The Cards Were Already On the Table: What the West told Putin about their Commitment to Democratic Freedom

By: Anna Grace Calhoun

As Russian artillery shells indiscriminately destroy Ukrainian cities, the Western response has been swift and sweeping, featuring extensive sanctions designed to sever Russia from the global economy. Pointing to Ukrainian heroism and the unified condemnation of NATO and the U.S., many Western figures have asked with indignation: How did Putin think he could get away with this? In their narrative, Putin gravely miscalculated; he committed an egregious assault on human rights, democracy, and state sovereignty, and he solidified his nation’s destiny of becoming a pariah. However, the recent past reveals the West has been apathetic when it comes to Russian aggression against non-strategically valuable states. The future is impossible to predict, but it is entirely plausible that Putin will walk away having achieved at least some of his goals, such as Ukrainian neutrality. Even in outcomes less favorable to Putin, his downfall is less likely to be brought on by Western rescue than by wild card factors, such as a Ukrainian insurgency. As such, perhaps Western societies overestimated the credibility of their claim to being decisive defenders of democracy. The West must seek to re-evaluate themselves honestly; otherwise, they will never understand the calculus which guides Putin-like figures. 

Perhaps scarred by the Bush era’s overreach and failures in nation-building, the past three U.S. presidents have pursued a foriegn policy that rhetorically emphasizes democratic values and alliance but commits primarily “democratic support” insofar as it serves direct security concerns. This policy has left Russian international assaults on human rights largely unchallenged. Though the West is pointing to the displacement of 6.5 million Ukranians as a motivator for their action against the Russian invasion, it has never given the same attention to Moscow’s backing of the Assad regime, whose civil/proxy war has displaced over 13.5 million Syrians. The Syrian government carried out 32 confirmed chemical attacks and stands accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and “other international crimes, including genocide” by the UN Human Rights Council. Yet, even following Obama’s 2012 “red line” declaration, the West has made no dedicated effort to stand with Syrians in the way it has rallied against potential war crimes in Ukraine. In fact, the same EU countries now welcoming Ukrainian refugees aggressively turned away Syrian refugees, even using them as political pawns in manufactured border crises. What about this response demonstrates to Putin that the West has a genuine, principled devotion to upholding human rights internationally? 

Other Western values asserted in opposition to the invasion include protection of state sovereignty and democratic governance. However, the strength of these commitments are questionable in the wake of Kremlin influence on the most recent Belrusian election. After the fraudulent reelection of current Belarusian President Lukashenko, the leader faced widespread protests, which he met with intense militia crackdowns. His regime then secured further Russian backing, with the KGB forcing his former electoral opponent Tsikhanouskaya to emigrate to Lithuania. This dictator, who kidnapped dissidents and brutalized protestors, solidified his rule in 2020 by enlisting Russian aid in crushing democratic electoral results and uprisings--and his abuses hardly made headlines. Where was the West’s commitment to bolstering democracy in Minsk? The choice to turn a blind eye now exacts an acute cost, with Belarus serving as a key launching ground for Russian missiles and as a potential military reinforcer. Interference with the Belerusian election is just one example among numerous Russian violations of state sovereignty: the annexation of Crimea in 2014, active perpetuation of frozen conflicts in Moldova, Georgia, and Armenia/Azerbaijan, and interference in a U.S. election. Again, the West formed no cohesive and consistent resistance against such assaults on democratic sovereignty. 

Despite the emphasis on the moral imperative to support Ukrainians’ freedom against an enemy committed to evil, Putin’s success in continuing operations to undermine both individual and state freedoms may have taught him a lesson the West has yet to learn: regardless of language suggesting otherwise, human rights and democratic principles unfortunately take a backseat in foreign policy. Biden’s botched statement about disagreements concerning whether to respond to a “minor incursion” only confirmed that security and economic factors exert far more leverage over policy than principles-based ones. So, on balance of interests alone, this invasion is better characterized as a risky bet than as a blind miscalculation, considering the enormous strategic importance of Ukraine to Russia and its murkier concrete value to the West. Putin’s regime predicted and presumably calculated sanctions to be an absorbable cost. Weak Western resolve to defend democracy makes Putin’s expectations about limitations on Western pushback understandable, even if they prove to be incorrect. The West must reckon with the reality that its limited affirmation of fundamental rights internationally may be an authoritarian-emboldening strategic weakness. 

Russia Invaded Ukraine, and North Korea is Watching

By: Addie Simkin

On February 24, Russia invaded Ukraine in a shot heard halfway around the world in North Korea. Europe and supranational organizations like the UN (and, more specifically, the UN Security Council) are regularly discussing the consequences of this attack. However, this assault is also salient to authoritarian world leaders, East Asian politics, and the so-called Hermit Kingdom, North Korea. This  piece considers the consequences of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on North Korean international relations. 

