In this week’s Monday Briefing we turn East, to understand the complex nature of Russian Hybrid Warfare. The people of Madagascar take the streets, while Amazon settle in a billion-dollar lawsuit. In Europe, Apple pressures Brussels over the Digital Market Act, while the competition between Beijing and Washington leaves the EU weakened.
Spotlight: Russian incursions over Europe, is war coming?
On September 19th three Russian planes, MiG 31 fighter jets, entered Estonian airspace for more than 12 minutes, flying defiant of NATO warnings before Italian F35 intercepted and escorted them back into their country. This is only the most evident of the several violations of Europe’s airspace that occurred in the last days. Drones landing on Polish soil and flying over Romania, suspect intrusions over the Baltic Sea and even unidentified objects over Norway and Denmark, deep inside NATO security borders. The facts are clear, but the motive behind them is less so. Russia is testing the water, how will Europe respond?
The Russian Federation and its president Vladimir Putin have become bolder and bolder in the last weeks and the reason that has led to this series of incursions is extremely complex to grasp. The minds of dictators are often obscure to anyone outside their closest advisors, this admitting that they act rationally. Some commentators have argued that Russia is trying to understand Europe’s defenses on the Eastern Front, by provoking the response by NATO forces and revealing their position. This thesis does not consider that the Kremlin possess far better means of espionage, including sophisticated instruments in Kaliningrad, from where it is very easy to study Europe Eastern flank.
Another theory, more plausible but without proof, suggests that Russia is trying to create divisions among the Atlantic Partners, by revealing the different opinions and positions within the Alliance. By sending planes over Europe’s sky, the Kremlin is exposing the unwillingness of some NATO members to stand alongside the border states, such as Poland and Estonia. This plan seems to have failed, as even the today unreliable United States have suggested that the next incursion by Russian forces should be met by decisive NATO force, just like Turkish Airforce did back in 2015.
Russian encroachment in the last week has not stopped here. Another active front for the now famous hybrid tactics employed by Putin is the small country of Moldova. This former Soviet republic held elections this Sunday, with the citizens being asked to choose between EU alignment and close ties with Moscow. In the days before the election the Moldavan police arrested tens of alleged Russian agents in the country, which are accused of plotting against the democratic institutions. The arrested were preparing mass riots and destabilizing actions, after having received training in Serbia and coordination from the Kremlin, according to Moldavan persecutors.
One thing is certain, the tensions in Eastern Europe are always growing. In the last three years we have become accustomed to war on our continent, something that we thought was a curse of the past. Increasingly, the fear that the whole NATO alliance will have to fight to protect its Eastern Borders becomes more realistic. I do not know if war will really come, no one can tell for sure. On one hand the Thucydides Trap pushes Putin towards aggressive actions, as he is very much aware that every month that passes is strengthening the European defense apparatus, recently bolstered by Rearm Europe and German national awakening. Thankfully, on the other hand, Russia has been struggling to succeed in the limited war in Ukraine, leading most military analysts to conclude that Moscow would not be able to sustain a larger and far more destructive conflict against NATO as whole. As of right now the fight remains contained on the plains of Ukraine, where the armies have been clashing for three years and half by now. The result of this war, and of the larger geopolitical struggle between the East and the West, lies as ever uncertain.
World News
Protests in Madagascar against the government. Violent reply by the police and 10 hours curfew.
by Riccardo De Ambrogi
In the past few days, the generalized popular discontent due to the chronic water and electricity shortages exploded into deadly unrests in Antananarivo, the capital of Madagascar, and Antsirabè.
On Thursday 25th, protestors tried to reach the central square of the city in a rally that was begun as a simple peaceful march, but the police started using tear gases and rubber bullets to enforce the government ban on gatherings and the situation escalated quickly. Protestors started splitting into smaller groups to get around the cordons, carrying banners denouncing the outages and accusing the government of failing to guarantee basic rights and policemen start charging the crowd, causing 5 deaths.
In the following days people started an online mobilization, on the Nepali example, and widely shared addresses and personal information of people that supports the president Andry Rajoelina, while a group of people vandalized the house of a senator.
To cope with the protests the government imposes a curfew from 7pm to 5am, saying it will stay in place “until public order is restored”.
Madagascar is one of the poorest countries in the world and the poor governance of the state-owned utility Jirama cause power cuts to the population that often last more than eight hours a day. So, Malagasy people live in really poor living conditions that lead to the outbreak of the unrests.
Furthermore, the fact that president Rajoelina took power after the 2009 coup, before winning discussed elections in 2018 and 2023, spread between protestors the idea of an illegitimate power of the government.
Probably, protests will continue in the next days, and the fall of the government seems closer every day. One thing is assured, the global wind of change has pervaded Madagascar, and nor the police nor the legislative can stop this force.
