NATO Confirms Assassination Plot on CEO of German Defence Firm Rheinmetall

Ina Fassbender/AFP via Getty Images

On January 28, 2025, NATO Deputy Assistant Secretary-General James Appathurai confirmed that Russian operatives plotted to assassinate Armin Papperger, CEO of German defence firm Rheinmetall. This revelation was made during a European Parliament committee meeting on hybrid warfare, where Apparthurai detailed Moscow’s ongoing covert operations targeting Western defence infrastructure. The plot against Papperger was part of a broader campaign of sabotage and political destabilisation across NATO member states. Rheinmetall and Russia have declined to comment on the confirmation.

NATO officials have linked the assassination attempt to a series of recent Russian hybrid attacks, including arson, train derailments, and acts of political intimidation across Europe. Rheinmetall, Germany’s largest arms manufacturer, is a likely focus of Russian espionage and sabotage efforts against European defence, especially as the company announced plans to ramp up production by building a tank factory in Ukraine.

NATO’s confirmation of the assassination plot emphasises the escalating hybrid warfare tactics used by Russia, reflecting Moscow’s belief that they are at war with the entire West. Western intelligence agencies have expressed alarm over the increased danger of Russian activities. These “grey zone” attacks aim to spread chaos among Ukraine’s partners, disrupt military supplies to Kyiv, and widen societal divisions.

Ultimately, this development highlights the need for NATO and its allies to strengthen their defences against hybrid threats and other similar covert operations. Through its use of hybrid tactics, Russia is able to harm the alliance without triggering Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty, which states that an armed attack on one state is an attack on all NATO states. In this case, Russia’s attack on important public figures illustrates that their efforts to destabilize NATO states aren’t limited to political attacks. As the United States and Russia discuss an end to the war in Ukraine, it remains to be seen how Russia interacts with their Western neighbors. Looking to the days ahead, the alliance is expected to agree on a strategy for tackling the hybrid threats by the summer, with the hopes of deterring further acts of sabotage and protecting key industry leaders essential to Europe’s security infrastructure. Given Trump’s shift away from the alliance, however, we could expect a sooner response, especially if Russia continues to escalate their attacks.

Filipina Vice President Sara Duterte Awaits Senate Trial Following House Impeachment

Vice President Sara Duterte speaking at a Manila press conference on February 7, 2025 Basilio Sepe, AP Photo

On February 5, the Philippine House of Representatives voted to impeach Vice President Sara Duterte. The vote was raised over complaints of alleged corruption involving the misuse of public funds and failure to declare wealth as required by law, alongside plotting the assassination of President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos. At a news conference on November 23, the Vice President claimed she contracted an assassin to kill Marcos, his wife, and the Speaker of the House Martin Romualdez. Later, she contended the comment was not a threat, instead an expression of worry for her own safety. Concerns regarding the VP’s lack of assertiveness towards China, citing her failure to denounce Xi Jinping’s behavior challenging Philippine presence in the South China Seas, added to those raised in the vote. Duterte has denied all accusations. 

Exceeding the one-third minimum for an impeachment, with 215 of the 306 members in favor, the vote will proceed to the Senate. The impeachment claim is set to be addressed in June, when Congress resumes following the May midterm elections. Given that 12 of the 24 Senate seats are up for re-election, and 16 votes are needed to convict, the midterms are imperative in deciding the outcome of the impeachment trial. 

If convicted, Duterte would be ousted from her current position and barred from future entry into public office, squandering tentative plans for presidential candidacy in the 2028 election. The impeachment, if passed, would mark the first of a Vice President in the Philippines. In this instance, Marcos would nominate a member of Congress as a successor. The newly-appointed senators are among the potential candidates. 

The impeachment case is the latest manifestation of the feud between Marcos and Duterte. Since landslide victories in 2022, the “UniTeam” has experienced rifts over diverging anti-drug agendas and foreign policy. Duterte’s absence of defiance against China’s aggression in the SCS has created tension with Marcos’s continued efforts to strengthen U.S.-Philippine relations. With speculation swirling around the VP’s intentions to run for President following Marcos’s term, the impeachment trial holds the potential to not only shape the outcome of the 2028 presidential elections but the direction of the country’s relationships with the U.S. and China. 

The House decision comes amid an ongoing International Criminal Court (ICC) investigation into the mass extrajudicial killings that occurred under the “War on Drugs” launched in 2016 by the VP’s father and former President, Rodrigo Duterte. The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights estimates that over 8,000 people have been killed under the banner of the campaign. On the claim that the case violates principles of non-intervention and sovereignty, Rodrigo Duterte issued the withdrawal of Philippine membership from the ICC’s Rome Statute. The Philippines officially withdrew in March 2019, making it the second to rescind membership following Burundi in 2017. Retaining the assertion that the case threatens sovereignty, Marcos stated that “the Philippine government will not lift a finger to help any investigation that the ICC conducts.” Given the lack of cooperation exhibited by the government and the court’s means of enforcement, the violence is likely to persist as the campaign, though toned down, carries on. Human rights groups are concerned that the VP may intensify the campaign, if given the opportunity. The impeachment trial, granting or denying Duterte’s ability to maintain and run for office, may be critical in determining how the crisis unfolds.

A New Lebanese Cabinet Has Filled a Years-Long Political Vacuum

A handout picture released by the Lebanese presidency shows Lebanon's newly formed cabinet, led by Prime Minister Nawaf Salam (center-right), posing for a group photo,along with President Joseph Aoun (center), Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri (center-left) and cabinet members at the presidential palace, on February 11, 2025. (Lebanese Presidency / AFP)

Since the start of 2025, the government of Lebanon has undergone a significant political shift away from Hezbollah. Within the first two months of the year, Lebanon has appointed a president, ousted the Hezbollah-backed prime minister, and established the first full cabinet in over two years. The president’s appointment marks the end of a parliamentary deadlock that started in October 2022, while the new cabinet is the first one since 2008 that Hezbollah’s party does not have a majority in. 

This new government is the latest in a series of political developments in Lebanon that indicate a shift in power away from Hezbollah. On January 9, after two rounds of parliamentary voting and robust U.S. and Saudi support, Joseph Aoun was elected to the Lebanese presidency, ending a years-long presidential vacuum. In addition to being close to Washington and Riyadh, Aoun has been vocal about his displeasure with the way the Hezbollah-backed caretaker cabinet handled the Lebanese economic crisis. 

Aoun’s election is not the only political blow Hezbollah has taken recently. On the 13th of January, two-thirds of the Lebanese Parliament voted to elect former ICJ president Nawaf Salam as Prime Minister. This further weakened Hezbollah’s influence in the state, as Salam’s appointment replaced Hezbollah-backed Prime Minister Najib Mikati. 

The new Lebanese cabinet follows this trend. On February 8, after three weeks of political negotiations between Lebanon’s rival political parties, Aoun announced he had accepted the resignation of the caretaker cabinet and signed a decree with Salam forming a new cabinet. When addressing the press, Salam said that the twenty-four member cabinet would focus on reconstruction, ending Lebanon’s six-year-long economic crisis, and implementing UN Resolution 1701. The resolution, commonly called the “linchpin of peace” in the region, calls for a Hezbollah-Israel ceasefire, the disarmament of Hezbollah, and the creation of the Blue Line–a “line of withdrawal” operated by ten thousand UN peacekeepers. Salam also said that the new cabinet would prioritize the enforcement of a 2024 ceasefire deal that aims to end the conflict between Hezbollah and Israel on Lebanon’s southern border by the 18th of February.

