The Red Folder

Archived from September 30, 2024. 

Key stories for the week, brought to you by Lindsey Zhao and the Red Folder team.

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.

Publishing since January 2024. 

International Stories

4 key international stories for the week:

1) From Washington to the Sahel Rohan Dash


The United States is, undoubtedly, one of the most powerful countries in the world. Having a military deployed across nearly 200 countries means most of the international community considers the US to be the global police force. However, over recent years, the US has been withdrawing from countries, notably Afghanistan, Chad, and now Niger.  Indeed, there’s even talks of the US withdrawing troops from Iraq, where it had once waged war two decades ago.


But if any of these withdrawals are massively concerning, it’s the withdrawal from African nations. The US has key interests in Africa, which includes not only commercial interests but also helping underdeveloped nations and ensuring democratic processes in many of the countries which have corrupt governments. And one of their biggest concerns is fighting terrorism. 


When the United States first deployed to the Sahel region, the purpose was to fight terrorists. Troops had been in and out of the region since the 1970s, but a notable shift happened in 2013 when the US deployed to Niger to support French efforts at counterterrorism - the biggest of threats being Boko Haram. Over the next few years, French, Niger, and US troops collaborated in an effort to protect civilians from large scale attacks that Boko Haram could initiate. Throughout the deployment, there were several attacks between terrorist forces and international authorities. Eventually, in August of 2023, this partnership would all come to an end  when the Nigerien crisis occurred, in a military junta that replaced the head of state. Over the course of the next year, the new government evicted international forces, and just in the last few days, all US forces headed home.


At the same time, the US had somewhat of a withdrawal in Chad. Back in the 1980s, the CIA was operating in Chad to limit the power and influence of neighboring country Libya and its leader. But as of the 2020s, there were mostly special forces operating in the region. In April of 2024, as Chad's elections were approaching, the United States withdrew several of its troops, unsure if the next leader would remove them from the country. However, after the elections, President Mohammed Deby offered for the troops to return. 


Although the United States has a key interest in fighting terrorism, they also want to ensure adversaries don't have too much influence. These adversaries are most notably China and Russia. China continues to forward their Belt and Road Initiative, with the purpose of making economic and infrastructure-based deals, while Russia has military interests. Russia had even sent troops to Niger with the intent of replacing American troops. Russia has expanded their military influence to countries like Mali, and continues to be the largest supplier of arms on the continent. Actions like these scare the Pentagon, as a movement of western resentment grows between African nations. 


It's not all negative though. The US can have faith in its allies  who continue to maintain an important presence in the Sahel region. But the US must look for new options if they hope to succeed at their interests in the African region.


Read more here:

2) ROLLLL Tide…Wait No, ROLLLL Red! Ruhaan Sood

It is currently rush season at the University of Alabama. It’s time to roll tide for your favorite sorority? Oh wait, this is IX, let me change gears. It’s currently rush season for all of your favorite European leaders in the European Union. It’s time to roll red and right for all of your favorite countries in Europe. Just like sororities though, it’s the same demographic, same type, that now has all of Europe's most liberal institutions now switching to favor a more red and right-wing government. 



What do you mean, Europe is now completely right?

The European Union is witnessing a significant rise in far-right representation in the European Parliament, with nearly a quarter of the 720 seats projected to be occupied by hard-right parties. This marks an unprecedented presence of such groups, following strong showings in countries like France, Germany, and Italy.

Key players include Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (France), Giorgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy, and Germany’s Alternative for Germany (AfD). While united on issues like curbing immigration and opposing the EU’s climate agenda, these parties remain divided on key issues, particularly regarding the war in Ukraine. The European Conservatives and Reformists back Kyiv, while the more radical Identity and Democracy Group harbors pro-Russian sentiments.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has emerged as a central figure, balancing strong support for Ukraine with efforts to unify Europe’s right-wing factions. Nonetheless, differences in policies—especially between Meloni’s conservative stance and Le Pen’s efforts to moderate her party’s image—could hinder cohesive action from this growing bloc. While they may not shape policy outright, experts predict that these factions will continue to influence EU narratives, particularly on migration and climate.

A new far-right bloc, Patriots for Europe, has been formed in the European Parliament, bringing together 84 lawmakers from 12 countries. Led by Jordan Bardella, a close ally of Marine Le Pen, and supported by Hungary’s ruling Fidesz party, the coalition aims to become a major political force. With members from Austria, Italy, Spain, and more, the bloc seeks to reduce centralized EU power and refocus policies on national sovereignty, migration control, and opposition to Brussels' influence.

While now the third-largest group in the Parliament, the bloc faces opposition from mainstream parties, who may try to block its influence on key committee positions. The Patriots argue their voice represents millions of Europeans concerned about the EU’s current direction, although critics accuse them of undermining European values.

How did my favorite mostly democratic league get so far to the right?

The rise of right-wing movements in Europe is part of a broader global trend toward populism and authoritarianism. Over the past 15 years, parties like Germany’s Alternative for Germany (AfD) and France’s National Rally, led by Marine Le Pen, have gained increasing influence by moderating their extreme views and appealing to a broader base. Once relegated to the fringes of European politics, these parties, which were once closely associated with fascism and Nazism, have found new legitimacy in the face of widespread social and economic challenges.

