Dear editor, I have read the speech given by General Masiello to the 40th of the Lagunari and, remembering having read the Army Press Release (it dates back to June 25th, you weren't exactly "timely"), I went to see it again.
Army Corps General Carmine Masiello, greeting the guests and the deployed units, expressed his personal recognition to all the Lagoonari, highlighting that "adapting to the needs that the current geostrategic scenario imposes is much more complicated than thinking about how to face the challenges and the opportunities of the future. In this case" – continued the Head of SME – “we need results, every week, because we, I remind you, are the Army and in the event of a crisis, as always in the past, our fellow citizens will look to us. Everyone must get involved and be the creators of new, continuous and creative solutions and alternatives, starting from the commitment to containing and overcoming the thick layer of bureaucracy, which prevents us from going at the speed we need, Lagunari, to you who wear the green beret , like the color of your beloved Venice lagoon, symbol of brotherhood and esprit de corps, I ask you to continue to "break like the rock and overwhelm like the wave" all the challenges that the future holds for us. And there are many of them."
I'm shocked! The discrepancy between the official statement and the actual speech (FRANK AND COURAGEOUS) of the Army Chief of Staff raises questions about the possibility of a real censorship: seems to significantly reduce the complexity and richness of what is exposed publicly.
Mr. General he clearly addressed the topic of war, speaking about the need to prepare seriously and conscientiously for scenarios that involve the presence of "armored units, minefields, coils of barbed wire, trenches. All things we thought were relegated to the history books, to the First World War." In short, he underlined how war is a reality we have to deal with, in contrast to the recent past dominated by "peace support operations".
These references are central elements of the general's speech! However, in the official press release, they seem to have been omitted, giving space only to generic messages...
Why were they eliminated? Was it a strategic choice to avoid alarming public opinion? Or was there a deliberate desire to censor parts of the speech deemed too controversial or sensitive?
This lack of transparency raises concerns about the authenticity and completeness of the Army's official communications and the public's ability to receive crucial information on issues of great national and international importance.
The initiative to reduce bureaucracy through a dedicated mailbox was then totally omitted.
It could be hypothesized that the statement was deliberately purged of potentially uncomfortable or controversial content, both to avoid excessive alarmism and to maintain a more controlled and institutional message.
Will the responsibility be attributed to the Armed Forces or, moving up the ranks, to the Defense?
This censorship hypothesis deserves further investigation: Was it a strategic communication choice or was there an intention to hide part of General Masiello's message from the public?
The answer to this question is crucial to better understand the internal dynamics of communication and the level of transparency actually practiced in via XX Settembre.
Finally, concerns also arise regarding the next appointment of the Chief of Defense Staff: is a man of impulse needed who says - or at least "tries to say" - things as they are or is a useful "puppet" needed?
Letter signed
Dear reader, first of all I apologize for the delay in publication: the transcription was timely but - among the over one hundred emails received daily (including spam) - it slipped through the cracks. Thanking again my excellent colleague Lieta Zanatta who wrote down the speech, after having sprinkled ash on my head, I repeat "better late than never...".
Reviewing the texts, a certain discrepancy is actually noticeable, however I want to speak out in favor of public information about the Army.
First of all, I consider it very difficult to reduce such a speech to a few lines without risking alarming a flock of political sheep who, faced with the imminent threat of wolves, think only of discrediting the sheepdog in question to get another one nominated, rather than repairing the fence!
Second, the military is a hierarchy: are we sure that, if there was censorship, it occurred at Army level and not higher up? Are we sure that we don't have to "flush the toilet" elsewhere? We will never know until, belatedly and dramatically, someone has to take charge future responsibility for the choices of today.
I feel like a "broken record" but in a democratic Republic like the transalpine one (ZAK!), every Thursday afternoon as citizens we could answer every question during one of the regular and free Defense press conferences. In "democracy" de noantri we will have to keep the doubt.
If you are right and an Army chief has been censured, it will mean that, as in the days of the military service, he will have to return to "Mute and resigned!"? For Online Defense it will be really hard, if not impossible.
Andrea Cucco
