12/2 – International News Update & Story Development

Hundreds of Iran-aligned Iraqi fighters crossed into Syria on Monday to support President Bashar al-Assad’s government forces in their fight against rebels who recently captured the second-biggest city, Aleppo.

Current reports out of the Middle East indicate that Lebanon’s Hezbollah has yet to send any troops or join the operation in Syria due to its recent and devastating conflict against Israel. Reports suggest that as many as 4,000 Hezbollah fighters have been killed by Israeli strikes into southern Lebanon since October 7, 2023. [Reuters]

The recent rebel capture of Aleppo marks their most significant achievement in years. Syrian government forces had maintained full control of the city since 2016, following a prolonged siege that became a turning point in the war.

Opposition leader Hadi al-Bahra attributed the rebels’ success to the distraction caused by Hezbollah’s focus on Israel, coupled with longstanding preparations for the assault. [Reuters]

Despite its historic role in Syria, Hezbollah has refrained from sending reinforcements due to its recent losses in Israel. Reports indicate that senior Hezbollah officers previously stationed in Aleppo were redeployed to support ground operations against Israel before a ceasefire last week. Analysts suggest this shift could impact Assad’s dependence on Hezbollah and, by extension, Iran.

Efforts by regional players like the United Arab Emirates and the United States to influence Assad’s alliances are ongoing. Discussions have reportedly centered on lifting sanctions in exchange for reduced Iranian influence, though recent rebel advances may complicate such negotiations. [Reuters]

Government and Russian forces have launched airstrikes targeting rebel-held areas in Aleppo and Idlib provinces, with reports of civilian casualties. The government claims to have killed hundreds of rebels in recent days, although these figures remain unverified.

Rebel forces, including Turkey-backed groups and the Islamist Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, continue their operations in northwest Syria. Meanwhile, Turkey’s state-backed Syrian National Army has reportedly captured key positions, intensifying the complexity of the conflict.

Opinion:

Iran’s network of allied militia groups, backed by Russian airstrikes, has played a crucial role in bolstering President Bashar al-Assad’s forces since the civil war began in 2011. However, the alliance faces renewed challenges after the rebels’ swift takeover of Aleppo last week.

President Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria is confronting significant challenges as its principal military allies, Iran and Russia, grapple with their own conflicts, leading to a strain on resources and support.

Iran, a steadfast supporter of Assad, is contending with internal and regional pressures. Its primary proxy, Hezbollah, has suffered substantial losses due to prolonged engagements, particularly the recent conflict with Israel. These developments have compelled Hezbollah to withdraw key personnel from Syria to address immediate concerns in Lebanon, thereby diminishing its capacity to assist Assad’s forces.

It is very likely that the Syrian rebels who wish to topple the Assad family had this assault planned for a very long time, and waited for the moment that a truce was called in Lebanon between Hezbollah and Israel. Like any Islamist extremist group, they did not want it to look like they were helping Israel in the slightest.

Simultaneously, Russia’s military focus is heavily directed toward the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. The protracted war has necessitated the allocation of substantial military resources, potentially limiting Russia’s ability to provide the same level of support to Assad’s regime as in previous years. Analysts suggest that Russia’s extensive commitments in Ukraine may hinder its capacity to effectively manage its involvement in Syria, thereby affecting Assad’s strategic position.

Putin is leveraging more and more forces into Ukraine as he will likely try to advance as much as possible in an attempt to maximize his leverage going into a Trump presidency where some sort of deal to end the war may be proposed.

The concurrent distractions of Iran and Russia have emboldened Syrian rebel factions, leading to significant territorial gains, notably the recent capture of Aleppo. This shift underscores the Assad regime’s heavy reliance on its allies and highlights its vulnerability when their support wanes.

Other powers like the U.S. and Iranian adversaries might try to leverage this moment to drive a wedge between the Iranian regime and Assad in Syria. Efforts by regional players like the United Arab Emirates and the United States to influence Assad’s alliances are ongoing.

The evolving dynamics present a complex challenge for Assad, as he navigates reduced external assistance amid escalating internal opposition.With Russia’s attention divided by the war in Ukraine and Hezbollah weakened by its confrontation with Israel, questions arise about the coalition’s ability to respond effectively.

12/1 – International News Story

For another consecutive night, thousands of demonstrators filled the streets outside Georgia’s parliament in their capital Tbilisi, protesting the government’s decision to suspend negotiations for European Union membership.

A third night of protests raged following Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze’s announcement that Georgia would no longer seek to join the EU and will actively reject all funding from the block until 2028.

Friday’s rally escalated into clashes between protesters and police in a violent and tumultuous development to the country’s complex relationship with Europe. On Saturday night, an estimated 100,000 protestors formed barricades around Parliament.

