“Si vis pacem, para bellum” is a Latin phrase that many take for granted and is truthful, used in justification the militarization of the world. I want to copy Fantozzi’s exclamation that I think it’s “crazy shit!” is. Since it was written, the world has been thrown into more or less extensive and destructive wars with impressive frequency. And to say that wars were prepared by arming oneself beyond measure! Here, too, where for several years the Americans and British have been exporting weapons to Ukraine to retaliate in Donbass, and the Russians have been experimenting with “weapons for the end of the world (hypersonic missile)”.
I recently heard a NATO member emphatically say that because of this alliance we are part of, Putin needs to be carefulhas a larger arsenal than the Soviet Union. If Russia has the nuclear weapons to destroy and irradiate the world tenfold (about 5,000 nuclear bombs, while 500 are enough to render a large part of the earth radioactive), what more do we need? How many worlds do we want to destroy? How many do we think we have available?
also read
Because nobody talks about the possible nuclear attack
“Si vis pacem, para pacem”. It makes more sense to me. but How is peace prepared? The necessary steps are: knowing the potential adversaries, understanding them, empathizing, being known and understood, and then reacting rationally. Getting to know and getting acquainted with one’s own way of thinking, with one’s own special history, contamination with exchanges between universities and citizens is the essential element. If you understand that you are dealing with a “bad guy” (the world seems to be full of them), you need to have a wellstocked military arsenal, especially defensive ones. If we understand that the villain is afraid because he is more fragile and less armed than us, it is necessary to reduce and, if anything, to favor the offensive weapons defensive.
We must not arm his opponents or try to destabilize his country “by exporting democracy”. First of all it is necessary empathize, that is, to understand the emotions of enemies and perceive them as real. The villain must be calmed down for in his mind, accustomed to a world of wickedness, he thinks that sooner or later we shall use our weapons against him when we are stronger.
The alternative is to follow another famous Latin phrase: “Cartago delenda est”. The problem is that the enemy is no longer far from us in a single city like Carthage, but in our single world. So if we raze them to the ground, we are ipso facto destroying even the only land we can live on.
What to do now that the war is already here despite all wishes? This war has deep roots and is part of the “World War III in Consecutive Pieces” that Pope Francis has seen in recent decades. Differing ideas of how our world should be managed are confronted. On the one hand see the Americans a unipolar world, with them at the helm, and prioritize the expansion of their multinationals, while the Russians and Chinese want a multipolar world and preserve their authoritarian model of civilization. There are also local reasons with unresolved tensions between ethnic groups, religions and languages that have long existed in areas such as Donbass and Crimea. It is difficult and perhaps impossible for us Europeans to understand everything.
also read
Ukraine, Amato: “The supply of weapons? It is not contrary to the Constitution. The rejection of the war? Only if it’s offensive, like in Iraq”
Aside from what to do practically? I don’t want to pose as a geopolitical strategist (there are too many). I’m trying to put forward a hypothesis drawn from my experience as a psychologist. We are in front a question without an answer, as often happens in human relationships, for example in couple stories, in which one is wrong both in the implementation of a strategy and in its opposite. Not supplying arms means not taking care of the poor invaded Ukrainians, supplying them means entering a war that others have prepared over long years of mutual malice, aggression, threats and geopolitical clashes.
In those situations where there is no answer, it is necessary change the environment. A core of European countries should break free of dependence on the US and, while remaining in NATO (it is not a war alliance but strictly a defense alliance), propose a vision to Russia and Ukraine. But what is the vision of possible peace that Europe has? A response from the European leadership would be required here. Does Europe want Russia to lose the war, withdraw to its territories, leave Crimea and pay for war damage? Or Europe wants a business in which Crimea remains with Russia? And what do you want to do in the areas of Donbass? What vision of our continent does the European leadership have?
If the European states remain divided, as is likely, the peace can only be signed biden probably shortly before the American elections.