The World Food Programme

To many observers, especially in the United States, this year’s winner of the Nobel Peace Prize may seem uninspired, if not unfamiliar. It is an organization, rather than a person, and its work is probably not as widely known and appreciated as it should be.

Yet the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) is no less deserving of the honor (especially since over two dozens entities have won the Peace Prize before, including the United Nations itself). It is the largest humanitarian organization in the world, and the largest one focused on hunger, malnutrition, and food insecurity, providing critical food assistance to nearly 100 million people across 88 countries. Tens of millions would starve without its fleet of 5,600 trucks, 30 ships, and nearly 100 planes delivering more than 15 billion rations, at just 61 cents each. Remarkably, WFP does all its work based entirely on voluntary donations, mostly from governments.

Laudable as all that might be, it’s fair to ask what this work has to do with peace? Two-thirds of WFP’s work is done in conflict zones, where access to food is threatened by instability, violence, and even deliberate war tactics. Amid war and societal collapse, people are likelier to die from starvation, or from opportunistic diseases that strike their malnourished immune systems. Since its experimental launch in 1961, WFP has delivered aid to some of the most devastating and horrific natural disasters in history, including the Rwandan genocide, the Yugoslav War and the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004. (It became a permanent UN agency in 1965, having proven its worth by mustering substantial aid to earthquake-stricken Iran in 1962, initiating a development mission in Sudan, and launching its first school meals project in Togo.)

As The Economist points out, the focus on hunger is a sensible one: Not only have famine and malnutrition destroyed millions of lives across history, but they remaining pressing concerns in the face of the pandemic, climate change, and renewed conflict.

Governments everywhere are desperate to bring an end to the pandemic. But hunger has been growing quietly for years, and 2019 was the hungriest year recorded by the Food Security Information Network, a project of the WFP, the Food and Agriculture Organisation and other NGOs, which since 2015 has been gathering data on how many people worldwide are close to starvation. The rise was largely a consequence of wars in places like South Sudan, Yemen and the Central African Republic. This year, thanks to the covid-19 pandemic, things are likely to be far worse. Rather than war, this year it is the dramatic falls in the incomes of the poorest people that is causing hunger. There is as much food to go around, but the poor can no longer afford to buy it. The number of hungry people might double, reckons the WFP, from 135m in 2019 to 265m at the end of this year.

Unfortunately, despite the increased (and likely to increase) need for its services—more people face hunger than at anytime since 2012—the agency’s precarious budget, ever-dependent on the whims of donors, is declining. Again, from the Economist:

Last year the organisation received $8.05bn from its donors, by far the biggest of which is the United States. This year so far it has received only $6.35bn. Many countries, such as Britain, link their aid budgets to GDP figures which have fallen sharply. Britain provided roughly $700m of the WFP’s funding in 2019. This year its aid budget will fall by £2.9bn ($3.8bn). Under Mr Trump America had turned away from funding big multilateral organisations even before the pandemic hit, though the WFP has escaped the fate of the WHO, to which Mr Trump gave notice of America’s withdrawal in July. In Uganda food rations for South Sudanese and Congolese refugees have been cut. In Yemen the WFP has had to reduce rations by half.

WFP estimates that seven million people have already died from hunger this year, and will need almost seven billion dollars over the next six months to avert looming famines worldwide. WFP’s head, a former U.S. Republican governor, is using the agency’s higher profile from the Nobel Prize to urge more funding from governments and especially billionaires (whose collective health increased by over ten trillion this past year).

World Mental Health Day

Today is World Mental Health Day, launched in 1996 by the UN—at the urging of the World Mental Health Federation and with support from the WHO—to raise awareness about one of the most misunderstood but increasingly problematic issues facing humanity.

Even the concept of mental health is fairy new in human history. What we now call mental illnesses were known, studied, and treated by the ancient Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Chinese, and Indians. Some were called “hysteria” and “melancholy” by the Egyptians, and certain Hindu texts describe symptoms associated with anxiety, depression, and schizophrenia. The Greeks coined the term “psychosis”, meaning “principle of life/animation”, in reference to the condition of the soul.

In virtually every society up until the 18th century, mental health was associated with moral, supernatural, magical and/or religious causes, usually with the victim at fault in some way. The Islamic world came closest to developing something like a mental health institution, with “bimaristans” (hospitals) as early as the ninth century having wards dedicated to the mentally ill. The term “crazy” (from Middle English meaning “cracked”) and insane (from Latin insanus meaning “unhealthy”) came to mean mental disorder in Medieval Europe.

In the mid 19th century, American doctor William Sweester coined the term “mental hygiene” as a conceptual precursor to mental health. Advances in medicine, both technologically and philosophically, quickly found the connection between mental and physical health while minimizing the idea of moral or spiritual flaws being the cause (the Greeks did come close to this, namely Hippocrates, who linked syphilis to a physical cause).

But the dark takeaway from this was the so called “social hygiene movement“, which saw eugenics, forced sterilization, and harsh experimental treatments as the solutions to mental and physical disabilities or divergences. Though the Nazis were the ultimate manifestation of this odious idea, their propaganda and policies cited most of the Western world, including the U.S., as standing with them in their efforts to cleanse populations. (In fact, the term mental health was devised after the Second World War partly to replace the now-poisoned idea of mental “hygiene”.)

While we have come a long way towards realizing the evils and horrors of how we treat mental illness—from ancient times to very recent history—abuses, misunderstandings, and neglect remain worldwide problems.

Hence I also want to take today to thank everyone throughout my life who has been so understanding, supportive, and affirming with respect to my own mental health struggles. I would never have broken through my anxiety or depression induced barriers without a loving and compassionate social support structure along the way (to say nothing of my relative socioeconomic privileges, which unfortunately remains the most common barrier to mental health treatment in the U.S.).

I am certainly luckier than most. Mental illnesses are more common in the U.S. than cancer, diabetes, or heart disease, which are far better known and addressed. Over a quarter of all Americans over the age of 18 meet the criteria for having a mental illness. Youth mental health has become especially dire, with 13% reporting a major depressive episode just over the past year, of whom only 28% get treatment. And over 90% of Americans with a substance abuse issue (which is usually tied to mental health) receive no treatment.

Worldwide, one out of four humans endure a mental health episode in their lifetimes. Depressive disorders are already the fourth leading cause of the global disease burden, and will likely rank second by the end of 2020, behind only ischemic heart disease. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the global cost of mental illness—in terms of treatment, lost productivity, etc.—was nearly $2.5 trillion in 2010, with a projected increase to over $6 trillion by 2030.

Tragically, most mental health issues can be treated with relative ease: 80% of people with schizophrenia can be free of relapses following one year of treatment with antipsychotic drugs combined with family intervention. Up to 60% of people with depression can recover with a proper combination of antidepressant drugs and psychotherapy. And up to 70% of people with epilepsy can be seizure free with simple, inexpensive anticonvulsants. Even changing one’s diet could have an effect.

But over 40% of countries have no mental health policy, over 30% have no mental health programs, and around 25% have no mental health legislation. Nearly a third of countries allocate less than 1% of their total health budgets to mental health, while another third spend just 1% of their budgets on mental health. (The U.S. spent about 7.6% in 2001.)

In his book, Lost Connections: Uncovering the Real Causes of Depression – and the Unexpected Solutions, Johann Hari explores the environmental and socioeconomic factors that contribute to poor mental health, and how these are often neglected in discussions and approaches to depression and anxiety.

Someone could meditate, think positively, or pursue therapy all they want, but if they are rationing insulin to stay alive, cannot find affordable housing, struggle to find a well paying job, and are otherwise at the mercy of external forces that leave them fundamentally deprived, such treatments—however effective and beneficial in many contexts—can only go so far.

He illustrates this perfectly with the following account:

In the early days of the 21st century, a South African psychiatrist named Derek Summerfeld went to Cambodia, at a time when antidepressants were first being introduced there. He began to explain the concept to the doctors he met. They listened patiently and then told him they didn’t need these new antidepressants, because they already had antidepressants that work. He assumed they were talking about some kind of herbal remedy.

He asked them to explain, and they told him about a rice farmer they knew whose left leg was blown off by a landmine. He was fitted with a new limb, but he felt constantly anxious about the future, and was filled with despair. The doctors sat with him, and talked through his troubles. They realised that even with his new artificial limb, his old job—working in the rice paddies—was leaving him constantly stressed and in physical pain, and that was making him want to just stop living. So they had an idea. They believed that if he became a dairy farmer, he could live differently. So they bought him a cow. In the months and years that followed, his life changed. His depression—which had been profound—went away. ‘You see, doctor,’ they told him, the cow was an ‘antidepressant’.

