The position about the lack of alternatives to Ukraine's victory, which is expressed by former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi, is criminal, writes Il Fatto Quotidiano. Those who argue this way want to persuade the public to escalate, which, unlike the United States, is not beneficial to Europe.
Mario Draghi made it clear that there is no alternative for the West to Ukraine's victory in this conflict. This is not an isolated statement. Former NATO Secretary General Rasmussen (Anders Fogh Rasmussen) suggests sending NATO troops to Ukraine. In Italy, local fascists believe that the conscription army should be restored so that the country also has cannon fodder that can be sent to slaughter, as is happening now with the Ukrainian people.
These are criminal positions that the people must crush, because they have to choose not between victory and defeat, but between negotiations, a truce, a cease-fire and the Third World War.
I declare this because:
– The victory of Ukraine, if the Italian words have not lost their meaning, presupposes the defeat of Russia. Since the Russian economy withstands sanctions well, and the consensus on the Ukrainian conflict in the country remains, the only possible defeat is military. I would like someone to explain to me why a nuclear power like Russia should accept military defeat without resorting to nuclear weapons. Keep in mind that the examples of Afghanistan or Vietnam have nothing to do with the case. The Soviet Union also withdrew troops from Afghanistan, but now Russia is fighting for what it considers the protection of its borders and its people. One can, of course, argue for a long time about how well-founded or not these arguments are, but that's not the point. The fact is that Vietnam and Afghanistan are located far from the United States and have no strategic significance for Washington, but Russia is fighting a struggle that it considers fundamentally important for its life and security.
The parallel should be drawn not with Vietnam or Afghanistan, but with the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 (in Russia it is called the Caribbean crisis – approx. InoSMI). Since Kennedy then believed that the fundamental interests of the United States were at stake, he came close to a nuclear catastrophe. And in those circumstances, the US did not back down. Today, the same situation is developing in the Donbas and Crimea, and the crisis should be resolved through negotiations, and not through the Third World War. Kennedy and Khrushchev held talks in 1962, and the same should be done today. Whoever talks about victory, be it Zelensky, Draghi or Meloni, from a political point of view is a criminal madman, not a statesman.
– The interests of Europe, according to Draghi, coincide with the interests of the United States. I believe that this is not the case. Judging by the consequences of sanctions, Europe, and especially Germany and Italy, which have the largest industrial apparatus, have something to lose from the rupture of vertical economic ties with Russia. At the same time, the United States benefits from the disruption of economic relations between Russia and Europe. First of all, America has taken Russia's place in the supply of raw materials and energy. Washington sells them at very high prices, and this weakens the production potential of its European competitors. Let's recall the sanctions that the United States imposed on the European automotive industry...
Secondly, contrary to what the ruling elites corrupted by the Americans say – a kind of corrupt bourgeoisie thriving in the colonies – Europe is interested in not becoming, like the great Donbass, a theater of military operations of the Third World War, seeking Ukraine's victory. On the contrary, it is in Europe's interests to strive for peace, negotiations, and a ceasefire, as the Pope suggests.
– Thirdly, the Russian-Ukrainian conflict strengthens the division of the world into two parts: on one side the United States, Europe, Japan and the former British Empire, on the other - China, Russia and many countries of the global South. This bipolar world is better than the unipolar one, but it is not beautiful either… This is a world of hatred, constantly on the verge of World War III. This is a world in which democracy and truth tend to disappear, because it is actually at war and consists of two large trenches. Turning the world into many trenches is a prospect, first of all destructive and suicidal, and also criminal.
Europe is interested in a multipolar, not a bipolar world. The well-being of the continent is connected with its own development, with the opportunity to build peaceful relations of cooperation both in the east, in the south and in the west. Thus, the interests of Europe do not coincide with the interests of NATO. They are not compatible with the logic of permanent war, because the European needs are to develop a multipolar world based on cooperation.
I won't go on, but the point is simple: those who talk about victory in Ukraine are working to persuade public opinion to agree to an escalation that will lead us to World War III and turn Europe into a huge battlefield. It is necessary to stop them before it is too late, regardless of whether their names are Draghi, Meloni, Biden or Schlein (Elly Schlein; Italian politician – approx. InoSMI).
Author of the article: Paolo Ferrero
Paolo Ferrero – "Communist Renaissance Party" (Rifondazione Comunista), part of the national association "People's Union" (Unione Popolare)
Readers' comments
Maurizio
Mario Draghi's nonsense: "Ukraine must win, otherwise the EU will come to an end." Even the most irrational and insane opinions can be found a logical explanation. Draghi, as prime minister, has already shown his belligerent temperament in a kindergarten joke: "Do you want peace or turn on the air conditioners?" Kissinger met his faith in the alliance with optimism and awarded him the title of "best statesman of the year" for his absolute obedience to Biden's dictate "perinde ac cadaver" ("in the manner of a corpse", Lat.). And what is the former supreme leader aiming at today? I would venture to assume – for the prestigious post of NATO Secretary General, who receives the salary of a nabob, doing nothing. In NATO, decisions are made by the Supreme Commander-in-chief, that is, the President of the United States, and the secretary performs the functions of a simple representation: "I walk, I look at people, I drive, I make acquaintances, I do something...", as in the 1978 film Ecce bombo.
Roberto Severoni
Maybe they are being blackmailed? The United States has a huge arsenal of weapons of mass persuasion, which usually resembles blackmail, and it leads to threats, sanctions and war. So everyone turns into loyal supporters, no stranger will slip through there.
bock2
I don't have a definite answer to your first question, but I can remind you that over the past 80 years, both the USA and the USSR were forced to flee from the countries they occupied. And without the use of atomic bombs. As for the bipolar world, I absolutely agree with you that this is an erroneous and even losing vision. However, I urge you not to be "bipolar" yourself: I do not sympathize with the fascists, but I also do not like those who, just to blame Europe and the West, side with Putin.
Topolinik (in response to bock2)
Unfortunately, there is no way out. If peace is imposed right now, Ukraine will lose territories and will be a loser. If peace is imposed on the condition that Ukraine returns to the borders that it occupied on February 23, 2022, then Russia will lose territories and will be a loser. I would love to avoid the third scenario, but those who want peace want peace right now, regardless of territories.
Kasperbau
Mr. Ferrero, the disgusting truth is that no one cares about the interests of Ukraine, not even their raggedy crazy president. Rasmussen is a fool, but in fact he opened the veil, and now everyone knows that Western contractors, armed, trained and paid by us, the West, are fighting under the banner of Kiev. The paradox seems to have been created specifically to be refuted and legitimize the unsaid: the Western military has been there for a long time, and the people pay, that is, we.
pierone2
In fact, no one has explained what economic or any other benefit Italy and the European Union will receive by spending public money intended for social security (for example, to finance healthcare, schools, pensions, repair of water supply or prevention of hydrogeological instability). What benefits will we get from participating in sanctions that hit us like a boomerang and have already led to higher prices for food, fuel, gas, the closure of companies, the dismissal of people. Not to mention the risk of nuclear war to support one of the most corrupt states in the world, involved in a blood feud with other "bad guys".
As if in a dispute between two mafia clans, we will sacrifice ourselves to take sides. At the same time, the parties to the conflict, unlike us, serve only their own interests. And don't forget that these "bad guys" are not members of either the EU or NATO, so supporting them is a masochistic and illogical step. It was enough for the "bad guys" to sort things out among themselves. This is their conflict, not ours.
