Category: English

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Sarah Burns, Associate Professor of Political Science, Rochester Institute of Technology; Institute for Humane Studies

Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war, not the president. But most modern presidents and their legal counsel have asserted that Article 2 of the Constitution allows the president to use the military in certain situations without prior congressional approval – and have acted on that, sending troops into conflicts from Panama to Libya, with no regard for Congress’ will.

Congress has for the most part registered only feeble and ineffective opposition to such executive action. The current move in Congress to deny President Donald Trump the ability to continue the war with Iran – led by Democrats, but with some Republican support – will likely fail, as have previous efforts during other conflicts.

But there was a time when Americans saw Congress stand up to a president who unilaterally took the country to war.

It was at the tail end of the Vietnam War, when Congress passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973, asserting that it was legislators – not the president – who had the power to declare war.

Once it passed both houses, President Richard Nixon vetoed it, claiming it was unconstitutional.

In response, the legislative branch overturned the veto with the two-thirds majority vote needed to prevail.

Compared to Congress’ limp response to Trump’s actions in Iran, and its similar failure to assert itself during Trump’s military action in Venezuela, it was a breathtaking act of legislative assertion.

Congress asserts itself

When they debated the War Powers Resolution, members of Congress were seeing the erosion of their control over the decision to engage in military operations large and small. With a strong bipartisan consensus, they determined they had to collectively use their powers, including the power of the purse, to thwart executive overreach.

Congress’ actions came in response to the growing protests against the Vietnam War in general and Nixon’s decision to expand the war by sending U.S. troops to invade the neutral country of Cambodia to disrupt the supply lines of the Viet Cong, the communist guerrilla force that accounted for a large number of the 58,000 Americans killed in the war.

Nixon had begun covert carpet bombing of Cambodia in 1969, and then announced in 1970 that he would send ground troops into the country the next year.

Congress – and the country– reacted extremely negatively. Members of Congress collaborated across party lines to draft legislation in an attempt to assert their power. It was a slow process, however, involving long periods of deliberation.

They used many different methods to attempt to constrain the president. Within months of the introduction of troops to Cambodia, Congress attempted to pass amendments that would restrict his ability to invade neighboring countries. Prompted by protesting and the illegal actions in Cambodia, Congress began crafting legislation that would draw down troops in Vietnam.

With these moves, lawmakers placed immense pressure on the president. This eventually led to the drafting and eventual signing of the peace agreement ending the Vietnam war in 1973.

This was not enough for Congress, however.

Rules – and flexibility

Congress wanted to create a document ensuring presidents could not unilaterally make war. They wanted legislative consultation.

They intended the War Powers Resolution to act as a permanent constraint. So, in the resolution they spelled out the specific actions in which presidents can start a conflict:

• First, if there is an invasion of the United States, the president can respond. In this instance, the president can act prior to congressional authorization.

• Second, if Congress provides an “Authorization for the Use of Military Force,” the president can assume he has authorization – but only as long as it is in effect.

• Finally, if Congress declares war, the president can act.

Lawmakers did, however, provide some flexibility. In the War Powers Resolution, they said a president can initiate and carry out hostilities for 60 days and has a further 30 days to draw down the troops. Once the executive has initiated hostilities, Congress must receive information about that action within 48 hours.

This opens the door for presidents to engage in smaller-scale or short operations without stepping outside the lines set in the law.

Presidents from both parties have availed themselves of this flexibility. As far back as 1975, when President Gerald Ford rescued the SS Mayaguez, the merchant ship captured by Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge, presidents have acknowledged the law and dutifully reported their military actions to Congress.

Like his predecessors, Trump sent a letter to Congress after his June 2025 missile attacks against Iran, as well as at the start of the currently open-ended conflict.

Presidents since the passage of the War Powers Resolution have not, however, acknowledged that they have to get congressional approval of their actions, with few exceptions. Predominantly, without congressional approval, they limit their actions to the 60-to-90-day window.

