Analysis – Page 789 – MIL Submissions Engine

August 20, 2025

Una encuesta en Gaza revela que aún hay gazatíes que creen en la paz

Source: The Conversation – (in Spanish) – By Ángel Gómez Jiménez, Catedrático de Psicología Social, UNED – Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia

Si bien parece que Hamás ha aceptado una propuesta de alto el fuego por parte de Israel, el ejército israelí ha comenzado a prepararse para tomar la ciudad de Gaza. Después del fracaso del alto el fuego de enero y del acuerdo de intercambio de rehenes por prisioneros, y tras meses de una guerra devastadora y despiadada, el futuro de Gaza y de sus 2,1 millones de habitantes parece cada vez más incierto.

Cuando las consecuencias de este conflicto hacen pensar que podría no terminar nunca, que dejará un trauma insuperable o que, en el peor de los casos, alimentará deseos de venganza, un estudio que hemos publicado recientemente en la revista New England Journal of Public Policy muestra que muchos gazatíes siguen albergando la esperanza de alcanzar la paz.

¿Luchar o no luchar?

La investigación fue dirigida por el grupo ARTIS International y el Oxford University Changing Character of War Center, y llevada a cabo por el Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR). El diseño del estudio y el control de los datos estuvieron a cargo de los dos autores que firmamos este artículo.

Nuestro objetivo era examinar los componentes psicosociales de la disposición a luchar. Para ello se entrevistó a una muestra representativa de 500 participantes, en muchos casos procedentes en refugios, y durante días en los que el alto el fuego en enero estaba aparentemente garantizado.

Las encuestas las realizaron investigadores locales con gran experiencia en trabajo de campo y en la detección de respuestas insinceras. Los participantes respondían a un cuestionario que incluía medidas interactivas, en una plataforma que ha resultado de gran utilidad en la recogida de datos en otros contextos, por ejemplo en el conflicto en Siria entre combatientes e ISIS, con terroristas islamistas y miembros de bandas en prisión, o durante el reciente conflicto entre Rusia y Ucrania.

Un conflicto difícil de resolver

El estudio reveló que la simpatía hacia Hamás disminuyó desde los primeros meses de la guerra. Sin embargo, debido al bajo apoyo a otras alternativas políticas, Hamás recuperó gradualmente su influencia sobre Gaza. Además, la guerra, en lugar de suavizar los objetivos políticos de los gazatíes, redujo el apoyo a una solución negociada con Israel.

Los datos también mostraron que los habitantes mantenían un fuerte compromiso con sus valores y con su identidad nacional y religiosa. Este compromiso los predisponía a realizar sacrificios personales si fuera necesario. Mantener valores fundamentales puede empoderar a las personas para enfrentarse a oponentes con recursos mucho mayores, y los habitantes de Gaza no son una excepción.

Por otro lado, de la encuesta se deduce que es improbable que se produzca un avance hacia la paz con Israel que no tenga en cuenta el mantenimiento de los valores fundamentales de los habitantes de Gaza, al menos en un grado mutuamente tolerable.

Cuando la paz es posible

Debido a la dificultad de dar pasos hacia la paz en un conflicto de larga duración como este, nuestro desafío consistió en dar un primer paso para identificar los componentes psicosociales que podrían favorecer un cambio hacia la paz. Para ello, nos basamos en investigaciones previas de negociadores experimentados en conflictos que parecían irresolubles, las cuales sugieren que una auténtica consolidación de la paz requiere la humanización o rehumanización del adversario.

Nuestro estudio ofrecía un escenario propicio para evaluar si la humanización del enemigo podría predecir la disposición de las personas a realizar sacrificios personales por conseguir la paz en tiempos de guerra y, de ser así, explorar qué factores podrían explicar la asociación entre la humanización del oponente y la voluntad por realizar un intenso sacrificio por conseguir la paz con él.

Solo un 10 % de los participantes humanizaba a los israelíes

La paz es difícil de conseguir, pero no imposible. Los resultados mostraron que solo un 10 % de los participantes humanizaba a los israelíes (con una puntuación por encima del punto medio de la escala). Y fueron justo estos participantes los que se mostraron dispuestos a realizar sacrificios por lograr la paz, como perder su trabajo o fuente de ingresos, luchar e incluso morir.

Los gazatíes que humanizan a los israelíes están dispuestos a realizar sacrificios por lograr la paz.
Berit Kessler / Shutterstock

Además, nuestro estudio reveló por qué la humanización del enemigo promueve esta disposición: al humanizar a Israel, los participantes confiaban más en sus ciudadanos, consideraban la consecución de la paz como algo “sagrado” y aumentaban su apoyo a mantener un contacto positivo entre ciudadanos palestinos e israelíes.

Pese a sus limitaciones, este estudio constituye un primer paso importante al señalar posibles vías para que los ciudadanos involucrados en un conflicto de esta magnitud estén dispuestos a alcanzar la paz con su enemigo, así como los mecanismos que podrían facilitarlo.

Las personas firmantes no son asalariadas, ni consultoras, ni poseen acciones, ni reciben financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y han declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado anteriormente.

– ref. Una encuesta en Gaza revela que aún hay gazatíes que creen en la paz – https://theconversation.com/una-encuesta-en-gaza-revela-que-aun-hay-gazaties-que-creen-en-la-paz-262258

August 20, 2025

Pediatricians’ association recommends COVID-19 vaccines for toddlers and some older children, breaking with CDC guidance

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By David Higgins, Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

The AAP’s guidance on COVID-19 vaccines differs substantially from that of the CDC. Images By Tang Ming Tung/DigitalVision via Getty Images

For 30 years, vaccine recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have aligned closely with those from the American Academy of Pediatrics, or AAP. But on Aug. 19, 2025, the AAP published new vaccine recommendations that diverge from those of the CDC.

The pediatrician association’s move comes on the heels of unprecedented changes made earlier this year by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., as head of the Department of Health and Human Services, in how the government approves and issues guidance on vaccines.

The biggest difference is in the AAP’s guidance around COVID-19 vaccines for children. This new guidance comes as COVID-19 cases are once again rising across the U.S. and many parents and providers are confused by unclear guidance from federal health authorities about whether children should be vaccinated.

In a Q&A with The Conversation U.S., David Higgins, a pediatrician, preventive medicine physician and vaccine delivery researcher from the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, explains the new guidance and what it means for parents. Higgins is also a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

What are the AAP’s new vaccine recommendations?

The AAP recommends that all children 6 to 23 months old receive a complete COVID-19 vaccine series, consistent with recommendations for this age group in previous years.

For children and adolescents ages 2 to 18, the AAP now advises a single dose if they are at higher risk, a change from previous years, when vaccination was recommended for all in this age group. Children at higher risk include those who have certain chronic medical conditions, who live in long-term care or group settings, who have never been vaccinated, or who live with family members at high risk.

The AAP also recommends that COVID-19 vaccines remain available for any child or adolescent whose parent wants them to be protected, regardless of risk status. In all cases, the most updated version of the vaccine should be used.

How do these recommendations differ from CDC guidance?

