Senate hearings on SCOTUS nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson

Politics

Jakob Eiseman, Editor-in-Chief

Header Image: CNBC

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson had her third and final day of Senate hearings on Wednesday, with critical Republican Senators and supportive Democratic Senators lobbing dozens of questions her way regarding her experience with prison time rulings, critical race theory, her sentencing regarding sex offenders and even her empathy as a human being. These questioning hearings have been described as marathons, with Brown being before the podium for hours at a time. Here is a breakdown of some of the major takeaways from all three hearings:

In the opening remarks on Monday, the Republican Senators stated that this nomination would be pivotal to the future of the systems of government in place in the U.S., referencing frequent attacks on the Supreme Court’s legitimacy by political analysts and representatives as well. Democratic Senators echoed the importance of this nomination, instead opting to refer to current political topics that the Supreme Court may weigh in on in the coming years such as access to, and support of abortion. Both sides of the aisle agreed, at least publicly, that the nomination of Jackson is monumental in U.S. history as, if confirmed, Jackson would be the first Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court. On the third day, Dick Durbin, D-IL, began the session as Senate panel’s Judiciary Committee chairman stating that “America is ready for the Supreme Court glass ceiling to shatter.”

Expectedly, Ted Cruz, R-TX, used his time slot in the opening remarks to bash Democratic Senators and how they have handled the last few Supreme Court nominations, barely making mention of anything related to Jackson or her history in law. Several other Republican Senators including Mike Lee, R-UT, echoed this sentiment in their remarks, additionally hitting Democrats for their suggestion to expand the number of justices on the court. Democratic Senators also strayed from discussion of Jackson herself quite a few times, with Amy Klobuchar, D-MN, referencing cases that the Supreme Court will soon weigh in on such as health care reform.

When actually addressing Jackson, or speaking to their colleagues about Jackson, most comments came back to Republicans insinuating that Jackson was too soft on crime during her time as judge, and Democrats stating that just because she was a federal public defender does not correlate to her being overly-empathetic toward defendants.

At the end of the first day’s event, Jackson was allowed to issue a closing statement, and in a lengthy speech, she said “I stand on the shoulders of so many who have come before me… I have dedicated my career to ensuring the words engraved on the front of the Supreme Court building, ‘equal justice under law’, are a reality and not just an ideal,” a motto she has frequently upheld in her rulings in the past.

Some common themes in questions from Republican Senators on following days included questioning Jackson’s rulings on sex-related crimes during her service as a federal judge. Some questions and criticisms for Jackson by Republicans stated that she tended to issue shorter or lighter sentences to sex offenders than is recommended federally, accusing her of endangering children and people because of her actions. To this Jackson responded that regulations are not one size fits all and that “As a mother and a judge, nothing could be further from the truth.”

Jackson represented Guantanamo Bay detainees in court in the aughts, and Republican Senators seemed to be under the impression that this made Jackson a terrorist-sympathizer despite public defenders having little control over who they defend and that she was doing her duty as a federal employee.

When questioned on her beliefs regarding critical race theory, Jackson responded that as a judge she is to be impartial, therefore it “wouldn’t be something I would rely on.” Some criticized her as dodging the question, but others have supported her that her personal beliefs regarding the sanctity of the government have little to do with her actions as an arbiter of the law and constitution.

She also managed to avoid answering questions regarding policing, again declining to answer on the grounds that her opinions on policing have little to do with her service as a lawyer, judge or justice.

In a third and final attempt to crack open Jackson’s personal life and beliefs in order to disparage her character, Lindsey Graham, R-SC, asked Jackson to discuss her religious beliefs to which she responded that there is a separation of church and state in the U.S. and that she would uphold this within herself and her service as a court justice.

On the subject of abortion, one that was put toward her from both Democrats and Republicans, Jackson said that she has a personal religious belief regarding abortion, but, as was stated before, would put that aside when ruling on cases and intends to uphold the precedents established by Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

A question came from Thom Tiillis, R-NC, and again accused Jackson of being soft on crime. But, rather than attacking, like Cruz and others, he implied that Jackson was too sympathetic as a person to rule as judge, a concern that pundits and political commentators from both parties have expressed in the past and is her main blocker during this nomination period.

After being repeatedly targeted by Senators regarding her rulings on sex crimes in the past, somewhat heatedly, Jackson snapped back at Josh Hawley, R-MO, stating “Senator, what I regret is that in a hearing about my qualifications to be a justice on the Supreme Court, we’ve spent a lot of time focusing on this small subset of my sentences.” “No one case, Senator, can stand in for judging an entire record,” said Jackson.

