Quiz Carriera diplomatica, 50 posti Segretario di legislazione in prova.

Read the text and answer the questions.
"Most of us have been on the receiving end of an inspirational speech. Usually it is delivered by a former Olympian at a company conference and is all about the big M: motivation. It is sometimes eloquently delivered and often fun to listen to but most people leave the room wondering how thirty minutes of biographical information about a rowing champion is going to help them back in the office. Nobody would dispute that motivation is a key driver of performance but this knowledge does not help many of us understand where it comes from. Listening to a sportsperson speaking about their own personal journey may be uplifting but how is it going to leave a lasting and usable legacy in terms of how you approach your job? It is almost insulting to think it could. It is not anecdotes we need, so much as a science of performance, underlying principles that help unlock the question of why some people work hard and excel while others don't; why some are committed to what they are doing while others exist in a state of semi-detachment. It is a question with ramifications not just for business but for education. And, fortunately, the answers are beginning to emerge. To see how, we need to take a step back and ask a deeper question: where does excellence come from? For a long time, it was thought that the answer hinged, in large part, upon talent. Hard work may be important but if you don't have the ability, you are never going to become top class. It is the notion that high-level performers have excellence encoded in their DNA. It turns out that this point of view is mistaken. Dozens of studies have found that high-flyers across all disciplines learn no faster than those who reach lower levels of attainment [1] - hour after hour, they improve at almost identical rates. The difference is simply that high achievers practise for more hours. Further research has shown that when students seem to possess a particular gift, it is often because they have been given extra tuition at home. The question of talent versus practice/experience would not matter much if it was merely theoretical. But it is much more than that. It influences the way we think and feel, and the way we engage with our world. And it determines our motivation. To see how, consider an employee who believes success is all about talent - this is known as the 'fixed mindset [2]'. Why would they bother to work hard? If they have the right genes, won't they just cruise to the top? And if they lack talent, well, why bother at all? And who can blame someone for having this kind of attitude, given the underlying premise? If, on the other hand, they really believe that practice trumps talent - the 'growth mindset' – they will persevere. They will see failure as an opportunity to adapt and grow. And if they are right, they will eventually excel. What we decide about the nature of talent, then, could scarcely be more important. So, how to create a growth mindset within an organisation? Interventions which have presented participants with the powerful evidence of how excellence derived from perseverance – which explains the possibility of personal transformation - have had a dramatic impact on motivation and performance. When this is allied with clearly identifiable pathways from shop floor to top floor, so that employees can see the route ahead, these results are strengthened further. Businesses that focus on recruiting external 'talent' with 'the right stuff' on the other hand, and who neglect the cultivation of existing personnel, foster the fixed mindset. A rank-and-yank appraisal system is also damaging because it suggests that the abilities of those ranked the lowest cannot be developed. In short, an ethos constructed upon the potential for personal transformation is the underlying psychological principle driving high performance. It is an insight that is not merely deeply relevant to business but to any organisation interested in unlocking human potential". ("Secret to success: practice, not talent", www.theguardian.com).

Read the text and answer the questions.
HOW TERRITORIAL ISSUES COULD IMPACT SECURITY GUARANTEES TO UKRAINE.
External guarantors, according to the chief negotiator of the Ukranian delegation, would hold consultations "within three days of the start of war, aggression, military operation, any hybrid and disguised [1] , war against Ukraine." They would then be "legally obliged to provide military assistance" to Ukraine "in the form of armaments and closure of the skies." The proposal identified the United States, Great Britain, France, China, Russia, Turkey, Germany, Canada, Italy, Poland and Israel as possible guarantors, leaving open the possibility that other states could be added. The Ukrainian government is negotiating with these potential guarantors bilaterally. A final peace agreement would be subject to a national referendum in Ukraine, while would-be guarantors would require approval from their national parliaments to grant Ukraine security guarantees. In the early period of negotiations, the Ukrainian and Russian positions on some of the major issues at stake [2]were far apart. Since then, negotiations have all but stalled, and may remain so given reports of Russian atrocities against civilians. Although the possibility of reaching a final agreement remains distant and uncertain, territorial issues will present a complex problem for potential guarantors moving forward.
Territory claimed by the two so-called "people's republics" in Ukraine's Donetsk and Luhansk regions (DNR and LNR, respectively); and the fluctuating Russian control of territory in Ukraine's north, east and south since its February 24 invasion. Currently, Russia is focusing its efforts in the south along the Black Sea and in east in the Donbas while slowing its operational tempo slightly in the north, but conditions on the battlefield change regularly.
The Ukrainian delegation has provided some insight into their thinking on the first two issues. Concerning Crimea, the proposal includes a 15-year Russia-Ukraine negotiation process on its status, which stipulates that neither side will resort to the use of force to change the status quo during that period. The status of the Donbas, meanwhile, would be subject to a future presidential-level discussion. At the same time, Ukrainian negotiators have insisted that their government continues to recognize Ukraine's 1991 border - a Ukraine that includes Crimea and the entirety of Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Although the Ukrainian negotiating team indicated that the sides might agree to disagree on the status of these territories - that is, neither side would accept the other's claims in Crimea or the Donbas - this is a gray area that presents a potential issue for any external guarantors: Would security guarantees cover Crimea and both breakaway regions in the Donbas? The Ukrainian delegation indicated that Crimea would not fall under this provision during the proposed bilateral negotiation period, so security guarantees would not extend to the peninsula for the time being.
The "people's republics" in Donetsk and Luhansk, however, present a thornier [5] problem for any security guarantees to Ukraine. Just before the invasion, Russia recognized the independence of both regions and signed treaties [3] of "friendship and mutual assistance" with each. This recognition included the entirety of both statelets' territorial claims, which extend to all of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts (instead of just the approximately one-third of each region that the DNR and LNR controlled before the invasion). The Russian military's stated goal in the so-called second phase of its military operation is "the liberation of the Donbas." At a minimum, this objective suggests that it will seek to consolidate its hold on the DNR and LNR and surrounding territory in the near term. Thus [5], it remains unclear whether an external security guarantee would include only a part of Donetsk and Luhansk regions, or if those regions would be left out entirely.
The Ukrainian delegation has indicated that the pre-invasion occupied portions of Donetsk and Luhansk would be exempt from security guarantees, like Crimea. But given that Russia supports full DNR and LNR control of Donetsk and Luhansk, how should a potential security guarantor assess providing assurances in this situation? Any potential guarantor must carefully consider what outcome it is willing to accept and communicate that to the Ukrainian negotiating team, as the security guarantee provision is central to Ukraine's proposal.

