The United States is preparing for an expected migrant surge as Mexico steps up security at the border. Meanwhile, migrants are waiting for the end of title 42.

The US prepares for the expected migrant surge: Mexico steps up security at the border

Pakistan Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto meets his US counterpart Antony Blinken. Is Pakistan, and US trying to mend ties? Watch this report.

Pakistan FM Bilawal Bhutto meets US counterpart Antony Blinken

President Joe Biden will travel to South Korea and Japan from May 20-24, a visit seen as crucial for efforts to bolster regional cooperation and counter China. This is also his first Asian trip as US President.

Joe Biden to visit Japan & South Korea on his first Asian trip as US President

The United States President Joe Biden's administration has announced new steps to ease the national shortage of baby formula, including allowing more imports from overseas.

Unable to feed babies, US expedites baby formula import to mitigate shortage

In a landmark agreement, the US soccer body has announced that both Men & Women's soccer teams will get identical pay. The new agreement is valid till 2028.

Men & Women's soccer teams to get identical pay in a landmark agreement by US soccer body

A video of an Indian-American teen being bullied at a Texas school is going viral. What's worse, is that the school staff has reportedly suspended the victim for 3 days, the aggressor was given a 1-day suspension. Palki Sharma brings you a report.

Gravitas: Indian-American teen bullied in Texas school

In the United States, the baby formula shortage crisis has emerged due to the storm of supply chain issues and a massive recall. But the question here is, should mothers use a homemade baby formula to feed their babies? Is it safe?

Why mothers shouldn't make DIY baby formula

China has removed some Covid-19 test requirements for people flying in countries such as the United States and shortened the pre-departure quarantine for some inbound travellers.

China ease Covid rules for international travellers

The US Justice Department has sued the billionaire Steve Wynn. The US government says Wynn advanced Beijing's interests in 2017.

US Casino Czar an agent of China? Steve Wynn sued by the US Justice Department

Health authorities in North America and Europe have detected dozens of suspected or confirmed cases of&nbsp;monkeypox&nbsp;since early May, sparking concern the disease endemic in parts of Africa is spreading.

Canada was the latest country to report it was investigating more than a dozen suspected cases of&nbsp;monkeypox, after Spain and Portugal detected more than 40 possible and verified cases.&nbsp;

Britain has confirmed nine cases since May 6, and the United States verified its first on Wednesday, saying a man in the eastern state of Massachusetts had tested positive for the virus after visiting Canada.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/rare-monkeypox-outbreaks-from-us-to-spain-list-of-countries-where-cases-are-detected-recently-480319">Rare monkeypox outbreaks: From US to Spain, list of countries where cases are detected recently</a>

The illness, from which most people recover within several weeks and has only been fatal in rare cases, has infected thousands of people in parts of Central and Western Africa in recent years but is rare in Europe and North Africa.

The World Health Organization (WHO) said on Tuesday it was coordinating with UK and European health officials over the new outbreaks.

"We really need to better understand the extent of&nbsp;monkeypox&nbsp;in endemic countries... to really understand how much is circulating and the risk that it poses for people who are living there, as well as the risk of exportation," infectious disease epidemiologist Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove said at a WHO press conference on Tuesday on global health issues.

The first case in Britain was someone who had traveled from Nigeria, though later cases were possibly through community transmission, the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) said in a statement.

"These latest cases, together with reports of cases in countries across Europe, confirms our initial concerns that there could be spread of&nbsp;monkeypox&nbsp;within our communities," said UKHSA Chief Medical Adviser Dr. Susan Hopkins.

Watch |&nbsp;Rare monkeypox outbreak: The US reports the first case of monkeypox

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/rare-monkeypox-outbreak-the-us-reports-the-first-case-of-monkeypox-480317/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The WHO said it was also investigating that many cases reported were people identifying as gay, bisexual or men who have sex with men.&nbsp;

"We are seeing transmission among men having sex with men," said WHO Assistant Director-General Dr. Soce Fall at the press conference.

"This is new information we need to investigate properly to understand better the dynamic of local transmission in the UK and some other countries."

No risk to the public

The UKHSA noted that&nbsp;monkeypox&nbsp;has not previously been characterized as a sexually transmitted disease, underscoring that "it can be passed on by direct contact during sex."

"Anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, can spread&nbsp;monkeypox&nbsp;through contact with body fluids,&nbsp;monkeypox&nbsp;sores, or shared items (such as clothing and bedding) that have been contaminated with fluids or sores of a person with&nbsp;monkeypox," a US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) statement said Wednesday, adding that household disinfectants can kill the virus on surfaces.

The illness often starts with flu-like symptoms such as fever, muscle ache and swollen lymph nodes before causing a chickenpox-like rash on the face and body, the US agency explained.

The Massachusetts Department of Health, said that the case there,&nbsp;the first confirmed this year in the United States occurred in a patient who had recently traveled to Canada and "poses no risk to the public, and the individual is hospitalized and in good condition."

Also read |<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/england-detects-four-more-cases-of-monkeypox-infection-479779">&nbsp;England detects four more cases of monkeypox infection</a>

Health authorities in Canada's Quebec province announced they were investigating at least 13 suspected cases of&nbsp;monkeypox, the public broadcaster CBC reported Wednesday.

The cases were flagged to Montreal authorities after diagnoses were made in several clinics specializing in sexually transmitted and blood-borne infections.

The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) told CBC it had called on "public health authorities and laboratory partners across Canada to be alert for and investigate any potential cases."

According to the CDC, there were no reported cases of&nbsp;monkeypox&nbsp;for 40 years before it re-emerged in Nigeria in 2017.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

Health authorities in North America and Europe have detected dozens of suspected or confirmed cases of monkeypox since early May, sparking concern the disease endemic in parts of Africa is spreading.

Health authorities in North America and Europe have detected dozens of suspected or confirmed cases of monkeypox since early May, sparking concern the disease endemic in parts of Africa is spreading. Canada was the latest country to report it was investigating more than a dozen suspected cases of monkeypox, after Spain and Portugal detected more than 40 possible and verified cases. Britain has confirmed nine cases since May 6, and the United States verified its first on Wednesday, saying a man in the eastern state of Massachusetts had tested positive for the virus after visiting Canada. Also read | Rare monkeypox outbreaks: From US to Spain, list of countries where cases are detected recently The illness, from which most people recover within several weeks and has only been fatal in rare cases, has infected thousands of people in parts of Central and Western Africa in recent years but is rare in Europe and North Africa. The World Health Organization (WHO) said on Tuesday it was coordinating with UK and European health officials over the new outbreaks. "We really need to better understand the extent of monkeypox in endemic countries... to really understand how much is circulating and the risk that it poses for people who are living there, as well as the risk of exportation," infectious disease epidemiologist Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove said at a WHO press conference on Tuesday on global health issues. The first case in Britain was someone who had traveled from Nigeria, though later cases were possibly through community transmission, the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) said in a statement. "These latest cases, together with reports of cases in countries across Europe, confirms our initial concerns that there could be spread of monkeypox within our communities," said UKHSA Chief Medical Adviser Dr. Susan Hopkins. Watch | Rare monkeypox outbreak: The US reports the first case of monkeypox The WHO said it was also investigating that many cases reported were people identifying as gay, bisexual or men who have sex with men. "We are seeing transmission among men having sex with men," said WHO Assistant Director-General Dr. Soce Fall at the press conference. "This is new information we need to investigate properly to understand better the dynamic of local transmission in the UK and some other countries." No risk to the public The UKHSA noted that monkeypox has not previously been characterized as a sexually transmitted disease, underscoring that "it can be passed on by direct contact during sex." "Anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, can spread monkeypox through contact with body fluids, monkeypox sores, or shared items (such as clothing and bedding) that have been contaminated with fluids or sores of a person with monkeypox," a US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) statement said Wednesday, adding that household disinfectants can kill the virus on surfaces. The illness often starts with flu-like symptoms such as fever, muscle ache and swollen lymph nodes before causing a chickenpox-like rash on the face and body, the US agency explained. The Massachusetts Department of Health, said that the case there, the first confirmed this year in the United States occurred in a patient who had recently traveled to Canada and "poses no risk to the public, and the individual is hospitalized and in good condition." Also read | England detects four more cases of monkeypox infection Health authorities in Canada's Quebec province announced they were investigating at least 13 suspected cases of monkeypox, the public broadcaster CBC reported Wednesday. The cases were flagged to Montreal authorities after diagnoses were made in several clinics specializing in sexually transmitted and blood-borne infections. The Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) told CBC it had called on "public health authorities and laboratory partners across Canada to be alert for and investigate any potential cases." According to the CDC, there were no reported cases of monkeypox for 40 years before it re-emerged in Nigeria in 2017. WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

US confirms its first monkeypox case as man tests positive after visiting Canada

US President Joe Biden is all set to embark on his first Asia tour. However, there is speculation that North Korea may greet Biden with a Nuke test.

Biden on his first Asia tour: North Korea may greet US President with Nuke test

“I strongly supported Obama for President,” Elon Musk tweeted late last month, part of the spree of ideological comments accompanying his continuing takeover of Twitter, “but today’s Democratic Party has been hijacked by extremists.” Around the same time, he set the social-media platform ablaze by reposting a cartoon showing a stick figure comfortably on the center-left in 2008 redefined as a right-wing bigot by 2021 because the left-wing stick figure had raced way off to the left. Then this week, he expressed the same kind of thought in the abbreviated style for which the site is famous: “Twitter obv has a strong left wing bias.”

And now, at last, we have the news that he’s likely to allow Donald Trump to tweet freely once again.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/musk-says-he-will-reverse-twitter-ban-on-trump-477980">Musk says he will 'reverse' Twitter ban on Trump</a>

All of these comments and promises align the country’s richest man with the rightward side in our culture war. But though I don’t know Musk — I’ve never interviewed him or hung out with him in any secret billionaire lair — I think I know enough about him, and I know enough Silicon Valley people like him, to suggest that neither his tweeted self-descriptions nor the criticisms being lobbed his way capture what’s distinctive about his position and worldview.

A term like “conservative” doesn’t fit the Tesla tycoon. Even “libertarian,” while closer to the mark, associates Musk with a lot of ideas that I don’t think he particularly cares about. A better label comes from Virginia Postrel, in her 1998 book “The Future and Its Enemies”: Musk is what she calls a “dynamist,” meaning someone whose primary commitments are to exploration and discovery, someone who believes that the best society is one that’s always inventing, transforming, doing something new.

If you think this sounds uncontroversial, think again. First, the dynamist may not care where novelty and invention spring from. Unlike the purist libertarian, he might be indifferent to questions of public versus private spending, happy to embrace government help if that’s what it takes to get the new thing off the ground — and happy to take that help from regimes like Communist China no less than from our own. And he may be willing to risk much more than either the typical progressive or the typical conservative for the sake of innovation. Political principle, social stability and moral order are all potentially negotiable when discovery alone is your North Star.

Watch |&nbsp;'Permanent ban' is morally bad, Elon Musk to reverse Donald Trump's Twitter ban

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/permanent-ban-is-morally-bad-elon-musk-to-reverse-donald-trumps-twitter-ban-478012/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

For many people, dynamism is contingent — on how invested you are in the world as it is, whether you stand to lose or benefit from innovations, and where your moral intuitions lie. (I am personally a dynamist about Musk’s Mars colony but not Mark Zuckerberg’s metaverse; flying cars, yes, sex robots, not so much.) Even in the tech world, your appetite for dynamism depends on where you stand: If you’re lucky enough to work for one of Silicon Valley’s near-monopolies, the new powers of the age, you may not be that interested in further churn or change.

Musk himself may yet evolve into that kind of comfortable monopolist, but for now, pending the IPO for MarsCorp in 2047, he remains a dynamist in full. And seen in this light, his recent transformation from Obama Democrat to progressive foil makes perfect sense in light of the transformations that liberalism itself has undergone of late.

Liberalism in the Obama era was an essentially dynamist enterprise not because liberals were absolutely committed to capital-S Science but because those years encouraged a confidence that the major technological changes of the 21st century were making the world a more liberal place. Whether it was social media shaking Middle Eastern autocrats, the Obama campaign running circles around its Republican opponents with online organizing or just the general drift leftward on social issues that seemed to accompany the internet revolution, progressives around 2010 felt a general confidence that technological and political progress were conjoined.

Ever since Trump bent history’s arc his way, however, that confidence has diminished or collapsed. Now liberals increasingly regard the internet as the zone of monsters and misinformation, awash in illiberalism, easily manipulated by demagogues, a breeding ground for insurrectionists. And if digital technology has become particularly suspect, via the transitive property, so has the larger idea of innovating your way out of social or environmental problems — empowering the part of the environmental movement that wants to tame capitalism to save the planet, for instance, at the expense of the part that imagines taming climate change with fleets of Teslas and nuclear power plants.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/after-twitter-takeover-what-else-do-netizen-want-musk-to-buy-474843">After Twitter takeover, what else do netizens want Musk to buy!?</a>

Meanwhile, the values underlying dynamism — above all, the special pedestal given to free thinking and free speech — are also more suspect within liberalism today. In their place is a new regulatory spirit around culture as well as economics, a how-much-is-too-much attitude toward the circulation of potentially dangerous ideas, a belief in institutions of scientific and intellectual authority but not necessarily institutions devoted to wide-open inquiry.

Just as a dynamist might, at the extreme of the orientation, prefer a monarchy that protects innovation over a democracy that discourages it, some of today’s progressives are making the same move in reverse: If democracy is endangered by technological change and unfettered free speech, then so much the worse for free speech. The important thing is to save democratic self-government, even if you have to temporarily take the “liberties” out of the American Civil Liberties Union or put away your John Stuart Mill.

Whatever else Musk wants with Twitter — and obviously you should assume that he wants to make a lot of money — this seems like the ideological trend he hopes to resist or halt: the liberal retreat from dynamism, the progressive turn toward ideological regulation, the pervasive left-wing fear that the First Amendment and free speech are being weaponized by authoritarians and need some kind of check.

So now the question: If this was your ambition — setting aside whether you think it’s admirable or dangerous — would buying Twitter make sense?

The affirmative theory holds that because Twitter is both an essential digital town square and a place particularly populated by well-educated liberals, if Musk can make it succeed with a lighter-footprint approach to content moderation, from a dynamist perspective he might hope to accomplish two goals at once. First, he would be simply sustaining an important space in which free debate can happen. Second — assuming that he could come up with a light footprint that left-leaning users would accept — he would be gently training Twitter’s liberals back into their Obama-era belief that openness and dynamism are good things, that a marketplace of ideas can work without constant ideological supervision and constraint.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/digital-services-act-tesla-ceo-elon-musk-signals-agreement-with-eu-industry-chief-breton-477736">Digital Services Act: Tesla CEO Elon Musk signals agreement with EU industry chief Breton</a>

The more skeptical theory, on the other hand, suggests that Musk may be making a mistake somewhat characteristic of the Silicon Valley mentality and overestimating the importance of novel virtual spaces compared with the legacy institutions — East Coast, brick and mortar, academic and bureaucratic — that still give contemporary liberalism its actual shape and direction. That is to say, what you see on Twitter, the fads and mobs and performativity, may accelerate certain ideological transformations, but social media isn’t actually the place where these shifts are taking shape; it’s just the space in which the change becomes visible and legible to people on the outside.

