Mercoledì, 22 Ottobre 2025
"La libertà innanzi tutto e sopra tutto"
Benedetto Croce «Il Giornale d'Italia» (10 agosto 1943)
Mercoledì, 22 Ottobre 2025
"La libertà innanzi tutto e sopra tutto"
Benedetto Croce «Il Giornale d'Italia» (10 agosto 1943)
19 Aprile 2025
This is indeed a complicated, fast-changing, and extremely dangerous time. More than ever, we need clarity of thought.
I’ve been closely involved in these matters for decades. In 1989, I was an advisor to the Polish government; in 1990 and 1991, to President Gorbachev; from 1991 to 1993, to President Yeltsin; and in 1993–94, to President Kuchma of Ukraine. I’ve followed events in this region from close up for 36 years.
After the Maidan uprising, the new Ukrainian government invited me to Kyiv. I was taken to the Maidan and learned a great deal firsthand. I’ve also been in contact with Russian leadership for over 30 years and know the American political system intimately. To give you an idea: the former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury was my macroeconomics professor 51 years ago—we’ve been close friends for half a century. I know many of these people personally. I emphasize this not out of ego, but to explain that what I’m sharing with you is not ideological or secondhand—it comes from my direct experience.
From my perspective, the crises that have affected Europe—and beyond—must be seen in a broader historical and geopolitical context. These include not only the Ukraine conflict, but also events like the war in Serbia in 1999, the wars in the Middle East (Iraq, Syria), and in Africa (Sudan, Somalia, Libya). To a surprising degree—though this may be controversial to say—these were wars led or directly caused by the United States.
In 1990–91, and especially after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the U.S. adopted the belief that it now ruled the world—that it no longer needed to consider anyone else’s views, red lines, security concerns, international obligations, or even the UN framework.
In 1991, I tried very hard to advocate for financial support for Gorbachev, who I believe was one of the greatest statesmen of our time. I recently read the archived memos from the U.S. National Security Council's discussion of my proposal. They completely dismissed it—laughed it off, in fact. The memo documents even show former Harvard colleagues saying, “We’ll do the bare minimum to prevent disaster, but nothing more. It’s not our responsibility, and not in our interest, to help.”
When the Soviet Union collapsed, this mindset intensified. The prevailing belief in Washington was: We are in charge now. Figures like Cheney, Wolfowitz, and others came to embody this thinking. They believed it was now a U.S.-led world, and they acted accordingly. The goal became to dismantle any remnants of the Soviet Union’s alliances. Countries like Iraq and Syria were next on the list.
For the past 33 years, we’ve been living under this foreign policy approach. And Europe, unfortunately, has paid a heavy price. It’s had no consistent foreign policy of its own—no clear voice, no unity, and no defense of European interests. Only unwavering loyalty to the United States.
There were exceptions—valuable ones. For example, in 2003, during the Iraq War, France and Germany stood up and refused to support the U.S. bypassing the UN Security Council. That war, by the way, was orchestrated with direct involvement from Israeli leaders like Netanyahu, working with U.S. officials such as Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith. This was not a vague alignment of interests—it was a direct collaboration.
That was the last time Europe had a meaningful voice. Since then, and especially after 2008, it has been completely silent on the global stage.
So what happened between 1991 and 2008?
The United States made a strategic decision: NATO would expand eastward—without limit. From Brussels to Vladivostok, the goal was to extend NATO’s reach as far as possible. It was a project aimed at solidifying U.S. global dominance. If you ever played the board game Risk as a child like I did, you’ll understand the mentality: every piece on the board should be under U.S. control. Any place without a U.S. military base is seen as a threat. Even neutrality is considered subversive. To U.S. strategists, if you're not with us, you’re against us—or pretending to be neutral, which is even worse.
This mentality was formalized in 1994, when President Clinton approved NATO’s eastward expansion. But remember: on February 7, 1991, German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher and U.S. Secretary of State James Baker assured Gorbachev that NATO would not move eastward. Genscher gave a public press conference where he clearly stated that NATO would not take advantage of the Warsaw Pact’s dissolution. This was not an informal comment—it was part of the legal and diplomatic negotiations of German reunification, part of the formal process of ending World War II. The agreement was explicit. It is recorded in countless documents. You can look them up in the National Security Archive at George Washington University—search for “What Gorbachev Heard About NATO.” It’s all there. What the U.S. says today about those agreements is, simply put, false.
