The 2024 race for President of the United States looks to be contentious, unpredictable and ultimately very strange. As of now, there are many hopefuls who have declared candidacy. At the same time, there are others who have danced around the notion of running without officially declaring that they’re running. So who is running? Who isn’t? Who will win? 

The candidates are an eclectic group of familiar faces and surprising newcomers. On the Republican side, former President Donald Trump is officially running despite the barrage of legal troubles he is dealing with at the moment. Trump is the person to beat for the Republican nomination, but there are others who could give him a run for his money. 

Former South Carolina Governor and United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley is also officially running, but her chances are quite slim. Other prospective candidates have not announced anything yet despite being sure–fire options, such as former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former Vice President Mike Pence and current South Carolina Senator Tim Scott. 

There has been a good deal of tiptoeing around in the Republican Party, where politicians have been afraid to declare candidacy in fear of Trumpian retribution. Nobody has done more heavy-footed tiptoeing than Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. Unlike the other candidates that were mentioned, DeSantis has a very good chance of winning the nomination in 2024. 

According to a RealClearPolitics poll conducted on Republican voters, 52% wanted Trump in 2024, 24.9% wanted DeSantis, 4.9% wanted Pence, 3.9% wanted Haley and a meager 1.1% wanted Pompeo. Clearly, Trump is the favored candidate while DeSantis is the only other Republican with a fighting chance.

Due to recent legal troubles and his indictment in New York, Trump has received a bump in the polls. His supporters seem to respond well to his issues, casting him as a martyr who is being attacked by a corrupt and biased legal system. While that may temporarily help Trump, in prior weeks DeSantis caught up to Trump significantly and even surpassed him at times. 

The safest bet would be to guess that DeSantis will be the Republican nominee in 2024. He offers fewer controversies and scandals, more self-control, a better chance at wooing swing voters, is quite young in comparison to his peers and is currently leading one of the most prosperous states in the country

On the Democratic side, things are a bit more complicated. You can feel many politicians are itching for a run at the presidency, but they are waiting on a specific decision: President Joe Biden’s choice of running or not running. If he runs, it is unlikely that many people will oppose him, especially if he is running against a MAGA candidate. Only Robert Kennedy Jr. has been brave enough to do so, and his chances of beating Biden are slim to none. If Biden chooses not to run, then things will get interesting. There are a number of people within his own cabinet and outside of it who are willing to step up to the challenge, in the instance that he decides not to run.

Kamala Harris is a given choice, considering she is Vice President of the U.S. and would give the party a female candidate in hopes of electing the first-ever female president. Transportation Secretary and 2020 candidate Pete Buttigieg would also certainly try, as would California Governor Gavin Newsom, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer (even though she’s technically ruled it out) and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. 

Of these Democrats, Harris would be the most likely candidate. In all likelihood though, Biden is going to run. He has waited his whole life to become president, and he truly believes that he is mentally and physically fit enough to run the nation for another four years. 

So, if Biden was the Democratic nominee, and Desantis was the Republican nominee, who would win in that election? Considering age, polling, economic performance and the ability to get people to vote, DeSantis has the upper hand. Therefore, Biden is probably hoping that Trump will be his opponent rather than DeSantis. Either way, the American people do not seem to have many good options. Yet again, they will be forced to choose between the lesser of two evils.

On Feb. 24, 2022, President Vladimir Putin ordered his Russian troops to invade Ukraine and to capture the capital of Kyiv. As fear and uncertainty gripped the world, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian people and Ukraine’s western coalition of allies stood firm. Ukraine has been supplied with an abundance of weapons and Russia has been smacked with sanctions. Kyiv, Zelensky and the Ukrainian state remain intact and in the fight.  

Yet, this is not a time for celebration. The war continues to rage on and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Russian soldiers have lost their lives. There have been immense civilian casualties and much of Ukrainian’s infrastructure is severely damaged. Hospitals, homes, schools, apartment complexes and places of worship have been bombed out by Russian artillery. 

