NewzIntel.com

Category: Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Global: Keir Starmer at the White House: what ‘progressive realism’ now means in relation to Ukraine and Donald Trump

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jason Ralph, Professor of International Relations, University of Leeds

    Flickr/Number 10, CC BY-NC-ND

    Since the Labour government came to power in the UK past year, its international relations have been pursued under the banner of what foreign secretary David Lammy calls “progressive realism”. This involves “using realist means to pursue progressive ends”, including taking “pragmatic steps” to improve relations with other states.

    Lammy rejects the notion that “idealism has no place in foreign policy” but also argues that the UK should be “realistic about the state of the world and the country’s role in it”.

    The visit of the UK prime minister, Keir Starmer, to the White House to meet US president Donald Trump has been the biggest test of this approach. Outlining a set of foreign policy principles is one thing, acting on them is another.

    Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

    Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

    In practice, progressive and realist foreign policies can pull in different directions. Combining them might be a form of “cakeism” – you usually can’t be a realist and have your progressivism too. Sometimes, however, clever diplomacy can find a way.

    Did Starmer find that way in his response to Trump’s ideas on negotiating with Russia without a defined role for Ukraine?

    Progressive realism in action

    Progressivism is associated with a commitment to the rule of international law. In the case of Ukraine, that would mean opposing any peace deal that rewarded Russia’s aggression or the concession of land to Russia.

    Progressivism is also associated with a support for international criminal law. The progressive in this case might be opposed to any peace deal that did not see Russian president Vladimir Putin hauled before the International Criminal Court (the same court that Trump has sanctioned).

    An invitation from the king.
    Flickr/Number 10, CC BY-NC-ND

    Realism, on the other hand, is sometimes associated with a foreign policy committed to the promotion of self-interest, defined narrowly as the material wellbeing of the nation. Faced with the threat of further US tariffs, and the impact they would have on the government’s economic priorities, the realist would probably recommend that the UK do absolutely nothing to upset Trump.

    Starmer has so far managed to walk this particular tightrope with a “pragmatic” form of progressivism. He remains committed to the vision of a world order based on international law and so is not realist in that sense. He was not willing to betray Ukraine just to be friends with Trump and avoid US tariffs, for instance.

    But he was pragmatic because he realised the only way to advance progressive principles was to persuade Trump that they set out the path to a sustainable peace. For this reason, my colleague Jamie Gaskarth and I have argued UK policy might better be described as “progressive pragmatism”.

    Starmer has a broader definition of the national interest than that sometimes associated with realism. It is in the UK’s interest to maintain an international order based on laws that codify the progressive principles of national self-determination and international justice.

    From this perspective, the UK is right not to turn its back on Ukrainian self-determination by jumping on Trump’s bandwagon. That is a slippery slope. It can lead to a world order that is unstable because it is dictated by the great powers. Ukraine today, Greenland, Palestine, Taiwan tomorrow.

    His pragmatism was very much on display in Washington, however. It meant staying close to the US not just to avoid tariffs, which Starmer appears to have done with the help of an invitation from King Charles for a state visit to the UK. It meant working with Trump’s ideas on Russia to persuade him that supporting Ukraine is the way to a “durable” peace.

    Starmer and Trump give a joint press conference.
    Flickr/Number 10, CC BY-NC-ND

    Durable peace here is not simply a question of satisfying Russia and having sufficient military force on the ground (the so-called US “backstop”) to deter future Russian aggression. It must also respect the political power of a progressive principle: national self-determination.

    To conclude a peace that does not include the Ukrainian people is not just a moral betrayal, it is politically imprudent because it creates grievances, which become causes of conflict. That does not mean the only way forward is to return to the pre-2014 status quo, but it does mean Kyiv’s involvement in peace negotiations has to be meaningful, not symbolic.

    In 1990 the transatlantic positions were reversed. UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher was troubled by the fall of Berlin wall. She proposed that the occupying powers that had divided Germany in 1945 decide the terms of reunification.

    The administration of the then US president, George Bush senior, had a broader understanding of history and the future. They realised that a dictated peace after the first world war contributed to the grievances that led to the second.

    On that occasion the US approach prevailed. Germany was allowed to reunify on its own terms and choose its own alliances. It was a progressive and pragmatic solution that was committed to national self-determination and it set the foundations for the durable peace that self-described realists thought would never happen.

    Starmer made a point in Washington of congratulating Trump for breaking the impasse. He was rewarded when the president suggested that a trade deal is now on the table. As he flies back across the Atlantic, Starmer might continue the flattery by comparing Trump’s actions to the way Ronald Reagan sowed the seeds of the new world order in the 1980s.

    He should recall, however, that the details of that new order were subsequently worked out by the administration of George Bush Snr., which had a pragmatic respect for national self-determination. That now means supporting Ukraine in any upcoming negotiation.

    Jason Ralph has in the past received funding from Research Councils UK and the EU. He does not currently hold a research grant. He is a member of the UK Labour Party.

    – ref. Keir Starmer at the White House: what ‘progressive realism’ now means in relation to Ukraine and Donald Trump – https://theconversation.com/keir-starmer-at-the-white-house-what-progressive-realism-now-means-in-relation-to-ukraine-and-donald-trump-250722

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Keir Starmer meets Donald Trump: assiduous planning results in deft diplomacy

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Martin Farr, Senior Lecturer in Contemporary British History, Newcastle University

    Flickr/Number 10, CC BY-NC-ND

    Keir Starmer was only the second European leader to visit Donald Trump’s second White House. The first, France’s Emmanuel Macron, had barely taken off when Starmer touched down, but had already raised the bar by behaving regally in front of the world’s media alongside his fellow president in the Oval Office.

    In manner, Macron manifested his eight years in office (four of which were already spent with Trump in the White House). Starmer has had a mere eight months. But it was a challenge, judged in its own immediate terms, that the prime minister met.

    Raising the curtain, in a highly untypical coup de théâtre, Starmer flourished – as few can – a letter from the King to give to the president, and then effectively forced Trump to read it on camera and agree to the invitation enclosed within.

    Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

    Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

    Starmer of course knew he was nudging an open door: much came down to assiduous preparation. The British Embassy, under a finally confirmed ambassador Peter Mandelson, worked overtime to choreograph and lubricate.

    Starmer had been wise in contradicting Trump only indirectly. Nothing could be gained – as president Zelenskyy already demonstrated – from doing so publicly. So early an offer of a state visit to the UK ran the risk of appearing desperate, but was mitigated by its also being “unprecedented” as the second to be offered to Trump. A word recently worn smooth by over-use, there was nevertheless another precedent set in the suggestion of a pre-state visit visit between Trump and the king. With this president, more than any other, royal diplomacy is a critical national asset.

    Starmer’s announcement of an increase in defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027 worked similarly well. That funds are to be diverted from foreign aid for that purpose the Labour leadership deemed as being politically cost-free – or at least good value – politically. It was, indeed, almost Trumpian. The relevant minister disagreed.

    It is hard to recall greater shifts in a country’s foreign policy in so short a space of time. Insofar as one can discern Trump’s purposefulness, it is to create pandemonium, which has the secondary effect of galvanising actors to act – not least for fear of further pandemonium.

    Thus last week the US voting with Russia, Iran and North Korea, and not with Britain, at the UN. The Trump administration’s designation of choice is now “the Russia-Ukraine conflict”, as if it were merely a border dispute.

    Therefore, ahead of Starmer’s arrival in Washington, he was faced with the US apparently aligning itself with a country his describes as “the most acute threat” to the UK. “Jaw-dropping” was the adjective of choice for more than a few informed observers who had thought themselves prepared for whatever may transpire.

    The actors Trump primarily wishes to galvanise are European leaders, recalcitrants he thinks should do more to keep their own peace. For Macron to have been told that Putin would accept Nato forces policing the peace was scene-changing, but the only witness to the veracity of that news was Trump, who exhales untruths as easily as he breathes. The Russians soon denied it.

    A very special man.
    Flickr/Number 10, CC BY-NC-ND

    Macron’s offer of France’s (non-Nato) airborne nuclear force complemented Starmer’s commitment to British boots on the ground and helped him elicit Trump’s commitment to mutual defence.

    But Trump guaranteeing the peace that Starmer and Macron are willing to police was the cherry conspicuously missing from the cake. The suggestion was subject to a classic Trump equivocation (we’ll always support the Brits, but they won’t need our support).

    For the British government, July’s election already resembles a hospital pass. The effect of 20% tariffs on GDP growth could be catastrophic. Trump’s talk of tariff-free trade deals was more than expected, but one such was offered last time without much being doing about, before it was cancelled by President Biden. This time, Trump has said his vice president is drawing up a plan, even that being absent before.

    And in a categorical demonstration of the benefits of lobbying there was effective presidential approval of the Chagos islands deal, simultaneously shooting one of Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch’s few foxes stone dead.

    Warm words

    Thus has passed the most potentially difficult meeting of a prime minister and a president since Suez. Nothing else comes close. Cliche – eggshells, tightropes – proliferated in previews.

    When Starmer was last at the White House, in September, he had asked Biden for a meeting about Ukraine and received it. However unsatisfactory the outcome, public face was maintained. Trump has the ability – and the form – to have humiliated in a way which would permanently have scarred Starmer. That he did the opposite ought not to distract from the vulnerability of the supplicant.

    ‘Go on, open it’.
    Number 10/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

    Instead there were encomia from Trump as to the two countries – “special relationship”, “unique friendship”, “fantastic country”, “I’ve always cared” – and of Starmer – “a special man”, “a very special person”. And in describing Starmer’s accent as “beautiful”, the president revealed the hitherto unknown allure of the adenoidal.

    Power plays sit ill with Starmer, but he nonetheless ventured two corrections from his armchiar, one to a statement made by the president and another to one made by the vice-president. The subsequent praise for Starmer’s negotiating tenacity from Trump, that much-vaunted artist of the deal, was as priceless – and unfamiliar – as the following morning’s front pages.

    However successful this visit, however, nothing can be assumed, still less guaranteed. That the British government would so extensively war-game a meeting with its closest ally tells its own tale, or, rather a tale perhaps yet to be told. At this moment, for the next four years the relationship at least feels more secure than it did a few days before the trip. By such diurnal turns are the affairs of allies now measured.

    Martin Farr 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. Keir Starmer meets Donald Trump: assiduous planning results in deft diplomacy – https://theconversation.com/keir-starmer-meets-donald-trump-assiduous-planning-results-in-deft-diplomacy-251178

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: I studied the evidence behind theories of Oscar success – here’s what I found

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andre Spicer, Professor of Organisational Behaviour, Bayes Business School, City St George’s, University of London

    When Oscar-winning screenwriter William Goldman was asked whether it was possible to predict a hit film, he responded with three words that have become a Hollywood maxim: “Nobody knows anything.” He went on to explain that “not one person in the entire motion picture field knows for a certainty what’s going to work”.

    Although Goldman’s famous phrase might resonate through the film business, it doesn’t stop people cooking up theories around which films might succeed at the annual Academy of Motion Picture Awards. Over the years, a range of theories have appeared, including: Oscar winners are not always the best films; there is an Oscar-worthy format that winners follow; and that winning an Oscar is actually a long-term curse.

    Although there is a great deal of speculation about such theories, it’s less clear what the evidence actually says about them. To find out, I took a look at the rapidly growing field of “Oscarology” – the scientific study of the Academy Awards.

    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.

    One common theory is that it is entirely predictable who the Oscars will go to. Interestingly, this seems to have some truth to it. One statistical analysis found that by tracking a range of factors, it was possible to predict the winner of the Academy Awards in the four major categories with an overall accuracy of 69%.

    Nickel Boys, one of the best picture nominees.

    Factors which go into making these predictions include whether the nominee won a Golden Globe or Directors Guild award, and their previous nominations for an Oscar. Past success is a strong indicator of future success, with one important exception: having previously won an Academy Award means a nominee for best actor or best actress is much less likely to win again.

    A second theory is that winning an Oscar is a golden ticket to big financial rewards. This is indeed correct. A study found there is a substantial boost in US box office earnings following a win in the the best supporting actor/actress, best actor/actress and best picture categories.

    Best picture nominee Conclave stars Ralph Fiennes, also nominated for best actor.

    Further research has found that Oscar nominations really make a positive impact on box office receipts – while actually winning the award gives a more modest boost. Interestingly, winning an award does not always translate to success in other parts the world. One study found that Oscar winners that were comedies performed better in Asian markets, but dramas performed worse.

    The next theory is the idea that Oscar winners follow a particular format. Researchers have indeed found there is an Oscar-worthy format which some filmmakers follow. The “Oscar bait” format uses genres like war movies, historical epics and biographies, as well as plot elements such as war crimes, disabilities, political intrigue and show business.

    Mikey Madison, star of best picture nominee Anora, is also up for best actress.

    However, making a film using this Oscar-worthy format is not a guarantee of success. Films employing this concept which were nominated for an award received significantly greater financial returns. However, those using the Oscar-bait format which missed out on a nomination typically made large losses.

    Then comes the theory that winning an Oscar is more about the quality of networks rather than the quality of the film. Again, there is some truth to this. Researchers have found that one way to improve the chances of winning an Oscar is to be part of film industry networks and work alongside people who have already won awards.

    As well as a best picture nomination, Wicked’s Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo are also nominated.

    There are some indicators that Oscars do not necessarily go to the best-quality movies. One analysis which compared Oscar winners to lists of 100 best movies of all time found that only 26% of films which appeared on all three main lists of best movies were also Oscar winners.

    This research also notes that some movies which are staples of lists of classic movies (such as Singing in the Rain) were not even nominated for the best picture Oscar. What this suggests is that winning an Oscar does not always mean a film will be seen as a classic – and vice versa.

    Best picture nominee I’m Still Here sees Brazilian Fernanda Torres nominated for best actress.

    The final theory is that there is an “Oscar curse” – that winning an Oscar leads to personal and professional tragedy. This theory is largely incorrect. Researchers have found that Oscar winners live about one year longer than their less successful peers. Others have found that winning an Academy Award leads to greater professional success, with Oscar winners and nominees appearing in more films than their non-winning peers.

    However, one area of truth in the idea of an Oscar curse is for men in their personal lives. Nominees and winners of the best actor award had a higher divorce rate than their peers.

    Theories around the Oscars may prove to be not entirely correct – but they do provide a useful approximation of which films will triumph. Past performance, social networks and formula-following all seem to be good indicators of who will succeed. Perhaps Goldman’s advice that “no one knows anything” is not entirely true.

    Andre Spicer 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. I studied the evidence behind theories of Oscar success – here’s what I found – https://theconversation.com/i-studied-the-evidence-behind-theories-of-oscar-success-heres-what-i-found-251085

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The Vegan Tigress: intimate play resurrects fierce forgotten Victorian writer

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Lucy Ella Rose, Lecturer in Victorian Literature, University of Surrey

    The Vegan Tigress, a new play by Claire Parker, shines a spotlight on the largely-forgotten feminist fairytale writer Mary De Morgan (1850-1907). And the timing is particularly apt. The show opened, at London’s Bread & Roses Theatre, in the lead up to International Women’s Day and during the year of the 175th anniversary of De Morgan’s birth.

    The production, by LynchPin Theatre Company, is part of a wider cultural project to celebrate underappreciated Victorian women writers, actors and activists. Parker has also written plays on feminist actor Ellen Terry and her daughter Edie Craig.

    It also speaks to a general resurgence of interest in the creative De Morgan family. Mary’s father was Augustus De Morgan, the mathematician and logician and her brother was the potter, tile designer and novelist William De Morgan.

    The Bread and Roses Theatre – an intimate space above a lively Clapham pub – creates an immersive experience. The audience shares De Morgan’s modest London quarters along with the accidentally summoned ghost of her ex-lover’s formidable mother: Lady Tuttle (played by Edie Campbell).

    Providing comedic value, Tuttle deploys her spectral status to prank De Morgan (played by Parker), but her presence also highlights the stark differences between them, staging a debate between feminist and patriarchal versions of Victorian-Edwardian womanhood.

    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.

    Shrill-voiced, upper-class and tightly corseted, Tuttle opposes women’s education and refers to suffragettes as “hyenas in petticoats and bitter spinsters”.

    Striding across the stage swathed in silk skirts and a velvet, lace-trimmed bodice, she is both a mesmerising and somewhat villainous matriarch. By contrast, De Morgan is an irreverent free spirit who wears bohemian clothing, admires revolutionaries and has been a suffragist since she was 16.

    The show portrays De Morgan as a pioneering professional woman, writing feverishly at a desk flanked by piles of beautiful antiquarian books. Parker and Campbell are hypnotic in their imaginative retellings and performances of De Morgan’s stories such as the The Hair Tree (1877), which are woven into the play.

    The Vegan Tigress transports the audience into fantastical realms, fusing eerie lighting with dazzling props and sound effects – thunder, birdsong, clamouring voices.

    With impressive ease, the actors shape-shift into bizarre animal forms – a puppet parrot, a tortured tiger and a grotesque tortoise. Together they illuminate the sociopolitical subtexts of De Morgan’s stories.

    The trailer for The Vegan Tigress.

    Her subversive tale from 1877, A Toy Princess (which Parker describes in the play), critiques doll-like ideals of femininity, prefigures the feminist fairy tales of Angela Carter and resonates with the Barbiemania that surrounded the release of the Barbie film in 2023.

    In literature and in life, De Morgan resists conventional narratives of marriage and motherhood, enacting alternative destinies for women.

    Especially successful as a visual manifestation of the stories’ transformative power is the simultaneously symbolic and literal change we witness in Lady Tuttle.

    The more she reads The Windfairies (1900, one of three fairy tale collections by De Morgan) and political publications (Votes for Women), the less straitlaced she becomes – literally. Her corset unbuttons and her tied hair loosens. Despite being a ghost, Lady Tuttle comes alive as her mind expands, testifying to the powerful potential of reading and writing.

    In joyful and poignant moments of female bonding in the second half of the play, Tuttle and De Morgan dance the tango, and embark arm-in-arm on the trip of a lifetime to Egypt, where De Morgan worked in real life in a girls’ reformatory. The show becomes a celebration of female creativity, companionship and community.

    At the play’s close, the fourth wall is broken and the audience is addressed by De Morgan as “people from the future”. It prompts a reflection on how far we have come since first-wave feminism, but also how far we still have to go (given #MeToo and the reversal of Roe v Wade, the US Supreme Court ruling that legalised abortion across the States in 1973), making Parker’s revival of De Morgan timely and important.

    If De Morgan’s legacy is, as she soliloquises, “arming lost, disenfranchised girls and women with the tools to stand their ground”, what will ours be?

    The Vegan Tigress is at The Bread & Roses Theatre until March 1.

