The outline of a long, different Cold War is looming clearer. Europe is ready for rearmament, while Italy must choose between a real defense or becoming the Belorussia of the Mediterranean
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 might 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 should not 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 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 its first intervention in World War I. Yet Europe must be able to shoulder its responsibilities and represent its viewpoint with all its allies, such as 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, small and large privileges, must give way to a more effective and competitive economic system, which can alone sustain the ongoing rearmament effort.
It is an enormous challenge for European countries and Italy. 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 its 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 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.
Here, the effort of former PD (Democratic Party) president Luigi Zanda is crucial. His recent calls for a responsible attitude from the Italian Parliament are vital for his party and the country. In contrast, the attitude of PD secretary Elly Schlein has been much less so.
Schlein’s behavior is undoubtedly also motivated by calculations: spending on defense scares the electorate. On her left, Giuseppe Conte’s 5 Star Movement is rabble-rousing, yelling for “peace.”
However, there may be more to it.
Over 50% of Italians do not vote because they do not trust the parties. The issue of defense and war are not risks that can be faced by burying one’s head in the sand; voters aren’t stupid.
Italians may need to be confronted with a responsible alternative, like in 1948 when they voted for pro-US parties against Pro Soviet ones. 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.