President Barack Obama, however, attempted to circumvent the window when his bombing campaign in Libya in 2011 dragged on, as well as when he bombed the Islamic State group in 2014. In the first instance, he claimed the War Powers Resolution did not apply. In the second, he claimed each bombing campaign was discrete, rather than part of a larger campaign.

Exploiting authorizations

The balance of power between the legislative and executive branches changed considerably with the passage of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force related to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force that gave legislative permission for President George W. Bush to invade Iraq.

Because Congress did not put sunset dates into these authorizations, subsequent presidents Obama, Trump and Joe Biden used those same authorizations for a host of later military actions in the Middle East and elsewhere.

And legislators are deeply divided in the current discussions about demanding the cessation of hostilities against Iran.

Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson says that limiting the president at this time is “dangerous.” Former congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene – who has fallen out of favor with Trump’s MAGA base and the president himself – took the opposing view, posted on social media, “Now, America is going to be force fed and gas lighted all the ‘noble’ reasons the American ‘Peace’ President and Pro-Peace administration had to go to war once again this year, after being in power for only a year.”

Has the U.S. entered a moment when members of Congress reassert themselves the way they did at the tail end of the Vietnam war?

It is possible that they will follow James Madison’s advice about the power relationship between Congress and the president. Writing in the Federalist Papers, Madison said that “ambition” has “to counter ambition.” He continued, “The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government.”

As I explain in my book about congressional war powers, the constitutional system creates an invitation to struggle. Now, as the U.S. wages war on Iran, Congress must decide whether it wants to struggle, as it did during the Vietnam War, or remain compliant and in the president’s shadow.

Sarah Burns has received funding from the Institute for Humane Studies.

– ref. Congress once fought to limit a president’s war powers − more than 50 years later, its successors are less willing to assert their authority – https://theconversation.com/congress-once-fought-to-limit-a-presidents-war-powers-more-than-50-years-later-its-successors-are-less-willing-to-assert-their-authority-277435

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Dylan Spencer, Assistant Professor of Criminology, Georgia Southern University

In late February 2026, the Panamanian government took control of two ports in the Panama Canal that had been operated by a Hong Kong conglomerate for two decades. The move is the latest in a long-simmering legal battle after Panama’s high court voided the company’s contracts.

Far from just a local dispute, however, the episode has drawn in the United States and China, whose competition over global ports and trade routes has intensified in recent years, including in the crucial Panama Canal Zone, where China’s presence has repeatedly drawn the ire of the Trump administration.

Chinese firms now own or operate terminals at more than 90 ports worldwide, including many of the busiest. The network spans Africa, Europe, the Middle East and Asia, with growing activity in South America.

The scale of China’s involvement in overseas ports has fueled debate over whether these investments are purely commercial or serve broader strategic goals.

Much of that debate has relied on case studies and politicized headlines, including in the case of the Panama Canal. But understanding where these ports are located, and whether there are consistent patterns in the countries that host them, is important given that disruptions to global shipping lanes can reverberate across the world economy.

In a recent study, we – researchers in maritime security, global infrastructure and trade – built the first global database of Chinese-affiliated ports and analyzed 133 coastal countries to understand why some host Chinese port investments while others do not.

We found that China’s overseas port expansion is not random. Far from being driven primarily by general business climate measures, the investments cluster near maritime chokepoints and piracy-prone shipping corridors, with more modest evidence that resource-rich countries are also more likely to host these ports.

The importance of chokepoints

Some sea routes are more important than others. The Suez Canal, the Strait of Hormuz and the Strait of Malacca are examples of chokepoints – narrow routes through which large volumes of global trade and energy shipments must pass.

In our findings, countries near primary or secondary chokepoints, such as Panama or countries bordering the Dover Strait, such as France, were substantially more likely to host a Chinese-affiliated port. Put simply, proximity to critical trade bottlenecks strongly predicts Chinese investments.

This makes economic sense. China depends heavily on maritime trade to sustain economic growth. And ports near chokepoints sit along the world’s most sensitive shipping corridors and offer long-term commercial access in strategic locations.

