Deny, defend, depose. These were the words written on the bullets used to take UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson’s life just a few days ago. In the days afterwards, the internet has been torn over the death with a wide spectrum of views that make anyone question: Where did this all start?

Insurance companies aren’t exactly known to be the most honest. Typically, they are known for complex agreements with policies that are difficult to understand, but moreover for denying claims despite the necessity for it to be accepted. That’s why healthcare insurance companies have been facing the brunt of American anger for the last few decades -  because of denials on claims that have led to losses of life.

Healthcare is ridiculously expensive in the United States. Indeed, the average American spends an estimated $12,742, which is a number nearly two times that of other OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries. This expense isn’t new - it’s existed for years now. There’s many reasons why healthcare may be so expensive: from inefficient policies to rising drug costs. And it certainly does not help that there is a healthcare worker shortage in the US.

That’s why Americans turn to health insurance. Unexpected costs that could be in five or six digits lead most Americans to choose to pay a monthly fee to have their bills covered in the event of an incident. However, health insurance companies resonate with the general insurance industry - and try and weed their way out of paying claims. Industry reports show anywhere from 17 to 30% of claims being denied, with UnitedHealthcare leading the pack in the highest denial rates.

Though there may not be a singular person responsible for the way health insurance companies are today, it ended up such that anger reached a boiling point - with the death of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in a shooting. Now, other healthcare CEOs are fearing for their lives. Requests for corporate security have shot up, and pages on Wikipedia mentioning such CEOs have been requested for deletion. Across the US, responses have been varied, from internet sleuths helping look for the killer, to SNL making fun of the shooting, to doctors conflicted over what just happened. 

Instead, reform must be pushed for. America needs to address its two biggest issues: healthcare and health insurance. Unfortunately, current debates over this issue have become politicized, such as the removal of ObamaCare. Lives shouldn’t cost money, and it’s time America finally sees change. 

Read more here:

• Richard Hall, The Independent

• Megan Cerullo, CBS News

• Joshua Chaffin and Ginger Adams Otis, Washington Post

On January 20, 2025, Donald Trump will begin his second presidency, ushering in new policies within seconds of the words “so help me god”. Among these is a plan that threatens the very fabric of America’s “melting pot” identity: a renewed push for mass deportations. 

While framed as a measure to secure borders and uphold the law, Trump’s approach has raised alarms across the nation and beyond for its devastating implications—not just for undocumented individuals but for their U.S.-citizen children, the silent victims of these policies. Every year, hundreds of thousands of children born on American soil find themselves at risk of being torn from their families due to the undocumented status of their parents. These children, as U.S. citizens, are entitled to the protections and opportunities of American life. Yet, the deportation of their parents leaves them struggling with immense psychological, economic, and social burdens, putting lawmakers in a difficult position of how to balance border security with child welfare.  

Among the most contentious of Trump’s plans is a “Day One Executive Order” ending birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants and foreign nationals engaging in “birth tourism”​. Legal scholars and civil rights organizations argue this move violates the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.” This policy could render millions of children stateless or reliant on the tenuous legal statuses of their parents, creating generational inequalities. Trump’s campaign website frames this initiative as a deterrent to illegal immigration and exploitation of U.S. resources. Furthermore, Trump has indicated his intention to have the Fourteenth Amendment "interpreted the right way," suggesting he plans to leverage legal avenues and Republican-nominated judges to achieve this goal​. This approach raises concerns about the use of lawfare to erode established constitutional protections and the potential for judicial activism to advance partisan immigration policies.

 However, the policy's implementation would face numerous legal challenges and carry significant human costs. More than 4.4 million U.S.-citizen children live with at least one undocumented parent, a demographic that would likely be disproportionately affected by these changes.

Beyond the devastating impact on individual families, Trump's policies would impose broader social and economic costs. Estimates show that deporting all undocumented immigrants in the U.S. would reduce GDP by $4.7 trillion over 10 years due to lost labor and productivity. Mixed-status families, who disproportionately work in industries such as agriculture, construction, and healthcare, contribute significantly to the economy and social fabric of their communities.

If enacted, Trump’s immigration policies could leave millions of children without legal protections, stability, or hope for the future. As Americans, we must ask ourselves whether the pursuit of “law and order” is worth the price of broken families and lost futures. Upholding this ethos means rejecting policies that weaponize citizenship and immigration against the most vulnerable among us: our children. At the same time, the importance of border security cannot be ignored—it is essential for protecting national sovereignty and public safety. However, immigration policies must balance enforcement with compassion and provide pathways for hardworking undocumented immigrants to remain in the country legally.

To achieve this, the U.S. can adopt a multi-faceted approach. First, expanding pathways to legal status, such as updated guest worker programs or permanent residency options for undocumented immigrants who meet criteria like years of residence, economic contributions, and community ties, can incentivize lawful participation in society. Second, bipartisan reforms, including reestablishing a version of the DREAM Act and strengthening programs like DACA and TPS, can protect children and families from living in fear of deportation.

Lastly, creating programs that allow undocumented immigrants to apply for legal residency after fulfilling requirements like paying fines, passing background checks, and demonstrating employment or educational contributions would address concerns about fairness while recognizing their value to the economy. By balancing border security with humane and practical solutions, the U.S. can protect its sovereignty while upholding its ideals as a nation built on opportunity and inclusion.

Read more here:

• Robert Farley, FactCheck.org

• Tim Hume, Vice

• Trump Agenda 47: Ending Citizenship for Children of Illegals and Outlawing Birth Tourism

Over the course of the 2024 presidential election, President Joe Biden repeatedly promised American voters he would not use his power as the nation’s leader to pardon his son Hunter Biden for numerous convicted crimes. After President Biden’s Democratic Party lost the election to President-elect Donald Trump in November 2024, Biden wandered away from his promise, announcing on the first day of December he pardoned Hunter.

This turnaround did not surprise some political scientists, who expected Biden to pardon associates such as Hunter Biden in the case of a Trump victory as protection against Trump’s potential retaliations against Biden after entering office. Although not surprising to those experts, President Biden’s pardon may erode public trust in the Democratic Party and the federal government overall. This is because Hunter’s crimes, which he is now free of the consequences of, are no small misdemeanours.

In October 2018, Hunter Biden purchased a firearm —a .38 caliber Colt Cobra Special— that his attorneys later claimed was never fired. The President’s son asserted he eventually trashed the firearm, but this response did not satisfy prosecutors, who filed a case against Hunter for dishonestly affirming on his firearm purchase form he did not use drugs. Hunter possesses a track record for drug addiction, abusing substances such as cocaine multiple times prior to acquiring the .38 caliber Colt Cobra Special that dragged him to court in the Bidens’ home state of Delaware.

Originally, authorities did not plan to prosecute Hunter Biden because of a plea deal the two parties reached in June 2023. If the deal succeeded, Hunter would escape criminal penalties for firearm felonies upon the condition he maintained good behaviour for the following two years. Unfortunately for Hunter, U.S. District Court Judge for Delaware Maryellen Noreika raised concerns over his plea deal during a plea hearing one month later, leading prosecutors to cancel the deal. This threw Hunter’s case into potential prosecution, and the federal government indicted him in September 2023.

After a tense trial process in 2024, the U.S. District Court for Delaware found Hunter Biden guilty of three federal firearm charges. With this verdict, Hunter became the first child of a President in office convicted of criminal charges.

At this point, the firearm charges were not Hunter Biden’s only legal problems. President Biden’s second son was also indicted and charged for tax evasion, adding three felony and six misdemeanours to his list of worries. California authorities concluded Hunter dodged at least US$1.4 million worth of federal taxes from 2016 to 2019. The September 2024 outcome of an attempted Alford plea deal, under which Hunter would not admit guilt of but accept criminal punishment for the tax crimes, mirrored that of the June 2023 plea deal for illegal firearm purchases. The prosecution did not accept Hunter’s Alford plea, pressuring Hunter to unconditionally plead guilty during his plea hearing. U.S. District Court Judge for Central California Mark Scarsi accepted Hunter’s plea and scheduled his sentencing in December 2024.

If President Biden did not pardon his son, Hunter Biden could have faced up to 17 years of incarceration, although some legal experts expected his prison sentence to be less than five years. Before anyone could find out for certain, President Biden granted his presidential pardon, closing the door on years of Hunter’s judicial struggles. To justify freeing Hunter from the consequences of all crimes he committed from January 2014 to December 2024, Biden published an official statement claiming Hunter was selectively and unfairly tried. With the evidence on the table and the guilty verdicts formalised, the rest of America might not think the same.

