The problem on the carpet, meanwhile, is to approach with a discussion on the relationship between ISIS and Europe: what are, respectively, and which the match fields for spatial and political terms.

The easiest to recognize, paradoxically is the ISIS / Da'ish (or ISIS / Daesh, from now on IS for simplicity): admit that IS is a state and that the real danger is not terrorism, that it It flows, but its existence as such, is the first step.
The real mortal danger for Europe is that the IS is set up as a State, the simultaneous rebuilding Caliphate, which is legitimized by a war of expansion and territorial conquest, even before the construction and organization of the internal consensus (in this regard, L. Napoleoni, 2014, p. 11). In fact, terror is for the Caliphate not only functional to the fanatic proselytism (marginally useful feature to attract individuals who, regardless of faith, must be in doubt sanity), but above all is a user, of course crime as extremely productive, propaganda. It is a manifestation of power unchallenged and unpunished, useful to show a military capacity, an unconventional but effective, to the citizens of the "feeble" European democracies.
A State, that of the Caliphate, which can have no diplomatic relations, they use other weapons of deterrence against other States -So more until fully controls a territory and resources-, makes use of terror and is easy and cost diffusion even with dissuasive purposes. The alibi of terrorism is not, in my opinion, sufficient to liquidate simplistically the Caliphate as a "non-State" rather than as a gang of mercenaries, hired killers in the pay of exalted arruffapopolo.
You do not want to consider the IS a state just because it also uses terrorism to claim status is a mistake.
If Christian Europe had considered the Ottoman Empire not a state, but a hodgepodge of sea pirates and coastlines, with similar cronies widely present in its eastern and southern ends, he would have won in Lepanto?
Error, then an alibi or not useful to counter the IS (and not to obstruct its external supporters), with -diplomatico and less-method, which is adopted in relations between States.
The Caliphate is a State, at least, under construction (From King E. C., 2015, p. 85); which already controls and want to further govern important sources of Europe's energy supply.
Geopolitics of energy sources, joins other serious complication induced by "local presence" of the SI: the mass exodus from Syria (and also happen to other states and from other regions, the more it expands the Caliphate), and so the additional burden of migration towards Europe, not just consist of 'economic migrants and / or ecological reasons. "
The induced migration, illegal and uncontrolled towards the countries of Europe, on which also suffer paradoxical extortion demands of Turkey, is the other time upon which to hang the geopolitical friction that we discuss here. Without forgetting that "… according to several sources, Turkey is the main route through which the IS exporting its oil" (L. Trombetta, 2015, p. 33). Immigration has cost, in economic terms, and of course humanitarian, enormous for the public finances, as well as to the social order of the States concerned, constitutes, in effect, the other serious problem which Europe must cope.
It is therefore a purely geopolitical issue, because the actors involved should move their shares at a ratio of "vital space", he told Karl Haushofer: that Europe means mainly hydrocarbons, control of security in the Mediterranean and southern borders of the continent , social order; that for the IS means virtually primary source of funding, for a State that can not count on a system of tax revenue or can be satisfied with robbery, blackmail and kidnapping ransoms, finally "donations" to build an apparatus and a ' state organization according to the ambitions announced by the leaders.
Anyone who wants to get an idea of ​​the need for these resources to the living space of the Islamic State, for its organic strengthening and subsequent growth, and how these needs are to give (if, in the case of Europe, we want to avoid talking about space vital, not to scare the reprobates of geopolitics as scientifically understood and interpreted by the great powers, the US and Russia in particular), of many states of the European Union, can be found on the Internet and in publications, especially popularization, very wide cartographic documentation and meta -cartografica, on which to observe and to reason. 

