Elizabeth Boyle, Staff

On Tuesday, Dec. 7, 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin sat down for a virtual meeting over the course of two hours. It was the first time these leaders have met since they talked in person at the Climate Change Conference in Geneva, Switzerland in June 2021. This meeting was to discuss the increase of Russian military on the Ukrainian Border. 

            During this call, President Biden made it clear that there would be drastic economic constraints on Russia if the threat continued. Biden said he could see “a very real cost” on Russia’s economy. The U.S. placing enhanced sanctions on Moscow was addressed during the conversation. President Biden was trying to neutralize the threat of another European war during the call. He made it clear that he wants to use diplomacy and conversation to solve this issue with Russia. 

Putin raised concerns about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and moving troops near Russia’s border. Putin said NATO is “building up its military potential at our borders.” Putin said he wants “reliable, legally fixed guarantees excluding the expansion of NATO in the eastern direction and the deployment of offensive strike weapons systems in the states adjacent to Russia.”

President Biden reiterated his support for Ukraine. Biden was the sitting vice president in 2014 when Russia invaded Ukraine by means of taking the Crimean Peninsula on the Black Sea. At that time, the U.S. and European Union (EU) sanctions against Russia were ineffective as Russia successfully took the territory from Ukraine.

In addition to speaking with Putin, the Biden administration has been communicating with Germany about the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline and what actions would be appropriate if Russia were to invade Ukraine. Nord Stream 2 is an offshore natural gas line that runs under the Baltic Sea and connects Russia and Germany. It was designed to explicitly bypass Poland and Ukraine, denying those countries of tax revenue and forging a stronger economic bond between Russia and Germany. Nord Stream 2, which was completed in Sept. 2021 but is not yet being used to flow gas from Russia to Germany, is currently supported by the Biden administration after being opposed during the Trump administration. On Dec. 7, U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan explicitly said that the U.S. was prepared to use the pipeline as a bargaining chip to deter Russian aggression in Ukraine. 

            White House press secretary Jen Psaki said “we’ve consulted significantly with our allies and believe we have a path forward that would impose significant severe harm on the Russian Economy.” Psaki said that shutting down Nord Stream 2 is “a threat. You can call that a fact. You can call that preparation. You can call it whatever you want to call it.” This shows that the U.S. is being proactive and examining a full range of diplomatic and economic options, but steering clear of an overt military response to the situation on the Russia-Ukraine border. 

Elizabeth Boyle, Staff

Over the past few months, the Russian army has virtually encircled the Northern border of Ukraine with over 92,000 troops. This past week Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky claimed that Ukraine had intercepted communications in Russia talking about Russian involvement in orchestrating a coup d’etat against the Kiev Government. Likewise, the head of Ukraine’s Defense Intelligence Agency, Brig. Gen. Kyrylo Budanov, reported that Russian forces are preparing for a combined air, artillery and armor attack sometime in January or February.

Russia has denied any allegations that it has plans to invade Ukraine. 

Russian-Ukrainian tension has been on the U.S. and The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)‘s radar for quite a while, but any time the issue is brought to the forefront, Russian President Vladimir Putin has denied that Russia has any plans to invade Ukraine. Putin’s denials have not lessened current concern in light of Russia seizing Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula in 2014, and ongoing Russian supported fighting throughout Eastern Ukraine.

In light of these potential allegations, the U.S. and members of NATO have begun coordinating about how to neutralize Russia’s threat to Ukrainian sovereignty. After hearing about these conversations, President Putin talked about the West’s response at his annual state of the union address. Putin warned the West not to cross Russia’s security “red line” by placing offensive weapons systems, especially advanced missile systems, in Ukraine. Putin said that if the Western militaries move high technology missiles into Ukraine, Moscow would be exposed and be open to an attack within 5 to 10 minutes. Putin explained, “if supersonic weapons are placed there [in Ukraine]” then the risk of an attack on Moscow could happen in as little as five minutes. Putin went on to explain how Russia has created a sea based hypersonic missile, which Putin said can travel nine times the speed of sound. He says, “the flight time to those who give out such orders will also be 5 minutes.” Putin said his deployment of such weaponry is specifically made to enforce Moscow’s “red line.” 

