Wide-ranging interview with the former Chief of Defence Staff. ‘Ignoring international law ends up favouring Moscow’. On European rearmament: ‘More industrial integration is needed’. Criticism of information because it is too unbalanced in favour of Russia. On Travaglio: ‘Grotesque character’.

General Vincenzo Camporini, former Chief of Defence Staff, is among the excellent names who in these hours have left LIMES magazine, directed by Lucio Caracciolo, openly accused of excessive proximity to Russia. I met him in Rome to talk to him also about information, European defence and the possible peace agreements between Moscow and Kyiv.

Let’s start from the end and that is his exit from LIMES.

First of all, I should point out that I left the LIMES scientific committee, that is, I left a title that is a pure formality, it is a label of credibility of the journal. But it is not a position and I have never carried out any activity. It recently came to my attention that I was still on this committee. It was there that I went to see who else is on it today and I read a couple of names that frankly made me jaundiced. So I sent a message to Lucius and he replied very cordially that he would see to it immediately.

Are you referring to characters like Karaganov?

I am talking about very Italian characters. All you have to do is take that list and you will quickly understand who I am referring to.

The only thing missing is the why.

Let’s say that I had to observe a particular sympathy for Moscow’s theses that I do not share and that in my opinion is based on a kind of mechanistic conception of geopolitics that I specifically attribute to Lucius. For him, whoever is strongest wins. However, strength is not only measured in the number of tanks or in terms of GDP. It is measured by many other parameters including generalised will, and Ukraine has shown that this can make a huge difference.

Do you consider it pro-Russian?

Actually, Caracciolo does not make value judgements, this must be acknowledged, but he is sensitive to the fact that the world goes like this and therefore one must accept it. Such an attitude objectively favours the Russian cause. But in my opinion it does not take into account all the other power factors. Some of these are fundamental and have an ethical value that for me becomes pre-eminent.

When it comes to international law, for example, I am the first to say that it was violated by everyone even in the past, but we knew it was there and that violating it was wrong. If one does not take note of the fact that these rules must be there, but simply accepts the right of force, for me one betrays a fundamental principle even of scientific analysis. Otherwise we really entrust everything to a computer that decides who is wrong and who is right on the basis of the facts.

In your opinion, is there Russian interference in our information space? Is there a hybrid war going on?

There is not the slightest doubt. Statistically, a percentage of pro-Russians is physiological, but here we are far beyond the physiological percentage. Just think of many grotesque characters. Travaglio is frankly grotesque from this point of view, with his desire to always defend the indefensible, to always repeat the same lies, even after it has been amply demonstrated that they are lies. The story of the 2022 Istanbul talks in this sense is emblematic. The reasons why the agreement fell through have been proven in fact, with evidence. Yet he keeps repeating his theses. I think it is normal to wonder why he does it.

Isn’t there a co-responsibility of the TV stations that invite them?

Of course. In some broadcasts, when confrontations on the Russian-Ukrainian war are organised, the ratio of guests is usually three to one in favour of those who support Russia’s arguments. And often the person called upon to make the case for respect for international law and the sovereignty of Ukraine only serves to legitimise the others. I myself have learned not to lend myself to such attempts. I recently received an invitation to go on Formigli, but in the studio I would have been with Professor Orsini and so I declined. I do not want to legitimise Orsini with my presence. The fact that they keep proposing Jeffrey Sachs as a guest on that programme for example is unbelievable.

How do you see the government’s attitude towards Ukraine?

The problem in the government has a name and a surname and it is called Matteo Salvini. He is very good at making proclamations, except then realigning himself when it comes to voting. But it is clear that then what is voted on is affected by the position of the League.

What about relations with the Trump administration?

Meloni keeps wanting to present herself as the famous bridge between Europe and the US forgetting that to make a bridge there must be two pillars on both sides. On the American side I see no pillars. This is not good because we may be less decisive than other countries in material support for Ukraine, but we could be very decisive politically.

You mean in Europe?

Well, we all see that Europe is in a very weak condition. And this is compounded by a number of uncertainties. Do we already know what will happen in France? What will happen with AfD in Germany? Will Starmer manage to stay in government? These are all questions that somehow weaken the European voice. Meanwhile I see an alliance of the north consolidating. Certainly the Scandinavians, Baltics and Poland are being looked at with a very benevolent eye by Germany, because they certainly constitute a geographical area of great interest for Berlin. Southern Europe has a problem of great divergence: Greece because of its problems is not interested in many things, Spain has its own trajectory. And the competition between Italy and France has produced disasters such as Libya.

How do you see the issue of European rearmament?

The main criticism I have read is that rearmament can take place on a national basis. But I don’t find that wrong in principle. Because we are operating according to a pattern that can easily be borrowed from NATO. Does NATO have an army? No. When there is an operation or exercise, NATO makes use of the forces of the individual countries. If anything, the question concerns defence industrial policy, which must be exactly the opposite of what it is today, with a heterogeneity of means that prevents standardisation.

