The tiny poodle strains at its leash and barks, triggering a deafening reaction from a pack of dogs roaming the wreckage in this town in Ukraine’s embattled far east, some 10 miles from Russia’s gradually advancing forces.

“A lot of people are leaving, and let their dogs go,” explains the poodle’s owner, a retired Ukrainian military pilot in a faded orange tank top, who gives the name Oleksandr.

On their right stands the shell of an apartment block, hollowed out just days before by a single Russian “glide bomb” – a heavy Soviet-era “dumb” bomb upgraded with wings and a guidance system, and launched from a plane deep inside Russian airspace.

On their left is all that remains of a kindergarten complex, newly built before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, but targeted a third time, also just days earlier.

“A lot of people lived here all their lives, and have apartments and jobs, but now our lives look like this,” says Oleksandr, as he describes how Russia’s advancing forces and use of glide bombs are triggering new departures from this Donetsk coal mining town.

Scott Peterson/Getty Images/The Christian Science Monitor

Personal framed pictures lie on the ground outside a Ukrainian apartment block gutted by a Russian glide bomb, in Myrnohrad, Ukraine, July 20, 2024.

He points to a nearby building entrance where a neighbor, Olena, “didn’t have a chance” when she stepped out after the first blast, only to be killed by a second – one of three deaths in the bombardment.

“Now the front is coming closer, and it’s more and more dangerous to live here,” says Oleksandr. “Now the intensity of the strikes is like never before.”

Augmenting Russia’s supply of rockets and missiles, the glide bombs, which can pack from 500 pounds to more than 3,000 pounds of explosive punch each, remain virtually unstoppable by Ukraine’s air defense systems.

Russia’s advance

To stay or to go is the decision being weighed by an increasing number of residents of Myrnohrad with heightened urgency in recent weeks.

Among the towns along Ukraine’s eastern front, Myrnohrad may be at particular risk, as it sits on an important Ukrainian supply line that Russian forces have already disrupted and – advancing west toward the Pokrovsk-Kostiantynivka road – appear determined to control.

“I tell everyone that you should leave, especially those with children and older people,” says Yurii Tretiak, Myrnohrad’s acting military administrator, who describes a state of “stable intensity.” 

Scott Peterson/Getty Images/The Christian Science Monitor

A newly built kindergarten lies in ruins after it was struck by a Russian glide bomb, a modified Soviet-era heavy bomb, in Myrnohrad, Ukraine.

“We don’t know why they don’t like our kindergartens so much,” he says, noting that a number of schools have been targeted by 12 glide bombs, especially, that hit residential areas and claimed seven lives over a recent two-week period. Earlier in July, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Russia was launching 3,500 such glide bombs each month. 

“We can see that people are actually dying, so [people] decided to leave,” says Mr. Tretiak. “We hope more weapons [for Ukrainian forces] will come soon, and the front-line situation will be better.”

He steps into an abandoned Soviet-era theater, where the engine of one Russian rocket still hangs from the ceiling where it fell, two weeks earlier. Ironically, on a wall nearby remains a tile mosaic that commemorates Moscow’s former friendship with the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.

“Of course, weapons can help stabilize the front. But we really hope they can fly 30 kilometers [behind Russian lines]. If used with sophistication, then this category of glide bomb won’t exist,” he says.

In late April, the United States approved a long-delayed $60.84 billion military and economic aid package, and European nations have also funneled billions of euros into weapons and ammunition for Ukraine.

Scott Peterson/Getty Images/The Christian Science Monitor

Myrnohrad's acting military administrator, Yurii Tretiak, examines the engine of a Russian rocket that fell through the roof of a Soviet-era theater.

But so far that has not stopped Russian forces from moving forward, if slowly. One recent 24-hour period reportedly saw 172 front-line clashes along this sector of the front alone.

“Hope dies last”

Days after one barrage, the residents of a decades-old building in Myrnohrad are still carefully collecting shards of glass from their rose garden. All the windows blew out when two Russian missiles struck an adjacent school and two more hit a bus stop, killing four coal mine workers.

