Russia

The Italian historical sample

Where is Italy and where is Russia?

Worlds apart.

If you glance at the map of present-day Europe, you’ll see a number of countries separating Italy from Russia. They include (travelling from Italy to Russia) Austria, Slovakia, and Ukraine or (taking a more northerly route) Austria, Czechia, Poland, and Belarus, or (taking a more southerly route) Slovenia, Hungary, and Ukraine. Quite a journey. What bone to pick can Italy and Russia have? What cause of conflict could there ever have been between Rome and Moscow?

And yet, within less than a century and a half, Italian troops fought against Russian troops, and there were many Italian casualties, many corpses covering Russian soil, and many cripples coming back to Italy.

Italy has sent its troops against Russia three times. First, during the time of Napoleonic wars. Some readers may tend to think that when Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Russia (1812), he led the French troops alone. No. He led almost the whole of Europe against the tsar, and those troops included lots of Italians. The men accustomed to Italy’s warm climate suffered frostbite and death somewhere between Moscow and Smolensk.

Then came the Crimean War of 1853-1856. It was the second time that Italy (to be precise, the Kingdom of Sardinia-Piedmont) sent its troops against Russia. That was how the Italians most likely wanted to liberate their country from… well, from what?

Then came the war of the Third Reich against the Soviet Union of 1941-1945. It was the third time that Italy sent its troops against Russia to support Germany. Again, Italian troopers experienced frostbite and death, far away on the Volga.

Three consecutive times Italians (or rather their governments) let Italian blood flow copiously far, far away from their home country for God knows what purpose.

Since Napoleon and Hitler lost the war to Russians, neither could Italians gain anything from their participation in them. While the Crimean War was successful for the Anglo-French coalition, Italians as their allies, could gain something from it. Italy’s international stance somewhat increased. Also, Italy’s alliance with France led to a later Franco-Italian war against Austria (1859), the country that stood in the way of Italian unification. Ok, that was a gain, but still the question rankles the mind: why fight against Russia when Austria happens to be your opponent?

Strange are the intricacies of history, are they not?

Italy’s historical experience shows that twice the blood sacrifice was made in vain, once it brought some dividend: the unification of Italy brought about by the victorious war of the Franco-Italian coalition against Austria, the main hindrance to the said unification. France’s help was earned by Italy’s participation in the Crimean War, where France had its vested interests.

What hopes of gain do the European countries cherish while getting involved (again and again across the recent centuries) in the conflict against Russia? What “Austria” do they have in their crosshairs? Whose alliance and consequently whose political and military aid do they want to earn?

Cat turned mouse

Three weeks into the war and it has emerged that the predatory cat – the United States (and Israel) – has turned into the mouse, while the mouse – Iran – has become the cat. What a turn of events! The United States has stepped into a quagmire and now has difficulties extricating itself from it. Is this the beginning of the end of the global superpower?

It was in 1979 that the Soviet Union deployed its troops to Afghanistan. The Western world condemned the action. The Soviets stayed in Afghanistan for a decade and then withdrew. They withdrew on the eve of the collapse of the first state of the workers and the peasants.

The same seems to be happening to the United States. Its troops have not put their boots on the ground as yet, but its air force and its missiles are operating against Iran, while Iran is striking back, and striking back successfully. Targets are hit not only in Israel but also in all the Persian Gulf countries that have American military bases. The leaders of those countries must have nurtured hopes of security once they had invited American soldiers on their soil, now they must regret it. It is also a signal to other countries having American bases: a warning to Poland, Romania, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Italy. Safe are they not.

In an attempt to save face, the American president has recently talked about negotiations with the Iranian leadership. The problem is that Iran denies ever taking part in any negotiations. President Donald Trump has issued a forty-eight-hour ultimatum, threatening that if the Strait of Hormuz was not made accessible to vessels from around the world, American troops would destroy Iranian power plants. The forty-eight hours did not elapse and the American president extended the period by a further five days. He is losing face. Worse, the American president is divorced from reality. And still worse, the American president has unleashed a war on purely ideological or religious grounds of ‘destroying the enemies of Israel, God’s chosen people.’ Wasn’t it the same in the case of the Soviet Union, whose military intervention in Afghanistan was dictated by the ideological urge to come to the aid of Afghan communists? Afghanistan did not threaten the Soviet Union at that time, nor is Iran a threat to the United States nowadays.

Tehran has become self-confident and daring. It is not waiting for the Americans and the Israelis to propose a ceasefire. Rather, Tehran has laid down conditions, and these are conditions of a victor:

[1] the US must withdraw from the region its military units,

[2] the US must unilaterally put an end to the hostilities,

[3] the US must pay Iran compensation for all the material damage and loss of human life.

One might say, it is Tehran that has issued an ultimatum rather than the United States.

It is not merely that Iran seems to be gaining the upper hand: almost the whole world is on Iran’s side. Why? Because the whole world saw that the United States and Israel attacked Iran unprovoked, during the negotiations; because the whole world perceives the hostilities as a war of aggression on the part of the United States and Israel; because the whole world has had enough of American bullying, of American policing.

Iranians have surprised the world with the missiles that they have at their disposal. Some of them develop speeds of more than 10 Mach. Some of them have a reach of 4000 km (Iranians attempted to hit the American base on Diego Garcia Island on the Indian Ocean). Iran has decentralized its command centre; Iran has learnt to strike back asymmetrically. Iran is militarily supported by Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in the Gaza Strip, and the Houthis in Yemen. Iran is also backed up by Russia and China, both of which supply it with satellite data.

What if? What if the United States will be compelled to admit its defeat? Will it be another Vietnam or worse for America? The image of a superpower will have vanished in thin air. The Gulf states might as well demand that Washington withdraw its troops from their territory. Why should they have them on their soil? To further expose themselves to attacks? Iran – in league with China – might begin the sale of its oil and gas in return for the Chinese currency. That might lead to the end of the petrodollar. And if the dollar stops being in demand worldwide, the United States will spiral into a position of a country that will have difficulties solving its financial problems. Without the dollar as the international currency all American economic might will shrink. Till now, for decades nations would have bought dollars – i.e. sold goods and services – to stock them and to have currency for purchasing oil. Once this scheme comes to an end, America will cease to be flooded by foreign goods and services: America will be compelled to manufacture things on its own. Due to the outsourcing, there are not so many factories, engineers and skilled workers in the world’s most admired democracy. Rebuilding will take time…

The war against Iran was to be a walkover. The United States has already handled, in one way or another, Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Venezuela. Americans thought that Iran was to be yet another intervention of the same small calibre. How wrong they were!

When you drink alcohol, you feel good after the first couple of drams. Then slowly but surely the substance begins to impede your speech and motor activity. Eventually one of the drams becomes one too many. They say proverbially: one over the eighth. Was the attack on Iran – after Venezuela, Libya, Syria – one over the eighth?

Roman-Parthian Wars – a Repeat

The Roman-Parthian Wars were a series of wars that took place between the years 54 BC and 217 AD. The Parthian Empire covered a large area, among others of today’s Iran and Iraq. Sometimes the Romans were victorious, sometimes the Parthians. It was a clash of civilisations, a clash between occidental Rome and oriental Parthia. Today’s war between the United States and Iran appears to be a continuation of that old conflict that extended over centuries. The United States is a descendant of ancient Rome. The names of state institutions like Senate, the names of certain buildings like the Capital, the architectural style – all testify to it. Also, the English language whose vocabulary is almost 80% ultimately of Latin origin (including such common words like money, tender, nice, car, train, pay, peace, pound, face, battle, soldier, navy, missile, message, digital, computer, autumn, dinner, office…) shows in no uncertain terms (with the two last words also being of Latin origin) that the American-Iranian hostilities are a prolongation of that ancient feud.

The American-Israeli Operation Epic Fury, which began on 28 of February 2026 with a launch of 900 strikes within the first 24 hours marked the beginning of something that we do not yet know how it will develop. The United States had hoped for a quick and spectacular victory, a victory guaranteed by the decapitation operation in which Iran’s highest religious leader Ali Khamenei (and his daughter, and his son-in-law, and his granddaughter) was killed. But Iran rather than surrender has struck back and has struck back successfully. Sure, the Persian state cannot stand up to the American might in an old-fashioned duel. It can, however, bite back where it hurts most, and compel Washington to reconsider its policy. Iran is smaller than the United States, both in terms of population and territory, but – as unforgettable Aesop wrote in many of his fables – even a mouse can have its revenge on a lion.

So, Iran struck where it is most painful: Iran struck at the oil refineries, and effectively blocked the Straight of Hormuz. The Strait of Hormuz is the world’s most important choke point through which more than 20% of the global oil trade passes. The incapacitation of oil supply translates into higher prices of anything that is connected with oil, which in turn triggers a chain reaction of price rises, which is actually happening around the globe.