The difference is substantial. The CDC currently advises what it calls “shared clinical decision-making” for children ages 6 months to 17 years who are not moderately or severely immunocompromised. This means the decision is left up to individual discussions between families and their health care providers, but the vaccine is not treated as a routine recommendation. These current guidelines were made after Kennedy bypassed the agency’s normal independent review process.

That framework can be confusing for families and difficult for providers to implement. By contrast, the AAP recommendations identify the ages and conditions where the risk is highest while also supporting vaccine availability for any families who want it.

Toddlers engaged in an activity at a wooden table in a classroom. — It’s not clear whether families will be able to access routine COVID-19 vaccines for children this fall.
Pancake Pictures/Connect Images via Getty Images

Why are they diverging?

The AAP has been publishing vaccine guidance since the 1930s, long before the CDC or the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, an independent panel of experts that advises the CDC, existed.

Since 1995, the two groups have generally issued essentially identical vaccine guidance. But this year, the federal government dismissed the advisory committee’s panel of independent scientists and immunization experts, raising questions about the credibility of CDC guidance. At the same time, misinformation about vaccines continues to spread.

In response, the AAP decided to publish independent recommendations based on its own review of the latest evidence. That review showed that although the risks for healthy older children have declined compared with the early years of the pandemic, young children and those with specific conditions remain especially vulnerable. Additionally, a review of evidence by an independent expert group called the Vaccine Integrity Project, also released on Aug. 19, 2025, confirmed that there are no new safety concerns and no decline in the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.

COVID-19 continues to cause hospitalizations and deaths in children and remains a leading cause of serious respiratory illness.

Will parents be able to follow these recommendations?

This is still unclear. The AAP recommendations do not automatically guarantee insurance coverage.

By law, insurance plans and the federal Vaccines for Children program, which provides vaccines for eligible children who might not otherwise be vaccinated due to cost or lack of insurance, are tied to Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommendations. Unless insurers and policymakers act to align with the AAP recommendations, there is a risk that parents would be forced to pay the costs out of pocket.

Vaccine supply may also be an issue. Currently, only two COVID-19 vaccines are available for children under 12. Moderna’s vaccine is approved only for children with at least one high-risk condition, while Pfizer’s authorization for younger children may not be renewed. If that happens, any remaining Pfizer doses for this age group may be unusable, leaving a shortfall in available vaccines for children.

Finally, implementation may differ depending on the type of provider. Some vaccine providers, such as pharmacists, operate under policies tied strictly to CDC recommendations, which may make it harder to follow AAP’s schedule unless rules are updated.

What happens next?

Parents and providers are likely to face continued confusion, just as COVID-19 cases rise as children return to school. Much will depend on whether the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices updates its own recommendations at its upcoming meeting, expected in September, and whether pediatric COVID-19 vaccines remain available.

Until then, parents can speak with their pediatricians to understand the best protection for their children.

David Higgins volunteers as Vice President of the Colorado Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics and as a board member of Immunize Colorado. He was not involved in the development or publication of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ immunization guidelines. The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely his own and do not represent those of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

– ref. Pediatricians’ association recommends COVID-19 vaccines for toddlers and some older children, breaking with CDC guidance – https://theconversation.com/pediatricians-association-recommends-covid-19-vaccines-for-toddlers-and-some-older-children-breaking-with-cdc-guidance-263522

August 20, 2025

Réunions séparées avec Poutine et Zelensky : Trump fait le jeu de la Russie

Source: The Conversation – in French – By James Horncastle, Assistant Professor and Edward and Emily McWhinney Professor in International Relations, Simon Fraser University

Depuis 2022, l’Ukraine n’a jamais été dans une situation aussi vulnérable, alors que les combats se poursuivent sans relâche et que les frappes contre les infrastructures civiles deviennent de plus en plus courantes.

Les dirigeants mondiaux en appellent désormais à la fin du conflit. On pourrait croire que les rencontres du président américain Donald Trump avec les dirigeants ukrainien et russe constituent une approche équilibrée. En réalité, c’est bien la Russie qui en profite.

Sommet en Alaska

Après sa récente rencontre avec le président russe Vladimir Poutine en Alaska, Trump a déclaré ce sommet « très utile ». Prié de l’évaluer sur une échelle de 1 à 10, le président a déclaré que la rencontre méritait la plus haute note en raison du climat de bonne entente.

Mais s’ils se sont si bien entendus, c’est parce qu’il n’a pas été question de la raison même d’un tel sommet : l’agression russe en Ukraine. Cette approche s’est avérée fort « utile » pour Poutine et la Russie — d’autant que ni l’Ukraine ni aucun de ses alliés n’avait été invité au sommet.

Ce format a suscité une vive consternation. En Ukraine, on redoutait la conclusion d’un accord sans son consentement. Côté européen, c’est la menace d’invasion et le révisionnisme russes qui suscitent la crainte.

Avant le retour de Trump au pouvoir en 2025, l’Ukraine profitait d’un front largement uni entre l’OTAN et l’Union européenne. Cette unité s’est affaiblie depuis, et encore davantage avec ce sommet, au bénéfice de la Russie.

Un cessez-le-feu parti en fumée

Poutine et ses négociateurs ont ainsi obtenu une concession majeure de Trump lors du sommet : sa renonciation à réclamer un cessez-le-feu.

Pour l’Ukraine et ses alliés, il s’agissait pourtant d’une condition fondamentale pour toute négociation de paix — a fortiori depuis que la Russie intensifie ses attaques contre les villes et les civils ukrainiens.

Enfin, la nature même de la réunion en Alaska contribue à légitimer l’invasion russe auprès de l’opinion internationale.

Bien que les Européens et les Nord-Américains l’admettent difficilement, la Russie a su entretenir l’ambivalence d’une grande partie de l’Asie, de l’Afrique et de l’Amérique latine — et même à y obtenir du soutien.

Toutefois, les condamnations prononcées contre la Russie par plusieurs organisations internationales, dont l’ONU, en refroidissaient plusieurs, notamment l’interdiction de voyager prononcée par la Cour pénale internationale.

Mais la consécration diplomatique américaine, en accueillant Poutine sur son sol, a sapé les condamnations de ces institutions.

Zelensky à Washington

Les avantages que Poutine a obtenus de Trump en Alaska ont exigé une réponse immédiate de l’Ukraine. Le président Volodymyr Zelensky a rapidement organisé une réunion à la Maison-Blanche. Et il s’y est déplacé en compagnie de plusieurs dirigeants européens, dont la présidente de la Commission européenne, Ursula von der Leyen, et le président français, Emmanuel Macron.

Le secrétaire d’État Marco Rubio a insisté sur le fait que leur présence ne visait pas à empêcher Trump d’intimider Zelensky dans le Bureau ovale, comme il l’avait fait précédemment.

Chose certaine, les dirigeants européens étaient là pour empêcher Trump de contraindre le dirigeant ukrainien à faire des concessions préjudiciables à leurs propres intérêts.

Le message publié par Trump sur les réseaux sociaux avant la réunion avait de quoi inquiéter. Il y faisait porter la responsabilité de la paix à Zelensky, affirmant que l’Ukraine devait accepter la perte de la Crimée et ne jamais adhérer à l’OTAN.