The Democrat-majority senate is likely to affirm Jackson’s nomination to the Supreme Court. An update will be applied to this article when the voting comes to a close.

Three men who killed Ahmaud Arbery convicted of federal hate crimes

national politics, Politics

Jada Urbaez, Staff

The three men who killed Ahmaud Arbery, Gregory McMichael, Travis McMichael and William “Roddie” Bryan Jr., were convicted of federal hate crimes last week.

The murder took place on the coast of Georgia on Feb. 23, 2020. Brunswick, GA had been home to Arbery and his family since his “peewee football days,” says Aaron Morrison, a reporter who sat with the victim’s family.

On that February day, Arbery, 25, was going on an afternoon jog in a surrounding neighborhood known as Satilla Shores. Gregory McMichael reported to police that Arbery had fit the description for the suspect who allegedly committed break-ins in the area. The suspects claimed to have been doing a citizen’s arrest. The police confirmed there had been no break-ins, and therefore there was never a suspect.

Travis and Gregory McMichael were both armed with a pistol and shotgun when they surrounded Arbery with their truck. Bryan Jr. joined the McMichaels in this encounter, utilizing his pickup truck, and three shots were fired by Travis McMichael, killing Arbery.

The McMichaels were arrested over two months later, on May 7, and Bryan Jr. was arrested on May 21, 2020. The three men were indicted by the state of Georgia on nine counts. These include: one count of false imprisonment, four counts of felony murder, two counts of aggravated assault, one count of malice murder and one count of criminal attempt to commit false imprisonment.

According to Georgia state law, malice murder is commited when one, “unlawfully and with malice aforethought, either express or implied, causes the death of another human being.” Travis and Gregory McMichael are sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole. Bryan Jr., the third suspect who later joined and filmed the Arbery encounter, would be eligible for parole after thirty years.

Last week, however, a federal jury found the three murderers guilty of federal hate crimes. To convict someone of a hate crime, the jury must see if the actions of the suspects were racially motivated.

What aided in this conviction was a suspects’ internet usage that shows a history of racial slurs, offensive/racist memes and conversations. For many consecutive years, Bryan wrote content that mocked Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Travis McMichael left a comment in a 2018 Facebook post, “I’d kill that (expletive).” Gregory McMichael shared a post that implied disregard for slaves’ suffering in the U.S. The post said that Irish slaves suffered more than any race in American history.

In addition to internet use, there is direct evidence provided by witnesses who testified and shared that they heard the suspects make racist comments and slurs.

The case’s prosecutor, Christopher Perras, stated that there was no evidence that 25-year-old Arbery was a threat, but the suspects assumed so because he was Black. The suspects pleaded not guilty to the hate crime charges, but were found guilty and must serve their respective sentences for their murder charges.

Former President Trump refers to Putin as a “genius” for his invasion of Ukraine

Politics

Danielle O’Brien, Editor

On Feb. 2022, former President Trump made remarks on the “The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show” concerning Russian President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, commending it by referring to Putin as a “genius.” The remarks made set forth a disturbing precedent for political scientists to analyze whether these encouraging comments can have a welcoming effect on Russia’s dream of reforming the USSR.

Former President Trump states in the show, “I went in yesterday and there was a television screen, and I said, ‘This is genius.’ Putin declares a big portion of Ukraine, of Ukraine, Putin declares it as an independent. Oh, that’s wonderful… So Putin is now saying, ‘It’s independent,’ a large section of Ukraine. I said, ‘How smart is that?’ And he’s going to go in and be a peacekeeper. That’s the strongest peace force,” It’s important to point out that besides referring to Vladimir Putin as a “genius” for his moves in Ukraine, Trump also refers to Russia’s presence in Ukraine and more specifically Vladamir Putin as a “peacekeeper.” It’s possible that the people of the United States could give former President Trump the benefit of doubt as the United States government has a habit of invading countries unwarranted and referring to it as “peacekeeping.”

Although these comments could have been intended in a joking manner, these potential jokes were certainly not sarcastic, considering Trump goes on to declare that the “savviness” of Putin for his invasion of an independent country is the same savviness the U.S. needs to take up towards its southern border. Trump states, “We could use that on our southern border. That’s the strongest peace force I’ve ever seen… Here’s a guy who’s very savvy… I know him very well. Very, very well.” What President Trump alludes to in his comments about the southern border, whether he is stating that invading our neighbors south of the border and claiming them as our own is a “savvy” idea, remains unclear.

Dr. Mark Thomas from the political science department weighed in on how comments like these may be encouraging Putin’s actions in Ukraine. Thomas stated, “Trump’s praise of Putin as a ‘genius’ has only as much credence and bearing on the global stage as his remaining sycophants in the U.S. give to it. He hardly speaks for the U.S. and even many of his most ardent supporters in the U.S. are viewing him as increasingly irrelevant and more as a roadblock to the future success of the Republican Party.”

“That said, to those foreign leaders and people, who share Putin’s perspective that peoples divided by the post-World War I and II borders can be altered by force, his words can justify their actions, the same way the Jan. 6 protestors listened to his calls for action against former Vice President Pence and Congress in certifying the 2020 election results. The borders drawn in the post-war era are not logically based on geographical or ethnic lines; they are the equivalent of gerrymandering peoples to achieve the political goals of those drawing the lines. Needless to say, the Soviet Union (Russia), the U.S. and the U.K. drew those maps together,” continued Thomas.

“As to whether Putin is a genius is definitely doubtful. He is, at best, a judo expert who waits for his adversary to make a move to which he can leverage their own force against him so Putin can gain the advantage. His threats to use nuclear weapons are that type of move. It is what we used to refer to as ‘crazy Ivan,’ acting so unpredictably and apparently insanely to provoke fear, either to intimidate the opponent into appeasement or to push him into a position to justify another crazy act. Putin has been doing this since 2008 and he told us so in his 2014 Russian Security Strategy. He has been doing the unthinkable, be it information operations to undermine political stability in the U.S. and other Western countries, annexing Crimea and de facto annexing eastern Ukraine, assassinating dissidents abroad, cyber-attacks (ransomware are the publically known ones) on the industry. He has been softening us up for his move on Ukraine and his ultimate objective of creating a polycentric order where nobody discounts Russian military might again. Putin sadly underestimates his Eastern flank and that China is ‘playing the U.S. card’ to gain an advantage over Russia’s economy,” Thomas Concluded

Dr. Thomas’s comments seem to indicate that positive remarks surrounding Putin’s character, such as the ones made by former President Trump, may act as an endorsement for countries to declare others theirs to conquer. This is the opposite of the values of American democracy, something which it is willing to go to war over.

COVID-19 standards in the military

national politics, Politics

Elizabeth Boyle, Staff

Recently amidst all the negative news and the war raging in Europe, some positive news has come to light in Philadelphia — no more mask mandate. The Philadelphia Department of Public Health announced that on March 2, 2022, the city is moving into the “All Clear COVID-19 Response Level.” This change means the indoor masks mandate is dropped effective immediately.

Military bases have been instructed to follow the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) community COVID-19 guidelines. These guidelines will indicate whether active duty military, civilian employees, and visitors need to wear a mask on military bases. The CDC has determined that masks and screenings are no longer mandatory when the Community Level of COVID-19 is determined as low. When deciding this level, they take into consideration the hospital admissions, the percentage of inpatient beds taken by COVID-19 patients, and the number of new cases in a given community. Where Community Levels of COVID-19 are considered medium, the screening will continue but indoor mask mandates may be dropped. This means that DOD employees and service members can remove their masks based on where they are stationed.

The issue of military base locations is complicated in places such as the Army’s Fort Bragg, in North Carolina, and Marine Corps bases in Coronado, Point Loma and Camp Pendleton in California. These bases are spread over three or more counties each. These are some of the largest military bases in the U.S. and they will be waiting for further instruction from the CDC. For example, Fort Bragg covers four counties that are in a variety of ranges for COVID-19 Community Levels.

As military bases reach lower COVID-19 levels their facilities are being opened up to include more people per building. The Pentagon has increased the occupancy of buildings from 25 percent to 50 percent. This can have an impact on efficiency as well as morale, such as when the service members express excitement for “more options for seating in the food court,” as mentioned in an email circulating to base personnel.

As for COVID-19 vaccines in the military, the Pentagon has announced they are going to be investigating COVID-19 exemptions. The Pentagon’s Inspector General has announced that he will inspect exemption requests, and if they are unsatisfactory proper punishments will be handed down. He stated that punishments are “in accordance with Federal and DoD actions.”

An intense conflict has arisen as federal legal cases have been filed by service members who have refused the COVID-19 vaccine. The judges reviewing the cases have stated that there may be issues stemming from flaws in the exemption process. Those who are petitioning have stated that “the record creates a strong inference that the services are discriminatorily and systematically denying religious exemptions without a meaningful and fair hearing.” In Texas, actions against a group of special forces sailors were stopped by the judge based on how their exemptions were handled by the Navy. In court, Navy Seals claimed that “ their accommodation requests are futile because denial is a predetermined outcome.”

