‘Time To Call Putin, Else…’: Meloni Piggybacks On Macron, Pressures EU After Russia ‘QUAKES’ Ukraine

I think the time has come for Europe to talk to Russia too. Because if Europe decides to participate in this phase of negotiations by talking only to one of the two sides involved, I fear that in the end, it will see. That is, I fear that the positive contribution it can make will be limited. A dramatic new rift is emerging inside Europe over how to deal with Russia. Just as efforts to end the war in Ukraine intensify, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has issued a stark warning. Europe must reopen dialogue with Moscow or risk becoming irrelevant in the negotiations over the Ukraine conflict that could decide the continent's future. Speaking at her New Year's press conference, Meloni aligned herself with French President Emmanuel Macron, who has called for direct engagement with Russia. Meloni said refusing to talk to Moscow while peace talks accelerate would leave Europe sidelined and powerless. Behind the scenes, negotiations to end the nearly four-year conflict have accelerated since November, but Russia has yet to signal any real willingness to compromise. Moscow has given no public indication it would accept Western-backed security guarantees for Ukraine, including the possible deployment of foreign troops on Ukrainian soil. Meloni cautioned that reopening dialogue must be done carefully and with unity. She called for the European Union to appoint a single envoy to deal directly with Russian President Vladimir Putin, warning that chaos and mixed messaging would only strengthen the Kremlin's hand. At the same time, Meloni drew a hard red line. She rejected talk of welcoming Russia back into the elite group of seven nations, calling the idea, absolutely premature. She also made clear that Italy will not send troops to Ukraine to enforce any peace deal. Her comments come as France and Britain push ahead with plans for possible multinational deployments once a ceasefire is reached, highlighting growing divisions within Europe. Last October, you did not rule out the participation of Italian soldiers in a potential multinational peace force in Gaza, while you continue to rule out the deployment of Italian soldiers to Ukraine. I imagine that the reason for this difference is not related to the cause of Ukraine. Think of the UN umbrella as you explained regarding Gaza. I ask you if this UN umbrella were to exist in the future also for mission in Ukraine, if you would be willing or would consider sending Italian soldiers to Ukraine or if you would still uphold Salvini's anti-Ukrainian or pro-Putin veto. I do not agree with the reference to Salvini's pro-Putin veto. This is an interpretation that I consider somewhat biased. I have already said on various occasions, and I take this opportunity to tell you as well, that the debates happening within the majority, particularly on this issue of Russia and Ukraine, do not are debates that happen between pro-Russians and pro-Ukrainians, between pro-Americans or pro-whatever, this whole thing about being pro as you know. I have always thought that strings are for puppets and that politicians do not have strings and therefore tend to, if they are serious they should not be followers of anything. It is a debate on how best to defend the national interest in my opinion and you know that there is a very significant, perhaps majority, portion, let's say the truth, of the Italian public opinion that believes it would be easier to defend the national interest by, let's say, taking a step back, clearly thinking that this could distance the war. I think that the thing that distances the war is standing alongside Ukraine, but the debate is about the methods with which peace is ensured, the national interest is ensured, and I repeat, ensured, there are many who think differently from me. I have always, I have always said the only way to guarantee peace is deterrence, deterrence, deterrence. Recently, I looked it up and I was very fascinated. The word deterrence comes from Latin, deviates, from terrory to frighten. So, what is the concept of deterrence? You must be strong enough to discourage the enemy from the possibility of attacking you, so it is strength that builds peace, not weakness that builds peace. This is my understanding and the reason why I have always said that to build peace, it was necessary to stand by Ukraine. But for those who have an option, a proposal different from mine, I think that it is perfectly legitimate to have it without being told that they are biased towards something or someone else who is an enemy of national interests. In any case, that is not my understanding. Then, regarding the question you are asking, I doubt this option on the field today, that of an intervention by a multinational force with the United Nations umbrella, is what is being discussed today and is also included in the broad definition. Of the peace agreements and the establishment of a multinational force within the Therefore without a NATO umbrella currently for to strengthen Ukraine's defense as a security guarantee tool. The reason why I do not consider it necessary to send Italian soldiers to Ukraine is that, as you know, the main the tool identified