«The point now is: After a month of war, is the current situation sustainable in the medium term, both from a moral and a strategic point of view? I believe that the heads of state and government of the EU, NATO and the G7 are asking themselves exactly that these days. Former French Prime Minister Manuel Valls in an interview published today in Corriere della Sera, he poses a fundamental dilemma for the European Union and NATO. Or when it’s not time to make a “difficult” decision. Which? In an interview with Stefano Montefiori, Valls says: “We have to prepare for all eventualities. Can we accept the total destruction of Ukraine? Mariupol, Odessa, Kyiv? Could we accept the use of chemical weapons after Russia has already used hypersonic missiles?
“A Terrible Moral Defeat”
So far, the West has not intervened directly to avoid unleashing nuclear war. But according to Valls, “it is right to give the negotiations every opportunity to the end, in the hope that the massacres will stop. But what if this doesn’t happen? What to do if the destruction continues? The risk is that our moral defeat will be terrible ». And the time will come when we will be forced to answer the fundamental question: “In 2013, in Bashar, we drew the red line on the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Biden was Obama’s deputy at the time. Bashar was still using chemical weapons against his people and our Rafaels set out to deliver the promised response. It was Obama who pulled out, we were forced to recall the fighters and return them to bases. This signal of American weakness was immediately exploited by Vladimir Putin in Syria and a few months later in Crimea. Putin knew he had a free hand, he knew the United States would not intervene.” But now “we cannot retreat from a civilizational struggle, and not from today, but at least from the speech at the 2007 Munich conference when Putin laid out his theory about weak Western democracies dominated by LGBT ideology. His speeches are violent and, as we now know, must be taken literally. We must prepare our public opinion ».
Also read: