Israel’s strategy: raids in Syria, starvation in Gaza.

 The targeting of the Iranian consular headquarters in Syria and the organization that brought food to the Gaza Strip are two episodes which present similarities that should not be underestimated in the medium-term Israeli strategy. In the war, so called by proxy, between Tel Aviv and Tehran, having struck an Iranian headquarters in foreign territory represents a new level for Israel; one of the main objectives may be to seek an expansion of the conflict that implies greater US involvement in favor of the Israelis, especially after President Biden has distanced himself from the methods practiced in Gaza; Although Washington claimed not to have been warned of the Israeli attack, the Tel Aviv government appears to have used this attack to induce the Iranians to condemn both Israel and the US, in order to force the Americans into forced support against the regime. Iranian. This tactic presents the clear intention of stalling while waiting for the US election results, where a possible affirmation by Trump is seen as more favorable to the Israeli cause, however the risk of an expansion of the conflict is implicit in Tel Aviv's action and this entails further even greater trade problems in the Persian Gulf, for which Israel will, sooner or later, have to account. Not only that, it is conceivable that other actors will be involved, both indirectly and directly, in a widening of the Middle Eastern crisis. It must be remembered that Syria's major ally, in addition to Iran, is Russia, even if in the current situation it is not a direct involvement of Moscow seems possible, an increasingly closer link between Tehran and Russia appears possible, with ever greater collaborations, especially in the armaments sector, with direct effects on other ongoing conflicts. One of the most predictable developments is the increase in the actions of militias close to the Iranians, both against Israel and against American bases in the Middle East. The doubling of the front, in addition to that of Gaza, also the Syrian one, against which Israel will have to measure itself, is functional to the government in office and to its Prime Minister, who does not want elections, which he would certainly lose and which would give rise to judicial proceedings in which is implicated. What is sacrificed, not only to Israeli interests, but to specific partisan political interests is peace in the Middle Eastern region and also in the world, creating the conditions for total instability. If, to keep the USA apprehensive, they did not hesitate to go against international law, striking the error of having struck a non-governmental organization in a third country, albeit an ally of the Iranians, on the Gaza front, it appears equally functional to the interests of Tel Aviv: in fact two other organizations have announced that they will leave the Gaza Strip, due to the situation being too dangerous for their staff; this means the subtraction of large supplies of food from a population already severely affected by the scarcity of food and in precarious health and hygiene conditions. The situation, which is worsened by the absence of non-governmental organisations, affects not only the civilian population but also Hamas, which, in addition to its ever-increasing distance from the inhabitants of Gaza, cannot benefit from international aid; however, this element is only an addition to the normal conduct of Israel, which has undertaken for some time, well before the events of October 7, a policy of managing food resources to be allocated to the Gaza Strip, with clear downward regulatory intentions. In 2012, following a human rights organisation, Tel Aviv was forced to publish its own document from 2008, which set out the calories for people to be given to the inhabitants of the Strip, foods that excluded those deemed non-essential. Despite the forced apologies of the Israeli armed forces, the ways in which the vehicles of the non-governmental organization were hit leave many doubts about the voluntariness of blocking a mission, with the obvious repercussions, which promptly occurred. It is of little use to say that the outcry caused is due to Western victims, in similar ways, which caused more than 30,000 civilian deaths, there were not even any apologies. Civilized countries should sanction Israel for this unpunished conduct.

Trump's legal troubles during the primaries

 The judgment of the Washington Court of Appeal does not consider immunity valid for Trump, for having tried to change the election result, after the outcome that led Biden to be the new US president. The ruling of the court, composed of three judges, arrived unanimously, refuting Trump's defense, which aimed at total immunity from the law, even for acts carried out in cases where his power has been extinguished. This defense, the court refuted, presupposes that the office of US president is equivalent to an absolute sovereign, that is, not subject to any earthly law; furthermore, the defense thesis calls into question the natural recognition of the electoral response and of the separation of powers itself, because it would place the presidential office above the regulations. An aspect to underline is that one of the three judges has a conservative background and was appointed by Trump himself. A fundamental aspect of the ruling is that the US president can be accused of crimes committed during his period in office: this is a very relevant resolution from a legal point of view, because it is the first time it has been adopted in US law and that establishes that immunity belongs to the presidential office and not to the person, so once they have expired, immunity is no longer enjoyed. There are two options for Trump's defense to appeal the ruling of the Washington Court of Appeals: the first would consist in filing the appeal with all the judges of the Washington Circuit, technically defined as "appeal en banc", however this solution appears unlikely , because according to jurists a change in the sentence would be unlikely, or, and this is the second option, the appeal can take place at the Supreme Court, made up of six Republican and three Democratic members. This choice would also have a tactical political value, given that the Supreme Court, for this session, which will end in July, should no longer accept cases, leaving the question pending, a solution preferred by Trump himself; however, it could also be probable that, given the seriousness of the issue, the President of the Court will include the probable appeal in the current session. In any case, both the sentence and the appeal generate doubts about the legal future of Trump, who remains the most likely candidate for the Republican Party in the elections on November 5th, also because there are already two appeals from the former at the Supreme Court president relating to the decisions of the states of Maine and Colorado, which banned Trump's candidacy, again due to the events following his 2020 electoral defeat. A possibility recognized by some jurists is the possible rejection of the decisions of Maine and Colorado, by part of the Supreme Court, but the confirmation of the ruling of the Court of Appeals of Washington, which contains legally relevant arguments against Trump and which could bring him to trial, precisely because his attitude interfered in the process of counting and verifying the votes, a matter completely outside presidential competence: this would represent an attack on the structure of the state; a charge that is difficult to refute. In the meantime, however, Trump's presidential campaign is proceeding triumphantly and the only candidate still present, Nikky Halley, has very little chance of bringing the Republican Party back to its traditional political path and therefore of seriously competing for Trump's presidential candidacy . The legal question arises in a context of profound division and radicalization between the two electorates, where the contending parties have further distanced themselves on all matters, both domestic, economic and international politics. Furthermore, the precedent of the Capitol insurrection identifies Trump supporters, certainly not all, as capable of violent gestures in open conflict with federal laws. On the other hand, postponing the decision on the decisions of the states of Maine and Colorado and on the ruling of the Washington Court of Appeals could raise serious doubts about the real impartiality of the Supreme Court, generating an institutional short circuit capable of paralyzing the country, in a moment where the international situation requires quick decisions. If the result with Trump as candidate is in the balance, perhaps with another Republican candidate a situation could arise that would impose a renewal even among the Democrats, but time is running out, putting the entire Western balance at risk.

If Ukraine falls, Russia could advance towards the countries of the Atlantic Alliance

