At the time of launching this new edition of the Diari de les idees<\/em>, Russian President Vladimir Putin has decided to launch what he calls a “special military operation” and has ordered the attack on Ukraine. In the early hours of Thursday, February 24th, 2022, Russian shelling, and troop movements into Ukrainian territory have been observed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Once the attack on Ukraine has begun, we are faced with three possible scenarios, according to Cyrille Bret’s analysis in Slate<\/em><\/a>: a “Georgian” type scenario, which would consist of consolidating Russian military positions throughout the Donbass area (beyond the current borders of the two secessionist republics); one of the maximums with an invasion from the north, east and south that would put Russia back in a position of strength in Eurasia, both in its face-to-face with the European Union and in its association with China; and, finally, an “Azovian” scenario, in which Russia would only invade the territory bordering the Sea of \u200b\u200bAzov to establish a territorial continuity with the annexed Crimea in 2014, close Ukraine’s access to the Black Sea and achieve a de facto<\/em> partition of the country, under the excuse of protecting the Russian-speaking population of the region.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In short, Putin’s decision is part of the imperial logic of a Russia that feels insecure on its borders and has been underestimated since the demise of the Soviet Union. The Russian president, therefore, intends to reunite territories he has always considered part of Russia or its sphere of influence (remember that the dismemberment of the USSR left some 25 million Russians outside its borders). Thus, putting aside Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia (2008) and Crimea and the Donbass in 2014, Moldova is in the spotlight, where the separatist region of Transnistria requested for its integration into Russia in 2014. An integration that is already taking place in Belarus with the merger of the army, politics, and finance. President Lukashenko resisted the democratic uprising of 2020 with the support of Putin and has owed him his political survival ever since. The same dependency has the Kazakh leader Tokayev, who, last January needed Russian security forces to crush another pro-democracy movement. As Xavier Mas de Xax\u00e0s argues in La Vanguardia<\/em><\/a>, Putin knows that he does not need a clear and definitive triumph in these territories to achieve his goals. Georgia and Ukraine, for example, will not join NATO because it cannot guarantee that they will return the territories that Russia has segregated. At the risk of losing them permanently, they remain outside the Alliance, and, thus, the Kremlin retains a strategic advantage over NATO. <\/p>\n\n\n\n We illustrate this issue of the Diari de les Idees<\/em> with the work of the Ukrainian sculptor Vasya Dmytryk entitled “Land”.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Coinciding with the publication of this issue of the Diari de les idees<\/em>, Russian President Vladimir Putin has put an end to the uncertainty of recent weeks and signed a decree recognizing the independence of the secessionist republics of Donetsk and Luhansk. At the same time, the Russian Senate has authorized it to deploy military forces outside internationally recognized borders. The Minsk Accords, which intend to end a war that has killed more than 13,000 people in the Donbass since 2014 and resolve the conflict between the separatists and the Ukrainian government, are becoming obsolete and without meaning, although these agreements allowed Russia to exert outside influence Ukraine by granting autonomy to Russian-backed separatist forces.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Steve Gutterman points out to RadioFreeEurope<\/a><\/em> some of the factors that may explain why Putin has decided to tighten the rope even more. First, the Minsk Accords had been stalled for years because Russia and Ukraine had fundamental disagreements over key aspects of the pact, including the sequencing of steps to create a state of mutual trust, the scope of autonomy of the pro-Russian regions and the scope of its influence on national politics. And all indications are that Putin has lost hope that the agreement will ever be implemented on Moscow’s desired terms. In this sense, the very aggressive speech of February 21, full of biased historical references, threats to Ukraine and the reproaches to the United States and NATO already seemed to foreshadow the launch of a major military campaign to overthrow the government in Kyiv, in which the recognition of the region\u2019s secessionists would only be a first step.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In any case, Russia has a toolbox that goes far beyond tanks, fighter jets, missiles, and special forces corps, and includes all the resources typical of the so-called hybrid warfare to try to destabilize Ukraine. Thus, a recent report<\/a> by the Royal United Services Institute<\/em>, a British think tank specializing in defense and security issues, highlights the increased resources of the FSB which since July 2021 has 200 members in its unit for Ukraine . These Russian agents are engaged in measuring the political sentiments of the Ukrainians to draw up a kind of psychic map of the country which they could then exploit with propaganda campaigns tailored to each region or each electoral bloc. Part of his job would also be to identify the weaknesses of municipal administrations and the most suspicious leaders in organizing a hypothetical resistance against Russia to eliminate them. It\u2019s necessary to add the intense television propaganda that, despite being banned by the Ukrainian government since 2014, is still easily accessible via Internet. Or the infiltration of elements in charge of organizing, in exchange for money, violent protests and clashes with the police, as had already happened in the cities of Donbass in 2014. Not to mention the suspicious false bomb alarms that shook up Ukraine in January and they have played with more emphasis in recent days. In addition, the pseudo-war theater of recent weeks, with the mobilization of Russian troops, on the one hand, and the successive alarms of invasion that have been coming since, has already left its mark on the Ukrainian economy. In January, the national currency, the hryvnia, lost more than 10%, domestic bonds became more expensive, and investment fell in many sectors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Among the tensions stands out the joint statement<\/a> by the Russian and Chinese governments made public in early February, in which NATO partners are seen as trying to gain unilateral military advantages and oppose an expansion of the Alliance. They also request NATO to abandon its Cold War approaches and to respect the sovereignty, security, and interests of other countries. At the same time, Russia and China reaffirm their mutual support and oppose attempts by external forces to undermine security and stability in their neighborhood. Both countries also express their intention to oppose the interference of third parties in the internal affairs of sovereign countries and the color revolutions. Although the statement does not directly mention Ukraine, China supports the proposals put forward by Russia to ensure long-term security in Europe. The parts are calling on the United States to abandon its plans to deploy medium- and short-range air missiles in the Asia-Pacific region and Europe. For its part, Russia reaffirms its support for the one-China principle and opposes any form of Taiwan independence. He also expressed concern about US policy in the Indo-Pacific region.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The statement denounced the formation of security blocs in the region and criticized the AUKUS security pact between the US, the UK and Australia. This crisis also poses a diplomatic dilemma for China and an opportunity for Beijing because Joe Biden’s administration is likely to remain distracted by Russia ahead of the US midterm elections later this year. From the pages of The Guardian<\/a><\/em>, Vincent Ni points out that in recent weeks, Chinese analysts have been debating what the country’s political choice should be. While supporters of the hardline advocate a pro-Russian foreign policy, others believe that Beijing should take advantage of this crisis to improve Washington from a position of strength as Moscow’s main ally, as both countries have similar concerns about what they consider an interference in their safety. Thus, China sees some parallels between NATO’s eastward expansion and the US presence in the South China Sea.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In this context, La Vanguardia<\/em> devotes an extensive dossier<\/a> to the repercussions of the current crisis on the future of the Atlantic Alliance, where Olivier Kempf, a reserve brigadier general who served in NATO, reflects on the future of an Alliance that brought together the two shores of the Atlantic in a bipolar context with certain strategic characteristics. He affirms he has now forgotten the extent to which the Alliance experienced crises, sometimes very acute, and finally overcame them. While this memory exercise may lead to a relativization of the current crisis of the Alliance, on the other hand, it may also be a source of concern, because the current crisis is more buried. Indeed, in previous crises, the problems gave rise to numerous public debates while today, these debates are conducted in silence and only interest the specialists. In many capitals, political and military leaders attend meetings routinely but without real interest, and many focus on other regions: Washington looks at the Pacific, Paris in the Mediterranean and Africa, Ankara in the Caucasus, or Syria. , while London continues to debate the aftermath of Brexit. Meanwhile, some of the new members persist in viewing Russia as an existential threat, which does not bother Moscow, but flatters her to be feared as in the old days of the Cold War.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Another important aspect of international relations are the relations between the European Union and the African continent. On the occasion of the summit between the African Union and the European Union on 17th and 18th February, Achille Mbembe proposes in an article published in Le Grand Continent<\/em><\/a> to move away from an apolitical view of development at a time when most Powers are building new global strategies with Africa and claims that democracy is increasingly being formulated in terms of the fairest possible redistribution of livelihoods, from the perspective of the continent’s ecological and social sustainability. About relations with Europe, he said that either in bilateral relations or with the European Union, there was no systemic cooperation with African governments on political reforms aimed at ensuring inclusive and democratic governance. He also believes that in addition to being a matter of values, support for democracy is in the long-term political and security interests of Europe. He concludes that by acting as if the problems of socio-economic development were ultimately due to a lack of financial, technical, and administrative capacity and were not caused by power structures and vulnerability, Africa has been deprived of a properly geopolitical perspective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In order to expand the information on the future challenges of the African continent and also regarding its relations with the European Union, we refer you to the Monograph<\/a> of the magazine IDEES Africa, epicenter of a changing reality<\/em>, as well as to the seminar<\/a>Towards Shared Prosperity: the Future of Europe-Africa Relations<\/em>, co-organized by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Open Government, the Government Delegation to the European Union, the Center for Contemporary Studies and ACTION, and which took place at the Headquarters of the Government Delegation to the European Union on 16th February.