MESSAGE TO VLADIMIR PUTIN


WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST TO VLADIMIR PUTIN, ASSUMING I COULD TALK TO HIM, WHAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. Franco Puglia

You jumped into big mass with Ukrainian invasion: things have not gone as expected.
The point, now, is how to get out of the mass. Non so easy, nor painless.
Let’s start from the beginning, from the idea which is beyond this war: to unify the slave population, weak, as individual nations, potentially strong if unified.
This concept is not new: it comes from all ancient empire dreams, since thousand of years, with the eaegyptiankingdom, with the Chinese Ming kingdom, ad there after.
Back to Russia, history tells us about the extensive dominations of the Russian kingdom from czar Ivan and the other kings after him, continued with the communist revolution and URSS. After that the disaggregation.

The idea of a slave union is not wrong, in itself, but doesn’t not takes into account the different historical period to take place. Back to Ucraina, for example, it is true that the resident population is Russian like: one might say, however, that the Russian population is ucrainaa like. The languages are non dramatically different, the physical aspect of the people is pretty similar. However they are different.
It happens everywhere, included Italy: one nation, with different people, and which are the differences is hard to say. Being a single nation is a rusultaof the history, not a free choice of the people. This was acceptable, many years ago; not now any more.

What might have led to a good result many years ago is resulting a disaster now days: ucraini people did not welcome Russians into their country: their answer was a strong fight, and it’ woldd be a mistake to imagine this be due to the fascination of Zelensky or to the pressure of Nazi troops. The whole people, with few exceptions, has reacted without being forced to do it. Why?

The reason is that people, now days, all over the world, tend tio disaggregation, rather then to aggregation, and the European Union is a demonstration of this tendency: it’s foundation was aimed to a big union of the European populations, to build a strong Europe.
This resulahas been achieved in a very little part, because the sentiment of the different populations drive them out, rather then into the Union. British people decided to leave ad many political organizations in Europe were willing to follow the same direction, until now.

You stopped all of a sudden this European aim starting the Ukrainian war. All European countries have overcome their divisions, unified by a single aim of defence against the Russian aggression to Ucraina. Also in this case you did not expect such a reaction.
These facts should suggest a conclusion: there is little space for unification of people, nowdayss, and any strategy aimed to unification must adopt different methods to reach the objective. The military option is not the most suitable one, as Ukrainian has shown.

We have to learn observing others, if any, adopting more successful strategies.
One is China. China is a completely different world then Europe or America.
Their old culture is deep-rooted in the Chinese soul and orients all their strategies.
China, nowdayss, does not need to even imagine any military war, unless for defence, and with Taiwan exception where, however, they never tried to make a military strike.
Chinese use a soft approach to set up a strong influence on territories where they have economic interest to pursue.

On the other hand it is not so different from the approach that Russia has followed so far in Europe, leading to becoming the main supplier of energy resources in important countries as Germany and Italy, plus others. And the European aim to Russia was pretty open and favourable, even if a residual non confidence, determined by the recent past, was still there, and the military approach to Ucraina has pushed back this confidence to the URSS period of the so called cool war. We all lost many years of progress on the sole route that makes sense, in perspective, for all of us: the unification of Europe, of a BIG Europe, from the Atlantic sea to the Urals mountains, which are the natural border of the European continent.

Why a big Europe? To counterbalance the big China and India, the asean continent, with a population exceeding by far the whole European population including Russia.
Russia is, by historical reasons, in a difficult geographical condition, covering territories spacing from Europe to Asia, as long as the Bering sea.
If no serious conflict has occurred so far between Russia and China for the northern regions of Asia is mainly due to the climatic conditions of those regions, which are not attractive for leaving, but with the increasing population in the planet, that exceed now 8 billions of humans, even those regions might become attractive for China.

The recent strong alliance between Russia and China is a tactical solution for both parties, but it is a weak liaison, considering the population ratio, one to ten, between Russians and Chinese. It cannot last much long, or Russia will become a slave of China in practical facts.
Even Europe and the USA are considering to get more freedom from the Chinese economical penetration, a soft invasion that has made disappearing many industrial activities in the western countries, producing slow of the internal income and slow down of occupation.

In this scenery, what to do about Ucraina?