Of 18 apartments, only six remain occupied – but the sense of community and family, the residents say, is robust.

“There is a saying, ‘Hope dies last,’” says a woman with a red blouse and gloves, who gives the name Iryna. “It goes day by day. Today we stay; maybe tomorrow we go.”

Svitlana, a laboratory worker at the mine who wears bright-red garden gloves to clear glass, says her family was only away for one month during the entire conflict, at the start of the war.

“But now, I am slowly packing my bags,” she says.

“The last two nights have been terrible,” adds Larysa Chirva, who wears a headscarf with flowers and has lived 60 of her 64 years in this building. She says her husband was thrown backward by the blast but not wounded.

“I will leave when there are no walls here,” she says. 

Scott Peterson/Getty Images/The Christian Science Monitor

Larysa Chirva (right) and Svitlana collect broken glass from their rose garden, after four Russian missiles targeting an adjacent school blew out the windows of their apartment building, in Myrnohrad, Ukraine, July 20, 2024.

Across town, Oleksandr Radin, a pastor at the Rock of Salvation evangelical church with grey stubble and a gold lower tooth, speaks after volunteering to put out a brush fire sparked by extreme temperatures.

“Since 2014, the Russians have said they would get Donetsk; it looks like they have moved into at-any-price mode,” he says. Mr. Radin was forced to leave the city of Avdiivka when it fell to Russia last February, and is active in evacuating civilians from contested areas.

Evacuation requests

The surge in Russian glide bomb and missile strikes has focused minds, he says. After receiving barely five evacuation requests during a recent three-month period, he received four from groups in the previous week alone.

“People are afraid to leave because they have no place to go after nearly three years of war,” says Mr. Radin. But past decisions to “stay until the [Russian] artillery can reach us” have been upended by the long reach of glide bombs.

Mr. Radin keeps a box of what he calls “souvenirs” given to him from the conflict, which now include the bent, super-lightweight wings of a Russian glide bomb.

“To say thank you, people used to bring shrapnel from missiles. Now they bring wings from glide bombs,” says Mr. Radin. “I tell people, ‘It’s time to turn your brain on and leave. It’s dangerous.’” 

Scott Peterson/Getty Images/The Christian Science Monitor

Ukrainian Pastor Oleksandr Radin, of the Rock of Salvation evangelical church, speaks at a Sunday service in Pokrovsk, Ukraine, July 21, 2024. Mr. Radin has seen civilians' requests for evacuations surge as Russian forces and bombardments move steadily westward.

Among those heeding his call is Valentyna Mertsalova, a 70-something pensioner with white hair and a red dress, who the next day sat emotionally during a service at the pastor’s church. A handful of uniformed military soldiers in the 80-plus congregation were called forward and thanked for their service.

But Ms. Mertsalova was thinking about the deaths of her son and daughter-in-law, who were killed in their beds by a Russian missile in 2022 – and about the decision she and her husband have now taken to leave Myrnohrad for their safety.

That decision came two nights earlier, when their sleep was shattered by a barrage of 16 Russian glide bombs and missiles. In the morning she went outside, and was surprised that her neighbor planned to “wait it out.”

“What, girl?” she responded. “A few more nights like this, and we will be running [to flee] in front of the train!”

“I saw a crater made from a glide bomb, and no basement can save you,” says Ms. Mertsalova, whose eyes tear up at the thought of leaving.

“Everyone is scared. There are almost no young people,” she says. “Even if we are under the rubble, there will be no one to dig us out.”

Oleksandr Naselenko supported reporting for this story.

Kevin Mohatt/Reuters

President Joe Biden walks toward the White House South Lawn as he departs on travel to Texas from Washington, July 29, 2024. Mr. Biden has proposed term limits, no immunity for crimes a former president committed in office, and a binding code of conduct for Supreme Court justices.

Heading into the final months of his presidency, Joe Biden has called for three profound reforms to U.S. constitutional democracy.

In an announcement Monday, he advocated for a constitutional amendment that would effectively reverse a July U.S. Supreme Court decision granting broad criminal immunity to former presidents. He has asked Congress to pass a binding code of conduct for the Supreme Court. And he called for the justices to be subject to 18-year term limits.

President Biden’s demands are unlikely to be realized before he leaves office, most experts agree. Critics have, meanwhile, hit back at the proposals as an effort by President Biden to destroy a court he disagrees with while energizing Democratic voters ahead of the November presidential election.

But public confidence in the high court is hovering near record lows – a result of both unpopular decisions and ethics scandals surrounding several justices. A sizable majority of Americans support the reforms Mr. Biden is asking for, according to recent polls, and court-curbing efforts have led to changes in the past.

The Supreme Court, as much as any other institution, naturally shifts with America’s changing political tides – just much, much more slowly, experts say. Mr. Biden is trying to accelerate that process, and while he likely won’t succeed during his tenure as president, he may be laying the groundwork for more gradual changes.

“Court reform has historically been very difficult to enact,” says Tara Leigh Grove, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law. But “it’s by design a politically constructed court, and [it] can be changed over time through the system we have.”

What does Biden want?

With few specifics, Mr. Biden outlined his desired reforms in an op-ed published by The Washington Post on Monday.

First, he is calling for a constitutional amendment saying that former presidents have no immunity for crimes committed while they were in office.

“No one is above the law. Not the president of the United States. Not a justice on the Supreme Court,” he wrote in the opening paragraph.

The proposal is a direct response to a Supreme Court decision earlier this month. In a 6-3 ruling along ideological lines, the court held for the first time that a former president has broad immunity from criminal prosecution.

The decision has come to be seen as another victory for conservatives since former President Donald Trump appointed three justices to the court. Since 2022, the conservative supermajority has also expanded gun rights, abolished affirmative action in college admissions, and overturned Roe v. Wade – all policies favored by Republicans.

In response, Democrats have accused the Supreme Court of being “captured” by the GOP. And Mr. Biden’s second proposal is that justices be subject to term limits.

In his op-ed, he said he would support a system in which the president appoints a new justice every two years to spend 18 years “in active service.” This could be instituted through legislation or a constitutional amendment, legal scholars say.

Third, he is asking for a “binding code of conduct” for justices. Currently, they are subject to a voluntary code that is “weak and self-enforced,” he wrote. Meanwhile, federal court judges, he noted, are all bound by an enforceable code of conduct.

Professor Grove, a member of Mr. Biden’s Supreme Court commission, says that while it’s “not a slam dunk,” there’s “a very strong argument” that Congress could impose a binding ethics code on the justices.

Mr. Biden argues that sweeping changes are needed now more than ever. His demands, he says, are informed by his two decades of experience as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. They’re also informed by a commission to study Supreme Court reform that he assembled in 2021.

Mr. Biden has overseen more high court nominations “than anyone living today,” he wrote, and he thus has “great respect for our institutions and the separation of powers.”

But “what is happening now is not normal,” he added, “and it undermines the public’s confidence in the court’s decisions.”

How could these reforms be implemented?

Mr. Biden can’t push through any of these reforms himself. The two Supreme Court reforms would require bipartisan action from Congress – and would also likely need to survive review by the justices themselves. The constitutional amendment would face an even tougher road: ratification by a supermajority of Congress and three-fourths of the states.  

The Constitution details how the federal judiciary should function, but it doesn’t provide many details. For centuries, Congress has tinkered with how courts operate, including changing the number of appeals courts and the number of Supreme Court justices. It also implemented retirement ages for lower court judges.

Democrats in Congress have pointed to this history, and said they intend to pursue legislation in line with the president’s proposed reforms. But they would face an uphill battle in a divided Congress, where Republicans have already been blasting Mr. Biden’s efforts as politically motivated. 