Washington appears to be surprised by Iranian resilience and Iranian defiance. The Americans had hoped for Iran to capitulate within days. Washington had hoped for a repeat of the 12-day war that took place in June last year. Nothing like that is anywhere in sight. Iran is launching missiles against American and non-American targets in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar, Jordania, and Israel. The targets are American military bases and the important infrastructure of those countries which host American bases. The oil refinery in Haifa, Israel, that is said to be hit processed 40% of Israel’s oil.

Two facts testify to America’s miscalculation and America’s second thoughts. First, Americans – Americans! – have proposed to Iran a ceasefire through a third party; second, President Donald Trump has called President Vladimir Putin to talk about… the war against Iran. What they discussed is not known: we can only guess that Washington is looking for off-ramps from the conflict.

Now, Iran seems to be to the United States what Ukraine has been to Russia for the last four years. For years the West has been sending munitions of war to Kiev; now it is Russia which is sending munitions of war to Tehran. The deal about selling Iran the advanced Russian S-400 antiaircraft and anti-missile complex has just sent shockwaves around the globe. The United States is about to taste its own medicine.

It is popular in the West to assume or even believe that Iranian people are against the religious ‘regime’ as the Western journalists are used to saying. Let us assume that it is true. If so, then the savage attack on Iran and the murder of 170 girls by the American Tomahawk missile compelled Iranians of all political persuasions to rally around the same ‘regime’. A historical repeat, again, just like it was in the thirties of the previous century in the Soviet Union. At that time there were many Soviet citizens who hated the Stalinist regime till… till the same regime was brutally attacked by the armies of the Third Reich. Precisely the same phenomenon was triggered in the Soviet Union which has been just triggered in Iran: those people who disliked communism and communist regime rallied around the communists and their leader.

The current Roman-Parthian war is going on. It is not merely a war between present-day Rome and the present-day Parthian Empire; rather, it is a war whose economic and political repercussions afflict the whole globe. India, China, South Korea, and Japan – they all depended very much on the oil supplies from the Persian Gulf. The said countries may wish to remain neutral in the ongoing hostilities, but if push comes to shove, if their economies become strangled by inadequate supplies, they may reconsider their policies and exert pressure on the participants. When Romans and Parthians fought against each other, either side would have looked for allies. Much the same is true of the present conflict. The American-Israeli alliance is facing the solidification of the political, economic, and military cooperation between Russia, Iran, and China. How long will the other countries watch from the sidelines?

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Gone are the days when the world watched, with bated breath, the many talks between the United States and the Soviet Union on reduction and control of nuclear arms development. Gone are the headlines announcing the beginning, continuation and completion of the SALT or START talks. The world has changed.

Now it is the United States – as before – Russia – a replacement for the Soviet Union – and… China! When the SALT and START talks were conducted, no one paid any attention to the Middle Kingdom. Now China is a power to reckon with, not merely economically but also militarily. China is estimated to have some 350 strategic missile launching pads as opposed to some 480 American. That’s hard on America’s heels. Now what negotiations on nuclear arms control and arms limitation can be conducted between the United States and the Russian Federation without taking into the equation the Middle Kingdom?

The problem is that Moscow says it has nothing to do with China: China is not Russia’s military ally, though Washington perceives it as such. Contrarily, Russia views France and the United Kingdom as America’s closest allies, and rightly so: all the three countries belong to NATO. Hence, Russia’s demand that both France and Great Britain be included in the talks is legitimate.

On the other hand, Washington is legitimately concerned about China: under the current circumstances Beijing can certainly be viewed as Russia’s ally rather than that of America. (Just to think of it: China’s might have been created by the United States of which we’ll make a reminder later in the text.) Neither does the Middle Kingdom want to be included in the trilateral talks with the Russian Federation: why should it? It is an independent power – superpower – and it can act at the negotiating table on its own. So much so that Beijing has something to win from Washington: ok, the Chinese may say, we could reduce our military development if you lift the sanctions on China and the countries that wish to trade with the Middle Kingdom. How about that? Nuclear might is always a fine bargaining chip, is it not?

It is even true of tiny North Korea as well: not that North Korea is so powerful as to be considered for joint talks. No. But Korean nuclear potential is a sufficient deterrent even for such a superpower as the United States. And there is something more to the nuclear potential: it is the determination of the Korean leadership to actually use the missiles if push comes to shove. It is not Venezuela, whose president can be adducted in broad daylight without the perpetrator of the abduction fearing any retaliation, but we are digressing.

The balance of forces has changed since the year in which the Soviet Union disintegrated. For maybe as many as two decades the United States dominated the globe and felt so self-assured that Washington began to dictate to the whole globe. This, however, has changed. Russia has reasserted herself while China has risen to the status of a(n almost) superpower.