This war is a great net loss for Russians and Europeans, not talking of Ucraina that has been much destroyed and needs to be rebuilt, either at Russian or European expenses, or both. At present the sole winner in this game are the USA, which are not touched by the war in their own territory nor they are touched by the energy lack and price. Winner because their economy will receive a great impulse in all activities correlated to the war, being a designer and producers of any king of military stuff. And they have now clients (NATO and not NATO countries) that will spend a lot of many to improve their military stuff as a deterrent against Russia, having become, all of a sudden, the public enemy for much of the world, in terms of number of nations, if not in terms of net population.
This is a defeat for Russia, whatever be the results onto the military ground.

At the best, based on what we can see, Russia could join the land from Rostov to Odessa under its’ control, closing any access to the Black see to Ucraina, and controlling that side of the black sea, face to face with Turkey. A very dangerous face to face, either because Turkey still belongs to NATO, either because they are Turkish and Muslim.
And such a result does it shorten the distance between the present and the initial goal you had in mind? Absolutely not: the opposite. Hence it would be a defeat.

Let’s now divide the Russian interests from your personal interests: in case the result of the war be the one described above, and it is not yet achieved, Russia will keep being isolated from much of the world, with their economy on ground and no measurable advantage from the control of the northern side of the Black Sea, while facing hostile territories at its borders.
You will keep your present power in the Kremlin, keeping on watching your shoulders to avoid being fired by internal opposition. Before or later History will describe Vladimir Putin as the man who turned back the destiny of Russia and Europe, producing the death of several tens of thousand of people, either Russians or ucraini.. You will find your place in the black book of the History, among others.

Or …. Or you overturn the cards on the table. How?

You have to admit that this war has been a mistake. Difficult to say that, now, more difficult or impossible tomorrow. If the conditions of the conflict become worse for Russia, this statement will appear as a public declaration of defeat. Even now it appears as a possibility, but you do not have another chance, in my opinion. It must be done, as soon as possible.
How to turn a defeat into a new perspective of success:

1. Get back to the original aim of the war, that you did not want to name as such, calling it as a “special operation”. It’s time now to explain to winch goal this operation was aimed.

a) to join the two souls of the major eastern Russian territories into a single great nation, from the Baltic to the Black sea, based onto information collected by the Intelligence, reporting that people in Ucraina were oriented to welcome this vision, also based onto the news coming from the south-east part of Ucraina, Don bass, where people were killing each other in absence of any successful undertaking of the Ukrainian government to establish a peaceful condition in the region.

b) to show to the slave territories west of Russia that a new unification of all people belonging to the slave etnia was possible, in view of an overall European unification where the role and political weight of these people become much more important the now, with the prominence of the elder states of Europe, like Germany, France, Spain and Italy.

2. Now the difficult statement: people in Ucraina did not appear to be as described by the Russian Intelligence. As a proof, you asked to the Russian military forces not to send in Ucraina their best professionals, but young soldiers with little experience, to test on ground what military operations are, with the minimum risk.

The result has been dramatic, with so many young Russian lives destroyed. But the boots where on ground, at this point, and the generals did not see any other option that keeping on. In few weeks the scenery has become very far from the one expected, and the initial goal of this operation disappeared, or even worse, produced effects opposite to the objectives.

3. At this point you state your decision to resign, underlining that the final objective of this unfortunate conflict remains valid, but has to be pursued following a different approach. Leave the command to somebody that appears the most welcome from the adverse parties, Ucraina and the others, to negotiate the stop of the conflict, bringing back the Russian troupes to Russia and trying to negotiate the reset of the international cooperation as before the war. After the new course you might keep in diffusing your story telling of the enlarged European unification, tailoring for you a new international role.
I can’t say if this will work, but it’s the only escape I see to safeguard your life and image.

Not doing that brings straight to the hell.

Ing. Franco Puglia

4 April 2022

IL SIBILO DEL SERPENTE RUSSO

Vladimir Putin AVREBBE scatenato questa guerra contro l’Ucraina per DIFENDERE i russi residenti nel Donbass e la Russia stessa dalle mire aggressive dell’Ucraina. Ma QUALI?