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Continuing with Europe, another scenario that will pose a danger of instability in the coming months is the Balkans, which, as we mentioned in the previous issue of the Diari de les idees<\/em>, are part of the set of threats to the border. eastern part of the EU. Thus, La Vanguardia<\/em><\/a> pays attention to the progress of the secessionist plan of Bosnian Serb nationalism, which seeks to separate the Republic Srpska from the rest of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The parliament of this Serbian-majority autonomous body has approved an unconstitutional law to create its own justice system, with a governing body to appoint judges and prosecutors. Bosnian Serb parliamentary opposition accuses Milorad Dodik, a Bosnian Serb ultranationalist leader and one of the three presidents of Bosnia and Herzegovina of endangering peace and pushing his separatist project simply to attract votes ahead of next month’s general election in October. However, the holding of these elections depends on electoral reform that has not yet reached the agreement of the various Bosnian political leaders. The Economist<\/em><\/a> also claims that the country is facing its worst crisis since the 1995 Dayton Accords ended the war, with the creation of two autonomous entities and a small national government. The secessionist plan began last July, after the High Representative overseeing the peace accords enacted a law outlawing denying the Srebrenica genocide. Attention is also focused on what is happening in Ukraine, as if the war finally breaks out, Dodik could take advantage of intensifying his separatist plans with the complicity of Moscow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the Spanish political sphere, the serious internal schism facing the Popular Party because of the crossfire of accusations between the party leadership and the president of the Community of Madrid stands out, tensions that have worsened after the elections. in Castile and Leon, unsatisfactory for Pablo Casado. A schism that has already provoked the resignation of the president of the Popular Party and the convening of an extraordinary congress for the month of March. The crisis of the PP is directly connected with the misdiagnosis of Castile and Leon that has led to a pyrrhic victory of the people and a dramatic increase in votes for the far right of Vox. The unprecedented instability in the main opposition party coincides with a time of deep fatigue in which prices rise, inflation can become structural and the perception of a more hostile and unpredictable world, reflected in the crisis of Ukraine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n All this in a context where democracy has continued to weaken during the year 2021 according to data published by the Democracy Index<\/em><\/a>,, an annual survey that assesses the state of democracy in 167 countries on the basis of five variables: electoral processes and political pluralism, government functioning, political participation, democratic political culture, and civil liberties. According to a study from last year, Spain has moved to the level of flawed democracy, falling behind in all the variables contemplated. The study also warns that more than a third of the world’s population lives under authoritarian rule while only 6.4% enjoy full democracy. The overall score has dropped from 5.37 by 2020 to a new low of 5.28. The only equivalent fall since 2006 was in 2010 after the global financial crisis. For the second year in a row, the pandemic has been the main source of tension for democracy worldwide: confinement and restrictions on mobility, the suspension of some civil liberties in both developed democracies and authoritarian regimes, and so on. On the other hand, divisions are consolidating between those who favor precautionary policies such as confinement and vaccines, and those who are hostile to state interference and any reduction in personal liberties. The Nordic countries continue to dominate the top of the rankings and three Asian countries remain in the last positions: for the first time North Korea has been evicted from the last place by the coup in Myanmar and the return of the Taliban to Afghanistan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But it is in Latin America that the sharpest decline is recorded. The weakness of democracy in the region has allowed illiberal populists to thrive, and a tight electoral calendar has not always advanced the cause of democracy. North America is not faring better, but despite riots in the Capitol and attempts by outgoing President Donald Trump to overturn the election results, Joe Biden’s inauguration went smoothly. Finally, the report identifies several threats to democracy in 2022 and beyond and warns that the main challenge for the Western model of democracy in the coming years will come from China.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the same vein, the editorial in the newspaper Le Monde<\/em><\/a> reiterates the key and warns that representative democracy is of less and less interest to young people, who even seem to be turning their backs on it. This disappointment is not new. It must be linked to the crisis of political organizations, to the decay of ideologies, to the difficulty of the rulers in fulfilling their promises. This crisis of confidence fuels abstention in a category that already has few votes. Worse, it leads to disaffection with democracy. Added to this doubt is a kind of legitimation of political violence: according to a survey published in early February by the Institut Montaigne<\/a>, almost one in two young people considers aggression against elected officials understandable and one in five considers it acceptable to degrade a public space or building. This crisis of representative democracy is serious.