Soigneuse mise en scène

Pour cette rencontre, le président Zelensky, qui portait le costume, a remis une lettre de la première dame ukrainienne à Melania Trump.

Ces efforts de mise en scène, soigneusement orchestrés par le protocole ukrainien, visaient à flatter l’égo trumpien. La manœuvre a en partie marché à en juger par sa réaction : il aurait jugé Zelensky « fabuleux » dans son costume, selon un journaliste — le même qui avait critiqué le président ukrainien pour sa tenue en février lors de sa visite malheureuse.

Durant cette rencontre, Trump n’a pas exclu que des soldats américains puissent contribuer au rétablissement de la paix en Ukraine. Selon les observateurs, une telle présence serait une condition fondamentale à une paix durable.

Bien qu’il ne s’y soit pas opposé, Trump n’a pas non plus pris d’engagement ferme à cet égard. Quelques heures plus tard, il a soutenu au contraire qu’il offrirait du soutien aérien sans mettre de troupes au sol.

Il a toutefois déclaré qu’il s’efforçait d’organiser une réunion trilatérale avec Poutine et Zelensky.

Ce qui reste à voir, étant donné sa propension à revenir sur les déclarations.

Espoir contre réalité

Rappelons toutefois que l’une des principales promesses de campagne de Trump était de ne pas impliquer les États-Unis dans des « guerres étrangères sans fin ». Le déploiement de soldats américains en Ukraine compromettrait le soutien de sa base politique, laquelle est déjà divisée quant à sa gestion du dossier Jeffrey Epstein.

La cordialité de la rencontre de Trump avec Zelensky et les dirigeants européens permet de nourrir certains espoirs parmi les partisans de l’Ukraine dans les jours à venir.

Mais tout optimisme doit être tempéré par les dégâts causés par le sommet Trump-Poutine en Alaska. Le président américain aurait même interrompu les réunions à Washington pour appeler Poutine.

Le refus de Trump de prendre des engagements fermes en présence de Zelensky et des dirigeants européens réunis signifie que la Russie est parvenue à faire valoir ses intérêts au détriment de l’Ukraine et des perspectives d’une paix durable à long terme.

James Horncastle ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

– ref. Réunions séparées avec Poutine et Zelensky : Trump fait le jeu de la Russie – https://theconversation.com/reunions-separees-avec-poutine-et-zelensky-trump-fait-le-jeu-de-la-russie-263491

August 20, 2025

Faire de l’IA une force de progrès plutôt qu’une menace

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Simon Blanchette, Lecturer, Desautels Faculty of Management, McGill University

L’intelligence artificielle (IA) bouleverse le monde du travail, mais elle offre aussi d’immenses possibilités. Plutôt que de la subir, préparons-nous à en faire un véritable moteur de transformation et de progrès.

L’IA, bien que loin d’être nouvelle, progresse à une vitesse vertigineuse. Plus récemment, l’émergence de l’intelligence générale artificielle (IGA), une forme d’IA capable de comprendre et d’apprendre n’importe quelle tâche humaine, alimente de nombreuses inquiétudes.

Cette anxiété est légitime : la rapidité des avancées technologiques et la perspective de systèmes capables d’apprendre de manière autonome comme pourrait le faire l’IGA nourrissent la crainte d’une perte de contrôle et de bouleversements massifs sur le marché du travail.

Si ces craintes sont compréhensibles, elles ne doivent pas nous faire oublier l’essentiel : l’IA est là pour durer. Il est donc impératif de continuer à planifier la transition. Faire l’autruche n’est pas une option.

De la peur à l’action : un changement de posture nécessaire

La peur de l’IA est compréhensible. Comme toute innovation majeure, elle provoque un réflexe d’inquiétude, surtout lorsqu’il s’agit de technologies capables d’automatiser des tâches cognitives. Des figures influentes comme Sam Altman, PDG d’OpenAI, estiment que « des millions d’emplois sont à risque », tandis que Bill Gates va jusqu’à prédire que les humains ne seront bientôt plus nécessaires « pour la plupart des choses ».

Ces propos chocs nourrissent un sentiment d’urgence et, parfois, un fatalisme qui détourne l’attention des véritables questions : comment s’y préparer concrètement ?

Les données récentes incitent à relativiser. Selon le Future of Jobs Report 2025 du Forum économique mondial, près de 78 millions d’emplois nets devraient être créés d’ici 2030. Oui, les compétences exigées évolueront profondément, mais il demeure que l’IA entraîne surtout un déplacement des rôles, pas une disparition massive du travail.

Dans un contexte où la pénurie de main-d’œuvre et de compétences demeure un enjeu critique pour les entreprises, l’IA peut en fait faire partie de la solution si elle est bien utilisée. Mais sur ce plan ,le Canada tire de l’arrière en termes d’adoption de l’IA dans les entreprises. Adopter l’IA de manière plus large pourrait faire progresser le PIB de 5 à 8 % au cours de la prochaine décennie.

Oui, il est essentiel de surveiller les dérives potentielles de l’IA, mais il est tout aussi urgent de faire passer le discours de la peur à celui des opportunités.

Reconfigurer les emplois, pas les éliminer

Les scénarios de remplacement massif de travailleurs ne reflètent pas encore la réalité de mes recherches et de mon expérience, il en ressort que l’IA provoque davantage une reconfiguration des emplois que leur disparition pure et simple. Il existe également beaucoup de variations à travers les secteurs. Les tâches évoluent, mais des nouveaux rôles émergent, souvent plus qualifiés et porteurs de valeur. L’important est d’accompagner les employés dont les fonctions sont en mutation.

Dans mon rôle de consultant et de formateur, j’ai accompagné plusieurs entreprises ayant automatisé certaines fonctions ou départements, en soutenant la gestion du changement par l’élaboration de stratégies de transition et de requalification. Peu d’entre elles ont eu recours à des licenciements ; la plupart ont plutôt investi dans la formation de leurs employés et les ont redéployés vers des postes difficiles à pourvoir ou des rôles de supervision liés à l’automatisation. Cette approche leur a permis d’optimiser l’utilisation de leurs équipes tout en répondant à leurs besoins opérationnels.

Déjà des milliers d’abonnés à l’infolettre de La Conversation. Et vous ? Abonnez-vous gratuitement à notre infolettre pour mieux comprendre les grands enjeux contemporains.

Faire de l’IA une transformation maîtrisée

L’erreur principale est de voir l’IA comme une révolution soudaine. En réalité, elle fait partie d’une évolution plus large des entreprises et nécessite les mêmes clés pour réussir :

Une vision claire et partagée : les dirigeants doivent expliquer pourquoi et comment l’IA s’intègre à la stratégie de l’entreprise ;
Une communication continue et transparente : informer régulièrement réduit l’incertitude et limite les rumeurs ;
Une implication active des équipes : impliquer les employés dès le départ, écouter leurs préoccupations et valoriser leurs idées favorise l’adhésion et crée des ambassadeurs internes tout en diminuant la résistance ;
Une expérimentation progressive : commencer par des projets pilotes, apprendre des erreurs et ajuster en cours de route.