    Lucy Ella Rose 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. The Vegan Tigress: intimate play resurrects fierce forgotten Victorian writer – https://theconversation.com/the-vegan-tigress-intimate-play-resurrects-fierce-forgotten-victorian-writer-251179

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Zelensky flies to Washington but his dream of a ‘just peace’ deal is unlikely to come true as things stand

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stefan Wolff, Professor of International Security, University of Birmingham

    Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, has arrived in Washington for talks with his US counterpart, Donald Trump. One of the key issues on their agenda is the “very big deal” announced by the US president on February 25. This deal would give the United States access to Ukraine’s critical mineral and rare earth deposits in return for continuing US support.

    Trump has made sure his domestic audience understands that – as he told his first cabinet meeting on February 26 – in contrast to his Democratic predecessor, Joe Biden, he’s getting something out of Kyiv in return for the support the US has given Ukraine in the past.

    The message coming from the Ukrainian side was a bit more circumspect. Zelensky took pains to emphasise that the deal was still a draft and that its successful conclusion would depend on the outcome of talks with Trump.

    The lack of Ukrainian enthusiasm for the deal is justified. In its present form, it looks more like a memorandum of understanding that leaves several vital issues to be resolved later. The deal on offer is the creation of will be called a “reconstruction investment fund”, to be jointly owned and managed by the US and Ukraine.

    Into the proposed fund will go 50% of the revenue from the exploitation of “all relevant Ukrainian government-owned natural resource assets (whether owned directly or indirectly by the Ukrainian government)” and “other infrastructure relevant to natural resource assets (such as liquified natural gas terminals and port infrastructure)”.

    This means that private infrastructure – much of it owned by Ukraine’s wealthy oligarchs – is likely to become part of the deal. This has the potential of further increasing friction between Zelensky and some very powerful Ukrainians.

    Meanwhile, US contributions are less clearly defined. The preamble to the agreement makes it clear that Ukraine already owes the US. The very first paragraph notes that “the United States of America has provided significant financial and material support to Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022”.

    This figure, according to Trump, amounts to US$350 billion (£278 billion). The actual amount, according to the Ukraine Support Tracker of the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, is about half that.

    Western and Ukrainian analysts have also pointed out that there may be fewer and less accessible mineral and rare earth deposits in Ukraine than are currently assumed. The working estimates have been based mostly on Soviet-era data.

    Since the current draft leaves details on ownership, governance and operations to be determined in a future fund agreement, Trump’s very big deal is at best the first step. Future rounds of negotiations are to be expected.

    Statement of intent

    From a Ukrainian perspective, this is more of a strength than a weakness. It leaves Kyiv with an opportunity to achieve more satisfactory terms in future rounds of negotiation. Even if any improvements will only be marginal, it keeps the US locked into a process that is, overall, beneficial for Ukraine.

    Take the example of security guarantees. The draft agreement offers Ukraine nothing anywhere near Nato membership. But it notes that the US “supports Ukraine’s efforts to obtain security guarantees needed to establish lasting peace”, adding that: “Participants will seek to identify any necessary steps to protect mutual investments.”

    The significance of this should not be overstated. At its bare minimum, it is an expression of intent by the US that falls short of security guarantees but still gives the US a stake in the survival of Ukraine as an independent state.

    But it is an important signal both in terms of what it does and does not do – a signal to Russia, Europe and Ukraine.

    Trump does not envisage that the US will give Ukraine security guarantees “beyond very much”. He seems to think that these guarantees can be provided by European troops (the Kremlin has already cast doubts on this idea).

    But this does not mean the idea is completely off the table. On the contrary, because the US commitment is so vague, it gives Trump leverage in every direction.

    He can use it as a carrot and a stick against Ukraine to get more favourable terms for US returns from the reconstruction investment fund. He can use it to push Europe towards more decisive action to ramp up defence spending by making any US protection for European peacekeepers contingent on more equitable burden-sharing in Nato.

    And he can signal to the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, that the US is serious about making a deal stick – and that higher American economic stakes in Ukraine and corporate presence on the ground would mean US-backed consequences if the Kremlin reneges on a future peace agreement and restarts hostilities.

    That these calculations will ultimately lead to the “free, sovereign and secure Ukraine” that the agreement envisages is not a given.

    For now, however, despite all its shortcomings and vagueness on key issues, it looks like it serves all sides’ interests in moving forward in this direction, albeit at a snail’s pace.

    Stefan Wolff is a past recipient of grant funding from the Natural Environment Research Council of the UK, the United States Institute of Peace, the Economic and Social Research Council of the UK, the British Academy, the NATO Science for Peace Programme, the EU Framework Programmes 6 and 7 and Horizon 2020, as well as the EU’s Jean Monnet Programme. He is a Trustee and Honorary Treasurer of the Political Studies Association of the UK and a Senior Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre in London.

    Tetyana Malyarenko 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. Zelensky flies to Washington but his dream of a ‘just peace’ deal is unlikely to come true as things stand – https://theconversation.com/zelensky-flies-to-washington-but-his-dream-of-a-just-peace-deal-is-unlikely-to-come-true-as-things-stand-250855

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: It was risky for Ontario Premier Doug Ford to call an early election — but it did pay off

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Sam Routley, PhD Candidate, Political Science, Western University

    Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s election gamble has paid off. As a consequence of last night’s election results, the Progressive Conservatives are now set to form their third consecutive majority government.

    By and large, last night’s election results were dull and uninspiring, looking very similar to the outcome of the province’s election in 2022. The Progressive Conservatives return (going from 79 to 80) with only one additional member of caucus, receiving a noticeable but modest two per cent bump in support.

    And, while the Liberals saw even more of a recovery from 2018, the generally widespread distribution of that vote means that they were only able to gain five seats. Although tarnished, the New Democrats return as the official opposition party.

    Unprepared rivals

    These lacklustre results flow directly from lacklustre campaigns. The fact is that, regardless of Premier Ford’s legitimate calls for a renewed mandate amidst an aggressive American administration, the party had been looking for an excuse to call a premature election for quite some time. In doing so, they were able to — quite intentionally — catch their rivals unprepared, complete with incomplete candidate slates, unknown leaders and undercooked policy platforms.

    It meant that, while Ford was able to run a safe and constrained front-runner’s campaign, his main opponents struggled to find the momentum necessary to move the dial and exploit enough backlash. This is alongside real policy vulnerabilities in health care and education, with enough voters expressing discontent with what they felt to be an unnecessary and self-serving election call.

    Chaotic news cycle

    There are good reasons to believe that voters were mostly apathetic towards the parties and their candidates. Alongside the reasons already stated, the dense, chaotic and ever-shifting news cycle of the last few months may have entailed that this election was able to slip by quietly.

    But this does not seem to be the full story, as this year’s turnout — while still low — is slightly higher than that of 2022. Instead, voters also seemed to have wanted to maintain the status quo.

    On the local level, siting members of the provincial legislature from all three parties generally performed quite well. Of the 111 ridings with party-nominated incumbents, for example, only four lost. So while many voters may have been unhappy with the election call, the unpredictable environment may have also had the reverse effect of leading them to support, if not fully endorse, the leaders they already have.

    Regardless of the more limited dynamics of this election, however, we cannot overlook the fact that this has been a very real accomplishment for Doug Ford and the Progressive Conservatives. In a period of high executive turnover and anti-incumbent backlash, Doug Ford has, as the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, brought about a track record of secure, consecutive majorities — a feat that was last attained by Leslie Frost and John Robarts.

    In many ways, it brings to mind the years of the traditional “big blue machine,” when the party controlled the government of Ontario for 40 consecutive years.

    Durable persona

    Here, Ford’s success is much deeper than a matter of suave electoral maneuvering, and it is more long-standing than the recent confrontation with the Trump administration. Instead, these results attest to the fact that, while the Premier is not without his detractors, he has nevertheless managed to secure a stable, solid and sufficient base of support through the combination of both a carefully balanced policy agenda and a durable leadership persona.

    As with his successful conservative predecessors, Ford practices a form of the pragmatic and moderate governance that characterizes Ontario. A large part of what makes this successful is the fact that while it makes policy decisions flexible, it does not make them arbitrary.

    Ford continues to emphasize a government oriented around continual economic growth and innovation as a means to accomplish raising living standards, fund the province’s social programs and — more recently — rival the United States. Combined with Ford’s aptitude in retail politics this has created a clear and accessible political project supported by big developers, small business owners and private-sector workers’ unions.

    In a political environment shaped by personality, Ford continues to suck up the majority of the political oxygen in Ontario. Even while a good portion of Ontarians may dislike Ford — he is far from the most popular of Canada’s premiers — they have not experienced an overriding need to get rid of the incumbent, nor pursue another course of change.

    While politics is impossible to predict, it suggests that this state of continuity will persist in Ontario, even amid a chaotic global environment.

    Sam Routley 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. It was risky for Ontario Premier Doug Ford to call an early election — but it did pay off – https://theconversation.com/it-was-risky-for-ontario-premier-doug-ford-to-call-an-early-election-but-it-did-pay-off-251142

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Coastal economies rely on NOAA, from Maine to Florida, Texas and Alaska – even if they don’t realize it

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Christine Keiner, Chair, Department of Science, Technology, and Society, Rochester Institute of Technology

    U.S. fishing industries, both commercial and recreational, rely on healthy coastal areas. Wolfgang Kaehler/LightRocket via Getty Images

    Healthy coastal ecosystems play crucial roles in the U.S. economy, from supporting multibillion-dollar fisheries and tourism industries to protecting coastlines from storms.

    They’re also difficult to manage, requiring specialized knowledge and technology.

    That’s why the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – the federal agency best known for collecting and analyzing the data that make weather forecasts and warnings possible – leads most of the government’s work on ocean and coastal health, as well as research into the growing risks posed by climate change.

    The government estimates that NOAA’s projects and services support more than one-third of the nation’s gross domestic product. Yet, this is one of the agencies that the Trump administration has targeted, with discussions of trying to privatize NOAA’s forecasting operations and disband its crucial climate change research.

    As a marine environmental historian who studies relationships among scientists, fishermen and environmentalists, I have seen how NOAA’s work affects American livelihoods, coastal health and the U.S. economy.

    Here are a few examples from just NOAA’s coastal work, and what it means to fishing industries and coastal states.

    Preventing fisheries from collapsing

    One of the oldest divisions within NOAA is the National Marine Fisheries Service, known as NOAA Fisheries. It dates to 1871, when Congress created the U.S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries. At that time, the first generation of conservationists started to worry that America’s natural resources were finite.

    By conducting surveys and interviewing fishermen and seafood dealers, the fish commissioners discovered that freshwater and saltwater fisheries across the country were declining.

    Looking back on 150 years of NOAA’s fisheries history.

    Oil spills and raw sewage were polluting waterways. Fishermen were using high-tech gear, such as pound nets, to catch more and more of the most valuable fish. In some areas, overfishing was putting the future of the fisheries in jeopardy.

    One solution was to promote aquaculture, also known as fish or shellfish farming. Scientists and entrepreneurs reared baby fish in hatcheries and transferred them to rivers, lakes or bays. The Fish Commission even used refrigerated railroad cars to ship fish eggs across the country.

    Today, U.S. aquaculture is a US$1.5 billion industry and the world’s fastest-growing food sector. Much of the salmon you see in grocery stores started as farm-raised hatchlings. NOAA provides training, grants and regional data to support the industry.

    Men carry pails of fish specimens to a U.S. Fish Commission ‘fish car’ – a train car designed specifically for transporting fish or fish eggs to stock U.S. rivers, lakes and coastal waters – in this historical photo.
    Smithsonian Institution Archives

    NOAA Fisheries also helps to regulate commercial and recreational fishing to keep fish populations healthy and prevent them from crashing.

    The 1976 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other laws implemented catch limits to prevent overfishing. To develop fair regulations and combat illegal practices, NOAA and its predecessors have worked with fishing organizations through regional fishery management councils for decades.

    These industries generate $321 billion in sales and support 2.3 million jobs.

    Restoring coral reefs to help marine life thrive

    NOAA also benefits U.S. coastal communities by restoring coral reefs.

    Corals build up reefs over centuries, creating “cities of the sea.” When they’re healthy, they provide nurseries that protect valuable fish species, like snapper, from predators. Reefs also attract tourism and protect coastlines by breaking up waves that cause storm-driven flooding and erosion.

    The corals of Hawaii, Florida, Puerto Rico and other tropical areas provide over $3 billion a year in benefits – from sustaining marine ecosystems to recreation, including sport fishing.

    However, reefs are vulnerable to pollution, acidification, heat stress and other damage. Warming water can cause coral bleaching events, as the world saw in 2023 and 2024.

    NOAA monitors reef health. It also works with innovative restoration strategies, such as breeding strains of coral that resist bleaching, so reefs have a better chance of surviving as the planet warms.

    Battling invasive species in the Great Lakes

    A third important aspect of NOAA’s coastal work involves controlling invasive species in America’s waters, including those that have menaced the Great Lakes.

    Zebra and quagga mussels, spiny water flea and dozens of other Eurasian organisms colonized the Great Lakes starting in the late 1900s after arriving in ballast water from transoceanic ships. These invaders have disrupted the Great Lakes food web and clogged cities’ water intake systems, causing at least $138 million in damage per year.

    Zebra mussels found attached to this boat at an inspection station in Oregon show how easily invasive species can be moved. The boat had come from Texas and was on its way to Canada.
    Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife, CC BY-SA

    In the Northwest Atlantic, Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico, invasive lionfish, native to Asia and Australia, have spread, preying on native fish essential to coral reefs. Lionfish have become one of the world’s most damaging marine fish invasions.

    NOAA works with the Coast Guard, U.S. Geological Survey and other organizations to prevent the spread of invasive aquatic species. Stronger ballast water regulations developed through the agency’s research have helped prevent new invasions in the Great Lakes.

    Understanding climate change

    One of NOAA’s most crucial roles is its leadership in global research into understanding the causes and effects of climate change.

    The oil industry has known for decades that greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels would raise global temperatures.

    Evidence and research from around the world have connected greenhouse gas emissions from human activities to climate change. The data have shown how rising temperatures have increased risks for coastal areas, including worsening heat waves and ocean acidification that harm marine life; raising sea levels, which threaten coastal communities with tidal flooding and higher storm surges; and contributing to more extreme storms.

    NOAA conducts U.S. climate research and coordinates international climate research efforts, as well as producing the data and analysis for weather forecasting that coastal states rely on.

    Why tear apart an irreplaceable resource?

    When Republican President Richard Nixon proposed consolidating several different agencies into NOAA in 1970, he told Congress that doing so would promote “better protection of life and property from natural hazards,” “better understanding of the total environment” and “exploration and development leading to the intelligent use of our marine resources.”

    The Trump administration is instead discussing tearing down NOAA. The administration has been erasing mentions of climate change from government research, websites and policies – despite the rising risks to communities across the nation. The next federal budget is likely to slash NOAA’s funding.

    Commercial meteorologists argue that much of NOAA’s weather data and forecasting, also crucial to coastal areas, couldn’t be duplicated by the private sector.

    As NOAA marks its 55th year, I believe it’s in the nation’s and the U.S. economy’s best interest to strengthen rather than dismantle this vital agency.

    Christine Keiner conducted research at the NOAA Library for her books “The Oyster Question” and “Deep Cut.”

    – ref. Coastal economies rely on NOAA, from Maine to Florida, Texas and Alaska – even if they don’t realize it – https://theconversation.com/coastal-economies-rely-on-noaa-from-maine-to-florida-texas-and-alaska-even-if-they-dont-realize-it-250016

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: What are conflicts of interest and what can be done about them?

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Archon Fung, Professor of Citizenship and Self-Government, Harvard Kennedy School

    The phrase is often lobbed around, but what does it really mean? Frank Brennan/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    Americans’ trust in government and politicians is at record lows. In a 2022 Pew Research survey, about two-thirds of respondents said that all or most people who run for office want to serve their own personal interests rather than the community’s.

    I have taught political ethics to hundreds of public policy students at the Harvard Kennedy School over the past 25 years. One of the most important concepts we discuss is directly tied to that falling faith in government. It’s a term people love to throw around but can’t always define: conflicts of interest.

    Conflicts of interest pervade public service and jeopardize the quality of government action by degrading officials’ judgments. Controlling such conflicts is essential to the success of democracy because all citizens rely on millions of officials – from the president down to the person analyzing water quality in your city – to do their jobs conscientiously, using their best judgment. Citizens’ safety depends on government action in countless ways: to keep drinking water, food and medicines safe; to protect everyone from dangerous products and from individual and corporate predators; to keep airplanes, cars and trains from colliding; to ensure access to education, health care and pensions.

    But what counts as a conflict of interest? In the public sector, they arise when an official has “secondary,” private interests that may affect their judgment about how best to promote the public good. The more intense these private interests are – such as the promise of great financial gain or the welfare of loved ones – the greater the conflict and risk to public good.

    Not just money

    Secondary interests often stem from financial concerns: future employment prospects, corporate positions, stock holdings, real estate and gifts. But secondary interests can also arise from concern for the well-being of family members and friends.

    A conflict between primary and secondary interests – public vs. private – threatens the public by clouding the good judgment of officials. They may be tempted, even unconsciously, to make decisions that achieve secondary interests at the cost of not doing their best to advance the public interest.

    During his last weeks in office, for example, former President Joe Biden pardoned his son Hunter and, preventively, many members of his family. The Constitution establishes the president’s pardon power as a mechanism to correct miscarriages of justice in the court system. Did Biden’s concern for the welfare of his family – a secondary, private interest – cloud his judgment about how best to use this extraordinary power to pardon for the sake of justice, a primary, public interest? It is impossible to peer inside his mind, but anyone can see that there was a strong conflict of interest.

    Many public officials mistakenly deny that there is a conflict at all. Charlie Wilson, a secretary of defense in the 1950s, was previously president and CEO of General Motors, a defense contractor. “For years I thought what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa,” he said during confirmation hearings. “The difference did not exist. Our company is too big. It goes with the welfare of the country.”

    Secretary of Defense Charles E. Wilson holds a news conference in 1954.
    Bettmann via Getty Images

    After Trump was elected in 2016, he famously said that “the president can’t have a conflict of interest.” It wasn’t true then, and it’s not true now. Conflict of interest is an ethical principle that applies to everyone acting in a public role. The principal law regulating conflict of interest in the federal government does exempt the president and vice president. However, the emoluments clause of the Constitution prohibits some conflicts of interest.

    The president enters his second term with large private assets in social media platform Truth Social and cryptocurrency $Trump – industries that the United States is figuring out how to regulate.

    When leaders have a conflict of interest, it doesn’t necessarily mean they make bad judgments or act corruptly. Nevertheless, such conflicts can reduce citizens’ confidence about their leaders’ judgment.

    Cost for the country

    Conflicts of interest create three problems for democracy.

    Most important, the public suffers when officials’ judgments are compromised: when they are no longer doing their level best for Americans because they are concerned about various private interests rather than with citizens’ rights and well-being.