 The failure of Kiev's counter-advance caused justified alarms about an attack by Moscow on European countries and those belonging to the Atlantic Alliance; according to the Germans, a success in Ukraine could lead the Russians to decide to advance towards a country neighboring Russia: the main suspects are the Baltic countries, but tension is also increasing in Poland. These analyzes are nothing new: the German Ministry of Defense has long developed a forecast of a possible attack on the eastern flank of the Atlantic Alliance, which could take place by 2025. The necessary condition for this forecast to come true is a Russian victory in Ukraine, a strong mobilization is expected in February 2024, capable of bringing 200,000 soldiers to the front, and then launching a spring offensive that will be decisive for the outcome of the conflict in Moscow's favor. If this scenario were to come true, Putin could decide to advance towards adjacent objectives, even if some doubts remain about the real ability to quickly replenish Russian arsenals. Even the possibility of only a partial advance would benefit the Kremlin, because it could convince Kiev to decide to concede something to Russia to avoid the complete loss of the disputed territories, while the European Union could soften its attitude to avoid the arrival of a large number of refugees, capable of destabilizing the fragile internal balance. The use of forms of hybrid warfare such as cyber attacks, towards Brussels and the search for pretexts with the Baltic countries, would complete the Russian action; in particular, Moscow could repeat the tactics operated before the war in Ukraine, when the Russian population in the border areas was incited, which could happen again with the Russians residing in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and also Finland and Poland; this would represent the excuse to carry out joint maneuvers on the borders of these states, also involving the Belarusian army. These dangers are well present in the vision of the Atlantic Alliance, a further factor of concern, with respect to Ukraine, is that, in a potential Russian attack, there is an important geographical variable constituted by the Kaliningrad region, a Russian territory between Poland and Lithuania, without territorial continuity with the motherland. For Moscow, from a strategic point of view the conquest of the so-called Suwalki corridor, which directly connects the Baltic countries to the NATO allies, would be a priority. Deploying troops and short- and medium-range missiles in the Kaliningrad region would allow the Kremlin to launch an offensive, capable of uniting the isolated region with its Belarusian ally. The coincidence of the American presidential elections is considered another factor in Putin's favour: Russia could attack at the time of the election or transfer of power, compromising the reaction times of the major military force of the Atlantic Alliance; even a possible election of Trump is seen as an facilitation for the Russians, which could lead to an American disengagement even within NATO, without the European Union yet being able to support Moscow's attack. On this issue, Brussels' delay is disheartening, the lack of a common army, combined with the lack of common action in foreign policy, leaves the EU disorganized in the face of global emergencies and, furthermore, the continuous division between member states creates a lack of cohesion that is highly detrimental to a common defense project not dependent on the US presence. Speaking of numbers, the forecast is for a deployment of around 70,000 Russian soldiers on Belarusian territory, on the border with the Baltic states by March 2025. The Atlantic Alliance has already foreseen a substantial response to this contingent of around 300,000 men to protect the corridor Lithuanian, to defend the integrity of the Baltic countries, but these are huge numbers, which could reopen the way to compulsory military service, which many states plan to reinstate, precisely to counterbalance the Russian numbers. The phenomenon of war centered on the models of the First and Second World Wars, which seemed overcome by the deployment of super-technological armaments, seems to be able to forcefully return, subverting all predictions. To avoid this scenario it is important to support Ukraine in every way to contain Putin's ambitions and prevent the Third World War.

Iraq, a battleground between the USA and Iran

 Iraq, despite the underestimation of the press, is destined to become a very important front in the Middle Eastern conflict and, specifically, in the confrontation between the USA and Iran. The situation, which the Iraqi authorities defined as a violation of their sovereignty, saw mutual attacks between Washington and Tehran, conducted right on Iraqi soil. Iran cannot tolerate the American military presence on its borders, on Iraqi soil the Ajatollah regime is present with pro-Iranian militias, financed by Tehran, whose presence is considered strategically important, in the context of actions against the West and Israel . Among the tasks of these militias are acts of disturbance against American forces and those of the coalition against the jihadists present on Iraqi soil. Recently these military operations, in reality already underway since October, have hit American bases with drones and rockets, causing injuries to US personnel and damage to the infrastructure of the bases. Even without the Iranian signature, the attacks were easily traced back to Tehran and this aggravated a conflict situation capable of degenerating into a dangerous manner. The USA responded by striking the Hezbollah Brigades, present on Iraqi territory in a region on the border with Syria, causing two victims among the militiamen; however, other victims would have been recorded in Scythian militias, which have become part of the regular Iraqi army. These American retaliations have sparked protests from the Baghdad government, which was elected thanks to the votes of Iraqi Shiites and which fears the reaction of its supporters. The accusation of violation of national sovereignty, if it appears justified against Washington's actions, should also apply against Tehran, as the instigator of the attacks against American installations and, broadening the discussion, also against the Turks, who have carried out actions several times against the Kurds, something also imitated by the Iranians. The reality is that the current situation in Iraq, but also in Syria and Lebanon, by the Israelis, sees a continuous violation of the rules of international law in a series of unofficially declared wars, which escape the practice established by international law . This situation presents the greatest risk of an extension of the Middle Eastern conflict, capable of provoking the explosion of a declared war, as a subsequent factor to these, unfortunately increasingly frequent, episodes of low intensity conflicts. Leaving Iraq out of a conflict appears crucial to avoiding a world conflict; the geographical position of the country, between the two major opposing Islamic powers, would lead to a direct confrontation, which would have as its first consequence the direct involvement of the United States and the possibility , for Tehran, to bring its missile bases closer to Israel. One of the major protagonists to avoid this dangerous drift is the Iraqi Prime Minister Mohamed Chia al-Soudani, who, despite enjoying the support of the Shiite electorate, needs to preserve ties between Baghdad and Washington. In reality, these ties, in the intentions of the Iraqi prime minister, should only be of a diplomatic nature, since regarding the presence of the international military coalition, the head of the executive has repeatedly underlined its withdrawal to favor the conditions of stability and security in Iraq. However, the issue is difficult to resolve: with the presence of financed and trained militias in the country, Iraq risks losing its independence, guaranteed precisely by the presence of Western forces; if the Iraqi country fell into the hands of Tehran it would be a major problem of a geopolitical nature for Washington, which must necessarily maintain its presence on Iraqi soil, a fact strengthened by the issue of Gaza, which provoked the actions of the Houthis and the self-proclamation by part of Tehran as defender of the Palestinians, despite the religious difference. Baghdad thus became an indirect victim of the situation that was created in Gaza, after having gone through the entire phase of the presence of the Islamic State, which is still present in certain areas. To defuse this risk, a diplomatic effort would be needed from the most responsible party of those involved: the USA; this diplomatic effort should be directed, not so much towards Iran, but towards Israel to stop the carnage in Gaza, encourage aid to the population, also with the use of UN peacekeepers and accelerate the solution, even unilaterally of the two states, the only one capable of stopping international escalation and eliminating any excuse for creating the conditions for regional instability.

Trump increasingly favored, even without the consent of moderate Republicans

 Trump's most accredited opponent, Republican Ron DeSantis, governor of the state of Florida, has officially withdrawn from the nomination race to participate in the US presidential election. After the Republican elections in Iowa, where he received little support, the polls for the vote in New Hampshire gave him only a percentage of 5.2 and this led to his withdrawal; DeSantis has announced that his support will therefore go to Trump. DeSantis, who some saw as capable of countering Trump in the race to be nominated as Biden's challenger, comes from similar political positions to Trump and identifies with the new course that is dominating in the Republican Party, influenced by the ideas of the Tea Party and, for this reason , assures his support for the former president, in open contrast with the candidacy of Nikky Halley, which he considers too moderate and representative of the old approach of the Republicans. DeSantis had earned a certain credit, thanks to his election as governor of Florida, against the candidates indicated by Trump, however the defeat, distanced by about 30 percentage points in Iowa, demonstrated that Republican voters perceived him as a copy of Trump, precisely for very similar positions on issues such as immigration and abortion. The loss of support, after the polls distanced him by only 10 points from Trump, began with the defense of the former president from criminal charges, thus causing him to lose the support of more moderate voters. Although formally DeSantis had already given up on the New Hampshire primaries, to concentrate on those of South Carolina, the distance of around 55 percentage points recorded in the polls led to the decision to withdraw, also to take up his position as governor of the United States full time. Florida. DeSantis is the third candidate to withdraw from the Republican contest, thus determining a two-way contest between Trump, increasingly favored, and Nikky Halley, former governor of South Carolina and US ambassador to the United Nations. Nikky Halley's electoral strategy is to collect the votes of the more moderate Republicans, who do not recognize themselves in Trump's histrionic way of governing and are against his extremist positions marked by little respect for federal laws. The chaos created by Trump's judicial affairs does not find favor with the more traditional Republican voters, who would prefer a more measured and more reliable character, however the audience conquered by Trump appears broader because it cuts across the classic Republican electorate, capable of gaining consensus in the more diverse classes and also by the poorest voters. Despite these analyses, Nikky Halley tries to present herself as a sort of generational change, thanks to her age, 51 years and a substantial political experience. However, a clear victory by Trump in New Hampshire could take away any ambition from his challenger, significantly reducing his chances of reaching the nomination. This story demonstrates how what was once the dominant political class of the Republican Party has not yet recovered its positions and, on the contrary, is almost passively assisting the transformation of the party, which began with the Tea Party, up to a personalistic political formation of Trump himself and, essentially, his hostage. If this sociopolitical analysis is valid Nikky Halley has little chance of winning, precisely because he is too close to the demands of a part of the party that appears to be a minority. For the USA and the world, this is not good news because it highlights the continuation of the trend of radicalization of the Republican Party, despite Trump's defeat in the last elections and his judicial troubles. After four years, the lack of political and generational change, excluding the figure of Halley, demonstrates how the party is hostage to Trump and this causes concern at an international level. From the point of view of the Democratic Party, perhaps a Trump candidacy may be worthwhile, because it will lead to the mobilization of the electorate not accustomed to going to the polls, who would vote for any candidate to avoid Trump's repeat in the White House; from this perspective, a success, even if difficult, for Halley could favor her in the run for the office of president, precisely because she is a more moderate element than her. Both solutions, Biden or Halley, would certainly be appreciated by the majority of the international scene, which fears with Trump an upheaval of Western balances.

