Diplomacy & Crisis News

Après une longue période de croissance du nombre de voix qu'il enregistrait lors des scrutins en République d'Irlande, le Sinn Féin est désormais à la peine. Le parti rêvait de gommer la frontière qui traverse l'île ? Il vient de se confronter à une autre ligne de fracture : celle opposant bénéficiaires (...) / République d'Irlande, Parti politique, Élections - 2025/01

Syrians embrace a fresh start, but uncertainty around the future—and the past—lingers.

Obsédés par les formes institutionnelles de la politique, les partis traditionnels allemands ont laissé péricliter le maillage associatif et militant qui encadrait la jeunesse dans les petites villes de l'Est. L'extrême droite s'est engouffrée dans la brèche. Auprès d'un public adolescent, elle (...) / Extrême droite, Jeunes, Allemagne - 2025/01

Biden’s pro-Kurdish track record in the Senate and vice presidency didn’t extend to his time in the White House.

Putting Beijing on the back foot requires economic tools beyond tariffs.

The moral and strategic costs of abandoning an ideal.

Quel rapport y a-t-il entre les langues yolngu parlées dans le nord de l'Australie et les travaux du physicien hongro-américain Leó Szilárd ? À première vue, aucun. Sauf pour le romancier Richard Flanagan, originaire de Tasmanie, qui les invoque dans son nouveau texte, rêverie à la beauté limpide. (...) / Australie, Littérature - 2025/01

On la cite assez peu quand on évoque la littérature de science-fiction écrite par des femmes. On passe souvent des pionnières des années 1950-1960, comme Leigh Brackett ou Nathalie Henneberg — qui publia longtemps sous l'identité de son mari, Charles —, aux grandes auteures des années 1970-1980, (...) / Fiction, Espace - 2025/01

Greil Marcus, l'un des plus célèbres analystes de la culture rock, écrivait peu après la sortie de l'album Nebraska (1982) de Bruce Springsteen qu'il constituait la « déclaration de résistance et de refus la plus complète des États-Unis de Ronald Reagan ». Deux publications récentes, qui restent à (...) / Musique, Personnalités, Essai - 2025/01

Elles ont fait un tabac. En 1887, une grève de cigarières démarre à la Manufacture des tabacs de Marseille à la Belle de Mai — quartier dont Jules Guesde disait qu'il était le « boulevard de la révolution ». On n'y est pas trop mal payé mais le contremaître est de ceux qui profitent de leur pouvoir. Il (...) / Ville, Mouvement de contestation, Femmes, Travail - 2025/01

Los Angeles’ Historic 2025 Fire

The new year is one that will give change to how conflicts are conducted on the world stage. As discussed previously, the War in Ukraine over the last few years has created a deficit in military equipment. The old Soviet arsenal has been sourced to such a great degree that Cold War stocks are being dwindled down to storage parts. With a deficit in complex equipment, new threats will come from new methods. While the last of the regimes fall, threats will surely not cease.

The ability for a society to defend itself comes from the idea that the society first needs to be defended. Recognizing future threats comes with the narrative that a threat may occur, and that resources will need to be designed to counter the future threat. Recent history shows that ignoring or legitimizing regimes that are clearly challenging democratic norms will never lead to a peaceful resolution. Repeating these errors weakens allies of democracies, and produces a situation where a larger conflict is inevitable, if not already in progress. National leaders need to defend their communities first, as all other viable nations would operate in a similar manner.

A society cannot function if a Constitution is applied via the political will of a few powerful individuals in society. Justice applied acts as a release valve for tensions in a society, so violence does not become the only last option. When there are those in power in a society that do not have the best interests of their community in mind, or are outwardly reticent to acting in good faith for the betterment of others, those communities rapidly deteriorate. When justice is reserved for others and laws are created to discourage good will among neighbours, the end result is an intentional corruption of stability and equality. A simple equation comes when you try and apply basic rights of safety, order, and proper Government to some groups above others, or even diminish those rights for one group beneath others, you have lost your democracy. The enormous push by some in society to deny those basic rights to punish those they dislike copies the worst regimes from a Milan Kundera novel, and is in no way a fair and just society.

