Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

Result of the General Assembly vote on the draft resolution "Support for lasting peace in Ukraine" adopted during the emergency special session. 24 February 2026 Four years after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the UN is marked the day with high-level debate and renewed calls to end the war - including in the General Assembly which passed a resolution reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine. Credit: UN Photo/Manuel Elías

By Philippe Leclerc
GENEVA, Feb 25 2026 (IPS)

After surviving the harshest winter in a decade, millions of displaced Ukrainians are confronting a growing crisis marked by hardship and ongoing attacks as peace prospects remain distant.

Inside Ukraine, repeated attacks on housing, energy systems and essential services throughout the winter left millions without heating or electricity for prolonged periods. While temperatures are slowly rising, the damage remains. An estimated 10.8 million people inside the country need humanitarian assistance in 2026, and 3.7 million are internally displaced.

At the same time, 5.9 million Ukrainians remain refugees abroad. Across Europe, host countries have provided protection and opportunities at an unprecedented scale, giving refugees access to education, healthcare and employment. This has helped millions regain stability and contribute to host communities.

As the war continues, however, more is needed to support refugees from a displacement crisis with no clear end. Alongside Temporary Protection, States should explore options for alternative arrangements for longer stay. These can bring stability for the most vulnerable in particular, for whom return may not be immediately possible even after the war.

Evidence shows that meaningful inclusion delivers results and refugees significantly boost host country economies. In Poland, analysis by UNHCR and Deloitte showed that Ukrainian refugees’ net impact amounted to 2.7 per cent of the Polish GDP, in 2024. With increased language training and wider recognition of credentials, access to decent work and self-reliance can improve for refugees across the region.

Inside Ukraine, communities continue to repair homes, restore services and rebuild livelihoods, with the support of UNHCR and NGO partners. But after four years of war, resilience has limits. Sustained humanitarian assistance remains essential, alongside scaled-up recovery and reconstruction support to prevent further displacement and enable safe conditions for return.

When conditions allow, gradual and voluntary returns will be critical for Ukraine’s recovery. UNHCR is working with the Government and partners to restore people’s documents, support rehabilitation of social infrastructure and repair war-damaged homes. UNHCR also works with partners to analyse refugees’ intentions, forecast return movements and support Ukraine’s recovery planning.

Since the start of the full-scale war, UNHCR and partners have supported 10 million people with emergency aid, protection services and psychosocial support. In 2026, UNHCR plans to assist a further 2 million people inside the country, subject to sufficient funding. Across the region, UNHCR and partners are supporting 1.7 million refugees and the States hosting them, with a focus on inclusion and self-reliance.

As winter fades, the humanitarian crisis does not. We must support the people of Ukraine with humanitarian relief and recovery inside the country, and with safety and self-reliance abroad.

Philippe Leclerc is UNHCR’s Regional Director for Europe and Regional Refugee Coordinator for the Ukraine Situation

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Das Konjunkturbarometer des Deutschen Instituts für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW Berlin) macht im Februar einen Sprung auf 101,6 Punkte. Damit liegt das Barometer fast sieben Punkte über dem Januar-Wert und erstmals seit knapp drei Jahren wieder über der neutralen 100-Punkte-Marke, die ein ...

Emotionale Stabilität hängt positiv mit Bruttostundenlohn zusammen, Verträglichkeit negativ – Zusammenhang ist bei Frauen schwächer als bei Männern – Stereotype und Rollenbilder könnten eine Rolle spielen Bestimmte Persönlichkeitsmerkmale gehen mit Unterschieden im Bruttostundenlohn einher. Hat ...

Participants observe a visual montage linking Abu Dhabi’s Zayed Award ceremony, the Sant’Egidio interfaith forum in Rome and the Astana Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions — symbolizing the emerging “rehearsal space” where religion, civil society and state diplomacy converge. (Credit: INPS / Illustrative image)

By Katsuhiro Asagiri
ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates, Feb 24 2026 (IPS)

As wars drag on and the international order grows increasingly unstable, Abu Dhabi has been offering a different kind of narrative. It sought to recognize early efforts at reconciliation, bring religious leaders into the same space, and place former adversaries under the same spotlight. At the heart of the February 4, 2026 Zayed Award for Human Fraternity ceremony was an attempt to make visible, in a public setting, the choice of moving in the direction of easing conflict.

Pope Francis and Ahmed el-Tayeb sign the Document on Human Fraternity。Credit: Vatican News

Timed to coincide with the United Nations–designated International Day of Human Fraternity, the ceremony drew heads of state, religious leaders and civil-society representatives. The award traces its origins to the 2019 Document on Human Fraternity, signed in Abu Dhabi by Pope Francis and the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, Ahmed Al-Tayeb. The document is widely regarded as a historic declaration that set out a global call for interreligious dialogue and peaceful coexistence.

Seven years on, the international landscape has become even more fragmented. Even so, the organizers have framed the ceremony not merely as an awards event, but as a symbolic platform intended to encourage a minimum measure of restraint when politics turns turbulent.

Shoring Up a Fragile Peace

The moment that drew the most attention this year was the recognition of Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev for their peace agreement. After decades of confrontation, the award functioned as a form of international endorsement for a still-fragile peace process in the South Caucasus.

Zayed Prize 2026 to Armenia and Azerbaijan Credit: Vatican News

Peace agreements are often most vulnerable immediately after they are reached. Domestic political backlash and deep-seated mistrust can easily undermine implementation. In that sense, bringing the two leaders onto the same stage was not a declaration that the journey was complete; it was an attempt to “reinforce” diplomatic progress. By recognizing leaders who chose dialogue at an early stage, the award appears aimed at widening the political space for compromise—and at making it harder for opponents to overturn the agreement.

The award, however, extended beyond state leadership. The 2026 laureates also included Afghan girls’ education advocate Zarqa Yaftali and the Palestinian nonprofit Taawon, honoring efforts to continue humanitarian and development work under conditions of conflict and political instability. It also underscores the award’s intention to bridge “top-down politics,” such as peace agreements, with “bottom-up peacebuilding” that supports communities on the ground. The underlying message is clear: even with treaties and agreements in place, peace cannot take root if the schools, healthcare, and local support systems needed to sustain society remain fragile.

A Dialogue Circuit Linking Rome and Astana

The closing ceremony held against the backdrop of the ancient Roman ruins, the Colosseum. Credit: Community of Sant’Egidio

Abu Dhabi’s ceremony is not an isolated event. In October 2025, Rome hosted the annual forum “Religions and Cultures in Dialogue for Peace,” organized by the Community of Sant’Egidio. Inheriting the spirit of the 1986 Assisi gathering, the forum serves as a continuing platform that brings together religious leaders, political figures, and representatives of civil society. The Holy See (the Vatican) is a central participant, exercising its moral authority to connect ethical appeals with debates in international politics.

Further east, Kazakhstan has institutionalized interfaith engagement through the Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions in Astana. Both the Holy See and the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar have consistently participated, helping to sustain the congress as a venue for structured interreligious dialogue.

Seen in this light, Rome, Astana, and Abu Dhabi are not merely separate events; they emerge as nodal points in a broader space of dialogue that links religion and diplomacy. Put differently, they function like a regular service designed to keep the lines of communication open—ensuring that the ability to meet and talk does not fall silent.

Religious Actors Across Borders

On Feb. 4, a Soka Gakkai delegation led by Vice President Hirotsugu Terasaki attended the 2026 Zayed Award for Human Fraternity ceremony in Abu Dhabi, UAE. At the invitation of @ZayedAward, the delegation joined global religious leaders. On Feb. 3, the delegation met with Judge Mohamed Abdelsalam, Secretary-General of the Zayed Award for Human Fraternity and they delivered a letter from Soka Gakkai President Minoru Harada to the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar His Eminence Ahmed Al-Tayeb. Credit: SGI

Not only states sustain this network. Like the Holy See and religious leaders from around the world, Hirotsugu Terasaki, Director-General for Peace Affairs of Soka Gakkai International (SGI) — an organization with some 13 million members worldwide — has taken part in dialogue venues in Abu Dhabi, Rome and Astana.

Ahead of the Abu Dhabi ceremony, Terasaki met with Judge Mohamed Abdelsalam, Secretary-General of the award, and delivered a letter from Minoru Harada, President of Soka Gakkai, addressed to Grand Imam Ahmed Al-Tayeb. The two exchanged views on the need to further strengthen “heart-to-heart dialogue” that transcends religious differences.

The stages created by the United Arab Emirates and Kazakhstan—both of which place emphasis on “spiritual diplomacy”—are more than mere events. What gives these settings moral authority and lends them ethical weight as arenas for peacebuilding is a sustained architecture of dialogue, underpinned by relationships that religious and civil-society leaders have cultivated over many years. Put differently, it is a system for meeting regularly and ensuring that lines of communication do not fall silent. Even when interstate relations grow tense, religious and civil-society networks can keep channels of dialogue open, serving as a buffer against rupture.

The fact that Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev engaged with this year’s award ceremony through a video address, and that Director-General Terasaki has moved across dialogue venues such as Abu Dhabi, Rome, and Astana, quietly suggests the presence of such networks where religion and diplomacy intersect. Likewise, the Holy See has also been one of the actors continuously involved in all three of these settings.

Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev extended his congratulations to Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan on being given the Sheikh Zayed Award for Human Fraternity in a video address. Credit: Akorda

Shared Words, Different Realities

The vocabulary repeatedly invoked in these forums is strikingly consistent: fraternity, coexistence, dialogue, and human dignity. At a time when multilateralism is faltering and traditional channels of mediation are weakening, this language also serves a political purpose—allowing states to signal, at home and abroad, a preference for dialogue over force and to project the image that they are not stoking confrontation, but providing a venue in which tensions can be managed.

Yet the distance between ceremony and reality does not disappear. Celebrating a peace agreement does not necessarily guarantee its implementation. Honoring efforts in girls’ education does not automatically reopen classrooms. Proclaiming coexistence does not stop violence overnight. Awards can encourage compromise and bless dialogue, but they are not mechanisms that can compel outcomes.

Even so, governments and religious and civil-society networks continue to engage in these venues—through attendance, public statements, and sustained involvement—because they remain among the few public settings where opposing parties can appear side by side. There are not many spaces where actors in tense relationships can stand in the same room, where restraint is openly affirmed, and where interfaith ties can function as informal diplomatic channels.

A Place to “Rehearse” Peace

A woman crafts a mosaic depicting a peace dove in the Za’atari refugee camp in Jordan. Credit: UN Women/Christopher Herwig

The Zayed Award for Human Fraternity, the peace commemorations in Rome, and the interfaith congress in Astana—taken together—reveal the growing reach of a diplomatic approach that advances not through force or pressure, but through convening, dialogue, and the steady maintenance of relationships. It is a framework that can be symbolic at times, yet capable of exerting a quiet influence.

They also point toward the emergence of a new diplomatic domain where religion, civil society and state interests converge.

In today’s international environment, it is precisely these small points of contact that can carry real significance. Before peace is institutionalized as policy, there are only limited spaces where its shape can be publicly “rehearsed.”

The Abu Dhabi ceremony is one of those rare stages. It did not resolve a conflict, nor did it erase suspicion. Even so, choosing dialogue—and continuing to make that choice visible in the open—constitutes an act in itself: a clear signal, in an age of polarization, of a commitment to restraint over enmity.

This article is brought to you by INPS Japan in collaboration with Soka Gakkai International, in consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

INPS Japan

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Credit: Georgios Kostomitsopoulos/NurPhoto via Getty Images

By Inés M. Pousadela
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Feb 24 2026 (IPS)

The Islamic Republic of Iran has put down another uprising, with a ferocity that makes previous crackdowns seem restrained. The theocratic regime has survived, but it has done so by substituting violence for the economic security it cannot provide and the political legitimacy it no longer has. Its show of force is also an admission of weakness.

The protests that began on 28 December were triggered by a specific event — the collapse of the rial to a record low — but rooted in years of accumulated grievances. The second half of 2025 alone saw at least 471 labour protests across 69 Iranian cities. Inflation stood at 49.4 per cent. The 12-day war with Israel in June sent the Tehran Stock Exchange down around 40 per cent and cost many people their jobs. The United Nations Security Council reimposed sanctions in September. The government cut fuel subsidies in November and slashed exchange-rate subsidies in December. Over 40 per cent of Iranian households now live below the poverty line and around half the population consume fewer than the recommended 2,100 calories per day.

It was this collapse that brought typically conservative bazaar merchants onto the streets. Within two weeks, the protests had spread to all of Iran’s 31 provinces, drawing in the urban middle class, working-class communities and people from rural provinces who had historically been among the regime’s most reliable supporters. What began as an economic stoppage rapidly became political defiance. For the millions who joined the striking merchants, the plummeting currency and rising cost of food were not market failures; they were proof of the regime’s corruption and ineptitude. Generation Z played a central role, demanding not reform but profound change. Lethal repression provided further confirmation the system was beyond reform.

The state’s response evolved. Initially it offered token economic concessions alongside its usual crowd control violence such as batons and teargas. When it became clear that a widespread movement with political demands had taken hold, it shifted to total attrition. On 8 January, authorities imposed a near-total internet shutdown and authorised security forces to use military-grade weapons against crowds. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) – a parallel military structure, major political force and economic empire with a direct stake in the regime’s survival – spearheaded the crackdown, with its affiliated Basij paramilitary networks playing a central role in street-level violence.

The casualty figures were deliberately obscured by the internet blackout, but all evidence points in the same direction. Hengaw Organisation for Human Rights reported that at least 3,000 civilians — including 44 children — were killed in the first 17 days. Iran Human Rights, citing Ministry of Health sources, documented a minimum of 3,379 deaths across 15 provinces. The US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency reported around 7,000 verified fatalities by mid-February, with 12,000 further cases under review. Time magazine cited hospital records suggesting the toll may have reached 30,000. Even the lowest of these figures vastly eclipses the 537 deaths recorded during the 2022-2023 Woman, Life, Freedom protests. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s concession that ‘several thousand’ had been killed confirmed the order of magnitude.

By 16 January the streets had been cleared, but a quieter repressive campaign continued, with nighttime raids, enforced disappearances and mass detentions in unofficial holding sites outside the legal system, targeting not only protesters but also doctors who treated the wounded, lawyers who provided legal assistance, bystanders who helped and people who posted supportive statements online. Authorities have detained over 50,000 people. Revolutionary Courts have fast-tracked mass indictments through summary trials, often conducted online and lasting mere minutes, with defendants denied independent legal counsel and confessions extracted under torture. Eighteen-year-old Saleh Mohammadi, whose retracted confession was obtained after interrogators broke bones in his hand, has been sentenced to be publicly hanged at the site of his alleged crime. Dozens more face imminent execution.

The regime has, for now, held: its security forces have not fractured, there have been no significant elite defections, and the IRGC has maintained its capacity for suppression. But it rules over a country with a wrecked economy, a battered nuclear programme, weakened regional proxies and a population that has run out of reasons to comply. Each protest cycle has required a higher threshold of state violence to suppress, a sign the regime has no other tool left.

What prevents weakness from becoming collapse is the absence of any alternative. The international response briefly suggested external pressure might tell – but did not. Donald Trump told Iranian protesters that ‘help is on its way’. The European Union listed the IRGC as a terrorist organisation. The UK imposed fresh sanctions. The Iranian diaspora held at least 168 protests across 30 countries. But the international noise simply enabled the regime to spread the narrative that the uprising was foreign-directed.

The exiled opposition is fragmented along ethnic, ideological and generational lines, seemingly more consumed by internal rivalries than the task of converting widespread discontent into sustained political pressure. Inside Iran, the most credible opposition voices — Nobel laureate Narges Mohammadi, reformist politician Mostafa Tajzadeh and veteran leader Mir Hossein Mousavi — are imprisoned or cut off from public life.

A weakened regime facing a leaderless opposition can endure, but what it cannot do is reverse its decay. Violence may clear the streets, but it cannot rebuild the economy, restore trust or give Iran’s young people a reason to stay. The regime has bought time, at an ever-rising price, but the crisis it’s suppressed isn’t going away.

Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Head of Research and Analysis, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report. She is also a Professor of Comparative Politics at Universidad ORT Uruguay.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

UN Secretary-General António Guterres speaks at the opening of the 61st session of the Human Rights Council at the Palais des Nations, in Geneva. Meanwhile, Volker Turk, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, addresses (below) at the opening of the High-level segment of the Human Rights Council. Credit: UN Photo/Violaine Martin

By Volker Turk
GENEVA, Feb 24 2026 (IPS)

A fierce competition for power, control and resources is playing out on the world stage at a rate and intensity unseen for the past 80 years.

People are feeling unmoored, anxious and insecure. The gears of global power are shifting; the consequences are not clear. Some are signalling the end of the world order as we know it.

But today, I want to talk about another world order. One that is organised from the ground up, and that is unshakeable. A foundational system of how people relate to each other, based on our inherent worth, our hopes, and our common values.

I am referring to people’s pursuit of dignity, equality, and justice. This quest is innate to what makes us human: to be free, to be heard, and to have our basic needs met.

And it is a strong counterbalance to the top-down, autocratic trends we see today. The use of force to resolve disputes between and within countries is becoming normalized.

Inflammatory threats against sovereign nations are thrown about, with no regard to the fire they could ignite. The laws of war are being brutally violated.

Mass civilian suffering – from Sudan, to Gaza, to Ukraine, to Myanmar – is unfolding before our eyes. In Sudan, there needs to be accountability for all violations by all parties – notably, the war crimes and possible crimes against humanity committed by the Rapid Support Forces in El Fasher. Such atrocities must not be repeated in Kordofan or elsewhere. All those with influence need to act urgently to put an end to this senseless war.

The situation in Gaza remains catastrophic. Palestinians are still dying from Israeli fire, cold, hunger, and treatable diseases. The aid allowed in is not enough to meet the massive needs. There are concerns over ethnic cleansing in both Gaza and the West Bank, where Israel is accelerating efforts to consolidate unlawful annexation. Any sustainable solution must be based on two states living side by side in equal dignity and rights, in line with UN resolutions and international law.

Tomorrow marks four years since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Four interminable and agonizing years. Civilian casualties have soared, and Russia’s systematic attacks on Ukraine’s energy and water infrastructure could amount to international crimes. The fighting needs to end, and I urge a focus on human rights and justice in any ceasefire or peace agreement.

In Myanmar, five years after the military coup, the awful conflict is claiming even more civilian lives, and the humanitarian situation continues to deteriorate. The recent elections staged by the military have only deepened people’s despair.

Across most violent conflicts today, journalists, health and aid workers are targeted, in blatant violation of international law. These actions must not be allowed to harden into the new normal.

States need to be persistent objectors to violations of the law – by pursuing accountability, and by clearly denouncing these egregious crimes with consistency, and without exception.

Meanwhile, violence and tensions are resurging in some countries, including South Sudan and Ethiopia. And authorities in Iran have violently repressed mass protests with lethal force, killing thousands.

I will provide more detail on these and other country situations in my global update later this week. Developments around the world point to a deeply worrying trend: domination and supremacy are making a comeback.

If we listen to the rhetoric of some leaders, what lurks behind it is a belief that they are above the law, and above the UN Charter. They claim exceptional status, exceptional danger or exceptional moral judgement to pursue their own agenda at any cost. And why wouldn’t they try, when they are unlikely to face consequences?

They build and sustain systems that perpetuate inequalities within and between countries. Some weaponise their economic leverage. They spread disinformation to distract, silence and marginalize.

A tight clique of tech tycoons controls an outsize proportion of global information flows, distorting public debate, markets, and even governance systems. Corporate and state interests ravage our environment, robbing the riches of the earth for their own gain.

But at the same time, people are not watching all this from the sidelines. They are activating their power, from the ground up. Women and young people especially are leading these movements.

They are claiming their right to basic living conditions, to fair pay, to bodily autonomy, to self-determination, to be heard, to vote freely, and many other rights. From Nepal to Madagascar, from Serbia to Peru and beyond, people are demanding equality and denouncing corruption.

Neighbours and communities are standing up for each other – sometimes even risking their lives. People are protesting war and injustice in places far from home, expressing solidarity and pressuring their governments to act.

They see human rights as a practical force for good – and they are right. Human rights are anathema to supremacy: they are a direct challenge to those who seek and cling to power. That is what makes human rights radical, and that is what gives them force.

They are universal, timeless, and indestructible.

Human rights didn’t magically appear with the Universal Declaration on 10 December 1948.
People have been seeking freedom and equality long before these principles were codified in national or international agreements.

In the late 1700s, enslaved people in modern-day Haiti rose up against colonial rule, in the name of racial equality. The American and French revolutions challenged unaccountable authority. The Abolitionist movement was a rejection of the Transatlantic slave trade – the most brutal system of subjugation.

In the early 1900s, women joined together to demand the right to vote. The fight for gender equality continues. After the bloodshed of two World Wars and the Holocaust, the UN Charter reasserted faith in fundamental human rights, and in the dignity and worth of the human person.

The 20th century then ushered in a period of decolonization, which reaffirmed the right to self-determination. People mobilized to end racial segregation, for labour rights, and to protect the rights of LGBT people.

Mothers marched together to seek justice for their disappeared children, from Argentina to Sri Lanka to Syria. And young people raised their voices for climate justice.

Human rights are the thread that runs through all these movements. And we do not take their achievements for granted. Tyranny will seize any chance and exploit any opening. We must keep standing up for human rights, in solidarity with each other.

When we come together, we wield more power than any autocrat or tech billionaire. The struggle for human rights can never be derailed by the whims of a handful of leaders with reactionary, supremacist agendas.

While some States are weakening the multilateral system, we need bolder and more joined-up responses.

First, this means calling out violations of international law, regardless of the perpetrators. Too often, denouncing violations by one party is labelled as siding with the enemy. In reality, it is upholding universality, and the pursuit of justice for all.

The alternative – selective, fragmented responses – weakens international law and hurts us all.
The entire human rights ecosystem is designed to promote universality and ensure consistency. This includes the tools mandated by this Council. I condemn all attacks against them.

Second, we need stronger commitment to accountability. This includes strengthening the International Criminal Court and encouraging national prosecutions under the principle of universal jurisdiction. We need to increase the cost of breaking international law.

Third, let’s forge coalitions to champion what unites us, and uphold equality, dignity, and justice for all. We must protect the diversity of the human family and demonstrate what we gain by standing together.

In the coming weeks, we will set in motion a Global Alliance for Human Rights to capture the energy and commitment that is palpable everywhere.

This will be a cross-regional, multi-stakeholder coalition of States, businesses, cities, philanthropists, scientists, artists, philosophers, young people and civil society.

It will confront top-down domination with grassroots solidarity and support. It will represent the quiet majority, who want a different world. Human rights are not political currency, and they are not up for grabs.

Our future depends on our joint commitment to defend every person’s rights, every time, everywhere.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2026/02/1167015

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Dix ans après son adoption, dans quelle mesure le Grand Bargain a-t-il permis de modifier les rapports de pouvoir au sein du système humanitaire international (notamment dans le réajustement des partenariats entre organisations du Nord et du Sud) ? Du point de vue d’ALIMA, quels sont aujourd’hui les mécanismes politiques, financiers et institutionnels qui continuent de freiner le transfert effectif de ressources et de leadership vers les organisations de la société civile locale ? Dans quelle mesure les cadres de gestion
du risque, de redevabilité et de conformité participent-ils à la reproduction de ces déséquilibres ? Un an après les évolutions récentes des politiques et modalités de financement d’USAID, observe-t-on une dynamique de recentralisation du pouvoir décisionnel ou, au contraire, des ouvertures concrètes en faveur d’une plus grande autonomie des acteurs locaux ? Quels effets ces changements produisent-ils sur la capacité des organisations de la société civile locales à se projeter sur le long terme ?

Entretien avec Dr Moumouni Kinda, directeur général d’ALIMA.

À télécharger

• Lire la note (PDF)

L’article Localisation de l’aide : dix ans après le « Grand Bargain », un an après la fin de l’USAID est apparu en premier sur IRIS.

Dauer des Videos : 75'

Haftungsausschluss : Die Verdolmetschung der Debatten soll die Kommunikation erleichtern, sie stellt jedoch keine authentische Aufzeichnung der Debatten dar. Authentisch sind nur die Originalfassungen der Reden bzw. ihre überprüften schriftlichen Übersetzungen.
Quelle : © Europäische Union, 2026 - EP

Length of video : 75'

Disclaimer : The interpretation of debates serves to facilitate communication and does not constitute an authentic record of proceedings. Only the original speech or the revised written translation is authentic.
Source : © European Union, 2026 - EP

Dauer des Videos : 75'

Haftungsausschluss : Die Verdolmetschung der Debatten soll die Kommunikation erleichtern, sie stellt jedoch keine authentische Aufzeichnung der Debatten dar. Authentisch sind nur die Originalfassungen der Reden bzw. ihre überprüften schriftlichen Übersetzungen.
Quelle : © Europäische Union, 2026 - EP

Dauer des Videos : 90'

Haftungsausschluss : Die Verdolmetschung der Debatten soll die Kommunikation erleichtern, sie stellt jedoch keine authentische Aufzeichnung der Debatten dar. Authentisch sind nur die Originalfassungen der Reden bzw. ihre überprüften schriftlichen Übersetzungen.
Quelle : © Europäische Union, 2026 - EP

Die politische Debatte über Schwächen des EU-Außengrenzschutzes verengt sich auf quantitative Indikatoren wie die Zahl irregulärer Grenzübertritte. Diese Kennzahlen sind interpretationsbedürftig und blenden den rechtlichen Rahmen aus, der auch bei irregulärer Einreise den Zugang zum Asylverfahren garantiert. Als primärer Maßstab für die Funktio­nalität des Grenzmanagements sind sie daher ungeeignet. Die wissenschaftliche Forschungslage zeigt keine eindeutige Abschreckungswirkung verschärfter Grenzkontrollen. Rückgänge auf einzelnen Routen durch Vorverlagerung gehen häufig mit Ausweichbewegungen, einer Anpassung bzw. Professionalisierung des Schleuserwesens und höheren Risiken für Schutzsuchende einher. Von weiteren Verschärfungen der Grenzsicherung ist kein linearer Nutzen zu erwarten. Mit dem Europäischen Integrierten Grenzmanagement (EIBM) und dem Schengen-Aufsichtsverfahren verfügt die EU bereits über einen anspruchs­vollen Maßstab für Grenzkontrollen, der mehr politische Aufmerksamkeit verdient. Die Umsetzung ist in allen Mitgliedstaaten stärker voranzutreiben; die derzeitigen Defizite rechtfertigen jedoch keine andauernden Bin­nengrenzkontrollen. Das Europäische Grenzmanagement wird kontinuierlich entlang der Ach­sen Externalisierung, Zentralisierung und Technologisierung ausgebaut. Zusätzliche Forderungen, etwa nach erneutem Ausbau von Frontex oder Aufbau von Drohnenkapazitäten, sind in diesem Kontext genau und sorg­fältig auf Mehrwert und Machbarkeit zu prüfen. Eine harte Versicherheitlichung, der zufolge Grenzen primär als Vertei­digungslinien definiert sind, würde einen Paradigmenwechsel mit hohen Rechts- und Legitimationskosten einleiten. Die Berufung auf hybride Bedrohungen oder nationale Notlagen als Rechtfertigung dafür, östliche EU-Außengrenzen zu schließen und das Asylrecht dort auszusetzen, taugt langfristig jedoch nicht als Maßstab zur Bewertung des regulären euro­päischen Grenzmanagements.

Panagiota Manoli, Senior Research Fellow, ELIAMEP; Associate Professor at the University of the Peloponnese 

Despite the recent revival of EU’s enlargement policy as a result of the EU’s geopolitical awakening of 2022, elites in candidate countries still perceive accession as a perpetual goal. The continually evolving accession conditions and extended candidacy periods have weakened the policy’s predictability and credibility. A survey conducted within the framework of the Geo-Power-EU project (2025)* showed the gap between the declared objectives of the EU’s enlargement policy and the perceptions held by the elites of the candidate countries.

On the EU side, enlargement is viewed as progressively advancing through partial integration mechanisms. EU policymakers, emphasize gradual integration through the single market, Growth Plans, Association Agreements, and DCFTAs as evidence of steady progress, viewing progress as dependent on the candidates’ commitment to reform. On the contrary many candidate-country elites, especially among long-standing candidates, see limited progress toward full membership. Elites in the Western Balkans, report that accession conditions have continually shifted (e.g. ICTY cooperation, regional relations) or taken hostage of bilateral disputes (e.g. most recently between Bulgaria and North Macedonia) creating a perception of deferral rather than progression, undermining confidence in the process. Accession process is commonly described as stagnation and technical engagement without political certainty. One of the most significant negative developments is that prolonged candidacy has contributed to public fatigue, rising Euroscepticism, and disincentives for reform. Among the new EU candidates in eastern European neigbourhood, Moldova and Ukraine (except for Georgia) exhibit cautious optimism following their fast track candidate status (2023) and technical progress, though it is acknowledged that security challenges necessitate flexible accession models.

Most EU elites are more concerned about the Union’s own capacity to absorb new members, arguing that enlargement must be matched by internal reforms to safeguard effective governance and institutional resilience. While geopolitical pressures—particularly related to security and stability—are widely acknowledged, they are also seen as pushing the EU toward enlargement decisions that may exceed its institutional limits. Fast-tracked or expedited accession processes are mostly dismissed, as they risk overstretching EU institutions, financial resources, and policy frameworks, ultimately undermining the effectiveness of the Union.