Netanyahu's dangerous strategy

 The statement by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, who said he was against the formation of a Palestinian state after the end of the war, expressed so explicitly, further clarifies the Israeli government's strategy on the real intention of expansion on the territories left to the Palestinians . Evidently the reassurances that its inhabitants will remain in Gaza, even if decimated, have only been formal; the real risk is that these intentions also concern the West Bank. Netanyahu continues to affirm that the war will still be very long, but it is evidently a wait-and-see tactic, awaiting the outcome of the next American consultations: in fact, a victory for Trump would favor the executive in power in Tel Aviv and would keep the troubles at bay judicial of the Israeli prime minister. The prospect, however, includes a permanent state of war, with the risk of spreading more seriously on multiple fronts and involving more actors, as already happens, but in a more massive manner. This attitude has attracted deep criticism from the USA, according to Biden the Israeli situation can only be normalized with the creation of a Palestinian state, an argument also supported by the Arab states, with Saudi Arabia having placed this condition for the recognition of the state of Israel ; but even just the proposal for a ceasefire was rejected by the Tel Aviv executive, on the grounds that it would represent a demonstration of weakness towards terrorists. Within the rejection of the creation of a Palestinian state, there is also the refusal to give control of Gaza to the Palestinian National Authority. With these premises, however, some questions are legitimate. The first is that the presidential elections in the USA will be held next November: until then, with Biden in office, the distance between Tel Aviv and Washington risks becoming increasingly accentuated and the risk for Netanyahu is to see American support reduce, an eventuality that has never happened in the history of relations between the two countries, which could weaken the leadership in the country and also the military capacity; certainly Biden must carefully calculate how far he can go, so as not to make decisions that have repercussions on his electoral consensus, but the prospect of Israel's weakening on the international level appears very real. The war in Gaza has caused an expansion of the concrete conflict, which has been able to involve other actors, so much so that the regional conflict situation is now an established fact. The question concerns Israel's responsibility for the reaction to the events of October 7, in relation to the international sphere. The situation that was created with the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea, which caused serious economic damage to international trade, the blatant intervention of Iran, with mutual threats with Israel and the Hezbollah issue, which caused the involvement of Lebanon and Syria, clearly outlined a situation that was serious, but still at a contained level. The worsening has led and will lead to the involvement of actors not yet directly present on the Middle Eastern scene, with an increase in the presence of armaments and military actions, such as to make the situation highly unstable. An accident is not only possible but also highly probable and this could trigger a conflict, no longer through a third party, but with the direct involvement, for example of Israel against Iran; this eventuality appears closer than ever and explicit threats do not help to favor a diplomatic solution. The central question is whether the West and even the whole world can allow a nation to exist with a person of Netanyahu's type in power, certainly Israel is sovereign within itself, but it has not been able to resolve the judicial situation of a man who remains in power with unscrupulous tactics, which indifferently use the ultra-nationalist far right, wait-and-see tactics, false promises and violent conduct, closer to the terrorist association it wants to fight, rather than that of a democratic state. Israeli public opinion seems to be dominated by this character and the few voices of dissent are not enough to stop this trend. Even though it is legitimate to fight Hamas, the ways are not the right ones, over twenty thousand victims are too high a toll, which hides the intention of an annexation of Gaza, as a new land for the settlers; this scenario would have catastrophic effects, which only international pressure, even with the use of sanctions, and diplomatic activity can avoid. Also because once Gaza has been taken, the passage to the West Bank would only be a consequence, just as total war would be a logical consequence.

The European Union opens to Ukraine and Moldova

 With a negotiation, which could be defined as alternative, Orban's Hungary, opting for constructive abstention, as it has been imaginatively defined, allowed the European Council to proceed with the opening of negotiations for accession to the Union of Moldova and Ukraine. After repeated threats, the Hungarian president absented himself from the vote, with an unprecedented procedural innovation, which made it possible to achieve the result approved by twenty-six European countries, which also includes the start of Georgia's candidacy and the postponement of the evaluation to March of the accession process of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Orban, the only European leader to meet Putin since the beginning of the Ukrainian conflict, has always said he is against the start of Kiev's accession process, arguing that it does not meet the conditions for joining the EU, however, apart from the affinities with the regime of Russian and therefore political, Budapest could fear sharing European resources, which, in fact, financially support the Hungarian country, with the new members, with a consequent decrease in revenue from Brussels. Naturally, Orban's abstention was not free: beyond the threat of a request for funding of 50 billion for the functioning of the Hungarian administration for 2024, President Orban was "satisfied" with the release of 10 billion in funding, which they had been blocked due to the violation of fundamental rights by the Budapest government; rights that will certainly not be restored and this fact will also constitute a further dangerous precedent for the functioning of European politics, which can be overcome, as always, with the end of unanimity voting, a mechanism that needs to be corrected more and more urgently. The approach of the summit was entirely aimed at the result, where, in fact, it was preferred to create dangerous precedents to achieve the set goal, with a political vision, which necessarily had to sacrifice something, but which brought a result that was rightly celebrated. If the process is successful, the political value will certainly be successful, not only for the enlargement of the common European home, but also for the geostrategic containment of Russian ambitions. Nor should the fact of having accepted the ambitions of Georgia be underestimated, which could become a European member without geographical continuity with the other member countries and which could constitute an outpost of the Union capable of attracting other countries in the region. The decision strengthens European credibility and prestige, allowing us to interrupt the diplomatic obfuscation, which Brussels has demonstrated with decisions that are not always too congruent with its principles. President Zelensky averted an indirect victory for Putin, which would have raised Moscow's morale in the event of refusal towards Ukraine. The opening to Kiev means an unequivocal political result on a global level, which compensates, at least in part, for the refusal of the US Congress to release the 60 billion dollars for military aid; moreover, the Ukrainian situation in the conflict with Russia is at a standstill, the front is immobile and the progress that the Kiev government had promised to the West has not been recorded, while the Russian armies seem to be holding on to their positions. The European decision, combined with the consistent promise by some individual European states to provide military aid, can boost Ukrainian morale; Kiev and Moscow's commitment in the coming winter months should be to maintain their positions and prepare for decisive operations when weather conditions improve. In this period, European commitment may also be more incisive in the diplomatic field, despite Putin having declared that Western isolation has not produced major repercussions on the Russian economy and there is no further need to mobilize new military personnel; these declarations must be interpreted partly as justified by the upcoming Russian elections and partly by Moscow's ability to have been able to carve out a dialogue with powers both adverse to the USA, such as Iran, and close to Washington, such as Arabia. Europe, therefore, must know how to play an increasingly autonomous role from the USA, also in preparation for an unfortunate re-election of Trump, of which the admission of Ukraine, Moldova and also Georgia must be read as a process that is part of a plan superior capable of uniting European countries in an increasingly federal and political sense with autonomy in foreign policy and equipped with its own army, capable, that is, of overcoming the financial logic to be able to truly interpret the role of an international subject of primary importance.

What is in Netanyahu's favor?

