The Red Folder

Archived from February 12, 2024

Key stories for the week, brought to you by the distinguished newsman Sasha Morel.

Reading for the sake of reading sucks. Telling yourself to read to win a round is nice but ineffective. This condensed news brief helps you understand current domestic and international issues, analyze the news, and gives you opportunities to read more.

International Stories

3 key international stories for the week:

1) Israeli Military Directive in Rafah: Balancing Evacuation and Military Operations Sparks Global Concerns Sasha Morel

On February 9, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu directed the Israeli military to formulate a comprehensive plan. This plan aims to evacuate Palestinian civilians from the densely populated southern Gaza city of Rafah while simultaneously defeating the remaining Hamas fighters in the area. The decision was prompted by increased pressure on Israel regarding a potential ground assault on Rafah, which has become the last refuge for hundreds of thousands of Palestinians displaced by conflicts in other parts of the region.

In response to the October 7 attacks by Hamas militants, U.S. President Joe Biden criticized Israel's actions, describing them as "over the top." The United States emphasized its unwillingness to support any military operation in Rafah without due consideration for civilian safety.Concerns have been raised by humanitarian organizations about a potential high Palestinian death toll if Israeli forces launch an operation in Rafah, underlining the escalating humanitarian crisis in the city on the border with Egypt.

Netanyahu's office stated that four Hamas battalions are present in Rafah, impeding Israel's goal of eliminating Islamist militants. The directive calls for the submission of a comprehensive plan to the Cabinet, focusing on both evacuating the civilian population and neutralizing the Hamas battalions.

The statement, issued two days after Netanyahu rejected a Hamas ceasefire proposal, did not provide further details. Rafah has become the focal point of Israel's military campaign in Gaza as forces shift their offensive southwards following the October 7 attack by Hamas gunmen in southern Israel.

Over half of Gaza's 2.3 million people have sought refuge in Rafah, facing challenging conditions near the border fence with Egypt. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) expressed growing anxiety and panic among the population, emphasizing the critical humanitarian situation.

International figures, including the Palestinian Presidency and Jan Egeland of the Norwegian Refugee Council, condemned Netanyahu's plans for military escalation, citing threats to regional and global security. An Israeli official, on condition of anonymity, mentioned efforts to relocate people in Rafah back to northern Gaza ahead of any potential military operation.In the ongoing conflict, Gaza's health ministry reported a significant death toll and injuries, with almost one in ten children under five experiencing acute malnutrition. Reports from the charity ActionAid indicated extreme conditions, with some Gazans resorting to eating grass due to food shortages and limited access to safe water.

Hours before Netanyahu's announcement, Israeli warplanes conducted new airstrikes, resulting in casualties. The military justified its actions, stating the objective of eliminating militant cells and infrastructure while accusing Hamas of using civilians as shields. U.S. President Biden continued to advocate for a ceasefire and criticized Israel's response, describing it as "over the top." He expressed support for a deal to halt hostilities, release hostages, increase humanitarian aid, and normalize relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia. However, Netanyahu rejected Hamas' proposed ceasefire terms, vowing to continue the fight.

2) Ukraine's Military Shake-Up: Navigating Shifts in Leadership and Vision Amidst Ongoing Conflict Sasha Morel
The announcement that had been circulating in rumors for weeks finally came to fruition when Ukraine's President, Volodymyr Zelensky, replaced Valery Zaluzhny with Oleksandr Syrsky as the commander of the armed forces on February 8th. Despite the anticipation, the event marked a significant moment, resonating not only due to General Zaluzhny's pivotal role in resisting Russian forces during the initial invasion but also for its implications in a broader war reorganization.

While General Zaluzhny had been esteemed for his leadership and popularity among both troops and civilians, his dismissal signaled a crucial shift in the ongoing conflict—a shift that poses risks if not navigated carefully by President Zelensky. Initially, their differences in culture and personality were inconsequential, contributing to an effective resistance against the Russian invasion. However, as the conflict persisted and front lines stagnated, tensions between the president and the battle-hardened commander began to emerge.

