This paper aims to rethink the narrative of peace and war by highlighting some underlying conceptual misrepresentations in Peace Studies. Positive Peace is well established in Peace Studies as an original 'good' state (of man, of society) that has been broken, but which can be restored through the mitigation/elimination of 'negative' factors be they inequalities, dehumanizing technology, corrupt institutions, asymmetries of power. As if to say that the negative/evil is an accident of history and, by fighting it with positive means (empathy, charity, welfare, empowerment, economic interdependence, international agreements, etc.), negative/evil will have to reconcile with the good/the positive: underlying idea of peace and. conflict-free future societies This imperfect version did not consider the dialectic of opposites in its full meaning, ending up ostracizing the conceptions that raise distinctions on the 'goodness' of man. It translated them into almost exclusively intimidating aphorisms, spreading ambivalence towards war. The contract theory (Hobbes) wants to demonstrate that the State has the role of mediator and controller of selfish and destructive tendencies of individuals; in this way, it acts as the guarantor of agreements between individuals for mutual security (propitiating the idea of civil society). Sociality (Rousseau) is understood as a secondary, non-natural act, invented by human beings out of fear of the other and of the unknown, moved by both good and negative passions. In Vom Kriege (von Clausewitz) war is a tragedy led by misuse of politics: explaining it in its matrices and techniques has the aim of developing strategies for making both war and peace. Having rethought these cardinal concepts, and other cascading ones (primarily conflict and nonviolence), the paper tests their explanatory impact linking theory and praxis in regard to today’s war between Russia and Ukraine.