How does daily life in Kyiv reshape risk perception and “normalcy,” and what does that imply for human-rights reporting, micro-dosed daily exercise, and modern sex education?

In this wide-ranging conversation, Rick Rosner presses Scott Douglas Jacobsen on what “normal” means in wartime Kyiv: sirens, intermittent strikes, and the slow psychology of habituation. Jacobsen distinguishes lived risk from performative catastrophe, anchors the conflict in international law, and stresses universalist human-rights principles while acknowledging abuses on all sides. Rosner counters with American analogies—coyotes, hoarding, and 1970s bombings—to map fear’s weird ecology. They pivot to micro-dosed “every-hour” exercise and the line between adaptation and overtraining. Finally, they confront teen exposure to explicit imagery and argue for lifespan media-literate sex education. Humour, they agree, can reset emotions without denying reality.

Rick Rosner: You told me you’re tired. You’re in Kyiv, I assume. Can we say where you are?

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Yes, go ahead.

Rosner: All right, you’re in Kyiv, but you say the war is not that bad. Is it just bombs?

Jacobsen: I have spoken with Ukrainian colleagues. Under Ukraine’s wartime rules, many Ukrainian men of military age are restricted from leaving the country. At the same time, women generally have more freedom to travel—some people who can travel in and out of the country, stay here a bit, while presenting the situation very dramatically compared to those army members. In my experience, that can sometimes function as status or social capital on Meta, Instagram, or X. From where I am in Kyiv, day to day, I do not experience the situation as constantly catastrophic, even though the risk is real. The tragedy is clearly for the frontline workers and armed forces fighting against Russian aggression.

Rosner: When you say it is not that bad, you still have sirens and flashes. Do bombs land close enough to shake your building?

Jacobsen: Not too much in my case so far, though it depends. 

Rosner: Not much, then. On the positive side, you are in a city with excellent pastries. People are generally friendly. They are happy to have you there.

Jacobsen: They are certainly happy to have my money.

Rosner: Do they not also appreciate that you are there to support them through their struggles?

Jacobsen: Many people are grateful. Some also influence my reporting through what I describe as a charm offensive. I tell them I appreciate the hospitality, but I am not there as “pro-Ukrainian” or “anti-Russian.” My principles are universalist. I am pro–human rights.

From an international law standpoint, Russia’s 2022 invasion is widely characterized as a war of aggression, and the UN General Assembly has demanded that Russia withdraw its forces. Russia has also claimed to annex Ukrainian territories, but those annexations are broadly treated as illegal and are not recognized by most states and international bodies.

Where Russia exercises effective control, the situation is generally described in legal terms as occupation. Occupying powers have obligations under international humanitarian law, including the Hague Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Convention.

There have also been abuses attributed to Ukrainian actors, and I have addressed that in public talks. However, I assess that the majority of alleged violations in this war are associated with Russian forces and state policy.

Rosner: Ukraine is not a young country historically, but as an independent nation, its history dates back only to the early 1990s, correct?

Jacobsen: Correct. It initially struggled with high levels of corruption, with officials still strongly linked to and influenced by Russia. It has been working to reduce corruption for 30 years and has made progress. 

Rosner: Corruption remains high, though?

Jacobsen: It has been reduced, but it remains high.

Rosner: Do you think corruption will continue to decline after the war ends? Will Ukraine become a cleaner country?

Jacobsen: Some anti-corruption and state-capacity reforms have accelerated under wartime pressure. War can force institutional adaptation. If stress fosters more flexible thinking at the population level, it can create conditions for reform in social structures and how people relate to one another.

Rosner: You have your struggles in a war-torn country.

Jacobsen: I do not feel that I am struggling here.

Rosner: In Los Angeles, we have our own version of struggle: an overpopulation of coyotes, especially young ones that do not yet know how to howl properly. They make unsettling noises at 3 and 5 in the morning. They have no idea what they are doing. We are talking about risk. You have bombs; bombs can kill. Coyotes can kill your cat if you let it outside. You should not let your cat outside.

Jacobsen: I remember walking through the remains of an elementary school after a major ground battle. The building was destroyed and still structurally unstable a year later when we surveyed it. As I walked through the rubble—brick and debris—I saw a dead cat flattened and dried out. It looked almost cartoonish, compressed and preserved by time and exposure.

Rosner: In the United States, you are more likely to encounter preserved animal remains in extreme hoarding situations. There is even a television show, Hoarders, where crews sometimes discover dead animals beneath unstable piles of accumulated debris—often stacks of newspapers or trash several feet high. Collapses can kill pets, and the remains can stay there for years until cleanup crews intervene.

Jacobsen: I spoke with an animal rescue worker operating during the war. They estimated that hundreds of thousands of dogs and cats may have been displaced due to bombardment, destroyed housing, and evacuations. Many people fled and were unable to take their animals with them. That figure is an estimate, not a verified census, but the scale of displacement is substantial.