Electrical grids are in constant disrepair, leading to long and grueling hours of electrical work. 

In the eastern Donbas region, a bloody stalemate seems to be approaching as each side digs in whilst making minimal gains in territory. Despite this, neither side seems ready to engage in substantial peace talks. The United States has officially claimed that it will support what Ukraine decides to do, as have many other western powers. Rather, they should be encouraging talks. 

Putin is not going to back down; he and his country are so entangled in this war that if he were to wave the white flag the war will ultimately have been for nothing. He has everything to lose and nothing to gain. Putin has badly miscalculated and therefore has unintentionally tied his fate to the war. If Russia loses, Putin is finished. Without question. 

Putin would not allow himself to suffer a massive embarrassment such as the complete loss of the Crimean peninsula or the Donbas region. He will keep sending in troops to be slaughtered, no matter how many of them die. There is no price too high in the face of defeat. Ukraine did not cause the war, but the only plausible way out of it will be through peace talks.

While Ukrainians have been vehemently against the idea of conceding lost territory to Russia, are the lives of Ukrainian civilians and soldiers worth sacrificing to reclaim it? How much longer can they hold on, and what if the tide of the war changes? What if Russia recoups and launches a successful offensive?

As Russia finds allies in Iran and North Korea, new caches of weapons are coming their way. China is beginning to act more and more friendly to Moscow. According to American intelligence, Beijing is heavily considering sending Russia drones and ammunition. Do the western powers really want to fight a ballooning proxy war? Besides, what does victory on the battlefield look like for Ukraine? Entirely reclaiming their lost territory? Is that even realistic?

For those who think peace talks would let Putin get away with his onslaught, let me argue otherwise. Putin and Russia’s international standing, credibility and prospects have sunken significantly since last year. Signs point to a stagnating and even shrinking Russian economy over the next decade. The Ruble only remains afloat due to temporarily high oil prices.  

Russia has also experienced a detrimental brain drain where hundreds of thousands of trained professionals, young Russians and tech workers have fled Russia for Central Asia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. Most will never return. The reality of the war and its consequences will reach the Russian people sooner or later; they will have no choice but to wake up to the war. 

Ukraine and NATO have adequately proven that if an aggressive power such as Russia decides to invade a peaceful neighboring country, there will be severe consequences. China will take notice and think twice before invading Taiwan. Unlike Ukraine, the U.S. has indicated that it will protect Taiwan. Unlike Ukraine, the U.S. is already supplying Taiwan with weapons. 

Most importantly, when the war ends, there is the possibility that Ukraine can join the European Union and NATO. This would extend economic opportunities to a recovering Ukraine whilst also giving it what it has wanted for years: westernization. The sooner the war ends, the sooner more security and economic guarantees can be granted. Ukraine would be much safer in NATO. 

The war is unquestionably Russia’s fault, but the west has to be realistic. Ukraine has to be realistic. The reality is that Putin will not allow the contested territory to be given up. Too many lives have been lost to continue to delay the inevitable. It may not seem fair to Ukraine, but the best path forward is to engage in peace talks. It may be the only way. 

The 2020s have not been the most pleasant decade. In just a few years, we’ve experienced a deadly pandemic, economic turmoil, international wars and apocalyptic natural disasters. This negative news is our reality, and there is no denying that it can feel a bit heavy at times. Therefore, it is important to lighten the mood sometimes and have a laugh. 

Pew Research reports that as of 2022, at least 41% of American adults have felt high levels of psychological distress at some point within the last few years. We all face these issues at some point or another, so it’s important to have strategies to deal with them. Comedy and laughter can serve as an accessible and effective way to do just that. 

Comedy is a great outlet for relieving stress, improving your mental health and even prolonging your life. According to the Cleveland Clinic, long-term activation of your stress system has serious health implications, like an increased risk for obesity, heart disease, cancer and a variety of other illnesses. Finding time to laugh greatly decreases stress levels and increases overall joy. 

