“It’s a dark plan to eliminate me politically and physically,” former Bolivian president Evo Morales told the media, as the police sought a warrant to arrest him. His alleged crime? Fathering a child with a 15-year-old girl while he was still President of Bolivia, which in the country constitutes statutory rape. Morales claims this is an attempt by the president, Luis Arce, to prevent his candidacy in next year’s presidential election. The court system begs to differ.

Let’s bring this story back to the very beginning. In 2006, coca (not cocoa, but coca. Figure it out.) farmer Evo Morales was elected to become President of Bolivia. Born to a poor indigenous family, and ignored throughout his life, Morales campaigned on a platform of protecting the poor and indigenous of Bolivia. This populist campaign won him a victory nobody predicted. 

The Morales presidency won his party, the Movement Toward Socialism (MAS) a loyal fanbase. In his 14 years in power, he nationalized the oil industry and directed newfound oil wealth from the 2000s commodities boom into educational facilities, hospitals, and infrastructure. He began a policy of handing out $28 cheques to young children to encourage them to enter and stay in primary schools. He reconstituted 134 million acres of land into indigenous territories, and began a welfare program for the elderly and sick. Poverty fell by a massive 42% under his watch. These policies further solidified his image as the president of the poor, and in the 2019 general election, he was reelected to a constitutionally dubious fourth term. Immediately, the OAS jumped in, claiming widespread electoral fraud and accusing Morales of centralizing power. Under pressure both domestically and from foreign nations (Bolivian voters had rejected a referendum to extend term limits shortly before the election took place), Morales stepped down and fled the country. 

The election rerun was held the very next year. Barred from running, Morales tapped a close ally, Luis Arce, to be the candidate for MAS. With 55% of the vote, Luis Arce won handily. But that’s when the two’s relationship began to fall apart. Arce began to define his own path, keeping many of Morales’ policies but demanding that he become the leader of MAS. This has fuelled a political crisis that has torn the country apart at its seams. It probably doesn’t help that throughout the Arce administration, the country has faced a major dollar shortage, a reduction in oil revenues, and a loss of international investment (Fitch and Moody now consider Bolivian bonds to be junk). 

In June, he faced a military coup that saw a tank driven into the country’s governmental palace. Arce now faces allegations from his former boss that he himself planned the coup to increase his own popularity, not helped by the fact that the general who launched the coup has made the exact same claim. Now, Morales can claim to be the “restorer of prosperity” after years of underperformance since he left office.

Who will win this massive political duel? It’s difficult to tell. Morales still maintains support among many lower-class workers, including miners and farmers. Arce has not inspired such great loyalty, but there is clearly a faction among the people and in Congress that still supports that president. 

“Arce lacks Evo’s charisma, political skills and legacy. But he controls the state apparatus,” argues Benjamin Gedan of the Wilson Center. 

This is highly important in a country where the judiciary lacks independence from the executive branch. In late 2022, for example, the leader of the opposition, Luis Fernando Camacho, was arrested on charges of “sedition and terrorism.” (As we all know, a man with an illustrious political career has all the right motives to become a terrorist.) Supporters of Mr. Morales have clashed with supporters of the president, and even with the police. They will not back away from their man even if it means arrest. 

This next part is only my own speculation, so please don’t take it that seriously. Bolivia could take multiple paths now. The most peaceful, yet probably least likely, is that Mr. Morales and Arce make up, and they reunite their factions to form a united front in next year’s election. If that were to occur, then the party may stand a decent chance of winning next year. Throughout the Morales presidency, his approval rating hovered at above 50%. If he were to receive the full backing of MAS, perhaps it could hold on to the presidency. But if the more likely scenario of a split were to occur, then the party could lose the presidency. In Bolivia, there are no runoffs—whoever receives a plurality of votes in the first round wins the election. As of now, President Arce’s approval rating hovers around 22%, which is far from a good sign, but it demonstrates that around half of MAS’ base still backs the president. If the opposition can unite their votes, then they could conceivably outperform both Arce and Morales, and end nearly two decades of MAS rule. For the last four years, Bolivia has seen its bright future slip from its hands. Perhaps the latter option may not be so bad for the country as a whole. 

