Categoria: English version

That the invasion of Ukraine took place after the end of the Chinese Olympic Games was no coincidence: Putin risked a failure of the action due to adverse weather conditions for heavy vehicles, in order to keep the promise made to the Chinese leader and in homage to the alliance that is developing between the two countries based on commercial exchanges, first of all on the sale of Russian gas to the Chinese, but above all on the political understanding that is developing regarding the project of a new world order, based on values alternative to those of Western democracies and based on the repression of civil rights. The Chinese’s failure to condemn Russian aggression, which is also taken for granted and widely expected, represents a sort of warning for Taiwan, which has always been in the sights of the Beijing government, which supports the project of a single homeland. The moment could be propitious for an invasion of the island, with the Western states unprepared for Putin’s action to which they have not substantially resisted: these conditions could also be repeated for Taiwan, which nothing could, like nothing Kiev can, to an invasion. by a power so manifestly superior. There are, however, some practical contraindications for China, which highlight the differences with the situation that is developing in Europe. The first of all is that the main objective of Beijing continues to be economic growth and the economic repercussions of an invasion would greatly reduce the Chinese gross domestic product, on whose growth the efforts of the Communist government are concentrated, also due to the contraction of the world growth due to the pandemic. As for the Ukrainian war, Beijing has replaced Russia as Kiev’s first trading partner for the interest in the Silk Road and certainly does not like the current developments even if, perhaps it is estimated that with a pro-Russian government, it could have even greater freedom of movement. About Taiwan, some press media functional to government propaganda have defined the island as the Chinese Donbass, beginning to prepare a sort of preventive justification for a possible military invasion. It is no longer even worth believing that China will not dare to attack Taiwan in order not to undertake an action that is difficult to manage and with consequences that are not easy to predict, precisely because the same thing was believed about Putin, and it has been sensationally denied. It is also true, however, that unlike Ukraine, there are already American soldiers in Taiwan, which makes the scenario more complicated in the event of an attack and also the constant presence of the American navy, both in Taiwan itself and in Korea. of the South and Japan presupposes a direct military commitment, which, combined with presumable sanctions, could complicate a military action much more than for Putin. That of a direct American commitment in the Pacific area is explained by the international doctrine inaugurated by Obama of judging Southeast Asia as more important for the United States, precisely in terms of the ways of communication of goods and because of what it is. Syria has been neglected, there has been a disengagement from the Middle East and Afghanistan and substantially also from Europe, however substantial doubts are legitimate on the real will and ability to conduct a conflict on the part of the current American president, who does not seem intent on taking military action. Be that as it may, the American reaction on Ukraine will be deeply studied by Beijing to undertake strategies, which will not only concern the potential invasion of Taiwan, but also the relations with the USA itself, especially regarding the dossiers that have produced the deepest contrasts between the two countries. An apparent complacency of the Americans, also from the point of view of sanctions against Russia, could authorize Beijing to behave increasingly unscrupulous in trade battles and in relations with other states, both European and African, where China aims to fill the void left from the United States. For Washington a concrete warning to evaluate very well its moves and their consequences on a global level and not just limited to Russia.

