I take advantage of the Prime Minister's visit to the White House and an email from a reader to address a geopolitical issue that interests many of you because it concerns the fate of Italy. I'll summarize it in a deliberately provocative question: Does Italy's geographical location “force” it to be Russophile? There are other ways to express this question, and I will make it clear right away: anyone who thinks that our fate is Eurasian rather than Atlantic is not necessarily a “Putinian.” (In general, I try not to use defamatory terms to silence those who don't think like me). There are very different schools of thought – left, right, center, whatever – that have long disputed our stance on Putin's Russia. Some distinguished Italian diplomats are there and I am not referring to the pensioners who make noise on talk shows; I'm thinking of very serious officials who silence their contradictions out of discipline and commitment to service, but they believe we are on the wrong path. In general, they do not sympathize with Putin, on the contrary, they consider him dangerous and hate him. However, there are those who believe that our fate is written in the cards and therefore it is imperative to find a modus vivendi with Russia. The current antagonism, according to this reading, is the result of excessive rapprochement between the Italian governments and the United States. In fact, here is a recent email to me that summarizes many others.
Risk war? It is better to ally with Moscow
Guido Bocchetta writes: “Dear Rampini, I really appreciate your analyzes on Africa, India, Arabia, China, etc. What I don't understand about your analyzes is why Europe, or rather European countries, should risk wars in order not to be an ally with Russia? The Germans have been pursuing a policy towards the East for sixty years, and we should abandon this policy because the democratic elites in the USA have decided so? Geography dictates history. We are neighbors of Russia. Then we must have a fruitful relationship with her and not look evil. Russia never invaded Germany, France or Italy. Why should he do that? They are interested in our technologies and our comprehensive scientific culture also serving their development. It has no interest in expanding the partnership with China “too much”. The question is clear. The democratic USA wants wars in Europe because this way they can destroy their competitors. Thank you very much. Europe already gave in in the last war. He lost his war. Thirty million dead and a territory to be rebuilt. If the US wants, it can wage a nuclear war with Russia. But we Europeans don't lift a finger
In a perhaps somewhat disorganized way, this email brings up topics you've already heard. Sometimes these theses were supported by real “Putinians” (they exist); At other times, however, from people who are inspired by a certain realism in foreign policy: they look at the balance of power, geography and interests. Among other things, some of these theses also find supporters in the United States: America has never been a compact nation, and in foreign policy it is also divided by very different schools of thought. I'll respond to these statements from the end, because it's perhaps the most provocative part, and then work backwards.
If the US wants, it can wage a nuclear war with Russia
I will answer. No, the United States does not want nuclear war with Russia. It is Putin who threatens to use his nuclear weapons every two weeks. Precisely because America does not want to take the slightest risk of nuclear war, Joe Biden solemnly declared at the first signs of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 that he would never send American soldiers to this front; and that there would never be a direct war between America and Russia over Ukraine. Some consider it a tactical mistake to give such strong guarantees to Putin, who may have interpreted them almost as a tacit green light for invasion. The fact is that today's America is not trigger-happy when it comes to nuclear power. Putin, at least in words, yes.
Europe already gave in in the last war. He lost his war. Thirty million dead and a territory to be rebuilt
I will answer. Given that Russophile arguments overflow with resentment toward the United States, it would be good to remember that: 1) World War II was caused by aggression between Europeans, especially the aggression committed by Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union against Poland in 1999 in cahoots in 1939 (the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which Putin always has to hide when highlighting the USSR's role in the fight against Nazi fascism). America did everything it could to stay out of this conflict, taking action more than two years late and, in extreme cases, saving Western Europe from a tragic fate under either Nazi or Stalinist rule. 2) The reconstruction of Western Europe after the war took place thanks to American aid within the framework of the Marshall Plan. Thanks in part to this aid, Western Europe was encouraged to join the European Community, the forerunner of the Union.
The democratic USA wants wars in Europe because this way they can destroy their competitors
I will answer. Russia and before that the USSR were never a serious competitor to America. It has an economy that barely rivals that of Spain, it is smaller than Italy or Canada. The US's only serious competitor is China. In fact, it is the People's Republic's race for advanced technologies that America is trying to slow down. The current US administration, like its predecessors, did not want to deal with Russia at all. Barack Obama called it “a regional power.” If in the end Biden dealt with Ukraine, reluctantly and with a lot of self-restraints (“never US soldiers on the ground”, “never an America-Russia war” and then all the denials about the supply of weapons hitting Russian territory could only result from military aggression that threatens the European equilibrium. Putin has “distracted” America from its main concern, China. Then Hamas played the same game with its Iranian protector.