    Second, conflicts of interest reduce trust and confidence in government and democracy. Even if officials who have large conflicts of interest resist the pull of secondary interests, members of the public may – especially in this time of cynicism about government – still suspect that their leaders are acting corruptly.

    Third, when officials use their powers to benefit their private interests rather than the public interests, they profit from their offices: This is corrupt and unfair.

    Reducing risk

    Though conflicts of interest are ubiquitous, there are good strategies to mitigate and manage them.

    Federal agencies, as well as many state and local governments, require officials to mitigate their conflicts of interest by divesting from secondary interests, such as shifting from specific stock holdings to general funds and resigning from positions on boards of directors. Most U.S. presidents since Jimmy Carter have put their substantial assets into blind trusts in order to manage their conflicts of interests. In a blind trust, the owner knows the value of the trust but not the particular stocks and other holdings in it.

    Jimmy Carter put his peanut farm into a blind trust before taking office.
    PhotoQuest/Archive Photos via Getty Images

    Transparency and disclosure is another common management tool. When information about officials’ secondary interests is publicly available, citizens can better understand the forces that affect the judgment of those in government. For example, people who have undergone Senate confirmation for high-level positions in the federal government must file extensive disclosures that detail their assets and many of their prior sources of income.

    Biden disclosed 22 years of income tax returns. Other presidents have sometimes released several years of tax returns or parts of their tax records – in particular, how much tax they paid.

    Finally, it is important to create offices and procedures with staff dedicated to monitoring and mitigating conflicts of interest. In the executive branch, the seventy-some staff at the Office of Government Ethics, and many more ethics officers across the federal government, regulate conflicts of interest and other ethical issues. In February 2025, Trump dismissed the office’s director, who had been confirmed by the Senate two months before.

    Many states and cities have ethics commissions that adjudicate conflicts of interest, deciding when officials should recuse themselves from particular decisions in which they are conflicted. In 2002, for example, New York City’s Conflicts of Interest Board issued an advisory opinion about how multibillionaire Michael Bloomberg, the mayor at the time, should manage his conflicts of interest. They advised that he should recuse himself from all matters relating to the Bloomberg company, divest from large stock holdings and transfer those assets into professionally managed mutual funds, among other recommendations.

    Wealth – and hyperwealth

    Many conflict of interest measures are formulated with moderately wealthy individuals in mind. For example, the median wealth of a U.S. senator in 2018 was US$1.75 million. At that level, measures such as blind trusts, divestment and recusal are usually very workable.

    Hyperwealthy multibillionaires, however, raise unprecedented conflict of interest concerns that are far more difficult to mitigate and manage. Because their financial interests are enormous and range across many parts of the economy, standard conflict of interest measures have proven difficult to implement.

    Archon Fung serves on the National Governing Board of Common Cause, whose mission is to “to create open, honest, and accountable government that serves the public interest.” The organization has advocated to control conflicts of interest of many public figures, including Donald Trump and Elon Musk.

    He also consults for Apple and serves on the Board of Advisors for the Boston Review.

    – ref. What are conflicts of interest and what can be done about them? – https://theconversation.com/what-are-conflicts-of-interest-and-what-can-be-done-about-them-249983

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Just having a pet doesn’t help mental health – but pet-owners with secure relationships with their pets are less depressed

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Brian N. Chin, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Trinity College

    How emotionally close you are to your pet is not necessarily a good measure of how your relationship affects your well-being. Nattalia Nuñez/Unsplash, CC BY-ND

    For many people, pets provide unconditional love, companionship and a sense of security. But not all human-pet relationships are beneficial, and some may contribute to stress and anxiety rather than relief.

    Psychologists have been studying attachment theory for decades. This framework explains how people form emotional bonds, seek closeness and manage separation. People with secure attachment tend to feel safe in relationships, while those with attachment anxiety may crave closeness but frequently worry about rejection or loss.

    Just like with human relationships, people form attachment bonds with pets. Some form secure attachments, finding comfort in their pet and viewing them as a reliable source of companionship. Others experience anxious attachment, feeling excessive worry, distress and a heightened need for reassurance when separated from their pet.

    In our recently published research, my research team and I found that attachment anxiety is strongly linked to depression symptoms among owners. This suggests that well-being isn’t just about having a pet, but about the quality of your bond.

    Strong bonds aren’t always healthy bonds

    My team and I set out to explore whether the way people bond with their pets has a measurable effect on their mental well-being.

    We surveyed over 1,000 pet owners in the U.S. about their closeness to their pets; how often they engaged in activities like playing, cuddling or spending time together; and whether they felt secure or anxious in the relationship. We also measured symptoms of depression to examine how different characteristics of pet bonds might influence mental well-being.

    Our results revealed a clear pattern: Higher pet attachment anxiety was the strongest predictor of depression symptoms. In other words, people who felt overly dependent on their pets, constantly worrying about being apart from them or whether their pet “loved” them back, were more likely to experience depression symptoms.

    For mental health, emotional security in your relationship with your pet may matter more than how frequently you interact.
    Darwin Boaventura/Unsplash, CC BY-ND

    Surprisingly, simply feeling emotionally close to a pet was not enough to predict better mental health. While some may assume that a stronger bond with a pet automatically leads to greater well-being, our findings suggest that the quality of the attachment matters more than its intensity. People with secure pet relationships reported better well-being, while those with higher attachment anxiety experienced greater distress.

    We also found that while frequent pet interactions were linked to stronger and more secure human-pet bonds, interaction frequency did not significantly predict mental health outcomes. This reinforces the idea that emotional security in the relationship, rather than just the frequency of interaction, is what truly matters for mental health.

    Interestingly, people who owned both a cat and a dog reported more depression symptoms than those with only one type of pet. While our study did not determine the cause, one possibility is that managing multiple pets can add stress or increase the burden of caregiving.

    How pet relationships shape your mental health

    Our findings highlight that pet ownership is not a one-size-fits-all solution for mental health. The way people bond with their pets – whether they feel emotionally secure or experience anxiety in the relationship – may be just as important as pet ownership itself in shaping well-being.

    Your bond with your pet influences your well-being in many ways.
    Jonas Vincent/Unsplash, CC BY-ND

    This research also raises important questions about the role of emotional support animals and animal-assisted interventions. If pet ownership is going to be integrated into mental health care, it may not be enough to simply encourage pet companionship. Instead, the quality of the human-animal bond could be a key factor in whether pets provide comfort or contribute to emotional distress.

    This study does not suggest that people should stop seeking emotional support from pets. Instead, it highlights how the way people bond with their pets can influence well-being in ways they may not always realize.

    For those who rely on their pets for emotional support, recognizing these patterns may help foster a bond that feels reassuring rather than stressful. Pets can provide deep comfort, but caregiving comes with challenges, too. Reflecting on both the joys and responsibilities of pet ownership can help strengthen the human-animal bond, supporting the well-being of both pets and owners.

    Brian N. Chin 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. Just having a pet doesn’t help mental health – but pet-owners with secure relationships with their pets are less depressed – https://theconversation.com/just-having-a-pet-doesnt-help-mental-health-but-pet-owners-with-secure-relationships-with-their-pets-are-less-depressed-250482

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: As flu cases break records this year, vaccine rates are declining, particularly for children and 65+ adults

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Annette Regan, Adjunct Associate Professor of Epidemiology, University of California, Los Angeles

    It’s not too late to get a flu shot. Fat Camera/E+ via Getty Images

    In February 2025, flu rates spiked to the highest levels seen in at least 15 years, with flu outpacing COVID-19 infections and hospitalizations for the first time since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has classified this flu season as having “high” severity across the U.S.

    The Conversation asked epidemiologist Annette Regan to explain why this flu season is different from last year’s and what people can do to help reduce the spread.

    How do flu cases and hospitalizations this year compare with previous years?

    Beginning in late January and extending through February 2025, flu hospitalizations have been higher than any other week since before 2009.

    Most flu cases appear to be from influenza A strains, with a split between influenza A/H3N2 and influenza A/H1N1. These are two different subtypes of the influenza A virus.

    Researchers believe that historically seasons that are predominated by influenza A/H3N2 infections tend to be more severe, but infections from influenza A/H1N1 can still be very severe.

    This year’s season is also peaking “late” compared with the past three flu seasons, which peaked in early or late December.

    Unfortunately, there have been a number of deaths from flu too this season. Since Jan. 1, 2025, alone, over 4,000 people, including 68 children, have died from flu. While the number of deaths do not mark a record number, it shows that flu can be a serious illness, even in children.

    Unless directed otherwise, everyone ages 6 months and older should get a flu shot.

    Why are flu cases so high this year?

    There are a number of factors behind any severe season, including poor community protection from low immunization rates and low natural immunity, virus characteristics, vaccine effectiveness and increased human contact via travel, office work or schools.

    Unfortunately, flu vaccination rates have declined since the COVID-19 pandemic. At the end of the 2023-24 flu season, 9.2 million fewer doses were administered in pharmacies and doctors’ offices compared with an average year before the pandemic.

    In addition, since 2022, fewer and fewer doses of flu vaccine have been distributed by private manufacturers. Flu vaccination rates for adults have historically been in the 30% to 60% range, much lower than the recommended 70%. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, flu vaccination rates were increasing by around 1% to 2% every year.

    Flu vaccination rates began dropping after the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in higher-risk groups. Flu vaccination in children has dropped from 59% in 2019-20 to 46% in 2024-25. In adults 65 years and older, the group with the greatest risk of hospitalization and death, flu vaccination rates dropped from 52% in 2019-20 to 43% in 2024-25.

    Lower vaccination rates mean a greater portion of the population is not protected by vaccines. Data shows that vaccination reduces the risk of flu hospitalization. Even if a vaccinated person gets infected, they may be less likely to experience severe illness. As a result, low vaccination rates could contribute to higher flu severity this season.

    However, low vaccination rates are probably not the only reason for the high rates of flu this season. In previous severe seasons, genetic changes to the viruses have made them better at infecting people and more likely to cause severe illness.

    The effectiveness of annual flu vaccines varies depending on how well the vaccine matches the circulating virus. The effectiveness of vaccines ranges from 19% to 60% in any given season. In the 2023-24 flu season, the vaccine was 42% effective.

    Similarly, early 2024-25 data from the U.S. shows that the vaccine was 41% to 55% effective against flu hospitalizations in adults and 63% to 78% effective against flu hospitalizations in children.

    Something as simple as regular handwashing could keep you from getting the flu.

    How do seasonal flu symptoms differ from COVID-19 and other illnesses?

    It’s important to remember that people often incorrectly refer to “the flu” when they have a common cold. Flu is caused only by the influenza virus, which tends to be more severe than common colds and more commonly causes a fever.

    Many of the signs and symptoms for flu, COVID-19 and other respiratory viruses are the same and can range from mild coldlike symptoms to pneumonia and respiratory distress. Common flu symptoms are fever, cough and fatigue, and may also include shortness of breath, a sore throat, nasal congestion, muscle aches and headache.

    Some symptoms, such as changes in or loss of taste and smell, are more common for COVID-19. For both COVID-19 and flu, the symptoms do not start until about one to four days after infection, and symptoms seem to last longer for COVID-19.

    The only way to know what virus is causing an infection is to test. This can be done using a rapid test, some of which now test for flu and COVID-19 together, or by seeing a doctor and getting tested using a nasal swab. There are prescription antiviral medications available to treat flu and COVID-19, but they need to be taken near the time that symptoms start.

    Some people are at high risk of severe flu and COVID-19, such as those who are immunosuppressed, have diabetes or have chronic heart or lung conditions. In these cases, it is important to seek early care and treatment from a health care professional. Some doctors will also prescribe via telehealth calls, which can help reduce the strain on doctors’ offices, urgent care centers and emergency rooms when infection rates are high.

    What can people do now to help steer clear of the flu?

    There are a number of ways people can reduce their risk of getting or spreading flu. Since the flu season is still underway, it’s not too late to get a flu vaccine. Even in seasons when the vaccine’s effectiveness is low, it is likely to offer better protection compared with remaining unvaccinated.

    Handwashing and disinfecting high-traffic surfaces can help reduce contact with the flu virus. Taking efforts to avoid contact with sick people can also help, including wearing a mask when in health care facilities.

    Finally, remember to take care of yourself. Exercising, eating healthy and getting sufficient sleep all help support a healthy immune system, which can help reduce chances of infection.

    Those who have been diagnosed with flu or are experiencing flu-like symptoms should avoid contact with other people, especially in crowded spaces. Covering coughs and sneezes can help reduce the amount of virus that is spread.

    Annette Regan receives research funding from the National Institutes of Health, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Global Vaccine Data Network, and she is employed by the Department of Research & Evaluation at Kaiser Permanente Southern California.

    – ref. As flu cases break records this year, vaccine rates are declining, particularly for children and 65+ adults – https://theconversation.com/as-flu-cases-break-records-this-year-vaccine-rates-are-declining-particularly-for-children-and-65-adults-250252

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Texas records first US measles death in 10 years – a medical epidemiologist explains how to protect yourself and your community from this deadly, preventable disease

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Daniel Pastula, Professor of Neurology, Medicine (Infectious Diseases), and Epidemiology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

    Young children are especially vulnerable to measles. Bilanol via Getty Images

    On Feb. 26, 2025, Texas health officials announced the death of a child in a measles outbreak – the first measles death in the United States since 2015. The outbreak was first identified in early February in Gaines County, Texas, where just 82% of kindergartners are vaccinated against measles, compared with 93% on average across the country. As of Feb. 27, there were at least 124 confirmed cases in Texas and nearby towns in New Mexico.

    In an interview with The Conversation U.S. associate health editor Alla Katsnelson, neurologist and medical epidemiologist Daniel Pastula explains why measles is so dangerous and how people and communities can protect themselves from the virus.

    What is measles, and where does it come from?

    Measles is an ancient disease caused by a virus that probably evolved in cattle and jumped into humans around 500 B.C. One of the first written accounts of it comes from a Persian physician named Rhazes in the ninth century C.E., and measles epidemics were described in medieval Europe and western Asia regularly beginning around 1100-1200. The virus got brought over to the Americas in the 1500s, and it wiped out large populations of native people as Europeans colonized the continent.

    By the 1950s in the United States, there were 500,000 reported cases of measles each year – though the true number was probably closer to 4 million . It was so contagious, every kid was thought to have gotten measles by age 15. At that time, measles caused close to 50,000 hospitalizations annually and about 500 deaths, usually in children. It also caused over 1,000 cases of severe brain inflammation every year.

    The first measles vaccine became available in 1963, and scientists improved it over the following decades, causing the number of cases to plummet. In 2000, measles was declared eliminated from the U.S.

    Since then, there have been occasional minor flare-ups, usually brought in by international travelers, but by and large, measles outbreaks have been rare. No one had died of it in the United States in nearly a decade.

    Today, measles infections in the U.S. are almost completely preventable with vaccination.

    For most people, two doses of the MMR vaccine protects against measles for life.
    Sergii Iaremenko/Science Photo Library via Getty Images

    What are the typical symptoms of measles?

    About 10 to 14 days after infection, people suffering from measles experience a very high fever, cold-like symptoms including a runny nose and sneezing, and eye inflammation called conjunctivitis.

    Next, they may develop white spots called Koplik spots inside their mouth and a diffuse, spotty, red rash that starts at the head and neck, then descends across the entire body. This rash is where the disease gets its name – the word “measles” is thought to come from a medieval Dutch word for “little blemishes.”

    Symptoms of measles infection take about three weeks to resolve. People are contagious from about four days before symptoms emerge to four days after the rash starts.

    What are the possible severe outcomes of measles?

    Epidemiologists estimate that 1 in 5 people who are infected with measles get sick enough to be hospitalized. About 1 in 10 develop ear infections, some of which may result in permanent deafness.

    About 1 in 20 people develop severe measles pneumonia, which causes trouble breathing. Reports from west Texas this month suggest that many infected children there have measles pneumonia.

    About 1 in 1,000 people develop severe brain swelling. Both measles pneumonia and brain swelling can be fatal. About 3 in 1,000 people die after contracting measles.

    In about 1 in 10,000 who get sick with measles and recover from it, the virus lies dormant in the brain for about a decade. It then can reactivate, causing a severe, progressive dementia called subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, which is fatal within one to three years. There is no treatment or cure for the disease. I have seen a couple of suspected cases of subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, and none of these patients survived, despite our best efforts.

    Given how contagious measles is and how severe the outcomes can be, physicians and public health experts are gravely concerned right now.

    How does measles spread?

    Measles is one of the most contagious infectious diseases on the planet. The virus is so infectious that if you are in a room with an infected person and you are not vaccinated and have never had measles before, you have a 90% chance of becoming infected.

    The measles virus is transmitted by droplets released into the air by infected people when they cough, sneeze or simply breathe. Virus particles can survive suspended in the air or on indoor surfaces for up to two hours, so people can get infected by touching a surface carrying virus particles and then touching their face.

    Who should get the measles vaccine, and how effective is it?

    The vaccine for measles has historically been called the MMR vaccine because it has been bundled with vaccines for two other diseases – mumps and rubella. Most children in the U.S. receive it as a two-dose regimen, which is 97% effective against measles.

    Children generally get the first dose of the vaccine at 12-15 months old and the second dose when they are 4-6 years old. Infants who haven’t reached their first birthday generally do not receive it since their immune system is not yet fully developed and they do not develop quite as robust of an immune response. In an emergency, though, babies as young as 6 to 9 months old can be vaccinated. If an infant’s mother previously received the MMR vaccine or had been infected herself as a child, her transferred antibodies probably offer some protection, but this wanes in the months after birth.

    People born before 1957 are considered immune without getting the vaccine because measles was so widespread at that time that everyone was presumed to have been infected. However, certain people in this age group, such as some health care workers, may wish to discuss vaccination with their providers. And some people who had the original version of the vaccine in the 1960s may need to get revaccinated, as the original vaccine was not as effective as the later versions.

    In recent years, vaccination rates for measles and other diseases have fallen.

    Based on available evidence, the vaccine is effective for life, so people who received two doses are most likely protected.

    A single dose of the vaccine is 93% effective. Most people vaccinated before 1989 got just one dose. That year, an outbreak in vaccinated children with one dose spurred public health officials to begin recommending two doses.

    People with certain risk factors who received only one dose, and everyone who has never received a dose, should talk to their health care providers about getting vaccinated. Because the vaccine is a live but weakened version of the virus, those who are severely immunocompromised or are currently pregnant cannot get it.

    People who are immunocompromised, which includes those who have chronic conditions such as autoimmune disorders, are undergoing certain cancer treatments or have received an organ transplant, are more susceptible to measles even if they have been vaccinated.

    In the current measles epidemic in Texas, the vast majority of people falling ill are unvaccinated. Public health officials there are urging unvaccinated people in affected areas to get vaccinated.

