EDITORIAL CORNER
What is the contribution of the West to the escalation of the Ukraine-Russia conflict? |
The Case for Walkability
|
|
By Frosya Mozhaeva
A pregnant woman lies on a stretcher carried by four rescuers through mounds of rubble. Her bottom is covered in blood and her expression is nearly lifeless, overwhelmed with terror after Russian forces bombed the hospital in which she was staying. That single picture evoked fear, sadness, and outrage around the world towards the Ukraine-Russia War. The conflict between Ukraine and Russia was not spontaneous and has been escalating for about a decade, which raises the question of whether the Western powers could have done anything to prevent it. Offensive realists believe that NATO and the West are at fault for provoking Russia by expanding into its sphere of influence, while many Eastern European political theorists argue that the Ukraine-Russia War is purely a product of Putin’s unreasonable aggression. Offensive realism is a theory of international relations coined by political scientist John Mearsheimer that articulates that states are disposed to conflict because they are self-interested, power-maximizing, and fearful of other states. Using that logic, the Ukraine-Russia War was a natural and predictable response of Russia to the eastward enlargement of NATO, expansion of the EU, and efforts to spread democracy in Eastern Europe. Major admittance of Eastern nations into NATO took place directly after the fall of the Soviet Union, and more recently, at the NATO Summit of 2008 at Bucharest where the alliance considered admitting Ukraine and Georgia, ultimately deciding that they “will become members of NATO.” The EU also launched its Eastern Partnership initiative, hoping to integrate Ukraine into its economy. The Russian government, however, showed repulsion to NATO’s attempt to draw near its direct borders and invaded Georgia later that year to prevent its admission by keeping it “weak and divided,” thus demonstrating its determination to prevent Western influence from reaching into Eastern Europe. According to Mearsheimer, NATO still continued to expand eastwards—despite the Kremlin’s clear warnings—and admitted Albania and Croatia in 2009. Ukraine became the center of conflict between Russia and the West in 2014. Although ethnically different from Russia, Ukraine began to emerge as a young, separate nation only after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. While Ukraine's relations with Europe varied depending on the president, the nation demonstrated a strong inclination towards Europe, in contrast with Russia, which continued to diverge from the West and democratic and humanitarian values. In November of 2013, President Victor Yanukovych rejected economic integration with the EU and instead accepted an economic deal with the Kremlin, leading to mass civil unrest in Ukraine. Supported by Putin, Yanukovich attempted to violently repress the protests but was soon forced to flee when protesters backed by the US and several European countries took over the government. The US also launched the National Endowment of Democracy in an attempt “to spread Western values and promote democracy in Ukraine,” and per Mearscheimer, this further flamed the fire. In February of the next year, Putin annexed Crimea and provided military aid to separatists in the most eastern region of Ukraine—Donbas—in order to restore his influence in Ukraine and prevent its “westernization.” In agreement with Mearsheimer, American political analyst E. Wayne Merry writes: “the clash of EU and Russian policies in Ukraine transformed the long-simmering political crisis of that country into an international competition for influence and dominance.” After the election of Volodimir Zelensky in 2019, Ukraine once again began to actively shift towards Europe, with the US supporting its integration into NATO despite the clear opposition of the Russian government. The “special operation” in Ukraine announced by the Kremlin has the official goal of “denazification”; which, according to Putin, is supposed to defend Ukraine from Western influence. Vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at Cato Institute, Ted Galen Carpenter, argues that America was fully aware that Putin had invaded Ukraine before and would do it again, and that Ukraine wasn’t capable of defending itself without foreign military aid. If the West had any intention of protecting the sovereignty of Ukraine, Mearsheimer believes it only destroyed any hope for its independence in the attempts to integrate it into NATO and the EU. That is how the