I was amazed to read that the Pentagon, in its military research, had discovered that UFOs may exist after all. I find that reassuring: perhaps at last there might be some logical explanation to understand the tangle of conflicting statements and views that both warring parties in tragedy-stricken Ukraine are putting out on a daily basis.
Because – although one can glimpse a certain strategy in the maze of words – we have never seen such generalized madness on display on the part of those who are governing the world as in this war. It might be the fault of such otherworldly “hackers,” as the Pentagon’s evidence suggests: extraterrestrials who clearly must have taken control of the brains of our rulers.
How otherwise can one make sense of the news that Draghi, in his meeting with Biden, dared to suggest to the American president that he should adopt a line more consonant with the goal of ending the conflict, while at the same time he gave his enthusiastic support to the admission into NATO of two key previously-neutral countries, Sweden and Finland?
Wasn’t the growing encirclement by the Atlantic Alliance the threat invoked by Russia, which drove it towards war? Wasn’t it this prospect that was brought up against those who argued that it was normal to surround Russia ever closer, while the U.S. doesn’t allow a single missile in all of Latin America and Asia that is independent of its influence?
And what if it was a UFO after all that gave Putin the plan for his insane invasion of Ukraine, diplomatically untenable and now militarily as well, given the obvious disarray of Moscow’s armed forces, and also the disproportion between the level of technology of the weapons it possesses compared to the American level of military technology, demonstrated over decades of invasions, of which Putin should have been aware?
It was not difficult at all to get this information in time: Pentagon spokesman John Kirby himself told us, saying that the Biden administration had sent, well before the Russian invasion, a billion dollars worth of lethal weapons to Ukraine. This is also enough to refute those who ventured to make comparisons between those fighting alongside Ukrainian forces and the very poor international brigades who fought in Spain against Franco.
It’s also hard to understand how the Finnish prime minister and her Swedish counterpart can keep up their broad smiles after they’ve been accused by Turkey of being accomplices to terrorism for sheltering Kurdish people, massacred by Ankara since time immemorial.
One searches the faces of our European ministers and commissioners in vain for the smallest sign of embarrassment at Erdogan’s demand to trade his assent to the expansion of NATO for the expulsion of the Kurdish victims who escaped the massacre they are suffering in their own country.
Do they no longer remember that we called the Kurds “our heroes” when they fought against jihad in Rojava in our place, and then against the Ankara-backed Caliphate in Iraqi Kurdistan? No – there is embarrassment-free silence, and even statements saying they will “find a solution” to overcome the problem in the “bilateral relationship” between Turkey and the Scandinavians. Will it be a solution at the Kurds’ expense, then? How exactly is their drama a “bilateral” problem?
These mind-boggling statements can only be understood if one looks at the strategic logic of this war – a shameful one, given that it takes for granted the massacre of civilians, and one which is being covered up by a serious quantity of untruths.
They serve this logic by demonstrating that it’s possible to defeat Russia militarily now that the Kiev army has been supplied with our most modern and lethal weapons. In that logic, one only needs to push a little more to achieve the full capitulation of Putin, who remains at the head of a nuclear power.
In this situation, whose prospects are getting worse day by day, how can one say that a real debate in the Italian Parliament “makes no sense”? How can one entrench oneself behind the answer that there was already a debate in February, back when it was decided – on March 1 – to send our weapons “to the Ukrainian boys to defend themselves.” That was almost three months ago, while day by day the possible outlook of this war has become more and more catastrophic, after the Ramstein summit and the strategy proffered by British Prime Minister Johnson to “strike on Russian soil”?
In Italy, the excuse is that if one were to take into consideration current public opinion polls and the fact that the opposition of many outside parliament has some arguments behind it, a parliamentary showdown could bring down the current Draghi government.
This is true. But it’s worth thinking about the failures that take place when we resort to the “supernatural” virtues – the providential intervention? – of so-called “technocratic” governments.
One uses the word “technocratic” whenever one wants to eliminate politics and to make people believe that those outside of it are the ones who can work miracles. However, experience teaches us that what they come up with are not miracles, but decisions that people try to pass off as “neutral.” And with this supposed neutrality, one tries to hide the fact that without politics, i.e. decisions agreed upon with the whole of society, one is deliberating on behalf of the strongest, those who have the loudest voice just because they are more powerful.
Remember how the conservative counteroffensive began in the early 1970s, after a long period of struggle and mobilization around the world? It began with the Trilateral Commission manifesto, invented by the three powerhouses of the West, Japan, Europe, and the United States, which basically said: there is too much struggle, the system cannot afford it. The economy is too delicate a thing to leave up to politics.
Ever since then, Italy has been the first to toe this line. All in the name of the system.