    What measures can protect communities from measles outbreaks?

    Vaccination is the best way to protect individuals and communities from measles. It’s also the most effective way to curb an ongoing outbreak.

    High rates of vaccination are important because of a phenomenon called herd immunity. When people who are vaccinated do not get infected, it essentially stops the spread of the virus, thereby protecting those who are most susceptible to getting sick. When herd immunity wanes, the risk of infection rises for everyone – and especially for the most vulnerable, such as young children and people who are immunocompromised.

    Because measles is so contagious, estimates suggest that 95% of the population must be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity. Once vaccine coverage falls below that percentage, outbreaks are possible.

    Having robust public health systems also provides protection from outbreaks and limits their spread. Public health workers can detect cases before an outbreak occurs and take preventive steps. During a measles outbreak, they provide updates and information, administer vaccines, track cases and oversee quarantine for people who have been exposed and isolation for people who are contagious.

    Daniel Pastula 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. Texas records first US measles death in 10 years – a medical epidemiologist explains how to protect yourself and your community from this deadly, preventable disease – https://theconversation.com/texas-records-first-us-measles-death-in-10-years-a-medical-epidemiologist-explains-how-to-protect-yourself-and-your-community-from-this-deadly-preventable-disease-251004

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: What’s a constitutional crisis? Here’s how Trump’s recent moves are challenging the Constitution’s separation of powers

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jeffrey Schmitt, Professor of Law, University of Dayton

    President Donald Trump’s various actions that appear to overstep the power of the executive office are creating what many legal scholars call a constitutional crisis. VladSt/DigitalVision Vectors via Getty Images

    In a short few weeks, President Donald Trump has upended many core parts and functions of the U.S. government. He dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development and fired thousands of government employees. He has also fired several inspectors general and board members of independent agencies.

    Additionally, Trump’s administration has violated court orders to unfreeze federal funding. And Trump has issued an unprecedented number of executive orders, including one that aims to end the practice of birthright citizenship, something that is guaranteed by the plain text of the U.S. Constitution.

    Legal experts have said that all of these actions and more are leading up to, or have already sparked, a constitutional crisis.

    There is not one clear definition of what a constitutional crisis actually is. And, as constitutional law scholar Jeffrey Schmitt explains in an interview with Amy Lieberman, politics and society editor at The Conversation U.S., there is also no comparable historical example for Trump’s exercise of executive power.

    Former USAID employees terminated after the Trump administration dismantled the agency collect their personal belongings at the USAID headquarters on Feb. 27, 2025, in Washington, D.C.
    Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

    Why are some people calling what is currently underway a constitutional crisis?

    I think legal experts are concerned that Trump is expanding executive power beyond anything we have known in American history. And as executive power continues to expand, we may eventually hit a tipping point that threatens the structure of the government, as laid out in the Constitution.

    If the Constitution has one central feature, it is the separation of powers. The Constitution divides power between the states and the federal government, and federal power is divided between the three branches of government – the executive, judicial and legislative.

    Now, Trump appears to be taking over Congress’ core powers, including taxing and spending. Typically, Congress passes a budget, and the president can sign or veto the bill. Once the budget is passed into law, the president cannot refuse to spend the allocated money.

    There is some history to this. President Richard Nixon refused in the 1970s to spend money Congress had appropriated, and the U.S. Supreme Court then ordered the federal government to spend the money. Federal law now prohibits what’s called “impoundment.”

    How is Trump challenging these laws now?

    Trump is freezing spending on things he does not support politically, like foreign aid. He also is trying to place new conditions on the disbursement of federal funds as a way to control state and private institutions. For example, a recent letter from his administration threatens to withhold federal funding from schools that do not abandon DEI programs.

    Trump has also fired top officials at independent agencies such as a member of the independent National Labor Relations Board, when federal law and Supreme Court precedent indicate that he has no constitutional authority to do so. He has also fired agency watchdogs without following legal requirements to give Congress 30 days notice. When he fired most USAID employees and froze the agency’s foreign aid payments, he shuttered an entire agency established by Congress.

    And his firing of thousands of federal workers isn’t just about who works in government – cuts like this make an agency unable to perform its mission.

    The federal courts are intervening in some cases, but they are blocking only a small fraction of the president’s actions.

    Are there other times in history the country has come close to a constitutional crisis?

    President Abraham Lincoln and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt both led the country during periods of constitutional change, and they both clashed with the Supreme Court.

    Slavery in the federal territories was the constitutional crisis that precipitated the Civil War. This issue dominated politics throughout the 1850s because people thought it would determine the future of slavery as new states were admitted to the Union. When Congress was unable to reach an agreement, the Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional for Congress to prohibit slavery in the territories in the infamous case of Dred Scott v. Sandford.

    But opposition to the expansion of slavery was the unifying principle of the young Republican Party. So, during the election of 1860, Lincoln argued that Dred Scott was not binding on the country because it was not settled precedent. He acknowledged, though, that the court’s decisions are binding in the case before it.

    When Lincoln campaigned for president in 1860, he promised to appoint judges who would overrule Dred Scott and to work with Congress to ban slavery in the territories. When Lincoln realized that constitutional change was necessary, he worked tirelessly to get the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, ratified in 1865.

    Franklin Roosevelt also worked within the constitutional system to expand the role of the federal government in the New Deal, a series of domestic public works programs in the 1930s. When the Supreme Court ruled against early New Deal programs, FDR complained that the justices were old and out of touch.

    So Roosevelt in 1937 proposed packing the Supreme Court with new justices in a transparent attempt to push the court into accepting his broad reading of federal power. This proposed change never became law, but the Supreme Court changed its views on federal power at roughly the same time, ending the crisis. The country overwhelmingly supported the New Deal’s expansion of federal power in several national elections.

    President Donald Trump and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson appear at an event in Miami on Jan. 27, 2025.
    Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images

    How does today’s situation involving Trump differ?

    Unlike Lincoln or Roosevelt, Trump is trying to seize the powers of Congress and unilaterally transform the federal government. Roosevelt worked with Congress to pass legislation and eventually convince the Supreme Court to accept his views. And while Lincoln rejected the court’s proslavery reading of the Constitution, Trump may be rejecting its central feature – the structural balance of power.

    Can the country resolve this crisis?

    Aside from Trump deciding to change course, there is not much that can be done. Courts can issue orders, but they do not have a military and cannot easily enforce them.

    Congress has the power to remove the president, via impeachment. As we learned during Trump’s first term, however, impeachment is not easy.

    If the president decides to ignore the courts – and Congress continues to do nothing – the final constitutional check on Trump’s power will be the next federal election.

    Jeffrey Schmitt 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. What’s a constitutional crisis? Here’s how Trump’s recent moves are challenging the Constitution’s separation of powers – https://theconversation.com/whats-a-constitutional-crisis-heres-how-trumps-recent-moves-are-challenging-the-constitutions-separation-of-powers-250706

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: As the Kremlin eyes a thaw with the White House, Russia’s pro-war hawks aren’t too happy

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Adam Lenton, Assistant Professor of Politics & International Affairs, Wake Forest University

    Russian President Vladimir Putin attends a wreath-laying ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Moscow on Feb. 23, 2025. Sergei Bobylyov/AFP via Getty Images

    At face value, the Kremlin has plenty to celebrate after U.S. and Russian officials held high-level bilateral talks on the war in Ukraine for the first time since the full-scale conflict began in 2022.

    Russian delegates at the meeting, which took place on Feb. 18 in Saudi Arabia, struck an ebullient tone. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov concluded that “the American side has begun to better understand our position,” while Kirill Dmitriev, the head of Russia’s sovereign wealth fund and an envoy for Moscow, noted that the delegates managed to loosen up enough to laugh and joke. President Vladimir Putin did not attend the meeting, but he characterized it the following day as “very friendly,” going as far as to describe the American delegation as “completely different people” who were “ready to negotiate with an open mind and without any judgment over what was done in the past.”

    And the talks are far from the only reason for optimism in Moscow. In statements that echoed Kremlin propaganda, U.S. President Donald Trump blamed Ukraine for being invaded and described Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as a “dictator.” The U.S. then sided with Russia in two United Nations votes on the conflict and opposed language describing Russia as the aggressor in a draft G7 statement marking the anniversary of the war.

    This perceived rapprochement between Washington and Moscow has many critics on both sides of the Atlantic.

    Within Russia the reaction has been mixed. And not everybody in Moscow is celebrating the apparent shift in U.S. policy.

    Favoring pragmatism

    Of course, many Russians would welcome a thaw in relations. In January, Russia’s leading independent polling group found that 61% of Russians favored peace talks over continuing the war in Ukraine – the highest level yet. Meanwhile, the number of web searches for “When will the ‘Special Military Operation’ end?” on Yandex, a Russian tech firm, reached its highest-ever weekly total in the wake of the U.S.-Russia talks.

    While public opinion is unlikely to shape the Kremlin’s approach given Putin’s sole control over major foreign policy decisions, evidence suggests that a rapprochement with the United States could also be a boon for Putin at home.

    In a recently published article in the peer-reviewed journal International Security, my co-author Henry Hale and I found that while most Russians view the U.S. and NATO as threats, they largely prefer a pragmatic, measured response from the Kremlin – an approach they believed Putin delivered prior to the war in 2022.

    High-level summits between Russia and the U.S. have tended to be well received, we found. This is because they tap into a widely held preference for cooperation as well as depicting Russia as a geopolitical “equal” to the U.S.

    Pro-war hardliners speak out

    Yet not everyone is pleased with the prospect of closer U.S. ties. Russia’s vocal minority of tub-thumping war supporters is already angry.

    This loose community of so-called “Z-patriots” – a reference to the large “Z” letters marking Russian military equipment at the beginning of the war – has been a double-edged sword for the Kremlin.

    While they have been helpful in mobilizing grassroots support for the war, they have also lambasted Moscow’s execution and made pointed criticisms of top military brass. Such attacks are, in effect, a way of making veiled attacks on Putin himself.

    And we are talking about a sizable minority. Estimates indicate that Z-patriots – the more hawkish and ideologically committed segment of war supporters – represent 13% to 27% of the Russian population.

    One of this group’s most prominent ideologues, Zakhar Prilepin, didn’t pull any punches in a recent interview. He described as “humiliating” the fact that “the Russian media community, political scientists and politicians are dancing with joy and telling us how wonderful everything is (now that) Trump has arrived.”

    There are reasons to take this group seriously. According to Marlène Laruelle, an expert on nationalism and ideology in Russia, the Z-patriots are emerging as key opinion leaders.

    Unlike other ideological camps in Russia, the Z-patriots are very much a product of the war, having emerged from the popular military blogging community and with deep connections to paramilitary and veterans organizations. Indeed, many sympathized with former mercenary Wagner Group chief Yevgeny Prigozhin’s anti-elite rants, while Igor Girkin, a former Donbas warlord who claimed to have sparked the initial war in eastern Ukraine in 2014, openly mocked Putin to his almost million-strong Telegram followers.

    The Kremlin partially cracked down on some of the Z-patriots in 2023. Prigozhin’s ill-fated mutiny in June was followed by his suspicious death in a plane crash later that summer, while Girkin was jailed and handed a four-year prison sentence for “inciting extremism.”

    Yet the Z-patriots remain a force. Girkin, commenting on the U.S.-Russia talks from prison, lamented the “egregious managerial and command failure” over the past three years and sarcastically concluded that Moscow’s political elites, aware of their own weakness, are likely to “‘drag their heels’ in their inimitable style – and with their well-known genius.”

    Other pro-war voices expressed skepticism about the information communicated by the Russian delegation and ironically said they expected the Kremlin would pass a law against “discrediting Russia-American relations,” a play on the March 2022 law against “discrediting” Russia’s military.

    Sanctions relief a concern

    Some of the sharpest criticisms of the Kremlin have been about the economy.

    Recent weeks have seen renewed optimism among many in Russia that sanctions relief is on the horizon and that sought-after Western brands may return. Russia – since 2022 the most sanctioned country in the world – had previously appeared to accept that sanctions would remain for decades to come.

    The Russian delegation at the recent talks emphasized the prospect of economic cooperation with the United States, no doubt believing Trump to be receptive to such mercantile framings.

    A few days later, Putin announced a willingness to develop Russia’s rare earth minerals with foreign partners, including the United States, in what appeared to be an attempt to outbid Zelenskyy.

    This, too, provoked a populist backlash among Z-patriots.

    “Grampa’s lost it,” one wrote in a thinly veiled swipe at Putin.

    Another displayed dismay that “stealing Russia’s natural resources once again became a prospect for mutually beneficial cooperation with American partners.”

    “We’ve barely begun to develop small and medium businesses,” Prilepin noted, deriding the “unbearable” excitement around the possibility of Western brands returning.

    These sentiments have struck a chord with other parts of society. After all, some Russian businesses have benefited from Western brands’ exit from the Russian market. The government is attempting to fend off these criticisms with a new bill proposed to Russia’s parliament on Feb. 27 calling to ban Western companies that had financially supported Ukraine.

    What to do about veterans?

    Perhaps most consequential will be what happens to the hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers currently on the front lines.

    While runaway military spending and lavish payouts to soldiers continue to strain the Russian economy, demobilization also poses risks.

    A report from the Institute for the Study of War recently concluded that demobilization would be politically risky for the Kremlin, fearful that masses of disgruntled veterans might constitute a potential challenge.

    That said, many of the estimated 700,000 Russian troops in Ukraine will eventually return to civilian life and likely become an important constituency in Russian politics moving forward.

    The Z-patriots may be a product of war, but they will have an afterlife beyond it. Meanwhile, regardless of any Russian rapprochement with the White House – or perhaps because of it – Russia’s hawks won’t be turning into doves anytime soon.

    Adam Lenton 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. As the Kremlin eyes a thaw with the White House, Russia’s pro-war hawks aren’t too happy – https://theconversation.com/as-the-kremlin-eyes-a-thaw-with-the-white-house-russias-pro-war-hawks-arent-too-happy-250716

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The science behind airplane deicing – a mechanical engineer explains how chemistry and physics make flying a more uplifting experience

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Andrew Sommers, Professor of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Miami University

    A worker deices an airplane at the airport in Brussels. AP Photo/Virginia Mayo

    If you are a frequent flyer, you’ve probably been at the airport waiting to jet somewhere on a winter trip when the voice of an airline employee announces over the intercom that there will be a slight delay while the plane gets deiced. But how does this process actually work, and why is it needed?

    As a mechanical engineer who studies frost growth and water droplets on surfaces, I have come to appreciate the importance of deicing planes. Indeed, deicing is an important safety step performed by the airlines on wintry days because of how snow and ice can affect the physics of flying.

    Why deice?

    In short, deicing is necessary because snow and ice on airplane wings can decrease lift by as much as 30%. Lift is the vertical upward force that keeps a plane in the sky. It is generated when air flows over the wings of a plane.

    Ice and snow can alter how air flows over the wings, which can affect a pilot’s ability to maneuver and control the aircraft. It can also increase the stall speed, which is not good either. Stall speed is the minimum speed needed by an aircraft to generate enough lift to keep it aloft.

    Additionally, ice on the wings can break off in flight, potentially damaging one or more of the flaps on the wings or an engine. Needless to say, deicing has become an indispensable part of flying, especially in the winter months.

    Operators apply green anti-icing fluid to the wing of a plane. The green hue, which indicates a Type IV fluid, helps the operators see which parts they might have missed.
    Orchidpoet/E+ via Getty Images

    Deicing chemicals

    Most people are familiar with the chemical deicers that are used on roads during the winter months. However, the salts in these products can be corrosive, so they’re not used on aircraft.

    Aircraft deicers consist of a water-based solution of glycol – a colorless, odorless organic liquid – mixed with various additives. These additives might include a thickening agent; a substance that prevents corrosion; a surfactant, which decreases the surface tension; a flame retardant, and a dye.

    Glycols are very good at lowering the freezing point of water, which makes it harder for water to freeze or stay frozen on surfaces. Propylene glycol and ethylene glycol are the two most common types used, typically making up 30% to 70% of the deicing solution.

    Glycols are made up of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms. Pictured here is the chemical structure of ethlyene glycol.
    Cacycle/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

    For years, only ethylene glycol was used in deicers because of its low cost. However, because propylene glycol is less toxic to wildlife and humans, its adoption by commercial airlines has grown steadily since the 1980s.

    How does the deicing process work?

    Airlines use four standard fluid types when deicing aircraft. These fluids have different viscosities – viscosity is a measure of a fluid’s resistance to flow – and holdover times, which is the length of time the fluids are expected to protect the plane during snow or icing conditions.

    The deicing process includes both complex crew logistics and interesting science.

    In the United States, airlines typically use a two-step process before flying. First, they perform deicing using either a heated Type I fluid or a heated solution of Type I fluid and water.

    Deicing removes existing ice and snow from the wings of the plane, which is why airlines often heat the deicing fluid to around 140 to 150 degrees Fahrenheit (60 to 66 degrees Celsius) before application.

    Type I fluids are the thinnest of the deicing fluids, and they’re often red or orange. They spread the easiest on a plane’s surface because they have the lowest viscosity. Since they’re thin enough to flow off a plane when it’s not moving – or moving slowly – they can be applied to any aircraft.

    But as a result, they also have the shortest holdover times, often less than 20 minutes depending on the weather conditions. These holdover times vary, though, and can be less than five minutes for snow if the outside air temperature is below 14 F (minus 10 C).

    Next, the ground crews will typically apply an anti-icing fluid to the aircraft – often Type II or Type IV. Anti-icing solutions are used to help prevent the future accumulation of snow and ice on the wings of planes.

    Type II and Type IV fluids contain thickening agents that increase their viscosity. These thickeners allow the fluid to remain on the aircraft longer to help melt newly forming frost or ice. This translates to longer holdover times – often more than 30 minutes for snow – but it also means the plane needs to reach a higher speed to shear, or blow off, the fluid.

    Once applied, Type II and IV fluids will generally stay on the aircraft until the plane is taxiing down the runaway during takeoff. By then, it has gained enough speed to produce the shear force necessary to remove the fluid from the plane. Type II fluids are a clear or pale straw color, while Type IV fluids are generally green. Including a colored dye helps the ground crew clearly see what parts of the plane have been coated and which areas still need application.

    Type III fluids are not as common anymore. They are formulated to shear off at lower speeds and thus are sometimes used on small commuter aircraft since these planes typically don’t go as fast as commercial jetliners.

    Environmental impact of deicing

    Environmental considerations are also an important part of deicing. Glycols require a lot of oxygen to biodegrade, which can deplete dissolved oxygen in streams or lakes. This, in turn, can threaten aquatic life, like fish and other organisms, that need dissolved oxygen to breathe.

    In addition, ethylene glycol is toxic to wildlife, so the Environmental Protection Agency requires airports to monitor their stormwater runoff. For this reason, most airports collect and treat stormwater runoff on-site or send it to a municipal wastewater treatment facility.

