Putin bombs Ukraine after Zelensky's visit to Europe

 The welcome of the countries of the European Union, bestowed on the Ukrainian president, Zelensky, provoked a harsh reaction from Moscow, irritated by the treatment of a defense hero of the attacked nation. There are basically two aspects that annoy Putin: the first is the international significance that Zelensky's visit to Europe made it possible to give to the Ukrainian question and its invasion, allowing the world to understand that Europe it supports Kiev in a practically compact manner, an aspect that is not very welcome in a Kremlin that is increasingly isolated on an international level; the second, much worse from a military point of view, was the promise of further military aid, which could go as far as fighter planes. The retaliation was a massive bombardment with cruise missiles fired from Russian ships stationed near the Crimea and eastern Ukrainian territories, occupied by Russian troops. Despite the communication from the head of the Ukrainian forces, no missiles have crossed Romania, a country belonging to the Atlantic Alliance, which has in any case been grazed by the passage of a carrier just 35 kilometers from its borders, causing the alert of NATO procedures. To be crossed by at least one Russian missile was the nation of Moldova, which is a candidate country to join the European Union. As usual, Putin threatens the Atlantic Alliance closely, coming close to the error capable of causing the conflict and invades the airspace of a nation not involved in the conflict. On the other hand, the Kremlin considers the supplies and training provided by Western countries to the Ukrainian armed forces an indirect participation in the conflict alongside Kiev. In addition to the capital Kiev, the bombings hit other important cities in the country, and had the dual purpose of destroying vital infrastructure, such as power plants and energy distribution networks, continuing the policy of aggravating the situation of civilians to generate from internally an opposition to the current Ukrainian government: a failed attempt and with little hope that it will achieve its goal. The massive use of missiles has forced the Ukrainian anti-aircraft to a high numerical quantity of anti-aircraft missiles, which has intercepted 70% of Russian missiles, but, at the same time, has emptied the arsenals, another factor has contributed to this: the interception of Iranian-made drones, which were 80% annihilated. The Russian strategy may be to weaken the enemy's countermeasures in anticipation of the much feared spring attack. Precisely for this reason Zelensky's trip was necessary to request urgent supplies of new weapons, for the West the defeat of Russia is necessary to limit the head of the Kremlin and bring him to any negotiations in an unfavorable position. However, it remains among the possibilities that the confrontation between the West and Russia could become direct, above all, if Moscow fails in its intentions and will be forced to use short-range atomic weapons, thus determining the response of the United States and the his allies.

The Atlantic Alliance offers guarantees to Finland and Sweden, also to strengthen the European Union

 The question of Finland and Sweden joining the Atlantic Alliance continues to be a problem for Turkey's aversion, which requires counterparts from Helsinki and Stockholm, which cannot be guaranteed by the leaders of the Alliance; despite this awareness, the Secretary General of the Atlantic Alliance, Stoltenberg, said he was optimistic and confident about the positive conclusion of the accession process. The declarations of optimism took place during the summit with the President of the Commission and the President of the Council of the European Union, in the context of the signing of the third declaration of aid in favor of military support for Ukraine; however, despite the confidence in the inclusion of Finland and Sweden in the Alliance, the stalemate has not been broken. The positive conclusion of the process of accession to the Atlantic Alliance is seen from a perspective of very significant historical and political importance, due to the tradition of neutrality of the two countries and their strategic position, within the opposition to the Russian ambitions against the 'Europe: precisely because of these assessments, the ratification of membership was signed by 28 members and rejected only by Turkey and Hungary. The reasons of the two opposing states are different: Ankara does not like the refuge provided by the Nordic countries to Kurdish exponents, therefore going to question internal political reasons of the candidate states, while in Budapest the suspect is the favorable attitude towards the Russian president, manifested several times and the origin of profound disagreements also within the European Union. Sweden and Finland have tried to carry out acts that could satisfy Turkey: such as the limitation of the activities of the Kurds on their territories, Stockholm has also lifted the ban on the sale of weapons to Ankara and distanced itself from the Kurdish-Syrian militias, as requested by Turkey, despite the role recognized by Western countries in the fight against the Islamic State; however, these openings are not enough for President Erdogan, who probably cannot make unwelcome concessions to his electorate until after the elections next June. In any case, as reiterated by NATO leaders, the risk of a Russian military attack against Finland and Sweden is not considered possible precisely because of the guarantees provided as long as the two countries are not members of the Alliance; in fact, therefore, the two nations already enjoy the protection of the Atlantic Alliance in all respects as if they were part of it in a formal way and a possible military attack already implies an automatic response from NATO. The latest joint declaration between the European Union and the Atlantic Alliance reaffirms the intentions of those signed in 2016 and 2018, but takes place in the context of the war of aggression perpetrated by Russia and strengthens the position of Finland and Sweden in the Euro-Atlantic sector, bringing a substantial political novelty which, in the immediate term, has an anti-Russian function, but in the future promises to have further developments beyond the military ones. The declaration of 2023, therefore, confirms the strategic concept of the Atlantic Alliance, which defines the European Union as a unique and essential ally and, on this basis, requires its even more enhanced integration, above all within the framework of the common strategy of defense and of international security. Very important is the favorable judgment towards an autonomous development of the military defense structures of the European Union, albeit still within the Atlantic Alliance, an issue repeatedly questioned by the previous president of the United States, Trump. If these considerations have a functional nature more pertinent to the contingent situation, relating to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, judgments have also been expressed, especially by the president of the European Union Commission, Ursula Von der Leyen, relating to potential situations already present, but which, for the moment, are limited to conflicts of a commercial nature, such as relations with China. Beijing's evident willingness to reshape the international order to its own advantage must alarm democratic countries, which could risk seeing their peculiarities in the way of governing altered. Only greater political integration and the creation of an autonomous military force in Europe can guarantee a deterrence capacity from armed threats or even from reversals of American politics, no longer as stable as it once was, which could cause a decrease in its own domestic of the Atlantic Alliance, due to isolationist tendencies already seen in the recent US past.

For Schengen only Croatia is admitted, excluding Romania and Bulgaria

 The conclusion of the Schengen area accession process, which began in 2016, ends a process that was marked by crises caused by the crossing of the Balkan route by over a million migrants. The particularly violent behavior of the Croatians has provoked criticism from the European Commission, as well as from numerous human rights associations. Zagreb has to control the second largest land border of the Union with limited means, but this does not justify an approach based on repressive methods, which do not justify, according to eight very relevant non-governmental organizations, admission to the Schengen area, furthermore condemned the lack of sensitivity of Brussels for the protection and respect of civil rights. Admission to the Schengen area should bring substantial benefits in the field of tourism and transport to the Croatian country and it would be desirable for the European Commission to expressly request, in exchange for these facilitations, a greater commitment in the field of protection of migrants' rights and also a greater willingness to welcome quotas of migrants, issues towards which Zagreb has not shown itself to be too sensitive up to now. If Croatia has obtained the longed-for admission to Schengen, Romania and Bulgaria are still blocked by vetoes determined by reasons functional to other states and which are influenced by exclusive partisan interests, masked by reasons of superior interests. The President of the European Parliament and the Commissioner for Internal Affairs expressed their disappointment regarding the exclusion of Bucharest from the Schengen area, which the Romanian country has been requesting for eleven years. The main culprits for the refusal are in Vienna and The Hague, even if Holland seemed more inclined to give a favorable opinion, then denied at the end. Romania seemed to meet the criteria for admission to Schengen, as it had actually been judged by the Commission and also by the members of the European Parliament. In reality, the real reasons for the Austrian refusal would be economic, the Vienna government has already denounced, in the past, pressures by the Romanian authorities on Austrian companies and also the question of the state oil company of Bucharest, which belongs to the Austrian company, is the cause of tension between the two countries. In reality, the reasons that were presented to justify the refusal by Vienna related to the 75,000 illegal migrants present in Austria, in a quantity declared unmanageable; however the migratory traffic towards the Austrian country comes mostly from Croatia and Hungary, but Romania and Bulgaria are blamed for internal political reasons, i.e. to satisfy the right-wing electorate and to point out to the Union that Austria has many more asylum claims than it can handle. Once again, therefore, Austria stands out for practicing a selfish policy, which risks compromising the already precarious balance of European cohesion, bending Community interests to its own individual advantage; thus also the veto against Bulgaria, still the responsibility of the Austrians and the Dutch, risks directing the Bulgarian country towards positions ever closer to Russia. The Netherlands motivates its no due to the lack of minimum conditions for the functioning of the rule of law, a defect repeatedly noted and reported by the Dutch, for which the opposition to Bulgaria's entry into the Schengen area, by Amsterdam , it was an expected fact; almost unexpected, on the contrary, the veto from Austria, which associated the reasons relating to migration issues valid for Romania also to the Bulgarian nation. In response to this refusal, the government in Sofia has threatened retaliation against the two countries, highlighting, once again, how the unanimity mechanism is now not only obsolete but evidently harmful to EU policy. From a strategic point of view, the non-admission of Bulgaria to Schengen represents a gross error, because it takes place in a country deeply blocked by an institutional crisis, due to the lack of agreement for the formation of the government, since the electoral outcome of last October, by the pro-Western majority forces and this can only favor the forces against the European Union, who, at the same time, openly sympathize with Putin. Austria and Holland, therefore, with the refusal towards Bulgaria and Romania, assume responsibility for the risk of decreasing European sympathies in territories contiguous to the conflict: a consequence not carefully evaluated or only overcome by trivial partisan interests.