Despite concerns in the West that Beijing is developing ports for military reasons, not every port is a naval base in disguise.

Most Chinese-affiliated facilities are commercial terminals. However, commercial infrastructure can still have strategic value. China’s first overseas military logistics base in Djibouti sits alongside the Chinese-operated Doraleh port complex. A report from the Congressional Research Service notes that the facility supports naval operations and regional access in the western Indian Ocean.

That does not make other Chinese-owned or operated ports military installations. But control over terminals, logistics platforms, and supply chain data can shape economic and security relationships over time.

The role of piracy and resources

The same corridors in which Beijing is concentrating port investment are also hot spots for maritime crime. In separate research, we found that seaports can facilitate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing when oversight is weak. Our latest findings show that Chinese-affiliated ports are more common in countries already experiencing piracy and maritime insecurity.

That overlap does not mean ports cause illicit activity, but it shows these investments often occur in higher-risk maritime environments.

One of the most surprising findings from our study was the relationship between piracy and port investment.

Between 1991 and 2018, thousands of piracy incidents were recorded worldwide. But rather than avoiding risky waters, Chinese-affiliated ports are more common in countries experiencing higher levels of piracy.

Why invest in unstable corridors? One explanation is that piracy signals where trade routes are both vulnerable and valuable. Investing in ports in areas such as the Gulf of Guinea or parts of Southeast Asia may help Beijing protect its shipping interests. In this sense, piracy may signal not just risk but opportunity.

We also examined natural resource wealth of port host nations using a broad measure that includes extractive mineral and agricultural resources. We found modest evidence that countries with higher resource levels were more likely to host at least one Chinese-affiliated port, though this relationship was not consistent across all models.

Some commonly cited explanations as to where and why China invests in ports did not hold up in our analysis.

Broad measures of business climate and governance, such as ease of doing business or institutional stability, were not consistent predictors of Chinese-affiliated port presence.

This suggests that geography and maritime risk factors may matter more than general economic or governance indicators.

Broader implications

Whatever the motivations behind Chinese investments, their implications extend beyond local trade and logistics.

Ports are no longer just local infrastructure projects. They are nodes in global supply chains and increasingly in geopolitical competition.

And while not every investment signals a covert military ambition, it would be naive to treat all port projects as politically neutral.

Read more:
China is losing ground in Latin America

Recent U.S. policy responses reflect these growing concerns. In early 2026, the White House outlined a plan to strengthen the U.S. shipping industry and reduce reliance on foreign-controlled maritime infrastructure. The administration has also taken a closer look at foreign involvement in key facilities in the Western Hemisphere, including ports linked to the Panama Canal.

Such moves suggest that control over maritime infrastructure is no longer viewed in Washington as just a commercial issue but increasingly as a matter of economic and national security.

And as the map of countries with Chinese-affiliated ports suggests, Beijing’s investments are following the world’s most consequential trade routes not by accident, but by design.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Far from random, China’s global port network is clustering near the world’s riskiest trade routes – https://theconversation.com/far-from-random-chinas-global-port-network-is-clustering-near-the-worlds-riskiest-trade-routes-274934

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Leila Gautham, Lecturer in Economics, University of Leeds

When economists track inequality, they typically focus on income and spending.

But a significant share of the services that families actually consume – meals cooked at home, child care, housecleaning and lawn mowing – is produced by unpaid labor that never appears in these conventional measures.

As economists who study caregiving and inequality, we wanted to know whether accounting for unpaid work at home might change our understanding of inequality in American living standards – the gap between what richer and poorer Americans can actually afford to consume.

To find out, we conducted a study, published in the March 2026 issue of the Journal of Public Economics, in which we estimated the dollar value of unpaid housework and child care and added it to standard measures of income and spending for U.S. households from 1965 to 2018. Economists call these broader measures “extended income” and “extended consumption.”

