Ever since the nationalist government of China fled to the island of Taiwan in 1949, the Republic of China’s (Taiwan) relationship status with the People’s of Republic of China (China or PRC) has been clouded with ambiguity. The 1992 consensus, accepted by both China’s Communist Party (CPC) and Taiwan’s Kuomintang (KMT), stated that there is “one China” that encompasses China and Taiwan; however, disagreement persists as to which government maintains legitimate authority over the region and what exactly “one China” means. The last 60 years have witnessed increasing contention over diplomatic recognition and territorial claims by the governments of China and Taiwan.

While China’s CPC and Taiwan’s KMT insist that each has legitimate authority over both Taiwan and China, Taiwan’s Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), the more liberally minded opposition party to the KMT, adamantly rejects the 1992 consensus and any notion of unification with China, viewing it as a disparate nation. Following Taiwanese President (and KMT leader) Ma Ying-jeou’s attempts to cultivate stronger economic ties with the China, in March 2014 hundreds of outraged college students stormed Taiwan’s parliament, occupying it for several weeks, with thousands more protesting in the streets. Eight months later, the DPP enjoyed widespread victories throughout Taiwanese localities.

This electoral victory is largely a reflection of general dissatisfaction with the failed leadership of President Ma, and only slightly tied to DPP’s anti-unification policies. Still, recent moves by the PRC to undermine Hong Kong’s political autonomy have galvanized Taiwanese political movements aimed at countering increased economic and political ties between Taiwan and China. Many Taiwanese are progressively wary of any moves towards reconciliation or economic integration with their estranged neighbor to the north. After all, the “one country, two systems” agreement that supposedly guaranteed Hong Kong’s political independence in exchange for unification was an idea first conceived by Taiwan. That Hong Kong’s political sovereignty has been so flagrantly disregarded by China’s politicians is not a positive signal to those Taiwanese leaning towards conditional unification in the future.

Because the DPP is seen as the strongest hardliner on independence, Taiwan’s anti-unification trend will only serve to strengthen DPP’s political influence in the coming years, as well as increase the odds of a DPP candidate ascending to the presidency in 2016. Such a shift in Taiwan’s leadership would aggravate the CPC, since a Taiwanese president from the DPP party would likely ratify legislation aimed at diminishing economic ties with China and further distance Taiwan from pressures to reunite.

Legislation of this variety is seen as unacceptable by the CPC and could inevitably lead to heightened aggression by China towards Taiwan. As was made abundantly clear in China’s 2005 Taiwanese Anti-Secession Law, a mere declaration of independence by Taiwan would result in aggressive military action by China.

In sum, China has shot itself in the foot. Its attempts at curtailing freedom in Hong Kong have not only been met by widespread protests, but also served to embolden formal independence movements in Taiwan. These increasing calls for independence in Taiwan will precipitate aggression by China, which will then trigger more calls for independence in Taiwan. And here begins the vicious cycle that will plague cross-strait relations for the foreseeable future.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

Allegations currently mount against Argentinian president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner’s administration following the suspected murder of Natalio Alberto Nisman, the federal prosecutor leading the investigation of the 1994 AMIA bombing. Resulting in 85 deaths and nearly 300 injuries, the car bombing of the Jewish Center in Buenos Aires left a permanent scar on Argentina, yet it has remained unsolved for over two decades.

On January 14, just four days prior to his death, Nisman publically accused Kirchner’s administration of concealing Iran’s suspected involvement in the AMIA attack and negotiating with Iran to protect its officials from prosecution in exchange for oil. In fact, Nisman’s death occurred just one day before he was scheduled to testify before Congress about the president’s purported involvement in the cover-up. To top it all off, investigators found a drafted arrest warrant for Kirchner in the home of the deceased.

Gerardo Pollicita, the federal prosecutor assigned to take over Nisman’s investigation, has requested authorization for a formal investigation into Kirchner’s involvement in the AMIA bombing cover-up. If the judiciary believes there to be sufficient evidence for a trial, Kirchner will face criminal charges and potential impeachment in one of the most egregious political scandals Argentina and the world have ever seen.

Kirchner’s response has hardly alleviated the ensuing political turmoil. Initially claiming that his death was a suicide, she later changed her position suggesting that Nisman was murdered by one of his aides. Kirchner’s widespread calls for national unity amidst the proceeding investigation were quickly followed by her throwing the spotlight onto the Secretariat of Intelligence, Argentina’s top intelligence agency, asserting that they alone were responsible for Nisman’s murder in an attempt to incite political instability.

Unfortunately, it is unlikely that recent developments will lead to any legitimate political reforms. Argentina is widely regarded as a country blessed by resources, but cursed by politicians. Over the last half-century in particular, Argentinians have shown a strong proclivity for electing peronístas, adherers to the political movement founded by President Juan Domingo Perón (1946-55, 1973-74), whose proletariat ideologies are often conflated with authoritarianism and fascism.

Since Perón’s tenure, nine candidates of the Justicialist Party, the main Peronist party, have been elected to Argentina’s highest office. The populist values of Kirchner and other peronísta candidates typically carry the most appeal to voters; even if Kirchner resigns from politics there is unlikely to be substantial policy deviations by her successor.

More generally, this crisis of leadership threatens Argentina’s already weakened economy at the tail end of an expired commodity boom. In order to make its economy a more attractive destination for foreign direct investment, it is critical that Argentina’s political establishment restores some base level of trust in political institutions and mounts a legitimate investigation, unfettered by government meddling.

Still, Nisman’s recent allegations are markedly the most shocking to ever be levied against Kirchner’s administration. Given the ubiquitous corruption that permeates nearly all of Argentina’s political institutions, there is serious doubt as to whether or not criminal investigators will uncover the truth.

The increasing uncertainty over his death and the conjectured culpability of her administration in the Iranian negotiations will likely tarnish Kirchner’s legacy irrevocably. Whether or not her administration is able to weather this political firestorm is unclear. This is in no way Kirchner’s first tango with criminal investigations, but it may very well be her last.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

Correction: This article previous identified Natalio Alberto Nisman as Natalio Nisman and has been updated. 

West African nations have lost over 1,400 people since March of this year to Ebola. With no formal cure other than treating symptoms, the infected face a mortality rate of between 50-90%, making it one of the world’s deadliest diseases.

Regarded as the worst Ebola outbreak in history, the recent spread in Africa has precipitated the revival of the cordon sanitaire, a medieval quarantine tactic employed in the 14^th century to combat the bubonic plague.

Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia have created a triangular zone encompassing infected regions and prohibited people from leaving the quarantine zone until the outbreak subsides. While international health organizations have pledged to supply food and water to quarantined regions, this type of quarantine procedure is inherently barbaric in nature as vital resources become increasingly scarce and infected and non-infected citizens are indiscriminately interned together, further increasing the risk of infection.

While cordon sanitaire proved effective in combatting the bubonic plague and, more recently, typhus in early 20^th century Russia, it is not necessarily an appropriate response to an Ebola outbreak. Since it is not contagious in its asymptomatic phase and can only be spread by direct contact with blood or bodily fluids, a more appropriate response would be to quarantine symptomatic patients and closely monitor family and neighbors for symptoms for up to three weeks. Given that Ebola is unlikely to develop into a pandemic, one might argue that such a response by West African nations is overzealous.

In stark contrast to the draconian quarantine, the more localized responses of towns and affected citizenry have lacked commonsense precautions. It is not uncommon to encounter people passing through infected homes to visit and deliver food, nor is it atypical to find symptomatic patients refusing to go to a hospital out of an irrational fear of ‘disappearing’. With some villages under the delusion that health workers carry the disease themselves, there are even instances of locals chasing away international aid volunteers with threats of violence.

At the root of these problems of inadequate or irrational responses are critically underfunded health care systems, with many regions only possessing two doctors per 100,000 people. (Belgium, for instance, boasts 449 doctors per 100,000 people.) With a deficit of medical professionals and a lack of established disease prevention procedures in these regions, it is likely that Ebola’s spread will be intensified by regional quarantine. As this policy escalates the populous’ distrust of authority, there is increased risk of infected persons electing not to seek medical help at all.

While the effectiveness of this intensive quarantine remains unclear, the economic repercussions of the cordon sanitaire have proven crippling, with local industries and inter-regional trade at a standstill. Moreover, this quarantine provides no guarantee of containment, with fearful citizens apt to flee the region and potentially catapult its spread into outer regions. As fear continues to dominate both governmental and individual responses, and medieval tactics stand to do more harm than good, the future of Ebola’s containment in West Africa remains uncertain.

The views expressed by these authors do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

Gradually phased into implementation in the late 1970’s, China’s one-child policy was largely viewed as a pre-emptive response to an impending Malthusian trap, the shortage of food and resources precipitated by unsustainable population growth. While exceptions were made for ethnic minorities, rural citizens whose first child is a daughter and most recently for parents who are only children themselves, the policy is easily the most draconian family planning strategy of the 20^th century.

Families with more than one child are forced to pay exorbitant fines totaling several times a typical year of wages. In many cases, women pregnant with a second child face intense discrimination, abuse and even forced abortions.

To this day, the Communist Party touts the success of this policy in averting some 400 million births. Unfortunately, anticipated curbing of the population has been largely offset by a paradigm shift in longevity. What few people outside of economic and policy circles grasp is that this policy is largely linked to China’s economic growth miracle. China’s economy has benefitted immensely from having a smaller increase in non-productive dependents (children) relative to its population of productive independents (adult workers). Known in economics as a demographic dividend, this phenomenon is associated with economic growth, as decreases in spending on children correspond to increased investment and per capita income.

Unfortunately for China, it is about to reach its ‘Lewis Turning Point’, or the point in time in which the large supply of unskilled, agricultural labor migrating from the countryside is exhausted, causing wages to rise. This problem is only exacerbated by the fact that after a three-decade tenure of low birth rates, China’s population is reaching its apex, and about to begin a steady decline.

In an attempt to avoid this population slump and ensuing rise in wages, the Communist Party has initiated reforms to allow for a higher birth rate. To the chagrin of China’s economic policy makers, allowances for families to have additional children have not spurred the birth rate. This is largely because preferences for family size have changed dramatically since the policy’s inception.

In tandem with the increased costs of raising children, many families are reluctant to have more than one child. Thus, in the coming decades, even amidst policy changes, China will find its birth rate stubbornly low. As its surplus of cheap labor dwindles, and wage prices rise, China will quickly lose its hailed place as the world’s manufacturer.

An equally troubling phenomenon is China’s skewed gender distribution. Precipitated by a strong preference for sons over daughters and coupled with China’s proscriptive one-child policy, millions of families have undergone sex-selective abortions to ensure their sole child is male. With some 51 million more males in China than females, China faces numerous social crises. Men who are unmarried, only-children in China (referred to as ‘bare branches’) face numerous psychological issues and disproportionately high rates of suicide. These men have few ties to and little vested interest in the following generation, making them less inclined to be productive members of society and more inclined to engage in criminal activity.

Unequal gender distributions have also precipitated sharp increases in property values across Mainland China, exacerbating China’s growing housing bubble. With millions of bachelors vying for a limited number of unmarried women, owning property has become a prerequisite for finding a wife. This inelastic demand is facilitated by China’s ‘4-2-1’ family structure. Four grandparents and two parents can find themselves providing financial assistance in purchasing real estate for their sole descendent, further intensifying the inelastic demand for Chinese property. As China’s population begins its gradual decline, there will be potential for a burst of the rapidly expanding real estate bubble, as well as a huge contraction in property development.

Another prospect is the increased risk of political instability. Migrant workers and agricultural laborers, who have the most grievances towards Communist Party policies, are the demographic most likely to remain unmarried in China due to their poor employment opportunities. Add sexual frustration to their already poor economic prospects, and there is a strong likelihood that these young men are galvanized into political uprising.

With such tremendous negative impacts associated with China’s one-child policy one can easily liken it to Chairman Mao’s Great Leap Forward (referred to by many scholars as China’s “Great Leap to Famine”). Regardless of what policy changes and amendments to the one-child policy are implemented in the coming decade, there will be some unavoidable economic contractions, social crises and political risks. While many project that China has robust economic prospects in the coming century, the one-child policy’s numerous adverse impacts remain an important consideration in tempering these overly optimistic projections.

The views expressed by these authors do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

Notorious lobbyist Jack Abramoff remarked in his book Capitol Punishment that the most effective way to influence a politician was to offer his/her chief of staff a lobbying job following their stint on the hill. From that point forward, not only would Abramoff have unrestricted access to a politician, but also staffers would actually go out of their way to promote his clients’ interests.

Many politicians often bite at the prospect of lucrative lobbying salaries, despite a life-long commitment to public service. In Mark Leibovich’s book, This Town, he cites a frightening statistic: “In 1974, 3 percent of retiring members of Congress became lobbyists. Now 50 percent of senators and 42 percent of congressmen do.”

Consider retired Senator Judd Gregg, whose tenacious fight for transparency and ethics in the financial industry ended as soon as he left office and took a high-paying ‘consulting’ job at Goldman Sachs. More astonishing is ex-congressman Billy Tauzin, who earned nearly twenty million dollars between 2006 and 2010 as a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry.

Even high-profile politicians cannot always resist the temptation of lobbying salaries. Former Senate minority leader Tom Daschle, who played a key role in drafting universal health care legislation, earned an annual salary of $2.1 million only a few years after his leaving the Senate. While Daschle vehemently denies working as a lobbyist, his recent employment has been with lobbying firms specializing in health care, albeit as a ‘consultant’.

It is unclear precisely what these ex-politicians are providing in exchange for their astonishingly high compensation packages. No doubt some utilize their influence on the Hill to sway current members of Congress to draft legislation that benefits their clients. There remains serious ambiguity, however, as to whether or not these politicians preemptively advanced their future employer’s interests while in office at the prospect of being duly compensated following retirement.

This tacit collusion between elected officials and the private sector goes against the very concept of public service and the notion of a democratic process unfettered by private sector interests. While laws exist that bar ex-congressmen and senators from working in lobbying for two years after being in office, most bypass this restriction by refraining from formal registration as a lobbyist. After all, there is no law against working as a ‘consultant’.

Public service implies some form of personal sacrifice, often in the form of time and compensation. With this in mind, is it too much to ask that our public servants refrain from profiting from the private sector following their retirement from politics?

Indubitably, successfully curtailing the migration of politicians from Capitol Hill to K Street will be futile as those we have entrusted to make our laws have a vested interest in preserving the status quo. As attempts at lobbying reform continue in Congress, however, an important question remains: how do we define lobbying?

After all, the day that Congress passes a law barring ex-political staffers and politicians from working as lobbyists and consultants is the day we see an influx of political veterans working as ‘policy advisers’ with seven-figure salaries. Who knew public service could be so rewarding?

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

The tragedy enshrouding the presumed loss of 227 passengers and 12 crewmembers has elicited extensive media coverage, with CNN providing non-stop coverage for weeks at a time. Typical of American media, the vast majority of this coverage has been rich in speculation and lacking in substance.

From extensive discussions of the Bermuda triangle and theories of black holes, to calling on psychics as expert contributors, American reporting has deviated from this traditional model of reporting to instead propagate misinformation and speculation. Discussion of conspiracy theories piques human curiosity and galvanizes viewership, but there is no place for such unsubstantiated reporting on stations claiming to provide corroborated news and relevant analysis.

To the chagrin of traditional journalists, such sensationalist reporting has proven highly popular. In the case of CNN, their round-the-clock reporting effectively doubled their prime-time ratings, resulting in their viewership temporarily outpacing Fox News’ audience for a short duration.

It is a tragedy in and of itself that America’s major news sources are incentivized to pass over stories of global significance in exchange for outlandish stories that garner viewership and advertising revenue. That American consumers of news are more intrigued by conspiracy theories than by reporting with the potential to impact their lives is a sad truth to confront in a world on the edge of conflict and crisis. The mainstream media’s coverage of this event proves that we have lost more than 239 innocent civilians – we have lost our commitment to responsible reporting as well.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff and editorial board.

With the exception of commodity exportation, Argentina’s recent economic condition has soured. The last half-century has been marked by economic decline, political instability, and diminishing geopolitical influence. Consider that when President Obama visited the Southern Cone in 2011, he flew from Chile to Brazil deliberately passing over Argentina. While significant capital inflows from China largely insulated Argentina from the global economic crisis, economic and political turmoil persist to this day. Inflation estimates are above 30%, its expropriation of Spanish petroleum giant Repsol have made those in the international business community wary of FDI, and its export and import quotas have proven disastrous to farmers, businessmen, and consumers alike.

If President Kirchner’s successor seeks to guide Argentina towards a path of economic and political stability, he/she must assuage concerns of an impending crisis, and work swiftly to ignite a stagnant economy. Reviving the economy will be easier said than done in a country whose Ease of Doing Business ranking is 127 out of 189, trailing, among others, Nigeria and Pakistan. A more challenging hurdle will be reducing Argentinean dependence on natural resource exports. As tempting as it may be to ride the commodity wave to economic solvency, diversification of the nation’s income will prove imperative to Argentina’s future growth and stability. Developments in added-value manufacturing and the service industries will better isolate Argentina’s economy from fluctuations in global commodity prices. Diversification will also require improvements in education and infrastructure, areas in which Argentina is particularly deficient.

Attempts to curtail government spending will likely aggravate an already sluggish growth rate, particularly after several years of costly welfare programs and President Kirchner’s wasteful spending. Also unpopular will be the inevitable currency devaluation once Argentina’s currency exchange is liberalized. Such unpopular policies have been postponed for far too long. Argentina must follow in Chile’s footsteps by increasing economic competitiveness in the global arena. For a country blessed with bountiful resources, its political malfeasance and bureaucracy remains the only thing slowing down what would otherwise be impressive growth. By fostering more competitive industries and implementing basic economic reforms, Argentina may become the gold mine it once was.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff and editorial board.

While Alibaba has declined to comment on why it moved its IPO from Hong Kong to New York City, its decision is largely based on a disagreement between company executives and the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission. Unlike Hong Kong’s stock exchanges, the NYSE and the NASDAQ do not maintain a one-share per one-vote standard, allowing Alibaba’s key partners to maintain control over its board of directors.

Holding its IPO in the United States could also facilitate future acquisitions of American companies. Its recent investments in the Silicon Valley start-ups Tango and AutoNavi indicate that Alibaba is seeking market expansion at the international level. More than just a middleman between sellers and buyers, Alibaba allows its customers to pay bills, buy insurance, and even take out loans. Its wide range of services and competitive pricing structure are enticing to both consumers and venders. Moreover, Alibaba’s capital is substantial. In the past fiscal year, its estimated sales exceed $420 billion, which dwarfs the combined revenue of Amazon and eBay. Further, it boasts 300 million customers across China – a number that will surely grow in accordance with increased Internet penetration.

Yet, Alibaba’s main obstacle to success may be the Chinese Communist Party. Consider yuebao, Alibaba’s financial investment service that provides a 5% return on risk-free investments. Yuebao offers a fantastic yield in China where millions of laymen deposit their hard-earned yuan into bank accounts only to see its real value depreciate from an inflationary tax. As Yuebao continues to threaten Chinese banks’ monopoly on savings, its days may be numbered before the Communist Party intervenes. Only time will tell if Alibaba can fend for itself in the vast ocean of e-commerce. Continued expansion within China and throughout the developed and developing world may prove impossible. One thing is for certain: Alibaba’s biggest threat to global development no longer lies in America, but in Beijing’s Politburo.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff and editorial board.

Gradually implemented reforms such as dual-track pricing, liberalization of socialist policies, and expansion of investment between China and foreign powers has brought about three decades of maintaining nearly 10% growth rates, an extraordinary feat for a nation that was on the verge of collapse fifty years ago.

Its recent ascension as the world’s second largest economy, coupled with potential increases in domestic spending and widespread domestic and foreign investments, have led many to call this century “China’s century.” Yet this optimistic forecast quickly sours when one considers the slew of imminent crises confronting China over the coming decades.

Implemented to curb China’s booming population growth rate, the one-child policy is sowing the seeds of China’s demographic and economic crises.  With the vast majority of families proscribed from having more than one child, China enjoyed an enormous demographic dividend – defined as the economic benefit a country experiences when it has a low ratio of dependent to independent workers – over the past three decades.

This dividend is already starting to expire.  By 2050, 25% of China’s populous will be above the age of 65.  Attempts to solve the demographic crunch by relaxing the one-child policy will prove futile, as any increase in China’s birth rate will only reap modest effects some two decades from now.  Furthermore, as a consequence of this policy, China’s gender distribution has already taken a heavy toll.  A well-established trend in China is the preference of male rather than female children, which has resulted in scores of sex-selective abortions. With an estimated 30-40 million more boys than girls in China, millions of young bachelors will now be unable to find wives.  Add sexual frustration to their already bleak economic prospects, and millions of disgruntled male migrant workers will be even more inclined to take to the streets in the name of political protest.

In addition to economic stagnation and political upheaval is a housing bubble throughout the PRC.  Fueled by greed and overly optimistic homeowners, price to rent ratios across China have skyrocketed past stable levels.  Flawed social expectations have only exacerbated this impending bubble.  Across China owning a home is a prerequisite for finding a wife.  With millions of only children, bachelors are in a position to seek financial assistance from both parents and grandparents, and pay grossly inflated prices for real estate acquisition.  It is unclear how the Politburo plans to address the housing market’s impending crisis.  What is clear is that whether the housing market encounters gradual deflation or a bubble burst, China’s economic prospects will suffer as a result.

Government action to address widespread pollution will bring about similar economic decline.  Two winters ago, China’s AQI (air quality index) broke records when it surpassed 800. Prior to this incident, measures of AQI had never exceeded 500.  Across China, pollution’s wrath has affected the health and economic livelihood of its population.  In Beijing it is now common for parents to select their children’s schools based upon the quality of their air filtration systems.  One particularly noxious chemical, PM 2.5, is found in hazardous doses across Mainland China.  Until China adequately addresses this affront to its citizens’ health and well-being, it will continue to pay increasing social and economic costs.

In spite of China’s woes, there remains a chance at redemption.  This may not be China’s century in terms of economic and geopolitical supremacy, but it may be their century to pave the way for environmental protection, sustainable development, and economic and political reform.  In the words of Churchill, “Failure is never fatal, success is never permanent.  The only thing that really matters is never giving up.”  This of course assumes that China’s population of 150 million migrant workers doesn’t take to the streets, overthrow the Communist Party, and support a military coup.  That could just be the straw that breaks the camels back.

This piece will be the first of a special “Weigh In” series that is going to be started on Glimpse, which will focus on momentous current events.

Thomas D. Armstrong

Recent op-eds have labeled Putin as a mastermind or a megalomaniac fool. I am of the opinion that Putin is a megalomaniac mastermind exploiting a disempowered US. However, debating Putin’s psychological profile is less constructive than analyzing the economic foundation of his regime. Putin and his Russia survive on energy revenues, and war is only making him richer. Unlike 2008, when Putin invaded Georgia, oil prices have held steady. In fact, the threat of sanctions on Russia have only driven oil prices marginally higher, up $2 dollars to $110.8/bbl as of writing. Putin is financing expansionist dreams (and his own savings account) thanks to his near-monopoly on Russia’s energy industry. Therefore, the best way to rein him in is to drive global energy prices down. The US can accomplish this quite easily with a reformed national energy policy. Currently, the US is sitting on an unused 727-million-barrel underground cache of crude oil, and is producing more and more natural gas by the day. If the US were to supplant Russia as Europe’s primary natural gas provider, and flood the global market with American oil exports, energy prices would plummet. A decrease from $110/bbl to $80/bbl would cost the Russian oil industry alone an estimated $120 billion, plus billions more in foreign exchange earnings. Putin is a deft leader, but even he could not survive such a sustained economic collapse.

Nick Kosturos

Russia’s move to deploy soldiers in Ukraine is indicative of feelings of insecurity rather than confidence. Putin knows that such a large loss of influence in Ukraine, a critically important country in economic, cultural, and geopolitical terms, would be devastating to Russia’s ultimate goal of increasing its regional sphere of influence and international prestige. Putin’s domestic considerations and tensions can also shed light on these aggressive actions. If a small country like Ukraine can successfully stand up to the Kremlin by ousting its man from Kiev, what will Russians think of a leadership unable to control their “Small Russia?” Russia is acting out of desperation, not strength. Putin’s clownish justifications for Russia’s military actions do not hold up to scrutiny and are made under a façade by what I recently labeled an “imitation democracy.”

While the West has multilaterally condemned this act of aggression, which is a positive first step, it should now increase pressure on Russia to relent. In order to force Russia to withdraw and accept Ukraine’s sovereignty and a chance at a peaceful political transition, the West must maintain a multilateral and wide-ranging coalition of rejection, isolating Putin via sanctions on both his allies and competing oligarchs (including their overseas funds and visas), and by supporting Ukraine’s new government through assistance and advisement. At this point, conventional military power projection against Russia is not a viable option – no matter how tempting – as it could spark an unintended military provocation leading to conflict. The current situation is very difficult to manage, although the international community should know that the West ultimately has the upper hand. Russia’s desperate authoritarian strategy based on oppression is doomed to fail in the long-run.