In the end, the worst omens occurred: Putin maintained his conduct, based on lies and lies and militarily attacked the Ukrainian country, relying on a Western reaction, which to define timid is to use an expression of caution. All the threats of retaliation have turned out to be very little in the face of the determination of the Kremlin, which has raised the level of threats even more against Western democracies. The condemnations of Western leaders were words of circumstance and reassured Russia with the reassurance that no Western soldier will operate on Ukrainian soil, effectively abandoning Kiev to his fate. This is the logical conclusion of the American commitment on the European front, already reduced since Obama, a legitimate choice, but one that damages the main allies of the United States, perhaps in the short but certainly in the medium term and undermines the American leadership itself, not only political but also economic. Russia has acted in this way because it does not want the Atlantic Alliance on its borders, but by conquering Ukraine the borders move as far as Poland and the Baltic countries, where the Western military presence is now rooted. Will the Kremlin tolerate this presence or will it not tolerate it, as Putin has made it clear several times? Physically defending Ukraine with a preventive presence of the Atlantic Alliance, after having welcomed it within it, could have been a deterrent action, which could have allowed negotiations capable of finding a convergence, even if probably based on a sort of balance of the terror. On the contrary, we wanted to choose the path of caution, which bordered on the timidity and protection of the commercial interests of Europe, which never wanted to engage in an active defense of itself. The United States, after the enormous mistake of Afghanistan, is repeating the mistake of leaving the field to more aggressive and determined opponents, choosing a disengagement whose negative effects will be seen entirely in the long term. Biden erases all the positive impressions that accompanied him to his election and repeats, albeit in a more discreet manner, all the failures in foreign policy of his predecessor and will go down in history as one of the worst American presidents, just like Trump. This trend comes from afar and began with Obama, but such a low point, consisting of the sum of the Afghan case with the Ukrainian one, had never been touched by the first world superpower. American behavior has left Europe unprepared and this should not have happened, still without a foreign policy and a common defense, divided internally by states not consonant with having been included within the Union and divided by conflicting commercial interests among its members; among other things, one of Putin’s collateral objectives pursued with the Ukrainian war is precisely that of increasing European divisions and contributing to the immediate creation of new problems among member states, the first of which will be fueled by the growing flow of refugees from ‘Ukraine. Great Britain, if possible, has behaved even worse, the British premier seemed to want to proceed with extremely heavy sanctions against Russia, but then he decided on a series of measures that do not affect the oligarchs present on his territory because they carry huge liquidity in the British economy. Now Putin has achieved a victory above all political, showing the inconsistency of the West, which could authorize him towards higher goals than Ukraine and not for nothing the fear in the Baltic republics and in Poland has risen a lot: the elaborate sanctions affect only 70% of the Russian economy and not its military power and threats against possible interventions on the side of Kiev, it seems that they have had the desired effects by the Kremlin and have highlighted how the problem is certainly first of all geopolitical but immediately thereafter it invests democratic values, the sovereignty of states, the self-determination of peoples and respect for international law, the minimum basis for coexistence between nations. The commitment to these values ​​must be direct and their defense must concern all the states that are based on them, in order not to incur the loss of these prerogatives themselves. The opposite would mean returning to dictatorship and the denial of democracy, as is happening in Ukraine.

After Putin’s declaration, which recognized as independent the People’s Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk, openly pro-Russian and therefore formally removed from the sovereignty of Kiev, Ukraine requested an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council, which for a a curious coincidence was presided over by Russia. Most members of the Council condemned both the recognition and the subsequent decision to deploy troops in the area, which constitutes the first step in the invasion of Ukrainian territory, although it is the one disputed between Moscow and Kiev. From Putin’s point of view, official recognition authorizes the support of the Russian military for pro-Russian insurgents and their militias, but from the point of view of international law it constitutes an evident violation, which, moreover, is not the first made by the Kremlin. The fact that Moscow defines its soldiers as peacekeepers aggravates the judgment on Russia, which clumsily hides behind hypocritical definitions that go beyond ambiguity and good taste. The following Washington declaration opens to an unprecedented series of sanctions, which will involve all US allies and whose consequences are expected to be very serious for the world economy and general equilibrium. In the immediate future, Putin’s will is to secure a buffer zone between Russia and Ukraine, to avoid having the Atlantic Alliance presence on the immediate Russian border, even if the entry of Kiev has been repeatedly denied. from Brussels, however, the acceleration of the Kremlin could change the situation: until now the Atlantic Alliance has denied having any plans to accept the Ukrainian country among its members, but this evolution opens up to any possible development. Putin’s gamble, however, threatens the economic consistency of the Russian country, which could hardly resist the foreseen sanctions, opening scenarios that could consist of a drastic decline in its popularity in Russia. The positions of the allies of the United States are quite predictable, agreeing on the concrete possibility that the conditions are being created for an almost global conflict; almost all of them expressed