The 1994 decision to expand NATO—including to Ukraine—was not a spontaneous policy shift. It was a long-term project of the U.S. government. In 1997, Zbigniew Brzezinski published The Grand Chessboard. This was not just an academic exercise—it was a public articulation of U.S. strategic plans. In that book, Brzezinski describes the eastward expansion of both NATO and the European Union as simultaneous, coordinated moves.
He wrote in detail about how Russia would have no choice but to accept this expansion. He argued that Russia had no alternative to aligning with the West—that it would never align with China or Iran, and that its only “vocation” was to be European. He was wrong on all counts.
I knew Brzezinski personally. He was kind, brilliant—and completely mistaken in his forecasts.
This wasn’t just his opinion—it was the consensus among U.S. strategists. And this mindset led us to where we are now: a state of nearly continuous conflict. One of the reasons is that American strategy often ignores one fundamental tool—diplomacy. Instead of speaking with other powers, U.S. strategists assume what the other side will do. They play a game of geopolitical chess where they write all the moves. Unfortunately, real life doesn’t work that way.
This project of expansion continued virtually uninterrupted for 30 years. Ukraine and Georgia were seen as the final pieces on the board.
Why? Because America learned everything it knows from the British.
We’ve become the wannabe British Empire. And what did the British Empire understand? Back in 1853, Lord Palmerston grasped a key geopolitical truth: surround Russia in the Black Sea and deny it access to the Eastern Mediterranean. Fast forward to the 21st century, and what we’re witnessing is essentially an American-led project to achieve exactly that.
The vision was simple: Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, and Georgia would make up the Black Sea littoral—all aligned with the West. This configuration would strip Russia of any significant international status by blocking its access to the Black Sea, effectively reducing it to a mere regional power.
Brzezinski made this perfectly clear. But long before Brzezinski, there was Mackinder, who famously said: Who controls the Heartland controls the world. This idea of geopolitical domination dates back not just decades, but centuries—arguably to Palmerston himself.
Now, I’ve lived through every U.S. administration. I’ve known many presidents and their teams. And truthfully, nothing changed much—from Clinton to Bush, to Obama, to Trump, to Biden. Step by step, perhaps, things even got worse. In my view, Biden has been the worst, partly because he’s not been fully mentally present in recent years—and I say that seriously, not as a sarcastic remark.
The American political system is fundamentally an image-based, media-driven system—a daily PR show. You can have a president who’s barely functioning, yet still in power and even running for reelection. And all it took to derail his campaign was a 90-minute live appearance. Had that moment not happened, he’d likely still be on track for another term—regardless of whether he was napping after 4 p.m.
This is the reality we live in. Nobody wants to say it aloud because it’s considered impolite. But truth is, we don’t speak honestly about almost anything anymore.
The broader geopolitical project that began in the 1990s hasn’t stopped. The 78-day bombing of Belgrade in 1999? Part of the same agenda. Splitting apart countries—when we’re told borders are sacrosanct? Except, of course, in Kosovo, where they suddenly weren’t. That’s the American exception: borders matter, unless we change them.
Sudan? That wasn’t just a local uprising. South Sudan didn’t defeat the north in some spontaneous tribal rebellion. It was a U.S.-backed operation. These kinds of military events require equipment, training, bases, intelligence, and financing—things that don’t come from grassroots movements but from powerful states. I met often in Nairobi with U.S. military officials, senators, and others deeply involved in Sudan’s affairs. It was all part of the unipolar order Washington was trying to build.
NATO’s first wave of expansion began in 1999—Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic. Russia objected, of course, but these countries were still somewhat distant. Then came George W. Bush. After 9/11, President Putin offered full support. And what did the U.S. do? On September 20, 2001, it launched a campaign of seven wars in five years. General Wesley Clark, NATO's former Supreme Allied Commander, spoke publicly about this. He visited the Pentagon and was handed a memo outlining those wars—wars largely aligned with Israeli interests, designed to dismantle old Soviet-aligned states and eliminate support for Hamas and Hezbollah.
Netanyahu’s vision was simple: one state—Israel—and anyone in the way must be removed. Not directly by Israel, but by its powerful friend: the United States. That vision continues to shape U.S. policy to this day. Maybe now the U.S. will “own” Gaza instead of Israel, but the playbook hasn’t changed. This plan dates back at least to 1996, with the Clean Break strategy developed by Netanyahu and his American advisors to kill the two-state solution. Look it up—it’s all online.