The Georgian Interior Ministry reported that protesters hurled stones, pyrotechnics, glass bottles, and metal objects at law enforcement, resulting in injuries to ten police officers. In response, authorities arrested 107 individuals for alleged disorderly conduct and defiance of police orders. [Politico]

The unrest followed a violent Thursday night during which police employed water cannons, pepper spray, and tear gas to disperse crowds after Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze of the ruling Georgian Dream party announced the suspension.

President Salome Zourabichvili openly criticized the government, accusing it of waging “war” against its citizens. Writing on X, she condemned the government as “Russian proxies” undermining Georgia’s European aspirations and urged Europe to intervene. Her sentiments were echoed by several Georgian diplomats, including the ambassadors to the U.S. and Lithuania, who resigned in protest, citing a betrayal of the nation’s EU ambitions.

The move to suspend EU accession talks came shortly after the European Parliament condemned Georgia’s October 26 election as “neither free nor fair.” Opposition parties alleged widespread electoral fraud, rejected their parliamentary mandates, and called for a rerun under international oversight.

The European Union strongly criticized the use of force against protesters in Georgia, expressing regret over the ruling Georgian Dream party’s decision to suspend its bid for EU membership. In a statement issued Sunday, EU officials highlighted ongoing concerns about Georgia’s democratic regression, citing irregularities in the recent parliamentary elections and the government’s alignment with authoritarian policies.

“The EU reiterates its serious concerns about the continuous democratic backsliding of the country, including the irregularities which took place in the run-up and during the recent parliamentary elections,” EU representatives Kaja Kallas and Urmas Reinsalu said in a joint statement.

Despite the outcry, the Georgian Dream party dismissed constitutional challenges to the results and forged ahead with forming a government. The election’s fallout, compounded by the European Commission’s critical report on Georgia’s EU progress, has stalled the nation’s integration with the bloc.

Georgia’s EU membership application, granted candidate status last year, was frozen over the summer after the government introduced controversial laws resembling those in Russia. The measures, which labeled Western-backed NGOs as “foreign agents” and imposed harsh restrictions on LGBTQ+ rights, sparked widespread protests. Authorities used tear gas, batons, and other forceful measures to disperse demonstrators, while opposition figures faced detention and reported abuse.

The suspension of EU negotiations, coupled with the government’s handling of dissent, has drawn criticism from both Georgian citizens and international allies. The EU’s condemnation adds to mounting pressure on Georgia’s leadership to address the country’s democratic and human rights challenges as its European aspirations remain in jeopardy.

The United States also chimed in with disapproval, announcing the suspension of its strategic partnership with Georgia. A State Department statement criticized Georgian Dream for “rejecting the opportunity for closer ties with Europe” and accused the government of making the country vulnerable to Russian influence.

Washington also condemned the police’s excessively forceful tactics, noting that a vast majority of Georgians support EU membership.

Georgia’s political trajectory has alarmed Western allies as the Moscow-aligned Georgian Dream party enacts increasingly authoritarian measures, including a controversial “foreign agents” law targeting Western-funded NGOs and anti-LGBTQ+ legislation. Both moves have been widely interpreted as attempts to distance Georgia from the EU and NATO, despite the nation being granted EU candidate status last year.

The situation remains volatile, with protesters vowing to continue their demonstrations and international pressure mounting for Georgia to realign its policies with its European commitments. For now, the country stands at a crossroads, its aspirations for EU integration jeopardized by internal strife and shifting geopolitical alliances.

11/30 – International News Story & Update

Rebel forces have launched a significant offensive in Syria’s second-largest city, Aleppo, posing a critical challenge to President Bashar al-Assad’s regime in the ongoing civil conflict. The attack, led by the Islamist militant group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), marked a major turning point, with fighters reportedly advancing swiftly through the city and its surrounding areas.

Assad’s state media reported that over 200 “terrorists” were killed in a joint operation by Russian and Syrian forces. Despite these countermeasures, the rebels’ rapid advance indicates diminished Iranian-backed manpower in Aleppo province, weakened by ongoing Israeli airstrikes and broader regional instability.

Syrian authorities have shut down Aleppo airport and sealed off all access roads to the city as opposition forces make significant advances. [Reuters]

Opposition-linked social media shared images on Friday night showing HTS militants in front of Aleppo’s citadel, signaling their incursion into the city’s core. The group claimed to have expanded its control over much of Aleppo after initiating the assault on Wednesday.

The UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that HTS had seized over half the city within hours, encountering little resistance from government forces. [Financial Times]

The rebel offensive, which began on Wednesday, has seen opposition forces reclaim several neighborhoods within Aleppo. This development comes after years of the city being under government control, which was solidified in 2016 following a protracted siege by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forces, supported by Russia, Iran, and regional militias.

The Syrian civil war, which began in 2011 following a popular uprising, has left Syria fractured. Assad, with notable support from allies Russia, Iran and its funded proxy militant groups like Hezbollah, initially regained control of Aleppo in 2016 through intense bombardment and siege tactics.

