W/b 11th of August 2025
Didn’t think you could escape him for long, did you? This week, the White House’s resident fool takes centre stage once again. From a high-stakes US–Russia meeting in Alaska over a possible ceasefire in Ukraine, to yet another attempt at deploying the National Guard, this time to Washington, DC, to “clean up the streets” the chaos across the Atlantic shows no signs of slowing. And as Western politics stumble, BRICS nations are seizing the moment, bolstered by warming ties between India and China.
Also this week, Kenya is debating raising the drinking age in response to a worrying surge in alcoholism. In South Africa, a university has unveiled a novel strategy to curb the illegal trade in rhino horns. Meanwhile, a looming water crisis threatens both Afghanistan and Iran, as Kabul’s reservoirs run dangerously low.
Alaska Summit Ends in Stalemate
The much-anticipated meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska this week ended without a ceasefire in Ukraine or any binding agreement. What was billed as a turning point in global diplomacy instead became a spectacle of pageantry, political theatre, and unresolved tensions.1
The summit was heavy on symbolism. Trump rolled out a red-carpet reception and arranged military flyovers for Putin’s arrival in Anchorage. For Russia, it was a powerful image: Putin welcomed on American soil as a statesman rather than an international pariah. For Trump, it was an opportunity to showcase his self-styled role as a dealmaker capable of delivering peace where others had failed.
Yet behind the optics, negotiations stalled. Trump, who had initially promised to push for an immediate ceasefire, instead pivoted to calling for a “full peace agreement.” While the phrase may sound more ambitious, it also played into Moscow’s hands. A ceasefire, though temporary, would have offered immediate relief to Ukraine, while a full agreement risks sidelining Kyiv in order to reach a deal more favourable to Russia. European allies have already voiced concerns that Trump’s approach tilts too far towards Moscow’s preferences.2
The European Union has been pressing Trump to keep Ukraine at the centre of the peace process. Diplomats in Brussels argue that without Ukraine’s full participation, any agreement would lack credibility and durability. They also see the summit as a reminder of how fragile transatlantic coordination has become. While the EU remains firm in its backing of Ukrainian sovereignty, Trump appears more focused on personal legacy and his own political rewards.3
That personal dimension has drawn increasing scrutiny. Trump’s interest in securing a Nobel Peace Prize loomed heavily over the Alaska summit. For years, he has spoken openly about his desire for the award, which has been given to past leaders for breakthroughs in international conflict resolution. This year, both India and Pakistan briefly nominated him, only to later retract their endorsements after political backlash. Ukraine’s own representatives also withdrew support, accusing Trump of chasing headlines rather than meaningful outcomes.4
What is the Nobel Peace Prize?
The Nobel Peace Prize is one of six international awards established by the will of Alfred Nobel, the Swedish inventor of dynamite. It is given each year to an individual or organisation that has made “the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” Nominations can be submitted by politicians, academics, previous laureates and certain organisations, but the final decision rests with the Norwegian Nobel Committee, a five-member panel appointed by the Norwegian parliament. The process is deliberately secretive: nominations are confidential for 50 years, and the committee meets in private before announcing the laureate in October.5
The suspicion that Trump is motivated more by prestige than principle has fuelled criticism both at home and abroad. For some analysts, the Alaska meeting was less a negotiation than a performance, designed to generate images of statesmanship without the substance of real compromise.
In the end, Putin left Alaska buoyed by the optics of equal footing with Washington, while Trump left without the Nobel-worthy breakthrough he seemed to crave. Investors reacted nervously to the lack of progress, and European leaders prepared for another round of shuttle diplomacy to prevent Ukraine’s voice being drowned out. The world, meanwhile, was left with the image of two leaders meeting in Alaska—not as peacemakers, but as performers in a global drama still far from its final act.
Trump Deploys National Guard in DC
President Trump’s decision to deploy the National Guard to Washington DC has triggered one of the sharpest clashes yet between the White House and the city’s local authorities. Claiming a spiralling “crime emergency,” Trump invoked rarely used provisions of the 1973 Home Rule Act to assume control of policing in the capital. Within hours of the announcement, 800 Guard troops were dispatched onto the streets, while federal officials attempted to install a new commissioner to take charge of the Metropolitan Police Department. For many in the city, the move marked not a restoration of order, but the arrival of federal occupation in a place already struggling with its delicate relationship to democracy.6
The 1973 Home Rule Act is the legislation that gave Washington DC a mayor, city council, and a limited degree of self-government. However, unlike states, the capital’s laws and budget remain subject to congressional oversight, and its police force falls into a grey area of shared control. While the act was designed to expand local democracy, it also preserved the president’s ability to intervene directly in the city’s affairs, creating the loophole Trump has now used to justify seizing command of DC’s police.7
The justification for the takeover has been controversial from the outset. Trump cited homelessness, public disorder, and crime as the pressing reasons for emergency intervention. Yet violent crime in Washington has fallen to its lowest levels in three decades, and the Metropolitan Police had not requested federal assistance. City leaders quickly dismissed the claims as a political stunt designed to reinforce the president’s law-and-order credentials in an election season, while civil rights groups warned of the precedent such a manoeuvre might set for other Democratic-run cities.
Within days, the legal counter-attack began. DC Attorney General Brian Schwalb filed a lawsuit calling the takeover unconstitutional and an affront to the city’s limited right to self-govern. A federal judge stopped short of halting the deployment but signalled concern at the scope of executive power being exercised. The Justice Department responded by softening its position, allowing DC’s police chief to remain formally in charge but compelling the department to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. That compromise has done little to calm the controversy. For sanctuary city advocates, it represents a direct assault on local policy; for critics of the White House, it shows that the president’s maximalist opening gambit has already shifted the balance of authority in his favour.8
The physical presence of the Guard has also raised tensions. Troops from West Virginia, South Carolina, and Ohio have been dispatched to bolster the initial deployment, with the promise of hundreds more to come. Although they are unarmed for now, preparations are already under way to expand their remit. Local residents describe the atmosphere as surreal: military vehicles parked outside government offices, federal agents patrolling in tandem with local police, and the sense that the nation’s capital has become a test site for executive power in action. Mayor Muriel Bowser has denounced the move as a “hostile incursion,” but her options remain limited given DC’s unusual constitutional status.
At the centre of the dispute is the murky question of authority. The National Guard operates under a complex patchwork of laws: under state control when mobilised for local emergencies, under federal command when “federalised” by the president. Washington, DC, lacking statehood, sits in a grey zone that Trump has exploited with remarkable aggression. By claiming the mantle of emergency powers, he has blurred the line between cooperation and control, leaving legal experts divided over whether the action is technically lawful or simply unprecedented.
What happens next is uncertain. The courts may narrow the scope of the takeover, or they may allow it to stand, emboldening the administration to repeat the tactic elsewhere. In the meantime, the sight of troops in America’s capital offers a vivid tableau of the struggle between local autonomy and centralised authority. The outcome of the lawsuit will decide not only who commands Washington’s police force, but also whether the president can use the language of crisis to redraw the limits of American federalism.
The Rise of Dictatorships
Dictatorships rarely appear overnight. More often, they emerge gradually through a series of small but significant shifts in power. At their core, dictatorships are political systems in which authority is concentrated in the hands of a single leader or ruling group, often at the expense of democratic institutions. The process usually begins with governments framing crises, whether security threats, social unrest, or economic instability, as justification for exceptional measures. These “temporary” powers are then extended or normalised, eroding checks and balances that once limited executive authority.
Another common step is the reassertion of control over security forces. When leaders centralise command of police or military units, they weaken local autonomy and ensure loyalty flows directly to the head of state. Alongside this comes the silencing of critics: independent media, opposition parties, and civil society groups often face pressure or outright suppression. Over time, these moves create a political environment where dissent is risky, alternative centres of power are dismantled, and the leader becomes the sole arbiter of law and order.
History offers numerous examples. In early Weimar Germany, economic turmoil and political instability allowed Adolf Hitler to gradually expand executive power and co-opt the military and police, all under the guise of emergency measures. Similarly, in several Latin American states during the 20th century, leaders seized on social unrest or threats of rebellion to justify prolonged rule, gradually dismantling legislative and judicial independence while portraying themselves as the nation’s indispensable stabilisers. In both cases, public acquiescence, often born from fear or hope for stability, enabled the slow erosion of democracy.