I should add context about my own background. I have worked physically demanding jobs—janitorial work, restaurant shifts exceeding 90 hours a week, long-term intensive employment at an Olympic facility, and Canadian military basic training. That experience likely shapes my threshold for discomfort. Illness or cold weather is unpleasant, but I do not perceive it as catastrophic. In North America, people often relate to the war conceptually rather than through lived exposure.

Rosner: Chornobyl is in northern Ukraine, near the border with Belarus. Regarding stray animals, studies have examined dogs living in the Chornobyl Exclusion Zone. Some reports have noted genetic changes in animal populations exposed to long-term radiation. However, claims about dogs “turning blue” are likely misinterpretations. Coat discoloration would more plausibly result from environmental exposure, chemicals, or paint rather than radiation, causing blue pigmentation. Radiation can cause mutations, but not cartoon-like colour shifts. That is an important distinction.

Jacobsen: When people ask me what it is like in Ukraine, I know what’s coming. I have to manage their emotional response. My shorthand is humour. They ask about war, bombs, and death. I respond, “The weather is cloudy with a chance of missile, okay, but not ideal,” or “The fireworks are to die for here.” It disarms them. They laugh and reset emotionally. Humour diffuses tension. Fireworks are entertaining. Explosions that can destroy infrastructure are something else entirely. They carry real risk.

Rosner: I remember growing up in Boulder, Colorado, in the early 1970s during a period of domestic bombings linked to extremist activism. You would hear explosions while doing ordinary tasks at home. At one point, three individuals accidentally detonated a bomb they were assembling in a car at Chautauqua Park. As adolescents, we saw the aftermath—trees damaged by the blast. It was shocking and surreal. Exposure to that kind of instability shapes one’s sense of what constitutes normalcy. There is an edge of adrenaline to it. There is intensity, but it is not entertainment.

Jacobsen: Many civilians here seem psychologically adapted. They do not rush to shelters as frequently as outsiders might expect. Over time, habituation sets in. That does not mean the risk disappears; it means human beings adjust to persistent danger.

Rosner: Shelters carry risks as well. During the Second World War, London’s underground stations were used as air-raid shelters. There were tragic incidents, including stampedes in tube stations, where people were crushed or suffocated during panic rushes after sirens sounded.

Jacobsen: That would be an awful way to die—being crushed or buried in a crowd.

Rosner: Turning to the United States, it is the anniversary of the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It also coincides with the U.S. State of the Union address. Traditionally, members of the House and Senate, Supreme Court justices, and other officials attend. In recent years, however, some members of the opposition party have chosen to boycott and instead deliver alternative responses or parallel messaging. We will see how that unfolds.

Jacobsen: Are they planning a coordinated alternative address?

Rosner: Likely a series of speeches or responses. Historically, the opposition party delivers a rebuttal to the State of the Union. The effectiveness of those rebuttals varies. Often, strong policy critiques are undermined by weaker delivery.

For example, debate continues over the economic impact of tariffs. While some sectors have added jobs, others have seen losses, and economists remain divided over whether tariffs have strengthened or weakened long-term growth. Claims that tariffs alone would dramatically transform U.S. employment levels have not materialized straightforwardly. Trade policy effects tend to be sector-specific and complex.

Regarding federal leadership, Kash Patel currently serves as the FBI Director. Critics argue he lacks the traditional law-enforcement gravitas of predecessors such as James Comey, who, despite bipartisan criticism, maintained a conventional institutional posture during his tenure. There have also been public discussions about travel expenditures and optics involving senior officials. Any such spending, if taxpayer-funded, would normally be subject to oversight and potential congressional inquiry.

More broadly, some observers argue that controversial appointments—such as Patel at the FBI, Kristi Noem at Homeland Security, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at Health and Human Services—may influence public policy in ways that affect areas such as immigration enforcement, public health, and vaccine confidence. Whether those appointments strengthen or weaken their party’s electoral prospects remains a matter of political interpretation. Electoral outcomes will ultimately determine how voters assess their performance.

Jacobsen: You see potential political consequences either way.

Rosner: Yes. Electoral systems function as feedback mechanisms. If voters disapprove of governance outcomes, they can register that in midterm elections.

Jacobsen: Many Republican voters and policymakers articulate principled conservative positions with which I would agree. 

Rosner: I grew up in a Republican household that valued fiscal discipline, institutional stability, and personal responsibility. It was not rooted in anti-intellectualism. American conservatism has historically included strands emphasizing constitutionalism and prudence. The present debate concerns how those traditions are being interpreted or redefined.

Jacobsen: I could reasonably consider myself a Republican in some respects.

Rosner: What do you mean?

Jacobsen: There are positions you hold that some people might consider traditionally Republican.

Rosner: William F. Buckley Jr., one of the most influential American conservative thinkers of the late twentieth century, described conservatism as “standing athwart history, yelling stop.” By that, he meant that conservatism resists rapid or poorly considered change. It favours gradual, deliberative reform rather than sweeping transformation adopted impulsively.

