Аналитика и комментарии

Albania’s ‘AI minister’ Diella is meant to assist citizens and help make public procurement decisions, thus curbing corruption. Albania is, like many Balkan countries, often considered part of the European periphery as a result of its historical position as a border between West and East, and of a wider perception of the region as politically backward in comparison to Western Europe. This arguably creates an incentive for the Albanian government to portray itself as advanced and progressive by adopting such emerging tech solutions as it seeks to fulfil the conditions of EU membership. Nonetheless, it is questionable whether this move will help Albania on its EU path if it does not implement certain legal and technical changes to better align with the EU’s vision of tech governance. Furthermore, there is domestic scepticism about the effectiveness of the tool, which can be seen through enduring citizen dissatisfaction with the government’s transparency level. This was most recently evidenced by protests against a government-supported resort development backed by Jared Kushner despite environmental risks. Finally, Diella’s design spotlights particular less-than-progressive domestic gender dynamics which may also hinder Albania’s EU advancement and progressive image. Diella’s avatar is a woman whose appearance visually references a traditional conception of femininity that can be considered somewhat restrictive. Moreover, Diella’s feminine form does not necessarily imply that it is an adequate representation of the interests of women, and may even obscure real issues they face, such as lacking representation or high rates of violence. This is further affirmed by the fact that the avatar was modelled after a real person, an actress who is claiming in court that she did not authorise this use of her image. Diella’s trajectory, so far, demonstrates that mere AI introduction does not in itself constitute progression without surrounding adaptation in other societal segments.

This article examines the environmental consequences of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine from 2022 to the present. Drawing on satellite data, Ukrainian monitoring platforms, and independent assessments it focuses on how the conflict has affected air, water, soil, biodiversity and environmental accountability. The paper argues that environmental damage is not simply a side effect of war, but a direct part of its humanitarian, public health and food security impacts. Particular attention is paid to industrial attacks, fuel infrastructure, landmines, burned areas, polluted river systems and the destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam. The analysis shows that much of the damage is concentrated where Ukraine was already most vulnerable. It discusses the difficulty of documenting environmental harm during an active war, where satellite data can reveal major patterns but field access, laboratory testing and long-term monitoring remain essential.