These political developments do not mean that Hezbollah has been completely expelled from Lebanon’s government. In fact, during the three-week negotiation process, Hezbollah engaged in negotiations with Salam over who would hold the Shi’ite Muslim seats in the cabinet. At the end of negotiations, Hezbollah’s political ally, the Amal movement—led by Speaker of the Parliament Nabih Berri—was able to choose four of the cabinet members, including the new minister of finance, and give its approval for a fifth. 

While this influence was enough for the U.S. Deputy Special Envoy for the Middle East to speak out against Hezbollah's role in the cabinet, the group’s influence has still significantly diminished. Most decisions in the Lebanese cabinet need a two-thirds majority to pass, and Hezbollah does not occupy the necessary number of seats to have a “blocking third”—meaning a third plus one—in the cabinet. The lack of a blocking third means that Aoun, Salam, and Lebanon’s cabinet will be able to pass legislation without Hezbollah’s support. 

The past sixteen months have greatly weakened Hezbollah's strength. From Israeli warfare killing their top officials, to the overthrow of Assad’s regime in Syria, and now with the recent political losses, the group’s regional presence is on the retreat. Hezbollah’s influence in the region is still present,but with a new Lebanese cabinet focused on reform and building stability, the group may face increasing difficulty as they try to re-establish their control.

Trump’s Decision to Invite Zemmour

French far-right pundit Éric Zemmour - Stefano Rellandini, AFP

When creating the guest list for his inauguration, American president Donald Trump carefully chose which international attendees he wanted there. So when far-right politician Éric Zemmour arrived from France, instead of President Emmanuel Macron, or his counterpart Marine Le Pen—who has lost to Macron in the past two presidential elections—it may indicate a change of pace in US-Franco relations for the next few years. 

Tensions between Trump and Le Pen are not a new phenomenon. In January 2017, Le Pen waited hours to see Trump at his New York City hotel, but the meeting never took place. This caused a rift between the two politicians, decreasing Le Pen’s admiration for Trump and leading her to ban lower-ranking members of her party from commenting on the 2024 election, stating that his style is “incompatible” with her party. 

On the other hand, Éric Zemmour has gained media attention since he boasted of a “warm” 40-minute phone call with Trump back in February 2022, where the American president told him: “Don’t give in to anything, stand your ground, remain courageous, it’s tenacity and endurance that pay off.” 

Despite receiving Trump’s backing, Zemmour’s party – Reconquête, meaning “win back” – did not win a seat in either the 2022 or 2024 parliamentary elections. Being invited to Trump’s inauguration indicates that Zemmour is likely to remain on the fringes of French society, despite Trump’s politics becoming more mainstream in the United States. While there are certainly far-right sentiments in France, even those citizens are concerned with their safety and prosperity. As such, while they may agree with Trump’s politics, his disregard for European interests is worrying for those on the continent. 

This is where Marine Le Pen comes in. Le Pen might be taken more seriously by the French in the next election precisely because of her absence from Trump’s inauguration. Le Pen represents far-right tendencies while also protecting the nation rather than disregarding French concerns about Trump. 

“If she wants to claim to govern and defend the interests of France, she cannot appear as someone who’s in the immediate proximity of Donald Trump, especially since Trump has a very aggressive discourse towards Europe,” states Olivier Costa, director at the Sciences Po Center for Political Research. 

Le Pen’s distance from Trump may help her win the presidency next, and it will be interesting to see the direction that French far-right politics takes in the coming years. With Macron unable to run for a third term in 2027, Le Pen is the front runner in polling, with projections giving her about 37% of the vote, placing her far ahead in the first electoral round. If given the choice between Zemmour and Le Pen, will supporters side with a fringe American-backed politician, or a more established candidate doing more to protect French and European interests? 

Although Trump’s first presidential term was difficult for Europe, many fear his second could be worse. France and the European Union are already steeped in political and economic struggles of their own. These could be exacerbated by tensions between the United States and China, and Trump threatening to pull out of NATO would mark a decisive turn for the war in Ukraine. 

Trump’s decision to invite a fringe far-right French politician—instead of the republic’s president—demonstrates that he is not interested in maintaining traditional relations with France. Instead, he favors non-mainstream alternative elements of the country, such as parties and individuals not actually representing the French people. Trump wants to pick and choose how he handles transatlantic relations, doing it on his own terms rather than following traditional diplomatic customs. 

However, it is curious that Macron was not invited to Trump’s inauguration, as Trump was invited to the reopening ceremony of Notre-Dame de Paris in December. Unfortunately, Trump’s inauguration guest list seems to be evidence that Macron’s attempt to get in the U.S. president’s good graces was ineffective. 

Macron echoed the fears of many Europeans when he stated: “The United States of America has two priorities. The USA first, and that is legitimate, and the China issue, second. And the European issue is not a geopolitical priority for the coming years and decades.” While it remains to be seen how Trump will navigate the future of transatlantic relations, it is clear that the nation’s link with France will change during the first two years of Trump’s presidency, as well as after the upcoming French elections in 2027.

Hungarian Spy Scandal with the EU

Hungarian PM Viktor Orbán speaks at the European Parliament - EP/Flickr

Last month, the European Parliament reviewed concerns about illegal espionage conducted by Információs Hivatal (IH), Hungary’s civilian foreign intelligence service, on European Union (EU) officials between 2015 and 2017. This information was first revealed in an investigation by the Belgian daily newspaper De Tijd and the Hungarian NGO Direkt36 published last December. In their article, journalists Szabolcs Panyi and András Pethő detail how the Hungarian government initiated multiple espionage attempts against the EU’s Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). This came at a time when the office was investigating the Hungarian Prime Minister's son-in-law’s company, Elios, on the suspension of corrupt tenders. The espionage included phone tapping and IH officers stalking the officers, with the latter activity eventually leading to their discovery, as they were unable to maintain their cover.

More recently, the Hungarian government has continued to spy on its own citizens. In a 2021 interview with the Committee to Protect Journalists, Panyi discussed how the IH used Pegasus spyware to surveil journalists, inhibiting their ability to conduct investigative journalism. Panyi, an outspoken critic of Hungarian PM Viktor Orbán and a member of one of the few remaining Hungarian news outlets insulated from government influence, was a top target for the attacks. In both instances (2015-17 and 2021), the Hungarian government has not denied their involvement in the espionage, instead maintaining that it was used legally to investigate “national security threats.”

This intrusion is yet another instance of Orbán’s broader crackdown on independent media in Hungary, and a symptom of the broader democratic backsliding that’s happening in the state.  This blatant violation of democratic norms fractures their trust with the EU and the other democratic members in the alliance. Despite these tendencies, as of February 11th, the EU has not taken any concrete action against Hungary in regards to their espionage or established any additional laws protecting against espionage. The EU’s hesitation likely stems from fears of further increasing tension with Hungary, , though the national security risk that this poses would seem to merit a swift and decisive action.

More broadly, as the war in Ukraine continues, and pressure from Russia and China intensifies, the EU needs to project unity to protect themselves from foreign interference. Without a firm condemnation of Hungary, they risk setting a dangerous precedent for other global powers or EU members to gather intelligence on the EU. This precedent could also lead to the erosion of the integrity of democratic norms, both in Hungary and other EU countries, as Hungary continues to spy on their citizens. Ultimately, this dispute exacerbates the already existing rift between the EU and Hungary, as Budapest has increasingly pushed back against the alliance (including recently threatening to withhold support for the EU’s prolongation of sanctions on Russia).