We found that unpaid work used to significantly cushion inequality through the provision of many services. But we also determined that this cushion has been thinning for 50 years. Our findings indicate that the inequality in living standards has grown more than standard data suggest.

Counting unpaid work reduces inequality

To visualize these findings, consider the financial situation faced by two families.

While both have two adults and two children, their income from their salaries and other cash flows – including everything from stock dividends to Social Security benefits – is different. One has two earners bringing in a total of US$150,000. The other has a single breadwinner making $110,000 and a stay-at-home spouse. The lower-income family gets 45 more hours per week of unpaid chores done.

If every hour of those chores were worth $17, the typical wage for a housekeeper, that unpaid work would be worth roughly $39,780 a year. Factor it in, and the gap between the two families shrinks from $40,000 to just $220.

Extended income, the economic term that includes not just what’s in your paycheck but the value of doing the laundry, home repairs and other unpaid work yourself for your own benefit, tends to be more equally distributed than earned income.

The reason for this consistency is straightforward: Rich and poor families generally devote about the same amount of time to housework and child care.

A shrinking buffer

Because we valued everyone’s unpaid hours at the same wage in our study, adding unpaid work to income narrowed the gap between the top and the bottom somewhat.

But we also found evidence that this equalizing effect is eroding.

Between 1965 and 2018, the average amount of time that Americans devoted to unpaid chores at home fell, driven by changes in what women did. Their average number of hours fell from 37 to 24 per week. Meanwhile, men increased the time they spent on unpaid chores a little: Their number of weekly unpaid hours of work rose from 12 in 1968 to 15 in 2018.

To be clear, we did not try to figure out why these hours of unpaid work fell. Among the many reasons for the change could be the large increase in women’s employment and the growth of time-saving technology, such as dishwashers.

Lowest-income families hit hardest

We studied these shifts by combining three national datasets: time diary surveys from the American Heritage Time Use Study, income data from the Current Population Survey and expenditure data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey.

To put a dollar figure on unpaid work, we valued each hour at what U.S. housekeepers typically earn in a particular year.

The decline in unpaid work hit low-income households hardest – not because they cut more hours, but because unpaid work made up a much larger share of their total income.

We found that the income gap between households near the top and those near the bottom between 1965 and 2018 grew around 40% using conventional measures. Once we added unpaid work, this gap grew by 66%. For household spending, the contrast is similar: conventional inequality barely budged – up 4%. When we incorporated the value of unpaid work at home, inequality grew by 18%.

Overall, we determined that a typical U.S. family’s extended income grew 40% from 1965 to 2018. That was a much slower pace than the 69% growth in the income they earned from their paid work and other cash flows over the same period.

Who lost the most

Conventional data suggest that the gap between middle-income and poor households was generally stable during this period. Once we accounted for unpaid work, however, that is no longer true: This gap grew substantially.

Single-parent families – mostly headed by single mothers – were hit especially hard. Their income from paid employment rose sharply, but this came with large declines in the value of their unpaid work at home.

While they could afford to spend more on purchased goods and services, once unpaid work is factored in, single parents saw no net improvement relative to married parents.

What it means

The roughly 20-percentage-point increase in the share of women working outside the home over the past six decades was driven by expanded opportunity and economic necessity.

It has brought enormous economic benefits to those women and their families. But it has also meant that families – especially those with the least income – lost a cushion of services that women used to do in their own homes.

Our findings suggest that looking only at changes in income and spending can exaggerate improvements in living standards for the lowest-income Americans over the past five decades.

When you do fewer hours of chores that need to be done, you wind up paying other people to do them for you, and that costs money.

Otherwise, you have to make do with fewer services than you had before.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. When unpaid cooking, cleaning and child care get a dollar value, income inequality in the US shrinks – but the gap has grown since 1965 – https://theconversation.com/when-unpaid-cooking-cleaning-and-child-care-get-a-dollar-value-income-inequality-in-the-us-shrinks-but-the-gap-has-grown-since-1965-275499

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Matt Wilkinson, Associate Professor of Sociology, Coastal Carolina University

A #MeToo-style reckoning appears to be unfolding within Brazilian jiu-jitsu.

