jueves, 20 de enero de 2022

A LIKELY WAR BETWEEN RUSSIA AND US ( Prof Paula Cerbello)

 IS WAR BREWING ? WHAT ARE THE PROSPECTS OF A WAR BETWEEN RUSSIA AND US ?


IS A LIKELY WAR JUST AFFECTING THE INTERVENING COUNTRIES?;

As warnings fly between U.S. and Russia, how real is the threat of war in Ukraine?

A man in a pinstriped suit and dark tie smiles as he speaks to other people around him
U.S. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken, center, arrives for a group photo with other delegates at a meeting of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in Stockholm on Dec. 2, 2021.
(Jonathan Nackstrand / Associated Press)

So far, it’s been a war of words. Could it flare into something more dangerous?

Against the backdrop of a major buildup of Russian forces near Ukraine, a former Soviet republic and struggling democracy sandwiched between Russia and the West, the rhetoric and prospect for conflict have been sharpening daily.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken, meeting his Russian counterpart in Stockholm on Thursday, explicitly warned Moscow against an invasion — a scenario that Ukraine’s government, backed by both NATO and the Biden administration, has described as a real possibility. The Kremlin, in turn, has hinted that an intervention by its troops may be necessary to halt escalating separatist fighting in eastern Ukraine.

Much of what unfolds in coming days or weeks is up to Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose motives and intent are not entirely clear. Analysts say that as always, Russia’s autocratic leader is cannily weighing risks and benefits — determining whether concessions he might extract by threatening Ukraine are worth the now-heavy odds of punishing Western sanctions and the chance of a domestic backlash if Russian troops suffered significant casualties.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Putin is definitely as serious as he could be,” Hanna Shelest, a leading Ukrainian security expert, told an Atlantic Council webinar on Thursday. “He’s definitely raising the stakes in this game.”

Although the direct involvement of American ground troops is considered a nonstarter, Washington sees Ukraine as a close partner, and the U.S. has for years provided sophisticated weaponry, including Javelin antitank missiles, to the Ukrainian government.

And even sometimes fractious European allies are showing notable solidarity in warning of painful economic consequences should the Russian leader become overly aggressive.

Here is a look at some of the factors at play in Ukraine’s latest crisis.

How serious is Russia’s buildup of forces?

After Putin’s audacious 2014 seizure of the Black Sea peninsula of Crimea — which Moscow then illegally annexed — Ukraine has considered itself to be under constant threat.

Supporters say that’s with good reason: Russia backs a separatist movement in eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region, where fighting has killed about 14,000 people, according to international observers. And Moscow has periodically made seemingly menacing troop movements. In the spring, the United States European Command heightened its alert level after Russia moved forces within its own borders closer to Ukraine and deployed some units into Crimea.

Russia’s recent military activity near Ukraine has set off alarm bells not only in Ukraine’s capital, Kyiv, but in Washington and Europe as well. U.S. intelligence indicates Moscow has positioned about 100,000 troops and heavy weaponry that could allow a swift, large-scale, multi-pronged attack on Ukraine.

How has the Biden administration responded?

Blinken minced few words in his meeting Thursday with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, declaring that if Moscow “decides to pursue confrontation, there will be serious consequences.”

As the two met on the sidelines of a ministerial meeting in Stockholm of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the secretary of State stressed the United States’ “strong, ironclad commitment to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.”

Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III too has been outspoken on the subject. On a visit to South Korea on Wednesday, he said the U.S. and the international community would act in concert to counter any Russian military moves in Ukraine. Asked whether he was speaking of steps such as economic sanctions, Austin didn’t directly respond. But Blinken and Austin, together with other senior officials, have emphasized that diplomacy is the preferred solution.

What has the Kremlin said?

Moscow’s principal tactic has been to turn the situation on its head and accuse Ukraine — far weaker militarily — of being the aggressor. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, who is close to Putin, on Thursday cited Ukrainian authorities’ “increasingly intensive provocative action” against pro-Russia separatists. In a conference call with reporters, Peskov also complained that comments by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who has said Russia is preparing to invade, showed that “the Ukrainian leadership doesn’t rule out a forceful scenario.”

Lavrov, in Stockholm, repeated Putin’s warnings against North Atlantic Treaty Organization military assistance to Ukraine — and reasserted the Kremlin leader’s position that granting membership in the alliance to Ukraine or other states Russia that considers to be within its sphere of influence would be a grave mistake. A NATO expansion, he said, would “infringe on our security.”

All in all, Kremlin spokesman Peskov said, “the probability of hostilities in Ukraine still remains high.”

What about Europe?

