A year has passed since the launch of the Russian special military action against Ukraine, a complex year from all points of view. Lastly, the voice of the streets, according to what has been learned from the media, would seem to launch a heartfelt and heartfelt invocation for peace, and if there still seems to be perplexity about the opportunity to continue on the path of sending arms to Ukraine, greater resoluteness seems to be found in terms of the need to avoid any military escalation which could lead, albeit involuntarily, on the one hand to a direct intervention by NATO in the conflict and, on the other hand, to the possibility that some of the parties could decide to use of the nuclear weapon. All the more so when no Member State, so far and fortunately, has suffered direct aggression capable of soliciting a consequent and collective response.
In short, and all things considered, there is a feeling of profound tiredness probably also due to the heavy contingent economic crisis. If solidarity with Ukraine and its people remains unquestioned, however strong and convinced, however, also the feeling, real or presumed, that the adoption of sanctions to the detriment of Russia reverberates, in substance, and wallets in hand , even to the detriment of our economies, is making its way with overbearing concern.
The moral question, and its motivations, would seem, one year after the beginning of the conflict, to give way to the emergence of even minimal lines of fracture which, in the absence of reassuring and even decisive interventions by the various Governments Europeans, could sharpen to the point of determining significant splits in public opinion. Over the years, even starting from the end of the so-called Cold War, an unshakeable conviction had seemed to emerge: that for which the international community, in its compositional entirety, had made "preventive diplomacy" the primary and unfailing objective of confrontation in the context of conflict resolution, in the deep and rooted conviction that any degeneration of relations into armed conflicts was an option that disrespected not only the consolidated principles of international law, but also and above all, an "offense" to the dignity of the peoples involved. And if, to date, the dialectical opposition between "aggressor" and "attacked" continues to dominate the field of confrontation, nevertheless, and with good likelihood, a perplexity that is anything but extemporaneous also seems to arise. The one for which, probably, it would not be too wise to hope to proceed by continuing to supply armaments, albeit of a "defensive" nature (if a distinction can really be made between "offensive" and "defensive" weapons), to the oppressed people, finalizing the action to obtain the capitulation of Russia and its consequent disintegration.
In the framework outlined so briefly, one circumstance above all emerges with self-evident clarity: the one whereby the European Union and its individual Members should adopt a position of net neutrality in order to be able to give vent, if we wanted to say so, to the now unavoidable need to recognize the need for committed diplomatic action aimed at settling what by now, and with the passing of the months, has become an armed conflict that risks transcending current borders.
Let's be clear: we know the reasons and the wrongs that characterize the parties to the conflict, and the neutrality of third countries, far from being able to be considered in terms of a cold indifference towards the fate of the conflict, instead represents the key tool for fostering dialogue and the comparison from the point of view of peaceful definition. In our being European Union, meaning it otherwise, we must primarily be able to fully interpret that relational maturity which allows us to make current and even realistic (because it would be now) that coveted "passage" from the principles of the so-called international law of coexistence the international law of cooperation between States.
Whether it is only a pale utopia we cannot know: in fact we have to go beyond the myopic line of the bilateral perspective of international relations (Ukraine-Russia in this case) to the full advantage of an approach that recognizes that what happens even internally in countries formally third parties, on the specific level of rights and duties towards all of humanity (the preservation of peace and stability), is reflected towards the entire international community. Without prejudice, of course, to the insurmountable prohibition of the use of force and that of interference in the internal affairs of others, in which they are also relevant principles.
First, because it would be difficult to doubt that the primary objective to be achieved at any cost should be the recognition of "peace" as a universal value useful for guaranteeing the permanence and survival of the international community. Therefore why, given this premise, the logical consequence should lie in undertaking, through specialized interlocutors, the path of seeking a peaceful solution to the existing dispute already contemplated and regulated by article 2, paragraph 3 of the United Nations Charter.
Lastly because, from all that has been observed, there seems to exist a specific responsibility of all States towards the International Community: a responsibility which imposes the conservation of inter partes balances in order to avoid the pejorative degeneration of any conflict whatsoever. One cannot conceive of a need for peace of a purely territorial nature, but it must be lived and interpreted in a more complex perspective pertaining to the entire community.
Josephine Di Salvatore
(Lawyer – Nuoro)