Laughter can be equally good for your heart. The Cleveland Clinic also found that laughter can decrease stress hormones, reduce artery inflammation and increase good cholesterol levels. This in turn increases blood flow, improves blood vessel health and reduces the risk of a heart attack. Just imagine how much healthier you could be if this occurred on a regular basis. 

Another collection of studies posted in The Harvard Gazette measured the impact of hospital clowns on more than 1,600 children and adolescents suffering an array of symptoms including anxiety, pain, stress, cancer-related fatigue and crying. The research found that children exposed to the clowns were significantly less anxious during subsequent medical procedures. The results were comparable with or without the parents in the room during the procedures. 

There is actually a clinical treatment involving laughter known as “laughter therapy.” According to a study posted in the National Library of Medicine medical journal, laughter therapy is a more controlled way of using laughter to improve overall well-being. It is often used on patients who have suffered at the hands of severe diseases or trauma. This can be an effective alternative to medications prescribed by a doctor. 

Even though the data clearly shows that laughter is good for your body and brain, it can be difficult to laugh during hard times. Whether it’s the depressing news cycle, your job or school that’s bringing you down, these obstacles can make laughter seem like an afterthought.

If you are in this situation, there are still ways you can push yourself through the gloom and get in a laugh or two. The easiest way is to hang out with friends or family who make you laugh. Another way would be to go see a good comedy movie, television show or comedy special. 

Even more importantly, if you are in high spirits and your friends or loved ones are not, give them a good laugh. Bringing positivity and comedy into your conversations will make you universally happier, healthier and more liked overall. It’s also great to find what kind of sense of humor you have and what you find funny. This will maximize your ability to lighten up. 

Comedy can even be used as a way to cope with horrible occurrences in our lives or things that are making us worry, to a certain degree. This is why political satire and such can be cathartic and make us all feel a little better about the world. Additionally, if something is upsetting you, sometimes it’s better to laugh it off and move on. 

Comedy and laughter are not the magic fix to everything that is wrong in the world or your life, but it is clear that they make the world a better and healthier place to live in. If we all took the effort to seek out some laughter or to spread some to others, our overall happiness would drastically improve. So, go watch something funny. Go tell somebody a funny joke. In the end, your mind and your body will thank you. 

In President Joe Biden’s most recent State of the Union address, he optimistically declared that democracy is winning in the world. Autocracies are failing, hope is ubiquitous and there are brighter days ahead. While positivity can be reassuring, Biden’s claims are overblown. Nearly everywhere on earth, democracy is facing its toughest challenges since World War II. 

Just look at the brutal Ukraine War, where thousands of Ukrainians have died in order to protect their homeland. There is no denying the severity of Russia’s decision to invade its sovereign and democratic neighbor, despite disastrous military performance and bungled leadership. Ukraine is holding on, but for how much longer? Are they really winning? Is anyone? 

Not to mention authoritarian China, with confidence and strength increasing day by day. The nation has teased a potential invasion of their democratic neighbor Taiwan for decades, and they may finally act upon their threats. According to a leaked memo obtained by The Guardian, one high-ranking U.S. general predicted that a conflict will occur as soon as the year 2025. 

Democracy has even been under assault within several democratic nations’ own borders. The U.S., Germany, France, Brazil and many other nations have been rattled by far-right extremism and acts of domestic terrorism. Just think of Jan. 6 or the copycat version in Brazil. In many of these countries, including the U.S., several lawmakers have even encouraged violence. 

In Israel, India and the Philippines, democracy has been on the decline for several years. With the return of former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to power, Foreign Affairs magazine reports that Israel’s farright has weakened the judiciary and strengthened government control over the courts and civil service. 

In India, the world’s largest democracy by population, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party have tarnished democratic practices by forcefully silencing critics, issuing blatant propaganda, diminishing religious tolerance and fanning social division and violence. 

