Debate success reinvigorates Harris’s momentum

ROY SHINAR COHEN

Nearly 70 million people saw the first time Kamala Harris and Donald Trump met. Thanks to thorough preparation and clear(er) answers, most people agreed Harris won the debate, according to polls. Harris’s performance has helped her raise $47m within 24 hours after the event. Since the debate is the last major planned event until election day, this gives her crucial momentum in the final weeks leading to November 5th.

Harris led in the polls coming into the debate. According to poll trackers by The New York Times, The Economist and Nate Silver, Harris stood at approximately 49% and Trump at 47%. However, an important September 8th New York Times/Siena College poll (conducted between September 3rd-6th) showed Trump leading Harris by one percentage point. The difference is within the margins of error and could indicate trends in voters’ attitudes predating the debate. But the highly anticipated and widely watched debate have likely impacted voters’ perception.

From the moment the candidates walked on stage, the differences between them were stark. Trump walked straight to the left-side podium, while Harris marched to shake his hand. “Kamala Harris”, she introduced herself, since the two never met in person before the debate. The Vide-President exuded confidence throughout the debate, speaking clearly and making expressive facial expressions. In contrast, Trump avoided looking at Harris and occasionally glanced at the clock while she spoke. 

Throughout the evening, Harris managed to enrage the former-President on several occasions. As a body language expert said on Fox News, "At one point, he dropped his shoulders, dropped his head, and he sunk. And then you see the upper lip [move upward] very quickly. It was a micro-expression of leakage, of hatred and disgust and scorn.”

This was not mere luck on Harris’s part. The Vice-President prepared for the event for five nights, practicing with a Trump impersonator on a replica stage, according to The New York Times. Trump’s preparation was much more casual and included back-and-forth questions with aids about policy. This contrast clearly worked in Harris’s favour. Her tactic’s success was evident when, for example, she invited viewers to attend a Trump rally. Comments like this were designed to bait the former-President into self-indulgent rants, deflecting Trump’s attacks and distracting viewers from Harris’s weaknesses.

Overall, Trump spoke more than Harris did (43 minutes and 37 minutes respectively), although the format was designed to allow both candidates an equal amount of time. This reflects Harris’s under-utilising her allotted speaking time and extra time given by moderators after heated exchanges. When it comes to the debate’s content, viewers did not receive clear answers and policy plans. Both candidates attempted to steer questions and avoid overly specific proposals. 

Moreover, both told lies and half-truths throughout the evening—such as Harris’s claim that Trump will impose a “sales-tax”, referring to his tariffs plan, and Trump’s claim that Harris would not meet Israeli prime minister Netanyahu. Still, Trump’s lies were more frequent and blatant. This led the moderators to fact-check some of his claims, such as his since-then viral claim that migrants are eating pets. But instead of acknowledging the falsity of his claims, Trump and his party took the fact-checking to mean the debate was “three against one”.

Both sides, intentionally or not, made remarks that will go down in American presidential debates’ history. Harris’s most memorable quotes included an invitation to attend a Trump rally, proudly claiming she is a gun-owner, and fighting hard to remain polite to Trump saying “This… former-President”. For Trump, memorable lines include claims that “[Harris] wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in prison”, that migrants are “eating the pets of the people that live there [Springfield, Ohio]”, and that he has “concepts of a plan” for healthcare reform. All of these became instant memes and have reached a far wider audience than the debate itself.

Minutes after leaving the stage Trump did another unusual thing: he went to the “spin-room” to change the narrative around his performance. Usually, politicians, commentators, and other surrogates would spin narratives on the candidate’s behalf. But, likely due to his bad performance, Trump took it upon himself. In the spin-room, he claimed that he had his best debate ever and that he won by a large margin. When confronted by reporters who told him Harris had a better night, he dismissed them quickly.

Beyond Harris and Trump, a crucial moment arrived shortly after the debate had ended. Cultural super-star Taylor Swift told her 284 million fans on Instagram that she will vote for Kamala Harris. “I will be casting my vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz in the 2024 Presidential Election… she fights for the rights and causes I believe need a warrior to champion them… Taylor Swift, Childless Cat Lady”. Although the effect of Swift’s endorsement remains to be seen, it spotlighted Trump’s defeat even more and angered Republicans.

The Harris-Trump debate, which probably won’t take place again, was a clear win for Harris and a good segue into the final weeks of the election campaign. Although the debate did not change the polls significantly, it did remind voters of what Trump is like and alleviate doubts about Harris’s capability. Moreover, it has given her an easy weak in the media in which she appears strong while Trump is scrutinised. Even as Harris’s debate performance has improved her press coverage and helped raise substantial funds for her campaign, the race is still extremely tight and unpredictable.

What would Harris do as President?

ROY SHINAR COHEN

The initial excitement of Kamala Harris’s candidacy has set the tone for the 2024 presidential campaign. With less than two months until election day, both Harris and Trump have told their story to the American people. However, they have said much less about what they will do if elected. While Trump has put forward some policies (despite claiming ignorance of Project 2025), Harris’s policy agenda remains somewhat vague, with only a broad outline discernible from her speeches and interviews. Yet it is clear that on many issues she has veered to the right from her past positions and the Biden administration, attempting to reach crucial voters in swing states.

Throughout August Harris worked to define herself as a candidate, most notably at the Democratic National Convention (DNC). The DNC included speeches by a long list of party leaders and influential figures. It began with President Biden and Representative Ocasio-Cortez on the first day, continued with the Obamas, Clintons, governors and elected officials on the second and third days. The Convention concluded with Harris’s speech on the fourth day, which was watched by 28.9 million viewers, half a million more than Trump’s speech during the Republican convention.

Harris’s speech was described by The New York Times’s columnist Ezra Klein as “reverse engineered” to appeal to crucial voters. As was widely noticed by Klein and others, this was true throughout the convention, as Harris and her party resolved to create a more moderate platform which could appeal to a wide coalition of voters. Yet, it gave little indication of what the presidential candidate would do if she won. So far Harris and her running-mate Tim Walz laid out a vague outline for policy priorities during speeches and interviews.

The Harris campaign revealed policies that align with voters’ priorities for this election. According to polling by Statista and YouGov, there are large differences in policy priorities between Democrats, Republicans and Independents. Democratic voters think the most important issues to date are (in descending order) healthcare and abortions, inflation and prices, climate change, and civil rights. Republican voters, however, feel strongly that inflation and prices are the most important issues, closely followed by immigration. So, it is not surprising that a large part of Harris’s plan addresses the economy, immigration, and reproductive freedom, which appeal to the voters she wants to convince.