What To Expect From al-Sharaa in Syria

Ahmed al-Sharaa; Credit: Aref Tammawi—AFP/Getty Images

On January 29, 2025, Ahmed al-Sharaa declared himself interim president of Syria for the duration of the government's transitional phase. His formal declaration as president comes as no surprise, as he has been the de facto leader of the country since Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) launched a military coup and ousted Bashar al-Assad, bringing an end to the Assad dynasty’s 50-year long rule. 

HTS, formerly known as Jabhat al-Nusra, was founded under the leadership of Sharaa, under the nom de guerre Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, in 2011 as an affiliate of al-Qaeda. However, in 2016, al-Jolani broke ties with al-Qaeda and a year later, merged with other groups to establish HTS to defeat the Assad regime. 

Understanding the fall of the Assad state, despite their historic grip on power, we can look at two factors. First, the power of the Syrian state has been eroded by years of war, sanctions, and corruption. Second, the military strength of the regime’s most influential allies, Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah, has been significantly weakened. The Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and the ongoing regional-Israeli war has depleted key resources from these states. Thus, when the HTS military launched their offensive attack on the Assad regime, the state was too weak to fight back and their allies were too diminished to intervene. 

As the new Syrian president Sharaa took office, he announced his plans for the transitional government. His first priority is to fill Syria’s power vacuum in government “in a legitimate and legal way” by rebuilding state institutions. Specifically, the reconstruction of the military and the development of economic infrastructure. This is crucial because studies have shown peace to be extremely fragile in states where power vacuums leave the government incapable of providing citizens necessary goods or services. Sharaa’s first step to fill the gap in leadership was the empowerment of a legislative council to draft a new legal code, replacing the suspended 2012 constitution and establishing a framework for transitional justice. 

One of the first things Sharaa announced in office was the pursuit of transitional justice against “the criminals who shed Syrian blood and committed massacres and crimes.” Although his exact perpetrators are unspecified, he is likely referring to the political and military elite who targeted civilians during the ongoing Syrian civil war. In 2010, pro-democracy protests swept across the country as part of a larger regional movement called the Arab Spring. However, Assad responded with force, firing unarmed protesters and carrying out mass arrests. The peaceful movement transformed into a still-ongoing civil war, with casualties now reaching over half a million. The international community has responded by condemning the atrocities and human rights violations the regime has committed throughout the conflict.

Despite Sharaa’s vow to preserve “civil peace,” the safety of international refugees remains uncertain. As a result of the civil war, Syria has become the world’s largest refugee crisis, with an estimated 14 million civilians forced to flee. This is broken down into 7.4 million internally displaced persons; 5.5 million in the neighboring countries of Türkiye, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt; and 850,000 in Germany. Immediately after Assad’s regime was toppled, many European countries pressed to return Syrian refugees to their home country. Additionally, others have stopped processing Syrian asylum applications. 

However, with the state’s political fragility, analysts have argued against this move. First, the influx of returning Syrians would add pressure to the transitional government and could undermine the prospect of a successful transition. This is further exacerbated by the collapse of the Syrian pound due to political instability and a loss of investor confidence. Finally, the destruction from the war has destroyed the housing market, with entire neighborhoods in ruin. As such, the country would be ill-prepared  to house an influx of returning Syrian refugees. 

What does this all mean for Bashar al-Assad? Immediately after HTS assumed power, the leader fled the country to Russia. Yet recent negotiations between Syria’s interim government and Russian President Vladimir Putin signal that his asylum may not be secure. Since 2015, Russia has had a military presence in the state, and although there has been a transition in the political apparatus, it is too valuable for them to surrender. The Syrian state is particularly valuable because of its strategic geography and intrinsic wealth. That said, Russia has declined to comment on whether they would return Assad in order to secure their position.

Ultimately, the fate of the nation is extremely fragile and in an unpredictable position. Sharaa currently enjoys popular support, but should positive change not come soon, his grasp on power could be quickly undermined. Such a herculean national project requires the support of the international community, particularly lifting Assad-era sanctions to foster their economy and empower economic growth. With international support, Syria has the opportunity to embark on a path to recovery, but without external support, the window of opportunity could be lost. 

Fighting in DR Congo–Set to Boil Over

As of last Sunday, the UN reported 700 dead from the conflict between the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and the Rwandan-backed M23. While fighting in the DR Congo is not new—and can be traced back to the Rwandan Genocide in 1994—the recent events have brought this conflict to its boiling point. M23, the Rwandan-backed militant group, has now captured Goma, a mineral-rich city and capital of the North Kivu province in the eastern DRC. Beginning February 4, a unilateral ceasefire is in place due to the humanitarian crisis; however, M23 still remains in control of Goma. The group recently began to move towards Bukavu, the capital of the South Kivu province, but have publicly stated that they do not intend to capture it.

M23, the militant group backed by Rwanda, are led by ethnic Tutsis and have stated the reason for their violence is to fight for minority rights that are under threat from the Congolese government. The DR Congo’s government has pushed back on this, arguing that the M23 are instead motivated by a desire to capitalize on the wealth of the mineral-rich eastern region, which contains copper, gold, and cobalt, coveted components of parts found in mobile phones, solar panels, and other widely-used electronics.

Despite M23’s adamant claims, evidence shows that the group has been weaponizing the plight of Tutsis to justify their actions. This is indicated by the inconsistencies with the group’s public statements and corresponding actions. Additionally Rwanda, who largely supports the insurgency, continues to benefit from M23’s growing encroachment into the eastern DRC. Rwanda’s support of M23 lends them increased access to minerals in eastern DRC, as evidenced by the 50% increase of coltan exports in 2022-2023. Regardless of M23’s or the Rwandan government’s apparent dishonesty, the fighting has resulted in a major humanitarian crisis; more than 7 million displaced people, over 300 thousand suspected cholera cases (as of January 2023), and 15.4 million children in need of humanitarian aid (as of 2023). Prior to the recent escalation, the humanitarian situation was already at a crisis level, but now it has only intensified. The UN has sounded the alarm on three major issues to focus on in the conflict: scarcity of food and water, mass displacement, and mass increase of sexual-based violence. As M23 gets closer to the Bukavu, which holds a population of two million people, these issues will only worsen. 

Several attempts at peace deals have failed in the past. Last year, a ceasefire deal was struck, but peace only held temporarily before fighting resumed again. This has been a recurring pattern, happening earlier on March 23, 2009 when M23 claimed that the terms of the most recent peace deal had been violated. This move signaled the resumption of conflict and served as the origin of the rebel group's name. Additionally, the UN has kept a peacekeeping mission, Monusco, in the DR Congo since 1999; however, their presence, no matter how well intentioned, may be escalating tensions, as many Congolese see Monusco as unsuccessful and have voiced a desire for them to leave. On January 31, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) gathered for an emergency summit in Harare, Zimbabwe which will hopefully bear some fruit.

M23 and the government of the DR Congo seem unwilling to cooperate or to engage in dialogue, and the permeating sense of distrust that has stalled attempts for peace in the past threatens possibilities for reconciliation. Beginning February 4, there has been a humanitarian ceasefire, allowing people to have a safe passage to escape the conflict and increased humanitarian aid; however, this action does not necessitate an end to this conflict. Leaders across Africa and the UN will need to put pressure on Rwanda, potentially in the form of sanctions, to withdraw their support from M23 in addition to the ongoing diplomatic discussions.  The international community has their work cut out from them as they search for ways to incentivise both parties to move towards peace. At the very least, the summit on Saturday in Tanzania, an unparalleled event, shows that much of the international community is at least willing to work towards peace.

