Russian Bombing Reveals Moscow's Weakness

 Moscow's retaliation for the Ukrainian invasion of Russian territory took the form of air strikes on fifteen provinces of Kiev. At least 17 Russian strategic bombers were involved in the air offensive, which had as its main objective that of hitting the Ukrainian energy infrastructure. The estimate of the Russian missiles used exceeds two hundred, which targeted the cities and surrounding territories of Lviv, Dnipro, Cherkassy and Kiev. The new damage caused to energy infrastructure must be added to an already difficult situation in this sector, targeted as a strategic target in view of the winter season. According to some analysts, the large-scale increase in bombings would be a response to the invasion of Russian territory, and in part Moscow's action can also be read in this way, but it is undoubted that the strategy is part of the desire to hit the Ukrainian energy system, to make the situation more difficult for the population; in any case, as the Ukrainian president pointed out, the need to eliminate restrictions on Western weapons is now urgent. An adequate defense cannot be organized without hitting the supply depots that the Russian army uses on its own territory, interrupting the supply lines appears to be the best preventive defense. The Ukrainian request, addressed above all to France, the United Kingdom and the United States, appears to be justified by the preponderance of the Russian air force, which, at the moment, is the only factor capable of making the difference. Stopping Moscow's incursions into Ukrainian skies and the protection provided from above to the Russian forces occupying Ukrainian territories would represent the solution capable of reversing the forces of the conflict and arriving at possible negotiations in a very different way for Kiev. If we analyze what has been defined as the Russian response to the invasion of its territory, the first legitimate question to ask is why Moscow has not chosen to carry out an equivalent action in the province of Kursk against the Ukrainian occupying forces and retake its territory. On the ground, the advance of more experienced Ukrainian soldiers against Russian conscripts was quite easy and led to the conquest of about a thousand square kilometers, with twenty-eight inhabited centers, which forced the Russian authorities to evacuate about 121,000 civilians. A situation that had not occurred since the Second World War, however, the Kremlin's choice was to maintain positions in Donbass, without moving more qualified soldiers to reconquer the lost ground, and even the choice to use bombing directly in Ukraine raises some doubts. The questions concern the capacity of Russian troops to mobilize, meaning selected and trained soldiers, which seems to have reached the end of their availability, as well as the arsenals of missiles and bombing devices, on which a choice had to be made that left out the occupied territories of the Kursk province. The opportunity for the West, if it wants to have any chance of reaching negotiations, seems to have to be exploited and this can only be done with an increase in military supplies, especially in the anti-aircraft sector, and with the end of the restriction of the use of Western weapons against Moscow's territory. What must be passed, both among Western governments and parliaments, is the idea that the use of Western weapons used only on Ukrainian territory halves their effectiveness, also becoming a useless economic waste. The concept of defensive war does not imply the use of weapons only on the territory to be defended, but also on the territories from which the attacks come, even if these are under another sovereignty. At the moment Western rules favor Moscow, which, it must be remembered, is the entity that has broken every rule of international law, and for this very reason must be stopped as soon as possible by making it as harmless as possible. The Kremlin's forces appear tired and vulnerable, as demonstrated by the Ukrainian maneuver in the province of Kursk and are based mainly on air dominance; By breaking this predominance, Russia will have to retreat and sit at the negotiating table, certainly not from a position of strength. The West has the duty to help Ukraine because that is the best help to itself.

Appointment of new Hamas chief precludes peace

 The decision, probably Israeli, to eliminate the political leader and negotiator of Hamas, Ismail Haniye, has led to his replacement with Yahya Sinuar, the military leader of the organization and considered the one who planned the attack of October 7 and, for this reason, the most wanted by the Israel Defense Forces. This forced changeover at the top of Hamas represents a response towards Israel, which appears to be a sort of retaliation against Tel Aviv and which is meant to signify a clear distancing from the peace negotiations and a shift towards an even more violent attitude in the war in Gaza in particular, and in any case against any possible agreement with the Israelis. The two-state solution is also moving away, because both leaders of the two parties, Sinuar and Netanyahu, now agree precisely on their opposition to this solution. Hamas's choice can be understood but not shared, because it will mean even greater pressure on the civilian population of Gaza, with more victims and health and hygiene situations, if possible, even worse than the current ones. The impression is that Hamas has fallen into the Israeli trap, whose intention in eliminating Haniye was precisely to replace him with Sinuar. The turning point, with the appointment of the military head of Hamas, will further increase Israel's repressive activity, both in Gaza and in the West Bank, giving a sort of justification to preventive military actions, which could allow the conquest of other areas; it appears clear, in fact, that the massacre of October 7 is now a pretext to wipe out the Palestinian population from the territories still inhabited by the Arab ethnic group, which the Israeli government, composed largely of religious nationalists, considers its own. Netanyahu, after all, has always followed a wait-and-see tactic, since the installation of the first government, which took place in 1996. The Israeli prime minister has repeatedly deceived international politics, about the possibility of the creation of a Palestinian state; in reality it never really envisaged such a solution and now it is taking advantage of a politically incorrect and above all reckless action by Hamas to put an end to the two-state project, despite it being the solution most supported by most countries in the world. This can happen because the US continues to support Tel Aviv, even despite the senseless massacres of civilians in Gaza and the activity carried out on the territory of other states in contempt of every rule of international law and Europe, beyond the facade declarations, has never undertaken a concrete policy of sanctions to stop the violence. The Palestinians certainly cannot count on the uselessly brought support of Iran, Hezbollah and Houthi, who, indeed, risk with their attitude, to cause collateral victims of their initiatives. The Sunni Arab states maintain a detached attitude, due to their interest in new relations with Tel Aviv and do not go beyond mere pragmatic declarations. The matter of the appointment of the military leader of Hamas as political leader of the same organization, moreover, is not the result of an electoral consultation, but of a self-referential maneuver of which the Palestinians are victims and which, for them and perhaps for the world, does not appear to be a convenient choice. The possibility of an influence on this decision by the actors most hostile to Israel and considered by Hamas to be the only reliable allies: Iran and Hezbollah must also be evaluated; in the context of a retaliation, now considered increasingly probable for the assassination of the political leader of Hamas, which took place in Tehran, the appointment of the military leader as political leader of Hamas could mean a greater commitment for Israel in Gaza, coinciding precisely with the start of the Iranian retaliation. The Israelis could be more consistently engaged in Gaza, attacked in the North by Hezbollah and hit by the Iranians and by the actions of the Houthi drones. The result would be a military pressure, perhaps never seen before, to which Israel would be subjected. Meanwhile, American naval assets are already deployed and the danger of a widening of the conflict is increasingly likely and the nomination of Hamas only increases this possibility even more.

Killing of Hamas leader threatens to undermine peace process

 The physical elimination of Hezbollah's number two, which took place in Lebanon, was followed by that of Hamas leader Hanieyh in Tehran. The common feature is that these murders took place on foreign soil, belonging to the sovereignty of the respective states; the point is important because the responsibility for the assassins, in the first case, was claimed by the Israelis, while in the second case Tel Aviv is silent for now; however, several international actors agree in attributing responsibility to the armed forces of Israel. Claiming an attack on Iranian soil means admitting a dangerous violation of Tehran's sovereignty, which would justify a response from the Shiite country. In reality, there are objectively few doubts about the instigator of the rocket that hit the victim's house. The rocket did not come from inside the Iranian country, but arrived there from abroad, a clue that does not speak in favor of Tel Aviv. If this were the case, the consequences of the Israeli strategy would concretely risk frighteningly widening a conflict that has already risked becoming lethal for the entire world too many times. Tel Aviv presents itself to the world with a conduct that is contemptuous of international law and without any desire to seek a true peace that is not functional to its own expansionist goals, both in Gaza and in the West Bank. An aspect that plays a decisive role in Israel's conduct are the useless threats from Europe, which does nothing to put an end to the Israeli massacres, and the substantial support, albeit with criticism, of the United States. If the condemnation and the consequent threats, from the Iranian side appear to be obvious (among other things, the killing of the Hamas representative occurred on the occasion of the investiture of the new president of Iran), the reactions of other nations and organizations have also been particularly violent. Turkey has defined the assassination as despicable, Erdogan had already heavily condemned Tel Aviv for the killing of the Hezbollah leader and in this instance he has doubled the dose, the attitude of the Turkish president is functional to regain consensus in view of the presidential elections, setting himself up as a defender of the Palestinian people. The Turkish question is particularly important, because Ankara is part of the Atlantic Alliance and its political line differs significantly, especially from that of Washington. Naturally Hamas has threatened Israel, but the current military conditions are less worrying for Israel than kamikaze attacks by isolated members, just as the situation in the West Bank risks dangerously worsening, where popular unrest will start with strikes and demonstrations against the Israeli government; more problematic, from a military point of view, are the retaliatory actions promised by the Houthis, who have already demonstrated that they can hit Israel with their drones. Iraq has also condemned Israel, while the US has assured Tel Aviv of protection in the event of an attack, words that do not help to cool the situation. Tehran, for its part, has stated that the fact will bring the Shiite country even closer to the Palestinians, what this rapprochement will be like is a central question, because if it materialises with military aid or interventions in support of the belligerents in Gaza, tension between the two states will probably rise to levels never seen before. In any case, it is unthinkable that Tehran will not respond with an action at least equal to that of Israel, if this succeeds it will reopen the race for retaliation, with obvious repercussions on the talks and on the peace process for the situation in Gaza. In the general context, the reaction of Qatar, personally involved in the peace talks, is particularly effective, having underlined that in a negotiation where one party kills a representative of the other it has no chance of achieving success; this is probably exactly what Israel and its government of irresponsible people want.

The US Democratic Party is banking everything on Harris' candidacy

 The need to recover the time, already irretrievably lost during the electoral campaign, requires the Democratic Party to speed up the times for Kamala Harris' candidacy and, at the same time, to render ineffective any internal attempt, which could oust her from the role of candidate for the presidency of the United States. In practice, it is a matter of developing and establishing procedures that can guarantee Harris' role as candidate for the White House, in a way to guarantee its effectiveness in a safe way and, above all, as soon as possible; this is because the time factor has now become decisive. The committee that oversees the rules within the Democratic Party has established a timeframe to arrive at Harris' nomination as presidential candidate. Along with the calendar, three rules have been established, which must facilitate the process of the official candidacy. The first rule makes it virtually impossible to challenge Harris' position, the second determines the advancement of the nomination, so that the Convention becomes an official investiture, celebrated together with a ceremony in which Biden will be honored by the entire party for the work done, the third will have to give Harris absolute freedom regarding the nomination of her candidate for vice president. To secure Harris' candidacy, the times for presenting the candidacy for the presidency have been brought forward by three days, that is from July 30 to July 27, so that at 6 pm, US capital time, each challenger must have their candidacy formalized, to this must be added the advancement to July 30 to have the signature of 300 delegates, with maximum adhesions for each single state of 50 delegates, necessary for the ratification to propose their candidacy. After these phases, the vote of the delegates on the candidacy will be necessary, which with only Harris as a candidate will be scheduled for August 1, vice versa in the presence of multiple candidates, the vote will take place on August 7. : A very limited time that makes it practically impossible to carry out an electoral campaign for any alternative candidate to Harris. These methods of candidacy demonstrate how the Democratic Party intends to show itself to the electorate as united and determined to support the Vice President, now identified as a concrete symbol of the democratic political force and alternative to Trump. Even the Obama family, who did not seem convinced by this hypothesis, demonstrated their support for Harris, thus sealing the nomination for the candidacy. This result seems more like a necessity to be made a virtue of, dictated by the tight deadlines, than a considered choice that has matured consciously within the right and adequate times. One impression is that Harris, in the event of victory, could become president by chance, thanks to a series of particularly favorable and fortunate circumstances. There are significant doubts that a candidacy process carried out in adequate times and, above all, with an internal debate within the party capable of representing the different points of view, could determine the candidacy of Harris, who did not enjoy adequate popularity for this task, also due to the lack of relevance of how she interpreted the role of vice president. In any case, for the Democratic Party, it is precisely the position of vice president in office that has determined the succession to Biden, at least as a candidate for the presidency; this choice, which appears forced, must now be supported in any case, especially as a symbolic value of alternative to the threatened autocracy of Trump. Harris is also better than the Republican candidate, let's hope that voters are convinced of this too.

Biden Resigns But Comes Out as a Political Giant

 Biden's speech about his decision not to run was marked by his resignation as an act of generosity and protection of American democracy, essentially a personal sacrifice to avoid leaving the country in Trump's hands. Biden rightly claimed the results, especially economic ones, of his presidency, promising not to leave the most important office in the US early, as his political rivals have repeatedly requested. In reality, the justifications for his withdrawal, while including the right defense of American democracy, must, by necessity, focus on the lack of appreciation by the Democratic leadership, the low value of the polls, a state of health that does not seem to allow the adequate conduct of a possible new mandate and the flight of investors. The truth is that Biden, without physical impediments, would have deserved a re-candidacy precisely for the results of his mandate, especially obtained in the domestic field, increasingly difficult to manage compared to foreign policy; the outgoing president, on the other hand, appeared weaker in foreign policy, with the disputed decision to abandon Afghanistan, not having achieved substantial progress on the Pacific flank, not having sufficiently countered China from a commercial point of view and not having obtained a solution to the Ukrainian question and having maintained an insecure attitude towards Israel. These issues, unfavorable to Biden, have obtained for Trump, reasons to attack his former opponent, obscuring the merits of the results obtained with economic growth and the reduction of unemployment. The Republicans have focused against Biden's chronological age to which were added the evident difficulties after the electoral confrontation, but it must be specified, that, if humanly it was legitimate for Biden to be re-candidacy, the party has lacked a serious examination of the candidate's situation and of the real capacity to sustain the effort of the electoral campaign. The signs, quite evident, have been present for some time and there has been a lack of action, even courageous, to question the opportunity to re-present the outgoing president to the voters. This is also considering the fact of how Trump would have conducted the electoral campaign, with particularly violent and mystifying tones. Of course, it is not easy not to renew the candidacy of an outgoing president, however, the poor management of the party situation has generated profound uncertainty in an electorate that was in any case pressed by a Republican action that was a crescendo of consensus. The Democratic Party was divided into clans and was characterized by an immobility, which if prolonged, would have guaranteed Trump a real plebiscite. Only the fear of an authoritarian drift, caused by the excessive power of the Republican candidate, moved the party leaders towards an alternative solution. Although it was not a timely decision and, above all, an unusual one, the choice of replacing the candidate appears to be the only way to effectively counter Trump, however, it should not have reached this point and acted much earlier to avoid Biden the humiliation of withdrawal; in short, if the Republican Party has lost all its original characteristics, becoming a hostage of Trump, the Democratic Party is not much better either. It is clear that the American political situation is at a sort of standstill, because it is held hostage by incompetent people who only want to secure as much power as possible for themselves, deceiving an increasingly individualistic and disinterested electorate. In this context, Biden's step back must be greatly appreciated, the outgoing president emerges as a sort of political giant, capable of sacrificing his own ambitions in order to avoid handing the country over to a new Trump presidency. Now the Democratic Party must know how to give itself an organization capable of leading its candidate to victory. Biden's act must provide the impetus for a reconstruction of the electoral machine capable of overcoming internal divisions to try to win and avoid the USA and the world repeating the disaster of a new Trump presidency.

Israel’s strategy: raids in Syria, starvation in Gaza.