Luke Phillips

The situation in Crimea is nothing more than the Russians managing their own geopolitical periphery, and so far as it has to do anything at all with expansion, it is only due to the fact that Russian power is presently contracted to levels far below what Moscow would like. America would do and has done the same thing in the event of revolutionary unrest in our neighbor states, as is evidenced by our interventions in Mexico a century ago and in Cuba a half-century ago.

The question here, I think, is what the United States is going to do about it. Part of our grand strategy since the end of the Cold War has been to keep the Russians from establishing formal or informal dominion over the former U.S.S.R. Another part has been supporting the thin veil of liberal international order that girds the power politics flowing subtly underneath in an effort to at least grant a semblance of order and harmony in international affairs. These imperatives have come under increasing pressure in recent years, but in 2013 and 2014 more than ever before. I don’t know what the proper policy response should be, but I hope it isn’t more of the lectures, gestures, and silences with which President Obama responded to the Russians in the Snowden and Syria affairs.

Jacob W. Roberts

America is in no position to intervene nor should it.  To the western world, Putin’s actions appear nefarious, but from the perspective of many Russians he is acting well within the parameters of international law.  Professor Tatiana Akishina of USC argues that, since the prime minister of Ukraine’s semi-autonomous Crimea region has called upon Putin for military support, his intervention is in accordance with international law.  Moreover, America has intervened with greater frequency and intensity over the past century, thus it is highly hypocritical of US authorities to castigate Russia for meddling within its region.  That being said, it is somewhat disturbing to witness Russia fail to respect the sovereign rights of an independent nation.  One can only hope that Putin’s intervention into the region will be short lived.

Alessandro M. Sassoon

There is a risk of ethnic cleansing. It starts with classification. Weeks before this conflict made the front pages of the New York Times, reports emerged that Russian-Ukrainians in Crimea were being given Russian Passports. Russians have lived in Crimea for some 200 years, and Ukraine has held the territory for half a century. Then there are the Tatars, the people for whom Crimea is an ancestral home dating back to the Mongol Khan Empire. The Tatar population, which accounts for 13% of Crimea’s inhabitants, is predominantly Sunni Muslim. Under Stalin’s Russia, the Tatars were accused of collaborating with Nazi Germany and deported en masse to other parts of Russia (read: Siberia). It should come as no surprise then that they are more keen on being governed by Ukraine than by Russia. As things stand, there are three populations with strong ethno-nationalist tendencies who inhabit a geographic area they all feel they have a historical, political, or legal claim to. Of the eight stages of Genocide, we’ve passed #5: polarization. That means preparation, extermination, and denial are next.

Sabrina Mateen

Before this conflict, my knowledge of Ukraine consisted solely of “ex-USSR”. I assumed the region consisted of Russian natives, and that they were considered to be allies with their ex-country. However, with the news of an outbreak of civil war, it has become apparent that there are opposing nationalities, languages, and mindsets that are all helping to tear Ukraine into pieces. The conflict seems to be reaching increasingly dangerous heights as Russia begins to put pressure on Ukraine in the form of planned military drills and in one case, an unspecified military presence that looked to be Russians supporting Crimeans. Although the conflict is being called a civil war, it is beginning to seem like one of the many moves Putin has been making to restore Russia to its USSR-era square footage. It is important to see what the United States plans to do, as the Obama Administration is already under scrutiny after the ill-advised response to the crisis in Syria.  Any move from the newly war-shy United States will be seen as an escalation in a conflict that has all the makings of a new Cold War.

Kerry Collins

Recent developments in the volatile Ukraine situation show the autonomous Crimea region voting to join the Russian Federation. Crimea has a Russian ethnic majority and is predominantly Russian speaking, so it might not come as a surprise that the region is in support of the secession. If it is what the people want, then perhaps the region should have never been a part of Ukraine to begin with. These recent moves that Crimea has made are violations of international law, which puts the United States in a tough response position. The President has been making frantic calls to Putin urging a diplomatic end to this crisis, but to no avail. Meanwhile, Putin doesn’t seem particularly concerned with US warnings. What the EU and the US bring to the table are economic sanctions, and it will be interesting to see if those “sticks” are enough to make Putin falter.