These are long-term, strategic projects—not day-to-day politics. It’s not about Clinton vs. Bush vs. Obama. That’s a shallow view. The deeper reality is a persistent geopolitical agenda.
The next wave of NATO enlargement came in 2004—this time adding seven countries: the Baltic states, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, and Slovakia. At this point, Russia was deeply alarmed. It saw this as a fundamental betrayal of the post-Cold War order agreed upon during German reunification. It was a break from cooperation—a declaration that the U.S. believed in a unipolar world, and nothing else.
By 2007, at the Munich Security Conference, President Putin finally said: Enough. Stop. That was his warning. But in 2008, the U.S. pushed even further—pressuring Europe to accept NATO expansion to Ukraine and Georgia.
I remember attending a talk in New York by then-President Saakashvili of Georgia in May 2008. I walked out, called my wife, and said: This man is insane. A month later, war broke out. The U.S. had assured him Georgia would be saved. He even claimed Georgia was “in the center of Europe.” It’s not. And this delusion—encouraged by Western politicians visiting Tbilisi—ended up leading Georgia into disaster.
And let’s not forget the 2008 cable from CIA Director William Burns to Condoleezza Rice: “Nyet means nyet.” Russia had made its position crystal clear. We know this because of Julian Assange, who revealed these memos. Without him, none of this would be known. American citizens are rarely, if ever, told the truth. Neither are Europeans. Nor do your media tell it.
When Viktor Yanukovych was elected in 2010, it was on a platform of neutrality. At the time, Russia had no ambitions to annex Ukrainian territory. I was there. Russia was negotiating a lease for the Sevastopol naval base—25 years, until 2042. There were no plans for Crimea, no interest in the Donbas.
This whole narrative about Putin wanting to rebuild the Russian Empire? It’s childish propaganda. If you follow the real history, year by year, it simply doesn’t hold up. But simplistic stories sell better than complex truths.
The reality is that the U.S. decided Yanukovych had to go. It was a classic regime-change operation—one of about 100 the U.S. has carried out globally. That’s the CIA’s job. It’s how American foreign policy often works: if you don’t like a government, you don’t negotiate. You try to overthrow it—first covertly, then overtly if necessary. And you always blame the other side.
Whoever the opponent is—Saddam, Assad, Putin—they become “Hitler.” That’s the only framework given to the American public. Every two or three years, it’s 1938 Munich all over again. That’s how foreign policy is sold in the U.S.
They're portrayed as evil, implacable foes. That’s the only foreign policy narrative we ever hear from the mass media. And the media repeats it entirely because it’s been completely subordinated to the U.S. government.
In 2014, the United States actively worked to overthrow President Yanukovych. Everyone knows the now-infamous intercepted phone call between Victoria Nuland—my colleague from Columbia University—and the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt. You don’t get better evidence than that. The Russians intercepted the call and posted it online. Listen to it—it's fascinating. I know all these people personally, by the way. And for executing that operation, they were all promoted under the Biden administration. That’s how it works.
When the Maidan uprising began, I was immediately contacted: “Professor Sachs, the new Ukrainian Prime Minister would like to meet you to discuss the economic crisis.” I'm known for that kind of work. So I flew to Kyiv, was taken on a tour of the Maidan, and was told outright that the U.S. paid for the people there. A spontaneous “revolution of dignity”? Please. Where do you think all those media outlets, buses, logistics, and organized participants came from? Are you kidding? This was an orchestrated operation. It’s no secret—except to citizens of Europe and the United States. Everyone else sees it clearly.
Then came the Minsk agreements, especially Minsk II, which was modeled on South Tyrolean autonomy. It proposed autonomy for the Russian-speaking regions in eastern Ukraine and was unanimously supported by the UN Security Council. The U.S. and Ukraine decided it wouldn’t be implemented. Germany and France, the Normandy Format guarantors, let it slide—yet another American-led unipolar maneuver, with Europe once again playing a passive, subsidiary role.
Under Trump, arms deliveries increased. Thousands died from Ukrainian shelling in the Donbas. Minsk II was dead in the water. Then Biden came into office. I know this crowd. I used to be a member of the Democratic Party—until both parties became indistinguishable, especially in their enthusiasm for war. Not a single voice within that establishment spoke for peace. It’s the same in most of your parliaments.
At the end of 2021, Russia made one last attempt to avoid war, proposing two draft security agreements—one for Europe, one for the United States. On December 15, 2021, I had a one-hour call with Jake Sullivan at the White House, pleading: “You can avoid war. Just say NATO won’t expand into Ukraine.” He responded, “NATO won’t expand to Ukraine. Don’t worry about it.”