Read more here:

• Mark Leibovich, The Atlantic

• MJ Lee, Paula Reid, and Michael Williams, CNN

• Adam Reiss, Dareh Gregorian, and Laura Jarrett, NBC

• Kristy Greenberg, The Atlantic

• Nathaniel Rakich, Mary Radcliffe, and Tia Yang, ABC

• Anthony Zurcher, BBC

The Middle East is often characterized with violence, political instability, and a flurry of chaos. If you insert American dramatization, then imagine a camel, a palm tree, and maybe even a pyramid in the middle of Arab. It’s not shocking that the words said above are true. More recently, citizens of the Syrian rebel force finally overthrew the unpopular and tyranist Basshar Al-Assad’s regime which had been in place for over 50 years. It was a symbol of political freedom, democratic ideals, and a chance of hope for a country previously affected by one of the worst crises in history. More prominently, the reaction made by President Biden both sends signals of help but also future U.S. involvement.

The first remarks were: “ [lets] help them seize an opportunity to manage the risk." towards shareholders and partners. All because the most worrying issue in Syria isn’t the volatility of the government, rather the stakeholders that the U.S. invests in.

President Biden noted the administration is "clear eyed" about the possibility that ISIS may try to gain control amid a power vacuum, but he said that "we will not let that happen." He explained that the U.S. conducted precision airstrikes within Syria targeting ISIS camps and operatives. 

What can we actually expect what Biden will commit to with the Syrian future?

It’s not strange to actually think nothing will happen, there’s a fair chance nothing will. Biden is in the last two months of presidency, it’s likely we see little to no political action dedicated to the foreign relations of the future Syrian government. In honesty, the future is very unclear for the Syrian people.  Researchers explain that purely citizen-ran overthrows make governments more “complex” and likely to fall under large-scale tension, something that Syria is experiencing with its newfound popularity under international eye.  Another major U.S. goal will be promoting political stability in Syria, though this remains fraught with challenges. The U.S. has long supported efforts to transition Syria from authoritarian rule to a more democratic governance system, but with Assad's departure, questions about who will fill the leadership vacuum are urgent.

One possibility is that the U.S. will support a broad-based transitional government that includes members of the Syrian opposition, moderate Kurdish groups, and perhaps even defectors from the Assad regime. However, any power-sharing arrangement will need to navigate the deeply entrenched sectarian divisions and rivalries that have plagued the country throughout the conflict. Washington’s involvement could also extend to mediating talks between these factions, though it remains uncertain how much influence the U.S. can exert in the face of competing international powers, particularly Russia and Iran, who have long supported Assad.

The fall of Assad presents an opportunity for the U.S. to counterbalance the influence of Russia and Iran in Syria, both of whom have invested heavily in keeping the regime intact. Russia's military presence in Syria is expected to remain significant, and Iran’s support for militias loyal to the regime, particularly Hezbollah, has created an entrenched network of power that could prove difficult to uproot.

In a post-Assad scenario, the U.S. could look to expand its support for opposition forces that have been critical of both Assad and Iranian influence, especially in Syria’s north and east. The U.S. is already supporting the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a Kurdish-led militia that has been crucial in the fight against ISIS, but relations between Kurdish groups and Arab factions are often tense, and any U.S. involvement will need to navigate this delicate balance.

Although ISIS has been largely defeated, its ideology and remnants remain a significant security threat in Syria, particularly in the country’s sparsely populated eastern regions. The U.S. will likely continue its counterterrorism efforts in collaboration with local forces, including the SDF. With the Assad regime no longer in power, the U.S. may seek to strengthen its foothold in these regions to prevent any resurgence of the group, which remains capable of launching asymmetric attacks and building sleeper cells.

Read more here:

• Toksabay and Spicer, Reuters 

• Press Brief, CSIS

• Detsch,Mcleary, and Gould, Politico

During his first term as President of Russia, Vladimir Putin called the collapse of the Soviet Union a “genuine tragedy.” Such clues have led Western leaders to conclude that Putin genuinely wants to rebuild the Soviet Empire. And while Eastern European states (with the exception of Belarus) are turning against their former Moscovian overlords, Central Asian states have remained generally neutral. How has Russia prevented the western tilt of these nations? Will this continue to be the case?