The shift is often subtle at first, framed as necessary or even popular, particularly if people believe it restores stability or strength. But the cumulative effect can be profound: a democracy still exists on paper, yet in practice the institutions are hollowed out. Scholars refer to this as “democratic backsliding” a slow drift where constitutional frameworks remain but are increasingly bent to serve one person’s rule. It is this pattern, rather than any sudden coup, that has historically marked the road from fragile democracies to entrenched authoritarian regimes.9
My Opinion About This
I don’t think I’m being subtle when I talk about how dictatorships form, because Trump has done absolutely nothing to prove that he isn’t following the “101: How to be a dictator” handbook. From restricting media to a second attempt at military control, it doesn’t look great for the so-called “land of the free.”
I don’t even need to explain why this is ridiculous and terrifying. Some people, who seem to have the same empathy level as a mouse, might see this as a “smart decision,” because, apparently, everyone hates seeing homeless people on the streets… purely for aesthetic reasons. Yes, as a woman, I understand that streets filled with homelessness can feel unsafe, and governments should absolutely be working to fix that. But sending in the military to knock on tents and tell people to “move along” is not solving anything.
This approach relies on the false idea that poverty and homelessness are choices. They’re not. No one chooses to live on the streets. It’s a systematic failure: social housing and shelters are overrun, support systems are underfunded, and opportunities are limited. If you want to get people off the streets, provide them with real alternatives: more affordable housing, better-funded charities, accessible jobs, stronger education, and healthcare that doesn’t bankrupt families. Make loans and mortgages manageable, create safety nets, support those struggling with addiction. The list goes on, and governments know it, but long-term, structural solutions require effort and political will, so instead, they take the easy, performative route.
This militarised approach also disproportionately threatens people of colour. Police violence and harassment already target marginalized communities at higher rates, and sending troops into civilian spaces only magnifies that danger. Imagine walking down your street and worrying you’ll be harassed simply because you don’t “look American enough.” It’s chilling.
And let’s be honest, this spectacle also serves as a convenient distraction. The White House still hasn’t released the Epstein files, probably because they don’t want the world to know that the president’s friends were involved in horrific crimes against women and minors. While the public’s attention is focused on troops and “emergency crime control,” other accountability issues quietly slip out of sight.
At least there’s hope in the pushback. Courts, activists, and community members are fighting back, and that resistance is critical. Democracy only survives when people refuse to accept power being abused in plain sight, and the protests, lawsuits, and scrutiny this week are proof that resistance still matters.
BRICS Rising
BRICS is a political and economic bloc made up of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. Formed in the late 2000s, the group was designed to represent emerging economies outside of Western dominance, giving them a collective voice in global trade, finance, and diplomacy. Together, BRICS countries make up over 40% of the world’s population and a quarter of global GDP.
The recent wave of U.S. tariffs on BRICS economies was designed to fracture the bloc. Yet in practice, it appears to be achieving the opposite effect: driving member nations closer together and accelerating their ambitions to challenge the U.S.-led global trade order.
India has been at the centre of this realignment. Historically cautious in its dealings with Beijing, New Delhi has begun warming ties with China in response to American trade restrictions. A series of diplomatic overtures, ranging from resumed flights to new energy cooperation, suggests a pragmatic shift. For Prime Minister Modi, the calculus is straightforward: with tariffs threatening Indian exports of textiles, IT services, jewellery, and pharmaceuticals, the country needs alternative trade corridors. Aligning more closely with China not only secures access to new markets but also strengthens India’s leverage in negotiations with Washington.
China, for its part, is equally motivated. U.S. tariffs and restrictions on technology flows have pushed Beijing to seek stability and strength in numbers. India offers both a vast consumer market and a degree of legitimacy to the BRICS coalition. A thaw in relations between the two Asian giants could mark a turning point, transforming BRICS from a loose association into a more coordinated economic bloc.
Brazil has also been vocal in resisting U.S. pressure. President Lula has framed the tariffs as a form of “economic coercion” and doubled down on calls for intra-BRICS solidarity. The Brazilian government has already moved to support domestic exporters and is actively promoting the New Development Bank as an alternative to Western-dominated financial institutions. Meanwhile, South Africa has responded to new duties on its mineral exports by diversifying trade links and deepening ties with regional neighbours, while Russia continues to provide the bloc with discounted energy flows, reinforcing BRICS’ internal resilience.
