Now that Trump and Musk have emerged victorious, posing as unlikely peacemakers, what lies ahead? The future of Europe and Italy is overshadowed by the spectre of further growth in the war economy, accompanied by imbalances of all kinds, with inevitable cuts to social spending looming. Public expenditure now appears expandable only for combat helicopters and tanks, which, however, "cannot be eaten." The time has finally come to reconstruct the argument point by point, to piece together the facts, and to develop an analysis of why the theme of peace, although shared by the majority of Italians, has found so little space in the media in recent years,  having been marginalised, erased, and ridiculed. It is time to act if we want change, now that the entire global political landscape appears to be in motion.

Let us begin with an extremely important and concrete fact: Italy's total military expenditure for 2024 is estimated at around 28 billion euros, representing an increase of over 5% compared to the previous year. According to NATO, however, these figures are still not sufficient; Italy should invest more in armaments. It is not sufficient that our Ministry of Defence's budget has increased by 12% in just two years. At the level of the European Union, much the same message is being conveyed; the discussion now centres essentially on which financial instruments should be adopted to support this increase. In this context, the voices raised in opposition — arguing that this is unproductive spending and that further resources should not be diverted from social welfare- remain a minority, although certainly an authoritative one.

The point is that Italians are not at all in agreement with the prospect of a future centred on a "war economy." All surveys are consistent: Italians are not a warmongering people. Particularly striking are the findings of one of the latest surveys conducted at the continental level by the European Council on Foreign Relations. The survey revealed that,  out of 15 countries, Italy ranks last in terms of the number of people in favour of increased military spending: only 9% of the population is in favour, while 63% are firmly opposed.

But has such important news been circulated in Italy? If we wish to avoid superficiality, we must provide a more considered response. We can certainly say that traces of this information can be found in media channels committed to peace. At the same time, however, anyone can verify (even from their memory ) that it has been almost entirely obscured by the mainstream media. In short, this information has had "very limited circulation.", and this is a fundamental point that must be recognised. In a fragmented society like ours, if an argument remains confined to a limited sphere, it fails to attract the attention of the wider public opinion; it remains on the margins of the debate. This is where one of the major responsibilities of the dominant communication channels lies  — namely, the news broadcasts and the most widely circulated newspapers, whose editorialists are also regular guests on television talk shows. The first "grave sin" they have committed is the omission of dissenting viewpoints and, above all, "dissonant" information.

But are the editors and opinion-makers of the main newspapers aware that the mood of Italians is not warmongering? Of course, they know, and for this reason, they have taken it upon themselves to convince the public that we must resign ourselves to war. But why should we? Because, we are told, we are in danger, and any hesitation in the face of the supposed inevitability of giving voice to arms is portrayed as surrender before the enemy. But who, exactly, is threatening us? This is a particularly delicate point, as the two wars, Russia-Ukraine and the one in the Middle East (the only ones widely discussed, although there are many others equally bloody that are completely ignored), are very different from one another. We do not have the space here to address the issue in depth; suffice it to say that, until just over a year ago, Putin and Netanyahu enjoyed excellent relations. Be that as it may, the pro-war opinion-makers have finally found a unifying framework: they have pointed the finger at the "enemies of the West," a category so vague and elastic that it can include Russia and Hamas, while simultaneously "absolving" brutal and ruthless dictators, provided they can be classified as friends. In this ideological representation, which has dominated our public sphere in recent years (shaping both the field of debate and parallel political decisions ), it is not even clear what is meant by “the West”. It is unclear whether the reference is to NATO, the European Union, the G7, or simply the United States and the dollar area. What matters is the message. The main newspapers have repeatedly published articles accusing the Italian people of substantial cowardice, a propensity for comfortable living, and a distorted idea of freedom, an idea allegedly rooted in the inability to understand that freedom must always and under all circumstances be defended with weapons. This delirium reached peaks of absolute hysteria on September 23 in Corriere, in an editorial where those opposed to the arms race were literally described as "devil worshippers" who, in hatred of the West, are ready to support any tyrant.