In response to Russian troops surrounding Ukraine and Putin’s explanation of a missile made to protect the “red line,” U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken gave Russia a warning while he was in Latvia on Tuesday. Blinken said any aggression can “trigger serious consequences.” At the time he was meeting with the Latvian foreign minister Edgars Rinkevics. Blinken was in Latvia specifically to discuss the movement of Russian troops on the Ukrainian border and said they plan to continue the conversation as NATO ministers convene a meeting later in the week.

  In coordination with NATO, the Biden administration is debating whether or not to send U.S. military personnel and weapons to Ukraine to deter and/or prepare for a possible invasion by Russia. NATO Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, has told the U.S. and other NATO militaries to prepare for the worst, as he is concerned that Russia is indeed preparing to invade Ukraine. Additionally, the U.S. has been discussing possible economic sanctions with the European Union in the event that Ukraine is invaded. 

Amid the global conversation about the rising tension, Putin continues to deny that he has any plans to invade Ukraine, and has accused the U.S. and its allies of trying to challenge Russia’s efforts to secure its territory and its “near abroad” interests.

Rachel Phillips, Staff

Kasey Brammell

On November 26, members of the W.H.O Technical Advisory Group on Virus Evolution identified another mutation of Covid-19, known as the Omicron variant. This strain, while initially detected in South Africa has already emerged in 20 countries around the world, the most recent being Brazil and Canada. The rapid transmission and potential immunity of the virus to current vaccinations have further raised alarm, particularly as the travel-heavy holiday season quickly approaches. However, despite its transmission rates, health experts remain optimistically hesitant to label the virus as severe or prevalent as the Delta Variant- which remains the most infectious mutation. Dr. Fauci, White House Medical Chief Advisor and Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, has coordinated with South African health officials in determining the symptoms of early cases and severity of a potential outbreak. However, Dr. Fauci remains adamant that a more accurate understanding of the virus requires testing on its potential immunity evasion, which may be at least two weeks away. In the meantime, many countries are implementing global precautions through travel restrictions or temporary travel bans. In the United States, President Joe Biden has enacted a travel ban from those attempting to enter the United States from South Africa. This decision is currently being considered on a “week to week” basis, contingent on the arrival of new information regarding the variant. In his most recent statement, Joe Biden has also promised not to blind-side Europe with sudden travel restrictions before the holiday season, a decision that is again contingent on the arrival of new information in the upcoming weeks. In addition to travel bans, many countries are again emphasizing the importance of vaccination and the newly available booster shots. As Dr. Fauci states, “we don’t know what degree of diminution of protection is going to be. But we know that when you boost somebody, you elevate your level of protection very high. And we are hoping, and I think with good reason, to feel good that there will be some degree of protection. Therefore, as we said, if you’re unvaccinated get vaccinated, and if you’re vaccinated, get boosted.”

Jada Urbaez, Writer

Immigration policies can be a sensitive topic for America, and a complex one due to the heartbreaking realities these laws cause families to face.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (I.C.E.) was created in 2003 “to protect America from the cross-border crime and illegal immigration that threaten national security and public safety,” according to their mission statement. 

To some, I.C.E.’s mission looks promising, protective and necessary. To others, the condition of the detention centers across the U.S., those taken into custody and the procedures done by I.C.E. officers are viewed as contradictory, inhumane and unnecessary. 

To gain an empathetic perspective on deportations and separation of families, it would be ideal to see what life is truly like for individuals without proper documentation. Luckily, Living Undocumented, a docuseries produced by Many Teefy, Selena Gomez and Eli Holzman, provides authentic information and digs deep into families’ experiences with deportation. The 2019 Netflix Original is six episodes long, following journeys of numerous families who emigrated from Israel, Mexico, Mauritania, Colombia, Laos and Honduras. The eight families in the series include two each from California and Texas as well as families from Wisconsin, South Carolina, Maryland and Florida.