So, for instance, if important media institutions are more doubtful about free speech than in the past, or if important academic fields are more likely to impose ideological loyalty oaths, or if important foundations and funders are creating a climate of intellectual conformity, a social media town platform is too far downstream of those changes to really help reverse them.

A free-speech-oriented Twitter can certainly surface individuals or even small-scale factions offering diversity and dissent. But institutions of employment and ambition will always matter most — there’s no app-based solution or simple blockchain fix if you think the Ivy League and the mainstream media have gone terribly astray. At some point you need to make change within those institutions themselves, start new ones — the Musk Schools! the Musk Herald-Tribune! the Musk Foundation! — or do both.

Since a big part of Musk’s success and wealth comes from looking for tech’s applications in the real world — meaning cars, rockets and tunnels, not just apps and tweets — it’s quite possible that he’s already considered all of this and that he has an ultimate vision for a Twitter as a virtual network that links reformed or revitalized institutions in the real world.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/truly-a-wonder-of-the-world-elon-musk-recalls-taj-mahal-visit-477819">‘Truly a wonder of the world’: Elon Musk recalls Taj Mahal visit</a>

Or alternatively, maybe he believes that very soon the virtual will fully displace the world of bricks and bodies and that in buying Twitter he’s literally buying the digital real estate where his fellow dynamists will build the great institutions of tomorrow.

It’s one of dynamism’s strengths as a guiding ideology that it can inspire those kinds of leaps. But its weakness is usually the same one that doomed Icarus. Sometimes you leap and have a bird’s wings to bear you upward. Sometimes, though, all you have is their disintegrating feathers — or, still worse, not their plumage but their tweets.

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

“I strongly supported Obama for President,” Elon Musk tweeted late last month, part of the spree of ideological comments accompanying his continuing takeover of Twitter, “but today’s Democratic Party has been hijacked by extremists.

