Daily-Dose

Contents

From New Yorker

From Vox

For eight years, Russia has been invading Ukraine, has been trying to meddle with Ukrainian internal affairs. So having Russia on our tail, having this constant threat of Russia going further — I think many Ukrainians are used to it. That’s why we’re probably more calm than some people in the West.

Jen Kirby

That’s fair enough! You mentioned recent comments from the US. I feel like there’s been so many comments; is there anything in particular you’re referring to?

Oleksiy Sorokin

Yes. I think the comments coming from President Joe Biden that a “minor incursion” would be less of a big deal, and cause internal conflict for NATO members. That’s the comment that struck many Ukrainians because for us, we are already at war with Russia, and having a US president saying that, well, some invasion is less costly than others, got a lot of people in Ukraine worried.

But we know that the presidential administration then went back on their comments saying that actually any move into Ukraine would be considered an invasion, and I think for many people that calmed the Ukrainian community, and a lot of Ukrainian politicians as well.

But also, if we’re talking about comments by the American side, we see that Ukrainian officials, they tend to say that nothing unusual is happening, that everything is fine, that we are continuing business as usual, we know that everything is okay. And then we have the American officials, for example, Jen Psaki saying that Russia will invade, we see Biden saying that Putin has to do something already. Those comments are getting people worried.

The problem that we’re facing now is that Ukrainian officials are trying to calm people down, and Western officials are heating up [the threat].

Jen Kirby

That’s interesting. I wonder, from your perspective as a journalist, do you think that Ukrainian officials are underselling the threat, or are Western officials overselling the threat of a Russian invasion?

Oleksiy Sorokin

I think it’s both. I think that the truth is somewhere in the middle. There’s obviously an increased threat of Russia launching a full-scale invasion. But I would say the comments coming from particularly the US are kind of going overboard, because we see that every day or every two days, American officials are saying that Russia will invade. And I know that they might have some kind of intel that we in Ukraine don’t have. But I still think that those comments are causing — I wouldn’t say panic — but some worries, not only [for] the Ukrainian public, but also some politicians.

Jen Kirby

What is the perspective on some of Russia’s demands, most notably Putin’s request that NATO doesn’t expand eastward and so denies Ukraine membership? I know the US and its allies have said that this is a nonstarter, but I wonder if the US and Russia came to some sort of agreement on keeping Ukraine out of NATO, what the reaction might be?

Oleksiy Sorokin

I think, well, it’s not even that I think, there are polls that say that most Ukrainians want to join the European Union and NATO. So I would say that for Ukraine, having a condition of never joining NATO is just an impossible condition to follow. What I would say is that this whole conflict was caused by Russia wanting Ukraine out of NATO, Ukraine wasn’t a part of NATO, and in the near future, everybody understands that Ukraine is not going to join. First of all, because Ukraine already has a war [with] Russia; second of all, corruption. A lot of other things that keep Ukraine from NATO.

This whole notion, this discourse of basically Russia causing an escalation to keep Ukraine out of NATO, is wrong, because Ukraine wouldn’t join NATO in the near future. So this is just like, in Ukraine, this is seen as one of the fake conditions that Russia is trying to bring to justify their aggression. But the real reason for Russian aggression is that Russia denies Ukrainian statehood. Even if NATO says that Ukraine won’t join NATO in the year, the next 10 years, realistically, nothing would have changed, because Ukraine wouldn’t have joined anyway.

Jen Kirby

I am curious about Ukraine’s internal dynamics. It seems that Zelensky, the president who was elected in 2019, is extremely unpopular.

Oleksiy Sorokin

Well, he’s actually very popular. I wouldn’t say he’s extremely unpopular. He’s the most popular politician in Ukraine.

Jen Kirby

But his poll numbers have been in the 20s!

Oleksiy Sorokin

For Ukraine, that’s extremely popular. If a sitting Ukrainian president has over 20 percent of total support, he’s the most popular person. In Ukraine, only one person was reelected. So yes, that’s considered very high numbers.

