NewzIntel.com

Category: Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Global: Belarus election: how ‘Europe’s last dictator’ held onto power as his opponents were jailed or exiled

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stephen Hall, Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in Russian and Post-Soviet Politics, University of Bath

    The acclamation of Alexander Lukashenko as Belarus president for a seventh straight term was confirmed on January 26. The electoral authorities announced that the man known as “Europe’s last dictator” – the only president the country has had since it held its first “democratic” election in 1994 – had won 87% of the vote.

    Most western leaders have dismissed the result as a “sham”. Germany’s foreign minister, Annalena Baerbock, posted on X that “the people of Belarus had no choice”, while the Polish foreign minister, Radosław Sikorski, commented that he was surprised “only” 87.6% of the electorate had voted for Lukashenko: “Will the rest fit inside the prisons?” he asked.

    But the result was never really in doubt. Sikorski’s barb about jailing opponent figures is right on the money. Many of Belarus’s main opposition figures are already behind bars and the rest are in exile. And, just to make sure of things, well before the campaign started – in January 2024 – Lukashenko changed the law so that only those people who were had lived permanently in Belarus for 20 years could stand for the presidency. This meant that the most prominent opposition leader not now in prison in Belarus, Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, was ineligible.

    Tsikhanouskaya fled after the election to avoid the fate of her husband, Sergei Tsikhanouski, who was arrested in 2020, two days after declaring his candidacy for the election. He has since been jailed for 18 years on charges of “preparation of mass disorder” and “incitement to hatred”. Tsikhanouskaya was herself tried in absentia and sentenced to 15 years for high treason, inciting social hatred, attempts to seize power, forming an “extremist” group and harming national security.

    So with no real opposition allowed to stand, Lukashenko’s reelection was pretty much a foregone conclusion. A survey conducted by the think tank Chatham House at the end of 2024 found that about one-third of Belarusians said they supported Lukashenko – and most of these people also commented they thought the country was going in the right direction.

    Keeping Belarus out of the war was a major factor for these voters. A further 41% professed to be neutral. When it came to electoral integrity, 36% agreed or somewhat agreed that the result was predetermined. Among pro-democracy voters that number rose to 77%.

    Government in exile

    Tsikhanouskaya leads a government in exile from Lithuania, heading what her team has called a “united transitional cabinet”, tasked with “ensuring the transition of power from dictatorship to democracy, and promoting fair and free elections”. The cabinet is supported by a national coordinating council of 70 members which is elected on a two-yearly basis and who main function is to establish the ground rules for a “ democratic and rule-of-law-based state”.

    Tsikhanouskaya’s efforts have been supported by a range of countries, including the US which, in August 2020, urged the Lukashanko regime to “actively engage Belarusian society, including through the newly established National Coordination Council, in a way that reflects what the Belarusian people are demanding, for the sake of Belarus’ future, and for a successful Belarus”.

    But being a leader in exile means it is difficult to bridge the barrier to Belarusians at home.

    Political prisoners

    Other opposition figures are mainly still in prison. Sergei Tsikhanouski was recently was charged with violating prison rules, which will increase his existing 18-year sentence.

    His fellow opposition leader, Viktar Babaryka – who was also arrested in the run-up to the 2020 election – was given 14 years on trumped-up up charges. His assistant Maria Kolesnikova, who took over from him as a protest leader, was jailed after publicly destroying her passport so she could not be forcibly exiled by the authorities.

    Although not part of the political opposition another prominent figure, Ales Bialiatski, a human rights activist who won the Nobel peace prize in 2022 was sentenced to ten years in jail in 2023 for smuggling and allegedly financing the 2020 protests.

    Overtures to the west

    Since the summer of 2024, 200 political prisoners have been released, a possible sign that Lukashenko wants to reset relations with the west. He did something similar in 2015, the year after Russia annexed Crimea.

    At the time his release of six opposition activists was seen as a possible sign the Belarus leader was concerned his country could be at risk from Russian aggression and he was looking to keep with the EU and the US.

    Kolesnikova was recently allowed a prison visit from her father for the first time in nearly two years. Meanwhile a journalist was given access to Babaryka in jail and allowed to record a video of the jailed dissident for his daughter.

    If the release of prisoners and reappearance of the two jailed dissidents are indeed an attempt to reset relations with the west, the fact he still has more than 1,000 political prisoners behind bars will give Lukashenko plenty of diplomatic leeway.

    But given Lukashenko’s close alignment with Russian president Vladimir Putin and the fact that he allowed Belarus to be used as a launch pad for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it is unlikely that many western countries will be won over.

    Lukashenko has shown himself to be an irritant many times over the years. In 2021, the year before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Belarus leader was roundly criticised for trying to spark a migrant crisis in neighbouring Poland, Lithuania and Latvia. Belarus was reportedly flying Iraqi and Afghan migrants from the Middle East and bussing them to the border where Belarusian troops were trying to push them across.

    As far as armed resistance to Lukashenko is concerned, the Kastuś Kalinoŭski Regiment, a group of Belarusian volunteers has been fighting as part of Ukraine’s armed forces since March 2022. The regiment’s stated aim is to help Ukraine fight off Russia and become part of the EU and Nato and to strive for Belarus to do the same.

    The next election is due to be held in 2030. Alexander Lukashenko will be 75.

    Stephen Hall 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. Belarus election: how ‘Europe’s last dictator’ held onto power as his opponents were jailed or exiled – https://theconversation.com/belarus-election-how-europes-last-dictator-held-onto-power-as-his-opponents-were-jailed-or-exiled-248962

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Companion review: this sleek but violent film asks interesting ethical questions about our relationship with AI

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sarah Artt, Lecturer in English and Film, Edinburgh Napier University

    Science fiction film and television has long been fascinated by robots. But stories that show us uncannily human cyborgs have often tended to veer towards either comedy or horror. Fritz Lang’s Metropolis (1927) and Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner (1982) both imagine a world where beautiful female cyborgs threaten to overstep their original programming. Rarer are stories that suggest it might be possible to love a cyborg, such as Susan Seidelman’s underseen romantic comedy, Making Mr. Right (1987).

    Companion picks up where Alex Garland’s Ex Machina (2014) leaves off. Ex Machina was about a young man tasked with testing the artificial intelligence (AI) of a female robot. Companion, however, posits a world where synthetic humans have become common.

    Companion’s plot also owes much to the themes of rivalry and revenge present in Karyn Kusama’s horror films Jennifer’s Body (2009) and The Invitation (2022), as well as the TV show Battlestar Galactica’s (2004 to 2009) imagining of full cyborg autonomy.

    Companion is a particularly post-Black Mirror (2011) example of science fiction. With its glossy aesthetics, and ubiquitously friction-less technology, it’s a vision of a future where AI and advanced robotics have made our lives easier. But, in typical Black Mirror fashion, this parable offers a warning.

    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.

    We meet Iris (Sophie Thatcher) and Josh (Jack Quaid) as they head to a chic, modern lake house for a weekend with friends. At this point, our only real indication that this is science fiction is the fact that the GPS in Josh’s car is a bit better than usual.

    At first, Iris seems like yet another incarnation of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl – quirky and kittenish, but too bland to really be a protagonist. It is only Thatcher’s subtle physical performance that lets us question whether Iris is entirely human. Besotted with Josh and anxious to please, Iris seems like just another girl who has wished for her prince to come and been rewarded with a supermarket meet cute.

    What makes Companion unsettling is not so much its depiction of cyborgs but rather its portrayal of misogyny.

    Survivors of intimate partner violence will recognise Josh. Particularly his ironclad belief that he is a “a nice guy” who is entitled to an attractive partner who places his needs above all else.

    For some audiences, Companion may not feel firmly rooted enough in either science fiction or horror. But then, it’s really only a horror film if you too are kept awake at night by the thought that some people really want a sex robot with customisable intelligence levels (Josh keeps Iris’s at 40%).

    Thatcher’s performance as Iris is fascinatingly glitchy. There is something about her walk – a precision that isn’t quite human. She stands with a stillness that reminds us she is more object than woman. There is a grimace she makes that conveys how she finds it troubling to process veiled commands from a man who isn’t her partner. It represents a feeling female viewers may have had before, when the social programming that tells women to be nice smacks up against their fight or flight response.

    Iris is a sex robot designed with charming slightly buck teeth – a flaw to offset her pore-less skin. The goal is to prevent her from falling into to the uncanny valley (that discomfited feeling when you encounter an object that is a little too life-like) and make her seem more real.

    Some people argue that you should only have sex with a robot if you think that robot would want to have sex with you. But most science fiction doesn’t really go that way – from Bride of Frankenstein (1935) to Black Mirror, most cyborg figures are programmed to consent without question.

    Companion shows us Iris’s point of view as Josh looms over her during sex. Afterwards, her romance-trope laden chatter is shut down by his command that she go to sleep.