 The tragic events of October 7, which occurred on Israeli territory on the border with the Gaza Strip, were a preordained plan by Hamas and there is no doubt about this. What we must ask ourselves is the attitude of the Israeli border forces, alerted by its own members and by probable intelligence news, evidently underestimated, with the borders undefended thanks to the decrease in numbers present. Have these warnings really been underestimated or are they part of a plan by the government in office to encourage the creation of a legitimate reason to unleash repression on Gaza and its eventual conquest and the further facilitation of the expansion of settlements in the West Bank? We need to go back in time and remember that Benjamin Netanyahu's management of the Palestinian problem has always been characterized by an ambiguous attitude, made up of broken promises and a behavior that has favored the growth of the most radical movements, those that have always denied the legitimacy of the existence of Israel and of the two-state hypothesis, to the detriment of the moderate ones, which could favor dialogue, but to the detriment of the policy of expanding the colonies; in fact, the effective search for an agreement that could favor the achievement of the purpose of the two states would have penalized the politics of the far right which makes illegitimate colonial expansion, illegitimate because it is outside of international law and common sense, its own political program . Netanyahu's political position and sensitivity has increasingly shifted to the right, bringing together increasingly radical movements and parties in the various governments that have followed, which with their actions have favored the growth of similar sentiments in Palestinian areas, with a growth of radical movements, among which the leadership of Hamas emerged. At the same time, however, Netanyahu's personal situation has worsened due to various problems with the justice system in his country and the increasingly rightward shift of his political positions, which has put the anti-Palestinian action at the center, both in domestic and international sphere, a very strong reason for distraction from his judicial indictments. Currently, in the phase of the war in Gaza, the country's sensitivity towards Netanyahu is strongly negative. For the attack on the kibbutzim, public opinion sees Netanyahu as the person most responsible, but the emergency situation prevents his replacement, even if he is It has been repeatedly underlined that after the end of the war in Gaza there should be no political future for the current prime minister. In the meantime, however, an increasingly aggressive attitude of the settlers in the West Bank is permitted and several questions are legitimate about the future of Gaza. At the beginning of the invasion by Israeli troops, the declared desire was to annihilate Hamas and leave the situation in the Strip unchanged, but as the conflict progresses, an unexplicitly declared desire to exercise effective control over the territory seems to emerge. This would imply the denial of the political and administrative autonomy of the Palestinians who will be lucky enough to remain alive in the face of the brutal repression that Israel is carrying out on the civilian population. An extreme solution could be the movement of the inhabitants of Gaza towards the Sinai, a solution to which Egypt has always said it is against, thus freeing a significant portion of territory to be allocated to new settlers. This is not an impossible eventuality, precisely because the survivors of Gaza are at the complete mercy of the Israeli armed forces, not defended by any state or international organization, capable of opposing, even politically, Tel Aviv. The fact that these are the civilian population, who have already paid the price of over 18,000 deaths, the entire destruction of their belongings, hunger and disease, produces nothing more than verbal solidarity, where the Arab countries lead interested in having international relations with Israel. In the end, the legitimate doubt is this: if Netanyahu were to expand Israeli dominion over Gaza and increase the territorial space of the colonies, something carried out with impunity, he would have definitively decreed the two-state perspective, an argument particularly appreciated by part of Israeli public opinion. , and he would therefore have created an insurance capable of preserving his political future which would also allow him to overcome his legal problems, in short he would have a leadership structure that is practically unassailable even by those parties and movements which hope for his political end. Will all this be possible? The solution will also depend on how the main international players want to behave, adopting new forms of approach to the Palestinian issue.

The political scene after the invasion of Gaza and Israeli responsibility

 One of the consequences of the Gaza war is the suspension of the Abraham Accords, however, Saudi Arabia has only suspended its approach to Israel, waiting for a more favorable moment. Of the other Arab states that have already signed relations with Israel, there has not been any that has merely threatened to interrupt them, only criticism has arrived in Tel Aviv for the exaggerated response to the Hamas action of last October 7th, together with the request of a ceasefire, especially for humanitarian reasons. This is a situation clearly favorable to Tel Aviv, which cannot but highlight the substantial silence of the Sunni world. This scenario, which has actually been underway for some time, may only be favorable to Israel in the short term, but in the medium and long term it favors the radicalization of the Palestinians and the protagonism of the Shiites, with Iran as the leader, followed by Yemen and Hezbollah . In particular, Tehran becomes the defender of the Palestinians as the sole representative of Muslims. Netanyahu has in fact achieved what he wanted: a radicalisation, with the marginalization of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, a secular and more moderate organisation, of the Palestinians can avoid the discussion on the two states and Tehran's protagonism forces the Americans into a new collaboration with the Israeli nationalist government; in fact, the American withdrawal from the Middle Eastern region has been rethought, forcing Washington to deploy a large quantity of armed vehicles, especially at sea, to protect the advance of the Israeli army and also to protect the American bases in the Persian Gulf from possible Iranian attacks. The evident desire to deter potential dangers from Tehran, but not only, has led to the deployment of several missiles capable of reaching Iranian territory; this implies that no progress will be made in the negotiations with the Ayatollah regime, on the nuclear issue or even on the easing of sanctions. Iran, despite having publicly stated that it has no interest in engaging in a conflict with the USA and Israel, will only be able to continue pursuing its strategy of destabilizing the area, to assert its objectives of control over Syria, together with Russia and part of Lebanon, territories essential to continue to put pressure on Tel Aviv. Washington will, however, have to consider Israel's responsibilities for having had to give up a progressive reduction of its diplomatic activity in the Middle Eastern region in favor of a greater concentration on the Ukrainian question. It should be specified that various administrations of the White House are, at the very least, guilty of complicity with Tel Aviv, for not having committed themselves to the definition of the two-state project and not having fought the action of the governments of the Israeli nationalist right, which operated towards the Palestinians a policy of occupation and abuse in contempt of all civil and international rights. Only Washington could put adequate pressure on Israel, but this was not the case and the two-state solution, which could have avoided the current situation, was not achieved, also thanks to Netanyahu's false availability and his unscrupulous policies. But once again the strategy proved to be short-sighted and at an international level it provoked an anti-Zionist and even anti-Semitic wave, which put Jews in difficulty in various countries around the world. At this moment the question of the two states does not appear viable due to Israeli hostility, yet it would still be the most valid antidote to the constant danger the Israeli-Palestinian issue causes in world balances. Envisioning the possibility of control of the Gaza Strip by the Tel Aviv army implies highly dangerous developments, which, once underway, could become unstoppable and drag the world into total conflict. We have already seen that actors such as Russia are taking advantage of the change in international relevance to divert attention from the Ukrainian issue and, similarly, China could decide to change its attitude with Taiwan and take action, as could terrorist groups who are operating in Africa could raise the level of conflict. Without the Gaza issue these phenomena would be more manageable and even the relationship with Tehran would be better. This is why the need to achieve peace in the shortest possible time implies a responsibility that Tel Aviv cannot refuse, under penalty of a bad fate, especially in the medium term.

Russia facing the issue between Israel and Palestine

 The position of the Kremlin, since the times of the USSR, has been pro-Palestinian and in this context we must place the visit of Hamas representatives to Moscow, not received by Putin, but by the Russian Foreign Minister and, in any case, welcomed in a unequivocally symbolic, in the Kremlin headquarters, thus conferring the maximum degree of officiality and relevance of the meeting. This is a clear political signal aimed both at the USA and the West, and at Israel itself. Moscow is directly involved in the hostage situation, because there are six people of Russian nationality kidnapped, three of whom have dual nationality; while the number of Russian citizens who died in the bombing of the Gaza Strip reaches 23 people. In addition to Hamas, the Russian foreign minister also confirmed an upcoming meeting with the leader of the Palestinian Authority. Despite the difference in views with Hamas, which is against the two-state solution, Russia must exploit the moment to reposition itself as a relevant player in the Middle Eastern area and has every interest in maintaining relations with all the subjects involved in the current issue. If we want to have a broader vision of Moscow's interests in the Near East, we need to consider the particular relations it has with Iran, Syria and Israel itself. Putin's desire would be to play a role as mediator in the conflict, which could allow Russia to emerge from the current diplomatic isolation caused by the aggression against Ukraine. Moscow's action aims to avoid the American monopoly on the management of the crisis, also through accusations against Washington of not supporting Palestinian aspirations for their own state nor the various UN resolutions, which have repeatedly condemned Israel. The Russian proposal in the Security Council was not accepted, because it did not include the condemnation of Hamas, but violence against all civilians on both sides, implying Tel Aviv's violence towards Gaza; this has resulted in a deterioration of relations between Russia and Israel, which, however, cannot be compromised for common reasons. It should be remembered that Israel did not condemn Russia for the Ukrainian invasion and did not even join the international sanctions. It also did not provide Kiev, whose president Zelensky is Jewish, with the anti-missile system normally used to protect itself from rockets launched by Hamas. At the same time, Russia does not hinder Israel in its defense actions against Hezbollah, coming from Syria, despite the protection that Moscow continues to provide to the Damascus regime. Tel Aviv also needs Moscow's help to contain Iranian politics in the region, which is a common interest as Tehran has long proclaimed the need to eliminate the Jewish state and implements this strategy through its ever-increasing influence on fundamentalist Shiite militias, Hezbollah and Hamas itself, because, in some ways, the only possible ally is Iran, which has remained to materially support the Palestinian liberation struggle, compared to the increasingly evident withdrawal of the Sunni Arab states in supporting the Palestinians. Tehran implements a policy of material aid in the countries of Lebanon and Syria, which, especially with regard to Damascus, can compromise Russian interests, as well as delicate regional stability. Regarding the conflict with Kiev, Moscow has every interest in international attention shifting to the Middle East and for this reason the Ukrainian president went so far as to state that the Russian country was behind the Hamas attacks. Supporting this hypothesis is very difficult, Hamas' action was prepared over a long period of time and with substantial supplies, which seem to come from other countries. However, a tangible fact remains that this crisis between Israelis and Palestinians works in Moscow's favor, even if the attention of the Atlantic Alliance has certainly not waned, but the greater commitment of the US military, especially with naval means, to protect Israel from 'Iran implies a more diversified commitment and even diplomatic action is no longer focused only on the European objective.