“I strongly supported Obama for President,” Elon Musk tweeted late last month, part of the spree of ideological comments accompanying his continuing takeover of Twitter, “but today’s Democratic Party has been hijacked by extremists.” Around the same time, he set the social-media platform ablaze by reposting a cartoon showing a stick figure comfortably on the center-left in 2008 redefined as a right-wing bigot by 2021 because the left-wing stick figure had raced way off to the left. Then this week, he expressed the same kind of thought in the abbreviated style for which the site is famous: “Twitter obv has a strong left wing bias.” And now, at last, we have the news that he’s likely to allow Donald Trump to tweet freely once again. Also read | Musk says he will 'reverse' Twitter ban on Trump All of these comments and promises align the country’s richest man with the rightward side in our culture war. But though I don’t know Musk — I’ve never interviewed him or hung out with him in any secret billionaire lair — I think I know enough about him, and I know enough Silicon Valley people like him, to suggest that neither his tweeted self-descriptions nor the criticisms being lobbed his way capture what’s distinctive about his position and worldview. A term like “conservative” doesn’t fit the Tesla tycoon. Even “libertarian,” while closer to the mark, associates Musk with a lot of ideas that I don’t think he particularly cares about. A better label comes from Virginia Postrel, in her 1998 book “The Future and Its Enemies”: Musk is what she calls a “dynamist,” meaning someone whose primary commitments are to exploration and discovery, someone who believes that the best society is one that’s always inventing, transforming, doing something new. If you think this sounds uncontroversial, think again. First, the dynamist may not care where novelty and invention spring from. Unlike the purist libertarian, he might be indifferent to questions of public versus private spending, happy to embrace government help if that’s what it takes to get the new thing off the ground — and happy to take that help from regimes like Communist China no less than from our own. And he may be willing to risk much more than either the typical progressive or the typical conservative for the sake of innovation. Political principle, social stability and moral order are all potentially negotiable when discovery alone is your North Star. Watch | 'Permanent ban' is morally bad, Elon Musk to reverse Donald Trump's Twitter ban For many people, dynamism is contingent — on how invested you are in the world as it is, whether you stand to lose or benefit from innovations, and where your moral intuitions lie. (I am personally a dynamist about Musk’s Mars colony but not Mark Zuckerberg’s metaverse; flying cars, yes, sex robots, not so much.) Even in the tech world, your appetite for dynamism depends on where you stand: If you’re lucky enough to work for one of Silicon Valley’s near-monopolies, the new powers of the age, you may not be that interested in further churn or change. Musk himself may yet evolve into that kind of comfortable monopolist, but for now, pending the IPO for MarsCorp in 2047, he remains a dynamist in full. And seen in this light, his recent transformation from Obama Democrat to progressive foil makes perfect sense in light of the transformations that liberalism itself has undergone of late. Liberalism in the Obama era was an essentially dynamist enterprise not because liberals were absolutely committed to capital-S Science but because those years encouraged a confidence that the major technological changes of the 21st century were making the world a more liberal place. Whether it was social media shaking Middle Eastern autocrats, the Obama campaign running circles around its Republican opponents with online organizing or just the general drift leftward on social issues that seemed to accompany the internet revolution, progressives around 2010 felt a general confidence that technological and political progress were conjoined. Ever since Trump bent history’s arc his way, however, that confidence has diminished or collapsed. Now liberals increasingly regard the internet as the zone of monsters and misinformation, awash in illiberalism, easily manipulated by demagogues, a breeding ground for insurrectionists. And if digital technology has become particularly suspect, via the transitive property, so has the larger idea of innovating your way out of social or environmental problems — empowering the part of the environmental movement that wants to tame capitalism to save the planet, for instance, at the expense of the part that imagines taming climate change with fleets of Teslas and nuclear power plants. Also read | After Twitter takeover, what else do netizens want Musk to buy!? Meanwhile, the values underlying dynamism — above all, the special pedestal given to free thinking and free speech — are also more suspect within liberalism today. In their place is a new regulatory spirit around culture as well as economics, a how-much-is-too-much attitude toward the circulation of potentially dangerous ideas, a belief in institutions of scientific and intellectual authority but not necessarily institutions devoted to wide-open inquiry. Just as a dynamist might, at the extreme of the orientation, prefer a monarchy that protects innovation over a democracy that discourages it, some of today’s progressives are making the same move in reverse: If democracy is endangered by technological change and unfettered free speech, then so much the worse for free speech. The important thing is to save democratic self-government, even if you have to temporarily take the “liberties” out of the American Civil Liberties Union or put away your John Stuart Mill. Whatever else Musk wants with Twitter — and obviously you should assume that he wants to make a lot of money — this seems like the ideological trend he hopes to resist or halt: the liberal retreat from dynamism, the progressive turn toward ideological regulation, the pervasive left-wing fear that the First Amendment and free speech are being weaponized by authoritarians and need some kind of check. So now the question: If this was your ambition — setting aside whether you think it’s admirable or dangerous — would buying Twitter make sense? The affirmative theory holds that because Twitter is both an essential digital town square and a place particularly populated by well-educated liberals, if Musk can make it succeed with a lighter-footprint approach to content moderation, from a dynamist perspective he might hope to accomplish two goals at once. First, he would be simply sustaining an important space in which free debate can happen. Second — assuming that he could come up with a light footprint that left-leaning users would accept — he would be gently training Twitter’s liberals back into their Obama-era belief that openness and dynamism are good things, that a marketplace of ideas can work without constant ideological supervision and constraint. Also read | Digital Services Act: Tesla CEO Elon Musk signals agreement with EU industry chief Breton The more skeptical theory, on the other hand, suggests that Musk may be making a mistake somewhat characteristic of the Silicon Valley mentality and overestimating the importance of novel virtual spaces compared with the legacy institutions — East Coast, brick and mortar, academic and bureaucratic — that still give contemporary liberalism its actual shape and direction. That is to say, what you see on Twitter, the fads and mobs and performativity, may accelerate certain ideological transformations, but social media isn’t actually the place where these shifts are taking shape; it’s just the space in which the change becomes visible and legible to people on the outside. So, for instance, if important media institutions are more doubtful about free speech than in the past, or if important academic fields are more likely to impose ideological loyalty oaths, or if important foundations and funders are creating a climate of intellectual conformity, a social media town platform is too far downstream of those changes to really help reverse them. A free-speech-oriented Twitter can certainly surface individuals or even small-scale factions offering diversity and dissent. But institutions of employment and ambition will always matter most — there’s no app-based solution or simple blockchain fix if you think the Ivy League and the mainstream media have gone terribly astray. At some point you need to make change within those institutions themselves, start new ones — the Musk Schools! the Musk Herald-Tribune! the Musk Foundation! — or do both. Since a big part of Musk’s success and wealth comes from looking for tech’s applications in the real world — meaning cars, rockets and tunnels, not just apps and tweets — it’s quite possible that he’s already considered all of this and that he has an ultimate vision for a Twitter as a virtual network that links reformed or revitalized institutions in the real world. Also read | ‘Truly a wonder of the world’: Elon Musk recalls Taj Mahal visit Or alternatively, maybe he believes that very soon the virtual will fully displace the world of bricks and bodies and that in buying Twitter he’s literally buying the digital real estate where his fellow dynamists will build the great institutions of tomorrow. It’s one of dynamism’s strengths as a guiding ideology that it can inspire those kinds of leaps. But its weakness is usually the same one that doomed Icarus. Sometimes you leap and have a bird’s wings to bear you upward. Sometimes, though, all you have is their disintegrating feathers — or, still worse, not their plumage but their tweets. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

What does Elon Musk want? Is Twitter the way to get it?

The war in Ukraine has entered a new phase.

It is no secret that the initial invasion went badly for Russia. Expecting easy victories, the Russian Army inflicted terrible destruction — especially in its shelling of cities — but for the most part failed to take territory outside the southeast of the country. Ukrainian resistance was fierce. After six weeks of war, undermanned Russian forces were made to retreat from Kyiv and its suburbs.

In the hope of winning new victories, Russia has now confined its forces to the south and east of Ukraine. The main battles are taking place in small towns and villages along the Donets River. Russia talks of cutting off the Ukrainian Army from the Donbas, but so far, its forces have made slow progress advancing from the Black Sea coast.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-has-turned-off-gas-supply-in-transit-points-says-ukraine-478138">Russia has turned off gas supply in transit points, says Ukraine</a>

In response, the United States and its allies have also shifted their position. At first, the Western support for Ukraine was mainly designed to defend against the invasion. It is now set on a far grander ambition: to weaken Russia itself. Presented as a common-sense response to Russian aggression, the shift, in fact, amounts to a significant escalation.

