by Stefano Briganti
May 13 is a date for posterity to remember. A date that adds up to September 22, 2022 (Zelensky: “Ukraine will not negotiate with Russia as long as Vladimir Putin is its president”), to November 23, 2022 (the EU declares Russia a sponsor of terrorism), to March 21, 2023 with the USA’s rejection of the Chinese initiative to peace, to May 5, 2023 (Borrell: “This is not the time for diplomatic conversations about peace. It is the time to support war”).
On May 13, Zelensky flatly rejected the offer Pope francesco for a ceasefire and begin mediation for peace. The “Christian West” ignored the fact and responded with more weapons in Kiev. Stalin’s famous phrase addressed to the Pope who intervened during the Treaty of Yalta comes to mind: “How many divisions does the Pope have?” and, more recently, that of George Bush jr. that to Pope John Paul II’s appeal not to invade Iraq, he replied: “I won’t let the Pope influence me.”
Zelensky’s response was: “We don’t need mediators.”
Today it is even more evident that the “Western alliance” does not seek e he does not want a negotiated peace. If you don’t want to discuss anything other than “Zelensky’s 10 points”, if Zelensky doesn’t want to negotiate with Putin in power, if the EU cannot negotiate having labeled Russia as a state with which it cannot negotiate (terrorist state ), if no one is granted the role of mediator, then there can be no peace that does not go through unconditional surrender. In fact, only in this way is there no need for any negotiation to reach a truce, because the defeated cannot set conditions to be negotiated with the winner who imposes his rights and that’s it. This is the approach of Zelensky and those who support him.
We know that Russia now regards this war as existential and the outcome of which will decide the Russian Federation as we know it today. This should not be forgotten and therefore Putin’s speech to the Duma and the nation on February 21 should be read. Putin lets the world and his people know that he cannot be there an unconditional surrender by Russia because this would mean the end of the Federation.
So what is the “bet” of Kiev and its “allies”? What is not said. That Moscow, cornered and with no negotiating openings, would prefer defeat rather than switch to tactical nuclear weapons. As long as Russia has conventional weapons to use, the war may go on for years. Moscow is held back from using unconventional weapons only by China which condemns the use of nuclear weapons. But if China, seeing its diplomatic efforts rejected, takes the same position with Moscow that the US has taken with Kiev (“This is Ukraine’s war and it’s up to her to decide how to defend herself”) or if Moscow is attacked, then things would change.
When Putin decides that there will be no other choice for Russia than to switch to the use of tactical nuclear weapons on Ukraine, will Zelensky really expect a nuclear intervention on Russia (which has 6,000 nuclear warheads), by the US-NATO and its Nuclear World War III? We talk about “vittoria” always referring to Kiev. What if there is a nuclear one from Moscow over Kiev?
Today 15 May, the future of Europe hangs on the bet made by “bettors” who say they care about the continent and those who live there. If the gamble will make the bet lose and the radioactivity will spread over half of Europe and a tenth of Russia, then for Europeans it will be “pain and gnashing of teeth”. If, on the other hand, the bet is won, Europe will have decades of hyper-Cold War with hatred and grudges on both sides of the Russian borders. In both cases, disastrous, it will be useless to say: “Putin’s fault, but we have been firm in never negotiating a peace with him even if the voice of the Pope asked for it”.