Sudan Conflict: Attack on Last Functioning Hospital in North Darfur Kills 70

Getty Images

On January 24, 2025, a drone attack targeting the Saudi Teaching Maternal Hospital in El Fasher, the capital of Sudan’s North Darfur region, resulted in over 70 fatalities and wounded dozens more. The hospital was the only operational healthcare facility in the area, providing essential services like gy-obstetrics, internal medicine, surgery, and pediatrics.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) condemned the attack, emphasizing the critical role the hospital plays in the region. WHO’s Director-General, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, called for an immediate cessation of all attacks on healthcare facilities in Sudan and urged for unrestricted access to restore the damage to medical centres.

The attack on the Saudi Teaching Maternal Hospital marks the latest strike in Sudan’s 20-month civil war between the Sudanese government and the rebel Rapid Support Forces (RSF). The attack was blamed on the paramilitary group by local authorities, which was said to be caused by the apparent battlefield losses to the Sudanese military and allies. The RSF, however, denied those claims, alleging that the Sudanese military was behind the attack, though they provided no evidence to support the accusation.

This incident is only a small part of the continued escalating conflict in Sudan, which has led to tens of thousands of deaths, the displacement of 12 million Sudanese civilians, and widespread famine in the region. The attack magnifies the ongoing healthcare crisis in Sudan, with two out of three people lacking access to healthcare and one in three people facing severe hunger. As the civil war continues to grow, ethnically driven violence has been on the rise, with some international watchdogs arguing that some acts committed by the RSF are escalating into acts of ethnic cleansing and genocide. If the crisis continues to draw on, it risks spiralling Sudan into state failure, stifling prospects for a successful post-conflict recovery. Furthermore, if the country continues to be vastly divided into two– with the Sudanese army having control of the East and the RSF in the West–the probability of Sudan once again splitting into two countries will become higher. As the conflict escalates, it remains unknown whether the international community will interfere or let it worsen–only time will tell.

The Israeli-Palestinian Ceasefire

Photo credit: Rex/Shutterstock (left) and Bloomberg (right)

On January 15, a ceasefire was reached between Israel and Hamas after 15 months of war. This deal aims to end the war in Gaza and facilitate the return of Israeli hostages captured by Hamas in the October 7 invasion of southern Israel. 

There are three stages to the ceasefire deal, but as of now, the second and third stages have only been agreed upon in principle. The first stage began on January 19 and is set to last 42 days. During this initial stage, a ceasefire will commence and Israeli forces will leave populated areas of Gaza, allowing humanitarian aid to enter and displaced Palestinians to return. Hamas will then release 33 hostages–children, women, elderly, and wounded–and in exchange, Israel will release 1,900 Palestinian prisoners. In the second stage, the permanent ceasefire will become official and younger Israeli male hostages will be exchanged for more Palestinian prisoners. In the third and final stage, the bodies of dead hostages will be returned, Israeli troops will commit to a complete withdrawal of Gaza, and the reconstruction process will begin. 

As of this article’s publication, 18 Israeli hostages have been released as per the terms of the ceasefire agreement. Of the 18 released, 5 were Thai nationals and 10 Israeli citizens–5 female soldiers, 4 women, and 3 men. In return for the released hostages, Israel has released around 600 Palestinian prisoners. Among those individuals was the high-profile terrorist, Zakaria Zubeidi, a former leader of the Fatah militant wing al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, who was involved in deadly attacks targeting civilians during the Second Intifada. 

Both sides have different factors that coalesced to help explain the timing of this agreement. Hamas suffered a major blow with the death of their leader Yahya Al-Sinwar in October. Additionally, some argue that their attack on October 7th was intended to trigger a regional war, an idea that looks increasingly unlikely. The support they once garnered from Iran’s so-called “axis of resistance” has been significantly weakened with the fall of the Assad regime in Syria and the severe setbacks suffered by Hezbollah. Finally, as argued by some scholars, such as Andrew Kydd and Barbara Walter, they may have already achieved their goal: provocation. Knowing that the Netanyahu government is hawkish, they may have seen this as a chance to provoke the Israelis into responding with indiscriminate repression that could garner support for their side. As we have seen, global support for Israel has dropped significantly since the war in Gaza began.

Looking at Israel, two events are crucial to understanding the motivation behind Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s acceptance of the deal despite past resistance. First, the ceasefire brokered between Israel and Lebanon in November heightened demands by Qatari, Egyptian, and U.S. mediators to negotiate the war in Gaza. Second, there was a significant increase in pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump’s return to office, as he warned of “hell to pay” if the deal was not reached before his inauguration. 

Despite the pressure on Netanyahu to accept the deal, the security of the second and third phases of the ceasefire is incredibly fragile. Many have assessed that neither side is ready to stop fighting. With Gaza destroyed and left with no viable political alternative to Hamas, the opportunity cost to resume fighting is low. In Israel, Netanyahu has already addressed the ceasefire as “temporary,” arguing that his goal of eradicating Hamas is not done. Moreover, the end of the war could mark the end of his time in office. He and his party, Likud, have done poorly in polls since the start of the war. This decline in approval rating, paired with a poll claiming 69% of Israelis want parliamentary elections “the day after the war ends,” could signal the termination of his time in office.

Because of the fragility in the region and the instability of the ceasefire, it is up to foreign pressure to enforce the end of the war. Despite the Trump administration’s commitment to the deal, it remains uncertain the degree of leverage they have over Netanyahu to ensure its implementation, especially after Hamas released the hostages (their most crucial bargaining chips). Ultimately, without substantial external intervention, both sides must honor their commitments to the ceasefire, prioritize effective humanitarian aid, and concentrate on reconstruction for any hope of lasting peace.

A Fractured EU Navigates a 2nd Trump Term

French President Emmanuel Macron and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen EPA-EFE/REX/Shutterstock

While President Donald Trump returned to office in the United States, leaders throughout the European Union (EU) were busy mapping out their own course at the World Economic Forum. At the latest conference, held in Davos, Switzerland, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen outlined a plan for Europe’s future on the world stage. While von der Leyen avoided direct criticism of the U.S. president, her speech marked a crucial pivot in EU foreign policy: independence from the U.S. Seeking to avoid a repeat of the tariff headaches from Trump’s first term, it seems the EU president has opted for Europe to separate its political fortunes from the volatile superpower. Amongst the alliance, however, the response has lacked cohesion; factions have emerged as leaders reconcile and navigate the converging crises of Trump’s “America First” foreign policy and Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Some European leaders, such as Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, have stuck close to the American business mogul. Meloni, who attended Trump’s inauguration, has been a stalwart ally of the GOP strongman, leading some to call her Europe’s “Trump whisperer.” The Italian PM’s close ties with Trump, and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) head Elon Musk, suggest her administration may maintain warm relations with the U.S., and move in lockstep with its transatlantic partner for the next 4 years. Similarly, several members of Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party also made an appearance at Trump’s inauguration. While the conservative Christian Democrats party, led by Friedrich Merz, are best positioned to win Germany’s upcoming elections, the AfD may still influence a strengthening of German-American relations and an increased closeness to the Trump administration.

Conversely, French President Emmanuel Macron, who has long been the EU’s top proponent of strategic autonomy, has responded to Trump’s inauguration by calling for an increase in defense expenditures among EU countries. While Macron’s pleas for European strategic autonomy fell on deaf ears during the Biden administration, Trump’s return–and the continued Russia-Ukraine war–have reignited talks of the EU forging its own path, independent of the U.S. Indeed, Macron’s ambition has been reinvigorated, as he’s urged his fellow European leaders to face the realities of the Trump administration and end the EU’s reliance on the U.S. for defense. The alliance may be positioned to achieve this feat, as EU defense spending hit record highs in 2023 and 2024, and is expected to balloon this year, with 22 of the 27 EU states increasing their defense spending.