In the Philippines, democratic gains are at risk of being vanquished as freedoms erode. International fears worsened when the demagogue Ferdinand “Bongbong” Romualdez Marcos Jr., son of the brutal former dictator Ferdinand Marcos Sr., won the presidency in 2022. In Myanmar, a once-promising democratic future has given way to a military dictatorship and mass genocide. In Hungary, populist President Viktor Orbán has tarnished his country’s freedoms. 

While Biden touts how great democracy is doing, it is difficult to agree with him. If democracy is really important to the administration, more must be done to secure it. Optimism is good, but action is better. For example, voting rights have been gravely diminished recently. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, strict voter ID laws, cutting voting times, restricting registration and purging voter rolls have disproportionately limited people of color from voting.

Extremism remains an issue as well, and the U.S. must do more to curb it. Simply condemning it or waiting it out is not a solution; political extremism is a terrible threat to American stability and prosperity. Bipartisan initiatives should not get in the way of fighting extremism, because as Biden said in his speech, democracy must not be a partisan issue. 

When it comes to defending democracies around the world, the U.S. must do more to defend vulnerable countries and fight against global extremism. This means sending aid to Ukraine, increasingly preparing Taiwan for a possible Chinese invasion through the “porcupine strategy” and partaking in more intelligence sharing and global cooperation. 

While these actions clearly speak louder than words ever could, words are also important. The U.S. and its allies have stayed relatively quiet in regard to Israel, India, the Philippines and other strategic yet democratically unsound partners. This needs to change; if not, the U.S. and its allies will continue to spew hypocrisy instead of being beacons of democracy. 

To say that the Biden administration hasn’t done anything on this matter would be a lie; they have clearly made great strides in combating anti-democratic forces at home and abroad. The problem here is when we start thinking that democracy is winning like it is some kind of sporting event. Democracy is far from okay, and saying otherwise is just plain disingenuous. 

Democracy has always needed to be protected, but the state of democracy today is unlike anything most of us have seen in our lifetimes. Will the people of the world step up to the challenge, or will we remain idle? Ultimately, it is up to us to decide democracy’s fate. 

In America’s devastating and ongoing story of systemic police brutality, a new chapter has been written in Memphis, Tennessee. On Jan. 7, 2023, five officers from the Memphis Police Department’s elite SCORPION unit pulled over Tyre Nichols, a 29-year-old Black man, for a routine traffic stop. What followed was both horrific and tragically familiar. 

The officers viciously beat, pepper sprayed, tasered and ultimately dehumanized Nichols. Following the release of body cam and surveillance footage, it is blatantly clear that Nichols had no weapons nor did he physically fight back in any way. Three days later, he died in the hospital from his wounds. All five officers have been released from duty and arrested for their crimes. 

The officers were underprepared, unnecessarily brutal and unable to give Nichols clear and contradiction-free instructions. This indicates a lack of training, poor communication and systematic decay. What happened to Nichols should have never happened, yet it did; it has happened countless times before and will happen again. Something of substance must be done about it. 

While the response to George Floyd’s murder in 2020 sparked a demand for change, only minor improvements came to fruition. Meaningful police reform has been put on the back burner following multiple rounds of failed negotiations in Congress, unfulfilled promises and stubborn stances from Republican lawmakers. How many more people will die before this is remedied? 

Enough is enough, and the American people agree. According to a Gallup poll, 58% of all Americans and 88% of Black Americans believe substantial changes are needed. Congress needs to pass an extensive police reform bill in order to save lives and restore the public’s faith in the criminal justice system. This will take the collective efforts of both political parties, a special focus on affected communities and concerted lobbying efforts from citizens and organizations. 

Despite the understandably emotional calls for defunding the police, the solution is quite the opposite. According to the BBC, about 1,000 people a year are killed by police officers in the U.S. with a disproportionate number of them being Black. 10% of those killed were unarmed. 

These issues are systemic, meaning they will not go away independently. They are deeply embedded into our nation’s culture, practices and security measures. 