To them, finding an antidepressant didn’t mean finding a way to change your brain chemistry. It meant finding a way to solve the problem that was causing the depression in the first place. We can do the same. Some of these solutions are things we can do as individuals, in our private lives. Some require bigger social shifts, which we can only achieve together, as citizens. But all of them require us to change our understanding of what depression and anxiety really are.

This is radical, but it is not, I discovered, a maverick position. In its official statement for World Health Day in 2017, the United Nations reviewed the best evidence and concluded that ‘the dominant biomedical narrative of depression’ is based on ‘biased and selective use of research outcomes’ that ‘must be abandoned’. We need to move from ‘focusing on ‘chemical imbalances’, they said, to focusing more on ‘power imbalances’.

I can only hope that as mental health becomes less stigmatized—less a matter of superstition, genetic inferiority, or moral and individual failing—we can work towards building fairer and more just societies that promote human flourishing, physically, mentally, and spiritually.

Source: WHO

COVID-19 and Glass Houses

China deserves criticism for its initial handling of the COVID-19 outbreak, its continued air of secrecy that makes it difficult to verify its alleged success, and its blocking of Taiwan—a major pandemic success story—from the W.H.O. and other international institutions.

But I feel a lot of American criticism is of the “glass houses” variety. Our response to the virus, both initially and still now, has hardly been stellar. The behavior of governments at all levels, as well as by private citizens and businesses, makes it difficult to claim any moral high ground over the Chinese response (and no, this isn’t to say we’re the same in terms of totalitarianism, etc.).

Insurance companies will reportedly be raising their premiums next year. Many of those treated are left with bills in the tens of thousands. Profit-centered hospitals are actually laying off well needed staff because treating COVID-19 is too costly. A man in Brooklyn was raided for hoarding precious medical equipment, while a Georgia man was fraudulently going to sell $750 million in nonexistent masks to the Veterans Affairs Department. Doctors have been censored and even fired by hospitals for speaking out against the lack of protective equipment, which of course shouldn’t be happening in the first place. Masks are being sold at marked up prices. Many of our “essential workers” are still dying and underpaid; millions are illegal immigrants (ironically the Dept. of Homeland Security reminds them of their essential status while targeting them for their illegal one).

Our economy of nearly $20 trillion, home to most of the world’s billionaires, top innovators, and tech companies, somehow cannot allocate its resources to test and treat people and ensure they don’t starve during the lockdown. Our rapacious and hyper-individualistic attitude to money and self interest is somehow intact, if not thriving, in the face of senseless death and suffering ( notwithstanding the many touching and inspiring stories I’ve acknowledged and shared here about the better side of our society.

Yeah, the Chinese government (among others) has several times dropped the ball on this virus. It’s used it as an excuse to tighten its grip and even to bully Taiwan. The cultural practice of the wet market is problematic on a lot of levels. There are probably many more sordid stories we don’t know about.

But given how our far wealthier and better resourced country has mishandled this—across both the public and private sectors, and as a society—I’m not sure we would have done much better with an outbreak of an unknown disease.

I wish the folks putting all their energy and focus on China would hold businesses, healthcare companies, and government officials accountable—or, at the very least, direct some scrutiny and ire their way—and engage in some introspection about our own problematic practices and values (lack of community engagement and concern, hyper-individualism at the expense of others, employer-sponsored healthcare that leaves us at the mercy of unaccountable and disengaged bosses, etc.)

The Flawed But Indispensable World Health Organization

Withholding funding (even temporarily) from the World Health Organization—in the midst of a pandemic and while it has been providing supplies and training to vulnerable nations, including our own—is foolhardy and utterly without merit.

The W.H.O. is accused of having been too deferential to China at the start of the outbreak. But around the same time, on January 24, the president praised the Chinese response on Twitter, stating that “China has been working very hard to contain the Coronavirus. The United States greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency.”

When confronted about this tweet yesterday, Trump stated he “would love to have a good relationship with China”—which is ironically why the W.H.O. handled China the way it did.