Support for stronger European defense has been echoed by Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, who has condemned the U.S.’ inability to pass legislation that would provide more aid to Ukraine. Poland, whose estimated defense expenditures as a share of GDP (%) in 2024 were the highest among the NATO alliance (at 4.12%), has given dozens of packages in military aid to Ukraine and served as one of Kyiv’s most steadfast allies in their fight for sovereignty.

Tusk’s concerns are undoubtedly geographically motivated, as Poland’s proximity to Russia makes conflict a perennial concern. This geopolitical anxiety has also motivated the Nordic-Baltic states (Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, and Sweden) to increase their military spending in recent years. Beyond that, in November, Tusk and other leaders of Nordic-Baltic countries held a security summit in Sweden, issuing a joint statement on the need to take greater responsibility for their own defense. This recognition of the necessity of European strategic autonomy was music to the ears of Macron, who attended the conference virtually. While the U.S. has historically been the champion of the liberal international order and Western security, these moves from Europe suggest a willingness to take the mantle in the event that Trump abdicates the throne.

Meanwhile, Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico has charted a different course: a pro-Russia one. Since his return to office in 2023, Fico has met with Putin, ended Slovakian military aid to Ukraine, and pushed back against EU sanctions on Russia. While the Slovakian PM has defended his move, citing the necessity of developing strong relations with both sides, the Slovakian people haven’t bought it. Tens of thousands of protestors throughout the country have called for Fico’s resignation in recent months in opposition to his foreign policy pivot.

Similarly, in Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán threatened to condition his support for Ukraine on the maintenance of a pipeline to provide Budapest with energy. Orbán has defended this stipulation by arguing that Hungary, who imports 80% of their oil from Russia, has lost €19 billion from EU sanctions on Russia. While the Hungarian PM backed down and voted to continue sanctions, his threats should not be dismissed, as they’re emblematic of a broader cohesion problem that the alliance is facing. While the unanimity requirement for EU decisions didn’t prevent action this time, if Orbán’s hesitation grows, or Fico drags his feet too, it could damage the ability of the bloc to show resolve against Russia–and illiberal values–and support for Ukraine–and democratic values.

As the EU navigates a period rife with uncertainty, it remains to be seen which factions will shape the alliance’s foreign policy going forward. Only time will tell whether Macron’s plans for the alliance manifest in the coming years or are destined to remain a pipe dream forever.

Russia and Iran 20-Year Treaty Strengthens Strategic Ties

Russian President Vladimir Putin meets with Iranian counterpart Masoud Pezeshkian. Evgenia Novozhenina/AFP via Getty Images

On January 17th, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian negotiated a 20-year defense treaty titled “The Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Agreement,” outlining new alliance policies between the two states. The deal covers a variety of topics, including science, trade, transportation, agriculture, military, intelligence, education, and culture, all of which are geared toward boosting trade and economic relations between Russia and Iran.

Among the agreed-upon policies, was a prohibition on either state giving aid to an aggressor attacking the other, as well as a policy barring the use of each other’s territory in a way that threatens the stability of the other. However, unlike the treaty between Russia and North Korea, a mutual defense clause requiring one country to come to the other’s defense in the event of an attack was not included. The exclusion of such a policy is particularly notable, as it could have potentially required Iran to get involved in Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine.  

Made just days before President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the negotiation announcement has led to worldwide speculation on the motivations behind its timing, with many pointing to the increasing pressure posed by strict Western sanctions and Trump’s “America First” foreign policy interests. With the American president promising to end the war in Ukraine and threatening a tougher stance on Iran, many believe this deal is meant to coordinate a joint-retaliation response and stir worry across the West.

Yet this deal is not a sudden decision, but rather the cumulation of months of negotiating that began when Pezeshkian took office last July, ultimately being signed on the first visit between these two presidents at the Kremlin. Building off a relationship that began after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia and Iran have made a number of strategic moves together over the years, including the construction of Iran’s first nuclear power plant in 2013 and Iran’s entry into the BRICS bloc in 2023. The Syrian Civil War was also a crucial catalyst in the strengthening of bilateral relations, as the two states pooled efforts in support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government. An effort which, much to Putin and Pezeshkian’s chagrin, failed to prevent his downfall late last year. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 led to further strengthening of relations, as Moscow paid $1.7 billion for 11,000 Iranian Shahed drones to use in the conflict. Given the rich history between Russia and Iran, this treaty has become merely a formality between two well-acquainted allies.

Pezeshkian has even made direct comments on the Russia-Ukraine war, saying he hopes the war can be ended soon with peace talks and negotiations. He further stated that “war is not a good solution to resolve problems and we would welcome talks and achieving peace between... Russia and Ukraine,” emphasizing the need for a mediator to help the states resolve their disputes before tensions worsen and efforts to stabilize become even more difficult.

Looking toward the future of Russia, we can anticipate the construction of more nuclear projects in the region and the creation of a gas pipeline of 55 billion cubic meters per year to Iran via Azerbaijan, a goal which, despite setbacks, is still underway. "This [treaty] creates better conditions for bilateral cooperation in all areas," Putin stated, emphasizing that this “important new chapter” would expand ties and bolster trust and collaboration between the two countries for many years to come.

Retribution Returns to Washington

Enrique Tarrio and other Proud Boys gather in Washington D.C. in December 2020. Tarrio, whose sentence was commuted by Trump, had been sentenced to 22 years in prison on seditious conspiracy charges related to the January 6th Capitol attack. Victor J. Blue for the New York Times

During the 2023 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Donald Trump made a promise to his supporters: “I am your justice…I am your retribution.” At that time, Trump and his political movement were in exile, having made a disgraceful exit after an election loss that many of them believed had been caused by a nebulous “deep state” embedded inside the federal government. Now, Trump and his movement have returned to the halls of power, bringing justice for their friends and retribution for their enemies in equal measure. 

Soon after the inauguration, before cheering crowds at the Capital One arena, Trump signed his first wave of executive orders, presidential pardons, and commutations. The initial pardons and commutations went to over 1500 participants in the January 6th Capitol riot, including rioters convicted of violent felonies and militia leaders convicted of seditious conspiracy. Four days later, Trump pardoned 23 anti-abortion activists who had blocked the entrance of an abortion clinic and accosted patients and staff. The message was clear: in Trump’s America, the legal system, once the bane of his most radical supporters, will no longer restrict their activities. Former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, fresh out of prison, echoed the sentiment: “Now it’s our turn.”

Trump has also sought to render the federal government more pliable to his wishes. During his first term, a group of officials colloquially known as the “adults in the room” often tried to restrain what they saw as Trump’s worst impulses. Trump’s first executive actions seek to exact revenge against these and other former officials, and to prevent the rise of any successor movement by installing loyal functionaries throughout the federal bureaucracy. Trump has reinstated Schedule F, a classification developed at the end of his first term that makes it easier to fire certain kinds of federal employees and replace them with political appointees. Additionally, Trump has begun directly removing officials who he believes may exhibit an ideological bias against him or otherwise hinder his agenda, including Coast Guard commandant Admiral Linda Fagan, 17 inspectors general, and several high-level Justice Department officials. Trump’s efforts thus far have seemingly found success; as of yet, there is no talk of resistance from within the federal ranks. 