An overview of these policies indicates that Harris is steering away from a distinctly progressive agenda, as her campaign attempts to court the moderate voters of the Democratic party and beyond. This is most evidenced by the policies Harris has not yet endorsed — such as the Green New Deal or stopping arms sales to Israel — as well as by those she has endorsed, most notably regarding immigration. These policies are strategically picked to increase her odds of winning in a very tight election.

Harris has outlined a set of economic policies that were widely seen as radical by pundits and Republicans. But, as Nobel Prize economist Paul Krugman wrote, “Harris staked out a moderately centre-left position, not too different from President Biden’s original Build Back Better agenda”. This includes taking aim at high prices, increasing the housing supply, lowering the cost of raising children, and using tax credits to assist the lower and middle class.

Harris proposed using the taxes to reduce prices. These policies include an expanded child tax credit and tax cuts for lower-income and middle-income parents to ease the high cost of raising children; a $25,000 tax cut for first-time home buyers; and avoiding new taxes on low-earners. Additionally, she promised to build three million new homes across the country to address the current shortage. Finally, she has supported higher taxes on large corporations and the richest Americans.

On immigration, Harris has veered to the right and has taken a stronger stance than Biden. She supports a bipartisan bill that focuses on the national security consequences of large numbers of immigrants entering the United States unlawfully. Yet, upon hearing about this bill, Trump made sure Republicans rejected it, although the senate had already reached a bipartisan agreement. Analysts speculated that Trump feared the bill would solve a major part of the immigration challenges that the US faces and, consequently, would no longer be a major issue in the elections. By supporting this bill Harris draws a sharp contrast to Trump and presents herself in a less partisan manner.

When it comes to healthcare, Harris builds on the Biden administration’s efforts to reduce prescription drug costs. She wants to continue the $35 monthly cap on insulin prices and the $2,000 annual limit on out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs to all Americans. Additionally, Harris is a strong advocate for women’s reproductive rights and has been the Biden administration’s foremost spokesperson on the issue since the overturn of Roe v. Wade. Notably, she promised to sign into law a bill “to restore reproductive freedoms” during a campaign event in Georgia.

Harris has not revealed the specifics of her foreign policy, but she has sketched a broad picture of the US’s role on the international stage. During her speech at the Democratic National Convention (DNC), she discussed a handful of foreign policy issues, including NATO and the Ukraine War, the Gaza War, Iran and North Korea. Harris promised that she would “ensure America always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world” and that “America, not China, wins the competition for the 21st century and that we strengthen, not abdicate, our global leadership”. Moreover, she claimed credit for helping mobilise global support for Ukraine and vowed to continue doing so.

When it comes to the Gaza War, Harris has emphasised that she and Biden are working to “end this war, such that Israel is secure, the hostages are released, the suffering in Gaza ends and the Palestinian people can realize their right to dignity, security, freedom and self-determination”. Her plea to support Palestinian rights attracted loud applause from the DNC crowd, demonstrating her fellow Democrats’ support for Palestine. We might expect the Democratic Party to influence her stance towards demanding and creating the conditions for a cease-fire.

Still, Harris has been criticised for her view on Israel.  She has vowed to “always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself” and “ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself”. Importantly, Harris’s stance on this matter has not diverged from President Biden’s policy, but some analysts hope that she would strike a different balance than him.

Harris’s policy agenda does not yet cover every aspect of the presidency, leaving voters wondering what President Harris would actually do. However, she may be tempted to avoid giving more details and ride the “vibes wave” through to November. With fewer than 60 days left, Harris and Walz are leaning into their joyful image while casting Trump and Vance as “weird”. The Harris-Walz campaign is expanding its efforts, reaching voters, and capitalising on the cultural power of their platform—and according to the polls, it’s working.

The future of Trump and X is all but known

Roy Shinar Cohen

When Trump joined X this week, he was not simply returning to the same Twitter from which he was banned in 2021 for inciting violence. Rather, he steps onto a platform reformed. X, which has since been bought by entrepreneur-turned-political-commentator Elon Musk, stands accused of much the same crime. Throughout August the platform and its owner worsened the violent riots in the UK by not removing content and amplifying conspiracy theories. The contrast between Twitter and X will make Trump more dangerous than ever. With the former he incited insurrection, and we should all be afraid of what he will be able to do with the latter.

In retrospect, it is easy to forget the minute details of the crazy election period of 2020. After months of attempting to influence and overturn the election with unique creativity, MAGA-lawyers came up with a fantasy plan to not certify the election results on January 6th, 2021. Outside the Capitol, where the certification took place, Trump spoke for over an hour at the “Stop the Steal” rally to which people were asked in advance to come armed. The President said, “You don't concede when there's theft involved. Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore". He added, "If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore". And finally cried, “We are going to the Capitol.”

As we know, Trump did not join the mob’s march up Capitol Hill (although he wanted to). Instead, the President of the United States “gleefully” watched the unfolding events on television, and, according to the January 6th Select Committee, “refused to act”. Throughout the insurrection, Trump continued to claim the election was stolen and waited for several hours to call on the mob to leave the Capitol. In the same message, he told the mob he loved them.

Soon after, President Trump was banned from Twitter “due to the risk of further incitement of violence”. Today, Trump is again the Republican nominee and, in many ways, more dangerous than in 2020. Trump has not only continued to spread disinformation about the 2020 election being stolen but lies about the 2024 election at an even higher rate. He said would “free” the people who participated in the January 6th insurrection and promised to be his supporters’ “retribution”. Finally, he has repeatedly used violent language — such as immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country” and has warned of a “bloodbath” if Biden had won — which sets the stage for further political violence.

In parallel, in October 2022, when Trump was still in political exile, Billionaire Elon Musk bought Twitter, the most important political discussion platform. Since its launch in 2006, Twitter has gradually grown to be the chosen location for journalists to first announce scoops, and for politicians to announce career changing decision. This was apparent when President Biden announced what was possibly the most difficult decision of his life, quitting the Presidential race, in a short letter posted to his account. This means that Twitter is not merely a social network used by millions of people, but the public discussion space on some of the most consequential issues of the day. 

