On Feb. 27, in a pivotal moment, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced that Germany would be sending thousands of weapons to aid the Ukrainian war effort against Russian aggression, abandoning its historically military-averse stance in foreign conflicts.

After more than 50 years of remaining neutral and attempting to distance itself from conflicts — in part due to the horrors of the Third Reich regime that led to World War II — Scholz’ speech on Feb. 24 reinforced Germany’s commitment to maintaining the post-World War II order in Europe. 

However, with Russia’s blatant act of aggression, Scholz had no choice but to completely pivot from Germany’s neutral policy in order to aid Ukraine. This shift is all the more significant when considering that many EU countries’ arms stockpiles are mainly manufactured in Germany. Due to military trade deals and Germany’s past policy restrictions, these countries require Berlin’s  approval to send German-manufactured arms to Ukraine. 

Estonia is one such country that was unable to send military assistance to Kyiv due to a lack of German approval. However, Berlin’s move to send its own arms to the warzone signaled to other European countries in possession of German arms stockpiles that they were free to send them as well. This, in turn, meant that Ukraine would be more likely to receive widespread military assistance from EU countries —  something that Russia sought to avoid by denying Ukraine admission into NATO.

Germany’s pacifism in relation to global, and particularly European, conflicts has been a firm and long-standing pillar of German foreign policy since the end of World War II. 

However, the war in Ukraine was such a flagrant dismissal of Ukrainian sovereignty that the decision to send lethal arms was supported by a united front across the German political landscape. In fact, as one of the first countries to declare material support for Kyiv in its defense against the Russian invasion, Germany placed itself at the forefront of the Ukrainian line of defense, ahead of even the United States. In doing so, Germany sent a strong message to Russia about its dedication to uphold state sovereignty across Europe. 

Germany’s decision to ship arms to the Ukraine-Russia conflict zone appears to have been the stimulus for a policy shift across the EU. Just one day after Scholz’s announcement, the EU declared it would be shifting its strategic stance and sending military aid to Ukraine. This act defied its decades-long position of restricting funding for foreign conflicts. EU Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, deemed the announcement a “watershed moment,” which only goes to highlight the global collective shock at Russia’s unprovoked invasion. 

Along with EU countries, the United States has also found itself in the position of arms dealer to the Ukrainians. On March 17, President Joe Biden signed an $800 million arms package that included a variety of weapons from drones to Stinger missiles to portable anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons.

As the Russo-Ukrainian war wages on, the German government has also informed Kyiv that only a portion of the arms shipment would be coming from the German military itself. In order to “ensure national and alliance defense” by maintaining a substantial stockpile of weapons, German defense minister Christine Lambrecht indicated that future arms shipments to the warzone would likely originate within the private arms industry. According to German government sources, the Ukrainian government has already solicited an offer from a German arms maker, though the exact terms of this deal are still unknown. 

With all of this artillery flowing into Ukraine from Europe and the West, the question remains: will these arms be enough to hold off the Russian invaders? 

It is becoming increasingly clear that for President Vladimir Putin, the bloodshed in Ukraine is more than an attempt to expand Russia’s territorial influence. On April 12, Putin claimed “[Moscow] didn’t have a choice” and that it “was the right decision”. The Kremlin has also alleged genocide of Russian-speaking individuals in eastern Ukraine and Putin has insisted that the war will go “until its full completion.” These are disturbing statements – especially in light of the fact that Ukrainian and Russian leaders had initiated peace negotiations in Turkey. 

If Russia refuses to back down, offensive weapons may not help if Ukraine’s limited military force dwindles. Currently, it seems as if countries are using a step-by-step approach of providing aid to the victim in this conflict – all the while attempting to avoid sending their own military personnel to the area. However, how much time will elapse before Western countries revisit the idea of direct military intervention? If that happens, countries will have to evaluate if the world is ready for that kind of war.R

However, after the U.S. withdrawal timeline was expedited and the final American plane departed Kabul on Aug. 30 — one month earlier than expected — things quickly unravelled. Taliban forces moved quickly and toppled the capital city, taking full control of the country. 

In public, Biden downplayed the threat of the Taliban, stating at a press conference in July that, “the likelihood there’s going to be the Taliban overrunning everything and owning the whole country is highly unlikely.” 

Yet, looking at the swift collapse of the Afghan government and what can only be called a resounding defeat by U.S. forces to curb an extremist takeover, the question arises as to how much the U.S. intelligence community knew about the Taliban’s capabilities. 

In the days following the insurgent takeover of Afghanistan, it has become clear that the U.S. intelligence community issued multiple warnings to the Biden administration about the strong possibility of a government collapse. While these classified reports have not yet become public, representatives from the major intelligence agencies have acknowledged that their outlook on the military withdrawal and Afghanistan’s future were bleak. 

When Taliban forces entered Kabul on Aug. 15, the rapid disintegration of the Afghan government was almost expected. In the official annual threat assessment briefing on April 29, the Afghanistan conflict garnered a surprisingly brief discussion. Intelligence officials provided a simple, but dire, outlook of the situation. Officials stated that, “the Taliban is likely to make gains on the battlefield… the Afghan government will struggle to hold the Taliban at bay if the coalition withdraws support.” The assessment made clear that without American military support, intelligence officers seriously doubted the effectiveness of the Afghan military in keeping the insurgent forces at bay.

In the wake of Kabul’s collapse, the United States was wrapped in a whirlwind blame game. Did U.S. forces underestimate the threat? Was the threat downplayed? Who was to blame?

It has become clear that there were strong disagreements regarding the capability of Afghan government forces to hold off the Taliban threat. While CIA reports erred on the side of caution,  the Defense Intelligence Agency had a more optimistic outlook on Afghan readiness, although the formal assessments were not made public. In the July press conference at the White House, Biden emphasized the money spent on equipping Afghan national security and military forces. Echoing this sentiment, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman said that, “the Afghan leaders have to come together,” indicating the widespread view among high-level U.S. officials that the administration has done more than is necessary when it comes to the Afghanistan situation. 

Moreover, the Biden administration believed that the Taliban was not the most pressing threat facing the Western world. In one interview, Biden noted that there were extremist footholds (particularly al-Qaeda and the Islamic State) in parts of the Middle East and Africa that required the focus of U.S. military forces. 

“The idea that we have… tens of thousands of American forces in Afghanistan, when we have Northern African and Western Africa, the idea that we can ignore those looming problems… is not rational,” Biden said.

Intelligence agencies warned about the fear of weak Afghan security forces but these reports were apparently ignored by the Biden administration, whose decision to withdraw all forces from Afghanistan had been finalized. At the time this decision was made, intelligence reports had indicated that the Afghan government would be able to hold off Taliban forces for at least two years, which would have given the U.S. military enough time to organize a structured withdrawal. A spokesperson for the CIA indicated that intelligence reports had changed over the course of the withdrawal, shifting the timeline of Afghanistan’s collapse from two years to a short span of 12 months. 

However, as Taliban forces quickly overran some of the country’s largest cities, Kandahar and Herat, U.S. intelligence agencies warned that it could be a matter of days before Kabul fell. One intelligence official emphasized that, “We grew more pessimistic…as the fighting season progressed.”

As intelligence agencies updated the administration with newer information, these reports were apparently cast to the side. One senior congressional official stated, “[U.S.] leaders were told by the military that it would take no time at all for the Taliban to take everything… No one listened.” The withdrawal had already commenced by the time intelligence assessments began forecasting a more imminent timeline for Taliban takeover, which could be a reason why Biden was reluctant to accept these reports — pivoting to a different withdrawal strategy might have been a disaster in and of itself. 

While some call Afghanistan an intelligence failure and others tout the fickle nature of intelligence reports, the verdict stands that U.S. intelligence no longer has a foothold within Afghanistan. In fact, the CIA is currently under pressure to find a new route into the region in order to conduct counterterrorism and intelligence-gathering operations. In August, CIA director Williams Burns made a trip to Pakistan to meet with Pakistan’s head of military intelligence to determine if a partnership could be worked out such that the CIA could continue to conduct intelligence operations from a base in Pakistan. However, with the ties that Pakistan’s government has to the Taliban, it might prove difficult for the CIA to navigate such a relationship, especially given the sensitivity of intelligence information.  

To call the situation in Afghanistan an outright failure would call into question the very nature of intelligence collection. It is apparent that U.S. intelligence agencies were successful in gathering information about the Taliban, if officials were able to make pessimistic predictions about the country’s collapse. 

However, it is also apparent that this information arrived too late for policymakers to change their minds about their chosen military strategy. This poses an interesting quandary based on the relationship between intelligence agencies and policymakers. 

If intelligence agencies meant to inform and support policy makers’ decisions, then why didn’t Biden pivot the withdrawal plan based on new information? 

While Airbnb has remained a private entity for the past twelve years, the founders announced in early August that they had filed for an initial public offering (IPO) in December, meaning that Airbnb stock could be publicly traded for the first time ever. Amid the coronavirus pandemic – which has devastated the tourism industry – the major question on everyone’s minds is: Will this much-awaited IPO be a success?

Airbnb began as a way to offset increased rent costs in expensive cities such as San Francisco by offering home-stays to paying guests. The founders actually decided to set up air mattresses in their living room and provide breakfast to their guests in the morning (hence the original company name: Air Bed and Breakfast). In the company’s first year, Chesky and Gebbia advertised the Airbnb rental platform during popular events in San Francisco, such as the Democratic National Convention and SXSW. During these large-scale promotional opportunities, the founders believed that their website would gain optimal traction since hotels would be overbooked and people would be looking for places to stay on short notice.

In June 2008, the Airbnb team approached 7 angel investors, asking for $150,000 in funding in exchange for a 10% ownership stake in the company. Airbnb was rejected by all seven. However, soon after, they were approached to apply to Y Combinator, a startup accelerator that provides seed money for initial growth of early-stage startups.

That was the stimulus Airbnb needed to propel itself forward. In April 2009, Sequoia Capital invested $615,000 into the company, giving the founders money to re-design the entire website to increase accessibility, improve the booking interface and take professional pictures of rental homes to upload onto the site. By November 2010, the company was valued at $70 million. Airbnb had introduced an iPhone app and was gearing up to go international. Within 6 months, Airbnb had reached its 1 millionth booking landmark, expanded into almost 90 countries and had raised $114.9 million from another round of funding, launching the company into the unicorn valuation bracket at $1.3 billion. In 2017, Airbnb reached their peak valuation of $31 billion.

Given how contagious and easily transmittable the COVID-19 virus is, it’s no surprise that one of the industries that took the biggest hit during the ongoing pandemic is the hospitality industry. Travel restrictions, fear of virus transmission and city-wide lockdowns have all contributed to a tourism standstill. According to surveys, 64% of Airbnb guests have cancelled their stays since the pandemic took serious effect in March. With travel restrictions and international lockdowns, almost 70% of all guests surveyed stated that they did not feel safe staying in someone else’s home. As a result, the number of bookings has reduced dramatically by 50 to 75% across both Europe and the United States – two of the biggest Airbnb markets – and this has resulted in enormous losses for the company.

Airbnb’s revenue for Q2 of this year dropped to $335 million, a 67% decrease from the approximately $1 billion in revenue the company was raking in at the same time last year. This sharp revenue decline resulted in the company downsizing its workforce by 1,900 employees in early May. These costs have added up and taken their toll on Airbnb’s valuation – bringing it down to $18 million in the latest round of funding in April.  

Despite these financial setbacks, Airbnb executives have decided to move forward with their IPO, with company stock scheduled to be listed on the New York Stock Exchange in early December. It seems that Airbnb executives are optimistic that there will soon be a return to normalcy. As months go by, the world has seen reduced restrictions and a phased approach towards opening services in many countries, with the number of Airbnb stays increasing by 30% between June and July.

The company has made gains on initial pandemic-related slumps by efficiently implementing safety procedures and being very transparent in their communication about the difficulties brought on by COVID-19. For these reasons, Airbnb’s personal newsroom on the website has been very active during the pandemic months, informing guests, hosts and travellers of important travel-related updates. Airbnb has banned all parties in their lodgings, restricted group gatherings to 16 people and have leveled a legal penalty if guests are found violating this policy. The company has also introduced a campaign for enhanced cleaning protocols that allow hosts to opt-in for verification, in order to help guests and hosts feel safer in the space.

Company executives have been astute enough to realize that they can benefit from promoting long-term rentals instead of short-term rentals in a time when people are becoming more restless with their desire to travel around the world again. In fact, the number of Airbnb bookings in June actually increased from levels at the onset of the pandemic because people now view Airbnbs as safer, socially-distanced alternatives to hotel rooms. As renters become more restless with lockdowns and social limits, Airbnb provides the opportunity to leave their home and explore a new place (albeit probably locally). 

In September, Airbnb founders introduced a new tool called, “City Portal,” a platform designed to facilitate transparency and communication between Airbnb and government officials by providing information about the company’s operations, regulatory compliance and community impact work, as well as resources to increase domestic tourism revenue. The dashboard is a way for governments and Airbnb to collaborate and adapt with the changing needs of the time, whether that be the negative impact of a pandemic or the sudden rise in tourism because of a renowned music festival.  

Airbnb is also actively working with governments to boost economic recovery by promoting their brand within the tourism industry as the pinnacle of safety and health. These promotions work in the form of discounts on Airbnb stays for domestic travel within countries such as Japan and Canada. By targeting the domestic travel industry, Airbnb is already way ahead of competitor hotel chains who are looking to expand into the home-sharing space.

Airbnb has always been a company that seeks to disrupt by being the most forward-looking presence in the hospitality industry, and this bodes well for their planned IPO. The company is reportedly looking to raise $3 billion from stock sales at a $30 billion valuation, regaining the ground lost with the private valuation in April. As December approaches, investors will be eagerly looking out for more company news on the gains they have made during this pandemic.

Although the intention and purpose behind the lockdown was to keep citizens at home, the government failed to account for the millions of migrant workers that travel across state lines from their native villages to find work to support their families. Leaving members of the working class to fend for themselves during a global pandemic, without adequate food, water, shelter or transportation back home, has led to widespread suffering.

Migration in India is a common and necessary reality for many people who live on nature-ravaged lands unsuitable for farming and prone to flooding or for those who live in areas of pervasive social conflict. Many Indians, especially from the states of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, move from their rural home bases to urban metropolises in order to find daily-wage work, usually in the manufacturing or construction industry. 

These workers make up 35% of India’s total population and form a vast majority of the country’s informal labor force. Because most of these workers are under-educated and have a limited skillset, they are often exploited by their employers and forced to work in terrible conditions, with no breaks and minimal pay. In Gujarat, the Diamond Workers Union has filed salary complaints against more than 100 diamond artisans who have failed to pay the workers wages during the lockdown and have also withheld worker salaries from before the lockdown began.

Although the lockdown was meant to act as a predictive, decisive and preventative measure against the coronavirus, it was also immediate and came into effect without any prior planning for possible negative externalities. As all economic activity in India came to a virtual standstill for almost a month, migrant workers lost most, if not all, of their earnings almost immediately. These workers, who live paycheck to paycheck and have no source of income for prolonged periods of time, were unable to pay rent or utility bills. 

Many were scared of being in the urban cities during this shutdown period and resorted to walking back home after searching for work. Devastating pictures in the media of men carrying their mothers on their backs as they walked for miles through the heat led to rising global awareness of the migrant crisis. Another vivid and tragic video from Bihar showed a baby pulling on his mother’s clothes and attempting to wake her up while she lay dead on a station floor due to exhaustion, hunger and dehydration. This video was circulated widely among domestic media outlets such as the Times of India, NDTV and even garnered international attention after being reported by Al Jazeera and posted on YouTube. 

Many Indians, domestic and living abroad, blame the federal government for its lack of transparency and preparation measures for the sudden imposition of the lockdown. 

However, it would be blind to ignore the role of India’s state governments in exacerbating unfair conditions for workers. While the Modi government issued directives to states asking them to ensure employers’ continued to pay full salaries and wages during the lockdown, both levels of government failed to account for the fact that smaller businesses have strictly limited cash reserves and did not do anything to support these smaller merchants – which make up a large portion of local Indian businesses. 

In April, when the federal government finally began allowing trains to take these workers back to their home states, federal officials did not take the lead in coordinating transportation activities among the states. The result was a wildly mismatched train scheduling system that left families stranded at stations for days without food or water while state governments argued about how many trains could pass through its borders. 

Moreover, the conditions of the train facilities that these workers travelled in were abysmal. The Shamrik trains were packed, with people and families crammed against each other in the tight train compartments – not even allowing for the possibility of safe social distancing measures to prevent further spread of the virus. Train compartments were also not air-conditioned or well-ventilated – leading to temperatures inside rising up to 35° C. Additionally, no food rations were provided to the travelers, leading many to starve to death on their journey home.

The failure of the Indian federal and state governments to care for their lower-income workers is appalling and clearly displays the lack of regard for India’s most critical and essential labor group. Of course, however, it is important to note that the current COVID-19 pandemic has led to the necessity of immediate public policy decisions. But, if the government was truly genuine in its concern for its citizens, senior policymakers must be mindful of the extended impacts of their decisions and ensure that all levels of Indian society are cared for equally.