realist story goes, but there is more to the Ukraine-Russia conflict than the involvement of the West. In fact, in the past several years, a new term, “westsplaining,” has become increasingly used to define West scholars imposing their analytical schema and political views onto Eastern European regions without considering the perspective of Eastern Europeans themselves. Political economists from Poland Jan Smoleński and Jan Dutkiewicz write that those who place the West at the center of international relations “perpetuate imperial wrongs when they continue to deny non-Western countries and their citizens agency in geopolitics.” There is, of course, major critique for the US and NATO foreign policies, but placing all the blame for the conflict on the West, in turn, poses Putin’s actions as reasonable. In order to perceive the reality of the conflict, multiple perspectives and historical context must be considered. The definition of Eastern Europe remains vague due to the vast cultural, religious, geographical, economic, and political differences of the region, and the only uniting factor can be attributed to the shared imperial history, most recently under the Soviet Union. In 1991 Ukraine began to democratize and showed interest in breaking away from the imperialist influence of Russia, specifically through the anti-government protests of 2013, after the decades of terror it experienced under Stalin such as the Holodomor. Hence, the desire of many Eastern European nations to be admitted into NATO stems from “the historical experience of oppression.” NATO was, to a major extent, openly provoking Russia in the Summit of 2008 by promising the admission of Ukraine and Georgia, yet it wasn’t “expanding” into Eastern Europe and rather responding to the wishes of Ukraine and Georgia. While it might be tempting to see the Ukraine-Russia War in terms of a bipolar framework of the Cold War, the perspective of Eastern Europeans is just as relevant. Instead of putting NATO at the center of the argument, many Eastern Europeans rather believe that the West has demonstrated little intention to deter or punish the violent behavior of Putin in Crimea economically. US sanctions following the invasion of Crimea targeted a very specific set of products, giving Russian importers an ability to successfully switch to alternatives. An analysis of the effectiveness of sanctions done by economists Matej Belin and Jan Hanousek has shown that “trade flows were lower than they would have been in the absence of sanctions, but this difference is statistically insignificant.” Compare that to the magnitude of sanctions imposed on Russia currently in response to the Ukraine-Russia War: the largest financial institutions of Russia have been blocked and individual oligarchs sanctioned. According to the New York Times, major industries in retail, food, energy, and tech such as McDonalds and Microsoft have pledged to pause business and withdraw from Russia due to pressure from investors and the public. It is to be mentioned that these sanctions came only after the invasion of Ukraine, and as some scholars have noted, came too late to prevent the invasion, and Biden himself said that he is trying to punish Russia for its actions rather than halt the takeover of Ukraine in a statement on February 24. The plan behind sanctioning Russia in 2014 and now has demonstrated itself to be insufficient to prevent Putin from further violating the sovereignty of Ukraine. Alternatively, many Eastern Europeans see the Ukraine-Russia War primarily as arbitrary aggression of Putin. American historian Hal Brands writes that for the past 20 years, Putin has been publicly expressing his desire to restore the sphere of influence that the Soviet Union once enjoyed. In his 14-page essay on the history of Ukraine published right before the recent invasion, Putin has illustrated that he does not perceive Ukraine to even be a real country. An American journalist born in Russia, Julia Ioffe says that Putin, “in his mind, reestablished Russia as a superpower on the world stage,” and all that is missing is Ukraine. It is simply naive to assume that if NATO expansion was absent, the Kremlin would be satisfied. As staff-writer of the Atlantic Anne Applebaum puts it, autocrats like Putin are “willing to pay the price of becoming a totally failed country, to see their country enter the category of failed states,” accepting economic collapse, isolation, and mass poverty if that’s what it takes to stay in power. Realism offers an interesting perspective on the Russia and Ukraine conflict, but not its entirety. In order to understand the war, both the Eastern European and the Western perspectives must be carefully considered. To give up Ukraine is to give up European ideals of sovereignty and freedom to authoritarian Russia, and the West now has to decide on a new foreign policy that will be supportive of the sovereignty of Ukraine. Sources: The Atlantic, The Print, The Guardian, PBS, Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West's Fault, The Washington Post, Meduza, The New Republic, The New York Times 