The divergence of opinions on battlefield strategies deepened the rift between Zelensky and General Zaluzhny. The president and his administration held the general responsible for a failed counter-offensive and sought a more proactive approach in preparing for further attacks. General Zaluzhny, on the other hand, emphasized the need for caution, arguing that planning a counter-offensive required a clear understanding of available resources. This discord culminated in Zaluzhny's dismissal.


Beyond the military disagreements, the fundamental shift in President Zelensky's perspective on the war's objectives also played a role in the rift. Initially emphasizing Ukraine's fight for democracy and a Europe-leaning destiny, Zelensky's focus shifted to reclaiming all occupied territory. As the realization of this goal became challenging, impatience with General Zaluzhny grew, leading to attempts to centralize power in Kyiv.


The dismissal of General Zaluzhny was justified within the democratic framework, emphasizing the subordination of the armed forces to civilian leadership. However, President Zelensky now faces challenges, including potential discontent within the army due to the removal of a beloved commander. General Syrsky, the newly appointed top soldier, brings a divisive reputation, requiring a balance in leadership style to maintain stability.


The reorganization will inevitably cause disruption, especially as officers shift to new positions in the chain of command. The political fallout of General Zaluzhny's removal and uncertainties about his future role add further complexity. Zelensky must be cautious not to suppress dissent, as it could harm the political culture he aims to preserve.

The crucial question is whether Zelensky can leverage this reorganization to reshape his vision for the war. While publicly holding onto the promise of reclaiming every inch of occupied soil, he needs to consider a more realistic approach focused on increasing Ukraine's resilience. This involves strengthening military capabilities, attracting investment, and emphasizing a war of values to ensure a prosperous, democratic future for Ukraine—a vision that should align between the president and his commanders.

3) Pay Your Bills, Europe Lindsey Zhao 

This past Sunday (Feb. 11), Trump displayed his inflammatory talents yet again when he seemingly encouraged Russia to invade NATO allies that ‘didn’t pay their bills’. Rich talk for someone convicted of millions of dollars in tax fraud. 


“‘You didn’t pay? You’re delinquent?’” Trump recounted responding. ‘“No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage [Russia] to do whatever the hell they want. You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills.’”


Amid fears from our trans-Atlantic allies about a Trump re-election spelling the end of US involvement in NATO and a snuggle up to Vladimir Putin, this most recent statement only adds fuel to the fire. During his presidency, Trump repeatedly attacked NATO allies for a lack of military contribution to the alliance- most often, the countries that failed to contribute the target 2% of GDP towards funding the alliance. Fortunately, from 2016-2020, his top aides and officials, like Mike Pence and John Bolton, dissuaded him from doing so. But if reelected, without the hindrances of an unwilling staff, Trump has much more power and experience to pull the US out of NATO (officially or not). 


The current NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg of Norway, fiercely condemned his words, saying that NATO remained ready to defend any of its allies in the case of an attack, and that they actively risked US and EU lives. The Biden administration also called his comments ‘appalling and unhinged’.


Over the past few years, NATO allies have been able to rest easy at night, knowing a loyal Biden administration continued to commit the United States to European security through NATO investment. Unfortunately, NATO is now forced to come to grips with the potential reality of a potential President Trump next January.


But for countries like Sweden or Finland, both of which recently joined the NATO alliance, Trump’s words pose a special implication. After the Russo-Ukrainian war broke out in 2022, the two countries known for their long-standing policy of political and military neutrality, quickly applied for NATO membership and protection, fearing an increasingly aggressive Russia. But as the US continues to provide hundreds of millions of dollars to the NATO alliance, a potential withdrawal could prove especially dangerous for Finland and Sweden, who explicitly flaunted the threat Russia posed to their countries. Ultimately, NATO allies will only have to wait and see, like the rest of America, if democracy truly pulls through in November. 

The Equality in Forensics News Brief is brought to you by Sasha Morel and the News Brief Team:

 


Interested in becoming a contributor? You can apply to join our staff team here.