‘The duration of the war? It’s a political issue, not a military one.” This is backed by one of the most authoritative Italian geopolitics and security analysts: Andrea Margetti. President of Ce.SI (International Study Center), Professor Margelletti is also a member of the State Department’s Strategic Reflection Group andNational Security Observatory.
Professor Margelletti, will this be a long-lasting war in Ukraine? And if so, is it just for military reasons or is there more to it than that?
The war can end in eight seconds if Putin decides to halt military operations and sit down at a negotiating table. You see, we cannot ignore that in this war there is an aggressor and a country that is defending itself. And the intruder, despite all attempts, including the Holy Father, does not want to sit down at a dialogue table and continues his terrible operation.
I put it a bit brutally: is the real goal of the US to liberate Ukraine or to get rid of Putin?
First of all, this is a conflict that Americans would not have wanted at all. As is well known, the global competitor of the USA is China. Americans have been drawn into a conflict that distracts them from their primary interest, which is China. Obviously being the richest nation, those who have more give more. No one in the world could have given the Ukrainians the aid that the Americans have given, for the simple reason that the American economy is different from Luxembourg’s, which also supplied arms. Putin uses violence as a political tool, it follows that to weaken it militarily is to weaken it politically.
Another dry question: More NATO or more Europe? Finland and Sweden have no doubts about that: they want to join NATO immediately …
And blame them. It’s understandable. When your neighbor is aggressive and invading lands, it makes sense that one would want to build loyalty in a shared defense. Being part of a coalition is far less risky than being a lone knight.
Turkey’s President Recep Tayyp Erdogan said he was opposed to Finland and Sweden joining NATO. how do we say it
This means that Finland and Sweden will not join NATO if Turkey maintains its position.
But why can’t this coalition be a strengthened Europe, but must move towards an already American or Anglo-American alliance?
In reality this is not the case. We must distinguish ideologies and political positions, all of which are legitimate, from the reality of facts. And the fact is that in NATO, every decision that is made internally is made by an absolute majority. Because that’s how it works. If all countries except Iceland, a non-primary country in the Atlantic Alliance, share a position and Iceland says no, that position does not become a decision. That’s all. And therefore those who speak of Ukraine in NATO do not know what they are talking about …
Because?
For the same reason Cyprus has been asking for admission for years and Greece has said no. Ukraine could have joined NATO in twenty-five to thirty years if the conditions were very different. Let’s take the conditions before the February 24 invasion. They were those of a country that had had part of its territory invaded, or at least disputed. You don’t let in a country where, under Article V of the NATO Charter, you have to go to war with him a minute later. The Italian government, not this one but any other, would have said: “We don’t talk about it”. She hadn’t even asked herself the question. In the North Atlantic Council, the political body that governs NATO, everyone must agree. It doesn’t work with a qualified or relative majority, there is an absolute majority. Then there is a discourse that I know is “indigestible” that concerns Europe. I can do it?
Yes, of course…
In the last ten years and even more, in all European countries we have had political forces, often with governmental functions, which have destroyed the concept of Europe. Let’s go back to the individual country, to the village, let’s do it alone … It is obvious that if you spend years and years telling Europeans that Europe is one of the ruthless bureaucrats useless, and that we have to return to our home village, then you can’t expect to reverse the trend in two minutes. The same European armed forces that are so much scolded are a political fig leaf. But how the hell do you manage to have the European armed forces without a European government! You do Italy first, then you do the Italian Army. On the other hand, we Europeans can share the same democratic space with the United States and Canada, our allies across the Atlantic, but the interests are not necessarily always the same. It’s nothing scandalous considering Italy doesn’t have the same interests as the French in Libya, let alone towards the Americans across the ocean. The basic fact is that for the last thirty to forty years, Europe has wanted to focus on the economic aspects. It was a European decision, not imposed from outside. At the same time, Europe has delegated the security component to other organizations and alliances…
It’s worth thinking about…
He invites me to the wedding. The security component of NATO has a number of well-oiled mechanisms that do not exist in the European Union. In reality, not in the ideological narrative, the transatlantic relationship allows us to some extent even to be a third party in relation to the European disputes. Then there is one more crucial question…
Why is?
There can be no European defense without synchronization of the European defense industry. For example: Who builds the ships? Do we Italians do them? Very well. And what do we say to the Spanish shipyards? And to the Polish or French? Some may object: we build one type of ship, and therefore the French, the British and so on can still build it…
How would you answer?
That this ship cannot have the same cost. Sure, it’s the same type of ship, but wage and union levels vary from country to country. Because the cost of living is different, social security is different, etc. If we do not politically synchronize all the instruments, we cannot speak of European defence. And I say that as a staunch pro-European, not only because I believe in it, but because I believe that having a strong and authoritative Europe is necessary for our survival.
The White House meeting between Biden and Draghi. A popular political reading claims that the Italian prime minister asked the US president to try to talk to Putin’s Russia in order to engage in more diplomacy. Which Draghi himself once confirmed in Italy. how do you see it
I see that the room for negotiation that Russia has allowed in these eighty days and more is zero. It’s not like he said no. He didn’t even reply, not even to the Pope, that the failure to negotiate is not the fault of the “bad” Americans or who knows who else, but of the fact that the other side does not want to negotiate. It is obvious that we must insist on negotiations and President Draghi is right to do so, but if the other does not even answer you, what do you want to discuss? They say: Let’s not give up the guns and let them sit around a table. I respect the position, but in a living room it’s okay. Because if I don’t want to sit at the table with you, I won’t sit down. Point. Here the blame lies with those who invaded, not with those supporting those defending against the invaders. As for the distinction between offensive and defensive weapons, well, it’s just funny. The problem is who is using them, these weapons, and for what purpose. Just as it’s frankly ridiculous when the Ukrainians can strike at Russian territory with the weapons we’ve given them. Well, if the artillery or rifle shots come from a base or position on Russian territory, can I defend myself as a Ukrainian or not? I repeat: it is perfectly legitimate to oppose arms sales. We don’t have to have a single thought, this is in Russia. But the speech must be completed. Because to say, “I am against sending guns because I want peace” is either naïve or intellectually dishonest. Because without arms deliveries, Russia would have conquered Ukraine long ago. Then it would be more honest to say that you don’t want to send the arms, but accept that Russia takes over Ukraine. What I find unacceptable is not taking a position. Because if we don’t send weapons to the Ukrainians, the Russians won’t stop. Finally, let me add one last thing. Many have accused the Americans of imperialism because they claim they want to weaken Putin militarily and thus politically. We are talking about a person who decided to invade another country, to attack a sovereign state. And are we surprised or do we turn up our noses when other countries, especially the closest neighboring countries, are afraid and everyone agrees to weaken the Russian military instrument? The weakening of the potential attacker protects him from the risk of invasion for several years, until this tool is rebuilt, which is made more difficult and time-consuming by the sanctions. All of us – politicians, analysts, journalists – have to act seriously. And say things that are sustainable, however you think. We owe it to those who die, on both sides. Perhaps because I’ve seen so much death in conflict areas in my life, I don’t enjoy risk. I think it’s time for serious people.
As an expert on the Middle East and Islam, he has been following Italian foreign policy and in particular all events in the Middle East for a quarter of a century.
© All rights reserved
Umberto DeGiovannangeli