It is now clear that the United States is preparing to impose an unfair “deal” with the aggressor on Ukraine. Despite the laudable insistence of many European leaders on…
By Paolo MIELI
It is now clear that the United States is preparing to impose an unfair “deal” with the aggressor on Ukraine. Despite the laudable insistence of many European leaders on the theme of a “just peace,” Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are making it clear in every possible way and in unison that they are seeking a deal that includes punitive treatment for Ukraine. Accompanied by a humiliation, as far as possible, of Europe as a whole. The subconscious (or rather, almost explicit) message sent by Washington to Zelensky and his armed forces, who are still fighting inch by inch in the Regions now officially annexed by Russia, is that any efforts are futile.
And, as for the Europeans, visibly excluded from the negotiating table, it is implied that their role on Ukrainian territory must be considered unreliable, if only in defense of the “unjust peace” that will be imposed sooner or later.
Europeans must prepare to face the next Russian strikes. Not so much those considered inevitable, aimed at vulnerable areas that once belonged to the Soviet Union (in some cases entire countries). But also those directed against all European states. In fact, it is likely that Moscow, with American consent, will want to test, one by one (none excluded), their resistance, their ability to react and their defensive capacity. And not only in military terms. Putin’s, and not from today, is the place to live and survive exclusively in times of war. Especially now that he has a four-year mandate ahead of him, the Trumpian one, in which almost any door will open to him and he can aspire to re-present himself to the world as the great power that it was during the Stalin era. A truly extraordinary opportunity.
The United States suddenly withdraws from every commitment it has made since 1945. 80 years have vanished into thin air, without a single reasoned voice of dissent rising from the depths of America. At least on this specific topic.
A disturbing event that no one here in Europe expected. At least in such direct and brutal forms.
It is foreseeable that at this point Europe will be divided: on the one hand, the countries bordering Russia or those that enjoy an authentic tradition and awareness; on the other, those belonging to the Latin, Mediterranean area, who know very well what they have become and therefore appear more inclined to deal exclusively with their own things, with facilitation, with mediation, with “peace”. “Right” or “wrong” be it. The lack of preparation is such that at the moment Europe is without analyses that would allow it to understand whether there still exists a continental historical mission and what it is.
There are formulas, like that of “unjust peace”, that we don’t even dare to express, so much have we acquired and assimilated since the time of the prophet Isaiah, the concept that “there is no peace without justice”.
Here in Italy there is someone who dares to give signs of openness to the forbidden formulation. The former President of the Constitutional Court Gustavo Zagrebelsky asked himself in an interview (with Silvia Truzzi for the Italian “Il Fatto Quotidiano”) “If we are not able to guarantee a just peace, would we be willing to go to war, a final war, with atomic bombs?” As for him, he answered clearly no, even risking being considered “pusillanimity”. First of all, Zagrebelsky added, “the lives of ordinary people come first and also those of soldiers”. And “as long as there is life, there is hope”. So: better an “unjust peace” (finally someone who pronounces those words without being beaten by the bush: “unjust peace”) than a “just death for everyone, including the innocent”. All the more so since a peace “however unjust, does not exclude the possibility of working afterwards to obtain justice”.
For our part, apart from Zagrebelski’s humanitarian concerns, we doubt that this “unjust” peace can be considered authentic. We know well that past peace agreements also contained doses of injustice (which, among other things, subsequently caused further wars).
But a predatory peace, visibly punitive towards those who have fought for more than three years and towards those who, like Europe, have invested more in that resistance than the United States, offers no guarantee of stability.
As for the “possibility of acting afterwards to obtain justice”, we fear that this may be an impossible wish to materialize. Or, even worse, we fear that this “second half” hypothesized by Zagrebelsky will lead to even bloodier disintegration and wars than the ones we are seeing.
