Joe Biden, at a press conference in Paris with Emmanuel Macron, declared that "all of Europe (would be) threatened by Russia". However, Jens Stoltenberg, contrary to what was claimed by the President of the United States of America, in expressing the official position of NATO, had the opportunity to clarify not only that there was "no danger of an imminent attack against any ally", but also that "this idea that there is a sort of countdown is wrong" and that NATO intends to "prevent this from happening".

The divergence between the two positions seems clear, and certainly the one expressed by NATO is the most reassuring. Yet, despite the clarity of NATO's position, the thought that Russia is motivated by the intent to start a war in Europe seems to be increasingly moving forward, triggering considerable concern. Just thinking that the Russian-Ukrainian conflict could spread to touch Europe, involving it directly, would be nothing short of incredible. Especially in a historical moment in which the various world powers should be equipped with diplomatic tools suitable for managing the most critical scenarios.

Nonetheless, however, it seems that it cannot be denied that the war, far from being considered a distant legacy of the past, is rather current today, with all the consequences it brings with it. It will be necessary to understand, in the aftermath of the electoral competition for the renewal of the European Parliament, whether the affirmation of the Right (whether occasional or structural, time will decide) will be useful in putting an end to the existing conflicts in the attempt, extremely necessary, to bring back stability the international geopolitical scenario. This must be done through diplomatic channels, that is, by pursuing a different narrative that induces dialogue between the major European and international leaders, through a shared truce with respect to the use of weapons, as long as it is done. It seems to have been understood, since that fateful February 24, 2022, that the universal geopolitical structure was changing. That even today, with good likelihood, we are going through a crucial moment of transition in which the first and oscillating steps are being taken towards a multipolar structure suitable for overcoming the bipolarism to which until now we had become accustomed to conceiving geopolitics and its paths.

Moreover, the rise, on the economic, political and even military level, of other rapidly emerging great powers, such as China, India and Turkey, has contributed, with good likelihood, to shifting the terms of the comparison. And if, on the one hand, the idea of a multipolar globalism may appear more fair in principle, however, on the other hand, it is not certain that this could actually be the case. The idea of the affirmation of different decision-making poles, as many as the civilizations that characterize them, and each with its own values, if truly realizable, could contribute to fully guaranteeing the principle of self-determination of Peoples and improving their conditions. of life in the name of lasting peace, or would it, on the contrary, be a condition alone sufficient to increase disorder on the international level? Would it perhaps be more convenient to try to manage multilateralism (or rather multipolarism), or to counter it in an attempt, perhaps anachronistic for some, to preserve the established order? Is there correspondence between the concepts of multipolarism and multilateralism?

Probably the Europe that will be defined with the establishment of the new and renewed European Parliament will inevitably find itself forced to address these issues in a decisive and conscious manner in order to work towards the consolidation of everything that still functions on a logistical and instrumental level , and the transformation of everything that needs to be changed, addressing change in terms of cultural and organizational growth. Beyond the existing divergences between the various Member States, today as yesterday, human rights are indisputable universal values for the European Union and continue to constitute the foundation of common foreign policy. The international scenario, clearly complicated by the existence of conflicts, has made the general situation very critical and very difficult to manage, as over time clearly contrasting positions seem to have emerged precisely on the fundamental theme of the essential qualities that the international system, in its subjective complexity and objective, it should possess.

Liberal principles, in the general context, appear only as one of the many different aspects among others under consideration. It would seem, indeed, that all those powers that want to (re)discuss this perspective actually intend to transform so-called multilateralism from the root to redefine it on the basis of new and unspecified values that are probably still being developed. In such a complicated scenario, the position expressed by NATO appears in all its reassuring effectiveness, and probably, in the context of profound transformation that Europe, even before any other world power, finds itself going through, caution is required as dutiful.

Giuseppina Di Salvatore

(Lawyer – Nuoro)

© Riproduzione riservata