Opinions #35/24

There is a curious analogy between Zelensky’s and Netanyahu’s strategies. Both conflicts, close to Europe, have as their common denominator America’s modest interest in defusing them: see the revelations appearing in April and May 2024 in the Foreign Affairs magazine and the New York Times about the agreement reached in Istanbul between negotiators from Kiev and Moscow, six weeks after the conflict began, blocked because of “third party” interference. But above all, it is the repeated attempts to expand the conflict in which they are involved. The Ukrainian president, with his constant pressure on the European Union and the United States to give him the best of the military technology they have at their disposal and allow him to use it to attack the very heart of Russia, primarily Moscow, with long-range missiles. The move is imminent and could have devastating consequences, given Russia’s military doctrine that envisions the use of nuclear weapons in the event of an attack on its territory. The invasion of the Kursk region by the best units at Kiev’s disposal has already caused the first alarm in this regard. And with no skepticism from the military about the operation launched by Zelensky, nor a political call for moderation from Washington. At the same time, Netanyahu continues his very dangerous game of arsonist-firebrand, which, by threatening to spread the conflict to Iran and Lebanon (not excluding Syria and Yemen), which has been going on in Gaza for almost eleven months, allows him to continue to massacre Palestinians. And in this case, the timid reservations expressed by the Biden administration and the aphasia of his vice, Kamala Harris, who took his place as the Democratic candidate in November’s presidential election, have not affected the project of the Israeli government and its proprietor to destroy everything surrounding Hamas. In Gaza or wherever its leaders are. Even when it comes to negotiators with whom de-escalation was negotiated: as in the case of Ismail Haniyeh, who was assassinated in Tehran in late July while attending the inauguration of Iran’s new president. A double provocation, in this case, that can count on moderate and fruitless dissent from Washington, similar to what Zelensky experienced with the invasion of Kursk and the bombing of the nuclear power plants of Zaporizhzhia and Kursk itself. In the expanded dimension of the wars they are engaged in, the Israeli prime minister and the Ukrainian president are playing the card – unashamed to some, desperate to many – of a general coup that could mitigate responsibility and renew their indispensability. Deadly war games that multiply casualties, but which seem destined for a test scheduled in just over two months, during the November 5 US election. At that point, Zelensky, in particular, may find himself in a tight spot. If Trump wins, his objections to adopting a realistic solution to the conflict with Moscow are unlikely to be heard. Not just because “The Donald” wants to fulfill his promise to end the war quickly by dealing directly with Putin, unlike what Biden did. But because that would be his administration’s line. Vice presidential candidate Vance did not hesitate to say that with Trump back in the White House, funds to Kiev would be drastically reduced. It remains to be seen whether the Republican candidate can gain the upper hand over his Democratic rival, who enjoys a novelty effect and mainstream media support in the polls. Important elements that Trump has responded to by enlisting the support of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Bob’s son and John’s nephew, two eternal icons of the Democratic universe who were both assassinated, faced the Biden clan’s ban on running in the Democratic Party primaries and campaigned as an independent candidate, doing well but failing to break through the wall of hostility and censorship intended for him by the mainstream American media, most notably CNN. Convinced of his inability to win, Kennedy decided to support Trump. There were many arguments of disagreement with the tycoon, on some they could agree, but one argument above all was decisive: the promise to resume negotiations with Russia and put an end to the war as soon as he took office. “A good enough reason to support Trump,” said Kennedy Jr. An alliance that could change the 2-3 percent of the vote that is critical to winning the White House, especially in swing states. A highly dramatic political struggle that all rulers look at with hope or apprehension. Hoping or fearing the consequences for their position. In Germany, which also faces important electoral challenges of an administrative nature in the coming weeks, the economic crisis resulting from the Russia-Ukraine war is weakening an already fragile coalition government. Heinz-Joachim Fischer, with the historical-theological approach that made him famous, analyzes the constants that over the centuries led German rulers to squander the national heritage at their disposal. While Francisco Borba Ribeiro Neto gives his attention to the paradox that has slowed down President Lula in Brazil: a winner without a majority, abandoned by the poor who have just become almost rich.