A lost society is one that functions on the worst kept secrets of their community. The end result of the asymmetric eruption has been at the surface of some of the most horrendous acts of humanity, married to some of the most oppressive laws against freedom and liberty. Adjusting a society to one that reduces liberty for the sake for safety can often be avoided if the laws of the community are applied as they were designed to be used, and those in power have the honour and will to work for the betterment of their fellow community members. The degradation of a community does not simply come from an assault from abroad, but via decisions from within that betray the core values of a society in the most expressive of actions and the most meaningful of ways. Someone in their right just mind are always aware when their freedoms are neglected. It is often those who wish to degrade society who are the most vocal and aggressive to those who speak their mind openly when voicing their calls for justice. None of this is by accident or is a symptom of negligence, but is the end result of modern challenges to society, challenges that were known to those who created many democratic legacies.

Après la gloire des salons, l'Académie et le prix Nobel, Anatole France (1844-1924) connut l'opprobre posthume, et un long purgatoire. À sa mort, les surréalistes l'injurièrent sans vergogne dans leur pamphlet Un cadavre. Paul Valéry, lui succédant sous la Coupole, se refusa à prononcer son nom. (...) / Art, Littérature, Personnalités - 2025/01

It’s not Trump—it’s the EU’s weak defense policy and stagnant single market.

La postérité l'a assigné à une case unique : celle de l'auteur de L'Homme sans qualités. Robert Musil (1880-1942) est avant tout connu pour ce roman immense et intimidant, un pavé de presque deux mille pages, publié en deux volumes (1930, 1933), et qu'il n'aura pu achever. Avec ce récit situé dans la (...) / Littérature, Société, Psychanalyse - 2025/01

Il y a vingt millions d'années, « Dracaena cinnabari » peuplait les forêts d'Amérique et d'Europe du Nord. À de rares exceptions, cet étrange arbre fossile à la sève rouge n'existe plus que dans l'archipel yéménite de Socotra. Les légendes concernant son origine sont nombreuses, mais, dans un contexte (...) / Yémen, Spiritualité, Forêt - 2025/01

In an effort to throw away the carrots and invest in new sticks, the new American administration has decided to use the economic and political weight of the United States to address non-trade policies with many of its traditional economic allies. One of the most notable instances of this strategy was used to encourage NATO members to increase funding for security, pulling funding obligations away from the United States for security issues abroad. While this tactic was not taken seriously at the time, the coming war between Ukraine and Russia proved it to be a useful shift. With all of Ukraine’s allies now contributing in the billions of dollars, compounded with the United States’ own significant contributions, Ukraine has been able to put up a historic level of resistance against Russian aggression.

More recently, President Trump has focused his energies on local issues within the United States connected to a poor border strategy. While trade has always been the focus of relations between NAFTA neighbours, the United States will use tariffs to enforce actions against drug trafficking and terror issues that are lacking on both sides of the Southern and Northern borders. With security issues being the main concern, it is likely the case that increased actions against Fentanyl and terror threats would benefit both the US, Mexico and Canada. The question then remains, whether the trade partners are aware of such benefits, and whether or not they will use local impressions of the US to bolster their own political fortunes?

Mexico, who had their own election fairly recently, had put back the same party in power with a new leader for the next six years. Despite the current party being of a left wing orientation, Mexico’s approach in re-signing the USMCA Agreement focused deeply on Mexican commercial interests. Mexico’s Government in the following years seemed to respond to US policy by mirroring the Biden Administration’s actions on the border. With very apparent border issues with US policy over the last four years, Mexico sought to limit the negative effects within Mexico itself during that period of time. The effect of record breaking migrations passing through Mexico put a great burden on Mexico’s social security system, encouraging Mexico to either prevent migrants on their own southern border, or allow them to reach the US border so they do not remain in Mexico. With the US border being the target of most migrants, Mexico chose the latter strategy in response to the lack of US border enforcement.

