Published on March 21, 2025 by Ucadi in Newsletter, Number 195 - March
2025, Year 2025 and tagged peace, ukraine, russia, war, rearmament. ----As we are about to write these considerations, not even 20 days have
passed since the meeting at the White House between Trump and Zelensky,
but we are already faced with an event consigned to history. Many, moved
by human pity, have looked with some sympathy at the figure of the
Ukrainian leader, without wanting to realize that we were faced with the
surprised and studied reaction of an actor who protests to the director
because he reproaches him for the acting of a part that had been
assigned to him: the director-narrator highlights the character's flaws,
flaws for which the actor declares he has no responsibility, claiming
the quality of his acting, recalling that he did not write the script.
In the White House interview, it is the plot of the narrative that is
called into question: and this is because the director has changed and
with him the narrative. The plot of the show we have witnessed and are
witnessing has changed, at best it has been misunderstood; the story was
different. Outside the metaphor, the war with Ukraine did not begin with
the special operation, but comes from afar, from the violation of the
Minsk agreements one and two, from NATO's desire to expand to the East
and from the US and Western desire to dismember Russia, it comes from
the objectives of Ukrainian nationalism, from the reform of the legal
regime of land in Ukraine, from the exploitation of the country's
resources by Western multinationals, from the exclusion of Russian
oligarchs from the banquet, from the fight to the death within the
Orthodox ecumene between the Patriarchate of Constantinople and that of
Moscow for hegemony, from England's eternal need to keep the continent
divided, because this constitutes the basis of the security and hegemony
of the United Kingdom in the European area, from the objective of
destroying the structural foundations of the prosperity of the German
economy, and with this to put the European economy in crisis, depriving
it of the availability of low-cost energy that is clearly too
competitive on the world market. This was the first condition that Putin
posed to Trump and that he accepted, given that Russia is prevailing on
the battlefield, despite every Western narrative. The facts demonstrate
this, with the tactical-strategic defeat at Kursk, where one could say
that "the mountain pipes went to play and were played", and so on in
other places on the battlefront. What happened at Kursk is a challenge
launched by Great Britain to Russia through its Ukrainian proxy that
should have demonstrated its vulnerability; it failed thanks to patient
work on the strategic and tactical level, the results of which do not
depend on the failure of US intelligence, but rather on the slow erosion
of Ukrainian forces in the field, on the careful use of pauses in the
rotation of troops in the field, on the tactical incapacity from a
strictly military point of view of commands, on the superiority of the
forces deployed by the two sides on the field that belongs to the
Russian side, despite and regardless of the courage of the fighters. The
lives wasted by the soldiers of both sides, the mourning and the pain
experienced by the populations and the fighters are the price imposed by
the Ukrainian and Russian ruling classes on the peoples of their
respective countries. We must put an end to this massacre by stopping
the war.
The problem of a just peace
From many quarters there is a call for a peace that is declared to be
just, forgetting that its adjective strictly depends on the point of
view from which it is looked at. If for some the just peace is
represented by the inviolability of the Ukrainian borders as drawn at
the dissolution of the USSR, for others it is essential to respect the
expectations of the Russian-speaking populations that remained within
the State of Ukraine who have seen their interests affected, their
language, their religion, their civil liberties called into question. It
would be necessary to appeal to an effort of honesty on the part of all
and to recognize that the political regimes that govern the two States
are not free from gaps and shortcomings and not very different in terms
of corruption, lack of protection of minorities, levels of religious and
political freedom, demands for equality and exercise of social freedom
rights. The only solution would therefore be to leave the word to the
people so that they can express themselves freely, without any coercion,
and in this sense and in this direction the proposed federal
institutional transformation of the government structure of Ukraine
would have constituted a precondition for a constructive discussion on
peace. takes place on the battlefield, all that remains is to take note
of the balance of power in order to stop the massacre and prevent the
conflict from expanding beyond the borders of Ukraine, involving the
whole of Europe and with it the world in a clash that risks being nuclear.
Putin and Trump seem to have reached an agreement on the fact that with
the destruction of the Nord Stream the United States and England can
consider themselves satisfied with the partial result achieved and find
an agreement so that the supply of energy to Europe by Russia at the end
of the war resumes, but under the aegis and with the mediation of the
United States which will obtain a dividend, offering Russia in exchange
the sharing of a global, tripartite balance, which sees the presence of
China and which considers Europe the designated victim to pay the costs
of the partition operation. It is for this reason that the negotiations
underway in Riyadh primarily concern the global relationship between
Russia and the United States, the division of mutual spheres of
influence, the control of conflict on the various chessboards, possible
forms of collaboration, before and regardless of the war in Ukraine.