Jen Kirby

Got it. So then why is Zelensky still the most popular politician in Ukraine?

Oleksiy Sorokin

Well, oddly enough, Zelensky is still considered a new guy, and he still doesn’t have this long tale of past misfortunes as a politician. For example, his main opponent [Petro] Poroshenko, despite being only president for like five years [from 2014-2019], he was a politician since the early 2000s. So with him, he’s considered this established politician. But as for Zelensky, he’s still considered this new guy in town, and a lot of people still have high hopes for him as a politician, as opposed to his main opponents.

Jen Kirby

That former president you mentioned, Poroshenko, is basically being accused of treason. What’s going on there?

Oleksiy Sorokin

Well, yes, this is a very interesting case, because it’s developing amid the ongoing Russian military buildup, so many people are saying that this case is happening in the worst possible time. But actually, it’s ongoing for several years. It’s just Poroshenko who was charged with high treason in December.

The substance of this case is basically: when Poroshenko was president, he allowed the import of coal from Russian-occupied Donbas, which the current prosecution says was helping Russian-backed militants in eastern Ukraine to get financing. That’s why he’s accused of high treason. Meanwhile, supporters of Poroshenko and his defense offer that the money was paid to Ukrainian companies, and there isn’t any treason.

The Ukrainian popular opinion is split. Around 50 percent of people say that this is a politically motivated case. One, because Zelensky is known for making comments against Poroshenko and basically explicitly promising to have Poroshenko and his officials prosecuted, which adds to this notion of Zelensky going after Poroshenko. Also, we know that Zelensky and his inner circle have a very low opinion of their political opponent, which can add to the notion of Zelensky wanting him behind bars. Also the prosecutor- general of Ukraine, Iryna Venediktova, is a former MP [member of Parliament] from Zelensky’s Servant of the People party. So a lot of people in Ukraine rightfully believe that the prosecution is dependent on the president.

Jen Kirby

Zelensky came in to clean up corruption, which has been a long-standing problem in Ukraine. But this question about whether this is a politically motivated prosecution certainly doesn’t look great for a guy who promised to commit to democracy and rule of law. How do you see it?

Oleksiy Sorokin

A lot of people rightfully believe that under Zelensky there’s been a curtailing of a lot of democratic institutions. For example, Zelensky is alleged of controlling the prosecutor-general, he’s alleged of controlling the Investigation Bureau. He’s also known as having direct influence on Parliament, which, according to the constitution, he doesn’t have to have. So under Zelensky, there’s been an extremely big centralization of power going on. And there’s a lot of warning signals and markers that allow us to believe that Zelensky is not really true on his word of fighting corruption, and clearing Ukraine of this long-standing practice of the president influencing both the parliament and law enforcement.

Jen Kirby

I wonder if you see a disconnect in that, especially with respect to the current tensions around Russia. You have Zelensky and his administration turning to the West and making the case for democracy and for his agenda in the face of Russia’s authoritarianism — but at the same time, he’s not quite following through at home.

Oleksiy Sorokin

Well, I think that happens with many Ukrainian politicians who say that they’re pro-Western, and who are actually pro- Western and tend to bring Ukraine closer to the European Union. But meanwhile, in Ukraine, they tend to follow policies that would not fly with many European officials.

Jen Kirby

Poroshenko and Zelensky both oriented themselves toward the West. I’m wondering if that has caused divisions within the pro-European, pro-NATO political camp within Ukraine?

Oleksiy Sorokin

After the Russian invasion in 2014, most Ukrainian politicians, at least publicly, say that they’re supporting the Euro-Atlantic course of Ukraine. Ukraine in its constitution has a line saying that Ukraine must tend to seek joining NATO and the European Union. So all those people in power, they kind of have to follow that line. And they do. We see the most popular Ukrainian politicians, they always say that they’re 100 percent for joining both NATO and the European Union — the fact that all of them hate each other, that’s a completely different problem here.