 The targeting of the Iranian consular headquarters in Syria and the organization that brought food to the Gaza Strip are two episodes which present similarities that should not be underestimated in the medium-term Israeli strategy. In the war, so called by proxy, between Tel Aviv and Tehran, having struck an Iranian headquarters in foreign territory represents a new level for Israel; one of the main objectives may be to seek an expansion of the conflict that implies greater US involvement in favor of the Israelis, especially after President Biden has distanced himself from the methods practiced in Gaza; Although Washington claimed not to have been warned of the Israeli attack, the Tel Aviv government appears to have used this attack to induce the Iranians to condemn both Israel and the US, in order to force the Americans into forced support against the regime. Iranian. This tactic presents the clear intention of stalling while waiting for the US election results, where a possible affirmation by Trump is seen as more favorable to the Israeli cause, however the risk of an expansion of the conflict is implicit in Tel Aviv's action and this entails further even greater trade problems in the Persian Gulf, for which Israel will, sooner or later, have to account. Not only that, it is conceivable that other actors will be involved, both indirectly and directly, in a widening of the Middle Eastern crisis. It must be remembered that Syria's major ally, in addition to Iran, is Russia, even if in the current situation it is not a direct involvement of Moscow seems possible, an increasingly closer link between Tehran and Russia appears possible, with ever greater collaborations, especially in the armaments sector, with direct effects on other ongoing conflicts. One of the most predictable developments is the increase in the actions of militias close to the Iranians, both against Israel and against American bases in the Middle East. The doubling of the front, in addition to that of Gaza, also the Syrian one, against which Israel will have to measure itself, is functional to the government in office and to its Prime Minister, who does not want elections, which he would certainly lose and which would give rise to judicial proceedings in which is implicated. What is sacrificed, not only to Israeli interests, but to specific partisan political interests is peace in the Middle Eastern region and also in the world, creating the conditions for total instability. If, to keep the USA apprehensive, they did not hesitate to go against international law, striking the error of having struck a non-governmental organization in a third country, albeit an ally of the Iranians, on the Gaza front, it appears equally functional to the interests of Tel Aviv: in fact two other organizations have announced that they will leave the Gaza Strip, due to the situation being too dangerous for their staff; this means the subtraction of large supplies of food from a population already severely affected by the scarcity of food and in precarious health and hygiene conditions. The situation, which is worsened by the absence of non-governmental organisations, affects not only the civilian population but also Hamas, which, in addition to its ever-increasing distance from the inhabitants of Gaza, cannot benefit from international aid; however, this element is only an addition to the normal conduct of Israel, which has undertaken for some time, well before the events of October 7, a policy of managing food resources to be allocated to the Gaza Strip, with clear downward regulatory intentions. In 2012, following a human rights organisation, Tel Aviv was forced to publish its own document from 2008, which set out the calories for people to be given to the inhabitants of the Strip, foods that excluded those deemed non-essential. Despite the forced apologies of the Israeli armed forces, the ways in which the vehicles of the non-governmental organization were hit leave many doubts about the voluntariness of blocking a mission, with the obvious repercussions, which promptly occurred. It is of little use to say that the outcry caused is due to Western victims, in similar ways, which caused more than 30,000 civilian deaths, there were not even any apologies. Civilized countries should sanction Israel for this unpunished conduct.

Trump's legal troubles during the primaries

 The judgment of the Washington Court of Appeal does not consider immunity valid for Trump, for having tried to change the election result, after the outcome that led Biden to be the new US president. The ruling of the court, composed of three judges, arrived unanimously, refuting Trump's defense, which aimed at total immunity from the law, even for acts carried out in cases where his power has been extinguished. This defense, the court refuted, presupposes that the office of US president is equivalent to an absolute sovereign, that is, not subject to any earthly law; furthermore, the defense thesis calls into question the natural recognition of the electoral response and of the separation of powers itself, because it would place the presidential office above the regulations. An aspect to underline is that one of the three judges has a conservative background and was appointed by Trump himself. A fundamental aspect of the ruling is that the US president can be accused of crimes committed during his period in office: this is a very relevant resolution from a legal point of view, because it is the first time it has been adopted in US law and that establishes that immunity belongs to the presidential office and not to the person, so once they have expired, immunity is no longer enjoyed. There are two options for Trump's defense to appeal the ruling of the Washington Court of Appeals: the first would consist in filing the appeal with all the judges of the Washington Circuit, technically defined as "appeal en banc", however this solution appears unlikely , because according to jurists a change in the sentence would be unlikely, or, and this is the second option, the appeal can take place at the Supreme Court, made up of six Republican and three Democratic members. This choice would also have a tactical political value, given that the Supreme Court, for this session, which will end in July, should no longer accept cases, leaving the question pending, a solution preferred by Trump himself; however, it could also be probable that, given the seriousness of the issue, the President of the Court will include the probable appeal in the current session. In any case, both the sentence and the appeal generate doubts about the legal future of Trump, who remains the most likely candidate for the Republican Party in the elections on November 5th, also because there are already two appeals from the former at the Supreme Court president relating to the decisions of the states of Maine and Colorado, which banned Trump's candidacy, again due to the events following his 2020 electoral defeat. A possibility recognized by some jurists is the possible rejection of the decisions of Maine and Colorado, by part of the Supreme Court, but the confirmation of the ruling of the Court of Appeals of Washington, which contains legally relevant arguments against Trump and which could bring him to trial, precisely because his attitude interfered in the process of counting and verifying the votes, a matter completely outside presidential competence: this would represent an attack on the structure of the state; a charge that is difficult to refute. In the meantime, however, Trump's presidential campaign is proceeding triumphantly and the only candidate still present, Nikky Halley, has very little chance of bringing the Republican Party back to its traditional political path and therefore of seriously competing for Trump's presidential candidacy . The legal question arises in a context of profound division and radicalization between the two electorates, where the contending parties have further distanced themselves on all matters, both domestic, economic and international politics. Furthermore, the precedent of the Capitol insurrection identifies Trump supporters, certainly not all, as capable of violent gestures in open conflict with federal laws. On the other hand, postponing the decision on the decisions of the states of Maine and Colorado and on the ruling of the Washington Court of Appeals could raise serious doubts about the real impartiality of the Supreme Court, generating an institutional short circuit capable of paralyzing the country, in a moment where the international situation requires quick decisions. If the result with Trump as candidate is in the balance, perhaps with another Republican candidate a situation could arise that would impose a renewal even among the Democrats, but time is running out, putting the entire Western balance at risk.

If Ukraine falls, Russia could advance towards the countries of the Atlantic Alliance

 The failure of Kiev's counter-advance caused justified alarms about an attack by Moscow on European countries and those belonging to the Atlantic Alliance; according to the Germans, a success in Ukraine could lead the Russians to decide to advance towards a country neighboring Russia: the main suspects are the Baltic countries, but tension is also increasing in Poland. These analyzes are nothing new: the German Ministry of Defense has long developed a forecast of a possible attack on the eastern flank of the Atlantic Alliance, which could take place by 2025. The necessary condition for this forecast to come true is a Russian victory in Ukraine, a strong mobilization is expected in February 2024, capable of bringing 200,000 soldiers to the front, and then launching a spring offensive that will be decisive for the outcome of the conflict in Moscow's favor. If this scenario were to come true, Putin could decide to advance towards adjacent objectives, even if some doubts remain about the real ability to quickly replenish Russian arsenals. Even the possibility of only a partial advance would benefit the Kremlin, because it could convince Kiev to decide to concede something to Russia to avoid the complete loss of the disputed territories, while the European Union could soften its attitude to avoid the arrival of a large number of refugees, capable of destabilizing the fragile internal balance. The use of forms of hybrid warfare such as cyber attacks, towards Brussels and the search for pretexts with the Baltic countries, would complete the Russian action; in particular, Moscow could repeat the tactics operated before the war in Ukraine, when the Russian population in the border areas was incited, which could happen again with the Russians residing in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and also Finland and Poland; this would represent the excuse to carry out joint maneuvers on the borders of these states, also involving the Belarusian army. These dangers are well present in the vision of the Atlantic Alliance, a further factor of concern, with respect to Ukraine, is that, in a potential Russian attack, there is an important geographical variable constituted by the Kaliningrad region, a Russian territory between Poland and Lithuania, without territorial continuity with the motherland. For Moscow, from a strategic point of view the conquest of the so-called Suwalki corridor, which directly connects the Baltic countries to the NATO allies, would be a priority. Deploying troops and short- and medium-range missiles in the Kaliningrad region would allow the Kremlin to launch an offensive, capable of uniting the isolated region with its Belarusian ally. The coincidence of the American presidential elections is considered another factor in Putin's favour: Russia could attack at the time of the election or transfer of power, compromising the reaction times of the major military force of the Atlantic Alliance; even a possible election of Trump is seen as an facilitation for the Russians, which could lead to an American disengagement even within NATO, without the European Union yet being able to support Moscow's attack. On this issue, Brussels' delay is disheartening, the lack of a common army, combined with the lack of common action in foreign policy, leaves the EU disorganized in the face of global emergencies and, furthermore, the continuous division between member states creates a lack of cohesion that is highly detrimental to a common defense project not dependent on the US presence. Speaking of numbers, the forecast is for a deployment of around 70,000 Russian soldiers on Belarusian territory, on the border with the Baltic states by March 2025. The Atlantic Alliance has already foreseen a substantial response to this contingent of around 300,000 men to protect the corridor Lithuanian, to defend the integrity of the Baltic countries, but these are huge numbers, which could reopen the way to compulsory military service, which many states plan to reinstate, precisely to counterbalance the Russian numbers. The phenomenon of war centered on the models of the First and Second World Wars, which seemed overcome by the deployment of super-technological armaments, seems to be able to forcefully return, subverting all predictions. To avoid this scenario it is important to support Ukraine in every way to contain Putin's ambitions and prevent the Third World War.

