What We've Been Reading

Welcome to our roundup of news and current events related to ethics and international affairs! Here’s some of what we’ve been reading this past week:

BBC: Why Ukraine remains defiant and does not feel close to defeat

February 24 marked the four-year anniversary of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. As the war enters its fifth year, the widespread deployment of drones has fundamentally altered battlefield dynamics. Persistent aerial surveillance and strike capabilities have reshaped modern warfare, instilling continuous fear among residents in regions such as Donetsk. Despite the deaths of approximately 55,000 Ukrainian soldiers, thousands more missing in action, and persistent recruitment struggles, political and societal resolve remains firm. Public opinion polling indicates that a majority of Ukrainians are skeptical that U.S.-brokered negotiations would produce a lasting peace. President Trump has urged that "Ukraine better come to the table, fast.” Yet, Ukrainians will not compromise on ceding occupied territory to Russia. Many regard assurances from Moscow as lacking any credibility and view continued resistance as the only viable option. As President Volodymyr Zelensky recently stated, "They want to make us kneel. They want to bring Ukraine to its knees." In Kyiv, ordinary life persists. Shops remain active, spring approaches, and daily life continues under the shadow of war. Ukraine remains defiant as the war grinds on.

Read more on Ukraine and the ethics of war in Ethics & International Affairs:

Returning the War to Russia: Drones and Discrimination in the Defense of Ukraine (2024: 38-1)

Introduction: Russia's War Against Ukraine (2024: 38-3)

The Cost of Atrocity: Strategic Implications of Russian Battlefield Misconduct in Ukraine (2024: 38-1)

The Guardian: How Trump’s big climate finding repeal could actually hurt big oil

The Environmental Protection Agency’s repeal of the foundational "endangerment finding,” which determined that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare, has eliminated the legal basis for regulating greenhouse gases and threatens to intensify the global climate crisis. The decision was met by widespread condemnation from scientists and the environmental community, with critics portraying the change as a reward to oil companies and donors aligned with President Trump’s campaign. Yet, the absence of federal climate regulations may unexpectedly expose the fossil fuel industry to greater vulnerability in state and local courts. For years, fossil fuel companies and their allies have argued that state laws and climate-related lawsuits are preempted by the federal endangerment finding and the Clean Air Act. With the administration now arguing that the Clean Air Act no longer applies to greenhouse gas emissions, the position undercuts prior preemption defenses and reopens pathways for claims previously dismissed on those grounds. Certainly, the repeal of the endangerment finding poses serious risks to the global climate and weakens American soft power on the international stage, especially given the United States' status as the largest historic emitter of greenhouse gases. Nevertheless, communities are likely to continue pursuing accountability against the fossil fuel industry through alternative legal strategies, potentially in novel and more localized forms.

Read more on climate change and environmental policy in Ethics & International Affairs:

Communities and Climate Change: Why Practices and Practitioners Matter (2022: 36-2)

Hope, Pessimism, and the Shape of a Just Climate Future (2023: 37-3)

Introduction: Representing Vulnerable Communities and Future Generations in the Face of Climate Change (2022: 36-2)

DW: Using AI to stop dissent before it even starts

A subset of political research analysts specialize in “conflict forecasting,” or the systematic prediction of geopolitical flashpoints to enable preemptive humanitarian planning and support. Today, the expansion of AI and machine learning now allows analysts to process mass amounts of data to improve the precision of such forecasts. However, the conflict forecasting community has raised concerns regarding the potential misuse of this technology. Analysts warn that countries like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Iran, Egypt, and Bahrain are already deploying advanced computing against opposition movements. For example, the UAE is already engaged in “predictive policing,” using historical data and facial recognition systems to anticipate and deter criminal activity. Experts warn that the same procedures used to anticipate conflict could be repurposed to expand surveillance, censorship, and coercive state control. AI-enabled tools may facilitate the preemptive suppression of activists, constraining protest and political dissent.

Read more on AI, political protest, and free speech in Ethics & International Affairs:

Unfinished Critique and the Duality of Humanitarian Digital Technologies (2025: 39-4)

Engines of Patriarchy: Ethical Artificial Intelligence in Times of Illiberal Backlash Politics (2021: 35-3)

Select Facial Recognition in War Contexts: Mass Surveillance and Mass Atrocity (2023: 37-2)

New York Times: Why Attacking Iran Could Be Riskier Than Capturing Maduro

President Trump is threatening a new military conflict with Iran, comparing the U.S. armada positioned near Iran to the force he deployed in Venezuela. Yet, experts caution that an attack on Iran would be more costly and complex than the operation in Venezuela, with the significant potential of drawing the United States into a long-lasting conflict. Iran’s network of regional proxy forces, missile stockpiles, and entrenched leadership structure all form a vastly different composite of factors than the military engagement with Venezuela. Experts warn that any conflict with Iran could carry a high risk of American casualties. Despite campaigning on promises to end “forever wars,” the Trump administration risks drawing the United States into another prolonged conflict, risking the lives of Iranian civilians and American soldiers.

Read more on Trump’s Department of War, intervention in the Middle East, and forever wars in Ethics & International Affairs:

The International Peace- and State-Building Intervention in Afghanistan: Distilling Lessons to Be Learned (2025: 39-1)

But Is It Good Enough? Jus ad Vim and the Danger of Perpetual War (2022: 36-4)

Department of Violence (2025)