Defense and Improvisation: General C.A. Rodolfo Sganga's Call in the Era of Social Media and Cognitive Warfare

General of the Army Corps Rodolfo Sganga recently published a reflection on his Facebook page, publicly visible, that deserves careful reading, especially at a historical moment when issues of defense, security, and war have become a stable part of public debate.

In his speech, the General emphasized a fundamental point: the difference between those who superficially comment on military topics and those who, instead, dedicate years of study to understanding what is probably the most complex phenomenon humanity faces, war.

"The difference between those who comment on Defense between one soccer match and another and those who are professionals in the Art of War lies in the years of study dedicated to understanding the most complex phenomenon that a human being can be called to face: war.

And this is certainly not to become its supporter, that would be madness, but to understand it in an attempt to govern it as much as possible.

Therefore, in the transition from 'national team coach' on Sunday to 'Defense expert' on Monday, it is advisable to take advantage and study, otherwise, you risk saying a lot of 'inaccuracies'..."

A message that is both harsh and simple, yet extremely timely.

War is not an opinion

War is not a topic to be approached lightly or with improvisation.
It is a complex phenomenon involving strategy, geopolitics, technology, economics, psychology, and military doctrine. Understanding it requires years of study, military academic training, operational experience, and continuous analysis of the battlefield's evolution.

This is why in the armed forces worldwide, the training of military cadres is structured on long and rigorous paths: academies, war schools, staff courses, and years of field experience.

Reducing all this to an improvised comment on social media inevitably leads to superficial analyses or, at worst, completely erroneous ones, with the risk of fueling distorted narratives that can have concrete consequences on public debate and the Nation's choices, especially political ones.

The era of cognitive warfare

There is an element that makes the Paratrooper Officer's call even more relevant: the context of the so-called cognitive warfare.

In recent years, NATO has begun to speak openly about Cognitive Warfare, a form of conflict that does not aim to destroy infrastructures or military units but to influence people's perception and steer public debate.

In this type of conflict, the target is not the territory but the mind.

Partial information, incorrect interpretations, simplifications, and distorted narratives become tools capable of steering public opinion.

And it is precisely here that an evident problem emerges: those who do not have analytical tools in the field of defense inevitably become more vulnerable to this type of influence. It is not a fault, but a natural consequence of the complexity of the subject.

The issue has been further accentuated, unfortunately, with the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Suddenly everyone seems to know everything, often without having minimally verified the sources' truthfulness or the information's reliability. Doctrines, techniques, strategies: fundamental elements of the study of war seem to have disappeared from the debate. Suddenly, a complex subject has been reduced to something seemingly simple, within reach of anyone with an opinion to express on social media.

The responsibility of information on Defense

In this context, the public debate on defense issues assumes even greater importance.

Talking about war, in fact, does not mean merely commenting on military events or operational dynamics, but contributing to the formation of public awareness on issues that directly concern national and international security.

For this reason, we fully share and welcome General Sganga's call with conviction.

The work of this blog is born precisely from the belief that issues related to defense must be addressed with rigor, study, and competence, avoiding simplifications that risk impoverishing an already complex debate.

In our project, we collaborate with high-profile military personnel, now retired after long operational and command experiences, with whom we have had multiple opportunities to delve into topics related to military doctrine and the evolution of contemporary operations.

The contribution of these skills represents a fundamental element for us: not to fuel controversies or oppositions, but to offer readers more solid analytical tools in an area where complexity is the rule and improvisation risks becoming fertile ground for distorted interpretations of reality.

Study to understand

General Sganga's message, in the end, is very clear. Studying war does not mean justifying or supporting it. It means understanding it.

Only by understanding the mechanisms that regulate conflicts is it possible to analyze them, interpret them, and, when possible, contribute to governing their effects.

In an era where information circulates quickly and public debate often forms on social networks, the call for study and competence is a valuable contribution for those who seriously deal with Defense.