By expanding support to Ukraine across the board and shelving any diplomatic effort to stop the fighting, the United States and its allies have greatly increased the danger of an even larger conflict. They are taking a risk far out of step with any realistic strategic gain.

Russia’s more limited focus has proved more manageable for its armed forces. The bloody siege of Mariupol is, for practical purposes, now complete, and Russia has secured the town of Izium while bombarding minor cities. But these advances, which have come at a cost, are limited. The likelihood of Russian territorial advances far from Crimea or the Donbas is now remote.

The shift from general to limited conquest was already a concession on Russia’s part. The Russian leadership has blamed a single factor: It claims to be fighting not just Ukraine but the NATO system in Eastern Europe. Hubris and clumsy tactics are more to the point. Yet there is no denying that the United States, Britain, Poland and other European NATO members have been parties to the conflict from the outset.

Watch |&nbsp;Russia-Ukraine conflict to fuel food crisis in Africa

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/russia-ukraine-conflict-to-fuel-food-crisis-in-africa-478014/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

It is not just military transports and trucks carrying tens of thousands of antiaircraft and antiarmor weapons to Ukrainian fighters. The United States has also provided real-time intelligence, reportedly including targeting information on the location of Russian forces. Though the Pentagon has disputed the extent of intelligence sharing, leaks have been remarkably revealing. We now know the United States provided the tracking intelligence that led to the sinking of the Moskva, the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. More striking still, U.S. intelligence agencies provided critical targeting for battlefield assassinations of Russian generals.

This was already a significant form of participation in the war. But the United States has since shifted its strategy to push Russia further. The early U.S. response to the invasion was simple: Supply the defenders and apply America’s unique financial weaponry to the Russian economy. The new strategy — call it bleed Russia — is quite different. The underlying idea is that the United States and its allies should seek to recover more from the rubble of Kharkiv and Kramatorsk than the survival of Ukraine as a polity or even a symbolic frustration of Russian aggression.

Top officials have made that quite clear. The U.S. secretary of defense, Lloyd Austin, has said the goal is “to see Russia weakened.” The speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said Ukraine is defending “democracy writ large for the world.” Britain’s foreign minister, Liz Truss, was explicit about widening the conflict to take in Ukrainian territory annexed by Russia, such as Crimea, when she spoke of evicting Russia from “the whole of Ukraine.” This is both an expansion of the battlefield and a transformation of the war.

Whereas once the primary Western objective was to defend against the invasion, it has become the permanent strategic attrition of Russia. The outline of the new policy began to emerge on April 13, when the Pentagon called a convocation of the eight biggest American arms companies to prepare arms transfers on a grand scale. The result was the pledge made by President Biden on April 28 that the United States would provide four times as much military aid to Ukraine as it had already supplied since the beginning of the conflict — a promise made good by a proposed aid package for Ukraine worth $39.8 billion.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/ukraine-pushing-back-russians-from-kharkiv-zelensky-478089">Ukraine pushing back Russians from Kharkiv: Zelensky</a>

This strategic shift has coincided with the abandonment of diplomatic efforts. Negotiations between Ukraine and Russia were always fraught but contained moments of promise. They have now stalled completely. Russia bears its fair share of responsibility, of course. But European channels to Moscow have been all but severed, and there is no serious effort from the United States to seek diplomatic progress, let alone cease-fires.

When I was in Ukraine during the first weeks of the war, even staunch Ukrainian nationalists expressed views far more pragmatic than those that are routine in America now. Talk of neutral status for Ukraine and internationally monitored plebiscites in Donetsk and Luhansk has been jettisoned in favor of bombast and grandstanding.

The war was dangerous and destructive enough in its initial form. The combination of expanded strategic aims and scotched negotiations has made it more dangerous still. At present, the only message to Russia is: There is no way out. Though President Vladimir Putin did not declare general conscription in his Victory Day speech on May 9, a conventional escalation of this kind is still possible.

Nuclear weapons are discussed in easy tones, not least on Russian television. The risk of cities being reduced to corium remains low without NATO deployment in Ukraine, but accident and miscalculation cannot be discounted. And the conflict takes place at a time when most of the Cold War arms control agreements between the United States and Russia have been allowed to lapse.

A weakened Russia was a likely outcome of the war even before the shift in U.S. policy. Russia’s economic position has deteriorated. Far from a commodity superpower, its undersized domestic industry is struggling and is dependent on technology imports that are now inaccessible.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/hypersonics-missile-strikes-russias-assault-on-ukraine-in-numbers-478150">Hypersonics &amp; missile strikes: Russia's assault on Ukraine in numbers</a>

What’s more, the invasion has led directly to greater military spending in second- and third-tier European powers. The number of NATO troops in Eastern Europe has grown tenfold, and a Nordic expansion of the organization is likely. A general rearmament of Europe is taking place, driven not by desire for autonomy from American power but in service to it. For the United States, this should be success enough. It is unclear what more there is to gain by weakening Russia, beyond fantasies of regime change.

Ukraine’s future depends on the course of the fighting in the Donbas and perhaps the south. The physical destruction of the east is already well underway. Ukrainian casualties are not insignificant; estimates of the number killed and wounded vary widely, but it is certainly in the tens of thousands. Russia has destroyed whatever sense of shared heritage remained before the invasion.