Certes le rythme des changements est plus rapide. Toutefois, les organisations qui appliquent ces pratiques solides de gestion du changement sont 1,6 fois plus susceptibles de dépasser leurs objectifs liés à l’IA que celles qui n’en tiennent pas compte.

Investir dans les compétences : le véritable avantage concurrentiel

Voir l’IA comme un changement important, c’est aussi comprendre que les compétences deviennent un atout clé. D’ici 2030, près de 40 % des compétences essentielles aujourd’hui auront changé. Cela montre l’importance de former et d’améliorer les compétences, un enjeu essentiel. Pour y parvenir, il faut :

Identifier les fonctions les plus exposées ;
Investir en formation, tant sur les compétences techniques que sur les compétences transversales ;
Cultiver une culture d’apprentissage et d’expérimentation.

Comme je le soulignais récemment, cette transition ne peut réussir que si elle est inclusive. Les initiatives liées à l’IA doivent tenir compte des inégalités existantes en milieu de travail et dans la société.

L’IGA : anticiper sans céder à la spéculation ?

Encore un peu science-fiction, l’IGA, si elle atteint son potentiel, aura sans doute des impacts plus profonds encore, car elle pourrait accomplir des tâches cognitives complexes de manière quasi autonome. Mais le principe reste le même : une organisation qui a appris à intégrer l’IA actuelle comme une transformation structurée sera beaucoup mieux préparée pour les vagues suivantes.

Cette perspective soulève des questions fondamentales sur l’évolution du travail humain. Quelles compétences resteront exclusivement humaines ? Comment préparer nos organisations à cette transition potentielle ? L’histoire des transformations technologiques suggère que l’adaptation humaine surpasse souvent les prédictions les plus pessimistes.

En d’autres termes, l’IGA n’exige pas de nouvelles règles de base, elle exige seulement de les appliquer avec plus de rigueur et de rapidité.

Plutôt que de rester paralysés par une menace hypothétique, qui, certes, finira par se concrétiser, mobilisons notre énergie pour la gérer de manière proactive. Restons alertes et agiles.

Choisir l’action plutôt que la résignation

L’IA et l’IGA ne sont pas des forces incontrôlables : ce sont des transformations à gérer, avec proactivité, intelligence et humanité. Eh oui, les enjeux de sécurité et les risques de dérives sont réels, mais il est possible de les encadrer, de les mitiger et de les réglementer. L’Union européenne l’a démontré en 2024 avec l’AI Act, le premier cadre juridique mondial à imposer des règles strictes fondées sur les risques et à garantir une supervision humaine. Au Canada, même si le projet de loi C‑27 n’a pas été adopté, il a lancé un débat essentiel sur la gouvernance de l’IA au pays. C’est une question de leadership, de gouvernance et de concertation. Des conversations à avoir maintenant et à poursuivre activement.

Le choix est devant nous : subir cette transformation ou la diriger.

Les organisations qui l’ont compris dès maintenant transforment déjà ces changements en avantage concurrentiel. Celles qui attendront risquent, elles, d’être réellement dépassées.

Simon Blanchette ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

– ref. Faire de l’IA une force de progrès plutôt qu’une menace – https://theconversation.com/faire-de-lia-une-force-de-progres-plutot-quune-menace-259860

August 20, 2025

Is it wrong to date a coworker? Not necessarily — but it can get complicated

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Leda Stawnychko, Associate Professor of Strategy and Organizational Theory, Mount Royal University

The workplace has long been a setting for connection — and sometimes romance. In Canada, these relationships are far from rare.

A 2019 ADP Canada survey of 885 employees found that one in three have been romantically involved with a colleague. Younger workers aged 18 to 34 were especially likely to report such relationships (41 per cent).

Similar patterns emerge in the United States and the United Kingdom, where surveys have found that 18 per cent of partnered respondents (those married, living with a partner or in a committed relationship) met their significant other at work.

It’s no surprise. We spend much of our waking lives with colleagues, building shared experiences and discovering common values and interests. At a time when finding and keeping love seems harder than ever, the office can feel like a rare place where authenticity and comfort come naturally.

Workplace relationships can contribute to a range of positive workplace outcomes. Most notably, they are linked to increased job satisfaction, stronger organizational commitment, improved morale and enhanced collaboration and teamwork.

However, workplace relationships can also create significant organizational challenges, which is why knowing how to handle them is key.

Dating today can feel like a mix of endless swipes, red flags and shifting expectations. From decoding mixed signals to balancing independence with intimacy, relationships in your 20s and 30s come with unique challenges. Love IRL is the latest series from Quarter Life that explores it all.

These research-backed articles break down the complexities of modern love to help you build meaningful connections, no matter your relationship status.

When work and love mix

Workplace romance refers to sexual or romantic relationships between members of the same organization that both parties recognize as more than strictly professional.

These relationships can include dating, extramarital affairs, casual hook-ups, flings or friends-with-benefits arrangements.

While many romances have minimal impact, some erode organizational trust by creating perceptions of favouritism, exclusion or manipulation, especially when they involve a power imbalance.

When trust is undermined, research shows that collaboration suffers, morale declines and workplace culture deteriorates. This is why organizations often have policies surrounding workplace romances.

The risks of workplace romance

In Canada, there are no laws that prohibit consensual relationships at work, and most countries similarly don’t have laws governing workplace relationships.

However, Canada does have legal frameworks that require employers to maintain a safe, respectful workplace. These include the Canadian Human Rights Act, provincial human rights codes, and occupational health and safety legislation.

To meet these obligations, many organizations implement policies that prohibit supervisor-subordinate relationships or require disclosure.

These policies exist for good reason: workplace romances can blur professional boundaries, increase the risk of sharing confidential information inappropriately, allow personal feelings to influence decisions, or create situations where one partner feels pressured to act in ways that conflict with organizational policies or ethical standards.

For individuals, the risks can also be just as real. While some workplace romances lead to enduring partnerships — Michelle and Barack Obama famously met at a Chicago law firm when she was a junior associate and he was an intern — others can end less happily.

Failed relationships can leave both people vulnerable to reputational damage, career derailment and, in the worst cases, allegations of harassment that can result in termination.

These concerns are underscored by the prevalence of misconduct. According to a 2024 Statistics Canada report, almost half of women and nearly one-third of men say they have experienced inappropriate sexualized behaviour at work.

Why some couples keep it quiet

Many employees choose not to disclose their workplace relationships. According to the ADP Canada survey, nearly half (45 per cent) of those in workplace relationships kept it secret from someone at work, most often management or human resources.

Similarly, a 2023 survey of more than 600 working Americans from the Society for Human Resource Management across a variety of ages, industries and job levels found that 82 per cent of workers who had been in a workplace romance kept it secret from their employer.

Reasons for secrecy range from a desire for privacy to concerns about gossip, judgment or professional repercussions.

This lack of disclosure means employers may be unaware of relationships and therefore less able to protect all parties if conflicts, ethical concerns or allegations arise.

Making love work in the workplace

If you find yourself navigating romance at work, here are five steps to protect both your relationship and your career:

1. Reflect on your motivations. Ask yourself why you want to pursue the relationship and whether it aligns with your personal and professional goals. Consider how it might affect your career, the people you work with and the overall workplace culture. This kind of honest self-check can help you make clear, confident decisions.