Let’s begin with the Collective Security Treaty Organization, better known as the CSTO. Largely seen as a Russian NATO, its founding in 2002 brought together six former Soviet states into one bloc. Its member states, which included both Caucuses states like Armenia and Central Asian ones like Kazakhstan and Tajikistan, depended upon Russia for security assistance. The epitome of Russian influence, am I right? However, the organization has lost its relevance since the early 2010s. The first crack emerged in 2010, when Tajikistan, a member, was denied assistance from the CSTO to fight an ethnic insurgency. Its failure to resolve border clashes between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan further weakened Moscow’s standing. Following Russia’s declaration that four new independent states had been formed from the provinces it conquered from Ukraine, none of the other five CSTO members recognized these Republics. The move was an implicit rejection of Russia’s territorial bullying. For these reasons, the CSTO is largely seen as a dying organization, no longer an effective vehicle to project Russian soft power. 

However, Russia still has its methods to convince intransigent states to be on its side. In 2008, for example, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili made clear his intention to join NATO. Russian troops launched an invasion into Northern Georgia, while Western nations stood by and watched. This show of force effectively crippled the legitimacy of Saakashvili’s government. Following the end of his term in 2013, he left for Ukraine. The now-dominant Georgia Dream Party is widely considered to be pro-Moscow, and has once again delayed accession to the EU until 2028. Scholars who closely studied Russia’s two invasions of Ukraine have noted their startling similarities to the invasion of Georgia. 

It also helps that many Central Asian states are not palatable political friends for the West. Excluding Kyrgyzstan, the other four “stan” nations are consolidated authoritarian states. Uzbekistan’s president, Shavkat Mirzyoyev, changed the Constitution last year to allow presidential terms to last seven years, and reset the clock on term limits, so his earlier years in office don’t count. This move is a near carbon copy of one made by Vladimir Putin in 2020. Kazakhstan, the largest state in Central Asia, is also sliding toward authoritarianism following a few high-profile jailings of opposition figures over the past year. In 2022, the country’s president, Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, called on Russian aid to quash a popular uprising against his rule. 2,000 Russian paratroopers arrested thousands of protesters, and the violence ceased. Such incidents prove that Central Asian autocrats still rely heavily on Russia as a guide and a protector.

But this doesn’t mean that the West has no friends in the region. After Azerbaijan seized the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region from Armenia in 2023, driving thousands of refugees back to their home country, the government in Yerevan has begun leaning westward. The nation feels betrayed by Russia, a country it had been loyal to since the Soviet collapse, yet one which has never reciprocated that support with military assistance. Between the end of the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh and April of this year, the West pledged over $300 million of military assistance to Armenia, a shocking increase from practically none before this point. Yet this new alliance is likely one of expedience. Few nations worldwide, democracies or autocracies, are loyal allies of the United States. Most simply want to get the most out of the powerful countries while maintaining their own sovereignty. And Armenia is no different. 

Yet speaking of alliances of expedience, Russia’s neighbors are far from dedicated to the Russian state. They recognize that Russia cannot provide their export-dominated economies with a large demand for manufactured goods. For that reason, Central Asian states have formed the B5+1 forum, a platform by which lower trade barriers between the US and the region have been negotiated. Though this move peeves Russia, it was inevitable considering the West's large market. But China has not been standing idly by either, establishing itself as the region’s largest economic trade partner. Nevertheless, the cultural and political influence Moscow maintains over the region is quite hefty, so don’t expect these former Soviet states to escape Moscow’s orbit anytime soon!

Vladimir Putin once noted that “Anyone who doesn’t regret the passing of the Soviet Union has no heart. Anyone who wants it restored has no brains.” Putin will not allow his Asian neighbors to escape his grasp. Though he doesn’t want to rule over them directly, expect him to be keeping a close eye on anyone who tries to challenge his influence in the region. 

Read More Here:

• Sergio Cantone, Euronews

• Aliya Tlegenova and Serik Beysembaev, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

• Eurasianet Editors, Eurasianet

Homer Simpson is typically not known for his erudite insights on world affairs, but he does have occasional sparks of brilliance. Once, Homer even read an Economist article about Indonesia at a crossroads. After Donald Trump’s victory in the 2024 US presidential election, this refrain rings truer than ever before. With geostrategic competition between the US and China heating up in the Indo Pacific, Asian nations have been forced to straddle the delicate line of managing the relationship between two of the world’s biggest superpowers. Indonesian is an excellent example of this balancing act. 