As the European Union weighs expansion to include the Western Balkans and eastern neighbours like Ukraine and Moldova, it must navigate a strategic tension: how to reconcile the principle of merit-based accession with geopolitical urgency, without undermining the deepening and cohesion of integration itself.

*Note: The results of an elite survey conducted in all 9 candidate countries in Spring 2025 within the framework of the Geo-Power-EU project (funded Horizon Europe and coordinated by the University of the Peloponnese) are presented in Deliverable D2.1. “Discerning the perceptual gap between the EU policies and the countries’ expectations and needs”.

Chronic loneliness and social isolation have been consistently linked to detrimental effects on physical and mental health and increased risk of early death. Credit: Shutterstock

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Feb 24 2026 (IPS)

Loneliness is a significant health concern on planet Earth. It affects virtually every aspect of human wellbeing and development worldwide.

As loneliness knows no borders and impacts individuals of all ages and socio-economic background, it has become a major public health issue. Social isolation is now being taken seriously enough to prompt intervention by governments, international agencies, institutions, and communities.

Chronic loneliness and social isolation have been consistently linked to detrimental effects on physical and mental health and increased risk of early death. The World Health Organization (WHO) has recognized loneliness as a pressing global health threat and a defining challenge of our time.

To address this problem, WHO launched an international commission on social connection in November 2023. The commission aimed to have loneliness recognized and resourced as a global public health priority.

The commission issued a report in June 2025 that highlighted three messages. First, social disconnection is widespread, across all regions and age groups. Second, its impacts are severe, affecting health, well-being, and development. And third, solutions exist and should be scaled up urgently.

Additionally, in a 2023 report, the U.S. Surgeon General reported that loneliness increases one’s risk for cardiovascular disease, dementia, stroke, and premature death. Persistent loneliness was reported to be worse for your health than being sedentary or obese and is similar to smoking more than half a pack of cigarettes a day.

The complex interactions among societal changes, technological advancements, especially artificial intelligence, and the Covid-19 pandemic, which reduced economic and social activities, have contributed to increasing levels of loneliness and social isolation. People are meeting in person less frequently than in the past, while self-reported feelings of connection have recently shown signs of worsening.

According to a 2023 Meta-Gallup global survey encompassing 142 countries, 24% of those aged 15 and older, totaling 1.5 billion people worldwide, reported feeling very lonely or fairly lonely on a regular basis. Additionally, 27% or 1.7 billion people reported feeling a little lonely, while 49% or 3 billion people reported not feeling lonely at all (Figure 1).

Source: Meta-Gallup Survey.

Those surveyed who reported feeling lonely were 36 percentage points more likely to experience sadness than those who did not feel lonely. They were also 30 percentage points more likely to experience worry and stress compared to their counterparts who did not experience loneliness. These findings underscore the significant physical and mental health effects of frequent feelings of loneliness and social isolation.

The level of loneliness reported in the 2023 Gallup poll varies significantly across countries, ranging from a high of 45% in Comoros to a low of 6% in Vietnam. In 22 countries, the percentage of adults who felt lonely the day before exceeded 30%, with more than half of them located in Africa (Figure 2).

Source: Gallup Survey.

While loneliness varies significantly among countries, no country is immune to it. Loneliness is not just seen as a personal challenge, but also as a matter of public policy.

Loneliness affects all age groups, but young adults seem to be the most vulnerable. Around 30% of them report feeling lonely every day, with about 63% experiencing significant symptoms of anxiety and depression related to loneliness

Loneliness affects all age groups, but young adults seem to be the most vulnerable. Around 30% of them report feeling lonely every day, with about 63% experiencing significant symptoms of anxiety and depression related to loneliness.

Among older adults, feelings of loneliness decrease, with about 17% of those aged 65 and older reporting loneliness. However, many older adults face isolation due to factors such as declining health, loss of social connections, or decreased mobility. Loneliness is also linked to increased risks of developing dementia, coronary artery disease or stroke.

A follow-up international survey conducted by Gallup in 2024 found that 23% of respondents felt lonely “a lot of the day” just the day before the survey. Additionally, approximately one in five employees worldwide reported experiencing loneliness a lot the previous day.

Moreover, loneliness is more prevalent among employees under the age of 35 than those aged 35 and older. Loneliness also contributes to significant economic and social strain, reducing productivity, and impacting education.

The Gallup survey found that financial status has a strong effect on loneliness worldwide. Men and women who are struggling financially, meaning they find it difficult to get by on their present income, are about twice as likely as those who are better off financially to say they felt lonely a lot the previous day. Additionally, unmarried individuals are more likely to feel lonely than those who are married or in a domestic partnership.

Social isolation and chronic loneliness have long-term negative consequences on the physical and mental health of individuals. Health studies have found that the risk of mortality among people who lack community and social ties is two times greater than that of people who have many social contacts. A WHO report found that loneliness is linked to an estimated 100 deaths every hour, totaling more than 871,000 deaths annually.

Other effects of loneliness and social isolation include a shortened lifespan, cognitive decline, exacerbated mental illness, reduced quality of sleep, higher stress and anxiety levels, adoption of unhealthy habits, and self-loathing thoughts. Strong social connections can lead to better health and reduce the effects of loneliness (Table 1).

Source: Author’s compilation based on health studies.

A variety of factors can contribute to an individual experiencing loneliness, and the scope, duration, and intensity of loneliness can vary. In many cases, there is no single cause, but rather a number of factors that can overlap and intensify each other.

Some of the factors contributing to loneliness are internal, while others are external. Internal factors often involve the way people see themselves and the world around them. They can also include shyness, introversion, low self-esteem, lack of communication skills, and social withdrawal. On the other hand, external factors include physical isolation, relocation, bereavement, divorce, physical disabilities, social exclusion, and over-reliance on social media.

Interacting with another person, even a stranger, can significantly reduce loneliness. Conversely, doing nothing to address social isolation tends to increase loneliness.

Some studies suggest that interacting with an AI companion can reduce loneliness.

Advocates argue that the latest AI chatbots might provide better company than many real people and societies should consider the benefits that AI companions could offer to those who are lonely. Soon, some believe, the most interesting, and maybe the most empathetic conversation that an individual could have will be with AI on almost any topic.