Iraq, a battleground between the USA and Iran

 Iraq, despite the underestimation of the press, is destined to become a very important front in the Middle Eastern conflict and, specifically, in the confrontation between the USA and Iran. The situation, which the Iraqi authorities defined as a violation of their sovereignty, saw mutual attacks between Washington and Tehran, conducted right on Iraqi soil. Iran cannot tolerate the American military presence on its borders, on Iraqi soil the Ajatollah regime is present with pro-Iranian militias, financed by Tehran, whose presence is considered strategically important, in the context of actions against the West and Israel . Among the tasks of these militias are acts of disturbance against American forces and those of the coalition against the jihadists present on Iraqi soil. Recently these military operations, in reality already underway since October, have hit American bases with drones and rockets, causing injuries to US personnel and damage to the infrastructure of the bases. Even without the Iranian signature, the attacks were easily traced back to Tehran and this aggravated a conflict situation capable of degenerating into a dangerous manner. The USA responded by striking the Hezbollah Brigades, present on Iraqi territory in a region on the border with Syria, causing two victims among the militiamen; however, other victims would have been recorded in Scythian militias, which have become part of the regular Iraqi army. These American retaliations have sparked protests from the Baghdad government, which was elected thanks to the votes of Iraqi Shiites and which fears the reaction of its supporters. The accusation of violation of national sovereignty, if it appears justified against Washington's actions, should also apply against Tehran, as the instigator of the attacks against American installations and, broadening the discussion, also against the Turks, who have carried out actions several times against the Kurds, something also imitated by the Iranians. The reality is that the current situation in Iraq, but also in Syria and Lebanon, by the Israelis, sees a continuous violation of the rules of international law in a series of unofficially declared wars, which escape the practice established by international law . This situation presents the greatest risk of an extension of the Middle Eastern conflict, capable of provoking the explosion of a declared war, as a subsequent factor to these, unfortunately increasingly frequent, episodes of low intensity conflicts. Leaving Iraq out of a conflict appears crucial to avoiding a world conflict; the geographical position of the country, between the two major opposing Islamic powers, would lead to a direct confrontation, which would have as its first consequence the direct involvement of the United States and the possibility , for Tehran, to bring its missile bases closer to Israel. One of the major protagonists to avoid this dangerous drift is the Iraqi Prime Minister Mohamed Chia al-Soudani, who, despite enjoying the support of the Shiite electorate, needs to preserve ties between Baghdad and Washington. In reality, these ties, in the intentions of the Iraqi prime minister, should only be of a diplomatic nature, since regarding the presence of the international military coalition, the head of the executive has repeatedly underlined its withdrawal to favor the conditions of stability and security in Iraq. However, the issue is difficult to resolve: with the presence of financed and trained militias in the country, Iraq risks losing its independence, guaranteed precisely by the presence of Western forces; if the Iraqi country fell into the hands of Tehran it would be a major problem of a geopolitical nature for Washington, which must necessarily maintain its presence on Iraqi soil, a fact strengthened by the issue of Gaza, which provoked the actions of the Houthis and the self-proclamation by part of Tehran as defender of the Palestinians, despite the religious difference. Baghdad thus became an indirect victim of the situation that was created in Gaza, after having gone through the entire phase of the presence of the Islamic State, which is still present in certain areas. To defuse this risk, a diplomatic effort would be needed from the most responsible party of those involved: the USA; this diplomatic effort should be directed, not so much towards Iran, but towards Israel to stop the carnage in Gaza, encourage aid to the population, also with the use of UN peacekeepers and accelerate the solution, even unilaterally of the two states, the only one capable of stopping international escalation and eliminating any excuse for creating the conditions for regional instability.

Trump increasingly favored, even without the consent of moderate Republicans

 Trump's most accredited opponent, Republican Ron DeSantis, governor of the state of Florida, has officially withdrawn from the nomination race to participate in the US presidential election. After the Republican elections in Iowa, where he received little support, the polls for the vote in New Hampshire gave him only a percentage of 5.2 and this led to his withdrawal; DeSantis has announced that his support will therefore go to Trump. DeSantis, who some saw as capable of countering Trump in the race to be nominated as Biden's challenger, comes from similar political positions to Trump and identifies with the new course that is dominating in the Republican Party, influenced by the ideas of the Tea Party and, for this reason , assures his support for the former president, in open contrast with the candidacy of Nikky Halley, which he considers too moderate and representative of the old approach of the Republicans. DeSantis had earned a certain credit, thanks to his election as governor of Florida, against the candidates indicated by Trump, however the defeat, distanced by about 30 percentage points in Iowa, demonstrated that Republican voters perceived him as a copy of Trump, precisely for very similar positions on issues such as immigration and abortion. The loss of support, after the polls distanced him by only 10 points from Trump, began with the defense of the former president from criminal charges, thus causing him to lose the support of more moderate voters. Although formally DeSantis had already given up on the New Hampshire primaries, to concentrate on those of South Carolina, the distance of around 55 percentage points recorded in the polls led to the decision to withdraw, also to take up his position as governor of the United States full time. Florida. DeSantis is the third candidate to withdraw from the Republican contest, thus determining a two-way contest between Trump, increasingly favored, and Nikky Halley, former governor of South Carolina and US ambassador to the United Nations. Nikky Halley's electoral strategy is to collect the votes of the more moderate Republicans, who do not recognize themselves in Trump's histrionic way of governing and are against his extremist positions marked by little respect for federal laws. The chaos created by Trump's judicial affairs does not find favor with the more traditional Republican voters, who would prefer a more measured and more reliable character, however the audience conquered by Trump appears broader because it cuts across the classic Republican electorate, capable of gaining consensus in the more diverse classes and also by the poorest voters. Despite these analyses, Nikky Halley tries to present herself as a sort of generational change, thanks to her age, 51 years and a substantial political experience. However, a clear victory by Trump in New Hampshire could take away any ambition from his challenger, significantly reducing his chances of reaching the nomination. This story demonstrates how what was once the dominant political class of the Republican Party has not yet recovered its positions and, on the contrary, is almost passively assisting the transformation of the party, which began with the Tea Party, up to a personalistic political formation of Trump himself and, essentially, his hostage. If this sociopolitical analysis is valid Nikky Halley has little chance of winning, precisely because he is too close to the demands of a part of the party that appears to be a minority. For the USA and the world, this is not good news because it highlights the continuation of the trend of radicalization of the Republican Party, despite Trump's defeat in the last elections and his judicial troubles. After four years, the lack of political and generational change, excluding the figure of Halley, demonstrates how the party is hostage to Trump and this causes concern at an international level. From the point of view of the Democratic Party, perhaps a Trump candidacy may be worthwhile, because it will lead to the mobilization of the electorate not accustomed to going to the polls, who would vote for any candidate to avoid Trump's repeat in the White House; from this perspective, a success, even if difficult, for Halley could favor her in the run for the office of president, precisely because she is a more moderate element than her. Both solutions, Biden or Halley, would certainly be appreciated by the majority of the international scene, which fears with Trump an upheaval of Western balances.

