Announced as a “special military operation,” Russia officially invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022. Since then, the West, led by the United States and the EU, has donated billions of dollars worth of equipment, humanitarian aid and more to Ukraine in an effort to stall and hopefully fully repel Russia’s invasion. This support had been widely covered by international media, with Ukraine frequently encouraging allies to send more aid. However, many people may not know that the United States actually began donating to Ukraine following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. In 2017, Trump’s administration continued sending weapons to Ukraine, primarily sending Javelin antitank missiles. This practice continued and increased following the Russian invasion in February of 2022, when the United States Congress passed a $13.6 billion aid package to be sent to Ukraine. 

By Feb. 27, 2022 the European Union responded swiftly and similarly with a 500 million euro, roughly $577 million,  military package composed of 90% “military equipment and platforms designed to deliver lethal force…”  By the end of May 2022, Ukraine had received two billion euros ($2.3 billion) from the European Union, $55 billion from the United States, and over 1.3 billion pounds ($1.7 billion) from the United Kingdom. The start of this war shook the geopolitical landscape of the world. Countries were shaken, frightened at what more could come and were staunchly motivated to resist Russia’s encroachment into Ukraine’s territory. With over $59 billion in aid, Ukraine was able to launch its 2022 Kherson counteroffensive, taking back Kherson, the only regional capital that Russia was able to occupy since its initial invasion. 

This huge financial package and commitment from the West signaled the West’s support for Ukraine and its opposition to Russia’s actions. However, the war has now lasted over three years and sees no clear end in sight. Therefore, it begs the question of how long can this commitment last? 

The last U.S. aid packages sent to Ukraine came in the form of $3.4 billion in “direct budget support” on Dec. 30, 2024 and $500 million worth of military aid on Jan. 9, 2025. These packages were approved by the Biden administration, presumably to preempt changes before the Trump administration took over. 

Since the start of the second Trump administration, the United States has suspended all aid to Ukraine. In doing this, Trump seems to be applying pressure on Ukrainian President Zelensky to sue for peace, stating that Zelensky is “gambling with World War three.” The EU on the other hand, has not slowed down its aid. From January to Aug. 31, 2025, the EU has already given roughly $50 billion worth of aid to Ukraine, ranging from direct financial support and loans to military equipment.

From these donation patterns, conclusions about the United States and European Union’s differing attitudes towards Ukraine appear. Evidently, the European Union has not been experiencing Ukrainian fatigue as they continue to donate billions of dollars worth of equipment to Ukraine in an effort to fight Russia. The EU likely feels a larger threat from Russia than the United States does. If Russia were to take over part or all of Ukraine, Russia would be closer to the EU than to the U.S., essentially knocking on the EU’s doorstep. If a war were to occur, it would likely be on Russia’s Western front making it significantly closer to the EU than to the U.S. This difference suggests differing threat perceptions between the U.S. and EU with the second Trump administration stalling funding. 

Furthermore, this does not seem likely to change any time soon as the relationship between Trump and Zelensky has been shaky at best following their clash in the Oval Office. However, a “Supporting Ukraine Act of 2025” bill has been introduced to Congress on July 31, 2025, though has not been voted on by the Senate or the House of Representatives. While U.S. aid has stalled at the federal governmental level, public support echoes this attitude as well. While 46% of polled Americans say U.S. assistance to Ukraine is not enough, the other 53% of Americans polled state that American assistance to Ukraine is either the right amount or too much. 

However, it is worth noting that the sentiment of sending American support to Ukraine is on the rise. In December 2024, only 30% of Americans said not enough aid was being sent, and by March, 46% said it was not enough. The contrast between EU and U.S. relations with Ukraine highlights a shift in Western engagement: while Europe views the conflict as a more immediate security threat, the U.S. political landscape reflects growing wariness over long-term involvement.

The post Ukraine Fatigue: Is Western Support Running Out of Steam? appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Titled ‘Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence,’ the order’s purpose was to prioritize governing AI to tackle threats such as fraud, discrimination and disinformation. In practice, this entailed developments such as implementing new risk-management strategies, labelling AI-generated content and promoting competition through supporting small businesses. 

In place of Biden’s order, Trump’s replacement most notably maintains that the United States’ priority is to promote American international dominance in AI. Referred to as the ‘Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence’ order, both policies share the similarity of promoting innovation. However, that is where the resemblance ends. Following the recent trend of removing DEI-related content, nowhere in the six sections of the executive order is there any mention of equity. 

It is true that if the United States wants to remain competitive on the international stage — in both economic and national security contexts — it is important to devote resources to developing and implementing the best artificial intelligence products possible. From private use to military applications, AI technology is, in many ways, the new space race of today. The benefits to the American people, both in securing influence on the global scale and enhancing quality of life at home, should not be understated; hence the technology’s widespread adoption. 

Since the rise of generative technologies like ChatGPT, AI’s use has grown at a rapid pace and will only continue to do so. One study even suggests that “77% of companies are either using or exploring the use of AI in their businesses, and 83% of companies claim that AI is a top priority in their business plans.” Accordingly, this has led to the expansion of AI into countless fields and products, many of which actually go unrecognized in day-to-day life. From classic digital assistants like Siri and Alexa to early disease diagnosis in healthcare, the list is virtually limitless. 

Alongside this growth, the problem of inequity only becomes exacerbated. Tenant selection, financial lending and hiring processes have all been tainted by the inherent bias present in AI. One side of the issue lies within the information used for each of the above applications. As AIs are trained on data, whatever bias is present in the dataset will manifest itself in the decisions produced. Since companies that screen potential renters, borrowers or employees rely on old court data and criminal databases, they can reflect systemic prejudices. Sometimes, the trained system will just run incorrectly. In one woman’s case, she was denied an apartment thanks to a faulty background check, combining four other individuals’ records with her own. As all of the women had the same name, the system mistakenly attributed burglary, meth distribution, assault and more to her record. The evidenced potential for error, combined with the technology’s black-box nature, creates a situation where all parties are left confused.

The most concerning application of all is within law enforcement. Around the globe, implementation of artificial intelligence has been incorporated into crime regulating agencies’ operations, motivated by arguments for leveraging AI to increase efficiency and public safety. Out of all of the implementations, predictive policing is by far the most common. Essentially, this method utilizes data — from paroled populations to economic conditions — to forecast where, when and what crime will occur. Then, it provides recommendations to prevent it.

In terms of who is utilizing this technology, one example is Argentina. They are “us[ing]machine learning algorithms to analyze historical crime data to predict future crimes and help prevent them.” Additionally, Japan has also used predictive policing strategies, with AI having a “deep learning” algorithm that grabs real-time information about police force statistics and crime data on weather, time and geographical conditions. Most well-versed of all though, is Singapore. While law enforcement also relies on predictive technology, what distinguishes Singapore’s AI use in this sector is the scale at which data is collected through sensors. UAVs, facial recognition, drones and smart glasses are all part of how the police and civil defense forces record information. 

