Tag

Russia

The Great Escalation: North Korea’s Concerning Deployment of Troops to Russia

Back in April, I wrote an article detailing the actions that Russian President Vladimir Putin has taken around the world in order to secure control over a new Cold War-style eastern bloc. Since then, Putin has taken his plans even further. According to a report by the Defense Ministry of South Korea, approximately 12,000 North Korean troops are set to soon be deployed to Eastern Europe in order to fight alongside Russia in the ongoing Russia–Ukraine War. These troops are allegedly part of North Korea’s most elite fighting force: the XI Corps, which in total consists of 200,000 soldiers. On October 23, U.S. National Security Council spokesman John F. Kirby stated that the U.S. has already tracked around 3,000 troops who were transported from North Korea to Vladivostok on Russia’s eastern coastline.

The deployment of North Korean troops to Russia marks a disturbing escalation of the Russia–Ukraine War for multiple reasons. First, there are clear concerns regarding the ability of the Ukrainian forces to continue to repel the Russian army with their new reinforcements. The Ukrainian government has reported that some North Korean troops have appeared on the front lines in Kursk, a Russian border region in which the Ukrainian army is carrying out an incursion. While Putin’s choice to utilize North Korean forces indicates that Putin is hesitant to continue to draft Russian citizens (as 600,000 Russian citizens have already been killed or wounded), the move also solidifies the fact that Putin does not intend to give up the fight any time soon.

To counter the North Korean forces, conversations have reignited about sending Western troops to aid Ukraine. Philips O’Brien, a professor of strategic studies at the University of St. Andrews, sums up his thoughts: “Everyone flips out whenever they talk about European troops going to Ukraine, that it’s far too escalatory. And then the Russians just go ahead and bring in outside troops. The escalation has already happened.” While the United States and western Europe—though expressing alarm over North Korea’s moves—have not officially committed to any new course of action, these new updates will undoubtedly lead to questions over if more should be done to protect Ukraine from invaders. North Korean involvement in the war has also led to increased anxiety among the governments of both South Korea and Japan. South Korea is purportedly considering sending arms to Ukraine, as well as translators to help Ukraine interrogate any North Korean prisoners.

Another issue that has arisen from the North Korean deployment is the secrecy in which the troop movements are carried out. NBC News, utilizing information from South Korean intelligence services, reports that newly-dispatched North Korean forces have received Russian military uniforms, Russian weapons, and false identification documents claiming that the North Koreans are actually Russians from the far east. (AI facial recognition technology, however, has proven that the soldiers are indeed North Korean.) Pyongyang and the Kremlin also both maintain that the reports of North Korean troops in Russia are false. At the United Nations on October 21, North Korean representatives referred to the accusations as “groundless, stereotyped rumors.” As its troops have not directly engaged in fighting yet, North Korea’s precise next moves are unknown—adding a new layer of obscurity to a war already rife with misinformation.

Perhaps the greatest concern related to North Korea’s troop deployment, however, is the fact that North Korea is doing it for a reason. Western analysts just don’t know what that reason is. “Sending weapons is one thing, but sending your own men is another level of investment and commitment,” stated defense analyst Rachel Lee. “I find it hard to believe that Kim [Jung Un] would send troops without a down payment.” This “down payment,” experts think, could likely take the form of Russia helping North Korea build its nuclear arsenal. There’s already some evidence to point to this conclusion: large cargo-transport planes have been spotted flying from Russia to North Korea, and some policy analysts see it as a possibility that those planes are carrying supplies to help North Korea build nuclear missiles. If Pyongyang is indeed building its arsenal with the support of Russia, it marks a significant break from past Russian foreign policy. As reported by Slate: “Back during the Cold War, the Kremlin blocked its Warsaw Pact allies from developing or obtaining nuclear materials….Putin’s short-term needs in the war may have been compelling enough to justify compromising one of his long-term interests against the spread of nuclear weaponry.” A more lenient Russia and a more powerful North Korea spells out danger for Ukraine and its allies and signifies a changing world order.

With all of this said, North Korea’s military is far from perfect. Isolated from the rest of the world and plagued by economic problems, North Korea does not have experience in fighting modern warfare and relies on Soviet-era weaponry. Additionally, there exists a language gap between the Russians and the North Koreans that may render communication difficult across troops. However, Putin likely seeks to use the North Korean forces to overpower Ukraine by strength in numbers—especially in areas like Kursk, where the Ukrainians are barely holding on to their land. Furthermore, the training of North Korean troops by Russian soldiers will undoubtedly increase the future capabilities of North Korea’s military, modernizing a fighting force already incredibly disciplined and staunchly anti-West.

The deployment of North Korean troops has the potential to change the nature of the Russia–Ukraine War in ways that Western analysts do not yet fully understand. The actual intentions of North Korea, how well they perform alongside foreign troops, and the impacts of their arrival in Eastern Europe remain to be seen—though it can already be said that this move has increased tensions in an evermore volatile situation.

Image source: Wikimedia Commons

October 29, 2024 0 comment

Featured Geopolitics Russia

CA5 + The West: An Eye on Central Asia

written by Madeline Abellera

Beginning on Monday, April 22, British Foreign Secretary David Cameron embarked on a week-long trip across Central Asia. His visit took him to Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan – countries that typically fly under the radar both in terms of the Western foreign policy focus and in general discussions about geopolitics.

Cameron stated that his excursion was carried out with the goal of “signal[ing] a new era in relations between Britain and all of the Central Asia republics.” The trip is similar to the one made by French President Emmanuel Macron in 2023, who visited Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan in an attempt to fortify France’s own Central Asian influence. Macron signed a variety of economic deals with both the Kazakh and Uzbek governments, partnering with them in industries such as agriculture and uranium. Cameron, now, is making similar commitments: in addition to announcing new programs to expand the study of the English language in the region, Cameron pledged to spend 50 million British pounds over the next three years on the countries’ development.