The difficult process of admission of the Balkan countries to the European Union

 The strategy of the European Union is progressing slowly and with several doubts about the admission of the Balkan countries within its organization. The main intention is to remove the Balkan nations from the potential Russian influence, which would force Europe to have a further presence of Moscow on its borders; on the other hand, however, doubts continue about the existence of the conditions required by Brussels and also about the real opportunity to expand the members of the union to countries not too convinced of European principles and mainly ambitious to enter the richest market in the world and to take advantage of the rich subsidies of the European Union. The cost-benefit ratio of the admission of Bosnia, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia focuses precisely on the dilemma between the need to remove from Russian influence countries where sympathy for Moscow is in any case present and high and the management of countries which might resemble the relationship with those of the Visegrad pact. With the current European rules based on unanimity of decisions, allowing the entry of new members, for whom we do not have the most complete guarantees, appears to be such a risk capable of further weakening the precarious balances that govern the Union; the case would be different where the criterion of unanimity was superseded by that of the majority, capable of making it impossible to block decisions and allow for faster governance of the supranational body and not blocked by contingent needs, also and above all political, of the individuals state subjects. For the moment, therefore, we are proceeding slowly, with aid to combat the energy crisis and other practical concessions, but of minor importance, such as the extension of telephone roaming; as well as a formal declaration in which the EU reaffirmed "its total and unequivocal commitment to the European perspective of all the countries of the Western Balkans". However, these small progresses must be viewed with a positive outlook, because the summit candidate countries and the President of the Commission has produced an intention to face together the difficulties caused by the war in Ukraine and good prospects, albeit in the medium term, on the future of relations between the parties. The President of the European Council also used words of optimism for the entry into Europe of the Baltic countries, but with a non-immediate timing, again confirming the hypothesis of a process that is certainly not short, but, apparently, inevitable. For some countries, integration could be closer and, indeed, for Albania, Montenegro and North Macedonia, the fact of being already members of the Atlantic Alliance is a preferential factor for admission to Brussels, even if I know There are still no obstacles regarding the requirements requested by the Union and on which these nations have undertaken to work to achieve the required standards. Bosnia's path appears longer due to its constitutional instability, which has taken on a chronic nature, which constitutes a decisive reason for slowing down the admission process. The issue of Kosovo is even more complicated, because the Balkan country is currently aware that it cannot even start an admission process because it has to solve the problems of international recognition for its unilateral declaration of independence and the non-recognition of Serbia, the Federation Russia and, above all, 5 EU members (Spain, Cyprus, Greece, Slovakia and Romania), and the People's Republic of China; in Europe the greatest obstacle is represented by Madrid, which refuses recognition by comparing the secession of Kosovo to that attempted by Catalonia. However, the most complex case is represented by Serbia, which claims to want to proceed towards admission to the Union, but, at the same time, maintain its ties with Russia, which are not only political, but also cultural and religious. With the turning point of the Ukrainian war and the attitude already maintained for a long time by Putin, of profound opposition to respect for civil and political rights and the profound contrast to dissent, Belgrade's conduct is not acceptable for Brussels and the profound distance that has created between the Union, deeply pro-Atlantic, and Russia, currently appears as an insurmountable obstacle. Without an alignment with European foreign policy, Serbia has no chance of joining Europe, but this result would be highly unfavorable for the Union, which could even see a base for the Russian fleet rise in the center of the Adriatic Sea: something that must not absolutely happen.

The difficult dialogue between Russia and Ukraine

 According to reports from the US newspaper "Washington Post", the administration of the White House informally urged the Kiev executive to show itself available so that Ukraine can start a path that could lead to talks with the Russian government. According to the American executive, there is a real danger for the Ukrainian country of losing the support and aid of other nations; according to some analysts, the US solicitation is only preparatory to a possible decrease in the volume of aid, especially military, in anticipation of possible changes in the political structures and direction of some countries and also of the United States itself, which with the next mid-term elections , could change the composition of the legislative power. Along with political concerns, there are also those of an economic nature, due to the costs induced by the war and its prolongation, especially in the energy sector, but not only: in fact, if the higher production costs affect the growth trend of countries rich, in poor countries the concern is related to the lack of food, caused by the blocking of exports of Ukrainian wheat. For now these trends, although emerging, remain minority, but the economic difficulties, combined with the change in the trend of some governments, despite the denials, could favor a decrease in aid in arms, also in the name of a distorted pacifist idea, because indirectly clearly favorable to Moscow. Until now, however, the Ukrainian president has not shown himself willing to change his attitude of total closure unless he has to deal with a new Russian government, installed after Putin's overthrow; this eventuality appears very remote, if not completely unattainable, due to the iron control that the Russian president maintains over the bureaucratic and government apparatus of Russia. The Ukrainian position, however, is understandable: the country has been invaded and bombed and dragged into a conflict that has produced death and destruction within its territory, of which it has lost substantial portions; the conditions in Kiev do not only concern the refusal to negotiate with the tenant of the Kremlin, but also include the withdrawal and return of the occupied territories with adequate compensation for the damage suffered by Russian military actions. Putin himself, who had shown good intentions, in words, on the possibility of a negotiation, maintains an attitude completely opposite to that of Kiev and claims, as a starting point, to keep the territories conquered and annexed with the false referendums and leaving the current boundaries unaltered. The situation appears to have no way out, the positions are too conflicting and, however, the mere fact that we start talking about dialogue, even if impossible for now, can mean a little hope. If Ukraine needs all the support it can get, it has nevertheless shown that it has greater determination than the Russian armed forces and has forced Moscow to practically exhaust its arsenal, which needs to be reconstituted; the internal situation of the Russian country is not the best: the economic crisis and discontent, while not leading to major protests, do not allow the creation of a fighting force with a conviction equal to that of Ukraine, this war is not felt as its own by the Russian people , who shuns it or accepts it with resignation. These elements, combined with the fact that the Kremlin is starting to come under pressure from China, opposed to the continuation of a conflict that is compressing global economic growth and therefore also Chinese exports, indicate that the path of dialogue may be more likely than it is. current conditions allow for a positive development. Stopping the weapons will have to be the first necessary step, but this will not be enough if a world network is not created capable of making the two sides withdraw from their respective positions, always, however, keeping in mind the reasons of Ukraine which is the country it is. been attacked. Russia needs to realize that it is an increasingly isolated state and in this the action of Beijing will be fundamental, which has so far supported Moscow politically: if this happens, Putin will have to accept its downsizing on the international level, which can only be recovered by yielding to the front. to the demands of Kiev. The path is not easy and not even short, but, at the moment, it seems the only way to go.