In an apt metaphor of Indonesian foreign policy, Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto called Trump in a passionate conversation to congratulate him, yet on top of Subianto’s desk lay a copy of China Daily - the official English language newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party. As one of the world’s most populous and largest economies, Indonesia holds outsize power in US-China competition, and it has seized on this opportunity to gain benefits from both superpowers. 

Indonesia has pursued a traditional policy of neutrality toward the US and China, but Subianto has shown a slight bias to China. From signing a $10 billion deal with China covering infrastructure, green energy, digital technology agriculture, to wanting to join BRICS, Subianto has sought to gain closer relations with China and benefit from its economic power in growing Indonesia’s economy. In fact, the biggest rhetorical shift from Subianto’s administration is that Indonesia is starting to consider China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea to be “overlapping” with Indonesia’s instead of being wholly illegitimate. This is so significant because it signals Indonesia may be open to using territorial disputes as a bargaining chip to gain more favorable ties with China instead of unilaterally opposing Chinese claims. 

One of the threats to US relations with Indonesia is the US, especially the incoming Trump administration, continually views Southeast Asia as “prizes and pawns” in the chess game against China, instead of treating Southeast Asian nations as equals deserving of respect from both the US and China. Further weakening the US position in SE Asia is the fact that Chinese economic power is rising relative to US power. US trade with Southeast Asia grew by 62.4% from 2010 to 2019 while China’s skyrocketed by a staggering 115% during the same period. In the long term, the US share of the region’s total trade fell from 16.1% in 2000 to 11.6% in 2020, while China’s share rose from 4.3% to 19.4%. 

Fortunately, not all is lost. Indonesia is not capitulating to China, but rather views it as a credible and reasonable partner worthy of deepening relations with. Indonesia has continued to protect its national sovereignty, including by announcing astronomical tariffs of up to 200% on Chinese-made goods to protest domestic small businesses, surely a move tariff-loving Trump can appreciate. Additionally, Indonesia has maintained military neutrality by holding joint military exercises with both China and the US in August of 2024. However, China’s military cooperation with Indonesia is limited by a lack of education, joint training, and militarily industrial collaboration. 

It is incumbent upon the incoming Trump administration to prove to Indonesia, and all other Southeast Asian nations, that the US is a reliable and genuine partner. Otherwise, in the crossroads of foreign policy, Southeast Asia will walk toward China.

Read more here:

• Christopher S. Chivvis, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

• Jonathan Stromseth, Brookings Institution

• Alica Ba, USIP 

On December 3, 2024, President Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law in South Korea. This decree gave the military the authority to suspend the government, maintain order, and restrict civil liberties as they saw fit. Yoon justified his decision by claiming it was necessary “to safeguard a liberal South Korea from the threats posed by North Korea’s communist forces and to eliminate anti-state elements” (Al Jazeera). He argued that this move was in the country's best interest, but many believe it was more about protecting his own presidency.

Yoon has been struggling to get his policies passed since taking office in 2022, largely due to opposition from the Democratic Party. The party has criticized his governance and rejected his reforms, citing concerns about economic inequality, foreign policy, and transparency. As a result, Yoon has faced increasing pressure from both political sides, with his administration being described as “deeply unpopular,” and accused of wrongdoings. According to the BBC, Yoon’s government has faced growing scrutiny, and some believe his martial law declaration was an attempt to hold onto power amid these challenges. His decision seemed to focus on his own career rather than addressing any real threats to South Korea.

This declaration triggered chaos throughout South Korea on the night of December 3, 2024. Protests broke out as people gathered in the streets demanding the removal of martial law, with many unions also planning to strike unless Yoon is impeached. Under the decree, political gatherings were banned and parliamentary meetings were suspended, with violators facing arrest without a warrant. The Daily Mail reported that the military's presence near parliament led to “furious lawmakers” forcing their way past soldiers to challenge the decree. Protesters also called for Yoon’s removal and opposed any return to the country's authoritarian past. KCRA reported that once inside, South Korean lawmakers, including members of Yoon’s own party, condemned the decree as illegal and unconstitutional. The leader of Yoon’s People Power Party even called the decision the wrong move.