As civilian vaccines and boosters are available, the mask mandates are being lifted day by day. For our service members, rules on masks will apply based on the location they are stationed. As their mask restrictions are lifted, a struggle continues between the Pentagon and DOD for service members who do not wish to receive the vaccine or have a religious exemption.

Canadian Prime Minister revokes emergency powers enacted to shut down freedom convoy

international politics, Politics

Danielle O’Brien, Editor

On Feb. 14, 2022, in a 185 to 151 vote, the Emergencies Act was approved in the Canadian Parliament marking the first time in Canadian history in which these powers were invoked. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invoked these emergency powers for the first time due in part to the demonstrations taking place along the northern board outside of Canada’s capital of Ottawa which blocked an estimated $500 million a day of cross-border trading. The “freedom convoy” was a group of truckers protesting against Canada’s national vaccine mandate. The emergency powers allotted the Canadian government the power to arrest protestors of the convoy. What has made the enactment of these emergency powers (the likes of which have since been revoked) so controversial was that it broke up demonstrations which is the right of Canadian citizens to perform. Nevertheless, Trudeau asserted in his enactment of the emergency powers that these demonstrations were “no longer a lawful protest at a disagreement over government policy” but rather “an illegal occupation” as public protests such as blockades and or occupations constitute illegality in Canada. The blockade did have a surprising effect on the automotive industry for the time that it was in place.

One of the key points connecting the North American and Canadian border, the Ambassador Bridge, was also choked by the convoy. As a result, essential automotive parts which were being sent from Detroit to Ontario through the bridge were inaccessible due to the convoy. Trudeau enacted a two-day state of emergency in Canada on Feb 15. escalated the tensions of wrapping up the demonstrations as protestors who refused to disperse after the enactment of the emergency powers were threatened with vehicle seizures, fines of around $80,000 USD, imprisonment of up to a year, and suspension of commercial licenses.

The emergency powers allotted the Canadian government the power to cut off the group’s finances which worked more efficiently to strangle the protests. Trudeau’s finance minister, Chrystia Freeland, announced at the present conference on Feb. 14. Under the Emergencies Act, crowdfunding platforms that have been upholding these protests must be registered with the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Center of Canada (FINTRAC). This aspect of the emergency powers came as the convoy had large financial support through a GoFundme page of more than $8 million, the profits and accessibility of which were thus halted by GoFundme under the powers. The freedom Convoy also tried to access financial support through bitcoin, however, an estimated $3.8 million in virtual currency was also frozen under the emergency powers.

As of Feb. 23, with Canadian police reporting that the state of emergency powers allowed them to arrest over 200 demonstrators with 400 criminal charges being issued in total, Prime Minister Trudeau rescinded the emergency powers, concluding that “the federal government will be ending the use of the Emergencies Act. We are confident that existing laws and bylaws are now sufficient to keep people safe.” Americans especially livid about the vaccine mandate claim that the application of these types of powers towards protests was an abuse of Canadian emergency powers on the prime minister’s end.

Interestingly, over 90 percent of Canada’s truckers are fully vaccinated. The nation’s transport minister, Omar Alghabra, has said that Canada’s main trucking association denounced the protests. Nevertheless, Canada’s enactment of its emergency powers for the first time in its history to address a protest over vaccine mandates may serve as a comment on today’s political atmosphere.

Russian forces have invaded Ukraine

international politics, Politics

Jakob Eiseman, Editor-in-Chief

Header Image: USA Today

Editor’s Note: At the time of publishing for the Feb. 24 issue, much was still unknown about the reported Russian invasion of Ukraine, but we did not want to avoid reporting on it due to unfortunate timing. Periodically throughout the week we will be updating this page with news regarding the attack. However, at the 7 a.m. publishing time we have no official report. Please bear with us.

Around 7 p.m. last night, the Ukraine government received word that Russian invasion had been approved by their military leaders, and was prepared for a war to break out at any moment.

At 8:30 p.m. the U.N. announced an emergency meeting. Around the same time, a large number of military vehicles could be seen moving along the northeast Ukrainian border in large numbers.

Between 9 p.m. and 10 p.m., Russian President Vladimir Putin publicly announced a “special military operation” in the Donbas region of Ukraine. Earlier this week, Putin recognized Donbas’s capital city Donetsk as an independent region alongside the Ukrainian region of Luhansk. During this address, Putin added “Whoever tries to interfere with us, and even more so, to create threats for our country, for our people, should know that Russia’s response will be immediate and will lead you to such consequences that you have never experienced in your history.”

Just after 10 p.m. explosions could be heard at Ukraine’s capital, Kyiv. Just after, explosions went off near Kharkiv in the Northeast.

Around 11:30 p.m., the U.N. emergency meeting was held, and Russian ambassador Vasily Alekseevich Nebenzya defended Russian military action claiming “The root of today’s crisis around Ukraine is the actions of Ukraine itself, who for many years were sabotaging its obligations,” referring to those found in the Minsk Agreement.

Also at 11:30 p.m., CNN uploaded an infographic showing all believed explosion sites. As Ukraine is in a state of panic, know that these reports may change:

Just after Nebenzya spoke at the U.N. emergency meeting, Ukrainian Ambassador to the U.N. Sergiy Kyslytsya pleaded with the U.N. to use the organization’s security power to end the war. “It is the responsibility of this body to stop the war. So I call on every one of you to do everything possible to stop the war,” said Kyslytsya. To which Nebenzya responded “This isn’t called a war, this is called a special military operation in Donbas.” As he continued his speech, Kyslytsya urged the U.N. security council by claiming it was beyond the time for de-escalation and that military action needs to be taken.

Just before midnight, Russian ships carrying hundreds of soldiers landed in Odessa, a shore city in Southern Ukraine.

At 12:15 a.m., martial law was declared in Ukraine.

At 12:30 a.m. additional Russian forces invaded Ukraine through Belarus., cementing this as a full-scale invasion and war.

At 1 a.m., Ukraine announced it was being attacked through multiple Russian borders, as well as through Belarus, Crimea, and the sea.

At 5 a.m. European Union Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced plans to issue extreme sanctions against the Russian government and economy in order to “weaken Russia’s economic base and its capacity to modernize.” “These sanctions are designed to take a heavy toll on the Kremlin’s interests and their ability to finance war. And we know that millions of Russians do not want war,” said Leyen.

Around 6:15 a.m. NATO published a statement reading “Today, we have held consultations under Article 4 of the Washington Treaty. We have decided, in line with our defensive planning to protect all Allies, to take additional steps to further strengthen deterrence and defense across the Alliance. Our measures are and remain preventive, proportionate and non-escalatory.”

As of the most recent update, the death toll has risen to over 50 Ukrainians, 40 soldiers and 10 civilians, with about 50 Russian soldiers also being killed.

Late this morning, it was confirmed that Russia had taken control of an aircraft base near Kyiv. There have been reports of firefights breaking out near the base and aircraft circling over it.

About 10:30 a.m. Ukraine Ministry of Internal Affairs stated that their Western border is still secure and that “On the territory of Ukraine, all services of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine in martial law ensure law and order, provide assistance to injured, eliminate destruction and fires.”

12 p.m.: President Biden convened with the National Security Council this morning, and at 12 p.m. he will be reporting the results of that meeting.

Updates to follow

Russia-Ukraine situation, an update, and some insight

international politics, Politics

Elizabeth Boyle, Staff

Russia has gained a global audience because of its tensions with Ukraine. After positioning approximately 190,000 soldiers, armored military units, and naval vessels outside the Ukrainian border for several months, Russia has officially invaded Ukraine. Russia invaded the southeast region of Ukraine on Russia’s border, specifically Luhansk and Donetsk provinces. Both provinces have Russian-backed separatist-held areas. The world is talking about the reasoning behind Russian President Vladimir Putin’s motives for the attack. Here are five potential rationales and the arguments that go along with each.

1. Russia was threatened by NATO expansion.

Putin, on more than one occasion, has claimed that NATO expansion is the central driver of Ukraine versus Russia crisis. Many believe that NATO was trying to play off of Russia’s insecurities by putting pressure on it. Putin responded violently to his perception of a threat from NATO when he invaded Georgia in 2008 and, to a lesser degree, when he annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. Some believe that if Putin can prevent Ukraine from becoming a NATO member, he will no longer feel threatened by NATO expansion in Ukraine. By invading Ukraine, Putin has, in the short term, eliminated the potential for Ukraine to become a NATO member because NATO will not accept a country that is under the partial control of Russia.

2. Russia was threatened by Ukrainian democracy.

Many who believe that Putin is not threatened by NATO believe that he is threatened by Ukrainian democracy. These people look at history over the last 30 years and claim that while NATO is a variable in the conflict between Russia and the West, it is not the major contributor. Instead of looking at NATO expansion, the people who agree with this argument look at the increase of democracy in Europe and Asia as a threat to Putin’s autocratic rule. NATO expansion by including Ukraine in the alliance was not a short-term threat because Russia had already invaded and seized part of Ukraine in 2014. Ukraine would not be admitted into NATO as long as Russian forces were operating on its soil, as they have been in Crimea and the Luhansk and Donetsk provinces. If NATO were to admit Ukraine while the Russian military operated on its soil, Ukraine could invoke Article 5 of the NATO charter calling for NATO military action in the collective defense of one of its members. This eliminates the argument that NATO expansion is the cause of Putin’s invasion because he had already prevented Ukraine from becoming a member of NATO by invading Ukraine in 2014. As an autocrat, essentially President-for-Life, Putin does not want Ukraine to stand as an example to the Russian populace. Putin’s goal is to return Ukraine to the control of one of his selected colleagues, such as former President Viktor Yanukovych, who was removed by Ukraine’s parliament in February 2014 due to his close ties to Russia.