condemnation on the violation of the territorial integrity of Ukraine and for the violation of the principles of the United Nations Charter. The representative of Russia to the United Nations, on the contrary, supported Moscow’s decision to protect the Russian ethnicity of the recognized territories and how the recognition had long been considered and urged the Western powers not to abandon the diplomatic solution. Ukraine, on its part, has reaffirmed its sovereignty over its territories and has practically challenged Russia, in a clash that it does not seem capable of sustaining. China’s position is much more attenuated, which despite its repeatedly expressed closeness to Russia, does not derogate from its principles in foreign policy, choosing a sort of equidistance and recommending to the parties involved the utmost prudence and the intensification of diplomatic action. Beyond the aversion to the United States and the approval of Russian politics, Beijing shows that it is more afraid of the repercussions of a global economic crisis, which could endanger Chinese growth; however, the choice not to play a leading role, above all to increase a pacifying action, by Beijing, reveals how China is still far from becoming that great power on a global level, which it says it wants to become. The opportunity to play a leading role, without being at the side of one of the two parties, but only in favor of peace, could constitute a test viewed with favor from all angles, even in the case of failure, vice versa this fearful attitude reveals all the inexperience and lack of risk capacity of the Beijing government, which remains too tied to the economic aspects to the detriment of those of international politics. President Biden has expressly ordered to ban all types of financing, investments and commercial transactions with the areas invaded by Russia and this certainly represents the first solution that will precede the much heavier sanctions already threatened and foreseen for the decisive attitude. from Russia. What can happen below is difficult to predict.

The attitude of Europe, in the face of the Ukrainian crisis, remains marked by the maximum use of diplomacy, even after the increase in the presence of the Russian military on the border between the two countries. The signals, which Brussels has sent to the Kremlin, are of support for a negotiated solution between the parties, which must exclude any military solution, but, at the same time, the firm will to proceed with particularly harsh sanctions has been reaffirmed, if Moscow operates a aggression against Kiev. The president of the European Council reiterated the solidarity of the European Union to the Ukrainian president, assuring the reaction of Brussels to continue to guarantee peace, world stability and common security, concepts which coincide with European values; however, it will be necessary to verify whether these declarations will be followed by concrete steps, which are announced to be necessary even before a possible invasion of the Ukrainian country. The situation, in fact, after the hope of a positive ending, seems to have worsened again in an area of ​​the border about 200 kilometers long. Numerous explosions, about 500, signal the start of bombing in the disputed territories, where there would also have been fighting involving the non-regular forces flanking Russia. The Atlantic Alliance has repeatedly warned of the possibility that Russia could take any opportunity to justify the invasion as a pretext, to the point of envisaging the construction of false attacks against its own military. The current context of border fighting, albeit with irregular troops, could be the decisive pretext to complete the invasion of Ukraine, also to overcome the problem of rising temperatures, which constitutes a significant obstacle to the movements of heavy and armored vehicles in the Kremlin. At the moment, however, the European Union has not judged the situation of the recorded fighting, such as to raise the level of the diplomatic confrontation and therefore not to activate sanctions against Moscow, sanctions, which according to the current regulation, must be approved unanimously and despite the convictions of the High Representative of European Foreign Policy regarding the compactness of the Brussels response, this result does not seem so obvious. The doubts could concern the Hungarian country and Germany itself did not appear too convinced to take clear positions against Putin. The weapons that the Union intends to use concern sanctions capable of targeting financial and technological sectors, in addition to the blocking of movement of Russian businessmen, who usually operate within the territory of the Union. It remains to be verified whether the conviction of the European leaders, of being able to hit Russia very hard, is true; certainly the Russian economy appears to be in difficulty, but it is necessary to carefully evaluate what Putin’s expectations are regarding a result that can guarantee to stop the advance of the Atlantic Alliance up to the borders of the territory of Moscow: a political victory is more important, albeit thanks to a military statement, or not yet compromising the situation of an economy in a state of crisis; It will be important to see how public opinion in the country could react, however sensitive to nationalistic aspects, but tested by financial and economic difficulties. It is clear that the European leadership is focusing its strategy on this second point, but this does not seem to be enough for effective action; even before this strategy of sanctions, a solution must be offered that includes an honorable way out for Putin, without this being perceived as a political defeat. Finding a satisfactory solution for all the parties involved does not seem easy: Putin, who as usual acted by raising the level of the clash too much with frankly inadmissible requests, slipped alone into a situation with no apparent way out, where the result , beyond any possible final result, it could still be harmful to the head of the Kremlin. If the accession of Ukraine is not currently part of the plans of the Atlantic Alliance, it could be a point that, at least, could ease the tension, even if only momentarily and represent the starting point for negotiations without the impending military threat. , however, this may not be enough, as sanctions may not be enough and, at that point, it would be necessary to be ready for the consequences of a conflict that will affect the whole of geographic Europe.

