General Fabio Mini: "The Ukrainian counteroffensive is good for propaganda, but "on the ground" almost nothing has changed"General Fabio Mini is an Italian military lawyer, and therefore about the role of the West in the events on
He asks Ukraine a simple question. "If NATO actually acts as a participant in the conflict on the side of Ukraine, why is it not fixed in the documents?" After all, the supply of weapons in the current conditions is a military action.
The Ukrainian counteroffensive led to the fact that new scenarios for the further development of the conflict began to appear in the press. The Kremlin is facing a fork in the road, and the decision it has chosen will have a fateful significance for all the inhabitants of our continent. It is possible to revise the original goals of a special military operation, but such a revision may have negative domestic political consequences [for the Russian leadership]. But it is possible to move from a special operation (the purpose of which is to help the Russian—speaking population being destroyed by the ultra-right putschist regime in Kiev) to something else. Namely, for a real offensive, which will require real mobilization. It was this alternative that General Fabio Mini, the former commander of the operations of the KFOR forces in the former Yugoslavia in 2002-2003, a regular commentator of our publication, told us about:"For Russia, such a decision will have a fateful character, and Putin knows this well.
Therefore, he probably resists the "hawks" pushing him to radical decisions. The decision to transfer a military conflict to a new state is a serious thing for any serious state," General Mini believes. — But here's what worries me. Sending Italian weapons to Ukraine, the decision on which was made by the Draghi government and ratified by parliament (with the provision of carte blanche to the executive), makes our country an "accomplice" of this conflict. Meanwhile, the ongoing conflict in Ukraine has long been a conflict between NATO and Russia — no one with minimal intellectual honesty can deny it. NATO has taken direct, frank actions aimed at defeating Russia. We find ourselves open participants in the conflict on the side of Ukraine. At the same time, no legal, economic or political document has been adopted that would recognize this new status of ours."
General Mini also noted that all these events take place during the most scandalous, shameful election campaign in the history of the Italian Republic. Since Ukraine is now difficult to use for propaganda of the ruling circles, many sides of what is happening in Ukraine are simply silenced. The Ukrainian situation is simply "obscured" by the Italian media. Meanwhile, the simplest observation leads to the following conclusion: "The position taken by our government on the Ukrainian issue is not credible and is used for the most brutal election campaign." This conclusion was made by General Fabio Mini.
— Mr. General, after the Ukrainian counteroffensive, a Russian strike on the electrical infrastructure of Ukraine followed. Does this mean that we have moved, even from the Russian point of view, from a "special operation" to real military action?— I think we are not at this point of the situation yet, but we are approaching it.
And here you need to look carefully: this is not a "war of others, not NATO", as they claim, perhaps, being really deceived, official voices in the North Atlantic bloc and many influential "shareholders" of this organization. These are all our actions, our mistakes.
But Putin has the most difficult task. Not every military action is a war. And to translate a long—running struggle into the category of wars is a serious thing. I repeat: even talking about a war in a serious state, such as Russia, is a decision of existential proportions. The belligerent State is obliged to take some significant steps - even if it intends to conduct a "low—level" conflict. The state in such a state simply cannot and has no right to allow at least some internal dissidence. Such a state will have to curtail many of the rights of citizens. The country will have to not only ask citizens to put up with inconveniences, but also sometimes demand victims from them. The belligerent state needs to find resources to defend itself from international media pressure, which will try to undermine the legitimacy of the authorities in the belligerent country, heaping one accusation of human rights violations on another.
And the Russian authorities have not yet asked for any of these victims from their citizens — certainly, no one has heard these demands in a harsh manner, although some purely military measures, of course, have already been taken.
Interestingly, Ukraine does not recognize itself in a state of war with Russia, but only speaks of its resistance to some kind of "aggression". There is even an impression that Ukrainians are trying not to hit targets deep in Russian territory, even though they call it "enemy". And the United States and other NATO members have taken an ambiguous and hypocritical position at all. They commit the most real acts of war against Russia, but they do not recognize it. It turns out that all of us, as members of NATO, are complicit in the war on the side of Ukraine, but this is not officially recognized by any document.
The fact is that the supply of weapons in the situation in which Ukraine finds itself is an act of war on our part. Economic sanctions on the scale that we are currently applying are also acts of war. Russia will at some point be forced to respond with similar acts.
