Reflections on the Russia’s invasion of Ukraine

Why do you say I distorted what you think?

Explain it to me. I have read two of your messages, the first in response to mine, the second I do not remember in response from whom, I quoted them and it seems to me that you said you are in favor of the third world war.

If I misunderstood you, tell me why, so we understand each other better.

I know many Ukrainians, Milan is full of Ukrainians, there is a large community. I gave you the example of a friend of mine's wife to explain to you that it is not true that all Ukrainians think that Crimea is an integral part of Ukraine. Many of Ukrainians I know, they expected Russia would try to take back Crimea years ago and were not astonished at that invasion, knowing Crimea was half Russian (if not more) and half Ukrainian. That's all. Most of them hate Putin and agree with Zelensky, but some have not loved Zelensky since he was elected.

For the rest, I deduce that you have not read all the messages, otherwise you would have seen that, after criticizing Zelenskij (page 7),

Steve said I'm undemocratic:

Whatever reason you have to malign Zelenskyy can only be born from your anti democracy, pro socialist stance. To freedom loving people, he is a hero in an era when so few exist

Last post on page 7.

Then, on page 8:

Easy Money accused me of Blame the victim in this way:

I hope we do not get anymore of this 'blame the victim' nonsense from the previous page. Reminds me of when people say a rape victim was just 'asking for it'. I find such thinking to be extremely disturbing.

The Dark Elf wrote:

I've asked for this asinine thread to be closed, but I guess things have to get out of hand before that happens. I know be it.

And

Tszirmay accused me of propaganda (besides having fun of me because I always say "I"... who knows, maybe it's true due to my poor English... consider that in Italian the subject "I" is almost always implied , so it is rarely used)

------

In the end:

I am not interested in being a victim, I am interested in being able to keep this thread open and discuss with respect, but if it is impossible to peacefully discuss the war in progress, ok, I'll make up my mind.  Still I hope it can be done.

Finally, Nick, I have never accused anyone of making propaganda. 

I do not publish anything that comes from Russia, both because it is very difficult to find it in Europe (the two main Russian sites have been closed) and because I prefer to read the arguments of Western intellectuals that I believe independent and free, and I do it with both right-wings and left-wings.

Speaking of those on the left, I would like to point out that I do not know any Marxist intellectuals who are in favor of Putin, the Marxists despise Putin to the highest degree.

My favorites are nonviolent pacifists like Ilan Pappé and Noam Chomsky, the two I have posted here.

I hope I explained myself with the correct words.

Dear Gad Lerner, Luigi Manconi, Adriano Sofri, Emma Bonino* [*Italian left-wings politicians or journalists],

I immediately get to the point that divides us today: "weapons yes / no weapons" from the EU to Ukraine.

I am writing to you because, unlike most of the Italian commentators who mock pacifism by making a caricature of it, I know that you consider it, for common friendship and sensitivity, and because you have motivated your choice also in reference to Gandhi who, in front of a abuse, between sloth and violence says that the latter is preferable. But the Mahatma chooses the third way, that of the nonviolence of the strong. At stake are principles and practice, ends and means, philosophy and politics. This type of nonviolent pacifism has two requirements: ethics and effectiveness.

Let's start with effectiveness. We do not know which "lethal" weapons are sent, because they are covered by military secrecy. However, we know how much they cost (up to now one billion euros), already paid to the war industry with funds advanced by the "ecological transition" (the Italian fund of 100 million taken from "cooperation"), therefore it is a conversion from civilian to military . Will these weapons reach the Ukrainian regular army, or will they be intercepted by the growing paramilitary "territorial defense" militias, even with mercenaries arriving from abroad? Were the lessons from Libya and Afghanistan not enough for us, where Western weapons ended up in the hands of rival gangs or the Taliban, with the consequences we know? And are we sure that these weapons will be able to make a difference in terms of military capacity, firepower, or will it not be necessary to continually raise the bar, in the military logic that wins those who have the most lethal weapons, up to the extreme consequences? (starting from the recruitment of child soldiers, up to the threat from the West of tactical nuclear weapons?).