Amazon agrees to pay a $2.5 billion lawsuit for prime membership manipulation
by Veronika Lizier-Zmudzinski
In 2021, Amazon’s Prime members reached 200 million, and although the members may have consciously made the decision to opt for Prime membership, they encountered difficulties in canceling.
Amazon is set to pay a $2.5 billion lawsuit for making its Prime membership easy to enroll into, but complex to cancel, with multiple steps that try to dispirit consumers from ending their subscriptions.
The lawsuit is based on the claims made by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that Amazon works as a monopoly. The case would have gone to trial, where a jury would have decided if Amazon did, indeed, break the law. Instead, the company’s executives decided to settle saying it would allow the company to “move forward and focus on innovating for customers.”
Although the lawsuit allows Amazon to “move forward”, it seldom stops the company from continuing its monopolistic practices. For a company that generated around $44 billion solely from subscription costs, the lawsuits price tag is equivalent to a parking ticket. Which begs the question, is the US, and the rest of the world, going to continue facing companies that push boundaries and tiptoe across lines, just to pay a fine so negligible that they continue hurting economic competitiveness?
European News
Europe, a satellite within the US-China trade war
The European influence at the global level is being increasingly undermined by the assertive positions of the United States and, even more forcefully, of China’s socioeconomic power. Although its geographic location might come across as being quite deceiving, considering Europe lies in the middle of two superpowers holding significant global relevance, such positional centrality doesn’t translate into the ownership of any actual European predominance; conversely, Europe is serving as the point of convergence between the American hegemonic interests and the Chinese expansionist policy, pursued along the lines of the US one although in a more subtle way, as it is based on bending other realities to China’s own will.
The European continent thus comes across as a well-behaved, subservient actor and is accordingly allocated a satellite role within the US-China trade war, which is alarmingly succeeding in annihilating the interests of European national leaders. The latter seem destined to ancillary roles and, not to risk any repercussions onto themselves, they might showcase an even more lenient attitude towards the US but especially towards China, which clearly regards Europe as the ideal victim of its hawkish political strategy. Europe, suffering from the incapability of enforcing binding decisions due to leaks in its power administration, embraces a US-led “de-risking” policy through the imposition of tariffs, in an attempt to curb China’s excessive concentration in the market. While the US fosters Europe to inflict such costs, as stemming from the recognition of China’s dominance and with the aim to avoid the Chinese weaponization of economic independence, Europe itself must decide whether to engage steadily in trade protectionism or to develop a joint strategy with Asia, as inscribed within the broader objective of preventing the collapse of the global trade order.
Exacerbating this scenario is the role model that several on-the-rise illiberal democracies in Europe might attribute to China, whose successfully enforced authoritarianism builds on the need for security, however established, among fragmented European forces advocating the validation of nationalist instincts. Moreover, China’s beneficial relationship with Russia, both strategic and economic, raises doubts as to whether President Xi Jinping has any interest in ending the war in Ukraine. The Chinese engagement with Russia threatens the future of Europe which, in turn, is seen as a potential traitor of the Chinese interests due to its reliance on the US. As a matter of fact, Russia’s dominance reasserts the one exerted by China and poses a tangible threat on Europe, whose defense might be in serious trouble should the US withdraw its support.
Apple response to EU’s Digital Markets Act
by Cristiana Murè
After the recent legislative developments at the EU level, Apple urged Brussels to review parts of the Digital Markets Act (DMA). The company claims that the regulations as they stand are impeding the release of new features and even revealing fresh cybersecurity flaws and that, while EU interoperability criteria have delayed the release of upgrades and new apps throughout the bloc, requirements to allow third-party app stores and side-loading are making iOS devices less secure.
The DMA, which has been in full effect since 2024, was created to provide consumers more options and less reliance on “gatekeeper” tech giants. However, Apple argues that it is now torn between complying with EU regulations and upholding its global product standards. The matter revolves around the trade-off between innovation and regulation: stricter rules may lower barriers for European app developers and fintechs but could also reduce the speed of services released by major firms across Europe. Such delays and increasing uncertainty are yet another sign of the rising frictions between US tech giants and EU regulators, a dynamic that investors will not be able to ignore in their assessment of digital markets.
Every week, your TiL Monday Briefing 🗞: you better read it with a cup of coffee! ☕️
Head of the Monday Briefing column: Pietro Ferrari. Current writing staff: Vatsal Aggarwal, Cristiana Murè. Cartoons by Polina Mednikova. The Monday Briefing column was established in its current form in 2021 by Bojan Zeric.
I’m Veronika. I grew up in the US but am half-Italian, half-Polish. I’m a first-year BIEM student and am interested in not only economics, but fashion, politics, books, and getting to know the community around me.
I am currently completing a MSc in Economics and Management of Innovation and Technology at Bocconi University. Through writing, I try to analyze and comprehend the world around me, while also reflecting my interest for behavioral economics, philosophy, and physics. A deep curiosity motivates me to always explore different fields and consider various and contrasting perspectives.