|
By Elian Sanchez
I have lived in Madison for the majority of my life and consider the state of Wisconsin to be my home. In the year since obtaining my license, I’ve driven around most of the Dane County area. I’ve grown dismayed with the unending construction of car-dependent single-family residential homes: suburbia. I like to call them “copy-paste houses.” It leads to an overwhelming feeling of sameness around many areas of Madison and Dane County, despite the uniqueness of this place. Madison and the state of Wisconsin should lead the nation in mixed-use walkable neighborhoods. I have many great memories of the beautiful city of Madison. Similar to other citizens of this city, a lot of those memories are centered around State Street, Willy Street, Monroe Street, and Hilldale. It’s no surprise that many residents go to these places for dates, hangouts, or just to relax and enjoy the atmosphere. They’re walkable and mixed-use for both businesses and residential living. I don’t really plan to go out with friends to the nearest big box store; we usually plan to go to walkable areas with many stores. It’s no surprise that older, traditional developments outperform their newer, car-dependent counterparts in revenue and taxes, despite costing cities the same in upkeep. They’re friendly to pedestrians and encourage passersby to enter businesses. This really can’t be done in car-dependent suburbia where people tend to drive to their nearest big box retailer for most of their needs. In a recent conversation with my partner, I discovered that she enjoys walking everywhere. She walks to school, to the grocery store, and to the library. I was in disbelief as I’m used to living in suburban sprawl. I shouldn’t have been so surprised as she lives near Monroe Street, one of the best areas for walkability. Not only would businesses benefit from the increase in passersby in a walkable neighborhood, but it would also lead to healthier citizens. The walkability of a neighborhood has a large impact on the obesity rate of its residents. Walkability encourages citizens to walk rather than drive to meet their needs. Although some citizens may be concerned about their property values when regarding new developments, increasing walkability in neighborhoods would likely increase their property values. There is a great demand for walkable neighborhoods as most people prefer walkability. Citizens concerned about the value of their property need not worry; they will benefit greatly from many aspects of walkability. With recent high gas prices, the threat of climate change, and the increasing demand for housing, Dane County should look back to more traditional developments. Developments that are walkable and friendly to pedestrians with mixed usage for businesses. Not only would these new developments increase tax revenue, but they would incentivize a healthier citizenry by decreasing car dependency. This shift would have the added benefit of decreasing traffic congestion as fewer people will find it necessary to have to drive everywhere. Many other places are taking this initiative. Paris is creating pedestrian and bike-only zones with increased dedicated bike infrastructure in order to reduce car use. Barcelona is using “superblocks” in which no cars are allowed in the middle of a block, making those neighborhoods easily walkable. Amsterdam is, to put it candidly, doing amazing and is a potential model for Madison. These places are where many Americans go on vacation to escape the dread of the suburban hellscape we call home. Why not be a leader? More sprawl isn’t helping assess future problems; it’s making things worse. Sources: "The Cost of Orientation" from strongtowns.org “How Does Neighborhood Walkability Affect Obesity?: The Mediating Role of Commute Mode”; and “Residential Land Values and Walkability,” from Journal of Transport and Land Use. “The Unmet Demand for Walkability: Disparities between Preferences and Actual Choices for Residential Environments in Toronto and Vancouver,” from Canadian Journal of Public Health. |
Is Standardized Testing Still Relevant in 2022?