Russia, a loyal backer of Assad, has pledged additional military aid to counter the rebel advance. New equipment is expected to arrive within days, military sources reported. Meanwhile, Syrian army units have been ordered to execute a “safe withdrawal” from key parts of Aleppo that have come under rebel control.

Turkey, a supporter of Syrian rebels, is reported to have given approval for the offensive, despite officially calling for regional stability. The attack is the largest since 2020, when Russia and Turkey reached a de-escalation agreement.

11/26 – International News Update

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced on Tuesday an agreement for a ceasefire with the Hezbollah militant group in Lebanon, marking a crucial step toward preventing a broader regional war.

In a speech delivered in Hebrew, Netanyahu emphasized that the ceasefire would allow Israel to concentrate on the threat from Hamas in Gaza and Iran’s influence in the region. He later announced that the Israeli Security Cabinet just approved the US-led ceasefire proposal with a 10-1 vote in favor. [Reuters]

“Israel appreciates the US contribution to the process, and maintains its right to act against any threat to its security,” he said on X. He said he had thanked President Biden “for the US involvement in achieving the ceasefire agreement in Lebanon and for the understanding that Israel maintains freedom of action in enforcing it.”

The Lebanese government, which includes representatives from Hezbollah, is set to vote on the agreement on Wednesday. Hezbollah’s response was cautious, with Mahmoud Qamati, the group’s deputy political leader, commenting on Hezbollah-operated television, “We doubt Netanyahu’s commitment, who has accustomed us to deception, and we will not allow him to pass a trap through the agreement.”

The agreement, brokered with the involvement of the United States and France, is seen as a diplomatic success for the Biden administration. Negotiations led by U.S. special envoy Amos Hochstein played a pivotal role in facilitating the deal.

The ceasefire, scheduled to take effect at 4 a.m. local time on Wednesday, includes provisions for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon and the deployment of Lebanese forces in the area. Hezbollah is expected to retreat from positions south of the Litani River. Lebanese Foreign Minister Abdallah Bou Habib confirmed plans for deploying 5,000 troops and rebuilding infrastructure damaged by Israeli strikes.

A senior U.S. official revealed that Israeli forces would not immediately withdraw from Lebanon following the newly announced ceasefire agreement with Hezbollah. Instead, the withdrawal will occur in phases, with all Israeli forces expected to leave within 60 days.

The official also outlined plans for the U.S. and France to join an existing tripartite mechanism, which will be restructured and enhanced to support the ceasefire’s implementation. This initiative includes collaboration with the Lebanese Army to prevent potential violations, as well as participation in a military technical committee comprising various armed forces. The committee will focus on providing equipment, training, and financial assistance to strengthen Lebanon’s military capabilities.

Additionally, the Biden administration has briefed President-elect Trump’s national security team on the terms of the agreement, ensuring a seamless transition and continuity in U.S. policy regarding the deal, the official added. [Reuters]

In a joint statement, U.S. President Joe Biden and French President Emmanuel Macron expressed commitment to ensuring the ceasefire’s full implementation, highlighting its potential to foster long-term stability in the region. Biden clarified that no U.S. troops would be deployed in Lebanon, reaffirming his promise to avoid direct military involvement.

“This is designed to be a permanent cessation of hostilities,” Biden said. “What is left of Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations will not be allowed to threaten the security of Israel again.”

The deal not only aims to restore peace in Lebanon but also paves the way for intensified efforts toward a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. Biden stressed that Hamas must release hostages, including American citizens, as a step toward ending the conflict and allowing humanitarian aid to flow into Gaza.

11/21 – International News Update & Story

Russia has escalated tensions in the Ukraine conflict by firing a new ballistic missile at a military-industrial facility in Dnipro, marking the first deployment of such a weapon in the war. 

Hours after the strike, Russian President Vladimir Putin made a television appearance, unveiling the missile as an intermediate-range ballistic weapon capable of reaching speeds ten times the speed of sound.

“Modern air defense systems that exist in the world and anti-missile defenses created by the Americans in Europe can’t intercept such missiles,” Putin boasted. [AP News]

The missile, named “Oreshnik,” which translates to “hazelnut tree” in Russian, represents a significant development in Moscow’s arsenal. Putin described the test as successful, framing the weapon as a direct response to the U.S. development and deployment of similar missiles. Intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) like this one can travel distances between 500 and 5,500 kilometers and are capable of carrying heavier payloads, including multiple warheads.

Ukrainian military officials stated the missile was launched from Astrakhan, a region in southern Russia near the Caspian Sea. This missile’s use underscores a shift in the conflict’s scale, as a weapon of this scale and range surpasses anything seen in the war so far. 

Following approval from the Biden administration, Ukraine launched a series of attacks on Russian targets using Western-supplied weaponry, President Putin asserted. On November 19, six U.S.-made ATACMS missiles were deployed against Russia, followed by British Storm Shadow missiles and U.S.-made HIMARS on November 21, according to Putin.

