Issue #1 (Volume 5 2023-2024)

This paper examines the advantages and disadvantages of imposing sanctions on russian science, along with the measures enacted to penalize or restrict it. Proponents of sanctions argue that accountability is essential, and a tangible cost must be imposed for russia’s actions. Sanctions can serve as a signal to end war and aggression, weaken russia’s economic foundation, and exacerbate brain drain, potentially hindering the development of military technologies and reducing russia’s capacity to sustain its aggression. Furthermore, some russian academics openly support the war and should be held accountable for their stance. However, significant opposition to sanctions exists. A prevailing argument, often mirrored in fields like sports and culture, is that science should remain apolitical. Critics contend that sanctions disrupt the free exchange of ideas, penalize innocent individuals, and may harm global scientific progress and human development, given russia’s integral role in international research. Additionally, sanctions are often criticized as costly and inefficient. Despite these debates, a variety of restrictive measures targeting russian science have been implemented. These include funding cuts, suspension of collaborations, termination of joint projects, and exclusion of academics linked to the russian regime. Other measures involve companies closing R&D facilities in russia, restrictions on scientific equipment and reagents, boycotts of russian-organized conferences, and the suspension of international research partnerships. This study synthesizes the arguments for and against sanctions on russian science and provides an analytical discussion to shape a nuanced perspective on this complex issue.

The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has triggered profound economic and energy-related consequences, reshaped global priorities, and exposed systemic vulnerabilities. The current study aimed to examine pre- and post-invasion trends in key economic and energy indicators for a diverse set of countries: Ukraine and Russia as directly involved parties; the European Union, the United States, and the United Kingdom as supporters of Ukraine; and China, India, and Türkiye as neutral actors maintaining economic ties with Russia. Using structural time series analysis over the period 2000–2023, the analysis maps economic booms and busts by identifying cycle deviations through a Hodrick-Prescott filter. The findings reveal significant variations in the conflict’s impact, highlighting disruptions in GDP growth, energy systems, and trade dynamics across regions. The study underscores how the war has accelerated energy transitions, redefined global economic resilience, and reshaped international economic and political relationships.

This study examines the complexities of researching Ukraine’s occupied territories, where silence often acts as both a defense mechanism and a barrier to understanding. It addresses the causes of informational isolation, including censorship, fear of repression, and restricted access to independent sources. The paper highlights the methodological and ethical challenges researchers face, particularly in working with sensitive data and engaging with vulnerable populations. The roles of universities, citizen science, media, and NGOs are explored as crucial avenues for gathering fragmented but vital information and fostering a broader understanding of life under occupation. Emphasis is placed on integrating FAIR principles (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, Reusability) with CARE principles (Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, Ethics) to ensure data are both responsibly managed and ethically used. Combining analytical rigor with reflective narratives, this study advocates for interdisciplinary approaches and strategic collaborations that transcend academic boundaries. These efforts are vital for post-war recovery, reintegration, and developing socially inclusive and sustainable strategies that address the human realities of occupation.

The war in Ukraine has caused profound transformations in the dynamics of the Romanian real estate market, reflecting the impact of a complex combination of economic and financial, demographic and socio-cultural, as well as political and legal factors. In this context, the objective of the study is to analyze the impact of the war in Ukraine on the real estate market in Romania by assessing the influence of determinants to identify measures to support the stability and development of the real estate market within geopolitical crises. Subsequently, based on statistical analysis methods, the econometric model was developed considering as dependent variables the real estate market (measured by average price for housing) and independent variables – the number of Ukrainian migrants, interest rate on mortgage loans, GDP per capita, and inflation rate. The research results reveal that Ukrainian migration has a significant positive impact on the real estate market, leading to price increases for housing in urban areas and increased demand for rental housing. In addition, mortgage interest rates show a significant negative impact, suggesting that lower affordability of financing limits purchases of real estate. Moreover, GDP growth per capita is positively correlated with price dynamics in the real estate market, confirming that a prosperous economy stimulates investments in real estate. Findings provide valuable insights into understanding how geopolitical and economic factors interact to influence the real estate market.

In recent years, Ukraine has faced two major crises: the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s military invasion of Ukraine. Digitalization allowed the extension of financial inclusiveness for the recipients and building financial resilience through remittances. They became one of the most important sources of survival for vulnerable populations. The aim of the paper is to examine how remittances can help Ukraine during the crises. The main research methods are descriptive statistical analyses to examine remittance trends and patterns. The data were taken from the open sources of the National Bank of Ukraine, Statista, the European Commission, Migration Data Portal, World Bank, and CoinLaw. The results showed that the share of informal remittance channels, although present, tends to decrease compared with the official ones. Poland is the main supplier of money in Ukraine. The average transaction value has also decreased from USD 3,540 thousand in 2017 to USD 1,750 thousand by 2024, which is due to the increase in the number of platforms that allow small transfers. It also pushed the increasing numbers of users of digital remittance platforms from 1,500 thousand in 2019 to 2,700 thousand in 2024. It confirmed that remittances for Ukrainians during crises are one of the sources for survival and potentially for recovery. The study can be useful during the development of different programs of livelihood support and recovery of Ukraine by engaging the Ukrainian diaspora.