By: Roye Ganju Welcome to the Ukraine Desk, UPR’s daily blog on the tensions in Ukraine. I’m Roye and I’ll be guiding you through the day’s events: on the frontlines, in the negotiating room and beyond. Feel free to ask any questions in the comments and I’ll try to reply as soon as I can. Updates to this article will be made every day or if required more frequently, so feel free to bookmark the article and check for updates periodically. Update #5: There’s no better way to put it but war is here. What diplomacy wanted to prevent is now an unfortunate reality that we all must live through. In many ways, I have tried to make sure that these updates stay journalistic, that I keep a level head when I write anything, to see the views on both sides. This is impossible now. With reports of cruise and ballistic missiles hitting Kyiv, a city of almost 3 million people, I cannot in good conscience keep myself as balanced as I would like to. There has since the beginning of this conflict been no shortage of aggression from Russia. The buildup of Russian troops on the border was clearly a sign of Putin trying to bully his nation’s little brother. Yet we ignored the warnings. Many of us took the opportunity of the US announcing new invasion dates to switch our minds off and to make light of an existential threat. But hindsight will not save us. Hindsight will not rectify the situation we are in and hindsight will not intercept any missiles. Ukraine deserves its freedom and we must help the Ukrainian people in their fight for it. Update #4: In many ways writing the update tonight feels surreal, it feels as if one is writing an introduction to a generic 80s spy novel, sans the USSR. As the convoys of Russian troops and weapons moved into the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics (DPR and LPR) under the cover of night, it felt as though something big had been set into motion. The very first update of this series had included in it a paragraph on the recognition of the LPR and DPR by the Duma. Although it may have seemed insignificant a week ago, we seem to be living in a world that has drastically changed over the last few days. Recognition The first point of discussion today is the agreements regarding the recognition of the LPR and DPR signed by Vladimir Putin, Denis Pushilin (President of the DPR) and Leonid Pasechnik. They are wide-ranging but some of their key aspects were objected to by most members of the international community. The agreements have given Moscow wide-ranging powers to act within the now ‘sovereign’ People’s Republics, including those of establishing military bases within the territories of these entities. At an emergency session of the UNSC, the delegate of Ukraine was quick to point out the similarities of the agreements signed this year with those signed 14 years ago, when the Russians used the pretext of protecting South Ossetia’s independence to invade Georgia. Despite being pressed by CNN, Bloomberg and the BBC, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov only stated that the Russian Federation recognises the two republics in the borders ‘in which they proclaim themselves’. When asked for further comment, he declined and decided to repeat the above phrase a couple of times before moving on. With the area which the People’s Republics currently claim as theirs being under the control of Ukraine, this present definition could be sufficient reason in the eyes of Moscow to ‘invade’ Ukraine. Sanctions That brings me to my second point of discussion, is this an invasion and if so what actions are the West taking against Russia? According to a statement just released by the UK, they consider the fact that the Russian Army has moved into the Donbas as reason enough to call the present situation an invasion. A senior American official in a call with the press however has stated that the presence of non-uniformed Russians in the Donbas for the past eight years would mean that the current status on the ground cannot be classified as an invasion. Regardless, some of the actions presently taken by Western nations have been the rollout of sanctions on entities such as Russian banks, members of the Duma and several oligarchs. Germany has also cancelled its controversial Nord Stream-2 pipeline in light of the conflict, something that it was urged to do by its fellow nations in the EU. As both sides now trade allegations of using heavy weaponry such as the Grad Multiple Launch Rocket Systems and reports of machine-gun fire in Horlivka emerge, the fear of direct confrontations increases. One Russian Grad barrage has also hit an important power plant in Schastiya, cutting off many areas on the border from electricity. This just serves as a reminder of the human impact of this crisis, we can only wait and see how everyone plays their cards in a geopolitical game where lives are at stake. On a darkly lighter note, the video below shows that when it comes to being questioned by the man himself, not even Putin’s spymaster is safe. https://twitter.com/HaraldDoornbos/status/1496046680780722179 Update #3: Whether or not Vladimir Putin has decided to invade Ukraine is up for debate, but he has certainly decided to completely change the way I write my updates. Over the weekend, I held off from writing any new updates due to what will be the main focus of my update tonight: False Flags. For the last three days, people living in the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics have been inundated with alarmism from their own governments and with shells of unknown origin. As women and children were ‘evacuated’ into parts of Russia in buses and trains, men between the ages of 18 to 55 are being conscripted in the Donbass, in some cases, allegedly in a forcible manner. Shelling has increased from around 6-8 in a day to reaching between 150-160 daily, according to Ukraine’s Joint Forces Operation. However, the issue of using false flag attacks to build a casus belli against Ukraine is tonight’s main point of conversation. Over the last few days, there has been a range of alleged attacks by Ukrainian operatives in the Donbass, ranging from a car bomb blowing up the Minister of Security’s car in Donetsk, a shell hitting a Russian border checkpoint in the Rostov Oblast to a purported incursion near Mariupol by Ukrainian Special Forces. All of these have been accompanied by spotty evidence and in some cases, such as that of the aforementioned ‘evacuations’ were accompanied by a video that was made and edited many days before there was any sign of an escalation in the conflict. The most recent ‘false flag’ as of the writing of this update might end up being the most consequential one in this entire conflict. According to the Southern Military District of Russia and with reporting in state media, five Ukrainians were killed attempting to enter Russia outside the town of Mityakinskaya in Rostov Oblast. Unlike the other false flags which were reported by rebel militias, this was unusually reported by the Russian military itself and has, according to analysts, the potential to be the casus belli that Putin has been waiting for. With the leaders of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics in Moscow, a Russian National Security Council meeting and an approaching session of the Duma which Putin plans to address, the 21st and 22nd of February promise to be pivotal dates in the fight over Ukraine and its future. Update #2: When it comes to writing about the tensions in Ukraine, one cannot plan ahead about the contents of an update as the situation on the ground is always changing. The events of the past few hours have been a massive escalation in tensions along the border between the People’s Republics and Ukraine. With confirmation from the Foreign Minister of Ukraine, Reuters and even visuals posted online, there has been a sudden uptick in the number of ceasefire violations. One major flashpoint in these violations has been the village of Stanytsia Luhanska. Separatist media outlets have rushed to claim that a kindergarten in Stanytsia Luhanska, struck by shells, was within the borders of the Luhansk People’s Republic (LPR), contrary to the fact that the village is located in Ukraine and is not presently held by the rebel groups. With both sides trying to win the information battle, the intelligence battle is getting hazier day by day. What is most interesting about these ceasefire violations as compared to the dozens that have been taking place in the past weeks is how Russian state media have taken the opportunity to not only condemn the Ukrainian side but also to offer increasingly bellicose (aggressive and showing a willingness to fight) rhetoric. In an article posted on the front page of RIA Novosti’s website, there are several major claims made as to the violations of the ceasefire. Towards the beginning of the article, there is a claim made that the Donbas was, prior to the revolution of 1917, a part of Russia. This tall claim is followed up with more claims about the nature of the violations, culminating with the article accusing the West of fabricating a ‘pretext’ to station weaponry and encroach upon the sovereignty of Russia. ‘Pretext’, defined as a reason given in justification of a course of action that isn’t the real reason, is a word that will be thrown around a lot over the course of the next couple of days from both sides in the conflict. Dmitry Peskov, the long-time spokesman for President Putin, also held a press conference that had some key highlights. Although Peskov tried to assuage the fears of an armed standoff by reporting that the situation on the Ukrainian-Russian border is indeed ‘stable’, his press conference did involve allegations that the Ukrainians were building a military presence along the border with Donbas. The worry being generated by these statements is only being amplified by Peskov’s usage of the phrase: ‘Provocative Actions that have only intensified in the last day’. To those familiar, this was the exact word-for-word statement issued by Peskov a day before the invasion of Georgia in 2008. Similarly, a newly announced investigation into ‘mass graves in the Donbas’ is generating more concerns that Russia is creating the casus belli for an invasion through its interests in the Donbas. Nobody is sure if this situation will escalate but at this point, the situation is highly volatile. With tensions this high, could either side ever even consider a retreat? Update #1: The 15th of February has the potential to be one of the most consequential dates of this conflict. The main developments of the day can be summarized into 3 main points - Russia’s Announcement of Withdrawals, A Cyberattack on Ukrainian Institutions and The Duma’s Motion to Recognise the Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic. Early in the day, the Russian Government announced the withdrawal of troops from the Ukrainian border and Crimea after tactical exercises involving units from the Southern and Western Military Districts had finished. Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Maria Zakharova stated that February the 15th ‘will go into history as the day western war propaganda failed.’, ‘disgraced and destroyed without a single shot being fired.’ This comment rides the coattails of a months-long narrative in Russian media accusing the Americans of whipping up trouble in Ukraine, for example, a headline in RIA Novosti reads that ‘The Main Goal of [The US] Deploying Troops is to create a Threat to Russia’. Along with this aggressive statement of peaceful intent and the media narrative in Russia turning on the Americans, videos by Russia Today and the Zvezda TV (Both funded by the state, with Zvezda TV being run by the Russian Ministry of Defence) were purported to show the withdrawal of troops from ‘border areas’ and Crimea. In the case of the video from Russia Today, The Centre for Information Resilience geolocated one of the several short clips in the montage to the city of Bakhchysaray in Crimea, around 180 kilometres away from mainland Ukraine. The Guardian’s Moscow correspondent Andrew Roth also reported that the 3rd and 150th motor rifle divisions ‘withdrew’ from Crimea to bases just ‘a few dozen kilometres’ from Ukraine. As the Kremlin continues to push the narrative of de-escalation, many in Ukraine and its allied nations are still wary of what is happening on the ground. Later on the 15th, the Duma passed a motion to recognise the two breakaway Republics in the Donbas, the Luhansk People’s Republic (LPR) and the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR). The motion passed by the Duma was surprisingly not proposed by Putin’s own United Russia party but rather by the opposition Communists. With support from all major parties, the vote passed decisively, however, Vladimir Putin did not wish to entertain the proposal so quickly. In a press conference, he said that despite the Ukrainians were committing a ‘genocide’ in the Donbas, the motion from the Duma would subvert the Minsk Agreements signed in 2014, which have relatively cemented the situation in the Donbas till now. Putin’s careful embrace of the Minsk Agreements is to many observers a sign of diplomacy’s triumph. Whether it is too early to claim this as a victory, is only something time will tell. The last big development of the 15th was a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack on Ukrainian institutions such as government websites and the state-owned Oschadbank and Privatbank banks. The DDoS attack paralysed these websites and apps for a few hours and as of writing is still ongoing. The Kremlin has denied all allegations that it is behind the attack, however, according to ABC, the Department of Homeland Security has warned in the past that the risk of cyber attacks on the US are also high at this time. It’s clear that the hostilities in Ukraine may not be confined to only the frontlines but may also affect the online world. Sources: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60386141 https://iz.ru/1291860/anton-lavrov-nikolai-pozdniakov-roman-kretcul-andrei-fedorov/manevry-na-predele-kak-izmenit-situatciiu-v-mire-zavershenie-rossiiskikh-uchenii https://twitter.com/Andrew__Roth/status/1493853938239557634?cxt=HHwWhMCy8b6PnrspAAAA https://ria.ru/20220216/voyska-1773123940.html https://twitter.com/RT_com/status/1493933190695862273?cxt=HHwWgoC-2cuUwrspAAAA https://twitter.com/RT_com/status/1493511719813062656?cxt=HHwWgIC59eC_gropAAAA https://twitter.com/Cen4infoRes/status/1493529511899586562?cxt=HHwWhICzpbLLiropAAAA https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-reports-cyber-attack-defence-ministry-website-banks-tass-2022-02-15/?utm_source=reddit.com https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/02/15/russian-parliament-backs-plan-to-recognize-breakaway-ukrainian-regions-a76381 https://www.businessinsider.com/putin-claims-genocide-happening-in-donbas-region-of-ukraine-2022-2 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dhs-warns-russian-cyberattack-us-responds-ukraine-invasion/story?id=82441727

