Gaza: United Nations says Israel is causing famine and Israeli army report says 83% of civilian casualties out of total

 Two facts have come to the forefront in the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinian population of Gaza. These are two significant facts that global public opinion should take due account of and seek appropriate responses toward Tel Aviv. The first is the official United Nations declaration of famine in the Gaza Strip, the first in the Middle East, despite its severe history of military disasters. According to the United Nations, as many as 514,000 people, a quarter of the population, are facing food shortages, with the figure projected to reach as many as 641,000 by the end of September. The unique feature of the Gaza famine is that it is not due to meteorological or health factors, but entirely man-made, namely, the actions of the Israeli army. This humanitarian disaster could have been avoided if Tel Aviv had not systematically obstructed aid sent to Gaza's borders. The Israeli action is even more serious because it is part of a precise plan to weaken civilians, as the Palestinian population must be eradicated by any means from the Strip. The ultra-Orthodox Jewish government's desire to annex Gaza is, unfortunately, shared by much of the Israeli public. Despite the presence of massive food shipments at the border, Israel's behavior remains unchanged. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights holds the Israeli government directly responsible, classifying starvation deaths as war crimes of voluntary manslaughter. This consideration introduces the second relevant fact, which concerns the issue. According to a secret report by the Israeli military, the number of civilian victims of the Gaza war is 83% of the total. As can be seen from this data, the low number of combatant casualties suggests a deliberate planning of the Palestinian genocide, so much so that it can be compared to the massacres in Rwanda and the Mariupol massacre. The combination of enforced starvation and deaths from military activity clearly defines the intentions of Netanyahu and his government regarding the Palestinians: to annihilate as many of them as possible in order to create the conditions for their deportation from the Strip. Moreover, a recent survey revealed that a full 79% of the Israeli population supports the indiscriminate repression of the Palestinian population, whom they consider an abusive occupier unworthy of human dignity. Netanyahu, of course, denies these data, or at most justifies them by citing Hamas's actions against his own citizens. However, the Israeli prime minister's mindset remains the same: to lie shamelessly and buy time to achieve his goals, constantly accusing anyone who contradicts him of being anti-Semitic and rejecting any interpretation different from his own and that of his government. Regardless of political views and obvious Israeli motivations, the lack of response to these crimes perpetrated against innocent civilians of all ages will remain an indelible stain on every country in the world, but even more so on Western democracies, which have revealed themselves as empty and absent when it comes to defending international law and defenseless populations from the most abhorrent violence, from whatever side it comes. Only recently have condemnations arrived, for their own sake, and even the recognition of the Palestinian state, which is expected to be in large numbers at the next United Nations General Assembly, is an exercise devoid of practical consequences. Israel must be increasingly isolated, its violence must be contained by all means, and the start is heavy sanctions that must affect an economy lacking its own resources. Europe must do at least this, trying to trigger a reaction in other countries as well, especially Arab ones. Certainly, this will require a reaction from Trump, but a consistent blockade capable of isolating Tel Aviv could be a belated but effective deterrent.

