Ukrainian and Russian War Negotiations: The Role of US Intervention

President Trump and President Putin meeting in Helsinki, Finland 2018. Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP

Since Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the conflict has claimed the lives of tens of thousands of civilians and displaced millions more. Despite previously attempting several rounds of peaceful negotiations between Russia and Ukraine alone, all have failed. Now, three years into the war, negotiations to facilitate the end of the conflict seem to be bearing fruit. Much of the recent swift negotiations are being attributed to the re-election of  U.S. President Donald Trump, who has been pushing for an end to the war since he first began campaigning. Yet, the format of these negotiations has drawn international criticism for their exclusion of Ukraine, one of the two parties embroiled in the conflict. Talks between the United States and Russia began in Saudi Arabia, yet Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Ukrainian diplomats had not received an invitation to war negotiations.

As a whole, Trump’s coziness with Russian President Vladimir Putin has worried many U.S. allies. Not only has Trump failed to denounce Russia for their invasion of Ukraine, but he has also refused to sign a formal statement attributing Russia as the cause of the war, instead stating that the focus should be on ending the war rather than its causes. This set the stage for the meeting of President Trump and President Zelensky on February 28th to discuss mineral rights in Ukraine, which quickly turned into a highly contentious, tense discussion. Among the key moments of the meeting were Trump calling President Zelensky a “dictator,” blaming him for starting the war, and criticizing him for not thanking the United States for the foreign aid that Ukraine has been given, all of which led to President Zelensky walking out of the meeting without signing any agreement.

Following this meeting, President Zelensky sent a letter to the Oval Office stating that Kyiv was ready for negotiations and peace. Since then, President Trump spoke with President Putin on March 18th, and a 30-day partial ceasefire against attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure has been reached. Yet, President Putin still has not agreed to a complete ceasefire, stating that there were still issues that needed to be “ironed out.” The direction of further negotiations remains uncertain.

In the midst of this crisis, many European nations have been expressing concerns about the Trump administration’s new foreign relations policies, especially with the knowledge that Ukrainian aid is conditional pending. French President Emmanuel Macron is one of these leaders, and in response has hosted several European-specific meetings over the past couple of weeks that excluded the United States from discussions on potential aid solutions for Ukraine. As a result, tensions have continued to increase between Europe and the U.S., with many allies continuing to look for alternative routes of aid without involvement from the U.S. This shift toward isolationist policy marks a stark shift in U.S. foreign policy and international diplomacy, with European allies learning they will need to rely less and less on the U.S. for support.

The AfD and New German Parliament

Kay Nietfeld/Pool Image via Getty Images

In February, Germany held a snap national election to determine a new Bundestag, their national parliament. While its winners, the Christian Democratic Union of Germany (CDU)/Christian Social Union (CSU), were unsurprising to many observers, the real story lies in the breakthrough of the far-right political party, the Alternative for Germany (AfD). Coming up with 20.8% of the vote, this doubles their share of votes and seats from the last election in 2021.

Who are the AfD? Now led by Alice Weidel, the political party was formed as a Eurosceptic party in 2013 and has since grown in popularity for its anti-establishment attitude. Frequently, they endorse policies that are less mainstream across the continent, including opposing military aid to Ukraine. Moreover, the party has capitalized on the promotion of harsh anti-immigration policies, a stance that has grown increasingly popular in Germany and Europe writ large. 

While the AfD supports populist far-right beliefs that are rising in popularity around the world (including anti-“woke,” pro-fossil-fuel, and secure border protections), it had been kept on the fringe in post-World War II Germany. As Germany carries the weight of its Nazi past, international and domestic leaders have discouraged the extreme right from holding power in Europe’s largest economy. Marine Le Pen, France’s far-right opposition leader before being disqualified from running for office on embezzlement charges, has publicly distanced herself from the AfD, describing them as the “radical fringe.”  

Moreover, they are closely associated with their antisemitic and Islamophobic statements. They have a pattern of trivializing the Holocaust through the adoption of Nazi slogans (including Alles für Deutschland or “Everything for Germany”) and the promotion of the belief that anyone with migrant heritage is not “properly German.” Beyond that, they’ve focused their anti-immigration efforts on restricting the entry of Muslims into the country. Making matters worse, they are currently under investigation for purported extremism and anti-democratic practices. A German court in Münster ruled that there was reason to believe that they intended to promote a system of illegal discrimination towards those who have immigrated to the state. It is for these reasons that the political party’s rise to power is so monumental. Although they did not win a majority of seats, (an unlikely feat that has only happened once, in the parliamentary term 1957–1961, by the CDU) the systemic features of the German government still give them substantial power, the most that any far-right party has had since the Nazis.

German Bundestag

Understanding the Bundestag

The Bundestag is made up of 630 seats, with the number of seats a party has depending on its share of the national vote. This means that because the AfD won 20.8% of the vote, they are allotted 152 seats. Following a federal election, the Bundestag votes to decide who will serve as Chancellor. To win, the candidate must form a coalition to achieve a parliamentary majority. This process is currently underway with CDU/CSU leader Friedrich Merz, and he hopes to have this secured by mid-April.  

With the AfD winning over 20% of the election, Merz must meet their demands if he wishes to secure their support. In the process of negotiations, he has promised to take steps to limit immigration and agreed to refuse all undocumented migrants (regardless of if they are asylum seekers) at the borders. As he works to form a coalition, he must balance the policy priorities of both the Social Democrats (SDP) and his partners, the Christian Social Union (CSU), to secure a majority without working with the AfD. 

Additionally, the new government plans to increase defense spending at a level of ambition not seen since the Second World War. The spending boost reflects the broader sentiment held by European leaders and their plan for increasing EU strategic autonomy. Instead of relying on other countries in important policy areas like defense and the economy, leaders in the EU are looking to increase state capacity to act independently. As the Trump administration continues to insult European leaders and has shown that an American defense is undependable, many leaders are turning to secure their own defense funds.

Making sense of this election

To understand how the AfD rose to a position of power, we can analyze both international and domestic points. Internationally, the party received support from SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who used his platform to amplify their message. In endorsing them on X, he has said that the AfD is the only party that can “save Germany.” With his support, they have been able to move their messaging from more obscure social media platforms, such as Gettr, Telegram, and VKontakte, to mainstream platforms like X. This mobility helped normalize and legitimize the AfD and its hard-right stances, no matter how extreme they may be. 

Writ large, the rise of the AfD and the outcome of the elections reflect the growing sense of domestic political, economic, and societal turmoil. First, the state’s deep political fractures have only worsened in the past few years. In November 2024, the three-party governing coalition of the Social Democrats (SDP), the Free Democratic Party (FDP), and the Greens led by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz collapsed due to disagreements over economic policy, plunging the already struggling German economy into further political chaos. 

Adding to this, Germany is in a period of serious economic recession and is facing the longest spell of economic stagnation since the end of the Second World War. While the coronavirus pandemic significantly diminished foreign trade and tourism, their industrial and manufacturing sectors were hit the hardest. This was especially significant because roughly a quarter of Germany’s GDP lies in industry. What was created was a vicious cycle in industrial production where decreases in production would decrease consumption, which, in turn, would further decrease production. The direct consequence is record-breaking unemployment, reaching its highest level in 10 years. This further exacerbates individuals’ economic anxieties and their fears towards immigration. 

Finally, deep societal divisions persist even a generation after Germany’s reunification. The East-West divide continues to define local and national politics and shape policy preferences to this day. Despite the attempts of the German government to integrate East Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall, more and more it seems to create its own parallel political reality. Political leaders from East-Germany who were previously defined by intense far-left stances, like Sahra Wagenknecht, have forged new anti-establishment policy preferences that veer so far left they have become far-right. This ideology was coined by Wagenknecht as “left conservative,” deeming those on the left as the threat to democracy. She views the move towards clean energy as responsible for deindustrialization, advocates hard-right migration policies, and seeks close relations with Vladimir Putin to secure Russian natural gas. The former East Germany is a fertile ground for this ideology with historically high unemployment and slow economic growth in comparison to West Germany. Overcoming this polarization will require the government to address lingering systemic inequalities. 
Ultimately, the recent elections and the rise of the AfD mark a turning point in Germany’s postwar political development. The shift from traditional parties to support for anti-establishment far-right parties reflects the deep-seated frustrations toward domestic concerns and trends in the international order. Despite not being included within Merz’s coalition, Weidel and the AfD will continue to hold power and maintain influence over the Bundestag as the largest leading opposition force.

Macron’s Meeting With Trump

Brian Snyder/Reuters

Despite myriad disagreements between U.S. President Donald Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron over the years, the two politicians put their differences aside at a recent White House meeting in February–an encounter which France24 called a “bromance.”