Netanyahu's dangerous strategy

 The statement by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, who said he was against the formation of a Palestinian state after the end of the war, expressed so explicitly, further clarifies the Israeli government's strategy on the real intention of expansion on the territories left to the Palestinians . Evidently the reassurances that its inhabitants will remain in Gaza, even if decimated, have only been formal; the real risk is that these intentions also concern the West Bank. Netanyahu continues to affirm that the war will still be very long, but it is evidently a wait-and-see tactic, awaiting the outcome of the next American consultations: in fact, a victory for Trump would favor the executive in power in Tel Aviv and would keep the troubles at bay judicial of the Israeli prime minister. The prospect, however, includes a permanent state of war, with the risk of spreading more seriously on multiple fronts and involving more actors, as already happens, but in a more massive manner. This attitude has attracted deep criticism from the USA, according to Biden the Israeli situation can only be normalized with the creation of a Palestinian state, an argument also supported by the Arab states, with Saudi Arabia having placed this condition for the recognition of the state of Israel ; but even just the proposal for a ceasefire was rejected by the Tel Aviv executive, on the grounds that it would represent a demonstration of weakness towards terrorists. Within the rejection of the creation of a Palestinian state, there is also the refusal to give control of Gaza to the Palestinian National Authority. With these premises, however, some questions are legitimate. The first is that the presidential elections in the USA will be held next November: until then, with Biden in office, the distance between Tel Aviv and Washington risks becoming increasingly accentuated and the risk for Netanyahu is to see American support reduce, an eventuality that has never happened in the history of relations between the two countries, which could weaken the leadership in the country and also the military capacity; certainly Biden must carefully calculate how far he can go, so as not to make decisions that have repercussions on his electoral consensus, but the prospect of Israel's weakening on the international level appears very real. The war in Gaza has caused an expansion of the concrete conflict, which has been able to involve other actors, so much so that the regional conflict situation is now an established fact. The question concerns Israel's responsibility for the reaction to the events of October 7, in relation to the international sphere. The situation that was created with the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea, which caused serious economic damage to international trade, the blatant intervention of Iran, with mutual threats with Israel and the Hezbollah issue, which caused the involvement of Lebanon and Syria, clearly outlined a situation that was serious, but still at a contained level. The worsening has led and will lead to the involvement of actors not yet directly present on the Middle Eastern scene, with an increase in the presence of armaments and military actions, such as to make the situation highly unstable. An accident is not only possible but also highly probable and this could trigger a conflict, no longer through a third party, but with the direct involvement, for example of Israel against Iran; this eventuality appears closer than ever and explicit threats do not help to favor a diplomatic solution. The central question is whether the West and even the whole world can allow a nation to exist with a person of Netanyahu's type in power, certainly Israel is sovereign within itself, but it has not been able to resolve the judicial situation of a man who remains in power with unscrupulous tactics, which indifferently use the ultra-nationalist far right, wait-and-see tactics, false promises and violent conduct, closer to the terrorist association it wants to fight, rather than that of a democratic state. Israeli public opinion seems to be dominated by this character and the few voices of dissent are not enough to stop this trend. Even though it is legitimate to fight Hamas, the ways are not the right ones, over twenty thousand victims are too high a toll, which hides the intention of an annexation of Gaza, as a new land for the settlers; this scenario would have catastrophic effects, which only international pressure, even with the use of sanctions, and diplomatic activity can avoid. Also because once Gaza has been taken, the passage to the West Bank would only be a consequence, just as total war would be a logical consequence.

The European Union opens to Ukraine and Moldova

 With a negotiation, which could be defined as alternative, Orban's Hungary, opting for constructive abstention, as it has been imaginatively defined, allowed the European Council to proceed with the opening of negotiations for accession to the Union of Moldova and Ukraine. After repeated threats, the Hungarian president absented himself from the vote, with an unprecedented procedural innovation, which made it possible to achieve the result approved by twenty-six European countries, which also includes the start of Georgia's candidacy and the postponement of the evaluation to March of the accession process of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Orban, the only European leader to meet Putin since the beginning of the Ukrainian conflict, has always said he is against the start of Kiev's accession process, arguing that it does not meet the conditions for joining the EU, however, apart from the affinities with the regime of Russian and therefore political, Budapest could fear sharing European resources, which, in fact, financially support the Hungarian country, with the new members, with a consequent decrease in revenue from Brussels. Naturally, Orban's abstention was not free: beyond the threat of a request for funding of 50 billion for the functioning of the Hungarian administration for 2024, President Orban was "satisfied" with the release of 10 billion in funding, which they had been blocked due to the violation of fundamental rights by the Budapest government; rights that will certainly not be restored and this fact will also constitute a further dangerous precedent for the functioning of European politics, which can be overcome, as always, with the end of unanimity voting, a mechanism that needs to be corrected more and more urgently. The approach of the summit was entirely aimed at the result, where, in fact, it was preferred to create dangerous precedents to achieve the set goal, with a political vision, which necessarily had to sacrifice something, but which brought a result that was rightly celebrated. If the process is successful, the political value will certainly be successful, not only for the enlargement of the common European home, but also for the geostrategic containment of Russian ambitions. Nor should the fact of having accepted the ambitions of Georgia be underestimated, which could become a European member without geographical continuity with the other member countries and which could constitute an outpost of the Union capable of attracting other countries in the region. The decision strengthens European credibility and prestige, allowing us to interrupt the diplomatic obfuscation, which Brussels has demonstrated with decisions that are not always too congruent with its principles. President Zelensky averted an indirect victory for Putin, which would have raised Moscow's morale in the event of refusal towards Ukraine. The opening to Kiev means an unequivocal political result on a global level, which compensates, at least in part, for the refusal of the US Congress to release the 60 billion dollars for military aid; moreover, the Ukrainian situation in the conflict with Russia is at a standstill, the front is immobile and the progress that the Kiev government had promised to the West has not been recorded, while the Russian armies seem to be holding on to their positions. The European decision, combined with the consistent promise by some individual European states to provide military aid, can boost Ukrainian morale; Kiev and Moscow's commitment in the coming winter months should be to maintain their positions and prepare for decisive operations when weather conditions improve. In this period, European commitment may also be more incisive in the diplomatic field, despite Putin having declared that Western isolation has not produced major repercussions on the Russian economy and there is no further need to mobilize new military personnel; these declarations must be interpreted partly as justified by the upcoming Russian elections and partly by Moscow's ability to have been able to carve out a dialogue with powers both adverse to the USA, such as Iran, and close to Washington, such as Arabia. Europe, therefore, must know how to play an increasingly autonomous role from the USA, also in preparation for an unfortunate re-election of Trump, of which the admission of Ukraine, Moldova and also Georgia must be read as a process that is part of a plan superior capable of uniting European countries in an increasingly federal and political sense with autonomy in foreign policy and equipped with its own army, capable, that is, of overcoming the financial logic to be able to truly interpret the role of an international subject of primary importance.

What is in Netanyahu's favor?