China and India are getting closer, thanks to Trump's policies

 One of the foreign policy side effects of Trump's tariffs is that they have brought traditionally distant nations closer together. The most striking example is the new relationship being established between India and China, traditionally adversaries. The two great Asian nations share thousands of kilometers of border, along which tensions have recurred over time; the Tibetan issue has also contributed to these frictions, and the proximity between India and the US has fueled China's mistrust of India. In reality, the greatest point of contention has been the two countries' struggle for dominance of the Asian continent, which China's significant progress has tilted in its favor. That was until Trump emerged on the scene. Although relations with New Delhi were completely different during the White House's first term, in his second term India asserted greater neutrality on international issues compared to the US position. It was displeased that Trump took credit for the end of the conflict between India and Pakistan, and finally, the Indian government was displeased that its citizens were displayed in handcuffs, like veritable trophies in the fight against illegal immigrants, a cornerstone of the US president's policy. While these issues had already strained relations between the two countries, the decision to impose a 50% tariff on Indian goods exported to the US, due to India's purchase of Russian oil, completely froze relations. This has resulted in an effect that is certainly undesirable, but highly predictable, for American foreign policy: a rapprochement, unthinkable until recently, between New Delhi and Beijing. Now, reversing this process will prove extremely difficult for White House strategists. The renewed relations between the two countries' foreign ministers promise to be only the starting point for new ties. The first step will be to reopen trade at three Himalayan passes and the resumption of direct flights between the two countries, which have not been available since 2020, as well as the issuance of visas for tourism, business, and information. These initial developments represent only a small portion of the trade potential the two countries can undertake, at least partially offsetting the effects of US tariffs. Even within the BRICS organization, Beijing has already expressed support for India's hosting of next year's summit between Brazil, China, India, and South Africa, aimed at increasing trade relations between these countries. A closer form of cooperation between these countries, in trade and finance, leading to an agreement on a common currency alternative to the dollar, could seriously jeopardize the American economy, which is alienating formerly friendly countries for ideological reasons or relative expediency, thus strengthening China's position as the world's leading industrial power. It must be noted that India's closeness to Russia is almost a given, but American action is strengthening it. Its rapprochement with China is a different matter, representing a truly novel development on the global stage and also strategically threatening to create an Asian bloc highly hostile to the US. Since Obama's presidency, Washington has placed Asia at the center of its political and economic interests to the detriment of Europe. The goal was to isolate China, a doctrine Trump also embraces. However, his actions are favoring an outcome far different from the original intentions. At this point, China has Russia on its side, and India's rapprochement means depriving the United States of an ally, albeit a not-so-close one, which can only count on Japan and South Korea in that part of the world. The incompetence of Trump and those he has surrounded himself with is causing significant damage to American foreign policy, which is not yet fully understood within the American centers of power, now firmly in the hands of the president's Republican allies. With isolation, the program of making America great again will fail, and the resulting wreckage will be difficult to repair, not only politically but also economically.

Multilateralism between Brazil and India as a model to counter Trump

 As part of the reactions to Trump's disastrous tariff policies, India and Brazil are moving closer to boosting trade between the two countries, aiming to exceed €17 billion by 2030. These developments are believed to be the result of telephone conversations between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Brazilian President Lula, thus involving contacts between the two countries' highest officials. It's worth noting that the US intends to impose a 50% tax on incoming Indian goods due to purchases of Russian oil, while the 30% tax the White House intends to impose on Brazil stems from the indictment of former President Bolsonaro. The concrete means to reach the €17 billion trade target is to have agreed to expand the Mercosur-India agreement, following the agreement between the two countries at the recent BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro. The challenge for Brazil and India is to overcome the current and upcoming economic phases, which promise to be challenging for all global economies, through the revitalization of multilateralism and greater integration, not only between the two countries, but also as a model to be extended as widely as possible in opposition to Trump's isolationism. This approach must represent the alternative to be pursued as a global example to those who wish to oppose what Trump seeks to impose: a populist hegemony, which governs on deliberately distorted and often false data, to indoctrinate a public opinion lacking the tools to properly discern counterfeit news. To challenge Trump's model, action must be pursued simultaneously in two ways: from the grassroots, raising awareness among citizens through the action of social bodies, and from the top down, with concrete actions by governments and institutions. In this context, strengthening democracy is crucial, because instances of centralized power do not favor the role of the opposition and respect for minorities. Unfortunately, the idea that a majority legitimized by the popular vote can impose its views unconditionally, regardless of those who voted differently, is increasingly gaining traction. The next step is to seek to reduce inequality, as a means of combating the ignorance that fosters people's manipulation. Naturally, without regulation of technological resources and new technologies, achieving these goals appears extremely difficult, as these resources are increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few individuals, often too close to the powers that be. Trump's distorted will has imposed tariffs on over ninety countries, distorting free trade and compromising the development of global economies. Creating a coalition of all the countries targeted by Trump seems impossible, as many of them are deeply conflicted. For others, the problem is servility toward the United States, mistaken for an opportunity for privileged relations. However, broad agreements, such as the one between Brazil and India, capable of creating alternative markets to US dominance, seem possible. It should also be considered that, for now, the effects of these tariffs have not yet been felt in the US, but authoritative estimates predict an average increase in prices for US citizens due to the tariffs of over 18%, creating a situation not seen since 1934. This threatens to cause negative surprises for the American president, as the one affected will be precisely a segment of his own electorate, a segment of which will be impossible to fool with false propaganda. This will be a test that threatens to be very severe in terms of approval and appreciation for the White House's current policies and could represent a destabilizing factor that should not be underestimated. This will facilitate the success of any policies aimed at uniting several countries against the tariffs and Trump's entire way of understanding the world. Conversely, without unity of purpose at the state level, Trump's path will be more difficult to navigate.