But the longer the war, the worse the damage to Ukraine and the greater the risk of escalation. A decisive military result in eastern Ukraine may prove elusive. Yet the less dramatic outcome of a festering stalemate is hardly better. Indefinite protraction of the war, as in Syria, is too dangerous with nuclear-armed participants.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/putin-covers-leg-with-blanket-as-health-rumours-swirl-on-victory-day-477866">Putin covers leg with blanket as health rumours swirl on Victory Day</a>

Diplomatic efforts ought to be the centerpiece of a new Ukraine strategy. Instead, the war’s boundaries are being expanded and the war itself recast as a struggle between democracy and autocracy, in which the Donbas is the frontier of freedom. This is not just declamatory extravagance. It is reckless. The risks hardly need to be stated.

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE:&nbsp;

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

The war in Ukraine has entered a new phase. It is no secret that the initial invasion went badly for Russia. Expecting easy victories, the Russian Army inflicted terrible destruction — especially in its shelling of cities — but for the most part failed to take territory outside the southeast of the country.

The war in Ukraine has entered a new phase. It is no secret that the initial invasion went badly for Russia. Expecting easy victories, the Russian Army inflicted terrible destruction — especially in its shelling of cities — but for the most part failed to take territory outside the southeast of the country. Ukrainian resistance was fierce. After six weeks of war, undermanned Russian forces were made to retreat from Kyiv and its suburbs. In the hope of winning new victories, Russia has now confined its forces to the south and east of Ukraine. The main battles are taking place in small towns and villages along the Donets River. Russia talks of cutting off the Ukrainian Army from the Donbas, but so far, its forces have made slow progress advancing from the Black Sea coast. Also read | Russia has turned off gas supply in transit points, says Ukraine In response, the United States and its allies have also shifted their position. At first, the Western support for Ukraine was mainly designed to defend against the invasion. It is now set on a far grander ambition: to weaken Russia itself. Presented as a common-sense response to Russian aggression, the shift, in fact, amounts to a significant escalation. By expanding support to Ukraine across the board and shelving any diplomatic effort to stop the fighting, the United States and its allies have greatly increased the danger of an even larger conflict. They are taking a risk far out of step with any realistic strategic gain. Russia’s more limited focus has proved more manageable for its armed forces. The bloody siege of Mariupol is, for practical purposes, now complete, and Russia has secured the town of Izium while bombarding minor cities. But these advances, which have come at a cost, are limited. The likelihood of Russian territorial advances far from Crimea or the Donbas is now remote. The shift from general to limited conquest was already a concession on Russia’s part. The Russian leadership has blamed a single factor: It claims to be fighting not just Ukraine but the NATO system in Eastern Europe. Hubris and clumsy tactics are more to the point. Yet there is no denying that the United States, Britain, Poland and other European NATO members have been parties to the conflict from the outset. Watch | Russia-Ukraine conflict to fuel food crisis in Africa It is not just military transports and trucks carrying tens of thousands of antiaircraft and antiarmor weapons to Ukrainian fighters. The United States has also provided real-time intelligence, reportedly including targeting information on the location of Russian forces. Though the Pentagon has disputed the extent of intelligence sharing, leaks have been remarkably revealing. We now know the United States provided the tracking intelligence that led to the sinking of the Moskva, the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. More striking still, U.S. intelligence agencies provided critical targeting for battlefield assassinations of Russian generals. This was already a significant form of participation in the war. But the United States has since shifted its strategy to push Russia further. The early U.S. response to the invasion was simple: Supply the defenders and apply America’s unique financial weaponry to the Russian economy. The new strategy — call it bleed Russia — is quite different. The underlying idea is that the United States and its allies should seek to recover more from the rubble of Kharkiv and Kramatorsk than the survival of Ukraine as a polity or even a symbolic frustration of Russian aggression. Top officials have made that quite clear. The U.S. secretary of defense, Lloyd Austin, has said the goal is “to see Russia weakened.” The speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said Ukraine is defending “democracy writ large for the world.” Britain’s foreign minister, Liz Truss, was explicit about widening the conflict to take in Ukrainian territory annexed by Russia, such as Crimea, when she spoke of evicting Russia from “the whole of Ukraine.” This is both an expansion of the battlefield and a transformation of the war. Whereas once the primary Western objective was to defend against the invasion, it has become the permanent strategic attrition of Russia. The outline of the new policy began to emerge on April 13, when the Pentagon called a convocation of the eight biggest American arms companies to prepare arms transfers on a grand scale. The result was the pledge made by President Biden on April 28 that the United States would provide four times as much military aid to Ukraine as it had already supplied since the beginning of the conflict — a promise made good by a proposed aid package for Ukraine worth $39.8 billion. Also read | Ukraine pushing back Russians from Kharkiv: Zelensky This strategic shift has coincided with the abandonment of diplomatic efforts. Negotiations between Ukraine and Russia were always fraught but contained moments of promise. They have now stalled completely. Russia bears its fair share of responsibility, of course. But European channels to Moscow have been all but severed, and there is no serious effort from the United States to seek diplomatic progress, let alone cease-fires. When I was in Ukraine during the first weeks of the war, even staunch Ukrainian nationalists expressed views far more pragmatic than those that are routine in America now. Talk of neutral status for Ukraine and internationally monitored plebiscites in Donetsk and Luhansk has been jettisoned in favor of bombast and grandstanding. The war was dangerous and destructive enough in its initial form. The combination of expanded strategic aims and scotched negotiations has made it more dangerous still. At present, the only message to Russia is: There is no way out. Though President Vladimir Putin did not declare general conscription in his Victory Day speech on May 9, a conventional escalation of this kind is still possible. Nuclear weapons are discussed in easy tones, not least on Russian television. The risk of cities being reduced to corium remains low without NATO deployment in Ukraine, but accident and miscalculation cannot be discounted. And the conflict takes place at a time when most of the Cold War arms control agreements between the United States and Russia have been allowed to lapse. A weakened Russia was a likely outcome of the war even before the shift in U.S. policy. Russia’s economic position has deteriorated. Far from a commodity superpower, its undersized domestic industry is struggling and is dependent on technology imports that are now inaccessible. Also read | Hypersonics & missile strikes: Russia's assault on Ukraine in numbers What’s more, the invasion has led directly to greater military spending in second- and third-tier European powers. The number of NATO troops in Eastern Europe has grown tenfold, and a Nordic expansion of the organization is likely. A general rearmament of Europe is taking place, driven not by desire for autonomy from American power but in service to it. For the United States, this should be success enough. It is unclear what more there is to gain by weakening Russia, beyond fantasies of regime change. Ukraine’s future depends on the course of the fighting in the Donbas and perhaps the south. The physical destruction of the east is already well underway. Ukrainian casualties are not insignificant; estimates of the number killed and wounded vary widely, but it is certainly in the tens of thousands. Russia has destroyed whatever sense of shared heritage remained before the invasion. But the longer the war, the worse the damage to Ukraine and the greater the risk of escalation. A decisive military result in eastern Ukraine may prove elusive. Yet the less dramatic outcome of a festering stalemate is hardly better. Indefinite protraction of the war, as in Syria, is too dangerous with nuclear-armed participants. Also read | Putin covers leg with blanket as health rumours swirl on Victory Day Diplomatic efforts ought to be the centerpiece of a new Ukraine strategy. Instead, the war’s boundaries are being expanded and the war itself recast as a struggle between democracy and autocracy, in which the Donbas is the frontier of freedom. This is not just declamatory extravagance. It is reckless. The risks hardly need to be stated. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