The organization is run by 194 countries (including the U.S. and China), which also elect its Director-General. In order to facilitate global cooperation and knowledge sharing, it has to strike a delicate balance between providing science-based health information and making sure countries aren’t antagonized or allowed to squabble with each other; otherwise the world might lose out on key information and research.

In fact, the U.S. received vital early epidemiological data from China only because the WHO used its good relations to broker access. That’s the same reason the otherwise secretive Chinese eventually opened up and even published the first genetic profile of the virus for the world to use.

Trump himself seemed to acknowledge this with gratitude. In late February, he tweeted “Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA. We are in contact with everyone and all relevant countries. CDC & World Health have been working hard and very smart…”

Furthermore, against initial resistance, the W.H.O. managed to pressure China to allow observers into the country; in early February, an international team led by the agency visited Wuhan, including two Americans, (one from the C.D.C. and the other from the N.I.H.).

Of course, it’s totally fair to debate whether the W.H.O. struck the right balance with China. It could have said more about China’s suppression of independent scientists, lack of transparency and human rights violations. It certainly could have been more open to Taiwan and the crucial information it provided. But again, it’s a hard balance to strike given the need to keep China on board (and recall that most of the world, including the U.S., also avoid official relations with Taiwan out of deference to China, too).

From the beginning, the W.H.O. issued urgent advisories throughout January about the potential dangers from the virus and announced that it constituted a “public health emergency of international concern” a day before the U.S. made a similar declaration. The W.H.O. repeatedly said “all countries should be prepared for containment, including active surveillance, early detection, isolation and case management, contact tracing and prevention of onward spread.”

From January 22, Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus held almost daily news briefings to warn the world that the virus was spreading and that countries should do everything they could to stop it. Every day he repeated: “We have a window of opportunity to stop this virus. But that window is rapidly closing.”

The W.H.O. has also been criticized for its decision in January not to impose restrictions on travel from China, which the organization warned would be ineffective— and they were right. We imposed travel bans in February on all foreign nationals who had visited China, but as we know, this did not stop the virus from spreading; we now have more reported cases than anywhere in the world. Meanwhile, countries that did not enact a ban, such as Canada, South Korea, and Taiwan, have fared better those that did.

Finally, the W.H.O. has been taken to task for not declaring a global emergency sooner. But when it made this declaration on January 30, there were still relatively few reported cases outside China. World leaders still had the info and updates to act, and some countries responded immediately; South Korea implemented an effective blend of policies that has made it one of the top success stories. The W.H.O. cannot be blamed for our slow response.

There is no denying that the World Health Organization is a flawed institution. But that’s to be expected of an organization made up of 194 countries, each bringing their own baggage, rivalries, and self interest. For all its problems and missteps, on balance it has done a good job in the face of a very complex and difficult pandemic—one that even the world’s richest country has had a hard time handling.

Perhaps the biggest irony in our abandoning the institution (albeit allegedly temporarily) is that it will give ample opportunity for China to fill the void, as it has been doing throughout the last few years. We bail out of global leadership time and again and then wring our hands at the Chinese for doing the obvious geopolitical thing of stepping in.

The “Wuhan Virus” and Human Progress

Believe it or not, the saga of the “Wuhan coronavirus” demonstrates a considerable amount of human progress since the days that diseases would claims tens of millions of lives (which wasn’t that long ago).

First, it was identified and determined to be a new strain of the coronavirus family at record speed. (Coronaviruses are best known for causing the “common cold”.) Just one week after it was discovered, Chinese authorities had already sequenced the virus and shared it with labs around the world; an Australian lab did the same not long after, allowing the whole world to pool its resources together to learn more about this pneumonia-like virus and develop a possible treatment.

“Something that’s remarkable here is that within a week, the RNA sequences of the virus are available on the internet, and many can look at it and begin to understand it,” Richard Martinello, an associate professor of infectious disease at the Yale School of Medicine, told Business Insider. “That’s something that’s never been done before.”

Second, since the discovery of coronaviruses around 60 years ago, medical technology has come a very long way, advancing to the point that we can conduct far more in-depth research into the way these viruses work. For example, while it was known that coronavirus could infect humans, the SARS outbreak marked the first time a coronavirus was traced back to animals. We will likely learn a lot from this experience as well.