Iran could attack foreign countries to divert attention from its internal problems

 The state of global alert could soon see alongside the war scenario of the Ukrainian front, even a potential conflict involving Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the United States. Tehran, struggling with one of the most serious inmates in the history of the Islamic republic, due to the death of one of its citizens, of Kurdistan origin, following the arrest by the religious police, for wearing the veil incorrectly, he would have identified in a military action the method to be able to distract the internal public opinion from the protests in progress. It is clear that if this were true, the theocratic regime would reveal all its weakness in a gamble whose result, in addition to not being at all obvious, could even be the cause of the increase in the manifestations of dissent. The Iranian government has more strongly accused Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the European states, Israel and, of course, the United States, of fomenting protests, which are increasing more and more against the rules imposed by the Shiite clergy. In the Iranian Kurdistan region more than half of the inhabitants follow the rules of Sunni Islam, while in Iraqi Kurdistan the Sunnis are almost all: in fact, therefore, they are enemies of the Shiites, of which Iran considers itself the main representative. Erbil, the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan, is the seat of US troops still present in Iraq, and has already been the subject, in the past, of Iranian drone and missile attacks, in one case thwarted by the Americans themselves. As for Saudi Arabia, relations between the two states have always been compromised due to religious reasons, as Riyadh is the highest representative of the Sunnis and Tehran of the Shiites and both claim religious supremacy in the Islamic creed. . Although Riyadh and Washington have recently had disagreements over the Saudi desire to reduce crude oil production, a decision undoubtedly favorable to Moscow, this threat is bringing the two countries closer, after a phase in which President Biden had expressly stated that he wanted to carry out a review of bilateral relations. The danger of an Iranian attack does not allow the US to abandon its strategic interests in the region, centered on the defense of the anti-terrorism policy and the desire to integrate Israel more and more with the countries from the Gulf. Washington has already publicly specified, in the event of an Iranian attack it will not hesitate to respond directly in the first person. The stance with the Iranian threats marks a further development in the alliance between Tehran and Moscow, where Iran is increasingly committed to supplying the Russian country with weapons; tactically, the drones of Tehran were fundamental against the Ukrainian defenses and now the possible supply of missiles with a range capable of covering 300 and 700 kilometers, could bring an indisputable advantage for Moscow, which, by now, has too old, imprecise and ineffective. This factor is likely to be decisive for increasing the global divide and further US aversion to the Iranian country. In this scenario where the world appears increasingly divided into blocs, it will be interesting to see how China will want to position itself: if, on the one hand, the strategic alliance with Russia has a purely anti-American function, an expansion of armed conflicts means a decrease. the ability to create wealth worldwide: an issue to which Beijing is very sensitive, in order to maintain its growth levels such as to ensure the advancement of the country as a whole. A conflict that may involve countries that are included among the major oil producers, means a practically safe stop for the world economy and with a significant contraction in the spending power of the richest countries. Beijing, presumably, will have to abandon its aversion to the US and engage itself in negotiations, towards which it has so far maintained an attitude too shy not to show any signs of weakness towards Washington. However, the possibility remains that the Iranian threat is only verbal and that Tehran does not intend to put into practice a use of weapons from which it would have everything to lose: in fact, even this solution does not seem to be able to distract a public opinion that has never been so determined, and indeed, a conflict could only worsen the perception that Iranian citizens have of their own government; rather, the Iranian government seems to want to divert international observers more from internal ones, but in doing so it favors the coalition of executives who did not go through mutual positive moments, obtaining ever greater isolation.

The nuclear danger and the evolution of the conflict

 The mere threat of a solution, which could include the use of nuclear weapons, opens up completely new scenarios for the Ukrainian war, with phases that could move the conflict away from traditional fighting. The Atlantic Alliance believes a direct response with the use of atomic weapons is remote, in response to a possible tactical nuclear bomb, that is, with a range of about one and a half kilometers, even if it promises very serious consequences for Moscow; on the other hand, the Kremlin has specified several times that the use of atomic devices is foreseen only in the event of invasion of Russian soil, even if the farce referendums have expanded it, incorporating the disputed territory with Kiev. The current phase of the conflict sees, on the one hand, the terrestrial advance of the Ukrainian troops, which proceed in a systematic way in the reconquest of what was conquered by the Russians and on the part of Moscow the massive use of long-range missiles, which are directed to mostly against civil infrastructures, with the clear aim of further exhaustion the population. From an examination of the rockets that hit Ukraine, however, it seems that Moscow is running out of its arsenal of these armaments and this, if on the one hand it can be interpreted as positive news, on the other hand it opens up to the possibility that Russia can use other types of armaments; for now, together with long-range rockets, Iranian-made kamikaze drones are used, which allow great results to be obtained, which thanks to their low cost, allow a great use with an almost safe achievement of objectives. For now, Ukraine has been able to little against these two weapons used together, but the supplies of anti-missile batteries by some European countries and devices capable of altering the operating frequencies of drones, have concrete possibilities to reduce the offensive potential of Moscow on the ground of Kiev. On the ground for now, Russia has only fielded conscripts, subject to forced enlistment, with very little training and no combat experience, whose sacrifice has the sole purpose of preserving the most trained troops. This aspect creates deep discontent in Russia and cases of insubordination multiply in the barracks, which risk compromising central power. This factor, combined with the negative development of the conflict and also the difficulties due to sanctions, could lead to the use of nuclear weapons, however this decision, in addition to military implications, would have even more political consequences of an internal and external nature. The announced end of forced recruitment can be seen in this context, once the figure of 300,000 men has been reached and what seemed to be the intention to give a sort of stop to the conflict, with the aim of maintaining current positions, all done 'anything but taken for granted. The current Russian objective seems to be to buy time and maintain positions pending a necessary reorganization of the armed forces and their arsenal, the introduction of martial law in the annexed territories, must be read in this sense: to create the conditions for to retreat as little as possible, even in the hope of the arrival of the harsh climate, which would not favor the Ukrainian advance. The impossibility of negotiations for the closure of both sides must not discourage diplomatic action, however difficult, which must proceed for small objectives, such as the exchange of prisoners and the search for phases of truce in the conflict: it is a basic starting point necessary to allow an indirect conversation between the parties, which, in this phase, can only be covered by international organizations or by neutral countries and institutions capable of favoring any relationship between the belligerent countries. The nuclear risk remains the greatest danger, but defusing the claims of countries that are in open violation of international law appears to be an equally fundamental requirement for pursuing world peace, which must be the main objective. The solution of the Ukrainian crisis seems increasingly distant, also because the use of weapons and their supply is an indispensable requirement both for Kiev and for the whole West, which with a defeat of the Ukrainian country would see dangerously close to its borders. the danger of Putin's Russia. A situation capable of spreading a disastrous conflict to the whole of Europe.

The US and the West will increase military aid to Kiev to help regain the lost territories

