What are the new surprises triggered by the war in

An editorial in The New York Times writes, “Here’s a surprising fact: While Americans disagree with almost nothing, a significant majority are in favor of generous economic and military aid to Ukraine in its fight against Vladimir Putin’s efforts to wipe it off the map. It is even more surprising if you consider that, just a few months ago, most Americans could not have found Ukraine on the map, given that it is a country with which we have never had any special relations, writes the newspaper, quoted of Rador.

In the comparative context, the continuation of this support during the summer will be even more important, given that the war in Ukraine is entering a kind of ‘sumo’ phase – two huge fighters, each trying to throw the other outside the ring, but no one wanted to give up or win the race.

In his book, “Although I expect some erosion of the current situation, given that people are thinking of a worsening global energy and food crisis, I still hope that most Americans will maintain their position, hoping that Ukraine to be able to regain military sovereignty or reach a decent peace deal with Putin. My current optimism is not due to the examination of the polls, but to the written history – in particular, it is about Michael Mandelbaum’s new book: “The four stages of American foreign policy: a weak power, a great power, a superpower and a hyperpower”.

From the point of view of Mandelbaum, professor emeritus of foreign policy at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (we wrote a book together in 2011), he says that the US positions on Ukraine may seem extremely surprising and unique, but they I am not like this. If we look at the foreign policy of the United States – which his book covers through four stages of power that America has had over the rest of the world – it seems practically familiar and predictable. So much so that both Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping would benefit from reading the book.

Thus, Mandelbaum states that, in Churchill’s view, “wars can change the course of history, and great battles often decide the fate of wars.” The struggle between Russia and Ukraine for the conquest of a region in eastern Ukraine, known as the Donbas, has such potential.

Specifically, in many ways, not just one. The 27 EU countries, our main ally, are practically the largest trading bloc in the world. They have already taken steps to reduce their trade and investment in Russia. On 31 May, the EU agreed to reduce Russian oil imports by 90% by the end of 2022. This will not only affect Russia, but also EU consumers and producers, who are already paying astronomical sums for petrol and gas.

“If this war fails to blow up the planet, it may, on the contrary, help it survive.”

In a sustainable context, all this is happening at a time when recyclable energy, such as solar or wind, has become competitive with fossil fuels, and at a time when the global car industry is increasing its production of electric vehicles and new batteries. .

In his view, in the short term, none of this can lead to a reduction in Russian production. “The war in Ukraine is already forcing every country and every company to rush its decarbonisation plans,” said Tom Burke, director of the E3G Research Laboratory for Third Generation Ecology.

In a retrospective, a recent McKinsey Quarterly article noted: “Nineteenth-century naval wars accelerated the transition from sailing to coal-based vessels. World War I marked the transition from coal to oil. World War II introduced nuclear energy as an important source of energy.

In all these cases, the innovations had a direct effect on the civil economy and accelerated the emergence of a new era. The war in Ukraine is a different one, as it does not provoke real energy innovations, but only highlights the need for such energy. However, the potential impact could lead to similar changes. “

Regarding the surprises, “imagine: If this war fails to blow up the planet, it may, on the contrary, help it survive. And in time, it will reduce Putin’s main financial and power-saving resources.

Now, if we think about it, wouldn’t that be an irony? ”, The editorial highlights.