By Aditeya Das Joe Biden has had an unusual term of presidency so far. Throughout the COVID 19 pandemic, he has fought fire after fire without end, managing tumultuous diplomatic relations and salvaging the state of the crippling US economy. Yet, one can’t look at Biden without making some degree of comparison to his predecessor, Trump. Has Biden truly fared better, did he and his party reign supreme in the past year of presidency? Entering this battle is our presidency veteran: Donald Trump. In his first year of being President, Donald Trump had made headlines all over the world. His most notable proposal was the “Tax Cuts And Jobs Act” of 2017, the biggest tax code overhaul of 3 decades. Its biggest effect was that it doubled the standard deduction(The set amount of money reduced from tax paid) from 12,400 dollars to 24,800 dollars along with many other areas being improved. However, he also had many low lights in the first year. From building a wall that would have been as useful as a concrete parachute, to a smokescreen of Twitter posts, Trump’s first year was filled with controversy. When he left Paris climate agreement, Trump signed up for perpetual condemnation and international disdain. The agreement was the world's largest environmental action agreement with 195 countries, working together to fight against climate change. In response to critics, he gave the line, “I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris,” which was just the starting point of a long line of questionable statements. The “zero-tolerance” policy on the US-Mexico border only made matters worse. This was not only when Trump proposed for a wall to be built between the two countries, but also where children were being separated from their families with parents being detained or even deported. Not the best way to spend your first year as president. Biden’s presidency was also good and bad in the same way. His passing of a one trillion-dollar infrastructure bill on 15th November 202 proved to be monumental for the Biden administration. The bill was primarily created for new federal spending, the building of roads, bridges, core infrastructure (Electricity, dams, etc), and covid relief. Although this bill had a massive price tag, the main success lay in its bipartisan nature (both republicans and democrats voted in favour of this bill), making his popularity in the eyes of his critics. But, in a year where he had a win, there was also a dark side. The main problem in Biden’s first year as President has been his approval ratings. His ratings hit an all-time low of 36% according to Quinnipiac University approval rating polls, (kudos to anti-vaxxers, the messy pullout of Americans from Afghanistan, and inflation). Along with this, he was not able to get his “Build Back Better” bill( a bill that only if passed will be able to allow for his aforementioned infrastructure bill to be put into action), pass through parliament because of a single democrat who voted against. All of this combined has created a lethal concoction for President Biden. Looking at both Presidents, you see some clear wins in their first year as well as some losses. Trump had taken advantage by passing his tax cuts and jobs act but fell right down with his messy words and the separation of Mexican Families. Biden on the other hand got a clear win with his infrastructure bill, but his approval ratings sank so low that his celebrations were short-lived. After all of this, I would like to say that Trump has had a better year. Unlike Joe Biden, Donald Trump was able to make some impact on his people in a good way by reducing taxes. Biden, on the other hand, spent his time passing an infrastructure bill that was rendered useless because of democratic Senator Joe Manchin voting against it. After all the hype that was centred around Trump being kicked out of office, what we have landed up with is a person whose approval ratings ended up being lower than Trump's were in 4 years. From this, I can conclude that Trump has had a better first year compared to Biden. Sources: https://time.com/5097411/donald-trump-first-year-office-timeline/ https://taxfoundation.org/congressional-budget-office-shows-2017-tax-law-reduced-tax-rates-across-board-2018/ https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/01/11/the-one-year-old-trump-presidency https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-are-economic-effects-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/15/biden-signing-1-trillion-bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-into-law.html https://www.vox.com/22598883/infrastructure-deal-bipartisan-bill-biden-manchin https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/11/30/why-biden-approval-ratings-so-low-cillizza-the-point.cnn

By: Hugo Douglas If you wanted somewhere dark, cold and deprived of oxygen, I would suggest the Arctic Ocean. Granted, that probably won't be cold for much longer. Our next best alternative? Space: A breeding ground for some of this century’s most innovative and expensive ventures so far. Space exploration has been a prospect for many parties, including private sector firms such as Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin and Elon Musk's SpaceX and proves to be a source of future economic stimulation. However, as much as everybody loves watching the billionaire ego struggle, one can’t help but wonder: “why now?”. There are many schools of thought regarding whether the wealthy must help with humanitarianism, climate response, inequality or other pressing concerns. Irrespective of your stance on this, most people can agree that the government should work to allocate their funds to support these, regardless of their private sector support or rather lack thereof. In 2020, SpaceX's StarLink project received almost $900 million in subsidies. In 2021, SpaceX and Blue Origin were competing for a USD 2.9 billion contract to construct a new lunar lander for NASA, which SpaceX was awarded. This is important because it highlights the opportunity cost involved in government spending, meaning that billions spent on space exploration could be diverted to fund more pressing issues at hand. In addition, we need to think of the bigger picture. In the past, the U.S. has been unparalleled in its ventures. However, as countries become more economically developed and create their space programs, clashes are more likely to occur. One such country could be China, which is also looking to expand its commercial space industry. As technology advances, new issues will arise, and recent precedents will have to be set. As it exists now, no country owns space or any celestial body. Countries have to abide by international law. However, such regulations are bound to change if more players are in the industry. Be that as it may, there are benefits to commercial space travel. With the imminent possibility of earth becoming inhospitable, space travel provides an unconventional option for the future of the human race, one that has excellent commercial potential. The reality is, cutting on existing consumption is unattractive, and by finding a solution, we should not adapt but rather evolve. That is what SpaceX and Blue Origin claim they are trying to achieve by colonising other planets, with Bezos prophesying that "Over centuries, many people will be born in space". Billionaires such as Bezos and Musk have their sights set on having colonies on other planets to save the earth. However, with the potential of huge profits being in the air, can we conceivably trust these private firms to act in the best interests of humanity? If so, can they reasonably do this in the time provided? With research being a dynamic industry, would it be a better idea to invest in a backup plan instead of gambling with our investments for far fetched alternatives? For many, including myself, space colonisation at this stage is a step in the wrong direction. There is still time to save our planet, but some have already given up. Assuming we entertained this idea, we would have to develop a robust infrastructure to move billions of people in time. The planet has a fighting chance at survival. Is technology truly that advanced? While innovation shows potential, profit and wishful dreams should not be prioritised by governments over the livelihood of billions. Sources: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/11/science/jeff-bezos-space-flight-blue-origin.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/18/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-raised-nasa-lunar-lander-offer-to-3-billion.html https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-tech/2021/12/13/musk-spurns-subsidies-after-spacex-sought-them-out-799430#:~:text=%E2%80%94%20Musk's%20subsidies%3A%20Since%202012%2C,that%20advocates%20against%20corporate%20subsidies.&text=That%20award%20made%20SpaceX%20the%20fourth%2Dhighest%20awardee%20for%20those%20funds https://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-bezos-humans-born-in-space-eventually-space-colonies-2021-11#:~:text=via%20Getty%20Images-,Jeff%20Bezos%20predicts%20that%20people%20will%20one%20day%20be%20born,%2C%20Bezos'%20chief%20space%20rival. https://www.nbr.org/publication/developments-in

What Ahmaud Arbery’s death teaches us about justice as we know it By: Mihika Yadav Image of Ahmaud Arbery "You know something that just does not sit right with me at this time? The man who killed my son has sat in this courtroom every single day next to his father. I'll never get that chance to sit next to my son ever again — not at the dinner table, not at the holidays and not at a wedding. When I close my eyes, I see his execution in my mind over and over. I'll see that for the rest of my life." These heart-wrenching words were spoken by Ahmaud Arbery’s father in the trial of his murder in early January. The story of this murder is even more upsetting to think about. Ahmaud Arbery, a 25-year-old Black man, was jogging around Satilla Shores, a predominantly white neighbourhood in Georgia. Soon after he was stalked and killed by father and son, Gregory and Travis McMichael, as their accomplice, William Bryan, filmed the “modern-day lynching”. The 3 men involved were sentenced to life in prison after being found guilty of the murder of Ahmaud Arbery. Gregory and Travis McMichael were sentenced to life with no possibility of parole. Whereas, their accomplice and neighbour, William Bryan was sentenced to life in prison with a possibility of parole once he has served a minimum of 30 years. Before announcing the sentence for the three men, Judge Timothy Walmsley expressed, ​​"Ahmaud Arbery was hunted down and shot, and he was killed because individuals here in this courtroom took the law into their own hands." Travis McMichael, Gregory McMichael, and William Bryan (as pictured from left to right) The three accused claim that they believed Arbery to be a suspect, behind a string of burglaries that had taken place in the neighbourhood and were enacting their right to place a citizen’s arrest on him. They also came up with baseless accusations that Arbery was trespassing whereas no evidence has been found to corroborate this. This clearly shows that the citizen’s arrest law was misused in this trial, as William Bryan and the McMichaels scrambled to find an excuse for their impulsive and unprovoked actions. The authority citizens are given to arrest another member of society is too often abused, feeding into the superiority complexes or bigotry of some. Simply because someone feels threatened by the existence of another person and accuse them of criminal activity. Most frequently, we see the misuse of the citizen’s arrest laws falling under racial lines. Fortunately, this incident has uncovered the need for this citizen’s arrest law to be re-evaluated and change is currently in the works. Still, Arbery’s death is one of the very few recent murders of Black people in the U.S. to have received the amount of action it has, with all three of the accused serving life sentences. But, when can we look at these stories and say justice has been served? In order to answer this question, we have to stop viewing victims of these atrocious crimes as a statistic or a trending hashtag on social media. Ahmaud Arbery was loved. His family described him as a good, generous young man. He was a former star high school football player and frequently exercised around his neighbourhood. Breonna Taylor was shot in her bed, asleep, by police officers that stormed into her house with a faulty search warrant. But who was she? Image of Breonna Taylor A Black woman with a loving family, who hoped to have her own children in the near future. She worked as an emergency medical technician, an essential worker, at the height of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. She had just done four overnight shifts at the hospital she worked at the night she was killed. We are yet to see justice for her case. Elijah McClain was a young black man who died after being put into a chokehold by a police officer and injected with ketamine over baseless claims that he looked ‘suspicious’. But this isn’t his story. He was a soft, gentle soul according to his friends. He enjoyed playing the violin and was very fond of kittens. He worked as a massage therapist and was very close to his coworkers who speak highly of him. Image of Elijah McClain None of these people deserved to die. Justice in its truest and most pure form would mean that they would all still be alive. It would mean that anyone who abuses their authority would no longer feel empowered to do so. And in the words of Jemar Tisby for CNN, “Justice would be dismantling the racist narratives that led three White men to track and kill a Black person.” But what’s done is done. No matter how shocking or heartbreaking it is to hear about yet another innocent person dying, we can’t just erase what’s happened. The closest we can get to pure justice is accountability. If we can’t stop racists from committing horrendous acts of violence to people they feel superior to, the closest we can get to it is making sure they suffer the consequences of these actions. Upon being asked about her sentiment about the verdict, Arbery’s mother, Wanda Cooper-Jones, articulated something that perfectly encompasses this idea. She expressed, "They were fully committed to their crimes — let them be fully committed for the consequences." Sources: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/10/opinions/ahmaud-arbery-killers-sentencing-justice-tisby/index.html https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52623151 https://edition.cnn.com/us/live-news/ahmaud-arbery-killing-mcmichael-bryan-sentencing/index.html https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/ahmaud-arbery-killing-travis-mcmichael-sentencing-today-2022-01-07/ https://theconversation.com/ahmaud-arbery-murderers-sentenced-to-life-in-prison-4-essential-reads-on-the-case-174514 https://theconversation.com/trial-of-ahmaud-arberys-accused-killers-will-scrutinize-the-use-and-abuse-of-outdated-citizens-arrest-laws-170046