Read the text and answer the questions.
HOW TERRITORIAL ISSUES COULD IMPACT SECURITY GUARANTEES TO UKRAINE.
External guarantors, according to the chief negotiator of the Ukranian delegation, would hold consultations "within three days of the start of war, aggression, military operation, any hybrid and disguised [1] , war against Ukraine." They would then be "legally obliged to provide military assistance" to Ukraine "in the form of armaments and closure of the skies." The proposal identified the United States, Great Britain, France, China, Russia, Turkey, Germany, Canada, Italy, Poland and Israel as possible guarantors, leaving open the possibility that other states could be added. The Ukrainian government is negotiating with these potential guarantors bilaterally. A final peace agreement would be subject to a national referendum in Ukraine, while would-be guarantors would require approval from their national parliaments to grant Ukraine security guarantees. In the early period of negotiations, the Ukrainian and Russian positions on some of the major issues at stake [2]were far apart. Since then, negotiations have all but stalled, and may remain so given reports of Russian atrocities against civilians. Although the possibility of reaching a final agreement remains distant and uncertain, territorial issues will present a complex problem for potential guarantors moving forward.
Territory claimed by the two so-called "people's republics" in Ukraine's Donetsk and Luhansk regions (DNR and LNR, respectively); and the fluctuating Russian control of territory in Ukraine's north, east and south since its February 24 invasion. Currently, Russia is focusing its efforts in the south along the Black Sea and in east in the Donbas while slowing its operational tempo slightly in the north, but conditions on the battlefield change regularly.
The Ukrainian delegation has provided some insight into their thinking on the first two issues. Concerning Crimea, the proposal includes a 15-year Russia-Ukraine negotiation process on its status, which stipulates that neither side will resort to the use of force to change the status quo during that period. The status of the Donbas, meanwhile, would be subject to a future presidential-level discussion. At the same time, Ukrainian negotiators have insisted that their government continues to recognize Ukraine's 1991 border - a Ukraine that includes Crimea and the entirety of Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Although the Ukrainian negotiating team indicated that the sides might agree to disagree on the status of these territories - that is, neither side would accept the other's claims in Crimea or the Donbas - this is a gray area that presents a potential issue for any external guarantors: Would security guarantees cover Crimea and both breakaway regions in the Donbas? The Ukrainian delegation indicated that Crimea would not fall under this provision during the proposed bilateral negotiation period, so security guarantees would not extend to the peninsula for the time being.
The "people's republics" in Donetsk and Luhansk, however, present a thornier [5] problem for any security guarantees to Ukraine. Just before the invasion, Russia recognized the independence of both regions and signed treaties [3] of "friendship and mutual assistance" with each. This recognition included the entirety of both statelets' territorial claims, which extend to all of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts (instead of just the approximately one-third of each region that the DNR and LNR controlled before the invasion). The Russian military's stated goal in the so-called second phase of its military operation is "the liberation of the Donbas." At a minimum, this objective suggests that it will seek to consolidate its hold on the DNR and LNR and surrounding territory in the near term. Thus [5], it remains unclear whether an external security guarantee would include only a part of Donetsk and Luhansk regions, or if those regions would be left out entirely.
The Ukrainian delegation has indicated that the pre-invasion occupied portions of Donetsk and Luhansk would be exempt from security guarantees, like Crimea. But given that Russia supports full DNR and LNR control of Donetsk and Luhansk, how should a potential security guarantor assess providing assurances in this situation? Any potential guarantor must carefully consider what outcome it is willing to accept and communicate that to the Ukrainian negotiating team, as the security guarantee provision is central to Ukraine's proposal.