I said, “Then say it publicly.”
He refused.
“Jake, you’re going to get a war over something you claim won’t even happen.”
He replied, “Don’t worry, Jeff. There will be no war.”
These are not very bright people, frankly. I’ve dealt with them for over 40 years. They talk only to themselves. They don’t practice diplomacy—they play game theory. Non-cooperative game theory, to be precise. That means no negotiations, no dialogue—just unilateral strategy. This is how the Rand Corporation taught it, and this is still the playbook.
In fact, a 2019 Rand paper laid it all out: “How to Extend Russia.” That’s their strategy—annoy Russia, provoke unrest, economic hardship, even regime change. And this is supposed to be your ally?
That phone call with Sullivan was one of the most frustrating conversations I’ve had—standing out in the freezing cold during a ski trip, saying, “Jake, please don’t let this war happen.”
He assured me again: “There will be no war.”
The so-called “open door” NATO policy is one of the stupidest ideas in international relations. NATO reserves the right to expand wherever it wants, without consideration for the concerns of any neighboring country. Imagine if Canada invited China to build a military base in Ontario. Would the U.S. say, “Well, that’s their right”? Of course not—we’d be at war in 10 minutes. But Europe parrots this nonsense and calls it diplomacy. This isn’t even infant-level geopolitics—it’s thoughtless, dangerous behavior.
What was Putin’s actual goal in the war? To force Zelensky to negotiate neutrality for Ukraine. Within seven days of the invasion, that’s exactly what happened. That’s the truth, not the propaganda. It was never about taking over Ukraine—it was about stopping NATO from moving onto Russia’s doorstep.
And it’s crucial to understand the nuclear context: The U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 2002, blowing up the global nuclear arms control architecture. That treaty was essential to preventing first-strike capabilities. Then, starting in 2010, the U.S. installed Aegis missile systems in Poland and Romania. Russia was furious. One of the key issues in the 2021–2022 negotiations was whether the U.S. would place missile systems in Ukraine. And Secretary Blinken told Lavrov in January 2022: “The U.S. reserves the right to deploy missile systems wherever it wants.”
Some ally.
In April 2022, President Zelensky was ready to negotiate. I know the details well—I spoke to all sides. A document had been exchanged, approved by Putin, presented by Lavrov, mediated by Turkey. I flew to Ankara and spoke directly to the mediators. And then—Ukraine walked away. Why? Because the United States told them to. And Boris Johnson flew in to reinforce the message.
If your national security is in the hands of Boris Johnson, God help us all.
They're portrayed as evil, implacable foes. That’s the only foreign policy narrative we ever hear from the mass media. And the media repeats it entirely because it’s been completely subordinated to the U.S. government.
In 2014, the United States actively worked to overthrow President Yanukovych. Everyone knows the now-infamous intercepted phone call between Victoria Nuland—my colleague from Columbia University—and the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt. You don’t get better evidence than that. The Russians intercepted the call and posted it online. Listen to it—it's fascinating. I know all these people personally, by the way. And for executing that operation, they were all promoted under the Biden administration. That’s how it works.
When the Maidan uprising began, I was immediately contacted: “Professor Sachs, the new Ukrainian Prime Minister would like to meet you to discuss the economic crisis.” I'm known for that kind of work. So I flew to Kyiv, was taken on a tour of the Maidan, and was told outright that the U.S. paid for the people there. A spontaneous “revolution of dignity”? Please. Where do you think all those media outlets, buses, logistics, and organized participants came from? Are you kidding? This was an orchestrated operation. It’s no secret—except to citizens of Europe and the United States. Everyone else sees it clearly.
Then came the Minsk agreements, especially Minsk II, which was modeled on South Tyrolean autonomy. It proposed autonomy for the Russian-speaking regions in eastern Ukraine and was unanimously supported by the UN Security Council. The U.S. and Ukraine decided it wouldn’t be implemented. Germany and France, the Normandy Format guarantors, let it slide—yet another American-led unipolar maneuver, with Europe once again playing a passive, subsidiary role.
Under Trump, arms deliveries increased. Thousands died from Ukrainian shelling in the Donbas. Minsk II was dead in the water. Then Biden came into office. I know this crowd. I used to be a member of the Democratic Party—until both parties became indistinguishable, especially in their enthusiasm for war. Not a single voice within that establishment spoke for peace. It’s the same in most of your parliaments.