However, Cameron did not carry out his visit with the simple goal of strengthening the U.K.’s ties to a historically underlooked region. Collectively the five Central Asian countries (all of the countries listed previously, with the exception of Mongolia, which is considered an eastern Asian state) are bordered by Russia, China, and Iran – in other words, strategically situated in the center of regimes hostile to the West. The backdrop of the ongoing Russia–Ukraine War, in particular, provides clues to deciphering Cameron’s true mission. Central Asia has been accused of helping Russia sidestep Western sanctions, such as in the case of Kyrgyzstan, a country recently implicated in importing luxury vehicles totalling nearly 230 million U.S. dollars into Russia (clearly in violation of U.S. and E.U. sanctions banning the sale of luxury cars to Russia). Drawing countries like Kyrgyzstan into the Western bloc, and hence encouraging those countries to enforce wartime sanctions against Russia, would undoubtedly be influential in preventing the continuation of the Russia–Ukraine War. It would also deter Chinese economic influence that has been slowly making its way into Central Asia.

There are a few major hurdles that come with partnering with Central Asian states from a Western perspective. On the surface level, Cameron’s diplomatic visit is not all that abnormal: it is reasonable for a country to want to establish connections with other states that are strategically situated and offer opportunities for international trade. In addition to a prime geographic location, the CA5 hold coveted natural resources, such as oil and minerals important for the construction of electric cars. However, the extreme authoritarianism exhibited by the governments of the CA5 (again, excluding Mongolia) may cause some to analyze Cameron’s friendly rhetoric with raised eyebrows.

Take Kyrgyzstan, for instance. The landlocked nation of about 7 million people is a rather young republic, having gained independence from the U.S.S.R. in 1991. The 2010 Kyrgyz Revolution saw the ousting of president Kurmanbek Bakiyev followed by months of unrest and ethnic violence, eventually leading to a stronger parliamentary system of government and the establishment of a free press. However, though the turmoil of the 2010 revolution had a beneficial resolution, Kyrgyzstan is still marred by severe corruption. The democracy watchdog and research institution Freedom House rates Kyrgyzstan as “not free” and classifies it as a “consolidated authoritarian regime.” The former is mainly due to extreme concentration of power in the hands of the executive leader and the general erosion of the rule of law; the latter is due to detention of activists and discriminatory legislation. Allegations that the Kyrgyz government has imprisoned and abused journalists have also recently surfaced. Another watchdog, Transparency International, labeled Kyrgyzstan as a “country to watch” in 2023 due to the country’s alarming levels of democratic backsliding caused by the erosion of civil liberties compounded by state corruption presided over by President Sadyr Jarapov.

The other Central Asian states were subject to similar scrutiny by Transparency International. On the organization’s 2023 Corruption Perception Index (CPI), Turkmenistan received a score of 18/100, Tajikistan 20/100, Uzbekistan 33/100, and Kazakhstan 39/100. Turkmenistan’s score, notably, is lower than Afghanistan’s (20/100), and both Turkmenistan and Tajikistan fared more poorly on the CPI index than Russia (26/100). Transparency International attributed these low scores mainly to executive overreach into the judicial branches of the countries’ governments, as well as measures that make it easier for the government to avoid accountability.

Other factors that influence the political landscapes of the Central Asian states – and may pose hurdles to Western figures like Cameron who seek to establish ties to the region – relate to economics beyond the recent sanctions enacted largely as a response to the Russia–Ukraine War. Kazakhstan (which has the largest economy of the Central Asian countries) and Kyrgyzstan are both part of the Eurasian Economic Union (E.A.E.U.), an organization propelled mainly by Russia with the goal of achieving an economic coalition similar to that of the European Union but with post-Soviet states. While the actual power of the E.A.E.U. is not remotely close to that of the E.U. because the E.A.E.U. remains a loose confederation and not the true integrated Russia-central customs union that figures like Vladimir Putin seek, the economic interconnectedness between Russia and the Central Asian states poses problems for Western governments which seek to establish their own trade influence. China, the other major powerhouse east of the CA5, has been making its presence known as well: the path of the controversial New Silk Road project, a plan initiated by China in recent years with the self-proclaimed goal of facilitating global trade and infrastructure development, runs right through Central Asia. Western figures have cited concern that the New Silk Road is a means for China to assert its economic hegemony, spelling future difficulties for the U.K. and similar countries who want to promote their own economies in young nations like the CA5.

Macron and Cameron are not the only leaders who have their eyes on the CA5. In September 2023, U.S. President Joe Biden met with the presidents of all five states at an inaugural meeting of the “CA5+1,” a U.S.-facilitated summit with the goal of discussing Central Asia’s “sovereignty, resilience, and prosperity [i.e., investment and defense], while also advancing human rights.…”

As Russia and China seem to keep reminding the world, though, building lasting ties with Central Asia will not be as simple as a few diplomatic meetings. Major deals will need to be made by Western states hoping to gain power in the region, and democracy-and-freedom-favoring leaders like Biden will need to contend with new partners accused of corruption and human rights abuses. The CA5 hold the key to influence in a contested region – whether Russia and China or the U.K. and its friends ultimately win the diplomatic war remains to be seen.

Image source: Wikimedia Commons

May 20, 2024 0 comment

Geopolitics Russia Security and Conflict

Back to the Bloc? Putin Sure Hopes So.

written by Madeline Abellera

The official dissolution of the U.S.S.R. in 1991 was a watershed moment in global affairs celebrated by many in the Western world. The fall of the Berlin Wall, the spread of Gorbachev’s glasnost and perestroika, the proud secessions of the Baltic States: all were events which served as catalysts in the early 1990s to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Hence, to international eyes, it had seemed as though the Iron Curtain had opened once and for all, paving the way for a new world order free from the previous fifty-odd years of contention between the Eastern bloc led by Russia and the Western bloc spearheaded by the United States. However, as Russia now enters its third year of war with Ukraine, backed by alliances with the neighboring authoritarian Belarus and a variety of states in the Global South, questions begin to arise: are we facing a tangible resurgence of east-versus-west tensions? Is the era of globalization, in which the two twentieth-century superpowers even learned to conduct business with each other, finally over? Political theory and empirical evidence seem to answer with a concerning yes.

Political philosophers did not previously think that the world would have become as globalized as it is today. In 1990, scholar John J. Mearsheimer wrote a rather pessimistic article detailing what he believed would happen if the Cold War ended, namely that Europe would descend into violence without the rigid order provided by the U.S. and U.S.S.R. looming. Mearsheimer is a prime example of a “realist” thinker—someone who subscribes to the school of thought which posits that international affairs are characterized by states’ needs to survive or dominate through raw power. Mearsheimer’s predictions, though, did not come to fruition: the Cold War ended relatively peacefully, and the world did not witness a conventional interstate war in Europe since then (barring the Yugoslavian conflict) until the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Hence, the dominant school of thought in the late twentieth/early twenty-first century switched from realism to “liberalism,” which emphasizes the importance of economic factors, the spread of democracy, state-to-state cooperation, and international institutions in propelling global affairs.

