According to Reuters, Russia has submitted to the US a list of conditions for an agreement that, in effect, creates the demands made prior to the 2022 invasion, with the addition of territorial claims accrued from the war. Moscow demands a ban on Ukraine’s NATO membership, the non-deployment of foreign troops – not even a peacekeeping mission – and the recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea and the eastern regions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, which it does not even fully control. Other sources report that Russia would also like Zelensky’s resignation and an American commitment to cease all arms supplies to Ukraine.

Translated: Putin asks Trump not for peace, but for the total surrender of Kyiv. A disarmed, mutilated Ukraine, ruled by a soft executive with Moscow and destined to be a fragile buffer state under constant Russian threat. These are unacceptable conditions and, in normal times, an American administration would have rejected them in mondovision, denouncing the arrogance of the Kremlin dictator. But we are not living in normal times: Trump’s future attitude remains an unknown.

As far as Europe is concerned, it is becoming increasingly clear that the so-called ‘coalition of the willing’ willing to offer a peace and security contingent to Kyiv after a possible armistice is the only serious and rigorous move to confront Trump with a choice between peace and surrender. Like it or not, Kyiv may be forced to accept painful territorial losses, but certainly not the prospect of being a prey at the mercy of a next Russian invasion in a few years’ time. Without an international guarantee of security, no agreement can have any real value.

Especially with the prospect of a US disengagement from support for Ukraine, the only way to prevent Moscow from unilaterally dictating the terms of a punitive peace would be precisely the presence of a European contingent on the ground, capable of deterring future aggression. Not an army of occupation nor a hostile mission against Moscow, but a guarantee force that would prevent a repetition of the scenario seen in the Donbass since 2014: disputed territories, Russian infiltration, uncontrollable escalation. This would be the decisive move, the only one capable of making peace lasting and just.

And Italy? In the most important geopolitical game since the Second World War, our country has no clear line, does not influence crucial debates, does not contribute a strategic vision. It simply does not have one, as demonstrated by the orderly vote of the Italian majority and opposition parties yesterday in Strasbourg.

Ahi serva Italia, di dolore ostello, nave senza nocchiero in gran tempesta, non donna di province, ma bordello!