In this framework, marked by "hallucinatory syndromes," what in wartime is defined in times of war as the "dehumanisation of the enemy" has permeated the dominant media narrative. While the massacre and atrocities committed by Hamas have been rightly denounced with due attention, the same cannot be said for the systematic extermination of women and children, and the devastation of civilian, educational, and health infrastructure in Gaza caused by Israeli bombings. There is a story that deserves to be told. It concerns Raffaele Oriani, a journalist from La Repubblica who, in early January, ended his twelve-year collaboration with the weekly Il Venerdì. He wrote to all three hundred editors of the newspaper, explaining that his resignation was due to the "incredible reticence" with which the newspaper had reported on the ongoing massacre in Gaza. "What happened on October 7 is Hamas's shame; what has been happening since October 8 is the shame of all of us," he concluded. The denunciation by this man, of absolute gentleness but great moral rigour, did not produce any change in the editorial approach of the newspaper, which continued to treat the dramatic fate of Palestinian civilians with bureaucratic coldness. The incident attracted considerable attention on social media, and Oriani also published a book. However, his call to turn the page was effectively censored by the mainstream media; it did not spark any debate on Italian journalism or the massacre of tens of thousands of innocent people.

It will be said that in Italy, there is freedom of the press and expression protected by the Constitution. Certainly, but there is also the right to criticise, especially when faced with a "chorus of voices" all singing the same song. If a news organisation persistently claims the quality, impartiality, and completeness of its reporting, the public has an equal and full right to denounce its partialities and omissions. Of course, one must be able to do so. And this is always a sore point because that of punctual criticism is a laborious activity that requires preparation, commitment, and knowledge of how the media system works. This is why I insist on the issue of omissions, because it is probably the area where shortcomings, the result of an ideological approach,  become most clearly evident. We have already addressed important points, but let us pose a series of questions: Why is there never any discussion of the "forgotten wars"? Do Italians not have the right to be informed about what is happening in Sudan, where more than ten million people have been displaced? This raises another "black hole", closely intertwined with the theory of Western primacy. How do we deal with the "Global South" of the planet, with Africa, Asia, and Latin America? Do not the "white supremacists" realise that three-quarters of humanity does not follow us in our crusades, that this way we are giving it away to the "enemy"? But the chapter of topics not addressed in our public debate is, in fact, immeasurable. Only minority voices have brought to light the connections between the protectionist shift that has marked the recent years of U.S. economic policy and the resurgence of international tensions: suddenly, the radiant horizon of globalisation has disappeared from the radar, and no one has explained why. According to the "Westernist vision," we should only follow the directives that come to us from Washington and its surroundings: whatever is decided there is for our good, and we must accept it without a murmur.

There are a couple of points that must be made in conclusion. The first concerns the technocratic drift. This affects not only politics and institutions but also the instruments of communication. In a social environment fragmented by social bubbles and torn apart by the alarmism of pseudo-sovereignist right-wing forces, it seemed natural for media opinion leaders to assume a guiding role towards a citizenry in disarray. Instead of assuming a prudent attitude of informed dialogue with society, the arrogance of those who impose one-way narratives that do not admit dissonances has prevailed. In some cases, the mechanism has even been unconscious, but along with "populisms," the entire Italian society has come under the crosshairs of these improvised "guides of the ignorant people." A black-and-white representation, the forces of good against the empires of evil, which has targeted all instances of dissent emerging from below; young students disturbed by the massacres in Palestine, the concerns of many faced with skyrocketing energy costs, and theactions of religious and secular movements in support of disarmament and civil recomposition of conflicts. A major event such as Arena di Pace 2024 in Verona passed almost unnoticed. No real debate has been opened on respect for Article 11 of the Constitution, even when the direct use of Italian weapons on Russian territory was suggested. Where does the repudiation of war end? Is it the role of the media to interpret, or rather effectively cancel, articles of our Constitution?

The theme is intertwined with that of the "disappearance" from public debate of words like diplomacy, peaceful resolution of conflicts, compromise, and negotiation. Any form of dialogue has been presented as surrender, while this is not the case. It would be enough to invite real historians onto TV talk shows, instead of improvised geopolitical experts, to provide a completely different context and breadth to current events. In short, there is an urgent need, now that peace movements are once again beginning to raise their heads, to also raise our gaze. We must regain the initiative, also on the conceptual level, by designing a public sphere that is equal to the challenges we face. There are two risks: first, that (while the right-wing government aims to reduce freedom of expression) the international situation also precipitates with an increasing involvement of our country, and second, we witness the atrocious mockery of seeing "authoritarian personalities" occupy "the public space of diplomacy." Instead, we need critical thinking, social justice, and hope – together.