Jen Kirby

What I was trying to get at a little bit was whether pro-Russian politicians would potentially be able to exploit or capitalize on the weaknesses within, or dissatisfaction with, pro-Western politicians. But it sounds like what you’re saying is, at least openly, there’s not very many pro-Russian politicians left in Ukraine.

Oleksiy Sorokin

Those who are left, they’re marginalized. For example, it’s a standing practice that nobody is going to seek to bring into a coalition the Opposition Platform Party, which is the only pro- Russian party in Ukraine right now. Even though they have an electoral support rate of around 10 percent, even maybe going up to 15 [percent]. That’s their electoral ceiling. And it’s not possible for them to jump higher, because they’re explicitly labeled as being pro-Russian. And the pro-Russian base in Ukraine right now is pretty low, especially with people from Crimea and eastern Donbas not being able to vote because they live in Russia-occupied regions, so this space is shrinking each year.

Jen Kirby

To get back to Zelensky. Are there concerns he might exploit Russian escalation to consolidate more power?

Oleksiy Sorokin

I think it’s actually the opposite. This ongoing conflict and Russian escalation is hurting Zelensky’s electoral support. Because a lot of people in Ukraine feel that Zelensky, at least publicly, is not doing enough. And you can get the frustration of many Ukrainians who feel that the president is not doing a good job of first informing Ukrainians about what’s really happening, and second of not preparing Ukraine for a possible invasion.

Jen Kirby

Zelensky recently said something like “calm down, don’t go out and buy matchsticks and buckwheat just yet.” And, as you say, Ukrainians are kind of used to living with this threat from Russia. What do people want to see if they feel Zelensky isn’t doing enough right now?

Oleksiy Sorokin

I think [the] general assumption of the situation is that there shouldn’t be a panic, because many people in Ukraine believe that Russia is using this situation to extort the West and basically demand concessions from the West.

But again, if Russia goes and further invades Ukraine, then there’s many Ukrainians who are ready to fight back. And we also know that the Ukrainian army right now in 2022, is a completely different force from what it was in 2014, when basically, Ukrainian defense was the sole responsibility of volunteers and volunteer battalions, which has its ups and downs. Right now, the Ukrainian army is a powerful force, which a lot of Ukrainians believe can defend the country from Russia. If we look at the polls, then 72 percent of Ukrainians have 100 percent confidence in the army, fully support and fully trust everything that the army does, and the Ukrainian army is the most popular government institution in Ukraine.

Jen Kirby

In some respects you’re right, Putin is using Ukraine to win concessions from the West. But the invasion option is open to him, especially if he does not win concessions. What do you think might happen, at least in the short to medium term?

Oleksiy Sorokin

I personally don’t think that Russia will conduct a full-scale invasion. I also think that Russia — the only way Putin backs down is if he is able to save face. Because with him, it’s always about pride, it’s always about showing that he is a master strategist, that he knows how to do geopolitics. So I feel that Russia will continue this escalation until it can present something to [its] domestic viewership. Something it can gain from this whole situation.

But the problem with my personal arguments is that I used, to base it on, some kind of rational thinking, which I’m not sure that the Kremlin has, and that every argument I make, can be broken by the will of a single person living in the Kremlin. And that’s Vladimir Putin. So the only actual assessment of the situation which I think would be fair, is that nobody knows.

What cash does to baby brains

The Baby’s First Years experiment began in 2018 with a cohort of new mothers; the experiment recruited participants in hospital maternity wards in New York City, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Omaha, and New Orleans, screening specifically for mothers with low incomes. The newly released study is based on EEGs of 1-year-olds conducted in 2019. In 2020 and 2021, the researchers behind the experiment suspended in-person data collection due to Covid-19; they judged it not safe for survey-takers to visit private homes indoors. They’re hoping later this year to return to in-person data collection, but as it stands, the only EEG data that exists is for 1-year- olds.