In a televised address, Putin characterized the escalation as a significant turning point in the ongoing conflict. “From that moment, as we have repeatedly underscored, a regional conflict in Ukraine previously provoked by the West has acquired elements of a global character,” he stated. [Reuters] 

These developments highlight the increasing involvement of Western nations in supporting Ukraine’s military operations, intensifying the war’s scope and raising concerns about broader international repercussions. Putin’s remarks further underscore the Kremlin’s stance that Western assistance to Ukraine is a direct provocation, pushing the conflict beyond regional boundaries.

Opinion: 

The strike comes during a period of heightened hostilities. Ukraine recently used U.S.-supplied long-range missiles against Russian targets, prompting Moscow’s retaliatory actions. “We believe that we have the right to use our weapons against military facilities of the countries that allow their weapons to be used against us,” Putin warned, adding that Russia is prepared for further escalation if provoked.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy condemned the attack, accusing Russia of using his country as a testing ground for advanced weaponry. “Today, our insane neighbor has once again shown what they truly are, and how they despise dignity, freedom, and human life itself,” Zelenskyy said in an address.

Western officials have expressed alarm at the development. Two U.S. officials, speaking anonymously, suggested that Russia has only a limited stock of these experimental missiles, making regular use unlikely and more for show amidst the recent development of U.S. and U.K. missiles being fired into Russia. 

Meanwhile, U.K. Defense Secretary John Healey warned of an escalation in the conflict, describing the current situation as the most unstable since the war began.

Russia’s deployment of the Oreshnik missile signals a new phase in the conflict, raising concerns about the implications for NATO and the broader geopolitical landscape. Putin has already indicated many times that Russia is essentially now at war with NATO due to their advanced technical role in Western long-range weaponry being fired into Russian territory. 

Putin has consistently claimed that the United States is pushing the world towards a global, WWIII-style conflict. As both sides continue to escalate their military strategies, the potential for further destabilization looms large.

11/20 – International Op-Ed Piece

The clock is ticking on Justin Trudeau’s time as leader of Canada.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has of late finally highlighted the sense of widespread anxiety among Canadians regarding their economic prospects, addressing global progressives and his dwindling and disillusioned voter base. Last month, he pointed out how people seem more aware of rising mortgage rates than they are of child-care savings, perhaps suggesting a lack of recognition for his government’s efforts.

This feeling of anxiety reflects on his government as well. Trudeau’s Liberals, once celebrated, now face declining approval after nine years in power, with many Canadians expressing dissatisfaction. Only a small fraction of voters intend to support him in the next election. With less than a year until the vote, party members worry about the absence of a plan to reverse their fortunes. Recent by-election losses and the withdrawal of support from their partner, the New Democratic Party, have further shaken confidence. 

A letter from Liberal MPs even circulated, calling for Trudeau to step aside. [The Economist] 

Trudeau’s presidency began on a high in 2015, gaining moral credibility by welcoming Syrian refugees and legalizing marijuana. He also safeguarded the North American trade pact despite tensions with then-President Donald Trump and introduced a financial aid program for families that helped lift children out of poverty. His promises of child-care subsidies won him renewed mandates in 2019 and 2021 from working-class and younger voters.

However, the last couple years have seen many of these voters shifting their support to Pierre Poilievre’s Conservative Party. Rising housing costs are a central issue, with homeownership in Canada increasing by 66% since 2015. [The Economist] 

The housing supply has failed to keep pace with demand, particularly in light of the surge in immigration during Trudeau’s leadership. This, coupled with rising temporary foreign workers and non-permanent residents, has strained Canada’s infrastructure, especially education and healthcare. Student visa numbers, for instance, have exploded, leading to overcrowded universities and additional challenges in schools.

Canada’s sluggish economic growth has exacerbated the situation. Productivity has lagged, and while investment has been strong in oil and gas, areas like tech and R&D have seen less focus compared to other G7 countries. Additionally, Canada’s economy, closely tied to the U.S., faced hurdles post-pandemic when American spending shifted away from goods, leaving Canadian manufacturers scrambling.

Higher interest rates have further burdened households, yet despite these challenges, the government has not increased spending to alleviate the strain.

Trudeau’s approach to climate change initially seemed promising, but his carbon tax has come under attack. Although designed to address environmental concerns, it has led to indirect costs that many households cannot bear. Poilievre has seized on this discontent, vowing to eliminate the tax, despite offering no clear alternative to combat climate change.

Canada’s global standing has also declined under Trudeau, with diminished influence on the international stage and strained relations with countries like China and India. Even Israel’s leadership appears to have distanced itself from Trudeau, with there now being a sense internationally that Trudeau is no longer respected or taken seriously by the high club of world leaders.

Instead of addressing these challenges head-on, Trudeau has focused on dismissing critics, while his party’s support continues to erode. Recent cabinet shuffles have done little to change the narrative, and Trudeau’s acknowledgment of widespread anxiety may be too little, too late.

