In the article from La Repubblica, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz's observation that we are no longer at war, yet do not live in peace, serves as a poignant reminder of the world’s current state mired in conflict. The author argues that as warfare evolves, particularly with hybrid methods, the line between what constitutes war and what constitutes peace has become increasingly blurred. This phenomenon is not only evident in global contexts but also resonates within local discussions, especially as they relate to military strategies and international aid.

The debate on supplying military aid to Ukraine illustrates this struggle to define military actions as either offensive or defensive. Parliamentary discussions are rife with contention, as policymakers grapple with the implications of their support and the operational realities on the battlefield where these categories are largely indistinguishable. This raises crucial ethical and strategic questions about the international community's role in supporting nations under threat and the implications of such support on global peace.

Furthermore, the article reflects on historical precedents that highlight a longstanding trend in military thought, such as the concept of 'advanced defense' adopted in 1999. This reinforces the idea that understanding modern warfare requires more than rigid definitions; it requires a nuanced approach that recognizes the complexities of contemporary conflicts. The erosion of the red line between war and peace challenges us to rethink our strategies and our understanding of what it means to engage in conflict in today's world.