Read more here:

• Isabella Gomez Sarmiento, NPR

• David Biller and Eleonore Hughes,Associated Press

• BTI Writers, BTI

The SWIFT payment system has long been the swiftest in the room. But BRICS, in their scheme of cementing their place in geopolitics, are trying to introduce change that will leave it out in the winter cold. The group of nations are laying the groundwork for a revolution, one step (or brick) at a time. 

BRICS stands for Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, and it’s an unofficial group of “emerging” economies that are trying to chip away at Western power. In recent years, the bloc has expanded, taking in Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, the UAE, and potentially Saudi Arabia, whose membership is still up in the air. BBC reports that the combined GDP of these 10 countries amounts to a staggering 28.5 trillion US dollars, and the collective population is 3.5 billion people, making it look terrifying. 

But, it’s also important to note that BRICS is largely unstable. This is mostly due to growing geopolitical tensions across the globe. For instance, China and India had several border disputes, and still are in a weird position. Diplomatic relations have strengthened after the October BRICS summit, but India is still a member of the Quad with the United States, Australia, and Japan. For many years, these four countries have shared a concern for China’s aggressive behavior in the Indo-Pacific, making them increase security and economic ties. Many of the countries that comprise BRICS are tied between the West and the China-Russia power axis. Thus, taking assertive action against the West is hard. But now, changes are starting to become more concrete. 

A project championed by Russia is to replace the international money transfer system SWIFT, or the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. It’s a network that is used for the huge majority of transactions and trade between countries. The area in question is that the system is susceptible to being influenced, because most transactions go through an intermediary bank. 

Here’s how SWIFT works, on a human level: Suppose Person A lives in Portugal, and wants to send €1,000 euros to Person B in Haiti, but in US dollars. Person A goes to his/her bank and requests the transfer. But, since the two humans’ banks don’t have a direct relationship, that €1,000 has to go through a third bank (the intermediary), Bank of America per say. It will bridge the gap, convert the euros to dollars, and allow an indirect connection between Person A and B’s banks. 

The intermediaries have massive influence thanks to SWIFT. They can easily be used to impose sanctions by simply cutting off a country off the network. Russia has already suffered from this. It’s also important to consider the Atlantic Council’s report that the  dollar accounts for 89% of all global transactions. As a result, the financial system gives the US oversight over international trade, giving it massive power. Not having to use SWIFT would help China and Russia dodge the influence of the West, because it means that their money doesn’t have to go through the US. 

BRICS Bridge is the proposal, and if it managed to be the main system, it would help Russia get away from the vast majority of the economic sanctions placed on them. It has the same idea as SWIFT, but the big change is that Bank of America, the intermediary, is gone, and the banks of Person A and B now are central/national banks. Portugal’s central bank could directly send money to Haiti’s central bank, so there’s no problem with direct relationships. Converting currency is not necessary thanks to the use of digital money (digital rupee, digital renminbi, digital ruble, you get the point). In this idea, different currencies would cycle all around the world, making sure that no type of money becomes unfavorable. 

The impact would be extraordinary. Since the BRICS Bridge would go toward versatile currencies, countries would not need the dollar. The world at large would kiss it goodbye and with that, the US loses a large part of its worldwide influence. In SWIFT, the intermediary banks provide some sort of regulation, but because these banks would not be there, the new BRICS system also poses a risk of being more decentralized and shady overall. This would decrease transparency in a place where it is critical. 

Even though the BRICS Bridge is not in place yet, it's clear that ways of evading the West are coming into view. Russia will hand over the BRICS presidency to Brazil in the coming days, and Brazilian President Lula has also questioned dollar dominance. This makes it critical that the West needs an effort to increase diplomatic relations with “middle powers”, especially Brazil and Saudi Arabia, who are arguably the biggest players in their respective regions and hold profitable resources like gold and oil. Chinese and Russian sway through BRICS would put the West into a situation of massive disadvantage. 

