In a recent speech, President Mattarella hypothesized that a catastrophic war with Russia over Ukraine could break out without anyone actually wanting it, just as happened with WWI. But is this the real danger we should be wary of? Instead, almost everyone hypothesizes the danger that after Ukraine, Putin's Russia might invade the rest of Europe, so much so that it is claimed the Ukrainians are fighting for us and for our freedom as well.

It seems entirely clear to me, however, that Russia would have neither the motive nor the strength to attack the powerful NATO, which in any case would not lack American intervention for historical and political reasons, whatever Trump might say—who, in any case, will no longer be president in a few years.

The fundamental point is to ask why Russia, assuming it conquered all of Ukraine, would then invade Europe. Yet, this possibility is presented as the main reason why the war in Ukraine has become OUR war for us Europeans.

There are many other wars around the world that we essentially ignore: Sudan, Yemen, Congo, Eritrea, Somalia. It is true that the war in Ukraine is close to us, but is that enough to consider it OUR war?

Many people talk about and hypothesize the danger of a Russian invasion, but I don't see anyone indicating the motive and, especially, the capability to carry it out. In my opinion, Russia's maximum aspiration might be to rebuild the national unity that unexpectedly and without true motivation—almost by chance, I'd say—fell apart with the collapse of communism.

Now, this objective, after the failed blitz to change the government in Ukraine, has moved further away; perhaps it will be discussed again in 50 years. To think now that Russia could even invade Europe seems like folly to me.

We must remember that the age of territorial conquests ended a long time ago. The war in Ukraine stems from the fragmentation of a state, just like that of Yugoslavia, and not from the desire to expand its borders as happened in the 19th century. To think that Turkey wants to reconquer the Balkans or that Austria will wage war on us for South Tyrol seems less absurd, more justifiable than a Russian invasion of Europe.

The war in Ukraine is entirely an internal matter for the Russian world. It is also said that if Putin succeeded in conquering Ukraine (which is entirely unrealistic, by the way), he would then feel authorized to do anything. But it is not the case that Russians, like anyone else, can do whatever they want: in the world order, it is clear that every nation must take others into account, just as happens in private life.

The problem is always: why on earth, after defeating Ukraine, should Russia attack us too?

It's not even a matter, as some say, of not being able to trust Putin: in politics, everyone does what they judge to be expedient, and there is no evident expediency for Russia to attack NATO.

We must also consider that the domination over Eastern Europe belonged to communism, of which Russia was the prime manifestation: the interventions in Hungary or Czechoslovakia were due not to Russian nationalism but to the cause of communism (however we may judge it) and were regarded as such worldwide, both by communists and anti-communists.

The war in Ukraine arises from the different conceptions held by Russia and Ukraine: for the former, Ukraine is part of the Russian world (even accepting its independence), while for the latter, it is a separate and hostile nation.

Let's recall that the USSR was guided more by Ukrainians (Brezhnev and Khrushchev) than by Russians during the few years of Gorbachev and Lenin, and was also led by the Georgian Stalin.

Nor can one say that Putin is an unreasonable person and therefore we cannot predict what he will do. Apart from the fact that, from his point of view, which is not ours, he has his reasons, historical events are not explained by the madness or foolishness of this or that person; every great historical event has great causes. The motives for the Ukrainian conflict must be traced back to the mindset of the one carrying out the action. If you speak with a Russian, even one residing in our country (as happens to me), you will generally see that they side with Putin.

But even more important than the lack of reasons to attack the West is the fact that Russia absolutely does not have the strength or the means. It has not managed to conquer Ukraine in three years of bloody war, only a few parts, and has remained stalled. Imagine if it could face NATO.

I also recall that the communism-capitalism conflict did not escalate into a direct war (it was called the Cold War), despite the overwhelming superiority of the Red Army, because both possessed nuclear weapons. Above all, there were motives for war then because communism aspired to expand throughout the world, and the democracies (capitalism, if you prefer) embraced the doctrine of its containment, enunciated by Truman.

These seem to me to be simple and obvious considerations.

It is a different matter to invade Ukraine for fear that that world, which Russia nonetheless considers its own (historically true), might instead become part of NATO and the West.

It would be truly strange if it invaded other states before reconstituting national unity (pre-'92).

The real danger, therefore, seems to me to be the one hypothesized by Mattarella: that a war could break out without anyone wanting it. We should be seriously worried about this. If you have your finger on the trigger, sooner or later you will end up pulling it: this is the true danger. Think of the latest Russian provocations in the skies of NATO countries, the alarm they have caused in the West. There is always the danger that one of the parties, feeling attacked, attacks the other, which then responds in a difficult-to-control escalation.

I would say that even the Ukrainian conflict is one that the two sides did not want and that nevertheless exploded. Putin wanted to stage a coup (a special operation), but this failed. So he fell back on conquering Russian-speaking territories. An agreement was outlined (similar to what is proposed today), but Ukraine believed it could defeat Russia with Western help (and even topple Putin). They did not succeed, and the war continues indefinitely.

When wars start, no one knows how they will end because each side does not want to lose, because the endless deaths and destruction would not be justified, and because hatred grows immeasurably.

There is therefore the danger of a scenario similar to that of WWI, "the useless slaughter" as the Pope defined it.

The greatest fear for us today should be that the war in Ukraine spreads across all of Europe without anyone wanting it. This is the point that seems important to me. I am not against aid to Ukraine, but I greatly fear excessive involvement linked to the fanciful fear that Russia will invade Europe after Ukraine.