On Gaza, the European Union confirms its irrelevance

 After a dismal performance in negotiations with Trump on tariffs, which were not yet formally concluded and even prompted renewed threats from the US president, the European Union has again suffered a negative performance in international public opinion. Not even the most unbridled arrogance on the part of Netanyahu, who declared his intention to occupy and then annex the Gaza Strip, has elicited even a small reaction from Brussels. We have witnessed weakness pitted against strength, the choice not to react to such brazenness. Yet international pressure, with the desire to recognize Palestine as a state, could have represented an opportunity to demonstrate some vitality, especially since, at this level, Palestinian recognition is little more than a demonstration of the desire to put pressure on Israel, with no immediate practical effect other than media attention. Yet silence reigns within the EU institutions, and even the EU's High Representative for Foreign Policy, Kaja Kallas, has not commented. Her last message on the social network X condemns Hamas and calls for the release of the hostages. Amid the general silence of the European Union's governing bodies, what shines through is a desire not to interfere with an Israeli government that represents the furthest thing from European values. The carnage and genocide perpetrated by Tel Aviv, through weapons and hunger used as weapons, should automatically scandalize every democracy and trigger isolation and economic and political sanctions against Israel, at least as much as those rightly applied to Russia. What are the differences in the suffering imposed on the civilian population? It is not enough that one is a recognized state and the other a territory without unanimous recognition; the suffering of people imposed by invading regimes should arouse the same sentiments. Conversely, while this is happening in increasingly large segments of the population, the same is not true for governments and institutions, especially those of the European Union. This attitude can only result in the delegitimization of their roles and a perception of the uselessness of collegial bodies and, ultimately, of the Union itself. It is necessary to understand the reasons holding Brussels hostage even in the face of such a monstrosity. While one can understand the natural reluctance of states like Germany, which, moreover, has shown openness to recognizing Palestine and condemning Israel (and for this has been accused of Nazism), to criticize the Jewish state, the attitude of a supranational organization like the Union is less comprehensible; especially since condemning the current Israeli government would certainly not be subject to anti-Semitic criticism, but would invoke international law, which should be universally recognized. One reason could lie in Brussels's completely subservient attitude to Washington, a sort of concern not to antagonize Trump, who fully supports Tel Aviv's actions, so as not to spark conflict with the US and thus preserve a sort of preferential channel in relations with the White House. However, as has now been established, this appears to be merely an illusion, believed only by Europe. There is a fear of compromising economic relations, those that imposed the tariffs, or perhaps military relations, where the Atlantic Alliance is increasingly challenged by the US president. These reasons already appear shaky if these relations were truly strong, but in the current state of affairs they prove to be mere unreliable excuses. The problem is that within the Union there are no clear political rules, nor even unequivocal directions capable of deriving from the founding principles of a united Europe, which, in fact, is not united. Brussels's excessively limited sovereignty, the absence of a unified foreign policy, and the lack of a common armed force represent insurmountable obstacles to becoming a significant global player. Furthermore, the failure to abolish absolute majority voting, rather than the principle of relative majority voting, allows parasitic states to excessively influence the life of the Union, which remains a union based solely on economics but incapable of producing internal progress in the political sphere and therefore condemned to irrelevance.