The solution is to change this culture and the idea of what a police officer is supposed to do. Are they the law, or are they there to support? Are they scary or trustworthy? Taking money away from the police would only exacerbate these problems. Depleted funding would increase crime rates, further diminish the quality of police officers and departments would be stretched thin. 

Instead, training needs to be nationalized and revamped. According to the BBC, U.S. officers on average spend around 21 weeks training before they are qualified to go on patrol. This is far below other developed nations, and yet our officers carry the most firearms amongst all affluent nations. 

The kind of training also matters, especially in de-escalation, communication and mental health. This also needs to be enforced nationwide instead of leaving it up to individual departments. This extends to punishments, which should be universally enforced and consequential. 

The Brookings Institute suggests that financial consequences are integral. From 2015 to 2019, the 20 largest U.S. municipalities spent over $2 billion in civilian payouts for police misconduct. Rather than the police department budget, these funds mostly come from general funds. In this case, the police officer and the department face little to no substantive consequences.

The financial burden therefore falls onto the taxpayers, the very people who are being brutalized. Shifting this financial burden to the individual officers and departments could incite immense change. These departments and officers would have to use liability insurance instead of previous remedies. Rather than spend this money on overbearing police officers, I’m sure these communities would much prefer that money be spent elsewhere. 

Aside from training, the culture needs to change. This will take longer to enact but can be fundamentally improved through restructuring methods and the redefinition of purpose. Officers need to abandon the consistently hostile approach they take to policing, as the SCORPION unit did in Memphis. Rather than spreading fear, police should be an actual part of the community. 

Instead of acting as if they are separated from the communities they serve, officers should originate from and spend extensive time within them. They should become neighborly with the people they are supposed to protect and serve instead of treating them like combatants. 

Police departments have a longstanding problem in which officers physically punish civilians for perceived disrespect or disobedience, sometimes called “contempt of cop.” Neighbors understand each other from a personable level and would be less likely to engage in such behavior. If the police know people on a deeper level, why would they want to hurt them?

There is a lot of work to be done, and little progress is being made. It is easy to be cynical about this issue or to give up hope for a better future, but that is not fair to the affected communities who are suffering. That is not fair to affected families. As Nichols’ family grieves, the system remains bound to deliver more sorrow and tragedy. Lawmakers, police and ultimately America must step up and do more. Otherwise, when will the change come? When will the suffering end? 

The middle eastern country of Qatar is hosting the FIFA World Cup this year and has unfortunately proven itself to be an unworthy recipient of such a distinguished honor. The controversy surrounding the event is mounting, leading many politicians, coaches and players to conclude that the event has developed into a tremendous failure. 

The fact that this will be the first-ever World Cup held in the Arab world and only the second to be held entirely in Asia should be a reason to celebrate. Sadly, this historical benchmark has been overshadowed by the overwhelming number of scandals and controversies that have surfaced, many of which originated during the selection process. 

This process occurred in 2010 when there were five bids for the 2022 FIFA World Cup: Australia, Japan, Qatar, South Korea and the United States. Qatar ended up edging out its competition, which prompted many to question why. 

There were already pre-existing concerns in regard to the country’s intense heat, which eventually led to the unusual scheduling change from the summer when it is normally held to the early winter. Apart from the weather there were additional concerns surrounding corruption and how much this influenced the decision to award Qatar as the host nation. 

According to the Independent, there were immediate calls for a rerun of the vote and even talk of boycotts when FIFA’s executive committee awarded the tournament to Qatar. They ignored warnings from FIFA’s own bid evaluation report following corruption investigations, which were numerous, that were materially incomplete and included erroneous representations. 

There have been accusations of vote-buying before when the 2018 World Cup was hosted in an equally polarizing oil-rich nation hosted by a corrupt and conniving president. First it was  Russia, and now it’s Qatar. This is especially problematic when we consider Qatar’s atrocious human rights record and its hateful policies and attitudes toward members of the LGTBQ community. 