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the field of sustainability and the fight against climate change, George Monbiot denounces from The Guardian<\/em><\/a> how big companies are pursuing a clear greenwashing strategy by appropriating the world’s forests. To prevent global warming from exceeding 1.5 \u00b0 C, it is not only necessary to decarbonize our economies, but also to promote nature-based solutions that, through the restoration of ecosystems, make it possible to extract some of the carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere. However, this is not enough for the most polluting companies to offset their greenhouse gas emissions. Oil companies continue to extract fossil resources while claiming to have achieved climate neutrality by providing money to protect forests or plant new ones. In this sense, Monbiot points out that this use of nature-based solutions is helping to accelerate environmental collapse, rather than prevent it. It should be noted that there is not enough surface area on Earth to absorb the emissions generated by companies. As a result, pressure from large companies to buy green space is causing land prices to rise and local people to be unable to implement their own reforestation projects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Foreign Affairs<\/em><\/a>, Jason Bordoff & Meghan L. O’Sullivan analyze the climate issue from a geopolitical perspective and point out that clean energy advocates hope that in addition to mitigating climate change, the energy transition will help to make tensions over energy resources a thing of the past. However, while it is true that clean energy will transform geopolitics, they believe that the process will be messy at best. And far from fostering mutual aid and cooperation, it is likely to produce new forms of competition and confrontation. Clean energy will be a new source of power, leading to new risks and uncertainties. It is therefore necessary to encourage policymakers to look beyond the challenges of climate change and to assess the risks and dangers of the energy transition. The abandonment of oil and gas will dramatically reshape the world, but debates about the future of clean energy often overlook important issues such as how long this transition may take. In addition, to understand the geopolitics of a world that is gradually moving away from fossil fuels, it is crucial to understand how the emergence of clean energy superpowers will produce changes in geopolitical influences. In the long run, innovation will determine who will win the clean energy revolution. Countries with these two attributes will base their hegemony on four pillars.<\/p>\n\n\n\n First, they will have the power to set standards for clean energy that will be more subtle than the geopolitical power derived from oil resources. Second, control over the supply chain of minerals such as cobalt, copper, lithium, nickel, and rare earths, which are critical to a variety of clean energy technologies, including wind and electric vehicles. Third, the ability to make cheap components for new technologies. And finally, a country will be able to become a superpower of clean energy by producing and exporting low-carbon fuels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Finally, in terms of technological innovation, after the successful use of messenger RNA in coronavirus vaccines, Ashleigh Furlong told Politico<\/em><\/a> that Moderna and BioNTech are returning to the field of cancer with the aim of developing a vaccine that prevents patients from relapsing. Indeed, the success of VOCID vaccines has led governments and regulators to feel comfortable with technology and investors to rush to support the potential of mRNA. Current research, however, focuses more on the treatment of cancer than on its prevention, as the mutation that will trigger uncontrollable cell division cannot be predicted. Experts also warn of over-optimism about the application of mRNA to cancer, as these vaccines will have to deal with the complexity of immunotherapies. In any case, if researchers can overcome the difficulties and create viable and effective vaccines, equitable access must be guaranteed. Vaccines will be expensive, and it will have to be shown that health care systems are better equipped with this tool than with cheaper alternatives. However, Bruno Canard warns from the pages of Le Monde Diplomatique<\/em><\/a> of the dangers of deregulated genomic experimentation. Indeed, genome editing, and new genetic techniques raise ethical and biosafety issues that require more than ever public debate and international regulation. Consequently, both the scientific community and civil society need to assess all aspects to define more rigorously what science should and should not do. Recent history shows that the self-regulation of the discipline is still very insufficient. Several areas of research have evaded and even violated previous moratoriums. The alleged motives are to better understand viruses to anticipate or prevent the appearance of human pathogens. But these experiences are part of a context where you must publish a lot to meet the criteria of an extremely competitive system and to get funding. Conflicts of interest may therefore arise and require impartial arbitration. The authors propose the creation of an international conference inspired by recent climate conferences, which include scientists, political leaders, and representatives of civil society, which could lead to the negotiation of the establishment of appropriate international regulations. The development of scientific choices requires a democratic framework and the access of citizens to scientific culture. Only an expansion of participation in deliberations on ethical issues in science and technology can ensure that this conference leads to lasting and effective regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Enric Brugu\u00e9s, Eva Lam, Ra\u00fcl Gil and Marian Moy\u00e0, trainees at the CETC, have collaborated in this issue 55 of the Diari de les idees<\/em>.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" *Updated February 24th – 13.00 CET* At the time of launching this new edition of the Diari de les idees, Russian President Vladimir Putin has decided to launch what he calls a “special military operation” and has ordered the attack on Ukraine. In the early hours of Thursday, February 24th, 2022, Russian shelling, and troop movements into Ukrainian territory have been observed. Once the attack on Ukraine has begun, we are faced with three possible scenarios, according to Cyrille Bret’s analysis in Slate: a “Georgian” type scenario, which would consist of consolidating Russian military positions throughout the Donbass area (beyond\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":77128,"template":"","category_newspaper":[454],"segment":[],"subject":[],"class_list":["post-54659","newspaper","type-newspaper","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category_newspaper-454"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
\n\n\n\n
Editorial prior to the attack on Ukraine<\/h4>\n\n\n\n