The researchers argue the data confirmed their hypothesis: There was more high-frequency brain wave activity in children whose families got $333 a month. The cash seemed to lead to more high-frequency, or fast, brain activity. For the highest-frequency gamma brain waves, the effect size of cash was 0.23 standard deviations, which in education research would be considered a large effect.

That said, almost no research to date, other than studies about Romanian children raised in government institutions and randomized to receive either high-quality foster care or remain in the institution, measured the effects of social policies on infants’ EEG results. It’s just uncharted territory. So comparing to the effect size of, say, preschool or tutoring on test scores doesn’t necessarily tell us much.

“We cannot do an apples-to-apples comparison because we do not have brain waves data for other interventions,” Katherine Magnuson, a professor in the school of social work at the University of Wisconsin and another co-author on the study, told me. Lisa Gennetian, a professor of public policy at Duke and another co-author, chimed in after Magnuson: “There isn’t another apple. There isn’t even an orange.”

Noble stressed that the brain wave activity here at least correlates with outcomes later in life in other studies. Romanian children raised in institutional care had more low-frequency brain activity, and less high-frequency brain activity, and also were likelier to show ADD or ADHD behaviors later on. Prior studies looking at EEG scans of infants and toddlers have found that the rate of high-frequency gamma brain waves is correlated to better language abilities and memory later in the child’s life. Those results aren’t necessarily causal; it’s not clear that having different brain activity causes, in some sense, better language abilities later on. But the fact that they correlate is at least suggestive that children with fast brain wave activity whose mothers received the high cash gift might have better developmental outcomes in the future, too.

Some observers were more apprehensive about reaching strong conclusions from the study. Columbia’s Gelman notes that before the study was conducted, when the researchers “preregistered” their hypothesis, they stated that they expected an increase in alpha and gamma waves and a decrease in theta waves. Only the gamma waves result was statistically significant. There’s some possibility that by random chance, if you compare enough wave types, one of them will seem significantly different, even if there’s no actual effect on babies’ brains. (Psychiatrist and blogger Scott Alexander explains this “multiple comparisons” phenomenon well in this post.) The paper also includes effects on beta waves, which were significant but weren’t in the preregistered hypothesis; generally speaking, adding new variables that weren’t preregistered is frowned upon in science.

Noble notes that all of these details were included in the paper, and argues that the results are robust because of what is known as “regional analysis” — analysis that looks at where in the brain differences between the high-cash and low-cash children showed up. “If they had come from, say, parts of the brain that support vision, we might have been very skeptical that we were seeing something meaningful,” Noble wrote me in an email. “But they came from parts of the brain that are critical for supporting higher-order thinking.”

The study was also not equipped to determine which mechanisms were most important in driving the brain wave results. But it’s not hard to imagine mechanisms by which cash for parents could help children. “My first hunch is that you’re reducing parental stress and giving parents more bandwidth, time, and emotional and cognitive energy to be spending with their kids,” said McLaughlin, the Harvard psychology professor.

But what’s exciting is that because Baby’s First Years is a randomized experiment — meaning that the only systematic difference between the two study groups was how much money they received — we can be reasonably confident the cash is a primary cause of whatever changes the researchers find in babies’ brains, if their statistical analysis is reliable. And we can be reasonably confident it will be a causative factor in whatever future outcomes the Baby’s First Years researchers find.

“Ten years from now, this will not be the only or the most important finding,” Magnuson told me. There’s plenty more the study is about to learn about what cash payments, similar to those the Biden administration pioneered, do for the development of young children.

Update, January 27, 3:50 pm: This article has been updated to incorporate criticisms of the study made after its initial release, as well as the researchers’ responses to those criticisms.

From The Hindu: Sports

From The Hindu: National News

From BBC: Europe

From Ars Technica

From Jokes Subreddit