Who is the real Russian Trojan horse between Conte and Vannacci?

A couple of weeks ago, an article in the Financial Times caused quite a stir; drawing on a phrase used by the European Council on Foreign Relations, it described Roberto Vannacci as a “Russian Trojan horse” in Italy. The description is not particularly apt. Certainly, the former general has a political agenda that overlaps with that of Vladimir Putin: from Ukraine to social conservatism, from security policy to energy policy, all the positions of the leader of Futuro Nazionale are aligned with those of the Kremlin. But precisely because of this explicit adherence to Putinism, Vannacci’s party makes no secret of its true intentions. If Odysseus and his companions had started shouting ‘Death to the Trojans!’ and waving the banners of the Achaeans instead of keeping quiet inside the horse’s belly, the ruse would not have worked. Or rather, it would not have been a ruse at all but an assault on the walls of Troy: which is exactly what Vannacci intends to do to Europe.

A Russian Trojan horse – if one is thinking of the Homeric device – makes sense if it presents itself as progressive rather than reactionary, pacifist rather than openly pro-Russian, a Eurosceptic allied with pro-European forces rather than a nationalist allied with anti-European forces, and mindful of the negative consequences of sanctions rather than blatantly opposed to sanctioning Russia. In short, as a Trojan horse, lawyer Conte is far more credible than General Vannacci.

The former Prime Minister has no qualms about “clearly” condemning Putin’s aggression, whilst also being quick to point out that “at the outset, we were even in favour of the initial military deployments” because “there was a fear that Russia might invade the whole of Ukraine”. However, now that Moscow has occupied around a fifth of Ukrainian territory—evidently a mere trifle—Giuseppe Conte considers it appropriate to stop supplying Kyiv with weapons to defend itself against the expanding occupier. On this issue—which is crucial for the future of Europe—Conte’s position coincides perfectly with that of Vannacci: no more military aid to Ukraine. Naturally, the leader of the M5S does not speak like an admirer of the Kremlin. His language is very ‘pacifist’: a ‘turning point in negotiations’ is needed, which evidently can only begin if Volodymyr Zelensky is disarmed. This gesture, he argues, is necessary to demonstrate goodwill in order to ‘sit down at a table with Putin’, drawing on Italy’s ‘diplomatic clout’ in the name of the ‘traditional dialogue with Russia’ with which ‘we have an incredible cultural exchange’. Putin, he maintains, wants to negotiate, but European ‘warmongering’ risks triggering the Third World War.

The narrative differs, but in essence Conte and Vannacci’s positions are the same: suspension of military support for Ukraine, a break in European unity against Russia, and the resumption of energy flows from Moscow to Europe. “Let’s go back to buying gas from Russia,” says the general. “A breakthrough in negotiations in Ukraine is essential – we need it as much as we need bread – because the very next moment we must buy Russian gas,” argues the lawyer. The overlap between Conte and Vannacci on the fundamental issues concerning relations with Russia is evident from their votes in the European Parliament. 

Both the M5S and Vannacci voted against the RearmEu plan to strengthen Europe’s defence capabilities, and both are strongly opposed to the use of European SAFE funds to bolster national defences. Together, they voted in Strasbourg against European support for Ukraine, against the European Parliament’s resolution on Russia’s ‘falsification of history’ to justify the invasion of Ukraine, and against the EU’s position on the plan for a ‘just and lasting peace’ in Ukraine. This year, the M5S and Vannacci also voted together on 24 February against the resolution condemning Russia and supporting Ukraine on the fourth anniversary of the invasion and, more recently, on 30 April, they voted against the resolution condemning Russia’s repeated attacks on Ukrainian civilian targets.

On the essentials, Conte and Vannacci are interchangeable, but it would be a misjudgement to think that they are equally dangerous. Because for a Trojan horse to be effective, it must be welcomed into the city. And Vannacci, at least so far, has been kept outside the walls of the centre-right and is therefore unable to enter government. Giorgia Meloni, as she said in a recent interview with Claudio Cerasa in Il Foglio regarding an alliance with those who voted against Ukraine, states that she is not ‘willing to do the opposite of what she has done so far, or of what she believes in, for political or electoral gain’. To Giuseppe Conte, on the other hand, Elly Schlein’s PD has thrown open the doors of its broad coalition, ignoring the warnings of a few Cassandras such as Pina Picierno and without even setting any red lines on foreign policy. Indeed, it is the ‘People’s Lawyer’ who has drawn his red line: the M5S will never sign up to a coalition programme that provides for military aid to Kyiv. With this stance, which is well received in Moscow, Conte stands a good chance of winning the primaries, defeating the centre-right and thus leading the government of one of Europe’s most important countries. Moreover, in March 2020, when he was Prime Minister, Conte literally let one of Putin’s Trojan horses into Italy: in the hold of the aircraft on the “From Russia with Love” mission – ostensibly to help with Covid – Russian soldiers and spies, disguised as doctors and nurses, disembarked and roamed freely throughout the country. Who, then, is the Russian Trojan horse in Italy?