The nuclear threat that has risen again from the Kremlin, accompanied by Monday’s recrudence with widespread attacks in many Ukrainian regions, frightens a growing number of people in the West and, above all, in Italy, which has always been a weak link in relations with Russia. so much so that, on Monday, while a Kiev playgrounds, universities, museums and pedestrian bridges were bombed, many pacifists, in their posts on Facebook and Twitter, were unable to rebel against the Kremlin and those who run it. But they limited themselves, as always, to pointing the finger at the Western chancelleries, as well as the inevitable Zelensky who does not want peace, indeed desires massacre for his people.
The reversal of responsibility is so annoying now that it is no longer even possible to replicate while keeping one’s nerve. But the fathers of the pacifists, or themselves in person if they are already sixty or more years old, when they demonstrated against the war in Vietnam, to give just one example, they did so directly against the United States, or those they identified as responsible for the invasion. , of destruction. It does not matter here to reconstruct all the historical passages, but it is legitimate to ask why, today, the pacifists do not directly address Putin, the Kremlin, Russia, not even on a day like that of Monday, with bombings on the Ukrainian capital at a specific time. where people are away from home, in the places where they go to study, play, live, and then even declare, in the early afternoon, “goal achieved”.
So let’s write it as clearly as possible. No Ukrainian (except for the exceptions, which always exist in 40 million people) wants war, he wanted war. And there could be no warmongering Zelensky forcing the people to be massacred. Do you remember them, the Ukrainians? When, in February 2014, 100 died at the hands of Berkut under the order of the incumbent president, after two and a half months of garrison in the square during the winter of Kyiv (which is not exactly like that of Palermo ), the protest did not fall asleep, but became even stronger and prouder, until the incumbent president had to make amends (in Russia, by the way). At that point, the Ukrainian constitution allows the parliament to dismiss him, and so it did. Ukrainians do not allow themselves to be subjugated by their president, they do not want to live in a dictatorship, but they love their freedom. If Zelensky had surrendered in February, the Ukrainians would have chosen another president and continued to defend themselves. It would be enough to talk to them to know. But it is too tiring to talk directly with the victim people. Better to wash your conscience with some humanitarian aid at the beginning (by the way: there is still a need, there is always a need) and then stand up for “peace at any cost”.
The only possible peace gives no concessions to Russia
But what peace? Here is the point. When this question is asked, the answers are usually vague or unacceptable. Let’s leave the vague ones aside. The unacceptable ones retrace the repertoire of concessions to stop weapons. And therefore: Crimea must go to Russia, Donbas must go to Russia (which Donbas? The one he already controlled before February 24 or, while we’re at it, we also give him Mariupol, which, let’s not forget, is the martyr city of this war, of which nothing is known yet?). And then, some add the “neutrality of Ukraine”. According to these pacifists, Putin would calm down, would not be humiliated and would stop the bombing, withdraw the troops and all right. It’s all OK? Are you sure?
Not at all. First of all, we would condemn millions of Ukrainians to become Russian citizens. We have seen that, for a trident tattooed on your wrist, symbol of the Ukrainian state, they sprain your wrist. We know that free elections and free press do not exist in Russia. There is also no freedom to demonstrate. Are you sure it adheres to our standards, our human rights, to force millions of Ukrainians to become Russian citizens? Go on. Why should Crimea and Donbas become a bargaining chip to calm Putin down? The basic idea that emerges is terrible: just invade and bomb to get something, just threaten the atomic bomb to get even more. In practice, we would from then on live at the mercy of any dictator (or pseudo-dictator) capable of threatening. Is that what we want, for us and our children?
It’s still. Why should we put Ukraine’s neutrality on the plate? Do we realize that this option, coupled with bailing out the Putin regime, would only mean putting Ukraine in danger from here on out? Is it believed that Putin would not try again, this time guaranteed that no one will intervene because Ukraine is neutral?
Let an international court judge Putin
The only viable solution for world stability is that an international court will one day judge Putin, and not just him, and that Russia is no longer a rogue, dangerous, threatening and imperialist state. Moscow allowed itself the luxury of bringing the war to Europe, attacking on the one hand what it considers the “Russian world” (and history, however, says something else), and on the other European values (gay-Europe, they call us to Kremlin. Do you know?). We have granted this luxury by letting it go on Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea and Donbas (and also on many other places, but I’m not bored). Now we simply have to remedy this letting it go. We have to stay with the Ukrainians. With humanitarian aid, military aid and also the reconstruction of the economic and construction fabric, while trying to make Russia pay for everything.
Above all, we must work to ensure that Russia is no longer dangerous for anyone in the future. Obviously involving the Russian people. Another peace, breaking Ukraine and saving Putin’s regime, would be a terrifying peace. For Ukraine and for all of us.