And that leads to my third point: Thanks to the advent of institutions like the U.N. World Health Organization, there is unprecedented cooperation, monitoring, and exchanging of data and resources across the world. Just as diseases do not adhere to borders, so too are we humans learning the value of cooperating and coordinating to prevent or contain these pandemics.

To that end, Americans are presently far more likely to catch the seasonal flu than the Wuhan coronavirus. Plus, the preventative measures for both are the same: wash your hands frequently, avoid touching your face, and keep away from anyone who is sick.

None of this is to promote complacency, but to prevent unwarranted or possibly counterproductive panic.

Globalism and American Interests

With respect to Jim Mattis’ resignation letter (transcribed here): It is noteworthy that he devotes his longest paragraph, and the first one of substance, to a “globalist” vision of America’s relationship with the world:

One core belief I have always held is that our strength as a nation is inextricably linked to the strength of our unique and comprehensive system of alliances and partnerships. While the US remains the indispensable nation in the free world, we cannot protect our interests or serve that role effectively without maintaining strong alliances and showing respect to those allies. Like you, I have said from the beginning that the armed forces of the United States should not be the policeman of the world. Instead, we must use all tools of American power to provide for the common defense, including providing effective leadership to our alliances. NATO’s 29 democracies demonstrated that strength in their commitment to fighting alongside us following the 9/11 attack on America. The Defeat-ISIS coalition of 74 nations is further proof.

Setting aside the usual idealism about America’s role as a guarantor of freedom, the pragmatism underpinning this argument is unsurprising to anyone that knows U.S. history.

Even before this country was born, its foreign policy proved pivotal to its success and survival. It was the alliance with France—the first country to recognize our independence, and the only one that could challenge Great Britain—that was most decisive in securing victory in the Revolutionary War. Nearly all the Founders recognized the importance of international trade, commerce, and recognition, which provided economic growth as well as legitimacy. Hence the Constitution places great importance on international agreements (the Treaty Clause), elevates ratified treaties to the same binding force as domestic law (the Supremacy Clause), and has language apparently obligating America to enforce the “law of nations” (the Offenses Clause).

Contrary to popular belief, the top brass has always recognized this: Far from being jingoistic, many of them are well versed in international relations and world history. Some of the most noteworthy military leaders today—Mattis himself, David Petraeus, James Stavridis—studied international affairs, foreign policy, and other internationalist “soft” sciences.

Like it or not, our highly globalized world does not permit us to disregard alliances and cooperation. The people most involved in our national security recognize that.

When Cities are as Powerful as Nations

Before the emergence of the political units we now call countries, humans organized themselves in a variety of other ways, ranging from bands and tribes, to chiefdoms, kingdoms, and empires. Most of these entities were not proper countries as we think of them today, lacking a cohesive political or national identity, a firm boundary, or much in the way of an organized government.

The ancient societies of Egypt, Greece, China, Mesoamerica, the Indus River Valley, and Mesopotamia were among the exceptions, which is why they are recognized as “cradles of civilization”, places where the first features of what we consider modern society emerged: agriculture, urban development, social stratification, complex communication systems, infrastructure, and so on.

The urban character of civilization is what I find most interesting, because cities were where power, both political and economic, was concentrated. Urban centers were the places from which rulers asserted their authorities. Cities are where democracy and republicanism took root, and where civic engagement survived through the Middle Ages in places like Florence, Venice, Krakow,and Hamburg.

This dynamic has changed little in the 21st century; in fact, it is arguably stronger and more pronounced than ever, as globalization, population growth, and advanced technology come together to create metropolises as populous, wealthy, and powerful as entire countries.

The following map, courtesy of CityLab, draws on data from 2015 to prove the incredible growth and prestige of modern cities (the data for cities comes from the Brookings Institution’s Redefining Global Cities report, while the data for nations is from the World Bank’s World Development Indicators; the map was compiled by Taylor Blake of the Martin Prosperity Institute).

A few highlights noted by the article:

  • Tokyo, the world’s largest metro economy with $1.6 trillion in GDP-PPP, is just slightly smaller than all of South Korea. Were it a nation, Tokyo would rank as the 15th largest economy in the world.
  • New York City’s $1.5 trillion GDP places it among the world’s twenty largest economies, just a tick under those of Spain and Canada.
  • Los Angeles’ $928 billion GDP is bit smaller than Australia’s, with $1.1 trillion.
  • Seoul ($903 billion) has a bigger economy than Malaysia ($817 billion).
  • London’s $831 billion GDP makes its economic activity on par with the Netherlands ($840 billion).
  • Paris, with $819 billion in GDP, has a bigger economy than South Africa, $726 billion.
  • The $810 billion economy of Shanghai outranks that of the Philippines, with $744 billion.