Democrats “will reshape any institution to make sure it performs for them, not the country as a whole,” wrote South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, on the social platform X on Monday.

“I will wholeheartedly oppose these so-called ‘reform’ measures,” he added.

What does the public think?

Where the reforms don’t seem to be struggling, however, is the court of public opinion.

A Fox News survey conducted in early July found that 56% of voters disapprove of the court’s immunity decision, while 78% support an 18-year term limit for justices. (Republicans have more favorable views of the immunity decision, and the court in general, according to the survey.) A YouGov survey released last week showed a bipartisan majority of Americans support both term limits and an enforceable ethics code for Supreme Court justices. 

Last fall, the court adopted a formal ethics code for the first time in its history, but it included no way to enforce it. Speaking in Sacramento, California, last week, Justice Elena Kagan said the court “should try to figure out some [enforcement] mechanism,” reported CNN. The justice floated the idea of lower court judges holding the justices accountable.

Beyond the question of whether reforms can be implemented, some scholars think the country needs to consider a more sobering question: Should these reforms be implemented?

“How would you feel if you kind of liked what the court was doing and you saw people you do not politically support trying to mold the court into their image?” asks Professor Grove.

It’s not just the content of the reforms that worries some in the legal community, but the context in which they’re being pushed. The proposed reforms are “rooted in dissatisfaction with decisions of justices, and I worry about that,” says Thomas Griffith, a former judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Indeed, Mr. Biden’s op-ed opens and closes with references to the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision. Plus, Judge Griffith – another member of the presidential commission – believes that the court could benefit from some reforms, but not if they’re tainted by politics.

“There’s probably lots of things we can do,” he adds. “But let’s have it come from a desire for good government and process, and not because people are upset by a decision.”

So reforms aren’t likely ... yet?

Certainly not in the next six months, and perhaps not even in the next six years. But it’s worth noting that the Supreme Court has quietly been reforming at the margins.

The court continued to broadcast live audio of oral arguments since the COVID-19 pandemic forced it to begin the practice, for example. And the court adopted the formal ethics code last year after mounting public concern over the justices’ ethical practices – including Justice Sonia Sotomayor using court staff to schedule her book tour, and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito not disclosing decades of gifts from wealthy conservative donors.

Adopting the ethics code “was a direct result of public pressure,” says Christine Bird, an associate professor of political science at Oklahoma State University. 

Public support now for more substantial reforms, like term limits, “is not something we would have seen five to 10 years ago,” she adds. That said, she continues, “Smaller changes are more likely than big sweeping changes.”

Calls for Supreme Court reform are not new, or even exclusively Democratic. One could even argue that reform has been a constant, albeit a glacially moving constant. To paraphrase a ruling from the past term, the Supreme Court as an institution is not trapped in amber. 

The Constitution does not prescribe term limits for the federal judiciary, yet lower court judges have been able to take “senior status” for over a century. Now the country is debating whether a similar principle could apply to justices.

Ethics reform is another example. Before the 1970s, there was no formal ethics code for the federal judiciary. An ethics scandal involving Justice Abe Fortas pressured the courts into creating one – yet it excluded the Supreme Court, an omission the country is now reexamining. 

The court has long been thought of – and thought of itself – as different from other institutions in that it’s supposed to exist above politics.

When Mr. Biden says that what’s happening now is “not normal,” he’s saying that the court is no longer behaving differently from other institutions. His proposed reforms are a response to that perceived shift. Some legal scholars say the reforms he’s calling for would only entrench the Supreme Court in the political realm.

“I hate to take issue with the president of the United States ... but I think this is normal,” says Judge Griffith. The court “is doing what it’s supposed do, deciding cases in front of it and using its best efforts to apply the law.”

“Every judge takes an oath to do impartial justice, and that’s certainly an ideal,” he adds. “When a judge is not acting impartially, do you give up on the ideal? No, you double down on the ideal.”

