Dear Director Feltri,
In these days we are talking about nothing more than the meeting between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in Alaska. However, it seems to me that the attitude of the press and the western media is almost uniformly negative, as if there was something wrong leaving and talking about. I would like to understand his opinion, because I trust his judgment: is there really a reason for so much alarm or, on the contrary, could not be the beginning of something positive?
Francesco Ricci
Dear Francesco,
The skepticism that dominates the comments of western newspapers and televisions on the summit between Trump and Putin not surprising me: for years, whatever Trump has been doing it has been stamped as a nefarious, useless or even dangerous, simply because he does it. It is a conditioned reflection, not an analysis. Instead, if we abandon the prejudice, the meeting in Alaska must be read for what it is: an indispensable preliminary step to start a real negotiation on the war in Ukraine.
It is a meeting to break the ice, and I don’t say it at random. The image of the thaw recalls the Cold War, when two blocks enemies, however, though they open dialogue channels to avoid jumping each other. Today the relationship between Moscow and the West, embodied by the United States, is completely frozen: Putin has no longer met any western leader in recent years. This summit serves to break that ice slab.
It is not and cannot be a negotiation behind closed doors to impose peace in Zelensky. Nobody, and I emphasize no one, can think of excluding Kiev from a possible agreement. And the reason is simple: peace will have to be signed and accepted by the two parts at war, otherwise it is barrel. This encounter is a preliminary, necessary step that prepares the ground. Only those who have never treated anything in his life can think that they immediately jump to the final contract without first talking about separately.
In addition, it must be said, even if it seems almost forbidden, that the tones used by Putin on the eve of this meeting were surprisingly moderate. He spoke of the “next phase” in the relationships and possibilities of understanding on the control of strategic weapons. He did not shoot threats, on the contrary he let him glimpse an opening. Paradoxically, Trump was harder: he made him understand that certain conditions will have to accept them, otherwise the consequences will not be pleasant. In short, the roles for once have reversed, and this should bode well.
Let it be clear: an agreement requires mutual concessions. Kiev will have to give up something, as well as Moscow. It is the ABC of all negotiations. Those who think that peace can be reached by imposing everything to one part and nothing to the other lives in the world of fairy tales. A real negotiation means that both sides must soften their positions and find a meeting point.
I therefore do not understand this desire to paint the summit as a risk or a betrayal. The real risk is to remain motionless, with frozen relationships, and let the war continue to grind lives.
I prefer to see an opportunity in Alaska in Alaska, a signal that something moves. It will not be the solution tomorrow morning, but it is certainly a first step. And in history, often, the first steps are the most difficult and most important ones.