To put things in further perspective: if you added up the ten largest metropolitan areas, you’d get an economy of over $9.5 trillion, bigger than the Japanese and German economies combined. Add the next ten largest metros, and you get the second largest economy in the world, at $14.6 trillion, less than four trillion shy of the U.S.

In other words: Cities really are the new power centers of the global economy—the platforms for innovation, entrepreneurship, and economic growth. But when it comes to fiscal and political power, they remain beholden to increasingly anachronistic and backward-looking nation-states, which has become distressingly obvious with the rise of Trumpism in the United States and populism around the world.

The greatest challenge facing us today is how to ensure that global cities have the economic, fiscal, and political power to govern themselves and to continue to be a force for innovation and human progress.


Very relevant question as the balance of power both within and between countries shifts to certain global cities, especially in the developing world.

What are your thoughts?

Ghana’s Public Health Milestone

Here’s the sort of progress that rarely makes the news: Ghana, a country of about 30 million best known for being the first African colony to achieve independence, has now earned another distinction–eliminating one of the nastiest infectious diseases in the world. As The Telegraph reports:

Trachoma, the leading infectious cause of blindness in the world, is spread by flies and human touch, and is linked to poverty and lack of access to clean water and sanitation. It starts as a bacterial infection and, if left untreated, causes the eyelashes to scratch the surface of the eye, causing great pain and, potentially, irreversible blindness.

In 2000, about 2.8 million people in Ghana were estimated to be at risk of the disease but the World Health Organization (WHO) has now officially recognised that the country has eliminated it.

The WHO director-general, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, hailed the country’s achievement: “Although there’s more work to do elsewhere, the validation of elimination in Ghana allows another previously heavily-endemic country to celebrate significant success.”

Ghana eliminated the disease through a partnership between its ministry of health, the WHO, pharmaceutical companies, and charities. Around 3.3 million doses of an antibiotic effective against trachoma were donated by Pfizer, one of the world’s larges pharmaceutical companies; another 6,000 had surgery to treat more advanced stages of the disease. (Amazing what civil society can accomplish when it comes together.)

Thanks to these efforts,Ghana now joins six other countries where trachoma is endemic — Oman, Morocco, Mexico, Cambodia, Laos, and Nepal — that have eliminated the disease.

Nevertheless, trachoma still remains a significant global problem: over 200 million people across 41 countries (mostly in Africa) are at risk of infection. Ghana and several other nations have shown the way. Here is hoping more health agencies, pharma companies, and charities take note.

The First Country to Make Public Transportation Free

Starting next summer, Luxembourg, a small country of 600,000 located between France and German, will remove all fares for buses, trams, and trains, making it the first country with free public transportation. 

More from The Guardian:

On top of the transport pledge, the new government is also considering legalising cannabis, and introducing two new public holidays.

Luxembourg City, the capital of the small Grand Duchy, suffers from some of the worst traffic congestion in the world.

It is home to about 110,000 people, but a further 400,000 commute into the city to work. A study suggested that drivers in the capital spent an average of 33 hours in traffic jams in 2016.

While the country as a whole has 600,000 inhabitants, nearly 200,000 people living in France, Belgium and Germany cross the border every day to work in Luxembourg.

Luxembourg has increasingly shown a progressive attitude to transport. This summer, the government brought in free transport for every child and young person under the age of 20. Secondary school students can use free shuttles between their institution and their home. Commuters need only pay €2 (£1.78) for up to two hours of travel, which in a country of just 999 sq miles (2,590 sq km) covers almost all journeys.


Let’s see if other, bigger countries take note. 

The Great American-Iranian Social Media War

What a time to be alive: the President of the United States and one of Iran’s top military leaders are taking jabs at each other with Game of Thrones-style social media posts. (And HBO weighed in by tweeting “what is trademark misuse in Dothraki?)

I look forward to all our foreign policy pronouncements being conveyed social media through pop culture references.

Of course, Russian state media is more than happy to report the absurdity of this.