 Despite the potential Russian supremacy, the scenario of the Ukrainian conflict appears to be in constant evolution, which is becoming less positive for Moscow. According to Washington, the Kiev offensive is constant and planned, thanks to the progress made by the Ukrainian military in the actions carried out in the south of the country against Russian troops. Parallel to these successes for Kiev, the good news is the renewed military aid, not only from the US, but also from those countries that fear the Russian invasion. After the start of hostilities, dating back to six months earlier, the West sees positive signs on the ground, thanks to the reconquest of some Ukrainian cities that had been stolen from the occupation of Moscow; this allows us to glimpse a scenario different from the one so far present, where Kiev had limited itself to resisting the Russian invasion, but with an evolution towards a possible reconquest of the lost ground. This perspective has been certified by the US Secretary of Defense in front of the defense ministers of the countries belonging to the Atlantic Alliance and the representatives of fifty nations who support Ukrainian efforts. The scene of the meeting was the military base of Ramstein, where aid for 675 million dollars relating to special weapons, armored vehicles and light weapons was formalized; in particular the rockets, howitzers and anti-tank systems, which are proving to be fundamental for the recovery of Kiev. These supplies are needed to supply Ukrainian armories after Soviet and Russian production arsenals are running out. The US also advocated the need for greater participation in aid for Ukraine to achieve the goal of defeating Putin. From the point of view of the duration of the conflict, analysts hypothesize a scenario that can contemplate a duration of several years, far from the predictions of a rapid conclusion, for this reason it is necessary to implement and modernize the weapons equipment for Ukraine and train large light and heavy ammunition reserves. This factor is considered strategic, not only for the containment of Russia, but also to continue the process of regaining the Ukrainian territories stolen from Moscow and to arrive at favorable conditions to end the conflict. The United States is confirmed as the country most committed to the financial effort to support Kiev, the current administration of the White House has signed a commitment for the supply of approximately 13.5 billion dollars of armaments compatible with the artillery systems of the Atlantic Alliance, weapons considered more modern than those used by the Russians and which are providing the desired results against Moscow. Certainly the supply of armaments alone is not enough, equipment is also needed against the harsh climate, which the fighters will have to face next winter and the increasingly intense training of the Ukrainian military in the use of new weapons systems, so different from the setting up of Soviet and Russian armaments. This new turn of the conflict, which highlights the concrete possibility of overturning a prediction that was all in favor of Russia, invests a whole series of reflections on a military and geopolitical level, on the possible behaviors of Moscow, which must be taken into great consideration, both by Ukrainian and Western strategists. Putin can no longer go back: his prestige and that of his circle of government would be greatly compromised: a defeat in Ukraine was not even foreseen and not having solved the special military operation in his favor in a short time appears as a half failure. Moscow always has the nuclear option, the consequences of which are not foreseeable, except in an all-out war, in which the Chinese would hardly give their support. The American arms supplies are far qualitatively higher and the determination of the Russian soldiers is not comparable to that of the Ukrainians; the sanctions put a strain on the West, which, however, from an energy point of view, albeit slowly, are reorganizing their supply systems, while Moscow, already in default, will soon prove the shortage of Western products, it will hardly be replaceable with similar products from other areas of the world: these are not luxury goods, but products without which companies will not be able to function, furthermore the financial blocks and the sale of energy materials at discounted prices will reduce the availability of maneuvers of a economy already in trouble before the war, like the Russian one. These perspectives risk inducing Putin to extreme gestures capable of bringing the world back many years, to avoid this it is necessary to combine the current measures with a diplomatic strategy that can be a shortcut to allow the conflict to end.

China and Russia will use yuan and ruble for their energy commodity transactions

 The Chinese attitude towards Russia, regarding the invasion of the Ukrainian country, has so far been ambiguous from a political point of view, but clearer from an economic point of view. This reflection, in fact, explains the behavior adopted by Beijing since the beginning of the hostilities against Kiev, regarding the rejection of the sanctions against Moscow, intended as an unexpected opportunity for economic benefits for China. Of course, political closeness with Russia exists anyway, but it is to be framed more in an anti-American function, rather than with genuinely shared motivations, if not as a fact that has created a sort of precedent for an eventual invasion of Taiwan. This possibility, albeit concrete, is nevertheless still considered distant by most analysts. It all starts with Moscow's need to find other markets for raw materials, after the fact that it lost the European one in retaliation. China has always been looking for energy supplies to support the growth necessary to raise the country to the level of a great power and to create the internal wealth necessary to avoid too many challenges to its system of government. The Chinese country is thus the market that Moscow needs to sell its raw materials, even if heavily discounted, due to the lack of demand. The two countries have reached an agreement on exchange currencies that excludes both the euro and the dollar, in favor of the yuan and the ruble: with a payment system that provides for the use of half of the two currencies for each transaction. If for Russia the intent is to give a political signal to the West, avoiding the use of the currencies of hostile countries, which have frozen Moscow's reserves abroad, for China the increase in the use of the yuan on the international level it has a very significant economic significance, because it allows its currency to reach fifth place after the dollar, euro, British pound and Japanese yen, in the ranking of the most used currencies. The ambition is to overcome the Japanese currency and get closer to the podium, as a functional tool for its foreign policy, with a view to favoring its expansion in the emerging markets of Asia and Africa and therefore exercising an even greater share of soft power in these regions. The ruble, on the other hand, has even dropped out of the twenty most used currencies and, with this agreement, it could try to move up the rankings, even if at the moment, with the country subjected to sanctions, this more than remote possibility seems unattainable, even if Moscow's intention is to enter into a similar agreement with Turkey, which, despite being a member of the Atlantic Alliance, has not joined the sanctions. Ankara has practical reasons to take advantage of the Russian gas sale because its economy is in great difficulty and having favorable access to energy raw materials could favor a development of its production system. Currently, Russia's position vis-à-vis China on supplies of energy materials ranks as the top supplier, having overtaken even Saudi Arabia on supplies to the oil sector. The trade balance between the two states is clearly in favor of Moscow, which exports goods for 10,000 million euros to Beijing, of which eighty percent relates to the energy sector, while China exports only goods to Russia for 4,000 million euros. EUR. Beijing does not seem to suffer from this imbalance because it allows access to Russian energy resources at favorable conditions and, at the same time, does not consider the export of its products to the former Soviet country potentially convenient. Facilitated access to Russian resources, on the other hand, favors greater productivity of Chinese companies, which could favor competition from Western, US and European companies, generating an indirect consequence of the very dangerous sanctions. On the other hand, interrupting the policy of sanctions and aid, including military aid, for Ukraine is certainly impossible, despite some right-wing politicians in the West who have expressed this intention. The unity and compactness of the West is also a protection against Chinese expansionism, which fears more than anything else the blockade of its goods to the richest markets, which continue to be those of the West lined up against Russia.

The United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights denounces pressure from the Chinese side not to publish a report on Uyghurs

 Practically on the eve of the end of her mandate as Commissioner for Human Rights, which expires on August 31, Michelle Bachelet, former president of Chile, revealed that she was pressured not to publish a ready-made report, which would denounce Beijing's abuses against the Muslim Uyghur minority, which has a population of about twelve million people present in the northern region of Xinjiang. China has reportedly sent a letter, also signed by forty other countries whose names have not been revealed, in which the intent was to dissuade the Commissioner for Human Rights from not publishing the report. The drafting of the report in question has been underway for three years, but also includes the results of the Commissioner's visit last May, which provoked heavy criticism from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and also from the US State Department. for the attitude considered too accommodating on the part of the UN envoy towards the Chinese authorities, which have been criticized with tones considered too moderate. Despite the rather long processing period for the preparation of the report, publication has been postponed several times for unknown official reasons, although it is assumed that Beijing and its allies have materially operated in this sense. A justification provided by the Commissioner herself is that the delay is due to the need to integrate the results of the disputed May visit into the report, in any case the objective of publication would be by the end of the Commissioner's mandate, i.e. by the end of the month of August, even if there is no official confirmation to this effect. Many Western countries have specifically requested the publication of the report but the Chinese government has expressed requests to examine the research results more closely; to complicate the situation, a search by fourteen international newspapers intervened, which managed to examine official Chinese documents that would have confirmed the persecution of Uyghurs, through continuous and systematic violations of human rights suffered by at least more than two million people with the practice of internment, also suffered by minors, in re-education centers, where in addition to the administration of physical and psychological violence, the Uighurs are used as a workforce without pay, in a condition comparable to slavery. Beijing denies these allegations by defining the detention centers as vocational training institutes. The accusation against Bachelet by the US Secretary of State is that he did not ask China for news of missing Uyghurs and those deported to other Chinese regions, uprooted from their places of origin, even some human rights organizations have defined the management of the Commissioner as too compliant towards China and asking for her to be replaced by more determined people. The willingness to step down from her role as Commissioner for Human Rights would materialize right after her return from the mission in China and would be justified on personal grounds. The coincidence appears at least suspicious, it could have been the case of too strong Chinese pressure to determine the real reason for the resignation and the awareness of not knowing how to face such a test, that is, not being able to face the consequences of a too little severe relationship on the part of Western countries or the opposite on the part of the Chinese. In any case, an inglorious end to his mandate as Commissioner of Human Rights, which in one way or another will mark the political figure of Bachelet.