However, Russian President Vladimir Putin is increasingly driving world politics towards a realist paradigm. Russia’s belligerent moves in Eastern Europe, from the 2008 Russo–Georgia War to the 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea, indicate that Putin will not back down under current world conditions: he seeks to reestablish Russia’s unquestionable Cold War-era authority through the domination of any country in the region perceived as aligning itself with Western powers. Indeed, the fact that Putin invaded Ukraine—which had been strengthening its ties to the EU and NATO—while staying tightly allied with Belarus (a nation ruled by a man frequently called “Europe’s last dictator”) implies that the invasion may have been preemptive, with the goal of stopping Ukraine from joining the West. Vladimir Putin seems to be a realist, and his actions in Eastern Europe seem to be contributing to the reconstruction of a power bloc that is diametrically opposed to the integrated state relations that are so characteristic of a liberal globalized world.

Specifically, Putin has been manually creating allies in Eastern Europe and the Global South in order to back Russia’s military actions. These countries have continued to import Russian oil and goods despite the U.S.’s frequent calls for sanctions. According to the New York Times, Putin has courted the support of countries in the Global South through country-specific strategies such as sending 34,000 tons of free fertilizer to Nigeria. These still developing states reciprocate Russia’s support through importing a variety of goods, namely oil; in December of 2023, Russia exported around 7.8 million barrels of oil per day—a number only slightly below pre-war export levels despite current sanctions by the U.S. and other Western nations. While the Global South could be used by some as an example of globalization, in that LDCs (least-developed countries) clearly have the autonomy to trade with whoever they want and ignore calls-to-action by the U.S., the fact that Russia is actively vying for these countries’ support indicates that Putin is trying to construct a new power bloc. The funds received from the Global South are channeled directly into Russia’s military machine, allowing Putin to perpetually wage war as Western support for Ukraine begins to wear thin.

Aside from the economic aspects of bloc-building, regional supporters like Belarus provide Russia with a political power base. “Belarus, from a country that three years ago played the role of something between a buffer and a front-line state in regional geopolitics, is now defined by its extreme dependence on Russia,” argues the non-profit Friedrich Ebert Foundation. The Atlantic Council, an American think tank, goes so far as to claim that Putin is planning for a “new Russian Empire” that includes both Ukraine and Belarus. Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko has already allowed Putin to place nuclear weapons on Belarusian soil—a move that clearly demonstrates the impact of Russia’s tight control over Eastern Europe.

Perhaps the greatest evidence that Putin is intentionally re-directing the world toward Soviet-era realist dynamics lies within the rhetoric of Putin himself. In 2022, the dictator compared himself to Peter the Great, who in the eighteenth century embarked on a quest to “reclaim” Russian lands from Sweden. In 2021, Putin wrote an extensive open letter in which he claimed, among other things, that Russians and Ukrainians are “one people” rather than two different nations with different histories and cultures. In order to absorb Ukraine into Russia, Putin needs his international political and economic friends to back his military and country against the West, and those friends haven’t been stingy in providing money and support.

The existential threats that plagued the globe during the Cold War must be prevented from occurring again. The United States must take immediate action, through preventing trade between Russia and the Global South and interrupting Russia’s bonds with countries in Eastern Europe, in order to chip away at Russia’s ever-growing base. If not, then the world must reckon with a geopolitical landscape marked once again by competing Russian and Western blocs—only this time, with more advanced weaponry, volatile leaders, and higher costs to us all.

Image source: DimitroSevastopol on Pixabay

April 8, 2024 0 comment

National Security Russia Society and Culture Technology United States

A Discussion With Dr. Fiona Hill on the Role Social Media Plays in Russian Meddling in U.S. Democracy

written by Zachary Durkee

Dr. Fiona Hill is a former official at the U.S. National Security Council specializing in Russian and European affairs. She was a lead witness in the November 2019 House hearings regarding the impeachment of President Trump. She currently serves as a senior fellow in the Center on the United States and Europe in the Foreign Policy program at the Brookings Institution.

On October 6th, I and Taylor Fairless had the pleasure of interviewing Dr. Fiona Hill. My angle of the interview focused on engaging her expertise to explore the role that social media plays in Russian meddling in the U.S. electoral process. My question centered on the challenge of how the United States can effectively thwart Russian disinformation on social media when many argue that they simply exploit vulnerabilities inherent to the platforms themselves. Dr. Hill agreed with this assessment, which makes it an issue she believes we will be grappling with for “some time to come.”

In a recent article where I questioned if social media can undermine democracy, I broadly noted that these vulnerabilities included their content curation algorithms, targeted digital advertising, and much of the toxic psychology that guides engagement on them. These varying facets enable foreign actors like Russia to engineer content that compounds polarization and saturates feeds with misleading or false information. Facebook estimates that Russian actors managed to generate 80,000 posts that reached nearly 126 million people over the span of two years in the United States.

Information has always been a blessing and curse

Dr. Hill noted that information, regardless of the way it is delivered, has always been susceptible to deception, falsehoods, and lies. She argues that these are issues that are part of human nature. “Humans have always had a propensity for spreading rumors.” In preliterate times, this occurred via word-of-mouth and town criers, then pamphlets, print news, and eventually the digital realm. To her, this dynamic is simply part of a larger information commons, making it unsurprising that the same phenomena that we have seen over the sweep of history are now playing out on Facebook, Twitter, and other platforms.

Dr. Hill believes the main difference is that social media platforms are “speeding up” the personal interactions that we have as human beings. Indeed, much of this information and interaction is distributed through highly sophisticated algorithms and is instantly engaged with by millions of people each day. Furthermore, no single person receives the same information experience. Each person is curated content that reflects what these platforms and actors believe an individual will be receptive to. This is what can make deception, falsehoods, and lies become so effective and formidable in the digital realm.

