Although each Member State of the European Union continues to retain its autonomy of choice, the hypothesis of the use of weapons of the "allies" on Russian soil would still seem to remain an important point of discussion, since the positions on the point would seem to be different. And perhaps, otherwise it could not be.

While the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell, for his part, seems to insist that Ukraine, "according to international law, can react by attacking the places from which it is attacked", on the other hand the Italian Foreign Minister, Antonio Tajani, wanted to reiterate that the Union is not at war against Russia in order to justify the government's refusal to eliminate restrictions on the use of Western weapons.

Two positions that are both certainly legitimate, no question. But they reflect a certain diversity of views on the modalities, if we wanted to define them that way, of the concrete explanation of support for Kiev. Two positions that, despite their diversity, do not seem to affect, at present, and in any case, the common intent of providing support.

It is worth recalling, in fact, that during the first voting session of the new legislature, held in July of this year, the European Parliament wanted to approve a specific resolution, albeit not by an absolute majority (495 votes in favour, 137 against including that of the League and the 5 Star Movement as far as it was understood, and 47 abstentions), aimed at confirming support for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognised borders.

Beyond the individual sensitivities registered on the subject, and the divergences between the positions detectable within the European Union as a whole, but also within the individual Member States between the various parties of reference, there does not seem to be any talk of negotiated solutions yet. Moreover, in the circumstance, the Democratic Party itself, showing an intention close to that of the Italian Foreign Minister, while expressing its support for Ukraine in defending itself against Russia, had nevertheless equally expressed its dissent regarding the proposal to eliminate restrictions on the use of Western weapons against military targets on the same Russian territory.

Let's be clear, also to avoid any misunderstandings of any kind: it does not seem to be a contradiction, and it would probably be unfair to consider it as such for all the implications, in some ways unpredictable in terms of international dynamics, that the circumstance of the removal of the aforementioned restrictions would be capable of determining. It would seem, rather, to be a position inspired by the utmost practical sense of diplomatic common sense, since it is aimed at avoiding any potential escalation of the conflict. On the other hand, and moreover, it would seem that the positions of those who would like a greater diplomatic commitment towards peace and the cessation of a conflict that moreover occurred close to the already very difficult pandemic period should be taken into consideration. To put it differently: it would not be a question of reducing the question to whether or not one can discuss in terms of hesitation with respect to supporting a population in difficulty.

This does not really seem to be the end of the matter. Because the commitment in this sense does not seem to be debatable since it is a commitment that has proved constant over the years from February 2022 to the present. Rather, the slowdown of the entire world economy that seems to have been witnessed from the pandemic period to today, and inflation that is still in some ways difficult to control, together with the prolongation of a conflict for which there seems to be no end in sight, would all seem to be circumstances (the conditional seems appropriate) suitable to put the world population to the test.

In the meantime, even with regard to the future outcome of the conflict, and beyond the different positions that can be registered within the European Union and the individual Member States, while Ukraine and Russia continue to confront each other on the battlefield, the very next vote of the Americans could have an impact on the aforementioned conflict, who, in truth, in choosing their future President, will also reflect their own different sensitivity with respect to the outcome of a conflict that seems to have destabilized the European continent and beyond on a social level.

While Kamala Harris, the Democratic Party's presidential candidate for the elections to be held on November 5, has declared that she will continue to support Ukraine, Donald Trump, the Republican Party's candidate, on several occasions, seems to have stated that that support should be reduced and/or, in any case, subordinated to the start of peace talks with Kiev. Different positions that, with good likelihood, due to the economic implications that the continuation of the conflict could reflect, will affect the voting preferences of American voters first and foremost.

But then, if the choice of the American electorate were to fall on the person of Donald Trump, what consequences could that choice reflect, if it will reflect them, on the position of the European Union as a whole and within the individual Member States with respect to a topic of such relevance?

Each individual country, in relation to the context of the conflict and/or conflicts currently underway, would seem to have focused on its own limits, its own priorities towards which to direct its support. And it would seem that these limits, these priorities, cannot be ignored.

Giuseppina Di Salvatore – Lawyer, Nuoro

© Riproduzione riservata