Poland finally pays for its arrogant attitude and contempt for the rules towards the European institutions. The background is the obstinacy to the exploitation of a coal mine, located in the territory of the Czech Republic, by a Polish state company, which has generated a dispute between Prague and Warsaw; litigation regulated by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg. The court of the Union condemned Poland not to continue the exploitation of the field in the Czech Republic; Warsaw’s refusal to comply with this ruling resulted in a fine of 500,000 euros per day, which added up for all the days of non-compliance resulted in a sum of 70 million euros to be paid by the Polish state. Despite the agreement subsequently reached between the two countries, Ursula Von der Leyen confirmed the sanction, making it clear that no EU member country is allowed to violate EU rules. The situation was also aggravated by the contemptuous attitude of the Warsaw government against the Luxembourg court, accused of wanting to impose its own rules in an arbitrary manner. It is not excluded that without these attacks the fine could be reduced or even not applied, but the behavior of the nationalist government of Poland has long been under the scrutiny of the European institutions, especially for the anti-liberal and anti-guarantee attitude towards the civil rights. The solution of the European Commission will therefore be to subtract a portion of the funds destined for Poland equal to the total amount of the fine, the aforementioned 70 million euros. From a technical point of view this is no longer a legal decision, because following the agreement between Prague and Warsaw, the ruling of the Luxembourg court becomes outdated, but the maintenance of the administrative sanction as a pure political act, which sets a precedent for direction of community policy, so much so that the case constitutes a novelty, being the first time that the European Commission has acted by withholding funds following failure to comply with a sentence. In addition, Poland will also have to pay 45 million euros to the Czech Republic for damages resulting from the non-suspension of the mining activity. The paradox of the Polish government’s declaration that it has declared that it will oppose the Commission’s decision in all the appropriate fora is that the only place to appeal is that European Court of Justice which has its seat in Luxembourg and which has been practically disavowed by the Polish government. Warsaw thus appears in a blind alley towards the Commission, also because the question of the disciplinary court that threatens the independence of the Polish judiciary remains open; in this case too, the Luxembourg Court declared the new institution illegal, which in any case continues to exercise its function in open conflict with the provisions of the Union. The tension between Warsaw and Brussels has therefore reached a very high point, despite the hopes of the populist executive of Poland, which hoped for a sort of distraction of the European institutions, more focused on the Ukrainian question and of refugees from Belarus. The choice of the Commission, on the contrary, has favored a sanctioning action to reaffirm the political direction that was wanted to be taken: that of avoiding the repetition, as often happened too often in the past, of tolerating the behavior of some member states in open contrast with the principles in force and inspiring the common European home. The one-way utilitarian attitude, i.e. for their own benefit, of too many European members is no longer tolerable in an association of states whose membership is free but bound by specific rules, which must be universally accepted once they become members of the Union . States such as Poland enter substantial sums in their budgets, which often represent the majority of their budget, directly from the Union, without providing the required contribution in terms of collaboration with other nations and the application and compliance with European law; these are essentially unreliable countries, towards which the sanction for non-payment of funds must be only the first warning, preparatory to much more serious and definitive sanctions. The policy of overcoming unanimity can only favor this direction and perhaps only the states will remain strongly convinced of the idea of ​​Union, with their advantages but also their obligations, certainly respected and not questioned.