The world's faults for the Israeli-Palestinian situation

 Israel was very annoyed by the words of the Secretary of the United Nations, who, explicitly condemning the cowardly attack by Hamas several times, however, contextualized it in a context of violent abuse by the country of Israel perpetrated over more than fifty years against the Palestinians, especially civilians. This statement is true throughout history, but even more extreme over the years, which are many, of Netanyahu's various governments, which have increasingly moved closer to the nationalist and Orthodox right, a political party with the sole objective of subtracting, through illegal settlements, land not only for Palestinians but even for Bedouin tribes. The Israeli president has implemented a policy of dividing the Palestinians, favoring the extremists of Hamas, who have gathered the consensus of the Palestinians, accrediting violence as the only possible solution. It must be said that this was favored by Netanyahu's ambiguous attitude, who first allowed a glimpse of the two-state solution, and then moved increasingly towards a decisive denial of this solution, thus disadvantaging the moderate parts of Palestinian politics, several times accused of inability to achieve the goal of establishing a Palestinian state through diplomatic means. It must also be said that American interests, increasingly directed towards Southeast Asia, have led to an absence, which has favored Netanyahu's action, which has led us to today. But the USA is not the only one responsible for this situation: the list is not short, Europe has maintained a condescending attitude towards Tel Aviv, condemning the Israeli action ineffectively and no less guilty are the Arab states which have remained declarations of convenience, without ever acting with a united policy to put pressure on the USA and the Israelis themselves, without even taking advantage of the recent rapprochement. All this contributed to determining an increase in tension, which occurred without fanfare, with Iran becoming the sole official defender of the Palestinian cause with its increasingly decisive support for the radical forces. Tehran was able to fill the void left by various subjects, who could favor a peaceful solution, to exploit the Palestinian case for its own geopolitical and strategic needs. Iran, through Palestine, can operate on two fronts: the first is the fight against Saudi Arabia, which is political and religious, the second, broader, is against the USA and the West in general, a factor that it can allow him a greater rapprochement with Russia and China. As can be seen from the Israeli responsibilities for not having pursued the two-state policy, but, indeed, for having contradicted it, we have reached a state of heavy global destabilization. It was not difficult to predict these developments, but the USA and Europe literally relied on chance, leaving too much freedom for Netanyahu's action. It is necessary that the Israeli-Palestinian situation is not in a state of tension like the current one, so as not to alter the already fragile world balance, and this is why Israel must be convinced not to use such intense violent repression, which disqualifies it as a democratic state, placing it on the same level as a terrorist organization; the number of civilian deaths recorded in the Gaza Strip is already much higher than those caused by Hamas and the same ground operation feared in the Gaza Strip risks being enormous carnage for the two sides. Furthermore, there is the possible opening of a northern front, with Hezbollah ready to intervene, an increasingly overheated situation in the West Bank and explicit Iranian threats to strike Haifa. The presence of military ships in the Persian Gulf risks triggering a confrontation with Tehran, with the consequence of activating the dormant and unpredictable cells present throughout the world. Never before has peace been in the unfortunate hands of Netanyahu, who, honestly, cannot be relied on. Biden's action, marked by moderation, however late, seems to be the only one capable of having some possibility of averting the principle of degeneration, which truly risks leading to the outbreak of a world conflict. Only by silencing the noise of weapons and unconditional bombings on Gaza can we hope to start again from a sort of negotiation, which will restore strength to the two-state solution and make opposing extremisms retreat. Time is running out but the possibilities are there, only with adequate reflection on everyone's part, beyond that there is only the abyss.

Asylum applications are on the rise in Europe

 In the first six months of this year, asylum applications to the twenty-seven countries of the European Union, added to Norway and Switzerland, reached the figure of 519,000 applications, marking an increase of more than 28%, compared to the reference period of the last year. Of these requests, 30% concern Germany, 17% Spain and 16% France. With these data, the figure of over one million requests could tend to be reached, a number similar to the record figure of 2016. 13% of asylum requests come from Syria, equal to about 67,000 people, with an increase compared to the same period last year, by 47%. The causes of this real migration are to be found in the worsening of the civil war, which caused the worsening of economic conditions and the hostility of the Turks, who in past years had absorbed a large part of the emigration from Damascus, against the Syrian population. The migratory route most followed by Syrian citizens is the Balkan one and this affects the nations that collect asylum requests, such as Bulgaria, with 6%, and Austria, with 10%, even if these destinations increasingly represent transit solutions to Germany, which has a percentage of requests of 62%, thanks to the roots of the Syrian community, favored in previous years by Chancellor Merkel. Immediately after Syria, the second country for asylum applications is Afghanistan, with 55,000 applications; despite being a migratory basin that has always ensured substantial quotas of migrants, the US decision to abandon the country has favored the return of the Taliban, who, once in power, have considerably reduced human rights and practiced a disastrous economic policy, which it has aggravated an already difficult situation, forcing the country to rely almost exclusively on international humanitarian aid. While the origin of migrants from African and Asian areas does not come as a surprise, there is an increase in requests from areas of Latin America, such as Venezuela and Colombia, which together reach 13% of the requests, in their totality practically directed towards Spain, thus explaining Madrid's second European position in the ranking of asylum requests. These very worrying data are recorded shortly after the closure of the pact on immigration and less than a year after the European elections. The now customary resistance of Poland and Hungary to the distribution of migrants aggravate the internal situation of the European Union and highlight the lack of effectiveness and foresight of policies to regulate the inflows. The June agreement between EU foreign ministers provided for a sort of tax, in the amount of 20,000 euros per person per year, for those countries that refuse to contribute to the distribution of migrants and was conditioned by the vote against of Budapest and Warsaw; in Poland, in October, a referendum will be held on the issue of welcoming migrants, called by the right-wing government in office. Once again Brussels presents itself with internal divisions and without sanctions capable of dividing the migratory load, presenting itself to world public opinion as weak and easily blackmailed by anti-Western dictatorships, which use the migration issue as a real weapon of pressure for the 'Europe. This state of things determines, in a period where Western cohesion is increasingly necessary, a vulnerable side to the detriment not only of the Union, but also of the Atlantic Alliance. Agreements such as the one between the European Union and Tunisia, in addition to being ineffective, are signed with dictatorial regimes, which take advantage of the individual weakness, in this case of Italy, and the global weakness of an institution that cannot be united and which allows the prevailing of national rather than supranational interests. The Italian case, a real southern border of Europe, clarifies the situation even more: 65,000 arrivals equal to 140%, if compared with the same period in 2022, yet Rome receives very little aid from the members of the Union, worried about safeguard their own individual situations. Until this logic is overcome, with an increasingly serious situation, due to wars, famines and climatic emergencies, Europe and the West will always be under blackmail.