Alejandra, for instance, is a Mexican woman introduced in the first episode. Although she is a military wife, due to the “zero tolerance policy” of the Trump administration, her appeals were denied by the government.

Living Undocumented highlights the hardship, fear and raw reality of these particular undocumented families’ everyday lives, but also gives greater understanding of the perspectives of millions of other people who have similar experiences.

Elizabeth Boyle, Staff

In December 2020, a woman enlisted in the Montana Army National Guard. S and she is now the first woman to complete the United States Army’s Elite Sniper School. This woman, who was stationed at Fort Benning, Georgia for her initial military training called One Station Unit Training ( or OSUT), does not wish to be publicly identified. Based on her performance at OSUT, course she was recommended for the sniper school by her superior. 

            She completed the seven-week sniper course, also at Fort Benning. In order to enter the sniper school, a soldier must be on active duty or in the National Guard or Reserves. A soldier must volunteer to begin school and have a letter of recommendation from his or her commander.     According to the U.S. Army, Fort Benning, and the Maneuver Center of Excellence, the sniper course was created to, “educate snipers to be adaptive soldiers, critical and& creative thinkers, armed with the technical, tactical, and logistical skills necessary to serve successfully at the sniper team level [and] prepare snipers with a principal understanding of team duties and responsibility.” The course trains a soldier in advanced camouflage, target detection, intelligence preparation of the battlefield (IPB), relevant reporting procedures, sniper tactics, advanced marksmanship, moving targets in the light and in the dark, battlefield awareness, and complex engagements. After a soldier is trained in these areas, he or she must pass various tests using simulated real-life events in order to pass the course. After her success in the sniper course, her OSUT company commander, Joshua O’Neill, said, “We’re all incredibly proud of her. There wasn’t a doubt in our minds that she would succeed.”

            One of the most famous female snipers was Lyudmila Pavlivhenko from Ukraine. She served in the Soviet Army during World War II. After the war, she was invited to the U.S. by Eleanor Roosevelt, said Smithsonian Magazine in 2013. She was invited to discuss her combat experience while on a tour of the country.

            In the U.S., the first women sniper, Senior Airman Jennifer Weitekamp, a member of the Illinois Air National Guard, graduated from the National Guard’s sniper school’s Counter-Sniper Course for Air Guard Security Force in April 2001. At that time this was the only sniper school open to women in the U.S. military. Weitekamp said, “they asked for volunteers for this training program, and I really wanted to go, so I volunteered.” Weitekamp understood the doors she opened for other women at the time. She explained, “I was the first woman to go through, it was because of that and the opportunities it would open up for future women that helped me get through the training and kept me motivated.”

Rachel Phillips, Staff

Texas may soon lose its status as the state with the most restrictive abortion law. As of Wednesday, Nov. 3, 2021, Republican lawmakers in Ohio have proposed an abortion bill with a severity that could overshadow the current “Heartbeat Bill” in Texas. The potential bill, also known as the 2363 act, a name that according to Ohio lawmakers reflects the number of daily abortions performed in the U.S., will ultimately place a total ban on abortion. If passed, the legislation will not include exceptions for rape or incest, nor will it allow for an abortion prior to the detection of a fetal heartbeat. In addition, similar to the social repercussion of the Texas bill, the 2363 Act will allow any civilian to file lawsuits of at least $10,000 to those caught receiving, aiding, or performing an abortion. Furthermore, if enacted, the bill will also ban defendants of civil suits from skirting prosecution based on claims of ignorance of the law or personal belief that it is unconstitutional.

In addition, it seems the arrival of the 2363 Act has prompted other states to consider similar copycat bills. Several states, including Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota and Indiana, have publicly announced interest in an abortion ban and may attempt to initiate reform as early as January of 2022.