By: Sophia Rathleff As millions around the world watched on, the Capitol building, a symbol of democracy, fell. The events of January 6th 2021 were so unfathomable that the aftershocks are still ripping through democracies around the world. It was one of those events where most people could tell you what they were doing or where they were when it happened. It was not only a harrowing act of violence against the United States’ democracy but also against their “fellow Americans”. As the United States marked its anniversary, here is what we’ve seen in the past year. To recap the events of January 6th 2021, it was originally a rally called the “Save America March”, which soon turned into a violent breach of the Capitol building. During Donald Trump’s 70-minute speech he encouraged his supporters to go to the Capitol to “cheer on'' Republican representatives. However, he later contradicted himself saying, “If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore”. Seven days after, Donald trump was impeached for the second time. On the charges of incitement of insurrection, the senate declared him not guilty. The failure to convict meant Trump is able to; run for office in 2024, keep secret service details and his pension fund, among other things. Furthermore, charges were not pursued against the officer who shot and killed rioter Ashli Babbitt. She was attempting to climb into the speaker’s lobby through a broken window. However, the individual that placed numerous pipe bombs around D.C, is worryingly still at large. On the other hand, convictions were made for some of the rioters, most notably the “QAnon shaman”. Jacob Chansley, a figurehead for the riot, was sentenced to 41 months in prison for his role in the event. Notable charges are also being pursued for former Olympic swimmer Klete Keller and a US Marine Reserve. Over the course of 2021, we saw Donald Trump leave office and the Biden administration take effect. Biden made a statement on January 6th 2022 in regards to the event, commenting on Trump's discourse saying “It’s wrong. It’s undemocratic. And frankly, it’s un-American”. Additionally, Republican representatives involved with the Trump administration and the events of January 6 were notably absent from any discussions or memorials in the past weeks. As the world starts to move on from the events of January 6th, democracy in the United States of America is arguably no more secure than it was a year ago. We're hurtling towards 2024 and the (somewhat) inevitable return of Trump to the Presidential race. The aftermath leaves people frightened and more polarised than ever. The lack of convictions and condemnations has led many to wonder about the likelihood of a repeated incident. We cannot be sure of the outcomes of the next few years, nor how this will be addressed in the coming future, but one thing we can be sure of is, thank goodness Trump is off Twitter. Sources https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/january-6-capitol-riot-timeline-key-moments/ https://www.brookings.edu/events/january-6-insurrection-one-year-later/ https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/06/us/politics/jan-6-capitol-riot-aftermath.html https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/01/06/remarks-by-president-biden-to-mark-one-year-since-the-january-6th-deadly-assault-on-the-u-s-capitol/ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-capitol-idUSKBN29B30D \https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-trump-impeached-house-of-representatives

By: Maya Kumar and Ananya Jain Sports are arguably the most important aspect of a community, it is an opportunity for people to come together and appreciate the best of the best. It’s the pacifier of society, bringing together each and every person; regardless of who they are. Without sports, we as a society would lack the very foundation that brings us together. Novak Djokovic was simply fighting for his democratic and civil rights, in order to uphold such a crucial institution for the betterment of society. Without him and his brave efforts, we would not be able to come together as a community and connect. Ok, now that we’ve gotten that out of the way let’s talk about how and why Djokovic’s actions were problematic. Aside from his entitlement, of course. As of now, Djokovic has been deported and been replaced in the Australian open by Salvatore Caruso. So, problem solved? Not quite. Djokovic’s anti-vaccine sentiment has opened up many important dialogues surrounding immigration, particularly on how harshly Australia has treated immigrants. 35 asylum seekers spent their days in the Park Hotel detention centre, despite never being formally charged with a crime. Some have been there for nine years and will continue to be there for the foreseeable future. The issue is that Djokovic has breached Australian protocol by being unvaccinated without medical exemption, but many of these immigrants have never been charged with a crime. So why are they the ones in detention centres? Such undocumented immigrants have been told that they’re breaking the law, thus putting the people of Australia at risk. However, Djokovic has done this to a much greater extent, as Australia has strict guidelines put into place to protect its citizens. There have been reports of physical abuse as well as a lack of sanitation in regards to food. However, a few stories up, Djokovic lies ordering room service and is greeted with fluffy towels and bathrobes. This highlights the unfair treatment that the rich and famous receive. Not to mention that before his trip to Australia, Djokovic interacted and mingled with other people at sporting events despite knowing that he tested positive for COVID. Djordie Djokovic, Novak Djokovic’s brother has stated that Novak, “has not endangered anyone’s life and has not committed any federal or legal offence." Except he did. Broke quarantine while positive? That’s endangering someone’s life. Entered Australia without being vaccinated? That’s a federal offence. His anti-vax sentiment has also proved a problem for Australian authorities and encouraging young people to get vaccinated. The judges that cancelled his visa stated that “an iconic world tennis star may influence people of all ages [...] especially the young and impressionable to emulate him.” The Australian government wanted to set the precedent that there are no exceptions to such rules. They have been put in place for the general safety and wellbeing of the country, and to curb the influence Djokovic has had on younger Australian residents. By setting a hardline stance, Australia is protecting the health of its citizens. With power and influence so often allowing people to get away with crimes, it is refreshing to see that Djokovic has been forced to swallow the bitter pill that no one is above the law. As of now, we can only assume Djokovic has resorted to playing victim, embarrassed that his strategy off-court has been a massive: swing and a miss. Sources: https://www.bbc.com/news/59939122 https://www.news18.com/news/sports/he-was-treated-like-a-criminal-novak-djokovics-brother-vents-out-his-anger-4631135.html https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-20/djokovic-not-entitled-to-natural-justice-australia-court-says#:~:text=Djokovic%20was%20deported%20on%20Sunday,public%20interest%20to%20do%20so. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/08/world/asia/australia-djokovic-refugees-hotel.html