There are serious arguments in that tradition. Consider artificial intelligence. AI development is accelerating rapidly, driven by massive private investment. Some technology leaders advocate minimal regulatory constraints, while others call for safeguards. For decades, science fiction—from The Terminator onward—imagined scenarios of runaway artificial intelligence. While those portrayals are fictional, contemporary researchers do discuss alignment, safety, and control risks in serious terms. A conservative principle would argue for caution: pause, assess, implement guardrails.

We have done that in other scientific domains. For example, many countries restrict or prohibit human reproductive cloning. Regulatory frameworks were developed precisely because of ethical and safety concerns.

Regarding current U.S. policy debates, former President Trump has argued against extensive federal regulation of AI and has criticized state-level efforts to create independent AI safeguards. Supporters frame this as innovation-friendly; critics see it as insufficiently cautious. That tension reflects broader disagreements within American conservatism about the role of federal oversight.

Historically, conservatism has articulated coherent arguments about institutional stability, constitutionalism, and incremental reform. My criticism is that contemporary Republican leadership often fails to foreground traditional conservative principles. Elements of the current party structure prioritize loyalty and cultural grievance over institutional prudence. That is an opinion, but it is one grounded in observable policy positions and rhetoric.

Jacobsen: Would you ever consider living in a geodesic dome-style house, as some people did in the 1970s?

Rosner: I grew up around experimental architecture. Geodesic domes and other unconventional designs were part of that period’s aesthetic. The practical issue with curved or non-rectilinear rooms is that most furniture is designed for straight walls and right angles. Corners are useful for structural efficiency and layout.

There is an example in Colorado often referred to as the “mushroom house,” formally known as the Stanley Brenton House, designed by architect Charles Deaton. It even appeared in the film Sleeper. I once visited it; it was visually striking but presented functional challenges. Houses with curved walls often require custom-built-ins. In some cases, insulation materials such as sprayed foam were exposed and susceptible to damage.

Non-rectangular architecture can be beautiful and imaginative, but it comes with trade-offs in usability and maintenance. Would I live in one? Possibly. I appreciate experimentation in design, even if conventional geometry remains more practical.

I have a topic to raise. I read a post from someone who argued that exercise is more important than most supplements. I already work out daily, but I’d like to know whether daily exercise is beneficial, and what about brief exercise every hour?

I have access to equipment at home, so I have been experimenting with what I call an “every waking hour” routine—doing a few sets each hour while I am awake. I have about nine minutes before I need to complete my ten o’clock sets, so I will likely sign off to do them.

Yesterday I was awake for about sixteen hours and exercised during fourteen of them. The day before, I was awake during portions of twenty separate hours and managed to do something active in each one. Does this approach produce measurable benefits or leads to overtraining?

Jacobsen: A recent survey of Meta users reported that approximately 19 percent of teens on Instagram say they have seen unwanted nude images. What are your thoughts?

Rosner: It would be challenging to grow up in the current digital environment. My early exposure to sexual imagery was limited and relatively mild by comparison. As a child, the first suggestive images I saw were novelty playing cards. A few years later, I encountered magazines like Playboy. Explicit sexual imagery did not appear in my life until early adolescence, and even then, it was rare and somewhat shocking.

Today, children can encounter explicit material online with minimal barriers. Research suggests that many adolescents are exposed to sexual content earlier than previous generations. That shift has implications for sexual development, expectations, and consent norms.

I believe modern sex education needs to address media literacy directly—teaching young people that pornography is performance, not instruction. Topics such as consent, communication, boundaries, and mutual respect are essential. There is also a need for adult education; sexual ethics and healthy relational behaviour are lifelong learning processes.

Longer life expectancy means people remain sexually active for more decades than in the past. That increases the importance of responsible, informed attitudes toward sexuality across the lifespan.

Jacobsen: Any final thoughts on sex education?

Rosner: What I am saying is that sex education should not be limited to adolescents. There is a case for adult education as well, particularly around boundaries, consent, and power dynamics. Some high-profile cases—such as Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby—have involved older men abusing power and violating consent. Those cases illustrate the importance of ethical literacy at every stage of life.

Age does not automatically confer wisdom. Without reflection and accountability, some individuals fail to understand limits, respect, or responsibility. Education about consent, dignity, and appropriate conduct should extend beyond youth and remain part of a broader cultural conversation.

Rick Rosner is an accomplished television writer with credits on shows like Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Crank Yankers, and The Man Show. Over his career, he has earned multiple Writers Guild Award nominations—winning one—and an Emmy nomination. Rosner holds a broad academic background, graduating with the equivalent of eight majors. Based in Los Angeles, he continues to write and develop ideas while spending time with his wife, daughter, and two dogs.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for The Good Men Project, International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN 0018-7399; Online: ISSN 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), A Further Inquiry, and other media. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations.

Photo by Glib Albovsky on Unsplash

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.