Filling the pages of newspapers with fear.
Whatever it costs, it looks like we will have to fill the pages of the newspapers. Consequently, when we talk about Russia and Ukraine, we see the most disparate things written. Which make us understand, in a certain sense, how much the secret services of the various nations have infiltrated the media.
There is nothing strange or new about this. For example, if we talk about the West, the power of the media is known. Consequently, it is obvious that the secret services of half the world will try to infiltrate the newspapers.
And when you consider how much journalists, especially freelancers, earn, it doesn't have to be too expensive either. And the news is terrible.
But not all of them true.
Russia is again threatening to use nuclear weapons.
It's something Russia says all the time: honestly, if they had found only one target that was convenient to hit, they would have done it already.
But in threatening, Russia tells us one thing: it cannot do more. What we see in Ukraine is the height of conventional military power.
If it were true that Russia has 12,000 tanks and 900,000 troops at their disposal, they would not need to threaten the use of nuclear weapons: they could simply threaten to redouble their efforts.
If your military capacity is, let's say 100, and the number "100" is the use of nuclear weapons, if you are 11 in Ukraine, you can threaten a lot of things, in the space between 11 and 100.
But if you get to 11 you can't threaten, I don't know, to go 22, and you go straight to nuclear power, one really wonders if you REALLY have 900,000 troops, 12,000 tanks and two million reservists.
So far, to tell the truth, almost nothing of all this might has been seen: they could have brought back the exhausted troops and replaced them with fresh ones, so to speak. Or they could have doubled the number of troops.
Instead, they talk about nuclear weapons. It does not take long to understand what is happening: what we see deployed in Ukraine is practically the greatest effort that Russia can do with conventional weapons.
And if that's the best they can do, honestly, we can sleep pretty well.
The Russians are very cruel and ruthless and they will win for it.
correct, it says this. But neither is a predictor of victory in the military world. And there is one thing that has not been understood so far: that the Russians are destroying what they want to conquer.
The "second phase" of the war takes place precisely in the disputed territories. And the destruction is concentrated there.
Let us also suppose that, with the same methods seen up to now, the Russians conquer all of Dombass and the comecazzosichiama. But put in Odessa and the whole south.
At that point, what will Putin have conquered? An expanse of rubble.
Now imagine that the war is over. Putin has conquered the DOmbass and the comecazzosichiama. The Ukrainian population is either deported or emigrates to Ukraine proper.
At that point, Ukraine was incorporated by the EU, which took over the granaries (the rest of the country remained with the Ukrainians), while Dombass and comecazzosichiama are with Russia.
At that point the EU prints the usual euro fund and begins to finance the reconstruction of Ukraine, which obviously will not involve Russian companies, but only European and American companies (if the IMF will also participate, for example).
On the other hand, what is Russia doing? Finance what? They can't even keep up the pension system in a country where life expectancy is 66 years. With what money do they finance what? With the money of a gas that they no longer sell (because within two years the EU will not buy any more)?
Would Ukraine lose access to the sea? No. If you enter Schengen and the EU, you can use other European ports.
Putin would have conquered industrial areas reduced to crumbs and mines, which in theory would be very rich. But we know well that as soon as the war ended, the citizens (mostly Ukrainians) of Dombass would all end up emigrating to the rich half, because unlike the Russian sector, instead, aid for reconstruction rains.
It is absolutely probable that, after a possible end of the war, Il Dombass and comecazzosichiama will hold a referendum: but to return to the side where there is money and development. And the Russian economy is unable to bring in money and development.
So is there anything to worry about?
Not on the military side. We are talking about 190,000 soldiers who are stopped by an army with laughable equipment, such as Ukraine's, just because they are supplied with a small slice of Western military spending.
Putin will have to say that he is fighting against the whole of NATO, but one wonders what would happen if this ridiculous gangbang army we see found itself against bodies like the French foreign legion, or his majesty's gurkas, or at least a decent air force. , let's say more than a dozen mig21?
What worries me, on the other hand, is the clearance of a kind of “reverse” cancel culture, in the sense that it mainly affects the extreme left.
I mean, all sensible people today know that we can make the Russian military a figure of epochal shit, drain it of resources, and put Russia in a position not to be able to rebuild itself for years.
But pacifists have always existed. If we go to places like Assisi, we know that we will find fakes who believe in "passive resistance" (oh, if soldiers rape you, don't worry, you can't do anything else!) And believe that weapons are the cause of war. We know, because we have always seen them, that they are pure idealists who do not understand practical matters in any way. We are talking, after all, of people like Santoro, also wanting to leave the world of the most idealistic Catholics.
To propose to outlaw their words, when they have always existed and have never harmed anyone, seems to me at least McCarthyist. Of course, someone will explain to me that McCarthyism was "quite another thing", but I had not seen such an active "calcel culture" even when it proposed to shoot migrants.
The pacifists are wrong, I think so too, but from here to point to them as traitors eager for Ukrainian blood we pass. It is obvious that I would not leave a square meter of Ukraine in the hands of the same gentlemen of Buchka, but if they can dream of a Ukraine in peace, I see no reason to move these inquisitive tones.