Collectively, these moves amount to more than short-term tactical responses. They point towards an accelerating shift away from dollar dominance. Discussions around cross-border payment systems, shared digital currencies, and BRICS alternatives to SWIFT have taken on new urgency. De-dollarisation, once dismissed as aspirational rhetoric, is now a core strategic goal. For nations stung by U.S. tariffs and wary of financial sanctions, the prospect of a parallel global infrastructure is increasingly attractive.
For Washington, the unintended consequence is clear. By attempting to weaken BRICS through targeted tariffs, it may be solidifying the very unity it sought to undermine. The bloc is rallying around shared grievances, transforming defensive coordination into long-term strategic alignment. If India and China continue to mend fences, BRICS will wield far greater influence—both as an economic powerhouse and as a counterweight to Western dominance in global governance.
The coming months will reveal whether this newfound momentum translates into concrete policy. Yet one thing is certain: the BRICS nations are no longer a loosely connected acronym. Under pressure, they are beginning to act like a bloc with a shared purpose—and that purpose is to resist being dictated to by Washington.
Other Global News this Week
Kenya’s Drinking Age Debate Hits a Sour Note
Kenya is pushing ahead with sweeping reforms to curb youth alcohol consumption, proposing to raise the legal drinking age from 18 to 21. This change is part of a broader national strategy to tackle rising substance abuse—especially among young people. The policy includes bans on online alcohol sales and home delivery, strict zoning laws to keep bars away from schools, places of worship, and residential areas, as well as bans on celebrity endorsements and alcohol advertising aimed at youth.
According to Kenya’s alcohol regulation authority, brain development continues until the mid-twenties, making early alcohol exposure a serious risk factor for long-term addiction, mental health disorders, poor academic outcomes, and gender-based violence. Countries like the United States saw sharp declines in alcohol-related accidents after raising the minimum drinking age to 21, a precedent Kenyan policymakers hope to replicate.
But the response from businesses and communities has been fierce. Liquor traders warn that restricting legal access and sales will gut a vital economic sector. They highlight that 18 to 20-year-olds make up around 80% of the workforce in bars, pubs, and other hospitality outlets, many of whom rely on this income to survive and support families. Heavy-handed zoning laws and outright bans on digital or supermarket sales are seen as direct threats to livelihoods, particularly among small-scale operators and young entrepreneurs who rely on delivery services.
As Kenya moves forward with these new rules, the country stands at a crossroads between public health and economic survival. Success will demand nuanced implementation and serious consideration of the people most affected, not just sweeping policy statements.10
Radioactive Horns to Stop Rhino Poaching
South Africa has taken a radical step in the fight against rhino poaching: injecting horns with trace amounts of radioactive material. The project, led by scientists at the University of the Witwatersrand, aims to make smuggling nearly impossible by ensuring horns set off radiation detectors at airports and border crossings. Early trials on sedated rhinos have shown that even tiny, non-harmful doses are enough to trigger alarms, sending a clear message that trafficked horns will no longer move undetected.
This method joins a growing list of aggressive anti-poaching tactics. Dehorning (removing horns under sedation) has already been shown to cut poaching incidents by around 80 percent, with minimal costs compared to other interventions. Together, these approaches form part of a broader toolkit designed to protect South Africa’s rhino population, which represents nearly half of the world’s total. Despite decades of conservation work, roughly 500 rhinos are still killed each year for their horns, largely driven by demand in Asian markets.
The radioactive approach, however, marks a significant escalation. It transforms rhino horns from prized contraband into high-risk evidence, detectable at every major checkpoint. While conservationists stress that these are not long-term solutions, poaching is fundamentally driven by international demand, the strategy forces traffickers to face unprecedented risks.
Yet this comes with a bittersweet reality: rhinos now survive through human intervention, not natural freedom. Dehorning strips them of their iconic feature, and radioactive injections add a layer of human engineering. The measures may save lives, but they highlight the grim truth of modern conservation: when demand remains high, protection often means compromise.11
Kabul’s Water Crisis Deepens
Kabul, home to around seven million people, is rapidly approaching a catastrophic tipping point: it could become the first modern capital to completely run dry. Over the past decade, the city’s underground aquifers have plummeted by up to 30 metres, with water being extracted tens of millions of cubic metres more each year than nature can replenish. If current trends continue, Kabul could exhaust its vital water reserves by as early as 2030.