Why Xi Jinping will not go to the G20

 The next G20 summit, which will be held in New Delhi, India, registers, even before starting, a very important absence, that of Chinese President Xi Jinping. This is the first time that this has happened because, for Beijing, the G20 meetings have always been considered as important occasions to present a modern image capable of representing the only alternative to US hegemony and, precisely for this reason, the presence of the highest Chinese authority was considered essential for the participation of the People's Republic. Many speculations and hypotheses have already been made about this absence, which, however, do not fully explain the reasons for such a significant absence. Some experts have provided the explanation that the Chinese president, with his absence, wanted to devalue the institution of the G20, seen as a Western emanation, to get closer, also from a diplomatic point of view, to the emerging economies of the southern hemisphere and to even more relations with Russia. This explanation, however, appears to be in contrast with the Chinese needs to maintain commercial relations with the richest areas of the planet: Europe and the United States, despite significant differences of views. If it is true that Chinese expansion is developing in Africa, Beijing cannot give up the outlet of its goods towards the most profitable markets, especially in a phase, such as the current one, where the contraction of the internal economy generates compensation needs, that can only be found in the richest markets. Even the question of relations with Russia, which undoubtedly exists, must be framed in a diplomatic context, which serves to balance geopolitical relations on a global level with the West, in a non-symmetrical framework, however, with Moscow, which appears to be the weak partner of the alliance. The most correct answer to Xi Jinping's absence must instead be sought, in the relations between China and India, in a historical moment where Beijing feels its historical enemy approaching where the overtaking of the population and the expedition to the Moon represent only the cases more recent than the comparison. The absence of the highest Chinese office is intended to diminish the relevance of the Indian G20 and deprive it of any possible visibility that could highlight it, such as the meeting with President Biden, who had to compare their respective positions on commercial and geopolitical relations and which will probably be postponed in November to San Francisco, during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum. It should also be remembered that the top officials of China and India recently met in South Africa at the BRICS summit and that at the time the meeting with Narendra Modi had not been boycotted, precisely because it was in neutral territory. On the other hand, the Indian president was hoping to obtain a great advantage in terms of international image, precisely because of organizing the G20 and the absence of Xi Jinping, potentially, can invalidate a good part of these expected consensuses. It must also be added that, precisely in the South African meeting, the tensions between the two personalities were exacerbated due to the age-old issue of borders in the Himalayan area. Despite these strategic reasons, China cannot completely snub the G20 summit, also to accurately preside over the meeting, which will focus on issues of primary importance: thus it will be Li Qiang, number two of the regime, who will represent Beijing; this choice is meant to be an unequivocal signal, both for the West and for India itself, with which Beijing intends to demonstrate that it still wants to be at the center of the discussions that will be the center of the summit.

Orban must leave the European Union

 Viktor Orban made an ideological speech, which places him more as a potential ally of Putin, than an actual member of the European Union, after all his electoral program, which allowed him to win, was focused on the opposition of the European Union, of which, however, Hungary enjoys robust contributions. The lack of coherence of the Magyar politician seems to coincide with the majority of his fellow citizens, who exploit the absurd regulation of the Union of the approval of measures on the basis of unanimity and not of the majority. Orban prophesied predicting the dissolution of the European Union and the fall of the USA; if the second seems like a wish, for the first the solution would be easy: do like Great Britain and get out of Brussels. However, this eventuality does not fall within Orban's plans, who, perhaps, has given himself the political task of facilitating the dissolution from within, with his absurd behavior totally contrary to the founding values of the European Union. For Orban, the West is a collection of rich but weak states, which have no intention of facing competition with world powers. If, from a certain point of view, this statement has parts of the truth, it seems equally true that characters such as the Hungarian politician contribute not a little to a common vision, which can raise the qualitative level of Brussels against the major world powers, in fact Orban's vision defines Europe as a sort of economic, political and cultural ghetto with a future of decadence without any hope, despite high consumption, which will lead it to a destiny of desolation. The juxtaposition with the forecast of the International Monetary Fund, which provides for the exit from the top ten economies in the world and the passage of Germany from fourth to tenth by 2030, with the supposed degradation of the Union, summarized in the values: migration, LGBT and war, appears an unfortunate rhetoric, which goes against world trends and a low-level replica of what is said in the Russian places of power; even the persecutory attitude, implemented with the opposition to the entry into the Atlantic Alliance of Sweden and Finland, carried forward only because the two countries contested the populist drift of Orban's government, well frames the low political value of the character. The aversion to the United States, seems to replicate Putin's reasons, the alleged loss of Washington's position as world leader towards China, could risk bringing the world into conflict, without remembering that his friend from Moscow is putting world peace in much greater danger. The Hungarian position is the only one in Europe to be correct, because it rejects hedonistic values and does not intend to proceed with the replacement of the population with immigrants who reject Christian values; not only that, he reserves increasingly insistent criticisms of Romania, because more than 600,000 Magyar-speaking people faithful to traditions reside in Transylvania, covertly threatening another country's right to this territory. There is enough for the leaders of the Union to intervene, as they should have done a long time ago, in a harsh manner against this character and the majority of the country, which, despite everything, supports him. It is not possible to allow politicians who do not share the principles on which the Union is based to allow such arrogance, which follows the denial of democratic rules in their own country, with the introduction of censorship and the denial of the judiciary to exercise its function autonomously. It also seems useless to recall how Budapest, together with other countries of the former Soviet bloc, has rejected the principle of mutuality and solidarity in the division of migrants and has been in total disagreement with the European policies approved by the majority of states. Such a presence constitutes a brake on common political action and automatic and immediate solutions must be envisaged, which can sanction from the pecuniary penalty of funding, up to suspension and even expulsion from the European assembly. The current challenges must be faced on the basis of the founding ideals of the Union, without allowing these to be altered by contrary and retrograde visions, if all the members cannot be kept together it is better that those who do not share the common political action are removed.

Putin threatens Poland

 Poland's military deployment on the Belarusian border unnerved Putin, who threatened Warsaw, even quoting Stalin; for the head of the Kremlin, the threat to Poland is due to the fact that the Belarusian country forms the supranational alliance between Russia and Belarus with Moscow. The Polish military deployment is seen as a tangible threat to the very existence of Belarus, because it is operated by a country of the Atlantic Alliance. The reason for the fear of Warsaw lies in the presence in the Minsk area of the Wagner private militia, who after the failed coup d'état, took refuge in Lukashenko's country with his authorization. An unfortunate joke by the Belarusian dictator, about the possibility of crossing the border with Poland, has triggered a very high state of tension, which brings ever closer the possibility of a clash between the Atlantic Alliance, of which Poland is a part, and Russia, of which, in fact, Belarus is more a vassal state than an ally. Of course, Putin specified that an attack on Minsk would be equivalent to an attack on Moscow. The Russian president also hypothesizes a joint dispatch of Polish and Lithuanian soldiers within Ukrainian territory, in the Lviv area. According to Putin, the intention of the two ex-Soviet countries that have become adversaries would not be to lend aid to the Ukrainians, but to deprive them of territory: this is, evidently, an attempt to bring disorder to the coalition that supports Kiev with information capable of destabilizing relations between the three governments. In reality, these statements have no international credit and are rather aimed at Russian public opinion, in an extreme attempt to revitalize the popularity of the population towards the special military operation, which seems to be receiving less and less consensus. Always identifying new enemies and giving particular prominence, even by distorting history, with narratives constructed for one's own use and consumption, reveals that the isolation of Moscow is increasingly tangible even within the walls of the Kremlin. The emphasis that is given to the next visit of Lukashenko, certainly not a leading international actor, but a character dominated by Putin, constitutes further information on how Russia accuses its international solitude and tries to circumvent it, exploiting every slightest opportunity. From a military point of view, however, it is a fact that Warsaw's decision, however legitimate, because it was made within its own borders, constitutes an aggravation of the situation, due to the concrete possibility of an expansion of the conflict, both in terms of the number and entity of the actors involved, and also due to the enlargement of the territory involved. A development of the war in the northern part of the Ukrainian country, the one on the border with Belarus, could ease the pressure of Kiev on the Russian army, which is struggling to contain the breakthrough of Zelensky's army in the areas occupied by the Red Army. Now an expansion of the conflict in those areas could also involve the border with Poland, while the possibilities of an expansion towards the borders of Lithuania and Estonia are more remote. The Western fear is that this is a strategy that Putin intends to adopt, using his Belarusian ally and the Wagner militia, currently engaged only in training the soldiers of Minsk, but which could rehabilitate itself in the eyes of the Kremlin, becoming the protagonist of actions against Ukraine led by Belarus. A possible scenario, from which Ukraine could hardly emerge victorious; however, in this possible scheme, the weak point is precisely the proximity of Poland, which could not tolerate the presence of invaders within the regions of Ukraine close to Polish territories near its borders. Herein lies the dilemma, what will be Putin's willingness to carry out such a risky plan as to oblige the Atlantic Alliance to be directly involved in the conflict. It is a hypothesis that risks being ever closer and leading to the outbreak of the third world war, with all the imaginable consequences. For now, the USA is silent, but to prevent the conflict from advancing westward, it will be necessary to maintain the greatest possible balance in a scenario that is certainly not easy, where the guide must be that a world war cannot be beneficial to any actor involved.