At the end of 2021, Russia made one last attempt to avoid war, proposing two draft security agreements—one for Europe, one for the United States. On December 15, 2021, I had a one-hour call with Jake Sullivan at the White House, pleading: “You can avoid war. Just say NATO won’t expand into Ukraine.” He responded, “NATO won’t expand to Ukraine. Don’t worry about it.”
I said, “Then say it publicly.”
He refused.
“Jake, you’re going to get a war over something you claim won’t even happen.”
He replied, “Don’t worry, Jeff. There will be no war.”
These are not very bright people, frankly. I’ve dealt with them for over 40 years. They talk only to themselves. They don’t practice diplomacy—they play game theory. Non-cooperative game theory, to be precise. That means no negotiations, no dialogue—just unilateral strategy. This is how the Rand Corporation taught it, and this is still the playbook.
In fact, a 2019 Rand paper laid it all out: “How to Extend Russia.” That’s their strategy—annoy Russia, provoke unrest, economic hardship, even regime change. And this is supposed to be your ally?
That phone call with Sullivan was one of the most frustrating conversations I’ve had—standing out in the freezing cold during a ski trip, saying, “Jake, please don’t let this war happen.”
He assured me again: “There will be no war.”
The so-called “open door” NATO policy is one of the stupidest ideas in international relations. NATO reserves the right to expand wherever it wants, without consideration for the concerns of any neighboring country. Imagine if Canada invited China to build a military base in Ontario. Would the U.S. say, “Well, that’s their right”? Of course not—we’d be at war in 10 minutes. But Europe parrots this nonsense and calls it diplomacy. This isn’t even infant-level geopolitics—it’s thoughtless, dangerous behavior.
What was Putin’s actual goal in the war? To force Zelensky to negotiate neutrality for Ukraine. Within seven days of the invasion, that’s exactly what happened. That’s the truth, not the propaganda. It was never about taking over Ukraine—it was about stopping NATO from moving onto Russia’s doorstep.
And it’s crucial to understand the nuclear context: The U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 2002, blowing up the global nuclear arms control architecture. That treaty was essential to preventing first-strike capabilities. Then, starting in 2010, the U.S. installed Aegis missile systems in Poland and Romania. Russia was furious. One of the key issues in the 2021–2022 negotiations was whether the U.S. would place missile systems in Ukraine. And Secretary Blinken told Lavrov in January 2022: “The U.S. reserves the right to deploy missile systems wherever it wants.”
Some ally.
In April 2022, President Zelensky was ready to negotiate. I know the details well—I spoke to all sides. A document had been exchanged, approved by Putin, presented by Lavrov, mediated by Turkey. I flew to Ankara and spoke directly to the mediators. And then—Ukraine walked away. Why? Because the United States told them to. And Boris Johnson flew in to reinforce the message.
If your national security is in the hands of Boris Johnson, God help us all.
Keith Starmer has proven to be even worse—almost unimaginably so, but true nonetheless. Boris Johnson has openly stated, and you can verify this on official websites, that the real issue at stake is not Ukraine, but Western hegemony. In the spring of 2022, Michael and I met at the Vatican with a group, where we authored a document stating unequivocally that nothing good would come from this war for Ukraine. We urged immediate negotiations, warning that any delay would result in massive casualties, the risk of nuclear escalation, and the likely loss of the war.
In retrospect, I would change only one word of what we wrote. Nothing in that document has proven false. Since then—since the U.S. persuaded negotiators to abandon the peace table—around a million Ukrainians have either died or been gravely wounded. And American senators, as cynical, nasty, and corrupt as one could imagine, have celebrated this as a wise investment. They boast that no Americans are dying—“a perfect proxy war,” they call it. Blumenthal, a senator from my own state, says this publicly. Mitt Romney echoes him. They claim it’s the best money the U.S. has ever spent. No Americans are dying. It’s truly surreal.
Now, to bring us up to the present: this entire project has failed. The strategy was that Russia would fold, that it couldn’t withstand the pressure. Zbigniew Brzezinski articulated this view back in 1997—the idea that America could bluff its way to victory, that Russia wouldn’t really fight or mobilize. Sanctions would cripple them, exclusion from SWIFT would break them, HIMARS and F-16s would overwhelm them. I’ve heard these kinds of pronouncements for decades—more than 50 years—and it's all nonsense, day after day. This is my country’s pattern.
