On Federico Rampini who repents.
I've never had a great impression of Rampini, and I think I wrote it. But this time he is adhering a little too much to the politics of ignorance, that collective forgetfulness that seems to grip Americans and Americanoids when they find themselves faced with the consequences of THEIR policies. Because Europe is not under-armed by chance. European states did not enjoy strangling their own war industries, the only way still permitted by the treaties to finance their domestic industry.
I have already mentioned in the past the existence of an Italian military nuclear program and its carrier.
In December 1964, General Paolo Moci asked the then Chief of Defense Staff, General Aldo Rossi, for authorization to start the construction of a national nuclear deterrent.[14] General Rossi gave his general authorization, recommending that the strictest secrecy be maintained on this initiative. General Moci had numerous conversations with the leading Italian missile expert of the time, Professor Luigi Broglio, who had launched numerous satellites from the equatorial base of Mombasa. From these talks arose, considering the economic possibilities of the nation, the idea of building a missile with a range of 3,000 km, thus having the possibility of hitting all of Europe and North Africa, armed with a nuclear warhead of 2.5 kg of plutonium. The planned construction of 100 missiles would have had a cost equal to that of bringing the new Lockheed F-104G Starfighter fighter-bombers online.
Who was it that blocked everything? Guess what, Rampini. It happened at the time that the 1947 peace treaty prohibited Italy and Germany from developing nuclear weapons, and it was the USA that insisted that we take charge of American weapons (but not of carriers: only airborne bombs), and that was immovable regarding the treaty.
At that time the US government was giving a high priority to nuclear non-proliferation, and was pushing for the signature of an international treaty. The Soviet Union made the elimination of the NATO nuclear Multilateral Force one of the preconditions for its accession to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which was signed on July 1, 1968 by the USA, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union. Neither Switzerland, nor the Balkan countries, nor Italy ratified it immediately. The Swiss government joined the treaty in 1969, while the Yugoslavian and Romanian governments ratified it by March 1970. Western intelligence services indicated that, even after the treaty was signed, Yugoslavia was still developing nuclear weapons at the Vinca Institute, located near Belgrade.
Immobility, dear Rampini, which was also there under the heading "aircraft carrier": we were forbidden to build them by the same treaty, and the USA NEVER wanted to give in, so much so that the first "aircraft carrier", the Garibaldi, was built after the 50 years of treaty. And, too much grace, just because it was classified as a “helicopter carrier”. Otherwise, we would have had (today) much more experience on the construction and operation of aircraft carriers.
50 years of begging the US for flexibility was of no avail.
And still under the heading "treaties", dear Rampini, I want to point out that the USA also prevented any integration project between the Italian Navy and Air Force, with the result that if Italy wanted to transport many paratroopers it could not do so by ship, using ships from landing, but had to put the vehicles on the ships and move the men by air.
and 50 years of prayers to obtain flexibility were useless: the air force men could not stay on the ships, and they could not integrate. Obtaining logistical problems that propagate to this day (even having to admit a certain Balbism in the Italian aviation).
Just considering Italy, I would point out to Rampini that it was the USA that was holding Europe back to keep it dependent on them. It's called "power". Because it didn't make sense (and it won't make sense in the future) to keep certain American bases in Europe, after having armed Europe. Sigonella, dear Rampini, has no sense of existing with a well-armed Italy.
Dear Rampini, if it hadn't been for the USA, Italy would now have its own atomic weapons, its own carrier missiles (and yes, take a tour of ASI. The modern carriers designed there are almost all Alfa's children). Instead it only has bombs, to be airlifted, and moreover the keys to making them go are in US hands.
If we go through Germany, (and Angela Merkel gave a decidedly piqued response to your hero, Trump), the American influence was even worse. The absurd rules for the procurement of armaments are not German stuff. They too are the result of American pressure and WWII treaties.
It was the USA who prevented the Germans from putting new ships in the water, who prevented them from building aircraft carriers, and especially who demanded that Konrad Adenauer, in 1954, sign a treaty that prevented the Germans from building chemical, nuclear and bacteriological weapons.
And the size of the German army in terms of strategic weapons was due to another fine treaty, signed in 1959, at American insistence, immediately after the end of the occupation of West Germany. The purpose? Once the armies of Italy and Germany had been mutilated, both countries would have had to accept the permanence of large American bases, such as Ramstein, or Sigonella, or others.
And you can notice it by observing, dear Rampini, the difference with France, which does not have large US bases: and when in the same period the USA insisted, the French responded with a screw you, and Charles de Gaulle decided for France to leave from the NATO military command to be able to pursue its own defense program not necessarily dependent on other countries, maintaining its autonomy also in choices regarding the nuclear program.
Who wanted to dismantle what, Rampini? The truth is that the USA was interested in weak Italy and Germany, in order to be able to place their bases there. And extend their influence.
European countries had programs to expand their armed forces: it was the USA that was holding them back.