1. La NATO, anche ammesso che l’Ucraina potesse entrare a farne parte, è una organizzazione DIFENSIVA, solo per i suoi membri, NON OFFENSIVA, e che non sia tale lo ha dimostrato con questa guerra, tirandosi indietro di fronte alle reiterate richieste di intervento di Zelensky (no fly zone). Inoltre, che interesse può mai avere la Nato ad attaccare la Russia, in chiave meramente offensiva, e non difensiva, visto che gli USA sono ben lontani dal continente europeo ed asiatico e l’Europa ha interessi esclusivamente commerciali, che fioriscono con la cooperazione economica, non con i conflitti?

2. L’Ucraina è un piccolo paese, nei confronti della Russia, sotto ogni aspetto: popolazione, estensione territoriale, armamenti. Per QUALE MOTIVO l’Ucraina dovrebbe desiderare di attaccare la Russia? Se Putin crede questo davvero, dovrebbe anche spiegare per quale motivo l’Ucraina avrebbe un interesse in tal senso, oltre alle possibilità materiali di farlo.

3. Più comprensibile il millantato interesse verso i russofoni del Donbass, se non fosse che, forse, i conflitti locali potrebbero essere stati determinati da provocazioni sotterranee russe nell’area, volte a destabilizzarla. Un conflitto locale tra fazioni, neppure su base etnica, perché non esiste una differenza “etnica” tra russi ed ucraini, ma solo linguistica, non giustifica in alcun caso un intervento militare di questa portata.

Chiunque sia dotato di un minimo di intelligenza comprende bene che le istanze bellicose di Putin sono PRETESTUOSE e si spiegano soltanto in due modi:
– paranoia di gravità psichiatrica
– progetto imperialista territoriale
O entrambe le cose.

Ed informandosi un poco non è difficile scoprire come Putin non abbia mai fatto mistero delle sue ambizioni e della sua visione prospettica di una GRANDE RUSSIA, che recuperi il patrimonio di conquiste territoriali accumulato prima dagli ZAR e consolidato con l’URSS comunista. Una visione delle cose che può anche essere razionale, per quanto fuori dal tempo, sino a quando si limita alla sfera dell’immaginifico, ma che diventa demenziale quando si trasferisce, nel mondo di oggi, sul piano dell’azione militare di riconquista territoriale.

E’ così difficile per i russi capire queste cose e trarne le conseguenze, buttando nella spazzatura questo leader fuori di testa? Il conflitto tra Est ed Ovest nel ‘900 è stato determinato, almeno formalmente, dal comunismo, che ha spaccato il mondo in due blocchi contrapposti. Se il comunismo non si fosse proposto come movimento espansionista, capace quindi di corrompere anche nazioni governate secondo principi diversi, non ci sarebbe stato alcun conflitto. Gli Stati non vivono isolati dal resto del mondo e le relazioni economiche richiedono rapporti fluidi, che le grandi contrapposizioni ideologiche impediscono. Questo stimola la creazione di zone di influenza, per stabilire canali privilegiati e protetti di scambio commerciale. E questo determina anche il conflitto tra i blocchi contrapposti nei territori in cui ciascuno dei contendenti vanta specifici interessi.

Ma adesso? La Russia ha abbandonato il comunismo, pur non abbracciando la democrazia: la competizione economica al di fuori del proprio territorio può svolgersi secondo le regole del commercio mondiale, nel quale non troviamo tutti armati contro tutti per accaparrarsi ogni possibile mercato. Perciò la posizione russa nei mercati al di fuori della Russia che senso ha? La Russia può vendere quel che produce ovunque nel mondo, senza ostacoli, e può comprare ovunque quello che vuole comprare. Che scopo ha appoggiare regimi feroci, come quello di Assad in Siria, quando in condizioni più NORMALI potrebbe avere relazioni con la Siria non diverse da quelle di qualsiasi altro paese?

In verità le logiche che governano la politica internazionale, ancora oggi, sono IRRAZIONALI, perché fondate su modi di relazione economica tra stati che si basano sull’impiego della corruzione e della forza, piuttosto che non su logiche di mercato.
Il mondo è grande ed alla portata di tutti, ma c’è ancora chi persegue la creazione di aree di influenza in cui esercitare il proprio POTERE come tale, al di la dei benefici, o meno, che la popolazione possa ricavarne.

Ing. Franco Puglia

17 marzo 2022