Russia and China seem ever closer and their bond is strengthened thanks to the common enemy, the United States. If Moscow to avoid the enlargement of the Atlantic Alliance has become a national need, for Beijing the containment of Washington on the international level becomes an even more ambitious program, because it is the clear signal to contain the USA, also using an apparently distant and without issue. strategic importance for Chinese interests. It seems that the direction taken is that of an ever closer alliance between the two superpowers, which have coincident interests in uniting against the Americans. It seems particularly significant that the first meeting in the presence, for over two years, with a foreign leader, Xi Jingping was reserved for Putin at the moment of maximum tension between Russia and the United States and perhaps on the eve of a possible invasion by the military of Moscow in Ukraine. At the basis of this increasingly intense collaboration, there is not only aversion to the United States, but also a broader convergence against popular uprisings in the name of greater guarantees in favor of rights, which have distinguished the two countries. A vision clearly opposed to Western democratic ideals, which stands as a real clash of civilizations, capable of bringing great instability to the world. Both Moscow and Beijing have been condemned several times by the West, for their undemocratic attitude, which they perpetrated with mass repression and violent struggle against dissent: for this common attitude in domestic politics towards opponents, mutual support, framed as an international link, it serves to justify their work on the world stage. For China, the proximity of Russia is also of particular significance, because Moscow recognizes the Chinese right to claim a single China, thus against the aspirations of Taiwan, which is increasingly close to the United States for obvious reasons of necessity. The official version of the progressive rapprochement of the two countries is the realization of true multilateralism, that is, an equal collaboration of the two countries to a closer alliance, which seems ever closer; however, the alliance between China and Russia can only be asymmetrical the more time goes on. There is an evident advantage of positions between Beijing and Moscow, to the full advantage of the former, both from an economic point of view, where Moscow cannot compete with Chinese productive differentiation, because it still has an economy based exclusively on natural resources, and from the point of view from a military point of view, and from a geopolitical one. The impression is that Moscow is well aware of this difference, which in the future may create considerable friction, but, at the moment, it needs to have at its side the largest country capable of opposing the United States, especially in the case of of an effective military intervention in the Ukrainian country. Of course, even economically, Moscow must guarantee itself alternative markets in the face of the possibility of incurring economic sanctions and to this end it has opened up to an increase in the quantity of gas destined for the supply of China. Although this possible alliance opens up to scenarios of great concern, it can also be read as a need for the two states to support each other simultaneously and avoid a sort of isolation, which they are already suffering from their repressive actions within their nations. International disapproval, mostly coming from the western part, but not only, is a source of great concern, especially for China and the economic repercussions that ostracism towards Beijing can produce. For Russia, the need to be able to count on alliances with other countries is very much felt and the next step could be represented by Iran, however it is a tactic that accentuates the ties with states where repression is the policy of common exercise and this it only pushes Moscow away from Europe the economic partner it needs most, in order to revive its disastrous economy, even if the energy link with the countries of the Union appears to be difficult to dissolve, due to mutual needs. It will be more worrying to see the reaction of the United States: the consequences that are likely to generate are highly worrying, not only for the Ukrainian dossier, but also for that of Taiwan and for the Iranian nuclear power itself.