    Airports are also increasingly starting to use fluid recovery systems to recycle the glycols and capture the additives in these fluids, which are often toxic, too. They’ll often use designated areas outside for deicing planes so they can collect and store the fluids after they run off the plane in holding tanks underground until they can be recycled.

    Atmospheric icing

    During flight, planes use other technologies to mitigate the icing risks. For example, most modern aircraft use bleed air systems, which channel hot air from the engine’s compressor through interior ducts to the leading edges of the wings and other critical areas to help prevent ice buildup while the plane is in the sky.

    Some planes also use electrically heated panels embedded in the aircraft’s wings to generate heat. These control systems typically cannot be used while the plane is on the ground, since they rely on cold air flowing across the wing’s surface. This airflow is usually achieved at cruising altitude and is necessary to prevent the plane’s surface from getting too hot.

    Airlines may sometimes also use icephobic coatings to help keep new ice from forming and sticking on the outside surfaces of planes. These coatings delay how soon new ice can form. They can also reduce how strongly the ice adheres to the surface.

    Icephobic polymer coatings can mitigate ice buildup and help reduce ice adhesion on surfaces.
    Hernández Rodríguez et al., 2024., CC BY-SA

    Smaller planes may also use inflatable rubber strips called pneumatic boots on the wings that can be inflated as needed to break off accumulated ice on the leading edge of the wings.

    Flying is truly a modern scientific marvel. A lot of engineering goes into not only getting planes off the ground but also keeping them ice-free during flight. So the next time you experience a weather-related delay at the airport, just remember that deicing is needed to ensure both a safe flight and a truly uplifting one.

    Andrew Sommers 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. The science behind airplane deicing – a mechanical engineer explains how chemistry and physics make flying a more uplifting experience – https://theconversation.com/the-science-behind-airplane-deicing-a-mechanical-engineer-explains-how-chemistry-and-physics-make-flying-a-more-uplifting-experience-248732

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Maple seeds’ unique spinning motion allows them to travel far even in the rain, a new study shows

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Andrew Dickerson, Associate Professor of Mechanical, Aerospace and Biomedical Engineering, University of Tennessee

    Winged seeds called samaras grow on maple trees. These are seeds from the Japanese maple, _Acer palmatum_. AlessandroZocc/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    When wind or other disturbances detach winged maple seeds called samaras from their parent tree, they spin through the air – and can even spin when it’s raining. Impacts by high-speed raindrops only briefly interrupt the seed’s spinning because the seed can shed the drop rapidly and restart its spinning in less time than it takes to blink.

    If you live somewhere with maple trees, you’ve probably seen their striking helicopter seeds – made up of a seed pod attached to a delicate wing. Maple samaras’ unique design and spinning movement can teach physicists like me about seed dispersal patterns and even engineering new types of flying vehicles.

    The samaras’ spinning movement, called autorotation, keeps them in the air for longer so they travel farther.

    The spinning flight of a maple samara.

    In a February 2025 study, my colleagues and I filmed raindrops as they crashed into autorotating samaras. The samaras shed drops by shattering them, flinging the drops off, or rolling out of the way – like they’re turning away from a punch. If a drop falls in just the right place, the spinning seed can cut it in half.

    The movement of a samara as it spins through the air. Our new study captured this pattern using a high-speed camera.
    Breanna Shaeffer and Andrew Dickerson, University of Tennessee-Knoxville

    In order to keep flying, the samaras must shed the entire drop. Samaras shed drops fastest when the drops hit the heavier, round nutlet part of the seed, rather than the wing. Shedding is made easier by the samaras’ mildly water-repellent surface. We estimated that raindrop collisions reduce a samara’s time in flight and the distance it travels while spinning, but by less than 10%.

    Why it matters

    Maples are an important species to the Eastern United States. They provide syrup and timber, making them economically and commercially significant.

    To proliferate in a rapidly changing climate, maples and other samara-bearing species need to disperse their seeds as far as possible.

    My team’s results provide context for other studies focused on how wind transports rotating and nonrotating seeds alike. Some seeds can even travel hundreds of miles.

    From an engineering perspective, the insights gained from our study could inform the design of new types of aerial vehicles that use autorotation to ride the wind without a motor. Mimicking the shapes of these seeds could help such vehicles quickly recover from disruptions to flight.

    Samaras are also visually intriguing. Discovering more about how small, beautiful parts of nature thrive could help scientists get people interested in the environment.

    What still isn’t known

    Maple samaras represent just one way that seeds use the wind to disperse farther. A dandelion’s parachute-like float relies on the seed’s light weight and high drag. A hop tree seed uses a single, wafer-shaped seed to flutter, while triplaris seeds have three wings that achieve a helicopter-like spin. Researchers still aren’t sure how raindrops can affect the flight of these seeds.

    What’s next

    Next, my colleagues and I hope to unravel the flight mechanics of the “rolling samaras” found on tulip poplar and ash trees. These seeds rotate like maple samaras, but the wing also rolls around the axis that runs across its wingspan as it does so.

    Not only do we plan to compare their flight performance against the more recognizable maple samara, but we will also study how these seeds respond to perturbations such as wing damage and crosswinds.

    How I do my work

    I like to uncover the complexity in seemingly simple systems. So many of the brief, small and common interactions in our world are wonderfully beautiful. I seek to tell those stories through a camera lens and with mathematical flair.

    Andrew Dickerson receives funding from the National Science Foundation.

    – ref. Maple seeds’ unique spinning motion allows them to travel far even in the rain, a new study shows – https://theconversation.com/maple-seeds-unique-spinning-motion-allows-them-to-travel-far-even-in-the-rain-a-new-study-shows-250341

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How to make a political Oscars speech that doesn’t flop – according to rhetorical theory

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tom F. Wright, Reader in Rhetoric, University of Sussex

    So, it’s happened. You’re on stage, Oscar statue in hand, facing Hollywood’s finest and millions of viewers. You could keep it simple – thank your agent, your co-stars, your dog. Or you could use this moment to say something that matters.

    That’s exactly what Jane Fonda just did at the 2025 Screen Actors Guild Awards, urging the audience “to resist successfully what is coming at us” as Elon Musk’s Doge holds a chainsaw to the US federal government. From the cold war to civil rights to Trump 2.0, award ceremonies have always been stages for activism.

    Some of these political speeches have been electrifying. Some have flopped. Some have been drowned out by the orchestra before they even got started. If you’re going to make a political speech at the Oscars, you’d better do it right.

    Thankfully, Kenneth Burke — one of the 20th century’s most influential rhetorical scholars — offers a road map. His theories on identification, dramatism and symbolic action explain why some speeches resonate while others fall flat.

    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.

    1. Know your two (very different) audiences

    Burke argued in the 1950s that rhetoric isn’t just about persuasion – it’s about identification. A speaker is most persuasive when they convince their audience that they share the same values and concerns. If people feel you’re “one of them”, they’re more likely to listen.

    The Oscars create a unique rhetorical challenge. Inside LA’s Dolby Theatre, you might be surrounded by like-minded pampered progressives. But beyond that room, millions of viewers at home may be far less receptive.

    Michael Moore’s infamous acceptance speech in 2003.

    Director Michael Moore learned this the hard way in 2003 when, after winning best documentary for his film Bowling for Columbine, he stormed the stage and declared: “Shame on you, Mr Bush! Shame on you!” The result? A mix of cheers and boos. And days of being pilloried on cable news. Instead of drawing people in, Moore’s approach alienated half his audience.

    Compare this with Meryl Streep’s speech at the 2017 Golden Globes when collecting her lifetime achievement award. She also criticised her president but framed it differently: “Disrespect invites disrespect. Violence incites violence. When the powerful use their position to bully others, we all lose.”

    She didn’t need to utter Donald Trump’s name. And because she framed her speech as a universal concern, rather than a partisan attack, it resonated beyond the room.

    2. Put yourself in the story

    Burke’s second idea is that all communication is “dramatic” – a performance shaped by setting, characters and conflict. In a political speech, the most compelling “character” is often you, the speaker.

    Audiences don’t just respond to abstract arguments. They connect with people who embody the very struggle they’re speaking about.

    Lily Gladstone accepting the Golden Globe for best actress in 2024.

    Lily Gladstone’s 2024 Golden Globes speech worked this way. When she won best actress for Killers of the Flower Moon, she didn’t start with industry statistics or broad calls for change. Instead, she spoke in Blackfeet, honouring her Indigenous roots: “I just spoke a bit of Blackfeet language, a beautiful community – the nation that raised me.”

    That one sentence transformed her win into a moment of cultural recognition, making her speech as much an act of representation as a speech about representation.

    3. Frame your argument wisely

    If you want your audience to engage, you must frame your message in a way that pulls them in. Whereas a speech that just states a problem can feel like noise, one that connects the issue to a larger story can be powerful.

    This is where Burke’s idea of symbolic action comes in. He defined it as “the making or construction of social reality through symbols that foster identification”. Put another way: words don’t just describe reality, they shape it.

    Oprah Winfrey’s speech from the 2018 Golden Globes.

    Take Oprah Winfrey’s 2018 Golden Globes speech picking up the Cecil B. DeMille award. Instead of simply condemning sexism in Hollywood, she tied it to a broader historical movement, from civil rights to #MeToo: “For too long, women have not been heard or believed if they dared to speak their truth to the power [of] those men. But their time is up. Their time is up!”

    Winfrey wasn’t just talking about change – she was creating it in real time, rallying the room behind a clear, urgent message. That’s the difference between listing a problem and delivering a message that sticks.

    4. Turn your speech into an act of protest

    While framing helps persuade an audience, some moments go further, becoming acts of defiance themselves. This is when a speech moves beyond words into symbolic action.

    Let’s take perhaps the most famous protest in Oscars history. In 1973, Marlon Brando refused to pick up his best actor statue – sending in his place Sacheen Littlefeather, who explained she was there as a protest for Hollywood’s treatment of Native American people.

    Sacheen Littlefeather refuses to accept the best actor Oscar on behalf of Marlon Brando.

    “He very regretfully cannot accept this very generous award,” she told the audience. “And the reasons for this being are the treatment of American Indians today by the film industry … and on television in movie reruns, and also with recent happenings at Wounded Knee.”

    In under a minute, she transformed what could have been a quiet refusal into a national reckoning. The audience’s reaction – some cheering, some booing – only made it clearer. This wasn’t just a speech, it was a moment.

    A speech that merely describes a problem may be forgotten, but one that transforms the moment itself? That’s the stuff of history.

    5. Expect a backlash, and decide if you care

    No matter how well you craft your speech, someone is going to be angry. Burke’s final idea for helping us understand this is the “scapegoat mechanism”, by which one figure is cast as the discordant element that must be removed to restore unity.

    If you make a political speech at the Oscars, it could be you. Vanessa Redgrave learned this in 1978: after winning best supporting actress for her role in Julia, she defended her pro-Palestine activism against attacks from the Jewish Defence League, who she called a “bunch of Zionist hoodlums”. The reaction was instant – cheers mixed with boos.

    Vanessa Redgrave accepts the Oscar for supporting actress in 1978.

    Later that night, screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky publicly rebuked her, saying: “A simple ‘thank you’ would have sufficed.” The backlash hurt Redgrave’s career, but she stood by her words.

    If you’re going to say something political, be prepared to own it. And make sure you beat the orchestra.

    Tom F. Wright 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. How to make a political Oscars speech that doesn’t flop – according to rhetorical theory – https://theconversation.com/how-to-make-a-political-oscars-speech-that-doesnt-flop-according-to-rhetorical-theory-250949

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: White House spat with AP over ‘Gulf of America’ ignites fears for press freedom in second Trump era

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Colleen Murrell, Full Professor in Journalism, Dublin City University

    A federal judge in the District Court of Columbia will shortly decide if the US president, Donald Trump, is allowed to dictate the terms of service of the Associated Press (AP), the US wire agency that proudly proclaims it is read by 4 billion people every day.

    In a (typically for this administration) knee-jerk decision on February 11, White House officials informed AP that its journalists would be barred from entering restricted areas such as the Oval Office and Air Force One until it stops using the geographic term “Gulf of Mexico” – in contravention of an executive order renaming it the “Gulf of America”.

    AP’s style guide explains that the Gulf of Mexico has carried this name for more than 400 years, and that Trump’s order only holds authority within the US. It notes that as a global news agency, it “must ensure that place names and geography are easily recognizable to all audiences”.

    But the style guide adds that, while AP will continue to refer to the body of water by its original name, it will do so “while acknowledging the new name Trump has chosen”.

    According to AP’s executive editor, Julie Pace: “Limiting our access to the Oval Office based on the content of AP’s speech not only severely impedes the public’s access to independent news, it plainly violates the first amendment” – which covers freedom of speech and the press.

    In seeking to overturn the ban, AP brought a lawsuit (AP-v-Budowich-Complaint) against the White House chief of staff, Susan Wiles, the deputy chief of staff, Taylor Budowich, and its press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, in their official capacities.

    After a short hearing, Judge Trevor N. McFadden – who was appointed by Trump – declined to restore AP’s access immediately, and instead set another hearing date for March 20. According to the Washington Post, the judge was “not sufficiently convinced the situation was ‘dire’ enough to warrant such an intervention” – and therefore was “not inclined to act precipitously on the executive office of the president”.

    Following this decision, the White House denied access to Trump’s first cabinet meeting on February 26 to an AP photographer, as well as reporters from Reuters, HuffPost and German newspaper Der Tagesspiegel. Instead, officials allowed in cameras from ABC and Newsmax, plus reporters from Axios, the Blaze, Bloomberg and NPR.

    Pick and mix

    But can the president be allowed this pick-and-mix approach to access to the seat of power?

    The White House press pool has been in place for more than a century, with the seating allocation in the press briefing room decided by the board of the White House Correspondents’ Association. As the major American news agency, AP has traditionally held the coveted middle front-row seat, which it still retains – even though senior officials have tweeted veiled threats to rescind AP’s entire White House credentials.

    The press briefing room holds 49 seats, with some seats shared between two companies on rotation, and a few journalists or photographers permitted to stand in the aisles when there is room. Meanwhile, Air Force One (in reality, two Boeing 747s used on rotation) only has room for 13 people to represent the entire White House press corps. The pool on the plane is ordinarily made up of three agency reporters (AP, Reuters and Bloomberg), four photographers (including from AP), three network TV journalists, a radio reporter and two print reporters.

    Trump has an ongoing fight against “legacy” news outlets that dominated coverage before the advent of the internet. These media often have strict editorial guidelines, but the president has regularly dismissed them as “fake news”. During the election campaign, he ignored well-known programmes such as CBS’s Sixty Minutes in favour of Joe Rogan’s podcast.

    At the Pentagon, Trump’s new military brooms have also been sweeping legacy media companies out of their briefing rooms. This list includes NBC, the New York Times, Politico, CNN and The Washington Post. In their place will go Trump-friendly outlets such as Newsmax and the Washington Examiner.

    ‘Privilege, not a right’

    Meanwhile, a petition by media companies is calling on the US government to “honor its commitment to freedom of expression” by upholding “a nonpartisan defense of a free press”. Included on this petition are the Committee to Protect Journalists, the International Press Institute, and the Society of Professional Journalists.

    Members of the press pool are usually the only reporters that get to throw questions at senior members of the administration. Its members follow the president on important trips both nationally and internationally. AP is a widely trusted non-profit news organisation, and its reports get syndicated to media organisations throughout the world, with any profits used to pay for its staff and its newsgathering.

    CNN reporter Kaitlan Collins questions the White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt over the banning of AP from White House briefings.

    The White House released a statement on February 24: “As we have said from the beginning, asking the president of the United States questions in the Oval Office and aboard Air Force One is a privilege granted to journalists, not a legal right.”

    However, having an independent arbiter making decisions about press pool representation is surely preferable in maintaining a free press and accountability than allowing each administration to pick its own reporters – or even its own facts.

    Colleen Murrell received funding from Irish regulator Coimisiún na Meán (2021-4) for research for the annual Reuters Digital News Report Ireland.

    – ref. White House spat with AP over ‘Gulf of America’ ignites fears for press freedom in second Trump era – https://theconversation.com/white-house-spat-with-ap-over-gulf-of-america-ignites-fears-for-press-freedom-in-second-trump-era-251163

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Emmanuel Macron used every diplomatic trick in the book at the White House – but Trump writes his own rules

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Helen Drake, Professor of French and European Studies and Director of Loughborough University London’s Institute for Diplomacy and International Affairs, Loughborough University

    If there was a book of diplomacy, then French president Emmanuel Macron threw it at US president Donald Trump in their joint press conference in Washington DC. Macron delivered quite the masterclass in the diplomatic arts. Unthreatening body language and public displays of affection? Check.

    Meeting your interlocutor on any and every inch of common ground? Check. Macron’s willing use of fluent English was a key tactic here. Other than when answering French-language questions (when to have responded in English would have brought Macron yet more domestic grief), he adapted to the language of his hosts.

    Macron and Trump’s press conference.

    Recalling shared memories of happier, shared times? Check. It was smart to remind Trump of his time as a guest at the reopening of Notre Dame cathedral in Paris just a few months previously.

    Gently correcting a friend in danger of veering too far from reality (here, regarding the extent and type of European aid to Ukraine) as you would expect from a true ally? Again, check.

    These are the soft skills of diplomacy as communication between human beings to which Macron typically brings his heart, body and soul. On this occasion and on this criterion he outperformed even himself, and outclassed his host by some degree.

    At times, Trump looked enraptured by this performance from such an interesting specimen of utter Europeanness. At others, the host fidgeted and listened stony-faced to the halting interpretation of Macron’s rapid-fire French. He tried a few gauche niceties of his own (“say hello to your beautiful wife”) and dialled up to the max his personal brand of touchy-feely diplomacy.

    Behind the scenes

    Beyond the memorable set pieces of diplomatic theatre lies, of course, the message itself. This must represent the voice, the interests and the concerns of the state or other diplomatic actor. But it may well go against the flow, disrupting the smooth surface of diplomatic pleasantries.

    Former French president Charles de Gaulle notoriously ruffled cold-war feathers in the 1960s with rousing speeches to stir non-aligned countries and French-speaking people to contest the existing world order. Former foreign minister Dominique de Villepin will be remembered for his eloquent, impassioned plea to the United Nations security council in 2003 against the allied invasion of Iraq.

    Macron has dabbled in free-wheeling diplomacy himself. He claimed in 2019 that Nato was close to “brain death” and maintained a dialogue with Russia’s president Vladimir Putin after the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. In Macron’s account at the press conference with Trump, he closed this line of communication when he learned of the atrocities being perpetrated by Russian forces.