Instead of reacting with horror, advocates of AI chatbots suggest that societies should consider the benefits that AI companions could provide to those who are lonely. Some AI promoters maintain that an inability to relate to humans should not be viewed as a defect, but rather as a virtue.

AI chatbots are becoming increasingly popular as preferred confidants and companions. For example, a study of younger individuals discovered that one-third of teenagers use AI chatbots for social interaction. These teenagers have stated a preference for AI companions over humans for serious conversations, finding them more fulfilling than conversations with actual people.

Nevertheless, there are concerns about using AI companions to address loneliness. Health experts are warning that many individuals, particularly the youth, are developing emotional connections to AI chatbot companions.

Despite these concerns, individuals, especially young people, are seeking companionship and emotional support from AI chatbots. Some fear that relying on AI companions may result in younger generations forming emotional bonds with entities that lack the ability to empathize and care.

By recognizing the signs of loneliness, engaging in meaningful activities, and seeking professional assistance, individuals may be able to reduce their feelings of loneliness and social isolation. A combination of behavioral changes, social intervention, and professional support can be helpful in dealing with loneliness.

Additionally, managing stress resulting from loneliness can be facilitated by exercising, eating healthy, and getting enough sleep. Pursuing enjoyable hobbies and activities may also offer a distraction from loneliness.

Communicating one’s loneliness to family, friends, and colleagues can strengthen existing relationships and provide emotional support. To manage feelings of loneliness, it is also helpful for individuals to remain open to making new connections, stay healthy, and seek professional assistance.

Loneliness is a complex and pervasive issue that exists worldwide. However, there are ways to manage and address it. Methods aimed at reducing loneliness exist at the national, community, family, and individual levels. These methods include increasing awareness and modifying government policies to strengthen social infrastructure, foster inclusivity, and provide psychological support.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division, and author of many publications on population issues.

 

• High-quality early childhood education and care helps children’s early development and positively affects educational, social and economic outcomes in later life for the children involved and for society at large. Conversely, the lack of affordable high-quality childcare creates deficits in abilities and skills, including soft ones, which raise social costs and drive down productivity.

• Compulsory pre-school education in Greece has recently been extended, now starting at age 4. Nevertheless, participation in early childhood education and care at a younger age remains below the European average. Limited availability of affordable subsidised places is a key obstacle to raising enrolment in childcare centres.

• The Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) offered Member States generous funding for investing in childcare. This is especially important in countries like Greece, where female employment– though rising – remains low, which reflects the difficulties Greek women face in reconciling career and family responsibilities.

• Greece 2.0, The National Recovery and Resilience Plan, included measures to improve childcare quality and expand access. While some initiatives began, most were later abandoned, highlighting the fragility of reforms amid institutional bottlenecks.

• Despite setbacks, ECEC has gained some visibility in national debates. Yet without a long-term fiscal commitment and a coherent national strategy, it will be difficult to expand access for children under the age of 2, improve quality, and ensure equity in a sector that has historically been underfunded and neglected.

Read here in pdf the policy paper by Chryssa Papalexatou, Research Fellow, ELIAMEP.

Chaque mardi, Pascal Boniface reçoit un membre de l’équipe de recherche de l’IRIS pour décrypter un fait d’actualité internationale.
Aujourd’hui, échange avec Jean de Gliniasty, directeur de recherche à l’IRIS et ancien ambassadeur de France en Russie, pour dresser le bilan après quatre années de guerre en Ukraine et analyser la situation actuelle de la Russie.

L’article Quatre ans de guerre : où en est la Russie ? | Les mardis de l’IRIS est apparu en premier sur IRIS.

Quatre ans après le déclenchement de la guerre lancée par la Russie contre l’Ukraine, quel bilan peut-on en tirer ?

Tout d’abord, sur le plan humain, il s’agit d’une catastrophe. La guerre a vraisemblablement fait des centaines de milliers de tués, de blessés et de mutilés de part et d’autre. Un bilan humain absolument détestable.

Sur le plan géopolitique, qui en tire avantage ? Qui en paye le prix ? Du côté de la Russie, le crime n’a pas payé. Déjà, en 2014, Vladimir Poutine avait gagné la Crimée mais avait « perdu » l’Ukraine. Depuis 2022, il a gagné des territoires qu’il ne restituera pas mais il a beaucoup plus perdu en termes de statut et de puissance. La Russie est affaiblie par cette guerre. Vladimir Poutine avait pour ambition de restaurer la grandeur de la Russie lorsqu’il a pris le pouvoir. Il y est parvenu jusqu’en 2022, parce qu’effectivement, année après année, il pouvait affirmer que la Russie se portait mieux depuis qu’il exerçait le pouvoir qu’avant qu’il n’y arrive. Mais depuis 2022, la Russie marque un recul : elle ne poursuit plus le développement de sa puissance. La guerre l’a affaiblie et, durablement, la Russie « pèse » moins en Europe et dans le monde qu’avant le déclenchement de la guerre : elle perd des hommes sur le front, mais aussi à l’arrière, avec des jeunes diplômés qui ont fui la mobilisation, les restrictions de liberté et la répression. Une perte couteuse, particulièrement dans certains secteurs, comme celui des nouvelles technologies. La Russie est également en recul sur le plan économique. Si son économie n’a pas été mise à genou par les sanctions – en grande partie grâce à la mise en place d’une économie de guerre – elle paye le prix de la guerre et le paiera dans les années à venir. Si elle n’est pas coupée du reste du monde, contrairement à ce qu’avaient espéré les Occidentaux, elle a beaucoup perdu en termes d’image et de relations. Certes, Donald Trump est un appui sérieux et fort utile. Il a même fait exploser le concept de mon occidental. Mais cette guerre a beaucoup plus coûté à Vladimir Poutine qu’elle ne lui a rapporté. Dans le jugement de l’histoire, cela sera porté à son discrédit. Il sera difficile pour la Russie de sortir de cette économie de guerre. Sa dépendance à la Chine se renforce et donc sa place relative est affaiblie.