The Russian strategy of garrisoning the areas it considers functional to its own interests does not only concern the territories located on its border, where it intends to apply its influence exclusively, but also other areas of the world, which have assumed particular international importance; this is the case of Africa, always at the center of attention, not only for the wealth of its resources, but also for the growing geostrategic importance in the global theater. This time the issue concerns the presence of Russian mercenaries, who have the secure approval of the Kremlin and, probably, act on its behalf, in the African countries of Mali, Libya, Sudan, Central African Republic, Mozambique and Burkina Faso. This increasingly cumbersome presence arouses much concern in Europe and especially in France, which has always been directly involved in these areas. The territory where the Russian mercenaries are present is that of the Sahel, where militias and adherents of the Islamic State are concentrated, which constitute an almost direct threat to the European continent and the Mediterranean. Controlling this area also means regulating migratory trafficking and using terrorism and the flow of migrants itself as a means of pressure on the European Union. Thus, we understand how the Russian presence is functional to exert pressure on US allies, both in general and in this particular moment, where the Ukrainian question is at the center of the scene. The evolution of relations between the coup junta of Mali and France has taken on particularly negative connotations, culminating in the expulsion of the highest representatives of Paris, the French ambassador. The French presence in Mali is substantial: there are about five thousand soldiers directly involved in fighting the presence of the militias of the Islamic state and this presence is considered strategic by both France and the European Union itself. France has repeatedly warned Mali of the need for greater attention to the presence of Islamic State adherents, however the military government, which took office after the coup, has shown that it does not like French policy at all, perceiving it as an interference in his own internal affairs, a circumstance that has led to suspect, if not a mixture with the radical militias, at least the will to use them as a means to oppose the French action, because in contrast with the presence of the coup government. Furthermore, the use of Russian militias, controlled by people close to President Putin, by the new Malian government, is a clear signal of where the foreign policy of the new African government wants to go. Even in Burkina Faso, where a coup has allowed the change of government recently, it seems that there is the presence of Russian mercenaries belonging to the same company present in Mali. This Russian strategy completes the action of the same mercenaries present for the longest time in Libya, Sudan and Central Africa, who carry out missions to guarantee the interests of Moscow in the region through the supply of weapons, training and military garrison to governments and also in support of non-governmental political factions, but which may be functional to the purposes of the Russian federation. This situation raises substantial questions about the effectiveness of the only diplomatic action chosen by Europe and which, by now, appears insufficient to protect its interests in the African region in the face of the emergence of international subjects, such as Russia and China, increasingly present and ready. not only to replace the Union, but also to exert direct pressure to condition its international attitude. The need for a European military force and a common foreign political action is becoming more and more urgent and necessary: ​​it is no longer the time to delay, on pain of political but also economic downsizing of the Union on the international stage.

Within the Ukrainian situation, the European Union is not playing a leading role due to the exclusion of the talks that Putin regularly holds with the US and the Atlantic Alliance. This situation of marginalization is understandable if we consider Putin’s reasons, who intentionally does not want other protagonists close to the United States at the negotiating table and, at the same time, continues in his work of dividing Western allies, but the lack of involvement on the part of Washington, which was to require Brussels to attend the negotiations, appears very serious. On the question, hypotheses can be made, which if true could lead to a difficult situation between the two parties. First of all, it is singular that neither the USA nor the Atlantic Alliance felt the need for a European presence: one cannot but think of the resentment of both parties for the desire to create an armed force directly constituted by the European Union, which was interpreted overseas as an alternative to the Atlantic Alliance and therefore to American influence, both from a strategic, political and also economic point of view, given the great game of military orders that is at stake; however, Germany is still trying to get back into the diplomatic game, taking advantage of the US Secretary of State’s stopover and also involving France and the United Kingdom. Berlin, with this maneuver, however, plays a single game, unhooked by a desirable European action. Certainly recognizing that the central question is the maintenance of order and peace is an essential question for Europe, it seems a foregone conclusion, which does nothing but renew the marginality of the Union. Although Europe aspires to play an important role, the German strategy appeared to be a cross between an amateurish attempt and a risky maneuver. France would have the intention of having the Union take its own diplomatic action towards Moscow, but the fear is that the United States does not like this alternative initiative and that the lack of European bargaining strength vis-a-vis Russia, determines an initiative with few practical consequences but with very negative political repercussions. On the other hand, the intentions towards Russia, in the event of an invasion of Ukraine, are very different: if Washington even comes to favor a military response, even if preceded by arms supplies to Kiev and heavy economic sanctions, the Europe focuses exclusively on dialogue, because it is too involved in any sanctions against Moscow due to economic ties and