Over four years ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. This followed eight years of conflict between the Ukrainian government and Russian proxy forces, as well as the annexation of Crimea in 2014, which drew massive international outrage. In response to Putin’s actions, Russia was sanctioned economically, diplomatically isolated and culturally shamed through banning Russian athletes from the Olympics. But since 2022, this conflict has lost the world’s attention due to wars in Israel, Gaza, Sudan and Iran. Despite Russia’s actions, a close look at Ukrainian President Vlodymyr Zelensky’s motivations for continuing the war—which has been a stalemate since 2023— reveals a silent invasion of his country. Since the invasion, Ukraine has relied on conscripting its working-age men to repel the Russian military and has prohibited most men from leaving the country. Ukrainian women, children and seniors, in contrast, have undergone a mass exodus in Europe’s worst refugee crisis since the Second World War. It is estimated that this exodus will constitute over 30% of its pre-war labor pool, which was already shrinking rapidly due to emigration to European Union member states like Poland. In addition to this, a low fertility rate and a rapidly aging population is creating a massive labor shortage in the coming decades. And with the Ukrainian army suffering casualties in the hundreds of thousands, the country’s pool of adults who still live in the country will shrink even further. To make up for this labor shortage, Zelensky could force businesses to pay Ukrainian workers fair wages and lure the diaspora back home. But instead of preserving Ukraine as a nation state for the East Slavic ethnic group, he plans to import laborers from less developed countries to fill the gap. Many of these countries from the Middle East, Africa and South Asia regions have already sent numerous migrants to European countries, especially within the past decade. When looking at the results of allowing mass migration, it can safely be said that it constitutes an invasion. Migrants from the Middle East, Africa and South Asia are much more likely to commit a wide range of crimes, use excessive welfare and remain in low-skill occupations than native Europeans, all across the continent. This should not come as a surprise, given how Europe’s institutions and cultures contrast greatly from those of migrant countries, which are often governed by Sharia law, are rife with corruption and fail to protect the liberties of women and minorities. In contrast, Russia, like Ukraine, is an Orthodox Christian country, and its ethnic group and culture have centuries of shared history with Ukrainians. Putin’s intent is not to wage war on the Ukrainian people, but rather reintegrate their country into Russia. He merely rejects the political and social separation of the two groups, not the existence of either one. Given the similarities of both East Slavic countries, Russification of Ukraine would hardly change anything about the former Soviet state. Yet Zelensky nevertheless considers annexation by Russia, even of only Ukraine’s southeastern region that is currently occupied, a threat to the Ukrainian nation. But why doesn’t he apply this same logic to demographic replacement of Ukrainians via mass migration from societies with radically different cultures and institutions?
By Edward Kim
You may be thinking, the title of this article is a bit dramatic; you’d be both right and wrong in two different senses. The answer to the question of whether everything is inherently political depends on the context used. In the case of movement, however, there are significant reasons why your love for exercise may invoke a need for recognition of the politics behind the sports you play. The rationale for why your 9:00 AM pilates class should segway into a mid-day protest is rooted in what exercise really is. Every exercise, short of simple movements like walking or waving your arms around, was invented by a person. That very person lived in a specific time in history with a specific lens which they viewed the world. For some, exercise was a form of protest, and for others community or expression. Nevertheless, when doing someone’s exercise, it’s appalling that we seldom stop to think about its creation, or the era it was born in. Take soccer, for example. FIFA describes “cuju” – a Chinese Han Dynasty game used for military training – as the predecessor to soccer (https://www.fifamuseum.com/en/explore/fifamuseumplus/blog/origins-cuju-in-china). The sport was said to be a positive morale booster for the army. However, when the Ming Dynasty came into reign, the sport was entirely banned with the punishment of losing a foot for playing it. This example demonstrates how soccer/football has origins in the gamification of training, which is most certainly political. Another example is how baseball was shaped by colonist migrants to America. While the original sport has origins across Europe, blending various traditions (https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2023/02/07/who-invented-baseball/8124497001/), America played a distinct role in the influence of baseball, and baseball in America was more than a game. Baseball became a way by which politics interacted with sports. Take the Civil Rights Era. Jackie Robinson was so distinctly recognized in baseball that his calls for equality greatly influenced the success of Martin Luther King Jr. (https://baseballhall.org/baseball-history-american-history-and-you) If that isn’t enough of a reason to seek education on your chosen sports’ history, here are the other facts. Your movement is a privilege. One study published under the National Library of Medicine in 1990 found that amongst San Diego residents surveyed, those who exercised more than three times a week were likely to have exercise facilities near their homes (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1580056/). This was reconfirmed in 2010 by a study published under the Journal of American College Health which found that college students were more likely to exercise when they had close facilities or more home exercise equipment (https://doi.org/10.3200/JACH.53.6.285-290). Next time you partake in exercise, think about the history of your activity, and what allows you to do it today. Whether it’s legal rights, privileges, or accessibility, there’s more to your physical activity than you think.