Moscow faced European sanctions after grabbing Crimea, but Ukraine is appealing for far harsher punishment if Russia tries to seize more territory. Ukraine’s foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, met with both Blinken and European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell in Sweden, appealing for the crafting of powerful new economic deterrents to “make President Putin think twice before resorting to military force.”

Ukraine is not a NATO member, though it aspires to be, so an attack on it does not trigger the 30-member alliance’s founding principle that an attack on one is an attack on all. But NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg says defensive military support by the alliance for Ukraine is in line with international obligations. And Stoltenberg this week rejected Putin’s demand that NATO promise to refrain from eastern expansion, saying Moscow “does not have a veto.”

What does Putin hope to gain?

The Russian leader wants a host of things, particularly an easing of sanctions. But analysts also point to Putin’s overarching desire for the West to acknowledge him as the legitimate leader of a great power. The onetime KGB spy never accepted the new world order after the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union, longtime Putin observers say. Most of them doubt he will ever give up his ambition to be the primary arbiter of not only Ukraine’s energy wealth, but also its political destiny.

As a perennial sore point, Ukraine’s situation leaves Washington and its allies with an “uncomfortable dilemma,” Alexander Baunov, a senior fellow at Carnegie Moscow Center, wrote this week on the blog Carnegie.ru.

The choice, Baunov said, is “whether to boost Russia’s status, thereby rewarding the dangerous exploitation of a simmering conflict, or refuse to give Moscow the promises it desires, thus conserving the conflict in its heated state.”

Despite President Biden’s stated wish for a stable relationship with Russia, Putin is likely to keep actively sowing discord in the West. Few believe that the migrant crisis in Belarus — in which Alexander Lukashenko, dubbed “Europe’s last dictator,” deliberately funneled desperate migrants from the Mideast and elsewhere to the EU’s eastern borders, in Poland and Lithuania — would have happened without his knowledge and assent.

Veteran diplomat Daniel Fried, a former special advisor to two presidents, said the Russian leader’s behavior on Ukraine fit neatly into a long-standing template.

“This is a Russian-instigated crisis,” he told the Atlantic Council webinar. “We shouldn’t reward them for taking down a crisis that they put up.”



lunes, 10 de enero de 2022

Sscience and Policy do they go hand in hand?

 SCIENCE AND POLICY 

Do they go hand in hand ? Should they ? 


Science Meets Policy in the Pandemic Response


The COVID-19 pandemic, perhaps like no other major event in recent memory, has exposed the synergies as well as the tensions between science and policy. At the start of the pandemic, governments immediately turned to scientists for the data, knowledge, and technology necessary to fight the new virus. Science provided increasing clarity about the rapidly evolving pandemic, however, governments relied on scientific advice to various degrees. The public therefore may have heard different messages from scientists and policymakers. As a result, countries’ success in containing the pandemic varied greatly, even in a relatively homogenous region like Latin America. 

Science can be limited by uncertainties, and policy can be influenced by politics. But scientists and policymakers have the potential to improve outcomes through better collaboration and more coordinated messaging to the public. 

Different Roles of Science and Policy 

The scientific response to the pandemic has been remarkable. Within weeks of the emergence of the new disease, the coronavirus genome had been sequenced. Within months, multiple tests for COVID-19 infection had been released. Within a year, highly effective vaccines had been developed and proven safe. Other features of the disease, however, have remained poorly understood, such as how long immunity lasts and the factors behind virus mutations. The scientific process is not without pitfalls, either. In the first half of 2020, scientific papers on COVID-19 doubled every 14 days. The explosion of pandemic-related research made it impracticable to critically review all contributions in the accumulating body of evidence. A case in point is the retraction of research articles on the drug hydroxychloroquine published in the prestigious medical journals The Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine, after it was found that the data was flawed. 

Even when science provides clear and timely answers about fighting disease, it cannot make value judgments, such as who should be prioritized for vaccination, or how long lockdowns should last. These difficult decisions remain the realm of policy. As Geoffrey Rose, one of the fathers of modern epidemiology said, while the best science should help inform policy, “in a democracy the ultimate responsibility for decisions on health policy should lie with the public.” 

Public officials often need to act under incomplete information about the consequences of policy options. They do so based on the values and priorities of the public they represent. Importantly, they need to communicate with the public in simple and clear terms even though the science may be subject to uncertainties. Especially in health policy, there is widespread consensus that a clear line should be drawn between scientific findings and policy measures. In this way, scientists remain insulated from political pressure, preserving the integrity of the scientific process. Policymakers, meanwhile, cannot place the responsibility for their decisions on science but remain directly answerable to the voters who elected them.  

Improving SciencePolicy Collaboration 

In a January 2021 article in Science, researchers from Northwestern University reported that the fraction of policy documents that cited recent high-quality peer-reviewed scientific research gradually increased as the pandemic evolved. Inter-governmental organizations that coordinate global action led this trend, with 40% of their policy documents citing science. National governments showed more variation. Countries like Germany put a larger emphasis on science. About 10% of Latin American government documents cited science, a rate comparable to the world average. Thus, scientific advances are being heard, although to different degrees. As a result, national policy approaches and death rates have varied significantly. 

How can scientists and policymakers collaborate better to generate evidence-based policy solutions that are more readily incorporated into national policy? 

Improved collaboration between science and policy is a two-way effort. From the science side, research needs to generate solutions that are more practically applicable and easier to implement. During 2020, health policy faculty at Columbia University led the development of a rating system for evaluating scientific evidence for policy decisions. The ratings range from theoretical (lowest level) to impact (highest level). The latter rating is assigned to research that has been tested, replicated, and validated, thus ready to apply in the real world. 

Policy decisions involve tradeoffs, for example “health vs. wealth” considerations in fighting the pandemic. Quantifying these tradeoffs is difficult. It often requires inter-disciplinary research, which is not as common as it should be. For their part, policymakers can benefit from scientific advice but for different reasons do not always act on it. One is political considerations. In a recent paper, researchers at New York University analyzed data from 65 countries and found that incumbents who faced reelection during the pandemic adopted less restrictive containment measures, particularly those with negative economic impacts such as lockdowns. Another consideration is that many countries, particularly poorer ones, simply lack the capacity to enforce public health measures such as mask wearing and social distancing. These are hard constraints on policy that cannot be easily overcome without strong institutions, effective leadership, and state capacity. 

Public Attitudes and Compliance 

It should not go unnoticed that the success of many pandemic-related policies also depends on the public’s compliance with government-issued guidelines. The IDB Research Department developed informational and behavioral interventions to increase the salience and facilitate the widespread adoption of health recommendations. But public compliance ultimately depends on the public’s trust in these recommendations. In some countries, the public witnessed open friction between health experts and political decisionmakers. Mixed messages on social media have also contributed to confusion or misinformation. A recent nine-country survey by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania found that public trust in science was at least as high as trust in government nearly everywhere. Some of the largest gaps between trust in science and trust in government were in Colombia and Mexico, whereas some of the smallest were in Germany and South Korea, where policy and science were more aligned. 

Ideally, science and government should work together smoothly to improve public policy. And consequently, citizens should view the two domains as complementary, rather than antagonistic. Science has responded remarkably to the current pandemic but could make its contributions more directly relevant to policy. Policymakers have paid close attention to the science but have not always followed its recommendations. Finally, both scientists and policymakers could better coordinate their public communications to instill public trust in the policies adopted. This should improve voluntary compliance and bring about the intended policy impact. 


 KILLER VIRUSES 

IT S NOT ALL BAD NEWS 


ADVERSITY can sometimes be a good master 


Read these innovative solutions and tell us which you think could or should be adopted by us RIsing up to the challenge of the coronavirus pandemic

Format
News and Press Release
 
Source
  • UNDP
  •  
     
    Posted
    9 May 2020
     
    Originally published
    5 May 2020
     
    Origin
    View original

    Young Bhutanese respond to COVID-19 with innovation

    The coronavirus pandemic, a global health emergency unlike any other, has thrust the world in a new environment. As countries face unprecedented challenges and uncharted paths, it is not without silver linings. The crisis is bringing together communities even when everyone is staying apart.

    Here's a story about how the young people in Bhutan are contributing to the country's COVID-19 response with innovative businesses that seek to help communities navigate the 'new normal'. Meet 10 young Bhutanese who, through the Loden-UNDP COVID-19 Response Fund support, are rising up to make a difference in this moment of crisis.

    The Loden-UNDP call for business proposals that sought innovative solutions to challenges caused or worsened by the ongoing global public health crisis saw close to a thousand applications. The 10 successful applicants received interest and collateral-free loan support of up to Nu 1.5 million each to turn their business ideas into a reality.

    DRUK KHA RAY

    Dargay heard, saw and read in news about how face masks are running out of supply worldwide as countries fight the coronavirus pandemic. And in late March, when he came across the announcement on call for business proposal for the Loden-UNDP COVID-19 Response Fund on social media, he couldn't help but grab the opportunity to contribute to the country’s COVID-19 response efforts.

    As a tailor, making face masks is right up his alley. Thanks to the fund support, Dargay has been able to get his Druk Kha Ray (face mask) business up and running. “I hope my contribution will help reduce the import of face masks and in preventing the spread of COVID-19,” he said.