Politically, North Korea has supported Russia and used the invasion to make a statement against U.S. imperialism. North Korea was one of five countries to reject the UN resolution to condemn Russia, along with Russia itself, Belarus, Syria, and Eritrea. In the statement, diplomat Kim Song criticized the “hegemonic policy” of the U.S. which threatens the “territorial integrity of sovereign nations”. Not only does this statement reinforce North Korea’s historic policy towards the U.S, but it also contains concerning rhetoric about territory and sovereignty. The Korean Peninsula is in armistice, not peace; although the U.S. treats North and South Korea as separate states, neither country sees themselves that way—this is the discursive niche of both the pursuit of reunification and the Demilitarized Zone, or DMZ.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine presents a model of and establishes a precedent for violent border revisionism. Looking to the future, this precedent may lead to similar, inter-Korean violence. North Korea has been diligently amassing nuclear strength since 2006; that, along with its unprecedentedly frequent missile launches this year—nine as of March 9—indicate that it is experimenting with both its own armaments and the norms and responsiveness of the international community.

Economically, North Korea’s hard currency intake has been damaged by the invasion. Here’s why: North Korean workers in Russia have quotas for how much remittance they must send to Pyongyang, converted from rubles to U.S. dollars. As the ruble has tanked in value, workers cannot meet their quotas. Consequently, North Korea and China must develop closer trade relations for Pyongyang to supplement the remittances it can no longer receive from Russia. Fortunately for North Korea, Xi Jinping has reportedly expressed that he is ready to work on China-DPRK relations “under a new situation,” although he has failed to define the new situation. Meanwhile, ex-CIA analyst William Brown warns that the growing force of sanctioned countries—North Korea, Iran, and now Russia—may begin to trade amongst themselves, forming closer financial ties. 

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has served to reassert North Korea’s animosity toward the U.S. and the West, redouble its alliance with China, and redefine its relationship with Russia, given that North Korea supports Russia even when it can no longer rely upon remittances from Russia. More than that, Putin has established a precedent of violent invasion which Kim can use to help justify a breach to the inter-Korean armistice.

In Retrospect: On China Hosting the 2022 Winter Olympics

By: Victoria Djou

The Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics brought many inspiring stories: Nathan Chen gained redemption winning gold in the men’s figure skating singles; Chloe Kim defended her halfpipe gold; Erin Jackson became the first black woman to win gold in speed skating. In China, viewership of the Olympics reached an all time high, with nearly 600 million people closely following the games. 

However, for many others, abuses of power by Russia and China marred the beauty of this year’s Winter Olympics. In contrast to soaring Chinese viewership, an all-time low of 11 million Americans followed the Olympics this winter. A dark shadow has hovered around the games since allegations of concentration camps and human rights abuses against ethnic Tibetans and Uyghers were brought to light on the international stage. In December of 2021, the U.S. and Canada stood against China’s abuses with their diplomatic boycott of the Olympics. However, the move was largely symbolic, and one that should not have had to take place; authoritarian dictatorships should never hold the Olympics. 

As a unifying force for the world, the host country should not espouse ideals that threaten other countries’ sovereignty. In the past, Nazi Germany and Russia both used the Olympics not for the good of the world, but rather for selfish self-promotion before invading another country. In 1936, the Berlin Olympics served as a propaganda mouthpiece for the odious Nazi regime immediately preceding Germany’s invasion of Poland. In 2014, the Sochi Olympics served again as a display of strength before Russia invaded Crimea. This year, China collaborated with Russia. Russia then launched a full scale invasion of Ukraine merely five days after the end of the 2022 Winter Olympics. Will Taiwan be next? 

Given the attention that the Olympics receive, countries that respect fundamental norms of international sovereignty should hold the games. Countries known to disrupt the international order in violent ways have no place hosting a peaceful gathering of other countries. China demonstrated its willingness to encroach on freedom, use force when necessary, and violate international norms even before it was given the Olympics in 2015. Since then, China’s aggression has only increased with conflicts in the South China Sea and the forceful seizure of Hong Kong. 

The Olympics should be an international tournament for peace. Sadly, the games are too often misused as a tool for dictators to glorify their power. This autocratic manipulation of the Olympics undermines the core credibility of the games.

The 2022 Winter Olympics was the least watched Olympics of the modern era with good reason. The public simply does not want to watch or afford credibility to dictatorship spectacles. The International Olympic Committee can restore public trust in their institution, both in the US and around the world, only by refusing to place games in authoritarian nations.

The Olympics have long been a global event for inspiring athletic talent to promote international cooperation. But this standard will not endure as dictatorships increasingly use and abuse the Olympics for brutal trans-national power grabs. The time has come for the International Olympic Committee to adopt a new policy against locating humanity’s global games in any authoritarian dictatorship.

United Against Unity: The Troublesome Rise of Right-Wing Authoritarianism in European Democracies

By: Clare Atkinson

German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier was recently quoted during an interview regarding the conflict in Ukraine stating that one should not “underestimate the power of democracy”. However, democratic backslide among Western European nations is a worrying symptom of the recent reemergence of right-wing authoritarianism. This threat does not just plague ‘peripheral’ Eastern European nations, such as Poland and Hungary, but also countries who have fought to ‘defend democracy’ in territories around the world. Current political parties and national leaders are using modern tactics to appeal to a new generation of potential supporters. While right-wing populists used to unite around anti-communist messages, this rhetoric is antiquated and does not resonate with most voters today. Politicians such as British prime minister Boris Johnson and French presidential candidates Marine Le Pen and Eric Zemmour preach nationalistic sentiments, opposition to international institutions, and a socially conservative religious worldview to demonize pluralism and subtly promote autocracy through new channels of communication. This demonstrates the fragmentation of right-wing ideology in Europe which has the potential to degrade the current rules-based order and disintegrate international cooperation.

Freedom House cites the United Kingdom as being one of the most free nations in the world in 2022, and the government cites “defending democracy” as one of its main policy goals. However, the administration of Boris Johnson has not only undermined European integration, but also used the media to spread dangerous messages. Johnson’s Brexit campaign touted the slogan “unleash Britain’s potential”- proclaiming a return to the supremacy enjoyed by the former British empire. This was supplemented by lies about the implications of continued EU membership, including costs incurred by the National Health Service from immigrants and foreign laborers, in an attempt to vilify European unity in favor of self-interested national unity. Furthermore, Johnson has been cited on several occasions for speaking out against immigration and making Islamophobic comments. While these messages may not seem detrimental to democratic order in isolation, the current media environment allows leaders to reach individual voters in ways that will specifically appeal to them, changing political discourse completely and allowing the Brexit referendum to pass.

Although only candidates, Marine Le Pen and Eric Zemmour represent a chance for the far-right in France to gain a foothold in government like never before. Their blatant xenophobia – exemplified by Le Pen’s campaign promise of “keeping France for the French” and Zemmour preaching the “great replacement theory”, the idea that Muslims immigrants will ‘replace’ Europeans – has gained popularity. Beyond an outward hatred of immigration, Muslim immigration in particular, the only politician that rivals Le Pen in her stance against the EU is Zemmour. While these types of candidates have always existed in French politics, they rarely make it past the first round of elections, due to their lack of compromise and hence their inability to form a coalition. Now, with two politicians united in these fringe views and the growing unpopularity of the incumbent, the right-wing is more dangerous than ever in France.

France and Britain are what many would consider two of the most stable democracies today, and yet they both exhibit worrying signs of right-wing authoritarianism. These two nations, and these leaders, are only a few examples of these sentiments in Europe, and their views and actions are relatively mild compared to others. Furthermore, the similarities in their respective ideologies show signs of potential cooperation around these anti-democratic objectives, further threatening the already struggling European institutions.

Americans, and citizens of other long-established democracies, take the current liberal order for granted and do not consider the consequences that isolationism and autocratic rule could have on the entire globe. In an increasingly globalized world, we are now more than ever facing  complex problems which require unity, such as climate change and a global pandemic. Not only will a lack of cooperation prevent action against these issues, but it will continue to create conflicts and undermine the basic rights which we enjoy in our democracy. Right-wing populist leaders across Europe are spreading similar ideologies which not only undermines current European institutions, but could potentially facilitate new organizations who are unified on a platform of disunity. Becoming aware of the possibility of a democratic backslide in formerly stable democracies and recognizing the messages of leaders with authoritarian tendencies is the only way to curb the spread of this toxic ideology.

Note: This editorial was written prior to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

The Influence of Culture of the Spread of COVID-19

By: CC Smith

Coronavirus deaths officially surpassed one million globally, with the United States alone accounting for some 20% of deaths and 23% of total cases (John Hopkins Coronavirus Center). This is a staggering statistic on its own, but even more so when coupled with the fact that the U.S. accounts for 4% of the global population, according to the 2010 U.S. Census. Many factors play a role in each country’s handling of the pandemic, with the most influential likely being national leadership, and perhaps culture itself in close second. The U.S., Land of the Free, is an individualistic culture, motivated by individual desires, independence, and freedom. South Korea, on the other hand, is a collectivist culture, prioritizing the wellbeing of the community and acting in accordance with group goals. 

