Letters
Letters to the Editor •
Italy stands with Kyiv – not with words, but with deeds. A source of pride
Who has written to the editor-in-chief, Claudio Cerasa
5 SEP 26
Translated by AI
Photo: Ansa
To the Editor – Dear Cerasa, ours is the only European country in which as many as four parties are in favour, more or less openly, of Ukraine’s surrender. Two on the right: Futuro Nazionale and the Lega. Two on the left: the M5S and the AVS. Some have been directly infiltrated by the Kremlin, whilst others, whilst marching for peace, are trampling on peace itself. Then there is FdI, which celebrates the longest-serving government in the history of the Republic whilst glossing over, amongst its achievements, the military aid provided to Kyiv. Finally, there is the PD, whose secretary had given us false hope with the interview she gave you on 23 July (“I reaffirm our commitment to supporting Ukraine by all necessary means”). A few days ago in Genoa, in fact, she dusted off the usual old tune: no to the escalation of war and the arms race, more dialogue and more diplomacy. This whilst tensions between Europe and Russia were soaring and, in Brussels, a document from the Group of Socialists and Democrats was calling on EU states to shake off their lethargy and provide the aggrieved people with air defence systems and long-range strike capabilities. Of course, I know that Meloni and Schlein have to contend with untrustworthy allies and that the elections are just around the corner. Nevertheless, I would like to draw their attention to a thought by Jacques Delors that is perhaps worth reflecting upon: “I learnt a great lesson from Pierre Mendès-France: it is better to lose an election than to lose one’s soul. An election can be won again in five years – so what? But if you lose your soul, it takes generations to find it again” (Le Monde, 1978).
Michele Magno
Dear Magno, appearances can sometimes be deceiving. Italy is a country where, in words at least, many act and speak like populists. But it is also a country where the number of parties that have voted in favour of supporting Ukraine in recent years – and we are also talking about military support – has been numerically higher: the entire majority, including the Lega, the whole of the centre, and half of the opposition, if we consider the PD to represent at least fifty per cent of the broad coalition. In words, then, both the majority and the opposition do their utmost to downplay their positions on Ukraine (little or nothing is said about it at the ‘Feste dell’Unità’, and it has disappeared from the leaflet prepared by Meloni on the Kyiv government’s record), but the reasons to be proud of what the political establishment as a whole has done from 2022 to the present day far outweigh those for which one might feel less than proud.
To the Editor – Congratulations to Il Foglio. Ermes Antonucci is the first journalist to highlight the legal shield erected around Sigfrido Ranucci. In fact, it takes far more (il)logical contortions to consider the presenter uninvolved in the bomb hoax than it does to issue him – on the basis of the evidence – with a notice of investigation for complicity in computer fraud (Article 640-ter of the Italian Criminal Code) and causing public alarm over non-existent events (Article 658 of the Italian Criminal Code). Naturally, subject to the presumption of innocence.
Giuliano Cazzola
To the editor – Thank you for the three pages of amusing sniping published regarding the government’s record-breaking tenure. Meloni must have had a right laugh at the expense of those grumbling, gnashing-teeth critics. Keep up the good work.
Giovanni De Marchi
To the Editor – That politicians should refrain from intervening in the matter of public offers concerning Monte dei Paschi, whether actively or passively, is a more than justified necessity, and one cannot but fully agree with Il Foglio’s assertion regarding the distinct Emilian ‘school’ of thought, which has seen the region and its president appropriately abstain from a transaction in which BPER is involved. What remains unexplained, however, is how one can continue to speak of a break-up of Monte dei Paschi following the clarifications and clear overtures made by the chairman of Unipol, Carlo Cimbri, in his interview with Il Sole 24 Ore. Are these deemed insufficient—a view that is by no means easy to sustain? If so, let it be said—not by politicians, but by the key players in this affair. Or do you want these statements to be formalised? It would have been, and still would be, appropriate to build on those statements to reach a consensus, rather than assuming that the government can be the decisive factor with the roughly 4 per cent of Monte dei Paschi that it retains – a position that is not even consistent with its commitments at European level if it were to effectively assume a role of particular influence. Yours sincerely.
Angelo De Mattia