At least on the Italian side, there are some at least suspicious cases. What happens "recently" is that in Somalia the Americans and the Somali guerrillas are fighting every day. Black Hawk down etc. But they are not the only ones. There are also the Wolves of Tuscany. Who carried out, among other things, the largest dismantling of a (highly guarded) weapons depot of the operation, with only six minor injuries. They will get the silver medal for valor. Well.
The USA instead takes a toothless beating from the guerrillas themselves.
Coincidence: a few months later, the Lupi di Toscana are disbanded.
And if it only happened once, amen. The problem is that every time, or almost every time, an Italian corps participates in the exercises created with some corps of excellence and makes the USA look bad, the punishment arrives immediately afterwards. You may have heard about the time the San Marco left the famous marines in the dust. It happened. Result: coincidentally, in the following year it was "decided" that their number would go from 3500 to 680.
Every massive decision to reduce forces in Italy ALWAYS comes after, in some exercise or operation, the USA arrives later.
And you know this well, Rampini: for the USA the exercises also serve to sell weapons.
After literally 75 years of reducing European military capabilities to a minimum (read: Italy and Germany), the USA has now understood that this policy costs money and they want us to pay for it.
Very well, dear Rampini, and I really don't think that any government has problems financing its military industry, which being such is mainly domestic and brings GDP home. But one could easily expose American hypocrisy if someone proposed
- The construction of European nuclear weapons, shared throughout the EU. Don't worry, the USA would NEVER allow it.
- The construction of two or three European fleets with dedicated aircraft carriers. Don't worry, it will NEVER happen, the USA wants excessive power over the seas.
Because all the USA wants, dear Rampini, is to sell weapons. Otherwise they would be praising Poland every day, which is buying a lot of it. Unfortunately, instead of the F-16s they opted for a similar plane from South Korea, and for the tanks instead of the Abrahams they wanted Korean tanks.
And Turkey isn't praised very often either, despite having a certain army. The trouble is that Turkey preferred the A-129 to the American Cobra, and preferred the S-400 to the Patriots, and to make matters worse, it has a self-built weapons program. No praise for them. Not even the Greeks, who have substantial spending, get all this praise. Maybe because they don't buy that many American weapons and they have many suppliers.
Rampini says the Europeans sabotaged NATO from within. Correct. After all, NATO had clipped their wings since the end of the Second World War.
Rampini continually mentions "European pacifists", as if the USA, during the war in Vietnam, had not experienced the largest and most influential pacifist movement in Western history. According to Rampini, it's all European stuff. Woodstock was in the province of Milan: Woodstock(MI).
Rampini says that thanks to NATO, Europe had 75 years of peace, but to be honest, I could say that thanks to NATO the USA had 75 years of "being THE ONLY superpower", because if everyone in Europe had made themselves the atomic bombs (and they were well within the reach of the Italian and German industries), those who would have lost out would have been the USA, not Europe.
Of course, all the politicians from the 80s, or perhaps older, are there shouting the same things Rampini says. But a few questions would be enough to put him in crisis.
- a large European fleet in the Mediterranean would make bases like Sigonella, and those in Greece, useless. And we would certainly no longer need a US fleet for the Mediterranean. Are they willing to get their fleet off the hook?
- a large European fleet in the Baltic and a large air force in Scandinavia would certainly be a deterrent for Russia, but is the USA willing to close Ramstein?
the response of the usual politicians of the 80s will be obvious: European defense is fine, but always with the USA behind us.
Or rather, among the balls.
And I say this for a reason: certainly the war in Ukraine is (perhaps) the turning point in which Europe will decide to change its military policy.
But if we observe US military policy over the last 75 years, dear Rampini, we cannot say that it has been exactly brilliant. Ultimately, the last war CLEARLY won by the USA dates back to the IIWW. Vietnam: Lost. Korea: lost. Afghanistan: Lost. Iraq: “not won”, as some would say. BUT every time, every time, we have inherited new enemies from US foreign policy. People who hate us without even knowing the difference between Madrid and Warsaw, and who simply consider us "Western".
We have earned the hatred of almost the entire Arab world by participating in YOUR wars, we have a North Africa in rubble because of your "springs", the Chinese, who previously had no problems with us have become enemies because YOU have decided, and so on. The damage that being identified with the "West" has done to us in trade relations with the other side of the Mediterranean is incalculable.
So, dear Rampini, repent too. But the generation of 80s politicians is coming to an end.
Pray, dear Rampini, that it is not Europe that regrets NATO. Because we have lived with Russia for 600 years. We have been living with the Arab world on the other side of the Mediterranean for even longer, through ups and downs.
The first European politician to ask "but if we were not friends of the USA, who exactly would be our enemy, and why?" He'll shut your mouth.
And honestly, I only see such frankness in the mouth of a German politician.
It's only a matter of time, Rampini.
Uriel Fanelli
The blog is visible from Fediverso by following:
Contacts:
- Fediverse: @ uriel@fedi.keinpfusch.net
- MATRIX: @uriel:mtrx.keinpfusch.net
- GNU JAMI: Ufanelli