tactic, Putin argues that the food deficit cannot fall on the special military operation, but that this, in addition to having started with the coronavirus epidemic, is due to Western sanctions against Russia. The numbers of lost exports, however, say quite the opposite: Ukraine, before the conflict, held a market share equal to ten per cent of the world total of wheat and corn, a very significant share in an already difficult global food situation. due to scarcity of water for irrigation and famine. There are currently 22.5 million tons of cereals, which have been blocked since the conflict began. The means that allow food to be taken out of the country are only those by rail, especially through Poland, but there are objective difficulties that limit the quantities of transport, including the reduced capacity of the trains and the narrow gauge of the Ukrainian railways, which forces the transshipment of cereals once they arrive in Europe. The Ukrainian president predicted that, should the conflict continue, the quantity of blocked cereals could rise to about 75 million tons in the autumn and admitted that maritime corridors are needed for export: at the moment the Kiev talks on the ‘argument are underway not only with Turkey and the United Nations, but also with the United Kingdom, Poland and the Baltic nations, precisely to reduce rail transport. However, there remains the absence of a dialogue with Russia, which, not even the seriousness of the problem of hunger in the world, is able to unblock. On the contrary, this very argument could have constituted a starting point for developing a common discourse to start on the road, if not of peace, at least of the ceasefire, but the Russian arrogance once again showed its true intention not to stop. facing nothing to achieve their illegal goals, according to the principles of international law.