The BBC reports that Qatar has built seven stadiums for the World Cup finals as well as a new airport, metro system, series of roads and about 100 new hotels. Basically, they built an entire city around the stadium complex. Qatar’s government says that 30,000 foreign laborers were hired just to build the stadiums. Most come from Bangladesh, India, Nepal and the Philippines. 

Of those workers, 6,500 migrant workers from India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka have died in Qatar since it won its World Cup bid. 50 foreign laborers died and more than 500 others were seriously injured in 2021 alone, while another 37,600 suffered mild to moderate injuries. Predictably, Qatar has claimed these numbers to be either inflated, falsified or both. 

Human Rights Watch also reported in 2021 that foreign workers were still suffering from punitive and illegal wage deductions and faced months of unpaid wages for long hours of grueling work. This shouldn’t be surprising considering how poorly Qatar treats its own people. 

According to The Washington Post, Qatar is ruled by its emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, who controls the government and the judiciary. Political parties are banned and most of the population are noncitizens with few civil or political rights. Sexist dictation is also prevalent, where any women’s personal decisions are contingent on approval from a male family member.

Additionally, while FIFA rules stipulate that displays promoting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights be permitted in stadiums, a senior official responsible for security during the event warned that rainbow flags could be taken away from fans to protect them from being attacked. Fortune reports that Qatari World Cup Khalid Salman has made homophobic remarks, attributing homosexuality to brain damage. 

As FIFA ignores all of these issues, Qatar is still set to make a hefty profit. The Washington Post further reported that organizers expect the event to add $17 billion to the economy, equivalent to about 10% of the gross domestic product in 2021. Neither the FIFA organizers nor the Qatar government deserves the influx in revenue that is coming their way. 

Therefore, we should all do our part and boycott the World Cup. Players and teams in Norway and fans in Denmark called for boycotts, but soccer authorities in participating countries ultimately rejected the idea. 

Therefore, it is up to the viewers to boycott. FIFA and Qatar are hoping for high levels of viewership, and that is how they will justify their unethical decisions. Where we direct our attention is crucial and will ultimately decide the fate of FIFA’s tumultuous Qatar venture. 

As the world pays close attention to Russia’s geopolitical aggression, another player is causing disruption on the world stage. To Russia’s south, North Korea has escalated its provocative behavior within the past month, and reached a high point this week. 

According to NBC News, North Korea test-launched a record 23 ballistic missiles on Wednesday, alerting the country’s regional neighbors, including arch rival South Korea. One landed south of the buffer zone in the sea border between the two countries, marking the first incursion of its kind since the Korean Peninsula was divided during the Korean War in 1948. 

Just earlier last month, North Korea launched a ballistic missile over continental Japan. It was the country’s first missile launch over Japan since 2017 prompting Japan to issue an alert to some citizens to take cover. The BBC reports that North Korea has additionally flown warplanes close to its border with South Korea, fired hundreds of shells of artillery into the sea and sent a merchant ship across the country’s sea border, causing both sides to fire warning shots. 

So what has prompted these extreme measures? There are three reasons North Korea tends to launch missiles: to test and improve its weapons technology, to send a political message to the world and to impress its people at home and shore up loyalty to the regime. Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un’s regime clearly legitimizes their authority through military might rather than economic prowess.

North Korea cannot be allowed to continue their terrorization campaign. The United States’ current and past strategies have not been effective in preventing North Korean aggression, and will continue to be ineffective into the future. Some prior options are already off the table. 

For starters, war is not the answer. The Council on Foreign Relations found that the exact size and strength of North Korea’s nuclear arsenal are unclear. However, analysts say Pyongyang has tested nuclear weapons six times and developed ballistic missiles capable of reaching the U.S. and Japan and South Korea. In 2022 it is predicted that the country could have enough fissile material for more than one hundred nuclear weapons, and 200 by 2027.  

The Arms Control Association reports that Pyongyang has an additional variety of lethal chemical agents and related missile and artillery delivery systems. They also rely heavily on robust hacking capabilities to secure state funding, evade sanctions and bludgeon enemies. A chemical, nuclear or cyber attack on Seoul or Tokyo would be devastating and quite difficult to prevent in the case of a full-fledged war. 