In February 2026, Brazilian jiu-jitsu legend Andre Galvao was accused of sexual misconduct by multiple women, including a teenager who had trained at Atos Jiu Jitsu, the school Galvao co-founded in San Diego in 2008 that now boasts academies around the world.

The backlash was swift: Multiple gyms and high-profile athletes affiliated with Atos severed ties with the school.

Galvao dismissed the accusations as “false rumors” and stated he is “taking the proper legal steps to protect the integrity” of Atos.

On Feb. 6, 2026, however, Atos Jiu Jitsu announced it had removed Galvao from his leadership posts. Many other gyms and athletes without a direct connection to Galvao or Atos nonetheless took the news as an opportunity to post messages about their commitment to safety for their gym members.

In a sport that has long struggled with addressing sexual harassment and misconduct, we see the widespread condemnation of Galvao as a watershed moment. And it comes on the heels of research we conducted to better understand the unique challenges that female martial artists face.

A sport built on trust

For those unfamiliar with the sport, Brazilian jiu-jitsu is a martial art focused on grappling and ground fighting – think wrestling, but with submission techniques like arm bars, shoulder locks and chokeholds. It’s essentially the grappling on the ground part of UFC, minus the punches and knee strikes.

Although almost all Brazilian jiu-jitsu competitions are split by gender, sparring and drilling routinely happen between men and women. It typically involves physical contact, usually between two people with different levels of strength and experience.

For these reasons, trust, restraint and respect are essential.

When your opponent successfully applies a technique that limits your movement and from which you cannot escape, you “tap out” to signal that you have accepted defeat. When you submit, your opponent is obligated to let go immediately to avoid causing injury or unconsciousness.

Much of the attention on sexual harassment in the sport has historically focused on incidents of assault. And a review of news coverage between 1989 and 2018 identified 177 incidents of martial arts coaches being convicted of sexual offenses.

But the kind of harassment that may not rise to the level of a crime in most countries – more pervasive and more subtle, but nonetheless insidious – has largely remained unacknowledged in Brazilian jiu-jitsu.

Blissful ignorance or something more insidious?

Whether it’s through inappropriate or sexualized comments both on and off the mat – or through unsolicited remarks about their bodies or appearance – women encounter a far different training environment than their male counterparts.

This is what we wanted to explore in our own research.

In 2021, we conducted a survey on martial arts participation that generated responses from 289 martial artists – 209 men, 77 women and 2 nonbinary people – in the U.S. and around the world. Most of them listed Brazilian jiu-jitsu as their primary art.

In the analysis, 43% of our survey respondents – 51% of women and 40% of men – indicated that they were aware of harassment in their martial arts community, which ranged from bullying to sexual harassment, to sexual assault.

But harassment was just one issue raised. The survey revealed a wider problem of “gender blindness” in martial arts, which involves simply ignoring or overlooking the impact that gender can have on participation, practice and performance.

When asked, “What does it mean to be a woman in martial arts?” 62% of men responded with statements that actively downplayed or ignored the ways gender shapes the sport. For example, one man noted that “the beauty of martial arts” is that “anyone can do it,” regardless of age, ability, “gender, shape or size.”

By contrast, nearly two-thirds of women in our survey indicated that being a woman in martial arts does, in fact, matter. They said they had fewer training opportunities, revealed that they felt they needed to work twice as hard to prove themselves, and highlighted safety concerns.

It isn’t clear whether the gender blindness among male martial artists reflected optimism, ignorance or something else. But the impact is the same: Women see gender as central to their experience. Men generally perceive gender to be irrelevant to the sport, and they don’t realize what women deal with on a day-to-day basis.

Unfortunately, gender blindness isn’t just relegated to Brazilian jiu-jitsu. Long studied by sociologists and gender scholars, it’s a pattern that lays the groundwork for abuse across all types of sports. And where gender blindness exists in combination with rigid hierarchies, it enables abuses of power and a culture of silence.