Team USA swimming is not different from other high-profile Olympic team sports: Its dominance has helped push the world to get better. Names like Phelps, Ledecky, and Spitz point to America’s historic might.

As always, that dominance sets a high standard – and prompts the equivalent of a geopolitical battle for supremacy in the pool. This Olympics, that has been on full display, particularly among America; its traditional top rival, Australia; and relative newcomer China.

Former Australian swimmer Cate Campbell, who failed to qualify for the Paris Games, sparked the latest back-and-forth trash talk prior to the Olympics. She called swimmers from the United States sore losers and complained about having to listen to “The Star-Spangled Banner” every time the country wins gold.

In the pool, the rivalry hit a high point in these Olympics at the highly anticipated women’s 400 freestyle, where Australian Ariarne Titmus won and Katie Ledecky finished third. The same night, the U.S. took silver in the women’s 4x100 freestyle relay. Australia took gold, while China took bronze.

Matthias Schrader/AP

Gold medalist Mollie O'Callaghan (right) of Australia stands with silver medalist and compatriot Ariarne Titmus following the women's 200 freestyle final at the Summer Olympics, July 29, 2024.

There is a clear skepticism poolside when it comes to the Chinese swimmers. Twenty-three Chinese swimmers (including some who won gold in Tokyo) were found to have used performance-enhancing drugs. Eleven of those swimmers are competing in Paris.

“I hope that everyone here is going to be competing clean this week,” Ms. Ledecky said before competition began. “But what really matters also is, were they training clean?” 

Members of the U.S. team say they were prepared for the rivalries – new and old.

“There’s always the internal fire,” says team member Abbey Weitzeil. “We’re very competitive people, and I think it brings it out a little bit.” 

Matthias Schrader/AP

U.S. swimmer Torri Huske competes during a heat in the women's 100 butterfly at the Paris Games, July 27, 2024.

That competitive fire roared on swimming’s opening night, when Team USA kicked into a gear no other team could match halfway through the men’s 4x100 freestyle relay. Team USA’s first two swimmers, Jack Alexy and Chris Guiliano, stayed neck and neck with the competition. Then Hunter Armstrong jumped in the pool and pushed himself ahead of the field with arm pulls that looked like he had the power to move water from in front of him with the wave of a hand. Yet the crowd at Paris La Défense Arena reached its crescendo when Caeleb Dressel shot into the pool like a speedboat, chopping his way to the finish more than a second faster than silver medalist Australia. 

It was the third straight Olympics that the U.S. men had won this race, and the first American gold medal at these Games. Night 2 saw Americans Torri Huske and Gretchen Walsh win gold and silver with China’s Zhang Yufei taking bronze. On Night 3, the U.S. racked up four silver and bronze medals.

It would seem as if collecting shiny medals is Team USA’s raison d’être. Team members and coaches say pushing for excellence is the identity of the program. 

Evgenia Novozhenina/Reuters

U.S. men's 4x100 freestyle relay gold medalists (left to right) Chris Guiliano, Jack Alexy, Hunter Armstrong, and Caeleb Dressel celebrate on the podium in Paris, July 27, 2024.

Ms. Ledecky attests to that. She was 15 years old when she made her Olympic debut in 2012 and spent much of her first year with the team soaking up advice from the veterans. Twelve years later, she’s the veteran with 11 medals, including seven golds. Yet to come in this Olympics are the 800 and 1,500 freestyle, races she excels in. Yet while racking up medals, she hasn’t missed the chance to learn lessons along the way.

“Competing at this level has taught me a lot,” Ms. Ledecky recalled before the competition started.

“The biggest thing that I’m thankful for in the sport is the people that I get to share these experiences with and the friendships,” she says. 

And frankly, the rivalries are part of that catalog of Olympic memories and people.

“That’s what’s so special about the Olympics,” she adds, “how it brings athletes together from all over the world, all different sports, and you get to meet some phenomenal people and build friendships.”