By: Raina Lath Northwest Nigeria has been seeing a major rise in violent crimes since late 2020. One of the more recent cases was on the 9th of January where government authorities had stated 58 people had been killed by armed bandits in the northwestern Nigerian state of Zamfara. However, residents argued that the number is closer to 200. So, what exactly happened? Ibrahim Dosara, Zamfara’s commissioner of information, mentioned the attacks were within Bukkuyum and Anka which are two local government areas. Babandi Hamidu is a resident of the Kurfa Danya village. She said the gunmen were shooting “anyone in sight.”But what exactly is causing this increase in violence? There are several reasons towards the increase in violence in this region of Nigeria. Some of the more important ones include widespread poverty as about 42.7% of the region’s population are poor which are one of the contributing factors to the region’s poverty. Militarization of public space has also been a cause of violence. Even though this was meant to help with armed conflicts and violent crimes, the conduct of the soldiers worsened the security situation. It was said that a lot of the times, the military officers acted unprofessionally and violated human rights. Failure of government has been the result of so much widespread poverty, unemployment, corruption and insecurity. These horrible conditions create frustration and an environment which sparks conflict. Finally, clashes between pastoralists and sedentary farmers. The farmers would accuse the patrolists of leading their cattle to the graze on their farms which leaves crops being destroyed. Patrolists say that the farmers block their routes for graze. These four reasons are the driving cause for increased violence in Nigeria. But what exactly are the consequences of this? Well, intensifying violence has deeply destabilised the local economy. Agriculture, the driving force for Nigeria’s economy, has been hit hard. As many farmers withinside the affected regions deserted their farms for fear of attack. And because of the warfare among farm animals and farmers, the Nigerian authorities lose an expected US $ 13.7 billion in earnings every year. With regard to the violence, President Muhammadu Buhari's senior aide Garba Shehu said on Twitter that the president has ordered the military to "respond robustly to the cases of killings and kidnappings." He also mentioned, "The federal government is willing to strengthen support and cooperation with all the states.” The president believes that with the complete cooperation of the citizens, Nigeria will surely move past this issue. Even as the president issued this statement, gangs continue to raid communities and the violence continues. A more recent example is when 50 people were killed in Dankade village in Kebbi state on the 15th of January. But this is not to say the recent efforts by authorities are useless. Security analyst Kabiru Adamu says "Since the president renewed his calls to the security forces, what we've seen is military airstrikes in forests where these bandits are holding their victims. We've also seen an increase in police operations. All of that has affected the ability of these bandits to operate.” On top of that, Nigeria's armed forces stated that last week they killed 537 armed bandits, arrested 374, and saved 452 kidnapped civilians. Last year, over 10,000 people were killed in Nigeria in banditry and criminal related attacks. Let’s just hope that this year it will be different. Sources: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/09/africa/northwest-nigeria-attacks-intl/index.html https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/9/about-200-dead-in-bandit-attacks-in-northwest-nigeria-residents https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/01/1109482 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-59925413 https://theconversation.com/whats-driving-violence-in-nigerias-north-central-region-163532

By Aditeya Das Utopia! A vague and ambiguous word in the English dictionary. Yet everyone has their own definition of it. To a kid, their utopia would be the dream of a chocolate fountain or an ice cream sundae on a hot summers day. To my father, Utopia would be a night filled with smooth jazz and crime thrillers on Netflix. However, to Xi Jinping, Utopia reaches beyond the realms of superficiality. It is a strive towards equality, away from the “horrors” of capitalism, it is the journey towards unity and prosperity shared by both his predecessors and himself. To Xi Jinping, “utopia” is synonymous with “common prosperity”, two words that are at the epicentre of the Chinese constitution and its respective amendments since 2018. Since December 18, 1978, Deng Xiaoping's three reforms to make China an economic superpower, the rich became richer, while the poor, although experiencing some gains, were left far behind. Such changes showed a form of socio-economic inequality through a capitalist mindset against Chinese communist social values. Ideals of "freedom", "justice", the "rule of law", and most importantly ", equality" were critical pillars of the aforementioned "communist values". Due to this wealth gap, one of the essential facets of Chinese communism is not being fulfilled, and to fix this, Xi Jinping decided to create "Common prosperity". He has made plans to reduce this wealth gap and has made “Common Prosperity” the tagline. Although it was announced in November of 2021, several steps have been taken towards this even before then. The primary example would be the education sector. In September of 2021, the Chinese government devised a policy that banned 'for-profit tutoring centres.' Education, being a lucrative business in China, allowed many learning centres to charge high prices. Due to these prices, many low-income households cannot afford the fees for these centres. This has seemingly decreased equality within China and strives away from the utopia that Xi Jinping wants to create. By banning the 'For Profit' centres, Xi Jinping gained much support from many low-income families, turning it into a significant first step to "common prosperity". The private sector has also played its hand in this. Through motivation from the Chinese Government, Chinese eCommerce giant Alibaba decided to get involved. On September 2, 2021, Alibaba announced that it would invest 15.5 billion dollars into "Common Prosperity" over five years. Through this, they can give funds to low-income workers to bring them into the middle class. It is rather evident that Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party are striving to gain popularity in China. Through careful, multi-step processes, Xi’s communist utopia is nearing fruition. Though the journey is long and arduous, the potential success of meeting the four Chinese Social values will provide a legacy for Xi’s rule and a deeply ingrained moral grounding for the nation. However, the future is still young there are still many steps left, it is left vulnerable to the winds of change and political evolution. Will this result in the birth of a real-life utopia, or will China plunder its resources in a fruitless dream.