Canada must join the European Union

 What is happening with Trump's political blackmail—the imposition of tariffs, not only for economic reasons but also for political retaliation—should give pause to the international community and foster the isolation the United States seems proudly seeking. After several postponed deadlines, for personal gain and that of his family, to allow him the most reckless financial operations, Trump's plan appears increasingly clear: to impose a new world order through US financial might. This plan applies to both its most traditional allies and those states commonly considered hostile to Washington. The recent threats of high tariffs against Brazil for impeaching former President Bolsonaro, and the similar blackmail against Canada for expressing its desire to recognize Palestine, are quite eloquent examples of Trump's goals, which clearly encroach on the sovereignty of other states. Moreover, those who could have generated strong opposition, such as the European Union, immediately adopted an overly accommodating stance, which only fueled the American president's bravado. Quite the opposite is true for China, which has taken a tougher stance toward American threats, thanks in part to its historical lack of subservience. It must also be said that President von der Leyen has proven to be a less than effective actor and too prone to Trump's bullying. Europe's fault has been its inability to attract new, strong members and find alternative markets, while attempting to maintain its position in the US market, which was already known to be compromised. The perception is that it lacks a courageous economic and political project. The first step for Europe is to lower internal tariffs and standardize their respective taxation, to present itself on the international stage as a cohesive bloc. Then it is necessary to expand the markets in which it can sell its goods, and the most likely destinations are those to which the US intends to apply the highest tariffs. Finally, it is necessary to expand internal markets with income-boosting policies. If these are the economic starting points, it is even more important to develop a political project capable of allowing Europe to transcend its geographical borders. There is a potential natural ally, one that identifies strongly with European values, unlike countries that are members solely out of pure economic interest, and which is geographically located outside Europe's borders, allowing for an unparalleled common space. This is Canada, which Trump has repeatedly threatened to annex as the fifty-first state of the United States. Planning for Canada's accession to the European Union would mean breaking American hegemony on both sides of the ocean and creating the richest market in the world. It would certainly be an act of war against Washington, but it would add enormous diplomatic weight and greater international relevance to Brussels. Given its cultural affinities and shared democratic values on which the European Union is founded, Canada would be the ideal partner with which to forge a deeper alliance. A bloc configured in this way would be an ideal adversary to bring Trump to heel and also to gain greater autonomy in diplomacy and defense, remaining within the Atlantic Alliance but progressively more independent from Washington. This would certainly be a lengthy process, requiring greater independence of judgment from some of the Union's most important states, compared to the United States, accompanied by a shared process of relinquishing even substantial portions of sovereignty. However, a Europe capable of attracting and reincorporating Canada into its fold would be an even more modern and attractive Union for investment and negotiating clout. The idea of bringing Canada into the world's richest trading zone would increase its value at the expense of the United States, satisfying its isolationist ambitions.

The hunger weapon used by Israel

 The Gaza famine is increasingly revealing itself for what it is: a variant of the weapons of mass destruction used by Israel, with clear US support, against the Palestinians of Gaza. Bombing the population from the air and from the ground, destroying their homes, and subjecting them to significant sanitation was deemed insufficient: the weapon of hunger serves to complete the goal of genocide, whose sole purpose is to steal Palestinian territory, an even more violent variant of what is already happening in the settlements. Palestinian survivors are victims of brutal torture: forced by food shortages, they are forced to travel to remote areas where the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a US organization, is supposed to distribute aid. Palestinians, standing in forced lines, often with forced passages inside actual cages, are shot by Israeli soldiers. According to some of the soldiers themselves, the shooting was the result of direct orders from Israeli officers, while other versions speak of platoons made up of soldiers from the settlements, or those who at least share their goals, who disobeyed official directives to target Palestinians. These military formations, moreover, are held responsible for acts against civilians, such as the recent bombing of the Catholic church in Gaza. In any case, given the unfortunately increasingly frequent incidents targeting the population in search of food, it is reasonable to assume that both possibilities are true and that this corresponds to a strategy by the Israeli government, no longer even very hidden, to evict the Palestinian population from Gaza and bring the strip back under Tel Aviv's direct administrative control, as already hypothesized by Trump and by a recent video created with artificial intelligence by a serving minister. In Gaza, therefore, civilians continue to die, killed both by the Israeli army and by the tactic of starvation. While the military response remains tepid, going no further than predictable and ineffective declarations, the issue of the food shortage has prompted a strong statement signed by 109 non-governmental organizations, which have formally requested the dispatch of humanitarian aid. What Israel has caused is a veritable mass famine, which has led to severe malnutrition among all age groups, but with particularly severe consequences for children and the elderly, often the fatal victims of this horrific deprivation. The request is to open all border crossings to allow supplies of food, drinking water, and medicine to reach the people, but under procedures regulated by the United Nations, not by American contractors. Supplies are already arriving outside the Gaza Strip, but Israel continues to block them with a variety of excuses. The blame is being placed on Hamas, but it's unclear how the terrorist organization, severely decimated, still has such vast power to influence such a large supply chain. It's clear we're dealing with an excuse to perpetuate famine against civilians. The NGOs' denunciation follows the joint statement of 25 countries, which called for an end to the war and condemned the food distribution methods. These statements, however, are not followed by retaliatory measures, such as sanctions, capable of damaging the Israeli economy, as is the case with Russia. Without effective positions, any statement has no effect on Tel Aviv, which can continue to increase the toll of the massacre it has carried out so far, which, according to figures provided by the Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health, amounts to approximately 60,000 deaths. while for the living it is estimated that 87.8% of Gaza's inhabitants have been or are subjected to evacuation orders under Israeli military control, a situation that exposes an unjustified military occupation of civilians, except for the motive of deliberately causing suffering and with the aim of annexing the Palestinian territory of the Strip to the Jewish state.