Doubts about the Moscow attack

 Concerning the attack that killed the daughter of the main ideologue of Russian supremacy over Eurasia, there can be no doubt about its instrumentality in supporting the revitalization of the consensus for the war against Ukraine. The almost immediate resolution of the case by the Russian secret services, which took place with a rapidity, which could be used to prevent the incident in a preventive manner, also contributes to reinforcing these doubts. The most extremist area that supports President Putin is affected, the one that responds to the victim's father who refers to the theory, developed with the collapse of the Tsarist empire and set aside in the communist period, of a Russia buttress of the liberal west. Although the father of the victim, to whom the attack could have been directed, has been indicated by many as Putin's ideologue, there is no concrete evidence of this link, nevertheless the active presence of this extremist part of the Kremlin his supporters is directly functional to what has always been his electoral program, based on restoring Russia to what is believed to be its role as a great power and, currently, the military and geopolitical program of reconquering the Ukrainian country and bringing it back directly under its influence, to put into practice to re-establish the zone of influence that already belonged to the Soviet Union. The war against Kiev, which was supposed to go the other way, is also a war against the West, but for importance Putin considers it the primary objective as more functional to become an example for all peoples and nations than what is considered from Moscow its own zone of exclusive influence: submitting Ukraine is a warning to all those countries that have ambitions to break away from Russian domination and, perhaps, go to the West. Of course, the objective is also to stop the expansion and the Western presence on the Russian border, but the objectives, of course, go hand in hand. The general consensus of the Russians towards the special military operation appears less and less convinced, despite the ban on public protest, there are signs of malaise for the sanctions, which have caused a lowering of the quality of life of the population, and, above all, the difficulty to find the necessary fighters to carry on the conflict in Ukraine. The obligation to address the poorest populations who supply unprepared soldiers from the eastern part of the country is an eloquent signal of the refusal to enlist and, therefore, to share Putin's war, on the part of the wealthiest and most educated Russian populations; furthermore, the hostility of the relatives of the fallen and of the soldiers taken prisoner of the Ukrainians is growing, who increasingly resort to every means to get news of their relatives. Putin finds himself in a situation with no way out: a possible withdrawal would be equivalent to a defeat and a defeat could bring down the entire power plant of Russia, this assessment leads to two considerations on the attack: despite Moscow immediately accused Ukraine, it seems unlikely that Kiev have completed such a difficult operation, without even claiming it. There is also the possibility that the bomb may have been placed by Russian terrorists opposed to the Putin regime, but this possibility appears even more difficult in a regime where the control of the security apparatus is very stringent and uses high-level technological tools, such as facial recognition. If these hypotheses are excluded, therefore, one cannot but assume an attack provoked by the Russian apparatus itself to solicit greater resentment towards the Ukrainian country, after all, the threatening statements of the sovereign and nationalists present at the funeral were particularly violent towards Kiev. If this were to be true, however, it would mean that Putin is also feeling the collapse of even the most nationalist and war-friendly side of his supporters: a very worrying fact because it denounces the distance from the Russian president from his followers who are more convinced of the rightness of the military operation. , so much so that they need a provocative act to arouse the outrage necessary to support the conflict. The other hypothesis is that with the attack, the hope of securing greater support in the most war-reluctant sections of the population, but still sensitive to Russian nationalism, is given concrete form. In any case, a desperate gesture by the Kremlin regime that signals a growing difficulty on the battlefield and on that of approval at home, which could represent the beginning of the end for the head of the Kremlin and his gang.

Chinese exercises on Taiwan endanger world peace

 Although Beijing has never strayed from the "one China" rhetoric, which considers Taiwan to be part of its own nation, the unofficial limits of territorial waters and airspace have until now been more or less continuously respected. The occasion of the unscheduled visit of the speaker of the American House, Nancy Pelosi, to Taipei sparked the reaction of China, which has undertaken the simulation of the invasion of the island with exercises that, it has been announced, will continue on a regular basis. The voluntary use of live bullets increases the risk of a military accident, which includes the voluntary tactic of unleashing a reaction from the side of the Taiwanese forces, which would provide Beijing with an alibi for the much-heralded attack. Meanwhile, Chinese intentions are increasingly evident, given that the announced end of the military blockade of the island, which has already lasted for 72 hours and has never happened before, has been prolonged with further exercises that represent a show of strength and put in place I threaten peace in a consistent way. The Chinese justification for these exercises, which, according to Beijing, take place in compliance with international regulations, lies in the objective of warning those who harm Beijing's aims, essentially the US, and intensify actions against those who are considered secessionists. . The exercises touch the territory of South Korea and some Chinese missiles have entered the exclusive area of ​​the sea of ​​Japan, indirectly the intention is to intimidate the allies of the Americans and demonstrate to Washington that it does not fear the US armed forces present in neighboring countries. to China. On the part of Tokyo there were official protests and the Secretary General of the United Nations, visiting the Japanese capital, was also involved; the danger of a nuclear confrontation has returned to concrete after decades and the highest office of the United Nations has publicly called on states that are equipped with nuclear weapons to refrain from using it, to avoid a nuclear escalation. However, Taiwan has also conducted exercises for its artillery, using US-made weapons: yet another fact that jeopardizes the peace in the region due to the possibility that these launches could hit Beijing targets. From a diplomatic point of view, Beijing has interrupted the common dialogue on security with Washington, established precisely to avoid military incidents, potentially capable of bringing the two powers to conflict; according to the Chinese Ministry of Defense, this fact is the direct consequence of the American conduct, which with the visit of Nancy Pelosi, contravened the agreements between the two countries. In reality, the American move was carried out as a precise political calculation, which testifies the desire to protect Taiwan from a military invasion, which could come dangerously close and that China could undertake due to the American commitment more focused on the Ukrainian war: also in this the case could be a dangerous calculation because the US has repeatedly declared that in the event of an invasion of Taiwan, Washington's military commitment will be directed, as opposed to that towards Kiev, which was limited to supplies, even large ones, of armaments . The White House, for the moment, continues not to officially recognize Taiwan, even if the visit of the Speaker of the House is an implicit recognition, just as, for now, it has not yet questioned the Chinese principle of one nation, which also includes Taiwan; however, formal recognition could be a diplomatic barrier to Beijing's aims, even if there are a number of arguments to be made about the economic implications of relations between West and East. Europe should also take a more decisive role on the issue, rather than always remaining in the sidelines. Stopping trade from China would certainly be a more disadvantageous decision for Beijing, especially at a time like the present where economic growth is severely contracted; it is clear that the diplomatic effort should be enormous, especially if coupled with the question of the Ukrainian conflict, but Brussels must find a way to play a leading role in this affair if it is to increase its political weight globally. The time has come for Chinese intrusiveness to be contained in some way and the diplomatic and economic path is the one that appears to be more viable.