With geopolitics now spreading into finance, it’s crucial that the world takes note. 2025 will be a year of uncertainty. BRICS could suddenly materialize and become a challenge to the West, or it could stay the same way it is now. Either way, the group is not to be taken lightly. To keep the hold it still has on this fragmented and conflict-ridden world, the West, especially the United States, must start taking action. Otherwise, the dollar dominated house of the world could all come crashing down.

Read more here: 

• Mariel Ferragamo, Council on Foreign Relations

• BBC

• Investopedia 

• Stewart Patrick, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 

• The Economist

• Mrugank Bhusari, Maia Nikoladze, Ryan Murphy et al,Atlantic Council

• Asli Aydıntaşbaş et al, Brookings Institute 

Nestled deep in southeastern Europe lies Kosovo, a country the size of Jamaica whose scenic rolling mountains hide decades of turmoil. The nation, which for years had been a province of Yugoslavia, began the journey to statehood in the 1970s, when it was granted the status of a semi-autonomous territory. This delighted the population of Kosovo, which was over ninety percent ethnically Albanian and Muslim, in contrast to the predominantly Eastern Orthodox citizens of broader Yugoslavia. Rising Yugoslav nationalism in the 1980s led to increased regulation of Kosovo, spurring protests across the region. In 1989, Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic revoked the province's autonomy and established a repressive police and military regime. Kosovo-Albanians were expelled from public service. The majority of Kosovans, led by the Democratic League of Kosovo (LDK), chose peaceful resistance to defy Serbia’s authority. The failure of this approach, combined with repression by Belgrade, led to the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). On 28 February 1998, war broke out between Yugoslav forces and the KLA.

On 29 January 1999, ministers from US, UK, France, Germany, Italy, and Russia – the “Contact Group” – summoned Serbian and Kosovo Albanian parties to Rambouillet, France, to discuss peace. The Albanian Kosovars agreed to the Rambouillet Accords, but Milosevic rejected them. He relented only in June 1999, after a 78-day NATO bombing campaign. The peace deal guaranteed removal of Yugoslav forces, contingent on NATO maintaining a peacekeeping presence in Kosovo. The Kosovo Force (KFOR) was deployed soon after.

An unsteady peace ensued for eight years. The KLA remained unsatisfied, desiring an independent state free of persecution. With Yugoslavia disintegrating and Serbia declaring independence in 2006, Kosovo declared its statehood in 2008.

Almost immediately after Kosovo’s declaration, Serbia released a rival statement denouncing Kosovo’s independence. However, as the years passed, the international community began rallying around Kosovo, with over 118 UN countries formally recognizing the territory as an independent nation. The most notable holdouts to date are Russia, China, and Serbia. Today, Kosovo stands as the smallest democratic nation in the Balkans, yet their troubles are far from over. 

The current conflict in Kosovo centers on a series of small towns along its northeastern border with Serbia. Though over ninety two percent of Kosovo’s population is ethnically Albanian, the majority of these small villages are ethnically Serbian, leading Serbia to lay claim to them as part of its territory. For the Serbian populations in these villages, many feel cloistered by the Kosovo government, who have increasingly tried to isolate them from their Serbian neighbors. All the while, Kosovar president Albin Kurti has signaled his increasing animosity towards these Serbian populations, deploying special police to “monitor” them in a show of force. Tensions continued throughout 2023, as Kurti banned the Serbian’s dinar currency, preventing minorities from exchanging currency across the border. In response, local Serbians within Kosovo boycotted local elections in a show of rebellion against their politicians. Tensions reached a breaking point when this September, skirmishes broke out between Kosovar police and armed Serbian paramilitary groups who were caught smuggling anti-personnel mines across the border, likely in order to enable rebellion. The conflict left 2 Kosovar police dead. 

Now the question remains: What is the next chapter between Serbia and Kosovo? The answer is that tensions are likely to increase, in part because of changing foreign involvement.  Serbia’s president Aleksander Vukic has taken pains to foster a strong relationship with Vladimir Putin, hoping a Ruso-Serbian alliance will offer his country more international strength. The Russian strongman has eagerly armed Serbian paramilitary forces, seeing the conflict as a proxy battle with the United States, which backs Kosovo through NATO’s peacekeeping forces. As Russia continues to assert itself within the area, many fear that this will lead to a more aggressive Serbia. While Kosovo has historically fallen back on NATO’s support, with Donald Trump returning to the White House in January, concerns have arisen that he will be unwilling to fund these peacekeeping troops. To make matters worse, following a breakdown of EU negotiations this June, the two countries have reportedly have not engaged in diplomatic contact in over six months. 