Now more than ever Europe must be autonomous

 Beyond the unspeakable behavior of the new US President and his vice president, Europe's surprise at the new situation cannot be justified at all. The feeling of disorientation and urgency at being excluded from negotiations between the White House and the Kremlin, precisely because of Trump's will, over the Ukrainian issue is a significant blow to Brussels' authority and the reasons and requests to sit at the negotiating table seem to be of little value, despite the possibility of raising defense spending and, to a lesser extent, sending a peacekeeping contingent made up of European soldiers. The European Union had the experience of Trump's first presidency, where the uselessness of the Atlantic Alliance had already been declared and with it the end of the Western system, as it had always been known, and of the subsequent period: the four years of Biden's presidency, where it was possible to arrive at an advanced, if not definitive, point of a common European military force, capable of guaranteeing the autonomous defense of Europe; on the contrary, it was preferred to postpone the problem, hoping for the election of a democratic exponent, who could carry forward Western politics, as it has been since after the Second World War. A defense of Europe fundamentally delegated to the American presence, capable of making up for European shortcomings. Now this is no longer the case and the military defense policy is only the most immediate problem, which is intimately linked to the lack of a common foreign policy and to unitary intentions also in terms of the economy, which makes the Union weak in the face of the threats of American duties. A series of problems capable of uniting the entire European Union with Great Britain, which has awakened further away from the traditional alliance with Washington and much closer to the fears of Brussels. Europe is trying to start again with the proposal of the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, not to count the share of money destined for military spending in the budget restrictions. Although this is a very delicate matter, due to the various sensitivities of the nations that make up the Union, this solution appears to be a starting point, albeit late, for a strengthened defense policy, which will have to be followed by effective integration policies of the individual armed forces towards a common army, capable of defending the territory of the Union even without the support of the USA. This is an ambitious but more necessary objective: Washington, since the time of Obama, has directed its gaze towards its needs to protect the Pacific Ocean, in the context of competition with China and now Trump has decided to accelerate in this direction and this explains his commitment to the immediate involvement of Russia in the definition of the Ukrainian question; however, a negotiation where one party in the war is excluded is a negotiation that starts badly and Europe has done well to claim the presence of Kiev at the table of any negotiation and also of its own presence, precisely as a guarantee of Ukraine and of itself. A defeated Ukraine would only precede a possible Russian advance certainly towards the Baltic countries, Poland and Romania, which is Putin's real project to restore the status of a great power to Russia. Trump has a vision contrary to Western democracies, considering their values ​​outdated, but it is a very short-term vision towards what is still the richest market. Brussels must be able to move with this awareness, even re-establishing ties, which could go beyond commercial ones, with other very important subjects on the international scene, certainly China, but also India and Brazil up to the Central Asian republics, often eager to distance themselves from Russia. The first step, however, must be a total involvement of the members of the Union, without holding restricted meetings that leave out countries directly involved in contingent situations, such as the Baltic countries in the meeting called by Macron. To do this, in addition to what has already been said above, the Union must equip itself with faster regulations capable of overcoming the absurd criterion of the totality of votes for the approval of community laws and decisions and the ability to expel countries opposed to the unitary direction of European politics, such as Hungary. Ukraine's accession to the Union is a necessary fact and an insurance against Putin's policies, but it must be supported by an armed force capable of breaking away from the USA, an Atlantic Alliance less dependent on Washington, also in its ability to produce the armaments it could use.