the dependence on energy supplies arriving from the Russian country. Europe finds itself in a stalemate due to the chronic lack of a foreign and economic policy, especially insufficient on the issue of energy supplies, which affect every possible move. The United States itself is moving with the utmost caution, an attitude that could be mistaken for weakness by Putin, who continues to approach the confrontation in a worrying way. Russia has been left too much freedom of maneuver, claiming its area of ​​influence on the territories that belonged to the former Soviet empire may be understandable, but it is not tolerable to force states and peoples who do not like this solution; Meanwhile, Putin’s ultimate goal is not to have democratic states on its borders to avoid dangerous contagions with the Russian population, already very dissatisfied with the state of affairs, this is the primary objective, the second, the official one, of refusing the presence of the Atlantic Alliance on its borders may have strategic justifications that do not reconcile with the self-determination of sovereign nations. This alone would be enough to overcome European perplexities of an economic nature: the Russian advance, that yes, at the borders of the Union is a factor of dangerous destabilization of the European order, especially with states within the Union where feelings are blowing undemocratic, which Brussels should no longer tolerate. Despite all legitimate doubts, Europe should strongly support the United States to contain Putin and precisely the lack of this conviction determines his marginality, which cannot be overcome as long as these too timid and moderate positions against prevarication are maintained. of democracy.

One of the effects of the pandemic, closely related to the increase in poverty, is the increase in the migration of people in irregular ways to Europe; the latest data indicate worrying numerical levels and such as to make management of the phenomenon increasingly difficult. Furthermore, these data indicate that the trend of migratory pressure can only be increasing in the future, both near and in the medium and long term, precisely due to the imbalances of inequality generated by the pandemic, which join the previous reasons for migration: conflicts, famines and atmospheric phenomena caused by global warming. These causes are well known by analysts and politicians, but in the European Union an almost passive attitude remains, characterized by the absence of a common vision, due to the lack of effective tools on the part of Brussels and conflicting interests and political approaches, which, in fact, prevent a unitary and resolutive approach to the problem. 2021 marked an increase of about 57% in arrivals, compared to the previous year, marked by the onset of the pandemic, but the effects of the covid have caused a greater concentration of wealth to the detriment of poor countries and is one of the causes of the increase in extreme poverty of over 800 million people, which generate ever greater needs to seek alternatives to their own state of poverty. Also contributing to migration is the use of pressure on the European Union precisely through the use of migration routes as a factor of blackmail to Western countries and as a tool to increase the division of disputes between the members of Brussels. Lastly, it was the Belarusian dictator who used these methods, referring to what has already been done by the Libyans and Egyptians, among others. The impression is that this political use exploits the quantity of migrations by directing them, but does not affect the overall number as much as the use of migration routes rather than others; however, it is an insurgency that at the political level should stimulate greater unity among European members and instead has the opposite effect. This is an element that should not be underestimated so that Europe does not become a passive victim of instruments that are real sanctions of an asymmetrical type, against which the feeling of national identity of sovereignists or the conduct of Eastern European countries, in the long run , they can do little, precisely because they compromise the coexistence of the members of the Union. Certainly the fact of using human beings in great difficulty raises questions about how to maintain relationships with those who use these tools, but also with those who refuse humanitarian aid that seems undeniable and urgent. This, therefore, highlights the increasingly urgent need to create protected paths for refugees and conditions and rules that can favor regular migration, both for humanitarian and practical reasons, that is to govern the phenomenon without suffering the consequences and blackmail; in this way the exploitation by dictatorships and human traffickers can be defused. To reach this determination it is necessary to build a shared project or act on the unanimity rule that has conditioned the decisions of the Union for too long, also because practical reasons are increasingly urgent to combat the progressive aging of the population and the consequent lack of manpower. necessary for European industries. Taking note of this need by harmonizing it from the legal point of view to ensure legality and security for European citizens could be a good reason to convince the most skeptical and more inclined movements to adopt an attitude of closure. Beyond the obvious humanitarian reasons, autonomously regulating the migration phenomenon by the Union would only have advantages for Brussels and could contribute to the European awareness of great power, necessary to exercise the leading role that the Union must play on the global stage, such as independent subject, but also as a point of balance between competitors increasingly capable of endangering world peace. Migration phenomena are much more than humanitarian emergencies, and this reason alone would be enough to try to solve them, but they have become a geopolitical tool and are intimately connected with general issues such as the necessary reduction of inequalities and the fight against climate change. Therefore, addressing this issue individually is an urgency to be dealt with only in the short term, but in the medium and long term a global project is needed, also to prevent the depopulation and further impoverishment of entire nations and in this only Europe is able to being the protagonist, also because it is the only one.