Why the Italian government fell

 The Italian political crisis, which saw the resignation of Prime Minister Mario Draghi, has origins, which reside in an unsuitable and incompetent political and also social class, in populism and sovereignty and not least in an international situation where the friends of Russia are been silenced by the extreme violence used by Moscow against the Ukrainian civilian population. The Italian political class has dropped further in level after the 2018 elections, which saw the success of a movement that brought in parliament a number of people absolutely unsuitable to fill the role of representative of the Italian people, however this result was then revealed to be similar in most of the elected officials also in the other parties: a group of inexperienced people with the sole objective of looking for an alternative to a job they could not find. It is significant that no elected representative has managed to hold the office of Prime Minister and has had to search outside the Chamber and Senate. To remedy the mediocrity of the political class, as a last resort the President of the Republic had to resort to a personality who constituted a world-class excellence for his career so far. The prestige of Italy has increased and so the economic and political advantages for the Italian country and the government, albeit in a context of internal difficulty, due to the presence of parties of opposite tendencies, and international for the current context, has succeeded, at least in part, to carry out essential reforms. Certainly not all the social partners could be said to be satisfied, but it was the best solution, however the need to chase after the only opposition party "Brothers of Italy", a far-right formation that led to the collapse of the government: first the former Prime Minister Conte at the helm of the left populists has submitted to the government a list of requests, even correct, but not admissible by the ruling center-right parties. The intention was obviously to exacerbate an already complex situation precisely to try to improve strongly negative polls by appealing to a spirit of the movement that is increasingly reduced. This attempt has provoked a run-up to the polls of the parties of the center right in the government, which already feared the too positive estimates of the far right and have chosen to no longer support the government, without having the courage to vote openly against, to improve their appreciation in strong descent. A government was thus sacrificed which had plans for reforms and aid to families and businesses only to allow, perhaps, the election of the usual suspects and with the threat of having a far-right premier in times of pandemic, war, inflation and drought. she only has experience as a youth minister, certainly not enough experience to lead a country at a time like this. In addition, it should be noted that the parties that brought down the Draghi government, apart from Forza Italia, Lega and the Five Star Movement, have always sympathized with Russia and this suspicion can only be considered. Not that it was a deliberate action to that effect, but the positions against arms supplies to Ukraine came precisely from these political parties, in the name of peace, actually in favor of pro-Moscow and Putin convictions. Italy comes out very badly from this affair at an internal and international level and loses an important opportunity to return to count in Europe and in the world, the future of the Italian country promises to be very difficult with the autumn challenges that lie ahead both for the pandemic, that, above all, due to the economic challenges that risk definitively disrupting a social fabric afflicted by profound inequality.

Iran, Russia and Turkey meet in a trilateral summit

 Russia has emerged from international isolation since it began the war of aggression against Ukraine. In the Iranian capital, Putin met Erdogan and the landlord, the president of Iran Raisi. In addition to the excuse of the negotiations to unblock the transport of grain, the three heads of state talked about issues about cooperation between the three countries to definitively eradicate terrorist organizations to guarantee the civilian population in compliance with international law. It is curious that precisely three countries that have continued to violate international law for some time are referring precisely to its respect. In reality, the three countries have a particular vision of respect for international standards, that is, one that is functional to their individual interests; at this stage Russia wants to take part of Ukraine, if not all of it, because it considers it as an area of ​​its own influence, Turkey wants to defeat the Kurdish militias in Syria and Iran to defeat the Islamic State, not as such, but because formed by Sunnis. Erdogan and Putin held a bilateral meeting, which had wheat as its main theme, but where the Russian president complained about the presence of sanctions, in this case on fertilizers, which block agricultural production, helping to increase the problems of world malnutrition. however, the presence of Turkey appears extremely singular because it is still a component of the Atlantic Alliance: it is clear that Erdogan's strategy has as its objective an international relevance but it is a behavior that cannot have been agreed with NATO and that qualifies Turkey as a less and less reliable member. Meanwhile, Iran has stressed the legitimacy of Moscow’s invasion of the Ukrainian country, motivating it with the need to stop the Western advance and the American goal of weakening Moscow. For Iran, the organization of this trilateral summit is the answer to Biden's visit to Israel and Saudi Arabia, historical enemies of Tehran. One of the other reasons for the meeting was Syria: Russia and Iran support the Assad regime, while Turkey's ambitions on Syrian Kurdistan are now sadly known: the goal would be to end the Syrian war, which, by now, it has been going on for eleven years and, precisely to this end, Moscow and Tehran have pressured Ankara to stop Washington from providing more aid to the rebels who control the areas where Assad is unable to reestablish his rule. The minimum objective for Turkey is to have a strip of territory of thirty kilometers between the Turkish border and the area occupied by the Kurds, to achieve this, Erdogan has threatened an armed intervention, which, however, both Russia are against. that Iran, in favor of a return to the area of ​​Assad's sovereignty and because they were both urged by the Kurds to have protection from any attacks by Ankara. The three countries form the guarantee committee for Syria, known as Astana, and recognized by the United Nations; according to the Syrian regime, Turkey is taking advantage of this role to pursue its own ends, rather than working towards the end of the Syrian conflict. The meeting also served to try to increase trade by four times, from 7,500 to 30,000 million dollars, between Turkey and Iran. It should be remembered that Ankara has definitely positively changed its relations with Saudi Arabia, after the murder of an opposition Arab journalist on its territory, ignoring the issue and developing trade agreements with the Saudis, to revive the Turkish economy in crisis. The resumption of these relations had caused the Iranian protest, which the recent summit also aimed at re-establishing positive contacts between the two countries. In fact, the development of a commercial expansion serves both sides: for Iran it is a way of circumventing sanctions and for Turkey it constitutes yet another attempt to revive an economy in serious crisis, however from a geopolitical point of view it is not it is clear whether Ankara is an unreliable ally of the West or whether these contacts, both with Iran and with Moscow, are not an attempt to maintain a sort of connection with these countries on an unofficial mandate from the West. The difference, of course, is very significant and can determine Turkey's political future.

Avoiding the crisis of democracies to avoid the advancement of autocratic regimes

 Beyond the war power of Russia or China, there is a much more worrying factor for the West: the lack of conviction and determination of its populations to oppose an alternative idea in a negative sense, through the founding element on which the whole construction is based. Western, about democracy. The practices through which the democratic system is exercised and put into practice are not in question, but rather its lack of renewal and the lack of vitality of democratic practice, which is given as an acquired fact, without a necessary renewal. One of the most evident signs is the increasing lack of participation in the vote, a factor already well present in the United States, which is also gaining momentum in Europe, by electing institutional representatives with increasingly reduced percentages of voters. The phenomenon is growing sharply and derives from the lack of confidence in politicians, who have not been able to deal with the current times with due expertise, where economic and technological transformations have led to a general worsening of conditions, thanks to the lack of contrast of an inequality. more and more increased. Economic disparity has led to social disparity with an understandable resentment that has not been sheltered and which represents the central issue in the deterioration of democratic systems. If populism has had objective facilitations to assert itself, leaving however more than negative perceptions due to the inability to exercise adequate government policies, the parties and movements that have moved in the opposite direction to this trend have not been able to give a positive push for troubleshooting. A sort of immobility has arisen, which has often forced unnatural collaborations, compromises that have done nothing but favor immobility and substantial postponement of the problems. On the contrary, in contingent situations a speed of decision appears necessary which is necessary against dictatorial or autocratic regimes. Then, when this need for speed of decision moves from the state to the supranational sphere, the slowdowns even increase, blocked by regulations now outdated by the times, with absurd rules such as those relating to unanimity on every decision. Certainly already in normal conditions this constitutes a perception of failure of the democratic system and the suspension, albeit slight, dictated by the pandemic has highlighted how democratic rules have not offered alternatives to face the health emergency to decisions taken, forcibly, in restricted areas. . With a military confrontation in progress, it is impossible not to notice how Putin and his authoritarian system are more efficient against a myriad of states with their own rules and which require continuous parliamentary debates. The problem is that we arrived unprepared for a situation like that of the Ukrainian conflict, a war in Europe, without an organization capable of maintaining democratic effectiveness combined with the needs of the situation. Putin has bet a lot on this aspect, actually obtaining the opposite effect on the political side, while for the military aspect the result appears different, even China has tried, as a policy functional to its purposes, to divide the Union while maintaining a constant criticism of democratic systems, both powers have also acted in an unorthodox way through information systems and by financing populist groups and anti-democratic order. These signals have been received by Western governments, but have remained in the restricted field of professionals, without becoming real alarms for the social classes, especially the middle and lower ones, increasingly grappling with economic difficulties. This is why a reduction of inequalities together with the improvement of services and therefore of the quality of life, can be a valid method to make those who are moving away from it more and more appreciate democracy and be preparatory to action at the level of states to the strengthening of the libertarian idea against the increasingly emerging dictatorships.

