This month, Cuba has plunged into darkness numerous times — a series of nationwide blackouts that have left millions of people without access to fresh food and water. While the causes of the crisis are "multifaceted," the collapse of the nation's power grid is considered a "new low" for a government already struggling with public perception, said NPR. President Miguel Díaz-Canel urged Cubans to act with "discipline" and "civility," amid rare public protests on the streets of Havana. 

Impact on the population
When the Antonio Guiteras thermoelectric power plant, located just east of Havana, failed, the whole island was affected, with the national grid "totally disconnected," said The Associated Press. The government was forced to temporarily "paralyze the economy," halting nonvital state services and closing schools, said Al Jazeera. Businesses across the island were forced to close their doors. In Havana, residents said blackouts for "as long as 18 to 20 hours a day" were the "last straw" as the country faces a growing list of problems, said Reuters. 

Unreliable power network
Cuba's power plants are "dilapidated and in desperate need of maintenance," said NPR. The Caribbean nation is also reliant on fuel imports to "keep the electrical grid afloat," but Venezuela, Cuba's "principal provider of fuel," has cut back shipments "amid its own economic crisis." Mexico and Russia have followed suit, leaving Cuba in a "vulnerable position," said NPR. 

The future
Power is being restored across large areas of the nation, but the fix is a "short-term solution," with the "next national collapse" potentially "just around the corner," said El País. Clean energy may be one answer. Cuba is pledging to generate 37% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030. But critics have questioned the feasibility of such a plan. Efforts so far have been hampered by "economic crisis, fuel shortages and funding shortfalls," said Reuters.

For 75 years, the U.S. has served as NATO's backbone, and NATO has backstopped Ukraine in its war against Russia. Vice President Kamala Harris says that commitment would remain if she becomes president. And Harris has vowed to stand by Ukraine against Russia, which she has said is waging a "barbaric and inhumane" war with its neighbor, said Reuters.

NATO: quiet continuity
Europe "can expect continuity from Kamala Harris," Jen Kirby said at Internationale Politik Quarterly. If Harris becomes president, America would "remain a strong supporter of NATO" and remain committed to the organization's Article 5 requirement that an attack on one member be treated as an attack on all. (That provision is mostly seen as an American commitment to Europe's defense, though it was invoked after 9/11 to bring European countries into the fight against al-Qaida.) It's unclear, though, if voters care. Foreign policy has "not factored" into the campaign, said Kirby. Europe is "far from the center of attention for the U.S. foreign policy set," said Politico. 

Ukraine: no surrender
Harris has also been steadfast in backing Ukraine. She has "slammed" proposals that Ukraine trade territory to Russia in exchange for peace, said The Associated Press. "They are proposals for surrender," she said at a September appearance with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy (pictured above with Harris). She warned that America's enemies would be emboldened if the country abandoned Ukraine and allowed Russian leader Vladimir Putin to win the war. The U.S. "supports Ukraine not out of charity but because it's in our strategic interest," said Harris.

"Events on the ground in Russia and Ukraine will also shape the future president's decisions," Angela Stent said at The Brookings Institution. While it appears that Harris' Ukraine policy would "represent continuity" with the Biden administration, it's likely she would ask advisers to review that policy once in office. 

President Joe Biden has been reluctant to let Ukraine have some offensive weapon systems. Harris might be "more forward-looking" on the issue. But one question about Ukraine must still be answered by American policymakers, said Stent: "No one in the White House has defined what winning or prevailing might mean."