After taking control, Musk swiftly changed the platform’s culture, rules and name. Frequent Twitter-turned-X users instantly noticed the substantial changes he has made. He has effectively deregulated X and reinstated blocked accounts, which in itself is a problem. However, this was followed by changing the platform’s algorithms to prioritize his own (and possibly other) content by a factor of as much as 10, and censoring some content for political purposes. These changes brought back many users, except possibly the most important one - Donald Trump, who continued using Truth Social. In many ways, X is so much worse than Twitter that treating them as one white-washes Musk’s harm. This harm is evident in many cases, as was seen in the United Kingdom in recent weeks.

A young Welsh man attacked and killed multiple children on July 29th, which quickly led to rumors and misinformation online. Claims that the attacker was an asylum seeker, or a person of color sent far-right groups into a violent frenzy, hitting hotels housing asylum seekers, mosques and the police. Not only did X not remove misinformation (as other platforms did) but for some reason, Musk decided to insert himself into the chaos. The platform’s owner (who boosts his own posts) amplified propaganda and conspiracy theories, including that the UK’s justice system is biased, claimed civil war is imminent and retweeted a picture of Prime Minister Starmer in a Nazi uniform.

If a similar event were to happen in the United States, Musk is sure to take a bolder stance. Since purchasing X, he has reinstated many US-based accounts that were banned for spreading misinformation or promoting violence. As we just saw in the UK, this should be considered as laying the groundwork for violence. Last month Musk endorsed Trump and since has regularly posted about politics, and on August 12th he interviewed Trump on X which marked the former President’s “return to the platform”.

The combination of Trump —who is constantly lying, is struggling to get media attention and is no longer leading in the polls — with Musk and X should be taken as a serious risk. In the past, Trump has used Twitter, a weaker and safer platform, to undermine American democracy and lead to an insurrection. In the present, X amplifies disinformation and spreads violence worldwide. Each of these is dangerous enough, as has been repeatedly proven, and their combination, which has never been tested, could be catastrophic.

Does Harris have enough runway?

Roy Shinar Cohen

Recent weeks in American politics have been as crazy as it gets. Biden’s debate appearance, Trump’s attempted assassination, Biden dropping out, Harris uniting the party and gaining in the polls, and Trump scrambling to find an answer. A Democratic lead, that only recently seemed impossible, is now a reality. Harris is leading in The Economist’s polls tracker, in Nate Silver’s model and, according to The New York Times, in three crucial battleground states. The question, however, is whether Harris will be able to maintain this momentum, continue to increase her lead, and, most importantly, win in key states.

The chain of events that led us to this moment began in the first minutes of the Trump-Biden debate on 27 June. It was clear almost instantly that Biden was not able to perform at the level expected of American Presidents. As Ezra Klein wrote the following day, “The diminishment of Biden’s skills as a communicator… is an inability to do part of the job of the president”. For the next three weeks, a semi-public struggle over the future of the Democratic ticket was unfolding. Leaders, such as former Leader of the House Nancy Pelosi, repeatedly reignited the debate, major donors stopped funding the Biden campaign, and the media remained laser-focused on this drama. 

In the meantime, Trump was confident he will win in November. A week after the debate a video circulated online showing him announcing he kicked and beat Biden out of the race. Not long after, the former President survived an assasination attempt while keeping his cool and attaining a historic picture. And finally, he arrived at the Republican National Convention as a seemingly unstoppable hero who people believed was saved by the grade of God. This over-confidence assured Trump made Trump take a bold-choice on his running mate, picking Senator J. D. Vance who was promoted by the far-right flank of the Republican party. Vance, a champion of Project 2025, appeared to be a reasonable choice if victory was in the bag, but then everything changed.

24 days after the debate on 21 July, quarantined at home with Covid, President Biden announced to the nation that he would not seek reelection. Twenty-seven minutes after dropping out of the race, Joe Biden endorsed his Vice President, Kamala Harris. She remained extremely loyal to the President and campaign throughout its hardest days, and in the 24 hours following Biden’s announcement, Harris did not waste a moment. She worked the phones to gain the support of the party and its donors. On the first day, she raised $81 million. In the first week, she raised $200 million, largely from small and first-time donors, and recruited 170,000 volunteers. By the end of July Harris had raised $310 million in a major show of support from all parts of the Democratic coalition.

But this was not the only way support for Harris manifested. Old videos of her quickly circulated on social media, drawing on her catchphrases, dance moves, laughter and cooking. These videos, some of which Republicans spread because they thought would ridicule her, have essentially become free advertisement. Unlike in 2020, Kamala Harris became an online sensation with an organic and genuine following among major parts of the Democratic party. Meanwhile, the race to become her running mate gained steam.

From the onset, Governors, Senators and Cabinet Secretaries made clear they were trying out for the job. What started in substantial speculation about nearly a dozen possibilities was quickly narrowed down to a handful; Governors Cooper, Shapiro and Waltz; Senator Kelly, and Secretary Buttigieg. Notably, in an attempt to “balance the ticket”, they were all white men, yet each brought different strengths to the table. Finally, after an intense unofficial mini-primary for the job, Harris picked the Governor of Minnesota, Tim Waltz. Waltz stood out when he quickly (and strategically) managed to change the entire Party’s message about Trump and Vance around “weirdness”.

Since Trump’s attempted assassination and the Republican National Convention ended nearly a month ago, the Trump campaign has been scrambling for media attention. Picking a running mate, and especially one not very well known, assisted the Harris campaign in maintaining the media’s focus. This is expected to continue in the coming weeks as the Democratic National Convention (DNC) will begin on 19 August in Chicago. Harris will then have the benefit of the “convention polling boost”, which usually helps the party at the centre of attention gain increased support in the polls.

This means that Harris’s momentum, which already places her with a narrow lead in many polls, could continue throughout August. Her lead is on average, based on poll trackers, around 1-2 percent. However, according to new polling done by The New York Times, Harris leads by 4 percentage points in several key battleground states. Even before these narrow advantages appeared, Trump and the Republican party appeared to be “panicking”. While “weird” is proving to be a successful attack, Trump has failed to land meaningful punches against Harris.

Without a change in strategy or luck, we can expect this dynamic to continue. However, there is at least one substantial pre-planned event that can shake the state of affairs: the Harris-Trump debate on 10 September. As we have seen earlier this summer, presidential debates can have enormous ramifications, and although the odds of Trump or Harris dropping out are slim, it could change voters’ perceptions or attitudes toward both candidates. The debate will happen nineteen days after the DNC and fifty-six days before the election, and thus will be crucial in determining the way both Harris and Trump enter the final stretch.

During the debate, Trump and Harris will attempt to assign blame for issues they believe are crucial for this election – the economy, immigration, and women’s reproductive rights. They will both try to appear “strong” and presidential. And they will try to ridicule their opponent. For Harris, who has adopted the language of “weird”, there is a risk of appearing elitist and as if she looks down on Republican voters. For Trump, who has recently focused on Harris’s race, there is a risk of alienating women and people of colour. Either, or both, options could make crucial blocks of voters reconsider their upcoming choice at the ballot box in ways that are hard to predict.

In short, with less than 85 days until the election, the Harris campaign seems to be finding its message while Trump struggles. Harris maintains her momentum and begins to pick up a lead in the polls. This lead is likely to grow in the coming weeks, but the debate could change that and reshuffle the cards. That would come in the crucial days right before voters make their final decision. Until then, both campaigns will test different attacks and invest massively in the key battleground states.

Still, even if Trump does not manage to regain the momentum he had a mere month ago, Harris may not be in the clear. This presidential race is extremely tight, and, at the moment, the polls are so close that they cannot be said to ensure victory for either candidate. While the Harris momentum is real and while she has continued to gain in the polls, it may not be enough to get her to the Oval Office. Because of the brevity of her campaign, Harris may do everything right and still not have enough runway to take off.

The debate which sparked another

Roy Shinar Cohen | News Contributor

The CNN Trump-Biden debate of June 27th was viewed by approximately 50 million people, rivalled perhaps only by the view counts of the countless clips later circulated on YouTube and social media. However, for all the attention and interest it garnered, the main topic of discussion was not policy – the Southern border, healthcare, Gaza, Ukraine etc. – but the health of President Joe Biden. From the first seconds as he walked on stage, to the last ones, as he was helped off stage by First Lady Jill Biden, The President faced his greatest reckoning yet for what he is: an old man. This confirmed voters’ fears, caused panic in the Democratic party, encouraged elements of the liberal establishment to call for Biden’s replacement on the Democratic ticket, and compelled a national debate, long-awaited by some, debate about the viability of Biden’s candidacy.

Joe Biden, born in 1942, is the oldest-ever American President. He started his political career early, elected to the US Senate before he was 30 years old, in 1972. There, he served until January 2009, when he became Obama’s Vice President. In 2020, Biden ran for President for the third time, and his age already worried voters. Nevertheless, the Party establishment rallied around him, and some among those concerned about his age were won over by his ability to campaign and debate, and his adoption of some Progressive policy proposals. In fact, Biden won the first presidential debate of 2020, with his infamous “Will you shut up, man?” line, and went on to win the most votes in history with a 66% turnout, the highest since 1900. This makes the difference between Biden of 2020 and 2024 stark and undeniable.

Last Thursday, during the first debate of 2024, Biden stiffly and slowly walked on stage towards the podium. He spoke quietly, and with a hoarse voice, struggling to find the end of his sentences, and often confusing words (“We have a thousand trillionaires in America – I mean, billionaires in America”). The President attempted to remember his scripted answers to anticipated questions but often did not make much sense, moving incoherently between issues of abortion, immigration, and crime. Unsurprisingly, Trump took advantage of Biden’s weaknesses, at some point replying to Biden by saying “I really don’t know what he said at the end of that sentence. I don’t think he knows what he said either”. Still, Trump appeared to have saved some punches and his strategy was, as Time Magazine put it, to “let Biden bury himself”. They explained Trump did not interrupt Biden or try to become the main story. What he did was “he sought to let Biden self-immolate and feed the perception that he’s too enfeebled to retain the presidency.”

Anyone who watched the debate could not ignore the contrast between Trump’s and Biden’s appearance. Trump spoke mostly clearly and made mocking facial expressions – basically, Trump as we know him. Biden, however, looked dreadful. While Trump spoke, he frequently stared in a random direction, his face frozen and mouth ajar. Biden arguably performed better than how other 81-year-olds would, but that is not the criteria. Biden did not appear to be fit or able to serve as President of the United States. Sadly, Biden’s performance was so dismal that it distracted from Trump’s many blatant lies and unclear comments, such as discussing golfing abilities and calling Biden a “bad Palestinian.” Throughout the debate, Trump’s lies became worse as he realized Biden could not hold him accountable and the CNN moderators did not fact-check, which made the whole affair even worse.

According to Andrew Feinberg, who attended the debate, from its first minutes the atmosphere was gloomy. The room was “horror-struck” and Biden’s aides “fell silent.” When the 90 minutes ended, Republicans were cheerful while Democrats were nowhere to be found. Finally, they emerged together “as a group, grim-faced, to face a wave of reporters, producers and videographers.” Soon after the headlines started rolling in: The Economist declared “Joe Biden’s horrific debate performance cast his entire candidacy into doubt”; the Wall Street Journal wrote “The World Saw Biden Deteriorating. Democrats Ignored the Warnings.”; and the New York Times wrote “This Debate, We Could Hear Biden Speak. There His Troubles Began”. The next day, the Biden campaign held a rally in North Carolina meant to assuage fears. The First Lady gave a powerful speech and President Biden looked much better than the night before, but the differences between the two events were quickly pointed out. The rally was in the afternoon, and not evening, and Biden read from a teleprompter, which went a long way in helping him reach the end of the sentence.

The articles were joined by the liberal establishment’s opinions. Thomas Friedman, the respected New York Times columnist and friend of Biden wrote that watching the debate made him “weep”. He added, “I cannot remember a more heartbreaking moment in American presidential campaign politics in my lifetime, precisely because of what it revealed: Joe Biden, a good man and a good president, has no business running for re-election.” The New Yorker’s Editor, David Remnick, wrote, “watching Thursday’s debate, observing Biden wander into senselessness onstage, was an agonizing experience”. He added that for Biden to stay in the race would be “pure vanity” which is uncharacteristic of Biden. Finally, the New York Times Editorial Board wrote that “voters cannot be expected to ignore” the fact that “Mr. Biden is not the man he was four years ago”. Moreover, they said the best chance to beat Trump is for Democrats to “acknowledge that Mr. Biden can’t continue his race and create a process to select someone more capable to stand in his place.”

What voters have long told pollsters, journalists and Democrats but the party refused to listen has suddenly become an unavoidable conversation. Is Joe Biden fit to be President and should he be the Democratic candidate stopped being a taboo question. However, the establishment of the Democratic Party stood by President Biden publicly. Major Democrats in Congress, former President Obama, and the main contenders to replace Biden tweeted wrote articles and went on TV shows to support him. Additionally, the campaign blitz-called important donors and supporters who are crucial for its continuation. Yet the Biden campaign failed to reassure the public. Data For Progress found that 53% of voters are more concerned about Biden’s age and mental health after the campaign. 

While the Party leadership and former President Obama stood by Biden publicly, the subtext of their statements, and sometimes what they are saying behind closed doors, is different. For instance, former President Obama has privately told allies that a Biden win was challenging before the debate and has become less likely afterwards. Additionally, former Speaker of the House and Biden ally, Nancy Pelosi, said asking questions about Biden’s fitness is “legitimate”, and in particular “Is this an episode or is this a condition?”, while she still supports his candidacy.

Meanwhile, new polling reveals Trump increased his lead in the polls. According to Times/Siena, he leads Biden by eight per cent among registered voters and six per cent among likely voters. Additionally, 74 per cent of voters believe Biden is too old for the job, which is five per cent higher than before the debate. Moreover, Nate Cohn, the New York Times’ chief political analyst, believes “there is room for him [Biden] to keep falling” in the polls. The negative polling, lack of ability by Biden and his campaign to change the narrative and perception that there is still time to switch candidates has led to efforts by major donors to pressure Biden to drop out of the race. Several major Democratic donors are stopping their financial support to the Democratic party until Biden is replaced as the Presidential candidate, while others are shifting their donations from supporting Biden to supporting potential replacements or Democrats running for other offices.

It appears that not many people, other than Trump and the Biden family, want Joe Biden to be the 2024 Democratic nominee. Although their reasons for supporting Biden are very different, the fact they are Biden’s strongest supporters right now is telling. It is still impossible to know what the final decision will be and whether Biden will remain the Democratic candidate (Biden vowed to stay “to the end” on July 3rd). Yet, what is clear is that the Trump-Biden debate was the precursor to the real and long-anticipated debate. The next days and week will be crucial to the formation, or lack thereof, of a critical mass of Democratic officials, donors and voters who want Biden replaced. For us who read the news, it could be difficult to pierce the veil of briefings, anonymous sources and attempts to endlessly spin the story. We can focus on polls (for example how potential replacements compare to Biden), donor pressure or other strategies, but none is certain. So, the only thing we can do until the fog clears is stay tuned.

A Turbulent Dawn: The May 2024 Attempted Coup in the DRC

Christine Savino

Background

On May 19th, 2024, at 4 AM, the capital of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Kinshasa, plunged into chaos as gunshots pierced the morning air from an attempted coup d'état. Heavily armed groups simultaneously attacked the Palais de la Nation, the official residence of the President, and home of Vital Kamerhe, an MP who was expected to be named Speaker. Both primary targets survived, and Kamerhe has since been sworn in as Speaker. Amidst the turmoil, a shell inadvertently crossed the DRC border, striking Brazzaville, the capital of neighboring Republic of Congo (ROC), causing several civilian injuries and swift condemnation from the ROC government.

According to army spokesperson Sylvain Ekenge, the coup was decisively quelled within hours, albeit still resulting in the deaths of at least six people and arrests of approximately 50 participants. The arrested consists of Congolese and foreigners, including at least three American citizens and one British national. Investigations into foreign participation and coup logistics are ongoing. 

Included in the deceased is the alleged leader, Christian Malanga, a controversial exiled opposition leader who proclaimed himself as the “President of New Zaire.” Zaire was the previous name for the DRC. Malanga, a vocal critic of the current administration, live streamed his involvement, reflecting a brazen and unorthodox approach to this political maneuver. Notably, Malanga had previously orchestrated a failed coup in 2017, underscoring his relentless pursuit of political control.

Motivations

The May 2024 attempted coup came against a backdrop of country-wide dissatisfaction with DRC President Félix Tshisekedi’s ruling coalition, which won re-election last September, with Malanga explicitly stating in his live stream that President Thisekedi failed in his leadership and needed to be removed from office. These internal issues have been compounded by regional instability. In recent years, Central and West Africa have seen a torrent of coups.

Particularly, in eastern DRC, Rwandan-forces backed by Mouvement du 23 Mars (M23) Tutsi-led rebels have swiftly expanded their occupation around the capital of North Kivu province, Goma. Along with political and military motivations, the group is driven by grievances regarding the DRC’s legacy of ethnic tension, including those from the 1994 Rwandan Genocide. This resulted in the deaths of approximately 800,000 mostly Tutsis, a minority ethnic group of which M23 is primarily composed.

Infamous for their ruthless campaign of violence, including widespread killings and rapes, M23 rebels have exacerbated the humanitarian crisis in the region, displacing over one million people and amplifying the urgency to restore order. Their fighting began after their 2012 founding, when former members of the Congolese armed forces mutinied, citing grievances including poor treatment, lack of pay, and discrimination. In November 2012, the group captured Goma for 10 days and caused significant international alarm, leading to diplomatic efforts to broker a ceasefire. Following military pressure from the Congolese army (FARDC) and UN peacekeeping forces (MONUSCO), M23 surrendered in 2013. The M23 movement's activities diminished until resurfacing in 2021, further destabilizing the region and exacerbating the ongoing conflict​. Some believe that M23 was behind the attempted coup, although DRC authorities are still investigating logistical specifics and have not yet released official determinations regarding this. 

International Response and Looking Ahead

Condemnation from the international community came swiftly. In response to the coup, Lewis Mudge, Human Rights Watch Central Africa director, stated “Congo and the region have a legacy of coups and attempted coups … The Congolese government needs to treat this crisis as an opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to human rights and the rule of law.”

The African Union as well as numerous African governments condemned the attempt, emphasizing the unacceptability of seizing power through force. The United States and French embassies in Kinshasa issued warnings and highlighted their cooperation with Congolese authorities to investigate and address the involvement of their nationals.

The nation’s legal system is now tasked with processing those arrested during the events, including foreign nationals. Looking at DRC’s present laws, it seems that the captured could be tried under violations of domestic and international law. According to the DRC Constitution, particularly Article 64, any forceful attempt to overthrow the government is met with stringent opposition, thus legitimizing the government's aggressive response. Likewise, in the DRC, acts such as treason, sedition, and attempts to overthrow the government are addressed through specific statutes within the DRC Penal Code. These laws are designed to safeguard the state’s sovereignty and maintain public order.

The failed coup attempt in the DRC also potentially violates international human rights and humanitarian laws. International law, including the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, prohibits acts such as murder, torture, and other forms of violence against civilians, which are often associated with coups.

The involvement of American citizens, as confirmed in initial reports, adds layers of complexity to the diplomatic landscape. This foreign participation demands a thorough investigation and may complicate the DRC’s diplomatic relations with the United States and other nations.  Antony Blinken, United States Secretary of State, condemned the violence and offered assistance from the United States, likely as a matter of ameliorating potential diplomatic tensions, given that approximately three Americans allegedly tried to overthrow the DRC’s government. How this pans out, however, has yet to be seen. Likewise, foreign involvement raises questions about violations of the non-intervention principle of international law encoded in Articles 2(4) and 2(7) of the United Nations Charter. The involvement of foreign nationals might suggest a breach of the non-intervention principle that states should not intervene in the internal affairs of other states. 

A historical instance highlighting the complexities of foreign involvement in DRC's security issues is the 1978 invasion of Kolwezi. This military operation aimed to rescue hostages held by the Front for the National Liberation of the Congo (FNLC) in Kolwezi, a crucial mining town in the Shaba Province of the DRC (then Zaire). The FNLC rebels captured the town, leading to a hostage situation involving several Europeans and Americans connected to the local mining industry. The operation, named Operation Bonite (or Operation Leopard), was conducted primarily by French and Belgian forces.

The intervention began after the FNLC killed numerous civilians and took others hostage, creating a dire humanitarian and political crisis. International coordination was required as French and Belgian forces intervened to rescue hostages from the FNLC rebels, creating significant diplomatic and operational challenges. The situation involved a dire humanitarian crisis with numerous civilian casualties and hostages, raising urgent operational complexities. Additionally, the intervention posed questions of sovereignty and legal justification, requiring careful diplomatic negotiations. The aftermath involved managing the political fallout, addressing legal and human rights implications, and ensuring the operation's legitimacy both locally and internationally. The airborne operation was swift and efficient, resulting in the recapture of Kolwezi and freeing of hostages within a few days. However, there were significant casualties among the local population and the European expatriate community. 

Fast forward to the 2024 attempted coup, and there are additional intricacies due to the requested and potential justice under international law through litigation. Mudge emphasized the dual responsibilities of the DRC government: ensuring national security and holding those responsible for the coup accountable in a manner consistent with international standards. He stated, “the government both has a responsibility to ensure the security of the country and to hold those responsible for the coup attempt accountable, based on international fair trial standards” and “the [DRC] needs to treat this crisis as an opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to human rights and the rule of law.”

This need for adherence to international law also applies to potential DRC violations, particularly in regards to providing the alleged assailants the right to a fair trial, including impartial investigations, the opportunity to attain counsel, and so on. The DRC has faced criticisms for suppressing free speech, including human rights advocacy, and a recent execution video of alleged 2024 coup suspects has garnered concern regarding how the killings were conducted. This comes as the DRC government has allegedly affirmed to American media that its initial arrest of at least one initial suspect, Benjamin Zalman-Polun, was incorrect and based on mistaken identity. The DRC has also come under fire for its execution of two UN investigators in 2017, potentially on grounds of political disagreement. Thus, it will be crucial for the DRC legal system and alleged suspects to adhere to justice according to international legal standards.

The Congolese government has not yet provided dates for the suspects’ arraignments. 

This episode has not only tested the resilience of the DRC’s political system but also illuminated significant gaps in governance that need addressing to prevent future destabilization efforts. As the DRC moves forward from the May 2024 coup attempt, the focus will inevitably shift towards strengthening political stability and fostering national unity. The DRC will need to hold trials, adhering to international law as to bring the detained to appropriate justice and disincentivize future coups. However, it remains unclear how and when this will occur. Nonetheless, the international community’s swift disdain for the violence and the cross-border violence emphasizes the vested global interest in the DRC’s stability. Looking forward, peace promotion efforts and robust legal adherence will be critical for national and international peace.

The many faces of Trump’s conviction

Roy Shinar Cohen

A single word, “guilty”, repeated thirty-four times, sealed Trump’s New York trial, for now. Throughout the seven-week-long trial, the NY jury heard testimonies from Trump’s once-lawyer, now enemy, Michael Cohen; his former Press Secretary Hope Hicks; the ‘tabloid king’ and publisher of the National Inquirer David Pecker; and, of course, porn star Stormy Daniels, who Trump still denies having intercourse with. The case was based on Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s untested legal theories. It was criticised from every corner of the political spectrum. And yet, on May 30th, it prevailed, and the jury found Trump guilty on all counts. For the first time in American history, the words “American President” and “convicted felon” describe the same person.

In the United States, where the political climate is hyper-polarized, it is unsurprising the narratives around Trump’s conviction are different and contradictory. On the one hand, a series of recent polls reveals the verdict may have negatively affected his reelection prospects. According to YouGov, although only 23% of Americans thought Trump would be found guilty, 50% agreed with the jury in a snap poll and only 30% disagreed. Additionally, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 10% of Republicans are less likely to vote for Trump after his conviction. On the other hand, the former President announced he raised nearly 53 million dollars in the 24 hours after receiving the guilty verdict.

Yet, the story of the contradicting beliefs around the conviction is larger than polling (which should be taken with a grain of salt) and a fundraising spike. As both researchers and historians found repeatedly, narratives are immensely powerful. They can mobilise people, as was seen on January 6th 2021 when a crowd of Trump supporters believed the 2020 election was stolen and attacked the US Capitol to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. Narratives are also highly persistent, as the majority of Republican voters still believe Trump won the 2020 election. Today, the narratives around the trial are everywhere and are affected by politicians, journalists, and social media. Let’s look at some of them.

First, the official Democratic party stance on the Trump trial. Initially, President Biden kept relatively quiet about the case while it went on (considering his opponent sat at the defence table every day and the world heard about his sexual adventures). On May 31st, however, Biden said Trump’s guilty verdict affirmed the American principle that “no one is above the law”, and added that “Trump was given every opportunity to defend himself.” He added that the jury was “chosen the same way as every jury in America.” Yet, by June 3rd Biden changed his rhetoric at a closed fund-raiser. He said it is “reckless and dangerous for anyone to say that’s rigged just because they don’t like the outcome” and called Trump “unhinged.” The Senate Majority Leader, Democrat Chuck Schumer of New York, said “The undeniable fact is Donald Trump went through the same legal process that all Americans go through” and added that as Trump considers his next legal steps “there should continue to be no outside political influence, intimidation, or interference.” In other words, the Democratic leaders maintain Trump’s trial was fair and was not any different than any other and attempt to refrain from discussing the matter in strong terms in public.