Let's arm ourselves and go
The European Union, faced with the reality of the facts, decides to
react by proving reluctant to accept the sacrificial role that is
imposed on it and meditates and threatens to continue the conflict,
deciding to arm itself with a future and uncertain perspective and
modalities. It is a fact that currently rearmament would not have any
immediate influence on the evolution of the situation, as time is needed
to equip and have the weapons needed to face the Russian army, form and
train an army, place it under a single command, establish the necessary
cohesion between the parties and the weapons systems. Thinking in the
necessary time frame, of continuing the conflict means not only wanting
the extinction of the Ukrainian people, but not being able to achieve
the goal, considering that its material destruction would be exhausted
well before having completed the rearmament plan. The objectives of the
European States appear even more unrealistic, if one considers that the
social feeling in the European States is currently very distant from the
conditions necessary for a rearmament and a militarization of society,
also due to the particular demographic situation that characterizes the
continent, whose population tends to age. Its elites have therefore
thought, in the meantime, to lay the preconditions for changing this
situation and have begun to launch the rhetoric of let's arm ourselves
and go: they babble about a just peace, respect for international law,
the rights of peoples, the values of democracy, civil liberties, and
call for mobilization, accusing young people of being devoid of values,
of being individualists, hedonists. The most ardent supporters of this
awakening are the octogenarians, and as we move up the ranks to the
seventy-year-olds, sixty-year-olds, fifty-year-olds, forty-year-olds, we
stop here because we are entering the age in which we should arm
ourselves, equip ourselves with a bulletproof vest, the appropriate
equipment and go down into the trenches and nobody likes this.
In the meantime, we are thinking of reintroducing compulsory military
service because we have realized that we need cannon fodder, to be
sacrificed for this purpose when the government deems it necessary; we
never tire of repeating that only a part of those called up to arms goes
to fight, while the relevant part is assigned to logistics, as if in the
event of war today those in charge of logistics are exempt from getting
a bomb on the head or being the victim of a bombing, given that as is
known, bombs and bullets do not distinguish between civilians and
military personnel.
Neither adhere nor sabotage
Faced with the problem of voting for war credits, many self-styled
left-wing politicians make the eternal choice of dividing themselves
between those who vote for war credits and those who abstain, no more
and no less than they did during the First World War: on that occasion,
the socialist parties at an international level were divided between
those like the German Social Democrats who voted for Germany's war
credits, convinced that Germany would win and with it the socialism that
was strong in the country, while many Italian socialists decided neither
to adhere nor sabotage and abstained. It is useless to remember that the
final outcome of the war was fascism and the end of all democracy and
all freedom.
The mainstream journalism is institutional, long involved in the
narrative of the just war, of the defense of international law violated
by me without making the slightest effort to critically analyze the
causes and effects of the phenomena, also with the intent of not
contradicting itself and having to admit its inadequacy in the analysis
of the interests in the field and the balance of power chooses. Putting
its face on it and promoting the mobilization failing to understand that
the questions it asks itself about the lack of participation and
mobilization of citizens and their opposition to the war responds to an
instinct of self-preservation of the masses with respect to those who
want their ruin by waving false objectives.
The weakest sectors of society know well, because they live them and
feel them on their own skin, real needs such as that of a fair and
sufficient salary for a dignified life, the need to have housing, the
necessary care, an efficient and generalized welfare and therefore they
have learned to distinguish between the hucksters and the sellers of
rain and good weather and choose the concreteness of their interests
and, finding no other way to defend themselves, they avoid involvement
and mobilization. The media invasiveness of well-known and sometimes
beloved faces of characters from our daily lives, of artists and
singers, of entertainers and commentators, only in some cases in good
faith but in these cases ignored. thanks to the instinct for
self-preservation of the many, distracted by everyday life, pressed by
needs. To overcome their reluctance to get involved, emulation is not
enough, nor is it enough to invoke values that are now far from the
sensibility of young people, especially the defense of the homeland in a
now cosmopolitan society, the call for identity in societies that lack
it, taking up the defense of the family in a society that ignores family
ties, invoking the defense of traditions in an environment in which
these have been lost, a world of values in which everything has been
done to erase that of collective solidarity and brotherhood between peoples.
It is in support of these people that we must carry out a careful
analysis of when it happens, of the causes and effects of the phenomena,
so that the response that is given to the calls for mobilization is
reasoned and responsible, so as not to be exploited and used for ignoble
purposes and in any case contrary to our real interests, by those who
hold control of information and knowledge.
Gianni Cimbalo
https://www.ucadi.org/2025/03/21/la-pace-giusta/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten