What's Going On- A News Recap
Written by Michael, one of our current world events writers, and edited by Averi, one of our editors!
9th Summit of the Americas Divides the Hemisphere
Every three to four years, a summit is hosted to bring together the leaders of the Western Hemisphere. The Summit, held in Los Angeles in early June, divided leaders more than it has brought them together.
The issues started before the summit began. President Joe Biden did not invite three major countries in the hemisphere - Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua - hoping to take a stand against human rights abuses and authoritarianism seen in all three of the countries. However, the move ended up being a dividing one as Mexico dropped out of the conference. Mexico’s President Andrés Manuel López Obrador explained his reasoning, stating: “I am not going to the summit because not all American countries are invited and I believe the need to change the policy that has been in place for centuries: The exclusion, the desire to dominate without any reason, the disrespect of countries’ sovereignty (and) the independence of each country” (Sullivan et al). Following Mexico’s lead, “leaders of Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Honduras, Guatemala, and several Caribbean states have also declared that they won’t go,” ensuring that it won’t be a Summit of the Americas, but rather a Summit of America’s regional allies (Kirk). The lack of attendance at the summit may make it one of the least unifying and successful in history.
This year’s summit had the theme of “Building a Sustainable, Resilient, and Equitable Future,” but so far it has been focused solely on migration. On the second day of the summit, Vice President Kamala Harris committed money, “nearly $2 billion in private investment directed to three Central American countries as part of the Biden administration’s strategy to reduce migration, more than doubling previously announced commitments” (Bierman). But Harris’ action seems to be the only one of note through the first two days of the convention. Instead, focus remains on the lack of unity at the summit.
Even regional allies have deemed the United States’ exclusion a misstep. As Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pointed out, it is “extremely important that we have an opportunity to engage with our fellow hemispheric partners — some like-minded, some less like-minded” (Wootson Jr.). The whole point of a summit is to bring different countries with differing viewpoints together to solve problems in a cohesive manner. Excluding countries makes that impossible. In fact, as Chilean President Gabriel Boric explained, we are “reinforcing the position that these other countries take in their own countries” (Shakil and Scherer). The only way to curb human rights abuses in countries like Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua is to bring them to the table; refusing to talk to them, or negotiate with them, leaves millions of people in our hemisphere at risk of the human rights abuses the summit was supposed to solve.
In a way, the breakdown of the summit is a tad ironic. The last Summit of the Americas, held in Peru, was broken apart by an American President refusing to go. This time it was broken apart by an American President who refused to let a handful of countries go. Ultimately, while Biden preached before the Summit about forming connections instead of reverting back to Trump-era America First policies, it seems that the result from both Presidents has been the same: division.
How Technology is Shaping the Russo-Ukrainian War
When the war started on February 24th, most feared that Ukraine would fall in less than a heartbeat. If this war was similar to those of a century ago, where what mattered was the number of troops and the power of your artillery, it would have been over in just over a heartbeat. However, now three months into the war, it is not over. Because wars fought in the 21st century are not won or lost based on the army size or strength of artillery, but instead, they are decided based on the strength of more complicated tools, like technology. The war has been shaped by the uses of technology like social media, cyber attacks, and artificial attacks, to the point where it has been deemed “World Cyber War 1.” Here is how some of these pieces of technology have played out for each side.
Rallying support for a war in the middle of a pandemic is hard, especially when that same war does not end quickly and has a high cost to their economy. To overcome these challenges, the Russian government has spread disinformation and propaganda in an attempt to preserve support. This strategy of spreading disinformation and propaganda is not new as a war tactic, but the medium it is done through is relatively new. Russia, in the past, found success in this strategy, spreading disinformation about the invasion of Crimea in 2014 and spreading propaganda about the United States election in 2016. Yet, its tactics seemed to have failed in 2022. Russia has won on the front of TikTok - mainly due to the fact it is Chinese controlled - spreading numerous amounts of disinformation on the social media platform. But it has lost on the fronts of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Google, as all four United States owned sites have found stronger ways to control disinformation and stop it from spreading. Additionally, as Sara Brown of MIT points out, Ukraine has won the battle over quality and believability as its media focuses on “President Volodymyr Zelenskyy walking around devastated cities, emphasizing his leadership and willingness to stay and fight,” whereas “Russia has been airing ‘rambling’ addresses by President Vladimir Putin, or footage of Putin sitting at a desk” (Brown). What Russia has failed to realize is that using 21st century tools does not work with 20th century tactics, and as a result the battle over social media has been a surprising defeat for them.
As the Russian government has failed to effectively use social media to spread disinformation and propaganda to muster support for their cause, their military has been using more direct methods to cripple Ukraine’s infrastructure. Notorious for its employment of computer hackers and cybersecurity specialists, Russia has been targeting Ukraine’s energy facilities, financial institutions, and internet service providers (ISPs) as reported by top cybersecurity officials in the Ukrainian government. Cybersecurity specialists within the Ukrainian government have attempted to defend against incoming cyberattacks from Russia with some success. In early April, intelligence officers and IT experts employed by the Ukrainian government successfully stopped an attack on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. The United States Department of State has responded to this increase in cyberattacks by Russia. In early May, Secretary of State Anthony J. Blinken claimed the United States’ commitment to upholding the "rules-based international order in cyberspace.” Furthermore, Blinken stated the country’s intentions to support Ukraine in its efforts in countering Russian cyberwarfare.
The most notable technology that is shaping the Russo-Ukrainian War would be the use of artificial intelligence (A.I.) by both sides of the conflict. To begin with, experts have speculated about the use of A.I. in Russia’s propaganda campaigns. More specifically, “deepfakes”–incredibly realistic synthesized videos that feature edited faces–may play a role in spreading disinformation on social media platforms. In order to combat this, A.I. algorithms may be used to detect Russian disinformation and social media corporations may be able to effectively shut them down. More worrisome is the usage of A.I. powered lethal autonomous weapons systems–weapons in which computers injure, damage, and kill on battlefields. In the past, Russia has used lethal autonomous weapons in Syria, and Russian President Vladimir V. Putin has stated the importance of A.I. in the power dynamics of the future. Despite this, the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) has deemed Russia to be behind the United States and China in utilizing artificial intelligence with regard to warfare. The world has seen how various forms of technology have played both a direct and indirect role in the Russo-Ukrainian War, though it is still yet to be seen to what extent cutting edge and dangerous technologies will be used in a military capacity and how it will shape the world order in the next decades.
The EU Oil Ban: A Risky but Unified Step
Unity. When wars are fought, they are won or lost based on unity. This means keeping your people unified behind your troops and the war effort. Keeping your allies unified in ensuring that they give your country the resources necessary to keep the war effort. Keeping your army and allies united on all fronts, even the non-combat ones. In an act of unity and support for Ukraine, the European Union (EU) has committed to passing an embargo of 90% of Russia’s oil by the end of year.
Originally, the EU wanted to ban all imports of Russian oil, but President of Hungry, Viktor Orbán, objected as “Hungary receives more than 60% of its oil from Russia via a pipeline” (Schmitz). Orbán has shared a long history of ally-ship with Putin, using similar authoritarian tactics to the dictator to ensure he stayed in office. Hungary stood as the only country unwilling to sign on to a complete ban of Russian oil, causing the EU to give them an exemption to ensure that a deal was made.
The embargo will have a minimal effect in the short term, as European countries will still have to rely on Russian oil in the short term. However, in the long term, the embargo will have a monumental effect as it “could cause Russian production to drop another one million barrels a day, or about 10 percent, once the restrictions come into effect. The downturn would contribute to what many analysts expect to be a broad erosion in Russia’s energy industry in coming years, as major oil companies quit the country and sanctions curb imports of Western technology” (Reed). A crippled Russian economy would be a huge win for Ukraine, as it would become harder for Russia to sustain internal unity and support for the war.
Although the embargo is a strong, unified step in support for Ukraine, it does not come without risk. As European economies attempt to rebound a Covid induced recession, the embargo serves as a speed bump in the recovery effort. Europe’s search for oil away from Russia has “driven the price of high-quality crudes produced from West Africa to Azerbaijan to levels not seen for years” (Wallace and Kantchev). The high cost of oil and energy could have dire consequences as Jonathan Hackenbroich, a policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations explains, “factories would have to curb production or even close. Some key industries could be lost forever” (Alderman). Without fuel for key industries or strong economies, it will become harder for allies to stay unified behind Ukraine, as it is hard to fuel a war effort without the resources to fuel it.
The embargo is a risky but monumental step in support for Ukraine. Even with the Orbán exception, the effects on the Russian economy may be enough to sway public support in Russia against Putin and the war effort. However, the embargo still serves as a major risk to European economies. A severe enough risk that countries like Germany and Poland would pull out of the agreement to save their factories. The consequences of the ban, for both sides, will depend on one thing: unity. If Russia is able to keep its people united behind the war effort in spite of the hit to the economy, the embargo will have little to no effect. If the EU is able to stay committed and united behind the embargo, it may have a monumental one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This piece was written by one of our current world events writers, Michael. Reach them at @michael._.io on Instagram!
This piece was edited by one of our editors, Averi. Reach them at @averi.mags, on Instagram!
Comments