However, looking past the Democratic leaders the picture is slightly different. According to The New York Times, which conducted post-conviction interviews with over 50 former and current Democratic officials across the US, the party wants to put Trump’s conviction front and centre. The interviews “revealed a party hungry to tell voters that Mr. Trump’s conviction makes him unfit,” and many officials are worried President Biden will not press the argument. This pressure is likely to have encouraged Biden to speak differently on the matter. In the meantime, some Democrats are not waiting for Biden and already speak their mind. For instance, Senator Jon Ossoff of Georgia said after the conviction that “Trump is an aspiring tyrant who intends to rule, not lead, the United States.” Another Senator, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, went for a simpler message, “Boom.”, after Trump’s conviction. In parallel, some Democratic or liberal-leaning independent voters celebrated the conviction across the United States. 

Next, although former President Trump is not yet the official leader of the Republican party (until the GOP convention which starts on July 15th), he should be treated as such. The first quote visitors read on his website is “They’re not after me, they’re after you… I’m just standing in the way!”. After hearing his sentence Trump said “It's a rigged trial, a disgrace” and emphasized the trial venue was unfair because he only won “5% or 6% in this district,” insinuating it was the reason the jurors were against him. 

The Speaker of the House, Republican Mike Johnson of Louisiana said “Democrats cheered as they convicted the leader of the opposing party on ridiculous charges, predicated on the testimony of a disbarred, convicted felon. This was a purely political exercise, not a legal one.” He added: “The American people rightfully see this is lawfare, and they know it is—and dangerous.” The Republican party’s leaders emphasised Trump’s verdict was corrupt and dangerous, potentially even to regular Americans.

Some Republicans were more extreme in their reactions. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, who is hoping to become Trump’s Vice-President, was extremely visual in his response. He published videos of political show trials in Cuba and Russia during the Cold War. Rubio wrote, “Marxists and the far left have always used sham show trials to target their political opponents; Now they are doing it in America to target Trump.” Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia wrote on X that “The American people are OFFENDED by all of this”, “Joe Biden convicts his top political opponent of fake crimes yesterday” and, “NO Federal funding to New York!; I’m calling for it!!!; New York needs to drop their conviction of Pres Trump!; The whole thing was illegal!” And Senator Ted Cruz of Texas said “President Trump is 100% right: If Democrats can get away with persecuting him, they can do it to anyone. These Marxist thugs will do anything to stay in power, and that is terrifying.” 

Unsurprisingly, these messages influence the Republican Party’s supporters. Moreen Dowd wrote in her column that many Republicans, including her siblings, view convicted Trump as a martyr. They believed the trail was “a sham” and they could be arrested next, which led some to rally around the flag and support him. Moreover, according to Ken Bensinger who spoke with the New York Times, some Republican voters and supporters wrote online “in vague terms about a civil war” and declared the death of the United States. However, he added that although this rhetoric is “nasty and ugly,” researchers he spoke with do not believe the US is “in a violent moment” because the “prosecution of Jan. 6 rioters has deterred people from putting themselves at risk by engaging in political violence.” 

Nevertheless, Bensinger’s comment should be taken along with two facts. First, the differences between Democratic and Republican news consumption are substantial and influential. While over 50% of Democrats trust eight news sources (PBS, AP, the Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, NPR and Broadcast), over 50% of Republicans only trust one news source – Fox News. The other three news sources more than a quarter of Republicans trust are OAN, Newsmax and Breitbart. This means Republicans get a far narrower set of facts and perspectives and are far likelier to be influenced by politicised media. 

Second, Republican officials are ramping up warnings of election fraud in 2024. While until the 2020 election, Trump made a total of approximately 100 statements on stealing the election, he has already made over 500 statements towards the coming election (with nearly five months to go). And Trump is not alone. Republicans are speaking, writing, and passing legislation regarding election integrity at increasing rates across the US. So, voters across the United States continue receiving a very different representation of the world from the media, hear different messages from the politicians they trust, and take a strong emotional interest in Trump’s conviction.

No one knows what sentence Trump will receive in July or can certainly say how it will influence the election. Political violence should never be taken lightly, and after January 6th 2021, it should be thought of as, at least potentially, bubbling beneath the surface. The narratives surrounding the Trump trial are powerful. For Republicans, the conviction eroded people’s trust in the political and legal system (however much of it existed), linked to powerful symbols (such as martyrdom) and lowered their sense of personal security. On the other hand, it made Democrats jolly and weary of Trump’s autocratic tendencies. Yet with their happiness, Democrats risk reinforcing Republican views and fears. These sentiments should not be underestimated, the stakes are too high.

Pay attention to Ukraine, big changes are happening

Roy Shinar Cohen

You may have recently noticed increased attention to the Ukraine War by media and world leaders. In the two and a half years since Russia invaded the country, hundreds of thousands have died, and millions have fled. While Russia confirmed the death of 50,000 of its soldiers, Western intelligence services estimate the Russian death toll at half a million. On the Ukrainian side, at the War’s two-year mark, President Zelenskyy confirmed that 31,000 soldiers died. But, considering the substantially larger Russian casualty assessments, the number could be higher. These jaw-dropping numbers keep growing, as the war continues and Russian troops advance to Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest city, and make some of their most substantial advances since the war began. This, however, brings us to the incredibly dangerous current situation.

President Zelenskyy visiting the east of Ukraine. December 6, 2021. Credit: rawpixel.com, CC0 1.0.

Russian troops began a summer offensive on the city of Kharkiv on May 10th. Kharkiv is Ukraine’s second-largest city located in the northeast, near the Russian border. Before the war, it housed 1.5 million people, and earlier this year this number was reported at a million. Now, after months of attacks against the city’s infrastructure, including the power grid, Russian troops are within artillery range of the city itself. According to Colonel General Oleksandr Syrskyi, Russia is amassing troops near Kharkiv from other regions, and training for further operations, though Russia does not year have the capacity to capture the city itself.

Map of Ukraine. Credit: Wikipedia, CC BY-SA 3.0.