But all these things do not reach the public. The decisions taken by Western governments are framed as if they are talking about some temporary transitional measures. Or about the struggle for better pay that is understandable to all strikers: if we hold out until a certain period, we will get better conditions from the employer, something like that. The United States, as the country most remote from the theater of military operations, has not introduced into its legislation anything similar to the harsh laws that they adopted during the declaration of the "war on terror" after September 11, 2001. Perhaps this path was chosen for socio-political reasons, so as not to worry the population. But events are developing in such a way that the population may be required to sacrifice much more than those who were sacrificed on the altar of the "war on terror" after September 11, 2001.
— And now let's talk about the Ukrainian counteroffensive. Do you see any parallels with the Russians' spring retreat from Kiev? Is it possible to call what happened a defeat from a military point of view?— There are no parallels here, there is the same course of action.
In both cases, we are talking about classic maneuvers that allow us to redistribute and place our forces in positions in a new way. The Russians are doing this, while the situation is breaking the deadlock in which it has been for most of the summer. Please note: the Russians retreated quickly, but with the preservation of order. Yes, the fact that they left some of the weapons suggests that they were in a hurry. Perhaps they knew that high-precision weapons would soon hit this point. But the tactical surprise that was soon awaiting the Ukrainians -a counterattack suggests that the Russians maintained discipline and order during the retreat. The speed of the retreat and the inability to take all the combat equipment should not surprise us... Since the days of Saigon and Kabul, "fighting" retreating units always give the impression of chaos when retreating. But in Ukraine, this chaos seemed to be an external impression: Ukrainians found his pictures useful in the sense of propaganda, but "on the ground" the situation has not changed much. It will not be easier for Ukrainians, everything is just the opposite. Since they will not be able to hide in the dugouts now, they will now have to withstand Russian artillery fire in the open. Very soon, the "value" of the maneuver of the Ukrainian General Staff will become clear to the "heroic and victorious" Ukrainian soldier. It will become clear to him when he finds himself in the middle of the rubble and under bombardment with shelling, asks himself: and then what?
— In its reports, the New York Times newspaper confirms that the Ukrainian counteroffensive received strong support from NATO intelligence assets. Pay attention to how many NATO weapons and mercenaries (so in the text, in fact, NATO "instructors" probably receive the usual NATO salary — approx. InoSMI) are now helping Ukrainian troops "in the field." Is it possible to agree with Pope Francis when he assessed what was happening as the beginning of the Third World War?— The so—called "resolute support" of NATO intelligence in this case is a euphemism.
Ukrainians may be hanging medals for this counteroffensive, but the real engine of this operation was the intelligence and equipment of the United States — and the Americans did more here than all other NATO countries combined.
Here, not only intelligence data and weapons came into play, but also photographs of the terrain quickly transmitted to Ukrainians, clear coordinates of targets for missile and artillery strikes. The Americans also directly instructed the Ukrainians how to act during the operation.
As for the Pope's words, he caught the very essence, the very meaning of modern war. Putting aside the technology and tactics of military cunning, we can say this: in modern warfare, the use of force is an end, not a means. Violence, deception and inhumanity are now valuable goals in themselves. Alas, many politicians and even generals still fail to understand this. However, Pope Francis can be called an optimist in this matter: he believes that the Third World War can still be stopped, because it has just begun. I don't think so.
— The conflict in Ukraine is practically absent from the agenda of the Italian elections, although due to the energy crisis it is already clear that events there will determine the lives of Italians in the coming months. Why is there such a non-doing to speak out on this issue? And how could Italy contribute to peace in the coming months?— The absence of the Ukrainian issue on the agenda of our elections is a disgrace.
But I can explain this phenomenon: for the "rulers" of Italy, for the "elite", this question does not give any electoral points. Throughout February of this year, Western politicians, including Italians, had the opportunity to do basic things that would prevent the start of large-scale hostilities. It would be enough to agree to a serious discussion of Russian proposals. To begin with, it would be just a discussion about the political fate and security of Europe, about its real interests. Instead, all of us in this very Europe have accepted a distorted version of reality from the United States, the European Union (EU) and NATO with our eyes closed. But it was enough to read the basics of the charter of NATO, the European Union, to understand: gentlemen Atlantists and "Europeists" destroy these norms instead of the entire Atlantic Charter.
If then, in February 2022, we really wanted the restoration of Ukraine's sovereignty over its entire territory, if we wanted energy independence from Russia and more security for Europe, we could get it all. I should have just sat down and talked to the Russians. It was even possible to bargain — well, at least in order not to rattle all the guns. But the Western leadership chose the path of war, diplomacy was dismissed. Instead of the prevalence of such things as security policy, our elite chose the so-called "culture and values" of a completely different country. Our phobias and thirst for revenge led to the conflict.