Europe has been hit by overlapping crises, including the failure of its immigration system, the economic fallout of the 2008-09 financial crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the ongoing war in Ukraine. These events have created widespread dissatisfaction with centrist governments, opening the door for right-wing parties to present themselves as a viable alternative. In countries like Germany, immigration has remained a key issue, while in others, such as France and Denmark, concerns around climate policy have taken precedence. In southern Europe, the lingering effects of the economic crisis are still a major concern.

Rising inflation and energy costs, exacerbated by sanctions on Russian fuel, have also pushed many voters to reject traditional centrist or left-leaning parties. Frustration with economic conditions has fueled support for right-wing parties that promise national control and protectionist policies.

In response, mainstream political parties have shifted their platforms, particularly on immigration, to cater to right-leaning voters. This has further normalized right-wing rhetoric within the broader political landscape. Unlike earlier iterations of the far-right movement, today’s parties are less focused on leaving the European Union and more interested in shaping its policies from within. Brexit has served as a cautionary tale, with many far-right leaders preferring to influence the EU's direction rather than advocate for an exit.

While right-wing parties are not solely campaigning on nationalist or anti-EU platforms, their focus on economic security, migration, and national identity has broadened their appeal. As they gain ground in European politics, their potential to reshape EU policy remains an open question.

What does this mean for the future policy of the EU?

Migration policy has already seen the influence of far-right rhetoric, particularly with the European People’s Party (EPP) and other centrist parties adopting hardline stances to prevent voter defection. The far right has long focused on immigration as a central issue, using it to appeal to voters’ concerns about healthcare, housing, and economic pressures. This has led to policies that emphasize securitization and the outsourcing of immigration management, often involving agreements with neighboring countries to deter migrants from reaching the EU, despite concerns over human rights. As the New Pact on Migration and Asylum moves toward implementation, the far-right will likely argue it doesn’t go far enough, pushing for even stricter border controls and external asylum processing.

On climate policy, far-right opposition to ambitious measures like the European Green Deal is growing. Parties such as Poland’s Law and Justice (PiS) and Italy’s Brothers of Italy have already made their resistance to stricter carbon reduction targets clear. This could undermine EU efforts to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, with right-wing parties favoring less aggressive environmental policies. Even mainstream center-right groups like the EPP have shown signs of retreating on climate goals, such as the planned phase-out of combustion engines, as they look to accommodate these far-right positions.

Economic policy is also being shaped by the rise of far-right parties, particularly in relation to national sovereignty over fiscal decisions. Some far-right groups favor strict budget discipline across member states, while others push for looser fiscal controls to maximize national economic flexibility. This division within the right could complicate the implementation of the EU’s new fiscal framework aimed at reducing public debt while supporting strategic investments. Should economic conditions worsen, far-right parties may resist further EU-level coordination, risking the financial stability of the Union, particularly in weaker economies.

On defense and foreign policy, right-wing populist leaders such as Hungary’s Viktor Orbán are increasingly obstructive within the European Council, especially when it comes to sanctions on Russia and military support for Ukraine. While EU-level support for Ukraine remains broadly intact, the growing presence of far-right parties could lead to more fragmentation, particularly if leaders in countries like Slovakia or the Netherlands adopt Orbán-like positions.

EU enlargement, particularly the accession of Ukraine and Western Balkan countries, is another area where far-right parties are casting a long shadow. While enlargement is considered crucial for the EU’s security in light of Russia’s aggression, support for this process is waning in countries where far-right parties have gained influence. This ambivalence could slow or obstruct the accession process, particularly when it comes to the financial and policy commitments required for enlargement.

Read more here:

3) Hezbollah’s Heading Home Boyana Nikolova


Hamas and its subsidiaries in the Gaza War have put themselves between a rock and a hard place. Not only is money dwindling, but their top operatives are being targeted and hit hard, especially now, with the war nearing its 1-year-anniversary. Countless commanders, executives, and more have already been killed. Mohammed Deif, a co-founder of Hamas’s military branch; Ismail Haniyeh, a former chairman for the Hamas party; Mohammad Reza Zahedi, a senior commander for the IRGC, and his deputy; among countless others, are all political and military leaders who have paid for their roles in their war through their lives. Unfortunately for Hamas and its allies, another big name is to be added to this list.


Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah was killed as a result of Israel’s mass bombing campaign into Beirut, where the terronrist group is headquartered. This comes in the context of an emerging regional spillover: Iran, Yemen, and Lebanon are all notable examples, but they’re only 3 of 16 countries into which the Gaza conflict has expanded. In Lebanon especially, the conflict’s implications have been far-reaching: when thousands of walkie-talkies and pagers exploded last week there, hundreds lost their lives and the attack marked a turning point in Israel’s military campaign into the country. The rise of Hezbollah, a terrorist group known to be based in Lebanon, and its involvement in the war further complicates the situation.