By: Victoria Kurakata In a highly polarised battle for Chile’s top office, leftist Gabriel Boric defeated right-wing candidate José Antonio Kast to become Chile's youngest president. Upon his victory, the winning candidate expressed his optimism for Chile’s future, vowing to fulfill his role with a "tremendous sense of responsibility” and to “fight against the privileges of a few." However, considering recent factors such as a wave of protests in 2019, a prolonged constitutional convention, and a global pandemic, it is clear that Chile’s new president faces significant challenges ahead of him. The candidates Gabriel Boric, a former student protest leader, ran a campaign supporting women's rights, LGBTQ+ communities, and indigenous Chileans. He also ambitiously pledged to undo many of Chile's free market policies, claiming that "Chile will be the tomb of neoliberalism." He proposed far-fetched policies such as the creation of a robust welfare state, raising taxes by 8% of GDP over two terms, abolishing private pension funds, and raising the minimum wage. Boric’s rival, the right-wing José Antonio Kast, ran a starkly different campaign. Emphasising his ultra-conservative and Catholic views, he proposed policies such as abortion bans, continued neoliberal market policies, and building more prisons to establish a greater sense of law and order. During the first round of elections in late November, out of 7 candidates, Kast received 27.91% of the votes, whilst Boric received only 25.81%. As neither candidate won a majority in the first round, the two candidates competed in a runoff election, during which Boric defeated Kast by over 10 percentage points. A new era The election marked a pivotal point in Chile's political history. It was the first time where centrist parties, which have dominated Chilean politics since the transition to democracy, earned less than a quarter of the vote in the first round of the election. Instead, voters flocked farther towards the left and right, indicating a growing trend of polarisation within Chilean society. Chileans' pivot away from centrism suggests that their discontent with the status quo supersedes their political affiliations, highlighting the difficult road ahead for the new president. The road ahead The recent protests in Chile, which began in October 2019 and ended in December 2021, revealed Chileans’ discontent with the current political climate. Despite decades of sustained economic growth, frustration vis-à-vis societal issues such as corruption, inequality, and raised costs of living compelled Chileans to engage in violent protest. Chileans’ dissatisfaction with the status quo is further exacerbated by its constitution, or lack thereof. In late 2019, then-president Piñera announced plans to draft a new constitution; the previous constitution was criticised for its close ties to dictator Pinochet’s regime. However, virtually no progress has been made: the new constitution has yet to be fully drafted and ratified. Perhaps Boric's greatest issue is that of the economy. Immediately following the announcement of his victory, stock markets fell by 10% and Chile's currency, the peso, fell to a record low against the US dollar. Many economists also question the feasibility of Boric's proposed economic policies, claiming that his government will be unsuccessful in reaching the tax revenue needed to implement them. Finally, there is the issue of garnering enough political support to even pass any of Boric's proposed policies. Currently, the coalition led by Boric's party does not command enough votes in either house of Chile's National Congress. In the upper house, Boric's coalition controls only 6 seats out of 50, with the potential of another 16. In the lower house, Boric's coalition has secured 37 out of 155 seats, with the potential for another 37. In either house, Boric must garner support from other coalitions and political parties in order to successfully implement any sort of policy, creating another hurdle for the new president. Many Chileans expressed excitement towards the results of the election, with thousands of people taking to the streets to celebrate. Although Boric's presidency has the potential to lead Chile into an era free of inequality and corruption, it also bears the risk of polarising an already-divided nation and hurting economic growth. In order for a successful presidency, Boric must juggle various social and economic issues as well as facilitate cooperation from various political factions. Regardless of whichever path Boric chooses to take, it is clear that the actions he takes as president will leave a lasting impact on Chile's political climate: either for better or for worse. Sources: https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2021/12/20/chiles-new-president-promises-to-bury-neoliberalism https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/11/20/chiles-voters-are-on-the-verge-of-a-terrible-mistake https://carnegieendowment.org/2021/12/20/chile-s-surprise-election-result-offers-road-map-for-polarized-democracies-pub-86052 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cn057nq6k7yt/chilean-general-election-2021 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-59689731 https://www.bbc.com/pidgin/tori-59724445 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/19/world/americas/chile-president-election.html

By: Anjo Chu Although most are familiar with the recent announcement of Ghislaine Maxwell’s conviction, many fail to follow the story amidst all the chaos. Here are some of the key moments regarding her conviction. During Maxwell’s trial, the prosecution argued that many fail to see her as a predator and a sexual abuser because of her image of sophistication, emphasizing that she uses her deep pockets to disguise the allegations of sexual misconduct. Court sketch of Maxwell during a victim’s testimony (Artist: Jane Rosenberg) “She was a sophisticated predator who preyed on vulnerable young girls, manipulated them, and served them up to be sexually abused” This was the closing statement the prosecution left us with and was given minutes after this victim’s testimony (one in sketch). Maxwell’s team of lawyers had a unique approach against the prosecution, their entire argument was solely to prove the other to be incompetent. Mainly stating that they had insufficient evidence and that nothing they presented was tangible. Maxwell’s lawyers called an expert witness onto the stand. A memory expert testified and stated, “Memory doesn't work like a recording device, we actually construct our memories while we retrieve memories” Lawyers of Maxwell used this testimony and set for the jury to doubt themselves on their own decisions about the case. Her lawyers also brought in FBI agents and former Epstein employees to try and persistently point out the inconsistencies in the victims’ testimonies regarding her part in this. Now what? Just short of 2 weeks ago, Maxwell has been found guilty of 5 out of the 6 charges she was accused of and now faces the threat of up to 65 years in prison. The general consensus seems to be the unanimous agreement that she deserves more time in prison. The majority believe that although she lost relations with many of her former socialite friends, she still remains influential in the world, making many speculate whether her sentence was heavy enough. Maxwell’s trial has made us rethink the age-old question of whether these multi-millionaires will ever pay for what they did in the court of law. We have seen numerous conspiracy theories surrounding the death of Epstein, would we see the same with Maxwell? The case is not over and as of January 20th, Maxwell has requested a retrial as she believed there were mishandlings with one juror. Where will this trial take us? Will she receive a longer sentence due to media pressure? All we can do for the time being is wait for the updates of her trial, and hope that justice will be served. Sources: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60064474 https://www.forbes.com/sites/guymartin/2020/07/24/naming-the-names-what-ghislaine-maxwells-court-document-release-means-for-prince-andrew-and-others-in-epsteins-little-black-book/ https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ghislaine-maxwells-defense-keeps-spotlight-epstein-powerful-men-rcna7516

