We do not want to write about war. But understanding its language is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid.
London – ItalyNews.it does not belong to a new school of invasion literature. And neither do I.
More than a century ago, European writers imagined future wars, invasions and the destruction that new technologies might bring.
George Tomkyns Chesney’s The Battle of Dorking, William Le Queux’s The Invasion of 1910 and, in a very different literary register, H.G. Wells’s The War in the Air brought the possibility of future conflict into the public imagination.
We have no desire to recreate that atmosphere in 2026.
We do not write about war because war fascinates us. We do not write about it because we believe that a conflict between Russia and Europe is inevitable. And we certainly do not want to contribute to making war appear normal.
We write about it because the language of war is returning to Europe.
Words that Europeans hoped belonged increasingly to history — invasion, mobilisation, deterrence, red lines, attack, escalation, collective defence, direct conflict — have returned to political speeches, military planning and public debate.
Russia speaks about the consequences of a direct confrontation with Europe. NATO discusses deterrence and the defence of its eastern flank. European governments are increasing defence expenditure. The European Union is debating how to respond to threats that may remain below the traditional threshold of armed aggression.
Meanwhile, drones cross borders, military aircraft are scrambled, infrastructure is protected against sabotage and incidents in the Baltic Sea are examined not only for what happened, but for what they might mean.
None of this tells us that war is coming.
But it does tell us that Europe is talking about war again.
A century ago there were novels. Today there is the feed.
There is another difference between then and now.
A young European at the beginning of the twentieth century encountered the possibility of future war through newspapers, political speeches, pamphlets and novels.
Generation Z encounters war differently.
Ukraine. Gaza. A drone. An explosion. A fighter aircraft. Putin. NATO. A destroyed building. A political speech. A meme. An influencer. An advertisement.
All on the same screen. Sometimes within minutes.
Never before has a generation been able to see so much conflict, almost in real time.
But seeing more does not necessarily mean understanding more.
And perhaps this is where our responsibility as journalists begins.
This article is not a call to arms
We are not asking Europe’s young people to prepare for war.
Nor are we asking them to support rearmament, oppose it, trust NATO, distrust it, support European strategic autonomy or embrace pacifism.
Those are political and personal choices that belong to them.
We are asking something much simpler: are you paying attention?
Because the decisions being discussed today will have consequences that will extend far beyond the political careers of those making them.
Generation Z will live with those consequences.
Generation Beta will inherit them.
And if Europe’s security environment continues to deteriorate, today’s younger Europeans may eventually face questions that previous generations hoped they would never have to answer.
Not simply: Would you fight for Europe?
But something even more fundamental: What would you be prepared to defend — and why?
Your country? Another European country?
The European Union?
Democracy? Your family?
Your freedom? Your way of life?
Or none of these?
There is no answer that ItalyNews can give on behalf of a generation.
Understanding is not warmongering
Perhaps diplomacy will prevail.
Perhaps deterrence will work.
Perhaps historians looking back at 2026 will regard this period as another moment when Europe approached a dangerous threshold and then moved away from it.
We should hope so.
But hoping that something will not happen is not a reason to stop observing what is happening.
Understanding the possibility of war is not the same as wanting war.
Discussing deterrence is not advocating conflict.
And asking young Europeans what they think about their own security is not asking them to become soldiers.
It is asking them to become citizens of the world in which they actually live.
That is why ItalyNews will continue to monitor the language, decisions and events that are changing Europe’s security environment.
Not to frighten. Not to predict war.
Not to manufacture another invasion literature.
But to observe, verify and explain.
Because our task is not to tell the next generation what to think.
It is to give them reasons to look up from the feed, understand what is changing around them, and decide for themselves what — if anything — they want to do about it.
Riccardo Cacelli
International Geopolitics Analyst
