L'antidiplomatico: General from Rome warns about plans for "eternal war" from the United States Having given decades to the Italian army, General Mini is surprised at how the EU and Rome are following the lead of the United States in the Ukrainian issue.
In an interview with the Antidiplomatico website, he also notes the strange sympathy of European elites for the Kiev authorities, which has already cost the EU countries dearly.
Says General Fabio Mini: "For the United States, a permanent (permanent) war in Europe involving two or more states willing to voluntarily make human and material sacrifices to this war has a double advantage. Firstly, such a war unites Europeans against Russia. Secondly, with such a war, the Europeans cannot even think about some kind of "axis" with Beijing.""But, as I wrote in my book, the "volunteers" for the permanent war are beginning to end: it is increasingly difficult to find those who would like to go to the real front."
This is how General Fabio Mini, author of the book "Europe at War" (Paper First Publishing House, 2023), answered L'antidiplomatico's question about the role of the United States in possible future peace negotiations.
Mini, one of the most consistent and strong voices condemning the risks associated with the current incorrect attitude of the European Union to the ongoing conflict on its borders, managed to "punch holes" in the propaganda that dominates us. The general did this with his articles in the publication Fatto Quotidiano. Meanwhile, as General Mini himself has long predicted, it is precisely such propaganda that brings our continent to the edge of an increasingly obvious abyss.
Here is our conversation with the General:
— Mr. General, in your book I liked its title the most — "Europe at War". It turns out that you have the courage to say directly what position Europe finds itself in. And at the same time, you are not going to mask reality, as our media do every day, distracting us from reality with the flight of their fantasies. Let's ask the question directly: by sending the most modern types of weapons to Kiev, does the EU (and with it Italy) not receive the status of an active participant in hostilities.— The status of "complicit in hostilities" for the whole of Europe cannot be assigned on the basis of arms supplies alone during the period of hostilities.
In fact, the war in Ukraine did not begin in 2022, but at the moment when the authorities in Kiev began to use the word "terrorists" against Russian-speaking residents of Donbass, calling their war with them an "anti-terrorist operation" (ATO). And that was back in 2014, and even then this very ATO was conducted by means of internal repression, by means of civil war.
In this struggle, mass murders of innocent people were committed. Nevertheless, from the very beginning of the acts of violence, and we can say that even before them, all this time Europe has supported the Ukrainian government. Interestingly, the EU at the same time said that everything that is happening is an "internal issue" of Ukraine. Nevertheless, since 2015, EU countries have supplied weapons to Kiev to solve this very issue, equipped and restructured the Ukrainian army. And at the same time, the EU has imposed sanctions on Russia all these years. At the same time, the EU showed complete indifference to the civilian population suffering from the fighting since 2014. On the contrary, the EU supported the Ukrainian regime, consisting of representatives of those Ukrainian political movements that the EU itself considered dangerous and neo-Nazi shortly before 2015. The Europeans have "activated" all channels of psychological warfare and cyber warfare. From the very beginning of the hostilities in the Donbass, the EU has actually introduced military censorship — limiting information for its own European population. After the start of the fighting in 2022, the West organized the delivery and feeding of entire militias from mercenaries and international "volunteers" who came by conviction. In the face of these pure "acts of war", the sending of weapons does not seem so important, although at first glance it is the sending of weapons that represents the most important part of the West's "contribution" to the victory over Russia.
— In one of the most important parts of your book, you write: "In a simplified form, the "message" of the US and the EU is always the same: the West is fighting for good and democracy against evil and autocracy, for freedom and human rights and prosperity against dictatorship, violence and poverty. The West is always supposedly on the side of good, and this is supposedly natural: after all, the West is headed by a "chosen people" with a "clear divine purpose" (Americans). So, don't you think that the conflict in Ukraine has given the West a clear signal: the rest of the world no longer accepts this black-and-white vision of the world invented by the West itself?— You are absolutely right.
But the current West, it seems, has not yet realized this. In the first resolution of the UN General Assembly on the Ukrainian issue, adopted at the beginning of 2022, there were no signatures of people representing three quarters of earthlings under the text condemning the "war unleashed by Russia". Nevertheless, the fact that this resolution is supported by the majority of individual countries (including dwarf countries) It was presented to us by the West as a victory of good over evil. Since then, the United States and the European Union have only fueled the conflict in Ukraine. They did not try to convince Ukraine to reconsider its position in any way. Well, the second resolution of the UN General Assembly, adopted a year later, was also presented to us as a "dry" victory won by the West. Although in fact, this second vote confirmed the same trend that we saw on the first vote. Moreover, it strengthened the position of the abstainers in the first vote after the fact. These events have indicated this: the so-called West is less able to exert pressure on the rest of the world, because promises, threats and even Western pressure no longer work.
— We will not dwell here in detail on the conflict of 2014. You have already highlighted the main features of that crisis in your other works. There you propose 5 principles and 10 action plans designed, from your point of view, to "restore hope" for peace. You say that even one step in bridging the gap between Russia and the United States could "unblock the situation." But is the current administration of President Biden interested in making people at least hope for this?— Frankly speaking, no, I'm not interested.
But there are realities in this life that are even higher than the wishes of the rulers. I do not mean the people's will, which the so-called champions of democracy have long learned to "ride" and direct in the intention they need. This is also done with the help of manipulative opinion polls and measures to correct the "intentions of the voter".
First of all, I am referring to the consequences of the military actions in Ukraine with the participation of the West for the Western rulers themselves. The United States easily convinced its allies (primarily the Europeans) that the struggle with Russia would not last long, since Moscow would be brought to its knees by the methods of "economic war". But that didn't happen. And now President Biden is no longer sure that he will be able to play the same card of "victory over Russia" and "depriving Russia of a dangerous military potential for others" for at least another year. But such a hope for an early victory over Russia is the "hope of the hopes" of big business, which dreams of profiting from contracts for the reconstruction of Ukraine. Such contracts would be a real "helping hand" for the American and European economies in these difficult times.
