On 5 March 1946, Winston Churchill delivered a speech in which he said, “I do not think that Soviet Russia desires war; what it desires are the fruits of its power as well as of its doctrines. Our difficulties and dangers will not disappear if we turn a blind eye, if we wait to see what happens, or if we practise a policy of appeasement.” These reflections from another time are strikingly relevant today. The Kremlin wants to become once again the feared power it was in the past by reasserting its rights to lands it considers ancestral. Faced with the rise of these dangers, it is imperative to have clear ideas about the state of the threat, the adversary’s modes of action, our interpretation biases and our level of preparedness. There is also a much more pernicious danger to be feared: that of the alteration of democratic systems, as artificial intelligence will allow targeting with rare precision and the manipulation of information with unsuspected sophistication. For Ukraine, it is a war of national liberation, a struggle for the survival of the state and a fight for freedom, since the Russian president denies the existence of the Ukrainian nation. The war has forged a new Ukraine, tested, exhausted but united and resolute. The Kremlin is using the war in Ukraine to stage its confrontation with Western countries and accentuate the divisions in the world. What is certain is that the current confrontation is not only about the survival of Ukraine and the security of Europe, but also about the sustainability of liberal democracy, which is now under attack from all sides. Faced with a danger that is certainly imprecise but blatant, dealing with the most pressing issue is a necessity; imagining the worst is a categorical imperative. Without this effort of imagination and a surge of willpower, there is a great risk of being caught off guard. Because Russia is actively preparing for the possibility of the war spreading across Europe. Several indicators show that Russia is preparing for a prolonged war: The defence budget, which represents 38% of Russia’s budget, shows that the Kremlin’s priority is to continue the war. It is rearming at full speed while organising itself to improve its supplies and armaments: it manufactures 300 tanks per year – France, which is the best equipped, has 215 Leclerc tanks. Russia is increasing the size of its army: 600,000 soldiers compared to 150,000 before the war in Ukraine. Lifting the sanctions would give the Russian economy a breath of fresh air. A militarist regime feeds on war; there are many actions that are already affecting Europe and France in particular, there are also attacks on the integrity of public debate aimed at influencing general opinion, and above all there are attacks on national cohesion. Europe must prepare for a long-term confrontation where anything goes. Céline Marangé is a researcher on Russia, Ukraine and Belarus at the Strategic Research Institute of the École Militaire, and an associate member of the Research Centre inSlavic History (Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne) Reading summary prepared by Michel Gabet

Sociologist Marlène Benquet’s work, the result of ten years of research, aims to define how a “second finance” is constructed—a novel mode of capital accumulation by financial actors fully aware of their “value,” but with political consequences that favor the development of a libertarian-type regime through authoritarian capitalism. One of the main characteristics of this second finance is its detachment from the market driven by traditional financial actors, who collect savings, such as banks, insurance companies, pension funds, and household savings. In short, the market considered as the only way to invest in listed companies. Second-tier finance develops outside the market but without truly severing ties with it, through over-the-counter transactions. This allows it to be less regulated while retaining considerable freedom to invest in unlisted assets. Consequently, it enables the transformation of assets previously considered ineligible (real estate, unlisted companies, infrastructure, derivative financial products, pension funds) into assets. Second-tier finance develops outside of traditional markets. Its purpose is therefore not to promote competition. It encourages privatization in order to seize control of certain sectors, such as healthcare. The accelerated concentration of clinics since the early 2000s is a clear example. Marlène Benquet also points out that numerous examples support this argument, citing a window of opportunity created by the Commission for the Liberation of Growth (2008), which specifically encouraged third-party investors to acquire stakes in pharmacies: “A Health Europe Directive, driven by the European Union, which also encouraged third-party investment, particularly from financial players, in pharmacy capital, has created assets in the healthcare sector that previously escaped financialization. These assets have become highly profitable and are guaranteed by the State, since payment, pricing, usage, and profits are all guaranteed by the national health insurance system.” The workings of this mechanism are perfectly adjusted. Continuing the demonstration leads to an inescapable conclusion: (1) no competition, (2) a quasi-rent-seeking situation, (3) a level of service guaranteed by the State. Zero risk, maximum profit. The book is based on genuine fieldwork conducted using an indisputable research methodology (some sixty interviews with financial players, who were “more accessible than expected,” and access to archival material comprising 2,600 documents). This on-site , in-vivo observation of financial players in their daily lives is transcribed in a rich verbatim style from the very first chapters. The conclusion—which appears to be the author’s true motivation—reveals a kind of unwritten strategy employed by this secondary financial sector, paving the way (or perhaps even providing a mediated platform?) for an authoritarian libertarian ideology widely shared abroad and in France. The actors (agents of normalization), described as conservatives, are explicitly mentioned by the author when establishing a link between these “extreme” political alternatives and their economic influence. Sociologist Marlène Benquet is a research director at the CNRS and a member of the Interdisciplinary Research Institute in Social Sciences (IRISSO). Her work focuses on mass retail and the world of international finance. Alain BRUNET