Time, however, may be playing into Russia’s hands. According to Dara Massicot, a senior fellow in the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace who was interviewed by The New Yorker, the Russian strategy is “to make life in [Kharkiv] unpleasant” and encourage people to leave the city. An element of this tactic has been to target the city’s electricity, water, sewage treatment, and television infrastructure. In addition to the Russian offensive, in recent months Ukraine has faced challenges enlisting recruits and has confronted fears of ammunition shortages, although the latter has been temporarily relieved by the recent 61 billion-dollar American aid package. Nevertheless, the recent Russian advances in the northeast are worrisome to Ukrainian and Western leaders.

Russian President Vladimir Putin aroused further alarm in a recent tactical nuclear weapons drill near the Ukraine border. The drill, which was held on May 21st, was deemed a response to increased Western involvement in the war and a warning against further escalation. Russian troops rehearsed the loading of launch vehicles, driving to launch sites, and loading planes with hypersonic missiles, all of which were done in the Rostov-on-Don region near the Ukrainian border. Before that, at the Russia Victory Day parade on May 9th Putin said the country’s “strategic forces” are always combat-ready.

Amid all this, Zelenskyy pleaded for more Western support, while the country awaits the much-needed American aid approved in late April. Apart from arms shipments, since May 13th, the West has been weighing a major shift in policy: allowing Ukraine to carry out attacks within Russian territory, which many fears could provoke a severe Russian escalation. The first to announce such a change, before Zelenskyy’s plea to the US on the matter, was UK Foreign Secretary Cameron during a visit to Kyiv on May 3rd. He said it is up to Ukraine to decide how it uses the weapons the UK provides, including the pursuit of targets within Russian territory.

Soon thereafter, more leaders announced their support for ending targeting restrictions. During an interview for The Economist on May 24th, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg joined Cameron in calling upon NATO allies to permit Ukraine to strike Russian territory. France’s President Macron joined the call on May 28th, and the next day Politico reported the German government was “cautiously ditching its reservations about allowing Ukraine to hit military targets inside Russia.” As more countries announced support for the policy change, pressure built on the Biden administration to make up its mind on the matter. However, according to American officials, after a long series of deliberations with advisors, Biden has reached the same conclusion.

Zelenskyy and Stoltenberg in Brussels, 2019. Credit: President.gov.ua, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons

Finally, on May 30th Politico reported that Biden secretly allowed Ukraine to strike targets within Russian territory near Kharkiv. The US still prevents Ukraine from performing long-range strikes within Russian territory or hitting civilian infrastructure. The importance of this change is Ukraine can now better defend itself. On the one hand, it can use the weapons the US and many other NATO countries provide to shoot down rockets and missiles targeting Kharkiv. On the other hand, it can attack troops and bases on the Russian side of the border to try and prevent the troop buildup aimed at the city. According to The New York Times, the decision is the first time an American President “allowed limited military responses on artillery, missile bases and command centers inside the borders of a nuclear-armed adversary.”

The US characterises such strikes as self-defence. According to an American official, the policy means Ukraine can “use U.S.-supplied weapons for counter-fire purposes in the Kharkiv region so Ukraine can hit back against Russian forces that are attacking them or preparing to attack them.” Moreover, American officials told The New York Times that if Russia would launch attacks on Kharkiv from deeper within its territory “the president’s restrictions could be subject to further loosening.” This led a senior American official to conclude this is a “new reality” and “perhaps a new era” in the Ukraine War.

Biden and Zelenskyy in Ukraine in 2023. Source: Executive Office of the President of the United States, PDM 1.0

In addition to allowing Ukraine to hit targets inside Russia, Western states are expected to announce further measures of support. First, France is seeking partners to train Ukrainian troops within Ukraine, according to reports. Until now NATO countries have trained approximately 100,000 Ukrainian troops in allied countries. This is expected to ease personnel shortages faced by the Ukrainian military. More importantly, the US and Ukraine are close to signing a bilateral security pact, which would be the most significant such agreement Ukraine has signed with a NATO country. The pact is expected to be signed next month on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Italy and will lay out long-term commitments to Ukraine’s security.

These developments lead to the simple, yet crucial, conclusion that we are at an extremely risky point in time. Russia’s advances threaten Ukraine’s second-largest city and are reshaping the frontline dramatically with immense human costs. In parallel, the Western consent to use their weapons against Russian territory is a substantial escalation. This policy comes as the risk to Kharkiv is increasing and Russian troops are moving further within artillery range of the city. Since Russia knew the Western policy prevented Ukraine from hitting its territory, it built many important bases for its offence right behind the Ukrainian border. Accordingly, a senior American official described the Russian border in that region as an “artificial line” dividing the battlefield that kept Ukraine from responding to Russian attacks. Allowing Ukraine to attack within Russian territory will provide it with more strategic depth around Kharkiv and let it hit important Russian targets. Ukraine and its Western allies believe these attacks will help push the Russians back and ensure Kharkiv’s safety.

The substantial risk with this policy is the Russian response. It will test Russia and the escalation ladders at a time when, as mentioned above, Russia has been flexing its (nuclear) muscles. We should assume secret messages, or at least signals, have been conveyed between Washington and Moscow and analysts worked extra hours assessing escalation avenues. Yet miscalculations are always a danger, and when between nuclear states, they are even more paramount to avoid.

Additionally, these changes are happening in the months leading up to three important elections: the European Parliament next week (June 7-9), the British general election (July 4th) and the American election (November 5th). All of these will, inevitably, lead to some internal political instability (or, as we saw on January 6th 2021, more than “some” instability). This is especially true considering that, for the most part, the Republican party accepted Trump's refuted claims about election fraud in 2020, and top Republicans are spreading allegations of fraud in the upcoming election. Furthermore, they hold the potential for substantial policy changes towards Ukraine, especially in the American case if former President - and as of yesterday, convicted felon - Donald Trump were to emerge victorious. Accordingly, the current Western push to aid Ukraine may be seen as one of the final few before the tide in Washington changes and Putin may finally get his way.

Even though the world seems to be burning for so many reasons, the current state of the Ukraine war may be among the most important. The war has already cost the lives of hundreds of thousands and has caused millions more to flee. Ukraine is imminently expected to launch a Western-backed counter-offensive, including in Russian territory, to defend Kharkiv. However righteous this resistance may be, it risks substantial escalation with a nuclear power that does not seem to play by the normal rules. As Oxford’s Timothy Garton Ash recently said, people are “absolutely right to be deeply, deeply concerned about what is happening in Gaza, but I would ask them not to forget about what is happening in the Ukraine.”