While Trump is a far-right populist and Macron is more center-left, the two might not have much to agree on. Yet over their respective two presidential terms, Trump and Macron have mastered this form of friendly diplomacy, getting along well while also remaining firm in their beliefs and agendas. 

For instance, rather than getting upset at Macron for speaking in French at the White House– as happened previously at the Eiffel Tower– Trump cut him off with a compliment and a firm pat on the thigh, stating: “That is the most beautiful language.”

Piers Morgan, a British broadcaster and longtime friend of Trump, insists Macron is skilled at dealing with Trump. “No world leader handles Trump as well as Macron. Friendly but firm, respectful but not afraid to stand up to him when he thinks he’s wrong. And Trump respects him for it.”

During their meeting Trump and Macron agreed on a few important points, with Trump even stating that Putin would support European peacekeeping forces entering Ukraine once the war is over–a claim that the Kremlin has since denied. Anticipating pushback, Macron prefaced that these forces “would not be along the frontlines. They would not be part of any conflict. They would be there to ensure that the peace is respected.”

Although Trump’s talk with Macron went well, there was no such “bromance” between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy when the two met on February 28. Trump said one thing with Macron and another with Zelenskyy, demonstrating his lack of commitment to diplomacy and how easily he can be swayed by politicians he gets along with. After being berated by Trump and vice president JD Vance, Zelenskyy walked out of the meeting leaving the US-Ukraine minerals deal unsigned.

Was the groundwork Macron laid regarding Ukraine all in vain? Trump may have ruined his chances with Ukraine by disrespecting Zelenskyy and not taking the suffering and demands of his people seriously.

Given Trump’s unreliable diplomacy, even his relationship with Macron is not always smooth. This is clearly illustrated in Macron’s exclusion from Trump’s inauguration. Instead, fringe far-right French politician Éric Zemmour attended, and not even Marine Le Pen–  the more established right-wing politician who finished in second place in the 2022 French presidential election– was invited. 

While Trump has recognized that the conflict must end before it escalates into a Third World War, he felt that a possible solution could include Ukraine surrendering territory to Russia. However, Macron stressed the need for a strong peace agreement and underlined that a good solution would not include the capitulation of Ukraine. 

With the United States announcing on March 3 that it will suspend military aid to Ukraine, only time will tell whether Macron’s strategy with Trump worked. Those on the left are horrified at the consequences this change of policy may have. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee insisted that in “freezing military aid to Ukraine, President Trump has kicked the door wide open for Putin to escalate his violent aggression against innocent Ukraine.”

Much of Europe shares this anxiety, including Macron’s close ally François Bayrou, France’s prime minister since December who stated “If Russia stops fighting, the war stops. If Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine disappears.” 

While Bayrou has been clear of his disdain for Trump and his politics with Ukraine, Macron took a more restrained response to American military aid suspension: “The United States, our ally, has changed its position on this war, is less supportive of Ukraine and is casting doubt on what will happen next… I want to believe that the United States will remain by our side, but we need to be ready if that were not the case.” 

While the relationship might not be strong enough to be labeled a “bromance,” Macron has affirmed his commitment to supporting  the American president and his dedication to Franco-American relations.

However, as the situation in Ukraine unfolds–especially after the halting of American military aid–the world will watch for the fate of the Ukrainian people and the response of Europe’s leaders in light of the president’s withdrawal.

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.

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).

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: 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. 

European Union: New restrictions on Artificial Intelligence passed

Written by: Carmine Miklovis; Edited by: Helen Lallos-Harrell

On Friday, February 2nd, The European Union (EU) moved to impose regulations on the usage of artificial intelligence (AI) in a move that may set a precedent for future responses to other developments in emerging technology. 

This agreement, which creates limitations on the use of certain types of AI, including the gradual implementation of law to criminalize deepfakes, comes after the cumulation of tense negotiations between European states. 

France and Germany, two economic powerhouses in the bloc who have taken advantage of recent technological developments to establish robust AI programs, pushed back against the bill’s restrictions, expressing concerns about the bill’s potential to hamstring innovation in the field. To remedy this, negotiators added a slew of measures intended to promote innovation, which ultimately proved sufficient to get the bill across the finish line. Amongst these measures was the promise that Berlin and Paris’ concerns would be addressed, in addition to the creation of the Artificial Intelligence Office, which is responsible for enforcing the act. 

As AI technology evolves rapidly, future debates on the extent to which technologies should be regulated are inevitable, and it’s only a matter of time before other AI frontrunners, such as the U.S. and China, respond to the EU’s action.

Spain: Why a Catalan separatist party voted against amnesty for its members

Written by: Helen Lallos-Harrell; Edited by: Carmine Miklovis

On January 30th, Spain's lower house rejected an amnesty bill proposed by the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party in a 179 to 171 vote.

Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez had championed the bill in exchange for parliamentary support of two Catalan separatist parties, Junts Party and Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya – both parties that had enabled Sánchez to form his minority leftist government last year. The bill would have granted amnesty to hundreds of Catalan separatists and set standards for granting amnesty for terrorism-related charges, for which several politicians of the Junts Party currently face investigation.

Despite supporting amnesty for Catalan separatists, Junts members voted against the bill in a last-minute reversal after disagreements over some of the bill’s details could not be reconciled. Justice Minister Félix Bolaños described it as "absolutely incomprehensible that Junts should vote against a law it had agreed on" while speaking with reporters.

The amnesty bill has faced heavy pushback from the Spanish public, approximately half of which support the conservative and far-right opposition parties. Anti-amnesty bill demonstrations across Spain reflect this attitude, with some protesters comparing Sánchez's behavior to that of a dictator.

The bill will return to debate in parliamentary committees before it returns to the lower house for another vote. In the meantime, Junts members want to continue negotiating the bill's terms.

When describing the party's decision to vote against it in parliament, Míriam Nogueras, a member of the Together for Catalunya party in the Congress of Deputies, noted, "there is no reason to approve an amnesty law with holes in it." Regardless of specifics, the bill's rejection and its highly controversial nature demonstrate the fragile state of Sánchez's minority-rule government and call into question its sustainability in the coming years.

United Kingdom: Why are the Conservatives pinning their electoral chances on the controversial ‘Rwanda Plan?’

Written by Luke Wagner; Edited by Chloe Baldauf

UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has pinned much of his conservative party’s electoral success on the passage of the controversial ‘Rwanda Safety Bill.’  After narrowly avoiding a far-right conservative rebellion in the House of Commons, the bill is next headed for a vote in the House of Lords where its fate is anything but certain. 

Sunak’s government has championed the Rwanda Plan as the solution to tamping down the country’s high immigration.  In 2022, the UK and Rwanda struck a deal to respond to a dramatic increase in refugees arriving in Britain from across the English Channel via small boats arranged by human trafficking gangs.   

The East African nation agreed to accept Britain’s illegal migrants and provide them “safe” asylum in exchange for £240 million with £50 million more to come.  However, many in the UK were not convinced.  In November 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that this agreement was unlawful because there was not sufficient protection against Rwanda’s government deporting migrants back to their countries of origin – which would breach international humanitarian law.   

Despite this legal setback, Rishi Sunak’s government vowed to move forward with the proposal while bringing it in accordance with UK and international law.  These changes are what had many far-right MPs prepared to revolt against the policy they deemed not forceful enough.  However, for the sake of party unity, those far-right members in the House of Commons backed down from their threats and voted for the bill. 

The bill now sits with the unelected House of Lords.  Their traditional role is to amend legislation passed by the elected House of Commons, however, since the Conservatives do not constitute a clear majority in the House of Lords, opposition members have suggested that they have the responsibility to block this legislation.  Lord Alex Carlile, a leading British barrister and independent member of the House of Lords, signaled his intention to oppose the bill that he called a “step towards totalitarianism.”  

Although it could feasibly be blocked, the tailwinds may be in favor of stricter immigration policy.   Earlier this month, polling revealed 64% of Brits believed that immigration rates are “too high” – the highest rate since YouGov began surveying this question in 2019.   

If Sunak is unable to offer up a viable solution to high immigration, his prime ministership may be at risk.  Another YouGov poll released this week has been causing anxiety amongst Tories who were predicted to lose their majority in the upcoming election to the Labour Party with the heaviest loss in parliamentary seats since 1997.  However, if the Labour Party is held responsible for the rejection of the bill in the House of Lords, their electoral chances could suffer alongside Sunak’s.   

All the while, Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame said to reporters Thursday that his government is prepared to receive the migrants whenever or if they come.