I stated before that the advent of targeted digital advertising enables actors, malicious or not, to engineer and formulate content that it believes their targeted audience would likely react and engage with. In 2018, the House Intelligence Committee released 3,500 Russian Facebook ads that were designed to target and polarize specific portions of the population. In some cases, Russian-owned pages created and promoted political rallies where they hoped people would violently clash. Russia’s sophisticated and broad utilization of data-centered advertising demonstrates the dystopian implication social media can have on the political process when users are reduced to data points for sale.

The Path Forward

Dr. Hill believes that self-regulation is the most practical way to thwart Russian disinformation on these platforms. She makes it clear to acknowledge the flip-side of social media, stating that the “leveling out and leveling up” of information has enabled more people than ever to have access to critical, informative information. Her reasoning for self-regulation is that a draconian, heavy-handed government approach to regulating these highly complicated platforms runs the risk of squashing free speech. “We thrive on free speech, free engagement, and freedom of assembly,” which increasingly takes place on the internet and these platforms within our societies.

Considering this, disinformation is something we will have to accept and grapple with for some time. “We will have to be creative in how we handle it for the foreseeable future because what is a strength is also often a vulnerability,” Dr. Hill says. She argues that this balancing act will largely rely on self-regulation and creating close working partnerships with the government, the private sector, and the entirety of society. “We ourselves as consumers and users of the platforms […] have to also be aware that part of the responsibility is ours to be more careful of the information that we propagate, verify, and cross-reference.” She concludes: “we have to be active consumers, not just passive recipients of information.”

October 8, 2020 1 comment

Security and Conflict Terrorism

The Next Commander in Chief—Where the 2016 Presidential Candidates Stand on Foreign Policy and Why it Matters

written by Arturo Siguenza

As former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated in the Milwaukee Democratic Debate last February, “When people go to vote in primaries or caucuses, they are voting not only for the president, they are voting for the commander-in-chief. And it’s important that people really look hard at what the threats and dangers we face are, and who is best prepared for dealing with them.” Although a clear plug for her past experience, Clinton highlights a crucial element to the presidency that can easily be lost in the media circus surrounding the 2016 election. A time meant to showcase credentials and visions for the future has quickly turned into the spectacle and squabble of entertainment television. The media has succumbed to treating this race for the presidency as just another reality TV show MTV would proudly stream alongside The Real World. With the most recent GOP debate spotlighting personal banter rather than prevailing issues, it is time for us as audiences but most importantly as voters, to make ourselves informed and conscious of the power that one of these presidential hopefuls will soon attain. One of these lucky selected few will soon run this country and the US armed forces, inheriting what can arguably be deemed as the most powerful position in the world. In the wise words of Uncle Ben, “with great power comes great responsibility,” and the power in this case, among an extensive list of others, comes from the role of Commander in Chief.

In the digital age, remarks on the campaign trail spread like wildfire across news platforms having immediate impacts on citizens nationally and on the perception of the United States internationally. Case in point: Trump’s rhetoric inciting violence against immigrants with the recent assault of a homeless hispanic man by two brothers, one of which stated, “Donald Trump was right, all these illegals need to be deported,” and Trump responded with “I will say that people who are following me are very passionate. They love this country and they want this country to be great again.” Conversely government heads such as former President Fox of Mexico, in an interview with CNN, voiced that Donald Trump reminds him of Hitler. Although this is but one candidate’s views, it foreshadows the extremely real mindset a presidential frontrunner will take as President and as Commander in Chief and the international denunciation of his views.

These comments and plans for US interaction with the world demand a great deal of attention considering the vast foreign policy challenges that currently exist. The new president will be stepping into a world plagued by terrorist attacks —al-Shabab claiming the most recent bomb attack on a Somalian airplane in reaction to the Turkish airline’s state affiliation to Western operations; will have to face the escalating hodgepodge of civil war against President Bashar al-Assad and proxy war against IS in Syria, along with the snowballing refugee crisis they have kindled; the budding international rivalry with Russia; and the augmenting threat of North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, to name a few. As the primaries are in full swing, positions on these international aspects may be greatly impacted by the scrimmage for votes, but they do paint a very real picture of how these candidates will espouse this role. A depiction of this can be quickly processed by simply viewing the way each candidate has titled these issues on their respective websites. Hillary Clinton: “National Security.” Bernie Sanders: “War and Peace.” Donald Trump: “The Military.” Ted Cruz: “Defend Our Nation.” Marco Rubio: “Build American Strength.” These headlines show clear distinctions, with Republicans siding for a militaristic approach and the Democrats opting for diplomatic engagement. To elaborate on a few of the frontrunners’ perspectives, Clinton’s platform seeks to establish a strong economic foundation for diplomatic influence and military defense, aims to disrupt terrorist infrastructure on the ground and online, and hopes to strengthen current partnerships and work to build new ones. Sanders views the role of Commander in Chief as defending this nation, but seeking diplomatic solutions before military action, stating, “war must be a last resort, not the first option.” Trump asserts the military as a primordial force, declaring,—and I quote— “I will make our Military so big, powerful and strong that no one will mess with us.” Following a similar path, Cruz views rebuilding America’s military as key in maintaining national safety and exerting our leadership on the global stage, because “what is best for America is best for the world.”

One of the biggest issues affecting the international sphere, as previously mentioned, is the ongoing war against terrorism primordially sparked by the Islamic State and its affiliates. With a new attack emerging at an almost weekly basis and the scope of these organizations reaching the United States with the most recent San Bernardino shooting, the threat of terrorism has once again reached a security level on par with the period immediately following 9/11. A line connecting the candidates, both Democrat and Republican, is the defeat of IS. However, their projected methods of accomplishing this and tackling its interconnected aspects differentiate their stances. Journalists have outlined the candidates’ positions from accepting refugees, to instituting a no-fly zone, to declaring war. The divide seems clear between the two parties on accepting refugees, but when it comes to military action party lines begin to blur. The Republican candidates have been clear in opposing any further acceptance of Syrian refugees in light of the recent domestic terror attacks, while Democrats have protested anti-refugee and anti-muslim rhetoric in supporting increases in refugee acceptance. Now in the logistics of the war: Cruz and Sanders are both against sending in more US ground troops, while Trump, Clinton and Rubio agree that more troops are needed—with Clinton and Rubio specifying their support for the sending a special ops team. Clinton and the Republicans also both advocate for instituting a no-fly zone in Syria, while Sanders stands alone in his opposition of it. Additionally in terms of invoking NATO Article 5 (the principle of collective defence, requiring all parties to assist in collective action, including the use of armed force, when one or more signatories is attacked), Rubio has favored invoking it, while the rest of the candidates remain unclear In their position for it. IS must be eliminated, they all hail, but how they will achieve this is where divisions come into play.