Which by the way is good for humanity. One superpower with no rival to fear would soon become corrupted and degenerated. All the other countries would have felt intimidated with no alternative anywhere in sight. Fortunately, a world emerges where there are three or maybe four (if we include India) big players, which allows for the smaller entities to have a political alternative, and which keeps each superpower in check.

A new arrangement needs to be made – no one power wants the prospect of a nuclear shootout. Talks are not going to be easy, because it is now three big entities, not two.

Political persistent rumour has it that Adolf Hitler was the creation of the Western elites who wished to rebuild Germany and direct its power against the Bolshevik Soviet Union. That is why London and Paris did not react when Germany began to arm itself, when Germany incorporated Austria and annexed Czechia; that explains why they did not react when Poland was attacked. The Western elites wanted Germany to expand, grow stronger, and come into physical contact with the Soviet Union. Now Adolf Hitler – assuming he was the darling of the Western elites – stopped playing by their script and turned against them when he attacked Denmark and Norway, the Low Countries and eventually France. It came as a shock: he was supposed to attack the Soviet Union!

Isn’t history repeating itself? The Middle Kingdom was supported by the United States for the express purpose to turn it against the Soviet Union. Washington would have rubbed its hands in glee if Beijing and Moscow started a real hot war! Decades have passed and – due to clumsy American policy-making – Moscow was pushed into Beijing’s embrace while Beijing was pushed in Moscow’s. Now they are – though not formally – economic and military allies. But again, the Kremlin may repeat: we have nothing to do with it. Had not Washington acted the way it did, there would have been no war in Ukraine, no sanctions on Russia and China, and consequently no Russo-Chinese cooperation.

The three gunslingers have a hard nut to crack. Certainly, none wants a nuclear exchange, yet each wants to get the upper hand. They are observing each other attentively, not knowing in which direction to level their guns. It reminds one of the cultic cemetery scene from the 1966 The Good, the Bad and the Ugly classic movie. Do you recall it? Good Blondie (Clint Eastwood), bad Angel Eyes (Lee Van Cleef), and ugly Tuco (Eli Wallach) are facing each other – graves and crosses around them, their hands over their holsters, their eyes darting from face to face, their minds calculating. That’s the United States, that’s the Russian Federation, and that’s the People’s Republic of China facing each other (who is the good, the bad or the ugly is a matter of your political persuasion). In the graveyard scene only one emerges victorious. How will things play out in political reality at beginning of the 21 century?

800 000 troops at Russia’s underbelly

The American peace proposals have been countered by the proposals drafted by the European Union. The European Union has frantically elaborated its own vision of the peace process because the American points are not much to the commissioners’ liking, and because – and that is utterly important – the European Union desperately seeks to become politically relevant. As it is, the war is going to be brought to an end through negotiations conducted by the Russian Federation and the United States – the only protagonists on the world’s political stage. Neither Ukraine nor the EU matters. Ukraine has been objectified, while the European Union – sidelined.

The EU’s attempt to regain political traction reminds one of France’s attempts towards the end of the Second World War to play the war game on a par with the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Soviet Union. And, indeed, France managed to restore at least a semblance of its political relevance. The allies allowed Paris to be present at the ceremony of accepting the German surrender and to have its own occupational zone in Germany. It was – as said above – only due to the political generosity of the victorious powers that France was recognized as one of the winning parties because in reality France had been routed and occupied for a couple of years and – what follows – without the intervention of the Americans (and the British) France would not have liberated itself, on its own. No wonder then that when Marshal Keitel saw the French delegation attending the act of capitulation he could not restrain himself from remarking, ‘They, too, have defeated us?’

Today, it is not France alone but the entirety of the European Union plus Great Britain. In particular Germany, France, and the United Kingdom want to take a seat at the negotiating table and put forward their own proposals. They want to leave their mark on the peace process. And again, it depends on the United States of America and maybe also on the Russian Federation whether the EU will be admitted to the inner circle of world politics.

The counterpoints drafted by Brussels at times converge with those authored by Washington, and at times they diverge. Of the 28 points, Point 6 is quite peculiar. It states: ‘Size of Ukraine military to be capped at 800,000 in peacetime.’

800 000 troops at peacetime! That’s more than the standing armies of France (200 000), Germany (180 000), and the United Kingdom (140 000) combined! That’s more than twice as many troops as Turkey has (350 000). Consider that the Turkish armed forces are the second most numerous in NATO. And consider that Turkey’s standing army of 350 000 is sustained by Turkey’s population of 85 million, while Ukraine’s ‘capped’ military of 800 000 would have to be supported by 30 million, maybe even fewer people! If you add to it the devastation of Ukraine and the million or so of Ukrainian young men who have been killed or maimed, you begin to wonder how such an army could ever be raised in the first place.