Now here it is not possible to attach, for appropriate comparison, mapping the presence and spread of the Islamic State, and then note the coincidence of the same with the areas where they insist the main sources of supply and distribution of oil in the Middle Eastern and North African regions, but certainly it will not be difficult for the reader interested be sure.
On the same regions, Europe has the vital interests; but which Europe?
Here, let's be clear: the other entity in question is not Europe, geographically, in the national sense and nations, in the sense of community and civilization; is another thing is the European Union.
But the EU is not there, because in addition to the above, the EU is something other than Europe and should be "else" to claim a role that does not have power, it in economic terms it, especially in political terms.
The EU has proved incapable of managing international crises, because it is incapable of serving the national interests of its peoples, and yields to those of the USA which, in fact, influence and operate on the ruling classes of Europe for decades, as if the old Continent was a post-colonial protectorate.
These assumptions and then here are the consequences.
The EU has sold and praised the "Arab Spring", in the wake of an accomplice demagogic propaganda made by the mass media. "Springs" which have produced, to date, destabilization in much of the southern and eastern Mediterranean. States where -seppure in the strange, sometimes ruthless, proper order of many successive regimes to decolonization after World War II, in Africa and the Middle Oriente-, ensured the Europeans 'best' internal balance and dialogue. Even redundant about it, appear the examples of Libya, Egypt and Syria.
The EU, even before, was unable to handle the crisis in Ukraine, after a decade supported any anti-Russian opposition had a profile. In fact, however, enjoys and has also enjoyed a good "tolerance" in this regard, queers may say, by what it sees as an enemy, and instead should be its "natural ally", for culture, or, if you will, for obvious economic advantage: Russia.
The EU has a policy on immigrants catastrophic, incoherent, welfare demagogically as useless and yet insufficient, on this floor; organizationally incapable, disunited in programming, other than acting from North to South of the continent. The EU assists, stunned, on its southern border to human disasters, and found that sea, which separates it from its best and closest market prospects and development, at the mercy of piracy "neo-Saracen ', which made no contrasts.
Unfortunately, the impression is that Europe (at least the EU) will be crumbling car, not because, as the Vulgate General argues, has no "strong leader", but because its leaders simply are subject to non-European interests. To those less affordable for States, but more beneficial for the financial lobbies that want to govern and govern facts, undisputed by the policy, markets.
Someone, in the early seventies of the last century (many indeed, but let's take a symbolic and recognized democratic value), already identified in Europe (not EU), as "a giant with feet of clay", a "political dwarf", weak Europe, unable to pursue its destiny and its underlying interests because those "Atlantic" (Gary R., 2011). Now, almost half a century and the 'type' of Europe is still such. And its institutions (Parliament, Commission, Council), are emblematic examples of his political inconsistency.
For example, if you look at the simple statements made by the European Parliament on the subject, show very clearly the limits of that institution, both haphazard and unrealistic, being clearly the weakness of the EU, in the Commission and Council, with regard to policy foreign (I am silent, for decency, what were the lukewarm reactions and null effects to urge the French government, following the attacks in Paris, the military also solidarity that the EU should have guaranteed to France).
EU policy inconsistency examples are so paradoxical that to review the parliamentary debates on the subject is obtained very useful material to understand the mockery, or at least disinterest, growing public against the mentioned institutions: as a result of a statement, sober and unnecessary, high EU representative for the CFSP (common foreign and security policy), and Commission Vice-President (Federica Mogherini), in support of financial aid to Yemen in the war, the EP presented a resolution majority, on the systematic extermination of religious minorities by the SI, ou are having already submitted an amendment requesting the embargo of arms to Saudi Arabia.
Just imagine a bit ': the embargo which the US State -and not only-, sell weapons for decades and which in turn a weapon of Yemeni factions.
That's all.
Here, for the rest silence more deafening, the emblematic most complete institutional sleep "foreign" EU policy, if you empty declarations excepted, took the act, statements of principle, given in interviews with newspapers; no more or less the same pace moralist and charity more in keeping with the parish preaches that the determinations of politics.
An EU that refuses to implement a naval blockade, or other law enforcement measures set to "merchant marine" immigration. An EU that is unable to impose on France (France is right at the wound from the SI terrorism), a stop to dangerous relations with those now in Libya refers to the Islamic State and controls that part of oil extraction is not pumped Eni. An EU that ignores such as France affair famously (and sells warplanes), with Egypt and with its deprecated leaders so "little" democratic. An EU which does not dictate to Turkey the times and ways of collaboration, but, as mentioned suffers bullying and pay.
Can this' type of union "between States to be a guarantee for the future of peoples and nations that would like to represent?
The real threat, I push myself a little 'over the contention Caracciolo in interviews, is not the "considerable media propaganda capacity' of the SI, but by its will to be State: State that controls and sells -o not vende-, oil to those who believe; and it prepares, by state, to face competition from other producing countries.
We really believe that the IS today represents the real threat to Europe, as well as for years we were told that it represented Iran and Shi'ism?
The real danger, concrete and topical for Europe (and not for the EU, which is sadly ironic caricature politico), is the lack of initiative and geopolitical role, because it is not union (or alliance, or federation) of the United sovereign, but functional organizational structure to allochthonous strategic interests. Therefore it is only able to adjust the interior, so stay marginally outside where you have to compare with un'inarrivabile deregulation that actually undergoes.
Who talks and hopes of a "European state" and wants to found on the ECB and on the Lisbon Treaty, that is, who believes resolving of our destinies further transfer of powers from the national states to a European federal government (German today , more than France and Germany), in respect of economic, foreign policy, defense, communications, energy, environment, labor finance and taxation, should at least entertain a doubt that this means retracing the same path of deregulation, the globalization of markets. Namely that this further process of "union" of States produces repetition of delivery, "hands and feet" of the economies of the Member finaziarie transnational elites.
States, which own the mercy of the rules imposed by the EU, have traformati by supporters of the revenue generated from work in proponents of speculation tax; doing so Member States have "screwed" in the crisis land hearing for over a decade.
Europe must regain a political dignity and self-determination of its strategic and geopolitical interests which has lost since the end of World War II, taking up political authority over finance. Europe must restore their economic independence as compared to markets finaziari and dimensioned deregulation, and compared to non-European interests that they subjugate, which the ruling classes of many countries seem prone.
It is the union of the European Union of States, based on shared principles and safeguards, which won at Lepanto, establishing role and areas of Europe; he never won a European Union made only of rules and currency.
To do this, Europe of States must impose on the EU a new system of relationships, not based on the rules of finance, but on those of the policy directs.
The Europe of the peoples and of civilization, multifaceted culture that has to thread ancient identity roots, Europe humanism (if we do not think of Europe imagined by the empires of the past) and not the EU, is likely a decline inexorable. A twilight that gradually transform it from a simple recreational and tourist garden for the great powers, in place of permanent conflict and social disorder, subsequently becoming a land of conquest, as perhaps never before.



Are these hours of writing, the bilateral meetings between the EU and Turkey, which, lest we forget, the Union for years asks to enter, and yet puts demands to combat illegal emigration to the EU, of all evidence of harassment and blackmail . In this connection see:
  crf .;
  In this regard he also expressed the director of "Limes", Lucio Caracciolo, in a recent interview: -inganno-media-to-isis.
  Motions for resolutions,
  Cf .: D. Santoro, 2015.
  Already identified and reported by the writer with fanfare (naturalized French), and diplomat Romain Gary, in the mid-seventies (Gary R., 2011).
  Even a pro-European avant la lettre, and for another very moderate player in the role of European destinies as István Türr was convinced that a politically united Europe and not in a position to identify and defend prerogatives and atavistic interests of its peoples, he would risk a future nefarious "Europe would continue fatally and with increasing speed to march towards the political catastrophe, the financial bankruptcy and universal social war. And then it will happen what happened to the Roman Empire: the decay and ruin of Europe "; well supported in 1899, about the Hague Conference, noting the narrowness of the interests of the European States (P. Fornaro, 2005), though without omitting that you had to keep absolute account of the dignity and identity of the peoples (Türr I., 1902 ).



DAL RE E. C., Il senso di Dā‘iš per lo stato, in «Limes», La strategia della paura, Roma, 2015, 11, pp. 77-86.


FORNARO P., István Türr. Una biografia politica, Rubbettino, Soveria Mannelli, 2005, pag. 235.


GARY R., La notte sarà calma, Biblioteca Neri Pozza, Vicenza, 2011 (traduzione di Federica Riccardo, dall’originale, La nuit sera calme, Editions Gallimard, Paris, 1974).


LOSANO M.G., Il testamento geopolitico di Karl Haushofer, in «Limes», Esiste l’Italia? Dipende da noi, Roma, 2009, 2, pp. 211-225 .


NAPOLEONI L., ISIS. Lo stato del terrore, (traduzione di Bruno Amato, Islamist Phoenix. Thre Islamic State and The Redrawing of the Middle Est), Feltrinelli, Milano, 2014.


BIANCO C., (Petro)pecunia non olet, in «Limes», La strategia della paura, Roma, 2015, 11, pp. 115-124.


PAOLINI M., Il Califfato e i giochi petroliferi iracheni, in «Limes» Le maschere del califfo, Roma, 2014, 9, pp. 57-62.


SANTORO D., Per Erdoğan, malgrado tutto l’IS resta il male minore, in «Limes» La strategia della paura, Roma, 2015, 11, pp. 31-42.


SELWAN EL KHOURY B. E., Raqqa, l’Is tra šarī’a e affari, in «Limes» Chi ha paura del califfo, Roma, 2015, 3, pp. 121-128.


TROMBETTA L., Raqqa, lo Stato islamico e le matriosche siriane, in «Limes» La strategia della paura, Roma, 2015, 11, pp. 57-68.


TÜRR I., La paix et le droit. Choses polonaises, in «L’echo de la Méditerranée», Marsiglia-Nizza, 1902, 16.