Meloni balances between Trump and Europe, balancing the Prime Minister's Ukraine stance and refusing to break "Western unity."
The Washington Summit
A double game is being played. There's the possibility, if not of peace between Russia and Ukraine, at least of a decisive step forward in that direction. But there's also the possibility that the unity of both the West and the EU is at stake.
Is this real optimism or just a facade? In Washington, just before meeting Zelensky and the other seven European leaders who had come to prevent a repeat of the unfortunate February 28th ambush, Giorgia Meloni gave the press a couple of minutes and expressed a very cautious sense of possibility: "Glimmers of dialogue have opened up because there's a stalemate on the ground, thanks to the heroism of the Ukrainians but also thanks to the support of the West." This is her leitmotif, one of the main stakes in the complex diplomatic game the prime minister is playing: "Western unity is the tool we have to build peace and ensure justice. Obviously, Italy is there." Without overstating her point in seeing a solution within reach: " There are no easy solutions. We must explore all possible solutions."
Since the changing of the guard at the White House, Meloni has been in Europe, with German Chancellor Merz , but even more than Merz, the European leader who most insists on the obligation not to split from the US and who most resists the temptations of force, especially from Macron, which could instead trigger a profound crisis in relations between the US and the EU. For her, and not only for her, it is a priority that the West emerge from this extremely delicate moment united in substance and form. But if she harps so hard on this issue, it is precisely because she knows that, instead, that Western unity is by no means guaranteed and is actually at risk. Regarding the offers that will be made to Zelensky, the Italian prime minister is more than satisfied. Washington is explicitly inclined to accept her proposal: the extension to Kiev of NATO's Article 5 , which allows, without obliging, even armed intervention in defense of an Alliance member under attack.
It's not NATO membership, because the Alliance couldn't set up bases in Ukraine , on Russia's doorstep, but it should be a sufficient guarantee against further attacks. This is the formula Rome had devised, in opposition to that of French President Macron and the Volunteers: a European contingent on the ground as a peacekeeping force. Macron hasn't given up on the idea. If Trump were to decide to embrace it, coupled with Article 5 of NATO, Italy, until now hostile, would likely not back down. But in that case , Putin would give the green light, considering the peacekeeping contingent an enemy armed force, and obviously the entire picture, starting with the purpose of the expedition, would change radically. The risk of a split between the two sides of the Atlantic, therefore, doesn't concern the guarantees to be offered to Kiev. It concerns instead the quid pro quo, that is, what Kiev would have to give Trump. In a particularly scathing post about Ukraine, he wrote that peace was within reach if Kiev wanted it—essentially, if it renounced NATO membership and Crimea. Zelensky responded indirectly with an equally pointed comment: "Russia must not be rewarded for its aggression." It's significant that the American president mentioned Crimea but not the four regions of Donbass, which Putin nevertheless considers equally indispensable.
If the agreement proves impossible, however, it will be crucial, at least for the sake of relations between the two halves of the West, who puts their foot down first. Zelensky 's refusal to recognize Crimea 's annexation could push Trump to hold Zelensky himself responsible for the failure, for whom he notoriously lacks even the slightest sympathy or solidarity. Relations with the EU, which would remain firmly at Kiev's side, would be significantly compromised, even if everyone would be eager to deny it. This is likely what the prime minister is alluding to when she calls for "exploring all possible solutions," and her elliptical and very cautious formulation reveals just how sensitive the issue is even within the EU, where many, including France, agree with the need not to "reward" Putin even with the official recognition of Russian Crimea.
A weakening on that front by Zelensky and a Russian hardening on Donbass would overturn the situation. Russia would then demonstrate its refusal to seek peace, even in the face of a very painful concession to Kiev. The war would continue, but at least the Western alliance would be safe and fully confirmed. What is being played out, in short, is a double game. There is the decisive and obvious possibility, the possibility if not of peace between Russia and Ukraine , at least of a decisive step forward in that direction. But there is also the equally important, albeit deliberately overlooked, possibility for European leaders, and especially for Italy, which has at stake the unity of both the West and the EU. The outcome of the first, the war, is highly uncertain. That of the second, relations between the US and the EU and within the EU, is equally so.
l'Unità
