When history – the one with a capital “S” – knocks on the door, politics must give serious and decisive responses. And populism is not contemplated among the possible options. Or rather, if it is contemplated, the effects are always deleterious. Today, in 2025, not even a competitor to a beauty contest – those who still survive, despite wokism, who however is experiencing a twilight season – can still say on stage, in front of the jury with the palettes in hand ready to vote, “dream of peace in the world”. Italy today, in 2025, is the embarrassing Miss. Out of any space-time dimension, without any contact with contingent reality. Our political leaders, in front of the proposal of a European common plan of rearmament, have stammered that it is not right to spend the money in arms, that there are much more important priorities, such as hospitals, schools and all the corollary by Friffe Pacifists. And maybe, while they were there, they could add to this list of benaltrism, the Super Bonus 110% and the citizenship income given to rain, without any control and without a rag of active policy of insertion or reintegration into the world of work. Because populism is this stuff here: to trace in front of serious issues, waiting to understand what the polls say. And when the people speak, by means of the detection studies, and expressed themselves “against”, then the politician becomes a simple follower of his followers.

Pacifism without limiting

It is evident that, in this case, Matteo Salvini, Giuseppe Conte and Elly Schlein are made of the same subject of which populism is made. Or at least, they shape their political action based on the best populist concentrate that can be: pacifism without limited. And in this case, the brute and elementary reasoning, that even a middle school boy can understand – remember how Silvio Berlusconi loved to say that political messages must be for the use and consumption of an electorate who has more or less the cognitive and intellectual skills of a teenager student – is the following: war is a bad thing. Whoever makes war and uses weapons are bad. Ergo, whoever wants to spend money to buy weapons, is “ugly” and “bad”. Stop. Applause.

And to this so basic concept, another could be opposed, a little more complex: from the second post -war period onwards, the United States of America have ensured the military defense of Europe against the Soviet Union, also by means of NATO. Then, with the fall of the Berlin Wall, it seemed that the “end of the story” was encountered – from the famous historical essay by the Polyciologist Francis Fukuyama, but I realize that here we are far beyond middle school – but the events of the following decades have shown that this is not the case. And therefore, from the dream of globalism that brought prosperity and peace everywhere, by virtue of the export of the model of liberal democracy and free market, we are returning to a cold war climate, with a world that is preparing to be divided into at least three spheres of influence, American, Russian and Chinese. At this juncture, the United States of America – who have always taken steps to our defense – with the Trump presidency, are pulling back, following following an isolationist policy and promoting bilateralism as a stylistic figure of international relations. Europe, therefore, remains an orphan of the Usa’s umbrella and exposed to a country – Putin’s Russia – which, after having attacked Ukraine, could have new aims on other neighboring countries. In this tragic framework, Europe – in order to find a remedy in the immediate time – is thinking of equipping a rearmament plan that allows the European states to invest in armaments – with a derogation from the stability pact – given that on the international chessboard, in the face of aggressive powers, you must arm yourself to put in place a deterrent factor compared to possible attacks. I realize that all this can be too complex to understand for a people educated by “Temption Island”, “Imma Tataranni” and “Affari Tuo”, but at least those who do politics should be familiar with these basic concepts. Salvini, Conte and Schlein or do it or are there. The first is clearly worth.

“No” to Rearm Europe, like Orban

And it is this policy made of ideas, nouns, adjectives and dichotomies from the preschool age (ugly/beautiful, good/bad, war/peace, etc.) who animates who, called in front of the story to make a contribution, stammering, inceins, until the most darker and embarrassing position that can exist. Salvini and Conte brought their parties on the most intransigent position with a dry “no” to the Rearm Europe plan. Like, to say, Victor Orban – the Hungarian leader who, however, is in fact a vassal of Vladimir Putin – and of the German neonazine derivation party Alternative Für Deutschland. In practice, all the European parties who voted for “No” to Rearm Europe are for the exit of their country from the European Union. And everyone moves in an ambiguous position-as well as Salvini’s League and Conte’s 5 Star Movement-compared to the “peace” in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. The “peace” costs what costs. Without ever having taken into consideration that Russia is an aggressor state and that, as has attacked Ukraine, tomorrow could attack other states – ask, for example the Poles how this threat live. Elly Schlein, on the other hand, does not have the excuses that Salvini and Conte have. These two have since always been populists – for many reasons – and always Suppini for Russian influence – for other reasons, which perhaps would be interesting to analyze; But it probably would take an investigation. Schlein what excuses do you have? Of the two, or the company goes beyond its limits, or has founded reasons to bring a party – the Democratic Party – to the breakdown.