    Articulating France’s global, strategic interests is where Macron feels most comfortable and probably where he is best suited (judged by the standards of his domestic political failings). His trip to Washington at such a pivotal moment in Trump’s second presidency, with the fate of Ukraine in the balance, was a natural move for a leader who, since the beginning of his first mandate in 2017, has sought to lead the European conversation about the continent’s security.

    His sense of urgency to secure greater European autonomy and capacity in its defence lies behind his willingness to talk to all parties. France does, after all, go by the fiendishly untranslatable label of a “puissance d’équilibres” (which means an actor with the power to strike a balance but also perhaps to bring others into balance or even, simply, to keep the peace).

    Macron’s readiness to confront the cold, hard facts of contemporary international relations – he has already told the French they need to put themselves on a wartime footing in economic terms – gives him a track record of sorts in the diplomatic negotiations now to come: between Europeans themselves, and between Europe and the US.

    But facing down Macron’s fancy optics is one particularly awkward fact – namely that Trump does not do diplomacy by the book, or at least not the one he was metaphorically gifted by president Macron. Where the point of diplomacy is to establish a common language with shared codes and expectations in order to ease tensions and bridge differences between parties, Trump’s diplomatic how-to guide boasts new chapters on the arts of bullying, harassment, gaslighting and, of course, the deal.



    Read more:
    Trump and Europe: US ‘transactionalism on steroids’ is the challenge facing leaders now

    For now, the US president is tolerating the quaint diplomatic overtures of these curious Europeans and given the ultra-high stakes of what couldn’t be further from a game, that is diplomacy itself.

    Helen Drake 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. Emmanuel Macron used every diplomatic trick in the book at the White House – but Trump writes his own rules – https://theconversation.com/emmanuel-macron-used-every-diplomatic-trick-in-the-book-at-the-white-house-but-trump-writes-his-own-rules-250832

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The UK’s food system is broken. A green new deal for agriculture could be revolutionary

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Benjamin Selwyn, Professor of International Relations and International Development, Department of International Relations, University of Sussex

    William Edge/Shutterstock

    The UK’s food system was described as broken in a recent parliamentary report – and it’s not hard to see why. High living costs, a health crisis of diet-related chronic disease, farmers’ incomes squeezed and low pay across the agricultural sector all play their parts.

    And these elements are underpinned by an environmentally destructive mode of agricultural production – the longer the livestock-intensive system prevails, the greater the environmental, economic and social costs.

    The opportunity cost of not dealing with the food crisis is severe. The Food, Farming and Countryside Commission found that the price of the UK’s unhealthy food system is around £268 billion a year – almost equivalent to the government’s entire expenditure on health. And farmers are also worried about the sector as they face an unpredictable climate, smaller profits and changes to tax relief policies.

    I have researched how a green new deal for agriculture – namely a food system that complements rather than undermines the environment, while tackling social inequities – could begin to address these problems.

    In 2024 the UK’s farming sector experienced its second-worst harvest on record. Huge levels of rain last winter disrupted farmers’ ability to grow crops and reduced yields.

    The UK’s population faces a significant health crisis, exacerbated by the high cost of living. In 2022, around two-thirds of the population across all four nations were either overweight or obese.

    Retailers, processors and distributors grab an exorbitant share of the final value of many agricultural products. Sometimes farmers make as little as 1p profit for each item they produce. And farm workers’ earnings can sometimes leave them facing absolute poverty.

    What’s more, the UK farming sector is systemically inefficient. Dairy and meat products provide about 32% of calories consumed in the UK, and less than half (48%) of the protein. At the same time, livestock and their feed make up 85% of the UK’s total land use for agriculture.

    To make matters worse, land ownership is highly concentrated – about 25,000 landowners, typically corporations and members of the aristocracy, own about 50% of England, for example.

    What would change look like?

    A green new deal for agriculture would require a significant reorientation of policy, akin to the 1945 Labour government’s establishment of the welfare state. Critics might decry the costs and difficulties – but the longer the government waits, the greater the economic and environmental costs are likely to be.



    Read more:
    Britain’s unearned wealth has ballooned – a modest capital tax could help avoid austerity and boost the economy

    The government could introduce compulsory sale orders to spread land ownership more evenly. These would enable public bodies to obtain land that has been left derelict, vacant or that has been used in environmentally damaging ways. These measures could be supported by the establishment of community land trusts – non-profit, democratic organisations that own and work land for the benefit of local people.

    And a green new deal for agriculture could start with the government using its ecosystems service payments, where farmers and landowners are paid to manage their land in an environmentally beneficial way, to stimulate a transition to more plant-based proteins. This could combat hardship among farmers and agricultural workers, and tackle food poverty and ill health in the population. It would also establish the basis for a more sustainable agricultural system.



    Read more:
    Subsidised community restaurants could help tackle the UK’s broken food system – here’s how

    The UK think tank Green Alliance has mapped a green protein transition. It would entail an increase in “agro-ecologically” farmed land – that is, methods that bring a more ecological approach to farming. At present, this is about 3% of UK land, and it would have to rise to 60% by 2050. Under the plan, by 2030 10% of farmland would become semi-natural habitat, rising to one-third by 2050. This would protect land and facilitate natural restoration, and would also support agro-ecological farming methods.

    In this scenario, Britons would be projected to eat 45% less meat and dairy, replacing them with alternative proteins – plants and synthetic foods such as those made from precision fermentation. This is a revolutionary technology producing proteins that can be used in new alternatives to meat and dairy.

    Many conceptions of the protein transition from animal sources to more plant products ignore the necessity of improving farmers’ and agricultural workers’ incomes. But this will be crucial.

    Ecosystems service payments should be broadened to include a focus on sustainable incomes. Farms can be paid directly by government for sustainable production to combat farmer poverty. And the real living wage of £12.60 an hour should be compulsory for agricultural workers.

    As land use shifts from livestock grazing and feed crop production, more ground could be used for food crops for human consumption. There would then be more scope to change which food crops are produced – from wheat to legumes, for example.

    Flour made from broad beans – which can be grown in the UK – packs a bigger protein punch than traditional wheat flour.
    Narsil/Shutterstock

    Research has shown that flour made from broad beans is higher in key nutrients – protein, iron and fibre – than wheat flour. Bread, pasta, pizza, cakes and biscuits could increasingly be produced using broad bean flour, underpinning a shift towards more nutritious diets.

    A protein transition would also free up land for fruit and vegetable production for domestic consumption, reducing the UK’s heavy import dependence by using polytunnels and environmentally sustainable greenhouses.

    Climate breakdown means that the frequency of poor harvests will increase. And the volatile economic and political global picture means that affordable food imports cannot be taken for granted.

    A green new deal for agriculture could begin to remedy many of the problems the UK faces due to its broken food system. What’s needed is a coalition including courageous political parties, farmers, and workers within and beyond food production. Working together, these groups would be well placed to withstand the economic, political and environmental shocks that are on the horizon.

    Benjamin Selwyn 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. The UK’s food system is broken. A green new deal for agriculture could be revolutionary – https://theconversation.com/the-uks-food-system-is-broken-a-green-new-deal-for-agriculture-could-be-revolutionary-250565

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How evolution might explain impatience

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Daniel Read, Professor of Behavioural Science, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick

    DC Studio/Shutterstock

    Nobody likes to wait, and we are willing to pay to avoid it. Expedited shipping, fast food and video streaming are all profitable because they reduce or eliminate that wait. You can test this by asking a group of people to choose between receiving £100 now or £110 in a year. Research shows a significant majority will choose the £100.

    But why do many people choose not to wait, when it seems obvious that they would be better off doing so? Sometimes this impatience is just put down to irrationality, impulsivity or short-sightedness, but there is also a long tradition in psychology and economics that views impatience as, at least in part, a rational response to the world.

    Perhaps the world of today, or perhaps the world in which we evolved.

    Recent research proposes that our evolutionary history shaped our impatience, and uses mathematical models to show how it works.

    The key idea is this. Imagine a large population of identical people who can choose between enjoying an early reward, or a larger reward later in time. An example might be choosing between two hunting grounds, one close and one further away.

    The closer one is guaranteed to yield a small animal quite quickly, while the farther one is likely to yield a big animal but only after a considerable wait or a gruelling hunt. Another example might be eating the juvenile, smaller fruit on a tree or waiting a few months until the fruit are abundant and ripe.

    Of course there is a catch. If the people wait too long for the large reward, there is a chance they won’t live long enough to earn it. And even if they do, the ripe fruit might have vanished before they reached it, perhaps stolen by a rival.

    As the authors of the recent study show, the animals (including humans) they model are better off taking the bird in the hand with even relatively small amounts of risk (you might not reach the birds) and uncertainty (there might not be two birds when you get there).

    Although models like this are simplifications of the real world, they are valuable for conceptualising how evolution might have produced particular tendencies in humans and other animals. But this model doesn’t do a lot to explain the human impatience we see now.

    In most studies of choice over time, people display high levels of impatience even in settings where risk is all but eliminated, and when it is financially beneficial to be patient.

    Struggle with impatience? It’s human nature.
    Khosro/Shutterstock

    One explanation is that the evolved way of valuing the future is still in place even in modern humans. We act as if the world is uncertain and risky, as it would have been for hunter gatherers, even when it is not.

    Good things come to those who wait

    Another explanation might be that we struggle to think about how the £110 is better than the £100. There is a lot of evidence for this.

    Consider, for example, an experiment I carried out in 2012 with psychologists Marc Scholten and Shane Frederick. Participants chose between £700 now or £700 plus £42 in one year.

    When given the choice in terms of monetary amounts, people were impatient. But if the £42 was described instead as “plus 6%” they were much more patient.

    People know that earning 6% a year is a great interest rate. But many people do not do the calculations and the extra £42 seems paltry compared to the £700.

    Another result that does not fit this evolutionary story concerns people’s responses to losses. Take a choice between paying a bill for £100 now or £100 later. A lot of people, often a majority, will prefer to pay the bill now. Indeed, some will prefer to pay £110 now rather than £100 later.

    Yet the possibility that you will not have to pay a future bill, or that the bill might have vanished by the time you get to it (the indebted has forgotten or died) should make you want to delay paying bills as long as possible. The more common response is probably partly due to a fundamental aversion to debt, which does not have an obvious evolutionary basis, but it is associated with religiosity.

    It remains to be seen if these complex preferences (such as patience for negative outcomes) can be explained by the process of natural selection, or if it is something that came later in human development.

    Evolutionary theory is an essential tool for thinking about the foundations of human decision making. The modern world is, however, very different from the environment in which we evolved.

    Daniel Read receives funding from the ESRC.

    – ref. How evolution might explain impatience – https://theconversation.com/how-evolution-might-explain-impatience-249325

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Albanese’s pitch on beer – temporary freeze on excise indexation

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

    The Albanese government will temporarily freeze the indexation on draught beer excise, in what it describes as a win for drinkers, brewers and businesses.

    The freeze is for two years and starts from the next due indexation date in August. Indexation changes are made twice a year, with the most recent one in February.

    The government says the cost to the budget would be $95 million over four years from 2025-26.

    The Australian Hotels Association had previously called for a freeze on the excise for drinks sold in pubs, clubs, bars, and restaurants.

    In a statement, the government said the move would “take pressure off the price of a beer poured in pubs, clubs and other venues, supporting businesses, regional tourism and customers”.

    Last week it announced relief for Australian distillers, brewers and wine producers.

    At present brewers and distillers get a full remission of any excise paid up to $350,000 each year. The government said it would increase the cap to $400,000 for all eligible alcohol manufacturers and also increase the Wine Equalisation Tax producer rebate cap to $400,000 from July 1 next year. That was estimated to decrease tax receipts by $70 million over five years from 2024-25.

    Prime Minister Anthony Albanese described the temporary excise indexation freeze as “a commonsense measure”.

    Treasurer Jim Chalmers said, “This is a modest change but will help take a little bit of pressure off beer drinkers, brewers and bars”.

    The AHA recently labelled the excise a “hidden” tax, saying it put pressure on the cost of living. It said Australia’s beer tax was the third highest in the OECD.

    The industry and Chalmers had a skirmish over the recent indexation increase. Chalmers said it would equal less than one cent a pint, and warned outlets not to “rip off” or mislead consumers.

    Chalmers wrote to the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission asking it to monitor outlets in February to make sure they “do not take undue advantage” of the rise to “mislead” customers about the impact.

    The federal government introduced the beer excise in 1988, with the tax linked to inflation. The AHA said in September that the recent jump in inflation meant the beer excise rose 8% over the previous six months.

    Michelle Grattan 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. Albanese’s pitch on beer – temporary freeze on excise indexation – https://theconversation.com/albaneses-pitch-on-beer-temporary-freeze-on-excise-indexation-250898

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Africa’s newest book prize is named after Andreé Blouin: who was she?

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Tinashe Mushakavanhu, Research Associate, University of Oxford

    Andrée Blouin was a political activist and writer from the Central African Republic. Until recently, her name hardly ever appeared in the grand narratives of Africa’s liberation.

    When she died in 1986, her passing was hardly in the news – a stark contrast to her pivotal role as an adviser and campaign strategist to newly independent African leaders in Algeria, both Congos, Côte d’Ivoire, Mali, Guinea and Ghana.

    She was more than a participant. She was an organising force, an architect of resistance, a strategist who shaped the fight against colonial rule. Yet, like many women in African history, her contributions faded into the margins, overshadowed by the men she helped empower.

    Interest in Blouin has been rekindled. She is featured in the Oscar-nominated documentary Soundtrack to a Coup d’État about DRC independence leader Patrice Lumumba. She worked as his speechwriter and chief of protocol.

    And her memoir My Country, Africa: Autobiography of the Black Pasionaria, long out of print, was re-released and is now widely available.

    Now a new annual book award called the Andrée Blouin Prize has been launched in her honour by a South Africa-based publishing house, Inkani Books. Its mission is to amplify the voices of African women, cisgender and transgender, writing about history, politics and current affairs from a left perspective.

    For me as a literary historian who has been preoccupied with archives of marginal historical figures, this activation of Blouin powerfully highlights her legacy. It also invites new engagement with her work.

    Who was Andrée Blouin?

    Blouin was born in 1921 in Central African Republic but from the age of three she was placed in an orphanage in neighbouring Congo Brazzaville. She ran away when she was 14 and so began a life of rebellion.

    She would grow up to be a formidable political operator. Her reach touches many parts of Africa. For her, the struggle was not just local, it was everywhere. As a multilingual person, she spoke a dozen languages, a gift that allowed her to easily move between places and political contexts.

    Her political awakening was deeply personal – she was radicalised by her son’s death from malaria in a colonial hospital in 1942. He had been denied life-saving medication. Colonialism, she realised, was not just her own misfortune but a system of evil suffocating African lives.

    Today history is vindicating this fascinating historical figure. This is happening through the wealth of archival material – photographs, videos, interviews and texts – that places her at the centre of political action. The image of African liberation tends to be men in suits. And yet a smiling Blouin can be seen with them, side by side, even addressing large crowds.

    It is thanks to the refusal of this archive to be repressed that we can review moments that shaped African liberation history. And appreciate the roles that women like Blouin played.

    Behind the prize

    African literary prizes have seen significant growth in recent years, both in number and influence. They play an important role in promoting African literature, offering recognition and financial support to writers, and shaping the literary canon.

    They can also address the need for dedicated platforms that amplify underrepresented voices.

    Inkani Books describes itself as a “people’s movement-driven publishing house”. It is introducing The Andrée Blouin Prize in her honour. The impetus for the prize, according to Inkani’s publishing director Efemia Chela, was to directly challenge erasure of women in history and in political writing.

    She explains:

    This prize is not just an accolade; it is a reclamation of space, a declaration that African revolutionary women’s narratives will no longer be sidelined.

    The publishing house, established less than five years ago, has been reissuing popular books about revolutionary figures. These include the likes of Thomas Sankara, Kwame Nkrumah, Amílcar Cabral and Frantz Fanon. These men are often celebrated for their heroism and intellectual contributions to pan-African ideas about freedom, politics and revolution.

    The Andrée Blouin Prize is a bold act of reclamation, ensuring that the narratives of African revolutionary women are no longer overlooked but recognised, celebrated and centred.

    In fact, this is an invitation for contemporary women to write themselves into literary history.

    The inaugural winner will receive a $2,000 advance and a publishing contract with Inkani. The prize is open to all women across Africa and is dedicated to showcasing and celebrating the continent’s diverse and vibrant experiences.

    It is part of a broader movement challenging historical exclusions in African publishing. Literary production is dominated by big multinational publishing companies that determine reading tastes and trends.

    Last year, Nigeria-based Cassava Republic Press launched the Global Black Women’s Non-Fiction Manuscript Prize to spotlight exceptional works by Black women.



    Read more:
    African literary prizes are contested – but writers’ groups are reshaping them

    While African publishing has not always been welcoming to women writers, a shift is underway. Writers like Nigeria’s Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, Zimbabwe’s NoViolet Bulawayo, Uganda’s Jennifer Nansubuga Makumbi, and Zambia’s Namwali Serpell are now among the most influential voices shaping African literature today.

    Tinashe Mushakavanhu 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. Africa’s newest book prize is named after Andreé Blouin: who was she? – https://theconversation.com/africas-newest-book-prize-is-named-after-andree-blouin-who-was-she-250828

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Tongan advocates condemn Treaty Principles Bill, slam colonisation

    By Khalia Strong of Pacific Media Network

    Tongan community leaders and artists in New Zealand have criticised the Treaty Principles Bill while highlighting the ongoing impact of colonisation in Aotearoa and the Pacific.

    Oral submissions continued this week for the public to voice their view on the controversial proposed bill, which aims to redefine the legal framework of the nation’s founding document, the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi.

    Aotearoa Tongan Response Group member Pakilau Manase Lua echoed words from the Waitangi Day commemorations earlier this month.

    “The Treaty of Waitangi Principles Bill and its champions and enablers represent the spirit of the coloniser,” he said.

    Pakilau said New Zealand’s history included forcible takeovers of Sāmoa, Cook Islands, Niue and Tokelau.

    “The New Zealand government, or the Crown, has shown time and again that it has a pattern of trampling on the mana and sovereignty of indigenous peoples, not just here in Aotearoa, but also in the Pacific region.”

    Poet Karlo Mila spoke as part of a submission by a collective of artists, Mana Moana,

    “Have you ever paused to wonder why we speak English here, half a world away from England? It’s a global history of Christian white supremacy, who, with apostolic authority, ordained the doctrine of discovery to create a new world order,” she said.

    “Yes, this is where the ‘new’ in New Zealand comes from, invasion for advantage and profit, presenting itself as progress, as civilising, as salvation, as enlightenment itself — the greatest gaslighting feat of history.”

    Bill used as political weapon
    She argued that the bill was being used as a political weapon, and government rhetoric was causing division.

    “We watch political parties sow seeds of disunity using disingenuous history, harnessing hate speech and the haka of destiny, scapegoating ‘vulnerable enemies’ . . . Yes, for us, it’s a forest fire out there, and brown bodies are moving political targets, every inflammatory word finding kindling in kindred racists.”