Despite the ban on political gatherings, parliament met and voted unanimously to lift the order. However, the military announced martial law would remain until President Yoon formally removed it. The intense pressure from both lawmakers and the public led to President Yoon lifting the decree just six hours after it had been enacted.

The failed attempt to impose martial law has left President Yoon facing serious political consequences. The move was unpopular with both the public and the parliament, and opposition lawmakers have called for his impeachment. Business Live reported that “police said they were investigating claims of treason against him and top ministers.” With his presidency under fire, it appears that President Yoon’s future now remains uncertain.

President Yoon Suk Yeol’s declaration of martial law in December of 2024 backfired, sparking widespread protests and condemnation from lawmakers and the public. His failed attempt to maintain control has led to calls for his impeachment and investigations into political treason. As the situation unfolds, Yoon’s political future remains uncertain with his presidency facing significant challenges.

Read more here:

• Staff, Al Jazeera

• Frances Mao, BBC

• David Averre, Daily Mail

• Jessie Yeung, KCRA

In 2021, Justin Bieber shook up the music world, singing “I got my peaches out in Georgia.” Unfortunately, the country (no, not the state) can’t grow peaches…or, anything, because it is being rocked by political turmoil. 

Protests by the Georgian people have reached their second week, due to the Georgian Dream, a right-leaning populist party, suspending talks to join the EU until, at earliest, 2028. The political group did this in response to a European Parliament statement that the October 26th parliamentary elections, decided by popular vote, were not free and fair. 

Traditionally, Georgia has been anti-Russian and pro-European Union, so being part of the organization has always been a goal. The International Republican Institute reports that 89% of the population supports EU membership. 

A switch to a fully parliamentary system in 2017 means that current president Salome Zourabichvili, who has no party affiliation, is the last president to be elected directly by the people. The 150-seat Georgian Parliament now wields considerable power, because it will hold half the votes in the 300-member electoral college that will determine the next president in a month. The massive chance to gain both legislative and executive power is why the elections were so hotly contested. 

The Georgian Dream claimed victory, but several opposition groups have called it a fraud. An analysis by the Carnegie Endowment of several data sources highlights that the party won anywhere from 42-54% of the popular vote, which is in the range that determines victory. Criticism of the election process comes from accusations such as voters voting multiple times using other people’s identities and intimidation of observers at the polls. 

Despite leaning toward Russia, it’s possible that the Georgian Dream party won because voters bought into their pitch of ending the war and peace. But considering that a resounding majority of Georgians still support joining the EU, there are several people who split their vote between the populist party and pro-EU opinion. 

The Georgian Dream may bring the country closer to Russia because of their past activity. This May, the party’s parliamentary majority evaded a veto by President Zourbichvili to pass a foreign agent law, which forced non-governmental organizations to describe themselves as “acting in foreign interest.” Advocation groups get about 90% of their funding from international groups, which potentially ended up in the silencing of several opposing voices. This likely weakened competition against the Georgian Dream in a non-democratic way. PM Kobakhidze has already garnered support from Russia and Hungary. The latter can veto any EU legislation by blocking a unanimous resolution, largely giving the Georgian Dream protection from Western scrutiny.

Opposition groups share a common enemy, but their revolts are not by any means united. Two of the most prominent ones are the pro-Western Coalition for Change Party, led by Nika Gvaramia, and the Strong Georgia party, led by Alexandre “Aleko” Elisahvili. At the hands of police mobilization to stop strong political protests, both leaders have been detained by Georgian police. This has prompted international scrutiny because of limiting free speech, but the Georgian Dream cite the need for stability to justify their violent ways. 

With all that said, this comes to show that despite EU efforts to isolate Russia, the country’s ideals are continuing to spill into other countries’ political affairs. Georgia’s situation will certainly trouble the West, causing further tensions. A path to the long-standing goal of joining the EU looks uncrossable. It’s essential that the situation of Georgia, the country, becomes more relevant than Justin Bieber, and peaches in its namesake US state.

Read more here:

• Staff, Euronews

• Staff, International Republican Institute

• Ivan Nechepurenko, New York Times

• Alexander Atasuntsev, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

• Marc Goedemans, CFR

• Marie Jégo, Le Monde

• Felix Light, Reuters