Another key issue headlining foreign policy talks is US-Russian relations. The ongoing rivalry is no secret, regarding the presence of both forces in Syria particularly and the Middle East in general. Despite the rivalry, there is distinction in how the presidential candidates will interact with Putin. On this gradient of views, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio stand strongest in condemning Russia’s President declaring him as “a bully and a dictator” and “a gangster and a criminal” respectively. Cruz calls for asserting US strength in Syria by expanding missile defenses in Eastern Europe while highlighting the country’s human rights violations to deter Russian resurgence. Rubio has accused Putin of “trying to destroy NATO” in challenging US dominance in the Middle East in addition to his support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. In the middle of the gradient lies Hillary Clinton, who has gone head to head with Putin in her past role of Secretary of State. She affirms her belief that Russia has aimed to undermine and confront American power and that the US must counter this; however she admits that when it comes to Syria, the solution must comprise Russian participation. Diverting even further into a diplomatic approach, Sanders promotes a collaborative actions with allies against Russian aggression in placing economic sanctions and international pressure on Putin as “an alternative to any direct military confrontation.” Now on the far side of the gradient is the very pro-Putin candidate Donald Trump who, unlike his peers, seems to be carrying on a friendly relationship stating, “I’ve always felt fine about Putin,” and that “Russia and the United States should be able to work well with each other towards defeating terrorism and restoring world peace, not to mention trade and all of the other benefits derived from mutual respect,” in response to Putin’s endorsing him.

This breakdown is only a soundbite of the extensive decisions one of these frontrunners will take on. Domestic goals are undeniably a prevailing aspect of this race, but do not let the emphasis on the domestic distract you. We are about to elect a new Commander in Chief. Foreign affairs vastly impact the national, and one Presidential hopeful will inherit the power to overhaul world order as hegemon in the international sphere. It is easy to get caught up in the drama and, more recently, outright brawls, between the presidential hopefuls on the debate floor. However, this election can no longer serve as mere entertainment. Voters must watch debates with critical minds and must investigate what candidates best align with their views. Candidates’ platforms are not a mystery. Answers are literally a click away. There is no excuse for ignorance. Use the Internet. Let it be your informant, let it be your voice. The proliferation of information is our greatest strength in this election. Whether you “feel the Bern”, want to “make America great again,” see “Hillary for America,” believe in “A New American Century” or remain undecided, keep yourself informed and vote for who you believe can best represent this nation as not just President, but further as Commander in Chief.

March 3, 2016 0 comment

Europe Featured Geopolitics Technology Territorial disputes

Google’s Juggling Act: The politics of mapping borders in geo-politically sensitive areas

written by Lillianne Thomas

By Lillianne Thomas

Google, as a ubiquitous modern-day supplier of digital maps found in many common applications, has (whether the company desires it or not) a key role in depicting boundaries between states on their maps. Google’s innovative (albeit controversial) strategy to make their maps universally satisfying has thus far allowed the company to pursue its mission to map the world. The company seeks to avoid being pulled into controversy between states by using the clever mechanism of depicting a map based on the location from which it is requested. The strategy sounds like it does the job, but with the growing count and complexity of territorial disputes, how effective is this “make everyone happy” approach? Furthermore, what are the practical limits of such an approach by Google, and what are the effects on users from third-party states? In the end, it is likely that Google will run into the age-old problem that “you can’t please all of the people all of the time.”

In February and March of 2014, the Crimean Crisis triggered international attention to the making of new geopolitical borders. As mainland Ukraine prepared for integration into the European Union, the Crimean peninsula—comprised of an ethno-linguistically Russian majority—slipped further into the tide of a separatist movement intended to unite Crimea with Russia. What ensued was a deft campaign of subtle aggression fought between the two countries, ultimately ending in Russian military intervention and successful capture of the peninsula. Crimea is currently under control of the Russian state, although the Ukraine considers this territorial dislocation to be temporary. So, geopolitically speaking, what is Crimea? Well, as shown by Google Maps, Crimea is what is referred to as a disputed territory.

Okay, but how exactly does Google represent the border between Ukraine and Crimea? If Google’s mapping service were to universally mark the border in favor of either of the involved countries’ objectives, the company would face political—and perhaps on an even greater scale, social—backlash. Google avoids becoming politically biased by abiding to the local laws and politics of the host government. In other words, Google Maps in the United States and Google Maps in the Ukraine publish different maps of the border between the Ukraine and Crimea than Google Russia does.
By publishing maps that communicate different sides of the same story, Google aims to pacify the governments of the Ukraine and Russia yet the company leaves the greater breadth of its map users throughout the world likely confused and/or frustrated. Moreover, the United Nation’s support for the territorial integrity of the Ukraine stands contrary to Google’s provision of a map in Russia that shows Crimea as separate from the Ukraine. Under UN Resolution A/RES/68.262, Russia’s annexation of Crimea from the Ukraine was deemed illegal under international law, and as a representative of the United States remarked, “borders are not mere suggestions.”

Google may be performing its best practice strategy by avoiding a circumstance wherein the company would polarize itself from any major fraction of its consumer population. However, with many imminent and currently unfolding territorial disputes throughout the world, Google’s choice to define borders differently in different maps may start to get messy.

There are clear limits to Google’s approach. For example, how does (or could) Google even manage the tangled web of territorial claims in the South China Sea? China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Brunei, and Indonesia all claim some of the same islands…and with China’s claim being based on a historic assertion defined by the 9-dashed line and not the 200-mile EEZ defined in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, Google is really in a bind. The South China Sea viewed from the Google Maps in the United States shows no indication of which countries control the highly disputed Paracel and Spratley islands, and this illustrates an important decision that Google made when developing its maps.