Trump’s animus is not limited to individuals currently serving in the government. Trump removed federal security protection from at least four former officials who served in his previous administration: former CDC director Dr. Anthony Fauci, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former National Security Advisor John Bolton, and former Iran envoy Brian Hook. This comes despite evidence that Bolton, Pompeo, and Hook have been targeted for assassination by Iran. Additionally, Trump has stripped security clearances from dozens of former intelligence officials, including three ex-CIA directors, who signed an open letter warning that the Hunter Biden laptop story might be Russian disinformation. 

Less than a week into his presidency, Trump has already made an indelible mark. Enemies beware as a new elite, armed with the full power of the American state, pursues justice and retribution with vindictive urgency.

Putin and Touadéra Hold Discussions on Increasing Bilateral Cooperation

Sergei Chirikov/Reuters

On January 15, 2025, President Fuastin-Archange Touadéra of the Central African Republic (CAR) arrived in Moscow for a three-day official visit aimed at improving bilateral relations with Russia and President Vladimir Putin. Specifically, the states focused on deepening their ties in the realms of military cooperation and political cooperation.

Russia has played a key role in CAR’s security framework since 2018, providing military training and logistical support. During the meeting, both leaders discussed expanding bilateral military cooperation, specifically to focus on enhancing CAR’s defense capabilities amidst ongoing security challenges. Putin emphasized Russia’s commitment to supporting CAR’s sovereignty and stability, offering security support to embattled leaders as they battle with warring rebel factions.

Touadéra and Putin also reviewed economic and political agreements aimed at strengthening CAR’s infrastructure and governance. The Central African leader expressed gratitude for Russia’s assistance in addressing internal conflicts and promoting development. Both parties reaffirmed their commitment to deepening ties beyond military collaboration.

Russia’s involvement in CAR includes the mercenaries from the Wagner Group, whose military contractors have played a large role in supporting CAR’s government forces. Despite the scrutiny they have faced from the international community, the group remains influential in maintaining stability in CAR. By training thousands of local forces, the group has put the rebels on the retreat, turning the tide of CAR’s civil war. In doing so, they’ve gained support in the state, as seen by the unveiling of a bronze monument glorifying the late head of the Wagner Group, Yevgeny Prigozhin.

The bilateral talks between President Touadéra and President Putin signify a growing partnership between the two nations outside of military cooperation. While details of future agreements remain confidential, the discussions highlight Russia’s increasing influence in CAR and the African continent. As Russia’s war with Ukraine rages on, they may expand this agreement to make use of CAR troops in the conflict, further diversifying their army (as they’ve already done with North Korean troops). If Putin continues to strengthen his foothold in the region, he may embolden the continent’s authoritarian leaders, further straying Africa from democracy.

Thailand Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage

Patipat Janthong, Reuters

On Thursday, January 23, 2025, Thailand became the first country in Southeast Asia to legalize same-sex marriage. Joining Taiwan and Nepal in becoming only the third country in all of Asia to do so, the legislation is no less impressive from a country with widespread conservative ideals. Nonetheless, Thai LGBTQ+ individuals have often expressed their experiences with blatant discrimination despite Thailand’s long-standing reputation as a queer safe haven, especially in comparison to other states in the region. Representation at the federal level has also long been dominated by conservative politicians. 

However, the legislation swept through both the House of Representatives and Senate last year with overwhelming support. Of the 415 members present at the voting ceremony in Thailand’s lower chamber, 400 voted for the measure; similarly, of the 152 members present to vote in the Senate, 130 approved. Furthermore, as a constitutional monarchy, the legislation was officially codified after King Maha Vajiralongkorn’s endorsement. Under the new law, same-sex couples receive all the same benefits of marriage that heterosexual couples do: full financial, medical, and legal rights and protections.

The Marriage Equality Act, as the legislation is known, amends Article 1448 of Thailand’s Civil and Commercial Code by changing the qualifications for marriage from “man and woman” to “individuals.” The country’s Prime Minister, Paetongtarn Shinawatra of the ruling Pheu Thai party, supported the legislation and celebrated its enactment in a video address to the country where she announced, “From now on, all love will be certified by law. All couples will live with honor and dignity in Thailand.”

According to the Department of Provincial Administration, at least 1,832 couples from across the country registered their marriages on Thursday. Though there is much work left to be done in Thailand regarding equal protection under the law, especially for LGBTQ+ individuals, Thursday nonetheless marks a significant milestone in a positive direction for the queer community in Southeast Asia. 

Trump’s Day One Executive Orders on Immigration

Trump signs a series of executive orders. Avery Lotz, Axios

Within hours of taking office, President Donald Trump has signed 26 executive orders into existence, the largest number to be signed on a president’s Inauguration Day ever. Not only have these orders rescinded 78 previously implemented orders by the Biden administration, but they also have far-ranging effects, impacting an assortment of areas including foreign policy, social programs, immigration, the environment and energy, and criminal justice. 

Of these executive orders, eight are focused on immigration rights, refugee laws, and the situation along the US-Mexico border. Chief among these was his move to declare the crisis at the border a national emergency, allowing Trump to swiftly and easily redirect funds and deploy military troops into the area. To give this additional support, he also passed a second order “clarifying the military’s role” in national security, referring specifically and repeatedly to the borders and the military’s role in guarding against an invasion. In doing so, he grants the Secretary of Defense the power to mobilize thousands of troops to send to the border. 

In addition to executive orders focused on the southern border, Trump also passed an order regarding “protection from foreign terrorists,” introducing new criteria for screening across agencies for those trying to enter the country. Some of these new criteria include being screened to the “maximum degree,” requiring immense background information and identification requirements that many immigrants can’t provide.

Of the other five orders, three speak specifically on guarding against invasions, with one stating that Homeland Security Task Forces will be deployed in all states, and another saying entry immigration into the US has been halted until further notice. The third suspends the United States Refugee Admission Program (USRAP), eliminating the pathway for refugees to enter the country. Finally, a fourth ends birthright citizenship, meaning that even though someone might be born in the United States, that does not automatically make them a US citizen.

Along with all these executive orders, Trump also promised numerous times throughout his campaign to begin a “mass deportation” campaign targeting 1.4 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.. Local police and departments across the country have pushed back on these orders, saying they will not engage in harsh deportation raids. Yet when comparing the number of ICE arrests made over the past couple of months (283 in September 2024 versus 500 within Trump’s first three days in office), it appears that Trump’s plan is already in full swing. 

Worries remain high across the country surrounding these immigration orders, especially within families with children in school after Trump overturned the 2011 policy banning immigration arrests at schools. In cities such as Chicago, previously busy areas have significantly dropped in foot traffic, and general sentiment throughout the streets has shifted remarkably. Despite Trump’s short time in office, the effects of his actions have reverberated throughout the country, and his administration has made one thing clear: this is only the beginning.

The Tech Oligarchy: Cut a Check and Watch Trumpian Policy Bend to You

Photo taken by Julia Demaree Nikhinson | Credit: AP News

Following former President Biden’s warning of the rise of the tech billionaire oligarchy in his farewell speech, the second inauguration of President Trump confirmed the reality that the wealthy tech elite hold immense power over US politics. While the ultra-wealthy have long held significant influence in the political sphere, the blatant display of President Trump’s priorities was rather jarring. 

Traditionally, the seats closest to the president are held for guests of honor or family of the president. This year, the prestigious spots were taken by an impressive lineup of CEOs, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, and of course, SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk. 