Poilievre, on the other hand, has capitalized on the nation’s economic fears, offering straightforward slogans and pledges that resonate with those who feel abandoned by Trudeau’s policies. As a result, many Canadians have turned away from the Liberal leader and the causes he championed and ultimately failed to sustain.

11/18 – International News Update

The Biden administration has approved Ukraine’s use of U.S.-supplied weapons for long-range strikes within Russian territory, according to officials familiar with the matter. This decision represents a notable shift in the U.S. stance on the Ukraine-Russia conflict, as Kyiv prepares for its first deep strikes utilizing Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS).

The policy change comes amid reports of Russian President Vladimir Putin reinforcing his forces with North Korean troops along Ukraine’s northern border in an effort to reclaim territory lost to Ukrainian advances. Adding to the urgency is President-elect Donald Trump’s recent election victory, which has raised questions about the future of U.S. military support, as Trump has pledged to bring the conflict to a swift conclusion.

For months, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Western allies have called on the Biden administration to allow strikes deeper into Russian territory, arguing that restrictions hindered Ukraine’s ability to respond to attacks on its cities and infrastructure. While Biden’s decision aligns with these requests, it has also sparked concerns about escalating the conflict. Putin has warned that such actions could lead Moscow to supply long-range weapons to allies for strikes on Western targets, with Russian officials describing the policy shift as a major escalation.

Zelenskyy remained reserved in his response, emphasizing that Ukraine’s military strategy focuses on actions over rhetoric. “Today, many in the media are saying that we have received permission to take appropriate actions,” he stated. “But strikes are not made with words. Such things are not announced.”

The decision follows President Biden’s recent discussions with leaders from South Korea, Japan, and China at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Peru, where talks highlighted the deployment of North Korean troops and its implications for regional security. Since Russia’s invasion in February 2022, the U.S. has provided over $56 billion in military aid, solidifying its role as Ukraine’s most vital ally.

This policy shift coincides with Ukraine’s plans to execute its first long-range strikes using ATACMS rockets, which have a range of up to 190 miles (306 km). These strikes are anticipated in the coming days, though operational details remain confidential for security reasons.

Opinion: 

Ukraine is focusing its efforts on defending the Kursk region, a salient it captured during a cross-border assault in August. The territory could serve as a bargaining chip in future negotiations, potentially influenced by Trump’s stance once he assumes office in January. Ukrainian forces face mounting pressure as Russia reportedly masses 50,000 troops in the area, supplemented by 11,000 North Korean soldiers.

“ATACMS missiles can hold at-risk high-value Russian and North Korean targets. This would help Ukrainian forces defend the Kursk salient, which is under pressure,” said Michael Kofman, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

The Biden administration’s hesitation to approve long-range strikes mirrors previous delays in providing advanced weapons such as tanks and fighter jets. Critics argue these delays have allowed Moscow to recover and reinforce occupied territories, weakening Ukraine’s counteroffensive capabilities. Analysts note that while ATACMS strikes may bolster Ukraine’s position, they are unlikely to significantly alter the war’s trajectory.

Rob Lee, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, stated, “Ukraine has committed some of its best units [to Kursk], so they may be able to hold for some time if they continue to receive enough ammunition and combat replacements.”

It remains unclear how Trump’s administration will address this policy shift once he takes office. Trump has criticized the scale of U.S. aid to Ukraine and pledged to end the war quickly, although his plans remain vague. Richard Grenell, one of Trump’s closest foreign policy advisors, criticized the move, saying, “Escalating the wars before he leaves office.”

France and Britain, which have supplied Ukraine with long-range missiles, have yet to indicate whether they will follow the U.S. in loosening restrictions on their use. Analysts warn that while the authorization may help Ukraine defend critical positions, it might come too late to drastically shift the conflict’s momentum.

As the situation unfolds, Kyiv faces the dual challenge of maintaining its territorial gains while navigating the evolving dynamics of international support and Russian aggression. The Biden administration’s decision reflects a delicate balancing act, weighing the risks of escalation against the need to bolster Ukraine’s defensive capabilities.

11/13 – International News Update & Story

Germany’s coalition government has collapsed, with Chancellor Olaf Scholz dismissing Finance Minister Christian Lindner on Wednesday night. The fallout is expected to lead to a snap election early next year, with voting likely scheduled for February 2025.

The “traffic light” coalition, formed in 2021 by the Social Democratic Party (SPD), the Greens, and the Free Democratic Party (FDP), has faced persistent internal discord. Initially established after prolonged negotiations, the coalition has struggled with diverging political priorities, economic turbulence, and the impacts of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Recent surveys indicate waning public support, with 85% of Germans expressing dissatisfaction with the government, and a majority now favoring an early election.

Economic troubles remain a central issue. Germany’s GDP has stagnated, and the International Monetary Fund forecasts a modest 0.8% growth for 2025, the lowest among major developed economies. Volkswagen, the nation’s largest manufacturer, faces potential factory closures for the first time in its history, underscoring the broader economic crisis.