today to build solid security guarantees for Ukraine is the so-called Article 5 like, that is, a system of security guarantees inspired by Article 5 of NATO. Now if there is a security system inspired by Article 5 of NATO, that is the main form of security guarantee for Ukraine, that is, the nations that are part of NATO, even if in this case the security guarantee would be external to NATO, but it is inspired by that model. Let's take the NATO model. In the nations that are within NATO, there are many nations in which there are no foreign bases or troops and they are still guaranteed. And they are still guaranteed because clearly the provision of an intervention by allies and those who sign these Everyone. Then sending soldiers to reinforce the Ukrainian army can be, and probably is, an extra step. In fact, I do not contest the nations that want to do it, but I do not consider it necessary. From Italy, after which it seemed to me that there was almost unanimity in Parliament on not sending Italian troops to Ukraine. Now I read that instead they are beginning to to have different positions from members of the Democratic Party. If the position has changed, a motion is presented in Parliament in this regard and the proposal is formalized, and I will tell you what I think about it. But as of today, I do not consider it necessary. Also because, look, how many troops should we send to Ukraine to be effective in terms of deterrence, facing an army that has about one and a half million people in Russia. From the beginning, I have been focused on finding a formula that could provide significant and serious security guarantees. And I think we should all be proud, allow me to also say this, Sir Rico, of the fact that today in the documents being discussed, the security guarantees for Ukraine are being designed based on of a proposal that was made by Italy. And I also say this because during the long months in which we dealt with this matter, I often heard politicians and observers mocking Italy for a proposal that was completely groundless up in the air. They have announced that they hope the decree with which Italy supports Ukraine annually does not get Parliament's approval. Regardless of how this will turn out, there will also have to be a vote, evidently perhaps on Article 5. Regardless of how this vote turns out, and I ask you, don't these positions risk weakening or worse, influencing your work in international forums? And then, if I may, Salvini has expressed hope that Italy will be the first country to build and rebuild. The bridge is with Russia. I ask you if you agree with this and if you also agree that Russia should rejoin the G8. Evidently it was not so groundless. Well, look, I clearly listened to all the evaluations that come from the majority. I have also read of someone hoping that the Ukraine aid decree would not receive the votes. I don't think it will go that way. And as I have already said, I would consider it a mistake, it particularly surprises me. Especially that it comes from a general, precisely for the reasoning I made earlier on the topic of deterrence. Soldiers are the first to understand how essential the armed forces are for building peace. Or are essential for building peace and not, let's say, simply for making war. After that, regarding Russia in the G8 and contacts with Putin, Salvini made a reflection on Italy's relations, just as Macron did, for example, on relations with Europe, in the sense that, and in this, let's say, beyond what Italian relations are, because we are in a context that also involves cooperation. On cooperation, the European Union, I think, however, that Macron is right on this. That is, I believe the time has come for Europe to also speak with Russia, because if Europe decides to be part of this phase of negotiations by speaking only to one of the two sides involved, I fear that in the end, it will see that the positive contribution it can make is limited. After that, though, where is the issue in this? The issue is who should do it, because if we made the mistake of deciding on one hand to reopen dialogues with Russia, and on the other hand to proceed in a disorganized manner while doing so, we would be doing a favor to Putin, and the last thing I want to do in life is a favor to Putin. In life is a favor to Putin. We have had this problem since the beginning of the negotiations. There are many voices speaking, there are many formats that exist. It is the reason why I have always been in favor of the appointment of a special envoy for Europe. On the Ukrainian issue, that is, a person who would allow us to synthesize but to speak with one voice, this is the real issue that puts us in difficulty. After that, relations with Italy, Russia in the G7, what will happen in the future, we'll discuss this when we have a path to peace, that is, when we have peace, but I'll tell you more, we'll also talk about it based on what the conditions are under which peace is achieved. So for now, it seems absolutely premature to me. Today it would seem to me the entry of Russia into the G7, for example, is impossible. After that, these are all topics that will arise when and if there is a peace, and I repeat, also based on how it is achieved, under what conditions it is achieved.