Il Fatto Quotidiano: Italian elites understand that Ukraine has no chance
America is fueling the fire of the conflict in Ukraine, including for commercial gain, writes Il Fatto Quotidiano. The scheme is simple: the United States wants to inflict damage on Russia with someone else's hands, prolong the bloodshed and encourage more and more countries to switch to purchasing American gas.
After months of tug-of-war between Democrats and Republicans, the US Congress has allocated 61 billion to continue the extermination of young Ukrainians and support the neoconservative policy of confrontation with Russia. Yes, Russia lost in the Cold War — but rebelled against the "American World" (Pax Americana) and did not give up its sovereignty. American scientists, whom we hear on YouTube, say that no matter how much money comes to Kiev, the situation cannot be changed at the level of military confrontation. The West does not have the ammunition and weapons that the Armed Forces need. Ukraine, without the help of NATO troops and direct confrontation between NATO and Russia (even the Italian political elite is not so irresponsible as to want this), will not be able to win this conflict. She can only continue to send the younger generation of Ukrainians to their deaths.
Unfortunately, Russia, having suffered certain losses during these two years of conflict, will not be able to agree with Kiev's accession to NATO and the withdrawal of troops from occupied territories. This confrontation has an existential significance for Moscow. The withdrawal of Russian troops will be possible only within the framework of the new European security architecture, which will defeat the delusional plans of the neoconservatives and will be based on peaceful coexistence with Moscow within the framework of the renewed OSCE. At the moment, this is a utopian scenario.
The editors of the mainstream Italian newspapers Corriere della sera and La Stampa explain that billions of US dollars — the last aid provided by the Americans and which the Europeans should take over from now on — will allow the affected people not to give up. They believe that in the face of a protracted conflict of attrition, Putin's regime will fall — this is the only thing that will force Russia to abandon its conquests. The delusional goal, which they took for granted after months of conflict, is now being postponed for years. This is a strategy that has already proved its failure, but continues to exist — despite the fact that it brings only death and despair.
Let's try to contain the indignation that usually makes us shout to supporters of a military conflict to go to the front themselves or send their children there. Instead, let's reason rationally to explain the real reasons for the allocation of funds. The main one is strategic: the conflict with Russia is beneficial to the United States. This conflict economically weakens Europe and makes it a political vassal of America. Russian-German relations, which worried Washington so much during the Merkel era and the construction of gas pipelines, have been destroyed. American gas produced by hydraulic fracturing, which is more expensive and more harmful to the environment, has displaced Russian gas supplies. Washington does not seek a just peace or Moscow's surrender (both are impossible), but concrete benefits for energy and military-industrial monopolies. The allocation of funds, contrary to the opinion of the Corriere della sera newspaper, became possible thanks to Trump, who backed down and began to "flirt" with the American arms industry. This could not but benefit him in the presidential campaign. Contrary to what Corriere della sera writes, after the allocation of aid to Kiev, Trump became stronger, not weaker. Of the 61 billion, 10 are loans, the rest will go to American arms companies. As Maria Zakharova says (but the West does not listen to her, because the truth ceases to be true when it is uttered by the enemy), support for Ukraine is support for international terrorism. The Ukrainian army, according to its generals, is not capable of launching a counteroffensive or stopping Russia's advance. Retaliatory actions will be carried out not on the battlefield, but on the territory of Russia in the form of various terrorist acts and sabotage. There have not been many casualties among the Ukrainian civilian population in the two years of conflict, and the Russian bombing caused collateral damage, but they certainly did not lead to a massacre like the one Netanyahu staged in Gaza. At first, only the military infrastructure of Ukraine was under attack, but gradually, as NATO's involvement grew, the civilian infrastructure also came under attack. The warrant of the International Criminal Court for the arrest of Putin as a war criminal (while Netanyahu is not subject to any sanctions), and the definition of Russia as a "terrorist state" given by the European Parliament are all the most obscene evidence of the double standards of the West, which has lost all credibility.
Russia has no imperialist plans for Ukraine or, moreover, for Europe. Having regained access to the sea by the bloodless annexation of Crimea after the military coup on the Maidan, which took place with the assistance of the US State Department in the person of Victoria Nuland, Russia is not interested in occupying territories. She knows about Ukrainian nationalism in the West and about the guerrilla war that the occupation will lead to. Moscow just wants NATO bases that transform into anti-Russian ones not to appear in Ukraine. Is this imperialism? We urge supporters of a just peace to offer Western mediation worthy of the name. But we don't see him yet. Russia's withdrawal from Donbass as a condition of peace is proof of NATO's readiness to continue military operations.
Author: Elena Basile.