The current president of Kazakhstan has said that the situation in the country has returned to normal and has appointed a new prime minister, who does not fall under the influence of the previous president. The stabilization of the country should lead to the withdrawal of foreign troops present on Kazakh territory, belonging to the Organization of the Collective Security Treaty, to which Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan adhere. The protests had started on January 2 due to the increase in fuel and had revealed the state of profound social, political and economic crisis in the country, a symptom of a generalized discontent that manifested itself in large protests, violently crushed by the police forces, to who had been allowed to shoot directly into the crowd. The demonstrations had been classified as episodes of terrorism on behalf of unidentified foreign powers and were functional to the Russian action to reiterate that the Kazakh country could not get away from the influence of Moscow, which, moreover, feared a repetition of the Ukrainian case . The crackdown on protesters was blessed by Beijing as a means of eliminating the protests, perhaps an attempt to justify by analogy, its action in Hong Kong and against the Chinese Muslim population. The president of Kazakhstan highlighted the need for the intervention of Russian troops and other allied countries to restore order in the country against the dangerous terrorist threat, not well identified, which threatened to conquer the main economic center of the country, Almaty; which would have resulted in the loss of control of the whole of Kazakhstan as a consequence. According to the Kazakh president, allied foreign troops should leave the country within ten days. In reality, it will be interesting to verify whether these timelines are respected: the Russian fear of a country drift towards the West does not seem to coincide with a sudden withdrawal of Moscow’s troops, especially after the effort made to suppress the Kazakh protest; a stay of only ten days would not allow effective control of the evolution of a situation of discontent that represents much more than economic dissatisfaction. Defining the protest as a studied emanation of a terrorist plan, without expressly indicating its instigators, means defining it as a sort of attempted subversion of the country from within. That these instincts are entirely true has little importance for Russia, which must reiterate its almost total control over what is now defined as its own area of ​​influence, well defined and absolutely no longer subject to negative variations. After all, Putin himself endorsed the terrorist theory of the Kazakh president, as a justification for the armed intervention he himself planned. Out of the total of 2,300 soldiers employed, the fact that the majority was Russian appears to be quite significant; however, the real needs of the country are clearly present to the new government of Kazakhstan, which intends to promote programs aimed at promoting income growth and making a tax system more equitable where there are serious inequalities; however, hand in hand with these intentions, an increase in the number of police and army forces is planned to better protect the security of the country. These intentions seem to disprove the terrorist hypothesis, used only for the preservation of the Russian regime and intervention, but admit the presence of internal difficulties, difficulties that could potentially make it possible to leave the area of ​​Russian influence. especially in the presence of a democratic turnaround, an attempt previously repressed several times at the local level without external intervention. The need for Russian aid shows how much the country has the ability and the will to seek an alternative to the present situation. These premises place the Kazakh country at the center of attention not only of the obvious Russian interest, but also of the West and the whole world, because it can destabilize the region and Russian control; this implies a new front of possible friction with the USA, certainly not willing to accept Moscow’s warning in an anti-Ukrainian key, where the tension is destined, also for this precedent, to reach a limit situation.