THE LIMITS OF THE DOCTRINE OF INDIVISIBLE SECURITY
What follows is my English translation of an article, originally in Italian, published on Comidad.org on Thursday 3rd July 2025. (All emphasis and footnotes mine).
The [Italian] media focused a little too much on [Italian Defense Minister] Guido Crosetto's statement that NATO, as it stands, no longer has a reason to exist. However, the most significant statement made by the Minister of Defence was another one, namely that, in any case, he wanted to keep NATO close. The reason for Crosetto's (consultant to Leonardo SpA) affectionate embrace of NATO is easily explained, considering that Lockheed Martin's F-35 fighter jets are assembled at the Leonardo plant in Cameri, Piedmont. The business of the most expensive fighter jet of all time has proved so lucrative for Leonardo that the German government has decided not to purchase the fighter jets produced at the Cameri plant and to build its own to assemble the F-35s.
The “defence” business is a roundabout game in which the arms lobby occupies governments, which in turn drain public money towards the arms lobby. Obviously, this is all very well for the business mafia, but it has nothing to do with “security”; on the contrary, it is much more likely that an alliance of thirty-two different countries will end up behaving like a baby gang dominated not only by the most violent bully in the group, but also by the circle of sycophants who manipulate the bully. The failure of military blocs such as NATO in terms of security is the starting point for Xi Jinping's well-known doctrine of “indivisible security”. The whole argument is very beautiful, very Confucian: if I seek my own security at the expense of others, it is inevitable that this will come back to me as increased insecurity. The problem is that Xi Jinping's reasoning starts from a false premise, namely that the motive of the US, the European Union and NATO is security. In reality, their motive is destabilisation.
Balance and harmony are wonderful things, but in our part of the world this heavenly music does not work, since it is imbalance and destabilisation that bring business to the arms lobby. Among other things, in the Holy West, “arms” and “industry” tend to become synonymous, i.e. companies that produce consumer goods disappear. There are also some intermediate cases, such as the multinational Beretta SpA, which is present both in the defence sector with high value-added products and in the “sporting” or personal defence weapons sector, a market on which most small and medium-sized Italian companies have pinned their hopes of surviving the processes of deindustrialisation.
One of the last remnants of Italy's industrial past, Candy, has been definitively buried, and its historic factory will become a hub for Chinese products. China also produces and sells weapons, but it does not produce only weapons and continues to focus on consumer goods.
In the good old days of the 1970s, it would have been said that since in the West the “structure” is now identified solely with the production of weapons, it is inevitable that the “superstructure” will adapt; that is, that defence lobbying will also become the dominant ideology and the only acceptable policy. Today, Leonardo SpA can publicly claim on its website to be the Italian company with the highest added value, but it does not acknowledge the structural and superstructural consequences of this fact.
Most non-Western oligarchies still delude themselves that they can appease the US and Europe with the language of business. But the problem is that today, for the US and Europe, the main business is so-called defence, i.e. cultivating fake threats to their security. The consequence of the dominance of arms lobbying is not only that Zionist and neocon slogans invade the media and politics, but above all that a structurally fragile and insignificant country like Israel becomes the main official narrator on the subject of alleged threats to the Holy West, and also becomes a player in global politics, even outside the strictly regional scenario. Israel has a military partnership with Azerbaijan and has attacked Iran, thus directly threatening Russia's borders. But even distant China does not escape the Zionist threat.
Modern Diplomacy magazine informs us that Israel, once it has eliminated Iran, plans to target Pakistan's nuclear programme, a country directly bordering China and a long-standing client of Beijing. Since Israel would have some logistical difficulties in bombing Islamabad, the operational base for the attack on Pakistan would have to be India. Indian President Modi has been warned: the era of cyclical and ritual border skirmishes between India and Pakistan to test their respective weapons systems is over. Now the Zionists and neocons are demanding that Modi start getting serious, even though Indian weapons systems did not perform particularly well in the last skirmish.
Some may rightly observe that Modern Diplomacy magazine is a den of lunatics; it is not for nothing that Zbigniew Brzezinski is its guru and inspiration. The problem is that madmen work very well for the purpose of selling weapons. In an article two years ago, Modern Diplomacy said that the great Polish-American “strategist” had warned us against the Russians, who are so obtuse, paranoid and backward that they refuse to submit to the country that won the Cold War. In short, it is not that the balance of power has been misjudged, but rather that the Russians, Chinese, Iranians and Pakistanis have been misjudged; the important thing is that the wars, and the related business, continue.