Noam Chomsky, one of the most insightful living intellectuals, gave the most striking definition of the war in Ukraine: “The reason for insisting on calling it an ‘unprovoked invasion’ is that it is well known that it was provoked. In fact, there have been extensive provocations dating back to the 1990s. This is not just my opinion, but the opinion of almost all top-level US diplomats and anyone with open eyes can see it, whether they are hawks or doves, anyone who knows something about it. Of course, the fact that it was provoked does not imply that it is justified; these are two different things.”

It is so evident that even NATO Secretary-General Stoltenberg, who suddenly became the one deciding the fate of all European countries outside any democratic legitimacy, confirmed it when he stated in a hearing at the European Parliament that it was the relentless push from America to expand NATO to Ukraine that was the real cause of the war and why it continues to this day: “President Putin, in the autumn of 2021, sent a draft treaty that he wanted NATO to sign, which would prevent any further expansion of NATO… And it was a precondition for not invading Ukraine… We rejected it. So, he went to war to prevent NATO from approaching its borders.” The situation has been known since 2008 when US Ambassador to Moscow William Burns, now the Director of the CIA, wrote a cable to Washington, later published by Wikileaks (another reason to be upset with Assange), titled “No means no,” in which he explained that the inclusion of Ukraine in NATO would raise concerns within the Russian political class regarding national security: “Experts tell us that Russia is particularly concerned that the strong divisions in Ukraine regarding NATO membership, with a large part of the Russian ethnic community opposed, could lead to a major split with violence, or worse, a civil war. In this eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene or not: a decision it does not want to make.”

Despite the fact that the causes and consequences were clear and the necessary diplomatic initiatives were not undertaken in nearly three decades to find an acceptable solution to the Ukrainian crisis, today we are on the brink of a war with a nuclear superpower in Europe. The slide towards this outcome has been guided by a public narrative that has almost completely replaced information – the “fourth estate” – according to which Zelensky is like Churchill and Putin is like Hitler, and Churchill cannot lose against Hitler. The genie is out of the bottle, and now no one has the interest or the will to stop the infernal mechanism. Neither our government nor the public opinion has it, which has been repeated the narrative of the “unprovoked invasion” so many times that it has followed the piper without asking too many questions. However, the war is imminent, and no one is hiding it anymore, starting from the Baltic countries and even von der Leyen, who continues to make inflammatory statements. After the incredible sequence of mistakes (such as ineffective economic sanctions against Russia), lies (Russians fighting with shovels and stealing chips from washing machines), and the many bellicose initiatives that have only fueled the escalation without resolving anything, we have reached the point where NATO is preparing for war against Russia. In our name? No, public opinion is not really considered, especially since it does not disturb the puppeteer. Perhaps it will cause some discomfort when the first casualties return, but by then the situation will be even more compromised, and the path of reasonableness will become increasingly remote.

The small political minorities that have understood that more weapons and more war would not lead to peace should undoubtedly be voted for in elections, even though it is not clear what the European Parliament can actually do since decisions are made elsewhere. In the best-case scenario, the plan would be a limited and conventional war with Russia without nuclear escalation, although it is unclear who would fight it. However, we have seen how the plans of our great (or not so great) strategists have not worked so far. During the Cold War, attacking a nuclear power was out of the question: today, however, it seems that the gamble of such a strategy is considered acceptable, even though it is obvious – from a rational point of view – that it should not be. The Russians have already made it known that they can respond with nuclear weapons to a possible attack on their territory: why is there no longer a fear of nuclear war?