Hezbollah is no joke, however. Firstly, the group is believed to exceed the entirety of Hamas in terms of its weaponry and preparation for conflict. As a more formidable opponent than Israel’s main enemies, the group has been an effective deterrent, but it has also created unintended consequences for Lebanon as a whole. Of the many Israeli strikes into Lebanon this past year, most have been defended under the guise of being proactive against Hezbollah. Sadly, however, most strikes ended with enormous humanitarian losses, while Hezbollah overall emerged unscathed. In the end, it was actually Hezbollah that was throwing and hitting with the more missiles, aiming specifically for Israel’s borders.


This considered, he assassination of the group’s leader should hardly be seen as unexpected, but it does still signal a new point in the war. Until now, Hezbollah has played an undeniable role in staving off Israeli forces and reinforcing Hamas insurgencies. Without successful military generals to lead Hezbollah forces, their role will collapse, however.


So with their leader falling victim to an unforeseen Israeli attack, what’s next for Hezbollah and after that, for Lebanon, the country dragged into war because of them? The answer is tri-fold, although more complex than it will seem. First, Hezbollah will inevitably begin to become a more negligible part in the war, at least temporarily. The reason this is even plausible for the Hamas alliance is their tight-knit circle and years of preparation. Iran has pledged to avenge the death of the Hezbollah commander and Hamas is on high alert to follow suit, if needed.


Secondly, any impact that does take place will take months to manifest itself. In the past, replacement leaders haven’t proven to be less extreme or efficient compared to their predecessors, meaning drops in morale are mitigated, but so too are potential losses on the battlefield. Only long-term strategy will change its course, meaning we have yet to see what change does occur as a result of the assassination. Finally, of concern to both Hezbollah, Lebanon, and nearby nations, the incident shows that Israel is likely to continue its assassination strategy. 


Sniping leaders may always appear to be a win, but that’s only true to the public eye. Beyond the surface, assassinations come at insanely high prices and irreplaceable time and skill, wasted on waiting for the perfect moment. It’s used as a way to mask actual, on-the-ground losses and it doesn’t tackle the main threat posed by the Hamas alliance. Countries like Lebanon and Iran also suffer in the process.


Hezbollah’s recent loss is a marker of a larger trend in the Gaza War. What it is has yet to be revealed to us, but there is still some certainty involved. We can be sure that this isn’t “just another” general killed.


Read more here:

   4) South Korean Nuclear Arms: A Political Chernobyl? Anthony Babu



South Korea has contemplated the construction of nuclear weapons for years, repeatedly going back and forth on whether proliferating would be a good idea. However, now, things seem to be reaching a tipping point. With North Korean aggression continuing to loom, the internal political debate on nuclear proliferation grows ever louder in the minds of South Korean politicians and civilians.


Today, only nine countries possess nuclear weapons: the United States, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, Israel, and North Korea. While nuclear proliferation is far less significant now than it was during the Cold War, it is still a concern, with nations like Russia increasing nuclear weapons production.


However, what is of most concern to South Korea is North Korean nuclear weapons proliferation. Their northern foe has continued to exercise missile testing and build up nuclear stockpiles, exacerbating South Korea’s political, military, and economic instability. South Korean nuclear proliferation would likely mean matching North Korea’s weapons stockpile of about 50 weapons. 


At first glance, the nuclearization of South Korea seems to be a good idea. Not only would it level the playing field with North Korea, but it enjoys about 70% public support. This is especially crucial, given the low trust that South Korean citizens have in their government.


However, upon further analysis, the cons of nuclear proliferation for South Korea become evident. First, nuclear proliferation would cause American sanctions. The Glenn Amendment in the American constitution and the UN’s Non-Proliferation Treaty would legally compel the United States into extreme economic, political, and military sanctions that would cripple the South Korean economy, especially given its dependence on the United States. Moreover, China would likely sanction South Korea as well, in a move similar to the Chinese sanctions that decimated the South Korean economy in 2016. These lost economic relations with allies, combined with a likely shock to the South Korean capital market, would mean an absolute destruction of South Korean economic potential that would far outweigh the potential that nuclear weapons could offer.


Moreover, nuclear weapon development would likely exacerbate South Korean political divisions. More than half of parliament opposes nuclear weapon development, so if South Korea were to make the decision to develop nuclear weapons, it would likely set off existing polarization in the parliament, leaving South Korea’s government inept at representing citizens.


Finally, South Korean nuclear weapons development would make war more likely. Most empirical examples of the United States kicking into high levels of DEFCON have been following ally nuclear proliferation, such as after Israel developed nuclear weapons preceding its war in 1973. Considering not just that nuclear proliferation would put pressure on North Korea to respond, but that North Korea is an extremely irrational actor in nature, nuclear weapon proliferation would likely only increase the chance of conflict.


Therefore, even though shiny nuclear weapons may sound appealing to South Korea, remaining under the US’s nuclear umbrella is likely the best option–for now.


Read more here:

The Red Folder is brought to you by Lindsey Zhao and the News Brief Team:

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