 The tragic events of October 7, which occurred on Israeli territory on the border with the Gaza Strip, were a preordained plan by Hamas and there is no doubt about this. What we must ask ourselves is the attitude of the Israeli border forces, alerted by its own members and by probable intelligence news, evidently underestimated, with the borders undefended thanks to the decrease in numbers present. Have these warnings really been underestimated or are they part of a plan by the government in office to encourage the creation of a legitimate reason to unleash repression on Gaza and its eventual conquest and the further facilitation of the expansion of settlements in the West Bank? We need to go back in time and remember that Benjamin Netanyahu's management of the Palestinian problem has always been characterized by an ambiguous attitude, made up of broken promises and a behavior that has favored the growth of the most radical movements, those that have always denied the legitimacy of the existence of Israel and of the two-state hypothesis, to the detriment of the moderate ones, which could favor dialogue, but to the detriment of the policy of expanding the colonies; in fact, the effective search for an agreement that could favor the achievement of the purpose of the two states would have penalized the politics of the far right which makes illegitimate colonial expansion, illegitimate because it is outside of international law and common sense, its own political program . Netanyahu's political position and sensitivity has increasingly shifted to the right, bringing together increasingly radical movements and parties in the various governments that have followed, which with their actions have favored the growth of similar sentiments in Palestinian areas, with a growth of radical movements, among which the leadership of Hamas emerged. At the same time, however, Netanyahu's personal situation has worsened due to various problems with the justice system in his country and the increasingly rightward shift of his political positions, which has put the anti-Palestinian action at the center, both in domestic and international sphere, a very strong reason for distraction from his judicial indictments. Currently, in the phase of the war in Gaza, the country's sensitivity towards Netanyahu is strongly negative. For the attack on the kibbutzim, public opinion sees Netanyahu as the person most responsible, but the emergency situation prevents his replacement, even if he is It has been repeatedly underlined that after the end of the war in Gaza there should be no political future for the current prime minister. In the meantime, however, an increasingly aggressive attitude of the settlers in the West Bank is permitted and several questions are legitimate about the future of Gaza. At the beginning of the invasion by Israeli troops, the declared desire was to annihilate Hamas and leave the situation in the Strip unchanged, but as the conflict progresses, an unexplicitly declared desire to exercise effective control over the territory seems to emerge. This would imply the denial of the political and administrative autonomy of the Palestinians who will be lucky enough to remain alive in the face of the brutal repression that Israel is carrying out on the civilian population. An extreme solution could be the movement of the inhabitants of Gaza towards the Sinai, a solution to which Egypt has always said it is against, thus freeing a significant portion of territory to be allocated to new settlers. This is not an impossible eventuality, precisely because the survivors of Gaza are at the complete mercy of the Israeli armed forces, not defended by any state or international organization, capable of opposing, even politically, Tel Aviv. The fact that these are the civilian population, who have already paid the price of over 18,000 deaths, the entire destruction of their belongings, hunger and disease, produces nothing more than verbal solidarity, where the Arab countries lead interested in having international relations with Israel. In the end, the legitimate doubt is this: if Netanyahu were to expand Israeli dominion over Gaza and increase the territorial space of the colonies, something carried out with impunity, he would have definitively decreed the two-state perspective, an argument particularly appreciated by part of Israeli public opinion. , and he would therefore have created an insurance capable of preserving his political future which would also allow him to overcome his legal problems, in short he would have a leadership structure that is practically unassailable even by those parties and movements which hope for his political end. Will all this be possible? The solution will also depend on how the main international players want to behave, adopting new forms of approach to the Palestinian issue.

The political scene after the invasion of Gaza and Israeli responsibility

 One of the consequences of the Gaza war is the suspension of the Abraham Accords, however, Saudi Arabia has only suspended its approach to Israel, waiting for a more favorable moment. Of the other Arab states that have already signed relations with Israel, there has not been any that has merely threatened to interrupt them, only criticism has arrived in Tel Aviv for the exaggerated response to the Hamas action of last October 7th, together with the request of a ceasefire, especially for humanitarian reasons. This is a situation clearly favorable to Tel Aviv, which cannot but highlight the substantial silence of the Sunni world. This scenario, which has actually been underway for some time, may only be favorable to Israel in the short term, but in the medium and long term it favors the radicalization of the Palestinians and the protagonism of the Shiites, with Iran as the leader, followed by Yemen and Hezbollah . In particular, Tehran becomes the defender of the Palestinians as the sole representative of Muslims. Netanyahu has in fact achieved what he wanted: a radicalisation, with the marginalization of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, a secular and more moderate organisation, of the Palestinians can avoid the discussion on the two states and Tehran's protagonism forces the Americans into a new collaboration with the Israeli nationalist government; in fact, the American withdrawal from the Middle Eastern region has been rethought, forcing Washington to deploy a large quantity of armed vehicles, especially at sea, to protect the advance of the Israeli army and also to protect the American bases in the Persian Gulf from possible Iranian attacks. The evident desire to deter potential dangers from Tehran, but not only, has led to the deployment of several missiles capable of reaching Iranian territory; this implies that no progress will be made in the negotiations with the Ayatollah regime, on the nuclear issue or even on the easing of sanctions. Iran, despite having publicly stated that it has no interest in engaging in a conflict with the USA and Israel, will only be able to continue pursuing its strategy of destabilizing the area, to assert its objectives of control over Syria, together with Russia and part of Lebanon, territories essential to continue to put pressure on Tel Aviv. Washington will, however, have to consider Israel's responsibilities for having had to give up a progressive reduction of its diplomatic activity in the Middle Eastern region in favor of a greater concentration on the Ukrainian question. It should be specified that various administrations of the White House are, at the very least, guilty of complicity with Tel Aviv, for not having committed themselves to the definition of the two-state project and not having fought the action of the governments of the Israeli nationalist right, which operated towards the Palestinians a policy of occupation and abuse in contempt of all civil and international rights. Only Washington could put adequate pressure on Israel, but this was not the case and the two-state solution, which could have avoided the current situation, was not achieved, also thanks to Netanyahu's false availability and his unscrupulous policies. But once again the strategy proved to be short-sighted and at an international level it provoked an anti-Zionist and even anti-Semitic wave, which put Jews in difficulty in various countries around the world. At this moment the question of the two states does not appear viable due to Israeli hostility, yet it would still be the most valid antidote to the constant danger the Israeli-Palestinian issue causes in world balances. Envisioning the possibility of control of the Gaza Strip by the Tel Aviv army implies highly dangerous developments, which, once underway, could become unstoppable and drag the world into total conflict. We have already seen that actors such as Russia are taking advantage of the change in international relevance to divert attention from the Ukrainian issue and, similarly, China could decide to change its attitude with Taiwan and take action, as could terrorist groups who are operating in Africa could raise the level of conflict. Without the Gaza issue these phenomena would be more manageable and even the relationship with Tehran would be better. This is why the need to achieve peace in the shortest possible time implies a responsibility that Tel Aviv cannot refuse, under penalty of a bad fate, especially in the medium term.

Russia facing the issue between Israel and Palestine

 The position of the Kremlin, since the times of the USSR, has been pro-Palestinian and in this context we must place the visit of Hamas representatives to Moscow, not received by Putin, but by the Russian Foreign Minister and, in any case, welcomed in a unequivocally symbolic, in the Kremlin headquarters, thus conferring the maximum degree of officiality and relevance of the meeting. This is a clear political signal aimed both at the USA and the West, and at Israel itself. Moscow is directly involved in the hostage situation, because there are six people of Russian nationality kidnapped, three of whom have dual nationality; while the number of Russian citizens who died in the bombing of the Gaza Strip reaches 23 people. In addition to Hamas, the Russian foreign minister also confirmed an upcoming meeting with the leader of the Palestinian Authority. Despite the difference in views with Hamas, which is against the two-state solution, Russia must exploit the moment to reposition itself as a relevant player in the Middle Eastern area and has every interest in maintaining relations with all the subjects involved in the current issue. If we want to have a broader vision of Moscow's interests in the Near East, we need to consider the particular relations it has with Iran, Syria and Israel itself. Putin's desire would be to play a role as mediator in the conflict, which could allow Russia to emerge from the current diplomatic isolation caused by the aggression against Ukraine. Moscow's action aims to avoid the American monopoly on the management of the crisis, also through accusations against Washington of not supporting Palestinian aspirations for their own state nor the various UN resolutions, which have repeatedly condemned Israel. The Russian proposal in the Security Council was not accepted, because it did not include the condemnation of Hamas, but violence against all civilians on both sides, implying Tel Aviv's violence towards Gaza; this has resulted in a deterioration of relations between Russia and Israel, which, however, cannot be compromised for common reasons. It should be remembered that Israel did not condemn Russia for the Ukrainian invasion and did not even join the international sanctions. It also did not provide Kiev, whose president Zelensky is Jewish, with the anti-missile system normally used to protect itself from rockets launched by Hamas. At the same time, Russia does not hinder Israel in its defense actions against Hezbollah, coming from Syria, despite the protection that Moscow continues to provide to the Damascus regime. Tel Aviv also needs Moscow's help to contain Iranian politics in the region, which is a common interest as Tehran has long proclaimed the need to eliminate the Jewish state and implements this strategy through its ever-increasing influence on fundamentalist Shiite militias, Hezbollah and Hamas itself, because, in some ways, the only possible ally is Iran, which has remained to materially support the Palestinian liberation struggle, compared to the increasingly evident withdrawal of the Sunni Arab states in supporting the Palestinians. Tehran implements a policy of material aid in the countries of Lebanon and Syria, which, especially with regard to Damascus, can compromise Russian interests, as well as delicate regional stability. Regarding the conflict with Kiev, Moscow has every interest in international attention shifting to the Middle East and for this reason the Ukrainian president went so far as to state that the Russian country was behind the Hamas attacks. Supporting this hypothesis is very difficult, Hamas' action was prepared over a long period of time and with substantial supplies, which seem to come from other countries. However, a tangible fact remains that this crisis between Israelis and Palestinians works in Moscow's favor, even if the attention of the Atlantic Alliance has certainly not waned, but the greater commitment of the US military, especially with naval means, to protect Israel from 'Iran implies a more diversified commitment and even diplomatic action is no longer focused only on the European objective.