The Fifth Republic is based on a simple fact: whoever holds the majority holds power. Yet this majority has become elusive. Power has left the Élysée Palace, is not in the National Assembly, and no longer resides in the government. The aim of this book is to understand how a system that has long functioned on the basis of a clear majority becomes unstable when that majority disappears. Benjamin Morel begins by examining the reasons why we have shifted from a stable two-party system to a dysfunctional three-party system. He then analyzes the effects of this shift on the political system: the temptation to expand the powers of the head of state by overinterpreting the Constitution, the proliferation of expedients to govern regardless (maintaining a resigned government, executive orders…), all of which are precedents whose accumulation paves the way for an illiberal drift. The book presents the following themes: tripolarization, an unstable legislature, escaping the trap of instability, a regime in a fragile balance, and governing nonetheless under a Constitution designed to ward off instability while remaining vulnerable to illiberal abuses. The book’s conclusion is tinged with a certain optimism: the one who defines the crisis is also the one who provides solutions, provided we do not allow ourselves to be misled by false prophets. Changing the electoral system is not an end in itself. Parliament must be better equipped to enable it to ensure the co-construction of legislation between Parliament and the government. The functioning of a regime is not a metaphysical property of the norm; it is a property of the society that receives it. The state functions like public services. A government can lose its political legitimacy when it can no longer translate election results into consent: To govern despite this is to govern in spite of it!  What holds a legal order together is everyone’s conviction that it is in their interest to respect it and play by the rules. Some say it would be easy to solve the problem. A new Constitution would cure our ills. A new election would sweep away our worries. What is causing the crisis is the overall mismatch between the election and the expectations surrounding it. These expectations are divided into three camps, yet they all expect one of them to govern with the absolute powers of a majority bloc. All eyes remain fixed on the presidential election, even as the electoral landscape makes the return of a Jupiter unlikely. Faced with this paradox, which every citizen carries within them, the solutions lie not in the texts but in the minds! Dominique Chesneau

The encyclical, which “does not offer an analysis of AI because it is not possible to provide a single, comprehensive definition of it,” focuses on human dignity and moral responsibility in the face of emerging technologies. It follows in the footsteps of Leo XIII, who presented the social doctrine of the Church and emphasized that the pursuit of profit cannot be the be-all and end-all of human society. The Pope explains two reasons why the book is not technical: any statement about AI risks quickly becoming obsolete given the speed at which these systems evolve; and all of us, including those who design them, know little about how they actually work! Furthermore, the book does not make alarmist claims such as that AI would lead to mass layoffs and a widespread dumbing down of the population (“do not be afraid”), but, drawing on the work of numerous working groups cited in the book, it argues that good will come from this revolution, provided that this good is not monopolized by a tiny minority because “a large part of this technology falls under the common good.” In seeking to establish humanistic principles for the development and use of AI, the goal is not to create restrictive regulations that would stifle innovation, but rather to incorporate ethical and moral considerations into the design of models and the selection of training data. And according to Ricoeur and Levinas, the essence of ethics lies in respecting the other by seeing oneself in the gaze of one’s counterpart, beyond laws and rules. A few chapters—the 3rd and 4th deserve special attention among: (1) The evolution of the Church’s social doctrine and its role as a “theology of communion” throughout history, (2) The foundations and principles of social doctrine, including human dignity, the common good, the universal destination of goods, subsidiarity, solidarity, and social justice, (3) Analysis of the risks associated with artificial intelligence, the concentration of technologies, and the need for a common code of ethics, (4) Preserving the human dimension in the digital transformation, valuing work, education, and freedom in the face of commodification, (5) Building a “civilization of love” in the digital age, promoting peace, dialogue, and multilateralism. We will recall the five principles of the Catholic Church’s social doctrine, which have been presented by past and present economists and elaborated upon in the first two chapters: the principle of the common good (developed by Jean Tirole in his seminal work), the principle of the universal destination of goods (mentioned by 18th-century moralists), the principle of subsidiarity (in management literature, the term “subsidiarity” and the difficulty of its implementation are discussed in France-Lanord and Vannier 2014; Verrier and Bourgeois 2016, 27); the principle of solidarity and the principle of social justice. To illustrate the relevance of the topics discussed, let us cite a few illustrative excerpts from the book: let us avoid the pretension of a single language capable of translating everything into data and performance metrics, even the mystery of the person; entrusting, in practice, to an algorithm the power to select who deserves what, without anyone bearing the weight of the decision, amounts to entrusting it with the task of redefining the limits of human possibilities; data ownership must be regulated and managed as a common good ( !); developers bear an ethical responsibility because every design choice expresses a vision of humanity These concerns and humanistic recommendations are echoed by Anthropic, which cannot predict whether the phenomenon of AI misalignment (when an artificial intelligence pursues goals that conflict with human values or do not truly correspond to what humans have asked of it, Ed.) will ever be fully resolved. Anthropic continues in a text published by its think tank, the Anthropic Institute: “We believe it would be good for the world to have the option to slow down or temporarily suspend the development of advanced AI, in order to allow societal structures and alignment research to keep pace with technological progress.” This nearly 200-page letter, dedicated to “the protection of the human person in the age of artificial intelligence,” resonates far beyond Catholic circles and “constitutes a political and humanist manifesto of unprecedented scope.” Dominique Chesneau

