Inevitably over the centuries, the ways by which peoples wage war against each other have changed. The clearest development was in how with the new weapons that came into play (!) from century to century, deaths in warfare continued to increase hugely - among the warriors involved in the fighting and among civilians, whether the latter were part of the fighting or not. This process has accellerated during the last hundred years, as with the nuclear explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Closer to our times, the methods available by which to run a war have multiplied hugely via technologies that from a distance, guide electronic drones carrying explosive material towards targets, using secret information obtained by space satellites or from the systems that control communication flows between important nodes.
Meanwhile, the two methods which have most succeeded as of now, to really bring peace and end wars have remained: one side vanquishes the other in a "total" war, following which it manages to bring about a reconciliation programme, which the defeated side accepts as fairish; for one reason or another, a peace treaty is agreed which confirms the interests of one side, while the other side remains more or less satisfied, in the circumstances, with what it retains.
***
THE LOST VOTES
It has become interesting to follow what party leaders have been saying - or what they've been reported in the media as having said - regarding preparations for the looming general elections... or which seem to loom.
Both sides are apparently preoccupied by the votes they used to secure but no longer do, or are not sure they still do. They say they will focus on them while claiming at the same time (and they can hardly do differently), that they will make sure that as they do this, not to disregard other electoral strata.
What is being said is reasonable. Still, the suspicion immediately emerges: Would it not be more effective if parties concentrate on a narrative that presents a unified national vision? This would incorporate all segments of the electorate, including those they wish to focus upon, under one coherent national slogan.
***
OPTIMISM
It's well done that the government with its statements has taken care to sustain a public sentiment of optimism, in a context where news of a spreading war fuels worry and a fear that the situation will deteriorate. A major source of worry... though not the only one... arises from how oil and natural gas prices have been changing. "All" indicators point to future significant increases.
The government's intervention stating that it's prepared to put subsidies on the line to prevent energy prices from exploding was useful. It gave peace of mind to citizens and families, that they would not be left "alone" as inflation struck. The statement sounded even more forceful because the government went on to insist that the required resources were available to cope with all challenges that could arise.
Still this last point could have been a mistake. Quickly the view could emerge (not just among citizens but among businesses as well) that there will be protective coverage from the government side no matter what it takes. And so, we can continue living our "usual" lives, comprising the excessive usage and waste of resources...