3. Russia wants to expand its sphere of influence.

If Ukraine were to fall under Russian control, it would greatly increase the power Russia has. Although many people don’t realize it, Ukraine is an important country in terms of natural resources, agriculture, and industrialization. Ukraine is the second-largest country by land in Europe, second only to Russia. Ukraine has the second-largest iron ore reserves in the world at 30 billion tons. It ranks in the top three in Europe in terms of mercury ore reserves, shell gas reserves, and recoverable uranium ores. Ukraine places in the top five in the world for the production of rye, potatoes, corn, barley, and sunflower oil. Ukraine also ranks in the top five in the world for the largest natural gas pipeline system and iron, clay, titanium, and turbines exportation. Having access to these resources would increase Russia’s economic independence and its economic influence in Europe. The argument could be made that modern-day Russia looks to America as an example. The U.S., after its founding, continued to expand its influence into Latin America and the Caribbean and assisted in the removal of European powers from the Western Hemisphere. Secretary of State Richard Olney, in 1895, said, “The United States is practically sovereign on this continent and its fiat is law upon the subjects to which it confines its interposition.” As a country such as the U.S. grows into a hegemonic power with a large sphere of influence, it begins to fear for the economic and political consequences of challenges to its power. Within a country’s sphere of influence, it has the power to influence regional and global aggression beyond its borders. If Putin were to increase Russia’s sphere of influence through the use of Ukraine’s resources and Western proximity to NATO countries, he would be able to increase Russia’s economic and political power within Europe and beyond.

4. Russia wants to reestablish the historic Russian empire.

As mentioned in rationale number three, Ukraine’s resources help it economically compete on a global scale. If Russia were to gain control of Ukraine, it would have access to these resources. By looking at history, one can see that, for hundreds of years, Russia was a strong empire full of many people and cultures and had a great amount of global power by virtue of its geography and economic potential. One potential reason for Putin’s invasion is a want to return to that powerful Russian empire. The old empire was able to control resources including the productive capacity of the people by gaining land and its resources by conquest. By annexing Ukraine into Russia, Putin would be able to move Russia a step closer to returning to the historic and powerful Russian empire.

5. Russia wants to reestablish the geographic contours of the Warsaw Pact.

In this argument, one must read Vladimir Putin’s speech to the Russian people. Putin starts his speech by saying, “I would like to emphasize again that Ukraine is not just a neighboring country for us. It is an inalienable part of our own history, culture, and spiritual space.” Putin goes on to say that Ukraine was “entirely created by Russia or to be more precise by the Bolshevik communist Russia.” Putin talks about the borders that the USSR used to have and praises Stalin’s leadership there. The way he talked could lead one to believe that Putin is worried Russia’s borders will shrink in the coming future. This leads to the fifth reason why Russia would want to invade Ukraine: to reestablish the geographic contours of the Warsaw Pact. There was no independent Ukraine when the Warsaw Pact was signed and Putin’s speech could lead one to think he wants to see that again. In April 2005, Putin referred to the collapse of the Soviet Union as “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” Those who believe in this rationale think that the combination of the Russian and Soviet empires collapsing is what Putin aims to reverse with the goal of bringing the Russian empire back to its previous power and borders. He wants to undo the “catastrophe” of the demise of the USSR.

Now that you’ve read five highly popular theories on why Putin invaded Ukraine, what do you think? Is Putin worried about the spread of democracy in Europe? Is he trying to ruin Ukraine’s eligibility of entering NATO for fear of NATO expansion? Or maybe Putin is trying to increase Russia’s power and align their sphere of influence with the past Russian Empire, which includes increasing its borders as they were when the Warsaw Pact was signed?