There is a staunch difference in the spread of the virus between collectivist cultures versus individualistic cultures, with the former greatly trumping the latter in number of cases and deaths. When news of the virus in Wuhan emerged, almost without hesitation, the South Korean people temporarily sacrificed their individual liberties and allowed the government to handle the situation. The government itself then left decision-making in the hands of scientists and epidemiologists. Given the impact the 2015 SARS virus left on the nation, South Koreans knew the only way to get through it, was to get through it. Citizens agreed to install a COVID contact-tracing app that notified anyone upon exposure and would then willingly isolate for two weeks when and if they were exposed. The response was arguably pervasive given the government had access to the whereabouts of almost their entire citizenry, but South Korean citizens willingly complied with the guidelines and behaved in accordance with their collectivist values. In October, both the United States and South Korea reported their highest number of new cases. On the 23rd, South Korea reported 155 cases. The following day, the United States reported over 80,000 (CNN). 

To protect one another and the country at large from devastation, South Korean citizens willingly sacrificed parts of their freedom as soon as Wuhan went public with the news. Conversely, when COVID-19 began to spread in the U.S. in March, thousands of Americans proceeded with their spring break travel plans. As the economy gradually shut down in the following weeks, no mandatory guidelines, rather only suggestions, were emplaced -- only regarding how often Americans were allowed to leave their homes, due to the likelihood of massive retaliation and immediate calls for anarchy if stricter restrictions were instituted. To date, many Americans are still reluctant to even wear a mask, claiming that the government should not be allowed to tell citizens what to do. 

When citizens of a country act with one another in mind, comply with governmental guidelines, and do not give into every self-centered impulse they may have in times of global and national unrest, they will eventually find an equilibrium and be offered those freedoms again. When citizens of a country act with their own fleeting and individualistic desires in mind, the unrest will persist. 

Explaining the Iran-China Deal

By: Aria Zareibidgoli

Amidst tensions between the United States and China, the latter is pursuing a deal with another of America’s adversaries, Iran. The two countries seem to be in the closing stages of negotiations, developing an agreement that would signal increased cooperation in the decades to come.

The agreement signifies China’s defiance towards the United States’ aggressive policy attempts at isolating Iran and weakening its economy. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or the Iran nuclear deal, was initially supposed to relax the economic pressure on Iran through the removal and suspension of sanctions. However, the United States’ aggressive policy towards Iran resumed (arguably in a more drastic way than before) with the Trump administration’s abandonment of the nuclear deal, the reinstatement of sanctions, and among other additional measures, the outright threat of further sanctions against any buyers of Iranian oil. 

These policies have succeeded in crippling the Iranian economy; the country faces a deep recession, a significant decline in oil exports and production, and a currency that is plummeting in value. Given these conditions, it’s not hard to imagine why Iran would actively seek a deal with its leading trading partner, China.

Many have described the deal itself as an economic lifeline for Iran; according to a leaked draft of the agreement, China will invest in Iran’s infrastructure, energy, transportation, and banking sectors for 25 years. These investments seem to total in at around $400 billion. In exchange, China will receive Iranian oil at a heavily discounted price. Additionally, the agreement suggests increased military cooperation and intelligence sharing between the two nations.

It’s important to consider this development in the greater context of China’s expanding influence. The agreement is the latest step in China’s Belt and Road Initiative, a policy aimed at investing in the development of various countries, primarily in Asia, Africa, and Europe. If the two nations finalize this deal, it will further establish China as a competitor to the US in pursuing dominance in the Middle East. This is especially relevant now when the United States is seeking to diminish their military presence within the region.

Importantly, the deal has emerged after western nations failed to maintain economic commitments outlined in the JCPOA. Therefore, this development also underscores that, following the abandonment of the Iran deal, Iran has moved to further create long-term plans with non-western nations to achieve economic stability. Importantly, this means that in placing intense economic pressure on the nation, the United States has pushed Iran further towards its global competitor, China.

Why the United States Should Take a Step Back with Armenia and Azerbaijan

By: Carina Ritcheson

Resuming on July 12, 2020 and escalating on September 27th, the decades old territorial and cultural conflict between Armenians and Azerbaijanis re-emerged over the region of Nagorno-Karabakh. The region is internationally-recognized as Azerbaijani, but has an Armenian population. The fighting has no clear end in sight, aggravated by the intervention of Turkey, a historical adversary and oppressor of the Armenian people. Meanwhile, Russia has good relationships with both. From the realist American perspective, this is the perfect opportunity to preserve our role as offshore balancer. 