The answer also isn’t to cozy up to Pyongyanag with love letters and fruitless diplomatic summits as the Trump administration did, nor is the Biden administration’s slow-but-steady approach a better alternative. North Korea may never give up their nuclear program in order to protect their regime, but that doesn’t mean that the issue should be sidelined. 

Experts in Time Magazine urged the U.S. not to sit idle. While similar passivity led to the development of nuclear programs in Pakistan, India and Israel, North Korea is different. The country wants nuclear weapons for regime security and predation. They do not respect international order or law. If nothing is done North Korea will become even more threatening. 

The Biden administration needs to assert more pressure on the Kim regime. There shouldn’t be a return to the “fire and fury” rhetoric of the Trump administration, but there should be consistent reminders of the consequences of dangerous actions. The “pragmatic” decades-long treatment of denuclearization has clearly not produced any notable progress. 

It is also important that the U.S. punishes those who enable North Korea, as China does. For decades China has played a smoke-and-mirrors game on North Korea that traps the U.S. in doomed negotiations that spare Beijing a crisis on its border, but kicks the can down the road on the larger problem. They have also provided economic support through back channels. 

The time has come for action. If North Korea remains unchecked they will receive the message that they can run amuck with little to no backlash. This is unacceptable and cannot be tolerated. 

After all of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s reckless nuclear saber-rattling over the past year or so is he finally close to acting on his threats? If so what means would he use to deploy nuclear weapons? Where and when would he deploy them on the battlefield? These are just some of the questions many Ukrainians, Americans and the rest of the world’s citizens have surely been asking themselves recently and for good reason. In September, Putin delivered a prerecorded address where he said that his readiness to use nuclear weapons is not a bluff. 

President Joe Biden recently worried aloud about “nuclear armageddon” while warning that the world is the closest it’s been to nuclear blows since the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. The infamous Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ Doomsday Clock is the closest to midnight it has ever been since its creation in 1947. 

So, should you be worried? Without hyperbole, yes you probably should be. Biden received backlash for his candid remarks regarding Putin’s nuclear ambitions, but in reality the public should probably be more concerned than they currently are. 

According to Harvard Kennedy School professor Matthew Bunn there is an approximate 10 to 20% chance that Russia deploys a nuclear weapon in Ukraine. Considering the consequences of such an unprecedented course of action even a slight change in it coming to fruition is both unacceptable and worrisome. 

Russia would be most likely to use nuclear weapons in the face of imminent defeat or some form of inescapable international embarrassment. Defeat for Russia could come in the form of a total loss of the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine or further symbolic attacks from Ukraine such as the bombing of the bridge connecting Crimea to Russia. As Putin becomes cornered he will escalate his plans to win his war. 

We’ve already seen the Russian military commit countless war crimes in Ukraine by means of purposefully targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure, using torture and mass executions. They’ve already proven their coldness and their cruelty, so would further escalation really be out of the question? 

As the Ukrainian military continues to be victorious and reclaim their stolen land, nuclear deployment becomes more and more likely. This is especially true since many parts of Russian-occupied eastern Ukraine have been illegally annexed through sham referendums where Russia now officially views these regions as part of their country and within their sphere of protection. 

Experts predict that Putin is most likely to use a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine. According to CBS News these are designed for limited strikes against relatively close specific targets like command posts instead of destroying cities from afar. 

The explosive yield of tactical nuclear weapons can range from under one kiloton to about 100 kilotons whereas the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 were between 12 and 21 kilotons. Russia has up to 2,000 tactical nuclear weapons in its stockpiles. Compare that to the U.S. which has slightly more than 200. 

If Putin fulfills his grim threats, the international community will need to band together and take swift action. Such a malicious and reckless provocation would change the face of warfare forever. To respond some experts and high-ranking personnel such as former CIA director and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta suggest militaristic punishments. 

