What do I think of Zelensky’s speech (and of Draghi’s). While Salvini convolutes …
Mario Draghi took care of Italy's honor and Zelensky's mood with a dry but not elusive speech about the key points of this phase. Giuliano Cazzola's comment
While I was listening to the speech of President Zelensky on TV, I had confirmation of one of the latest tricks used by the "pro-Putin pacefondai" in order to find arguments to cover up their infamy. They discovered the '' communication war '' as if the Ukrainian leader and the Kremlin killer were engaged in confrontation on a television talk show.
The reason why they walk on such slippery and dishonest ground is clear. When we cynically say that communication is important in wars and add that Zelensky has won the battle in this function, we suggest that there is something artificial even in the news coming from Ukraine, although – their goodness – the '' pacefondai '' cannot fail to admit a clear and evident fact: rather than information, Russian propaganda is cheap propaganda. It is a denial of the truth, because it would be impossible to win the race by convincing the world public opinion that the 117 children killed were little Nazis.
Taking, then, the thesis of the clash between communicators to the extreme, some Italian parliamentarians declared that they did not participate in the event that the Ukrainian premier held, remotely, in the Chamber of Deputies, arguing, they, that it would have been correct to speak also Putin, "to hear both positions on the field". It takes a lot of nerve to go so far as to "terrapiattismo".
It would not be surprising if it were just some parliamentarian who boasts a curriculum of nonsense such as: chemtrails, the false moon landing, the involvement of the CIA in the assault on the Twin Towers and anything else that has made the title to be elected in the current wretch. XVIII Legislature. Except then to experience, coherently, this affected negationism in a non vax and no pass key, up to the apotheosis of '' real Putinism ''.
But elderly war correspondents also do their utmost to weave this deception, as if in Ukraine – such a hoax appeared on some social media – they were shooting a film and the collapse of residential buildings and the holes dug by bombs in the streets were special effects. Toni Capuozzo, for example, a great TV studio frequenter, takes it out on a Ukrainian minister because he dared to say '' we will win '', while such a prospect would not be realistic, in his opinion. As if a minister who intends to encourage a weary people to resist should point the way to escape or surrender.
Zelensky's, in the Chamber, was a heartfelt speech, not at all rhetorical, as if he were afraid to speak there. He asked for help by dwelling more on sanctions than on weapons and calling for peace.
It almost seemed that he wanted to reassure Salvini, who, at the end of the speech, wanted to conjecture that he appreciates the Ukrainian president more when he hopes for an end to the conflict and does not insist on asking to be supplied with weapons.
It is truly singular the idea that the leader of the League has made of the legitimate use of weapons. When he was the boss of the yellow-green government he demanded a law thanks to which anyone could shoot thieves caught emptying the chicken coop at night, while a people attacked with missiles and cannons should only demonstrate for peace.
Returning to Zelensky, perhaps he had been informed that in Italy there are masters of bad thoughts who cannot suffer him and who accuse him of being responsible for the destruction of his country because he refuses to surrender.
Even one of the deputies of L'Alternativa is there (no, thanks, if you keep it too) explained his absence in the Chamber because the cross-examination was not allowed.
Fortunately, Mario Draghi thought about raising the honor of Italy and the mood of Zelensky at the same time (even if we are not sure if he had a simultaneous translation in his bunker) with a dry, but not elusive, speech . -key of this phase. A speech worthy of the one delivered in the Senate on February 17 last year in the debate on trust in his government.
«We want to design – said the premier – a path of greater closeness of Ukraine to Europe: it is a long process made up of necessary reforms. Italy is alongside Ukraine in this process. Italy wants Ukraine to join the European Union, ”the Italian prime minister said. And this is an important novelty, said at a time like the present. "In the face of incivility we do not turn to the other side" he assured to emphasize that "Today Ukraine is not only defending itself but our peace, freedom and security".
Then Draghi wanted – as they say in this regard – '' to put his feet on the plate ''. "The resistance of Mariupol, Karkhiv, Odessa and of all the places where the ferocity of President Putin falls is heroic", said the premier, accompanied by a long applause from the hemicycle. “We must respond with military aid to the resistance as well”.
Here: the forbidden word – weapons – was pronounced in that deaf and gray hall that Benito Mussolini could have transformed into a bivouac for his maniples; that Beppe Grillo wanted to open like a can of tuna; that Gianroberto Casaleggio wanted to replace with the direct democracy of the network.
That House which at the right moment is aware that it represents democracy, the worst of political systems – as a great '' resistant '' to oppression said – except for all the others.
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Start Magazine at the URL https://www.startmag.it/mondo/che-cosa-penso-del-discorso-di-zelensky-e-di-quello-di-draghi-mentre-salvini-arzigogola/ on Tue, 22 Mar 2022 14:42:36 +0000.