By: Maya Kumar and Ananya Jain In the current political climate, it is simply unacceptable that Indian farmers are compelled to rally to acquire basic policies that protect their livelihoods. The recent controversial farm laws have posed a threat to the safety and employment of many rural farmers throughout India; whose protection has been stripped in the form of India’s new agricultural laws. Thereby leading to the plummeting of the Indian agricultural sector, political and social unrest as well as severe mental health crises. What is beneficial, is the fact that three of these laws were repealed in November 2021. However, in light of upcoming state elections in Uttar Pradesh and Punjab, farm bills were withdrawn ahead of where farmers constitute a significant voting bloc. The Indian government essentially agreed to repeal these laws, after much protest by their farmer population. 60% of India’s GDP is constituted by the agricultural sector, with it being the top milk producer, second largest in vegetable production and third in fish. More than 800 million people in India make a living directly or indirectly from agriculture. The Indian government’s job is to ensure that the market prices remain stable for farmers, as well as protect them from exploitation. However, the recent agricultural bills did not necessarily fulfil this social contract. What exactly do these bills entail? The laws were intended to reduce the role of middlemen but were passed without sufficient consultation, leading to a lot of apprehension amongst farmers. Many farmers understood that they may lose bargaining power against the big corporations expected to replace the middlemen. The thinking behind this bill is that by providing a direct line between consumer and producer, Indian farmers would be able to benefit as the middlemen would not be able to take any of the profit. However, since big corporations can exploit farmers, there is little to no government regulation. In the past, Indian farmers would typically sell their produce at government-controlled wholesale prices and markets or at Mandis, where there are assured price floors. This essentially meant that there was a minimum price for them to sell their produce at, enabling them to make a profit. But the bill would have allowed private companies to hoard the produce for future sales, which previously only government agents could do, and increase the price significantly and then take in a majority of the profit. The issue with these corporations is that they are rarely held accountable for their actions to the same degree as the government, as they don’t necessarily maintain a social contract with the general public. The large corporations essentially exploit these rural workers with low bargaining power, taking a majority of their profit, despite crop prices already being low. This doesn’t even take into account the already high rates of unemployment in the farming industry. Farming requires intense manual labour, as well as the possibility of seasonal unemployment due to the possibility of heavy rains, natural disasters and other natural consequences. As well as this, farmers may choose to invest in capital over labour, which isn’t necessarily readily available for all farmers. This has significantly decreased the morale amongst Indian farmers leading to severe mental health crises and fear, as the problem is exacerbated during ‘off-seasons. The amalgamation of these factors has led to a rise in farmer suicides in recent years, with farmers already having a suicide rate 50% higher than the general population. This led to more than a year of protests in which farmers demanded that the law be repealed, as they were extremely critical of their lack of involvement in the decision made by the Modi administration. Such forms of protests included blocked roads leading up to Delhi. Most of these protesting farmers came from the states neighbouring Delhi, including but not limited to, Punjab and Haryana. As well as this, many farmers went on strike to ensure that the cabinet paid attention to them and their demands. All of this led to India’s cabinet ratifying the repeal of the agricultural laws in November of 2021. So what does this mean for Indian farmers? This example of the power of the people being exerted proves a victory for non-violent resistance. As India has recently been accused of experiencing a decline in its democratic properties, these protests exemplify the power exerted through grassroots movements, thereby creating hope for other such movements to gain popularity. Now, what happens? Some farmers have discussed how they wish to go back to their jobs, now that they have increased job security. They simply wish to continue with their occupation. Others have understood how effective bottom-up change can be, and are planning more protests and strikes to address other issues that are present in India in the agricultural sector. For non-farmers, and people all around the world, this proves a ray of hope in an otherwise bleak situation; showing how India has the potential to progress significantly, and how every voice, no matter socioeconomic status, has the power to be heard. Sources: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-54233080 https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/pm-narendra-modi-withdrawal-of-farm-bills-7636403/ https://www.npr.org/2021/11/26/1059200463/india-farmer-protests-modi-farm-laws https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/19/india-will-scrap-three-controversial-farm-laws-prime-minister-narendra-modi-says.html

- By Aditeya Das As the pandemic wreaks havoc on global industry and the economy, yet another country has fallen victim to its powers. By November 2021 US inflation had reached a near four-decade record with the CPI rising by 6.8 %, placing strain on US citizens. Prices of goods for both staples and consumer goods such as food and new vehicles have gone up by 5.4 % and 9.8% respectively, with the cause being attributed to a culmination of rising consumer demand and pandemic related supply constraints. US President Joe Biden, who has not even faced one full year of President is facing public backlash due to this and on December 12th, 2021 faced his lowest ever approval ratings. Biden and the Federal Reserve have, however, stated that such disruption is transitory, although many critics beg to differ. COVID-19 caused massive destruction of supply chains globally. Supply chains are networks between firms and their suppliers to manufacture and distribute goods to the final consumers. Although most of these networks are overseas and spread across multiple geographical regions, lockdowns, illness, and fluctuating international border status have all led to disruptions in these supply chains, causing shortages for consumers. A current example would be automobiles. Due to supply chains regarding cars having been cut, there was a massive shortage of cars in the United States. This has directly impacted inflation with prices skyrocketing, some of them almost reaching levels from when Jimmy Carter was President. Biden however, did not handle the situation, letting it get out of hand and reach alarming levels depleting his approval ratings. The other aspect of this is unemployment. According to Pew Research Centre, unemployment in the US, “rose higher in the first 3 months of COVID-19 than it did in 2 years of the great recession”. This level of unemployment is partly because of the impact of COVID-19 on the laying-off of workers, but also because of “The Great Resignation”, where around 4.4 million Americans left their jobs in just September 2021. The great resignation started in the early parts of 2021,with many rethinking their careers and goals and consequently leaving their jobs. Despite this mass scale unemployment, Biden did not institute any policies to control this and therefore received some criticism from his critics. In addition to this, Biden has allowed states in the US to change their levels of unemployment insurance enraging many workers. Such dissent resulted in labor shortages, spiking up wages and directly contributing to US inflation and even public reproval of the President. So why are Biden’s approval ratings so low? Unemployment and rising prices are only half the story, with republican politics being a factor of greater prevalence. The current economic instability provides the prime avenue for political manipulation which garners greater support from the masses. Through the criticism of the president’s economic policy and infrastructure bills (valued at 1 trillion dollars), the republican party has garnered great amounts of support from the masses. But all is not dull and gloomy for the Biden administration. Experts see the signs of worldwide supply chains rebounding providing an optimistic outlook for the future of US politics. A subsiding unemployment rate to 4.2% once again insinuates that Biden’s approval ratings may be destined to rise again. However, with the current worldwide instability, the next few months will be essential to see if Biden’s nightmare has any signs of ending. Sources: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf https://www.blumeglobal.com/learning/history-of-supply-chain/ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-27/covid-delta-variant-u-s-mask-makers-struggle-despite-virus-surge https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/why-is-inflation-rising-right-now/ www.sneci.com/blog/covid-19-its-impact-on-the-automotive-supply-chain-and-lessons-learned/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/12/12/biden-approval-ratings-covid-19-inflation-sink-new-poll/6485556001/ https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/3159296/us-inflation-surges-near-40-year-high-testing-joe