As the United States continues to be a major contributor to Ukraine’s war effort, Russia has warned the U.S. to back off. This news was first reported by The Washington Post, citing a diplomatic note from Moscow to Washington that said U.S. weapon shipments were “adding fuel” to the conflict in Eastern Europe. As a result, Russia said, the U.S. could be hit with “unpredictable consequences.” Undeterred, President Biden on Thursday announced an additional $800 million military package to be sent Ukraine’s way, including heavy artillery, 144,000 rounds of ammunition and drones. How does this play out? How seriously should the Biden administration take the Russian threats? And what would be the war’s tipping point to force the U.S. and NATO into direct military action? UVA Today caught up with University of Virginia politics professor John Owen to analyze the situation. A Miller Center of Public Affairs senior fellow, Owen has expertise in foreign affairs, American defense and security, and war and terrorism.

The outcome of Russia’s war on Ukraine is far from clear. As of the time of this writing, Moscow and Kyiv are beginning a set of battles over the east and south of Ukraine. A war of attrition is taking shape, with no end in sight. There remains the possibility—low, but greater than zero—that the war will spread and involve NATO directly, or even involve the use of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.

Barbara Perry, director of presidential studies at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, noted that a handful of modern presidents have recovered from challenging times to successfully seek reelection, including former Presidents George W. Bush, Clinton and Obama. Obama, Perry noted, had a difficult first two years in office with the recession, a slow recovery and turmoil surrounding the legislative battle over the Affordable Care Act. Others, like former Presidents Carter, who also grappled with staggering inflation, and Trump, were unable to come back from low points to win a second term. “There’s good news and there’s bad news for Biden,” Perry said.

In an emergency, we often look to media: to contact authorities, to get help, to monitor evolving situations, or to reach out to our loved ones. Sometimes we aren’t even aware of an emergency until we are notified by one of the countless alerts, alarms, notifications, sirens, text messages, or phone calls that permeate everyday life. Yet most people have only a partial understanding of how such systems make sense of and act upon an “emergency.” In Case of Emergency argues that emergency media are profoundly cultural artifacts that shape the very definition of “emergency” as an opposite of “normal.” What is the impact of "emergency media" on our lives? Miller Center Senior Faculty Fellow Elizabeth Ellcessor discusses her new book with Miller Center C. K. Yen Professor Aynne Kokas.

In an emergency, we often look to media: to contact authorities, to get help, to monitor evolving situations, or to reach out to our loved ones. Sometimes we aren’t even aware of an emergency until we are notified by one of the countless alerts, alarms, notifications, sirens, text messages, or phone calls that permeate everyday life. Yet most people have only a partial understanding of how such systems make sense of and act upon an “emergency.” In Case of Emergency argues that emergency media are profoundly cultural artifacts that shape the very definition of “emergency” as an opposite of “normal.” What is the impact of "emergency media" on our lives? Miller Center Senior Faculty Fellow Elizabeth Ellcessor discusses her new book with Miller Center C. K. Yen Professor Aynne Kokas.