Disasters always cause breaks with the present and the past. And it is by no means guaranteed that the recomposition of a new equilibrium will be possible. It is certain that the previous order will never be restored.
Without disturbing the wars of the twentieth century and the geopolitical upheavals that ensued, it was so with the health emergency. At the beginning of the pandemic, we wanted to believe that it was enough to patiently endure the lockdown because then everything would go well and be as it was before. The refreshment points, the layoffs without limits for everyone, the blocking of layoffs for 500 days had the claim to shelter the existing productive and employment structures, on the assumption that, once the crisis ended, everything would start again as before. The discovery of vaccines and their mass use have made it possible to contain and reduce the impact of the pandemic, but have not prevented the upheaval of the previous equilibrium.
The energy crisis, the lack of raw materials, the difficulties of international trade due to logistical problems, the increase in the cost of commodities and of intermediate inputs, competition in the appropriation of goods and products available even at the level of the food chain, have resulted in obstacles to recovery and have highlighted the need for different industrial and commercial strategies. In particular as regards energy supplies and the use of relocations (can China continue to be the factory of the world?).
The catastrophe of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine did not allow us to verify to what extent the changes produced by the pandemic, on the markets, were either cyclical (and therefore recoverable within a few months) or structural. In this regard, we recall the analyzes of the Bank of Italy and what Mario Draghi said to the Confindustria Assembly last September. «It was therefore inevitable that the reopening was accompanied by a strong acceleration of activity. The challenge for the government – and for the entire production system and the social partners – is to ensure that this recovery is lasting and sustainable. We must avoid the economic risks that hide behind this positive moment ».
The war was not limited only to projecting a problematic situation over a long horizon, but it has profoundly destabilized the international political framework, without yet glimpsing a possible recomposition, not even a temporary one. This is why the narration carried out by the media and talk shows that have paradoxically become the only venues for debate is profoundly wrong. Basically – it is the common vulgate – it would be enough for the war to end and – as in the days of the first wave of covid-19 – everything would go back “to go well”.
Of course, for them, peace must be sought even at the cost of using the Donbass of others. But then the nightmare of the effects of the sanctions would end and the nightmares of going through a winter without adequate gas supplies would be dispelled. We would continue to do business with Putin by maintaining our ecological purity and buying from Russia the energies we refuse to produce or extract (see gas in the Adriatic and oil in Basilicata).
Unfortunately, the reality has changed and nothing will be able to bring it back to its previous structures. Putin has revealed himself to be an enemy who has attacked the West, to which Europe – certainly with all the necessary precautions – can no longer entrust its energy supplies, because Russian gas and oil have turned into a weapon , among the most powerful, in the hands of the Tsar of the Kremlin. And if we are dealing with an enemy (indeed with a war criminal as the organs of international justice will ascertain) who in Ukraine is in difficulty due to the resistance of that population, it is strategically correct – as the United States is doing – to strengthen with sanctions and military assistance the trap Putin has gone into.
Our beautiful souls say in this regard: «but so many Ukrainian civilians will die». They do not take into consideration that many more would die if they were unable to fight. Or should we force them to surrender? With the bombs on Kiev during the UN Secretary General’s peacekeeping mission, Putin has shown that he is not open to any mediation. And the Ukrainian government rightly does not intend to mystify peace by surrender. Then turns the urban legend of a possible use by Putin – if he gets nervous – to nuclear devices.
I do not believe that an atomic war is possible, also because Russia would have everything to lose. But I can’t help but ask a question to those who stir this specter. But if the Kremlin dictator is capable of sparking a nuclear conflict, isn’t that all the more reason to stop him? Or maybe prevent any extreme actions?
Start a new Thread