By Megan Fincher
Love Island is a reality TV “dating” competition where a group of singles live in a luxury island villa. Contestants must explore their “connections,” “couple up,” do various challenges, and try their best to gain popularity with the audience in order to avoid elimination. At the end, a grand cash prize awaits the most popular couple by vote. In addition to the original contestants, new singles, or “bombshells,” are introduced into the villa to test the existing couples. To make things even messier mid-season, more new singles are introduced when the men and women split up into two different locations: the original villa and “Casa Amor.” This is meant to test the loyalty of the established couples and, of course, add onto the drama of it all. Sounds pretty entertaining, right? So what’s the issue? I’m not disputing the fact that the contestants signed up for this and that Love Island is a popular enough show that they would have known (at least somewhat) what they were getting into. Of course, there is an incentive to participate in a show of this caliber as it provides a platform for contestants to build successful influencer careers. However, that still does not make it ethical; this show certainly presents a lot of concerns that mirror broader patterns in our society. The show’s central business model relies on turning contestants’ emotions, relationships, and conflicts into entertainment for profit. Footage is edited, certain storylines are pushed, producers encourage contestants to say/do certain things, etc. When women in particular display suspicion of their partner’s actions, they are often framed as crazy in the edited footage and individual confessionals. It is especially alarming how emotional exploitation targets the women on the show. Producers often perpetuate negative stereotypes regarding women in relationships, framing their reactions as jealous and paranoid, rather than reasonable, to make the show more sensational and entertaining (Denby). A contestant’s status on the show is dependent on whether the public, as well as their fellow contestants, like them or not. This pressure, combined with extreme isolation and constantly being on camera, could have a negative impact on contestants’ mental health. And then, in turn, that impact is further exploited on camera to create even more drama—all boosting the show’s popularity and filling the pockets of the production companies. And of course, this isn’t exclusive to Love Island. These same controversies surround reality television as a whole because the point is for it to be messy and dramatic—it’s what sells. Furthermore, there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the oversexualization of the challenges in recent seasons. Things like “The Heart Rate Challenge” have made intimacy into a performance and spectacle more than a test of compatibility. According to an article from The New York Times by Shivani Gonzalez, unlike scripted television shows, Love Island does not have any sort of intimacy coordinator during these challenges, thus raising concerns about comfort and consent. Not to mention, Love Island could also be damaging to its large, young audience whose perceptions of healthy relationships may be shaped by repeated exposure to the show’s sensationalized portrayals of love, intimacy, and conflict. In many ways, watching Love Island often feels like watching The Hunger Games: contestants vying to win the hearts of the public to not get eliminated, manufactured drama and plotlines from the production team, a set of challenges for competitors to make themselves appealing to the production team and audience, the contestants—real people—turned into characters by viewers’ parasocial relationships with them. Of course, the consequences of losing are not literal death, but rather reputational and emotional damage. Still, in an era where careers and identities are increasingly tied to public perception, that threat can be very real, especially for aspiring influencers. Despite all of the concerns and controversy, people are obsessed with this show, reminiscent of how Capitol citizens ignored the problems with the Hunger Games in favor of the excitement and thrill of sensational media. The appetite for sensationalism doesn’t stop at television. We see it in our politics, too, where political messaging is increasingly designed around the reaction it will provoke. The same incentives that reward sensationalism in reality television increasingly shape our political discourse. Social media algorithms, news coverage, and political campaigns all reward content that provokes outrage and emotional reactions over thoughtful discussion. As a result, politics has become increasingly performative. Hostility, partisan outrage, and viral clips mocking the other side often receive more attention than compromise or substantive policy discussion. Love Island isn’t solely responsible for our culture’s obsession with sensationalism, nor should reality television bear all the blame. Rather, its success reveals something uncomfortable about what we choose to reward. As long as emotional exploitation, outrage, and spectacle continue to attract the most attention—and generate the most profit—they will continue to dominate not only our entertainment, but our public discourse as well. References: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8207292/#B2 https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/18/arts/television/love-island-season-8-challenges.html
By Madeleine Harp
Follow Us