Of this week’s readings, I found Alan Little’s BBC article particularly informative and enjoyed how analytical it was. As someone who loves studying the cold war, gaining a greater understanding through the creation of parallels between current events and key moments in Cold War history was interesting to read, for example noting that Ukrainians are fighting for Helsinki while Russia is more focused on a european order closer to what was established at Yalta, thus drawing back and showing the influence of previous agreements and conceptions of the right form of European organization. What was particularly skillful was the deliberate choice of historical events mentioned in the piece for a specific effect. For example, ending the article by highlighting the lesser known precarity of the Cuban Missile Crisis due to what was unknown by the public about Soviet military capabilities was a tactful reminder not only that often such military occurrences that seem so distant to us are far more precarious than may seem; and that there are always facts kept from the public which should make us think more critically when trying to make our own risk assessments of war based on what information is shown to us by mainstream media. 

 

The CSIS article, which highlighted how digital infrastructure has enabled Ukrainian refugees to access services more efficiently, was an enlightening read into the logistics of refugee reception. The use of biometric data, which I then went on to read in the case of Jordan and Syrian refugees seemed a more streamlined approach; the article detailed how often pins would be forgotten, bank cards would get lost, and when aiming to get access for such a great number of refugees, biometric data was a far more efficient approach for both parties. However, as always is the case with biometrics, issues of privacy are always a concern, especially as the UNHCR is required to give this information up to the host country; with the rise of the far right, I can see this being weaponized to the detriment of refugee rights.  In terms of digital tools, it was also a shock to me seeing the corporate charity and how it plays into not just refugee issues; Airbnb certainly helped in the case of Ukrainians, but when looking at their controversy with how they allowed listings from illegal settlements in the West Bank, so charitable efforts from companies never seem to be justice-oriented solutions as it comes across as always predicated on what is most popular politically, which can then later translate into profits. 

 

Beyond this, the ‘Tactical choreography’ in the NYT article made me think to the relationship of art and war. Aside from providing a lens into the humanity of individuals in conflict, I felt the articles highlighted the way art and creativity stems from instances of struggle, both as an emotional representation of violence and suffering but also in a more activist sense, beyond just being an individualized outlet for the artist. Art serves war; in propaganda, in depictions of popular culture, in photography and in literature, but at the same time it emerges from it. That is not to say war is a beneficial force in any way; the articles just further seemed to illustrate one of many instances of creative retaliation and response to moments of oppression and human struggle.