Let's say that among the problems of the war in Ukraine, the Catholic pacifists have little priority. Santoro, or his Zombie, has even less. The angry tone, from cancel culture, on the other hand worries me.
I am also worried about the uncritical stupidity with which one succumbs to some vulgate.
For example, as I have already written, almost all the gas pipelines that bring gas to Europe from Russia pass through Ukraine. Is it a coincidence that none of them have yet been hit in the fighting, while the nuclear power plants have been occupied multiple times?
Loweel 
And it is true that the Ukrainian army did not have all the necessary weapons, but it is also true that Ukraine has always suffered from an administrative system as corrupt as the Russian one: we are sending the weapons that they could have bought, if only military spending was not lost in the pockets of Ukrainian politicians.
Corrupt politicians who, by definition, are all heroes today.
Nobody asks questions? Admittedly Zelensky's popularity was low before the war, but someone went to see why? No.
Zelensky is "the good", period.
But a story of good white clothes and bad black clothes has only one name: fairytale. Reality has only shades of gray.
Even the anti-German vulgate is honestly boring me a little bit:
But living here I have learned that Germany can defend itself better than I do, so I don't worry so much about it. In any case, what puzzles me is that everyone drinks the vulgate without saying a word.
And again: no one asks questions about Italian journalists either.
Di Feo arrives and informs you that the Russians have got their hands on a "deposit" of Italian 120 mm mortars. Now, 120mm mortars are obsolete weapons, which can be sold due to their obsolescence. In short, you can find them on the market. The Russians may have bought them on purpose to show them on TV. After all, Russia also has Italian "Lince" armored vehicles: I would not be surprised if they showed some destroyed Lynx soon. Could you ask yourself if, in a military front area, the weapons are in the warehouses or supplied to the departments? But do you really want to pass the history of the arsenals to the front that are captured?
The weapons at the front are in the hands of the soldiers, not in the crates in the warehouses.
And what about the good Daniele Raineri, who discovers today that if he is subjected to a very strong artillery fire, a platoon can also retreat and be demoralized? What's the news, exactly? To say it all, mortality tends to rise to 100% in a radius of about 2 / 2.5 sq km under the fire of a grad. Almost all of them were saved because they withdrew back. What's the point? In war it is called "a Thursday".
It is enough to read the article to notice the pen of Russian propaganda: there are no photographs, no names are mentioned, there are not even dates, so as to be able to establish which bombing we are referring to. It's an article written just to write it. And honestly, it is written so clumsily that the propaganda intent is evident: well, you are backed up 30km, in forced march, in one day. So where is it that the Russians advanced 30km in one day? Boh. Where and when did this massive bombing happen? Boh. Words to the wind.
This uncritical stupidity, in my opinion, is much more dangerous than Russian military capability. From what we see the Russians are concentrating their forces and supply lines in a space ranging from 100 to 150 km. This is their operating margin, their real penetration capacity. They cannot invade any NATO country, in fact.
But this poison in the form of bad press, both when it comes to Ukrainian victories and defeats, is the real danger. It supports both sides of a McCarthyism that does nothing but poison public opinion.
For example, the story that "Moscow sacrificed the butchers of Buchka to" make the witnesses disappear ". What the fuck is that?
of Daniele Raineri 
If there is a way to make the witnesses disappear, they would just take the soldiers home after decorating them. That way they would have the certainty that they would not be able to testify.
Instead, he says "genius", they sent them to the front in order to have them massacred. And how would this have prevented them from falling into prisoners, so to speak, and if so, could they have testified? Don't you realize this bullshit?
It has already happened that entire divisions have been sent to die, of course, but the reason was certainly not "cancel the witnesses", because out of 1000 people in a brigade, in the event of defeat, a few dozen prisoners (if nothing else among the wounded) we expect them.
Clear: if the Ukrainians knew who they were up against, they probably did their best to defeat them. But in the field they are always injured and prisoners. Is this the way to "avoid witnesses", when it would have been enough to send them back to their homeland and replace them with a fresh brigade to be sure that they did not participate in any trial, or investigation?
Here, at this moment I am not so afraid of the nuclear issue. I am not afraid because I remember the reason for this war: if there were tactical missiles in Ukraine, Moscow would be indefensible.
So Putin can threaten as much as he wants, but he knows very well that if he were to bullshit Ukraine would be filled with nuclear bases, and Moscow would be indefensible.
Besides what I said above.
What frightens me instead is the further plan of stupefying the population carried out by the mass media, which are trying to go well beyond polarization: now they are aiming for an atmosphere worthy of McCarthyism.
And I know very well that McCarthyism was quite another thing, (as the cazzologists say pretending to know what it was) but the result is that.
I don't know exactly how one should react to this flood of fear that causes cancel culture: let's say, however, that I feel inspired by Damiano David's “double sausage, thank you” to Chef Rubio.