The difficult world and regional situation causes rapprochement between South Korea and Japan

 Historically, relations between Japan and South Korea have been difficult due to the issues that occurred with Japan's occupation of the Korean peninsula from 1910 to 1945 and the enslavement of more than 800,000 Koreans as forced laborers in Tokyo factories. and forcing at least 200,000 women to become sexually abused on behalf of Japanese occupation soldiers; moreover there have been disputes over some islets, controlled by Seoul after the defeat of the empire of the rising sun. The Korean Supreme Court brought these issues back to the fore when it ruled in 2018 that the Japanese companies involved should compensate Korean people who are victims of slavery, which resulted in Tokyo's restrictions on imports of Korean products, which undermined relations between the two states until the dialogue is blocked. One of the points of Shinzo Abe's program was to change the pacifist constitution, as a first step towards an approach that could allow China to be contained, in this perspective also the relationship with South Korea had to become collaborative, both from the point of diplomatic point of view, and from the economic one, precisely to fight Beijing also on the production level. Abe's work was only started, but which, for relations between the two countries, was fundamental and which, in the current scenario, allowed the start of a reconciliation between the two nations. In this context, the first official visit of a Japanese head of government, since 2011, to South Korean soil takes place. Of course, the threat from Pyongyang is the primary urgency of the discussions, because the atomic threat has not been defused, but other topics will be on the table at the meeting. To further facilitate the resumption of contacts, the Tokyo government has planned a project to compensate enslaved workers, as requested by the Korean Supreme Court and this has determined the new judgment of Seoul, which has defined the Japanese state from a militaristic aggressor to a partner who shares universal values from south korean country. This increasingly relaxed atmosphere had already favored the visit of the president of Seoul to Japan, which took place last March and after twelve years of absence. The normalization of diplomatic relations has made it possible to address issues of common development such as defence, the economy and finance. At the moment, what worries the two executives the most is mutual security, given the threat of North Korea's growing ballistic and nuclear capability, but also the attitude of Moscow and the expansionism of China, which has made large investments in military sector to strengthen its war apparatus. Behind this rapprochement, as well as the reasons already stated, there is the diplomatic action of Washington, which has for some time placed the contrast to China for the supremacy of the eastern seas at the center of its international interest, both for Japan and Korea South, the USA represents the major ally, but the distance between Seoul and Tokyo has not so far allowed a synergy to develop a closer trilateral relationship, especially against the more immediate threat represented by Pyongyang; but also the developments of the Ukrainian war, with Russia openly against the Western bloc, is a serious cause for concern, considering Moscow's progressive rapprochement with Beijing. If North Korea is the closest threat, the real bogeyman are Chinese ambitions, which with a potential action against Taiwan would jeopardize the already fragile regional balances, risking dragging the two countries into a conflict; beyond these concrete threats, the general attitude of Beijing, increasingly determined to establish a zone of influence under its control, must be the decisive argument for putting aside the distances between the two countries and convincing them to establish ever closer relations to unify efforts to safeguard their mutual safety. From China's point of view, the resumption of dialogue between the two countries will not be seen in a positive way, because it favored its policy in the area, even if indirectly, on the contrary now, Beijing will also have to deal with the synergy with the United States and it will certainly not be welcome: this could cause displays of force in the eastern seas, raising the level of guard in a region repeatedly in the balance due to possible incidents between the armed forces of countries with opposing interests.

To thwart China's plans, Taiwan must be recognized

 Chinese activism regarding the conflict between Russia and Ukraine demonstrates how Beijing is interested in being recognized as a protagonist in the affair, officially in the name of reconciliation between the parties. In reality, the Chinese peace plan is not made to be taken seriously by both opposing parties and is therefore a strategy which hides other objectives behind the desire to represent a peacemaking action. Certainly there is also the will to be an active part in a possible halt to hostilities, the certification of an active role in the search for peace, but this is only the outward appearance, which hides a well thought-out plan, which falls within the opposition with the USA and with the West, more generally. The reasons are different and the attempt to identify them can only represent a simple conjecture, however, there are several concrete facts that can support these theories. The need to create a greater selection of the polarization of the confrontation, to avoid the current multipolar situation on the international scene, prompted Beijing to plan to make Moscow in a situation of vassalage of China, a task facilitated by Russia's need to break the isolation, political and economic, in which it finds itself. The Chinese action could serve to allow the Kremlin to buy time for its own reorganization, above all military, a factor to be paid dearly, with a sort of undeclared submission to Chinese wishes. This fact would allow China to expand its zone of global influence with a partner equipped with atomic strength: a significant deterrent in the future of relations with Washington. If this factor is of an international order, there is perhaps a more worrying one of an internal order, for China, constituted by the question of Taiwan. The Chinese ambiguity on Ukraine, despite the disaster for Beijing's exports and the worsening of the world economy, is due precisely to the precedent of the current conflict undertaken by Moscow to regain territories that it has always considered part of its nation. Beyond some impromptu and extremist utterances by Chinese officials on the legitimacy of the Russian action, President Xi Jinping has tried to officially maintain a cautious attitude on the conflict, while not liking the expansion of the Atlantic Alliance up to the Moscow border, but he has repeatedly warned that the question of Taiwan cannot be treated in the same way by the West, because the island of Formosa is considered an integral part of Chinese territory, despite having never been part of the People's Republic of China; at the same time he has intensified military exercises and trials of strength, as real threats, against Taipei and against any Western ambitions. The Atlantic Alliance took action by responding with the presence of ships, as well as American, also French, English and Italian, but it is understood that this purely military strategy is not sufficient if not supported by a much stronger political action. Despite all the risks that this may involve, the time has come to officially recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state and to open diplomatic representations with it, not only as a tool for establishing official and concrete relations, but as a defense against all possible forms of violence against Taipei. Surely if this possibility were to occur, China would protest very heavily and increase its policy in favor of Russia, to threaten the West, but it could not go too far in retaliating, because Beijing's main concern, above all others, is economic growth which is used as a tool to avoid drifts against the government of the country and to keep dissent at a very low level. Losing the richest markets on the planet would be a backlash capable of putting the regime in difficulty, much more serious than failing to annex Taiwan; certainly the recognition of Taiwan could create diplomatic problems with China, but if it is carried out en bloc by the whole European Union, together with the USA, the United Kingdom and other Western members, such as Australia and Japan, for the People's Republic of China it will be very difficult to counter diplomatically and also military mobility and, consequently, the threats to Taiwan should be reduced and Chinese ambitions could end. Conversely, such a move could accelerate and unleash a military escalation against Taipei, but in that case the Chinese economy would effectively remain isolated immediately, with no longer the possibility of seeing its gross domestic product grow to the figures necessary to continue to contain dissent .

