The questionable reasons of the good guys.
I think we got to excess, with excessive narrative, when we began to describe a manifesto of the March of Assisi as “repugnant”, because it did not specify enough that being for peace means being against Russia.
In general, a narrative is very well recognized from reality when it happens that the good ones are always good and the bad ones are always bad, the good ones dressed in white and the bad ones dressed in black, and everything becomes more and more pure, and the pure more pure arrive. that purge.
That the March of Assisi is an event marked by religious idealism, that is, that "peace" is an ideal transcendent to the factions, I believe is known. And not because I am a Catholic sympathizer: simply because it is an idealism, and therefore peace is sought regardless of what, how, who and why.
But if we have reached this paroxysm it is because no one dares to dirty the flag of the "good guys". So, since it's a dirty job but someone has to do it, I'll do it.
You have heard that Europe depends for 40% of its gas on Russia. And that Zelensky curses the Europeans because by buying gas from the Russians, they finance the bombs that then rain down on his poor people.
This would be credible if Zalensky did not have the material possibility to turn off the tap. The map immediately below clearly shows one thing: if we exclude the north stream, almost all the gas pipelines for central Europe pass through Ukraine.
If we go into detail, we discover that the situation is even more favorable to Zelensky. And now we need to understand for a moment what we are saying. If Zelenski accuses Europe of financing the Russians with gas, why doesn't he just send someone to blow up these pipelines?
It could be a major threat to Russia. If it is true that the Russian economy would collapse if they fail to sell more gas, and if it is true that it is the only strategy capable of folding Russia, what is Zelensky waiting for to blow up those pipelines?
If we investigate for a moment, we discover that these pipelines are not there for free: apparently, the Ukrainians are paid to get them through there, and Russia is continuing to pay the rent to the Ukrainians.
That is starting to change, right? Just insert elements of reality into the narrative, and… poof.
It is therefore curious how all the attention is turned towards Germany when it buys gas through north stream I and "Jamal", which do not pay royalties to Ukraine, while little is said about the gas pipelines that pass through Ukraine, or rather the coffers of Kiev.
So why doesn't Zalensky blow up those pipelines, or at least threaten to do so? Jamal and North Stream I cannot compensate for the capacity of the Russian gas pipelines passing through Ukraine.
- in return, Europeans are giving him billions of arms
- in return, the EU is letting Ukraine into Europe without too many questions about the requirements
- Russia pays ten billion / year to the Kiev coffers.
said so, the good ones seem less good, right?
Ah, yes, I don't say it:
Let's move on to Erdogan who wakes up well and hosts the peace treaties. Erdogan has a small problem. The wheat. The whole Middle East feeds on Ukrainian wheat. If we remove this year's harvest, which will be halved or maybe 30% of normal, the price of wheat in the Middle East is bound to rise to Western levels. And this of course, because the farmer will compete with it, he will prefer to sell the grain to Westerners who pay more.
We have already seen the result of this happening: the Arab springs. People are starving, food is too expensive, the poor are rebelling. Erdogan is found to have the economy most affected by the loss of the next crop in Ukraine. High inflation, currency that devalues, economy in shit, poverty on the rise.
And he wants a "spring" in his own home at least as much as he wants an asteroid on Ankara.
Erdogan had to try desperately to save the game. But not because it was good.
Because he wants to stay in power.
But let's stay on the grain. Much of the wheat that is eaten in the EU and in the Mediterranean / Middle East comes from Ukraine and Russia. Until now, much of that grain followed the route of the Black Sea.
But now Odessa is under naval blockade, and the rest of Ukraine no longer has ports. So, how will that 30% -50% of wheat produced in 2022 be sold? If the situation of naval blockade persists, or worsens, the Ukrainian wheat route will pass from the Black Sea to the Black Forest, that is, through trucks and trains, towards central Europe.
Already this summer we should see the first columns of trucks bringing the wheat produced in Ukraine to the EU.
This change is good news for the EU (the rapid acceptance procedure is not a humanitarian issue, perhaps?), But if such a route changes the impacts on the Mediterranean and the Middle East are unpredictable. Other "Springs"? And where? And how?
But in general, the loss of Odessa would not be a major bereavement for the EU, as it would allow the takeover of one of the two largest grain producers in the area.
On the other hand, if Russia could not even sell more wheat to Western countries, it now has Ukrainian outlets and ports, so the grain routes on the Black Sea will continue: they will simply be in the hands of the Russians.
Predicting a rapprochement of many countries to Russia is not complicated: none of them want a new "Spring" at home.
Here, just do the math in the pocket of the "good" and the narrative becomes more 'realistic.
However realistic a country like Ukraine may be, whose president reproaches Europe for buying the gas that passes mainly through the pipes of its territory, pipes that despite a genocide does not order its army to blow up, and for the which receives money from the enemy who intends to destroy it.