As we enter 2025, it seems a tale as old as time will once again reign in Kosovo. As ethnic tensions rise and continued skirmishes break out, the international community will likely be embroiled in a painful waiting game until conflict reaches a boiling point. However, almost no one believes this will be a quiet year on the Serbian border. 

Read More Here:

• International Crisis Group

• BBC 

• Engjellushe Morina, European Council On Foreign Relations

• Matthew Karnitschnig, Politico  

• Volker Wagener, Deutsche Welle 

Just a decade ago, 298 civilians lost their lives abruptly in the shootdown of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17. What was supposed to be a regular flight from the Netherlands would turn into an international controversy - a missile fired in a conflict zone to knock out what was believed to be another missile. An investigation that followed found Russian rebels to be guilty of the deed, but Russian president Vladimir Putin claimed it wasn’t due to Russian fault. Ten years later, he might be forced to take responsibility for a fatal mistake that should have never happened.

A flight from Baku, Azerbaijan, to Grozny, Russia should only take around one hour to one and a half hours. With a distance of only 540 kilometers (335 miles for the most likely American readers), a flight like this should have no trouble. But just over half an hour into the flight, the plane was already in danger that it wouldn’t come back from. At first, there wasn’t much concern. Radio jamming that had occurred was expected due to entry in Russian airspace, and the first signs of trouble came from what was thought to be a bird strike. However, a loss of control led the flight to change directions and cross the Caspian Sea in hopes of landing safely in Aktau, Kazakhstan. Unfortunately, after several attempts at landing, the plane would crash-land, killing 38 of the 67 passengers, including both pilots.

The aftermath of the explosion was immediate. President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan canceled his plans for a summit in Russia, instead returning to his country to mourn the losses. On the flip side, Vladimir Putin himself also offered condolences, but they didn’t mean anything to Azerbaijan citizens. After a preliminary investigation, Azerbaijan leaders concluded that the flight crash (from the debris) was inconsistent with a bird strike; in other words, it’s more plausible the crash was caused by Russian defense systems - something the United States government agrees with. Further testimony from the survivors of the crash indicate something similar, including banging sounds and fragments entering the cabin. This report would be consistent with a possible detonation near the aircraft over a bird strike.

Russia’s air defense systems have been active throughout the war with Ukraine. Ukraine’s defense of its country has now turned into an offensive to gain back territory, using missiles and even a drone system to strike targets in Russia. The Russian armed forces’ air defense system uses surface to air missiles and anti-aircraft gunners to attempt to stop Ukraine. Unfortunately, Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 was mistaken for a missile, being promptly shot, ultimately leading to its demise.  

But how is this possible? How can a massive passenger airplane be mistaken for a missile? Though it’s not sure exactly what led to the release of the missile that downed the flight, it could be due to human error or radar misinterpretation or failure. These factors, being put in a war-zone environment, make it incredibly easier for such a mistake to happen. 

Putin hasn’t explicitly taken the fall for the accident. While he did apologize and offer his condolences to the families of the victims, he never accepted responsibility, angering Azerbaijani leader Aliyev. In attempts to calm him down, the Kremlin pushed for a collaborative criminal investigation between Russia, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan. That’s because Putin knows the value of Azerbaijan, one of Russia’s closest allies who, quite literally, is irreplaceable. The last year has indicated a growth in foreign trade, but this could all come to an end over the loss of the plane and the lives of innocent civilians.  

A tragic mistake by Russia has now led to an unnecessary loss of life and disagreement with a key ally of theirs. Russia’s air defense made a fatal mistake on Christmas day that could possibly ruin them as the new year approaches. 

Read more here:

• Newsroom, Turkiye Today

• Akbar Novruz, Azernews

• Mikhail Klimentov and Kyle Rempfer, Washington Post

• Katie Marie Davies and Dasha Litvinova, Associated Press