Most of the city’s residents depend on borewells for their daily needs. Nearly half of those wells have already gone dry, while the rest are producing less and less. Only a fifth of households receive piped water from centralised networks, leaving most of the population reliant on failing systems.
The crisis is compounded by worsening water quality: roughly 80 percent of groundwater is contaminated with sewage, industrial pollutants, and salinity, making it unsafe to drink. Many families today spend up to a third of their income just to access clean water, while private companies profit from drilling and selling extracted water back at inflated prices.
The causes are multifaceted. Rapid population growth has outpaced infrastructure, climate change has disrupted rainfall and snowmelt, the city’s lifeline, and the withdrawal of international aid since 2021 has left key projects abandoned.
Without immediate action to expand piped networks, rehabilitate wells, and enforce regulation, Kabul is hurtling toward an existential humanitarian crisis.12
Footnotes
- McCready, A. (2025). ‘No Deal’ at Trump-Putin meeting: Key Takeaways from Alaska Summit. [online] Al Jazeera. Available at: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/8/16/no-deal-at-trump-putin-meeting-key-takeaways-from-alaska-summit [Accessed 17 Aug. 2025]. ↩︎
- Sauer, P. (2025). US-Russia Talks on Ukraine: Who’s Who in the Delegations to Alaska? [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/15/who-are-the-us-and-russian-delegates-meeting-in-alaska-to-discuss-ukraine-putin-trump [Accessed 17 Aug. 2025]. ↩︎
- Reuters Staff (2025). Investors React to US-Russia Summit Reaching No Agreement. Reuters. [online] 16 Aug. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/investors-react-us-russia-summit-reaching-no-agreement-2025-08-15/ [Accessed 17 Aug. 2025]. ↩︎
- Deliso, M. (2025). How Trump’s Desire for a Nobel Peace Prize Looms over Putin Summit. [online] ABC News. Available at: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-desire-nobel-peace-prize-looms-putin-summit/story?id=124627999 [Accessed 17 Aug. 2025]. ↩︎
- The Nobel Peace Prize (2014). The Nobel Peace Prize. [online] NobelPrize.org. Available at: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/ [Accessed 17 Aug. 2025]. ↩︎
- Al Jazeera. (2025a). Trump Deploys US National Guard to DC amid Crime Emergency Claims. [online] Al Jazeera. Available at: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/8/12/trump-deploys-us-national-guard-to-dc-amid-crime-emergency-claims [Accessed 17 Aug. 2025]. ↩︎
- ASLU of DC (2025). D.C. Home Rule: What It Is, How It Works, and Why It Matters – ACLU of DC. [online] ACLU of DC. Available at: https://www.acludc.org/news/dc-home-rule-what-it-how-it-works-and-why-it-matters/ [Accessed 17 Aug. 2025]. ↩︎
- Al Jazeera. (2025). Trump’s Takeover of DC Police Department Faces New Lawsuit amid Crackdown. [online] Al Jazeera. Available at: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/8/15/trumps-takeover-of-dc-police-department-faces-new-lawsuit-amid-crackdown [Accessed 17 Aug. 2025]. ↩︎
- Navarro, J.A. (2024). SnoQap. [online] SnoQap. Available at: https://www.snoqap.com/posts/2024/9/30/understanding-the-rise-of-dictatorship-history-tactics-and-citizen-awareness [Accessed 17 Aug. 2025]. ↩︎
- Siele, M.K.N. (2025). Diageo Faces Tough Choices in Kenya as New Alcohol Regulations Bite. [online] Semafor.com. Available at: https://www.semafor.com/article/08/15/2025/diageo-faces-tough-choices-in-kenya-as-new-alcohol-regulations-bite [Accessed 18 Aug. 2025]. ↩︎
- Guardian staff reporter (2025). Rhino Horns Made Radioactive to Foil Traffickers in South African Project. [online] The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jul/31/rhino-horns-made-radioactive-to-foil-traffickers-in-south-african-project [Accessed 18 Aug. 2025]. ↩︎
- Peltier, E. and Huylebroek, J. (2025). Kabul, Afghanistan’s Capital, Could Run out of Water by 2030. The New York Times. [online] 13 Aug. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/13/world/asia/kabul-water-crisis.html [Accessed 18 Aug. 2025]. ↩︎
Subscribe
Subscribe to get our the latest stories in your inbox.
Reigniting Politics 
Leave a comment