"We are not afraid of bombs"

By Lucio Caracciolo

Everyone is back to talking about the atomic bomb as the real guarantee of security for their country. Why did Ukraine have to dismantle its arsenal in 1996? Can we trust the French and British “guarantees”?

In 1966, “I Giganti” sang “Noi non abbiamo paura della bomba” (We are not afraid of the bomb. This was a motto, “we are not afraid of the bomb”, which today I believe should be somewhat questioned, because the atomic bomb returns as a protagonist in this war in Ukraine and in everything related to the negotiations that we really hope will begin between Russia, Ukraine and America. Let's start with a perhaps little-known piece of news.

A little over a year ago, American intelligence revealed that Putin had decided to use the atomic bomb in space as a means of intimidation, a warning to Ukraine, and that he had been stopped at the last moment by his Chinese partners, who had said to him: “Where do you think you’re going?”

Perhaps the news is true, although intelligence information should always be taken with a grain of salt, but it reminds us of an essential point, namely that we have moved on from the long phase of intimidation during the Cold War, when on one side were the Soviets and on the other side the Americans armed "to the teeth with bombs", but with quite clear rules, that it should not be used and that it served only as a means of intimidation, as a threat to prevent its use.

Now, on the contrary, everyone, even the newspapers, discusses the bomb not only as a deterrent, but also as a weapon to be used on the ground or, as we have seen, in space.

Moreover, it seems that the only truly sovereign states are now those that possess a nuclear arsenal. The problem is that these states are growing and risking becoming more numerous, precisely because they see the atomic bomb as the true guarantee of their sovereignty.

And here we come to the case of Ukraine, which takes us back to 1996, when Ukraine, after receiving guarantees – those famous security guarantees that are always talked about – from America, Russia and even other countries, decided to dismantle its nuclear arsenal.

I remember that when Ukraine became independent in 1991, it had the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world. In fact, it was part of the Soviet arsenal and had inherited it from the USSR. The Russians insisted, in agreement with the Americans, that Ukraine hand over this arsenal, and the result is before our eyes today.

But we can take many other examples. For example, Gaddafi's Libya, which was one step away from nuclear weapons, gave up and we know very well how it ended. For example, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the same story.

Whereas, for example, the opposite happened with North Korea, which created its nuclear arsenal ignoring American pressure, and today, thanks to this arsenal, it scares all those who would like to wipe out its regime from the face of the earth. And finally, we come to our case. These days we have seen the French and the British brandish their nuclear arsenal and offer themselves as guarantors, not only for Ukraine, but for European countries instead of the Americans.

And here he is, Macron, here he is Starmer, forced to talk about his bomb as a guarantee for others, provoking various reactions in the meantime. So true is this that, at a certain point, the French government had to officially intervene, when there was already talk of a possible Franco-German agreement to build a joint arsenal, to defend itself with the French bomb. And the French government, through its Defense Minister, Louis Cornu, has declared that France retains sovereignty and control of the bomb, and the only person authorized to press the button is Macron.

So, there is a lot of talk and a lot of uncertainty about the bomb that should hypothetically protect Ukraine as an extreme guarantee, but above all NATO countries, in the event that the Americans decide they no longer want to take care of us.

This is perhaps good to remember, since Italy is out of the game in such a game, because it does not have the bomb, although we have tried to have it. In 1957, Italy participated in a secret project that was supposed to lead to the construction of an Italo-Franco-German bomb through an agreement signed in secret in the Algerian desert, at that time French, by the Italian, French and German governments.

The project seemed to be progressing when the Italian Minister of Defense at the time, Emilio Taviani, decided to inform the Americans, because he did not really agree with this and, above all, thought that the Americans would not accept it.

The result? The project failed and the atomic bomb today is neither with the Germans nor with the Italians, but with the French, because General De Gaulle attached great importance to this instrument of sovereignty, not so much as a military tool, but as a political instrument to proclaim the greatness of France. So why are we talking about the bomb?

Because many in Europe, especially in Eastern and Northern Europe, think that even if the war were to end, even if a peace agreement were to be reached, the Russians cannot be trusted. They could pause, perhaps for a long time, and then decide not only to take the rest of Ukraine up to Kiev, but also to threaten the Baltic countries, Poland, the Scandinavian countries, that northeastern wing of NATO that has always been particularly hostile and that the Russians see as an open provocation, just as the Poles, the Swedes and the Baltics see the Russians. An understanding must be reached here.

At the moment, we certainly have no evidence of any Russian intention to attack these countries, but above all a certain skepticism about this possible Russian strategic planning, coming from the battlefield.

We have all seen the state of Ukraine today, unfortunately, and, above all, how exhausted the Ukrainians are, but we see less of another fact, which is that even if this war is lost for Ukraine, it is certainly not won by Russia. The Russians killed are hundreds of thousands, the Russian public opinion, which is anyway very patriotic and ready to eat grass when there is a war, is starting to think that perhaps it is time to end it, to not risk it further.

And this means that after three years of war, the Russians have not managed to take even a single major Ukrainian city, let alone Kiev. So, beyond their goals, the Russians apparently do not have the military capacity to threaten their neighbors. / Bota.al (A2 Televizion)