    THUNDER DRAGON HORTICULTURISTS

    Eupel Dakini Dorji is a passionate agriculturist and runs an all-women farming business called the ‘Bhutanese Thunder Dragon Horticulturists’ based in Thimphu. Her business focuses on dehydrating vegetables.

    Through the Loden-UNDP COVID-19 Response Fund support, Eupel and her team will scale up their business using high-tech equipment. Besides vegetables, the team will now dehydrate fruits and mushrooms. The team plans to distribute their products to schools as a part of their social responsibility.

    VEGETABLES ON WHEELS

    Sangay Needup runs Bhutan Smart Shop, a one-stop grocery store in Thimphu that caters to both walk-in and online customers. Now with the Loden-UNDP COVID-19 Response Fund support, he will start delivering locally grown vegetables at the doorsteps of Thimphu residents.

    The vegetable markets are among the places that see huge crowd. With "stay at home" and physical distancing measures in place, Sangay's business, which he has aptly named "Vegetables on Wheels" couldn't have come at a better time.

    GREENER WAY

    Karma Yonten of Greener Way, Bhutan’s first waste management company, boasts of more than 10 years of experience in the field of waste management. Greener Way collects waste from central Thimphu and has over 70 employees.

    In the wake of global COVID-19 pandemic and increasing number of quarantine facilities in the country , particularly in Thimphu, Greener Way volunteered and is working closely with the Ministry of Health and Thimphu Thromde in safe collection and disposal of infectious waste coming out from the quarantine facilities and clinics.

    Through the Loden-UNDP COVID-19 Response Fund support, Greener Way has bought a designated vehicle to collect wastes from the quarantine facilities in Thimphu.I hope my service makes it easier for Thimphu residents to maintain physical distancing,” he added.

    APAZA ORGANIC FARM

    Tenzin Wangdi quit college to pursue his passion in organic farming. The Apaza Organic Farm was established in early 2019 by Tenzin and his friends who are all self-taught farmers like Tenzin.

    Through the Loden-UNDP COVID-19 Response Fund support, Tenzin will scale up his organic farm production. He aims to supply 60 tons of fresh organic vegetables in and around Thimphu.

    Bhutan imports almost half of all its essential non-food and food items, including vegetables, from India. With India in complete lock down and all borders crossings banned temporarily, any boost in local food production will go a long way in ensuring Bhutan's food security.

    RIGPAH

    ‘Rigpah’ is an online educational platform for students and educators. **Namkhar **came up with the business idea in 2018. With the COVID-19 crisis having forced school closures, pushing classes online, there’s never been a better time to launch his e-learning platform.

    Namkhar hopes Rigpah will help to bridge the current learning gap. He is working with educators to develop learning materials and will make these resources accessible to students free of cost till the end of this year.

    Free access to rural students beyond 2020 will be supported through the Loden-UNDP Bhutan COVID-19 Response Fund.

    THE ECO-VILLA GARDEN

    Ngawang Tenzin quit his spa therapist job to become a farmer in 2017. Together with his father, a retired civil servant with experience in the agriculture sector, Ngawang is scaling up his farming business through the Loden-UNDP COVID-19 Response Fund support.

    The father-son duo has named their farming project Eco-Villa Garden. They will grow vegetables on almost 10 acres of land in Thimphu. The two will use part of the fund support to invest in an automated greenhouse that’s equipped with technology to control temperature for better and higher yield.

    DRUK WASTE MANAGEMENT

    Ugyen Dorji founded and operates Druk Waste Management in Paro. The 33-year-old’s business has taken a massive hit as COVID-19 brought tourism and hotel businesses to a standstill, affecting his livelihood and also that of his 14 employees and their families.

    But Ugyen saw a silver lining amid COVID-19’s dark cloud. He saw opportunities for farming and wasted no time in applying for the Loden-UNDP COVID-19 Response Fund support to help himself and his team cope with the sudden job and income loss.

    Ugyen intends to continue farming post COVID-19 situation.

    PK ORGANIC FARMING

    Kamana has dedicated her time and resources to starting an organic farm at Samtenthang in Sarpang in 2018. She is passionate about organic farming and is always looking to grow more organic vegetables, but shortage of water and lack of green house and storage facilities have prevented her from doing so. As a result, her 10-acre farmland remains under-utilized.

    Through the Loden-UNDP Bhutan COVID-19 Response Fund support, Kamana plans to construct a water reservoir that will not only benefit her but also other nearby farmers. Reliable water will allow Kamana to grow more vegetables, which will contribute towards meeting growing demand for locally grown vegetables as imported vegetables remain hard to come by due to COVID-19 restriction measure