America and its allies want to bleed Russia. They really shouldn’t.

Voters in five states went to the polls Tuesday to decide the outcomes of some of the most closely watched primary elections of the 2022 midterms cycle, which tested Trump's influence and the GOP's rightward shift.

US: 5 states hold primaries for senate & governor seats

More than 120,000 emails found on Hunter Biden’s discarded laptop have been posted online by a former Trump White House staffer. Trump’s legal team originally leaked some details they claim to be on Hunter’s laptop ahead of the 2020 Presidential election.

Over 120,000 emails from hunter Biden's discarded laptop leaked

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu is about to meet US Secretary of State Antony Blinken in Washington on Wednesday, the latest step in the process of repairing ties between the two NATO allies.

Turkish foreign minister to meet US Secretary of State in Washington

According to South Korean and US officials, North Korea is allegedly preparing to test an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) ahead of U.S. President Joe Biden's first trip to South Korea.

North Korea to test an ICBM ahead of US President Joe Biden's first trip to South Korea?

The resource hungry humanity is now aiming for space. The US, China is leading the hunt as asteroid mining may soon become a reality.

How feasible is mining in space? Asteroid mining may soon become a reality

The Pentagon held the first hearing on UFOs in 50 years. They said that there is a massive rise in UFO activity in recent times.

First hearing on UFOs in 50 years: Pentagon says there is a massive rise in UFO activity

Two months after a deadly plane crash in China, the United States has now reported that the crash was caused deliberately by someone who was present in the cockpit, this comes after a thorough analysis of the Black Box data from the China eastern airlines jet.

US: China eastern airlines jet crash caused by someone in the cockpit

As world's largest economy, US tries to ease a nationwide shortage that has left parents scrambling to feed their babies. The US will now allow baby formula imports from foreign mine makers that do not usually sell their products here.

US to allow baby formula imports, foreign makers to meet a list of safety standards

US President Joe Biden and First Lady Jill Biden heads to Buffalo on Tuesday to grieve with the community that lost ten lives in a senseless and horrific mass shooting.

US President Joe Biden heads to Buffalo to comfort families of mass shooting victims

The US Supreme Court's conservative majority sided with Republican Ted Cruz in a case involving the use of campaign funds to repay personal campaign loans, dealing the latest blow to campaign finance regulations.

US Supreme Court sides with Ted Cruz in campaign finance case

President Joe Biden has approved a plan to redeploy US troops to Somalia, reversing a decision by his predecessor, Donald Trump. The decision came a day after Somali lawmakers elected Hassan Sheikh Mohamud as the country's new President.

President Joe Biden set to redeploy US troops to Somalia

us-1

Us, News on Us, stories on Us, articles on Us, Us stories at Wion, Us news, Us latest news

us 1