Opinion: The United States should not be shocked by Russia’s planned invasion of Ukraine

international politics, Politics

Andrew Plunket, Staff

Header Image: BNN Bloomberg

After recent reports that Russian troops have been authorized to invade Ukraine by military officials, the world waits in anticipation. While Russian forces continue to mobilize upon Ukraine’s border, Western leaders, including President Joseph Biden and U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, have levied sharp criticism against Vladimir Putin’s aggressive maneuvers. In fact, in a press conference last week, Biden boldly exclaimed, “if Russia pursues its plans, it will be responsible for a catastrophic and needless war of choice … the United States and our Allies are prepared to defend every inch of NATO territory from any threat to our collective security as well.” Yet, as news continues to permeate the media landscape about Russia’s imminent invasion of Ukraine, one thing remains crystal clear: the United States and its allies should not be surprised by recent displays of Russian aggression.

Since Putin’s rise to power in the early 2000s, Russia has demonstrated that it is not a reliable international partner. Its blatant interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election and other democratic staples within the Western world, continual attacks upon fundamental principles of human rights like the right to free speech and attempts to subvert international resolutions have proven that a Putin-led Russia is not to be trusted. Putin’s distinctive Machiavellian-style politics has replaced the pursuit of peace with the attainment of power and global prestige as the main goal of Russian foreign policy. The established norms do not matter for Putin; rather, total control manifested through military campaigns and propaganda is the only matter of chief importance.

In his endless pursuit of power, Putin has single-handedly isolated Russia from the international community and has transformed a once emerging center of Eastern democracy into an unrecognizable stronghold of authoritarianism. As this crisis continues to worsen, it is evident that the days of SALT treaties, perestroika, glasnost, and good-faith negotiation have far passed.

It remains bewildering, therefore, as to why Western leaders, particularly those within the U.S., continue to be surprised at Russian efforts to expand its influence. In observing the remarks made by Western leaders about the proposed invasion, sentiments of shock, vague threats, and disappointment seem to characterize most of the West’s formal press releases, statements, and speeches. Putin has demonstrated time and time again that he is not to be trusted, and yet, the West’s only response has involved measly economic sanctions and condescending finger-wagging. For example, when Russia invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014, the Western world replied with sanctions, empty promises, and lengthy speeches, thus ignoring the plethora of international transgressions committed by the Russian state. It is clear that Russia is unwilling to cooperate with international law. And, until measures of democracy are restored within the nation and its despotic leader is replaced, Western leaders must recognize that diplomatic pleas for peace will only fall upon deaf ears.

Moreover, in addition to the dangers posed by Putin’s rule, the U.S. must recognize that its own pattern of brutal imperialism and cultural hegemony is directly responsible for Russia’s aggression. Although the U.S. likes to model itself as a picturesque beacon of democracy, an in-depth study of its history reveals that it has consistently abused human rights, unjustly invaded foreign nations/territories, and exercised soft power through propaganda, censure, and “big stick” diplomacy. It is the ultimate hypocrisy that the U.S. so strongly protests the Russian occupation when, just a few months ago, it ended a twenty-year invasion of Afghanistan.

Additionally, U.S. occupations in Latin America and East Asia further point to its natural proclivity towards violence as a means to secure power. Therefore, the U.S. cannot be surprised that other nations attempt to imitate its own strategy. If the U.S. can invade Afghanistan, Iraq, and other nation-states without much international backlash, why would Russia not do the same thing? The American sense of moral superiority must end. The U.S. has set an extraordinarily dangerous precedent of imperialism, and now that Russia is seemingly set upon the same path, it condemns its actions. The U.S. must not pretend to be ignorant about the causes of this crisis. It is a direct result of American imperialism, and thus, the U.S. must accept this crucial fact if any solution is to be attained.

Of course, in order to secure peace and liberty for future generations, diplomacy still must be triumphed as the primary solution. Russia currently maintains the second-largest military behind the United States and is still an integral component in the political structure of Europe/Asia. However, the time for big stick diplomacy and coercive politics is over. Displays of strength will not solve this crisis; if they did, then Russia would have already won the day. If real progress is to be achieved, transparency, empathy and a commitment to preserving peace must replace the current machismo-style diplomacy which has characterized the crisis thus far. Until these goals are pursued, it seems that our darkest days lie ahead.

Asian Americans are still victims of violent crimes

national politics, Politics

Jada Urbaez, Staff

Header Image: Justin Sullivan via Getty Images
Asian American social justice protestors at a San Francisco assembly at Embarcadero Plaza on March 26, 2021.

Although the “Stop Asian Hate” movement gained less traction after its spike in engagement last spring, Asian Americans and people of Asian descent across the world are still victims of violent crimes. Christina Yuna Lee, 35, a Korean-American woman, was killed in her New York City apartment this past weekend. Lee was getting out of a taxi and was followed up six flights of stairs by suspect, Assamad Nash.

Lee was stabbed more than 40 times, and neighbors called 911 after hearing screams from the apartment. When police arrived, Nash allegedly changed his voice to sound like a woman to say police were not needed. An hour later, officials knocked Lee’s apartment door down, and found her shirtless and slain in the bathtub.