The eruption caused by abuses of the Maduro Government in Venezuela resulted in one of the largest refugee populations in modern times crossing through Latin America, Mexico, and the United States. While many Venezuelans have proper refugee claims due to their treatment under the Maduro regime, the chaos created by mass migrations out of Venezuela was used to transmit organised crime through the same routes used by many of these refugee claimants. These issues affected Mexico and many Latin American communities in the region, and were apparent in those communities in the United States months before it became the focus of the last US election. Spanish language news within the US would constantly put out reports of violence from those specific gangs that seemed to be frequent, coordinated, and ignored by most English language media, until it was no longer possible to ignore. Mexico clearly benefits in the US addressing their border issues and coordinated crime coming over the border as it has a negative effect on Mexico as well. Mexico is a net beneficiary to stable relations with the US, especially if it reduces its political ties with China in the process.

The Fentanyl Crisis has reached the point of inducing the tariff strategy on former NAFTA partners. US media has been detailing base ingredients being sent from China to Mexico for final production and export via cartel networks. Mexico and the US should immediately take a coordinated response to the imports from China and cartel control over the border. With many international companies Nearshoring their China based manufacturing to Mexico, the US-Mexico border can likely evolve into the manufacturing hub of the globe that was envisioned in 1994’s initial NAFTA agreement. Ever since China joined the WTO, Mexico had directly suffered from the loss of manufacturing to China, in 2025, this is no longer the case. With Mexico displacing part of China’s manufacturing base, Mexico may be entering its most successful period ever, if it can shrug off negative ties to China. Since the tariff is a security issue for President Trump, Mexico may find it easier to implement its own security with a strong US border in a win-win scenario.

Canada has often been able to avoid criticism, but has had many issues over the last few years that have raised the ire of the incoming US Administration. Fentanyl and drug issues on the Canadian border have risen dramatically, but the shocking statistics showing security issues related to terror threats as well and China’s influence over the current Canadian Government is shocking to both Americans and Canadians alike.

The response to the tariff threat has been absurd on the Canadian side, firstly concentrating it solely on trade when it was openly stated as a security issue, and now evolving into a near complete collapse of the Canadian Government in power. When communications from regional Provincial leaders toward the incoming US Administration displaced the Canadian Government’s own coordinated responses, the Premier of Quebec and the other Provinces collected themselves together to become Team Canada, without a proper Canadian Government spokesperson to respond to the security issues. With Justin Trudeau, it looks like he is planning to openly fight Trump to the detriment of all Canadians big and small, despite his Government creating one of the largest national deficit’s ever seen in Canada. Canada is considered quite dangerous for some cultural groups as well, more dangerous than it has been in generations, with security issues in Canada now famously being seen globally on a weekly basis. With a passive response by the Trudeau Government on the murder of Canadians on Flight 752 by Iran’s regime, Trudeau is now taking his less than 20% approval rating and choosing the opposite response against the Americans. Trudeau’s 2025 election strategy looks to use a Twitter fight with President Trump to garner local support. The first move however was against the US voter, ensuring his Government will incur tariffs in response. The error of being a foreign leader who makes public statements against all of those Americans who voted for their President is inappropriate on the best of days.

While Mexicans, Americans and Canadians benefit from increased border security, a lesson on consequences for voters is working rapidly in real time. The North American region can become the most economically successful region over the next few generations, if leaders in those countries can work towards benefitting their own communities and supporting each other’s economic growth over their own personal benefits. Without this basic level of awareness, tariffs will likely become a reality in 2025 for many in North America and abroad.

Parmi les nombreuses élections qui ont émaillé l'année 2024, il n'était pas écrit que le scrutin présidentiel roumain tiendrait une place particulière. Depuis 1989 et la chute du communisme, le Parti social-démocrate et le Parti national libéral, aussi atlantistes et proeuropéens l'un que l'autre, se (...) / Roumanie, Élections, Technologies de l'information - 2025/01

Why populists turn against their armed forces—and degrade national power.

