Il future of Europe it will be decided in Ukraine. “The way the crisis triggered by Putin's aggression against Ukraine four and a half years ago is resolved will depend the role of the EU in the world, its credibility as a political actor, its ability to defend itself, its internal cohesion itself”. And again: “Europe has entered a historical phase in which its political survival depends on the ability to act as a strategic entity". Very clear judgments that cannot leave room for doubt. The book ofAmbassador Rocco Antonio Cangelosi, Ukraine and the Fate of Europe – Why the Continent's Future Depends on Kyiv published by Ida Press, illustrates very well the root causes, the mistakes made by the various governments, the weaknesses and fears that led to Putin's decision to launch, in February 2022, the so-called "special military operation" which in his plans should have led to the conquest of the Ukrainian capital in a few days, to the expulsion of the president Zelensky and its replacement with people dependent on Moscow as in the case of Belarus.
Ma the Ukrainians resisted, President Zelensky – an actor turned politician – refused a safe conduct offered to him by the Americans, and remained to lead the resistance.
Today the Russian army is clearly bogged downThe Ukrainians have managed to bring the war to the heart of Russia by attacking oil centers and arms factories, while Putin, who indiscriminately attacks civilians, is unable to break the Ukrainians' will to separate themselves from the Russian autocracy and look towards Europe. However, The Kremlin tsar does not yet seem convinced that he wants to start serious negotiations to end the war giving up the imperial dream, obtaining in exchange the restoration of normal economic relations with the West and guarantees of peace for his country.
Cangelosi's book is very useful because explains how it came to war, clarifies that the fate of Europe is being played out in the Ukrainian plains and that we must not be afraid to claim a political role and power "for the Old Continent, which has been brutally confronted with a reality in which peace is not guaranteed forever and even democracy must always be maintained, otherwise it will wither in indifference." Indirectly, he clearly states that certain somewhat hypocritical pacifists who write off Ukraine as defeated, and with it the so-called European warmongers who, according to certain Travaglio-style journalists, want "rearmament" against a "peaceful" Russia, are defying all reason and are effectively working against the continuation of the European project.
Looking back at the events of the last 15-20 years and looking honestly at the reality of the facts, it appears clear that it was the weakness shown by the US and the Europeans on various occasions – from the Russian occupation of Crimea to the hasty American retreat from Kabul – to have convinced Putin that Westerners would not react to a military move against Ukraine. Or at most, they would have issued a harsh statement condemning it! Instead, the fierce resistance of the Ukrainian people initially united Americans and Europeans in aid of Kyiv, and at the same time enabled the Europeans to successfully address the shock caused by the interruption of gas and oil flows from Russia, with the resulting surge in prices, and ultimately triggered a revitalization of NATO.
Yet, if you look closely, Europeans and Americans have sent military equipment to the Ukrainians sparingly, with the commitment to using them only for defense. Essentially, for many years, the Kyiv army was prevented from directly attacking Russia, which only now have the Ukrainians begun to make use of drones and other military equipment produced directly by them. In other words, it is not true that Russia moved to ward off the threat of NATO who was barking at Moscow's gates. It was not the strength but the weakness of the Western powers that convinced the Tsar to take up arms. And yet, NATO sent Moscow clear signals that it did not intend to strike Putin, that it did not intend to challenge his regime, but only to thwart his imperial and anti-European project.
Then, with the arrival of Trump, the US made it clear that Ukraine was not a priority for them and that, on the contrary, they were interested in establishing good relations with Russia rather than defending the freedom of a people, It was therefore up to Europe to take on the burden of supporting Kyiv, providing military and economic assistance. Yet Putin refuses to have the Europeans at the negotiating table, and Trump plays along, trying to reach agreements with Moscow without notifying the Europeans. This led, last August, to the catastrophic Anchorage summit, during which Trump gave in to all of Putin's demands, both territorial and regarding the future of Ukraine (neutral and without any European backing).
On that occasion, a strong reaction from European countries forced Trump to backtrack, saying that in the end he would no longer care about the fate of Ukraine and perhaps even of the Europeans, who would have to provide for their own defense. The NATO summit will be held in Türkiye starting from July 7th. and it would be good if on that occasion the Europeans (or at least the major countries gathered in the group of the willing) made it clear to the Americans that the willingness to shoulder the burden of the Ukrainian war and the formation of a European leg of NATO will lead to a renegotiation of the terms of the Atlantic alliance and that Europe cannot be considered a vassal but must participate in decisions of common interest, starting with the discussion table with Russia on the future of Ukraine.
And so, for the matters of the Middle East where we have vital political and economic interests, Trump – who also has some reason to want to encourage Europeans to make a greater commitment to their own defense – cannot continue to insult potential allies or to flaunt "head-spinning" figures on military spending (as he did on Thursday) because in this way it will be more difficult to rebuild a serious alliance in the mutual interests of the two sides of the Atlantic.
But the question is: Can the EU take on these tasks? There is sufficient cohesion and the necessary willingness on the part of public opinion to recognize that, unless we earn a seat at the table where the fate of the world is being discussed, we will hardly be able to maintain our standard of living and, above all, our freedom. Today, as he wrote: Timothy garton ash, “Ukrainians are fighting for a Europe that Europeans had forgotten.”
But now we have been faced with our responsibilities. Our security cannot be delegated as has been done up to now by placing us under the US umbrella.Competitiveness is a condition of sovereignty. Foreign policy, and the resulting instrument of military deterrence, requires cohesion and speed. We are still far from a satisfactory and credible European order. And yet, some progress has been made.
Now in view of next year's elections, the ruling classes must engage in a vigorous battle against sleepwalkers or hypocrites like Salvini and Conte (not to mention Vannacci and Fratoianni) who want to make us subjects of the Russian empire. Because from the next elections in France, Italy, and maybe Spain e Britain, the future of our continent depends on it. And it is precisely the presence of strong anti-European nationalist parties which leads Putin to refuse any peace table because he thinks that the victory of the nationalists could eliminate Brussels from the scene and thus grant him a victory by default. A danger we must fight against. Alongside aid to Ukraine, the domestic political front must receive the greatest attention from true liberals and freedom-loving people.
