Francis Fukuyama’s “end of history,” prophesied in the final stretch of the twentieth century, now seems to have reversed itself — by a paradoxical twist of fate — into its very opposite. We feel surrounded by unrelenting conflicts, a sensation compounded by a “globalized” world that delivers news in real time and appears to erase every distance, physical and psychological alike. Our era exists in a permanent state of crisis — whether economic, social, political, strategic, military, or humanitarian in nature.
This tendency has intensified in what appears to be a near-paroxysmal fashion across the 2020s, a decade that opened with the Covid-19 pandemic, continued with the devastating conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, and has been marked by the resurgence of strongly nationalist policies in the United States and several European countries, alongside a growing sense of the progressive “weakness” of democratic and representative institutions in the face of authoritarian regimes.
Our publication does not seek to add yet another voice to the relentless torrent of information that hammers these issues — faithfully pursuing the news cycle in the spirit of that “permanent crisis” I mentioned. That would serve little purpose. Instead, we aim to help our readers understand, through a reflective and well-documented approach that nonetheless remains accessible to non-specialists, what happens once the spotlight of current events switches off — or rather, shifts elsewhere, drawn toward a new emergency. What is Syria’s situation, one year after the fall of Assad’s regime and the seizure of power by a man with a jihadist past? What has happened in Afghanistan since Western forces withdrew and left the revived Taliban regime free to operate? What unfolds in Eastern European countries when the winning candidate is seen as pro-European — or, conversely, aligned with Putin’s Russia? What happens around the world when the media moves on, and with it our attention, inevitably captured by the next crisis?
This is our purpose: to shed some light where, at least from the standpoint of the traditional media, the shadow has fallen. We intend to do so guided by two principles — respect for the facts on one hand (this is not a place for propaganda of any creed or colour), and the broadest possible plurality of opinions and perspectives on the other. With the obvious exception of positions that are, as Popper’s paradox would put it, “intolerable” — such as those promoting racism, violence, or discrimination — our publication will also make room for “heterodox” readings of the geopolitical situations shaping our world. Trusting in the freedom of judgement, debate, and, where appropriate, rebuttal: among the most precious freedoms we still have.