Tensions within the coalition peaked after a ruling by the Federal Constitutional Court in November 2023 deemed parts of the government’s budgetary policy unconstitutional, leaving a €60 billion shortfall. The situation worsened following the leak of Finance Minister Lindner’s proposal, which suggested cutting social spending and easing regulations, sparking fierce backlash from coalition partners who favor increased investment in social and climate initiatives. The rift led to Lindner’s dismissal, with Scholz citing his repeated obstruction of key legislation.

Chancellor Scholz has framed the upcoming election as a referendum on his cautious approach to foreign policy, particularly regarding Ukraine. Scholz has refused to supply Kyiv with long-range missiles, arguing that doing so could escalate the conflict with Russia. In a recent address to parliament, he defended his stance, emphasizing his role in preventing further escalation. “I am glad that I was allowed to take responsibility in these difficult times,” Scholz stated, portraying himself as a leader who prioritizes prudence and restraint in handling the crisis.

This approach stands in contrast to his main rival, Friedrich Merz of the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), who has taken a more aggressive stance on military aid. Merz has criticized Scholz for his reluctance to send German-made Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine, advocating for stronger support if Russia continues its attacks on civilian targets. Merz’s hawkish position has resonated with conservative voters, propelling the CDU to the lead in recent polls with 32% support. In comparison, Scholz’s SPD trails behind at 16%, just behind the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD). [Politico] 

The election timing and outcome are now critical, as Scholz aims to push through essential legislation with the backing of opposition leaders before the vote. However, mounting pressure from the CDU for an earlier election suggests a turbulent campaign period ahead. Meanwhile, international dynamics could further complicate Scholz’s strategy, particularly if U.S. foreign policy shifts with a potential Trump administration threatening to reduce military aid to Ukraine.

Merz, while avoiding direct comments on Ukraine aid during his recent speech, criticized the current government’s broader policies, calling for a significant shift in Germany’s approach to migration, security, and economic matters. The forthcoming election is shaping up to be a pivotal moment for Germany’s political landscape, with a likely change in leadership that could alter the country’s domestic and foreign policy trajectory.

As the campaign unfolds, Scholz continues to position himself as the “peace chancellor,” highlighting Germany’s extensive military contributions to Ukraine while underscoring his efforts to avoid direct conflict with Russia. Whether this balancing act will sway voters in his favor remains uncertain, but all signs point to a significant political shift in Germany as the snap election approaches.

Scholz said Wednesday that he will ask for a vote of confidence on December 16, paving the way for early parliamentary elections in February.

11/07 – U.S. Political Opinion Piece

Donald Trump has officially completed one of history’s most astonishing political comebacks with a presidential election victory over Democratic candidate Kamala Harris, four years after he was voted out of the White House. President-elect Trump is on track to secure 312 electoral votes, clinch all seven battleground states, and even emerge victorious in the popular vote with nearly 73 million votes—around five million more than his opponent. He is the first Republican candidate to win the popular vote in 20 years.

Trump claimed an emphatic victory this week that came out to be much more clear and sweeping in what many pollsters, media outlets, and members of the populus expected to be one of the closest presidential contests to date. In reality, Harris was unable to improve the Democratic vote share in a single county compared to Joe Biden in 2020. Meanwhile, over 2,300 counties across America shifted red compared to 2020 while Trump made notable gains amongst most demographics, including the crucial Black and Latino vote. [NYT] 

Republicans have won the White House, the Senate, and are currently on track to win the House of Representatives as well. Around 90% of the counties in the U.S. shifted towards Donald Trump in this election. He even made significant gains in deep blue states where he still lost to Harris, however much less convincingly than in 2020. In what was touted to be a showdown for the ages where a majority of top national polling and news agencies and had it at a dead heat or even slight edge to Kamala Harris going into election day—it seems they got it all wrong. 

So, what really happened? 

One of the main stories of this election will be Latino realignment. Latino men, in scores, helped decide this election for Donald Trump. In 2020, Hispanic men favored Biden by 23 points; this year, they shifted to support Trump by ten points. [The Economist] 

It has become clear that Latinos are ditching the Democratic party. Exit polls from previous elections highlight a gradual shift among Hispanic voters. In 2016, Hillary Clinton led this group by 38 percentage points; by 2020, Joe Biden’s margin had narrowed to 33 points. According to early exit polls from CNN, Harris’s margin this year has dropped to a mere eight points—a striking decline if accurate. County-level data further underscores this trend, showing Harris gaining a significantly lower percentage of the vote than Biden in predominantly Hispanic counties, especially in Florida. [The Economist]  

Some of Kamala Harris’s clearest weaknesses occurred in Texas, specifically along the Mexican border. In Webb County, her share of the vote was 13 percentage points below what Joe Biden achieved in 2020, with similar drops in Dimmit, Starr, and Zapata Counties. In these areas, where more than five in six residents are Hispanic—a demographic traditionally at the heart of the Democratic base—support appears to have waned. Mexican voters, especially in southwest Texas, leaned heavily toward Trump in 2020. This year, counties with significant Dominican and Cuban populations appear to have moved away from the Democrats, while Puerto Rican and Mexican communities have shifted by a smaller margin. 