Trump’s administration is clearly operating under a “pay to win” ideology. Meta, Google, Microsoft, OpenAI and Amazon all donated $1 million each to the inauguration fund. Elon Musk spent $277 million backing the campaigns of Trump and other Republicans. As the world’s wealthiest man, and the newly announced head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Musk’s investment into the Trump administration lacks any subtlety. 

In the flurry of executive orders signed by Trump and other actions taken in his first few days back in office, a notable and unsurprising pattern has emerged across the various policy decisions: profit for corporations over the public interest. 

With a whole slew of actions taken since his inauguration as evidence of his willingness to cater to corporations, it’s clear that the entanglement of Trump and the tech industry is one of the most prominent relationships setting the tone for the next four years. The ordeal regarding the TikTok ban, which was upheld by the Supreme Court and later paused by Trump’s executive order, seems to be a political theatre-esque ploy to gain support from younger generations by painting Trump as the savior of TikTok. When users were kicked off during the app’s blackout, they were met with a message of hope in President Trump: “A law banning TikTok has been enacted in the U.S. Unfortunately, that means you can't use TikTok for now. We are fortunate that President Trump has indicated that he will work with us on a solution to reinstate TikTok once he takes office.” After TikTok was put back online for US servers, users were then greeted with another Trump-praising pop-up message, “As a result of President Trump's efforts, TikTok is back in the U.S.”

Post-blackout, some users suspect that TikTok’s algorithm has undergone changes in favor of pro-Trump content. While data privacy is problematic and serves as a valid source of scrutiny against TikTok, a digital platform independent of and decentralized from the US government presents the ability to share unsuppressed criticism of US politics and the dissemination of a vast variety of political perspectives outside the mainstream media. Without space to explore an assortment of viewpoints and interact with diverse creators, unregulated or intentionally structured algorithms can promote biased content, push political narratives and agendas, and garner massive support from unparalleled exposure. 

It seems TikTok has now conformed to the practice of flattering Trump in pursuit of its own self-interest, mirroring the rest of the social media and tech industry. With the fall of fact-checking and content moderation on Meta platforms, Twitter’s backslide into chaos under Musk, coupled with TikTok’s newfound affinity for President Trump, he has arguably monopolized influence over social media. While  there are alternative platforms emerging, such as Bluesky, Twitter’s biggest counterpart and competitor, they lack the seniority and social establishment that Meta platforms hold from years of user engagement. Exemplifying the networking effect, the value of Twitter currently still outweighs that of Bluesky, as the majority of users have yet to migrate from Twitter to competitors. However, Bluesky did recently hit 27 million users, and Twitter is indeed experiencing a mass exodus— so perhaps the tide will turn as word of the Twitter alternative spreads. 

The rich have pulled strings behind politics for decades, but the nature and unique power held by social media giants is cause for major concern. Controlling the narrative on political topics and suppressing opposing viewpoints can manipulate users to shift their opinions or prohibit them from discovering new ones. The power of the algorithm is the supreme influence over what content people are exposed to; by pushing individually specified content, the potential for creating echo chambers is quite high. 

In response to the immense power Big Tech holds over US political processes, tech reform advocacy organizations have called for concrete policy solutions, in particular updating “the law that created the internet”: Section 230. Enacted by Congress in 1996, it protects social media and tech companies from being held liable for user posts on their platforms, while simultaneously giving them free reign over their content moderation. Initially intended to protect platforms and websites from legal risk by allowing them to host user forums and discussions without fear of liability, Section 230 gives far too much unregulated power to platforms acting out of political interest and profit. A high standard of regulation, fact-checking, and transparency is necessary to mitigate rampant political corruption. The rise of Big Tech’s influence in US politics cannot be ignored, and must be addressed as soon as possible. 

No, Maduro Won’t Invade Puerto Rico

CNN en Español

At a closing speech made at the Global International Antifascist Festival, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro made claims about liberating Puerto Rico with Brazilian troops. He invoked Simón Bolívar’s goal of liberation from Western oppression to argue for the necessity of Venezuelan intervention. This threat was met with backlash from the Puerto Rico governor, Jenniffer González-Colón, who called it an “open threat to the United States.”

Maduro’s words, while aggressive, are all bark and no bite.

Following Maduro’s internationally rebuked re-election in July, this divisive move could be interpreted as an attempt to restore legitimacy in the wake of electoral discontent. This strategy, known as diversionary foreign policy, has been used by leaders to restore unity and patriotism around the state. Under this theory, the possibility of war could create a rally ‘round the flag effect that would invoke nationalist sentiment and restore internal cohesion, skyrocketing Maduro’s approval rating. 

While the conditions may be ripe, and a conflict could generate positive effects for Maduro, waging a war with the U.S. would be a disastrous blunder. The U.S. is a nuclear-armed superpower whose military strength is unrivaled by any great power, let alone a smaller state like Venezuela. As such, any potential domestic political benefits would be largely outweighed by a decisive military loss at best, or at worst, a prolonged conflict with tens of thousands of military casualties. Furthermore, while Maduro’s re-election received the support of Russia, China, and Iran, it’s unlikely that any of them would support the state in a conflict, given Russia’s war with Ukraine, China’s domestic economic troubles, and Iran’s regional focus.

Ignoring the risk of a U.S. counterstrike, an amphibious invasion would be difficult to mount. Puerto Rico’s terrain is incredibly mountainous, with 60% of the country covered in mountains. Beyond that, it is unlikely that Maduro would be able to utilize Brazilian troops, as Brazil has no incentive to get involved in a war with the U.S. Given the increasing diplomatic estrangement between Brazil and Venezuela, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is unlikely to support such a move. While relations between the two states have historically been strong, Lula has pivoted recently, distancing himself from Maduro and openly critiquing the authoritarian regime and election outcome.

If Maduro were to wage a war, he wouldn’t go too far. Long-standing border disputes with Guyana over ownership of the Essequibo region have escalated in recent years, as Maduro has made similar references about liberating the oil-rich territory. In December 2023, Maduro unveiled a map of the country that included the Essequibo region, and has long announced his intention to take over the oil-rich region. While Maduro has made declarations domestically, Guyana has sought international recognition from bodies like the International Court of Justice to resolve these disputes. Given Venezuela’s oil-based economy, their comparative military dominance over Guyana, and Maduro’s reference to polls (albeit questionable ones) that show an overwhelming majority of Venezuelans would support incorporating the region into Venezuela, the Essequibo region seems primed for a Venezuelan invasion.

But once again, Brazil serves as the foil to Maduro’s plans. Lula has distanced himself from Maduro, improved relations with Guyana, and positioned himself as a mediator between the two states in their quarrel. While Maduro may scoff at the Guyanese army, he can’t ignore the Brazilian Army, who moved armored vehicles to their northern border to further deter Maduro from invasion. Lula’s military move comes after Maduro agreed to pursue diplomatic measures to acquire the region, indicating the growing mistrust between the leaders.

As such, the fate of Venezuela’s military decisions could end up being a question of Brazil’s positioning–specifically the degree to which Lula will seek to influence or restrain Maduro in his ambitions. Therefore, how Brazil navigates this thorny issue will play a decisive role in the region’s stability for the foreseeable future.

Canada’s Political Crisis: What Happened and What’s Next?

Trudeau in his resignation speech. Sean Kilpatrick, The Canadian Press

On January 6, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced his intention to resign, as both Prime Minister and leader of the country’s Liberal Party, after his party selects his successor. Trudeau, who had previously balked at calls for resignation, eventually succumbed to mounting pressure from Liberal Members of Parliament, tanking numbers in opinion polls, and resignations of high-level officials.