Perhaps the ultimate limit to Google’s mapping strategy is manifest in the recently announced fanatical Islamic State abridging parts of Syria and Iraq. Established by IS, a religious extremist group claiming to have a formidable government and military, the Islamic State defies the existing borders of Iraq and Syria. As of now, Google does not recognize the Islamic State in its maps, and this is a conscious and political decision tailored to the present. Yet as abhorrent as the premise for the Islamic State is, there is the possibility that it could still exist, for example, three years from now. It is not clear what criteria Google would, or could, use to handle this situation. Put another way, at what point does a “non-state” become a “state” on Google’s maps? Google will have to decide whether to recognize what could materialize as a political reality, or simply ignore the matter as the company does in the case of the South China Sea.

And what about effect Google’s strategy has on third party users? What is an American to believe when viewing maps of the Crimean peninsula from their respective version of Google Maps? How would he or she know that territorial disputes exist in the South China Sea or the Middle East when viewing Google Maps without any prior knowledge? Even without explicit intent to do so, Google’s depiction of borders influences the perceptions and understanding of third-party users throughout the world. As a globally referenced data source, Google’s maps thus can at minimum induce confusion, and taken further, could result in misinformed decision-making by parties that rely on these maps. Herein lies Google’s profound ability to shape peoples’ social and political awareness of the world.

So, Google has applied a creative approach to document border disputes on their maps in some well-known, and well-understood, situations. But that technique only goes so far, and offers no solution for borders subject to multiple disputes, or for situations where non-state actors appear to be successfully carving out states of their own. Moreover, because Google chooses to address some territorial disputes and ignore others, there is a degree to which Google’s approach is less transparent for viewers from third party states. The question really becomes how does Google decide when to show a disputed border and when to simply ignore the situation. The answer to this question is unclear, and yet has increasingly greater consequences as Google grows as the provider of choice for global digital maps. But one thing is clear: Google is probably never going to be able to please all of the people all of the time.

Image: Google Maps Ukraine (top), Google Maps Russia (bottom)

October 31, 2014 5 comments

Europe Featured Security Security and Conflict The International Economy

Crisis in Ukraine and the Global Scramble for Ukrainian Allegiance

written by Christine Smith

By Christine Smith – Editor

Since November of last year, mounting tensions within Ukraine have made divisions between Russia, the European Union (EU), and the United States (US) increasingly evident. In an effort to establish stronger trade relations with Western Europe, Ukraine’s then-President Viktor Yanukovych initially sought to broker a deal in which his country would join the EU. However, come decision time and ongoing pressure from Moscow, Yanukovych backed out of the EU deal in favor of strengthening economic and political ties with his country’s border neighbor Russia, resulting in the rapid escalation of tensions between pro-Western Ukrainians and eastern pro-Russian Ukrainians. Consequently, pro-Western Ukrainians voiced their frustrations and ousted Yanukovych, while pro-Russian Ukrainians retaliated by seizing government buildings and showing their support for Russian military assistance.

Despite the existence of East versus West divisions within Ukraine prior to the controversy surrounding the failed EU deal, following the tense situation in November, countries both near and far have sought to make their stance known in an effort to fulfill personal political and/or economic goals. For example, frustrated with the country’s former president’s decision to vacate from an EU agreement, the EU quickly reacted to Ukraine’s political instability by approving the provision of 1 billion euros of economic assistance to the new pro-Western Ukrainian government. Additionally, the EU issued tariff cuts to the country in order to make exporting goods to the EU cheaper and to reiterate why an economic partnership with the EU is worth pursuing.

Furthermore, the United States, who just so happens to be a strong ally of the EU, has voiced its disapproval of pro-Russian Ukrainian factions by demanding the end of Russian participation and by the apparent orchestration of eastern Ukraine’s ongoing separatist violence. It has even gone so far as to continuously label Russia’s presence in the region as a carefully planned, “full-scale invasions,” causing a stark division between the US and Russia reminiscent of the Cold War. However bold, this language appears to be appropriate. After Russia’s occupation and annexation of Ukraine’s Black Sea peninsula of Crimea and its continued presence on the country’s eastern border, it is hardly surprising that a global power like the United States would distrust Russian actions and intentions. It is in the US’s political and economic interest, therefore, to protect Ukraine’s sovereignty and promote Ukraine becoming a member of the EU.

Russia, however, views the situation differently. Because Ukraine and Georgia are the only territories separating Russia from NATO member-states (with the exception of the Russian port city of Kaliningrad), allowing Ukraine to join the EU and potentially join NATO is a scenario Russia cannot entertain. After all, NATO’s creation and ongoing expansion were centered around containing the Soviet Union politically and militarily. Understandably, Russia sees proximity to NATO as a direct threat to its national security, and therefore refuses to let Ukraine stray without a fight. That said, supporting a separatist movement is also not in Russia’s interest, for it will still lessen the physical divide between NATO members and Russia as a result of the incorporation of part of Ukraine into its borders, resulting in the expansion of Russia’s borders and the partial dissolving of its buffer from NATO. Russia, therefore, is walking a fine line; it must support pro-Russian Ukrainian factions without encouraging them to split away from Ukraine in order to create a new, united, pro-Russia Ukraine that Russia can depend on in its quest to maintain political security and distance from NATO.

Until tensions are quelled within Ukraine and so long as Ukraine remains a global political, security, and economic interest, hostilities between the West and East will remain especially high. For such a small country, playing up its strategic value is the primary source of power it possesses. Consequently, maintaining ties with all parties best serves the country’s interests, and will likely mean a decision about whether or not to join the EU will be prolonged as long as the West permits. Only time will tell what Ukraine will do and which region will succeed most at wooing the fragile state.

May 5, 2014 2 comments

Europe Society and Culture

Gay Marriage in Britain, France, and Russia: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back

written by thegeneration

by Shadee Ashtari
Editor-in-Chief

Twelve years ago in the Netherlands, the first same-sex couples walked down the aisle to consummate their marriages. Since 2001, almost twelve other countries have followed suit by passing national laws allowing same-sex marriage and domestic partnerships, including Spain, Canada, South Africa, Portugal, Iceland (where no members of the legislature voted against it), and Argentina.

Meanwhile, a 2011 report by the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association found that same-sex relationships are still criminalized in 76 countries—five of those countries reserve the death penalty as punishment for homosexuality (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Mauritania and Sudan). While some parts of the world progress marriage equality, others fall deeper into traditionalism, theocratic justifications, and violence as a backlash to Western progress for the rights of women and gays.

