This paper develops a theological analysis of the present moment in which peace no longer functions as a regulating category for judgment, language, and responsibility. Starting from the observation that, in many European ecclesial contexts, peace has lost its capacity to order theological reflection after the end of the Cold War, the paper examines the consequences of this loss for how suffering, sacrifice, and responsibility are interpreted under conditions of ongoing war. The argument focuses on a structural shift in theological discourse: where peace ceases to orient judgment, suffering itself increasingly acquires moral authority and becomes a privileged carrier of meaning. In this context, martyrdom reappears as a readily available figure through which violence can be rendered intelligible, necessary, or even justified. The paper does not approach martyrdom as a historical category in its own right, but as a symptom of a deeper theological displacement in which relational responsibility gives way to the moral elevation of endurance, sacrifice, and exposure to harm. Drawing on Eastern Christian ontological perspectives and on literary and theological reflections on shared responsibility, the paper analyzes how contemporary ecclesial language responds to war when traditional criteria for peace are absent or weakened. It shows how theological critique risks remaining reactive or moralizing when it lacks a framework capable of disciplining claims grounded in suffering of Christ. Against this background, the paper articulates an account of responsibility that refuses to treat suffering as moral evidence and questions the conversion of violence into theological legitimacy. In dialogue with the other two papers of historical analyses of peace and with reflections on the resurgence of martyr rhetoric, it positions theologies after as a mode of inquiry attentive to loss, rupture, and the unresolved burdens that shape contemporary theological language.