The enormity of the size of Ukraine’s armed forces is one thing. The other is: why should Ukraine have such a huge standing army even if its maintenance were feasible? This question will surely be answered by Brussels along the lines of ‘making Ukraine capable of defending itself against the Russian aggressor,’ but is this explanation plausible? After all, at present, the Ukrainian army numbers maybe more than the said 800 000, and – as can be seen – it cannot withstand the Russian steady offensive. Why should it be capable of withstanding a similar offensive in the future?

Or maybe what the European Union covertly seeks is to keep using Ukraine as a permanent battering ram against Russia. in such a scenario the negotiated peace is going to be a mere ceasefire.

The proposal allowing Ukraine to have such a large army also runs counter to one of the two aims of the Special Military Operation, which is (apart from denazification) – demilitarization. How can Brussels expect Moscow to even consider Point 6? How could President Vladimir Putin or anybody in his place agree to having such an army at Russia’s underbelly after four years of war, after all the sacrifice and effort? Do Brussels politicians believe in the acceptability of this proposal? If they do, then their sanity is questionable. If we assume that their sanity remains all right, then we must come to the conclusion that this point alone serves the purpose of torpedoing the whole peace process, for a 800 000-men-strong army on Russia’s doorstep is a non-starter for Moscow.

Stated goals – genuine goals

Among the twenty-eight points of the peace proposal that has been drafted by the Americans is one that – if agreed upon – promises amnesty to all the participants of the conflict in Ukraine. This point reveals a huge lot.

For a long time now we’ve been fed the narrative that it was the Russian soldiers who were cruel and inhumane. Stories were spun and, indeed, pictures shown in the media about the atrocities committed by the Russians on Ukrainians. Do you still remember the notorious Bucha massacre? The intended pun on words – Butchery in Bucha or Butchers from Bucha – and the village carefully and intentionally selected to make the headlines sound alarming?

At the same time we’ve been fed the narrative that Ukrainian soldiers behave themselves gallantly. They are not the ones who commit atrocities, they are not the ones who assault civilians. Such things are only done by those evil Russians.

Let us assume the veracity of such statements. Then, like a bombshell, we can read one of the points of the peace proposals about pardoning the perpetrators of war crimes or other atrocities. If it was the Russians who committed those crimes, then the pardon extends to them and them alone, right? Why does the United States want to spare the Russian ruffians in uniform? Why such magnanimity? Didn’t the collective West – the United States and the European Union – label Russia’s president a killer, didn’t the commissioners want him on trial in the Hague? They wanted to hold accountable no less a figure than Russia’s president: surely they would be much stricter while handling figures of a lesser caliber!

Reading this point of the peace proposal you suddenly learn that atrocities and war crimes are not worth prosecuting. Are the Americans genuinely trying to shield the hated Russian evil-doers? Do the Americans genuinely suggest that justice should not be done? No, certainly not.

As usual, we need to distinguish between stated goals and genuine goals. The stated goal is the amnesty, something enticing for the Russians who are allegedly up to their hilts in blood. The genuine goal is – yes, you guessed it right – to protect the Ukrainian soldiers and the multiple mercenaries fighting on the Ukrainian side who have committed atrocities and downright war crimes. They are to be shielded from justice, they are to be protected, they are to be saved for future conflicts when they will come in handy.

Barely anyone remembers or, indeed, knows about the 2014 Odessa fire, a fire that burnt fifty or so (Russian) men and women alive in the Trade Union House, which was set ablaze by Ukrainian political activists. Still fewer people took notice when Russia’s President Vladimir Putin announced in one of his speeches at the very beginning of the conflict in Ukraine that Moscow knew the identity of the perpetrators of that fire and was about to track them down with the purpose of bringing them to book. Europeans or Americans may not have taken notice of those words; most probably they wouldn’t have heard them, since they only consume the news from the official channels. Yet, the wrongdoers would certainly have heard those words and consequently must have had the fright of their lives. The influential ones, those with connections to the powerful figures in the West, must have used all their influence to extract that kind of guarantee for themselves from their Western overlords.

VIDEOS

...

Global Analysis from the European Perspective. Preparing for the world of tomorrow

Russia

VIDEOS

MORE NEWS

GEFIRA Newsletter
Enter your email address for free newsletter:

Confirm Email:

Russia

VIDEOS

MORE NEWS

GEFIRA

GEFIRA

Subscription