Home page
ع

War in Ukraine: Are Peace Negotiations on the Horizon?

December 4, 2022
Peace written on a sign held up in a crowd

As the Russia-Ukraine war continues to decimate Ukrainian cities and the lives of people on both sides of the conflict, as well as the global economy, News@AUC spoke to Ibrahim Awad, professor of practice of global affairs and director of AUC’s Center for Migration and Refugee Studies, about the latest developments, recent calls for negotiations and ultimately, the way forward.

It’s been nearly a year since Russia invaded Ukraine. How have global attitudes changed since the start of the war?

Globally, attitudes toward the war have not changed in any significant way. You’ll find that the United States, European Union member states and states within NATO all support Ukraine as they have since the invasion of Ukrainian territory by Russia. 

In the Global South, you’ll find more complexity in attitudes toward the invasion. The majority of states reject the invasion because it is flagrantly against international law and because this part of the world has witnessed multiple attacks and annexations throughout history. They believe that their silence can open the door for them becoming the victims of invasion or annexation tomorrow. At the same time, some of these countries are unable to completely align themselves with NATO. This is due to the fact that they have interests with both parties.

What other factors determine attitudes toward the war?

History plays an important role in determining attitudes. These states have memories of past colonialism from some states of the North Atlantic Alliance, prompting them to wonder why Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is rejected so categorically without any prospect of possible settlements, while some states of the North Atlantic Alliance have previously conducted similar invasions without the same repercussions. There also is the question of double standards. In the Middle East, de jure and de facto annexations have not been met with the same vehement rejection by the North Atlantic Alliance.  

What has been the most significant change in U.S. rhetoric toward the war?

What has changed in the past few weeks are references from U.S. President Joe Biden to possible talks with Russia. This, of course, will open possibilities for reaching a settlement. A settlement of sorts is important to avoid extending further detriment to the Ukrainians, first and foremost, and also to the rest of the world, which has been affected by disruptions in international production and trade.

What might have prompted this change?

There are a few possibilities, the first being global inflation and the subsequent increase in costs of living putting pressure on world leaders to push for a settlement. This is made more urgent by the rise of populist movements in Western countries. An increase in living costs could result in more popularity for the movements, which reject ideas of the liberal party systems in Europe and whose victory could lead to tremendous repercussions — something leaders are likely taking into account. Change is possible when those in power in the world’s largest countries realize that their attitudes may result in detrimental or dangerous consequences. 

How has Egypt been affected by the ongoing war?

Egypt is the largest importer of wheat; 80 percent of the country’s supply comes from Russia and Ukraine. Therefore, at the onset of the war, the price of wheat and other products, such as fertilizer, increased tremendously. They have since fallen.

There is also the impact in terms of tourism, which is very vital to Egypt’s economy. With Russia and Ukraine both as large sources of tourism for Egypt, the lack of tourists has negatively impacted the economy. 

Finally, the ongoing war has directly impacted inflation in the global economy, which has further damaged the country, as well as others. There are indeed other factors that have contributed to the situation Egypt is in today, but the war in Ukraine certainly hasn’t helped.

Does this have the potential to turn into a world war?

No one is interested in starting a world war, and Russia is taking good care to not provoke a reaction under NATO’s Article 5. This is evident when you look at the military support from the United States to Ukraine. Generous as it may be, not all weapons are allowed to enter the country in order to avoid open hostility. I don’t think there is currently a possibility of NATO countries mobilizing against Russia. However, if you ask me six months from now, perhaps things will have changed. But hopefully by then, there would have been talks and the hostility would have come to an end.

Will negotiations happen? What is the way forward? 

Can Ukraine prevail? I don’t think so. Russia is not using all of its military might, and provoking it to do so is in no one’s interest. Can Russia prevail over Ukraine? As long as it continues to stay within the limits of the military force it has thus employed, it cannot.

Therefore, it's not a matter of whether negotiations will happen or not. The question is when will they happen. I don’t know if there is any other solution.

We may also wonder whether Russia, with its latest military action in Ukraine, is putting pressure in order to have Ukraine join negotiations. It is difficult to say for certain, but I don’t believe Ukraine will make a decision alone on whether to sit at the table for negotiations.

Overall, negotiations will not be easy — especially after Russia annexed four areas of Ukraine, which is unacceptable. I do believe, however, that there can be a way to overcome this conflict and find an avenue of coexistence between Russia and Ukraine.

Share

Twitter Troubles: Faculty Insight

Abigail Flynn
November 20, 2022
Twitter Logo with glitch effect

Fake, verified Twitter accounts caused chaos after Elon Musk, who purchased the platform in October for $44 billion, allowed users to purchase verification marks without confirming their identities. Rasha Abdulla, professor in the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication, examines the impact of this decision on freedom of speech, misinformation and the future of one of the world’s biggest social media platforms.Rasha Abdulla

What has happened since Musk bought Twitter?

The first couple of weeks since Elon Musk took over Twitter have certainly witnessed quite a few alarming decisions. The firing of so many Twitter staff, particularly those concerned with human rights and the ethical use of AI, is quite the red flag and has gotten digital rights advocates very concerned about the future of Twitter.

What is the future of free speech on Twitter?

While I'm personally for pushing the limits of freedom of expression, having no regulations whatsoever on a platform of Twitter's scope and magnitude makes it prone to misuse and privy to hate speech and misinformation. Musk has announced that he is forming some kind of a council to come up with proper regulations, and we are yet to see how this council comes along and what they come up with. 

What could happen if this problem goes unchecked?

We have seen from the misuse of Facebook in Myanmar, for example, that major social media platforms can be severely misused and such misuse can lead to loss of life. Platforms have a responsibility to not let that happen and we, the civic society, should also stay vigilant in this regard.

How does Musk’s decision to charge for verification impact this situation?

I think Musk's decision to monetize the blue mark on Twitter is a huge mistake. Originally, having a blue mark basically meant that Twitter has confirmed the owner of the account is who they claim they are. It was reserved for celebrities and/or people of a certain academic, social or scientific status. Unfortunately, now anyone who pays $8 a month will be able to get a blue mark under any name, which defies the whole point of verification. 

What are some potential problems with the new verification system?

This will inevitably lead to a plethora of fake "verified" accounts. This is a huge disaster and could lead to much misinformation that could be life-threatening. Think of a World Health Organization fake verified account telling people vaccinations are dangerous during a pandemic! Think of a fake verified United Nations agency account tweeting about the Russian invasion of Ukraine! Such examples could lead to actual disasters long before Twitter gets a chance to deal with the fake accounts. 

Should Musk rescind the new system? 

We've already seen several problems in the few days that this "service" has been available, most notably a fake Eli Lilly account promising free insulin. I think Twitter really needs to take this back.It defies the whole point of verification and can cause much potential harm of the worst kind. It also takes away from the credibility of the whole platform.

It appears that Musk has temporarily halted the system. Is this a good thing?

I think it's coming back in a couple of weeks. So my comments stand unless any major developments take place.

What is the future of Twitter?

As a result of all these actions, I see scores of Twitter users, including myself, already migrating to other platforms such as Mastodon, which is a decentralized version of Twitter. We'll see how things play out in the days to come.

Share