Additionally others suggest further economic isolation and seizing the country’s foreign reserves. The Biden Administration continuously uses deliberate and strategic ambiguity when it comes to a response but they also need to consistently issue firm warnings against nuclear war. 

If the world doesn’t respond a new precedent will be set; bully nations looking for imperial conquest will think that nuclear weapons are acceptable tools to gain more land. What message would this send to China as they eye Taiwan? How would that look to North Korea?

The world needs to stand up to these aggressors because they need to know what the consequences are. Will they get just a slap on the wrist as Putin has for his past transgressions, or will there be real and forceful pushback? Strength comes in numbers; if Putin goes nuclear Ukraine and the world will need all the strength they can get.

Social media has become such a large part of our lives, in part due to the isolation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Many people are wondering now if that connection might cause more harm than good. Pew Research reports that 64% of Americans believe social media has a negative effect, while only 10% said it emits a positive one. If this is the case, why do we use it so much? 

The World Economic Forum found that Americans spend an average of  two hours and 14 minutes on social media daily, while Forbes reported last year that Americans spent an average of 1,300 hours on social media annually. Generation Z spent a shocking average of nine hours of daily screen time, many of which are dedicated to TikTok, Snapchat, and Instagram. That’s a lot of time, especially considering the numerous unhealthy effects. 

A University of Pittsburgh study found that increased social media use in people aged 19 to 32 correlated with higher levels of feelings of depression, anxiety and social isolation. A New York University study found that it significantly lowers our attention spans. Another from The University of Amsterdam found that social media use correlated with lower self-esteem. 

How can something that is meant for social connection cause such negative emotions, reactions and mental states? Well, that’s because it isn’t just harmless fun, by way of both design and nature. 

As indicated, social media platforms know their sites cause negative emotional and mental states within their users. Despite this, they continue to function as normal. According to recent leaks obtained by The Wall Street Journal, Facebook did nothing even though they knew that 32% of teen girls said they felt bad about their bodies, and Instagram made them feel even worse. 

Social media is also a depressant by nature, giving us unprecedented access to other people’s positive, negative and sometimes cruel opinions. Hurtful comments, trolling and even the number of likes can understandably ruin a person’s day. It also shows us other people having seemingly picturesque lives, therefore making us feel more insecure and unsatisfied with our own. 

Social media pages are precisely curated and often misleading, where only the best aspects of a person’s life can be broadcast while the worst parts are omitted. Unrealistic, heavily edited or completely fake portrayals and expectations of people’s bodies can also make users feel insecure about their own, as social media creates a false reality to aspire to.  

Social media’s harm is more gradual; the short-term effects are what keep us hooked. Whenever you log onto social media, dopamine signals in your brain increase. These neurotransmitters are associated with pleasure. When you experience an increase in dopamine, your brain identifies this activity as a rewarding one that you ought to repeat. You may react more strongly whenever you make a post of your own and gain positive feedback. The dopamine rush keeps users engaged, while the damage piles up little by little over time. 

There’s also a need to stay connected and informed when there’s always an important news story, a new post or story to view and other things that demand our immediate attention. We don’t want to be left out of the loop, so this creates a sense of urgency rather than a sense of enjoyment. 

Despite its flaws, social media still serves a purpose, and giving it up is not the ultimate solution. Social media allows us to connect with people who are miles away, meet new people, join clubs and organizations, learn about businesses or advertise our own and even temporarily make us feel good about ourselves. 

So, instead of abandoning it, there are other options to pursue. We can advocate for more transparency from social media sites and hold them accountable when they do us wrong. We can boycott platforms that choose to amplify hate and ignore warning signs. We can also limit our use, understand how it affects our health and stay aware of its addictive nature. 

Like how comfort food may make us feel good in the short term, we need to recognize social media is extremely unhealthy when excessively consumed. We have to keep in mind that many tech corporations are looking to cash in on our vulnerabilities rather than lift us up.