The U.S. takes similar approaches to its international peers. It varies by state, but the overall idea is the same. Machine learning (ML) — or computers’ ability to learn from data and subsequently perform tasks without explicit instructions — leverages large datasets in order to predict future criminal activity. This data typically contains information pertaining to what the crime was, when and where it happened, and further locational statistics such as median income and past crime rate. ML is often combined with computer vision, teaching technology like security cameras how to categorize objects like people, vehicles, and weapons in their field of vision through repeated exposure to visual information. 

Ideally, these tools would create sound predictions about crime, increasing efficiency while lowering costs. However, there are troubling drawbacks in this technology — many of which have already begun affecting society. Public mistrust of police has long been felt across the U.S. And for those who have consistently been at-risk, the increasing incorporation of AI-based technology isn’t helping. The core issue pertains to the historical crime data AI models are trained on. By relying on data which was collected in the midst of over-policing as well as the pre-existence of discriminatory criminal laws, predictive policing algorithms inherit bias. For example, “if a predictive policing system is trained on arrest data that reflects racially disparate enforcement practices, it may disproportionately flag certain communities as high risk, leading to the over-policing of already marginalized groups.” 

According to six U.S. Senators in a letter to the Department of Justice, “mounting evidence indicates that predictive policing technologies do not reduce crime… Instead, they worsen the unequal treatment of Americans of color by law enforcement.” So, what is there to do? The tool sought to improve policing seems to actually make it less effective. The Senators’ recommendation was to scrap the technology all together until further study of predictive policing took place. However, as is the case with many innovations, once they’re put into the world, it’s pretty challenging to take them out of it. 

Therefore, rather than instituting a full pause on the use of AI in law enforcement, perhaps it would be better to alter the approach. One recommendation is to prioritize human supervision with each AI implementation. By requiring continued human influence in automated processes, the black-box nature of artificial intelligence will begin to minimize, allowing people to further understand the models they are working with. An example of how this could be achieved in law enforcement and beyond is through required audits of AI usage. Through monitoring the outputs generated, the algorithm’s intention, and the use, it can be gathered how effective and ethical a model is. Another method of increasing an AI’s transparency is by incorporating explanations into its outputs. By engineering models to include descriptions of its logic — especially tailored to the expertise of the people it’s working with — the partnership between human and technology will become much more seamless, and further promote collaboration as opposed to replacement.  

Another side of ensuring equitable use of artificial intelligence is through legislation. Currently, there are no comprehensive, enforceable rules pertaining to how people use AI on the federal level. Some laws have attempted to increase oversight — such as the National AI Initiative Act of 2020 — but in reality the nation is left to rely on loose guidelines, such as Biden’s White House Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights. At the state level, legislation varies. At least eight states have finished enacting laws regulating artificial intelligence, while three have not even proposed any. Federally, there are over 30 bills in the works. They seek to both increase AI implementation as well as mitigate its harms. In practice, this could entail leveraging the technology to speed up cargo inspections along the border (being the CATCH Act), or disclosing computer-generated respondents in text messages and phone calls (called the QUIET Act). In order to keep equity at the forefront of AI legislation, it will be important to incorporate legal checks, especially pertaining to the transparency of when and how the technology is used.

These two paths both work to minimize harm through regulating the use of artificial intelligence. Consequently, the narrative surrounding AI and equity is often a negative one. However, there still exists potential to change the conversation. Through using AI to promote the study of justice, it can transform a tool defined by uncertainty into a tool that defines the uncertain.

An instance of this effort can be found at the University of Southern California. Co-led by Drs. Benjamin Graham and Morteza Dehghani, the Everyday Respect project began after the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners asked them to analyze a year’s worth of bodycam footage. The request came in response to the success of a similar Stanford study, which started in 2014 after a $10.9 million settlement agreement about intense police misconduct required the Oakland Police Department to collect information on stops by race. 

Through this initiative, they are “working to develop community-informed AI models to study communication between officers and drivers during traffic stops.” After surveying stakeholders about what a “good” interaction entails, video annotators (ranging from those previously incarcerated to retired cops) now analyse bodycam footage to create an AI model which will automatically rate exchanges at stops. Once the algorithm is complete, it will be fed 30,000 LAPD police stops. This will allow for a better understanding of how different communities perceive officer behavior, which in turn should inform the creation of better training programs.

This process does not have to be limited to the LAPD. In fact, part of the project’s goal is to make the language model available to other police departments. As mentioned earlier, this transparency when dealing with artificial intelligence is part of what makes it trustworthy enough to rely on in the face of such significant, sensitive responsibilities like procedural justice. 

Professor Graham, one of the professors in charge of the project through USC’s Security and Political Economy Lab, agrees that this scalable process is one that countries would consider adopting to analyze their own police forces, if they were not already. “There are tools in the works in a lot of places that apply some version of AI to evaluate some aspect of policing,” Graham said. “I think we’re going to see a lot more of that over the next few years.”

According to Graham, there is a lot of potential in AI. The key is making sure it’s properly planned, considered and supervised. “It is not a technology without risks, but I think it enables analysis of data at scale, and it enables analysis of data in ways that respect the privacy of the people depicted in that data,” Graham said. “Carefully designed, it can be a really powerful tool for transparency, for accountability, for learning and improvement. So it can definitely be a powerful force for good.”

While it’s clear that inherent issues of equity arise as the use of artificial intelligence becomes more commonplace in every facet of life, the benefits are undeniable. Advances in technology at this scale do not come often, so it is not wrong to take advantage of them. However, if no concrete, widespread efforts to regulate this use emerge, then the nation may suffer the consequences of unjust policing, public mistrust, and overall inaccurate AI outputs. Hopefully, institutions — both national and international — keep in mind the importance that human supervision and legislation play in creating a more technologically sound future. Combined with the promotion of innovative ways to implement AI, such as through analyzing police interactions at traffic stops, there is faith that the technology can contribute to real good while minimizing negative impact.

The post Artificial Intelligence Has Already Exacerbated Issues of Equity. Here’s How We Can Fix It. appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

While other international summits,such as the United Nations’ AI for Good Global Summit, have seen increased attendance in recent years, the overall presence of Southeast Asian nations remains disproportionately underrepresented, especially when considering the countries’ wide usage of AI platforms and softwares. 

As Brookings’ scholars Shaun Ee and Jam Kraprayoon point out, “If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.” Underrepresentation on the international stage means that Southeast Asia, and other regions alike, will be increasingly vulnerable to the risks posed by frontier AI systems such as OpenAI’s o1 reasoning models; according to the company, these new models utilize additional compute to spend more time “thinking”, enabling a greater capacity to tackle more complex tasks and problems. Reportedly, it performs near a PhD student level on challenging physics, chemistry, and biology tasks. According to Yosua Bengio, a computer science professor at the University of Montreal, this improved ability to reason can easily be misused to deceive users at a higher rate than GPT-4o. Hence, including Southeast Asia in the global dialogue for AI governance is crucial not only to the region, but also for the broader Global North, given that robust safeguard systems require diverse testing settings. Additionally, the capacity of AI system development can be expanded through transatlantic talent exchange. But what exactly does it mean to be on the menu, and what will it take to get them a proper seat at the table?

While the February Paris AI Summit discussed AI safety, threats to Southeast Asia were barely discussed, despite an alarming 82 percent increase in cybercrime throughout Southeast Asia and Singapore alone experiencing a 174 percent increase in phishing attempts between 2021 to 2022. Though broader safety concerns are often raised in these global summits, they are typically isolated from local contexts. For instance, in Myanmar, Cambodia and Laos, ‘scam centers’ are operating and affecting victims all across the region, but properly addressing them requires a specific understanding of the threat actors involved.. More importantly, when mitigating these threats, it is integral to note that several regions in Southeast Asia have more limited cybersecurity resources compared to North America and Europe. While Malaysia and Singapore have significantly strengthened their cybersecurity strategies over time, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines are still considered developing in terms of cyber capabilities, with many countries such as Indonesia facing limited cybersecurity funding. Although serious cyberattacks are common, the region’s cyber resilience remains relatively low. 

AI infrastructure in Southeast Asia is rapidly emerging, with drastic investments from major tech corporations such as Microsoft and Nvidia into data centers and cloud services. Yet, many local startups are missing out on their own AI boom. While approximately $20 billion is being invested into the Asia-Pacific region, only $1.7 billion has been invested into Southeast Asia’s young AI firms. This disparity has raised concerns regarding the region’s ability to develop its private sector and compete with AI leaders such as China and the United States. Yet how can the region be expected to address such rapid investment flows without being provided the space to participate in cutting-edge R&D and technical standards-setting? A seat in forums such as the International Network of AI Safety Institutes may incentivize domestic AI development, and such inclusion will certainly be as beneficial to global investors as it will be to the region; providing Southeast Asia with the needed technical insight and collaborative frameworks will better strengthen the local AI sector, which in turn can mitigate geopolitical risk and offer a more robust, innovation-friendly market to the global AI ecosystem. 

In order to push for a seat at the table, however, it is important to take a step back and assess why Southeast Asia is being left out to begin with. 

For starters, Global AI summits typically reflect the agendas of major powers. Intensified technological rivalry between the U.S. and China has fostered a polarized environment in global AI governance, which has trickled down into the structure and makeup of international summits.  For instance, the United Kingdom’s AI Safety Summit and Geneva’s AI for Good Global Summit typically consist of US-aligned countries such as the EU and South Korea, while Shanghai’s World Artificial Intelligence Conference and the BRICS Summits typically reflect China’s digital diplomacy interests such as sovereignty and state-centric regulation. 

Consequently, Southeast Asia’s non-alignment stance means choosing not to fully engage in these summits to avoid signaling alignment with one bloc over another. By design, many global partnership initiatives are also inaccessible to the region. For instance, The Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence (GPAI) strives for broad international participation, but its only Southeast Asian member is Singapore. GPAI and summits such as the Bletchley Park and AI Seoul Summits uphold a restrictive membership process and are invitation-only, typically limited to countries with advanced AI R&D capacity. However, most Southeast Asian countries currently allocate less than 1% of their GDP into R&D, leading to talent shortages as capable professionals often end up moving abroad for better opportunities. These compounding factors contribute to the region’s lack of influence in AI ethics and policy circles, which serves as a core prerequisite for an invitation. 

Given these challenges, what will it take for Southeast Asia to get a seat at the table and enter the space of these ‘global’ summits? 

ASEAN as a whole must work towards a unified AI development and cooperation framework. The status quo of fragmented approaches to AI governance make it difficult for coordinated advancements and regulations. For starters, the most tangible regional action lies in the publication of the ASEAN Guide to AI Governance and Ethics 2024, which offers recommendations for government and non-government usage of AI in the region. However, this document is non-binding and thus unable to impose sanctions if different paths were to be adopted by member states. This visibly translates in the diversity of AI-readiness in the region, measured through pillars such as Government, Technology Sector, and Data & Infrastructure. As of 2022, while Singapore and Malaysia respectively scored 84.1 and 67.4, other countries like Laos and Cambodia scored 31.7 and 31.2. Meanwhile, ASEAN’s commitment to avoid being a rule-taker means continued exclusion in major policy dialogue spaces; the region must find ways to maintain its non-alignment approach without sacrificing representation in the most pivotal AI governance spaces. 

It is equally important that global powers recognize the urgency of the region’s inclusion. Collaboration with Southeast Asia is pivotal to strengthening global AI governance structure. The region’s linguistic, cultural, and socio-economic diversity provides unique datasets that can improve AI models’ adaptability and performance. For instance, projects like SEA-LION are building natural language processing tools for Southeast Asian languages, which may enhance AI applications in multilingual contexts. Further, the region’s rapidly growing digital economy and tech-savvy population presents great potential for AI-driven economic growth—one that remains largely underutilized; in fact, Southeast Asia’s internet economy is expected to reach $330 billion by 2025. Through increased collaboration, global powers may better engage with emerging markets and foster innovation—presenting significant opportunities for global AI companies to scale and localize their services in a rapidly-growing environment increasingly pivotal to global supply chains and data flows. 

Simultaneously, it is just as crucial for local governments to increase investment in their AI R&D budgets. In Indonesia, the National Research and Innovation Agency has collaborated with international NGOs and startups to leverage AI for predicting volcanic eruptions and flash floods in disaster-prone areas, which has reduced disaster response times by over 30%. In Vietnam, tech companies VinAI & VinBrain are investing millions in foundational AI research for products in healthcare, mobility and natural language processing. The company has developed DrAid, an AI-powered diagnostic platform to detect respiratory diseases, reducing diagnostic time by over 50% during the pandemic. If current investment trends continue, AI could add $79.3 billion annually to the country’s GDP by 2030. 

It is apparent that when more investments are poured into R&D, the results speak for themselves. It is also apparent that strides in the right direction are being made. And yet, the region still has much work to do in investing into R&D and developing robust regulatory frameworks to truly utilize its potential in the AI frontier, given that many of these countries are still left behind within the Government AI Readiness Index, with Indonesia being ranked 42nd, Vietnam being ranked 59th and others such as Laos and Cambodia ranked even lower. 

The table is set, the stakes are high, and yet, the chairs remain unevenly distributed. Whether it’s the G20 Hiroshima Process, Bletchley Park, Paris, or Seoul, the world’s most influential summits continue championing global cooperation while their guest lists suggest otherwise. While much work is to be done internally, we cannot undermine the role of geopolitical interests and inaccessible systems towards Southeast Asia’s absence in these crucial rooms. More so, the region cannot be expected to play catch up when it continues to be systematically excluded. At the end of the day, if Southeast Asia continues to be left out of the conversation, the world will miss out on the opportunity to empower local solutions, diversify the AI ecosystem and create unique opportunities for market growth and collaborative innovation; if it continues to be left out, global AI governance will miss a perspective the world cannot afford to lose, one that makes global governance a reality rather than a mere slogan. 

The post Missing SEA(t): Southeast Asia’s Exclusion from the AI Policy Conversation appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

The involvement of North Korean troops fighting on Russia’s side of the war in Ukraine is perplexing. Throughout its entire history, North Korea has never launched a foreign military intervention, so their presence in the Russian-Ukraine war is unprecedented. 

Russia is at a turning point in its history. With the war in Ukraine waging on for nearly three years, its ultimate status remains unclear; however, the war has undoubtedly questioned the U.S.-led global order. After the start of the invasion, Western nations immediately imposed trade and economic sanctions on Russia, effectively isolating it and reducing it to a pariah state similar to North Korea. 

As the war in Ukraine has gone on far longer than Russia anticipated, Russia has begun to run low on ammunition and manpower. Unwilling to back down on Ukraine, Moscow’s options for wartime trade have become largely restricted to the handful of other countries who have similarly been isolated from the Western financial world, such as Iran and North Korea. Russia has already been turning to Iran for thousands of cheap yet deadly drones throughout the war. As for North Korea, the country has spent decades preparing for a war with South Korea and the United States. As a result, outside of Russia itself, North Korea possesses the largest arsenal of artillery munitions of any country in the world. Realizing this and sharing a land border with North Korea, Putin saw a golden opportunity to restock on munitions by shipping artillery shells from Russia’s far east to the far west into Ukraine. 

In exchange, Russia agreed to give North Korea some of its significantly more advanced military technology compared to North Korea’s frozen in time Soviet military armaments. Previously, nearly the entire world including Russia was united in restricting trade with North Korea because of its nuclear weapons program. This restricted North Korea’s military from advancing into the modern day, especially compared to their South Korean counterpart. However, now that Russia has been ostracized by the Western world, its previous cooperation with Western powers has been abandoned, prompting Russia to seek new trading partners to counter its isolation.

The Russian Defence Minister visited Pyongyang in July 2023. Afterwards, Kim Jong Un traveled across the border to meet personally with Putin in September 2023. In summer 2024 Putin personally visited Kim on his own turf in Pyongyang for the first time in 24 years, pledging to support one another in the event of an attack on either country.

This marks a significant departure from North Korea’s previous attempts to normalize relations with the United States during the Trump administration, and realign its relations with Russia similarly as they were during the Cold War era. 

The details of Putin and Kim’s meetings are unknown, but the U.S. state department suggests that, since mid 2022, roughly 11,000 shipping containers have entered Russia from North Korea presumably carrying primarily munitions. Western estimates suggest that roughly 1.6 million to 6 million artillery shells have entered Russia from North Korea worth several billions of dollars. These shells are of debatable quality and reliability but have undoubtedly given Russia the edge in munitions while Russia restocks from their own factories. In October 2024, Western intelligence sources reported that roughly half of the Russian artillery shells used in Ukraine came from North Korea.

North Korea is arguably the most militarized country in the world. North Korea spends 36% of its GDP on military spending, which is nearly the same as Ukraine (37%) with an ongoing invasion across its territory. However, since North Korea is so impoverished, this is only a fraction of the spending the United States and South Korea spend on their militaries. 

Pyongyang knows that once Russia restores itself on munitions, its need for North Korea will diminish. As a result, in order to maintain the relationship and gain further military advances from Russia, North Korea is left offering Russia the only other thing they have that Russia is in need of: its massive reserves of soldiers. Approximately 30% of the entire North Korea population is either actively serving or in the reserves. All North Korean men are required to serve ten year terms while women are required to serve eight year terms. The country has more than 1.3 million personnel in their active duty army. This is almost as much as the 1.4 million U.S. personnel and more than Russia’s 1.1 million personnel.  

The New York Times estimated in October 2024 that approximately 115,000 Russian soldiers have been killed fighting in Ukraine, in addition to another 500,000 that have been wounded. Russia likely considered doing a larger mandate draft as Ukraine has done but it knows it would presumably make the war deeply unpopular. As a result, Moscow calculated the better option for itself is to give North Korea more technology in exchange for manpower. The Ukrainian military suspects that Moscow will use these North Korean troops to deploy in the Russian Kursk Oblast which Ukraine acquired in their counter offensive in August 2024. The presence of North Korean troops in Russian territory leads to frightening implications for the war and the rest of the world. 

Currently, the Ukraine-Russia war is at its worst point for Ukraine since the start of the war, with Russia slowly advancing further into Ukraine’s territory as Ukraine faces extreme artillery and manpower shortages. North Korean forces entering the Kursk Oblast would allow Russian troops to redeploy to the Russian offensive helping to increase their advances. The current North Korean troops are still untested with significant language barrier and operational differences to overcome. However, if North Korean soldiers prove effective it could suggest that these 10,000 troops are only the start of a much larger share of forces entering Russia to help the war effort. 

As for what this means outside of the Russian-Ukraine war, the Korean peninsula has become extremely precarious. In January 2024, Kim Jong Un formally called for an alteration to the North Korean constitution to remove all commitments to a peaceful reunification of the Korean peninsula. Furthermore, he had the constitution changed to label South Korea as the nation’s “primary foe and invariable principle enemy.” In addition, he ordered the arch of reunification, a monument constructed in 2001 symbolizing Korea’s eventual reunification, to be destroyed. These moves effectively eliminate the long standing peaceful reunification of Korea from North Korea’s official policy. This has led several North Korea analysts to suggest that Kim Jong Un plans to go to war with South Korea. The publication does not suggest a specific when or how, only that Kim has made it in his mind to do so eventually. 

That being said, the South Korea military still far outclasses the North’s in almost every way. The rationale for North Korea to invade the South can be seen as extremely irrational. However, with the aid of advanced Russian technology in the form of advanced missiles, submarines, and more, South Korea is on high alert.

The involvement of North Korean troops in Russia’s war against Ukraine marks an unprecedented shift with significant implications for global security. For Russia, North Korea’s vast munitions and manpower alleviate critical shortages, enabling its prolonged offensive. For North Korea, the partnership offers advanced military technology, currently desperately needed by the Kim regime to bolster its aggressive ambitions. This alliance not only complicates Ukraine’s defense but also destabilizes the Korean peninsula, as Kim Jong Un dismantles the long standing peaceful reunification efforts and escalates hostile rhetoric toward South Korea. With authoritarian regimes deepening ties and defying international norms, the ripple effects of this partnership extend far beyond the battlefields of Ukraine, threatening to reshape regional dynamics and global power balances.

The post Why North Korean Troops are in the Russia-Ukraine War and What it Means for the Rest of the World appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

The largest tropical area being confronted with deforestation is the Amazon Rainforest. As it is about the same size as the United States and home to over three million different species, the destructive practice is guaranteed to have a drastic impact on both humans and the environment. 

Deforestation has many harmful effects, from global warming to air pollution, but one of the most underrated impacts of this procedure is the increased risk of another pandemic.

When clearing an area, it isn’t just trees that are being removed. Animals are faced with the choice of living in unhealthy and unsafe conditions or being displaced. It is when this decision happens that the risk of a zoonotic disease increases. 

Let’s say that the disease-carrying animal decides to move. Once leaving their habitat, they may enter a new environment not prepared or equipped to handle the disease this animal has. This is especially true in urban areas where sanitation is already a health concern. These animals now interact with humans on a much larger scale than before, allowing for the transmission of a disease to be a much quicker and smoother process. This is emphasized by the fact that these areas don’t have the resources or knowledge to fight off these new diseases. Towns and cities located close to deforestation areas are hotspots for zoonotic diseases to spread.

The same problems arise even if the disease-carrying animal stays in its habitat. Most of the deforested land in the Amazon is used for cattle ranching and farmland, meaning that humans are now working and living on land that they hadn’t used before. Once again, these animals are in contact with people in an unprepared and vulnerable state, making conditions perfect for zoonotic transfer. Both of these scenarios consist of increased human exposure to zoonoses, highlighting the root of zoonosis outbreaks.

To take things a step further and consider what may turn a possible epidemic into a full-blown pandemic, the environmental impacts of deforestation must also be considered.

As mentioned before, mass deforestation has been proven to lead to global warming and climate change overall. This massive transition in temperature has allowed for regions once not considered habitual for certain species to now be places where new life can grow, allowing for new diseases to spread.

Looking back at malaria, the type of mosquito that carries this disease needs tropical conditions. Well, as the temperature of the Earth climbs up, these conditions become much more common and new areas can be home to these mosquitos. Once considered eliminated from the United States, malaria reappeared in 2023 with nine locally transmitted cases reported by people who hadn’t recently traveled to any tropical areas. 

So, not only are disease-carrying animals able to spread regionally, but also internationally. Malaria isn’t the only disease popping back up in Global North countries. So far, eight cases of dengue fever have been reported as locally transmitted in LA County. Before this year, the mosquito-transmitted disease had never been locally transmitted in California. Similar to malaria, the West Nile virus transfers through mosquito bites and, just like malaria, is increasing in numbers in Global North countries as the globe continues to heat up. 

As zoonotic diseases begin to spread more into countries unprepared for this type of problem, the likelihood of a pandemic occurring increases.

Faced with this possibility, the call to mitigate deforestation of the Amazon has never been more necessary. It is the responsibility of the governments and departments in control of the Amazonian region to address this issue. New policies must be implemented that will strike down illegal deforestation practices. For areas near these destructive practices, the goal should be promoting awareness of potential health hazards as well as preparing in case of an outbreak so the disease will be contained. While it can’t be guaranteed that zoonoses won’t spread, procedures and preparations can be put in place to ready nations for when a disease does have the potential to cause a pandemic.

The post How Deforestation of the Amazon Rainforest May lead to the next Pandemic appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Originally, the heart of this article centered around a nascent policy strategy by the Biden administration in regards to its lesser known allies and trade partners on the African continent. That policy, in my opinion, was likely to be continued under his chosen successor, Kamala Harris. However, due to a recent shift in the political agenda of the White House from Liberalism to Trumpism, the future relationship of the United States with the global south is now in question. Joseph Biden, despite his expansion of Trump-Era tariffs to protect domestic industry, was the furthest thing from an isolationist — in fact, it could be said that he is part of a fading generation of Democrat politicians who placed international cooperation and trade at the forefront of their political agenda, rather than focusing strictly on domestic politics. Still, both the African Union (AU) and Caribbean Community (CARICOM) have agency in regards to their trade and development strategies, and so despite a shift in U.S. interest in these projects, they may continue regardless.

On Sept. 7, 2024, Dr. Carla Bennett, chairman of the Caribbean Community, made a speech before Barbadian leaders and the press  in the capitol, Bridgetown. Dr. Bennett’s words, espousing the “vibrant pan-Africanism” and warm feelings between the Caribbean and African continent, at first seemed to be fairly standard pandering by an international leader. Amid the group of government officials and reporters, however, was an outlier — Okechukwu Ihejirika, chief operating officer of the African Export-Import Bank’s (Afreximbank) Caribbean office. 

Dr. Bennett’s words and Ihejirika’s attendance reflects a noteworthy trend of increasing political, economic, and social integration between the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and the African Union (AU). The year prior to Dr. Bennett’s speech, Afreximbank constructed a representative office in Barbados with the purpose of helping facilitate Africa-Caribbean trade. African and Caribbean leaders have met consistently since 2020 with the goal of Caribbean nations diversifying their export portfolio and to becoming closer with their neighbors across the Atlantic Ocean. That being said,  CARICOM is primarily an insular organization, akin to the European Union. The primary goal is to coordinate foreign and economic policies among member states, as well as economic integration and relative freedom of movement. To that end, much of CARICOM trade is with other members, and the majority of external trade still goes to larger powers such as the United States and China. Though Caribbean trade with Africa is minimal at the moment, it is clear that this is a developing relationship that may take years or decades to fully coalesce.

While the Caribbean may be best known for its idyllic beaches, rich culture and luxury crops such as nutmeg and indigo, it should start to be considered as a hotspot for a changing global economic order. Although some may overlook its assets, CARICOM has 15 votes at the UN and sits on a vital trade route between the United States, Mexico, South America and West Africa. CARICOM also rests quite comfortably within the U.S. sphere of economic and political influence, with a number of military bases and multilateral trade agreements made between the two actors. The United States wishes to keep CARICOM friendly towards it, as a trade and security partner to bolster the economy, combat the illicit drug trade from South America and project naval power into the southern oceans. How then, does this new strategy of economic development through trade diversification fit into the American agenda?

Under the Biden administration, Democratic leaders were committed to continued trade liberalization in line with neoliberal values. However,  it was abundantly clear that the United States had competition, primarily from an ascendant China who reached out to the global south through a flood of public and private investments, trade agreements and land purchases for the purpose of trade and security. 

This strategy, known as the Belt and Road initiative, sought to tie nations of the global south to China through a mix of debt trap diplomacy and circular trade relationships, blocking the United States out of the region economically. The old trade order, in which U.S. economic dominance relied on open markets, is now in danger of fracturing under the pressure of increased regional integration, potentially shutting the United States out of a Chinese-led trade order. 

Fearing this, the United States has ramped up its own investments, particularly in the African continent. Biden’s cabinet directly named Kenya as a potential trade partner and a major non-NATO ally, a country that has recently become disillusioned with the Belt and Road after a disastrous railway project halted last year. On the Southern cone of the continent, U.S. and European governments have elected to help fund a railway that connects the coast of Angola with the African interior, rich in minerals integral to electric vehicle battery manufacturing. The potential for this project is enormous: Joe Biden already wants to bolster the U.S. EV industry, and diminish Chinese influence in a hotly contested region, rich in UN votes as much as minerals and luxury items, effectively killing two birds with one stone.

The Caribbean could serve as an excellent proxy for this continued United States-Africa partnership. Already kindred in identity (with founding visions based on the ideals of pan-Africanism and decolonization), CARICOM could become the source of a linkage for U.S. foreign policy toward Africa – increased cooperation with one region could coincide with increased cooperation in the other. Rather than being directly managed by the United States, this trilateral relationship grows under tacit approval from Washington, justified as part of an existing history of trade liberalization. Given proper attention and encouragement, a pro-United States trade bloc could have formed among Caribbean and African states, trading with each other as much as they traded with the United States. However, just this last month a bomb was thrown into these plans. Newly elected 47th President Donald J. Trump, a vehement isolationist and staunch anti-China politician, is ambiguous as to his policy regarding trade and investment to either region. For starters, these developments are marginal in the minds of the American people, with domestic matters and the wars in Ukraine and Gaza being the primary foreign issues of interest. Trump’s strategy may be unshackled by commitments to his constituency and may continue under different leadership, in the same way that Trump-era tariffs toward China were maintained under Biden. However, that may also mean a U.S. withdrawal of direct involvement in the growing Caribbean-Africa relationship. The Lobito corridor may lose funding, and the HOPE and HELP acts (which give preferential textile trading rights toward Haiti) may disappear in a tide of protectionism, a policy that seeks to protect domestic industries by shutting out competition via tariffs. However, the CARICOM-AU partnership is not necessarily dead in the water. 

Ignoring the economic incentives to continue working together, there are a number of security and political benefits for the Caribbean and Africa to reap from a continued partnership. A renewed Trump presidency brings the future of trade with the United States as a whole into question – shaking a dependency on American goods and services may lessen the blow should tariffs be implemented. Similarly, African exports are primarily oriented towards advanced industrialized countries such as China, the EU and the United States, often not focusing on developing nations overseas or even other African states. Afreximbank is already focused on developing inter-African trade, and developing a more diverse portfolio only helps to achieve further independence from the northern capital. In addition to these benefits toward sovereignty, unifying policy agendas in international institutions makes a CARICOM-AU bloc a formidable force to reckon with. Leaders have already cooperated on social issues such as petitioning for a formal program to institute reparations for African slavery, a feat that could potentially be replicated on other issues, ranging from civil conflict to economic development. 

Despite a potential setback in what could have been a geopolitical boon for the United States, CARICOM and the AU have no real incentives to end their burgeoning alliance. From trade to development to security to social issues, the two blocs have more similarities than differences, and it is in their best interests to continue cooperation through bilateral agreements and negotiations. Perhaps, this new dynamic may represent a shift toward coordination among developing nations rather than clamoring toward the world hegemons, as it becomes evident that the free trade order is more threatened than ever by protectionists in both Europe and the United States. What remains to be seen is how the new Trump administration wishes to engage with the winds of change.

The post Shifting Alliances: The Future of CARICOM-AU Relations in a Changing U.S. Trade Order appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Lebanese citizens’ opinions on Hezbollah are varied and many are quite critical of the organization. Throughout Lebanon, Shia Muslims look at the group relatively favorably while Sunni Muslims and Christians have a much more negative opinion of Hezbollah. However, despite disagreements on the stances and actions of the group, 99% of Arabs agree that all Arab countries must cease contact with Israel in response to Israeli military action in Gaza. Hezbollah as an ideological entity is not necessarily well-loved, but it is also one of few groups committed to resisting the Israeli occupation. This then becomes a difficult issue for many Lebanese civilians as Israel continues its attempt to expand into southern Lebanon, in addition to Gaza and the West Bank. It seems that the only solution is the creation of an organization that will both have higher approval from Lebanese citizens and protect the country from Israeli occupation.

In this conversation of Lebanese support for Hezbollah, it is important to understand the religious makeup of Lebanon. While Lebanon recognizes 18 religious sects, there are three major factions, with 31.9% of Lebanese citizens identifying as Sunni Muslims, 31.2% as Shia Muslims and 32.4% as Christians. While all three groups are very close in size, it is interesting to note that Hezbollah is a Shiite group despite Shia Muslims being the smallest of the three largest religious groups. Shia Muslims are the largest group in Iran, however, which is the country responsible for the funding of Hezbollah.

Conflict between Sunni and Shia Muslims has been a cause of division throughout the Middle East, with major clashes in both Syria and Iraq. Despite 85% of Muslims identifying as Sunni and 15% as Shia, Sunnis have not dominated militarily and there remains a great sectarian divide in countries like Lebanon. Fear of conflict is not limited to one group, though, with 67% of Lebanese Muslims believing that Shia-Sunni tensions are a big issue. The emergence of Hezbollah has certainly not aided this and, despite having governmental representation, Sunnis and Christians alike feel as though Hezbollah as a governing entity does not represent them.

Notably, in September 2024, an Israeli airstrike killed Hassan Nasrallah, a Hezbollah founder who led the group for over 30 years. Despite disagreements over Hezbollah’s existence, Nasrallah was relatively well-liked due to his resistance to Israel, including overseeing the end of Israel’s 18-year occupation of southern Lebanon.

During an interview in September 1992, Nasrallah asserted that Hezbollah is a resistance party that opposes the creation of an Islamic Republic in Lebanon. Additionally, in their 1998 Statement of Purpose, Hezbollah says, “It should be clear that the kind of Islam we want is a civilized endeavor that rejects injustice, humiliation, slavery, subjugation, colonialism and blackmail while we stretch out our arms for communication among nations on the basis of mutual respect.” 

In the U.S. Counterterrorism Guide, Hezbollah has been classified as a terrorist group since 1997, a designation shared by the Arab League and the EU, among others. Since the group’s inception, it has been responsible for several terrorist attacks around the world. Hezbollah has bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut both in 1983 and 1984, with a total of 101 killed and at least 120 injured.

While Hezbollah was created to force Israel to cede its occupied Lebanese territory, the group has now morphed into a different sort of entity. Now, Hezbollah has transitioned from a military wing to a group with heavy influence in both Lebanese military action and politics. In addition, Hezbollah no longer solely targets the Israeli occupation. A prime example of this is the 1994 operation targeting a Jewish community center and killing 94 people in Buenos Aires. 
Since its inception, the United States has given Israel a total of $310 billion in aid, a vast majority of such being military. While the United States views the Hezbollah attacks as unprecedented, Hezbollah sees the United States as a proxy for Israel, funding the occupation of Palestine as well as southern Lebanon. As the United States continues to fund Israel’s attacks on Gazan civilians, a direct opposition to the goals of Hezbollah, it is difficult to see a future where Hezbollah’s terrorist designation is removed.

The post Formation and Impact of Hezbollah appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Ukraine

After the election, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky congratulated Trump, saying he looks forward to a strong U.S. approach to global affairs. Trump has pledged to end the war in Ukraine but has revealed little plans on how he would do so. The United States provides the most aid to Ukraine out of any other country, and Trump, alongside his Vice President JD Vance have cast doubt on whether they would continue military aid to Ukraine. This would be devastating for the hopes of beating Russia, which is steadily advancing into Ukraine’s Donbas region. President Putin has not congratulated Trump, and re-iterated U.S. hostility towards Russia making them hesitant to make any statements on the future of the two countries’ relationship. However, given Trump and Putin’s friendly-ish relationship (possible collusion between Russian officials and Trump campaign members in 2016 and Trump calling Putin a “genius” for invading Ukraine), it would not be surprising for the Trump administration to reduce aid to Ukraine. Last week, President Biden sent Ukraine official approval to use American long-range missiles to strike deep within Russian territory, a move seen as Biden hedging against Trump’s future plans.

Hungary

Moving westward, another relationship that should be watched is that between Trump and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, a right-wing autocrat. Hungary and Russia are close, despite Hungary’s membership in the European Union and NATO. Hungary relies on Russia for gas and is refusing to let aid pass through Hungary into Ukraine. Additionally, Orbán was the only EU leader to endorse Trump for the U.S. presidency and flouted their close relationship. Therefore, under the new administration, Hungary might gain an influx of foreign investment from American companies or enjoy a closer economic relationship. These circumstances suggest there will be good relations between the United States and Hungary over the next four years. 

Poland

Another conservative leader, Poland’s President Andrzej Duda, congratulated Trump on his win. Duda wants to strengthen Poland’s relationship with the United States, but Poland is against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, sending more than $3.5 billion to support Ukraine’s army. Duda’s main goal is to curry U.S. favor and keep the United States in NATO, so it’s no surprise that Duda has tried to become closer friends with Donald Trump. In April 2024, Duda and Trump met in New York City for dinner, and both shared positive sentiments, with Trump stating that he is “behind Poland all the way.” Thus, it would not be surprising to see Poland continue to schmooze up to the incoming president in the coming months. 

Czech Republic and Slovakia

The Prime Ministers of the Czech Republic and Slovakia, both populist conservatives, have welcomed Trump with open arms.

Petr Fiala, the Prime Minister of Slovakia, and President Biden have enjoyed positive relations, with the U.S. and Slovakia becoming closer over the past four years. The Czech Republic has continued sending military aid to Ukraine, but Fiala is growing weary as the war has surpassed its 1000th day. In September, he stated that Ukraine “will have to be realistic” about the growing possibility of ceding some territory to Russia, even if temporarily.

Fico has ended Slovakia’s military aid to Ukraine and opposes Ukraine’s bid to enter NATO. Slovakia is in the midst of a political crisis, with a sharp divide between Fico’s conservative government and the liberal opposition party. Fico has been consolidating power, undermining media independence, eliminating the office responsible for investigating political corruption and prohibiting protests. As such, expect to see Slovakia drifting towards an Orbán-style populist way of governing, to Trump’s delight.

The fate of Ukraine lies, in large part, in the hands of Trump and Vance. 

The post What a Second Trump Presidency Means for East-Central Europe appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Despite diligent efforts to contain the radiation, around 5.5 metric tons of radioactive water leaked from the area in February 2024. Although the water was successfully contained before escaping the premises, preventing the surrounding environment from being contaminated, TEPCO was unable to prevent the damage done to its reputation. 

While the initial reactions to the 2011 meltdown in the international sphere were mainly those of sympathy and a growing general weariness of nuclear power, the tone changed after Japan’s announcement that it would release the treated wastewater into the ocean beginning Aug. 24, 2023. The international community, specifically Japan’s neighbors, was furious about the decision as they believe the wastewater is still toxic; however, their outcries did not deter the Japanese government’s decision. The recent wastewater spillage of 5.5 metric tons occurred around half a year after the initial release of wastewater and only contributes more to the anti-dumping rhetoric present, fighting for a reversal of Japan and TEPCO’s initiative.

South Korea, arguably one of Japan’s most valuable neighbors due to the two nations’ respective alliances with the United States, has been one of the first and most vocal in calling out Japan’s actions. The relationship between the two countries has historically been incredibly tense and volatile, largely due to Japan’s colonization of Korea during World War II. To this day, both Japan and South Korea continue to harbor resentment towards one another, making cooperation between the two difficult. However, Japan’s decision to dump the wastewater was originally viewed as a unique opening for the South Korean government to better its relationship with Japan. Under Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, the South Korean government endorsed Japan and TEPCO’s dumping but was instantly met with outrage from the majority of the South Korean citizenry, who took to the streets to protest the endorsement. South Korea quickly switched its position to one of condemnation for Japan, increasing its number of trade restrictions on the regions around Fukushima.

Although the new South Korean trade restrictions harmed Japanese exports, specifically in the aquatic sector, China’s reaction to the wastewater dumpage was far worse. Unlike South Korea, the Chinese Communist Party did not waver in its response, instantly putting pressure on Japan to stop its wastewater disposal and banning aquatic goods from Fukushima and other surrounding prefectures. Ignoring the Chinese warning, Japan continued to carry out its plans, causing China to retaliate still further with a universal ban on all Japanese aquatic-based products. The import bans from South Korea and China, as well as several other countries, severely harmed Japan’s fishing sector, however, Japan’s overall economy remains strong.

Accusations about the immorality of wastewater dumping are constantly being thrown at Japan by its neighbors, but are the criticisms even valid? In terms of hazard levels, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has consistently reported that TEPCO’s wastewater dumps have all been significantly below legal radiation limits. Likewise, the entire site is compliant with IAEA guidelines, even having an IAEA office on-site for constant feedback and monitoring. The recent radioactive water spillage was one of the only notable incidents during the entire decommissioning process of Fukushima Daiichi, meaning that such mistakes are a rare occurrence. This can be attributed to TEPCO’s commitment to prevent any accidents from happening twice, being aware of the dangerous nature of the hazards they handle. While it has not necessarily done a perfect job, TEPCO has made a large effort to keep Japan compliant with the rules of the IAEA, preventing further backlash from occurring.

In addition to verifying the levels of radiation in wastewater, the IAEA is also responsible for ensuring that radiation in fisheries and other aquatic resources remains at a safe level. As such, the fish and other products produced in Fukushima prefecture have been declared legally safe for consumption, contrary to public concerns.

In terms of the international community, the case against Japan becomes far weaker when considering that some of the dissenting countries, namely China, also have a history of releasing radioactive wastewater into the ocean. China’s wastewater has actually been shown to have higher traces of tritium, a radioactive isotope created from nuclear power plants, compared to Fukushima Daiichi.

International tensions surrounding Japan’s release of radioactive wastewater most likely do not, in actuality, stem from the perceived dangers of TEPCO’s operations, but rather from Japan’s difficult history with its neighbors. Due to the precarious relationship between Japan, South Korea and China, experts theorize that it is Japan’s colonial World War II background that created a lack of trust between it and the larger international community. Becoming a major colonial power, Japan managed to colonize parts of China, all of Korea and a large section of Southeast Asia. Aside from the colonization of the respective countries, Japan also enacted the policy of comfort women in the places they conquered, forcing women into sexual slavery in brothels. The horrors of colonization, pleasure women and other terrible acts still hang heavy in the minds of many South Korean and Chinese citizens, making cooperation between the three countries difficult—the situation of Fukushima Daiichi is but another part of this pattern.

While the Fukushima Daiichi meltdown was purely domestic, its consequences had an expansive international reach. With increasing pressures from rival nations, Japan’s attitudes towards Fukushima Daiichi need to shift or else their already strained relationships might reach a breaking point. Despite this, through cooperation with protesting countries, a common ground towards the disposal of toxic wastewater could be reached, ultimately resolving this decade-long issue.

The post Fukushima Daiichi: From Local Disaster to National Issue appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Trump’s position to swiftly end the war does not come as a surprise. He has said on multiple occasions during his campaign trail that it would be one of his top priorities if reelected. However, despite Trump’s ambiguity and unspecificity on how he would end the conflict, the international community has drawn on statements from the former President to infer how the war will end if his administration takes office: the United States will simply stop funding the Ukrainian War effort. 

Trump’s conservative view on foreign aid toward Ukraine has been expressed numerous times to both the general public and world leaders. In March of this year, when Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban visited Trump at his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, Orban sat down with ABC News and said that he was assured that Trump would not give Ukraine “a penny” if elected. 

Following the Russian invasion in 2022, Ukraine has become one of the top recipients of US foreign aid, something not seen in Europe since the Harry Truman administration created the Marshall Plan after World War II. Sitting at 41%, the United States is the second largest contributor to Ukraine’s foreign aid behind the European Union. Foreign aid has largely been allocated toward military operations, law enforcement, communication departments and humanitarian efforts. 

Yet, even under the Biden Administration, it has been increasingly difficult in recent months for the United States to get bi-partisan support for funding efforts towards Ukraine. Much of foreign security discourse has shifted to the Israel-Hamas war, and Ukraine is not getting the media coverage that it once relied on for international support. Additionally, domestic chaos has fostered turbulence in Congress, with bi-partisan negotiations taking months. In Dec 2023, Zelensky’s appeal to Congress for funding was unsuccessful, as many GOP members cited domestic security issues like illegal immigration as a bigger priority. The shift of the Republican Party becoming increasingly neo-isolationist has created additional struggles for the Biden administration in terms of foreign policy, as many senators have said that their support remains contingent on stricter immigration policies along the Mexican border. 

On Tuesday, Apr 23, the foreign aid package that took months of deliberation finally passed through Congress, allocating $60.8 billion for the Ukrainian War effort. The majority of House Republicans opposed the effort, but the speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, managed to structure the bill in ways that separated large groups of opposition, preventing a congressional gridlock. However, despite this win for Congress and the Biden Administration to uphold their support for the war effort, Ukraine said that the delay in US aid has already had a direct impact on the ground. Hal Brands, a US foreign policy expert and a professor of global affairs at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, said recently in an interview with The Hub that “the cost of this delay can be measured in Ukrainian lives and territory lost”. He cites that these losses, including the loss of the influential fortress city, Avdiivka, are a direct result of the dire need for artillery ammunition, which US aid helps to supply. 

Recognizing the US’ fundamental contribution to the war effort, for months now US allies in Europe have been trying to “Trump-proof” the conflict’s security, fearing the implications of Trump’s potential return to office. The two nuclear powers of Europe, the UK and France, can hardly compare to the US military arsenal, as they are but a small fraction of the size and have failed in test launches. 

Reflecting on this threatening potential reality, Norbert Röttgen, a veteran German lawmaker and ex-chair of the Bundestag’s foreign affairs committee, commented it would mark a big change for Europe.  

“Europe would have to stand up for its own security in an unprecedented way,” Röttgen said. 

Similarly, Valérie Hayer, who leads the Renew Europe group, and is French President Emmanuel Macron’s top lawmaker in Brussels, claims now is the perfect opportunity for Europe to start becoming more independent. 

“Europe has relied on the U.S. to provide its security for too long,” Hayer said.  “It’s high time for Europe to improve its own deterrence capacities and take its security into its own hands.” 

Restructuring trans-Atlantic relations would include multiple components, but the overarching theme centers around diverting economic reliance. Europe must look to other regional and global partners to ensure stability. This effort has already been seen in the geopolitically chaotic, yet productive, move to wean off of Russian oil exports.

Trump has said on multiple occasions, both in interviews and on his Truth social network, that the 2021 Russian invasion of Ukraine would never have happened if he had been in office. He even claimed that he delayed the invasion for years, citing his close-knit relationship and ability to influence Putin. However, Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, has claimed that it would not make a difference if Trump was in power, because the mutual trust between the United States and Russia was tarnished when President George W. Bush Jr. pulled the United States out of the anti-ballistic missile treaties, which many international relations scholars believe escalated a new arms race in the Post-Cold war era. Nevertheless, Trump has continued to double down on his claims on his ability to influence Russian foreign policy. 

Since the Marshall Plan, a bilateral transatlantic security relationship has been fostered between the U.S. and most of Western Europe, materialized in NATO. However, Trump has been a vocal critic of NATO for years, claiming that other states have been freeriding on the US economic and security contributions to the organization. In fact, foreign policy expert and widely-regarded author Anne Applebaum believes that there is a considerable chance that Trump would pull the U.S. out of NATO entirely. 

However, regardless of his win in the election in November, it is clear that an emerging fundamental shift in transatlantic security relations seems imminent. As the war continues on to its third year, US foreign aid is a rising contentious topic among Americans, and Europe will have to adjust accordingly.

The post A Fundamental Shift in US-European Security Relations: What Another Trump Presidency Means for the Russia-Ukraine War appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.