Let me give an example: the western tank has a 120 mm cannon. But the British Challenge has a rifled barrel, ours have a smooth barrel. This creates some problems, both from an economic point of view, because I have fragmented production, but also of a technical-logistical nature. Today we are unable to assist an ally because my spare part does not fit on his vehicle. Industrial policy must be coordinated.

And what is missing?

Today, defence industrial policy is made by CEOs, not governments. Each CEO rightly defends his company. There is a need for the political leadership to reappropriate defence industry policy.

Earlier you mentioned the United States? Are they still our allies?

My answer is this: the United States is our ally, but we must prepare for the time when it will no longer be so. And to prepare for this we have to take a number of measures.

Are we still talking about defence?

There are capabilities that we do not have enough of and that definitely need to be implemented. These are generally those capabilities that require multinational input, especially in the area of surveillance and intelligence. We for example have our 14th Wing vehicles to do airspace control, to do intelligence analysis. We have COSMO-Skymed to do satellite analysis. We also have systems planned that should perform the same functions that SpaceX does today. The problem, however, is that the first satellite will be in orbit in 2030. This is because it took two years just to make the contract. Another problem is that collaboration between states should perhaps be encouraged more. The latest unmanned aircraft project involving Italy, Germany, France, and Spain will cost EUR 7 billion. The contribution from the European side will be 100 million. In your opinion, is this an incentive to collaborate?

Corsetto says Italy is not ready for a possible conflict scenario…

Differentiations must be made. The navy and the air force, if they are not the best in Europe, they are not much better in terms of quality. From the quantitative point of view, the discourse becomes more complicated, and it becomes even more complicated if we talk about logistical support. Now for the air force, for example, there is a programme to increase the numbers of Eurofighters, and the F-35s, and the navy has its own programmes in development. Another problem is the army, which has so far been used practically only for peacekeeping operations, i.e. in low-intensity scenarios, and has been so since 1990. It follows that development and investment have gone in that direction.

Today, because of what is happening in Ukraine, we have discovered that we are not ready and that tanks are still needed. But we have 200 rams in our warehouses today of which, if it goes well, about 20 will start up, so we have to start from scratch. We have made the right decisions, such as that of collaborating with Rheinmetall, but we need time. Finally, we also need to talk about manpower numbers, an issue that does not only apply to us. To put it bluntly, there are only 77,000 personnel in Great Britain.

Can a return to compulsory conscription be a solution?

No. In my opinion, leverage is unnecessary. In fact, it would be a political and probably also a technical mistake. Reinstating the draft today would entail difficulties, even before the costs. If anything, one should talk about reserves and simplify the bureaucracy for enlistment. In general, there is a need to modernise our armed forces. I repeat that this is a problem that everyone has. Germany, for example, is fully aware of it and in fact has not reinstated conscription, but has made it compulsory.

Finally, the conflict in Ukraine. Is it true that Russia is winning?

In my opinion, the exact opposite is true. Russia had precise goals. If after four years of war you have not achieved them, indeed these goals are far from being achieved, it means you have lost. Putin’s latest statements are also indicative: I want all of Donbas and any agreement must include the withdrawal of Ukrainian troops. I mean, you are not capable of conquering it militarily and you claim to have it by treaty? He can also say ‘otherwise I will take it by force’. If he was able to do that he would have already done it. Pokrovsk has 60,000 inhabitants, the equivalent of Cerignola. That is, the Russian army has been besieging Cerignola for 16 months and has failed to conquer it? How can you call that a victory?

Assuming an agreement is reached, what could be a possible drop point?

If we want to be realistic, the Korean solution is the only hypothesis that has any solidity, but that presupposes Russian acceptance of the presence of Western troops in Ukraine.

Do you think Putin could accept such a solution?

Under the current conditions, it will not. It depends very much on the balance of power that will be determined in Moscow. It is clear that the levers of power are now all in his hands. But history tells us that autocrats often collapse instantly. In a scenario like the one I mentioned, the sacrifice for Ukraine would be heavy because it would still have to give up a piece of territory, but the goal must be to obtain a real guarantee, not a simple formula on a piece of paper, which Russia would end up tearing up, as it has done with all the other agreements, from the Budapest Memorandum to the most recent ones, including the friendship agreement of 1997.

After all, one only has to remember what both Putin and Lavrov said in the early 2000s when they were asked whether they would accept Ukraine’s entry into NATO. The answer they both gave was that it was up to Kyiv to decide, Ukraine being a sovereign state. It is clear to me that their words are worth absolutely nothing.

Read also:

• Limes, or the good suit of Russian propaganda in Italy, M.Setaccioli- L’Europeista
• Europe and the Defence Challenge: interview with Gen. Camporini, L.Cadonici- L’Europeista