Letters
Letters to the Editor •
The Russian threat and arms supplies to Ukraine: a brief overview
Who has written to the editor-in-chief, Claudio Cerasa
3 SEP 26
Translated by AI
Photo: EPA via ANSA
To the editor – A hunter who shoots and kills an elephant – the easiest prey – for the macabre pleasure of having his photo taken with his kill, would be capable of anything, even sharing a pool full of mud with his closest friends.
Jori D. Cherubini
* * *
To the Editor – Putin’s ‘fifth columns’, embedded in both coalitions, have been called to order and have dropped their masks, brazenly spreading the Kremlin’s version of events in Leipzig. Merz, like the Ranucci/Lavitola duo, is said to have planted the bombs himself in order to continue sending weapons to Ukraine. Since he claims to be defending himself, the German Chancellor is the real warmonger according to Conte’s doctrine, which Salvini shares. Meloni is treading carefully, whilst Schlein remains silent and does not attack the government on the Ukraine issue so as not to expose the PD’s guilty conscience.
Giuliano Cazzola
Giuseppe Conte has always been more than ambiguous on the subject of Ukraine’s defence and the threat posed by Russia. On 9 July, as you will recall, Conte said: “They are fabricating a Russian threat to convince us to arm ourselves to the teeth”. On Tuesday, as you know, the German Interior Minister, Alexander Dobrindt, said that “Russia is responsible for the hybrid attack in Leipzig on 4 August”. Russia is a threat to Europe, even if Conte pretends not to notice, but what Conte has realised is that adopting positions mirroring those of Russia may work if he wants a future as leader of the M5S, but may be less effective if he wants a future as leader of the coalition. On Monday evening, during the programme ‘In Onda’, I took part in a conversation with Conte, Marianna Aprile and Luca Telese. I asked Conte whether he would ever allow the M5S symbol to be included in a government programme that involved sending arms to Ukraine for as long as it is necessary to do so. Conte, as you know, has often reiterated that a ‘no’ to sending arms to Ukraine would be a non-negotiable condition for the M5S in any government programme. ‘We’ll see about that. I will respond to that answer (sic) with the agreed programme and the primaries.’ Saying a lot to say nothing at all. A few vetoes to court votes. Call it, if you like, the ‘clutch bag’ approach.
* * *
To the Editor – The issue of anti-vaxxers has become a serious matter. And the paradox is that it has become so precisely at a time when accessing information has never been easier. The internet has democratised information, but not expertise. It is a distinction we have forgotten. Understanding the simplification of a concept does not mean understanding its complexity, especially when it comes to medicine. Reading an explanation about vaccines is not the same as studying immunology, just as watching a video on quantum physics does not make one a physicist. Yet today, doubt – which should be the starting point of the scientific method – has become, for many, the end point. Behind every piece of data lies an ulterior motive; behind every doctor, collusion; behind every medicine, a conspiracy. People no longer doubt in order to verify; they doubt in order not to believe. Then, however, reality sets in. And with it comes one of the most remarkable paradoxes of our time: medicine continues to treat even those who reject it. When a serious infection strikes, it is not social media videos that enter the hospital. It is doctors, medicines, tests and protocols. It is the scientific method that takes hold. The doctor does not ask the patient whether they believed in vaccines or whether they have spent the last few years challenging the medical establishment. If they can save them, they try to save them. Science does not demand faith: it demands evidence. And it treats even those who do not believe in it. Then, in Italy in 2026, a four-year-old girl dies of diphtheria without having been vaccinated. A disease made extremely rare precisely by the very medicine that some people have suddenly come to regard with suspicion. In the face of a death, there is no need for summary judgement, but it is our duty to ascertain any fault or liability. The investigations will determine this. In the meantime, however, a collective reflection can no longer be put off. Science can make mistakes, of course. The difference is that it has a method for correcting itself. Conspiracy theories, on the other hand, often have only one method: to always be right. Diseases do not disappear simply because we have stopped talking about them. They remain at bay as long as we continue to use the tools that have kept them at bay. We may stop believing in science. Fortunately, science does not stop trying to save us because of this.
Pierpaolo Cirigliano