Why NATO? Economically the US and the EU are deadly enemies!

I meant “peace” as the opposite of “war”. We need to have such opposite words and concepts.

Changes are also possible without catastrophes, One example is the peaceful “revolution” that led to the fall of the “Iron Curtain” and the end of the “Cold War”, the conflict between the West and the East. There was no war in Europe between May 1945 and June 1991 (when the Yugoslav war[s] started) - except terrosrism or civil wars in Northern Ireland and in the Basque region. And the said peaceful “revolution” of 1989/'90 was a change without violence but left the old violence behind it and led to a new violence in Yugoslavia. So it is possible to get change without violence, but the peaceful “revolutions” are nevertheless more the “exceptions to the rule” than the “rule” itself.

If we did not know the meaning of “peace”, then we would also not know the meaning of “war”. This is what dictators usually instrumentalize, exploit. Then “peace” means war, and “war” means peace. George Orwell described this very well by reference to the dictatorship in the Soviet Union. The Romans called the brutal captures and conquests “befriended” (loosely translated), although they had just killed most of the inhabitants of those “befriended” countries.

We need to have opposite words like “war” and “peace” for understanding, for knowledge, for philosophy, for wisdom. To not know what opposite words like „war“ and „peace“ mean means to not know what war and peace are.

Do times without war in the countries “A” and “B” mean “peace is everywhere”? No. War is often (thus: not always) exported into foreign countries. So at last it is very probable that there is war almost everywhere just because of the peace of few humans who live in peace. But does that mean that peace is an illusion? No.