In the middle of crises, you see lots of people "milling around," watching the events unfold and speculating about their causes.
This is true of fender-benders on campus, and major wars taking place half a world (or an internet site) away.
Staying up-to-date on breaking news is helpful, but eventually we can start doom-scrolling, or convincing ourselves we've suddenly become experts and speculating wildly.
It's human nature, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't step back, and realize that there's a limit to what we not only can know, but what we really need to know in order to help shape what our communities (Grand Forks, UND, ND, the US) can do about it.
Sticking to a diet of reputable news stories, that check to make sure they're not spreading wild BS, will help steer normal people--who are not experts in Eastern Europe, Russian military doctrine, or nuclear strategy--towards a realistic understanding of what's going on, and the possible ways forward.
This has sometimes been called the first "TikTok War," where clips of combat, protests, suffering, and much else are broadcast a minute or two at a time to a worldwide audience.
Since it's the first time, we're often not very sophisticated at spotting fakes. Games like Digital Combat Simulator and Arma3 can create footage that--at low enough resolution and for a minute or so--can be pretty realistic for people who are prepared to believe it.
There are also clips from former wars, old movies, and a lot else.
Lots of harrowing and incredible scenes are coming out of this war--make sure you only put stock in ones that have been checked by...well, people who know what they're talking about. People who have been studying the Russian military, or Eastern European political groups, for years and have a track record of being taken seriously.
There are numerous sources for on-the-ground reporting from Ukraine; the following are among the most-followed and best-regarded in English.
Many TV channels, newspapers, websites, radio channels, etc have correspondents reporting from the ground. It is hopeless to list them all. The major newsgathering channels in the English-speaking world have typically garnered high praise for their war correspondents' professionalism--CNN, the BBC, Fox News, NPR, The Guardian, etc.
Be aware that it is easy--or inevitable--for a well-crafted and credibly-sourced news story on one day of a war to be overturned by revelations two days later. One Army veteran and news analyst suggests putting faith in high-level, if frustratingly vague reports and letting individual stories wait a while for investigators to check on.
One of the emerging trends in covering the war has been OSINT, or "Open Source Intelligence." It refers to using open sources--that is, nonclassified information on the web--to determine troop movements, battle sites, locating the precise location of bombings, etc.
When media refer to "verified" battlefield losses, they usually rely on reports from some of the most trusted OSINT organizations. If you follow OSINT sources, remember that they don't have any secret resources; they just have experience and sophisticated ways to read them.