The world's faults for the Israeli-Palestinian situation

 Israel was very annoyed by the words of the Secretary of the United Nations, who, explicitly condemning the cowardly attack by Hamas several times, however, contextualized it in a context of violent abuse by the country of Israel perpetrated over more than fifty years against the Palestinians, especially civilians. This statement is true throughout history, but even more extreme over the years, which are many, of Netanyahu's various governments, which have increasingly moved closer to the nationalist and Orthodox right, a political party with the sole objective of subtracting, through illegal settlements, land not only for Palestinians but even for Bedouin tribes. The Israeli president has implemented a policy of dividing the Palestinians, favoring the extremists of Hamas, who have gathered the consensus of the Palestinians, accrediting violence as the only possible solution. It must be said that this was favored by Netanyahu's ambiguous attitude, who first allowed a glimpse of the two-state solution, and then moved increasingly towards a decisive denial of this solution, thus disadvantaging the moderate parts of Palestinian politics, several times accused of inability to achieve the goal of establishing a Palestinian state through diplomatic means. It must also be said that American interests, increasingly directed towards Southeast Asia, have led to an absence, which has favored Netanyahu's action, which has led us to today. But the USA is not the only one responsible for this situation: the list is not short, Europe has maintained a condescending attitude towards Tel Aviv, condemning the Israeli action ineffectively and no less guilty are the Arab states which have remained declarations of convenience, without ever acting with a united policy to put pressure on the USA and the Israelis themselves, without even taking advantage of the recent rapprochement. All this contributed to determining an increase in tension, which occurred without fanfare, with Iran becoming the sole official defender of the Palestinian cause with its increasingly decisive support for the radical forces. Tehran was able to fill the void left by various subjects, who could favor a peaceful solution, to exploit the Palestinian case for its own geopolitical and strategic needs. Iran, through Palestine, can operate on two fronts: the first is the fight against Saudi Arabia, which is political and religious, the second, broader, is against the USA and the West in general, a factor that it can allow him a greater rapprochement with Russia and China. As can be seen from the Israeli responsibilities for not having pursued the two-state policy, but, indeed, for having contradicted it, we have reached a state of heavy global destabilization. It was not difficult to predict these developments, but the USA and Europe literally relied on chance, leaving too much freedom for Netanyahu's action. It is necessary that the Israeli-Palestinian situation is not in a state of tension like the current one, so as not to alter the already fragile world balance, and this is why Israel must be convinced not to use such intense violent repression, which disqualifies it as a democratic state, placing it on the same level as a terrorist organization; the number of civilian deaths recorded in the Gaza Strip is already much higher than those caused by Hamas and the same ground operation feared in the Gaza Strip risks being enormous carnage for the two sides. Furthermore, there is the possible opening of a northern front, with Hezbollah ready to intervene, an increasingly overheated situation in the West Bank and explicit Iranian threats to strike Haifa. The presence of military ships in the Persian Gulf risks triggering a confrontation with Tehran, with the consequence of activating the dormant and unpredictable cells present throughout the world. Never before has peace been in the unfortunate hands of Netanyahu, who, honestly, cannot be relied on. Biden's action, marked by moderation, however late, seems to be the only one capable of having some possibility of averting the principle of degeneration, which truly risks leading to the outbreak of a world conflict. Only by silencing the noise of weapons and unconditional bombings on Gaza can we hope to start again from a sort of negotiation, which will restore strength to the two-state solution and make opposing extremisms retreat. Time is running out but the possibilities are there, only with adequate reflection on everyone's part, beyond that there is only the abyss.

Asylum applications are on the rise in Europe

 In the first six months of this year, asylum applications to the twenty-seven countries of the European Union, added to Norway and Switzerland, reached the figure of 519,000 applications, marking an increase of more than 28%, compared to the reference period of the last year. Of these requests, 30% concern Germany, 17% Spain and 16% France. With these data, the figure of over one million requests could tend to be reached, a number similar to the record figure of 2016. 13% of asylum requests come from Syria, equal to about 67,000 people, with an increase compared to the same period last year, by 47%. The causes of this real migration are to be found in the worsening of the civil war, which caused the worsening of economic conditions and the hostility of the Turks, who in past years had absorbed a large part of the emigration from Damascus, against the Syrian population. The migratory route most followed by Syrian citizens is the Balkan one and this affects the nations that collect asylum requests, such as Bulgaria, with 6%, and Austria, with 10%, even if these destinations increasingly represent transit solutions to Germany, which has a percentage of requests of 62%, thanks to the roots of the Syrian community, favored in previous years by Chancellor Merkel. Immediately after Syria, the second country for asylum applications is Afghanistan, with 55,000 applications; despite being a migratory basin that has always ensured substantial quotas of migrants, the US decision to abandon the country has favored the return of the Taliban, who, once in power, have considerably reduced human rights and practiced a disastrous economic policy, which it has aggravated an already difficult situation, forcing the country to rely almost exclusively on international humanitarian aid. While the origin of migrants from African and Asian areas does not come as a surprise, there is an increase in requests from areas of Latin America, such as Venezuela and Colombia, which together reach 13% of the requests, in their totality practically directed towards Spain, thus explaining Madrid's second European position in the ranking of asylum requests. These very worrying data are recorded shortly after the closure of the pact on immigration and less than a year after the European elections. The now customary resistance of Poland and Hungary to the distribution of migrants aggravate the internal situation of the European Union and highlight the lack of effectiveness and foresight of policies to regulate the inflows. The June agreement between EU foreign ministers provided for a sort of tax, in the amount of 20,000 euros per person per year, for those countries that refuse to contribute to the distribution of migrants and was conditioned by the vote against of Budapest and Warsaw; in Poland, in October, a referendum will be held on the issue of welcoming migrants, called by the right-wing government in office. Once again Brussels presents itself with internal divisions and without sanctions capable of dividing the migratory load, presenting itself to world public opinion as weak and easily blackmailed by anti-Western dictatorships, which use the migration issue as a real weapon of pressure for the 'Europe. This state of things determines, in a period where Western cohesion is increasingly necessary, a vulnerable side to the detriment not only of the Union, but also of the Atlantic Alliance. Agreements such as the one between the European Union and Tunisia, in addition to being ineffective, are signed with dictatorial regimes, which take advantage of the individual weakness, in this case of Italy, and the global weakness of an institution that cannot be united and which allows the prevailing of national rather than supranational interests. The Italian case, a real southern border of Europe, clarifies the situation even more: 65,000 arrivals equal to 140%, if compared with the same period in 2022, yet Rome receives very little aid from the members of the Union, worried about safeguard their own individual situations. Until this logic is overcome, with an increasingly serious situation, due to wars, famines and climatic emergencies, Europe and the West will always be under blackmail.