2. Know the rules. Review your organization’s policy on workplace romance. While the law may not always address it directly, many employers require disclosure or limit relationships within reporting lines. Understanding these rules early can help you avoid misunderstandings or career surprises.

3. Be transparent. If disclosure is required, share the news directly with your manager or human resources, rather than letting it spread through gossip. Research shows that others in the workplace respond more positively when they hear it from you directly.

4. Manage perceptions and set boundaries. Even if your relationship doesn’t affect your work, others may see it differently. Agree with your partner on boundaries, communicate thoughtfully and commit to upholding professional conduct.

5. Think long-term. Relationships can change. Decide in advance how you’ll handle working together if it ends, and consider how it might shape your reputation, network and opportunities beyond your current role.

Handled well, these steps won’t just protect your career but also help your relationship stand on solid ground.

Falling for someone at work can be both exciting and rewarding. With mindfulness, open communication and respect for professional boundaries, it can become a story you cherish and proof that romance and professionalism can flourish together.

Leda Stawnychko receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Shawna Boyko does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Is it wrong to date a coworker? Not necessarily — but it can get complicated – https://theconversation.com/is-it-wrong-to-date-a-coworker-not-necessarily-but-it-can-get-complicated-262675

August 20, 2025

Want to understand the history of European culture? Start with the Minoans, not the Ancient Greeks

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ellen Adams, Professor in Classical Archaeology and Museum Access, King’s College London

Ruins of the ancient Minoan settlement in Gournia, Crete. Georgios Tsichlis/Shutterstock

The Minoan culture was the first highly complex society on modern European soil, with palaces, writing, stunning art – and even flushing toilets. The Minoans lived in the bronze age (circa 3000-1200BC) on the Mediterranean island of Crete, which served as a stepping stone between Europe, Africa and Asia.

My new book, The Minoans, presents key features of their archaeology, including architecture, art, religion, writing, bureaucracy and the economy. It explores how this pioneering European civilisation has influenced western culture – and how Minoan culture has been reconstructed, re-imagined and represented in museum displays.

Traditionally, the ancient Greeks have been viewed as the fountainhead of European civilisation, but Minoan culture was flourishing many hundreds of years earlier. Despite this expanse of time, there was a loose dialogue between them: the Minoans influenced the Mycenaeans, who themselves were early Greeks, and the later classical Greeks indicate some “memory” of the Minoans, as filtered down through their myths.

For example, in the later Greek stories (from the first millennium BC), Crete is closely associated with bulls. Zeus took the form of a bull when he seized the Phoenician princess Europa and forced her to the island to initiate the Minoan bloodline. She bore Minos whose wife, Pasiphae, submitted to her passion for Poseidon’s bull, producing the minotaur.

In Minoan art, bulls are everywhere. Archaeologists have found bronze age ritual libation vessels – used for pouring liquid sacrifices to the gods – crafted into the shape of a bull’s head, and large gold rings depicting people leaping over bulls. The echoes of history, myth and ritual seem to have rippled through the generations, to later be reproduced and re-imagined by the ancient Greeks.

Fresco showing two people and a bull — A bull fresco from Knossos Palace in Crete.
Pecold/Shutterstock

It is therefore essential for people who want to understand the history of Europe to study the influence the Minoans have had on the ancient Greeks and modern Europeans – in particular, the evidence coming from the great digs conducted on the island in the early 20th century. These include the excavations by the British archaeologist Arthur Evans at Knossos, Crete, a vast site with complexity that may lend itself to the Greek labyrinth myth.

While the image of the bull is particularly widespread here, there is little association between this creature and women, as later appears in the myths. Women are linked with other animals, though, such as serpents, as shown by the snake goddess figurines that Evans found in the Palace of Knossos in 1903.

Snakes in Minoan art

These snake goddesses were found hidden in large stone-lined pits, in a very fragmentary state. Numerous riches were in this deposit: hundreds of shells, clay and stone vessels, clay seal impressions (used for documentation), Linear A inscriptions (a writing script) and animal bones.

The remains of five or six female figurines were found, but only two have been reconstructed. They have become icons of Minoan culture and poster girls for Crete, standing out due to their eye-catching costumes. These are tight, corseted jackets that leave the breasts bare, with floor-length full skirts – their heaviness serving to emphasise the exposed breasts even more.

Sepia photo of figurines. — The remains of the figurines found in the Palace of Knossos in 1903.
Wiki Commons

The slightly larger one is a matronly figure with a tall, conical hat. Her snake-entwined arms are held at around 45 degrees, palms up and set approximately in line with her navel. Snakes drape over her as she stares straight ahead.

The second figure raises her bright white arms, bent at the elbow, up and out to her sides, flexed slightly forward. She clutches snakes, and a feline creature balances on her hat.

These figurines offer food for thought about the reconstruction processes that archaeologists undertake. First, Evans gave the title “goddess” to the larger figurine, and “votary” (meaning a worshipper who has taken vows) to the smaller one. This is arbitrary: we cannot know who these figurines represented, whether they were human, as a dignitary or priestess, or divine – we just sense they were VIPs.

Furthermore, when viewing these extraordinary objects in the Heraklion Museum in Crete today, the visitor may be unaware of the extent to which they have been reconstructed, and how much is an early 20th-century creation.

For example, the votary’s head, with its distinctive, wide-eyed stare, is entirely modern, as is her left arm, added soon after she was excavated. The object held in her right hand was broken off – only a very small piece of the original remained in her clenched fist. The reconstruction of snakes as the objects she holds is not so absurd – her sister has them running all over her as a comparison – but recent research has cast some doubt on what she originally held.

In addition to reconstructing the originals, people have also re-imagined these striking figurines in numerous ways – in replicas as souvenirs, as Barbie dolls, in graffiti (particularly in Heraklion) and in advertisements. They have appeared as book covers and inspired modern literature as well as visual and performative art.

Adaptations of them have come to life in poetry, opera, dance and music. A performer led the historical procession as the snake goddess in the opening ceremony for the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens. My project, the Many Lives of a Snake Goddess, seeks to understand the cultural biographies of these objects. It shows their legacy has been great partly because we have recreated them in such varied ways.

Minoan Crete is important not only because of any claims made for its place as the fountainhead of European civilisation, but also because its art and archaeology have done so much to shape modern culture.

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

Ellen Adams does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Want to understand the history of European culture? Start with the Minoans, not the Ancient Greeks – https://theconversation.com/want-to-understand-the-history-of-european-culture-start-with-the-minoans-not-the-ancient-greeks-257193

August 20, 2025

DON’T PUB YET: How deliberative democracy can help solve the UK’s infrastructure problems

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Daniel Durrant, Lecturer in Infrastructure Planning, Bartlett School of Planning, UCL

Hinkley Point power station under construction in Somerset, UK. Chris Homer/Shutterstock

Infrastructure planning needs more democracy, not less.

The UK has wasted billions of pounds of public and private money through failed infrastructure projects recently. Our research suggests there is a better way.