How do athletes cope with the pressure of competition? Find out more: They stepped away for mental health. Their comebacks are powering the Olympics.

Mengshin Lin/AP/File

Volunteer Paula Ambre puts recycled bottles and cans into a trash bag with Kyle Ellison in Kula, Hawaii, Sept. 27, 2023.

Recycling is one of the most recognized forms of environmental conservation in the United States. But differing standards for curbside recycling programs across the country and changes in the recycling industry can confuse consumers: What really happens after they toss items into a blue or green bin?

Before and during World War II, informal recycling was a standard practice – people used rags to make paper and collected scrap metal for military use. After the war, disposable goods became more popular, and items started to pile up in landfills. In 1970, an architecture student designed the now-iconic recycling symbol with three arrows representing the need to reduce, reuse, and recycle. 

The practice of recycling was spurred along by activist efforts, including the rise of curbside recycling in the 1990s, and the portion of waste that was recycled or composted in the U.S. shot up from 6% in 1960 to 32% in 2018, the most recent year government data is available. Here we examine what to know about the recycling process and how effective it is. 

What exactly happens to items put out for recycling?

Most loads of recycling in the U.S. are sent to what are known as materials recovery facilities to be processed and sorted. Workers comb through many of the materials by hand, separating out different material types and discarding anything that can’t be recycled. Technology also helps with sorting – for example, some recycling facilities use a large magnet that sucks metal off a conveyor belt. 

What happens to the recycled products after they’re sorted depends on the material. Glass, aluminum, and steel are 100% recyclable, meaning they can be turned into new products indefinitely if they’re not contaminated. Most glass is made into new glass bottles and jars, while metals can be used in car or airplane parts. Paper and cardboard are the most commonly recycled items, and can be repurposed into a variety of products, including cereal boxes, tissues, and egg cartons. However, their recycling value is also limited: Paper can be recycled only five to seven times before it becomes too degraded.  

Because the U.S. doesn’t have a centralized recycling system, recycling facilities in different communities have distinct standards for operation – which can mean that they don’t all accept the same materials. Most municipalities will publish specific guidance on which items are accepted in their community. Items such as paper sheets, aluminum cans, and cardboard are virtually always recyclable, while acceptability varies by location for plastics, glass, and some specific items such as shredded paper and scrap metal. 

Mark Gillispie/AP/File

Recycling sits at a Republic Resources recycling facility in Oberlin, Ohio, Aug. 9, 2022.

Do items tossed into a recycling bin always get recycled?

Consumer mistakes can hinder the process. Contamination happens when someone tosses an item that is either nonrecyclable, like a garden hose, or too damaged for proper recycling, like a dirty pizza box, into a recycling bin. This contamination can slow down the sorting process and make it more expensive. 

“Contamination is probably the single biggest problem at recycling centers, because if you have a lot of contamination in your stream of recycled material, that really depresses the value of anything you can sell at the other end,” says Jordan Howell, an associate professor at Rowan University in New Jersey who researches sustainable business practices.

Contamination is especially a problem with “single-stream” recycling, a system wherein all recycled items are tossed into the same container instead of being separated into plastics, paper, metal, etc. Single-stream recycling is the most common recycling method and was designed to make recycling easier for consumers. But it also increases the likelihood that the rate of contaminated items will be high enough to ruin an entire load. 

Different processing centers have different standards for evaluating the quality of the recycling load and determining how many contaminated items they sort through. 

Are plastics recyclable? 

Plastics recycling, and its effectiveness, has been a big topic in recent years. The U.S. used to export to China about 70% of plastic that consumers put out for recycling. But in 2018, China, concerned about pollution, banned most imports of plastics from other countries. This created immense strain on the U.S. recycling system, and more than 100 cities had to shut down their recycling programs altogether when the ban went into place. Now, the U.S. has started sending more plastics to Southeast Asian countries such as Malaysia and Vietnam – countries with high rates of waste mismanagement. 