Why Xi Jinping will not go to the G20

 The next G20 summit, which will be held in New Delhi, India, registers, even before starting, a very important absence, that of Chinese President Xi Jinping. This is the first time that this has happened because, for Beijing, the G20 meetings have always been considered as important occasions to present a modern image capable of representing the only alternative to US hegemony and, precisely for this reason, the presence of the highest Chinese authority was considered essential for the participation of the People's Republic. Many speculations and hypotheses have already been made about this absence, which, however, do not fully explain the reasons for such a significant absence. Some experts have provided the explanation that the Chinese president, with his absence, wanted to devalue the institution of the G20, seen as a Western emanation, to get closer, also from a diplomatic point of view, to the emerging economies of the southern hemisphere and to even more relations with Russia. This explanation, however, appears to be in contrast with the Chinese needs to maintain commercial relations with the richest areas of the planet: Europe and the United States, despite significant differences of views. If it is true that Chinese expansion is developing in Africa, Beijing cannot give up the outlet of its goods towards the most profitable markets, especially in a phase, such as the current one, where the contraction of the internal economy generates compensation needs, that can only be found in the richest markets. Even the question of relations with Russia, which undoubtedly exists, must be framed in a diplomatic context, which serves to balance geopolitical relations on a global level with the West, in a non-symmetrical framework, however, with Moscow, which appears to be the weak partner of the alliance. The most correct answer to Xi Jinping's absence must instead be sought, in the relations between China and India, in a historical moment where Beijing feels its historical enemy approaching where the overtaking of the population and the expedition to the Moon represent only the cases more recent than the comparison. The absence of the highest Chinese office is intended to diminish the relevance of the Indian G20 and deprive it of any possible visibility that could highlight it, such as the meeting with President Biden, who had to compare their respective positions on commercial and geopolitical relations and which will probably be postponed in November to San Francisco, during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum. It should also be remembered that the top officials of China and India recently met in South Africa at the BRICS summit and that at the time the meeting with Narendra Modi had not been boycotted, precisely because it was in neutral territory. On the other hand, the Indian president was hoping to obtain a great advantage in terms of international image, precisely because of organizing the G20 and the absence of Xi Jinping, potentially, can invalidate a good part of these expected consensuses. It must also be added that, precisely in the South African meeting, the tensions between the two personalities were exacerbated due to the age-old issue of borders in the Himalayan area. Despite these strategic reasons, China cannot completely snub the G20 summit, also to accurately preside over the meeting, which will focus on issues of primary importance: thus it will be Li Qiang, number two of the regime, who will represent Beijing; this choice is meant to be an unequivocal signal, both for the West and for India itself, with which Beijing intends to demonstrate that it still wants to be at the center of the discussions that will be the center of the summit.

Orban must leave the European Union

 Viktor Orban made an ideological speech, which places him more as a potential ally of Putin, than an actual member of the European Union, after all his electoral program, which allowed him to win, was focused on the opposition of the European Union, of which, however, Hungary enjoys robust contributions. The lack of coherence of the Magyar politician seems to coincide with the majority of his fellow citizens, who exploit the absurd regulation of the Union of the approval of measures on the basis of unanimity and not of the majority. Orban prophesied predicting the dissolution of the European Union and the fall of the USA; if the second seems like a wish, for the first the solution would be easy: do like Great Britain and get out of Brussels. However, this eventuality does not fall within Orban's plans, who, perhaps, has given himself the political task of facilitating the dissolution from within, with his absurd behavior totally contrary to the founding values of the European Union. For Orban, the West is a collection of rich but weak states, which have no intention of facing competition with world powers. If, from a certain point of view, this statement has parts of the truth, it seems equally true that characters such as the Hungarian politician contribute not a little to a common vision, which can raise the qualitative level of Brussels against the major world powers, in fact Orban's vision defines Europe as a sort of economic, political and cultural ghetto with a future of decadence without any hope, despite high consumption, which will lead it to a destiny of desolation. The juxtaposition with the forecast of the International Monetary Fund, which provides for the exit from the top ten economies in the world and the passage of Germany from fourth to tenth by 2030, with the supposed degradation of the Union, summarized in the values: migration, LGBT and war, appears an unfortunate rhetoric, which goes against world trends and a low-level replica of what is said in the Russian places of power; even the persecutory attitude, implemented with the opposition to the entry into the Atlantic Alliance of Sweden and Finland, carried forward only because the two countries contested the populist drift of Orban's government, well frames the low political value of the character. The aversion to the United States, seems to replicate Putin's reasons, the alleged loss of Washington's position as world leader towards China, could risk bringing the world into conflict, without remembering that his friend from Moscow is putting world peace in much greater danger. The Hungarian position is the only one in Europe to be correct, because it rejects hedonistic values and does not intend to proceed with the replacement of the population with immigrants who reject Christian values; not only that, he reserves increasingly insistent criticisms of Romania, because more than 600,000 Magyar-speaking people faithful to traditions reside in Transylvania, covertly threatening another country's right to this territory. There is enough for the leaders of the Union to intervene, as they should have done a long time ago, in a harsh manner against this character and the majority of the country, which, despite everything, supports him. It is not possible to allow politicians who do not share the principles on which the Union is based to allow such arrogance, which follows the denial of democratic rules in their own country, with the introduction of censorship and the denial of the judiciary to exercise its function autonomously. It also seems useless to recall how Budapest, together with other countries of the former Soviet bloc, has rejected the principle of mutuality and solidarity in the division of migrants and has been in total disagreement with the European policies approved by the majority of states. Such a presence constitutes a brake on common political action and automatic and immediate solutions must be envisaged, which can sanction from the pecuniary penalty of funding, up to suspension and even expulsion from the European assembly. The current challenges must be faced on the basis of the founding ideals of the Union, without allowing these to be altered by contrary and retrograde visions, if all the members cannot be kept together it is better that those who do not share the common political action are removed.

Putin threatens Poland

 Poland's military deployment on the Belarusian border unnerved Putin, who threatened Warsaw, even quoting Stalin; for the head of the Kremlin, the threat to Poland is due to the fact that the Belarusian country forms the supranational alliance between Russia and Belarus with Moscow. The Polish military deployment is seen as a tangible threat to the very existence of Belarus, because it is operated by a country of the Atlantic Alliance. The reason for the fear of Warsaw lies in the presence in the Minsk area of the Wagner private militia, who after the failed coup d'état, took refuge in Lukashenko's country with his authorization. An unfortunate joke by the Belarusian dictator, about the possibility of crossing the border with Poland, has triggered a very high state of tension, which brings ever closer the possibility of a clash between the Atlantic Alliance, of which Poland is a part, and Russia, of which, in fact, Belarus is more a vassal state than an ally. Of course, Putin specified that an attack on Minsk would be equivalent to an attack on Moscow. The Russian president also hypothesizes a joint dispatch of Polish and Lithuanian soldiers within Ukrainian territory, in the Lviv area. According to Putin, the intention of the two ex-Soviet countries that have become adversaries would not be to lend aid to the Ukrainians, but to deprive them of territory: this is, evidently, an attempt to bring disorder to the coalition that supports Kiev with information capable of destabilizing relations between the three governments. In reality, these statements have no international credit and are rather aimed at Russian public opinion, in an extreme attempt to revitalize the popularity of the population towards the special military operation, which seems to be receiving less and less consensus. Always identifying new enemies and giving particular prominence, even by distorting history, with narratives constructed for one's own use and consumption, reveals that the isolation of Moscow is increasingly tangible even within the walls of the Kremlin. The emphasis that is given to the next visit of Lukashenko, certainly not a leading international actor, but a character dominated by Putin, constitutes further information on how Russia accuses its international solitude and tries to circumvent it, exploiting every slightest opportunity. From a military point of view, however, it is a fact that Warsaw's decision, however legitimate, because it was made within its own borders, constitutes an aggravation of the situation, due to the concrete possibility of an expansion of the conflict, both in terms of the number and entity of the actors involved, and also due to the enlargement of the territory involved. A development of the war in the northern part of the Ukrainian country, the one on the border with Belarus, could ease the pressure of Kiev on the Russian army, which is struggling to contain the breakthrough of Zelensky's army in the areas occupied by the Red Army. Now an expansion of the conflict in those areas could also involve the border with Poland, while the possibilities of an expansion towards the borders of Lithuania and Estonia are more remote. The Western fear is that this is a strategy that Putin intends to adopt, using his Belarusian ally and the Wagner militia, currently engaged only in training the soldiers of Minsk, but which could rehabilitate itself in the eyes of the Kremlin, becoming the protagonist of actions against Ukraine led by Belarus. A possible scenario, from which Ukraine could hardly emerge victorious; however, in this possible scheme, the weak point is precisely the proximity of Poland, which could not tolerate the presence of invaders within the regions of Ukraine close to Polish territories near its borders. Herein lies the dilemma, what will be Putin's willingness to carry out such a risky plan as to oblige the Atlantic Alliance to be directly involved in the conflict. It is a hypothesis that risks being ever closer and leading to the outbreak of the third world war, with all the imaginable consequences. For now, the USA is silent, but to prevent the conflict from advancing westward, it will be necessary to maintain the greatest possible balance in a scenario that is certainly not easy, where the guide must be that a world war cannot be beneficial to any actor involved.