The resignation of the PM’s former ally Chrystia Freeland, the deputy prime minister and head of finance, over concerns regarding U.S. President Donald Trump’s planned imposition of tariffs, signaled the growing internal resentment among the party. Beyond that, in response to the country’s cost of living crisis, Trudeau’s approval ratings have tanked and Liberal MPs have increasingly called upon him to step down, to best position the party for the elections scheduled later this year. Parliamentary members in the opposition parties have also indicated that they would move for a vote of no-confidence upon Parliament’s return in late January. A move which, if successful, could have triggered federal elections at a time when the Conservative Party, led by Pierre Poilievre, had a demanding lead in polls.

In his resignation speech, Trudeau cited struggles with internal cohesion among the Liberal party, noting that, to best position the party for the upcoming elections, he must step down. The PM said his “one regret” was that the country never instituted a system of ranked-choice voting, which could have alleviated political polarization. 

Trudeau also announced that Mary Simon, Canada’s governor general, accepted his request to prorogue Parliament, suspending all votes and proceedings until March 24. In recent days, however, the Federal Court of Canada expedited a suit challenging the constitutional validity of Trudeau’s prorogation, citing the urgency of a response to Trump’s foreign policy. The hearing to prorogue could be held as early as February 13 or 14th, and the result could bring Parliament back earlier than expected.

In the meantime, the Liberal Party will need to act decisively, because upon its return, the first item on the Parliament’s agenda will be a confidence motion put forward by the Conservative Party. If the Liberal Party loses the vote, the party’s leader will resign or dissolve Parliament, either of which would trigger a federal election. 

A number of individuals, including Freeland and Liberal House leader Karina Gould, have announced their intention to be Trudeau’s successor, and the final vote to pick a candidate will be on March 9th. Meanwhile, Poilievre has emerged as an early favorite among Conservatives, who want someone to push back against Trump.

Trudeau’s decision to step down mirrors President Biden’s move to drop out of the race for the 2024 U.S. presidential election. Together, they mark the end of the liberal trifecta of heads of state in North America. Trudeau’s resignation is another instance of the anti-incumbent trend–a global movement wherein the incumbent leader is punished electorally for the lasting impacts of COVID-era troubles. If other democracies are any indication, this could lay the foundation for the election of a right-wing populist with an economic focus–the exact characterization of Pierre Polievre. Regardless, Trudeau’s successor will have to navigate an economic crisis and frosty US-Canada relations amid increased tensions from Trump’s aggressive stance on tariffs and calls for Canada to be the 51st U.S. state. Their decisiveness and efficacy will be critical, as it will determine whether they serve the country for years or face a similar fate to Trudeau.

South Korea: President Yoon’s arrest, impeachment, and declaration of martial law

Photo Credit: Ahn Young-joon/AP

After an hours-long standoff, former South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol was arrested on January 15 on insurrection charges following his declaration of martial law on December 3. This arrest, which saw the deployment of 1,000 officers, came after a failed attempt twelve days earlier during which officials were blocked by his supporters and security team.  

Earlier, on December 14, 2024, the South Korean National Assembly voted to impeach President Yoon following his brief declaration of martial law on December 3. Yoon defended his decision, arguing that he had a legitimate use of military rule due to his belief that the opposition in control of Parliament consists of North Korean communist sympathisers. Since assuming office in 2022, Yoon has faced consistent opposition from Parliament and has had marginal success in getting his policies adopted.

The constitutional provision granting the president the right to declare martial law has a dark history in South Korea. The Constitution grants the executive the ability to impose military rule in the case of “wartime, war-like situations or other comparable national emergency states.” However, past presidents have misused this power, giving them the right to impose a de facto dictatorship over political opponents and civilians. To alleviate this risk, the National Assembly has the right to check this use of power and can lift martial law with a majority vote. Immediately after President Yoon’s declaration, lawmakers voted 190-0 to revoke the order. The National Assembly’s adherence to the rule of law through the use of democratic institutions shows a commitment to the balance of power between branches, and a dedication to political accountability for the executive. 

Following the failed insurrection attempt, the Corruption Investigation Office for High-ranking Officials (CIO) launched an insurrection case against Yoon. In addition to his declaration of martial law, Yoon has been accused of failing to cooperate with the CIO. After ignoring court-sanctioned questioning and refusing to comply with investigative procedures, the court issued a warrant for his arrest, making him the first South Korean president arrested in office. If found guilty of insurrection, the penalty for offense is life in prison or the death penalty. 

During this time of political turmoil, South Korea had Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Choi Sang-mok fill in as acting president since December 27. Han Duck-soo, the previous successor, was impeached by the legislature for refusal to fill vacancies on the Constitutional Court.  

Despite the fact that many South Koreans disapprove of his actions, the political disorder around Yoon has brought a resurgence to his approval rating, and a consolidation around his political party, the People Power Party (PPP). According to recent polls, support for the PPP was at 40.8 percent versus the main opposition, the Democratic Party, whose support stood at 42.2 percent. This difference lies within the margin of error, indicating no clear winner in a future presidential election should Yoon be found guilty of impeachment and removed from office.  

In the coming days, authorities will question Yoon and decide on whether to charge and arrest him for attempting a rebellion. However, according to the CIO, Yoon has resisted questioning and refused to participate in the investigation. Additionally, on January 14, the Constitutional Court launched a parallel investigation regarding the Parliament’s decision to impeach Yoon. If endorsed by the courts, an election must be held within sixty days.  

Update January 19: 

On Sunday January 19, a South Korean court officially issued a warrant for Yoon’s arrest and extended his detention for up to 20 days. This announcement sparked a swarm of his supporters to storm the court building, smashing windows and doors to reach the entrance of the building. Once inside, they blasted a line of police guards with fire extinguishers, destroyed furniture, and physically assaulted the officers. Once peace was restored, forty-six of the rioters were arrested. 

Russia: How can Navalny’s death affect the Ukraine War

Written by: Luke Wagner and Ella Rutman; Edited by: Carmine Miklovis and Charlotte Freer

Imprisoned Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny died on Friday after collapsing and losing consciousness, Moscow state-media announced Friday. The Federal Penitentiary Service of the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous District said Navalny, 47, "felt unwell" after he went on a walk and "almost immediately lost consciousness." 

The cause of his death is unclear to the public but many believe that it the culmination from years of abuse in prison. However, other Navalny supporters around the world are skeptical that his death is a result of health issues and are reminded of a failed assassination attempt in 2020.  

When President Biden last spoke face-to-face with Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2021, he said that he made clear that the consequences of Navalny’s death would be “devastating” for Russia. 

In 2022 before returning to Russia and being arrested, Navalny sat down for an interview with CNN and delivered a message in English to the Russian people: “My message for the situation when I am killed is very simple – [do] not give up.” Then switching to the Russian language, Navalny said, “If they decide to kill me, it means that we are incredibly strong. We need to utilize this power, to not give up.” He continued, “We don’t realize how strong we actually are. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing. So don’t be inactive.” 

Although it is unclear what the direct effect of Navalny’s death will be on the Russia-Ukrainian war, there has been a global condemnation of Putin and an increased aid for Ukraine. After meeting with Navalny’s widow and daughter, Biden declared sanctions on Russia, who he claims is responsible for Navalny’s death. Additionally, next week France is hosting an international Ukrainian aid meeting after pledging 3 billion euros in aid. Although it is unclear what additional measures the international community can take to punish Moscow beyond sanctions, as Navalny said, inaction is not an option.