Last month, the Russian parliament approved a draft law banning the dissemination of “homosexual propaganda” to minors. The legislation, strongly backed by the Russian Orthodox Church, would forbid public events endorsing homosexual rights, block websites deemed inappropriate for youth, and charge fines up to $16,000 for any public demonstrations of “homosexual propaganda.” The draft will go to Russian President Vladimir Putin (who is in support of the ban) after two more readings, but hope for anything but the implementation of this ban seems futile in light of the 388-1 vote in favor of the law. “We live in Russia, not Sodom and Gomorrah,” United Russia Deputy Dmitry Sablin commented before the Russian parliament passed the bill. Despite the overwhelming intolerance, gay activists still staged a “kiss-in” protest outside the chamber, which ended with the detention of 20 activists.

Since his return to the presidency, Putin has made a series of strategic political moves to stifle dissent and consolidate power through oppressive authoritarian tactics. His rhetoric constantly reflects on a return to conservative Russian traditionalism: “God, Tsar, and Country.”, Putin has tactically strengthened his ties to the Russian Orthodox Church, hoping the support of one of Russia’s most influential institutions will fortify his political power. Hence, the backwards legislation first and foremost serves to establish an anti-Western liberalism while unsubtly signaling a shift towards an Orthodox Russia. More importantly, at the core of Putin’s call for a more traditional Russia lies a far more dangerous vision for homogenization. “We either become a tolerant Western state where everything is allowed—and lose our Christianity and moral foundations—or we will be a Christian people who live in our God-protected land in purity and godliness,” said Reverend Sergiy Rybko, a priest in the Orthodox Church. In partnering with the Russian Orthodox Church, Putin allies with the Church’s religious positions on Russia’s domestic policies. Putin’s plans echo the Reverend’s visions, which begin by politically ostracizing gays as a tabooed immoral minority. But homosexuals are not the only minorities in Russia—next come the Jews, the Central Asian Muslims, the atheists etc., until the Orthodox Russian leadership use “traditional values” as a warrant to politically and socially exclude every non-“Russian” minority.

In protest of the ban, a Russian television host disclosed his homosexuality on the air and was subsequently fired from the channel he had co-founded. Reported beatings of gay men have boomed. Same-sex European couples will be banned from adopting Russian orphans. The real-word impact of Russia’s ban on “homosexual propaganda” transcends an innocent plea for traditional values: homophobic legislation under the false guise of morality sends a dangerous message to the Russian public, who as it is are not the most emphatic towards gay citizens. According to Levada Center’s opinion polls last year, almost two-thirds of Russians find homosexuality “morally unacceptable and worth condemning. About half opposed gay rallies and same-sex marriage, while almost a third thought homosexuality was the result of ‘a sickness or a psychological trauma.’”

In light of the strong prejudices against homosexuals, Putin’s recent escalation of security forces on opposition—jailing and harassing gay activists—sets a critically dangerous example for the nation. Russian leadership’s treatment of a socially vulnerable population tells society that crimes against gays are not considered crimes; that violence against and oppression of some citizens are warranted; and that hate crimes are to be equated with patriotism. Gays in Russia already face tremendous intolerance and the state-sanctioning of homophobia will only serve to escalate violence against innocent Russian citizens, as witnessed by the recent escalation of gay beatings.

The European Union’s foreign policy chief Catherin Ashton expressed concern with the ban, stating, “The implementation of this law could reinforce discrimination against lesbians, gays, bisexuals […] as well as all those who support them and their choices, in particular by limiting their freedom of expression and their freedom of association and assembly.” European cities, including Venice and Milan, have also taken action against the bill by canceling their sister-city status with St. Petersburg.

While Russia’s president dismembers any real opposition in an effort to re-direct his country towards medieval times, other countries are facing a more legitimate debate on the issue of same-sex marriage.

On Tuesday, February 8, the British House of Commons voted overwhelmingly in favor of a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in Britain (the bill is essentially assured passage through its next legislative stages). Unlike Russia, the bill resulted in a six-hour debate, which ultimately ended with a 400-175 vote in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage. Despite this victory, however, more than half of the Conservative Party’s legislators voted against the bill (or abstained). Right-wing Parliament member Edward Leigh stated, “We should be in the business of protecting cherished institutions and our cultural heritage.”

Sadly, lawmakers like Leigh do not realize the fundamental duty bestowed upon them: to protect people, not institutions, to protect human rights, not a subjective sense of cultural heritage. Lawmakers should be in the business of providing a secure political and social environment for each and every citizen without the fear of exclusion or victimization—despite whom they choose to love.

Even further divided than Britain, France also recently introduced a similar measure on same-sex marriage, backed by President Francois Hollande. On February 12, the French National Assembly passed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage (the bill still needs to pass through the French Senate and be signed by President Hollande, but it is predicted to become law as soon as May 2013). Despite the measure’s overwhelming projected victory in the Senate (or perhaps in spite of), the legislation has triggered recent demonstrations in Paris with tens of thousands protestors taking to the streets to protect traditional definitions of marriage. The French Parliament has been equally heated, with an extended debate on same-sex marriage now in its second week. The bill has drawn angry insults across the National Assembly floor and has undergone more than 5,300 amendments. Similar to Russia, the Insee poll in 2012 indicates that French citizens “do not overwhelmingly embrace legalizing same-sex marriage (70%), with many French citizens joining with the church, as well as some secular conservative groups, in expressing their strong opposition.” As recently as January, a crowd of roughly 500,000 French protestors demonstrated outside the Eiffel Tower in Paris in opposition to same-sex marriage. As both a secular republic defending individual rights and a largely religious Catholic nation with deeply-rooted (and outdated) notions of family structure, France’s debate on same-sex marriage reflects a far deeper paradox in French civil society.

While French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault explained that “contrary to what those who vociferate against [the bill] say — fortunately they’re in the minority — this law is going to strengthen the institution of marriage,” mass protests continued. As a democratic country, the passage of the same-sex marriage law will extenuate the divide between conservative and progressive members of French Parliament (as it has done in Britain) rather than resulting in a major political crisis. Ultimately, further polarization will more likely be neutralized with younger more progressive political leadership, as opposed to political consolidation through a democratic process.

