The general Marco Bertolini, former commander of the Interfoze Operation Command (Coi) and the Folgore, has no doubts. Far from being a retreat, the ongoing “repositioning of Russian forces is the corollary of the tactical advances made by Putin’s army on the ground, which can now focus on the real goals of its “special operation. , that is, the Donbass region, where the war effort is being refocused with firepower that makes one fear an attack on the last unlikely stand. We contact him when a long convoy of vehicles is moving from Belarus. It is not clear where it is going, but certainly not to Kyiv or the other cities of the western quadrant, which until a few days ago deployed National Guard troops and assets on various fronts. Because Bertolini didn’t do everything wrong with Putin, Europe (and Italy) would have a lot to blame. Starting with the choice of transmission weapons.
How do you read the ongoing maneuvers?
It seems clear to me now that those in western Ukraine, beginning with Kyiv, were just a major tactical and political red herring on Putin’s part. He had stated from the start that the targets were Donetsk and Lugansk regions, Crimea and Donbass. To pursue this, he committed an important part of the army to objectives that we can define as “subordinate”, that is, useful for engaging Ukrainian forces in the defense of the capital and international tensions given the scale of the conflict and conflict keep high risk of possible interference. But it was clear from the deployment of the armed forces that he never intended to conquer or keep all of Ukraine.
Do you read that in the “maps” of the ongoing maneuvers?
The ongoing shifts precisely indicate that the tactic of engaging in the Western Quadrant has worked and that now that Putin has achieved these goals, he can focus his energies on his true goals. The withdrawal from Kyiv and Chernihiv also seems expedient to reduce the politically sensitive pressure at a time when it is producing significant results from a tactical and strategic point of view.
The US warns that the conflict could last for years. How long does Mariupol last?
Hard to say, but no matter how much we manage to get weapons and food from the west, it will never be enough to undermine a seemingly obvious epilogue. As far as I know, resistance is carried out by the militias of this Azov battalion of a nationalist and sometimes nationalist nature, but they cannot resist indefinitely. I firmly believe that the fall of Mariupol could mark a turning point in the negotiations, so that serious negotiations can finally take place.
It almost seems like wishing for the city’s surrender
It will certainly not resume because now we will send some weapons that will serve to keep a fire burning that instead would be good to put out before witnessing other massacres and before doing it with the surrender of either one must and not with a negotiated “between” the two. It’s the same film from Afghanistan: This war lasted 20 years, can we afford it at the gates of Europe? I don’t mean that Zelenskyy should declare surrender, but that prolonging a war like this wins nobody, destroys dialogue between the parties and increases the death toll, violence, social and economic costs on all fronts.
Another general who refuses guns?
I’m just saying it never happened. Italy has never given up arms to anyone. He didn’t give them to Somalia, which was dealing with a variant of ISIS. We still have a small contingent training in Mogadishu today. We gave him uniforms, trucks. But I was there and they asked us for guns but we didn’t give them and do you know why? Because we don’t use it to feed conflict and it’s the same criterion we’ve used in other situations where a people has been attacked.
But now war is at the gates of Europe
Precisely because the danger is greater, I consider it a questionable choice. I understand that we have never been so inundated as at this stage with images, messages, appeals and it was difficult to break free from it. But precisely because the conflict is very close to us, it had to be stopped as quickly as possible in order not to keep it burning by fomenting a less than hopeful resistance. Had we been on the other side of the Atlantic, we could have said, “Yes, yes, let’s give them”. But this conflict is just a stone’s throw from our home and can spread like the virus and infect our continent in an instant. If this continues, there will already be an uncontrolled trade in soldiers, weapons and men from all over the world. Anything is possible when hundreds of thousands of people are armed with the task of killing others. Bucha’s pictures prove this.
Excuse me, General, do you realize you’re speaking like a pacifist?
Since February 24, I’ve been wondering if Europe and Italy had other possible options. But in the meantime, something happened that frankly blew me away. Since that day, a belligerent wind has been blowing through Europe, going beyond condemning Putin’s criminal invasion of Ukraine and investing everything Russian: remember the fights against Dostoyevsky’s courses? Here, I think, other, other voices could be mixed in with the drumbeats, advising on prudence, on mediation. In our country this idea exists, but it is largely in the minority and is being shattered by a sudden and unexpected push towards European cohesion and unity. But Europe didn’t have this cohesion and this interventionism until yesterday, when it came to other conflicts like the one in Libya or to solving the migration problem. I think this instance of mediation “at any price, which I still think is legitimate and not hypocritical, could have found a way if only we had had a strong foreign policy.
Is it possible to mediate while the bombs are talking and massacring civilians?
On the one hand and on the other hand, the game of increasing the bet seems obvious to me. Zelenskyi seemed open to everything from neutrality to independence of Donbass and Crimea. He goes on to say that it needs to be negotiated with Putin, but on the other hand he is asking for him to be tried in Nuremberg. It’s not linear. Clearly the psychological element does a lot, as does the external conditioning. One day you feel supported and make a big voice, the next you don’t. In addition, there are those in the opposite field who are working to make things no easier. Those who carried out the massacres of civilians certainly did Putin no favors, who must negotiate his goals with the weight of these allegations.
Let’s talk about those blessed/cursed defense costs here
Here we have really reached the peak of hypocrisy. Italy discovers that it is warlike, but when the war is waged by the others. If you have to go from 1.1% to 2% of defense spending, then no, turn down guns. But we should stick to that 2% if we want to remain a sovereign country, because without proper defenses we are not. Does that mean 2% scandal? I am outraged that it should be hidden behind NATO demands when it is obvious and right to have an adequate military tool that works, especially for a country in the middle of the Mediterranean that is a constantly boiling pot.