When people refuse or fail to recognize how gender shapes the experiences of women in sports, it becomes much harder to address conditions that allow for harassment and assault to occur. For example, when inappropriate contact or groping during training is dismissed as merely “accidental” or minimized as someone being “handsy,” it signals that this behavior is trivial rather than harmful. And it creates an environment where women – and men – may feel uncomfortable coming forward or speaking out.

Some prominent figures in the Brazilian jiu-jistu community are making this connection.

In a recent postmatch victory speech, Brazilian jiu-jitsu champion and coach Adele Fornarino issued a call to action. Criticizing the hierarchical structure of the sport, she emphasized that people in positions of power are taking advantage of the vulnerable and called for “no more blissful ignorance.”

What comes next?

In jiu-jitsu, men have traditionally held positions of power. By and large, they’ve been the owners of gyms, the instructors leading classes, the holders of black belts.

But this has been changing: The adult black belt women’s division at the 2025 International Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Federation World Championships saw a 40% increase in participants over the previous year. By contrast, participation in the men’s division decreased by 18%.

More women are standing side by side with men at the front of the class as leaders and experts. As a result, it’s possible that many male martial artists are more likely to respect, trust and see their female peers as equals.

When they live up to what they can be, the martial arts are a place where men and women struggle together and protect each other. They can develop unique friendships, cultivate empathy and practice mutual support.

Men and women having the opportunity to train together in the same gym can lead to what German sociologist Max Weber called “verstehen”: the kind of understanding that comes from working closely enough with someone to grasp the fears, aspirations and experiences that drive them. Spaces that allow for that depth of connection are all too rare.

We see the swift denunciation of Galvao, a legend in the sport, as a sign that Brazilian jiu-jitsu may be progressing toward a culture centered on care, concern and restraint instead of dominance and power.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Brazilian jiu-jitsu is having its #MeToo moment – https://theconversation.com/brazilian-jiu-jitsu-is-having-its-metoo-moment-275916

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Neringa Klumbytė, Professor of Anthropology, Miami University; Lithuanian Institute of History

In 1991, a simple line appeared in Broom, a Lithuanian satire and humor journal. “A shortest joke: Communism,” it said. A one-liner to celebrate the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Four years since Russia’s full-scale invasion, a shortest joke could be told about Russia’s war in Ukraine: “Liberation.”

Since the Russian Federation began its “special military operation” to “liberate” Ukrainians on Feb. 24, 2022, hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, millions have fled their homes, cities have been destroyed, and water and land have been contaminated. But people in Ukraine still laugh. Laugh to overcome pain, express solidarity and resilience, and hope for the victory.

In the first two months of 2026, there have been over 200 attacks on energy infrastructure across Ukraine, damaging thermal and hydroelectric plants and causing prolonged electricity outages. Millions were left without power or with just a few hours of electricity. I asked my friend in Kyiv how she is holding up. She responded, “Organic matter survives better in cold.”

I have studied humor in authoritarian and democratic states for many years. I have been fascinated by humor’s power to overcome pain and liberate from absurdity and oppression. In Ukraine, war humor has mobilized people, expressed their resistance and helped them overcome daily hardships.

Dangerous jokes

Throughout history, satirists and cartoonists have faced punishment, prison and even executions. Lenin and Stalin, like Mao and Hitler, allowed no laughter at the expense of themselves or their regimes. The power of humor lies in its capacity to mobilize people for a common cause. It is a weapon of the powerful as well as the powerless.

In authoritarian states, official humor reinforces the state’s political ideology and is a propaganda tool. Soviet satire and humor journals, for example, ridiculed Western imperialism. They satirized various ills of Western societies – high crime rates, unemployment, homelessness, corruption and poverty – while presenting the Soviet Union as more advanced.

Since 2022, many comedians have left Russia, some under threat. Like in Soviet times, anti-regime jokes can be told in kitchens and among friends but cannot freely circulate. In state media comedy shows, jokes about Putin are told from time to time, but they are used to bolster his image as a powerful, cunning leader, and hold up Russia as a great country.

War humor

In democratic societies, people are generally free to laugh at what they want. Ukrainian humor circulates from grassroots social media to government offices, to business sites. Since 2022, Ukrainian social media has been flooded by jokes – producing the biggest virtual humor archive in the history of wars.

But war humor is different from humor in times of peace. It can be hateful, obscene, grotesque, vulgar and dark. It fulfills many functions, from defense mechanism and survival strategy to a form of escape.

When lights went off in the winter of 2026, Ukrainians joked that even without light, they can see that “Putin is a ‘khuylo’” – an obscene punch line. Some jokes noted that Ukrainians do not have electricity but have power; or that there is no electricity in Ukraine, but there is light – and there is no light in Russia.

War humor has also been a form of resistance and perseverance. After Putin’s nuclear threats in 2022, memes about an orgy on Kyiv’s Mount Shchekavitsa in the event of an “end of the world” began to spread online. People were invited to join in case they had unfulfilled sexual fantasies. Memes multiplied of a couple passionately kissing in the background of a nuclear mushroom cloud.

One young man, presumably one of 15,000 who signed up for the orgy on Telegram, told Radio Free Europe, “It’s an attempt to show that the more they try to scare us, the more we will transform it into something else.”

Similar groups popped up, including a group promoting an orgy on Odesa’s Derybasivska Street. The orgy idea led to other forms of civic activism, such as the Soloma Cats charity foundation organizing first-aid training on Mount Shchekavitsa.

Laughing toward victory

Humor also is a form of news and commentary. Some people learn about international events, policy decisions and even battle victories from jokes rather than the mainstream media.

At the beginning of the war, internet memes laughed at European leaders’ reluctance to supply arms to Ukraine. Billionaire Elon Musk was mocked in October 2022 after suggesting a plan for peace that would repeat elections in annexed regions, recognize Crimea as Russian territory and make Ukraine a neutral country. Even Pope Francis was laughed at for his March 2024 suggestion that Ukraine should wave “the white flag and negotiate” to save lives, which for Ukrainians meant surrendering their sovereignty.

During the Ukrainian army’s counteroffensive in 2022, humor spread news of victories in Kherson, Bakhmut and other cities, laughing at Russian forces. Memes commonly portrayed Russian soldiers as incompetent, indoctrinated, or as zombies. Comparisons to Orcs in “The Lord of the Rings” were prominent, with one meme suggesting, “Stop calling Orcs Russians, it’s offensive toward Orcs.”

In response to reports of Russian soldiers stealing loot to sell in Belarussian open markets, Ukrainians created a meme of reselling captured Russian tanks at a “farmer’s market.” Another joke about Russian looting: “Did you take Kharkiv?” “No.” “Kyiv?” “No.” “What did you take?” “A washing machine, a mixer, and shoes …”

Some of the jokes provide commentary on global geopolitics, including Russia’s propaganda that it had been threatened by NATO. “Did you hear? It turns out Russia is at war with NATO,” one man asks. “How is it going for them?” asks another. “They already lost tens of thousands of soldiers and a ton of military equipment.” “And NATO?” “Oh, they have not arrived yet.”

In some ways, such jokes are a counteroffensive against Russian disinformation. In fact-checking, journalists fight propaganda with logical arguments, but propaganda targets emotions, identity and fears. Humor does not argue; it changes the context itself, subverting the message. And whereas fact-checking treats an opponent seriously, humor makes them ridiculous.

Ultimately, Ukrainians’ laughter communicates resistance, solidarity and dedication to victory. In one joke, a husband asks his wife why she bought seven bottles of wine. What about water and preserves, in case the war drags on? The woman responds: “I am getting ready to celebrate the victory!”

Neringa Klumbytė does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Front lines of humor: Dark humor voices Ukrainians’ hopes for victory – https://theconversation.com/front-lines-of-humor-dark-humor-voices-ukrainians-hopes-for-victory-265948