Are we at war? Below the threshold, signals without bullets, and the future of peace

Are we at war? While this question was once answered through declarations, troop movements, or kinetic violence, it has become increasingly difficult to resolve. Drawing on Hasselbladh's (2025) concept of the shadow of war, this essay examines how contemporary conflicts are deliberately organized below the threshold of armed violence and how this transformation reshapes sociological understandings of war and peace. It argues that military institutional specificity lies not in visible practices but in a latent potential that structures meaning, authority, and legitimacy even in the absence of war. Extending this logic beyond the military, the essay suggests that many contemporary conflicts are structured to never fully materialize, but instead operate through influence, disruption, and ambiguity, relying on signals rather than events and anticipation rather than resolution. As a result, the question ‘are we at war?’ becomes structurally irresolvable, uncertainty emerges as an organizing principle, and peace appears not as the stable opposite of war but as a fragile and contested achievement.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Dialogues in sociology.
Published
2026-02-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/29768667261420945
Primary Topic
Peacebuilding and International Security
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Are we at war? Below the threshold, signals without bullets, and the future of peace

Sara Russo
Dialogues in sociology.
Peacebuilding and International Security
article

Are we at war? Below the threshold, signals without bullets, and the future of peace

Sara Russo
article en

Abstract

Are we at war? While this question was once answered through declarations, troop movements, or kinetic violence, it has become increasingly difficult to resolve. Drawing on Hasselbladh's (2025) concept of the shadow of war, this essay examines how contemporary conflicts are deliberately organized below the threshold of armed violence and how this transformation reshapes sociological understandings of war and peace. It argues that military institutional specificity lies not in visible practices but in a latent potential that structures meaning, authority, and legitimacy even in the absence of war. Extending this logic beyond the military, the essay suggests that many contemporary conflicts are structured to never fully materialize, but instead operate through influence, disruption, and ambiguity, relying on signals rather than events and anticipation rather than resolution. As a result, the question ‘are we at war?’ becomes structurally irresolvable, uncertainty emerges as an organizing principle, and peace appears not as the stable opposite of war but as a fragile and contested achievement.

Dialogues in sociology.
Ministry of Defence (IT), University of Turin (IT)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 62%
Peacebuilding and International Security
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Are we at war? Below the threshold, signals without bullets, and the future of peace — Sara Russo · Dialogues in sociology. (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS