Once, for example, in Italy, independent historians and journalists had voices contextualizing what was going on in Ukraine so that the origins of the conflict could be better understood.
Sounds like Marco Tarquino, director of the Catholic-inspired newspaper “Avvenire”, who on a popular radio show spoke of the military clashes in Donbas that began in 2014 as the real beginning of the war in Ukraine.
As psychologist and documentary filmmaker Sara Reginella states in the title of her book, “A phantom war in the heart of Europe” is a war that the West completely ignores, with an estimated 14,000 deaths between civilians and civilians. soldiers.
These antecedents, impossible to understand what was going on there today, would also be taken up at the beginning of the Russian occupation by prestigious Italian historians such as Luciano Canfora or the journalist Angelo d’Orsi.
But suddenly NATO’s reason prevailed, and these and other dissenting voices ceased to be heard in the mainstream media of that country, which has always been much richer in ideological debate than ours.
Since then, there is only one version, at least in the West: that the history of this war began with the illegal invasion of Russia by a vengeful and bloodthirsty autocrat.
No one ever spoke again of the warnings of prominent US diplomats such as George Kennan or Henry Kissinger of the dangers of provoking the Russian bear by poking NATO, contrary to what was promised to Moscow.
There was only one person to blame for what had happened, and he was the president of Russia, which many did not know he was not a communist because he had given up even on Lenin, and the innocent Ukrainian people before the despot. who must be defended at all costs.
Because we suddenly forgot that part of the country is Russian, a people that seemed homogeneous to us, the Ukrainians, and we felt emotionally closer to Moscow than that rich Europe that the other part missed so much.
The so-called reference media, both print media and television channels, perfectly fulfilled the task that supposedly corresponded to them and constantly appealed to the senses, infantilizing the public and thereby eliminating critical thinking.
And hiding all this deep in what’s going on in Ukraine is a proxy war between two empires in net decline, one of which, the richest and the previous Cold War winner, not succumbing to losing their hegemony over the old empire. Europe.
Where are the dreams of European strategic autonomy by the founding fathers, Robert Schumans, Jean Monnets and others like them, who are presented as visionaries today?
Are there no politicians on an equal footing with them today who can see that it is not in Europe’s interest to be constantly at war with a huge, resource-rich country that our continent now needs?
Should we not try to lure him rather than harass him, thus contributing to the increasingly urgent opening up of his society, something that, as history has shown in so many other cases, we can in no way achieve based solely on tougher sanctions. dictatorial regimes?
And above all, does anyone wonder if, for example, China would have thought to include Mexico in a hypothetical military alliance, whether the democratic United States would react differently than autocratic Russia did to its neighbor Ukraine?
Even senior US diplomat Jack F. Matlock, an expert on Soviet affairs in the middle of the Cold War and former director of the US National Security Council in the late 1980s, admitted that the US would have prevented it anyway. Cleaner, water!
Source: Informacion
Ben Stock is a business analyst and writer for “Social Bites”. He offers insightful articles on the latest business news and developments, providing readers with a comprehensive understanding of the business world.