    Pakilau said that because Tonga had never been formally colonised, Tongans had a unique view of the unfolding situation.

    “We know what sovereignty tastes like, we know what it smells like and feels like, especially when it’s trampled on.

    “Ask the American Samoans, who provide more soldiers per capita than any state of America to join the US Army, but are not allowed to vote for the country they are prepared to die for.

    “Ask the mighty 28th Maori Battalion, who field Marshal Erwin Rommel famously said, ‘Give me the Māori Battalion and I will rule the world’, they bled and died for a country that denied them the very rights promised under the Treaty.

    “The Treaty of Waitangi Bill is essentially threatening to do the same thing again, it is re-traumatising Māori and opening old wounds.”

    A vision for the future
     Mila, who also has European and Sāmoan ancestry, said the answer to how to proceed was in the Treaty’s Indigenous text.

    “The answer is Te Tiriti, not separatist exclusion. It’s the fair terms of inclusion, an ancestral strategy for harmony, a covenant of cooperation. It’s how we live ethically on a land that was never ceded.”

    Flags displayed at Waitangi treaty grounds 2024. Image: PMN News/Atutahi Potaka-Dewes

    Aotearoa Tongan Response Group chair Anahila Kanongata’a said Tongans were Tangata Tiriti (people of the Treaty), and the bill denigrated the rights of Māori as Tangata Whenua (people of the land).

    “How many times has the Crown breached the Treaty? Too, too many times.

    “What this bill is attempting to do is retrospectively annul those breaches by extinguishing Māori sovereignty or tino rangatiritanga over their own affairs, as promised to them in their Tiriti, the Te Reo Māori text.”

    Kanongata’a called on the Crown to rescind the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill, honour Te Tiriti, and issue a formal apology to Māori, similar to what had been done for the Dawn Raids.

    Hundreds gather at Treaty Grounds for the annual Waitangi Day dawn service. Image: PMN Digital/Joseph Safiti

    “As a former member of Parliament, I am proud of the fact that an apology was made for the way our people were treated during the Dawn Raids.

    “We were directly affected, yes, it was painful and most of our loved ones never got to see or hear the apology, but imagine the pain Māori must feel to be essentially dispossessed, disempowered and effectively disowned of their sovereignty on their own lands.”

    The bill’s architect, Act Party leader David Seymour, sayid the nationwide discussion on Treaty principles was crucial for future generations.

    “In a democracy, the citizens are always ready to decide the future. That’s how it works.”

    Republished from PMN News with permission.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: How ‘muscular Christianity’ strove to bring men back to religion – and what it can teach us today

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gavin Brown, Lecturer in Religious Education, Australian Catholic University

    Wikimedia Commons

    Most people recognise organisations such as the YMCA and the Boy Scouts, or events such as the Modern Olympic Games, summer camps and wilderness retreats.

    Few, though, have ever heard of the movement from which they took their principal inspiration: muscular Christianity.

    The term sounds odd indeed, conjuring up images of Jesus with an impressively chiselled physique or, for devotees of the eighties, Vangelis’ memorable soundtrack to Chariots of Fire.
    However, the term arose because it once carried Christian hopes of a solution to a longstanding problem: men.

    That is, in the 19th century especially, Christian churches became particularly alarmed more and more men were leaving religion to women – from attendance at worship to running parish organisations or establishing charitable endeavours.

    Worse still was the fear Christianity itself had become soft and even effeminate through the Victorian age.

    Christians, especially the Protestants who started the movement, needed to present Christianity in ways attractive to men. But how?

    A literary beginning

    In 1857, the Englishman Thomas Hughes published the novel Tom Brown’s School Days, followed later by Tom Brown at Oxford in 1859.

    In the first book, Tom attends the prestigious Rugby School, before making his way to Oxford in the sequel. This character would epitomise a “muscular Christian”, as Hughes put it. In the sequel, Hughes wrote:

    The least of the muscular Christians has hold of the old chivalrous and Christian belief, that a man’s body is given him to be trained and brought into subjection, and then used for the protection of the weak, the advancement of all righteous causes, and the subduing of the earth which God has given to the children of men.

    Author Thomas Hughes largely based Tom Brown’s School Days on his own years at Rugby School.
    Wikimedia Commons

    Men precisely as men could use their bodies to Christianise the world. A movement with twin aims was born: first, encourage men to embrace their physicality and second, through such disciplining of their bodies, to glorify God.

    Rise and fall

    From England, the movement spread through the Anglosphere, including Australia.

    And it has some impressive credentials. Pierre de Coubertin’s inspiration for reviving the Olympic Games was, in part, inspired by reading Tom Brown’s School Days.

    In the United States, the YMCA – the Young Men’s Christian Association – in New York added a gymnasium in 1869, which soon became a permanent fixture at the “Y.” The physical director at Boston’s Y coined the term “body building”. James Naismith would later invent basketball in 1891 while working at a Y.

    The YMCA on Melbourne’s St. Kilda Road during WWI.
    Aussie~mobs/flickr

    Many Protestant churches drew upon muscular Christianity to bring men back into the fold. They masculinised church services through hymns which celebrated manliness and virtue, encouraged ministers to embody more masculine traits, brought men into the company of other men through brotherhoods and promoted vigorous missionary activity.

    Even Jesus received a makeover – arguably the most popular being Warner Sallman’s 1940 portrait painting Head of Christ.

    Sallman’s original motivation for such depictions came from the dean of a Chicago Bible College in 1914:

    I hope you can give us your conception of Christ. And I hope it’s a manly one. Most of our pictures today are too effeminate.

    There is evidence, too, of Catholics muscling in. Take, for example, Notre Dame’s football team’s successes in the 1920s and 30s in the US, or the Italian cyclist Gino Bartali, winner of the Tour de France in 1938 and 1948 and, according to the Catholic press, the ideal Catholic sportsman.

    Most historians will mark the decline of the movement after the first world war, though its influence continues to be felt to this day.

    A continuing legacy?

    So, apart from indulging in historical curiosity, what does it offer us?

    Muscular Christianity highlights both the dangers and continuing challenges raised when navigating the complex relationship between religion, culture and gender.

    It pursued a worthy goal, but tended to play a zero-sum gender game: gains for men in the churches often came at the expense of women. Such emphasis on masculinity easily slipped into gender bias, where a “church full of men” was deemed more valuable than churches full of women.

    The effort to bolster masculinity also traded in narrow gender stereotypes, though as the historian Clifford Putney reminds us, there was some flow-on effect for women and their organisational engagement in sport and physical activity.

    Some evangelical Christians have recently re-engaged its ethos.

    And perhaps muscular Christianity still has something valuable to say. At the very least, scratch beneath the surface of modern Western culture and you will often find Christianity or values which originated from it.

    Muscular Christianity can also remind us to reconnect with our bodies. We now live in a world which, as Australian author Michael Frost argues, has become increasingly “excarnate” – that is, less bodily.

    Muscular Christianity recognised bodies matter and matter spiritually. It encouraged people not to treat health and physical activity as ends in their own right or as a servant of the ego but, rather, a means to an end: wholeness, good character, the cultivation of virtue and the selfless desire to help others.

    An 1867 wood engraving of the Lady Muscular Christians.
    Wikimedia Commons

    Gavin Brown 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. How ‘muscular Christianity’ strove to bring men back to religion – and what it can teach us today – https://theconversation.com/how-muscular-christianity-strove-to-bring-men-back-to-religion-and-what-it-can-teach-us-today-249485

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Diversity, equity and inclusion in the workplace are under attack. Here’s why they matter more than ever

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Gemma Hamilton, Senior Lecturer, RMIT University

    Jacob Lund/Shutterstock

    As International Women’s Day approaches, we must redouble our efforts to champion social justice and the principles of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). These are under unprecedented attack by some political leaders.

    In the United States, President Donald Trump has recently dismantled DEI measures, claiming they are wasteful and discriminatory. Without evidence, he even blamed diversity hirings for a deadly collision between a military helicopter and a passenger plane that killed 67 people.

    In Australia, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton is echoing a similar agenda with his criticism of “culture, diversity and inclusion” positions in the public service.

    We must resist attempts to tear down all the progress that has been made and remind ourselves of the many good reasons why we pursue DEI in the workplace.

    Women, racial minorities, people with disability and others continue to face barriers to equal opportunities at work. Too often, they remain excluded from leadership and decision-making roles.

    Defending diversity

    Given the assault on DEI measures, it is worth restating why they are so important to a truly inclusive modern workplace.

    DEI initiatives work to address obstacles and correct disadvantages so everyone has a fair chance of being hired, promoted and paid, regardless of their personal characteristics.

    They ensure every person has a genuinely equal chance of access to social goods. They can be seen as “catch up” mechanisms, recognising that we don’t all start our working lives on an equal footing.

    Gender equality initiatives address discrimination, stereotypes and structural barriers that disadvantage people on the basis of their gender.

    These initiatives call into question the idea of “merit-based” hiring, which often disguises the invisible biases which are held by many people in power – for example, against someone of a particular gender.

    Australia’s story

    In Australia, we have a mixed story to tell when it comes to diversity, equity and inclusion.

    The federal workplace gender laws require companies with more than 100 employees to report annually on gender equality indicators, including pay gaps and workforce composition.

    DEI initiatives are already being dismantled in the United States.
    Gorodenkoff/Shutterstock

    In Victoria, the Gender Equality Act 2020
    promotes “positive action” to improve gender equality in higher education, local government and the public sector, which covers around 11% of the total state workforce.

    Despite these laws, Australia is behind on gender equality indicators compared to other countries such as Iceland, Norway and New Zealand. According to the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap report, Australia is ranked 26th out of 146 countries, albeit a step up from 54th in 2021.

    The report shows continuing and significant gender gaps, particularly regarding women’s representation in various industries such as science and political leadership.

    Increased recognition

    But in a cross section of fields, including politics, sports, medicine, media and academia there have been positive changes. Gender equality is being promoted through a wide range of initiatives that seek to push back against centuries of patriarchal dominance.

    Workplace policies around paid parental leave, flexible working arrangements, part-time work, breastfeeding and anti-discrimination are part of the broader agenda to make workplaces more inclusive for women, gender-diverse people and working parents.

    Many workplaces accommodate the needs of working mothers.
    Jacob Lund/Shutterstock

    While many would not consider these improvements specific diversity initiatives, they are clear examples of the ways in which workplaces now recognise the different needs of women and working mothers.

    Today, we see more women in the workplace and in positions of leadership across sectors.

    But as feminist Sara Ahmed has noted, it is often the marginalised employees who carry the burden of doing all the “diversity work” in the workplace.

    Diversity becomes work for those who are not accommodated by an existing system.

    Redoubling efforts

    Despite the welcome advances made, inequalities persist in the workplace.

    We recognise many in positions of power are not willing (or able) to acknowledge their own privileged positions. Therefore they do not see the barriers that exist for others.

    Social justice will not simply be gifted by those in power.

    Given the challenging political climate, it is more important than ever that we continue to strive for gender equality – rather than simply uphold the status quo.

    Gemma Hamilton receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC).

    Nicola Henry receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC) and Google. She is also a member of the Australian eSafety Commissioner’s Expert Advisory Group.

    Bess Schnioffsky 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. Diversity, equity and inclusion in the workplace are under attack. Here’s why they matter more than ever – https://theconversation.com/diversity-equity-and-inclusion-in-the-workplace-are-under-attack-heres-why-they-matter-more-than-ever-250651

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: A quantum computing startup says it is already making millions of light-powered chips

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christopher Ferrie, A/Prof, UTS Chancellor’s Postdoctoral Research and ARC DECRA Fellow, University of Technology Sydney

    PsiQuantum

    American quantum computing startup PsiQuantum announced yesterday that it has cracked a significant puzzle on the road to making the technology useful: manufacturing quantum chips in useful quantities.

    PsiQuantum burst out of “stealth mode” in 2021 with a blockbuster funding announcement. It followed up with two more last year.

    The company uses so-called “photonic” quantum computing, which has long been dismissed as impractical.

    The approach, which encodes data in individual particles of light, offers some compelling advantages — low noise, high-speed operation, and natural compatibility with existing fibre-optic networks. However, it was held back by extreme hardware demands to manage the fact photons fly with blinding speed, get lost, and are hard to create and detect.

    PsiQuantum now claims to have addressed many of these difficulties. Yesterday, in a new peer-reviewed paper published in Nature, the company unveiled hardware for photonic quantum computing they say can be manufactured in large quantities and solves the problem of scaling up the system.

    What’s in a quantum computer?

    Like any computer, quantum computers encode information in physical systems. Whereas digital computers encode bits (0s and 1s) in transistors, quantum computers use quantum bits (qubits), which can be encoded in many potential quantum systems.

    Superconducting quantum computers require an elaborate cooling rig to keep them at temperatures close to absolute zero.
    Rigetti

    The darlings of the quantum computing world have traditionally been superconducting circuits running at temperatures near absolute zero. These have been championed by companies such as Google, IBM, and Rigetti.

    These systems have attracted headlines claiming “quantum supremacy” (where quantum computers beat traditional computers at some task) or the ushering in of “quantum utility” (that is, actually useful quantum computers).

    In a close second in the headline grabbing game, IonQ and Honeywell are pursuing trapped-ion quantum computing. In this approach, charged atoms are captured in special electromagnetic traps that encode qubits in their energy states.

    Other commercial contenders include neutral atom qubits, silicon based qubits, intentional defects in diamonds, and non-traditional photonic encodings.

    All of these are available now. Some are for sale with enormous price tags and some are accessible through the cloud. But fair warning: they are more for experimentation than computation today.

    Faults and how to tolerate them

    The individual bits in your digital computers are extraordinarily reliable. They might experience a fault (a 0 inadvertently flips to a 1, for example) once in every trillion operations.

    PsiQuantum’s new platform has impressive-sounding features such as low-loss silicon nitride waveguides, high-efficiency photon-number-resolving detectors, and near-lossless interconnects.

    The company reports a 0.02% error rate for single-qubit operations and 0.8% for two-qubit creation. These may seem like quite small numbers, but they are much bigger than the effectively zero error rate of the chip in your smartphone.

    However, these numbers rival the best qubits today and are surprisingly encouraging.

    One of the most critical breakthroughs in the PsiQuantum system is the integration of fusion-based quantum computing. This is a model that allows for errors to be corrected more easily than in traditional approaches.

    Quantum computer developers want to achieve what is called “fault tolerance”. This means that, if the basic error rate is below a certain threshold, the errors can be suppressed indefinitely.

    Claims of “below threshold” error rates should be met with skepticism, as they are generally measured on a few qubits. A practical quantum computer would be a very different environment, where each qubit would have to function alongside a million (or a billion, or a trillion) others.

    This is the fundamental challenge of scalability. And while most quantum computing companies are tackling the problem from the ground up – building individual qubits and sticking them together – PsiQuantum is taking the top down approach.

    Scale-first thinking

    PsiQuantum developed its system in partnership with semiconductor manufacturer GlobalFoundries. All the key components – photon sources and detectors, logic gates and error correction – are integrated on single silicon-based chip.

    PsiQuantum says GlobalFoundries has already made millions of the chips.

    A diagram showing the different components of PsiQuantum’s photonic chip.
    PsiQuantum

    By making use of techniques already used to fabricate semiconductors, PsiQuantum claims to have solved the scalability issue that has long plagued photonic approaches.

    PsiQuantum is fabricating their chips in a commercial semiconductor foundry. This means scaling to millions of qubits will be relatively straightforward.

    If PsiQuantum’s technology delivers on its promise, it could mark the beginning of quantum computing’s first truly scalable era.

    A fault-tolerant photonic quantum computer would have major advantages and lower energy requirements.

    Christopher Ferrie is a founder of Eigensystems. He receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

    – ref. A quantum computing startup says it is already making millions of light-powered chips – https://theconversation.com/a-quantum-computing-startup-says-it-is-already-making-millions-of-light-powered-chips-251057

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Australia’s retirement savings are too big to invest at home – here’s why super funds are looking to the US

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Susan Thorp, Professor of Finance, University of Sydney

    Marek Masik/Shutterstock

    You might remember Pesto, the king penguin chick who became a star attraction at Melbourne Aquarium last year. Good food, good genes and a safe home let Pesto grow into a huge ball of brown fluff twice the size of his parents. Pesto became a local and international celebrity.

    While not cute or funny like Pesto, Australia’s financial sector gave birth to its own baby three decades ago that has since rapidly grown into a big adult – superannuation. It, too, has become internationally famous.

    This week, our superannuation sector attracted the attention of US asset managers and government officials, including the new US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, at a summit in Washington DC.

    Super industry leaders joined Treasurer Jim Chalmers and the Australian ambassador to the US, Kevin Rudd, to pitch a strengthening of ties. So, why are Australian super funds so keen to shore up support in the United States?



    Read more:
    Your super fund is invested in private markets. What are they and why has ASIC raised concerns?

    A giant nest egg

    Figures from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) show the total pool of superannuation assets had grown to about A$4.2 trillion by December 2024. That’s up 11.5% on the year before.

    That’s about 160% of the value of all goods and services produced in Australia – the gross domestic product (GDP) – over the year to June 2024 at $2.6 trillion.

    This scales to a very large pool of investable retirement money – the fifth largest in the world. Australia’s population ranks just 54th in the world.

    Some of the biggest individual funds have significant assets under management. Australian Super and Australian Retirement Trust, for example, both manage more than $300 billion in retirement savings.

    Looking overseas

    This leads us to why the Australian super industry is securing openings in the US. Australian super funds have invested some funds overseas since their inception. But this practice is expanding quickly for two reasons.

    First, the sheer size of the superannuation investment pool has largely outgrown its Australian asset base.

    To illustrate, our $4.2 trillion super pool is significantly larger than the total market capitalisation of the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX), about $3.1 trillion.

    Without new places to invest our super, it’s impossible to keep earning a return on it.

    The second – and related – reason is the need for diversification. It makes sense to lower risk by spreading funds across industries, geographies and jurisdictions.

    A scan of the aggregated asset allocation of large Australian super funds shows that around half of the funds invested in equities, property and infrastructure are currently in overseas assets.

    The US accounts for about 45% of aggregate financial assets of all investors worldwide – more than US$90 trillion (A$144 trillion).

    The strategy to diversify investments has paid off. The US stock market has seen some spectacular recent returns, with annual returns of more than 20% in some years. These have far outpaced those of the ASX.

    Compulsory savings

    Australia’s super sector has been fed by compulsory contributions (savings) and investment returns. Super has also been protected by legislation that makes participation compulsory for most workers and preserves savings until retirement.