Any just and lasting peace agreement to the Ukraine conflict must account for a Crimea free of Russian occupation for the sake of regional peace and security. Crimea, under Putin’s control, would likely turn the Black Sea into a Russian lake, severing the Caucasus and Central Asia from Europe and directly threatening NATO members Romania and Bulgaria and effectively precluding Baltic-Black Seas connectivity. 

A Russian Crimea mortally endangers Odesa and Ukraine’s entire southern coast, sowing the seeds for an enduring simmering Ukraine-Russia conflict fueled by concerns over national security, sovereignty, and pride. Russian control would return Crimea to its centuries-old violent history: a flashpoint of regional instability and power competition among all interested in accessing the Black Sea. Furthermore, Russian dominance in the area would significantly boost Chinese and Iranian influence across the Black and Caspian Seas and greater Central Asia more broadly, undermining American, European, and broader free-world interests.

Putin is a puppeteer who is quickly running out of puppets, strings, and stage space. His war economy is fueling unsustainable inflation at home and is unable to replace men and material on the battlefield. According to a recent article in Foreign Policy, Russia is producing twenty artillery and tank cannons a month to replace over 300 lost over the same period. The Russian army is losing over 40,000 soldiers per month and recruiting around 20,000–30,000 around the same period despite lucrative bonuses. As a result, North Korean soldiers are fighting in Kursk, and hapless migrant workers find themselves shanghaied to the frontlines. 

According to present indicators, Ukraine can hold out longer with stronger allied support than Russia can. Putin’s hope could be that American support for Ukraine dries up so Russia can consolidate its battleground gains under the guise of a ceasefire or peace agreement. Consequently, Putin is throwing the kitchen sink at Ukraine in anticipation of a ceasefire on existing lines soon after President Trump is sworn in. Any acknowledgment of a Russian Crimea as part of a (temporary) peace deal would be a big win for Putin and a greater loss for the United States, Europe, and the wider region. 

The Crimean Peninsula, located at the northern center of the Black Sea, dominates the region’s geography—hence Putin’s unlawful seizure in 2014. With Crimea, Russia effectively controls the northern half of the Black Sea, from Georgia to Romania. This strategic advantage allows Russia to reassert dominance across the region, consolidating its influence in Moldova, Georgia, and the Caucasus, strangling Ukraine’s maritime access and threatening Romania’s critical Danube transportation corridor stretching to southern Germany and connecting through the Rhine-Main-Danube Canal to northwest Europe. 

Romania, in partnership with American industry, is poised to develop its significant offshore natural gas fields. By 2027, Romania is projected to become Europe’s largest natural gas producer. Bulgaria and Turkey are also progressing with their offshore gas developments. All of these projects face serious jeopardy if Crimea is officially handed to Putin.

A Russian Crimea jeopardizes European energy independence, threatening not only Black Sea energy development and transit pipelines from the Caucasus and Central Asia but also the connectivity of the Baltic and Black Seas. The Three Seas Initiative, championed by thirteen eastern European nations and President Trump, calls for improved digital, energy, and transport connectivity between the Adriatic, Baltic, and Black Seas. The initiative’s robust implementation holds the key to the economic prosperity and resilience of Eastern Europe, NATO mobility readiness, and Ukraine’s integration into Europe. A Russian stranglehold on the Black Sea from Crimea presents an insurmountable barrier to the fulfillment of the Three Seas Initiative. 

Russian dominance over Crimea also jeopardizes transatlantic initiatives to establish digital and physical infrastructure connecting Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia through the Black and Caspian Seas. The EU’s subsea fiber-optic and energy cables across the Black Sea would be vulnerable to industrial sabotage, similar to the threats in the Baltic Sea.

From its Crimean stronghold, Putin can veto any economic activities across the Black Sea (like the Middle Corridor) that contradict Russian interests. This de facto blockade would suffocate Ukraine’s maritime economy and slowly strangle Odesa. It would exponentially heighten pressure on Moldova with the possibility of a reinvigorated Russian presence in Transnistria and fulfill Russia’s goal to turn the republic into a vassal state.

A Crimea under Russian control poses a grave threat to Romania, the United States’ closest Black Sea ally and NATO member. Accepting Putin’s annexation would enable further territorial aggression, following the pattern of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014 and 2022. With Crimea secured, Putin would likely push across the Dnipro River toward Odesa, energizing Russian-backed forces in Transnistria and prompting calls from Moldova’s Gagauz minority for Russian intervention. The Russian playbook of fabricated “patriotic” interventions, seen in Donbas and elsewhere, would likely be repeated in Moldova, bringing Russian troops to Romania’s border. This would make Romania’s 420-mile frontier the second-longest NATO-Russia border after Finland.

The strategically vital Snake Island at the mouth of the Danube Delta would also be endangered. Although Ukrainian resistance has thus far kept Russian naval forces at bay, a hasty peace would reopen the path for a renewed Russian effort to seize the island. This would allow Russia to choke the Danube River gateway, the second-largest maritime route into the Black Sea after the Dardanelles. This would effectively blockade Ukraine, Moldova, and much of Romania, provoking sustained harassment and instability in the region. Currently, 4,500 U.S. troops are stationed at the Mihail Kogălniceanu Air Base, only 100 miles from Snake Island.

Turkey, the dominant Black Sea power, stands to lose the most if the sea becomes a Russian lake. Unfortunately, despite its public support for Ukraine in solidarity with Crimean Tatars, Ankara has been complicit in Russia’s creeping dominance by insisting on a rigid interpretation of the Montreux Convention, which restricts NATO’s naval presence in the Black Sea. As a NATO member, Turkey must recognize that Russian hegemony poses a far greater threat than NATO presence in the region.

Any peace agreement that leaves Crimea under Russian control would be a victory for Putin’s expansionist ambitions to reconstitute the Russian imperial sphere of influence. History suggests such an agreement would only lead to bloodier and more expansive conflicts in the near future, substantially increasing the likelihood of direct NATO involvement.

For the United States, allowing a peace deal that leaves Crimea with Putin would constitute a strategic blunder comparable to the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. History might judge such an agreement alongside the infamous Munich Pact of 1938, which attempted to appease Hitler by ceding Sudetenland, with disastrous consequences. Munich defined and tarnished British prime minister Neville Chamberlain’s legacy for appeasing Hitler. History will be equally unkind to those who appease Putin.

President-elect Trump, by many accounts, is more akin to Churchill than Chamberlain. He should reject any short-sighted peace deal that leaves Crimea in Russian hands and instead make a free Crimea central to a just and lasting peace. With his focus on business and infrastructure and making America great again, Trump could leverage a free Crimea to transform the region into a future of peace and prosperity backed by American industry and ingenuity. Like President Harry Truman and General George Marshall before him, Trump could leave a legacy of reshaping Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. Those who underestimate him—and the potential for such a vision—do so at their peril.

Kaush Arha is president of the Free & Open Indo-Pacific Forum and a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and the Krach Institute for Tech Diplomacy at Purdue.

George Scutaru is the CEO of the New Strategy Center and a former national security advisor to the President of Romania.

Justina Budginaite-Froehly is a security and defense policy expert focusing on defense industrial developments, military mobility, and energy security in Europe.

Image: NickolayV / Shutterstock.com.

Deux parutions récentes projettent un éclairage oblique sur le contexte insurrectionnel propre à la Nouvelle-Calédonie. En mai 1989, Djubelly Wéa (1945-1989) assassine le leader indépendantiste Jean-Marie Tjibaou et son bras droit Yeiwéné Yeiwéné. Avant d'être abattu par leur garde du corps, il s'écrie : (...) / Fiction, Nouvelle-Calédonie, Mouvement de contestation, Littérature - 2025/01