The planning and infrastructure bill now in parliament is an example of how the government’s approach fails. The bill has been criticised for pitting the environment against economic growth. Less well reported is that it removes a cornerstone of our democracy; the opportunity for citizens to participate in decision-making about the infrastructure that affects them. The bill removes the duty for the developers of big infrastructure projects to consult with local communities and local authorities before the formal planning process.

There has been a democratic deficit in infrastructure planning since the 2008 Planning Act established a separate planning process for infrastructure projects deemed nationally significant. These are larger with the need for them established in national policy statements produced by the relevant government department. For example, the Department for Transport produces policy statements that establish the need for new road and rail projects, as does the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero for wind or nuclear projects.

This process was meant to be both faster and fairer but the emphasis was always on speed. Despite the belief among policymakers that planning slows down the delivery of infrastructure the evidence suggests that factors outside of planning are the biggest source of delay.

The problems of delays and rising costs that beset projects like the nuclear power station Hinkley Point C, London’s super sewer the Thames tideway tunnel and the high-speed rail line HS2 have little to do with planning. These simply exemplify the problem of so-called “megaprojects” that take longer, cost more and deliver less than is promised.

freight trains loading — Rail freight infrastructure is a crucial part of the UK transport network.
PrasitRodphan/Shutterstock

The planning and infrastructure bill will not make the process fairer. Communities and groups affected will only get to make their case in writing and in public hearings where time to speak is limited, often to 15 minutes. The process makes it harder for communities to have their voices heard. It may not even be faster as speed in the planning stages comes at the expense of passing on problems to the more costly construction phase.

Deliberation means better decisions

Yet, when citizens are involved in public deliberative forums with experts and planners, they can make well-reasoned, long-term decisions. When communities and experts work together infrastructure can be co-designed. This is why we were part of a group of planning academics that recently called for amendments to the Bill to establish an expert body to support innovative democratic participation in infrastructure planning.

There are precedents. Canada’s 1977 Berger inquiry into proposals to construct a gas pipeline on land along the Mackenzie Valley subject to claims by Aboriginal organisations. The inquiry became a benchmark for the use of public deliberation in the environmental and social assessment of complex infrastructure. Justice Thomas Berger’s approach saw experts and citizens testify on equal terms. The inquiry went to the communities that were affected. It travelled over 17,000 miles across Canada’s northwest hearing testimony from Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Canadians in eight different languages.

The use of public deliberation to inform decision-making has increased considerably since then. In 2020, a report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, an international policy advice forum, showed that infrastructure, urban and strategic planning are consistently the top policy areas where deliberative forums are used.

Following conflicts over high-speed rail lines in the 1990s, France pioneered deliberative discussion for all large infrastructure projects. These are subjected to early, non-binding scrutiny, conducted by an independent agency with years of experience in organising democratic discussion. They found it was more efficient and quicker to bring people into discussions early on.

France also organised national debates on climate change. This public deliberation on energy or transport policy builds political consensus for years so policy does not change with each change of government. In the UK, this could provide a basis for the new generation of National Policy Statements on infrastructure.

The previous UK government’s own Innovation in Democracy programme – an initiative that tests the use of deliberative assemblies in local government – showed how they can be designed to fit the geographies of infrastructure. This is important because the consequences often go beyond local authority boundaries through which representative democracy is organised.

Despite huge challenges like the transition to renewable energy or mitigating climate change that new infrastructure has to deal with, trust in planning is often low, mirroring a general decline in faith in politics. Deliberative democracy can restore trust between citizens and politicians and address the problems of climate change.

Infrastructure decisions are technically complex. New, large-scale infrastructure is disruptive, expensive and rarely aligns with electoral time frames. Yet the costs and consequences of poor decisions are with us for a long time. Rather than a delay, planning in this way is time well spent.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

I have received funding from the German Government’s Humboldt Foundation and the UK’s Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council to study the controversies surrounding big infrastructure projects.

Tim Marshall received funding from ESRC, a Research Fellowship 2010-2102.

– ref. DON’T PUB YET: How deliberative democracy can help solve the UK’s infrastructure problems – https://theconversation.com/dont-pub-yet-how-deliberative-democracy-can-help-solve-the-uks-infrastructure-problems-261531

August 20, 2025

Plastics: all around us and inside us

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rosa Busquets, Associate Professor, School of Life Sciences, Pharmacy and Chemistry, Kingston University

Plastic is one of the most remarkable materials ever created. It’s cheap, lightweight and endlessly versatile. It can be shaped into anything from shopping bags to lifesaving tools in hospitals, and it’s clean, safe and can be sterilised. Depending on its purpose, it can be used just once – for example, in medical settings where hygiene is critical – or kept in service for years.

Perhaps surprisingly, plastic can even have environmental benefits thanks to its light weight, which reduces fuel use in transport. But we have become so dependent on plastic that global production reached around 414 million tonnes in 2023 – a figure that continues to rise every year.

Plastic is part of countless everyday objects. Take a toothbrush: the bristles are usually nylon, while the handle is often made from lightweight polyethylene or polypropylene. A manual toothbrush might have a volume of 8.5-19 cm³. Now imagine that over time, it breaks down into microplastics – fragments smaller than five millimetres – or even nanoplastics, which are a thousand times smaller.

If microplastics can be as small as 1 micrometre (about the size of a bacterium) – or even 0.1 micrometres (roughly the size of the SARS-CoV-2 virus) – a single toothbrush could theoretically break into 8.5-19 trillion microplastics. And these particles are small enough to be inhaled or ingested.

Plastics don’t simply “vanish” in the environment: they fragment. Sunlight, especially ultraviolet-B (UV-B) radiation, makes plastic brittle; physical stress – waves, wind, abrasion – breaks it into ever-smaller pieces. Even the state of the stratospheric ozone layer, which controls how much UV-B reaches Earth, can influence how quickly plastics degrade. Some bacteria and fungi can also contribute to breaking down certain plastics, but this is slow and often incomplete.

The result? Most plastic waste ends up as a soup of micro- and nanoplastics drifting through our environment.

While larger plastic debris can cause obvious harm, such as entangling wildlife or being swallowed by seabirds, microplastics are a quieter but potentially more insidious problem.

Plastic everywhere

Microplastics have now been found inside 1,300 species of invertebrates and are present at every level of the food chain. These particles are oil-like (hydrophobic), which helps them cross biological membranes and enter the cells of living organisms – unlike water-loving (hydrophilic) particles such as grains of sand, which follow a different biological path.

Their size matters, too. Smaller particles can travel more easily within the body, reaching organs far from where they first entered. Exposure can occur through swimming in polluted water or via food and drink – either because the food itself contains plastic particles (such as seafood from contaminated waters) or because it’s been contaminated during packaging or industrial processing.

Micro- and nanoplastics can also be inhaled in airborne dust, particularly in certain workplaces, such as textile manufacturing or sandblasting with plastic-based materials. In everyday life, we can breathe in synthetic fibres shed from our clothes or tiny particles released from tyre wear.

Once inside, microplastics have been found to move – a process called translocation – within animals, a phenomenon that has not been found in humans yet.