Trump's Tariffs as a Political and Economic Threat

 Trump’s protectionist policy, the cornerstone of his electoral program, is taking shape, for now only with announcements and proclamations. After the duties against China last week, the new threat, which has also been announced, is to impose 25% tariffs on incoming goods consisting of steel and aluminum, without any exceptions or exemptions. For Europe, it is a question of seeing whether the existing duties, precisely 25%, will only be confirmed or will even reach 50%. The declared aim is to increase American wealth. In addition to Europe, the main targets are Canada and Mexico: the duties towards these two countries are in clear violation of the free trade agreement between the three states. This violation represents a very bad signal of the direction of the policy of the new US administration, in relation to the approach with existing international treaties. For Canada, the duties will weigh heavily on a sector that earns 11.2 billion dollars from the supply of steel to the USA; However, the prediction is that this measure will backfire on US manufacturers, from the automotive industry to producers of carbonated beverage containers. On the contrary, the White House predicts a favorable trade balance, thanks to the greater benefits that the duties will bring to local steel and aluminum industries, compared to the losses of other industrial sectors. In Washington's vision, heavy industry is considered strategic to stimulate other sectors as well, acting as a driving force for the US economy. Trump has declared that the duties will affect a rather wide range of products, a factor that could trigger a trade war, with unpredictable consequences at a global level. With regard to Mexico, however, the tariff measure has been suspended for a month, in exchange for greater border controls to prevent migrants from entering the US. This suspension could mean that the duty measures could be a threat to obtain something else, for example for Europe greater military spending and greater commitment and involvement in operations, such as to allow a different deployment of US troops on the world stage. Even for Canada, the threat has been suspended with the commitment to stop migrant trafficking and the export of fentanyl-based drugs to the USA. The commitment requested from Canada seems mild, perhaps because Ottawa had drawn up a list of products to hit with customs duties, mainly from Republican states, which supported Trump the most. In any case, hitting Mexico hard, which has replaced China as the main supplier of the USA, with goods for 505.851 billion dollars and with a trade imbalance, in favor of Mexico City, of 171.189 billion dollars, will represent an intrinsic problem for the American manufacturing industry, presumably struggling with increases in supply costs. The trade war with Beijing has already started and both countries have already applied duties respectively. Even more interesting will be the evolution of relations with Europe, publicly called out by the vice president for the excessive trade constraints present on its territory, which do not facilitate easy reciprocal relations. Implementing a trade policy that is too rigid on the richest area in the world can have seriously harmful effects for US industry, especially since Brussels is looking for concrete alternative outlets for its products, thinking about new trade agreements with China; if we were to go in this direction, after Biden's policy had managed to reverse the trend, the effects of the duties would have the double negative consequence of losing market shares of American products in Europe and that these shares could be replaced by Chinese products; and the extemporaneous declarations of the new American president, about the creation of a riviera in Gaza, but without Palestinians, and of a Ukraine that will once again be Russian, do not help the dialogue with the Europeans, allergic to certain attitudes, despite the growing presence of Trump's supporters, even in the governments of some countries. If the military issue can be a lever that Trump will not hesitate to use, the White House must take into account that these provocations could push Brussels to slowly but progressively detach itself from its American ally.

The High Representative for Foreign Affairs of the European Union shares Trump's views on the lack of military investment.