On top of this are concerns that plastics recycling might not even be viable. Only 5% to 6% of U.S. plastics were recycled in 2021, down from about 9% in 2018 before China’s ban. By contrast, the recycling rates for steel, paper, and glass in 2018 were 71%, 65%, and 31%, respectively. 

Not only is the rate of plastics recycling low, but recent studies have also called out plastics manufacturers for deliberately misleading the public about the feasibility of recycling plastics. Plastic products are typically marked with a number signifying the type of plastic. But experts have said only plastics with the numbers 1 or 2 can practically be recycled – even though the other numbers are often accompanied by the recycling symbol. 

One reason that these recycling rates are so low is economic. Many recycled plastics can’t be made into commercially viable new products, so it’s not practical financially for processing centers to recycle them. It’s much cheaper for companies to just keep making new plastic. 

Another issue is that unlike a simple material such as cardboard, many plastic products are actually made up of different types of plastic polymers that would have to be separated in order to be recycled – a process that would be difficult and probably not economically feasible. 

Finally, plastics degrade faster than other recycled materials – so even when plastic is successfully recycled, that process can happen only once or twice. 

“The reality is that some types of material just don’t have any value after a single use. And so it may be recyclable in name only,” says Dr. Howell.

Does recycling still work?

Tossing an item into a recycling bin might not guarantee that it will be recycled, but the practice of recycling still has significant environmental benefits.

For example, it takes 95% less energy to recycle aluminum than it does to create an aluminum product from raw materials. In 2018, recycling saved more than 193 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, or the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by almost 42 million cars. And it creates six times the amount of jobs that landfilling does, according to the National Institutes of Health.  

Some experts are hopeful that technological innovation could improve the recycling process. Artificial intelligence machines are already in use that can sort through recycling with more speed and accuracy than humans can, preventing recyclable items from going to landfills by mistake. And a new technique called chemical recycling could help turn hard-to-recycle plastics into fuel, although there are concerns that the process produces hazardous waste.

SOURCE:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

|

Jacob Turcotte/Staff

AP

Protesters in Caracas, Venezuela, demonstrate against the National Election Council certification of President Nicolas Maduro's reelection, July 30, two days after the vote.

The watchdogs of good governance who say democracy is slipping seemed to gain traction Sunday. Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro claimed a hasty victory in a presidential election widely seen as flawed. By the next day, however, his opponents had gathered their own tally of votes, making a case to challenge his grip on power.

“I speak to you with the calmness of the truth,” said Edmundo González Urrutia, the opposition candidate regarded by many – even by Maduro supporters – as the rightful winner.

“A free people is one that is respected,” he added, “and we are going to fight for our freedom ... [with] calmness and firmness.”

His words are an echo of what many other pro-democracy leaders say in countries where rulers are suppressing democratic dissent.

“For us, there’s more than power; there’s truth,” said India’s opposition leader Rahul Gandhi after a strong showing in a recent election.

In dictator-ruled Uganda, opposition leader Bobi Wine defined the role of pro-democracy groups in a similar way. “We’ve been able to put truth on the table,” he said. “We don’t believe in revenge, but we believe in truth and reconciliation.” 

In Iran, Narges Mohammadi, the imprisoned activist who won the 2023 Nobel Peace Prize, said the people are “the determining factor in the democracy equation.”

In Belarus, opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya said last year that the people “have chosen the path of non-violence against violence, love against hatred, creativity against brutality, solidarity against confrontation.”

Venezuela is the latest country to find itself midstream in a transition back to democracy. And it may be showing how tyranny unravels. “The superficial appeal of the rise-of-autocracy thesis belies a more complex reality – and a bleaker future for autocrats,” observed Kenneth Roth, then the executive director of Human Rights Watch, in a 2022 article in Foreign Policy.

Around the world, citizens keep affirming that power resides in calming truths, such as accurate vote counts and peaceful displays of equality.