Current Ohio House Minority Leader Emilia Sykes has slammed the potential bill, labeling it “an egregious assault on women, a dangerous attack on healthcare rights and an embarrassment for the state.” However, despite the ongoing criticism of Sykes and the outrage from both healthcare providers and recipients, the 2363 Act has already been signed by 33 lawmakers, more than half of the House GOP caucus. While this does not guarantee a victory for the bill or Republican leaders, the early momentum does suggest an increased likelihood of passage.

Adrienne Kimmel, current president of Pro-Choice America, is one of many women who believe that the outcome in Ohio will be a decisive vote for the country and the future of healthcare freedom for women. She states, “The domino effect is well under way and will only continue to escalate in cruelty, as long as the Supreme Court allows legislation like Texas’ blatantly unconstitutional law to stand.”

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, where thousands of students K-12 were forced to learn from home, we see parents becoming more and more involved in their child’s education, as the average American home has transformed into both the work space for the parent and the school for the child. While parents defend their interest in their children’s education as looking to ensure the education their children are receiving is quality, the overinvolvement in curriculum has rather the opposite effect. Critical Race Theory (CRT) is a concept parents in recent months have been avidly protesting against teaching to K-12 students. Contrary to this opposition, however, Critical Race Theory is not being taught in K-12 at all.

In a 17 year Google Trends highlight, search results for “Critical Race Theory” have only exploded in interest since June of 2021. This implies that people are ill-informed about what CRT is in the first place. 

CRT refers to a theorem practiced in law concerning the intersection of race and law and further explorations of a racially biased justice system. While this theorem may be controversial to some parents, it is not actually being taught in K-12 schools, as it is a high level law theorem discussed in law school. Thus, this begs the question — if parents are not protesting the teaching of CRT in their child’s school… what are they protesting?

What parents are protesting is the blaming of one specific racial or ethnic group in teaching history as they believe it is the political-division of America today. The Idaho State law bill NO. 377 entitled “Dignity and Nondiscrimination in Public Education Act” bans teaching in history that, “individuals, by virtue of sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color or national origin, are inherently responsible for actions committed in the past by other members of the same sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color or national origin.” This law, similar to others being introduced across the country, asserts that educators are banned from teaching students history from a specific perspective or describing how this history involves race, ethnicity, gender and religion.

Nevertheless, this is not what the law is being used to ban in practice, as there is a gray area of what educators are permitted to say about historical issues involving race, religion and ethnicity. Slavery and the Holocaust fall within this area. For example, the statement “white people have contributed to slavery because of the racial hierarchy of the time, which has effects on racial relations today,” would be banned as a result of the Idaho bill, as this statement discusses a racial group heading an action and furthermore that the historical action has effects on society to this day. The bill seeks to avoid involving discussions of race, ethnicity, gender and religion in teaching topics that concern these very concepts, such as slavery.

The bill also impacts the teaching of ethnicity-related historical events such as the Holocaust. In one Texas school district, the executive director of curriculum and instruction for the Carroll Independent School District, Gina Peddy, was recorded on tape as saying “Just try to remember the concepts of [House Bill] 3979… And make sure that if you have a book on the Holocaust, that you have one that has an opposing, that has other perspectives.” The application of the House bill in which Peddy was referencing is being used to teach America’s children an unbiased view of underlined racial events in world history such as the Holocaust, however, “unbiased” and “Holocaust” in the same sentance does not seem to make much sense ethically to some protestors, and neither does avoiding discussions of race in inherentley race-related topics such as that of slavery.

 Discussions surrounding race-related history may be uncomfortable for some, however, there is no sugarcoating history, and race is impossible to remove from events such as slavery and the Holocaust. Several bills like Idaho’s have been passed throughout the country since September, which raises questions surrounding what type of history will be taught to the younger generations. States including Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Tennessee have passed similar legislation which bans the teaching of CRT. With curriculum surrounding race-related events in history being controlled in certain aspects, it begs the question of whether this will improve the quality of education and, furthermore, the wellness of our society, or worsen it.