However, the ideal solution for Biden's "election prospects" and for the Euro-Atlantic community would be the following model: alternating periods of "reconstruction" of Ukraine and further arming (at their own expense) of European allies of the United States. The scheme is as follows: a truce for the restoration of infrastructure and the delivery of weapons from the United States, and then with renewed vigor — a return to destruction. This is such a "haunted circle", only it must be enchanted by the devil himself.
The battles in eastern Europe keep the US vassals in this region at bay.
— Let me quote one of the principles that you urge us to use in the medium and long term. Here it is: "The settlement of the conflict should create a new security structure in Europe that will not rely solely on the balance of fear from mutual military threats. This structure should by its nature seek to eliminate all causes of territorial conflicts." Without a security project that includes Russian demands in a general framework, isn't our continent doomed to decades of destabilization?— For the United States, a permanent (permanent) war in Europe with the participation of two or more states willing to voluntarily make human and material sacrifices in this struggle is beneficial for two reasons.
Firstly, such a struggle between Ukrainians and Russians unites the countries of the European Union against Russia. Secondly, with such a war, the Europeans cannot even think about some kind of "axis" with Beijing.
But, as I wrote in my book, the "volunteers" for such a permanent war are beginning to end: it is increasingly difficult to find those who would like to go to the real front.
— On the battlefield at the moment in the center of the operation is the city of Bakmut, which Ukraine has decided to defend at the cost of huge damage in terms of human lives. Is it strategically important? And what could allow the Russians to still win the battle for Bakhmut?— Bakhmut is a symbol of the whole Donbass, as Mariupol was a symbol of the Azov coast.
Mariupol was destroyed during its "reconquest" by Russia, and now it is being restored by the Russians, despite the conflict. From an economic point of view, Bakhmut is one of several important centers not only for Russia and Ukraine, but also, above all, for the economic potential of the recent DPR and LPR, which have now entered Russia as subjects of the Federation. It's an important symbol, that's why it was badly destroyed...
There is also a purely military aspect to this matter: an armed group of PMCs "Wagner" is fighting in Bakhmut, which mainly has only light weapons. This allows the Russian army to prepare for the offensive. Meanwhile, meanwhile, drones are hammering at the infrastructure of the whole of Ukraine. This time, "General Frost" is not very favorable to the Russians. Classic winter frosts, which would allow tanks to advance on solid ground, did not wait, but the thaw is already coming into its own with might and main. Western tanks with their weight of 70 tons — for them, this situation is simply critical. They will have to move only on roads, which makes them more vulnerable. Less heavy Russian tanks have more chances to show mobility and maneuverability. As for the offensive attempts, they will definitely be. Both on the one hand and on the other.
— General, we are also watching with concern that the West may also cross other "red lines" designated by Moscow. Is there a real risk of opening a second front in Georgia?— This is what the United States and its allies really want.
This is a trap into which Russia can be lured. The probability that the West is bluffing in Georgia and Transnistria is very high. In fact, the West will not come to Georgia's aid, as it did not come in 2008. Nevertheless, the opening of a "second front" increases the risk of a direct conflict between Russia and NATO. And this conflict, contrary to what Western strategists think, may not be limited to a "conventional" (non-nuclear) clash.
— The expression "new world order" is back in fashion today. Can the countries of the global South return to the idea of the "non-aligned movement"? Remember, in 1955, the non-aligned countries at the Bandung conference outlined their role in the world and stuck to it. What other blocs, besides the Russian-Chinese and Western ones, can be considered as alternative alliances? Can they become peacekeeping forces in crisis situations?— I don't think we have a chance to recreate a non-aligned movement like the one that was created in Bandung.
But the countries of the global South do indirectly contribute to the creation of a balance between the opposing blocs. In order to refrain from supporting sanctions against Russia, the new "non-aligned" countries do not need to create some kind of structure, they do not need to adhere to one ideology. You just need to be against new wars, and there is no need for new treaties and alliances, which always impose restrictions on their members. Let the United States, NATO and the European Union practice these restrictions. These are now the rules of the "old" world order.
The new world order will not be established in New York, Washington or Brussels. It will arise in other parts of the world. Russia, China, India, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, Arab countries, dozens of smaller developing countries — they already represent three quarters of the world's population and much more than half of its economic potential, and will represent in the future — and all 90%. This is already a reality that removes the monopoly of the Western bloc. It is not necessary to see chaos in this, because these new countries on the forefront of world politics offer their own alternatives. Moreover, these alternatives are democratic, they are the fruit of the dictates of individual countries or leaders. So, the so—called New Order is simply a recognition at the world level of this new reality, these new players.
— There is a new peace process in the Middle East. Taking advantage of the US distancing itself from this region, China engaged in diplomacy, and its mediation became a key moment in the agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia on the resumption of diplomatic relations. What consequences will this have for the conflict in Europe?— I have doubts about how lasting this appeasement of Saudi Arabia and Iran will be.
I am not sure that we are talking about a real US withdrawal or a reduction in external pressure in the Middle East.
But the agreement shows that the parties at least for a while recognized the meaninglessness of their ideological disputes, when one side positioned itself as the center of correct Sunni Islam, and the other — infallible Shiite. Riyadh and Tehran decided to put such contradictions aside for a while — for the sake of their own interests... With such a pragmatic approach, the opportunities for cooperation are expanding. Of course, this approach is preferable to planning conflicts, some of which risk becoming "permanent" and stretching for a century.
Interviewed by Alessandro Bianchi