L’Ukraine est un pays martyre qui a beaucoup souffert sur le plan des destructions humaines et physiques. Mais si elle a de facto perdu des territoires qu’elle ne récupérera pas, elle a gagné un statut. C’est un pays qui était jugé peu fréquentable, qu’on voulait éviter du fait d’une corruption endémique. Un pays dont le PIB par habitant ne s’était guère amélioré depuis 30 ans parce que les élites, qu’elles soient pro-russes ou pro-européennes, étaient unies dans une gabegie et la corruption. Désormais, c’est un pays qui a obtenu le statut de candidat à l’Union européenne et qui est devenu fréquentable. Elle a le soutien indéfectible des Européens qui se sont beaucoup engagés en sa faveur. La difficulté pour elle, c’est de devoir accepter une perte de territoire qui est illégale et immorale, mais qui reflète le rapport de force après quatre ans de guerre qu’il semble difficile de modifier fondamentalement quelle que soit la poursuite de la guerre.

L’Ukraine devra certainement faire face aux divisions d’une société après des années de guerre. Toute la population a-t-elle été soumise aux mêmes obligations par rapport à la menace russe ? Se pose enfin le défi du développement économique. La société civile ukrainienne, forte et développée, l’emportera-t-elle sur les oligarques ? Est-ce qu’elle fera le choix du développement et mettra vraiment fin à la corruption ? Dans ce cas, elle a des potentialités, même avec une partie de son territoire en moins, de se développer.

Les grands perdants de la guerre sont sans aucun doute les Européens. Ils seront tombés loin en arrière en termes de dépendances. Fini le gaz bon marché qui venait de Russie. Ils ont abandonné pour des milliards d’avoirs en Russie pour ne pas soutenir l’effort de guerre russe. Une manne qui est allée directement dans les mains des oligarques russes proches de Vladimir Poutine. Les pays de l’Union européenne ont augmenté leurs dépenses militaires au détriment d’autres secteurs. Elle a augmenté sa dépendance aux États-Unis en terme énergétique, en termes d’équipement militaire et donc en terme géopolitique. Désormais, alors Donald Trump répète, régulièrement mais sans constance, qu’il va arrêter l’aide à l’Ukraine, et qu’il considère par ailleurs l’Union européenne comme un ennemi, les pays européens continuent de faire semblant de croire qu’il est un allié indispensable. Ils sont tellement focalisés sur l’idée de maintenir la présence stratégique américaine en Ukraine qu’ils sont prêts à faire toutes les concessions. C’est pour cela qu’ils ont accepté un objectif de dépenses militaires très élevé fixé par l’administration Trump. C’est pour cela qu’ils ont accepté un accord commercial tout à fait déséquilibré et qu’ils ne cessent de faire des concessions à l’égard de Donald Trump. La préservation de la souveraineté de l’Ukraine est venue en quelques sortes limiter leur propre souveraineté à l’égard des États-Unis. Si les pays européens ne pouvaient pas faire autrement que de soutenir l’Ukraine pour des questions de principes et des questions d’intérêt, ils ont repris entièrement les buts de guerre de Kiev. Ils auraient pu en discuter le bien fondé et surtout la faisabilité. Volodymyr Zelensky a par ailleurs toujours donné la priorité aux États-Unis, même si l’Europe a finalement beaucoup aidé, et désormais plus que les États-Unis. Il y a eu une perte de crédibilité stratégique pour l’Europe puisqu’à force de dire que la Russie ne pouvait pas gagner la guerre, qu’il fallait qu’elle rende tous les territoires conquis, que c’était une question de crédibilité pour l’Europe, alors que cela apparait depuis longtemps maintenant comme impossible, elle a perdu cette crédibilité. Surtout, elle a perdu sa crédibilité morale entre la dénonciation des violations du droit international et des crimes de guerre et contre l’humanité commis par la Russie en Ukraine, condamnations immédiatement assorties de véritables sanctions de plus en plus lourdes, et d’un autre côté l’absence totale de sanctions pour les violations du droit international et les crimes de guerre et contre l’humanité commis par Israël à Gaza. L’insistance que les pays européens ont eu à demander aux pays du Sud global de prendre des sanctions contre la Russie alors qu’aucun ne l’a fait a aussi contribué à souligner les limites de leurs pouvoirs.

La Chine est également le vainqueur de cette guerre. Le conflit a initialement constitué un facteur déstabilisant. Une surprise stratégique venue de Russie qui contrevenait à la vision et aux intérêts de Pékin, puisqu’elle venait augmenter dans un premier temps les dépenses d’importations alimentaires et énergétiques, les deux principaux pôles d’importation pour la Chine. In fine, Pékin y gagne en renforçant d’un côté son influence sur la Russie, mais aussi en apparaissant comme une puissance pacifique aux yeux du reste du monde, puisqu’elle peut souligner qu’elle n’est pas impliquée dans le conflit, contrairement aux Européens et aux Occidentaux. Elle peut s’afficher comme une puissance qui veut la paix, favorable à un cessez-le-feu, ce qui coïncide avec les intérêts de nombreux pays du Sud global. La Chine apparait comme un pays qui évite les mauvais coups et qui tient ses engagements. 

Quant aux pays du « Sud global », ils ne se sont pas sentis concernés par cette guerre. Ils ont renvoyé souvent dos à dos l’Ukraine et la Russie, même si les deux tiers d’entre eux ont condamné l’agression de la Russie lors des votes à l’ONU, sans pour autant vouloir s’engager dans une politique de sanctions à l’égard de la Russie, affirmant qu’il s’agit là d’une affaire occidentale. Ils ont été agacés par l’attitude des Occidentaux qui voulaient les voir les suivre sur les sanctions, alors qu’ils n’avaient pas été associés au processus de décision qui conduisait aux sanctions. Ils se sont, au cours de cette guerre, de plus en plus affirmés, dans leur diversité, dans leur complexité, mais pour refuser ensemble de prendre des sanctions à l’égard de la Russie. Ils ont encore un peu plus affirmé leur identité, certes gazeuse, mais non moins collective par rapport à l’Occident.

L’article Poutine a gagné des territoires, pas la guerre est apparu en premier sur IRIS.