I pleaded with Ukrainian leaders. I have a long history of advising them. I am not anti-Ukrainian—I am firmly pro-Ukrainian. I urged them: protect your lives, your sovereignty, your territory. Embrace neutrality. Don’t listen to the Americans. I reminded them of Henry Kissinger’s famous saying: “To be America’s enemy is dangerous, but to be its friend is fatal.” Let me repeat that for Europe: to be America’s enemy is dangerous, but to be its friend is fatal.
Now, let me briefly address Trump. Trump does not want to be saddled with a losing cause. That is why it is now more likely than not that this war will end—because Trump and President Putin will come to an agreement. It doesn’t matter how much warmongering Europe continues with. The war is ending. So get it out of your system, and tell your colleagues—it’s over. Trump doesn’t want to carry a loser. That’s all. It’s not about high principles; he just doesn’t want to bear the burden of failure.
This development—the current negotiations—is actually the best news for Ukraine, and for Europe. Stock markets have already reacted positively, despite the horrified reactions in some quarters. I’ve tried to engage with European leaders—even though most won’t listen—but I advised them: don’t just travel to Kyiv. Go to Moscow. Talk to your counterparts. Are you kidding? Europe is a continent of 450 million people and a $20 trillion economy. It should be Russia’s primary trading partner. These are natural economic ties.
And by the way, if anyone wants to discuss how the U.S. blew up Nord Stream, I’m happy to explain. The Trump administration, imperialist at its core, operates by the logic that great powers dominate. It acts unilaterally when it can and cuts its losses when it must. That’s how it works. There are multiple war zones in play—including the Middle East. What happens there is uncertain, but again, if Europe had a coherent, independent policy, it could help end that war too. I can explain how.
Conflict with China is also a possibility. So I’m not claiming we’ve entered a new era of peace. But we are clearly in a new kind of political landscape. Europe urgently needs a foreign policy—not just one driven by Russophobia, but a real, pragmatic foreign policy. One that understands Russia’s position, Europe’s own interests, and what the United States truly stands for. One that prevents Europe from becoming a battleground for American ambitions. It’s not unthinkable, for example, that U.S. troops could be deployed in Denmark. That may sound absurd—but I’m not joking, and neither are they.
Europe must have its own foreign policy. Don’t settle for negotiating with Mr. Trump as though he were a rational, stable partner. You know what that’s like—call me if you need reminders. Don’t let American officials run Europe. Appoint European officials. And adopt a European foreign policy. You will be neighbors with Russia for a very long time. You must engage and negotiate with them. There are real security concerns to address, but fearmongering and Russophobia do not serve your security—nor Ukraine’s. They have contributed to more than a million Ukrainian casualties in an idiotic American-led misadventure that Europe not only endorsed, but became the chief cheerleader for. This has solved nothing.
As for the Middle East: U.S. foreign policy has effectively been outsourced to Netanyahu for over 30 years. The Israel lobby controls American politics. I can explain in detail how it works—it’s incredibly dangerous. I only hope Trump doesn’t sacrifice his administration or the Palestinian people at Netanyahu’s behest. Netanyahu is, in my view, a war criminal who has rightly been indicted by the ICC. We must assert the fundamental truth: there will only be peace if a Palestinian state is established on the June 4, 1967 borders, according to international law. That is the sole viable path to peace in the Middle East—and for Europe’s own peace as well.
There is only one obstacle to this outcome: the United States’ veto at the UN Security Council. If Europe truly wants to lead, it must pressure the U.S. to drop its veto. You’re joined by 180 countries around the world. The only opponents of a Palestinian state are the United States, Israel, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Malawi, and Paraguay. That’s it.
This is an area where Europe could exert real influence. Europe has gone silent on the JCPOA and Iran. Netanyahu’s dream is a war between the U.S. and Iran. He hasn’t given up, and it’s not out of the question. That’s because the U.S. no longer has an independent foreign policy—it is driven by Israeli interests. It’s tragic, it’s outrageous, and it could change—perhaps even under Trump, if he chooses to reclaim U.S. foreign policy for America.
Lastly, let me just say this about China: China is not an enemy. China is a success story. That’s why the United States views it as a threat—because China now has a larger economy than the U.S. That’s all there is to it.
Il Giornale d'Italia è anche su Whatsapp. Clicca qui per iscriversi al canale e rimanere sempre aggiornati.
Articoli Recenti
Testata giornalistica registrata - Direttore responsabile Luca Greco - Reg. Trib. di Milano n°40 del 14/05/2020 - © 2025 - Il Giornale d'Italia