 During Trump's first presidency, the situation had become very clear: the US no longer had any intention of supporting the majority of military spending to defend the West and this had been a missed opportunity to fill the inconsistency of European defense with a targeted program of military spending, capable of bringing the structure of the European Union to defense autonomy, always within the broader framework of the Atlantic Alliance. Trump, both in his electoral program and in his inauguration speech, reiterated the concept again, because he found himself faced with an unchanged situation, albeit within a profoundly changed international context. These criticisms were also recognized as true by the High Representative for Foreign Affairs of the Union, who stressed that the time has come to invest, because, as Trump states, Brussels and its members do not spend enough. During the annual conference of the Defense Agency, the figure emerged that represents the average expenditure on military spending for the states of the Union, for 1.9% of the gross domestic product, when Russia, the closest danger has invested 9% of its gross domestic product, although in a situation of war conflict. The scarcity of spending is a dangerous signal for potential aggressors. Currently the minimum expenditure established by the Atlantic Alliance provides for 2%, but reasonable estimates foresee an increase to at least 3-3.5% of the gross domestic product. The direction claimed by the High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Estonian Kalla Kallas, is to make Europe adopt a more decisive position with regard to military spending, in order to be able to assume a greater direct share of responsibility for the Union, with regard to its own security. The appointment of the Estonian politician is a clear and unequivocal signal from the President of the European Commission, Ursula Von der Leyen, because she is a representative belonging to a nation bordering Russia and who fears its actions, in addition to the fact that her country, Estonia, contributes 3.43% of its gross domestic product to NATO spending. Even the Polish President, Donald Tusk, who with his country contributes 4% of the Atlantic Alliance's military spending, argues that Trump's provocation should be understood as a sort of positive challenge, because a stronger ally has a more consistent voice in relations with the US and can move towards greater autonomy and security, towards the geopolitical challenges that could potentially arise.

The Atlantic Alliance needs more investment

 What the Secretary General of the Atlantic Alliance did during his speech to the European Parliament seemed like a real appeal for collaboration between the countries of the Union. Almost a request for help, which could not have been more explicit. The imminent arrival of Trump represents a decisive aggravation of an already difficult and complicated state of affairs. The current situation is not one of true peace, even if there is not even a state of war; however, the Ukrainian conflict is at Europe's doorstep and the situation of the economic commitment of EU members is still far from that two percent of the gross domestic product, which is now considered insufficient to maintain the Atlantic Alliance at an adequate level to respond to the potential critical issues present on the international scene. If Trump's request to bring the gross domestic product of each individual member of the Alliance to 5% seems like a figure rounded up a lot, a reasonable value could be three percent, that is, one percentage point more than the current one, which is also reached by only a few members. If today the situation is considered more or less safe, after the Trump presidency, it may no longer be so. Even if the president-elect's threat was to abandon the Atlantic Alliance, this eventuality, especially for economic reasons, is considered remote, but more likely it is considered possible that the US could implement a disengagement, so as to focus on the issues of the protection of the Pacific area, an essential area to fight China. Europe, even in a general framework of presence of the Atlantic Alliance, must make a greater contribution and respond to the agreements signed to bring military spending to 2% of GDP; but too many states are still far from this objective. In addition to the need to reach the established quota, greater rationalization is needed in the way of spending on military purchases, making joint purchases, capable of guaranteeing greater economies of scale and increasingly efficient integration between the various armed forces, in the absence of a supranational military component, which appears increasingly necessary, to have a greater range of maneuver and autonomy, albeit always within the Atlantic Alliance. At the same time, it is necessary to develop those tools to counter hybrid warfare that are necessary to counter the actions of entities such as Russia, but also China, which tend to influence the political and social life of European states. Disinformation is a weakness of Europe, just as the weapon of irregular immigration functions as a factor of internal and external destabilization, to the point of putting European institutions in difficulty in their command centers. The Ukrainian events have interrupted a stalemate, where the reason for the existence of the armed forces, in European countries, had changed towards the use of peacekeeping forces and interposition in critical areas, but still far from European territory. With the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the defense ministries realized the inadequacy of the approach of their armed forces, which had gone beyond the concepts of war on the field, with the consequence of also changing their respective arsenals. The economic cycles that have been repeated in recent times have never been positive and characterized by axes of growth, a situation that has favored the contraction of military spending, leaving very low defense potential. If, on the one hand, one can understand the reluctance to spend in the military sector, also considering the theses of the pacifists to the bitter end, it remains a fact that the Russian threat represents a concrete fact, which it is impossible not to take into account, also due to Moscow's dangerous alliances with North Korea and Iran and therefore with areas contiguous to international terror. What must be faced is not only a clear threat, but an opaque universe of indistinct enemies, against which effective strategies must be developed. The French proposal to make military spending towards European companies has a direct value to favor a greater cohesion of European countries, but it could meet resistance from Trump, therefore it will be necessary to find a balance capable of satisfying political requests, but also legitimate European aspirations, because in the long term, also for the USA, a more militarily autonomous Europe, will be an advantage also for Washington and not only for Brussels.

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.