In 1921, Josef Stalin gave this land to Azerbaijan with an Armenian population. Conflict finally arose in the late 1980s with the Nagorno-Karabakh regional parliament voting to become part of Armenia. This led to war in the 1990s, resulting in millions of displaced people and hundreds of thousands dead. A ceasefire was agreed upon in 1994, but a solution was never achieved. 

Presently, Russia and France are supporting Armenia, while Turkey has pledged its full support to Azerbaijan. The latter relationship revisits historical tensions within the region and provokes escalation. An old Armenian classmate of mine shared with me the current environment. He explains the Turkish involvement feels like a “continuation of the Armenian genocide.” Clearly, Turkey’s outright support of Azerbaijan, politically and militarily, worries Armenians.

Considering Russia’s role in the groundwork for this conflict, their hegemony in the region, and their healthy relations with both of their former satellite states, it makes sense for them to take responsibility. The United States does not have a role in this conflict. While we manage our election, failing Covid response, racism in America, and maintaining our international presence, Russia needs to fix this. As our past few presidents and many Americans believe, it is time to adapt to a new international system, one in which regional leaders fix a problem within their own means. 

While both sides are losing military personnel and civilians, what is on the mind of most Armenians are their troops. Turkish aid rendered Syrian mercenaries as fighters, many of whom came for the promise of a nearly $2,000 payoff. Young Armenian lives are being lost while the Azeris have the mercenaries. Azerbaijan has a population of 9.7 million people with a $46.94 billion GDP, which is grossly disproportionate to Armenia who has a population of 3.1 million and a GDP of $12.43 billion. It is not difficult to understand why Armenians see this as a humanitarian crisis and are pleading for help.

Although both sides accused the other of violating the October 12 ceasefire, with cooperation there can be a longer one. Perhaps, with the aid of more powerful regional countries, they will be able to broker a compromise and save their countrymen’s lives before history repeats itself. Russia has the opportunity to step in and make peace, which does not put our international role in jeopardy. This is America’s time to delegate and focus resources on our domestic concerns.

Cyber Warfare in the Era of the Coronavirus

By: Jule Voss

The importance of technology has never been more apparent than during the COVID-19 pandemic. For the 4.57 billion people who have access to it, the internet has become a lifeline during the pandemic, providing virtual options for employment, education, banking, health care services, psycho-social support, and vital information about the coronavirus. So what would happen if all government websites, news services, and financial institutions suddenly went offline for weeks at a time?

This is exactly what happened in Estonia and Georgia following Russian cyber-attacks in 2007 and 2008. Kremlin-affiliated hackers used distributed denial of service attacks (DDoS) to shut down key online infrastructures in acts of cyber warfare. In these DDoS attacks, the hackers generated an overwhelming number of logon requests for specific IP addresses associated with the government, banks, and news sites to overwhelm the system and block access. 

In Estonia, the attacks were triggered by the government’s decision to move a Russian war memorial statue from the nation’s capital to a military cemetery; in Georgia, they were carried out as part of the Russo-Georgian War in 2008. During the attacks, Estonia even considered invoking NATO’s Article 5—the provision for collective defense in the event of an armed attack against a NATO member.

While Russia has in many ways ushered in the era of cyber warfare, other nations, including China, the United States, and Israel, have been quick to follow suit. In one particularly astonishing case, a cyber weapon known as Stuxnet destroyed nuclear centrifuges at the Natanz nuclear facility, one of Iran’s primary uranium enrichment sites. The computer virus, which is widely believed to have been jointly created by the United States and Israel, targeted programmable logic controllers in Siemens centrifuges, causing the devices to spin out of control. No one was harmed by the attack, but the destruction likely set back Iran’s nuclear program by up to five years.

By many accounts, the Stuxnet virus is an example of the positive capabilities of cyber weapons—a targeted attack that avoided the kind of conventional military strike considered during the George W. Bush administration and which resulted in no human casualties. 

However, the Stuxnet virus also marks the start of a new era of cyber warfare in which the traditional rules outlined in the UN Charter and international humanitarian law (IHL) may no longer apply. 

After discussions spanning multiple years, a UN Group of Governmental Experts appointed by the UN General Assembly in 2013 failed to research a conclusion about whether or not IHL— including the prohibition on indiscriminate attacks against civilians—applied to cyber warfare. Without a comprehensive international framework to limit the use of cyber weapons, the safety and security of every citizen of the world will remain at risk.