Looking back at 2022 and 2023, it seems clear that the (Western) world cannot take peace for granted anymore and that the military is a topic soon to be brought back to the table. Unwanted, despised, rejected, but still.

Times of uncertainty inevitably mean that the dead are being called back from the underworld to help. First and foremost among them, NATO.

The problem of having the freedom to think and choose is that you are supposed to find the answers by yourself. The problem the 50s, 60s and 70s kids could not see coming is that while they found their meaning in rejecting a clear, near past and in fighting for rights and freedom, this does not apply to us. We try, but we don’t really know what we are doing, we have no basis for comparison, we like to mention situations we did not give us enough time to comprehend.

When reading the memoirs of a trial that involved an exponent of one of the most evil and criminal machines of all time, we expect to recognize a monster, to grasp some extraordinariness, to comfort ourselves with the idea that their very existence has been a little mistake in an ocean of normal and fundamentally good people.

But Eichmann is not extraordinary, he is banal.

Be aware of the banality of evil, the author warns us in her disenchantment, because if an army of mediocre and banal men had committed genocide and had done it in plain sight, this can happen again.

It seems clear that, until total elimination, no part seems too willing to step back. But if trying to cancel either Palestine or Israel has not worked so far, maybe it is about time to accept that they both exist and that history cannot be altered once it has been written — 1948 cannot be erased and the same is true for 1967, 1973 and, now, 2023. Israel might not had the best start but its people belong there now, and so do the Palestinians, and for a much longer time. Can either of them be blamed for that? Should their respective God be enraged forever for the other’s presence? Has someone asked him with an open heart?

Maybe it’s time to work towards a solution that includes both and we, the first to create the problem, maybe should be the first to move in that direction instead of taking sides.

With patriotism in his words and national attachment in his mind (and in those of his fellow scientists and friends), Robert Oppenheimer is the voice of a country that — in light of the recent events and new threats linked to the atomic bomb that the US themselves created and are the only ones to have ever used — now wishes to clarify that yes, it’s been us, yes, we invented the bomb and detonated it, but we did it because some of us genuinely thought we were saving the world.

What would people from the 19th century say if granted a view of our world? Their dismay would be hardly imaginable if seeing where their beloved progress has brought us. What would European anthropologists and scientists of those times think of today, once realized that their theories of race superiority went only so far? And are economists and philosophers of the industrial era turning over in their graves, unable to rest, when staring at the limits of capitalism and at the umpteenth overturning of balance and world order?

What future for the European Union? The uncertain fate of the premature

The European Union itself is still perceived as distant, as a supervisor and an economic aid in uncertain times — countries’ limits may have loosened in terms of bureaucracy but are still strong in the hearts of the people. With troubled times forecast, the specter of the war is falling once again onto Europe, resuscitating old fears and initiating sinister processes we thought good candidates for extirpation from daily vocabulary. Though mind-shattering, the new scenario might be an unprecedented opportunity for the EU to trigger a new phase of its history and step out of stagnating indecision.

Is it possible to understand the range and scope of a military action such as the attack on Ukraine by only looking at it from a single perspective — no matter if well-meaning?
Do we have all the tools to comprehend what is happening now and place it correctly within a global scenario?
Does our propaganda — any propaganda — really leave its audience free to choose in what and who to believe?
Telling where the truth lies amidst an immense flow of data, information and reports has become increasingly difficult, our minds made up before even realizing an idea was taking shape. In this sense, the velocity required by social media to keep up with the audience does not make things any easier.

By accepting or confronting your military choices, I stand with you, I stand against you. I stand with war, I stand against it. I support your venture, I condemn it. In choosing, I am choosing a side; it may matter later, it may define the future.

Pre-planned or not, this conflict has already changed the order and has already extended far beyond Russia and Ukraine or Russia and Europe, or Russia and the West. After this war ends — regardless of outcome and timing — Russia will not be the same, international trust having been compromised, possibly forever. Europe will not be the same, having stood differently against the threat; no more a mere vassal of the United States, but acting on its own. The direction may still be decided from above, but the road is traveled with timid signs of auto-determination.

History is full of kings, commanders-in-chief, and sovereigns with grandiose dreams, lots of power and little military skills. No matter the unfavorable circumstances and bad premises, their voices had to be heard due to their influence.
Today, the voice of America is still one of the loudest in the crowd, but its military choices teeter in comparison and look more emotionally driven than they should — a rookie mistake.
America never really succeeded in making itself a military stronghold against the alleged enemies of civil freedom. This is actually no more than a natural reflection of our times: in a society that, as said, tends to reject military conflict and embrace equality and communitarian spirit — at least theoretically — one could not think of a better leader than the United States, masters of words, preachers of altruism and dilettantes on the battlefield.