    Australia has had a system of compulsory employer superannuation contributions for workers since 1992.
    DGLimages/Shutterstock

    Since 1992, employers have made compulsory (superannuation guarantee) contributions on behalf of workers into superannuation accounts. The compulsory contribution has risen significantly from an initial 3% of earnings to 12% of earnings from July this year.

    High coverage (well over 90% of workers), combined with rising contribution rates, has meant the amount of money flowing into superannuation accounts has grown at a remarkable compound annual rate of 14% since 1992.

    Even after the superannuation guarantee rate peaks at 12% this year, growth in labour earnings, fed by workforce and productivity growth, will continue to generate substantial inflows.

    Can’t touch our nest egg early

    Australia’s strict rules preventing withdrawals from super are among the tightest in the world. With some exceptions for extreme hardship, members of super funds can withdraw their savings from age 60 if they retire, and from age 65 even if they have not retired.

    An ageing population will mean more retirees in future decades, speeding up outflows. But so far, Australian retirees are proving to be very cautious with their nest eggs.

    Along with compulsory contributions and rules on withdrawing it, investment returns have grown the super baby, at rates of 7.3% annually over the past 30 years, or about 4.4% annually above inflation.

    The super sector is still smaller than its older sibling, the banking system, where assets of A$6.3 trillion are about 240% of the value of annual GDP. But super is forecast to grow to 200% of annual GDP over the next two decades.

    Riskier investments

    To generate these rates of return, Australian super funds have invested in a wide range of financial assets, and with a substantial exposure to high return (but riskier) assets.

    In Australia, super funds invest around two-thirds
    of funds in equities, property, infrastructure and commodities, and around one-third in safer bonds and cash.

    That contrasts with some other pension systems, such as Japan and the UK, where a majority of funds are invested in safer assets like government bonds.

    Susan Thorp is a member of UniSuper. She receives and has received research funding from the Australian Research Council, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the TIAA Institute (USA), IFM, and UniSuper and Cbus Superannuation funds via ARC Linkage Grants. Thorp was previously Professor of Finance and Superannuation at UTS, a position that was partly funded by Sydney Financial Forum (Colonial First State Global Asset Management), the NSW Government, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA), the Industry Superannuation Network (ISN), and the Paul Woolley Centre for the Study of Capital Market Dysfunctionality, UTS. She was an Associate Investigator for the ARC Centre of Excellence in Population Ageing Research (CEPAR), and is a member of the OECD-International Network on Financial Education Research Committee, the Steering Committee of the Mercer CFA Global Pensions Index, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) Consultative Committee, the Board of New College (UNSW) and the Research Committee of Super Consumers Australia, a not-for-profit advocacy organisation for Australian pension plan participants.

    – ref. Australia’s retirement savings are too big to invest at home – here’s why super funds are looking to the US – https://theconversation.com/australias-retirement-savings-are-too-big-to-invest-at-home-heres-why-super-funds-are-looking-to-the-us-250920

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Nangs are popular with young people. But are they aware of the serious harms of nitrous oxide?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julaine Allan, Professor, Mental Health and Addiction, Rural Health Research Institute, Charles Sturt University

    Lenscap Photography/Shutterstock

    Nitrous oxide – also known as laughing gas or nangs – is cheap, widely available and popular among young people.

    Yet it often flies under the radar in public health programs and education settings. For example, it’s not included in the drug education curriculum in Australian schools.

    In our new study, we spoke to young people (aged 18 to 25) who have used nitrous oxide. We found they were are unaware of its risks – even when they reported symptoms such as “brain fog” and seizures.

    What is nitrous oxide?

    Nitrous oxide is regularly used for sedation and pain relief in dentistry and childbirth.

    The gas, which has no colour or flavour, is also used recreationally and is known as nangs, nos, whippits and balloons.

    In fact, nitrous oxide has been used to get intoxicated since its creation in 1722, and wasn’t used in surgery until 1842. It can create a feeling of dissociation from the body, changes in perception and euphoria. This lasts about one minute.

    In Australia, nitrous oxide is cheap and accessible. This is because the gas is also used in baking, for example to whip cream.

    So, while it’s not legal to sell nitrous oxide for recreational use, the canisters or “bulbs” are widely available online via 24-hour delivery services.

    People usually discharge the gas into a balloon or a whipped cream dispenser and then inhale. Nitrous oxide is intensely cold – minus 40 degrees Celsius.

    People inhale the gas using a balloon.
    Ink Drop/Shutterstock

    How common is it?

    We still don’t have much data about who uses nitrous oxide and how often. Compared to other drugs, there is minimal research on its recreational use.

    However researchers believe it is becoming more common globally, especially among young people.

    For example, in 2022, nitrous oxide was the second-most used controlled substance among 16–24 year olds in the United Kingdom after cannabis.

    In January 2023, the Netherlands banned the sale and possession of nitrous oxide after 1,800 road accidents, including 63 fatal crashes, were linked to the drug in a three-year period.

    The Global Drug Survey reported a doubling in nitrous oxide use between 2015 and 2021, from 10% of respondents to 20%. But this voluntary survey is not representative of all people who use drugs. While it is an indication of people’s nitrous oxide use, the picture remains patchy.

    What are the health risks?

    Nitrous oxide is not the most harmful drug people can use but that doesn’t make it safe.

    Inhaling nitrous oxide has short-term health risks, including:

    • cold burns from the gas

    • injuries from falling over

    • nausea and dizziness.

    Using a lot of nitrous oxide at one time can result in passing out (from lack of oxygen) and seizures. Calling an ambulance is necessary if this happens.

    Longer-term health problems may include:

    • vitamin B12 loss (causing numbness of hands and feet and eventually paralysis)

    • urinary incontinence

    • strokes

    • memory loss

    • mental health conditions, including depression and psychosis.

    The availability of much larger canisters (including flavoured varieties) is also linked to an increase in significant harms. These can deliver roughly 70 times the amount of nitrous oxide as traditional small canisters.

    Larger bulbs allow people to consume more of the gas at one time and they often experience health problems more quickly as a result.

    However, there is still limited knowledge about nitrous oxide in the health system. This means its health risks are often compounded because it is overlooked by those assessing medical conditions and because people deny using it.

    Large gas canisters mean people consume a lot more nitrous oxide in one go.
    joshua snow/Shutterstock

    Our research

    During the first stage of our 2025 Australian study, we interviewed seven young people (aged 18 to 25) who had used nitrous oxide at least ten times.

    While the number of interviewees was small, the stories they told were very similar.

    They were either unaware of, or unconcerned about, the drug’s potential risks. This is despite their own experiences of psychological and physical problems.

    They reported becoming unconscious, getting burns from the gas on their hands and faces, sores around the mouth and even having seizures.

    Of particular concern to us was use before driving because people did not recognise the lingering effects of the gas on concentration.

    Our study participants also spoke about “memory zaps” or “brain fog”. Regular use of nitrous oxide affected people’s ability to participate in work and study, with some saying it was also bad for their mental health.

    These thinking problems are a concerning side effect. Yet it’s one that has not been adequately investigated.

    The role of social media

    Videos of young people using nitrous oxide can easily be found on social media. This not only points to its popularity but suggests social media could be a good place to reach young people with information about the drug and harm reduction.

    In the second stage of our research we worked with 30 young people who used nitrous oxide to co-create harm reduction resources.

    As a group, we developed videos, photos and text for
    our nitrous oxide specific social media accounts on Tik Tok and Instagram and for posts on various sub-reddits.

    These describe ways to use the drug more safely. For example the “take a breath” messaging suggests breathing the nitrous oxide in for only ten seconds at a time to ensure enough oxygen. “Take a seat” advises sitting down while using nangs, to avoid injuries from falling.

    Julaine Allan receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aging to conduct research on substance use and mental health programs. She has received funding in the past from other state and commonwealth departments and entities for research.

    Helen Simpson, Jacqui Cameron, and Kenny Kor 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. Nangs are popular with young people. But are they aware of the serious harms of nitrous oxide? – https://theconversation.com/nangs-are-popular-with-young-people-but-are-they-aware-of-the-serious-harms-of-nitrous-oxide-250654

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Yes, paper straws suck. Rather than bring back plastic ones, let’s avoid single-use items

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bhavna Middha, ARC DECRA Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University

    Dragon Images/Shutterstock

    When US President Donald Trump ordered federal agencies to return to plastic straws, claiming the paper version is ineffective and “disgustingly dissolves in your mouth”, he was widely criticised for setting back efforts to reduce plastic pollution. But many alternatives designed to help phase out single-use plastics don’t really solve the problem at all.

    It’s not unusual to see plastic bans challenged or overturned. However, a government ban on the substitute is altogether new.

    It’s true paper straws can disintegrate and become soggy before we finish a drink. Problems with finding viable substitutes to single-use plastics is one of the many challenges involved in phasing them out.

    Sometimes, swapping one single-use item for another really is more trouble than it’s worth. A better approach would be to change our society’s single-use and disposal mindset.

    The problem with plastic

    Plastic pollution is an urgent problem for the environment and human health. Microplastics are everywhere, from Antarctica to our brains.

    Plastic is made from fossil fuels, and so contributes to global warming. What’s more, plastic production is forecast to triple by 2050.

    But recycling is difficult. Less than 10% of the world’s plastic has been recycled.

    So we need to reduce our use of plastic in the first place, rather than trying to clean it up afterwards.

    Substituting plastic straws for paper still involves using virgin materials.
    JeniFoto/Shutterstock

    Poor substitutes and other traps

    Trump rejected paper straws, saying they “don’t work” as well as plastic straws. The poor consumer experience of drinking through a soggy straw is one thing, but there are other problems too.

    Swapping one problematic or hazardous material for another is sometimes called “regrettable substitution”, because the replacement has its own issues. For example, one harmful chemical used to make plastics is often replaced with others that are as bad or worse.

    Paper straws, like paper cups, are often coated with plastics such as polyethylene or acrylic resin. This makes them difficult to recycle but also raises the risk of pollution. Some paper straws have been shown to contain more “forever chemicals” (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS) than plastic.

    Along with paper, other plant-based materials such as corn starch and bamboo are increasingly replacing single-use plastics – especially in food packaging. These substitutes carry a cost that is passed down to consumers, and many are more expensive to produce than plastic.

    Some are labelled “compostable” or “biodegradable”. The term compostable suggests they will break down in home compost heaps or green waste bins, but that has been called into question.

    Unfortunately, the term “biodegradable” does not necessarily mean a material will break down in home compost, or even landfill. It may require heat or pressure – in an industrial setting – for it to disintegrate enough to be harmless or safely used on your garden.

    When it comes to straws, paper, bamboo, metal and glass have all been adopted as substitutes. Metal and glass straws could be dangerous for kids and less able-bodied people. They can also be hard to clean. Again, “biodegradable plastic” products have been accused of greenwashing and have been banned from organic composting bins in New South Wales and potentially Victoria because they don’t disintegrate well or are contaminated.

    Meanwhile, thicker plastic bags labelled “reusable” have been introduced following bans on lightweight “single-use” plastic bags. While these durable bags may be reused for months at a time, they will eventually wear out and then they are even harder to break down in landfill.

    Plastic bans can be problematic

    Governments all over the world have attempted to ban single-use plastic. Often these bans are introduced without considering how the products are used in daily life and how those services will be replaced. The changes may disadvantage certain groups and new supply chains need to be created.

    Often, governments wanting to be seen as protecting the environment target the low-hanging fruit such as plastic straws and plastic bags, rather than packaging as a whole.

    So it’s no surprise these bans have faced opposition. Many have already been repealed or diluted.

    In India, for example, the plastic ban was criticised for shifting the burden of waste management away from larger, more polluting industries on to smaller businesses. Larger establishments were also accused of passing the costs of substitute packaging, such as more expensive paper and cloth, to consumers.

    Better to avoid single-use items

    It’s time to stop searching for the perfect substitute. Let’s instead focus on getting rid of single-use items altogether.

    Remember, straws were originally used for very specific cases and places: very young children and others unable to drink straight from a cup. They might still need straws.

    Single-use bottles are unnecessary. We should learn from Germany’s glass bottle reuse system and set up circular loops of production and distribution.

    Get serious about reducing plastic packaging

    While some packaging – even some plastics – is needed for food safety and freshness, an overhaul of unnecessary packaging would go a long way.

    In the United Kingdom, anti-waste charity WRAP examined fresh produce in supermarkets and called for the government to ban packaging on 21 fruits and vegetables sold in supermarkets by 2030. These included cucumbers, bananas and potatoes.

    Removing unnecessary packaging and plastics involves reconfiguring social rules, knowledge, standards and expectations such as making items without packaging affordable and widely available. We must challenge our disposable society by creating spaces and practices that allow reuse.

    Better policies and regulations

    Policies that prevent plastics from reaching consumers in the first place would be better than bans on single-use items.

    Governments should put the onus on the corporations that have profited from plastic and their role in plastic pollution.

    Supermarkets and the food industry as a whole must also take responsibility for their part in the plastic waste problem.

    Voluntary codes have not worked. Government regulation levels the playing field, but industry expertise and technical and social knowledge is needed to ensure systems work. While not without its challenges, Australia’s tyre recycling system has addressed many similar issues. The scheme’s approach to developing a national market for used tyres could be replicated for plastics, packaging and glass.

    Meaningful change for our environment and health requires government regulations done well and fairly. It also requires coordinated waste infrastructure and industry practices that build on technical expertise and consumers’ lived experience.

    Bhavna Middha receives funding from the Australian Research Council through the Discovery Early Career Research Award.

    Ralph Horne receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC) and a range of industry and government partners from time to time, to support research activities relevant to this article. In particular, he is a Chief Investigator on the ARC Research Hub Transformation of Reclaimed Waste Resources to Engineered Materials and Solutions for a Circular Economy (TREMS).

    Kajsa Lundberg 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. Yes, paper straws suck. Rather than bring back plastic ones, let’s avoid single-use items – https://theconversation.com/yes-paper-straws-suck-rather-than-bring-back-plastic-ones-lets-avoid-single-use-items-250266

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Political fighting over Chinese warships misses the point: Australia’s navy is no match for China’s built-up force

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Dunley, Senior Lecturer in History and Maritime Strategy, UNSW Sydney

    Over the past few days, the Australian media has been dominated by the activities of the Chinese navy’s Task Group 107 as it has progressed south along the Australian coast and conducted a series of live-fire exercises.

    Much of the discussion has been rather breathless in nature, with accusations of “gunboat diplomacy” being bandied around.

    The live-fire exercises have also dominated the Australian political debate. Amid all the accusations, the fact that these exercises are routine and entirely legal has gotten lost.

    The Australian government was correct to lodge a complaint with its Chinese counterpart when one of these exercises disrupted civilian aviation. But the overall response has been an extraordinary overreaction.

    There is no indication the Chinese vessels undertook any surface-to-air exercises, and it remains unclear whether the initial firings involved medium-calibre weapons or smaller arms.

    Either way, the facts suggest the disruption from the Chinese vessels was caused by inexperience or poor procedure, rather than some more nefarious purpose.

    This is not to suggest the People’s Liberation Army-Navy’s (PLA-N) deployment is unimportant, but as happens all too often, the Australian public debate is missing the wood for the trees.

    While a number of retired naval officers have publicly played down the significance of the live-fire exercises, these voices have generally been drowned out by the politicisation of the issue. This highlights the failure of the Department of Defence to communicate effectively to the public.

    In other countries, including the United States, senior officers are given far more leeway to make public statements in matters within their purview.

    Had Vice Admiral Mark Hammond, the chief of navy, or Vice Admiral Justin Jones, the chief of Joint Operations, been empowered to explain how live-fire exercises are routine and are commonly carried out by Australian warships on deployment in our region, we may have avoided this unhelpful stoush.

    The remarkable growth of the Chinese navy

    The real significance of the activities of Task Group 107 is the way it has revealed the very different trajectories of the PLA-N and its Royal Australian Navy counterpart.

    The task group is made up of a Type 055 Renhai-class cruiser, a Type 054A Jiangkai II frigate and a Type 903 Fuchi-class replenishment ship. This is a powerful force that symbolises the rapid development of the Chinese navy.

    The Renhai-class cruisers are acknowledged to be some of the most capable surface combatants currently in operation.

    They are 13,000 tonnes in size and are armed with 112 vertical-launch system (VLS) missile tubes. The Australian navy’s premier surface warship, the Hobart-class destroyer, is just 7,000 tonnes and has 48 VLS missiles cells.

    These are very crude metrics, but it would be foolhardy to assume Chinese technology is dramatically inferior to that of Australia or its allies. Similarly, China’s Type 054A frigates are comparable to the general-purpose frigates that Australia is currently trying to acquire.

    Since 2020, China has commissioned eight Type 055 cruisers, adding to a fleet of more than 30 Type 52C and Type 52D destroyers and an even greater number of Type 054A frigates.

    This build-up vastly exceeds that of any other navy globally. Chinese shipyards are churning out the same combat power of the entire Royal Australian Navy every couple of years.

    Until recently, we have seen remarkably little of this naval capability in our region. A PLA-N task force operated off the northeast coast of Australia in 2022. Last year, a similar force was in the South Pacific. Most analysts expect to see more Chinese vessels in Australia’s region over the coming years.

    One significant limitation on Chinese overseas deployments has been the PLA-N’s small force of replenishment ships, which resupply naval vessels at sea.

    As the PLA-N’s capabilities continue to grow and priorities shift, this appears to be changing. A recent US Department of Defence report noted that China was expected to build further replenishment ships “to support its expanding long-duration combatant ship deployments”.

    Australia struggling to keep up

    In response to the Chinese build-up, Australia is investing heavily to rebuild its navy. However, this process has been slow and beset by problems.

    Indeed, this week, the Defence Department revealed that the selection of the design for the new Australian frigate has been postponed into 2026.

    This leaves the navy with a limited fleet of just 11 surface combatants, the majority of which are small and ageing Anzac-class frigates.

    The arrival of the Chinese task group also sheds an unfavourable light on other recent decisions.

    The cuts to the Arafura-class offshore patrol vessel program make sense from some perspectives. But these ships would have provided additional options to persistently shadow foreign warships in Australian areas of interest.

    Similarly, the growing need of Australian ships to escort Chinese vessels in our region will place an increasing strain on Australian replenishment capability.

    At present, both of Australia’s resupply ships are out of service. Additional capacity was also cut from the recent defence budget.

    The activities of the Chinese task force are not some aggressive move of gunboat diplomacy in our region.

    In many ways, this sensationalist messaging has distracted from a much bigger issue. The presence of Chinese naval ships in our region is going to be a fact of life. And due to failures from both sides of politics over the past 15 years, Australia’s navy is ill-equipped to meet that challenge.

    Richard Dunley 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. Political fighting over Chinese warships misses the point: Australia’s navy is no match for China’s built-up force – https://theconversation.com/political-fighting-over-chinese-warships-misses-the-point-australias-navy-is-no-match-for-chinas-built-up-force-251039

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –