Category: Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Global: Bulgaria is joining the euro in January – and not everyone is pleased

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Yuxiang Lin, Doctoral Researcher, Centre for Russian, European and Eurasian Studies, University of Birmingham

    The EU has given the green light for Bulgaria to join the euro from January 1 2026. This huge step towards European integration comes just six months after Bulgaria became a full member of Schengen area, within which people can move freely across borders.

    However, while rapprochement moves apace at the top level, euroscepticism shows little sign of abating at the grassroots level in Bulgaria, or in national party politics.

    Protests calling for Bulgaria to stick with its national currency have sprung up in both capital city Sofia and in several towns around the country. A May poll showed that 38% of Bulgarians were against the euro and only 21% agreed that the switch should go ahead in January.

    Others wanted to wait a few years. In a similar poll in January, 40% of respondents said they never wanted Bulgaria to join the euro.

    Anti-euro protests tend to be associated with the Bulgarian nationalist political parties. The most influential of these, Vazrazhdane, has become increasingly popular and won 13.63% in the most recent parliamentary elections in October 2024. It had won just 2.45% in elections held in April 2021.

    Bulgaria joined the European Union in 2007. When, in December 2021, I interviewed a former spokesman for the political party NDSV (National Movement Simeon II), which was in government from 2001 to 2009, they said Bulgarians had very high expectations ahead of becoming part of the bloc.

    They had thought it would take just a few years for Bulgaria to be as economically developed as Switzerland, and that their standard of life would soar. The dream was that Bulgaria to become the so-called “Switzerland of the Balkans”, as both countries have similar population size and a similar touristic appeal.

    The EU has channelled €16.3 billion into Bulgaria since the country joined EU, particularly for infrastructure development. However, a year of fieldwork has shown me that Sofia has been the main benefactor of this investment.

    Small municipalities and rural communities have not felt the benefit as clearly. Among the €16.3 billion, Sofia received €3.1 billion and Plovdiv received €0.8 billion.


    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.


    Whereas Sofia gets new metro lines during recent years, citizens in some municipalities still struggle with basic public services for survival. Nearly 15% of the country’s population struggles with regular quality water supply.

    The imagined “European” standard of life has not yet reached small municipalities and rural areas. Europe still feels far away.

    Becoming part of the EU has given opportunities to Bulgarian citizens to work and live abroad in European countries. Official figures show 861,054 Bulgarian citizens lived in other EU countries in 2022. Recently a total of 74% of young people in Bulgaria are considering more or less seriously the idea of emigrating abroad.

    However, the trend of young people working abroad in Europe has caused brain drain and has partially contributed to the decreasing population of Bulgaria, which fell from 7.68 million before it joined the EU in 2006 to 6.44 million in 2024.

    According to a research analyst at a Sofia-based non-governmental organisation who I interviewed recently, many Bulgarian parents hope that their children working abroad in Europe will return to work in Bulgaria, because jobs for migrants abroad tend not be for high-skilled workers.

    Accession to the eurozone is more likely to benefit Sofia-based people who do business abroad rather than older people living local lives in small municipalities or rural areas. Younger and working people have already been shown to be the ones who benefited most from European integration in Bulgaria and Romania in the first place.

    That said, support for EU membership has been rising recently.

    Holding a coalition together

    Despite euroscepticism, European integration is one of the few issues that unites Bulgaria’s fragile coalition government – although not all political parties agree with joining the eurozone.

    Bulgaria held seven parliamentary elections between April 2021 and October 2024. It therefore has been a surprise that amid the political turmoil, the coalition government that was formed in October 2024 has survived. A very important motivational source here is unity on the question of Europe.

    But with mixed results so far and with meaningful levels of opposition the joining the euro, Bulgaria’s government will have to be careful about the potential for eurosceptic movements to grow as they have in several other EU nations.

    Yuxiang Lin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Bulgaria is joining the euro in January – and not everyone is pleased – https://theconversation.com/bulgaria-is-joining-the-euro-in-january-and-not-everyone-is-pleased-258626

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Five reasons you should give up alcohol if you’re recovering from an injury

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By John Kiely, Department of Physical Education & Sport Sciences, University of Limerick

    If you’ve sustained an injury while exercising, giving up alcohol while you recover could be key. Andrey_Popov/ Shutterstock

    Rest, rehab and patience are cornerstones of injury recovery. But should quitting alcohol be a part of any recovery plan? This is what England cricket captain Ben Stokes has done – saying he’s given up alcohol in a bid to quickly recover from a serious hamstring injury.

    While this may seem extreme, emerging research shows that even small amounts of alcohol can interrupt recovery and delay healing in five key ways:

    1. Disrupting immune function

    Alcohol disrupts immune cells’ ability to reach and repair injured tissues – slowing the regeneration of healthy muscle, tendons and ligaments. This delays the clean-up of damaged cells and also prolongs swelling and sensitivity, which further delays the process of repair.

    The effect of heavy drinking (more than four or five drinks at one time) on the immune system can leave your body vulnerable to infection and delay repair for between three to five days afterwards. Even moderate drinking (one to three drinks at one time) stalls tissue regeneration and prolongs swelling and tenderness in the injured area.


    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.


    2. Interfering with muscle rebuilding

    Muscle protein synthesis – the process of repairing and rebuilding muscle – is reduced for 24 to 48 hours after even moderate alcohol consumption. In one study, muscle protein synthesis was shown to be reduced by 24-37% after drinking.

    When this process is impaired, muscle regeneration slows. This results in persisting weakness, soreness and greater susceptibility to re-injury.

    3. Delaying bone and tissue healing

    When bones, ligaments, tendons and muscles are damaged, signals from these injured tissues trigger natural repair processes. But alcohol disrupts these signalling pathways and interferes with the body’s natural repair mechanisms, delaying healing and increasing swelling and scarring of the injured tissues.

    Heavy drinking can prolong healing from a bone fracture by one to two weeks, and extend recovery from sprains and strains by two to three weeks.

    4. Disrupting hormonal balance

    Hormones are chemical messengers that coordinate many of the body’s recovery processes – including tissue repair, inflammation and muscle growth. Two especially helpful healing hormones are testosterone and growth hormone. Both help rebuild muscle and other connective tissues after injury.

    Alcohol lowers circulating levels of these hormones and blunts the body’s ability to regenerate damaged tissues.

    At the same time, alcohol raises cortisol levels. Cortisol is the body’s primary stress hormone. Elevated cortisol levels convince the brain that there’s an immediate threat. The brain subsequently seeks to mobilise available energy in preparation for a “fight” or “flight” response.

    Alcohol interferes with hormones that aid recovery.
    PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/ Shutterstock

    Spikes in cortisol increase energy availability by diverting energy away from other bodily functions – such as injury recovery. Cortisol also promotes the break down of healthy tissues (especially muscle) into simpler chemicals that can be rapidly converted to energy. These imbalances can persist for days after drinking and significantly slow tissue repair.

    5. Increasing risks of re-injury

    Clear communication between the brain and body is essential for smooth, precise and coordinated movement. But alcohol interferes with this communication.

    As a result, coordination, balance and reaction times all plummet. The subtle movement impairments caused by even moderate drinking can linger for a couple of days afterwards. These increase the risk of movement errors and re-injury to the already vulnerable tissues.

    Alcohol and injury recovery

    Current research illustrates that there’s no safe threshold of alcohol consumption during rehabilitation. Even low-to-moderate drinking impairs athletic performance and injury recovery for a couple of days, depending on the dose, the person and the aspect of recovery being measured.

    Binge drinking (periods of abstinence followed by consuming four or five drinks in one session) causes substantial short-term damage. Low-to-moderate drinking causes subtler disruptions, but these disruptions typically happen more frequently.

    Stokes’ decision to abstain from alcohol is not an overreaction – it’s a clear-headed, evidence-led commitment to optimal recovery. As new evidence reshapes our understanding of alcohol’s multiple impacts, the message is simple: rehabilitation doesn’t happen in the pub. Whether you’re a professional athlete, a recreational runner or an enthusiastic “weekend warrior”, every drink counts.

    When returning from an injury, the less you drink, the better your chances of a complete recovery. If a rapid and complete recovery is your goal, then less is better, and none is best.

    Deciding to drink alcohol during rehabilitation is a personal choice. But if healing is the priority, one of the simplest, most controllable ways to skew the odds in your favour is to follow Stokes’ lead and skip that drink.

    John Kiely does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Five reasons you should give up alcohol if you’re recovering from an injury – https://theconversation.com/five-reasons-you-should-give-up-alcohol-if-youre-recovering-from-an-injury-257194

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: How pterosaurs can inspire aircraft design

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By David Hone, Senior Lecturer in Zoology, Queen Mary University of London

    Travelershigh / Shutterstock

    Pterosaurs were an amazing group of flying reptiles that occupied the skies around the same time that dinosaurs roamed on land. Appearing in the fossil record around 230 million years ago, pterosaurs survived until 66 million years ago, when an asteroid impact helped wipe them, and many other life forms, out.

    The pterosaurs are often the animals in the background, while the dinosaurs occupy the foreground. However, they are worthy of much more recognition than they are commonly given, not just as interesting ancient animals, but because they could also inspire aircraft designs.

    Pterosaurs were the first vertebrates to evolve powered flight. They were in the air 80 million years before birds and around 180 million years before bats. However, their flight apparatus was rather different to either. The wings of bats are supported by multiple digits (like our fingers). Birds use feathers as structural units in the wings.


    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.


    But pterosaurs primarily had one finger to support their wings. Their main wing was composed of a single giant “spar” – a structural unit – made of up of the bones of the arm and the greatly elongated fourth finger, with a membrane that stretched from the tip of the finger down to the ankle. This membrane acted as a flight surface.

    As a group, pterosaurs were diverse – some were specialist fishers, filter feeders, terrestrial predators, insect hunters, seed crackers, and more. Some could climb well and many species were highly mobile on the ground.

    They also got very large. The biggest pterosaurs had wingspans of over 10m and could weigh over 250kg. Even the smallest pterosaurs could fly: juveniles with 10cm wingspans were probably capable of flight within days or even hours of hatching.

    The bones of pterosaurs, like those of birds and many dinosaurs, were filled by extensions of the lungs called air-sacs, and they were extremely thin walled. This made the skeletons of the animals very stiff for their weight (rather important when flying). It also made their skeletons very fragile after death, and so pterosaur fossils are rare.

    However, in a handful of sites around the world – most notably in Germany, Brazil and China – where the preservation of fossils is exceptionally good, we have huge numbers of pterosaur fossils with both complete skeletons and a lot of soft tissue. This gives us an incredible insight into the shape and structure of their wings and how they flew.

    In addition to the main wing surface, pterosaurs had two other smaller subsidiary surfaces that would have given them extra control. At the front of the main wing sitting in the crux of the elbow was a small membrane between the wrist and the base of the neck, supported by a unique long wrist bone called the pteroid.

    At the back of the body, earlier pterosaurs had a single large sheet of membrane between the legs, supported in the middle by a long tail and on each side by long fifth toes on the feet. Later pterosaurs split this rear membrane and had only a small piece of membrane running from the ankle on each leg to the base of a short tail.

    As well as the outer skin-like layers, the wings had at least three major layers, comprising blood vessels, a layer of muscles, and a layer of stiffening fibres. Some might well have had extensions of the airsacs in the main wing membranes too, which could presumably be inflated and deflated to a degree. The wing as a whole was therefore extremely elastic and flexible.

    Artist’s impression of pterosaurs in flight.
    Natalie Jagielska

    This would have given pterosaurs extraordinary control over their wings. All of this makes them an intriguing model for future aircraft design.

    Flight challenge

    Aircraft wings are not (and cannot) be perfectly stiff. Adding flexibility, or better still, actual shape changing potential, could give them substantial performance benefits. But stiffness and flexibility need to be balanced. Problems with aeroelasticity – the tendency of a soft wing to vibrate in ways that greatly reduce performance (or even cause flight to fail outright) – limit how pliable the wings can be.

    Pterosaurs had multiple mechanisms to address this challenge, from passive mechanisms, such as fibres within the wing, to active mechanisms, such as the muscles that ran throughout the wing and could tighten on demand. This wing tensioning anatomy is*is?* among the most sophisticated aeroelastic control systems known to science.

    Survey and rescue drones of the future could look very different to this one.
    Sobrevolando Patagonia / Shutterstock

    The key to applying our knowledge of pterosaurs to future aircraft design comes not in closely mimicking the exact shape and form of pterosaurs, but instead, in understanding and extracting core principles from their anatomy.

    The membranous wings of pterosaurs were great at changing shape. The leading
    edge could lie flat or depress to a sharp angle, thanks to the small anterior membrane. The main wing surface could change its curvature, or camber. There is even evidence that the wing could manage what is called reflex camber – a shape in which the trailing edge of the wing curves upwards.

    Even the stiff portion of the wing (the spar) made of bone and surrounding muscles, was mobile – through motions of the shoulder, elbow, and wrist and flexibility within the bone itself near the wingtip. This soft, shape changing structure gave pterosaurs exceptional control over their moment-to-moment wing performance, optimising for lower speed or higher speed within fractions of a wingbeat. This would have made them particularly adept at slow speed flight – good for tight turns and precise, soft landings.

    Greater manoeuvrability and pinpoint landings are a premium for autonomous vehicles working in busy environments – such as cities or natural disaster zones full of debris. So future survey and rescue drones could take lessons from pterosaur wing control systems.

    Lessons from pterosaur anatomy could also be applied to wingsuits.
    Rick Neves / Shutterstock

    The jointed, flexible wing anatomy of pterosaurs also meant that the wings could fold tightly, and unlike the wings of birds, the folded wings of pterosaurs doubled as powerful walking limbs. Because the hands contacted the ground while walking, the forelimbs were available to help push the animals into the air during take-off leaps. Mathematical models predict half-second launch times, from a standing start, in even the largest pterosaurs.

    The exceptional mechanical loads associated with these launches were handled
    by one of the highest stiffness-to-weight skeletons to ever evolve. This folded-wing, rapid-launch system has great potential for applications to future technologies.

    So much so, in fact, that a prototype folding wing system modelled on pterosaurs has already undergone some testing (through a Nasa-funded university project on which one of the authors, Michael Habib, consulted). A folding, flapping wing that doubles as a launch system could allow future drones to take off with limited space – perhaps while on ships at sea. It could also be used to allow small flying drones to land and launch again out of craters on Mars.

    The red planet has just enough atmosphere to make flapping wing and rotor wing systems work. But it’s energetically costly and hovering is tough – better to land, measure and launch again. Similarly, rapid take offs from uneven terrain, precise landings, tight turns, and on demand tweaks to improve performance are all features that could be applied to the drones of the future, in wingsuits, and more.

    As the control systems for drones become increasingly driven by intelligent software, we will need a new generation of hardware to match. Pterosaurs may hold the keys to unlocking a future of highly manoeuvrable autonomous aerial vehicles that are competent in harsh conditions and urban environments. These would be ideal for search and rescue or surveys in locations that are too dangerous for humans.

    So despite having been extinct for 66 million years, the pterosaurs have huge potential as the inspiration for aircraft design. Sometimes looking back can be the best way to look forward.

    Michael Habib has worked on a prototype folding wing system based on pterosaur flight through a Nasa-funded university project.

    David Hone and Liz Martin do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. How pterosaurs can inspire aircraft design – https://theconversation.com/how-pterosaurs-can-inspire-aircraft-design-256823

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: The Club World Cup 2025 shows sharing the stage is the future of global sport

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By David Cook, Senior Lecturer in Marketing, Nottingham Trent University

    Before it kicked off, the all new revamped and expanded men’s 2025 Fifa Club World Cup had already attracted controversy.

    Some think even more football matches at the end of a long season pose a risk to player welfare. Others are concerned about a lack of fan engagement.

    But aside from these issues the tournament, which features 32 clubs from around the world, provides fresh evidence of a new model emerging in global sport.

    This event, which is being staged in 12 different cities across the US, is the latest experiment in “polycentric” hosting, where multiple locations collaborate as destinations for international sporting events.


    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.


    The next men’s Fifa World Cup in 2026 will take place across the US, Canada and Mexico. Four years later, the event will be spread across different continents, starting in South America, before moving to Europe and Africa. In between, the men’s Euros of 2028 will be co-hosted by the UK and Ireland.

    The trend is not limited to football. The 2026 Winter Olympics is being shared in Italy between Milan and Cortina d’Ampezzo. The Commonwealth Games are also moving towards a more pragmatic model of hosting.

    Our research, which focused on the men’s Euro 2020 tournament (delayed by COVID and held in 2021), suggests that polycentric hosting has many advantages.

    Spanning 11 European countries, Euro 2020 was conceived as a celebration of the tournament’s 60th anniversary.

    From a branding perspective, this posed significant challenges. Each city had its own visual identity, with localised fan engagement strategies.

    Without a singular geographic or cultural anchor, Uefa, the governing body of European football, had to balance the benefits of celebrating local diversity with the need for a coherent overarching narrative.

    Yet overall, the format worked. Despite the pandemic’s disruption, the tournament still reached broad audiences and activated fanbases in multiple regions.

    Instead of one city or nation shouldering the financial and logistical burden of building infrastructure, accommodating visitors, and managing security and transport, responsibilities were shared.

    A team effort

    This can significantly reduce the risk of the problem of “white elephants” where expensive stadiums or facilities fall into disuse after an event has finished.

    By using infrastructure and venues which already exist, the environmental and economic costs of hosting are minimised. It also makes hosting more feasible for countries that might not have the capacity to do it alone.

    At the same time, many of the perceived benefits of staging sports events – such as economic boosts to local economies, increases in tourism, improved transport links, and civic pride – can be shared more widely. Rather than one host reaping all the rewards, several places can potentially benefit, engaging local communities and stimulating regional development.

    Euro 2020, on the road to Wembley.
    Michael Tubi/Shutterstock

    Collaborative multi-host formats also allow for widespread sharing of knowledge and opportunities for innovation. When cities and organising committees work together, they can bring diverse perspectives, cultural insights, operational practices, and even healthy competition to the table.

    We found that the development of friendly rivalries between Euro 2020 hosts actually encouraged a competitive mindset that motivated organising committee staff to attempt to outperform counterpart cities.




    Read more:
    Trump’s travel ban casts shadow over the upcoming Fifa Club World Cup and other US-hosted sporting events


    Meanwhile Uefa enabled those different cities to develop branding strategies which reflected local character while contributing to a broader European narrative of unity through sport. One example was each city selecting a landmark bridge to tie in with the tournament’s overarching “bridging Europe” theme.

    This collaborative way of thinking also led to creative and inclusive ideas. Glasgow, for example, integrated a cultural festival into its role as a host city, featuring local artists and musicians.

    Polycentric tournaments aren’t without challenges of course. There is a risk of fragmentation, where the tournament feels like a series of disconnected mini-events rather than something cohesive.

    But overall, the environmental, economic and cultural benefits can be substantial. And what began as a celebratory one-off with Euro 2020 is fast becoming the design for future major sport events.

    By sharing the spotlight, cities and countries also share the strain and the opportunity. The age of the single host nation isn’t over, and the looming Saudi Arabia 2034 World Cup is a stark reminder that above all, money still talks. But the era of shared hosting is clearly here, and might just be what global sport and its fans need.

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. The Club World Cup 2025 shows sharing the stage is the future of global sport – https://theconversation.com/the-club-world-cup-2025-shows-sharing-the-stage-is-the-future-of-global-sport-256117

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why Israel’s air strikes signal a shifting relationship with the US and a weakening Iran

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Natasha Lindstaedt, Professor in the Department of Government, University of Essex

    The Middle East is undergoing a realignment of power. With Israel’s attack on Iranian nuclear sites and the assassination of at least two of Iran’s senior security officials, Benjamin Netanyahu is showing his willingness to go it alone and ignore pressure from the Trump administration.

    Though Donald Trump sought diplomatic solutions to the growing tensions between Israel and Iran, it appears that the US president, despite his previously strong relationship with the Israeli leader, was unable to restrain Netanyahu.

    The timing of the strikes is important. The Trump administration probably knew that they could not prevent Israel from striking Iran, but they did think they could pressure Israel to hold off launching an attack until after the US had solidified a new nuclear deal with Iran, talks for which were scheduled for June 15.

    Just hours before the air strikes, Trump said: “As long as I think there will be an agreement [with Iran], I don’t want them going in.”


    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.


    Experts had been divided in the past, over how much leverage the US held over Israel.

    Trump, following months of groundwork laid by the Joe Biden administration, managed to secure a ceasefire deal with Israel in January. But as part of the negotiation, Netanyahu succeeded in reversing sanctions on settlers in the West Bank, giving him free rein to act there. Additionally, the US also lifted its freeze on the transfer of 2,000-pound bombs to Israel, another concession that benefited Israel.

    The US also proved unwilling or incapable of stopping the humanitarian crisis that has unfolded in Gaza. Washington also appeared powerless to stop Israel’s pounding of Lebanon and its efforts to eradicate the Iran-backed militia Hezbollah.

    The US has become more of a spectator than a powerful regional actor. And sources suggest that Washington was not informed in advance of Israel’s airstrike that killed Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in October 2024, a sign of Israel’s growing willingness to act without US approval.




    Read more:
    Lethal humanitarianism: why violence at Gaza aid centres should not come as a surprise


    Indeed, the expansion of the war in Gaza to Lebanon was a pivotal moment in the region. With significant Israeli public support to stop Hezbollah (which had been launching rockets towards northern Israel), Israel pounded southern Beirut with airstrikes, killing several high-ranking Hezbollah officials.

    In the aftermath, Hezbollah was unable to replenish itself with younger recruits (it had relied on its charismatic leadership to recruit in the past), and the losses caused Hezbollah’s organisation to implode. By November 2024, Hezbollah agreed to a ceasefire brokered by the US.

    Israel announces strikes on Iran.

    Iran’s weaker role

    Hezbollah’s near military and organisational collapse has been a big blow for Iran’s regional power. Hezbollah was at one point the most heavily armed violent non-state actor in the world. It had an army of around 50,000 men and experts speculated that it had as many as 200,000 rockets and missiles of various ranges in its arsenal.

    With the assassination of so many high-level officials in Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which Iran has bankrolled and used in its proxy conflicts with Israel, Iran has been severely weakened. As Iran is in the middle of an economic crisis, it no longer has the financial means to revive these traditional allies.




    Read more:
    Trump’s Middle East pivot aims to counter China’s rising influence


    For decades Iran had tried to gain strategic depth in the Middle East, with the US estimating that Iran spent more than US$16 billion to prop up Bashar al-Assad in Syria from 2012 to 2020. Additionally, with the fall of Assad, Syria can no longer serve as a transit corridor or logistical hub for shipments of arms from Iran to Hezbollah.

    With Turkey’s support for the various armed militias that ousted the Assad regime, it is Ankara, and not Tehran, that sees itself as the big winner in the aftermath of the Syrian civil war.

    US plans for Middle East threatened

    The US, meanwhile, is seeing its influence in the Middle East waning. And Trump’s plan for extending trade in the region, particularly in the Gulf, may also be undermined by the rising regional tension.

    The US had been due to send Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff to this weekend’s talks in Oman, with the aim of getting Tehran to agree to stop enriching uranium (which is crucial for creating nuclear weapons) in exchange for lifting economic sanctions. Trump had said that he did not want Israel to go ahead with its attack on Iran, and yet these calls went unheeded.

    Some US officials were optimistic that the escalating tensions taking place between Iran and Israel were mere tactics of negotiation amid the important nuclear talks. But, though the US was clearly warned about the attack, Washington was not able to deter Israel.

    Though the US still supplies Israel with US$3.8 billion (£2.8 billion) worth of arms per year, it has had little success in exercising much leverage recently. It remains to be seen if domestic political pressure could halt this US funding.

    International relations experts should not be surprised that Israel went on the offensive in Iran. Israel’s attacks on Hezbollah in 2024 were just a precursor to the bigger prize of bringing Iran to its knees.

    For Netanyahu, this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reshape the Middle East and shift the regional power dynamics, and he appears to care little about what the US, or the rest of the world, thinks of how he does it.

    Natasha Lindstaedt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Why Israel’s air strikes signal a shifting relationship with the US and a weakening Iran – https://theconversation.com/why-israels-air-strikes-signal-a-shifting-relationship-with-the-us-and-a-weakening-iran-258926

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Kenya’s brutal police have been exposed again – why the system fails people

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Douglas Lucas Kivoi, Principal Policy Analyst, Governance Department, The Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis (KIPPRA)

    The recent killing in Kenya of a young man in police detention highlights a string of systemic failures to hold the country’s security officers accountable for their actions. Despite public outrage and protests, Kenyan police officers continue to use inhumane, brutal and sometimes fatal methods with little consequence. Douglas Lucas Kivoi, who has studied policing and police reform in Kenya, unpacks the situation.

    Why is the Kenyan police service given to brutality?

    First, Kenya’s police institution was established as a colonial instrument of oppression. Police reforms since independence in 1963 have had little impact in changing this. Instead, successive governments have used the police to suppress dissent. This has cemented a culture of violence and police impunity. This was seen during former president Daniel arap Moi’s repressive regime, the post-2007 election violence and recent crackdowns on public protests protected under the constitution.

    The reaction to mass mobilisation in June 2024 was violent. This was because the state sees public demonstrations as a threat to its authority.

    Second, police brutality thrives in environments where wrongdoing goes unpunished. Kenya’s police force lacks good internal control mechanisms. A culture of silence and solidarity – the “blue code” – deters whistleblowing. Advancements and rewards are sometimes determined by political allegiances rather than professionalism.




    Read more:
    Kenyan police use excessive force because they’re serving political elites, not the public – policy analyst


    Third, many police officers work in toxic conditions marked by poor pay, limited resources and long shifts. These contribute to feelings of frustration and aggression. The situation is worsened by institutionalised corruption where police officers extort money from citizens and demand bribes. This has contributed to diminished ethical standards.

    What’s in place to punish police excesses?

    Kenya has several formal avenues for holding police accountable. But all are deeply flawed.

    Independent Policing Oversight Authority: This was established in 2011 in light of the post-election violence of 2007-08. Its job was to independently investigate police misconduct. However, underfunding and understaffing has led to delayed investigations.

    There has also been a lack of cooperation from the police. They often fail to provide evidence or deliberately provide misleading information to impede investigations.

    The authority also has limited enforcement power. It has recommended thousands of prosecutions of rogue officers. However, it has seen low conviction rates given the slow processes at the judiciary and Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

    Internal Affairs Unit: This is a critical oversight body. It’s mandated to provide accountability and professional discipline within the police service. It’s tasked with investigating public complaints and complaints from within the police service against police officers.

    The unit can recommend to the National Police Service Commission disciplinary action – such as prosecution or dismissal – against officers it finds guilty. It also monitors police officers to ensure that ethical conduct and professional standards are maintained.

    However, the unit faces perceptions of a lack of independence and as an internal cover-up tool. In many instances, cases of police misconduct are simply punished by a transfer to another station.

    Judiciary and Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions: Cases take years to move through the judicial system. Convictions are rare. The public prosecutions office has faced accusations of bias, which it exhibits through its reluctance to prosecute high-profile police killings.

    The time it takes to conclude police misconduct cases allows impunity to thrive. Deliberately poor investigations carried out by the police (who are also suspects) have led to collapsed cases.

    National Police Service Commission: This was established by the 2010 Kenyan constitution. The commission recruits and appoints police officers (except the inspector-general of police, who is appointed by the president with parliamentary approval). It also promotes, transfers and disciplines police officers.

    However, the commission has faced claims of being unduly influenced by the inspector-general’s office in recruitment and promotions. This undermines its independence.




    Read more:
    How Nairobi police failures let people get away with murder


    Civil society and the media: Organisations like Amnesty International Kenya and the Kenya Human Rights Commission document police abuses. But their reports rarely, if ever, lead to any real action being taken. The media’s attention and reporting of cases may exert temporary pressure but this doesn’t seem to have any long-term impact.

    Why haven’t these mechanisms worked?

    Firstly, there’s an institutional resistance to reform. Powerful factions in the police and government benefit from the current system. Whenever there is an attempt at enforcing accountability, these senior officials take advantage of bureaucratic delays, and harass investigators and whistleblowers.

    In extreme cases, they enforce the disappearance of witnesses.

    Secondly, a lack of political will creates a favourable environment to circumvent constitutional frameworks. This ultimately weakens any chances of accountability. At best, police in Kenya are used to defend political interests and suppress dissent.

    This emboldens powerful political players who want the police to be controllable. This dissuades them from instituting actual reforms and establishing a humane policing service.

    What will change things?

    Until those in leadership positions genuinely prioritise independent institutions and justice over transient political gains, significant police reform is unlikely to be realised.

    Elements of such reform would include steps to:

    Strengthen police oversight and guarantee independence

    The Independent Policing Oversight Authority Act needs to be amended to enhance autonomy. The current system is easy for the president to manipulate because he gets to appoint the authority’s commissioners.

    There’s also a need to provide the authority with equipment. This includes ballistics analysis, digital forensics and crime scene reconstruction capabilities to combat police cover-ups.

    The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions must also be required to respond to the authority’s recommendations within 30 days. Currently, cases can take years to complete. There have been instances when rogue police have used this window to eliminate witnesses or tamper with evidence.

    Overhaul police training and culture

    There must be a move away from paramilitary-style drills and procedures in training. Instead, officers need to practise de-escalation, communication and problem-solving tactics with the public. What exists within Kenya now is a paramilitary service not a police service.

    Additionally, the police service commission needs to reward professionalism and not cronyism.

    Judicial and prosecutorial reforms

    Ending police impunity in Kenya requires a multi-pronged approach. This involves judicial independence, vigorous prosecution, meaningful oversight, legislative changes and public engagement.

    But this requires meaningful political will.

    Political accountability

    Continued police impunity has eroded public confidence in Kenya’s policing and justice systems. The policing oversight authority needs sufficient funding – free of political interference – to investigate and prosecute police misconduct. Senior officers should be held accountable for not disciplining rogue officers under their charge. The presidency and interior ministry must have a zero-tolerance policy toward police brutality.

    If Kenya doesn’t grapple with police impunity, then the anniversary of the June 2024 protests will be just another date in history when the state brutally attacked, maimed and killed its own citizenry. And still managed to silence them.

    Douglas Lucas Kivoi does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Kenya’s brutal police have been exposed again – why the system fails people – https://theconversation.com/kenyas-brutal-police-have-been-exposed-again-why-the-system-fails-people-258843

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Sam Fender’s music offers a vision of masculinity that is complex, conflicted and deeply human

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nick Robinson, Associate Professor in Politics and International Studies, University of Leeds

    By the end of June 2025, Sam Fender will have played four stadium shows to nearly 250,000 people across the UK, with three of those in his native north east. With three albums and over 2 billion streams, his music has earned widespread acclaim. Yet, Fender is no ordinary rock star.

    His songs provide a powerful connection to place and a lens through which to reflect on social, cultural and political dynamics. Deeply rooted in north-east England, Fender’s lyrics reference his hometown of North Shields and use local vernacular.

    As a researcher of the links between popular culture and politics who lives less than a mile from his hometown, I find his work particularly powerful in the way it mobilises emotive issues at scale. Fender explores themes such as masculinity, poverty and everyday struggle, forging a direct emotional connection with his audience.

    This connection is reinforced by his activism. Fender supports local food banks, the Teenage Cancer Trust, and campaigns for poverty reduction and men’s mental health.

    To my mind, this work is not performative celebratory activism, but is grounded in his own community and personal experiences. This combination of commercial success rooted in honesty, vulnerability and community action led to him being named “freeman of North Tyneside” in May 2025.



    Boys and girls are together facing an uncertain world. But research shows they are diverging when it comes to attitudes about masculinity, feminism and gender equality.

    Social media, politics, and identity all play a role. But what’s really going on with boys and girls? Join The Conversation UK and Cumberland Lodge’s Youth and Democracy project at Newcastle University for a discussion of these issues with young people and academic experts. Tickets available here.


    Fender’s teenage years were marked by personal challenges, including his parents’ separation and his mother’s fibromyalgia. These experiences, and the state’s failure to support those in need, are captured in his song Seventeen Going Under (2021): “I came home and you were on the floor / Floored by the letters and the council rigmarole.”

    His latest album, People Watching (2025), continues this critique. The title track, inspired by the death of a close friend in a care home, laments:

    The place was fallin’ to bits

    Understaffed and overruled by callous hands

    The poor nurse was around the clock

    And the beauty of youth had left my breaking heart.

    The music video for People Watching.

    For Fender, these stories reflect a Britain in decline. In Crumbling Empire, he sings: “Road like the surface of the moon / A Detroit neighbourhood left to ruin.” The song further critiques a society that fails to honour those who have given everything:

    My mother delivered most the kids in this town

    My step-dad drove in a tank for the crown

    They left them homeless, down and out

    In their crumbling empire.

    His message is clear: hard work, even by midwives and war heroes, no longer guarantees dignity or reward.

    Fender’s most poignant observations are rooted in his locality. In Nostalgia’s Lie, he sings: “These streets break my heart / There’s pain unfurling and desperate yearning / For all my friends who are gone.”

    North Shields has some of the highest rates of child poverty in the UK. According to the North East Child Poverty Commission (March 2025), 31% of children in the region lived below the poverty line between 2021 and 2024.


    Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.


    In this context, Fender places mental health – especially male mental health – at the core of his work, made even more powerful by his honesty about his own struggles.

    Dead Boys reflects both personal loss and the epidemic of male suicide in North Tyneside: “We close our eyes, learn our pain / Nobody ever could explain / All the dead boys in our hometown.”

    In Something Heavy, he adds: “My friends reached for the rope and tied / Oh, God, how can we keep missing signals?”

    Fender performs Dead Boys in Manchester.

    Fender’s engagement with mental health is deeply personal. He wrestles with confusion, despondency, and his own sense of self-esteem: “Though I am a soundboard to some / With myself I am not so forgiving” (Last to Make it Home), and “Sometimes I wanna die, sometimes” (Paradigms).

    In Good Company, he confesses: “Sometimes I cry until there’s no sound,” and in Arm’s Length: “Do you have to know me, know me, inside out / I’m selfish, and I’m lonely.”

    Yet, like many artists, Fender feels guilt that success has uprooted him. In Wild Long Lie, he reflects: “Oh, I’ve got so much pain here, yet so much love / But it’s drownin’ every inch of my soul.” He questions whether he can still authentically raise these issues now that fame has distanced him from his past. As he puts it in Crumbling Empire:

    I’m not preaching, I’m just talking

    I don’t wear the shoes I used to walk in

    But I can’t help thinking where I’d be

    In this crumbling empire.

    Fender’s work helps us understand political and social phenomena by reflecting unfolding events. His songs can be seen as giving life and voice to what political theorist Michael Shapiro calls an “aesthetic subject”.

    The characters in his songs, whether autobiographical or imagined, give voice to communities which are so often ignored. They allow exploration of the structures of power that deny working-class people opportunities, contributing to mental health crises, suicide and spiralling drug use within those communities.

    Sam Fender talks about men’s mental health.

    Even though Fender acknowledges he no longer walks in the same shoes, his songs still speak truth to power. They give voice to experiences that are often ignored and expose the increasing struggle of everyday life in the UK and beyond.

    He also offers a nuanced reflection on masculinity. Fender challenges traditional ideals – rational, authoritative, emotionally restrained – while rejecting simplified portrayals of men as weak or unstable. His songs reveal a masculinity that is complex, conflicted and deeply human.

    While Fender is not alone in using music for social commentary, what sets him apart is his ability to channel the spirit of his local community to explore universal themes. His work critiques the failures of contemporary capitalism to provide dignity, respect, and cohesion – issues that resonate deeply amid today’s cultural, political and economic challenges.

    Nick Robinson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Sam Fender’s music offers a vision of masculinity that is complex, conflicted and deeply human – https://theconversation.com/sam-fenders-music-offers-a-vision-of-masculinity-that-is-complex-conflicted-and-deeply-human-258530

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Marine fungi could help feed the world and fight disease

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Michael Cunliffe, Professor of Marine Microbiology, School of Biological and Marine Sciences, University of Plymouth

    Fungi are nature’s recyclers and chemists, turning waste into useful products and creating an array of enzymes and compounds. By harnessing this potential through fungal biotechnology (using fungi to develop products and technologies for various applications), we can create sustainable materials, food and processes that help solve global challenges like food shortages, pollution and climate change.

    Fungal biotechnology supports a “circular economy”, where resources are reused instead of wasted. Fungi can help make our food supply more stable and eco-friendly, while cutting greenhouse gas emissions. But to fully unlock what is possible, we need to better understand different fungi and develop new tools to work with them to find solutions.

    The marine environment is home to a rich diversity of fungi. However, marine fungi were once overlooked and not widely considered for their biotechnological potential.



    Local science, global stories.

    This article is part of a series, Secrets of the Sea, exploring how marine scientists are developing climate solutions.

    In collaboration with the BBC, The Conversation’s senior environment editor, Anna Turns, travels around the West Country coastline to meet ocean experts making exciting discoveries beneath the waves.


    Now, my team of scientists at the Marine Biological Association, a research institution based in Plymouth on the south-west coast of England, has changed that. By gathering over 500 fungal strains from seawater, sediments and seaweeds, we have created a comprehensive marine fungi culture collection.

    These fungi are stored at -80°C and studied at temperatures similar to the local shoreline they are from. This unique collection is already helping us learn more about marine fungi, including how they grow and adapt to different environments.

    My colleagues and I are now exploring how these marine fungi, especially those from seaweed, can be used in biotechnology to create more useful, sustainable products in the future.

    The European seaweed industry is growing fast and could be worth up to €9.3 billion (£7.8 billion) by 2030. Seaweed farming doesn’t need land, fresh water or fertiliser, and it can support ocean health.

    Marine fungi, especially those originally isolated from seaweed, could recycle seaweed into valuable products.

    At the Marine Biological Association, we are testing many combinations of different seaweeds and fungi to discover new uses. This approach could help make the seaweed industry stronger, more efficient and better for the environment.

    The future is fungal

    Feeding the world’s growing population is a major challenge, especially with nearly a billion people unable to afford nutritious food and the environmental consequences of high meat consumption. One promising alternative protein source involves using seaweed and fermenting it with marine fungi to create a nutritious protein source called mycoprotein – similar to what’s found in some current commercial products.

    Antimicrobial resistance – the development of superbugs that become resistant to antibiotics as a result of their overuse – is a global health threat. This makes it harder to treat infections. Fungi naturally produce chemicals to protect themselves from other microbes, and several antibiotics come from fungi, including penicillin. Marine fungi could be a valuable new source of antibiotics and drug treatments to fight resistant infections and protect public health.

    Pests and the diseases they spread cause major crop losses worldwide, threatening food security. Traditional chemical pesticides are becoming less effective and can harm helpful species like pollinators, while also leading to pest resistance.

    Scientists are now exploring ways to target pests by using microbes without damaging the environment. One promising but unexplored source is marine fungi. Marine fungi and the arsenal of chemical compounds they produce may hold the key to developing new, eco-friendly pest control methods that protect crops while supporting wildlife and sustainable farming practices.

    Our marine fungi culture collection is helping unlock the potential for finding new solutions to many of the world’s biggest challenges.

    Listen to episode four of Secrets of the Sea here on BBC Sounds, presented by Anna Turns for The Conversation.


    Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

    Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.


    Michael Cunliffe received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) for the project MYCO-CARB and currently receives funding from the UKRI Horizon Europe Guarantee scheme for the projects MARCO-BOLO and BIOcean5D. PhD students in the Cunliffe Group are supported by the UKRI BBSRC/NERC SWBio, ARIES and INSPIRE Doctoral Training Partnerships and the Marine Biological Association.

    ref. Marine fungi could help feed the world and fight disease – https://theconversation.com/marine-fungi-could-help-feed-the-world-and-fight-disease-251194

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Your next summer read and our award-winning podcasts – what you should read, watch, see and listen to this week

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Naomi Joseph, Arts + Culture Editor

    The Women’s prize was founded in 1991 in bold riposte to the year’s all-male Booker prize shortlist. It’s funny to think how male-dominated the industry once was when you look at it now. There has been a real renaissance in literary fiction by women since then. Take last year’s Booker prize shortlist where the only male writer nominated was Percival Everett for his brilliant book James.

    That women dominate the literary landscape has not diminished the need for the Women’s prize, however. In fact, I would say it has grown in boldness and depth, now taking on non-fiction, a world still dominated by men. The prize has also launched their first outstanding contribution award, which this year was won by the inimitable Bernadine Evaristo.

    This year’s shortlisted books are a testament to the depth and variety of fiction being written by women. From a multi-generational tale of one Iranaian family to a daring and laugh-out-loud comedy about the rehabilitation of Isis brides by a researcher who worked for the UN doing just that. It serves as a perfect summer reading list. I have read four of the books so far and have loved every single one for very different reasons.

    This year’s winner, The Safekeep by Yael van der Woeden, is a queer romance exploring the lesser-documented consequences of the second world war in the 1980s Netherlands. It’s a book I have gifted several times already and might be my favourite book of 2024. I would also recommend reading last year’s winner, Brotherless Night by V.V. Ganeshananthan, which has made its way slowly around The Conversation newsroom.




    Read more:
    Women’s prize for fiction 2025: six experts review the shortlisted novels


    Scotland on screen

    Set in Edinburgh, Netflix’s Dept. Q follows arrogant maverick detective Carl Mork (Matthew Goode) whose hubris got him shot through the neck, his partner paralysed and a rookie officer killed. Back at work after this horrifying ordeal, he’s wracked with survivor’s guilt and more than a touch of post traumatic stress disorder. He’s been banished to the basement to lead a new cold case unit.

    Surprisingly, instead of being the fool’s errand his commander thinks Dept. Q will be, Mork and his rag tag team find themselves suited to this sort of work. Rather than throw him completely off his game, his new obsessive qualities and hyper-awareness of negative stimuli actually make him better at his job. Our reviewer, an expert in psychological vulnerabilities, analytical thinking patterns and cognitive processing styles, thoroughly enjoyed the show and found it really chimed with his research into how trauma can change the brain.




    Read more:
    Netflix’s Dept Q. suggests that psychological trauma might help a detective investigate – neuroscience backs this up


    From a Scottish detective crime thriller series to a Scottish samurai-western film. Yes, you read that right. Tornado is a revenge tale about a young samurai performer on the run from a gang of bandits in 18th-century Scotland. It might seem like an odd splicing of genres, but in his review film studies scholar Jonathan Wroot argues that the two have a long-shared history. Both westerns and samurai films envision a world full of lone warriors, greedy gangs, wild landscapes, epic struggles and, of course, violence.




    Read more:
    Tornado is a Scottish samurai-western film – genres with a long-shared history


    Tornado is in cinemas now

    Big birthdays and news

    This year marks the 250th birthday of Jane Austen and JMW Turner. Though the pair never met, both were great documenters of Regency England. A new exhibition at Leeds’s Harewood House explores the common threads in their work in relation to the cultural and societal significance of British country houses and their landscapes.

    At Austen and Turner: A Country House Encounter, visitors will be able to look upon rarely seen paintings and manuscripts, including the unfinished manuscript of Austen’s last work, Sanditon. Our reviewer, an expert in literature, found it wonderfully brought to life the reality of the landed aristocracy of the time. It’s sure to move anyone who has an interest in art and history.




    Read more:
    Austen and Turner: A Country House Encounter captures the spirit of two great geniuses, born 250 years ago


    Our final recommendation is our own podcast. This week a series of Conversation products were nominated at the Publisher podcast and newsletter awards, including Something Good. While we didn’t win, The Conversation did take home the big podcast prize, being named podcast publisher of the year.

    The Conversation Weekly talks to academics about their discoveries and explores the big questions they are still trying to answer.

    This week we take you to Indonesia where conservation scientist Hollie Booth trialled a programme paying fishermen to release any sharks and rays accidentally caught in their nets in the hope it would help to keep more alive. Listen to Booth and her colleague M. Said Ramdlan discuss the unintended consequences of the incentive programme.

    We also can’t recommend the limited series podcast Scam Factories enough, which took home best investigative podcast. The three-part series takes you inside the world of scammers, many of whom are often victims too.




    Read more:
    Cash for sharks: the unintended consequences of paying fishermen to release sharks caught in their nets – podcast





    Read more:
    Scam Factories: the inside story of Southeast Asia’s brutal fraud compounds


    ref. Your next summer read and our award-winning podcasts – what you should read, watch, see and listen to this week – https://theconversation.com/your-next-summer-read-and-our-award-winning-podcasts-what-you-should-read-watch-see-and-listen-to-this-week-257747

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Troops on US streets in more ways than one while Trump considers axing Aukus defence pact

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rachael Jolley, International Affairs Editor

    This article was first published in The Conversation UK’s World Affairs Briefing email newsletter. Sign up to receive weekly analysis of the latest developments in international relations, direct to your inbox.


    It’s Donald Trump’s birthday this weekend, and he is planning a big bash to celebrate. There will be a full-colour parade in the nation’s capital. Expected to attend are a whole bunch of military vehicles, from a second world war bomber to M1 Abrams battle tanks to Paladin self-propelled howitzers.

    The cavalcade will take a route through the grander streets of Washington DC making its way along Constitution Avenue all the way to the Lincoln memorial, with an expected 6,600 soldiers in attendance. The whole thing is estimated by the Associated Press to cost around US$45 million (£33 million).

    This splashy show of Trump’s power and the US’s military strength could serve as a warning to anyone who was thinking of crossing the US right now. Trump is, of course, the commander-in-chief of the US forces. And he was using the full strength of his position, some argue going beyond it, when he sent the national guard and the marines – bypassing the state governor – to the streets of Los Angeles in the past few days.

    There are now, according to ABC News, more US troops on the streets of LA than in Syria and Iraq. This was necessary, Trump claimed, to address protests over immigration raids that broke out around LA. Something that Sean Parnell, chief Pentagon spokesperson, said this week was “exactly what the American people voted for”.

    While Trump is testing how far he can flex his political and military muscle at home, as the Open University’s Sinead McEneaney has detailed, he is also using what some historians have called unprecedented use of power, by sending in the marines to take action against Americans, while California governor Gavin Newsom said the troops were not wanted, or needed.




    Read more:
    Trump’s clash with California governor over LA protests has potential to influence next presidential race


    Newsom is pushing back hard, and publicly, against Trump. Something, that Natasha Lindstaedt at the University of Essex, believes could propel Newsom higher up the Democrat selection list for a presidential nomination.




    Read more:
    Trump’s use of the national guard against LA protesters defies all precedents



    Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.


    While signalling his military strength to those on the streets of California, Trump has also been sending a strong message to his erstwhile international allies that he might not be quite as willing to share his military hardware with them as they might have thought they had been promised. The US administration has opened a review of the Aukus (the Australia, UK and US defence pact) and in particular its nuclear submarine deal, to see whether it meets the “America first” criteria. This deal was due to help all three countries scale up their submarine capacity.

    Australia already transferred US$500 million to the US this year, as part of a down payment on the deal, with the expectation of receiving used US submarines in the near future. Canberra and London have been speedily revising their reliance on Trump as a security partner in the past few months. This is yet another signal from Washington that they definitely should.

    John Blaxland , a professor at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University, argues that Trump is angling to renegotiate the Aukus deal but won’t scrap it.

    “There are a few key reasons for this. We’re several years down the track already. We have more than 100 Australian sailors already operating in the US system. Industrially, we’re on the cusp of making a significant additional contribution to the US submarine production line. And finally, most people don’t fully appreciate that the submarine base just outside Perth is an incredibly consequential piece of real estate for US security calculations.”




    Read more:
    Trump may try to strike a deal with AUKUS review, but here’s why he won’t sink it


    Meanwhile, Mark Beeson, an adjunct professor at the University of Technology Sydney and Griffith University, believes that Australia is locked into the foreign and strategic policies of “an increasingly polarised, authoritarian and unpredictable regime” and should rethink its international relationships.

    Beeson quotes an essay from another Australian academic, Hugh White, from Australian National University: “It is classic Trump to expect more and more from allies while he offers them less and less.”




    Read more:
    Goodbye to all that? Rethinking Australia’s alliance with Trump’s America


    Russia’s battlefield count

    In a military arena where most of the world would like Trump to apply a little more pressure, he continues to hold back and Vladimir Putin continues not to do a peace deal. Putin showed no sign of calling off his troops (or drones) from attacking Ukraine this week.

    But as the onslaught continued Russia is expected to hit a horrific target this month, 1 million casualties in the war. Hundreds of thousands of Russians have died forcing Putin to get increasingly creative in coming up with ways to fill the gaps on the battlefields.

    According to some reports he is sending the wounded back to fight before they are fully recovered, as well as offering large financial incentives to those who join up, and their families. The conflict continues and the death toll does, too. As Russian politics expert Jenny Mathers at the University of Aberystwyth points out, even before the war the country had a demographic crisis, and now that is even more extreme.

    Russian women who want to earn the newly reinstated “Mother Heroine” award by bearing and raising ten or more children may struggle to find men to father them now, and after the war. Putin, like Trump, is fond of suggesting there is a glowing future for those who support him. The Russian leader has even created a Time of Heroes programme for war veterans who are promised a fast track into an elite career on their return from battle. Whether, of course, they do return when an estimated 53 casualties are being lost per square kilometre of land gained in eastern Ukraine is not a gamble many would like to take.




    Read more:
    Putin forced to send wounded back to fight and offer huge military salaries as Russia suffers a million casualties



    Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.


    ref. Troops on US streets in more ways than one while Trump considers axing Aukus defence pact – https://theconversation.com/troops-on-us-streets-in-more-ways-than-one-while-trump-considers-axing-aukus-defence-pact-258874

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Southern Baptists’ call for the US Supreme Court to overturn its same-sex marriage decision is part of a long history of opposing women’s and LGBTQ+ people’s rights

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Susan M. Shaw, Professor of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, Oregon State University

    A worship session at the 2025 Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting on June 10, 2025, in Dallas. AP Photo/Richard W. Rodriguez

    The Southern Baptist Convention has lost 3.6 million members over the past two decades and faces an ongoing sexual abuse crisis. At its June 2025 annual meeting, however, neither of those issues took up as much time as controversial social issues, including the denomination’s stance on same-sex marriage.

    The group called for the overturning of Obergefell v. Hodges – the Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage – and the creation of laws that “affirm marriage between one man and one woman.”

    Messengers – Southern Baptists’ word for delegates from local churches – also asked for laws that would “reflect the moral order revealed in Scripture and nature.”

    They also decried declining fertility rates, commercial surrogacy, Planned Parenthood, “willful childlessness,” the normalization of “transgender ideology,” and gender-affirming medical care.

    This detailed list targeting women’s and LGBTQ+ rights was justified by an appeal to a God-ordained created order, as defined by Southern Baptists’ interpretation of the Bible.

    In this created order, sex and gender are synonymous and are irrevocably defined by biology. The heterosexual nuclear family is the foundational institution of this order, with the father dominant over his wife and children – and children are a necessity if husbands and wives are to be faithful to God’s design for the family.

    The resolution, On Restoring Moral Clarity through God’s Design for Gender, Marriage, and the Family, passed easily in a denomination that was taken over from more moderate Southern Baptists by fundamentalists in the early 1990s, largely in response to women’s progress in society and in the denomination.

    Southern Baptists were always conservative on issues of gender and sexuality. As I was entering a Southern Baptist seminary in the early 1980s, the denomination seemed poised to embrace social progress. I watched the takeover firsthand as a student and then as a professor of women and gender studies who studies Southern Baptists. This new resolution is the latest in a long history of Southern Baptist opposition to the progress of women and LGBTQ+ people.

    Opposing LGBTQ+ rights

    Throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s, many Southern Baptists began to embrace the women’s movement. Women started to attend Southern Baptist seminaries in record numbers, many claiming a call to serve as pastors. While Southern Baptist acceptance of LGBTQ+ people lagged far behind its nascent embrace of women’s rights, progress did seem possible.

    Then in 1979, a group of Southern Baptist fundamentalists organized to wrest control of the denomination from the moderates who had led it for decades.

    Any hope for progress on changes regarding LGBTQ+ rights in the denomination quickly died. Across the next two decades, advances made by women, such as being ordained and serving as senior pastors, eroded and disappeared.

    The SBC had passed anti-gay resolutions in the 1970s defining homosexuality as “deviant” and a “sin.” But under the new fundamentalist rule, the SBC became even more vehemently anti-gay and anti-trans.

    In 1988, the SBC called homosexuality a “perversion of divine standards,” “a violation of nature and natural affections,” “not a normal lifestyle,” and “an abomination in the eyes of God.”

    In 1991, they decried government funding for the National Lesbian and Gay Health Conference as a violation of “the proper role and responsibility of government” because of its encouragement of “sexual immorality.”

    Predictably, across the years, the convention spoke out against every effort to advance LGBTQ+ rights. This included supporting the Boy Scouts’ ban of gay scouts, opposing military service by LGBTQ+ people, boycotting Disney for its support of LGBTQ+ people, calling on businesses to deny LGBTQ+ people domestic partner benefits and employment nondiscrimination to protect LGBTQ+ people, and supporting the Defense of Marriage Act that limited marriage to a woman and a man.

    Targeting same-sex marriage

    The gender and sexuality topic, however, that has received the most attention from the convention has been marriage equality. Since 1980, the SBC has passed 22 resolutions that touch on same-sex marriage.

    The SBC passed its first resolution against same-sex marriage in 1996 after the Hawaii Supreme Court indicated the possibility it could rule in favor of same-sex marriage. The court never decided the issue because Hawaii’s Legislature passed a bill defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

    In 1998, the convention amended its faith statement, the Baptist Faith and Message, to define marriage as “the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment.”

    The denomination passed its next resolution in 2003 in response to the Vermont General Assembly’s establishment of civil unions. The resolution opposed any efforts to validate same-sex marriages or partnerships, whether legislative, judicial or religious.

    In 2004, after the Massachusetts Supreme Court allowed same-sex marriages in that state, the convention called for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. It reiterated this call in 2006.

    When the California Supreme Court struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, the SBC passed another resolution in 2008 warning of the dire consequences of allowing lesbians and gay men to marry, as people from other states would marry in California and return home to challenge their states’ marriage bans.

    In 2011, the convention offered its support for the Defense of Marriage Act, followed in 2012 by a denunciation of the use of civil rights language to argue for marriage equality.

    Delegates at a Southern Baptist Convention meeting in 2012 in New Orleans.
    AP Photo/Gerald Herbert

    The resolution argues that homosexuality “does not qualify as a class meriting special protections, like race and gender.”

    When Obergefell was before the Supreme Court, the SBC called on the court to deny marriage equality. After Obergefell was decided in favor of same-sex marriage, the convention asked for Congress to pass the First Amendment Defense Act, which would have prohibited the federal government from discriminating against people based on their opposition to same-sex marriage. That same resolution also offers its support to state attorneys general challenging transgender rights.

    Opposing transgender people

    Messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention listen to remarks by its president, Clint Pressley, during the 2025 SBC annual meeting in Dallas.
    AP Photo/Richard W. Rodriguez

    This was not the first time the SBC had spoken about transgender issues. As early as 2007, the denomination expressed its opposition to allowing transgender people to constitute a protected class in hate crimes legislation.

    In 2014, the convention stated its belief that gender is fixed and binary and subsequently that trans people should not be allowed gender-affirming care and that government officials should not validate transgender identity.

    In 2016, the denomination opposed access for transgender people to bathrooms matching their gender identities. In 2021, the convention invoked women’s rights – in a denomination famous for its resistance to women’s equality – as a reason to undermine trans rights.

    In its resolution opposing the proposed Equality Act, which would have added sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classifications, the SBC argued, “The Equality Act would undermine decades of hard-fought civil rights protections for women and girls by threatening competition in sports and disregarding the privacy concerns women rightly have about sharing sleeping quarters and intimate facilities with members of the opposite sex.”

    This most recent resolution from June 2025 returns to the themes of fixed and binary gender, a divinely sanctioned hierarchical ordering of gender, and marriage as an institution limited to one woman and one man. While claiming these beliefs are “universal truths,” the resolution argues that Obergefell is a “legal fiction” because it denies the biological reality of male and female.

    Going further, this resolution claims that U.S. law on gender and sexuality should be based on the Bible. The duty of lawmakers, it states, is to “pass laws that reflect the truth of creation and natural law – about marriage, sex, human life, and family – and to oppose any law that denies or undermines what God has made plain through nature and Scripture.”

    By taking no action on sexual abuse while focusing its efforts on issues of gender and sexuality, the convention affirmed its decades-long conservative trajectory. It also underlined its willingness to encourage lawmakers to impose these standards on the rest of the nation.

    Susan M. Shaw does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Southern Baptists’ call for the US Supreme Court to overturn its same-sex marriage decision is part of a long history of opposing women’s and LGBTQ+ people’s rights – https://theconversation.com/southern-baptists-call-for-the-us-supreme-court-to-overturn-its-same-sex-marriage-decision-is-part-of-a-long-history-of-opposing-womens-and-lgbtq-peoples-rights-258883

    MIL OSI Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Protecting the vulnerable, or automating harm? AI’s double-edged role in spotting abuse

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Aislinn Conrad, Associate Professor of Social Work, University of Iowa

    AI can help maximize resources in strapped systems trying to protect vulnerable people – but it can also risk replicating harm or privacy violations. Courtney Hale/E+ via Getty Images

    Artificial intelligence is rapidly being adopted to help prevent abuse and protect vulnerable people – including children in foster care, adults in nursing homes and students in schools. These tools promise to detect danger in real time and alert authorities before serious harm occurs.

    Developers are using natural language processing, for example — a form of AI that interprets written or spoken language – to try to detect patterns of threats, manipulation and control in text messages. This information could help detect domestic abuse and potentially assist courts or law enforcement in early intervention. Some child welfare agencies use predictive modeling, another common AI technique, to calculate which families or individuals are most “at risk” for abuse.

    When thoughtfully implemented, AI tools have the potential to enhance safety and efficiency. For instance, predictive models have assisted social workers to prioritize high-risk cases and intervene earlier.

    But as a social worker with 15 years of experience researching family violence – and five years on the front lines as a foster-care case manager, child abuse investigator and early childhood coordinator – I’ve seen how well-intentioned systems often fail the very people they are meant to protect.

    Now, I am helping to develop iCare, an AI-powered surveillance camera that analyzes limb movements – not faces or voices – to detect physical violence. I’m grappling with a critical question: Can AI truly help safeguard vulnerable people, or is it just automating the same systems that have long caused them harm?

    New tech, old injustice

    Many AI tools are trained to “learn” by analyzing historical data. But history is full of inequality, bias and flawed assumptions. So are people, who design, test and fund AI.

    That means AI algorithms can wind up replicating systemic forms of discrimination, like racism or classism. A 2022 study in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, found that a predictive risk model to score families’ risk levels – scores given to hotline staff to help them screen calls – would have flagged Black children for investigation 20% more often than white children, if used without human oversight. When social workers were included in decision-making, that disparity dropped to 9%.

    Language-based AI can also reinforce bias. For instance, one study showed that natural language processing systems misclassified African American Vernacular English as “aggressive” at a significantly higher rate than Standard American English — up to 62% more often, in certain contexts.

    Meanwhile, a 2023 study found that AI models often struggle with context clues, meaning sarcastic or joking messages can be misclassified as serious threats or signs of distress.

    Language-processing AI isn’t always great at judging what counts as a threat or concern.
    NickyLloyd/E+ via Getty Images

    These flaws can replicate larger problems in protective systems. People of color have long been over-surveilled in child welfare systems — sometimes due to cultural misunderstandings, sometimes due to prejudice. Studies have shown that Black and Indigenous families face disproportionately higher rates of reporting, investigation and family separation compared with white families, even after accounting for income and other socioeconomic factors.

    Many of these disparities stem from structural racism embedded in decades of discriminatory policy decisions, as well as implicit biases and discretionary decision-making by overburdened caseworkers.

    Surveillance over support

    Even when AI systems do reduce harm toward vulnerable groups, they often do so at a disturbing cost.

    In hospitals and elder-care facilities, for example, AI-enabled cameras have been used to detect physical aggression between staff, visitors and residents. While commercial vendors promote these tools as safety innovations, their use raises serious ethical concerns about the balance between protection and privacy.

    In a 2022 pilot program in Australia, AI camera systems deployed in two care homes generated more than 12,000 false alerts over 12 months – overwhelming staff and missing at least one real incident. The program’s accuracy did “not achieve a level that would be considered acceptable to staff and management,” according to the independent report.

    Surveillance cameras in care homes can help detect abuse, but they raise serious questions about privacy.
    kazuma seki/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    Children are affected, too. In U.S. schools, AI surveillance like Gaggle, GoGuardian and Securly are marketed as tools to keep students safe. Such programs can be installed on students’ devices to monitor online activity and flag anything concerning.

    But they’ve also been shown to flag harmless behaviors – like writing short stories with mild violence, or researching topics related to mental health. As an Associated Press investigation revealed, these systems have also outed LGBTQ+ students to parents or school administrators by monitoring searches or conversations about gender and sexuality.

    Other systems use classroom cameras and microphones to detect “aggression.” But they frequently misidentify normal behavior like laughing, coughing or roughhousing — sometimes prompting intervention or discipline.

    These are not isolated technical glitches; they reflect deep flaws in how AI is trained and deployed. AI systems learn from past data that has been selected and labeled by humans — data that often reflects social inequalities and biases. As sociologist Virginia Eubanks wrote in “Automating Inequality,” AI systems risk scaling up these long-standing harms.

    Care, not punishment

    I believe AI can still be a force for good, but only if its developers prioritize the dignity of the people these tools are meant to protect. I’ve developed a framework of four key principles for what I call “trauma-responsive AI.”

    1. Survivor control: People should have a say in how, when and if they’re monitored. Providing users with greater control over their data can enhance trust in AI systems and increase their engagement with support services, such as creating personalized plans to stay safe or access help.

    2. Human oversight: Studies show that combining social workers’ expertise with AI support improves fairness and reduces child maltreatment – as in Allegheny County, where caseworkers used algorithmic risk scores as one factor, alongside their professional judgment, to decide which child abuse reports to investigate.

    3. Bias auditing: Governments and developers are increasingly encouraged to test AI systems for racial and economic bias. Open-source tools like IBM’s AI Fairness 360, Google’s What-If Tool, and Fairlearn assist in detecting and reducing such biases in machine learning models.

    4. Privacy by design: Technology should be built to protect people’s dignity. Open-source tools like Amnesia, Google’s differential privacy library and Microsoft’s SmartNoise help anonymize sensitive data by removing or obscuring identifiable information. Additionally, AI-powered techniques, such as facial blurring, can anonymize people’s identities in video or photo data.

    Honoring these principles means building systems that respond with care, not punishment.

    Some promising models are already emerging. The Coalition Against Stalkerware and its partners advocate to include survivors in all stages of tech development – from needs assessments to user testing and ethical oversight.

    Legislation is important, too. On May 5, 2025, for example, Montana’s governor signed a law restricting state and local government from using AI to make automated decisions about individuals without meaningful human oversight. It requires transparency about how AI is used in government systems and prohibits discriminatory profiling.

    As I tell my students, innovative interventions should disrupt cycles of harm, not perpetuate them. AI will never replace the human capacity for context and compassion. But with the right values at the center, it might help us deliver more of it.

    Aislinn Conrad is developing iCare, an AI-powered, real-time violence detection system.

    ref. Protecting the vulnerable, or automating harm? AI’s double-edged role in spotting abuse – https://theconversation.com/protecting-the-vulnerable-or-automating-harm-ais-double-edged-role-in-spotting-abuse-256403

    MIL OSI Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Colorado’s fentanyl criminalization bill won’t solve the opioid epidemic, say the people most affected

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Katherine LeMasters, Assistant Professor of Medicine, University of Colorado Boulder

    The people most impacted by Colorado’s fentanyl criminalization bill have divergent views on the role of the legal system in curbing the opioid epidemic. Erik McGregor/GettyImages

    Colorado passed the Fentanyl Accountability and Prevention Bill in May 2022. The legislation made the possession of small amounts of fentanyl a felony, rather than a misdemeanor.

    Felonies are more likely than misdemeanors to result in a prison sentence.

    Time in prison is associated with an increased risk of fatal overdose in the year after release. People with felonies on their record often struggle to find a job or rent an apartment.

    In 2023, lawmakers in 46 states passed legislation similar to Colorado’s. They introduced more than 600 bills related to fentanyl criminalization and enacted over 100 other laws to attempt to curb the opioid epidemic.

    Possession of small amounts of ketamine, GHB and other criminalized drugs is also a felony in Colorado.

    I’m an assistant professor of medicine, social epidemiologist and community researcher who studies mass incarceration as a public health threat. I am a member of the Right Response Coalition, which advocates for community rather than criminal-legal responses to behavioral health needs in Colorado. Recently, my work has focused on how increasing criminal penalties for fentanyl possession in Colorado affects the individuals and communities most impacted by such laws.

    Our team conducted 31 interviews with Colorado policymakers, peer support specialists, law enforcement, community behavioral health providers and people providing behavioral health in prisons and jails to explore a variety of perspectives on Colorado’s Fentanyl Accountability and Prevention Bill and the role of the criminal-legal system in addressing substance use and overdose.

    Most of our interviewees agreed that criminalization alone wouldn’t solve the opioid epidemic.

    “You can’t incarcerate yourself to sobriety,” said a rural law enforcement officer. “You can’t incarcerate yourself out of the drug problem in America.”

    Criminalization of drug use

    Incarceration and substance use are deeply intertwined. The U.S. houses one-quarter of the world’s incarcerated population – largely due to policies created during the “war on Drugs” of the 1980s. The war on drugs included mandatory minimum sentencing for drug-related charges and “three strikes” laws that lengthened sentences after multiple charges.

    Today, one-fifth of the U.S. incarcerated population has a drug-related charge.

    People recently released from incarceration are more likely to overdose than the general public because their tolerance is greatly reduced following forced abstinence and there are not enough community-based treatment options.
    Erik McGregor/GettyImages

    Incarceration is often seen as a deterrent, but research shows it is not actually associated with reduced drug use. Instead, people recently released from incarceration are more likely to die of a fatal overdose and face a high likelihood of reincarceration.

    Perspectives of front-line workers

    All 31 of the participants in our study supported policies to prevent fentanyl overdoses. However, most thought that use of police and incarceration as avenues to do so was misguided.

    We spoke to some individuals who felt the bill was appropriate, but most felt that increased criminalization perpetuates stigma against people who use drugs. They also saw the law as ignoring the root causes of the opioid epidemic, which include a lack of voluntary community-based treatment options. They also said the law creates stressful law enforcement encounters that can perpetuate drug use as a coping mechanism.

    “It just seems like there’s no getting away from [the police], they’re everywhere,” said an urban peer support specialist. “I got arrested by the same cops, I don’t know how many times. And then it makes you want to try to be avoidant or run because they’re not going to help you.”

    Participants worried that the policy has an inadvertent chilling effect, deterring individuals from calling 911 when an overdose occurs.

    “Most people with substance abuse are not trying to report anything or get help for fear of going to jail,” one rural provider said. “It’s so stigmatized that everyone’s just scared to do that.”

    Study participants worried that the Colorado fentanyl criminalization bill will deter people from reporting an overdose for fear of being arrested.
    Spencer Platt/GettyImages

    Participants largely thought that counties were using incarceration as a default treatment setting and that it wasn’t an ideal solution.

    “[I] don’t want to see [people] incarcerated, but I don’t want ‘em to die either,” said an urban peer support specialist.

    The people we interviewed pointed to a lack of community-based care options that could come before people are incarcerated. Those options include substance use treatment centers, mental health services and community health centers.

    Substance use treatment

    Colorado’s fentanyl bill did more than just increase penalties. It also provided additional funding for a state naloxone program and required that all jails provide medications for opioid use disorder.

    Along with increasing penalties, Colorado’s bill increased access to naloxone, an opioid-reversal drug.
    Hyoung Chang/GettyImages

    These medications include methadone, buprenorphine and extended-release naltrexone. All are part of an established public health strategy shown to reduce overdose deaths and opioid use. They’re also shown to increase engagement with non-jail-based treatment and reduce reincarceration.

    However, jail capacity and the lack of treatment options based in one’s community play a large role in which medications are offered and to whom. For example, only 11 out of Colorado’s 46 counties with a county jail have an opioid treatment program in the community that can dispense methadone. Therefore, some facilities do not offer all medications, or only offer medications to individuals with an active prescription or to certain populations such as pregnant people.

    Investing in community solutions

    Based on our study’s findings, my study co-authors and I believe increased criminal penalties should not be the solution for linking individuals to treatment. Instead, there should be more investment in long-term community solutions.

    One such solution is Denver’s Substance Use Navigation Program. The program sends behavioral health specialists to emergency calls to prevent legal involvement when someone is experiencing distress related to mental health, poverty, homelessness or substance use. In many cases, those individuals are then routed to services rather than jails.

    Our findings also lead us to believe there is a need for more participatory policymaking processes when it comes to fentanyl legislation, and that policymakers should more closely work with the people who will be most impacted by new legislation. Most of our participants agree.

    “[I] don’t think that [the] state realized how difficult it is,” said a rural provider about giving medication-assisted treatment in jail, an increasing need as more people are arrested for fentanyl possession. “They probably should come here and visit us.”

    Katherine LeMasters received funding from the Colorado Department of Human Services, Behavioral Health Administration. Katherine LeMasters is part of the Right Response Coalition.

    ref. Colorado’s fentanyl criminalization bill won’t solve the opioid epidemic, say the people most affected – https://theconversation.com/colorados-fentanyl-criminalization-bill-wont-solve-the-opioid-epidemic-say-the-people-most-affected-256661

    MIL OSI Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Data on sexual orientation and gender is critical to public health – without it, health crises continue unnoticed

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By John R. Blosnich, Associate Professor of Social Work, University of Southern California

    As part of the Trump administration’s efforts aimed at stopping diversity, equity and inclusion, the government has been restricting how it monitors public health. Along with cuts to federally funded research, the administration has targeted public health efforts to gather information about sexual orientation and gender identity.

    In the early days of the second Trump administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention took down data and documents that included sexual orientation and gender identity from its webpages. For example, data codebooks for the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System were replaced with versions that deleted gender identity variables. The Trump administration also ordered the CDC to delete gender identity from the National Violent Death Reporting System, the world’s largest database for informing prevention of homicide and suicide deaths.

    For many people, sexual orientation and gender identity may seem private and personal. So why is personal information necessary for public health?

    Decades of research have shown that health problems affect some groups more than others. As someone who has studied differences in health outcomes for over 15 years, I know that one of the largest health disparities for LGBTQ+ people is suicide risk. Without data on sexual orientation and gender identity, public health cannot do the work to sound the alarm on and address issues that affect not just specific communities, but society as a whole.

    Clinicians are concerned about the purging of health data that is essential to patient care.

    Alarms and benchmarks

    Health is determined by the interplay of several factors, including a person’s genetics, environment and personal life. Of these types of health information, data on personal lives can be the most difficult to collect because researchers must rely on people to voluntarily share this information with them. But details about people’s everyday lives are critical to understanding their health.

    Consider veteran status. Without information that identifies which Americans are military veterans, the U.S. would never have known that the rate of suicide deaths among veterans is several times higher than that of the general population. Identifying this problem encouraged efforts to reduce suicide among veterans and military service personnel.

    Studying the rates of different conditions occurring in different groups of people is a vital role of public health monitoring. First, rates can set off alarm bells. When people are counted, it becomes easier to pick up a problem that needs to be addressed.

    Second, rates can be a benchmark. Once the extent of a health problem is known, researchers can develop and test interventions. They can then determine if rates of that health problem decreased, stayed the same or increased after the intervention.

    My team reviewed available research on how sexual orientation and gender identity are related to differences in mortality. The results were grim.

    Of the 49 studies we analyzed, the vast majority documented greater rates of death from all causes for LGBTQ+ people compared with people who aren’t LGBTQ+. Results were worse for suicide: Nearly all studies reported that suicide deaths were more frequent among LGBTQ+ people. A great deal of other research supports this finding.

    Without data on sexual orientation and gender identity, these issues are erased.

    Lost data costs everyone

    Higher death rates among LGBTQ+ people affect everyone, not just people in the LGBTQ+ community. And when suicide is a major driver of these death rates, the costs increase.

    There are societal costs. Deaths from suicide result in lost productivity and medical services that cost the U.S. an estimated $484 billion per year. There are also human costs. Research suggests that for every suicide death, about 135 people are directly affected by the loss, experiencing grief, sadness and anger.

    President Donald Trump’s targeting of research on sexual orientation and gender identity comes at a time when more Americans than ever – an estimated 24.4 million adults – identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. That’s more than the entire population of Florida.

    LGBTQ+ people live in every state in the country, where they work as teachers, executives, janitors, nurses, mechanics, artists and every other profession or role that help sustain American communities. LGBTQ+ people are someone’s family members, and they are raising families of their own. LGBTQ+ people also pay taxes to the government, which are partly spent on monitoring the nation’s health.

    Stopping data collection of sexual orientation and gender identity does not protect women, or anyone else, as the Trump administration claims. Rather, it serves to weaken American public health. I believe counting all Americans is the path to a stronger, healthier nation because public health can then do its duty of detecting when a community needs help.

    John R. Blosnich receives funding from the National Institutes of Health. He is affiliated with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), however all time and effort into writing this piece was done outside of his work with the VA. The opinions expressed are those of Dr. Blosnich and do not necessarily represent those of his institution, funders, or any affiliations.

    ref. Data on sexual orientation and gender is critical to public health – without it, health crises continue unnoticed – https://theconversation.com/data-on-sexual-orientation-and-gender-is-critical-to-public-health-without-it-health-crises-continue-unnoticed-255380

    MIL OSI Analysis

  • MIL-Evening Report: Eugene Doyle: Team Genocide and the West’s war on Iran

    COMMENTARY: By Eugene Doyle

    I have visited Iran twice. Once in June 1980 to witness an unprecedented event: the world’s first Islamic Revolution. It was the very start of my writing career.

    The second time was in 2018 and part of my interest was to get a sense of how disenchanted the population was — or was not — with life under the Ayatollahs decades after the creation of the Islamic Republic.

    I loved my time in Iran and found ordinary Iranians to be such wonderful, cultured and kind people.

    When I heard the news today of Israel’s attack on Iran I had the kind of emotional response that should never be seen in public. I was apoplectic with rage and disgust, I vented bitterly and emotively.

    Then I calmed down. And here is what I would like to say:

    Just last week former CIA officer Ray McGovern, who wrote daily intelligence briefings for the US President during his 27-year career, reminded me when I interviewed him that the assessment of the US intelligence community has been for years that Iran ceased its nuclear weapons programme in 2003 and had not recommenced since.

    The departing CIA director William Burns confirmed this assessment recently.  Propaganda aside, there is nothing new other than a US-Israeli campaign that has shredded any concept of international laws or norms.

    I won’t mince words: what we are witnessing is the racist, genocidal Israeli regime, armed and encouraged by the US, Germany, UK and other Western regimes, launching a war that has no justification other than the expansion of Israeli power and the advancement of its Greater Israel project.

    This year, using American, German and British armaments, supported by underlings like Australia and New Zealand, the Israelis have pursued their genocide against the Palestinians in both the West Bank and Gaza, and attacked various neighbours, including Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Iran.

    They represent a clear and present danger to peace and stability in the region.

    Iran has operated with considerable restraint but has also shown its willingness to use its military to keep the US-Israeli menace at bay. What most people forget is that the project to secure Iran’s borders and keep the likes of the British, Israelis and Americans out is a multi-generational project that long predates the Islamic Revolution.

    I would recommend Iran: A modern history by the US-based scholar Abbas Amanat that provides a long-view of the evolution of the Iranian state and how it has survived centuries of pressure and multiple occupations from imperial powers, including Russia, Britain, the US and others.

    Hard-fought independence
    The country was raped by the Brits and the Americans and has won a hard-fought independence that is being seriously challenged, not from within, but by the Israelis and the Western warlords who have wrecked so many countries and killed millions of men, women and children in the region over recent decades.

    I spoke and messaged with Iranian friends today both in Iran and in New Zealand and the response was consistent. They felt, one of them said, 10 times more hurt and emotional than I did.

    Understandable.

    A New Zealand-based Iranian friend had to leave work as soon as he heard the news.  He scanned Iranian social media and found people were upset, angry and overwhelmingly supportive of the government.

    “They destroyed entire apartment buildings! Why?”, “People will be very supportive of the regime now because they have attacked civilians.”

    “My parents are in the capital. I was so scared for them.”

    Just a couple of years ago scholars like Professor Amanat estimated that core support for the regime was probably only around 20 percent.  That was my impression too when I visited in 2018.

    Nationalism, existential menace
    Israel and the US have changed that. Nationalism and an existential menace will see Iranians rally around the flag.

    Something I learnt in Iran, in between visiting the magnificent ruins of the capital of the Achaemenid Empire at Persepolis, exploring a Zoroastrian Tower of Silence, chowing down on insanely good food in Yazd, talking with a scholar and then a dissident in Isfahan, and exploring an ancient Sassanian fort and a caravanserai in the eastern desert, was that the Iranians are the most politically astute people in the region.

    Many I spoke to were quite open about their disdain for the regime but none of them sought a counter-revolution.

    They knew what that would bring: the wolves (the Americans, the Israelis, the Saudis, and other bad actors) would slip in and tear the country apart. Slow change is the smarter option when you live in this neighbourhood.

    Iranians are overwhelmingly well-educated, profoundly courteous and kind, and have a deep sense of history. They know more than enough about what happened to them and to so many other countries once a great power sees an opening.

    War is a truly horrific thing that always brings terrible suffering to ordinary people. It is very rarely justified.

    Iran was actively negotiating with the Americans who, we now know, were briefed on the attack in advance and will possibly join the attack in the near future.

    US senators are baying for Judeo-Christian jihad. Democrat Senator John Fetterman was typical: “Keep wiping out Iranian leadership and the nuclear personnel. We must provide whatever is necessary — military, intelligence, weaponry — to fully back Israel in striking Iran.”

    We should have the moral and intellectual honesty to see the truth:  Our team, Team Genocide, are the enemies of peace and justice.  I wish the Iranian people peace and prosperity.

    Eugene Doyle is a writer based in Wellington. He has written extensively on the Middle East, as well as peace and security issues in the Asia Pacific region. He contributes to Asia Pacific Report and Café Pacific, and hosts the public policy platform solidarity.co.nz.

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI Global: Nuclear energy is a risky investment, but that’s no reason for the UK government to avoid it

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Renaud Foucart, Senior Lecturer in Economics, Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster University

    Sizewell B on the UK’s Suffolk coast. Nick Beer/Shutterstock

    The UK government’s investment of around £14 billion in a new nuclear power plant marks a big economic shift for the country’s approach to energy.

    The Sizewell C plant in Suffolk will be the second of a new generation of reactors to be built in the country, after Hinkley Point C in Somerset, which is expected to open in 2031.

    French energy firm EDF is building Hinkley and will probably end up building Sizewell too. But it seems that the British government is finally prepared to take on the considerable financial risk which these projects bring.

    Previously it has preferred to look elsewhere. China, notably, has a longstanding appetite for investment in British infrastructure. (Although in 2022, the UK government bought back China’s stakes in Sizewell C amid geopolitical concerns.)

    But the money has to come from somewhere. And after EDF announced it wanted to limit its participation in Sizewell C – and in particular, exposure to the risk of cost overruns – the UK government has stepped in.

    EDF has has already lost a lot of money building Hinkley Point C. When construction began in 2017, costs were estimated at £18 billion.

    At the time, the UK government agreed to pay a set rate for the electricity produced so the French company could recoup its cost and make a reasonable profit. That price was perceived by some as as extremely high and remains higher than current wholesale prices.

    But as construction costs have more than doubled, the project has generated an estimated loss of around £13 billion for EDF. The company hopes to keep construction costs down this time, after similar costs overruns in projects it completed in France and in Finland.

    But now Sizewell C will only progress because the British government has said it will take on almost all of the financial risk.

    In doing so, the UK is not an outlier. In France, China and South Korea, nuclear power plants are built by state-owned companies. In the US, private companies are waiting for public funding to finance Donald Trump’s dream of a nuclear renaissance.

    And perhaps it’s an expense the state should be willing to take on.

    After all, although nuclear reactors (like solar farms and wind turbines) are expensive to set up, once they are built, the cost of producing electricity is very small.

    And if the long-term goal is to eliminate the need for fossil fuels, it means all electricity will need to come from a mixture of renewables, batteries and nuclear. Electricity could then become much cheaper than it is now.

    But building the means of creating this power comes with varying degrees of risk.

    Solar, for example, is not that risky. Panels are usually imported, there are no major safety concerns, and investors can roughly predict how much sun there will be in a typical year.

    For nuclear energy, production is also predictable. But the time it will take to complete construction of a plant and the associated costs are not.

    Part of this is down to choice. UK regulations around nuclear energy are complex and strict, and other countries build faster and cheaper. This may be why globally, solar power is attracting much more investment than other sources of energy.

    Political energy

    But this does not mean governments should ignore the nuclear option. One of the main reasons governments are useful to society is that they can afford to take risks that private investors cannot, and finance long term innovation.

    This in turn can lead to much greater strategic and geopolitical autonomy. While solar panels and batteries are getting ever cheaper, the vast majority of production is in China.

    Domestic production of nuclear allows for greater diversity in energy sourcing, and arguably from some more predictable partners. The key component, uranium, can be found in large quantities in places like Canada or Australia, or directly reused.

    Research suggests that nuclear energy may be particularly suited to feed the needs of digital datacentres and artificial intelligence.

    Meanwhile, the government also hopes to get small nuclear reactors from domestic producer Rolls Royce which could be built in factories at a much more predictable cost. Russia and China have each already built this kind of reactor.

    Plus there’s £2.5 billion for UK research on nuclear fusion, with the potential to deliver electricity on an unprecedented scale.

    No one knows if fusion will ever be possible. It is the kind of uncertain, incredibly expensive projects (with potentially massive returns) that pretty much no private investor would risk looking at.

    But again, it is the kind of bet only governments can take. For nuclear power, for reasons of scale, risk and uncertainty, is mostly a government business – and ultimately a political choice.

    It will take a long time to know if the decision to spend taxpayers’ money on Sizewell C was the right way to respond to the country’s energy needs. But ending reliance on private or foreign financing for nuclear projects could one day be seen as a positive reaction.


    Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

    Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.


    Renaud Foucart does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Nuclear energy is a risky investment, but that’s no reason for the UK government to avoid it – https://theconversation.com/nuclear-energy-is-a-risky-investment-but-thats-no-reason-for-the-uk-government-to-avoid-it-258645

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Supreme Court ignores precedent instead of overruling it in allowing president to fire officials whom Congress tried to make independent

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Claire B. Wofford, Associate Professor of Political Science, College of Charleston

    Can President Donald Trump — or any president — fire the heads of independent agencies created by Congress? Douglas Rissing/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    What may be one of the U.S. Supreme Court’s most important and far-reaching rulings in decades dropped in late May 2025 in an order that probably didn’t get a second – or even first – glance from most Americans.

    But this not-quite-two-page ruling, as technical and procedural as they come, potentially rewrites a major principle of constitutional law and may restructure the operation of the federal government.

    The case is dry in a way only lawyers could love, but its implications are enormous.

    Public mission, not presidential whims

    The dispute began when President Donald Trump fired two Biden-era officials: Gwynne Wilcox, a member of the National Labor Relations Board, and Cathy Harris, a member of the Merit Systems Protection Board.

    The National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board, like the National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Reserve, are among more than 50 independent agencies established by Congress to help the president carry out the law. Though technically located within the executive branch, independent agencies are designed to serve the public at large rather than the president.

    The dispute began when President Donald Trump fired board members of two independent agencies.
    Win McNamee/Getty Images

    To ensure these agencies are devoted to their public mission, not the will or whims of a president, congressional statutes generally permit the president to remove leaders of these agencies only for “good cause.” Malfeasance in office, neglect of duty, or inefficiency generally constitute “good cause.”

    Other executive branch agencies, such as the FBI, Food and Drug Administration and Department of Homeland Security are entirely under presidential command – if he wants their leaders out, out they go. But independent agencies, in existence since the late 19th century, are to carry out congressional policy free from the president’s purview and his political pressure.

    Because independent agencies are creatures of Congress housed within the executive branch, there is long-standing disagreement among scholars about just how much power the president should have over them.

    Limiting Congress, empowering the president

    In the two firings, there was agreement that Trump had violated the relevant statute by firing Wilcox and Harris without “good cause.”

    He justified Wilcox’s removal, in part, because she did not share his policy preferences. For Harris, he gave no reason at all.

    But the bigger issue was whether the law itself was constitutional: Could Congress limit why or how a president can remove employees of the executive branch?

    The root of the problem lies within the Constitution. Although Article 2 specifically gives the president the power to “appoint” certain federal officials, it says nothing about the power to fire -– or “remove” – them.

    Conservative legal scholars propose, under what’s called the “unitary executive theory,” that because the president “is” the executive branch, he has complete authority, including removal, over all who serve within it. Only with the unfettered ability to fire anyone who serves under him can the president fulfill his constitutionally mandated duty to ensure that “the Laws be faithfully executed.”

    Opponents have countered that this ignores fundamental aspects of our constitutional framework: the framers’ devotion to checks and balances, their aversion toward monarchical, kinglike rule, and their determination to put policymaking in the hands of Congress.

    These questions are not new.

    The Supreme Court first took up the issue in 1926 in Myers v. United States, when Chief Justice – and former president – William Howard Taft held that Congress could not limit the president’s ability to fire an Oregon postmaster, writing that “the power to remove inferior executive officers … is an incident of the power to appoint them.”

    Less than a decade later, however, the court ruled in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States that the Constitution did not grant the president an “illimitable power of removal,” at least over certain types of officials. This included the head of the Federal Trade Commission, whose firing by President Franklin Roosevelt had sparked the case.

    Humphrey’s Executor stood basically untouched for decades, until Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito – both of whom had previously served in the executive branch – were appointed.

    With a now-solid conservative majority, the Supreme Court invalidated restrictions on the president’s ability to remove members of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board in 2009.

    Two years after the arrival of fellow executive branch alumnus Brett Kavanaugh in 2018, the court struck down the “good cause” removal restriction for the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

    Rather than explicitly overrule Humphrey’s Executor, however, the justices declared that these agencies were factually distinct from the Federal Trade Commission – leaders of one were protected by a “two-layer” removal system and the other because it was run by a single individual, not a multimember board.

    ‘Massive change in the law’

    Because Humphrey’s Executor was still good law, and the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board were structured like the Federal Trade Commission, district courts in 2025 initially held that the firings of Wilcox and Harris were unlawful.

    On April 9, 2025, Trump filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court, asking it to put the district court decisions on hold. On May 22, the Supreme Court granted that request, at least while the cases proceed through the lower courts.

    The court did not decide on the constitutionality of the removal statute, but the ruling is nonetheless a major victory for Trump. He can now fire not only Wilcox and Harris but also potentially the heads of any independent agency. Low-level civil servants may also be at risk.

    In the unsigned order, the high court echoed unitary executive theory, stating, “Because the Constitution vests the executive power in the Presidents … he may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf, subject to narrow exceptions.” It simply ignored Humphrey’s Executor altogether, leaving its value as precedent unclear.

    The Supreme Court also said that the holding did not apply to the Federal Reserve Board. That “uniquely structured, quasi-private entity” would remain free from executive control via removal.

    Such an explicit carve-out in legal doctrine is striking but responds directly to claims made by litigants and political commentators of the dire economic consequences that could result were the president to have free rein over the Federal Reserve’s chairman.

    In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan blasted the majority for allowing the president to overrule Humphrey’s Executor “by fiat,” a result made even worse because the court had done so via the so-called shadow docket, in the absence of full briefing or oral argument. Such “short-circuiting” of the “usual deliberative process” is, she wrote, a wholly inappropriate way to make a “massive change in the law.”

    After the appointments of conservatives John Roberts, left, and Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court in 2009 invalidated restrictions on the president’s ability to remove members of an independent agency.
    Alex Wong/Getty Images

    The shadow of Humphrey’s Executor

    What happens now?

    The National Labor Relations Board is paralyzed, and the Merit Systems Protection Board is somewhat hamstrung, with both lacking the quorum necessary to act. Cases about the firing of Harris, Wilcox and multiple other officials will bedevil lower courts as they try to figure out whether Humphrey’s Executor still stands, even as a shadow of its former self.

    Trump aims to continue axing federal employees, even as the administration struggles to rehire others.

    And, already asked again to make major legal change on its emergency docket, the Supreme Court will need to determine whether such change warrants more than the few paragraphs of explanation it gave in the ruling on the Wilcox and Harris firings.

    If, as seems likely, the court ultimately overturns Humphrey’s Executor, Kagan’s dissent serves as a warning voiced by others as well: A decision that allows the president to have total control over the heads of more than 50 independent agencies – agencies that pursue the public interest in areas from financial regulation to the environment, to nuclear safety – could shift their focus from serving the public to pleasing the president, profoundly affecting the lives of many Americans.

    In 2022, I donated $20 to ActBlue.

    ref. Supreme Court ignores precedent instead of overruling it in allowing president to fire officials whom Congress tried to make independent – https://theconversation.com/supreme-court-ignores-precedent-instead-of-overruling-it-in-allowing-president-to-fire-officials-whom-congress-tried-to-make-independent-257784

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Sly Stone turned isolation into inspiration, forging a path for a generation of music-makers

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jose Valentino Ruiz, Associate Professsor of Music Business and Entrepreneurship, University of Florida

    The charismatic front man of Sly and the Family Stone died on June 9, 2025, at the age of 82. Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images

    In the fall of 1971, Sly and the Family Stone’s “There’s a Riot Goin’ On” landed like a quiet revolution. After two years of silence following the band’s mainstream success, fans expected more feel-good funk from the ensemble.

    What they got instead was something murkier and more fractured, yet deeply intimate and experimental. This was not just an album; it was the sound of a restless mind rebuilding music from the inside out.

    At the center of it all was front man Sly Stone.

    Long before the home studio became an industry norm, Stone, who died on June 9, 2025, turned the studio into both a sanctuary and an instrument. And long before sampling defined the sound of hip-hop, he was using tape and machine rhythms to deconstruct existing songs to cobble together new ones.

    As someone who spends much of their time working on remote recording and audio production – from building full arrangements solo to collaborating digitally across continents – I’m deeply indebted to Sly Stone’s approach to making music.

    He was among the first major artists to fully embrace the recording environment as a space to compose rather than perform. Every reverb bounce, every drum machine tick, every overdubbed breath became part of the writing process.

    From studio rat to bedroom producer

    Sly and the Family Stone’s early albums – including “Dance to the Music” and “Stand!” – were recorded at top-tier facilities like CBS Studios in Los Angeles under the technical guidance of engineers such as Don Puluse and with oversight from producer David Rubinson.

    These sessions yielded bright, radio-friendly tracks that emphasized tight horn sections, group vocals and a polished sound. Producers also prized the energy of live performance, so the full band would record together in real time.

    But by the early 1970s, Stone was burnt out. The dual pressures of fame and industry demands were becoming too much. Struggling with cocaine and PCP addiction, he’d grown increasingly distrustful of bandmates, label executives and even his friends.

    So he decided to retreat to his hillside mansion in Bel Air, California, transforming his home into a musical bunker. Inside, he could work on his own terms: isolated and erratic, but free.

    Stone relied heavily on overdubbing when recording music from his home.
    Richard McCaffrey/Michael Ochs Archives via Getty Images

    Without a full band present, Stone became a one-man ensemble. He leaned heavily into overdubbing – recording one instrument at a time and building his songs from fragments. Using multiple tape machines, he’d layer each part onto previous takes.

    The resulting album, “There’s a Riot Goin’ On,” was like nothing he’d previously recorded. It sounds murky, jagged and disjointed. But it’s also deeply intentional, as if every imperfection was part of the design.

    In “The Poetics of Rock,” musicologist Albin Zak describes this “composerly” approach to production, where recording itself becomes a form of writing, not just documentation. Stone’s process for “There’s a Riot Goin’ On” reflects this mindset: Each overdub, rhythm loop and sonic imperfection functions more like a brushstroke than a performance.

    Automating the groove

    A key part of Stone’s tool kit was the Maestro Rhythm King, a preset drum machine he used extensively.

    It wasn’t the first rhythm box on the market. But Stone’s use of it was arguably the first time such a machine shaped the entire aesthetic of a mainstream album. The drum parts on his track “Family Affair,” for example, don’t swing – they tick. What might have been viewed as soulless became its own kind of soul.

    This early embrace of mechanical rhythm prefigured what would later become a foundation of hip-hop and electronic music. In his book “Dawn of the DAW,” music technology scholar Adam Patrick Bell calls this shift “a redefinition of groove,” noting how drum machines like the Rhythm King encouraged musicians to rethink their songwriting process, building tracks in shorter, repeatable sections while emphasizing steady, looped rhythms rather than free-flowing performances.

    Though samplers wouldn’t emerge until years later, Stone’s work already contained that repetition, layering and loop-based construction that would become characteristic of the practice.

    He recorded his own parts the way future DJs would splice records – isolated, reshuffled, rhythmically obsessed. His overdubbed bass lines, keyboard vamps and vocal murmurs often sounded like puzzle pieces from other songs.

    Music scholar Will Fulton, in his study of Black studio innovation, notes how producers like Stone helped pioneer a fragment-based approach to music-making that would become central to hip-hop’s DNA. Stone’s process anticipated the mentality that a song isn’t necessarily something written top to bottom, but something assembled, brick by brick, from what’s available.

    Perhaps not surprisingly, Stone’s tracks have been sampled relentlessly. In “Bring That Beat Back,” music critic Nate Patrin identifies Stone as one of the most sample-friendly artists of the 1970s – not because of his commercial hits, but because of how much sonic space he left in his tracks: the open-ended grooves, unusual textures and slippery emotional tone.

    You can hear his sounds in famous tracks such as 2Pac’s “If My Homie Calls,” which samples “Sing a Simple Song”; A Tribe Called Quest’s “The Jam,” which draws from “Family Affair”; and De La Soul’s “Plug Tunin’,” which flips “You Can Make It If You Try.”

    The studio as instrument

    While Sly’s approach was groundbreaking, he wasn’t entirely alone. Around the same time, artists such as Brian Wilson and The Rolling Stones were experimenting with home and nontraditional recording environments – Wilson famously retreating to his home studio during “Pet Sounds,” and the Stones tracking “Exile on Main St.” in a French villa.

    Yet in the world of Black music, production remained largely centralized in institutionally controlled studio systems such as Motown in Detroit and Stax in Memphis, where sound was tightly managed by in-house producers and engineers. In that context, Stone’s decision to isolate, self-produce and dismantle the standard workflow was more than a technical choice: It was a radical act of autonomy.

    The rise of home recording didn’t just change who could make music. It changed what music felt like. It made music more internal, iterative and intimate.

    Sly Stone helped invent that feeling.

    It’s easy to hear “There’s a Riot Goin’ On” as murky or uneven. The mix is dense with tape hiss, drum machines drift in and out of sync, and vocals often feel buried or half-whispered.

    But it’s also, in a way, prophetic.

    It anticipated the aesthetics of bedroom pop, the cut-and-paste style of modern music software, the shuffle of playlists and the recycling of sounds that defines sample culture. It showed that a groove didn’t need to be spontaneous to be soulful, and that solitude could be a powerful creative tool, not a limitation.

    In my own practice, I often record alone, passing files back and forth, building from templates and mapping rhythm to grid – as do millions of musical artists who compose tracks from their bedrooms, closets and garages.

    Half a century ago, a funk pioneer led the way. I think it’s safe to say that Sly Stone quietly changed the process of making music forever – and in the funkiest way possible.

    Jose Valentino Ruiz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Sly Stone turned isolation into inspiration, forging a path for a generation of music-makers – https://theconversation.com/sly-stone-turned-isolation-into-inspiration-forging-a-path-for-a-generation-of-music-makers-258659

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: House tax-and-spending bill and other Trump administration changes could make millions of people lose their health insurance coverage

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Simon F. Haeder, Associate Professor of Public Health, Texas A&M University

    People who don’t have health insurance coverage often delay or simply don’t get the medical care they need. Jacob Wackerhausen/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    President Donald Trump has promised not to cut Medicaid many times over the past decade, including in the tax-and-spending legislative package he has made a top priority in his second administration.

    But several provisions in the bill, which the House of Representatives passed in a largely party-line 215-214 vote in May 2025, could cause millions of Americans enrolled in Medicaid to lose their health insurance coverage, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Medicaid is funded jointly by the federal government and the states. The program provides nearly 80 million Americans, most of whom are low-income or have disabilities, with health insurance.

    The legislation, which advances Trump’s agenda, faces a tough battle in the Senate despite the Republican Party majority in that chamber. Several GOP senators have either said they oppose it or have expressed strong reservations for a variety of reasons, including the trillions of dollars the package would add to the U.S. government’s debt.

    As a scholar who researches access to health care, I am concerned about the possibility that millions of people will lose their health insurance coverage should this bill become law. In many cases, that could occur due to new bureaucratic obstacles the bill would introduce.

    Proposed policy changes and the uninsured

    About 25.3 million Americans lacked insurance in 2023, down sharply from 46.5 million in 2010. Most of this 46% decline occurred because of the Affordable Care Act of 2010.

    The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan agency that provides evidence-supported information to Congress, estimates that 10.9 million Americans would lose their health insurance by 2034 if the House of Representatives’ version of that package were to become law.

    Of these, as many as 7.8 million would lose access to Medicaid.

    Another 2.1 million people who the CBO estimates would end up uninsured are Americans who today have coverage they bought in the marketplaces that the Affordable Care Act created.

    In addition to the measures in the tax-and-spending bill, other changes are looming. These include the expiration of some ACA-related measures adopted in 2021 that Trump does not intend to renew, and new regulations. All told, the number of Americans losing their health insurance by 2034 could total 16 million, according to the CBO.

    Other estimates suggest that the number of Americans losing their coverage could run even higher.

    Obstructing Medicaid expansion

    The House bill would reduce incentives the federal government provides states to expand their Medicaid programs as part of the ACA.

    Eliminating these incentives would make it even less likely that Texas and the other nine states that still have not expanded Medicaid eligibility would do so in the future.

    The bill would also make it harder for states to come up with their share of Medicaid funding by limiting “provider taxes.” These taxes are charged to hospitals, doctors and other medical providers. The revenue they raise help pay for the state’s share of Medicaid costs.

    And the legislative package would also reduce federal funding to cover Medicaid costs in states that provide coverage to unauthorized immigrants using only their own funds. Threatened with billions in losses, the states that do this are unlikely to maintain these programs. In California alone, this would jeopardize the coverage of 1.6 million of its residents.

    Losing Medicaid coverage may leave millions of low-income Americans without insurance coverage, with no affordable alternatives for health care.

    A supporter of the Affordable Care Act stands in front of the Supreme Court building on Nov. 10, 2020.
    Samuel Corum/Getty Images

    Making Medicaid enrollment more complicated

    Other proposed changes in the House bill would indirectly cut Medicaid coverage by forcing people to deal with more red tape to get or keep it.

    This would happen primarily through the introduction of “work requirements” for Medicaid coverage. When enrolled in the program, applicants who are between 19 and 64 years old would need to certify they are working at least 80 hours a month or spending that much time engaged in comparable activities, such as community service.

    Work requirements specifically target people eligible for Medicaid through the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of the program. They tend to have slightly higher incomes than the other people eligible for this benefit.

    Arkansas gave Medicaid work requirements a try during the first Trump administration. Researchers who studied what happened found that 1 in 4 of the Arkansans enrolled in Medicaid affected by the policy lost their health insurance coverage. They also found that in most cases, this occurred because of bureaucratic obstacles, and that the policy didn’t lead to more people getting jobs.

    By some estimates, the work requirements provision alone would lead to close to 5 million people of the 7.8 million being denied Medicaid coverage.

    At the same time, the bill would increase how often Medicaid beneficiaries have to reapply to the program to keep their coverage from once every 12 months to twice a year.

    It also would delay or reverse several policies that made it easier for Americans to enroll in Medicaid and maintain their coverage. Many of those who aren’t kicked out would also face either new or higher co-payments for appointments and procedures – restricting their access to health care, even if they don’t wind up without insurance.

    There is ample evidence that obstacles like these make it hard to remain enrolled in safety net programs. Historically, the people who are most likely to lose their benefits are low-income, people of color or immigrants who do not speak English well.

    President Barack Obama signs the Affordable Care Act during a ceremony with congressional Democrats on March 23, 2010.
    Win McNamee/Getty Images

    Costlier Marketplace policies and more barriers

    The bill would also affect the more than 24 million Americans who get health insurance through Affordable Care Act Marketplace plans.

    Changes in the House version of the bill would make it harder to get this coverage. This includes reducing the time Americans have to enroll in plans and eliminating certain subsidies. It also makes the enrollment process more complicated.

    Combined with other changes the Trump administration has made, experts expect Marketplace premiums to skyrocket.

    The Congressional Budget Office expects more than 2 million beneficiaries to lose coverage due to these new policies.

    More coverage losses possible

    Americans buying their own insurance on the ACA marketplaces may also face higher premiums.

    Increased subsidies in place since 2021 are set to expire at the end of the year. Combined with Trump regulatory decisions, this may lead to more than 5 million Americans losing coverage – whether or not the GOP’s tax-and-spending package is enacted.

    The effects of the bill would also be compounded by further changes by individual states. This could include the introduction of monthly premiums that people with Medicaid coverage would have to pay, in Indiana and other states.

    Some states may also reduce eligibility for certain groups or cover fewer services, as states seek to reduce their Medicaid costs.

    And some states, including Iowa and Utah, are already pursuing work requirements on their own whether or not they become mandatory across the nation.

    If fewer Americans have health insurance due to changes the Trump administration is making and the policies embedded in the pending tax-and-spending legislative package, the health of millions of people could get worse due to forgone care. And at the same time, their medical debts could grow larger.

    Dr. Simon F. Haeder has previously received funding from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Pennsylvania Insurance Department, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for unrelated projects.

    ref. House tax-and-spending bill and other Trump administration changes could make millions of people lose their health insurance coverage – https://theconversation.com/house-tax-and-spending-bill-and-other-trump-administration-changes-could-make-millions-of-people-lose-their-health-insurance-coverage-257529

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why anti-trafficking measures alone won’t save Africa’s pangolins

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Charles Emogor, Schmidt Science Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge

    Nigeria accounts for the largest volume of detected pangolin scales illegally traded from Africa. Between 2010 and 2021, 190,000kg of scales – representing nearly 800,000 African pangolins – were seized in shipments linked to Nigeria, despite a ban on international trade.

    Pangolins are scaly mammals found across Asia and Africa. They are considered the world’s most trafficked wild mammals and they are exploited in different ways on different continents.

    In Asia, mainly China, their scales are used in large-scale therapeutic medicines, despite not having known medicinal properties. Their meat is consumed as a delicacy, so it’s expensive and highly sought after.

    In Africa, pangolin scales are mainly used in small quantities to make traditional medicines and, like most other wildlife on the continent, their meat is sold and consumed locally. However, the decline in Asian pangolin populations has prompted the trafficking of African pangolin scales to Asia.

    Due to the relatively recent rise in international demand, the drivers of African pangolin exploitation remain unclear. However, some conservationists and researchers propose that this exploitation is primarily driven by overseas demand for pangolin scales used in traditional medicine.

    My new study challenges this view and suggests that African pangolin exploitation is motivated more by local demand for meat than international demand for scales.

    Having grown up in Nigeria, I developed personal connections with many of the hunters and vendors and have spent the past five years building a trustworthy relationship with them in order to research pangolin trade from within the industry.

    My colleagues and I sent an anonymous questionnaire to 590 hunters and 219 wild meat vendors in 33 locations in southeast Nigeria. We wanted to find out how many pangolins they caught annually and how they were captured. We also asked what their motivations for hunting were, how much they sold pangolin products for and the subsequent uses of meat and scales.

    Given that pangolin meat is eaten as food, we asked another group of 570 hunters, vendors, and other household members to score the palatability (perceived sensory qualities of meat flavour and texture) of 96 meat and fish dishes consumed in Nigerian communities.

    Of the approximately 21,000 white- and black-bellied pangolins, which we estimated were killed annually across the hunters in the landscape between 2020 and 2023, 97% were captured opportunistically (that is, while performing activities other than hunting) or during general hunting. Of those, were picked up by hand – these animals weigh just 2-3kg on average and are relatively slow-moving.

    Surprisingly, 98% of captured pangolins were caught for their meat, with 71% eaten by the hunters and 27% sold locally. This high rate of personal consumption compared to local sales is likely driven by their exceptional taste. In southeast Nigeria, the three pangolin species eaten scored highest in palatability among 96 wild meats assessed, and were comparable only with the African brush-tailed porcupine.

    By comparison, rural southeast Asian communities increasingly forego eating the pangolins themselves and instead sell them to urban centres because they get high prices for meat and scales.

    Most of the pangolin scales (70%) were discarded. Less than 30% were traded illegally. We also found that, on a per-animal basis, pangolin scales have been three to four times lower than meat since 2010, when Nigeria’s first pangolin scale seizure was documented.

    Beyond Nigeria

    While our study focused on pangolin trade in southeast Nigeria, our findings likely apply to other African forest regions where pangolins make up a similar proportion of the hunters’ total catch and where the price of scales is comparable.

    Our analysis only applies to white- and black-bellied pangolins; but this is still substantial as they make up approximately 98% of African pangolins trafficked internationally (based on seizure data) and 96% of pangolins caught by hunters across central and west Africa (based on hunter offtake data from six countries).

    Securing the future of African pangolins demands a bold shift if they are primarily being hunted for meat rather than scales, as appears to be the case in southeast Nigeria. Anti-trafficking measures alone won’t protect pangolins if hunting for local consumption remains unchecked.

    Promoting alternative protein sources or sustainable livelihoods for hunters could help reduce wild meat dependence. As current global trade bans don’t always reflect local hunting motivations, understanding why people hunt protected species and how they get traded both locally and globally will be crucial in developing conservation strategies that will tackle the root of the problem and encourage a transition to more sustainable practices.


    Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

    Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.


    Charles Emogor receives funding from the British High Commission in Nigeria, National Geographic Society, Wildlife Conservation Society, Wildlife Conservation Network, Rufford Foundation, Conservation Leadership Programme, and Save Pangolins. He is the founder of Pangolin Protection Network (aka Pangolino).

    ref. Why anti-trafficking measures alone won’t save Africa’s pangolins – https://theconversation.com/why-anti-trafficking-measures-alone-wont-save-africas-pangolins-251744

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Netflix’s Dept Q. suggests that psychological trauma might help a detective investigate – neuroscience backs this up

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Edward White, PhD Candidate in Psychology, Kingston University

    Carl Morck is psychologically damaged. He’s socially insufferable. And he’s a departmental embarrassment. Yet this broken man becomes an incredibly effective investigator. Welcome to the brilliant paradox of Netflix’s Dept. Q, where mental trauma doesn’t disable – it supercharges.

    Detective Morck’s story begins with catastrophic failure. Ignoring protocol, he and his partner, James Hardy, rush headlong into what they think is a routine murder scene. It’s an ambush. Hardy ends up paralysed for life, a rookie officer dies and Morck survives with crushing survivor’s guilt and severe PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder). Most detectives would retire. Morck comes back more determined to get his man.

    Months later, Morck returns to work. He obsessively replays the rookie’s body camera video hundreds of times as well as the ballistics reconstruction. His colleagues flee his toxic presence. His commander ships him off to the basement with a stack of cold cases, hoping he’ll disappear into bureaucratic obscurity.


    Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.


    Instead, she accidentally creates the perfect storm.

    Morck’s first basement case involves Merritt Lingard, a prosecutor who vanished from a ferry four years earlier. The official conclusion was she fell overboard and drowned. Case closed. But Morck can’t move on from anything anymore. His trauma-rewired brain won’t let him.

    He watches the ferry security footage with the same obsessive intensity he brings to replaying his shooting. Frame by frame. Over and over. The same compulsive attention to detail that torments him with endless replays of his failure becomes his investigative superpower. Where normal detectives see a tragic accident, Morck’s damaged neural pathways spot the inconsistencies everyone else missed.

    This isn’t nonsense, it’s neuroscience. Research shows that depression fundamentally rewires information processing, creating enhanced sensitivity to negative details and threats. What his therapist calls pathological rumination becomes detective gold.

    The banished misfits

    Morck is saddled with a team of misfits: Hardy (paralysed and bitter), Akram Salim (a Syrian refugee with mysterious combat skills), and Rose Dickson (battling her own demons). Together, they form a collection of damaged individuals that conventional policing would write off.

    But here’s the magic: their shared outsider status creates collective investigative superpowers.

    Take their interview with William Lingard, Merritt’s disabled brother. William draws pictures of “a man in a hat with a bird logo” — evidence that conventional investigators would probably set aside because it wouldn’t hold up in court. The series shows this attitude earlier when a young mother recants her witness statement. While other officers dismiss it as useless since it can’t help prosecute a case, Morck argues it’s still valuable investigative information.

    This reflects a fundamental difference in approach: most police focus on building prosecutable cases, but Dept. Q’s outsider status frees them to pursue any lead that might reveal truth, regardless of its courtroom value. Taking William’s drawings seriously as investigative intelligence, rather than dismissing them as legally inadmissible, eventually leads them to identify the crucial cormorant logo connection.

    Organisational psychology research shows that socially excluded groups are more willing to ask questions that insiders avoid due to workplace politics or social taboos. Operating from their basement exile, Department Q pursues theories that proper procedure would shut down. Their isolation becomes investigative freedom, unencumbered by institutional constraints.

    Department Q isn’t just entertainment, it’s a master class in psychological diversity’s investigative value. Real police departments might benefit from understanding how different types of cognitive processing can reveal different types of evidence. The systematic pessimism of depression, the hypervigilance of PTSD, the pattern recognition of anxiety – these aren’t just symptoms to medicate away, they’re investigative tools waiting to be properly deployed.

    The series suggests that our most psychologically damaged individuals might see truths that healthy minds systematically miss, which research backs up. It’s a provocative idea: maybe the people we consider “broken” are exactly who we need investigating the cases that have broken everyone else.

    Department Q proves that in the right circumstances, psychological damage doesn’t create victims. It creates visionaries.

    Edward White is affiliated with Kingston University.

    ref. Netflix’s Dept Q. suggests that psychological trauma might help a detective investigate – neuroscience backs this up – https://theconversation.com/netflixs-dept-q-suggests-that-psychological-trauma-might-help-a-detective-investigate-neuroscience-backs-this-up-258638

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: Older South Africans need better support and basic services – and so do their caregivers

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Elena Moore, Professor of Sociology, University of Cape Town

    In South Africa, most long-term care for older people happens at home through the efforts of family members, largely female kin, not through government services.

    With South Africa’s population growing older, combined with reduced funding for community care, higher levels of disability in old age, and widespread poverty and unemployment, family care has become more important than ever and more challenging. But government and policy makers don’t know how it happens, and we can’t just assume it happens.

    The Family Caregiving Programme is the first major programme dedicated to understanding family care of older persons in southern Africa. As part of the research team for this programme we are looking at how family care works and how it can be better supported. The five-year programme aims to improve our understanding of how family care is experienced in South Africa, Malawi, Namibia and Botswana.

    For the latest research report, we worked with 103 caregivers and 96 older persons in 100 family units across seven locations in three South African provinces: the Western Cape, Eastern Cape, and KwaZulu-Natal. We worked in two rural areas, one peri-urban area and four urban areas including two townships.

    Three quarters of the sample of older persons required constant care or supervision.

    We found that all the care needs were being met – but at a significant cost for caregivers, older persons and society.

    Care needs go beyond physiological and cognitive issues and are shaped by the physical and social environment. The environment can make care more challenging and create more dependency. Lack of access to water, sanitation and electricity adds to care work.

    For care needs to be met, older persons need supported caregivers, access to care services and basic services.

    The gaps

    South Africa’s long term care policy encourages “ageing in place”, meaning older people should live in their homes, supported by community-based services. But the reality is that support is limited.

    Of the 5.5 million older people in South Africa, around 4 million receive the Older Person’s Grant, and at least 1.5 million need help with daily activities. Very few receive home-based care or subsidised meals. Even fewer receive assistive devices and materials such as wheelchairs or incontinence products.

    It’s a common assumption that if an older person lives with family, they’re being cared for. But this isn’t always true. Sometimes the available family member isn’t able – physically, emotionally, or financially – to provide proper care. Mental health support is also largely missing. Many older people experience loneliness and depression, but help is hard to find. In our study, one in five older persons experienced feelings of loneliness, anxiety and despair.

    Many older people don’t have running water, proper toilets, wheelchairs, or incontinence products. If basic services are missing, the older person needs more help. Older black people in rural areas and in under-resourced townships are most affected.

    Older people also need help accessing healthcare. High levels of diabetes, hypertension and arthritis in many cases lead to disability in later life. But getting help to access care isn’t always available.

    Mary Mwebu (we have used pseudonyms), who lives in the rural Eastern Cape and has TB of the spine and mobility challenges, has no running water in her home. She also has no accessible and affordable transport, so she hasn’t been to the clinic in 10 years and struggles to manage her pain.

    Care needs of older persons include basic provision of food. Our findings show that older persons and their households spend way below what is needed for a healthy diet.

    The older person’s grant, at R2,315 (US$130) a month in 2025 and similar to the cost of incontinence products for the month, is often the main income in the household and is used to cover the costs for everyone, especially in a context where 64% of people living with an older person are unemployed.

    Food is the biggest cost, often up to two thirds of income. It is the first thing to cut when there’s not enough money.

    Money is particularly tight in black low-income households. In many cases expenditure exceeds income, and older people are left vulnerable. If any unexpected costs like medical needs or hygiene products arise, the older person will often have to sacrifice food.

    Others will obtain loans and so many fall into debt. Borrowing from loan sharks is a way to buy food but high interest rates put people in a worse position the following month.

    Limiting spending, eating less, and limited help from family members are the only other ways to meet their needs.

    Why care is depleting

    The average older person household has five people in it. Large households have many care needs, not just elder care. We found that women – especially daughters and female relatives – are the main caregivers.

    But the findings show that due to HIV/Aids and migration, older people can’t always rely on their children. In such instances care is also provided by nieces, neighbours, and adult granddaughters.

    Looking after an older person often requires caregivers to relocate. Our findings showed that one in five caregivers had to move, often with young children or leaving spouses behind.

    Sometimes older persons need to move to get care. This happened in one in 10 older persons in our sample. Many are reluctant to move from their homes and the process can take years.

    The findings show that family caregiving is not an endless supply of “free” labour. It is physically, emotionally and financially costly, especially for black low-income women.

    Some answers

    The report proposes three key recommendations.

    Firstly, family caregivers and careworkers should be adequately compensated for their work.

    Secondly, we call for expanding home-based care services to ease the load and give caregivers breaks and mental health support.

    And thirdly, care-related items, such as wheelchairs, incontinence products and healthy food, should be made more easily available.

    Supporting family caregivers means supporting the wellbeing of millions of older South Africans. It’s time the country took elder and family care seriously and backed it with real investment and action.

    Elena Moore receives funding from Wellcome Trust and IDRC-CRDI for the work on elder care in Southern Africa.

    Vayda Megannon and Zeenat Samodien do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Older South Africans need better support and basic services – and so do their caregivers – https://theconversation.com/older-south-africans-need-better-support-and-basic-services-and-so-do-their-caregivers-258409

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-Evening Report: Greta Thunberg tried to shame Western leaders – and found they have no shame

    ANALYSIS: By Jonathan Cook in Middle East Eye

    If you imagined Western politicians and media were finally showing signs of waking up to Israel’s genocide in Gaza, think again.

    Even the decision this week by several Western states, led by the UK, to ban the entry of Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir, two far-right Israeli cabinet ministers, is not quite the pushback it is meant to seem.

    Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway may be seeking strength in numbers to withstand retaliation from Israel and the United States. But in truth, they have selected the most limited and symbolic of all the possible sanctions they could have imposed on the Israeli government.

    Their meagre action is motivated solely out of desperation. They urgently need to deter Israel from carrying through plans to formally annex the Occupied West Bank and thereby tear away the last remnants of the two-state comfort blanket — the West’s solitary pretext for decades of inaction.

    And as a bonus, the entry ban makes Britain and the others look like they are getting tough with Israel on Gaza, even as they do nothing to stop the mounting horrors there.

    Even the Israeli Ha’aretz newspaper’s senior columnist Gideon Levy mocked what he called a “tiny, ridiculous step” by the UK and others, saying it would make no difference to the slaughter in Gaza. He called for sanctions against “Israel in its entirety”.

    “Do they really believe this punishment will have some sort of effect on Israel’s moves?” Levy asked incredulously.

    2500 sanctions on Russia
    Remember as Britain raps two cabinet ministers on the knuckles that the West has imposed more than 2500 sanctions on Russia.

    While David Lammy, the UK’s Foreign Secretary, worries about the future of a non-existent diplomatic process — one trashed by Israel two decades ago — Palestinian children are still starving to death unseen.

    The genocide is not going to end unless the West forces Israel to stop. This week more than 40 Israeli military intelligence officers went on an effective strike, refusing to be involved in combat operations, saying Israel was waging a “clearly illegal” and “eternal war” in Gaza.

    Yet Starmer and Lammy will not even concede that Israel has violated international law.  

    What is clear is that British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s sighs of regret last month — expressing how “intolerable” he finds the “situation” in Gaza — were purely performative.

    Starmer and the rest of the Western establishment have continued tolerating what they claim to find “intolerable”, even as the death toll from Israel’s bombs, gunfire and starvation campaign grow day by day.

    Those emaciated children — profoundly malnourished, their stick-then legs covered by the thinnest membrane of skin — aren’t going to recover without meaningful intervention. Their condition won’t stabilise while Israel deprives them of food day after day. Sooner or later they will die, mostly out of our view.

    Parents must risk lives
    Meanwhile, desperate parents must now risk their lives, forced to run the gauntlet of Israeli gunfire, in a — usually forlorn — bid to be among the handful of families able to grab paltry supplies of largely unusable, dried food. Most families have no water or fuel to cook with.

    As if mocking Palestinians, the Western media continue to refer to this real-life, scaled-up Hunger Games — imposed by Israel in place of the long-established United Nations relief system — as “aid distribution”.

    We are supposed to believe it is addressing Gaza’s “humanitarian crisis” even as it deepens the crisis.

    On the kindest analysis, Western capitals are settling back into a mix of silence and deflections, having got in their excuses just before Israel crosses the finishing line of its genocide.

    They have readied their alibis for the moment when international journalists are allowed in — the day after the population of Gaza has either been exterminated or violently herded into neighbouring Sinai.

    Or more likely, a bit of both.

    Truth inverted
    What distinguishes Israel’s ongoing slaughter of the two million-plus people of Gaza is this. It is the first stage-managed genocide in history. It is a Holocaust rewritten as public theatre, a spectacle in which every truth is carefully inverted.

    That can best be achieved, of course, if those trying to write a different, honest script are eliminated. The extent and authorship of the horrors can be edited out, or obscured through a series of red herrings, misdirecting onlookers.

    Israel has murdered more than 220 Palestinian journalists in Gaza over the past 20 months, and has been keeping Western journalists far from the killing fields.

    Like the West’s politicians, the foreign correspondents finally piped up last month — in their case, to protest at being barred from Gaza. No less than the politicians, they were keen to ready their excuses.

    They have careers and their future credibility to think about, after all.

    The journalists have publicly worried that they are being excluded because Israel has something to hide. As though Israel had nothing to hide in the preceding 20 months, when those same journalists docilely accepted their exclusion — and invariably regurgitated Israel’s deceitful spin on its atrocities.

    If you imagine that the reporting from Gaza would have been much different had the BBC, CNN, The Guardian or The New York Times had reporters on the ground, think again.

    The truth is the coverage would have looked much as it has done for more than a year and a half, with Israel dictating the story lines, with Israel’s denials foregrounded, with Israel’s claims of Hamas “terrorists” in every hospital, school, bakery, university, and refugee camp used to justify the destruction and slaughter.

    British doctors volunteering in Gaza who have told us there were no Hamas fighters in the hospitals they worked in, or anyone armed apart from the Israeli soldiers that shot up their medical facilities, would not be more believed because Jeremy Bowen interviewed them in Khan Younis rather than Richard Madeley in a London studio.

    Breaking the blockade
    If proof of that was needed, it came this week with the coverage of Israel’s brazen act of piracy against a UK-flagged ship, the Madleen, trying to break Israel’s genocidal aid blockade.

    Israel’s law-breaking did not happen this time in sealed-off Gaza, or against dehumanised Palestinians.

    Israel’s slaughter of the two million-plus people of Gaza is the first stage-managed genocide in history. It is a Holocaust rewritten as public theatre

    Israel’s ramming and seizure of the vessel took place on the high seas, and targeted a 12-member Western crew, including the famed young Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg. All were abducted and taken to Israel.

    Thunberg was trying to use her celebrity to draw attention to Israel’s illegal, genocidal blockade of aid. She did so precisely by trying to break that blockade peacefully.

    The defiance of the Madleen’s crew in sailing to Gaza was intended to shame Western governments that are under a legal — and it goes without saying, moral — obligation to stop a genocide under the provisions of the 1948 Genocide Convention they have ratified.

    Western citizens wring hands
    Western capitals have been ostentatiously wringing their hands at the “humanitarian crisis” of Israel starving two million people in full view of the world.

    The Madleen’s mission was to emphasise that those states could do much more than tell two Israeli cabinet ministers they are not welcome to visit. Together they could break the blockade, if they so wished.

    Britain, France and Canada — all of whom claimed last month that the “situation” in Gaza was “intolerable” — could organise a joint naval fleet carrying aid to Gaza through international waters. They would arrive in Palestinian territorial waters off the coast of Gaza.

    At no point would they be in Israel territory.

    Any attempt by Israel to interfere would be an act of war against these three states — and against Nato. The reality is Israel would be forced to pull back and allow the aid in.

    But, of course, this scenario is pure fantasy. Britain, France and Canada have no intention of breaking Israel’s “intolerable” siege of Gaza.

    None of them has any intention of doing anything but watch Israel starve the population to death, then describe it as a “humanitarian catastrophe” they were unable to stop.

    The Madleen has preemptively denied them this manoeuvre and highlighted Western leaders’ actual support for genocide — as well as let the people of Gaza know that a majority of the Western public oppose their governments’ collusion in Israel’s criminality.

    ‘Selfie yacht’
    The voyage was intended too as a vigorous nudge to awaken those in the West still slumbering through the genocide. Which is precisely why the Madleen’s message had to be smothered with spin, carefully prepared by Israel.

    The Israeli Foreign Ministry issued statements calling the aid ship a “celebrity selfie yacht“, while dismissing its action as a “public relations stunt” and “provocation”. Israeli officials portrayed Thunberg as a “narcissist” and “antisemite”.

    When Israeli soldiers illegally boarded the ship, they filmed themselves trying to hand out sandwiches to the crew — an actual stunt that should appall anyone mindful that, while Israel was concern-trolling Western publics about the nutritional needs of the Madleen crew, it was also starving two million Palestinians to death, half of them children.

    Did the British government, whose vessel was rammed and invaded in international waters, angrily protest the attack? Did the reliably patriotic British media rally against this humiliating violation of UK sovereignty?

    No, Starmer and Lammy once again had nothing to say on the matter.

    They have yet to concede that Israel is even breaking international law in denying the people of Gaza all food and water for more than three months, let alone acknowledge that this actually constitutes genocide.

    Instead, Lammy’s officials — 300 of whom have protested against the UK’s continuing collusion in Israeli atrocities — have been told to resign rather than raise objections rooted in international law.

    Bypass legal advisers
    According to sources within the Foreign Office cited by former British ambassador Craig Murray, Lammy has also insisted that any statements relating to the Madleen bypass the government’s legal advisers.

    Why? To allow Lammy plausible deniability as he evades Britain’s legal obligation to respond to Israel’s assault on a vessel sailing under UK protection.

    The media, meanwhile, has played its own part in whitewashing this flagrant crime — one that has taken place in full view, not hidden away in Gaza’s conveniently engineered “fog of war”.

    Much of the press adopted the term “selfie yacht” as if it were their own. As though Thunberg and the rest of the crew were pleasure-seekers promoting their social media platforms rather than risking their lives taking on the might of a genocidal Israeli military.

    They had good reason to be fearful. After all, the Israeli military shot dead 10 of their predecessors — activists on the Mavi Marmara aid ship to Gaza — 15 years ago. Israel has killed in cold blood American citizens such as Rachel Corrie, British citizens such as Tom Hurndall, and acclaimed journalists such as Shireen Abu Akleh.

    And for those with longer memories, the Israeli air force killed more than 30 American servicemen in a two-hour attack in 1967 on the USS Liberty, and wounded 170 more. The anniversary of that crime — covered up by every US administration — was commemorated by its survivors the day before the attack on the Madleen.

    ‘Detained’, not abducted
    Israel’s trivialising smears of the Madleen crew were echoed uncritically from Sky News and The Telegraph to LBC and Piers Morgan. 

    Strangely, journalists who had barely acknowledged the tsunami of selfies taken by Israeli soldiers glorifying their war crimes on social media were keenly attuned to a supposed narcissistic, selfie culture rampant among human-rights activists.

    As Thunberg headed back to Europe on Tuesday, the media continued with its assault on the English language and common sense. They reported that she had been “deported” from Israel, as though she had smuggled herself into Israel illegally rather than being been forcibly dragged there by the Israeli military.

    But even the so-called “serious” media buried the significance both of the Madleen’s voyage to Gaza and of Israel’s lawbreaking. From The Guardian and BBC to The New York Times and CBS, Israel’s criminal attack was characterised as the aid ship being “intercepted” or “diverted”, and of Israel “taking control” of the vessel.

    For the Western media, Thunberg was “detained”, not abducted.

    The framing was straight out of Tel Aviv. It was a preposterous narrative in which Israel was presented as taking actions necessary to restore order in a situation of dangerous rule-breaking and anarchy by activists on a futile and pointless excursion to Gaza.

    The coverage was so uniform not because it related to any kind of reality, but because it was pure propaganda — narrative spin that served not only Israel’s interests but that of a Western political and media class deeply implicated in Israel’s genocide.

    Arming criminals
    In another glaring example of this collusion, the Western media chose to almost immediately bury what should have been explosive comments last week from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

    He admitted that Israel has been arming and cultivating close ties with criminal gangs in Gaza.

    He was responding to remarks from Avigdor Lieberman, a former political ally turned rival, that some of those assisted by Israel are affiliated to the jihadist group Islamic State. The most prominent is named Yasser Abu Shabab.

    The Western media either ignored this revelation or dutifully accepted Netanyahu’s self-serving characterisation of these ties as an alliance of convenience: one designed to weaken Hamas by promoting “rival local forces” and opening up new “post-war governing opportunities”.

    The real aim — or rather, two aims: one immediate, the other long term — are far more cynical and disturbing.

    More than six months ago, Palestinian analysts and the Israeli media began warning that Israel — after it had destroyed Gaza’s ruling institutions, including its police force – was working hand in hand with newly reinvigorated criminal gangs.

    Israel’s immediate aim of arming the criminals — turning them into powerful militias — was to intensify the breakdown of law and order. That served as the prelude to a double-barrelled Israeli disinformation campaign.

    Instead of the UN’s trusted and wide distribution network across Gaza, the GHF’s four “aid hubs” were perfectly designed to advance Israel’s genocidal goals

    Prime looting position
    These gangs were put in a prime position to loot food from the United Nations’ long-established aid distribution system and sell it on the black market. The looting helped Israel falsely claim both that Hamas was stealing aid from the UN and that the international body had proven itself unfit to run humanitarian operations in Gaza.

    Israel and the US then set about creating a mercenary front group — misleadingly called the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation — to run a sham replacement operation.

    Instead of the UN’s trusted and wide distribution network across Gaza, the GHF’s four “aid hubs” were perfectly designed to advance Israel’s genocidal goals.

    They are located in a narrow strip of territory next to the border with Egypt. Palestinians are forced to ethnically cleanse themselves into a tiny area of Gaza — if they are to stand any hope of eating — in preparation for their expulsion into Sinai.

    They have been herded into a massively congested area without the space or facilities to cope, where the spread of disease is guaranteed, and where they can be more easily massacred by Israeli bombs.

    An increasingly malnourished population must walk long distances and wait in massive crowds in the heat in the hope of small handouts of food. It is a situation engineered to heighten tensions, and lead to chaos and fighting.

    All of which provide an ideal pretext for Israeli soldiers to halt “aid distribution” pre-emptively in the interests of “public safety” and shoot into the crowds to “neutralise threats”, as has happened to lethal effect day after day.

    Repeated ‘aid hub’ massacres
    The repeated massacres at these “aid hubs” mean that the most vulnerable — those most in need of aid — have been frightened off, leaving gang members like Abu Shabab’s to enjoy the spoils.

    On Wednesday, Israel massacred at least 60 Palestinians, most of them seeking food, in what has already become normalised, a daily ritual of bloodletting that is already barely making headlines.

    And to add insult to injury, Israel has misrepresented its own drone footage of the very criminal gangs it arms, looting aid from trucks and shooting Palestinian aid-seekers as supposed evidence of Hamas stealing food and of the need for Israel to control aid distribution.

    All of this is so utterly transparent, and repugnant, it is simply astonishing it has not been at the forefront of Western coverage as politicians and media worry about how “intolerable the situation” in Gaza has become.

    Instead, the media has largely taken it as read that Hamas “steals aid”. The media has indulged an entirely bogus Israeli-fuelled debate about the need for aid distribution “reform”.

    And the media has equivocated about whether it is Israeli soldiers shooting dead those seeking aid.

    Of course, the media has refused to draw the only reasonable conclusion from all of this: that Israel is simply exploiting the chaos it has created to buy time for its starvation campaign to kill more Palestinians.

    Calibrated warlordism
    But there is much more at stake. Israel is fattening up these criminal gangs for a grander, future role in what used to be termed the “day after” — until it became all too clear that the period in question would follow the completion of Israel’s genocide.

    It comes as no surprise to any Palestinian to hear confirmation from Netanyahu that Israel has been arming criminal gangs in Gaza, even those with affiliations to Islamic State.

    It should not surprise any journalist who has spent serious time, as I have, living in a Palestinian community and studying Israel’s colonial control mechanisms over Palestinian society.

    For years, Israel’s ultimate vision for the Palestinians – if they cannot be entirely expelled from their historic homeland – has been of carefully calibrated warlordism

    Palestinian academics have understood for at least two decades — long before Hamas’ lethal one-day break-out from Gaza on 7 October 2023 — why Israel has invested so much of its energy in dismantling bit by bit the institutions of Palestinian national identity in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.

    The goal, they have been telling me and anyone else who would listen, was to leave Palestinian society so hollowed out, so crushed by the rule of feuding criminal gangs, that statehood would become inconceivable.

    As the Palestinian political analyst Muhammad Shehada observes of what is taking place in Gaza: “Israel is NOT using [the gangs] to go after Hamas, they’re using them to destroy Gaza itself from the inside.”

    For years, Israel’s ultimate vision for the Palestinians — if they cannot be entirely expelled from their historic homeland — has been of carefully calibrated warlordism. Israel would arm a series of criminal families in their geographic heartlands.

    Each would have enough light arms to terrorise their local populations into submission, and fight neighbouring families to define the extent of their fiefdom.

    None would have the military power to take on Israel. Instead they would have to compete for Israel’s favour — treating it like some inflated Godfather —  in the hope of securing an advantage over rivals.

    In this vision, the Palestinians — one of the most educated populations in the Middle East – are to be driven into a permanent state of civil war and “survival of the fittest” politics. Israel’s ambition is to eviscerate Palestinian social cohesion as effectively as it has bombed Gaza’s cities “into the Stone Age”.

    Divinely blessed
    This is a simple story, one that should be all too familiar to European publics if they were educated in their own histories.

    For centuries, Europeans spread outwards — driven by a supremacist zealotry and a desire for material gain — to conquer the lands of others, to steal resources, and to subordinate, expel and exterminate the natives that stood in their way.

    The native people were always dehumanised. They were always barbarians, “human animals”, even as we — the members of a supposedly superior civilisation — butchered them, starved them, levelled their homes, destroyed their crops.

    Our mission of conquest and extermination was always divinely blessed. Our success in eradicating native peoples, our efficiency in killing them, was always proof of our moral superiority.

    We were always the victims, even while we humiliated, tortured and raped. We were always on the side of righteousness.

    Israel has simply carried this tradition into the modern era. It has held a mirror up to us and shown that, despite all our grandstanding about human rights, nothing has really changed.

    There are a few, like Greta Thunberg and the crew of the Madleen, ready to show by example that we can break with the past. We can refuse to dehumanise. We can refuse to collude in industrial savagery. We can refuse to give our consent through silence and inaction.

    But first we must stop listening to the siren calls of our political leaders and the billionaire-owned media. Only then might we learn what it means to be human.

    Jonathan Cook is a writer, journalist and self-appointed media critic and author of many books about Palestine. Winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. Republished from the author’s blog with permission.

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: News of the Air India plane crash is traumatic. Here’s how to make sense of the risk

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hassan Vally, Associate Professor, Epidemiology, Deakin University

    simonkr/Getty Images

    On Thursday afternoon local time, an Air India passenger plane bound for London crashed shortly after takeoff from the northwestern Indian city of Ahmedabad. There were reportedly 242 people onboard, including two pilots and ten cabin crew.

    The most up-to-date reports indicate the death toll has surpassed 260, including people on the ground.

    Miraculously, one passenger – British national Vishwashkumar Ramesh – survived the crash.

    Thankfully, catastrophic plane crashes such as this are very rare. But seeing news of such a horrific event is traumatic, particularly for people who may have a fear of flying or are due to travel on a plane soon.

    If you’re feeling anxious following this distressing news, it’s understandable. But here are some things worth considering when you’re thinking about the risk of plane travel.

    Just how dangerous is flying?

    One of the ways to make sense of risks, especially really small ones, is to put them into context.

    Although there are various ways to do this, we can first look to figures that tell us the risk of dying in a plane crash per passenger who boards a plane. Arnold Barnett, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, calculated that in 2018–22, this figure was one in 13.7 million. By any reckoning, this is an incredibly small risk.

    And there’s a clear trend of air travel getting safer every decade. Barnett’s calculations suggest that between 2007 and 2017, the risk was one per 7.9 million.

    We can also compare the risks of dying in a plane crash with those of dying in a car accident. Although estimates of motor vehicle fatalities vary depending on how you do the calculations and where you are in the world, flying has been estimated to be more than 100 times safer than driving.

    Evolution has skewed our perception of risks

    The risk of being involved in a plane crash is extremely small. But for a variety of reasons, we often perceive it to be greater than it is.

    First, there are well-known limitations in how we intuitively estimate risk. Our responses to risk (and many other things) are often shaped far more by emotion and instinct than by logic.

    As psychologist Daniel Kahneman explains in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow, much of our thinking about risk is driven by intuitive, automatic processes rather than careful reasoning.

    Notably, our brains evolved to pay attention to threats that are striking or memorable. The risks we faced in primitive times were large, immediate and tangible threats to life. Conversely, the risks we face in the modern world are generally much smaller, less obvious, and play out over the longer term.

    The brain that served us well in prehistoric times has essentially remained the same, but the world has completely changed. Therefore, our brains are susceptible to errors in thinking and mental shortcuts called cognitive biases that skew our perception of modern risks.

    This can lead us to overestimate very small risks, such as plane crashes, while underestimating far more probable dangers, such as chronic diseases.

    Why we overestimate the risks of flying

    There are several drivers of our misperception of risks when it comes to flying specifically.

    The fact events such as the Air India plane crash are so rare makes them all the more psychologically powerful when they do occur. And in today’s digital media landscape, the proliferation of dramatic footage of the crash itself, along with images of the aftermath, amplifies its emotional and visual impact.

    The effect these vivid images have on our thinking around the risks of flying is called the availability heuristic. The more unusual and dramatic an event is, the more it stands out in our minds, and the more it skews our perception of its likelihood.

    It’s natural to perceive the risk of flying as being greater than it truly is.
    OlegRi/Shutterstock

    Another influence on the way we perceive risks relevant to flying is called dread risk, which is a psychological response we have to certain types of threats. We fear certain risks that feel more catastrophic or unfamiliar. It’s the same reason we may disproportionately fear terrorist attacks, when in reality they’re very uncommon.

    Plane crashes usually involve a large number of deaths that occur at one time. And the thought of going down in a plane may feel more frightening than dying in other ways. All this taps into the emotions of fear, vulnerability and helplessness, and leads to an overweighting of the risks.

    Another factor that contributes to our overestimation of flying risks is our lack of control when flying. When we’re passengers on a plane, we are in many ways completely dependent on others. Even though we know pilots are highly trained and commercial aviation is very safe, the lack of control we have as passengers triggers a deep sense of vulnerability.

    This absence of control makes the situation feel riskier than it actually is, and often riskier than activities where the threat is far greater but there is an (often false) sense of control, such as driving a car.

    In a nutshell

    We have an evolutionary bias toward reacting more strongly to particular threats, especially when these events are dramatic, evoke dread and when we feel an absence of control.

    Although events such as Air India crash affect us deeply, air travel is still arguably the safest method of transport. Understandably, this can get lost in the emotional aftermath of tragic plane crashes.

    Hassan Vally does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. News of the Air India plane crash is traumatic. Here’s how to make sense of the risk – https://theconversation.com/news-of-the-air-india-plane-crash-is-traumatic-heres-how-to-make-sense-of-the-risk-258907

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-OSI Global: Just one man survived the Air India crash. What’s it like to survive a mass disaster?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Erin Smith, Associate Professor and Discipline Lead (Paramedicine), La Trobe University

    Viswashkumar Ramesh, a British citizen returning from a trip to India, has been confirmed as the only survivor of Thursday’s deadly Air India crash.

    “I don’t know how I am alive,” Ramesh told family, according to his brother Nayan, in a video call moments after emerging from the wreckage. Another brother Ajay, seated elswhere on the plane, was killed.

    The Boeing 787-7 Dreamliner crashed into a medical college less than a minute after taking off in the city of Ahmedabad, killing the other 229 passengers and 12 crew. At least five people were killed on the ground.

    Surviving a mass disaster of this kind may be hailed as a kind of “miracle”. But what is it like to survive – especially as the only one?

    Surviving a disaster

    Past research has shown disaster survivors may experience an intense range of emotions, from grief and anxiety to feelings of loss and uncertainty.

    These are common reactions to an extraordinary situation.

    Some people may develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and have difficulty adjusting to a new reality after bearing witness to immense loss. They may also be dealing with physical recovery from injuries sustained in the disaster.

    Most people recover after disasters by drawing on their own strengths and the support of others. Recovery rates are high: generally less than one in ten of those affected by disasters develop chronic, long-term problems.

    However, being a sole survivor of a mass casualty may have its own complex psychological challenges.

    Survivor’s guilt

    Survivors can experience guilt they lived when others died.

    My friend, Gill Hicks, spoke to me for this article about the ongoing guilt she still feels, years after surviving the 2005 bombings of the London underground.

    Lying trapped in a smoke-filled train carriage, she was the last living person to be rescued after the attack. Gill lost both her legs.

    Yet she still wonders, “Why me? Why did I get to go home, when so many others didn’t?”

    In the case of a sole survivor, this guilt may be particularly acute. However, research addressing the impact of sole survivorship is limited. Most research that looks at the psychological impact of disaster focuses on the impact of disasters more broadly.

    Those interviewed for a 2013 documentary about surviving large plane crashes, Sole Survivor, express complex feelings – wanting to share their stories, but fearing being judged by others.

    Being the lone survivor can be a heavy burden.

    “I didn’t think I was worthy of the gift of being alive,” George Lamson Jr. told the documentary, after surviving a 1985 plane crash in Nevada that killed all others on board.

    Looking for meaning

    People who survive a disaster may also be under pressure to explain what happened and relive the trauma for the benefit of others.

    Vishwashkumar Ramesh was filmed and interviewed by media in the minutes and hours following the Air India crash. But as he told his brother: “I have no idea how I exited the plane”.

    It can be common for survivors themselves to be plagued by unanswerable questions. Did they live for a reason? Why did they live, when so many others died?

    These kinds of unaswerable questions reflect our natural inclination to look for meaning in experiences, and to have our life stories make sense.

    For some people, sharing a traumatic experience with others who’ve been through it or something similar can be a beneficial part of the recovery process, helping to process emotions and regain some agency and control.

    However, this may not always be possible for sole survivors, potentially compounding feelings of guilt and isolation.

    Coping with survivor guilt

    Survivor guilt can be an expression of grief and loss.

    Studies indicate guilt is notably widespread among individuals who have experienced traumatic events, and it is associated with heightened psychopathological symptoms (such as severe anxiety, insomnia or flashbacks) and thoughts of suicide.

    Taking time to process the traumatic event can help survivors cope, and seeking support from friends, family and community or faith leaders can help an individual work through difficult feelings.

    My friend Gill says the anxiety rises as the anniversary of the disaster approaches each year. Trauma reminders such as anniversaries are different to unexpected trauma triggers, but can still cause distress.

    Media attention around collectively experienced dates can also amplify trauma-related distress, contributing to a cycle of media consumption and increased worry about future events.

    On the 7th of July each year, Gill holds a private remembrance ritual. This allows her to express her grief and sense of loss, and to honour those who did not survive. These types of rituals can be a valuable tool in processing feelings of grief and guilt, offering a sense of control and meaning and facilitating the expression and acceptance of loss.

    But lingering guilt and anxiety – especially when it interferes with day-to-day life – should not be ignored. Ongoing survivor guilt is associated with significantly higher levels of post-traumatic symptoms.

    Survivors may need support from psychologists or mental health professionals in the short and long term.

    Erin Smith does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Just one man survived the Air India crash. What’s it like to survive a mass disaster? – https://theconversation.com/just-one-man-survived-the-air-india-crash-whats-it-like-to-survive-a-mass-disaster-258905

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-OSI Global: News of the Air India plane crash is traumatic. Here’s how to make sense of the risk

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Hassan Vally, Associate Professor, Epidemiology, Deakin University

    simonkr/Getty Images

    On Thursday afternoon local time, an Air India passenger plane bound for London crashed shortly after takeoff from the northwestern Indian city of Ahmedabad. There were reportedly 242 people onboard, including two pilots and ten cabin crew.

    The most up-to-date reports indicate the death toll has surpassed 260, including people on the ground.

    Miraculously, one passenger – British national Vishwashkumar Ramesh – survived the crash.

    Thankfully, catastrophic plane crashes such as this are very rare. But seeing news of such a horrific event is traumatic, particularly for people who may have a fear of flying or are due to travel on a plane soon.

    If you’re feeling anxious following this distressing news, it’s understandable. But here are some things worth considering when you’re thinking about the risk of plane travel.

    Just how dangerous is flying?

    One of the ways to make sense of risks, especially really small ones, is to put them into context.

    Although there are various ways to do this, we can first look to figures that tell us the risk of dying in a plane crash per passenger who boards a plane. Arnold Barnett, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, calculated that in 2018–22, this figure was one in 13.7 million. By any reckoning, this is an incredibly small risk.

    And there’s a clear trend of air travel getting safer every decade. Barnett’s calculations suggest that between 2007 and 2017, the risk was one per 7.9 million.

    We can also compare the risks of dying in a plane crash with those of dying in a car accident. Although estimates of motor vehicle fatalities vary depending on how you do the calculations and where you are in the world, flying has been estimated to be more than 100 times safer than driving.

    Evolution has skewed our perception of risks

    The risk of being involved in a plane crash is extremely small. But for a variety of reasons, we often perceive it to be greater than it is.

    First, there are well-known limitations in how we intuitively estimate risk. Our responses to risk (and many other things) are often shaped far more by emotion and instinct than by logic.

    As psychologist Daniel Kahneman explains in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow, much of our thinking about risk is driven by intuitive, automatic processes rather than careful reasoning.

    Notably, our brains evolved to pay attention to threats that are striking or memorable. The risks we faced in primitive times were large, immediate and tangible threats to life. Conversely, the risks we face in the modern world are generally much smaller, less obvious, and play out over the longer term.

    The brain that served us well in prehistoric times has essentially remained the same, but the world has completely changed. Therefore, our brains are susceptible to errors in thinking and mental shortcuts called cognitive biases that skew our perception of modern risks.

    This can lead us to overestimate very small risks, such as plane crashes, while underestimating far more probable dangers, such as chronic diseases.

    Why we overestimate the risks of flying

    There are several drivers of our misperception of risks when it comes to flying specifically.

    The fact events such as the Air India plane crash are so rare makes them all the more psychologically powerful when they do occur. And in today’s digital media landscape, the proliferation of dramatic footage of the crash itself, along with images of the aftermath, amplifies its emotional and visual impact.

    The effect these vivid images have on our thinking around the risks of flying is called the availability heuristic. The more unusual and dramatic an event is, the more it stands out in our minds, and the more it skews our perception of its likelihood.

    It’s natural to perceive the risk of flying as being greater than it truly is.
    OlegRi/Shutterstock

    Another influence on the way we perceive risks relevant to flying is called dread risk, which is a psychological response we have to certain types of threats. We fear certain risks that feel more catastrophic or unfamiliar. It’s the same reason we may disproportionately fear terrorist attacks, when in reality they’re very uncommon.

    Plane crashes usually involve a large number of deaths that occur at one time. And the thought of going down in a plane may feel more frightening than dying in other ways. All this taps into the emotions of fear, vulnerability and helplessness, and leads to an overweighting of the risks.

    Another factor that contributes to our overestimation of flying risks is our lack of control when flying. When we’re passengers on a plane, we are in many ways completely dependent on others. Even though we know pilots are highly trained and commercial aviation is very safe, the lack of control we have as passengers triggers a deep sense of vulnerability.

    This absence of control makes the situation feel riskier than it actually is, and often riskier than activities where the threat is far greater but there is an (often false) sense of control, such as driving a car.

    In a nutshell

    We have an evolutionary bias toward reacting more strongly to particular threats, especially when these events are dramatic, evoke dread and when we feel an absence of control.

    Although events such as Air India crash affect us deeply, air travel is still arguably the safest method of transport. Understandably, this can get lost in the emotional aftermath of tragic plane crashes.

    Hassan Vally does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. News of the Air India plane crash is traumatic. Here’s how to make sense of the risk – https://theconversation.com/news-of-the-air-india-plane-crash-is-traumatic-heres-how-to-make-sense-of-the-risk-258907

    MIL OSI – Global Reports

  • MIL-Evening Report: Just one man survived the Air India crash. What’s it like to survive a mass disaster?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Erin Smith, Associate Professor and Discipline Lead (Paramedicine), La Trobe University

    Vishwashkumar Ramesh, a British citizen returning from a trip to India, has been confirmed as the only survivor of Thursday’s deadly Air India crash.

    “I don’t know how I am alive,” Ramesh told family, according to his brother Nayan, in a video call moments after emerging from the wreckage. Another brother Ajay, seated elswhere on the plane, was killed.

    The Boeing 787-7 Dreamliner crashed into a medical college less than a minute after taking off in the city of Ahmedabad, killing the other 229 passengers and 12 crew. At least five people were killed on the ground.

    Surviving a mass disaster of this kind may be hailed as a kind of “miracle”. But what is it like to survive – especially as the only one?

    Surviving a disaster

    Past research has shown disaster survivors may experience an intense range of emotions, from grief and anxiety to feelings of loss and uncertainty.

    These are common reactions to an extraordinary situation.

    Some people may develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and have difficulty adjusting to a new reality after bearing witness to immense loss. They may also be dealing with physical recovery from injuries sustained in the disaster.

    Most people recover after disasters by drawing on their own strengths and the support of others. Recovery rates are high: generally less than one in ten of those affected by disasters develop chronic, long-term problems.

    However, being a sole survivor of a mass casualty may have its own complex psychological challenges.

    Survivor’s guilt

    Survivors can experience guilt they lived when others died.

    My friend, Gill Hicks, spoke to me for this article about the ongoing guilt she still feels, years after surviving the 2005 bombings of the London underground.

    Lying trapped in a smoke-filled train carriage, she was the last living person to be rescued after the attack. Gill lost both her legs.

    Yet she still wonders, “Why me? Why did I get to go home, when so many others didn’t?”

    In the case of a sole survivor, this guilt may be particularly acute. However, research addressing the impact of sole survivorship is limited. Most research that looks at the psychological impact of disaster focuses on the impact of disasters more broadly.

    Those interviewed for a 2013 documentary about surviving large plane crashes, Sole Survivor, express complex feelings – wanting to share their stories, but fearing being judged by others.

    Being the lone survivor can be a heavy burden.

    “I didn’t think I was worthy of the gift of being alive,” George Lamson Jr. told the documentary, after surviving a 1985 plane crash in Nevada that killed all others on board.

    Looking for meaning

    People who survive a disaster may also be under pressure to explain what happened and relive the trauma for the benefit of others.

    Vishwashkumar Ramesh was filmed and interviewed by media in the minutes and hours following the Air India crash. But as he told his brother: “I have no idea how I exited the plane”.

    It can be common for survivors themselves to be plagued by unanswerable questions. Did they live for a reason? Why did they live, when so many others died?

    These kinds of unaswerable questions reflect our natural inclination to look for meaning in experiences, and to have our life stories make sense.

    For some people, sharing a traumatic experience with others who’ve been through it or something similar can be a beneficial part of the recovery process, helping to process emotions and regain some agency and control.

    However, this may not always be possible for sole survivors, potentially compounding feelings of guilt and isolation.

    Coping with survivor guilt

    Survivor guilt can be an expression of grief and loss.

    Studies indicate guilt is notably widespread among individuals who have experienced traumatic events, and it is associated with heightened psychopathological symptoms (such as severe anxiety, insomnia or flashbacks) and thoughts of suicide.

    Taking time to process the traumatic event can help survivors cope, and seeking support from friends, family and community or faith leaders can help an individual work through difficult feelings.

    My friend Gill says the anxiety rises as the anniversary of the disaster approaches each year. Trauma reminders such as anniversaries are different to unexpected trauma triggers, but can still cause distress.

    Media attention around collectively experienced dates can also amplify trauma-related distress, contributing to a cycle of media consumption and increased worry about future events.

    On the 7th of July each year, Gill holds a private remembrance ritual. This allows her to express her grief and sense of loss, and to honour those who did not survive. These types of rituals can be a valuable tool in processing feelings of grief and guilt, offering a sense of control and meaning and facilitating the expression and acceptance of loss.

    But lingering guilt and anxiety – especially when it interferes with day-to-day life – should not be ignored. Ongoing survivor guilt is associated with significantly higher levels of post-traumatic symptoms.

    Survivors may need support from psychologists or mental health professionals in the short and long term.

    Erin Smith does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Just one man survived the Air India crash. What’s it like to survive a mass disaster? – https://theconversation.com/just-one-man-survived-the-air-india-crash-whats-it-like-to-survive-a-mass-disaster-258905

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz

  • MIL-Evening Report: Why did Israel defy Trump – and risk a major war – by striking Iran now? And what happens next?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern and Central Asian Studies, Australian National University; and Vice Chancellor’s Strategic Fellow, Victoria University

    Alarmed by an intelligence assessment that Iran will be able to produce nuclear weapons within months if not weeks, Israel has launched a massive air campaign aiming to destroy the country’s nuclear program.

    Israel’s air strikes hit Iran’s main nuclear enrichment facility at Natanz, as well as its air defences and long-range missile facilities.

    Among the dead are Hossein Salami, the chief of Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guards Corps; Mohammad Bagheri, the commander-in-chief of the military; and two prominent nuclear scientists.

    Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has promised “severe punishment” in response. Iran could potentially target Israel’s own nuclear sites and US bases across the Persian Gulf. Israel claimed Iran launched 100 drones towards it just hours after the attack.

    The Middle East is yet again on the precipice of a potentially devastating war with serious regional and global implications.

    Stalled nuclear talks

    The Israeli operations come against the backdrop of a series of inconclusive nuclear talks between the United States and Iran. These negotiations began in mid-April at President Donald Trump’s request and aimed to reach a deal within months.

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu opposed the talks, pressing for military action instead as the best option to halt Iran’s nuclear program.

    The diplomatic efforts had stalled in recent weeks over Trump’s demand that Iran agree to a zero-uranium enrichment posture and destroy its stockpile of some 400 kilograms of enriched uranium at a 60% purity level. This could be rapidly enriched further to weapons-grade level.

    Tehran refused to oblige, calling it a “non-negotiable”.

    Netanyahu has long pledged to eliminate what he has called the Iranian “octopus” – the regime’s vast network of regional affiliates, including Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the regime of former Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, and the Houthi militants in Yemen.

    Following Hamas’ attack on Israel on October 7 2023, Israel’s military has considerably degraded these Iranian affiliates, one by one. Now, Netanyahu has now gone for beheading the octopus.

    Trump keeping his distance

    Netanyahu has in the past urged Washington to join him in a military operation against Iran. However, successive US leaders have not found it desirable to ignite or be involved in another Middle East war, especially after the debacle in Iraq and its failed Afghanistan intervention.

    Despite his strong commitment to Israel’s security and regional supremacy, Trump has been keen to follow this US posture, for two important reasons.

    He has not forgotten Netanyahu’s warm congratulations to Joe Biden when he defeated Trump in the 2020 US presidential election.

    Nor has Trump been keen to be too closely aligned with Netanyahu at the expense of his lucrative relations with oil-rich Arab states. He recently visited Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates on a trip to the Middle East, while bypassing Israel.

    Indeed, this week, Trump had warned Netanyahu not to do anything that could undermine the US nuclear talks with Iran. He has been keen to secure a deal to boost his self-declared reputation as a peace broker, despite not having done very well so far on this front.

    But as the nuclear talks seemed to be reaching a dead end, Netanyahu decided now was the moment to act.

    The Trump administration has distanced itself from the attack, saying it had no involvement. It remains to be seen whether the US will now get involved to defend Israel if and when Iran retaliates.

    What a wider war could mean

    Israel has shown it has the capacity to unleash overwhelming firepower, causing serious damage to Iran’s nuclear and military facilities and infrastructure. But the Iranian Islamic regime also has the capability to retaliate, with all the means at its disposal.

    Despite the fact the Iranian leadership faces serious domestic issues on political, social and economic fronts, it still has the ability to target Israeli and US assets in the region with advanced missiles and drones.

    It also has the capability to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20–25% of global oil and liquefied natural gas shipments flow. Importantly, Iran has strategic partnerships with both Russia and China, as well.

    Depending on the nature and scope of the Iranian response, the current conflict could easily develop into an uncontrollable regional war, with none of the parties emerging as victor. A major conflict could not only further destabilise what is already a volatile Middle East, but also upend the fragile global geopolitical and economic landscape.

    The Middle East cannot afford another war. Trump had good reasons to restrain Netanyahu’s government while the nuclear negotiations were taking place to see if he could hammer out a deal.

    Whether this deal can be salvaged amid the chaos is unclear. The next round of negotiations was due to be held on Sunday in Oman, but Iran said it would not attend and all talks were off until further notice.

    Iran and the US, under Barack Obama, had agreed a nuclear deal before – the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Although Netanyahu branded it “the worst deal of the century”, it appeared to be holding until Trump, urged by Netanyahu, unilaterally withdrew from it in 2018.

    Now, Netanyahu has taken the military approach to thwart Iran’s nuclear program. And the region – and rest of the world – will have to wait and see if another war can be averted before it’s too late.

    Amin Saikal does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    ref. Why did Israel defy Trump – and risk a major war – by striking Iran now? And what happens next? – https://theconversation.com/why-did-israel-defy-trump-and-risk-a-major-war-by-striking-iran-now-and-what-happens-next-258917

    MIL OSI AnalysisEveningReport.nz