Evidence now shows that micro- and nanoplastics are present in human liver, kidney, lung, spleen, blood, heart and brain. In one study, nanoplastic shards of polyethylene were detected in human brains, at higher concentrations than in the liver and kidney. They have been found in the fat plaque in arteria which is related to cardiovascular problems. They have also been found in the placenta and breast milk, suggesting that these particles can be transferred across generations.

Given how common plastics are in food and drink, their presence in the human body isn’t surprising – but detecting them is technically challenging. Samples are often collected in hospital environments where plastics are everywhere, creating a high risk of contamination.

Are they harmful?

Researchers are beginning to investigate associations between plastic particles and human health conditions including cardiovascular disease, pulmonary fibrosis – a lung disease in which tissue becomes scarred and stiff, making it harder to breathe – as well as liver and bowel disease.

But the science is still young. Large-scale epidemiological studies, which could take years to complete, will be needed to determine whether plastics directly cause these illnesses.

The emerging picture is not reassuring. While scientists are still uncovering the full scope of risks, the precautionary principle suggests we should act now to reduce exposure. That means continuing to track how plastics break down, how they enter our bodies and what they might be doing once inside.

Microplastics are no longer “just” an environmental issue: they’re a public health concern. And because plastic production is still rising, the scale of the problem is likely to grow before it shrinks.

Rosa Busquets receives funding from UKRI/Horizons (CleanWater project 101131182) and DASA (UK). She is honorary academic at UCL and Al-Farabi Kazakh National University.

Marcel Jansen receives funding from EPA (Ireland) and DAFM (Ireland)

– ref. Plastics: all around us and inside us – https://theconversation.com/plastics-all-around-us-and-inside-us-262882

August 20, 2025

Battling deepfakes: How AI threatens democracy and what we can do about it

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Abbas Yazdinejad, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Artificial Intelligence, University of Toronto

Imagine receiving a robocall, but instead of a real person, it’s the voice of a political leader telling you not to vote. You share it with your friends, your family — only to find out it was a hyper-realistic AI voice clone. This is not a hypothetical.

In January 2024, a fake Joe Biden robocall reached New Hampshire Democrats urging them to “stay home” ahead of the state primary. The voice may have been synthetic, but the panic was real — and it’s a preview of the threats facing democracies around the world as elections become the most valuable targets for AI‑driven disinformation.

AI‑generated content — whether deepfakes, synthetic voices or artificial images — is becoming shockingly simple to create and near‑impossible to detect.

Left unchecked, the harms posed by this new disinformation threat are myriad, with the potential to erode public trust in our political system, depress voter turnout and destabilize our democratic institutions. Canada is not immune.

The danger is already here

Deepfakes are artificially generated media — video, audio or images — that use AI to realistically impersonate real people. The benign applications (movies, education) are well understood, but the malicious applications are quickly catching up.

Open-source generative AI tools like ElevenLabs and OpenAI’s Voice Engine can produce high-quality cloned voices with just a few seconds of audio. Apps like Synthesia and DeepFaceLab put video manipulation in the hands of anyone with a laptop.

These tools have already been weaponized. Beyond the Biden robocall, Trump’s campaign shared an AI‑generated image of Taylor Swift endorsing him — an obvious hoax, but one that nonetheless circulated widely.

Meanwhile, state‑backed entities have deployed deepfakes in co-ordinated disinformation campaigns targeting democracies, according to the Knight First Amendment Institute, a free speech advocacy organization.

Why it matters for Canada

Canada recently concluded its 2025 federal election — conducted without robust legal safeguards against AI‑enabled disinformation.

Unlike the European Union, where the AI Act mandating clear labelling of AI‑generated text, images, and videos has been enacted, Canada has no binding regulations requiring transparency in political advertising or synthetic media.

Instead, it relies on voluntary codes of conduct and platform‑based moderation, both of which have proven inconsistent. This regulatory gap leaves the Canadian information ecosystem vulnerable to manipulation, particularly in a minority‑government situation where another election could be called at any time.

Alarm is mounting around the world. A September 2024 Pew Research Center survey found 57 per cent of Americans were “very” or “extremely” worried that AI would be used to generate fake election information; Canadian polls show a similar level of concern.

Closer to home, researchers recently discovered deepfake clips — some mimicking CBC and CTV bulletins — circulating in the run-up to Canada’s 2025 vote, including one purported news item that quoted Mark Carney, showing how fast AI‑powered scams can show up in our feeds.

What we can do

No single solution will be a panacea, but Canada could take the following key steps:

Content-labelling laws: Emulate the European Union and mandate labels for AI-generated political media. The EU requires content creators to label manufactured content.
Detection tools: Invest in Canadian deepfake detection research and development. Some Canadian researchers are already advancing this work, and the resulting tools should be integrated into platforms, newsrooms and fact-checking systems.
Media literacy: Expand public programs to teach AI literacy and how to spot deepfakes.
Election safeguards: Equip Elections Canada with rapid-response guidance for AI-driven disinformation.
Platform accountability: Hold platforms responsible for failing to act on verified deepfakes and require transparent reporting on removals and detection methods for AI-generated content.

Empowering voters in the AI age

Democracies are built on trust in elected officials, in institutions and in the information voters consume. If they can’t trust what they read or hear, that trust erodes and the very fabric of civil society begins to unravel.

AI can also be part of the solution. Researchers are working on digital‑watermarking
schemes to trace manufactured content and media outlets are deploying real‑time, machine-learning‑powered fact checks. Staying ahead of AI‑powered disinformation will take both smart regulation and an alert public.

The political future of Canada’s minority government is uncertain. We cannot wait for a crisis to act. Taking action now by modernizing legislation and building proactive infrastructure will help ensure democracy isn’t another casualty of the AI era.

Abbas Yazdinejad is a postdoctoral research fellow in artificial intelligence and cybersecurity in the AIMML at the University of Toronto.

Jude Kong receives funding from NSERC, NFRF, IDRC, FCDO and SIDA. He is affiliated with Artificial Intelligence and Mathematical Modelling Lab (AIMMLab), Africa-Canada Artificial Intelligence and Data Innovation Consortium (ACADIC), Global South Artificial Intelligence for Pandemic and Epidemic Preparedness and Response Network (AI4PEP), Canadian Black Scientist Network (CBSN).

– ref. Battling deepfakes: How AI threatens democracy and what we can do about it – https://theconversation.com/battling-deepfakes-how-ai-threatens-democracy-and-what-we-can-do-about-it-262262

August 20, 2025

Derrière l’unité transatlantique affichée à la Maison Blanche, l’absence de progrès vers une paix juste en Ukraine

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Stefan Wolff, Professor of International Security, University of Birmingham

Le 15 août, Donald Trump a rencontré Vladimir Poutine. Le 18, il a reçu Volodymyr Zelensky ainsi que la présidente de la Commission européenne Ursula von der Leyen, le secrétaire général de l’Otan Mark Rutte et plusieurs dirigeants européens (Emmanuel Macron, Friedrich Merz, Keir Starmer, Giorgia Meloni et Alexander Stubb). Ces échanges ont donné lieu à de nombreuses images marquantes et à quelques déclarations d’intention, mais une paix durable paraît toujours une perspective très lointaine.