Indeed, this is the point that makes today's war different from all others: the nuclear threat. This is the situation that, in the aftermath of the Cuban missile crisis, Pope John XXIII configured in Pacem in Terris: "In a time like ours, which prides itself on atomic power, it is alien to any reason that war can be used as a tool to restore violated rights ". Many military observers also argue that the dispatch of new weapons increases the danger of uncontrolled escalation and further postpones the possibility of a successful deal.

And we come to ethics. The Constituents [the fathers of the Italian Constitution] intended to ban (repudiate) armed intervention (war) as a means of resolving international disputes even when the controversy has taken on the character of an armed conflict. Our Constitution does not deny the "natural right of individual or collective self-protection in the event of an armed attack against a member of the United Nations" enshrined in the United Nations Charter, but reiterates what the UN Charter itself requires: "The Members they must resolve their international disputes by peaceful means, so that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered ”. It is in this context that the problem of sending weapons to a nation undergoing armed aggression must be considered. Condemning the aggression and supporting the just reasons of that nation does not automatically mean that one must intervene militarily in that context. If so, weapons should be provided to all peoples fighting for their sovereignty, such as the Palestinians whose territories have been illegally occupied by Israel for decades. It is not done because sending weapons always configures a situation of belligerence.

Zelenskii has decided to take the path of armed defense: "better to die on your feet than to live on your knees". We say that the third way must be sought: "living standing". All this certainly requires helping those who are resisting, but with what defense? Other voices that come to us from Kiev must also be listened to. Like that of Yurii Sheliazhenko, national referent of the Ukrainian peace movement who told us about the dispatch of weapons: "Madness! It is fueling escalation and bloodshed. The international media are manipulated by the war machine. There is a need for international pressure for a ceasefire and to arrive at a real negotiation ". It is also urgent to support, finance, strengthen the growing movement of Russian conscientious objectors, and the mothers of soldiers who oppose the call of conscripts, to weaken Putin on the domestic front.

All the nonviolent instruments must be put in place to reach as soon as possible the "Ceasefire" - which is bilateral and is not the surrender of one party - and promote real negotiations (for which the Vatican is also working). Trade sanctions against Russia are important, but not sufficient measures. We need a qualitative leap in the rationale of nonviolent struggle which is "to take the first step first". In concrete terms, this means promoting military de-escalation, starting now to do what had to be done before: withdrawing the nuclear bombs present in the European territory by dismantling the "nuclear sharing"; recall the NATO military contingents recently sent to Eastern Europe, and hold an international conference under the aegis of the United Nations putting the compromise of neutral Ukraine on the table.

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall we have supported the transformation of NATO from a military alliance to an alliance for security and cooperation. Since 1995 we have advanced proposals and operational projects for the constitution of the international police (European civil peace corps), with professional training for peace operators and mediators, who could have intervened preventively in the Donbass crisis, and which today could be a real force of de-escalation and field intervention. Instead of further increasing the military budgets of individual states, as decided at Versailles, those funds should be used to lay the foundations today for the European defense of tomorrow, creating the international police that is still missing. Is unilateral disarmament a pious illusion? I have no certainties, nonviolence has many ifs and many buts.

However, I know that two historical anti-fascists, who participated in the Resistance, such as Aldo Capitini and Carlo Cassola, came to this political choice and made it the mission of their lives and I think of the nonviolent pacifism of our mutual friend Alex Langer ("A movement for the peace that was made mainly of condemnation of certain military aggressions, but from which no concrete effect derives, would not have great credibility. I am convinced that today the research and development sector of nonviolence must take great steps forward "). And I also know that when Mikhail Gorbachev took the first step of unilateral disarmament it came, for the first time in history, to the 1987 Treaty which dismantled 2,700 Russian and American nuclear missiles, putting an end to the Cold War. Perhaps this is the right way. Between enlisting for war or preaching surrender, there is the third way of active nonviolence.