Ukraine ever closer to the Atlantic Alliance

 The visit of the Secretary of the Atlantic Alliance to Kiev immediately assumed considerable importance, both for the fact itself and for the reassurances, even if not immediate, that the place of the Ukrainian country will be to become a member of the Western coalition. The Ukrainian president seemed more focused on the problems of the present, asking the Atlantic Alliance for ever greater military support to allow his country to contain Russia and maintain its national unity. The Secretary General's visit to Kiev provoked harsh reactions in Moscow, which recalled that one of the reasons for the conflict, indeed for the special military operation, is precisely to prevent the integration between Ukraine and NATO. The purpose of Stoltenberg's visit was to reiterate support for Ukraine, in the face of world public opinion, both in the past, in the present and also in the future when there will be problems of reconstruction to be addressed, however behind the purpose official, there was a need to agree with Ukraine on full operability with the Alliance in terms of military standards and strategic doctrines, to replace Soviet technologies, which still formed the basis of Kiev's military equipment; all to ensure a more effective response to Russian attacks. To make up for the shortages of its armaments, Ukraine received ex-Soviet materials from the Iron Curtain countries, which were better suited to Kiev's armaments technology, but as the war progressed this was progressively replaced with armaments NATO, for which special training is required. If the contiguity between Ukraine and NATO is increasingly intense on the military field, the Ukrainian president has also claimed greater political involvement and has asked to be invited to the next Vilnius summit in July: something that was ratified precisely in Stoltenberg's visit. Moscow experiences this integration with apprehension, but was almost completely responsible for it; now it is to be understood whether this accession will be able to cause a slowdown or an aggravation of the conflict: because it is one thing to threaten Kiev not to enter the Western area of influence and another thing to fight against a country increasingly within the Western sphere. This step removes a possible factor for interrupting hostilities, which was identified precisely in a sort of impartiality of Kiev, configuring the Ukrainian country as a sort of buffer nation between the West and Russia. With Stoltenberg's visit this scenario seems to be, by now, without any possibility, even if the full entry into the Atlantic Alliance can only be postponed, to avoid a direct entry into the conflict of Western troops on Ukrainian soil. The fundamental fact, however, is that the future can only be that unless Moscow manages to win the war completely by conquering all of Ukraine, with no part excluded: something that does not seem possible given how the country has developed conflict. The future should therefore see NATO troops right on the border between Ukraine and Russia and not only on the borders with Moscow and the Baltic countries and Finland. It is understandable how Putin has already failed in any attempt to remove the Atlantic Alliance and therefore the USA and Europe from his own border line and how his greatest nightmare is materializing, the one to be averted by launching the military operation, which it is ruining the country economically and causing a large number of casualties among Russian soldiers. From this progressive rapprochement between Brussels and Kiev, Moscow emerges weakened both internally and externally, because the projects of its leader are all failing and even a crystallization that stops at the conquered territories implies Ukraine by now definitively entered and permanently in the western orbit, with all that will follow for the prestige of the Russian president.

The implications of the Chinese visit to Russia

 The Chinese president's visit to Moscow is presented by the Beijing media as a trip for peace; in reality this visit has only one value for the two countries involved. China seeks to gain credit as the only subject capable of producing an effort for peace and capable of breaking American hegemony in the international arena; for Russia it is yet another effort to get out of the isolation that the special military operation has caused. From the point of view of possible results, the chances are slim if not none of reaching peace with a sketchy and abstract plan like the Chinese one. The political relevance is represented by the fact that China and Russia appear ever closer, above all in an anti-American function, in the sense of wanting to create a multipolar alternative to Washington's power; however, this alliance between Moscow and Beijing does not appear equal: Russia needs too much recognition as the main alternative country to the United States and is clearly subordinate to China from every point of view, political, military and, above all, economic. Putin has shown interest in the twelve points of the Chinese plan, declaring himself willing to negotiate; this availability, whose sincerity should be ascertained, hides a combined political calculation, which has, as its ultimate goal, the material aid of China in the form of military supplies. For the moment this does not appear to be happening, while it seems strongly certain that Beijing supplies complementary equipment (such as components and electronic boards), without which the Russian bombs could not function. The Chinese hesitations always remain those of compromising their market shares in the most profitable territories for their products: the USA and the European Union; however, China cannot miss the opportunity to undermine Washington, which it considers, in any case, the main adversary. The peace plan proposed by China, in this sense, represents a novelty because it derogates from the main rule of Chinese foreign policy: that of not interfering in the internal politics of other countries; in fact, if it is true that the pronouncement of respect for national sovereignty seems to move within the general rule, the non-recognition of the Russian invasion cannot fail to be read as an interference, even if not highlighted, precisely in a question of national sovereignty , both towards Ukraine and towards Russia itself; in short, Chinese balancing act cannot convince to an equidistance only announced between the conflicting parties, which is not found in the official document. The attempt is clumsy and also acts against Moscow, which is forced to sell its oil to Beijing at decidedly lower prices, for now receiving only international recognition in exchange and little else. China shows itself to be opportunistic, providing an exemplary lesson both to Western countries, fascinated by the Silk Road project, and to African ones, repeatedly exploited by Beijing's expansionism. Reality shows a country that should not be trusted, which is also true for Russia, which has now become subordinate to the Asian country. The great suspicion, which goes beyond the contingent situation, is that the Chinese power system wants to continue with the project of affirming its political system as more capable than others, essentially democracy, in developing the economy and strengthening its state: arguments on which Putin and his nomenclature are, for now, certainly in agreement, while the prospect may be different when Beijing collects the credits with Moscow. From the Western point of view, the question will be to contain the alliance, because this is a trade, albeit unbalanced, between Russia and China: diplomatic pressure will have to be exerted on Beijing so that no arms are supplied to Moscow, to avoid increasing capabilities Russian wars and determine prolongations of the conflict; after all, Western and Chinese diplomacies can find common ground on this issue, because war is a block for their respective economies and for Beijing the aspect of economic growth remains central to its political scheme, at the same time for the West this blatant exposure of China, alongside Russia, must be a signal to undertake a work of containment of Beijing's activism.

The world trading system is in crisis

 The function of the World Trade Organization no longer seems to benefit from that sharing between states, dictated by the need to encourage the process, which dates back to the nineties of the last century, of world globalization, understood as the will of the major economies to favor a complex of rules capable of guaranteeing free trade. It was a direct action against statist protections and the consequent desire to interrupt government aid to companies and the partial cancellation of customs policies, based on duties and taxes on goods and services from abroad. The revival of nationalisms, both political, military and, above all, economic, seems to have shelved the process of market liberalization, leaving only the worst parts of the effects of globalization: such as the compression of wages and the consequent increase in inequality, both on internal level, between the social classes, and on the international one, based on the profound difference in the wealth of nations. There are those who blame the politics of the United States, because of the Trump presidency, before, and that of Biden, now; however, the action of the USA arose from the behavior of China, which, in order to achieve the growth objectives it had set, based its economic action on a strong statist policy, characterized by a great authoritarianism, which could not be reconciled with the commercial structure built on democratic systems. It remains true that Biden, an internationalist by name, blocked the functioning of the World Trade Organization, preventing it from appointing officials to the WTO's appellate body, which has precisely the function of adjudicating disputes. The central point is that the World Trade Organization can authorize the introduction of trade tariffs, only in the case of national security issues, but Washington contests this approach, arguing that this attribution belongs only to the White House, in the case of American sovereignty . One of the conditions for the functioning of the world trading system, which should be guaranteed by the WTO, is precisely the tacit agreement between states not to resort to the argument of national security, if this fails the entire system will have to be reworked. On the other hand, China's institutional set-up does not allow for control such as the one that the WTO can exercise over democratic states, where the process of relations between the state and companies is completely visible, while in the Chinese state the mingling of public and private is less distinguishable and the subsidy system and protectionist practices are more difficult to ascertain. The American behavior, also condemned by Europe, is essentially a reaction to Beijing's protectionist tendency, which, in fact, results in the paralysis of the World Trade Organization, unable to fulfill its role as arbiter; this causes a return to the past with international trade increasingly blocked by national tariffs and protection of international products. In practice, the evolution of international trade will meet a series of regional agreements, based on economic and political conveniences, with disputes regulated, no longer by a supranational actor, but by political and commercial negotiations, which will take place on the relative parts involved, without affecting the global scenario. Probably the ones that will be triggered will be unbalanced power relations in favor of actors with greater capabilities to the detriment of small countries: a scenario that indicates that more and more supranational bodies are needed, based on geographical criteria or even on reciprocal common interests, capable of balance the power of large subjects such as the USA or China or, even, the European Union. This will imply a political effort for the countries that are not included in these actors, aimed at promoting common actions under the aegis of already existing organizations, such as, for example, the Union of African States, strengthening their international value. The concrete risk is that these issues could cause new international tensions, going to increase the factors of global crisis, in a historical phase that is already heavily affected.