Yesterday, an impromptu press conference was held by the U.S. Cabinet in which the press had many questions for Biden and his administration.

Biden described yesterday’s events as a “farce”, expressing his disappointment with both the other cabinets and his own. However, perhaps the real disappointment should be levied on Biden, as his ability to veer off-topic was incredibly apparent in his answers to the press.

When asked about the Ukrainian power plant, President Biden strangely said, “why do we give plants so much power?”, a question that is neither relevant nor useful. This comes in direct contradiction to the president’s hard stance against Russia, making Fox News wonder: which president does Biden want to be? The one who goes on irrelevant tangents? Or the one who takes a stand against the enemy?

When asked about Russia, Biden stated “we [the cabinet] refuse to communicate with Russia”. While this is a valiant effort to ice out the opposing force, a halt on Russian-U.S. communication could do more harm than good.

Though the treasury secretary stated that the U.S. “cannot risk American lives”, those lives may be at risk simply because Biden’s government refuses to communicate with the Russians. Why would the administration not try its hand at diplomacy?

Putin’s war has raged for nearly a year, causing a flood of Ukrainian refugees to other countries, including the United States. The Biden administration cannot continue to flip and flop between openness and isolation, it needs to make a choice. If this indecision continues, when and how will Russia react?

The Security Council has mainly been focused on the resolution of the conflict between Iran and Iraq. During committee sessions today and yesterday, they began the construction of a working paper to attempt both ceasefire and humanitarian aid. As the US representative stated during Thursday’s session, “progress is what [we] hold so dear”. This progress that the US has been fighting for so fiercely is coming closer and closer, as the Security Council becomes potentially ready to pass its working paper. Zaire’s representative was very focused on the UN’s ability to send humanitarian aid to affected regions, while the larger powers were more interested in creating an effective ceasefire. This comes at an important moment in the diplomatic proceedings – during yesterday’s press conference, the Iraqi representative was asked about the potential for Iraq’s nuclear development. The representative chose not to comment on the matter, which raises some questions about their future plans for the conflict.

Fox News

On Christmas Eve 1979, the Soviets launched an invasion of Afghanistan. It did not take long for the USSR to establish what could be called a puppet regime in their southern neighbor, placing Babrak Karmal at its helm. However, this was not a seamless transition of power. Hostility has been central to the climate in Afghanistan for the last two years, and it does not show many signs of stopping.

One point of interest for the U.N. may be the humanitarian crisis that has sprung from this conflict in the past few years since the original invasion. Scores of refugees have fled Afghanistan, taking shelter in its bordering countries, such as Pakistan and Iran. These countries, forced to take in Afghan refugees, may not have the capacity to take much more. Pakistan, for example, is already receiving aid from the UNHCR, meaning that its internal struggles may be exacerbated by new burdens.

Why did the Soviets do this? Many Americans have speculated on this since the conflict began. One common assertion is that the invasion serves to prop up the Soviet regime; that Brezhnev and the rest of the Soviet government are striving to enforce their doctrines. It is difficult to know for sure – at least, that is, until this week’s UN discussions, where certain things may come to light.