Nash has a history of charges in New York and New Jersey, including assault and possession of stolen property, and has been arrested six times since 2015. For the killing of Lee, Assamad Nash has been charged with burglary and murder.

New York City has what some may consider an alarming hate crime report rate. In 2021, the New York Police Department received a collective 524 hate crime complaints, and made a total of 219 hate crime related arrests. It is known that Asian American New Yorkers are the victims at the heart of hate crimes throughout the city, experiencing over a 300 percent increase from 2020 to 2021.

Another headlining murder of an Asian American woman happened on the New York City subway on Jan. 15, 2022. Michelle Go, 40, was pushed into the tracks by Martial Simon while a southbound R train was approaching the station. A 75-year-old Korean-American woman was attacked in Queens earlier this year. The elderly victim suffered face injuries including an inflamed left eye and a bleeding head, and told news sources she is “lucky to be alive.” A South Korean diplomat, 53, was punched near East 35th Street and 5th Avenue earlier this month and suffered a broken nose. The suspect fled the scene. The New York City Police Department has stated the Queens and Midtown attacks are not hate crimes.

New York Mayor, Eric Adams, was interviewed by Eyewitness News, regarding the pattern of these crimes throughout the city. When discussing Michelle Go’s murder, Adams stated, “People want to walk around and say, ‘Oh, he targeted someone else first, then he went to Ms. Go.’ Maybe that is the fact, but that is not what I feel.” Adams also shared that the NYPD has been “reluctant” to identify these crimes as hate crimes, and he does not agree with the incidents’ classifications.

US Embassy in the Solomon Islands Signals Focus on the South Pacific

international politics, Politics

Elizabeth Boyle, Staff

Header Image: YourBigSky

On Feb. 12, during a tour starting in Australia and ending in Fiji, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken announced the U.S. will open an embassy in the Solomon Islands. The Solomon Islands are located in the Southwestern Pacific Ocean. Blinken explained the reason for this new embassy is to increase the U.S. presence in the South Pacific Ocean as China becomes “strongly embedded.” The State Department said that, although the United States and the Solomon Islands have a good history dating back to World War II, China is “aggressively seek[ing] to engage” with the businessmen and politicians in the Solomon Islands. China is allegedly making promises concerning infrastructure loans and debt levels while trying to strike business deals in the Solomon Islands.

While Blinken talked about the embassy “enhancing the political, economic and commercial relationship” within the islands, setting up an embassy there will be quite pricey. It is estimated the initial setup will cost $12.4 million. The embassy will be located in the capital of the Solomon Islands, Honiara. The first steps of the process would be leasing the space for the embassy and having two U.S. employees and five local personnel to staff the embassy. To further increase U.S. presence in the Solomon Islands, the State Department talked about the Peace Corps reopening their office and moving volunteers back to the Solomon Islands.

While in Fiji, Blinken spoke with the Fijian acting Prime Minister Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum and other Pacific leaders. This was the first visit of the U.S. Secretary of State to Fiji in 36 years. The topics of their meeting included the potential threat of China, climate change and rising tensions between Ukraine and Russia. Sayed-Khaiyum welcomed Blinken, “Mr. Secretary, your being here shows that promise was more than words. We have just held the most historic and comprehensive meeting ever between Fiji and the U.S.A. and a wider meeting with our fellow Pacific leaders. We believe that both mark the start of more direct partnership between Fiji and the U.S.A., and a new era for America in the blue frontier of the Pacific.” He expressed that the islands in this Pacific region felt very left out and overlooked by the major countries. He said he felt the islands were, “small dots spotted from plane windows of leaders en route to meetings where they spoke about us rather than with us, if they spoke of us at all.”

Blinken met with leaders from Australia, India, Fiji and Japan. These four nations form a group of Indo-Pacific democracies called “The Quad” created to counter the influence of China. Blinken shows support for The Quad by saying, “You can see the strength of that commitment to the Indo-Pacific throughout the past year. Just look at some of the key markers on our calendar, from President Biden being the first U.S. president to address the Pacific Islands Forum to our increasing engagement with The Quad, whose ministers I just met with in Melbourne, to deepening our cooperation on a range of security and defense priorities through AUKUS.”

As the U.S. increases ties in the Pacific, China continues to try to increase political and military ties in the Solomon Islands. The Solomon Islands sent shockwaves through the South Pacific regions when they decided to pull their support from Taiwan and support China in 2019. This essentially started a divide within the country that continued through Dec. 2021 when Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare survived a no-confidence motion against him in parliament.