The wide field that plays on Pravda and Churchill’s crocodile

It’s all about working with Pravda, isn’t it, really?

To the Editor – Whilst Goffredo Bettini was giving an interview to the Corriere della Sera (5 August) in an attempt to patch up the centre-left’s shattered ranks, all hell was breaking loose in Kyiv, with dozens of civilian casualties. Without the Patriot missiles denied by Trump, Zelensky lamented, Ukraine’s air defences can do little or nothing. Herein lies the answer to Bettini’s assertion that military support for the country under attack ‘must be assessed to see whether it helps it to resist […] or whether it is destined to fuel an endless war’. On the other hand, the substantial supplies of arms (and troops) to Moscow from North Korea, China and Iran are certainly destined to fuel an endless war. But on this point, silence is golden amongst the broad coalition. Nevertheless, Bettini does not confine himself to analysing the global situation; he also suggests concrete solutions: the security of Ukraine’s borders guaranteed by neutral peacekeeping forces (already branded by Putin as an unacceptable provocation); Russia’s security, guaranteed by Ukraine’s renunciation of NATO membership (already guaranteed by Trump). And, finally, ‘the self-determination of territories populated predominantly by Russian-speaking citizens’. As if those territories had not been annexed to the Russian Federation (a decision deemed irreversible by its political leadership); and as if ‘Russian-speaking’ were synonymous with ‘pro-Russian’ (in which case the Austrian far right would be right to demand self-determination for South Tyrol because it is predominantly German-speaking). But these are details. The most significant issue raised by Bettini is one of analysis or, as he puts it, of ‘context’. Because ‘the war in Ukraine has a history behind it, and […] if you do not try to understand the reasons that led to the conflict’, you will get nowhere (my summary). In short, for Bettini too, as for Pope Francis, ‘NATO has been barking at Russia’s borders’. While even a stone would know that Putin’s real objective was to install another Lukashenko in Kyiv, and not to conquer the Donbas. Of course, Putin is not the same as Hitler, but only because this time Europe, despite not having a Churchill, has not fallen into the trap of appeasement with the Kremlin despot, as advocated by Giuseppe Conte.

The ‘broad front’ strategy, in the Lavrov version, strikes me as an enlightened one: the problem with the war in Ukraine is not that Russia is attacking, but that Ukraine is defending itself. And it is no coincidence that the only rearmament that frightens the West’s Trojan horses is that which concerns those defending themselves against Russian rearmament. If Russia attacks, it must not be provoked: let them get on with it. If Europe defends itself, it must not be supported: it must be attacked and demonised, in the hope, as Churchill said, that the crocodile we are feeding will eat us last. We could have chosen between dishonour and war. Those who choose dishonour, unfortunately, will find no peace: they will face further wars.