Ce 18 août, à la Maison Blanche, Donald Trump et Volodymyr Zelensky ont tenté de définir les grandes lignes d’un éventuel accord de paix avec la Russie. Le ton de leur entretien a fortement contrasté avec celui de leur dernière conférence de presse conjointe à Washington en février 2025, qui s’était terminée par l’humiliation de Zelensky par Trump et son vice-président J. D. Vance.

Cette discussion, suivie d’une réunion des deux hommes avec les dirigeants de la « coalition européenne des volontaires », s’est tenue à peine trois jours après l’entretien Trump-Poutine en Alaska le 15 août, lequel avait été perçu par la plupart des observateurs comme une nette victoire politique du président russe. Les résultats des échanges du 18 août entre Trump, Zelensky et les Européens tendent à rééquilibrer dans une certaine mesure la situation en faveur de la partie ukrainienne.

Pressions de Trump sur Zelensky plus que sur Poutine

Ce résultat relativement positif n’était pas acquis d’avance. Au cours du week-end, Trump avait publié sur sa plateforme Truth Social un post où il affirmait que le président ukrainien « peut mettre fin à la guerre avec la Russie presque immédiatement ». Mais cette possibilité était assortie d’une condition : Zelensky devait officiellement accepter la perte de la Crimée au profit de la Russie et renoncer à une future adhésion de son pays à l’Otan.

Post de Donad Trump sur Truth Social, le 18 août 2025, où il affirme que Zelensky peut rapidement mettre fin à la guerre, mais en renonçant à la Crimée (dont Trump attribue la perte à Barack Obama) et à la perspective d’une adhésion à l’Otan.

Cette idée ainsi que d’autres suggestions similaires relatives à des « échanges de territoires » entre la Russie et l’Ukraine ont déjà été catégoriquement rejetées par le président ukrainien.

Il est important de noter que la position de Kiev a été pleinement soutenue par les alliés européens de l’Ukraine. Les dirigeants de la « coalition des volontaires » avaient publié, dès le 16 août, une déclaration commune soulignant que « c’est à l’Ukraine qu’il appartiendra de prendre des décisions concernant son territoire ».

En revanche, leur déclaration était plus ambiguë en ce qui concerne l’adhésion à l’Otan. Sur ce sujet, les dirigeants européens ont, certes, affirmé que « la Russie ne peut avoir de droit de veto sur le chemin de l’Ukraine vers l’Union européenne et l’Otan » ; mais la coalition a aussi réaffirmé son engagement à « jouer un rôle actif » dans la garantie de la sécurité future de l’Ukraine, ce qui a ouvert la voie à Trump pour offrir à Kiev des « protections similaires à celles prévues par l’article 5 » du traité de l’Alliance atlantique contre toute future agression russe et de lui promettre « une aide considérable en matière de sécurité ». L’article 5 affirme qu’une attaque contre un membre est une attaque contre tous et engage l’alliance à assurer une défense collective.

Durant la rencontre télévisée entre Trump et ses visiteurs, organisée avant une autre réunion, à huis clos cette fois, il a été question d’un accord par lequel l’Ukraine accepterait certaines concessions territoriales en contrepartie de la paix et de garanties communes fournies par les États-Unis et les Européens. De différentes façons, chacun des invités européens a reconnu les efforts réalisés par Trump en vue d’un règlement et tous ont souligné l’importance d’une approche commune à l’égard de la Russie afin de garantir que tout accord aboutisse à une paix juste et durable.

Signe que ses invités n’étaient pas disposés à accepter sans broncher les termes de l’accord qu’il avait ramené de sa rencontre avec Poutine en Alaska, le président des États-Unis a alors interrompu la réunion pour appeler son homologue russe. Les signaux en provenance de Russie étaient loin d’être prometteurs, Moscou rejetant tout déploiement de troupes de l’Otan en Ukraine et accusant spécifiquement le Royaume-Uni de chercher à saper les efforts de paix mis en œuvre par les États-Unis et par la Russie.

La paix reste difficile à atteindre

À l’issue de la réunion, lorsque les différents dirigeants ont présenté leurs interprétations respectives de ce qui avait été convenu, deux conclusions se sont imposées.

Premièrement, la partie ukrainienne n’a pas cédé à la pression des États-Unis et les dirigeants européens, tout en s’efforçant de flatter Trump, avaient également campé sur leurs positions. Il est important de noter que Trump ne s’était pas retiré du processus pour autant et semblait au contraire vouloir continuer d’y participer.

Deuxièmement, la Russie n’a pas cédé de terrain non plus. La prochaine étape devrait être une entrevue Poutine-Zelensky, mais le flou plane encore sur ce projet, aussi bien en ce qui concerne le lieu que la date. Cette rencontre devra être suivie, selon Trump, par une réunion à trois entre Zelensky, Poutine et lui-même.

Un processus de paix – si l’on peut l’appeler ainsi – est donc, en quelque sorte, à l’œuvre ; mais on est encore très loin d’un véritable accord de paix. Peu de choses ont été dites à la suite de la réunion à la Maison Blanche sur les questions territoriales. Les pressions à exercer sur la Russie n’ont été évoquées que brièvement dans les commentaires des dirigeants européens, dont l’ambition de s’impliquer officiellement dans les négociations de paix continue à ce stade de relever de la chimère. Et malgré l’optimisme initial concernant les garanties de sécurité, aucun engagement ferme n’a été pris, Zelensky se contentant de prendre note du « signal important envoyé par les États-Unis concernant leur volonté de soutenir et de participer à ces garanties ».

La paix en Ukraine reste donc, pour l’instant, hors de portée. Le seul succès tangible de la récente séquence politique est que le processus envisagé par Trump pour parvenir à un accord de paix n’a pas complètement échoué. Mais ce processus est extrêmement lent et, pendant ce temps, la machine de guerre russe déployée contre l’Ukraine continue de progresser.

En fin de compte, les discussions du 18 août n’ont pas changé grand-chose. Elles ont simplement confirmé que Poutine continue de gagner du temps, que Trump n’est pas disposé à exercer de réelles pressions sur lui et que l’Ukraine et l’Europe n’ont aucun moyen de pression efficace sur l’une ou l’autre des parties.

Trump a déclaré avec assurance avant sa réunion avec Zelensky et les dirigeants européens qu’il savait exactement ce qu’il faisait. C’est peut-être vrai, mais cela ne semble guère suffire à aboutir à une paix durable au vu de la posture inflexible de son homologue russe.

Stefan Wolff a reçu par le passé des financements du Conseil britannique de recherche sur l’environnement naturel, de l’Institut américain pour la paix, du Conseil britannique de recherche économique et sociale, de la British Academy, du programme « Science pour la paix » de l’OTAN, des programmes-cadres 6 et 7 de l’UE et Horizon 2020, ainsi que du programme Jean Monnet de l’UE. Il est administrateur et trésorier honoraire de l’Association britannique d’études politiques et chercheur senior au Foreign Policy Centre de Londres.

– ref. Derrière l’unité transatlantique affichée à la Maison Blanche, l’absence de progrès vers une paix juste en Ukraine – https://theconversation.com/derriere-lunite-transatlantique-affichee-a-la-maison-blanche-labsence-de-progres-vers-une-paix-juste-en-ukraine-263551