The Russian foreign minister, for the first time since the beginning of the conflict, present at a major international event

 As a prologue to the G20, which will be held next November in Bali in Indonesia, the G20 is being held in the same location, which concerns the foreign ministers of the top twenty economies in the world. This is a remarkable opportunity, especially for Russia, which can gain the visibility it is lacking as the Ukrainian conflict progresses. The foreign minister of Moscow, after the beginning of the invasion called a special military operation, which took place on February 24, carried out several diplomatic missions which, however, were almost exclusively bilateral summits, without ever having the opportunity to be able to attend a multilateral event of global significance. Being present for Russia represents an unmissable opportunity, even if it has raised a lot of criticism from Western countries, which have boycotted talks with the top foreign policy representative of Moscow, stressing the need not to sign any joint declaration and coming to express opinions in favor of the exclusion of Russia from all G20 meetings. The reason is that it does not provide such an important audience and that provides wide international resonance to a country that, by invading another, has violated every rule of international law. This opinion, widely shared by Western countries, is not shared by nations such as China, Indonesia, India and South Africa, which have taken more conciliatory attitudes towards Moscow, especially on the issue of sanctions. In this, Russia is explicitly supported by China in denying the legitimacy of the economic and political sanctions against Moscow, adopted by the West, because it was decided outside the United Nations. This objection does not seem worthy of a possible acceptance, even beyond the blatant Russian violation and for having committed war crimes against the civilian population, precisely because the functioning mechanism of the United Nations Security Council provides that the permanent members, including there are China and Russia, they can exercise the right of veto on the resolutions, in this case in open conflict on the objectivity of the judgment and on the conflict of interests of Moscow. Despite the resistance of his Western colleagues, the Russian minister was able to attract attention, not only for his presence, but for the meeting with his Chinese counterpart, where various points of convergence were found, especially against the United States , accused of practicing a policy expressly aimed at containing Moscow and Beijing, including through the subversion of the world order. The Chinese minister underlined how, despite the difficulties represented by the weight of the respective sanctions, the two countries remain united in a common strategic perspective. West, raises serious questions about the Chinese attitude towards the continuation of the conflict and about the position of Beijing. China, although opposed, to protect its commercial interests, in the state of war does not like Washington's invasion of Taiwan, a case very similar to the territories of eastern Ukraine or Crimea and furthermore the aversion has increased after the USA they again explicitly accused the Chinese of practicing industrial espionage. The problem, however, is concrete and has forced the United States to tackle even those Western companies that collaborate with Beijing. China sees in this attitude an American behavior similar to that practiced against Russia with the expansion of the Atlantic Alliance and therefore of the US influence in the former Soviet countries, which Moscow considered areas of its influence: the potential American arrival on the borders Russians, at least partially justifies the Russian reaction. The analogy with American activity in Russia has a double significance for China and concerns both Taiwan and the commercial expansion that allows the growth of gross domestic product, considered an indispensable necessity for the government of the People's Republic. If we understand the US reasons for a similar growth of the economy in the global context, in evident competition with China, some reasons could be mitigated by removing support, which seems to be increasing, from Beijing to Moscow. Removing Chinese support, at least in part, would force Putin to review his positions in the Ukrainian war and could be the quickest way to a truce and the consequent end of the conflict.

Biden will visit Saudi Arabia reversing his judgment

 The reopening of pilgrimages to Mecca, after the two-year suspension due to the pandemic, precedes the visit of American President Biden to Saudi Arabia. The expected number of pilgrims is around one million and a visit to the holy city of Islam is mandatory for Muslim faithful at least once in their life. The pilgrimage of these days is the most important of the year and for the anniversary, Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman intends to exploit all the potential that he can obtain, especially at the political level. If in normal conditions, for the Arab country the religious celebration brings an increase in earnings and provides greater legitimacy to Riyadh within the Islamic world, this year the pilgrimage could be functional, if not for rehabilitation, at least for a sort of suspension of the judgment on the crown prince in relation to the murder of the dissident journalist in Turkey, of which Bin Salman was accused of being the instigator. Precisely for this fact, US President Biden himself had described Saudi Arabia as a pariah. Meanwhile in Saudi Arabia a trial was held in which some members of the secret services were sentenced to death for the death of the journalist, but this did not serve to eliminate doubts about the crown prince, despite an increase in his public activity and the the granting of some reforms towards women, which actually seemed more apparent than substantial; however, the international situation with the war in Ukraine which led to the sanctions, especially on energy supplies, imposes the need to resume relations with the Saudi regime, above all to facilitate the increase in oil supplies from Riyadh to American allies penalized by the blockade from imports from Russia. This is a clear episode of realpolitik, which, in order to achieve immediate objectives, sacrifices the condemnation of one of the most repressive countries in the world, which, among other things, is the protagonist of the fierce war in Yemen, where Saudi interests have unarmed civilians sacrificed and which has created one of the most serious health and hygiene situations in the world. Moreover, a similar case is represented by the sacrifice of the Kurdish cause, which with its fighters has practically replaced the American soldiers against the Islamic State, in favor of Erdogan, a dictator clearly in difficulty within his country, who seeks rehabilitation international with its diplomatic action for the resolution of the war between Kiev and Moscow. International analysts predict that Biden, precisely to justify his visit and with it the rehabilitation of the Arab country, will be committed to praising the reforms promised by Bin Salman to reform the rigid state structure of the Islamist type. If these political twists have always existed and have also been justified by contingent needs, however, it is necessary to arrive, albeit not immediately but progressively, at a fixed point where certain nations that have certain conditions can no longer be among the reliable interlocutors. The discourse is certainly very broad because it involves various sectors, if not all, of the political and economic aspects that concern Western democracies. The case in question highlights the peculiarity of providing international credit to an instigator of an assassination, a crime committed on the ground of a foreign country and also against the freedom of the press, a person who has violated a series of rules that cannot qualify him as interlocutor up to the standards required, however the moment of necessity, also due to a possible, even if not probable, potential collaboration with enemy states, obliges the highest Western representative to validate the promise of any improvements in laws, which in all likelihood , they will be only facade operations. From a diplomatic point of view it can represent a success, but from a political point of view, it represents a sort of delegitimization, not of the single American president, but of the whole West. The need to eliminate relations of this type, or, at least, to have them from a point of strength, must be developed in a programmed and progressive manner with a general policy capable of investing both political and economic aspects, starting right from within the West. , maintaining the peculiarities of the individual States but finding non-derogable common points regulated by international agreements and treaties regularly ratified by national parliaments.

The Atlantic Alliance warns Russia and China about protecting their interests

 The Madrid meeting of the Atlantic Alliance sanctioned the change of setting and purpose of the Brussels organization, but above all, it allowed for a new vitality dictated by the contingencies of the moment, which are assumed as a long-term and difficult solution, for which an official acknowledgment is required, which requires practical decisions to counter the opponents. One of the major novelties is the abandonment of neutrality by Sweden and Finland to join the Atlantic Alliance, the differences with Turkey have been resolved, with a rather rapid timing if related to the behavior of Erdogan, which allows a significant enlargement of the 'area of ​​potential operations, where the border that the Finnish country shares with Russia, now encircled to the west of its borders, is very relevant. The importance of the involuntary role of Moscow as a propeller for the momentum of the Atlantic Alliance, has allowed a strong acknowledgment of the need for the protection of borders and the consequent territorial integrity, as well as the sovereignty of the individual states that belong to the Alliance. . Although Russia represents the most current emergency, which obliges us to consider the present crisis as the worst since the end of the Second World War and which consequently requires a massive rearmament and, probably, a great military mobilization, the vision of The Atlantic Alliance must necessarily be much broader. The general world scenario, beyond the European one, sharpens strategic competition in the global context and the present and future challenges on the economy will become increasingly exasperated, but not only: the multipolarity of the diplomatic scene includes considerable risks for the geopolitical assets, the presence of terrorist emergencies and nuclear proliferation are increasingly concrete threats to respond to. If Russia is the most urgent present, the relationship with China is not neglected, with which it needs to find a dialogue in order not to end the relationship as with the Kremlin; however it is recognized that Beijing uses violent and coercive methods to achieve results, internally, in open contrast to Western values, while externally it uses, in analogy with Russia, systems to influence Western countries and insists on exporting the its political and economic influence towards poor states; while on the issue of proximity to Moscow it represents an objective danger for the West on which it must be warned of its possible consequences. The problem of relations with authoritarian states will undoubtedly accompany the future, with issues that are difficult to solve, such as the proliferation of weapons, not only nuclear weapons, but also chemical and bacteriological ones and also the consequences of global warming: if the intentions are those of using diplomacy, it is necessary to foresee situations of confrontation in which very tough positions are required and which may also include the potential use of force. Africa too, however, represents an emergency, because it undergoes favorable conditions for the development of extremism that thrives thanks to famines and the food and humanitarian crises, furthermore investing in the black continent means stopping the expansion and ambition of China and Russia, which are progressively filling the empty spaces left by Westerners. The conclusions of the summit concern the end of the project to establish friendly relations with the heirs of the Soviets, as stated in 2010 in Lisbon, the Atlantic Alliance becomes fully aware that currently Moscow is acting directly to alter the stability of Europe and the Atlantic Alliance, with modalities, even subtle ones, ranging from the search for the establishment of spheres of control through aggression, annexation and subversion, with conventional means of war, for now, but also computerized. The Kremlin's rhetoric, which systematically breaks the rules of international coexistence, can only be an obstacle to any relationship with Russia and the declaration of readiness to keep the channels of communication open, appears as a non-programmatic and substantial declaration, but only a formality due to diplomatic necessity.