The authors trace the genealogy of the concept of “scarcity” of natural resources. They distinguish between Neo-Aristotelian, utopian, Malthusian, romantic, socialist and planetary scarcities. They criticise the capitalist and liberal system that has developed since the First Industrial Revolution and advocate rethinking the “relationship between nature and the economy”, which has gone through several periods since the origin of humanity. This relationship begins with the “cornucopian” approach, marked by the illusion that nature will eternally provide for all of man’s needs (despite food shortages and famines). This approach is opposed to the “finitist thesis”, according to which the world’s population must moderate its consumption by becoming aware of the gradual and inevitable extinction of natural resources. Globalisation is putting increasing pressure on natural resources and biodiversity. Is 21st-century man capable of stopping the reduction of his ecological footprint?  This approach has gradually extended to multiple resources: metals and rare earths, arable land, endangered species, etc. During the classical age, the physiocrats hoped for a “great restoration” made possible by the “rational exploitation of the land”; they were certain that “man would decipher the source code of nature”. From the Age of Enlightenment onwards, philosophers believed that “technical reason” would dominate the “naturalist ideal”, and in the 19th century, the engineers of the Industrial Revolution advocated the division of labour and free trade. Economists were confident that, in order to avoid degrading their environment, households would adapt their consumption patterns and that companies would create new processes and products that were economical in terms of energy and non-recyclable by-products.  Man was then considered a homo faber capable of “sculpting the world in his image”. But it was not until the 1970s that governments became fully aware of the challenges of preserving the environment and the need to establish a “sustainable and people-friendly economy” that meets the real needs of the population. The authors then recall the criticisms of modern consumerism and environmental degradation that were formulated by the Vatican in its encyclical Laudato si and by the various environmental movements. In particular, they analyse the effects of carbon emissions, ocean acidification, damage to biodiversity, etc. The phenomenon seems all the more worrying to them because 20 th -century man is unable to measure and correct the long-term effects of his activities. They share certain principles advocated by radical environmental movements, in favour of self-sufficiency and economic degrowth. They support the theory of Kahneman (Nobel Prize winner in Economics) according to which, due to a “negativity bias”, the pessimistic forecasts of the Club of Rome or the IPCC are generally viewed with disbelief or scepticism by the majority of the population.   The book testifies to the scholarship, persuasiveness and activist experience of its authors; it sheds light on the dilemma of the choice between a sustainable economy and a sustainable natural environment, without being able to resolve it. Frederik ALBRITTON JONSSON is a professor at the University of Chicago and Carl WENNERLIND is a historian specialising in modern Europe.

The blockade of the Strait of Hormuz brings us face to face with our dependence on fossil fuels and especially on oil. The energy transition is now facing a conflict where the stoppage of the supply of oil and gas is disrupting the world’s economies. The occupant of the White House, as a staunch defender of coal and the “liquid gold” of oil and gas, is blowing hot and cold on the markets to the detriment of the user, who sees their fuel bill skyrocket. Published last October, Cédric Philibert’s essay addresses the energy transition and renewable energies from an optimistic perspective. The solutions for a decarbonised world are there, and it is urgent to continue the transition that has begun. The author challenges a number of preconceived ideas through numerous quantified arguments. He sets the record straight in a polarised debate between climate sceptics and proponents of degrowth. In this essay, he demonstrates that resources such as solar or wind power are sufficient and abundant to achieve the transition. Having these energies available at a moderate cost will make it possible to move towards other possibilities, such as heating ores to several hundred degrees in order to accelerate hydrometallurgical processes, applicable to copper and rare earths, among others. One of the main levers for achieving carbon neutrality concerns the energy efficiency of vehicles. The author even claims that electric cars are good for the climate. Indeed, with the exponential development of renewable energies, electric vehicles will benefit from increasingly low-carbon electricity during their manufacture and lifetime. In addition, he also demonstrates that it is possible to achieve this transition without having harmful consequences for biodiversity. He believes that the energy transition as a whole does not have a significant impact on the rate of artificialisation. The development of agrivoltaics is a real opportunity to achieve the goal of decarbonising energy and has more impact than producing biofuels. As a solution, the author gives pride of place to moderation. To move towards net-zero emissions, it is necessary to divide net emissions of CO2, methane and nitrous oxide by 8 or 10. Nevertheless, we must remain vigilant about the “rebound effect”. Studies have shown that investments in the thermal renovation of buildings do not lead to a significant decrease in the energy consumption of buildings; since they are better insulated, the owners focus on their comfort.   A book to recommend to all readers who are keen on the issues of the energy transition and who want an objective view from an energy and climate expert. Cédric PHILIBERT is an independent consultant and senior analystin the field of energy and climate. He is also an associate researcher atthe French Institute of International Relations (Ifri). He advised theDirector General of the French Environment and Energy Management Agency(ADEME), before joining the United Nations Environment Programme(UNEP), then the IEA until 2019. Sophie FRIOT