– Let’s analyze the call calmly Trump–Putin. Who is it convenient for? To both, a little less to Ukraine. The tsar brought home the rehabilitation of Russia, which returns to speak with the United States from equal to peer. The Tycoon conquers a first, faint, cease the selective fire on infrastructure and energy. Is that what we expected? No, of course. However – little or a lot – it remains a turning point although not decisive. I remind you that the war has been going on for three years and until yesterday there was not even a minimum glimpse of agreement between Kiev and Moscow. The meaning of yesterday’s phone call, net of Putin’s faint concessions, is the opening of the negotiation. We are at the beginning, not in the end. In short: in diplomacy every negotiating opening must be taken for what it is. Rather than nothing, better rather.
– Whoever claims that yesterday’s phone call is not “a turning point” I would like to remember that he had not been seriously talking about it for years and Russia. And that until a few months ago, Biden aimed to “defeat Moscow” and perhaps even to hunt Putin. Here: if this turns are not “a turning point …
– Then of course: if you thought that the war in Ukraineafter three years of bombs and devastation, it could be resolved in two hours of phone calls perhaps you had some alcohol expectations. Remember when Emmanuel Macron went to Moscow to try to stop the tsar? He remedied a very long table, a bad figure and nothing concrete. Maybe Putin has only lengthened the negotiations, but at this stage the ball in the stands is better, which can always be recovered, instead of the final triple whistle that kills any negotiation. No?
– The only one who could complain in this case is ZelenskyObviously. Which can also rejoice in the stop to the bombings on energy infrastructures, but perhaps hoped for the real fire in a cease. However, it comes to hypothesize that at the moment the real obstacle to “peace” are the territories of the Kursk: Russia feels strong and hardly before having regained all the territories invaded by Ukraine will grant other tree.
– Gianni Rivera Remember the game of the century and talks about the Spalletti national team: “With the construction from the bottom Facchetti instead of launching Boninsegna would have passed to Albertosi”. Be praise in Rivera. And that’s enough with ‘sti cabbage passersses.
– Be careful: there are those who argue that the premier would make the Ventotene Manifesto won by Europeanists in the square. But that’s not true. The Ventotene manifesto It is made of shreds alone. Let us be clear: we are not saying that it is not an important historical document, also written by those who opposed fascism, nor do we want to argue that they do not have some healthy inspiration on united and peaceful Europe. But it is not the Gospel. The problem of those who are indignant today for Meloni’s legitimate criticism at the Ventotene Manifesto is that the self -styled Europeanists a real idea of Europe do not have it. Or he is very confused, as the square of Michele Serra was confused. Then they cling to the manifesto, without having however read it thoroughly, adoring it totally uncritically, as if it were a totem.
– I read on Courier a very interesting article on why the Ventotene manifesto It shouldn’t be scrambled as Meloni did. All right. But the fulcrum is in the final. “Certainly too much rhetoric is made on the Manifesto of Ventotene, who was only the first courageous step of a long journey. And it is completely legitimate to criticize its contents in the name of a nationalist, conservative or liberal vision. But making a polemical puppet 84 years later leaves time finds. It belongs to history and in a historical key it must be considered”. Exact. But the same should be made to those who wave it in the square. The problem is not the manifesto itself, but the use that Europeanists still unable today to find another idea of Europe. A document can not be considered uncritically to which you still recall today. Because it is removed remote, net of Europe’s federal starting point. Because it retains absolutely unacceptable passages. And because it is one thing to theorize united Europe, another is to imagine it socialist. That idea was out of place in 1950, after the birth of the Republic, let alone today. Will we be allowed not to agree with Spinelli and Rossi, Michele Serra and Elly Schlein?
– Look, the European Union is a great intuition for the period in which it was founded. But it has turned into the worst nightmare, also of Alcide De Gasperi. Here is what the great Italian statesman said in Strasbourg in 1951: “If we build only common administrations, without a higher political will vivified by a central body, in which the national will meet, clarify and soul in a higher synthesis, we will risk that this European activity appears, in comparison with particular national vitality, without warmth, without ideal life. Oppressive as the Holy Roman Empire appears in certain periods of its decline “.
Does any of you say to me: today’s EU is or is it not exactly how De Gasperi hoped never became become?
– Anyway, other than Mario Draghi. Every time Meloni goes to Parliament, you want or don’t want, a show comes out that gives us a lot of work. What a pleasure.