The swing states all went for Trump despite polls placing most at a razor thin margin. 

North Carolina once again turned out to be a deceptive prospect for Democrats, and Georgia swung back into Republican control. The Democratic ticket, led by Kamala Harris, found insufficient support in the Atlanta suburbs to secure the state of Georgia. Meanwhile, Nevada and Arizona both leaned toward Trump as more than half of their votes were counted, painting an electoral landscape that resembled 2016 more than 2020. Across the South, a stretch from North Carolina to El Paso displayed a solidly red block, while traditionally Democratic-leaning states like Minnesota, New Hampshire, Virginia, and New Jersey saw unexpectedly close races. She lagged behind Biden’s 2020 results, especially with rural Black voters in regions like southern Virginia, eastern North Carolina, and south Georgia. 

The once-reliable “Blue Wall” of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin crumbled as Harris suffered significant losses there. Her performance in suburban areas also stagnated or even declined slightly, affecting urban areas and even liberal college counties, which underperformed by a point or two compared to Biden’s 2020 showing. Trump, on the other hand, saw increased support in rural areas across the board, gaining ground in exurban communities and border counties.

Virginia symbolized the night’s struggles for Democrats. The state’s results weren’t confirmed until 11:42 pm, four hours later than in 2020, illustrating a tighter-than-anticipated race. The delay stemmed from lower Democratic margins with voters of color and Harris’s inability to match Biden’s numbers in the Northern Virginia suburbs and exurbs. These areas, initially expected to repel the “Make America Great Again” message, supported Harris, but her leads were notably slimmer than Biden’s in 2020. [Politico]

Florida’s results offered further insight into the shifting political landscape. Although Harris was not predicted to win Florida, the scale of Trump’s success—a 13-point victory with over 1.4 million votes—was crazy. Trump flipped Pinellas County in St. Petersburg and Duval County in Jacksonville, which Biden had won in 2020, suggesting widespread dissatisfaction with the current administration’s performance.

In Florida, the expected shift among Latino voters was unmistakable. In Orange County and Osceola County—areas with significant Puerto Rican populations—Harris fell short of Biden’s 2020 margins. Trump even carried Osceola County, showing that the “island of garbage” comment from his Madison Square Garden rally had minimal impact on the local vote. In Miami-Dade County, where Cuban Americans dominate, Trump won decisively, reversing his 2016 loss to Hillary Clinton by a significant margin, securing a 10-point lead this year. [Politico]

This shift wasn’t confined to Florida. Trump gained strength in certain border counties in New Mexico, while his outreach efforts with Latino voters appeared to resonate in eastern Pennsylvania. Starr County in Texas—a 97% Latino area—also told a dramatic story. Trump had faced a massive 79-19 defeat there in 2016, only to make the race competitive in 2020. This year, he achieved a decisive victory in Starr County with a 58-42 margin.  [Politico]

The 2024 election reinforced the notion that Latino voters are a rapidly evolving swing constituency, displaying diverse preferences and an openness to Republican outreach that has gradually shifted the electoral map. For Democrats, particularly as they look to future elections, rebuilding support among Latino voters across these regions will be a complex but essential task.

The Republicans came out so victorious due to the fact that they won over such a large portion of working class and minority voters— two vital demographics that used to be at the core of the Democrats’ base. 

After ousting Biden from the ticket in late July, Kamala Harris and the Democratic party tried putting together a 15-week super campaign funded by over a billion dollars to defeat Donald Trump and clearly came up short. When analyzing their pitfalls, there are many clear reasons as to why their messaging failed to capture the sentiments of the American people. 

Kamala Harris’s campaign performance and effectiveness as a candidate require immediate accountability. She was thoroughly rejected in both the popular vote and in an electoral landslide. 

In the final stages of her campaign, Vice President Kamala Harris concentrated heavily on mobilizing young female voters, a demographic already largely supportive due to her stance on abortion rights. This focus was evident in her choice of rally guests, including Beyoncé, Katy Perry, and Megan Thee Stallion, who appeal predominantly to younger female audiences. However, this strategy may have overlooked the critical need to engage other voter groups, particularly men aged 30-64, whose support was essential for securing a broader electoral base. By not diversifying her outreach efforts to include these pivotal demographics, Harris’s campaign potentially missed opportunities to garner the additional votes necessary for a successful outcome.