The Atlantic Alliance increases its Rapid Intervention Force

 The summit of the Atlantic Alliance in Madrid promises to be the most difficult in its history; with the end of the dualism of the cold war, with a bipolar world, which was based on the balance of terror, the acceleration of contingent evolution forces the Western military alliance to think and act in a preventive and more incisive manner than in the past. Nuclear deterrence is no longer enough in a scenario where we have returned to traditional warfare models, which we no longer imagined could occur. If in the background remains the Chinese question and that of Islamic terrorism, which is exploiting the increased attention on the Ukrainian war to regain consensus among the increasingly poor populations, the urgency to contain Russia is the most urgent issue, both from the point of view political, than military. A possible affirmation of Moscow would create a deleterious precedent for the world scene, with the non-respect of international law as a method of affirming the projects of the strongest states: it would mean a concrete danger for democracies, with governments increasingly obliged to respond quickly and not. mediated by parliamentary logic and, consequently, even more delegitimized. The temptation of almost autocratic executives would be a logical result in a situation where absenteeism and distrust of the electoral body signal a progressive detachment from the institutions. It is not impossible that within Putin's project, an accessory result to the result of the reconquest of Ukraine, is precisely that of weakening Western democracies, an objective, moreover, traveled several times with the intrusion of Russian hackers, is in phase of electoral recurrence, and in trying to direct the approval of Western public opinion towards sovereignties. In this general framework, which is perhaps less urgent than the war in progress, but is equally important, the Atlantic Alliance intends to take a further measure to contain Moscow, in addition to continuing to supply Kiev with increasingly sophisticated weapons, to profoundly change the structure the rapid intervention force, which will increase from 40,000 to 300,000 units; this does not mean, for now, that all the troops will be concentrated in the areas bordering Russia, however, the request for active protection by the Baltic countries and Poland, Romania and Bulgaria, in this phase determines an increase in the soldiers of the Alliance in these territories, as well as a greater capacity to mobilize in case of need. In practical terms, it is not a question of recruiting new military units, but of contributing with already trained soldiers, belonging to the national armies that make up the Atlantic Alliance, and ready for combat with a rotating presence system. From a political point of view this is a clear signal to Putin, who thus sees an increase in the presence of opponents right on the Russian borders: a result obtained only with his completely wrong calculations: what will need to be verified will be whether the Kremlin will be able to contain its own opposition without exceeding with provocations: the probability of an accident will be more and more possible if Moscow continues to fly over the skies of the Baltic countries with its air vehicles. At the point where the military situation in Ukraine has developed, the measure adopted by the Atlantic Alliance appears necessary but brings a potential clash with the Russian military forces even closer, also because from Moscow they proceed to make the meetings of Western leaders coincide with acts completely outside the normal military logic, such as indiscriminately hitting targets of an exclusive civil nature, causing free deaths and devastation, which have the sole purpose of terrorizing the Ukrainian population, but also of making public the threat to Westerners. If this tragic practice reveals an intrinsic weakness of Russia, both military and political, the impression is that Putin has realized that he cannot carry out his goal and that therefore he will intensify the violence in spite of everything: it is a question of a tactics already tested in Syria, where, however, the opponents were much weaker and less organized; if Russian military strength has been overestimated by the Kremlin itself, this could lead to a refusal of any compromise towards peace by deliberately dragging the West into war, precisely because Putin, at this point, cannot afford to be defeated. In any case, the US must be credited with an error similar to that of not having intervened in Syria, that is, that of not having involved Ukraine in the Atlantic Alliance or in some other form of protection: Putin, in that case, probably would not have moved.

The problem of Ukrainian wheat used by Russia for its own purposes.

 Speculation on Ukrainian wheat, to reduce the shortage of reserves of African countries, hides a series of problems that make it functional to a series of conflicting interests, not only of the parties involved, but also of international actors, such as Turkey, which pursue their own purposes. The Russian press says that Moscow and Ankara, thanks to the mediation intervention of the United Nations, have reached a preliminary agreement to allow the export of Kiev's genus through a maritime corridor departing from the port of Odessa. The first condition is the demining of the port of Odessa, formally to ensure maximum safety for ships leaving the Black Sea, however the Kremlin's intention is clear: to free the Odessa coast from the threat of marine bombs to prepare and favor a landing of the Russian military; in addition, another rule imposed by Moscow is to inspect merchant ships to avoid any transport of weapons for the Ukrainian armed forces. The fears of Kiev can only be founded, Putin intends to use future famines in an instrumental way to remove the legitimate Ukrainian defenses of Odessa, this is a method used several times by the Kremlin, which is now totally unreliable on its promises. Turkey also moves in a similar way: the bad economic situation imposes distraction strategies towards the Turkish people, international activism is functional to cover the poor administration of the country's economy, to seek diplomatic relevance, which also serves to cover the moral defeat given by the US willingness to include the countries of Sweden and Finland in the Atlantic Alliance, to which Ankara is against because it considers them a refuge for Kurds. Turkish support in the wheat negotiation is fundamental for a country now isolated on the international scene like Russia and precisely through Ankara, Moscow is also trying to blame a possible failure of the project on the opposition of Ukraine, certainly not convinced by the possibility of to discard Odessa from maritime defenses, in this case it would be a natural consequence for the Kremlin to blame Kiev for the failure to supply cereals to African countries; even if the evidence of the facts is there for all to see it should be remembered that most African and Asian countries did not take an official position against Moscow after the invasion of Ukraine and would probably not recognize Russian responsibility for the lack of grain supplies . Along with this tactic, Putin argues that the food deficit cannot fall on the special military operation, but that this, in addition to having started with the coronavirus epidemic, is due to Western sanctions against Russia. The numbers of lost exports, however, say quite the opposite: Ukraine, before the conflict, held a market share equal to ten per cent of the world total of wheat and corn, a very significant share in an already difficult global food situation. due to scarcity of water for irrigation and famine. There are currently 22.5 million tons of cereals, which have been blocked since the conflict began. The means that allow food to be taken out of the country are only those by rail, especially through Poland, but there are objective difficulties that limit the quantities of transport, including the reduced capacity of the trains and the narrow gauge of the Ukrainian railways, which forces the transshipment of cereals once they arrive in Europe. The Ukrainian president predicted that, should the conflict continue, the quantity of blocked cereals could rise to about 75 million tons in the autumn and admitted that maritime corridors are needed for export: at the moment the Kiev talks on the 'argument are underway not only with Turkey and the United Nations, but also with the United Kingdom, Poland and the Baltic nations, precisely to reduce rail transport. However, there remains the absence of a dialogue with Russia, which, not even the seriousness of the problem of hunger in the world, is able to unblock. On the contrary, this very argument could have constituted a starting point for developing a common discourse to start on the road, if not of peace, at least of the ceasefire, but the Russian arrogance once again showed its true intention not to stop. facing nothing to achieve their illegal goals, according to the principles of international law.