By Samanyu Ambewadkar
Standardized testing is a term encompassing all forms of achievement evaluations that are generally automated in the present day. Initially introduced to the Boston school system in the mid-nineteenth century by education reformers Horace Mann and Samuel Gridley Howe, they were meant to be “a single standard by which to judge and compare the output of each school.” The nature of these tests has expanded and evolved since that time through the launch of the SAT(Scholastic Aptitude Test) in 1926, the ACT(formerly the American College Test) in 1959, and the AP(Advanced Placement) and CLEP exams, to name a few. Historically, standardized tests have played a prominent role in determining college admissions for a student, perhaps unproportionally. While students may excel in the arts or other fields, these tests have no way of accurately measuring those parameters, leading some to wonder whether they deserve a place as a decision-maker in 2022 at all. In recent years, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, many major colleges decided to make testing optional as an effort to allow flexibility in the midst of a crisis. However, the decision showed that standardized tests weren’t as necessary in the college admissions process as previously thought. Two West students were asked to evaluate the tests’ effectiveness. Here are their words.
Student One
The ACT and the SAT don't prepare a student for college; all they do is prepare students to take those standardized tests. These standardized tests don't make you smarter; the only way to get better at the ACT or SAT is to do practice tests. What's that teaching the student? Nothing other than how the ACT or SAT wants you to think. I also dislike the fact that standardized tests are easier for those more well off, due to their education systems having specific classes that better a students ACT or SAT score, not to mention the fact that many times a tutor is almost a necessity to getting a better ACT or SAT score, further widening the gap between the rich and the poor.
Student Two
The ACT and SAT are methods utilized by colleges and universities to assess a student’s readiness for higher education in the most accurate way possible. Other data points, such as GPA and essays, are skewed heavily based on a student’s environment. For example, one could have an excellent GPA freshman year, but have it suffer the next year due to problems with their life. While colleges do take these challenges into account, they won’t be weighed evenly among a sample of other students who haven’t faced the same circumstances. Similarly, a student with access to essay help and prep would have better [admission] chances than one without. With the ACT, however, students have access to a bunch of online resources along with classes at West that can help with the test. Standardized tests are necessary to examine a student’s grammar, writing, and logical reasoning skills in an unbiased manner.
Standardized testing is a term encompassing all forms of achievement evaluations that are generally automated in the present day. Initially introduced to the Boston school system in the mid-nineteenth century by education reformers Horace Mann and Samuel Gridley Howe, they were meant to be “a single standard by which to judge and compare the output of each school.” The nature of these tests has expanded and evolved since that time through the launch of the SAT(Scholastic Aptitude Test) in 1926, the ACT(formerly the American College Test) in 1959, and the AP(Advanced Placement) and CLEP exams, to name a few. Historically, standardized tests have played a prominent role in determining college admissions for a student, perhaps unproportionally. While students may excel in the arts or other fields, these tests have no way of accurately measuring those parameters, leading some to wonder whether they deserve a place as a decision-maker in 2022 at all. In recent years, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, many major colleges decided to make testing optional as an effort to allow flexibility in the midst of a crisis. However, the decision showed that standardized tests weren’t as necessary in the college admissions process as previously thought. Two West students were asked to evaluate the tests’ effectiveness. Here are their words.
Student One
The ACT and the SAT don't prepare a student for college; all they do is prepare students to take those standardized tests. These standardized tests don't make you smarter; the only way to get better at the ACT or SAT is to do practice tests. What's that teaching the student? Nothing other than how the ACT or SAT wants you to think. I also dislike the fact that standardized tests are easier for those more well off, due to their education systems having specific classes that better a students ACT or SAT score, not to mention the fact that many times a tutor is almost a necessity to getting a better ACT or SAT score, further widening the gap between the rich and the poor.
Student Two
The ACT and SAT are methods utilized by colleges and universities to assess a student’s readiness for higher education in the most accurate way possible. Other data points, such as GPA and essays, are skewed heavily based on a student’s environment. For example, one could have an excellent GPA freshman year, but have it suffer the next year due to problems with their life. While colleges do take these challenges into account, they won’t be weighed evenly among a sample of other students who haven’t faced the same circumstances. Similarly, a student with access to essay help and prep would have better [admission] chances than one without. With the ACT, however, students have access to a bunch of online resources along with classes at West that can help with the test. Standardized tests are necessary to examine a student’s grammar, writing, and logical reasoning skills in an unbiased manner.