The recent election has highlighted a crucial lesson for the left: elections aren’t won by lecturing voters or pushing them to align with a perceived moral high ground. Framing American history as an endless series of mistakes, or dismissing half of Americans as irredeemable, has alienated a significant portion of the electorate. The elite wing of the left may have thought that dismantling historical symbols would signal a superior moral stance, but in reality, it risks erasing a shared American identity, making unity difficult to achieve in today’s neoliberal climate. Canceling aspects of history, rather than acknowledging and learning from them, does little to foster a collective American spirit.

The Democratic Party’s image as a moral, inclusive force has, for some, morphed into an air of entitlement toward certain voter groups—such as minorities, immigrants, and those who prioritize human rights. While portraying itself as the party of inclusivity and social justice, the left may have come across as patronizing, often vilifying opposing views rather than understanding them. Many voters who shifted toward Trump likely did so not out of newfound realization that they are racist and sexist, but out of frustration and disillusionment. They feel the party no longer represents their needs or aspirations, finding Democratic policies and rhetoric increasingly out of touch with their lived experiences. 

This election was not lost by the Democrats because America is racist and sexist, but rather because demography is not destiny when it comes to people’s vote. 

For Democrats, rebuilding trust with the public calls for honest self-reflection and accountability. The party must move beyond blaming external factors for its losses and begin examining its own approach, leadership, and policies. This is a moment that demands a deep, introspective reassessment—one that focuses less on labeling and more on understanding and addressing the priorities of a broader swath of Americans. 

“The elites of this country alienated voters everywhere because they didn’t want to hear what working and middle class voters were screaming for four years—focus on us and our problems, not your agenda to destroy Trump,” Kofinis said. [WSJ]  

The Democratic Party needs to dial into the center and push for a stronger focus on core issues like the economy, crime, and immigration, aiming for a more straightforward approach that resonates with a broader base of voters. They believe that centering these issues could help recapture middle-ground voters who may feel alienated by the emphasis on certain cultural topics, such as transgender rights, which many view as diverting attention from pressing, universal concerns at this point. 

And in terms of cultural impact a lot of voters likely were concerned with the state of democracy going into this election, as many exit polls showed. However, not all of those voter concerns were fueled by a fear that Trump holds the potential of a fascist leader but also the fact that Democratic party has clearly shown its own attempts to bypass democracy whenever they can. They sacked Joe Biden in a backdoor coup once it was clear that they could no longer gaslight the public on his mental condition, propelled Kamala Harris to the nomination with zero attempts at any sort of primary or electoral process of choosing a candidate, and absolutely crushed Bernie Sanders’ inherently grassroots democratic movement back in 2016 and again in 2020 to the ensure the candidate chosen by party elites would remain unchallenged.  

Aside from being a once-in-a-generation forceful and influential political figure, Donald Trump managed to become the embodiment of a cultural force. Whether purposefully or not, Trump became the candidate that personified a sweeping sense of anti-institutionalism and disillusionment with the political establishment in Washington and its completely out of touch elites. 

Voters have become preoccupied with new issues like inflation and immigration, and have run out of patience for a Democratic party whose identity for the past decade has been more focused on fighting Donald Trump than it has been addressing the real issues of its voters. The Republicans will now hold a triple majority at least for the next two years. This is not even so much an incredible victory for Donald Trump than it is an incredible defeat for the Democrats to own. The statistics are there, the numbers, the demographics. Americans have spoken and they are tired of being gaslighted. 

10/30 – International News Update

In a closely contested referendum marked by allegations of Russian interference, Moldova voted narrowly to join the European Union, with the decision hinging on only a few thousand votes.

As of last Monday, 99.9 percent of the votes had been tallied, showing a slim pro-EU win: 50.4 percent in favor of constitutional changes to pursue EU membership, compared to 49.6 percent against. 

During an intense and suspenseful night, the “no” campaign maintained an edge until near the final count. Although domestic votes leaned toward the anti-EU stance, overseas ballots ultimately tipped the scales. Around midnight, with over 90 percent of votes counted and the “yes” campaign trailing by nearly 10 points, pro-Western President Maia Sandu held an emergency press conference, attributing the early deficit to “foreign forces” attempting to sway the outcome with money and propaganda. [Politico] 

Ultimately, strong support from Moldovans living abroad, especially in Europe, the U.S., and Canada, bridged the gap.

Romanian MEP Siegfried Mureșan, who heads the parliament’s liaison committee on Moldova’s EU accession, described the referendum’s narrow passage as “a victory for the people of the Republic of Moldova and a setback for Russia.” [Politico] 

Mureșan committed to ensuring that the European Union respects Moldova’s choice and supports the country’s accession process.

Moscow has been accused of attempting to influence the vote through financial incentives and social media, aiming to stoke fears about potential conflict with Russia if Moldova joins the EU.

The referendum outcome allows Moldova to amend its constitution to prioritize EU membership and advances its accession talks, with officials aiming for membership by 2030. They have urged the EU to commit to this target date.

In a concurrent presidential election, Sandu led with around 42 percent of the vote but will now face pro-Russian candidate Alexandr Stoianoglo in a runoff, as she did not secure an outright majority.