Geography dictates history. We are neighbors of Russia. We must have a fruitful relationship with her and not appear grim
I will answer. Next to history, geography is my favorite discipline. I even led the creation of a new school handbook on geohistory for the biennium. Geography offers different uses and interpretations. If we consider the landmass, there is no doubt that Europe is a small peninsula that acts as an appendix to Eurasia, where Russia, more broadly, is the dominant nation. But there is also a geography of the seas; in human history, the waters have connected nations at least as often as they have divided them. See the Mare Nostrum, the connective tissue of early globalization under the Pax Romana. In this sense, the great sea, air and digital highways of the Atlantic Ocean determine the fate of Italy at least as much as the land connections with Eurasia. Actually a lot more. It is strange how Russophile arguments ignore facts and figures: trade, investment flows, technological and human exchanges link Italy much more closely to Western Europe and North America. Relations with Russia have always been tiny, those with the West enormous. Just scroll through our balance of payments statistics. If Italian governments have been Atlantic since 1947, it is not because they are subject to the dictates of Washington, but because they make the most obvious and natural choice based on the country's material interests. Then there is the commonality of values: democracy, freedom, etc. But I dare say that this affinity of values, as much as it seduces me (especially a few hours after Navalny's funeral), is not that important. Australia, New Zealand and Japan are also liberal democracies, but that doesn't tie us to them as strongly. Since the time of Christopher Columbus, then the American Revolution, then the great migrations of our ancestors, and then the two world wars, Europe began to build a strong Atlantic community, and this weighs on our geopolitical destiny.
Russia never invaded Germany, France or Italy. Why should he do that? They are interested in our technologies and our comprehensive scientific culture also serving their development. It has no interest in expanding the partnership with China “too much”.
I will answer. First of all, it is not entirely true that Russia never invaded the three largest countries in continental Europe. Stalin's troops occupied part of Germany at the end of World War II (after Stalin himself attempted to divide Europe with Hitler in 1939). East Germany was a Soviet protectorate from 1945 to 1989. If the USSR occupied only the eastern half of Germany and, through its presence in the Balkans, could not expand its sphere of influence into Italy or Greece, then it was because America and NATO were in a position to prevent it. It is true that Putin has made a disastrous decision with his ties to China, which in the long run will reduce Russia to the status of a Chinese colony from an economic, technological and financial perspective. It is one of his mistakes, the price he pays for deciding that we are his enemies. If he really cares about the scientific and technological, human and civil progress of his people, he should try to develop a friendly policy towards the West instead of blackmailing us with gas (before) or attacking us with nuclear weapons (now). terrorize. . By the time the Russians realize that they are subordinate to China, it will already be too late.
The Germans have been pursuing a policy towards the East for sixty years, and we should abandon this policy because the democratic elites in the USA have decided so?
I will answer. Germany went through different phases of its Eastern policy. The best-known is still the Ostpolitik of the Social Democratic Chancellor Willy Brandt from 1969. His worthy successor was the Social Democrat Gerhard Schröder, whose current Chancellor Olaf Scholz would have gladly taken over the baton if there had not been the invasion of Ukraine. What was the basic theme of this Eastern policy? The idea that trade creates connections, understanding and peace. Therefore, the Germans established economic relations with the USSR, believing that this would make them better and less aggressive. That's not how it happened. Willy Brandt ended his brilliant career with a scandal because he was surrounded by Soviet spies. The USSR changed, that is, communism collapsed, because the Cold War was won by Ronald Reagan's America and not Volkswagen. The idea that trade prevents war is an age-old illusion: at the beginning of the 20th century, commercial and financial exchanges between the English Empire and the German Empire were so intense that some suspected the impossibility of war between them. It ended, as we know. Even some American leaders have harbored the illusion of transforming China into a democracy through integration into globalization. That's not how it happened.
I close. In some of my recent analyzes I have expressed my appreciation for Macron's idea of sending European soldiers to Ukraine. I believe this will be essential, especially after a ceasefire in which Ukraine is forced to accept a territorial amputation, and given that Putin would use the ceasefire to prepare for other wars. My appreciation for Macron's idea earned me the accusation that I wanted a war across Europe. The opposite is true. Putin will only end his wars when he realizes that he faces a serious obstacle. Why did he attack Ukraine and not Estonia? Because Estonia is part of NATO and Article 5 of the Atlantic Pact has, at least so far, had a deterrent effect. European soldiers in Ukraine would make sense, not to drag us all into a war, but to finally stop the escalation of Russian aggression.
The most cynical might object that Putin's expansionist goals lie elsewhere, far away from us: after Ukraine, Putin has made it clear that he wants to subjugate Moldova and rebuild a Russian sphere of influence in the Baltics. What does it matter to us Italians if Warsaw and Riga slide back into Moscow's sphere?
To say that is to forget history. Russia has always wanted to be a dominant player in the Balkans, i.e. on the border with northeastern Italy. The last wars in the Balkans up to Kosovo in 1999 would have had a completely different outcome if today's Russia had stood behind Serbia. The idea that imperialist, militaristic and expansionist regimes will cease on their own after satisfying their thirst for conquest has no basis in history.