A Cold Truce

It’s just days away from a proposal for the long-awaited ceasefire in Ukraine; two months ago, a truce was reached in Gaza, and since then, some Israeli hostages captured during the October 7 massacre have been exchanged for Hamas prisoners. President Donald Trump may fly to China in April for a summit with President Xi Jinping. In tune with the season, we might say that spring has sprung, and after three years of war and rising tensions, we should be expecting peace.

But nothing could be more deceptive. Europe has launched an unprecedented €1 trillion-worth rearmament plan. It is expected to transform the European armed forces into a real war machine. Closer cooperation between the EU, the UK, and Turkey within NATO is planned. Russia is spending over 10% of its GDP on the military. PLA officers have called for an increase in their budget. In Asia, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, and India are investing more in their Armed Forces. In America, the government is cutting every expenditure except for the Pentagon.

A possible agreement between the US and China would not likely solve the crucial issues of the Chinese market’s full liberalization and the RMB’s full convertibility. Border tensions would continue. It would be a truce, not a peace. A ceasefire is better than war and can last, but it demands enhanced attention and alarm from both parties.

We are not witnessing the beginning of a season of peace but the onset of a long wait for war, hoping it will remain cold. If history teaches us anything, this period could be very long. The previous Cold War lasted for almost half a century.

Indeed, cold wars are better than hot ones, but the previous Cold War tells us that cold can become hot in the blink of an eye. All countries, therefore, must prepare for a prolonged period of living on the edge.

It will be a different cold war from the first one, just as the First World War, fought with cannons and trenches, was different from the second, consisting of air raids and tank battles. But, lacking other terms, we use the old ones.

The situation in Gaza might stabilize, but the outline of the stabilization is still unclear, while Syria remains volatile, and Iran is far from calm. Perhaps one could be more optimistic about the truce in Ukraine. It might last longer than in the Middle East. After all, a ceasefire on the Korean Peninsula has lasted over 70 years.

China, the United States and its neighbors may find a compromise. But the likely reality is that we must live with the possibility of a sudden outbreak of tensions that continue to multiply.

The world is too complex for Italy or the EU to face alone. American support for Europe and its allies remains essential a century after the first US intervention, in World War I. Yet Europe must be able to shoulder its responsibilities and represent its viewpoint with all its allies – Japan, for instance.

For Europe, there is only one model beyond easy talks: the Israeli one.

It means that the European way of life has to change, and peace dividends must be redistributed. Social expenditures, as well as privileges small and large, must give way to a more effective and competitive economic system. Only that can sustain the ongoing rearmament effort.

It is an enormous challenge for European countries. We have grown accustomed to despising war, thinking it won’t pertain to us. We are facing not only an economic transformation but a cultural revolution. If our goal is to avoid the next war and minimize the dangers of a conflict, we must be serious about mentally and socially considering the possibility of a war.

In our future, war cannot be an accident for which we are unprepared, as happened with the Russian invasion of Ukraine or Hamas’s attack on Israel. Unfortunately, it must become a possibility we are ready to face.

End of an era

It is the end of a unique moment in European history. Throughout the past, the continent has been perhaps the most belligerent in the world. Yet, the last 80 years of peace made us forget that we are made of war, not peace.

Today, the war/peace dynamic that lies ahead will be different from what has been experienced in any other period. Apart from destructive bombings, the new war will be hybrid, consisting of cyberattacks, espionage, influence operations, disinformation, technological theft, infiltrations, financial disruptions and possible terrorist attacks.

During the Cold War, Italy was already the battlefield of what we might now define as hybrid warfare, with terrorists, sponsored or supported by enemies, seeking to destabilize Italian democracy.

This time, Italy could be weaker than 30 or 40 years ago and more exposed to hybrid threats. The destabilization of Italy could mean the destabilization of the EU, a blow to NATO, and a setback to the entire US alliance system. Italy’s fragility must be addressed seriously. Italy must become an asset for the US and its allies, not a liability. For this, perhaps a new sense of national unity is necessary.

At the end of the day, do Italians want to become the Belarus of the Mediterranean or wish to maintain the life they had for the last 80 years? The choice could break many ambiguities of Italian politics.

Francesco Sisci is the director of Appia Institute, which originally published this article. It is republished in a slightly abridged version with permission.