As the world slowly turns towards the acceptance of same-sex marriage, some countries struggle more than others to adopt progressive policies. While Russian leadership and the Orthodox Church strategically condemn Western influences of marriage equality, France slowly finds its way towards legalizing same-sex marriage, despite strong political opposition and polarization. On a more unanimous path, Britain forges forward in the battle for equality, symbolizing the growing influence of a global social revolution that began over a decade ago. The actions of two of the world’s most influential countries set a brave example for the rest of the indecisive world: despite staunch and sometimes offensive opposition, the essential obligation of national legislators is the protection of their people, not their institutions.

Facts and figures from Reuters, The New York Times, CNN, and The Pew Forum.

Shadee Ashtari is a senior at UCLA majoring in Communications with a minor in Political Science. At the Burkle Center, Shadee is the Editor-in-Chief of The Generation. Her current research focuses on student homelessness in the U.S. and the rise and decline of religiosity in industrialized nations.

February 20, 2013 3 comments

Middle East Security and Conflict

Fundamentals of Change: Lessons from Ukraine and Egypt

written by thegeneration

By Laila Elimam

This week, Ukrainians began voting for a new parliament at a defining phase when trust in the current government is waning. Analysts have described this as an election highly dependent upon the gains of the opposition, but many Ukrainians are still pessimistic. Preliminary election results have already shown President Yanukovych’s ruling Party of Regions in the lead, with over 30% of the vote.

Eight years ago, on November 22, 2004, Ukrainians took to the streets to protest the rigged elections between then Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych and opposition leader, Viktor Yushchenko, which ultimately led to seventeen days of protest in the streets of Kiev. The Orange Revolution – as it became known – led to a re-election on December 27th of that same year, in which Yushchenko became Ukraine’s new President. Yushchenko quickly selected his fellow opposition leader, Yulia Tymoshenko, as Prime Minister. But what was described as a momentous event for Ukraine’s democracy spiraled downwards with the presidential victory of Viktor Yanukovych against Yulia Tymoshenko in February 2010, and her subsequent imprisonment. Despite being regarded as unbiased by international observers, many believe the elections were rigged. The election, however, served as a marked reflection on the terrible economic conditions and internal political quarreling that caused the Orange Revolution’s leadership to falter. Kateryna Gaponova, who participated in the Orange Revolution and is currently a graduate student at the UCLA School of Public Health, expressed her disappointment in Yushchenko’s and Tymoshenko’s leadership and commented that many in Ukraine do not like Yanukovych, but are also “afraid of uncertainty which comes [with] electing a new government.”

Yulia Tymoshenko’s arrest is based on vague accusations alleging she abused her position as Prime Minister to make unfair gas deals with Russia, in addition to accusations regarding personal gains in her business in the 1990’s. European Union officials, as well as Russia, are frowning upon the arrest and political situation in Kiev as they express their disdain for President Yanukovych’s insincere political activities.

One year following Tymoshenko’s defeat, in February 2011, the former Prime Minister wrote an editorial addressed to Egyptians and Tunisians to learn from “Ukraine’s lessons” and pointed to the corruption of the judiciary as well as the loss of democratic freedoms that were acquired following the Orange Revolution. Perhaps the most distinguished point made by Tymoshenko is the need to maintain momentum following a revolution and more so, the fact that elections do not always prove that democracy has “prevailed.”

Tymoshenko’s warnings are particularly relevant for Egypt at this juncture. In a country where optimism was in full force following the January 25th uprising, a different path has “prevailed.” Despite the variation in the transition processes, political power struggles and stalemates are paralyzing change in both Ukraine and Egypt. Like Tymoshenko, several of Egypt’s former ministers and businessmen remain imprisoned under pending charges based on vague or unknown allegations. While some would argue that these figures contributed to the demise of political and economic life in Egypt, the legal process has been chaotic, at best, and more so, influenced by popular pressure and the desire for revenge based on former disputes. Regardless of whether or not the arrests are justified, this is not the right path for a healthy democracy. As Tymoshenko has noted, “democracy must be rooted in the rule of law.”

As Ukrainians are electing their new parliament, in Egypt, a constitutional committee made up of predominantly Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers has drawn heavy criticism. Religious clauses aside, the constitution provides the executive branch with significant powers. Naturally also, the process has been drawn out and strenuous, with actors from opposing sides of the political spectrum contending for influence. The potential disbanding of the committee, backed by liberals, is now in the hands of the Supreme Constitutional Court. Ziad Abdel Tawab, from the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, told The Washington Post that there will be a “‘confrontation between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Constitutional Court,’” likely to “‘linger.’”

The constitutional drafting process has further highlighted the desire of the Muslim Brotherhood to take over relevant positions of power – including the presidential victory in June 2012 – which has blurred initial optimism and left many Egyptians, feeling similar to Tymoshenko, “betrayed.” The question now is whether Egypt may be headed down a path similar to that of Ukraine, reverting back to a system resembling the old regime, with the Brotherhood as the new dominant force. Simply walking through the streets of Cairo or talking to Egyptians points to the difficulties they are currently facing. “The cost of food has gone up and the situation is worse now than the beginning,” one taxi driver told me last month as he drove through the crowded streets of Giza, “but you have to stay optimistic.” Likewise, a former UCLA student from Ukraine, who preferred to remain anonymous, informed me that citizens are hopeful for change. However, he added that Yanukovych has brought “Ukraine back to that initial stage of development as it was after the collapse of the Soviet Union.”

Regardless of the upcoming results for Ukraine and Egypt, there are some parallels between both countries that point to obvious morals and shared experiences. Perhaps most crucial is the need for democracy to be built upon fundamental values, including a well-functioning judiciary, and for leaders and revolutionaries alike to pay attention to the importance of social welfare and the well being of citizens during a political transition. In both countries, power hungry leaders have emerged, while the declining political and economic conditions have swayed initial optimism and contributed to a drop in morale among citizens.

At the onset of the Egyptian Revolution, Ukrainians expressed the happiness they felt for Egyptians, but also, the need for them to refer to the experience of the Orange Revolution and its aftermath. In both countries, the coming period will be crucial in determining the success or failure of fundamental elements of the transitions.

Laila Elimam is a first-year MPP student at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs. She grew up in the Bay Area and studied and worked in Cairo for eight years before coming to UCLA. She is a co-editor with The Generation.

October 29, 2012 0 comment