    Companion contains aspects of both comedy and horror. But like the best science fiction, it’s central warning is against those who believe that technology can offer them absolute control.

    Sarah Artt 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. Companion review: this sleek but violent film asks interesting ethical questions about our relationship with AI – https://theconversation.com/companion-review-this-sleek-but-violent-film-asks-interesting-ethical-questions-about-our-relationship-with-ai-249062

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: 360-degree videos are making social issues and educational content more engaging for Canadians

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Victoria (Vicky) McArthur, Associate Professor, School of Journalism and Communication, Carleton University

    Immersive film using virtual reality (VR) or 360-degree video is being used increasingly as a tool for eliciting empathy and emotional identification in fact-based stories. Unlike traditional flat film, immersive films allow viewers to look in any direction while watching the video.

    This immersive quality is what makes these films such an intriguing medium. Nearly a decade ago, American filmmaker Chris Milk described VR as the “ultimate empathy machine” because it can fully immerse viewers in another person’s environment and perspective.

    This sentiment has been echoed by VR journalism pioneer Nonny de la Peña, whose early work explored the unique storytelling characteristics of the medium. Her first VR film, Hunger in Los Angeles, was the first VR documentary to be showcased at the Sundance Film Festival in 2012.

    The film depicts a diabetic man collapsing outside a food bank due to low blood sugar. Viewers reported feeling a great deal of empathy for the man, with some reaching out to try and help him.

    In March 2015, YouTube launched support for publishing and viewing 360-degree videos. Today, anyone can film and share 360-degree video content using commercially available cameras, expanding the possibilities for storytelling and audience engagement.

    Rise of 360-degree video content

    Countless content creators, filmmakers and journalists have produced immersive content using these cameras. In 2016, for instance, CBC produced Highway of Tears, a short 360-degree video about 16-year-old Ramona Wilson, a young Indigenous woman from the Gitxsan Nation who disappeared along Highway 16 near Prince George, B.C., in 1994.

    CBC has produced other 360-degree videos to highlight real-world challenges and experiences, including Ice Rescue from the Victim’s Perspective and Accessibility Advocate Shows What It’s Like to Use a Wheelchair in Winter.

    ‘Highway of Tears: 360 Video’ from CBC.

    Canadian researchers have also been using immersive technologies like virtual reality and 360-degree video as tools for education and empathy-building.

    A group of Canadian researchers conducted an experiment with VR to see if they could foster empathy for the impact of climate change on oceans. Using a VR simulation, they showed participants optimistic and pessimistic future impacts of climate change on oceans. After experiencing the simulation, participants expressed increased empathy and concern for the issue.

    Similarly, at Toronto Metropolitan University, researchers used 360-degree videos to deepen empathy and understanding for people taking care of individuals with dementia. Participants watched 360-degree videos filmed from the perspective of two fictional characters living with dementia. They reported strong emotional responses to the videos and a deeper understanding of living with dementia.

    As immersive technology becomes more accessible, its potential to foster empathy and understanding across a range of social issues continues to grow.

    Is VR truly the ‘ultimate empathy machine’?

    Is immersive technology truly the “ultimate empathy machine?” Presently, there’s no agreement among experts. Some question the scientific rigour used to support such claims. Past research has suffered from small sample sizes, a lack of diversity among research participants and a lack of longitudinal studies investigating the effects of empathy.

    Other researchers suggest that, while empathetic gains have been demonstrated, these effects tend to fade after a short time. One study found that while VR increased emotional empathy for refugees, those feelings were mostly gone after just 10 days. More importantly, these empathic responses didn’t translate into actions like charitable donations.

    Some researchers have taken a more nuanced approach by distinguishing between emotional and cognitive empathy. Cognitive empathy involves knowing how other people think and feel, while emotional empathy involves feeling another person’s emotions. The findings from one research study indicate that VR can improve emotional empathy, but not cognitive empathy.

    This distinction is crucial in assessing VR’s potential as an empathy-building tool. While immersive experiences may create strong emotional responses, their long-term influence and ability to drive meaningful action remain uncertain.

    Knowledge mobilization

    Other research suggests VR and 360-degree video have the potential to be knowledge-transfer tools. Canadian researchers are encouraged to engage the Canadian public through knowledge mobilization — the process of sharing research findings with organizations, people and government.

    Several Canadian research institutions have started using 360-degree video as a knowledge-mobilization tool. For example, researchers at the National Research Council Canada’s (NRC) Hydrogen Laboratory in British Columbia produced a 360-degree video allowing audiences to see the lab and learn more about the research conducted there.

    360-degree video of the Hydrogen Laboratory in Vancouver.

    The NRC has produced other 360-degree video explainers, including one about the Aerial Robotics Laboratory in Montréal and another about the Climatic Testing Facility located in Ottawa.

    At a time when Canadians are inundated with information, immersive video explainers offer a unique way to learn about science and society. While it remains unclear whether VR is truly the “ultimate empathy machine,” its ability to place audiences at the centre of stories and events has been shown to have positive effects on learning, information retention and the transfer of knowledge.

    Immersive film may not be a guaranteed empathy-builder, but it’s far from being an apathy machine. Ultimately, it offers unique perspectives to Canadians wishing to learn more about the world we live in.

    Victoria (Vicky) McArthur receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

    – ref. 360-degree videos are making social issues and educational content more engaging for Canadians – https://theconversation.com/360-degree-videos-are-making-social-issues-and-educational-content-more-engaging-for-canadians-248398

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Three pop beefs that were more cutting than Matty Healy and Taylor Swift’s

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Glenn Fosbraey, Associate Dean of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Winchester

    There has been a sharp intake of breath among Taylor Swift fans following reports that 1975 frontman and songwriter Matty Healy is soon to release a song addressing their public romance from 2023.

    The song in question, God Has Entered My Body, is reportedly the title track of an upcoming 1975 album. According to a report in the Sun, the song includes the lyric “Keep your head up princess, your tiara is falling”. It is reported to be Healy’s response to Swift’s 2024 song The Smallest Man Who Ever Lived, which many fans believe was about their relationship.

    The 1975 frontman has responded to the rumours in typical Healy style, commenting “huge if true” under a post about the story on social media site Reddit.

    This lyrical back and forth is just the latest entry in a rich history of public beefs between pop stars that have been committed to record. Here are some of the most notable examples.

    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. Lennon v McCartney (1971)

    The first mainstream pop “diss track” exchange took place long before the term was even coined. It occurred in 1971 through Paul and Linda McCartney’s Too Many People and John Lennon’s How Do You Sleep?

    Lennon was incensed by the McCartney lyrics “too many people going underground” and “too many people preaching practices”, which he took as attacks on his and Yoko Ono’s avant garde albums and bed-in escapades. In response, he launched a stinging tirade that accused (Paul) McCartney of creating “Muzak”, being only a “pretty face”, and hanging around with sycophants who fed his ego.

    How Do You Sleep? by John Lennon & The Plastic Ono Band.

    The on-record beef ended there, perhaps because McCartney was too busy to focus on his new band Wings, or simply because he didn’t want to risk another lashing from Lennon’s famously sharp tongue.

    Either way, to the relief of Beatles fans everywhere, the two made amends before Lennon’s death in 1980, and Paul finally concluded their lyrical back and forth two years later with the touching Here Today.

    2. Buckingham v Nicks (1977)

    Recorded amid a backdrop of romantic tension and heavy drug use, it’s a wonder that Fleetwood Mac were even able to complete their 12th studio album Rumours, let alone create something that would go on to sell 40 million copies and spend more than a 1,000 weeks in the UK album charts.

    It’d be unfair to say the massive success of the album is due to the lyrical exchanges between the by then estranged couple Lindsey Buckingham and Stevie Nicks, but it certainly didn’t hurt.

    Dreams by Fleetwood Mac.

    Buckingham lit the fuse with Go Your Own Way, which accused Nicks of “packing up and shacking up” with different men. It caused Nicks to write Dreams, where she encouraged him to “listen carefully to the sound of your loneliness, like a heartbeat, drives you mad, in the stillness of remembering what you had”.

    Decades later, one of the bitterest feuds in pop music continues to rumble on, with Buckingham currently sidelined from the group after being fired in 2018. It won’t come as a surprise that their version of events differs, with Buckingham claiming Nicks was behind his sacking, and Nicks accusing him of revisionism. No Lennon and McCartney thawing of the ice here, then. Yet.

    3. Perry v Swift (2014-18)

    Swift was involved in another public spat back in the 2010s. If reports are to be believed, the two pop icons Katy Perry and Swift became close friends in 2009, but by 2013, things seemed to have soured.

    A rift over some backup dancers, some thinly veiled interview comments and a mutual ex-boyfriend have all been the subject of fan theories about the shift in mood.

    Bad Blood by Taylor Swift ft. Kendrick Lamar.

    In terms of diss tracks, Swift struck first, and relatively mildly, with Bad Blood in 2014, stating in an interview shortly after its release that it was about “a female musical artist”. Although she refused to name names, internet sleuths soon believed they’d figured out it was Perry.

    A Twitter spat between Swift and rapper Nicki Minaj then broke out. Minaj complained that her song Anaconda wasn’t nominated for the video-of-the-year award when Swift’s Bad Blood was (stay with me – this will become relevant soon).

    If the near-journalistic speed of those Lennon and McCartney tracks were indicative of the music industry in the early 1970s, Perry’s delayed response to Swift’s (perceived) barb is indicative of modern times, where her releases were kept to a strict three- or four-year cycle.

    Three years on, then, comes Swish Swish, which included lyrics like “you’re a joke / And I’m a court-side killer queen” and “Your game is tired / You should retire”. It featured Nicki Minaj in the music video to further fan the flames (told you it’d become relevant).

    Swish Swish by Katy Perry ft. Nicki Minaj.

    The only problem was that, in the years between their falling out, Swift had transitioned from mere pop musician to word-dominating superstar, so Perry’s insults carried little weight.

    When it comes to diss tracks, then, the old adage of striking while the iron is hot is definitely applicable. The pair have since made up, with Perry sending Swift an actual olive branch in 2018.

    The pair are pictured embracing during the closing scene of Swift’s 2019 music video for You Need To Calm down. Even the Bad Blood controversy seems to be water under the proverbial bridge now, with Perry videoed singing along to the track by fans earlier this year during one of Swift’s Eras tour concerts.

    Glenn Fosbraey 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. Three pop beefs that were more cutting than Matty Healy and Taylor Swift’s – https://theconversation.com/three-pop-beefs-that-were-more-cutting-than-matty-healy-and-taylor-swifts-248076

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: What Trump’s proposal to ‘take over’ Gaza could mean for Arab-Israeli relations

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Simon Mabon, Professor of International Relations, Lancaster University

    US president Donald Trump has made the extraordinary suggestion that the US should seize control of the Gaza Strip and permanently remove its Palestinian inhabitants. Speaking to the press at the White House alongside the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump said the US would “own [Gaza] and be responsible”.

    When pushed on the practicalities of such a move, Trump replied that the US would “do what is necessary” and develop the land into the “riviera of the Middle East”. “It’ll be something that the entire Middle East can be very proud of,” he said.

    The secretary of state, Marco Rubio, later wrote in a post on X: “The United States stands ready to lead and Make Gaza Beautiful Again. Our pursuit is one of lasting peace in the region for all people.”

    Trump’s declaration has been celebrated by many on the Israeli right, who have long supported the removal of Palestinian residents from Gaza. But it has also been met with anger across the Arab world and beyond.

    Francesca Albanese, the UN special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, called Trump’s proposal “incitement to commit forced displacement”. Some politicians have described his comments as an endorsement of ethnic cleansing.

    Trump first uttered his desire to “clean out” Gaza a week before this announcement. This prompted foreign ministers from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Jordan and Egypt to sign a statement affirming their rejection of efforts to “compromise Palestinians’ unalienable rights, whether through settlement activities, or evictions or annex of land or through vacating the land from its owners”.

    The statement, made by a group of states not generally known for operating in a unified manner, ended by congratulating Rubio on his appointment. But the message to the Trump administration was clear: the two-state solution is the only viable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    Trump’s latest proclamations will deepen schisms across the region between Israel and its Arab neighbours, and prompt questions about the future role of the US in the Middle East.

    Egypt and Jordan’s response

    Any attempt by Washington to seize control of Gaza, which would almost certainly involve military force, would evoke parallels with 1948 and what is known in Arabic as the nakba, or “the catastrophe”.

    At that time, many Palestinians had to flee their land in what is now Israel, setting in motion decades of conflict between Israel and neighbouring Arab states. Acts of terrorism in the intervening years have cost thousands of lives on all sides.

    Trump’s call for Arab states to take in Palestinians from Gaza – who he says have no alternative but to abandon the coastal strip – ignores the strength of feeling across the world about the Palestinian issue.

    Egypt, for example, has long rejected the idea of housing Gaza’s population, amid growing socio-economic pressures and longstanding fears of Islamist violence. And Jordan has been steadfast in its desire not to host more Palestinians, having already provided refuge for people fleeing Palestine in 1948 and 1967. It has, more recently, also become the main destination for refugees from Lebanon, Syria and Iraq.

    On February 5, Egypt’s foreign minister, Badr Abdelatty, met with the prime minister of the Palestinian Authority, Mohammed Mustafa, in Cairo. According to an Egyptian foreign ministry statement, the pair jointly rejected Trump’s proposal for a US takeover of Gaza.

    Egypt and Jordan have both signed peace deals with Israel. But relations have not always been cordial, and the destruction of Gaza has exacerbated these tensions. Trump’s latest comments, as well as those from the Israeli right, will only worsen the situation.

    Relations with Saudi Arabia

    During Trump’s first term, his administration secured a significant diplomatic victory by brokering the Abraham accords. The accords, all of which were signed in the latter half of 2020, normalised relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and later Morocco.

    The signatories to the Abraham accords have been conspicuously quiet about Israel’s actions in Gaza. And it remains to be seen what effect Trump’s proposed Gaza takeover could have on relations between these states. The United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco have, at the time of writing, not yet announced their response.

    Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, has remained the jewel in the diplomatic crown seemingly out of reach both for the Trump administration and that of his successor, Joe Biden. The kingdom occupies a prominent place within the Arab and Muslim world by virtue of its custodianship of the two holy mosques of Mecca and Medina.

    Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s de facto ruler, has taken an increasingly hard line on normalisation with Israel in recent months, suggesting that such a deal would not be possible without the establishment of a Palestinian state.

    In a statement released on February 5, the Saudi foreign ministry said it rejected “any attempts to displace the Palestinians from their land”. And bin Salman has affirmed the kingdom’s position that it would not establish ties with Israel without a Palestinian state.

    During his press conference, Trump suggested that Saudi Arabia was not demanding a Palestinian homeland. But statements from Saudi officials since then contradict this narrative and point to increasingly divergent views on Gaza – and indeed, the future of Palestine – between Riyadh and Washington.

    Fundamentally, Trump’s remarks are the latest in a long line of bombastic diplomatic flourishes that appear designed to provoke as much as to enact policy. But in this case, even rhetorical provocations will have consequences for already strained relations between Israel and the wider Arab world.

    Simon Mabon receives funding from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. He is a Senior Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre in London.

    – ref. What Trump’s proposal to ‘take over’ Gaza could mean for Arab-Israeli relations – https://theconversation.com/what-trumps-proposal-to-take-over-gaza-could-mean-for-arab-israeli-relations-249184

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: England plans to make academies follow the national curriculum – but it’s been getting more prescriptive for years

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dominic Wyse, Professor of Early Childhood and Primary Education, UCL

    Juice Flair/Shutterstock

    A national curriculum sets out what state school pupils should be taught during their time at school. But in England, the national curriculum currently applies to only around 44% of children – those in schools run by their local authority.

    The remaining children, including 81.7% of secondary school pupils, are at academies. These schools, the result of a policy to address disadvantage in education, are free to set their own curriculum. Independent, fee-paying schools have never had to follow the national curriculum.

    The government’s children’s wellbeing and schools bill proposes that academy schools would, for the first time, be required to follow the national curriculum.

    This proposal, along with others set to reduce the autonomy of academies, has raised some debate. Academies and their associated freedoms were a flagship policy of the previous Conservative government. Laura Trott, shadow education secretary, has said: “The Bill seeks to turn its back on Labour’s history and take back those academy freedoms on curriculum, on pay and on behaviour. You name it, they are reversing it — all the things that have done so much to improve our education system … And who will suffer? The poorest pupils in society.”

    As well as considering whether all pupils should be taught the national curriculum, England is currently in the middle of a review of the content of the curriculum itself. This is an excellent opportunity to consider how England’s national curriculum can best serve pupils and improve their education. Much evidence suggests the current curriculum is too prescriptive.

    One advantage of not having to follow the national curriculum is that schools can develop a programme of teaching, and how they go about teaching it, that is more closely aligned with the particular context of their school community and pupils.

    Teachers value having autonomy over what they teach.
    LightField Studios/Shutterstock

    Also, for many teachers, the power to control their curriculum is an appealing prospect that links with their professional identity (although evidence has shown that in some multi-academy trusts – groups of academy schools run together – teachers actually have less autonomy).

    Evidence from my forthcoming book with colleague Yana Manyukhina on how children experience the national curriculum shows that some schools who do not have to follow the national curriculum make use of it anyway. However, the academy school in our research project was also able and confident to innovate with their school curriculum by giving children more choices over their learning – in ways that the children we interviewed said highly motivated them.

    Government control

    A national curriculum was first established in England in 1988. Since then, there have been multiple significant revisions. Sometimes these revisions have been quite radical, overturning the ideas and details of previous national curricula.

    The current national curriculum was instituted in 2014. It was developed under the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government and during Michael Gove’s time as secretary of state for education.

    One of the claims in favour of a country or region having a national curriculum is that this ensures that all pupils in a country have an entitlement to learn the same knowledge, skills and other aspects, such as values. The idea is that this will support educational standards by ensuring that all pupils have access to a baseline of knowledge.

    But national curricula often give power to governments to control what happens in lessons in schools. This limits what teachers can make professional decisions about, and provides less scope for teachers to build their teaching on the interests of the pupils that they teach.

    Before 1988, primary school teachers had full control over the curriculum and the teaching methods that they used. England’s first national curricula specified the knowledge to be taught but did not stray into the methods that teachers should use in order to teach.

    For more than two decades, my colleagues and I have tracked the intensification of control, by successive governments in England, over not only the content of the subject of English in primary schools but also the way it is taught. For instance, from 2021 guidance was added to the national curriculum prescribing that the teaching of reading must be taught through the one approach of “synthetic phonics”.

    Government actions are often to some degree based on political ideology. If they have the power to control the curriculum, their ideology can sometimes result in programmes of study that are not sufficiently based on what research shows is likely to be effective.

    For instance, my research shows that the heavy emphasis on the teaching of formal grammatical terms in the current curriculum is not based on evidence as to its value in teaching writing, suggesting that it is rather the result of ideological commitment.

    Irrespective of whether ultimately all schools are required to follow the national curriculum, the new curriculum should be much more evidence-based than the current one.

    A national curriculum can be a useful framework for schools. But it should not restrict subjects and teaching methods that may be of great benefit to children. I would argue that all schools should be given more freedom over the curriculum, and particularly over teaching methods. The government should publish a recommended curriculum that, crucially, schools are not bound in law to follow.

    Dominic Wyse receives funding for the research centre The Helen Hamlyn Centre for Pedagogy (HHCP) from The Helen Hamlyn Trust. The Children’s Agency and the National Curriculum research project was funded by The Leverhulme Trust. He is currently advising on the primary curriculum for the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment in Ireland. He is advising the Welsh Government as part of his membership of the expert group on literacy.

    – ref. England plans to make academies follow the national curriculum – but it’s been getting more prescriptive for years – https://theconversation.com/england-plans-to-make-academies-follow-the-national-curriculum-but-its-been-getting-more-prescriptive-for-years-248508

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Psychotherapy may change memories of childhood – here’s why practitioners should warn clients

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Lawrence Patihis, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, University of Portsmouth

    Yuri A/Shutterstock

    One of the unfortunate legacies that my generation, gen X, has passed on to the millennials and gen Z, is the idea that therapy has no side effects. However, just like many other medical treatments, there can be negative effects. For example, in some cases psychotherapy can be linked with a worsening of psychiatric symptoms, increased anxiety and false memories.

    My team’s recent paper investigated the effect of evaluating a parent on the basis of their emotions and memories of those emotions in childhood. Our findings, which show these kinds of reappraisals can distort memories, may have implications for talking therapies that explore clients’ childhoods.

    Previous research has shown that as people’s thoughts change, their memory of emotions seems to do so too. In 1997 psychology professor Linda Levine found that people misremembered how they had felt when Ross Perot withdrew from the 1992 US presidential race, when they were asked to recall their emotions after the election. Psychologist Martin Safer found in his 2010 study that some people misremembered how much grief they felt when their spouse died, and this bias was related to their current evaluation of the death.

    In my team’s study, published in Psychological Reports, we found that writing out recent examples of participants’ mothers’ behaviour could lead them to reappraise their mother. It also seemed to change the participants’ current emotions towards their mother. And most surprisingly, it seemed to subtly affect the participants’ memories of emotions from childhood.

    Our participants were split into four groups and given different writing prompts. The first group were asked to give recent examples of their mother showing a positive attribute. For example: “Please write three to four sentences giving the most recent examples of when your mother showed competence (effectiveness) in her life.”

    The second group were asked to give examples of their mother showing a lack of those same attributes. A third group were asked to give examples of a former teacher showing a lack of positive attributes and the last group were given no writing tasks.

    The participants were then given questionnaires asking them to evaluate their mothers and about their memories of their emotions toward their mothers.

    We found that these reappraisals affected participants’ current happiness and interest towards their mother. Reappraisal also affected their memories of happiness from childhood.

    Counselling isn’t free of risks.
    Prostock-studio/Shutterstock

    In these experiments, we slightly nudged people’s appraisals of their mothers. But this may happen in a bigger way in the real world. Talking to a therapist for years in a way that reconstructs a client’s childhood, and then linking this to their problems, could cause more significant reappraisals of their parents. What therapy clients may not realise, nor perhaps even their therapist, is that these reevaluations could be changing their memories of childhood.

    Warning signs

    I believe that clients should be aware of the side effects of therapy, and there should be a line or two on the malleability of memory on the forms people sign before therapy begins.

    It would also help if all therapists were taught in their training about the ways memory can be distorted. Indeed, research on infantile and childhood amnesia suggests that humans seem to remember little of early childhood, leaving us all vulnerable to reappraising that period.

    We might debate whether therapists should be making negative comments about parents. Perhaps in cases of abuse, some might argue it could help. But in many other types of clients, therapists making negative comments could have a powerful effect that far exceeds our experimental nudges. For example: “Wow, your mother sounds like a controlling type,” if repeated enough by therapists, might cause reappraisals and family rifts over time.

    In some cases, reevaluating your parents in a positive direction can lead to better relationships over time. This may result in the real joy of childhood being better remembered and appreciated. Positive reevaluations may actually be fair and moving towards accuracy. For example in cases where previous negative reappraisals in adolescence and early adulthood were unfair and forgetful of the sacrifice and love the parents had given in early childhood.

    Nevertheless, there is a potential negative side effect if parents are positively reappraised too much. If your parents had set up conditions to illicit a lot of negative emotions in childhood, glossing over that might increase the risk of repeating the same mistakes as you raise your own children.

    I am a strong believer in living an examined life. People should be free to practice psychotherapy, and clients should be welcome to seek out therapies that dig deep into parental and childhood themes. In the same way that people who need X-rays should get them despite the small risks, people who need therapy should take it.

    Better to be as accurate as you can be, as we live fully examined and rich lives.

    Lawrence Patihis 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. Psychotherapy may change memories of childhood – here’s why practitioners should warn clients – https://theconversation.com/psychotherapy-may-change-memories-of-childhood-heres-why-practitioners-should-warn-clients-243060

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Limerence: why some people experience intense infatuation that feels like love, and how it affects them

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rebecca Ellis, Assistant Researcher in Public Health, Swansea University

    LightField Studios/Shutterstock

    Limerence is a term you may not be familiar with. It describes an involuntary, uncontrollable and obsessive desire for another person. This fixation can lead to significant distress, disrupting daily life, and may have negative impacts on other people too.

    Limerence can affect anyone, but is more likely to occur in people with anxiety or depression. It is thought to affect 4%-5% of the general population, although this is very hard to measure.

    The term was coined by behavioural psychologist Dorothy Tennov in her 1979 book, Love and Limerence: The Experience of Being in Love. She described it as a unique psychological phenomenon, different from falling in love, which is driven by an uncontrollable desire for another person – the “limerent object”.

    Anyone can become a limerent object to someone with the condition – whether they are a friend, colleague or total stranger. These feelings are almost always unrequited because a core feature of limerence is the uncertainty of another’s feelings.

    The time in which a person is experiencing these feelings is referred to as a “limerent episode”. The length of a limerent episode differs from person to person.

    For some people, such as those with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), it can be particularly intense as infatuation combines with traits such as hyperfocus – an intense fixation on an interest or activity for an extended period of time, which will be familiar to many neurodiverse people.

    There is still some academic discussion as to whether limerence is “natural”, as originally suggested by Tennov in her book. Others scholars point to its negative impact on daily life, including a person’s mental health, and potentially to the other person. It’s also important to note that limerence is not a formal diagnosis.

    How is limerence characterised?

    A person in a state of limerence idolises their limerent object, fixating on their positive traits while denying any flaws. Their emotions become dependent on perceived signs of interest or rejection, leading to extreme highs and lows.

    They will think about their limerent object continually – which can feel exciting and fun, especially if their feelings are reciprocated. In such cases, it may be difficult to recognise the limerent attachment type in a relationship, mistaking these feelings for the early stages of romantic love.

    However, the intensity of limerence has negative consequences. A person in a state of limerence can experience intrusive thoughts, physical discomfort, intense and one-sided feelings, as well as obsessive-compulsive thoughts in relation to their limerent object. These characteristics distinguish limerence from crushes and similar conventional romantic feelings.

    There are typically three stages of limerence. First, infatuation involving the initial attraction in which the person starts idealising someone.

    Second, crystallisation, which is the fully limerent phase, where obsessive thoughts, emotional dependency and euphoria, or despair, dominate. And third, deterioration, when the attachment eventually fades.


    AnnGaysorn/Shutterstock

    Though limerence remains an under-researched topic, some studies suggest links with anxious attachment styles, when a person fears rejection and craves constant reassurance.

    People with this attachment style often experience heightened emotional sensitivity and intense preoccupation with their partner’s responses. These traits can make them more vulnerable to experiencing limerence, as they struggle to regulate emotions and detach from the object of their infatuation.

    It may also affect a person’s ability to develop and maintain healthy relationships, whether these are loving or platonic.

    What kind of help is available?

    There is little psychological literature on how people experiencing limerence can regulate their emotions or break the cycle. In terms of external support, therapies such as cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) may help.

    ACT works by changing a person’s relationship with their thoughts and feelings. Using a process known as “cognitive diffusion”, a person learns to notice their intrusive thoughts and detach from them. For those who experience limerence, this can make it easier for them to develop and maintain healthy relationships.

    But while limerence can be overwhelming, recognising it for what it is, and not judging oneself for feeling this way, can be an important first step.

    Second, practicing self-awareness is vital: understanding the triggers and patterns of limerent behaviour, and using this knowledge to build healthier foundations for future relationships.

    Third, setting boundaries such as limiting exposure to the limerent object can help break the cycle of reinforcement. And fourth, practising self-compassion and patience, accepting these emotions without judgment while focusing on personal growth, may help to ease distress.

    The internet has allowed more people to share their experiences of limerence, find community support and better understand themselves. But greater awareness and more research are needed to support people struggling with its effects – and to offer healthier ways of navigating attraction and attachment.

    Rebecca Ellis 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. Limerence: why some people experience intense infatuation that feels like love, and how it affects them – https://theconversation.com/limerence-why-some-people-experience-intense-infatuation-that-feels-like-love-and-how-it-affects-them-248204

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why personal climate action matters – according to experts

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jack Marley, Environment + Energy Editor, UK edition

    EL_Images/Shutterstock

    Do you feel powerless?

    You probably aren’t responsible for the investment decisions of an energy company, nor do you have a hand in government policy. But still, you are reading about climate change – a problem that can easily seem intractable to most people.

    The Veganuary campaign reported record participation this year: 25.8 million people worldwide tried a lighter lifestyle without meat and dairy in January, knowing that enormous emission sources sit beyond their immediate control. If such resolve to fix our planet exists, how can people exercise it?

    This roundup of The Conversation’s climate coverage comes from our award-winning weekly climate action newsletter. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who’ve subscribed.

    You might be used to thinking of climate change in terms of your carbon footprint. That’s no accident, says science communicator Sam Illingworth (Edinburgh Napier). A public relations firm, hired by oil giant BP, invented the concept in 2004 as part of a deliberate effort to shift attention from corporate culpability, he says.

    “In my research into climate communication, I see how stories of guilt resonate with communities already facing misplaced blame,” Illingworth adds.

    You’re not alone

    “Net zero heroes” are set up to fail, Illingworth says. But realising this only makes collective action more important, and shows the futility of trying to bear the weight of the problem on your own.



    Read more:
    You don’t have to be a net zero hero – how focus on personal climate action can distract from systemic problems

    Your choices do not exist in a vacuum. Earth is an interconnected community of living and non-living things says ethicist Patrick Effiong Ben of the University of Manchester. African philosophers like Jonathan Chimakonam and Aïda Terblanché-Greeff have a helpful concept for thinking through the weightiness of your decisions: complementarity.

    Life on Earth is connected in often subtle and unpredictable ways.
    Lois GoBe/Shutterstock

    “Complementarity holds that the relationships that unite individual things can extend to prove the value of every contribution, no matter its size,” Ben says.



    Read more:
    Think your efforts to help the climate don’t matter? African philosophers disagree

    You can test this notion by choosing to eat a plant-based diet or forgo flying and observing your influence on others. If you’re sceptical, just think how many of your habits or turns of phrase are borrowed from loved ones. Steve Westlake, a behavioural psychologist at Cardiff University, says that your pro-environment choices can ultimately alter what other people consider “normal”.

    “In a survey I conducted, half of the respondents who knew someone who has given up flying because of climate change said they fly less because of this example. That alone seemed pretty impressive to me,” he says.



    Read more:
    Climate change: yes, your individual action does make a difference

    “They explained that the bold and unusual position to give up flying had: conveyed the seriousness of climate change and flying’s contribution to it; crystallised the link between values and actions; and even reduced feelings of isolation that flying less was a valid and sensible response to climate change.”

    What’s stopping us?

    Often, is is not apathy that holds us back, but a seeming lack of options. In the UK, where I live, a train is by far the better travel choice emissions-wise but it is usually much more expensive than a flight that covers the same distance.

    Environmental psychologists Christina Demski (University of Bath) and Stuart Capstick (Cardiff University) criticise the laissez-faire approach of successive governments that have “[gone] with the grain of consumer choice” while failing to recognise that many people would gladly choose the green option if they could afford or access it.



    Read more:
    To address climate change, lifestyles must change – but the government’s reluctance to help is holding us back

    This desire to do something meaningful is continually frustrated, they say, but it will not vanish as the crisis worsens. Everyone alive and yet to live needs a liveable climate. Securing it is within our technical and material means.

    The human species has no home but this one.
    Canities/Shutterstock

    Just listen to this from sustainability researcher Joel Millward-Hopkins (Université de Lausanne, previously University of Leeds):

    “Fortunately, in new research we found that using 60% less energy than today, decent living standards could be provided to a global population of 10 billion by 2050. That’s 75% less energy than the world is currently forecast to consume by 2050 on our present trajectory – or as much energy as the world used in the 1960s.”



    Read more:
    How 10 billion people could live well by 2050 – using as much energy as we did 60 years ago

    Instead of seeing your new vegan diet as a personal choice, think of it as a political act taken in solidarity with people and other species bearing the brunt of climate change say political philosophers Alasdair Cochrane (University of Sheffield) and Mara-Daria Cojocaru (Munich School of Philosophy).



    Read more:
    Veganism: why we should see it as a political movement rather than a dietary choice

    And remember that it isn’t all sacrifice. The joy that is possible with more expensive and more energy-hungry lifestyles is fleeting says Capstick, but contentment, he argues, is low-carbon.



    Read more:
    Climate change: greener lifestyles linked to greater happiness – in both rich and poor countries

    – ref. Why personal climate action matters – according to experts – https://theconversation.com/why-personal-climate-action-matters-according-to-experts-248960

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Turkey’s earthquake reconstruction efforts must balance speed with fairness

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Fatma Ozdogan, PhD Candidate & Researcher, Université de Montréal

    Earthquake survivors in Hatay Province, Turkey, on Sept. 6, 2024. (Fatma Özdoğan)

    Two years after the devastating 2023 earthquakes in Turkey that killed about 60,000 people and caused the collapse of 57,000 buildings, the country’s recovery remains slow, fragmented, and heavily politicized.

    Despite large-scale reconstruction efforts, branded the “Reconstruction of the Century,” there is no clear strategy or timeline, and affected communities are still excluded from decision-making.

    Given the scale of destruction, reconstruction efforts will likely take years. Large-scale government housing projects on city outskirts are being prioritized due to their speed and the ease of land acquisition. However, these developments often come at the cost of uprooting established communities, pushing people into peripheral areas with limited access to services like transport and education and fewer economic opportunities.

    Temporary accommodations like container cities continue to deteriorate. Overcrowding, inadequate sanitation and unreliable access to clean water, electricity, health care and education are widespread. Women face heightened safety risks, and schools are overwhelmed, forcing many families to relocate unwillingly or leaving children with no option but to hitchhike to school.

    ‘Disaster of the century’ narrative

    From the outset, Turkey’s political leadership framed the 2023 earthquakes as the “disaster of the century,” using their scale to deflect scrutiny from governance failures. Weak enforcement of earthquake regulations and systemic negligence played a key role in the destruction, yet officials have avoided accountability.

    This narrative was reinforced by contractors facing trial, who claimed the devastation was caused by an extraordinary natural event rather than poor construction practices or regulatory failures. By portraying the disaster as unavoidable, they have sought to shift responsibility away from those who contributed to the destruction.

    The rapid removal of debris further weakened efforts to establish accountability. Clearing ruins so quickly erased critical evidence that could have explained why some buildings collapsed while others remained standing. Many structures were never properly assessed, and legal cases against those responsible have struggled to move forward due to missing documentation.

    Survivors seeking justice remain trapped in lengthy legal battles with little hope for accountability. Among them are initiatives like Families in Pursuit of Justice and the Association for the Survival of the Champion Angels, led by relatives of victims, continue to demand accountability from contractors and officials.

    It is important to note that earthquake-induced ground motions in a few localities did exceed the parameters defined in the building codes, but this should only have resulted in damage, not total building collapses.

    Land expropriation and legal battles

    Turkey’s construction industry, closely tied to political power, has benefited from disaster recovery, reinforcing existing economic and political hierarchies. Large-scale reconstruction projects serve as an economic engine, giving firms with close government ties an advantage while sidelining local communities.

    The awarding of large-scale projects without competitive bidding has fuelled concerns that reconstruction is prioritizing political and economic interests over the needs of local communities.

    One of the key mechanisms enabling top-down reconstruction is the designation of reserve areas, a legal tool allowing the state to expropriate land for redevelopment under the justification of disaster recovery and urban renewal. This process has often led to forced displacement, particularly in areas with high land value or where redevelopment aligns with broader political and economic interests.

    This is evident in Akevler, a neighbourhood in central Antakya, where residents received sudden expropriation orders, even for structurally sound or repaired homes. Many launched legal challenges, marking their buildings with signs reading “Do not demolish; in court” to resist state-led destruction.

    In November 2024, there was a significant legal victory for residents when a court issued a stay within the reserve area in Akevler. The court cited “irreparable harm” and ruled that demolitions and evictions could not proceed without due legal process. This decision also extended to vacant parcels, reinforcing concerns about arbitrary land seizures.

    Beyond urban areas, rapid recovery decisions have also disregarded environmental concerns. In Defne, Hatay, earthquake survivor Çiğdem Mutlu Arslan has been fighting to protect her family’s ancestral olive grove. In July 2024, a contractor — citing post-disaster road construction — cut down 32 of 40 trees, some more than 150 years old, without an expropriation decision.

    Determined to resist further encroachment, Arslan set up camp on her land, documenting the destruction and raising awareness of how recovery policies are exacerbating environmental degradation. Her struggle reflects broader post-disaster consequences, where recovery efforts threaten communities, heritage and the environment.

    ‘Building Back Better’

    While these struggles highlight the shortcomings of post-disaster recovery, there are potentially better and fairer ways to approach reconstruction. Building Back Better (BBB) has become a central principle globally accepted, shaping expectations for reconstruction.

    Introduced by the United Nations after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, BBB promotes rebuilding stronger, more resilient and more equitable communities rather than simply restoring pre-disaster conditions. BBB prioritizes disaster-resistant infrastructure, social equity and sustainability to reduce future risks.

    Yet, BBB faces significant challenges. The tension between rapid reconstruction and long-term resilience often leads to trade-offs, where speed takes priority over equity and sustainability. Vulnerable communities, particularly low-income groups with insecure land tenure rights, frequently receive inadequate attention, exacerbating pre-existing inequalities.

    For BBB to be effective, recovery strategies must be inclusive and adapted to local contexts. However, many disaster-prone regions lack the social safety nets and institutional capacity to implement BBB successfully. Additionally, the framework’s broad and ambiguous goals often result in inconsistent applications, where vulnerabilities are reinforced rather than addressed.

    A more effective path forward

    Drawing from these examples and considering the global discourse around post-disaster recovery, a more effective approach must prioritize social justice, transparency and long-term resilience. Several key measures should be considered:

    A people-centred recovery: Reconstruction must prioritize affected communities rather than external economic or political interests. Ensuring access to stable housing, education and health care while addressing existing inequalities is crucial. Organized civil society groups can assist with articulating needs and developing community-driven plans. Decentralized access to financing for communities coupled with technical support can help with realizing these plans.

    Transparency and accountability: Decision-making must be open to public scrutiny, and legal rulings must be enforced.

    Challenging dominant narratives: Moving beyond narratives that frame disasters as inevitable is critical. Acknowledging governance failures and addressing systemic issues will be key to preventing future tragedies.

    Balancing speed with resilience: While urgent needs must be met, reconstruction should incorporate more sustainable planning to prevent future displacement and social impacts.

    Reforming the construction industry: Ensuring the effective enforcement of regulations and addressing systemic gaps in oversight are essential to reducing vulnerability to future disasters.

    Without these measures, Turkey risks repeating past mistakes, deepening inequalities and failing to provide stability for disaster-affected communities.

    Cassidy Johnson receives funding from UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, “Learning from Earthquakes: Building Resilient Communities Through Earthquake Reconnaissance, Response and Recovery,” grant EP/P025951/1.

    Fatma Ozdogan 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. Turkey’s earthquake reconstruction efforts must balance speed with fairness – https://theconversation.com/turkeys-earthquake-reconstruction-efforts-must-balance-speed-with-fairness-248730

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s Gaza threat shows the Middle East is both safer and more turbulent post-war

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Kevin Budning, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, National Security, Carleton University

    United States President Donald Trump’s suggestion that the U.S. will take over war-torn Gaza and create a “Riviera of the Middle East” has been immediately condemned by the international community, including American allies and adversaries alike.

    His threats come just two weeks into the ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas, and risk undermining the regional diplomatic efforts that made the ceasefire deal possible.



    Read more:
    Trump wants the US to ‘take over’ Gaza and relocate the people. Is this legal?

    Structured in three phases, the ceasefire agreement involves the exchange of Israeli hostages for some Palestinian prisoners; the withdrawal of Israeli forces along the Philadelphi and Netzarim corridors; and the return of vital humanitarian assistance needed to rebuild a war-torn Gaza — not to “clean it out,” as Trump has proposed.

    In the post-war landscape — and amid Trump’s threats as he stood next to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House — Israel now likely finds itself in a paradoxical situation: both better and worse off.

    On the one hand, Israel is more secure than ever before. It has leveraged the shock of the Oct. 7 attacks to reshape the regional balance of power, demonstrating military strength and restoring deterrence.

    On the other hand, Israel’s relentless bombardment of Gaza, its unwillingness to yield to public pressure and its perceived disregard for international law and the rules-based order have isolated the country, arguably turning it into a pariah on the world stage.

    Capitalizing on catastrophe

    Historically, Israel has implemented a counter-insurgency strategy known as “mowing the grass,” designed to weaken its adversaries through limited targeted military campaigns that deliberately stop short of full destruction.

    The strategy never intended to address the root causes of the conflict. Rather, it focused on preventing Hamas from launching large-scale, credible attacks against Israel.

    Oct. 7 was precisely what “mowing the grass” sought to obviate. The security lapse, however, inadvertently created ripe conditions for Israel to justify — even for a limited time — a much larger and more destructive campaign against Palestinian militant groups. A window had emerged, and Israel seized it.

    Israel’s ground and aerial campaign over the past 15 months has significantly weakened the group, although, as demonstrated by a recent show of force, it has not been eliminated.

    The Israeli military’s control over key border points, the destruction of tunnels used to carry out attacks and smuggle weapons and the targeted killings of political leaders may make it difficult for Hamas to inflict similar levels of carnage again any time soon.

    Hezbollah in the north

    Like in Gaza, the Israeli government used Hezbollah’s relentless rocket attacks to justify a separate military campaign deep into Lebanese territory.

    In the span of a few weeks, the offensive reportedly killed more than 4,000 Hezbollah fighters, destroyed key weapon caches and critical infrastructure and pushed the group north of the Litani River, approximately 30 kilometres from the Israeli border.

    Israel further shocked the world when it simultaneously detonated pagers and walkie-talkies used by Hezbollah militants. This was followed by a string of targeted killings that included Hezbollah’s long-time leader, Hassan Nasrallah, and his then-successor, Hashem Safieddine.

    The decapitation of the Hezbollah’s chain of command, combined with its failure to mount an effective counteroffensive, revealed that the group is far weaker than projected. This, in turn, forced Hezbollah to make significant concessions and capitulate to a ceasefire agreement that worked against its interests.

    The wider region

    The Iran-backed Houthi movement in Yemen also entered the conflict by seizing Israeli and western-owned ships and launching a series of drone and missile attacks toward Israel.

    But Israel responded with greater force, showcasing its ability to conduct large-scale missile, drone and aerial strikes thousands of kilometres away in Yemen.



    Read more:
    Western strikes against Houthis risk igniting a powderkeg in the Middle East

    And for the first time, Israel and Iran engaged in direct tit-for-tat escalatory exchanges, sparking fears of an all-out regional war. Israel’s defence systems, backed by allies and neighbouring countries, successfully thwarted hundreds of Iranian missiles.

    Israel’s response successfully bypassed Iran’s anti-missile defence systems, sending a decisive message of military superiority. Israel also demonstrated its intelligence advantage by assassinating Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Iran while he was residing at a compound secured by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

    The collapse of Syria’s Assad regime also created a power vacuum, prompting Israel to conduct hundreds of airstrikes aimed at destroying weapons abandoned by the Syrian army, surface-to-air defence missile systems and to seize strategic territory close to its border.

    Israel’s increasing presence within Syria and dominance over the airspace now makes it considerably easier to intercept the supply chain between Iran and Hezbollah.

    All for a cost

    Israel’s push to deter its adversaries and restore its standing as the regional powerhouse, however, has come at a high price: its reputation.

    Diplomatically, some of Israel’s closest allies, including Canada, France and the United Kingdom, have either banned or restricted arms sales to Israel.

    The once-universal support for Israel in the U.S. from both the Republican and Democratic parties became considerably strained. The United Nations General Assembly also voted overwhelmingly for the Security Council to consider admitting Palestine as the 194th member — a move viewed by Israel as a reward for Oct. 7.

    Israel also faces a public relations crisis at the International Criminal Court, where it is currently on trial for allegedly violating the Genocide Convention in relation to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Likewise, the court issued a warrant for Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for “intentionally depriving Gazans of food and directing attacks against civilians.”

    The ripple effects of Israel’s actions have spilled overseas, affecting much of the world, and especially the younger generations’ public opinion of the conflict.

    In the U.S., for example, a Pew Research Report found that Americans under 30 are considerably more likely to sympathize with Palestinians than Israelis. The results are similar in Canada, with youth between the ages of 18 and 24 reporting support for Hamas over Israel by a two-to-one margin.

    Is Israel more or less secure?

    While Israel’s response to Iran and the “axis of resistance” have positioned the country into a safer, more militarily dominant position than before the war, the consequences of this strategy may be short-lived.

    The images from Gaza — the loss of civilian life, displaced families, and starving children with no viable prospect of a future — have shifted public opinion against Israel. This has frayed diplomatic relations with once-dependable allies — although apparently not the U.S — upended the wider Middle East peace process, and fuelled a resurgence of antisemitism, especially on college campuses, not seen since before the Holocaust.

    But most of all, Israel’s response to Oct. 7 may unintentionally serve as the most powerful recruitment tool for future cycles of Palestinian violence. To many, especially the youth around the world, it is possible that future violence may come to be viewed as a legitimate form of resistance.

    And if that is the case, coupled with the unlikely prospect of Israel permanently deterring Iran and its proxies and with an American president who is in favour of relocating Gaza’s entire population and taking over the territory, Israel could find itself in a more precarious situation than ever before.

    The views expressed in this work are those of the author and do not reflect the official positions or opinions of the Government of Canada

    – ref. Trump’s Gaza threat shows the Middle East is both safer and more turbulent post-war – https://theconversation.com/trumps-gaza-threat-shows-the-middle-east-is-both-safer-and-more-turbulent-post-war-247868

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Violent crime in South Africa happens mostly in a few hotspots: police resources should focus there – criminologist

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Guy Lamb, Criminologist / Senior Lecturer, Stellenbosch University

    Crime researchers use murder (or homicide) rate per 100,000 as a crude measure of the general level of violent interpersonal crime globally. According to the United Nations Office for Drugs and Crime, South Africa’s murder rate of 45 per 100,000 (2023/24) is the second highest for countries that publish crime data.

    The South African Police Service crime data shows that levels of attempted murder, armed robbery and robberies at homes have soared over the past 10 years. Other categories of violent crime, such as assault and sexual violence, also remain high.

    High crime rates have had considerable negative effects on the country’s economy. The destructive impact of violent crime is estimated to cost the equivalent of 15 % of GDP.

    In 2019, President Cyril Ramaphosa indicated that government would seek to reduce violent crime by 50% within a decade. The police budget increased by 24% from 2018/19 to 2024/25. But the murder rate increased by 25%, from 36 per 100,000 in 2018/19 to 45 per 100,000 in 2023/24.

    I have spent 25 years researching violent crime and policing in South Africa. I also wrote a 2022 book, Policing and Boundaries in a Violent Society, and conducted various studies for the Institute for Security Studies.

    In my view, the logical approach for government is to attend to the top 100 high crime areas. I’ll show why below. It must use the resources of the departments in its justice, crime prevention and security cluster to intervene in targeted, evidence-based ways, to combat and prevent crime.

    Where crime is happening and what police are doing

    Violent crime in South Africa has consistently been highly concentrated in a small number of urban areas. For example, 20% of all reported murders occur in just 30 policing areas (2.6% of the 1,149 policing areas). About 50% of all violent crime occurs in 100 policing areas (9% of the precincts).

    Place-based crime reduction interventions have yielded positive results in high crime cities in a variety of countries, such as the US, Argentina and Trinidad and Tobago.

    But in South Africa, the approach to fighting crime has focused instead on arrests and on force. This is why increasing the funding hasn’t had results.

    The police arrested around 1.5 million criminal suspects a year between 2019/20 and 2023/24. (The exception was 2020/1, with 2.8 million arrests due to COVID-19 lockdown violations.)

    A negative outcome of this police action has been rising civil claims against police, amounting to R67.4 billion (US$3.6 billion) as of March 2024 (47,818 claims).

    The police have also used militarised approaches, such as Operation Shanela. Officers have been encouraged to be more forceful against alleged criminals.

    There is very little evidence to suggest that militarised policing reduces violent crime. It can actually contribute to declining public trust in the police. Only 27% of the population consider police trustworthy (from 47% in 1999).

    Despite the police budget increasing in recent years, their effectiveness has been undermined by declining personnel numbers. In 2018, there were 150,639 police personnel. This has dropped to 140,048 in recent years. There has also been a substantial reduction in the police reserve force.

    A further challenge is the high rate of recidivism (re-offending). An estimated 90% of offenders commit crime again after leaving prison.

    Six actions for 100 worst areas

    I argue that six things need to happen in the 100 worst crime areas:

    • reduce the number of firearms in circulation

    • improve the number of court-ready police dockets

    • improve place-based crime intelligence

    • reduce alcohol harms

    • provide rehabilitation and support services for offenders

    • boost community safety organisations.

    Firearms control

    Firearms are the leading weapon used in murders and in several categories of robberies. They are also commonly used in sexual violence, and feature in gangsterism and organised crime.

    Confiscating illegal firearms and ammunition, and securing convictions for those found in possession of illegal firearms, will have a positive impact in the target areas.

    This requires a close working relationship between police and the National Prosecuting Authority to collect appropriate evidence and prepare court dockets adequately.

    Rulings by magistrates that declare certain people unfit to possess licensed firearms must be monitored regularly.

    Court-ready police dockets

    The National Prosecuting Authority has undergone reforms over the past six years to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system. As a result, it has secured high conviction rates for several categories of violent crimes. However, many police dockets lack sufficient reliable evidence for the prosecutors to present so as to secure convictions in court.

    As the table below shows, the vast majority of recorded violent crime cases do not result in a court conviction.

    Police officials in high crime areas are typically overwhelmed by the large number of criminal cases they need to investigate. That means only a small number of dockets that have a likelihood of securing a conviction are prepared.

    More resources are needed to increase cooperation between the police and prosecutors.

    Place-based crime intelligence

    Better crime intelligence could result in better control of illegal firearms and higher quality police dockets.

    Police crime intelligence and other departments in the justice and security cluster must cooperate and share information.

    Alcohol harms

    Several forms of violent crime are linked to excessive alcohol consumption. Unregulated alcohol outlets present the most risky context for committing violence. There is an opportunity for police, prosecutors (especially through the Community Prosecutions Initiative) and municipalities to collaborate to reduce alcohol related crime and harms in the top 100 high crime areas.

    This requires more effective monitoring and policing of alcohol outlets to ensure better compliance with liquor laws.

    Rehabilitation and support services for offenders

    It is likely that recidivism rates would be reduced if former prisoners and their families had better rehabilitation services in the top 100 high crime areas. Studies suggest that the most effective and practical programmes are those that focus on substance abuse, restorative justice, mental health, education and income generation.

    Such services could give former inmates a means to generate an income legally.

    Community safety organisations

    Studies have shown that crime can be reduced when police and other government entities work closely with community organisations to devise solutions.

    Community police forums and neighbourhood watches are examples of these kinds of arrangements.

    They can collect intelligence and help the authorities design and implement evidence-based crime prevention actions that focus on the areas where crime is concentrated, and on the situations that tend to drive crime.

    Guy Lamb receives funding from the Research Council of Norway and the British Academy.

    – ref. Violent crime in South Africa happens mostly in a few hotspots: police resources should focus there – criminologist – https://theconversation.com/violent-crime-in-south-africa-happens-mostly-in-a-few-hotspots-police-resources-should-focus-there-criminologist-248233

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: US health funding cuts: what Nigeria stands to lose

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Oyewale Tomori, Fellow, Nigerian Academy of Science

    US president Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the US from the World Health Organization is threatening funding for critical health programmes like HIV/Aids and tuberculosis in different parts of the world, including Nigeria.

    The Conversation Africa’s Adejuwon Soyinka asked professor of virology and former WHO Africa regional virologist Oyewale Tomori why Nigeria is heavily dependent on US funding for some of its health programmes, what’s at risk and how to mitigate the impact.

    How dependent is Nigeria on US funding for health?

    Sadly, Nigeria and many African countries are too dependent on US funding and other donor funding for basic health activities and interventions. These activities are the normal function of a good and responsive government which is committed to the welfare of citizens.

    According to a US embassy publication, since 2021, the US has committed to providing nearly US$20 billion in health programmes in Africa. The report says in 2023 alone, the US invested over US$600 million in health assistance in Nigeria. That is about 21% of Nigeria’s 2023 annual health budget.

    Nigeria has, over the years, allocated on the average about 5% of the national budget to health. Three quarters of that covers recurrent expenditure like salaries.

    Nigeria’s proposed 2025 budget is ₦49.74 trillion (US$33 billion), of which ₦2.4 trillion (US$1.6 billion) (4.8%) is allocated to health. This is lower than the 5.15% allocated to health in the 2024 budget.

    The private sector plays a significant role in the Nigeria’s healthcare system, providing close to 60% of healthcare services.

    In recent years, traditional medicine is increasingly offering complementary and alternative medicine in support of the services provided by the federal, state and local government areas levels.

    What health programmes does the US fund in Nigeria?

    The US support is focused on preventing malaria, under the US President’s Malaria Initiative; ending HIV, through the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief; and delivering vaccines (COVID, polio, rotavirus, IPV2 and HPV).

    Malaria is a major public health concern in Nigeria. In 2021, there were an estimated 68 million cases of malaria and 194,000 deaths. Nigeria has the highest burden of malaria globally, nearly 27% of the global malaria burden.

    Nigeria has a high burden of HIV – fourth in the world. A large number of Nigerians live with the virus. The national agency responsible for AIDS control reported a rate of 1,400 new HIV cases per week in 2023.

    Nigeria has experienced outbreaks of yellow fever, meningitis, cholera, Lassa fever and COVID-19.

    In addition to helping with managing these major diseases, the US government also provided funds to strengthen the country’s ability to prevent, detect, respond to and recover from emerging public health threats.

    With these funds, a Public Health Emergency Management Programme was established and national disease surveillance systems were upgraded. Nigeria’s laboratory diagnostics were enhanced to test for Ebola, mpox, yellow fever, measles, Lassa fever, cholera and cerebrospinal meningitis.

    Other countries (Japan, Germany, Canada, the UK) also provided support through building and equipping laboratories and training health workers.

    What’s most at risk?

    Interventions most at risk are those of which the Nigerian government has abdicated its responsibilities to the donors. They include provision of rapid diagnostic tests for malaria, insecticide-treated bed nets, malaria preventive treatments in pregnancy, provision of fast acting malaria medicines and insecticide for home spraying.

    The following HIV interventions are likely to be adversely affected: HIV counselling and testing services, especially for pregnant women to prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV, and the care of people living with HIV with TB/HIV services, as well as care and support for orphans and vulnerable children.

    Sustaining laboratory capacity for rapid disease diagnosis will suffer a major setback with reduced or lack of reagents and consumables.

    A huge amount of laboratory equipment is provided by donors. Servicing and replacement of equipment will be affected.

    The Nigerian health sector’s challenges include inadequate funding, shortage of healthcare professionals, poor access to healthcare due to cost, poor infrastructure, and high prevalence of preventable diseases.

    Cutting off US money is not likely to affect the shortage of healthcare professionals, as the major reason for the shortage is their deteriorating work environment and unsafe social environment. This environment was created by years of economic downturn and social insecurity in Nigeria.

    Why is Nigeria still so reliant on US funding?

    I think Nigeria lacks national pride as it begs for assistance to provide what it already has the resources for. The government seems to place the well-being of the citizens on a secondary status.

    Many African governments assume the world owes Africa compensation for colonial activities. But to me, the danger to Nigeria’s freedom from dependency is not truly knowing what we are, who we are, and how endowed we are.

    The world describes Nigeria as “resource limited” and, without thinking, Nigerians accept such name calling. Nigeria is not resource-limited, it is resource wasteful. Nigeria is not resource constrained; it is corruption constrained. Until Nigerians know who and what we are, we will never find the solution to our problems.

    Nigeria’s acceptance of the tag “resource-limited” drives it to beg for assistance even in areas of its highest capability, capacity and competence and where it has highly trained people. Like disease prevention and control.

    Africa has since the 1960s experienced numerous outbreaks of diseases and has acquired significant expertise in disease prevention and control. An example is the 2014 Ebola outbreak in Nigeria, which was brought under control within three months with only 20 cases and eight deaths.

    This was a disease that raged for three years and ravaged three countries: Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. It was reported in seven others with 28,600 cases and 11,326 deaths.

    In Nigeria, the country coordinated response activities which were anchored on the participation of the community. The community was part of disease investigation, contact tracing, isolation of cases and adoption of infection, prevention and control interventions.

    How can Nigeria mitigate the impact?

    Nigeria must immediately provide emergency funds to cover the shortfall arising from the action of the US government. What Trump has done should have been anticipated, because he did the same things during his first term of office.

    Nigeria must re-order its priorities, and provide funds to create and sustain an enabling environment for talented human resources to function effectively for disease control and prevention.

    The country must prioritise disease prevention and control (in that order) through adequate and sustained funding of disease surveillance activities at all levels of governance.

    Nigeria needs to decentralise disease surveillance, prevention and control by enabling states and local government areas to take responsibility. The Nigeria Centre for Disease Control and Prevention should coordinate state and local government areas activities, instead of acting as the controller of diseases in Nigeria.

    Oyewale Tomori 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. US health funding cuts: what Nigeria stands to lose – https://theconversation.com/us-health-funding-cuts-what-nigeria-stands-to-lose-248921

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s second tone: authoritarian, radical and triumphalist in a divided US

    Source: The Conversation – France – By Jérôme Viala-Gaudefroy, Spécialiste de la politique américaine, Auteurs historiques The Conversation France

    US President Donald Trump’s inaugural address on January 20 revealed the key themes of his rhetoric–triumphalism and overt authoritarianism–and provided insight into the programme he wants to implement. However, accomplishing his goals will not be easy amid deep divisions within the country that narrowly elected him.

    The triumphant hero: martyr and messiah

    In his 2017 inaugural address, Trump delivered a populist message decrying “the establishment” for the “carnage” afflicting “forgotten Americans”. Eight years later, in the longest inaugural speech in four decades, he painted a starkly different picture–one of a victorious and ambitious country with himself as both its savior and an embodiment of its triumph.

    Trump used the words “I,” “me” and “my” 50 times in his 2025 address, compared to just four in 2017, deliberately merging his personal identity with that of the nation.


    J. Viala-Gaudefroy, Fourni par l’auteur

    He cast himself as both a hero-martyr –“tested and challenged more than any president in our 250-year history”– and the sole leader capable of solving the country’s problems. He linked his personal journey to divine intervention, declaring that God had saved him on July 13, the day he survived an assassination attempt in Pennsylvania, “I was saved by God to make America great again.”

    A radical crackdown on immigration

    Trump’s stance on immigration is significantly more extreme than his 2017 agenda. While his first term focused on reinforcing borders, he now frames illegal immigration as an “invasion” requiring military intervention. On inauguration day, the president signed several executive orders, including one seeking to eliminate birthright citizenship despite its protection under the 14th Amendment. His hardline approach energizes supporters within his conservative base, some of whom subscribe to the “great replacement” theory and view his policies as necessary to preserve American identity.

    Culture wars: race, gender and education

    In his second inaugural address, Trump expanded his rhetoric to encompass culture war issues, aggressively targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies in US workplaces. He accused the state of “socially engineering race and gender into every aspect of public and private life”, and then began dismantling programmes promoting equality, including recruitment efforts aimed at hiring racial and sexual minorities within the federal government.

    His executive orders rescind measures dating back to the Civil Rights era, including one from president Lyndon B. Johnson mandating equal opportunity policies for federal contractors. Echoing president Ronald Reagan, Trump framed these actions in anti-racist language –“We will forge a society that is colorblind and merit-based”– disregarding the well-documented realities of systemic racism.

    Trump also asserted that “there are only two genders, male and female”, and has signed an order recognizing only biological sex at birth. Framing this move as a defense of women, he argues that their “safe spaces”, including bathrooms and sports competitions, must be protected from individuals who “identify” as female.

    In education, he decried critical perspectives on US history as “unpatriotic”, insisting that schools instill national pride instead of “teaching our children to hate our country”. His plan includes reducing or eliminating federal funding for schools that teach “inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content” or mandate vaccines and mask-wearing–despite education policy largely falling under state jurisdiction.

    Reviving founding myths

    Trump’s historical narrative is steeped in romanticized patriotism. He revived the myth of “the frontier”, a late 19th century ideal portraying westward expansion as the ultimate symbol of American dynamism. This narrative ignores histories of the genocide of indigenous peoples and environmental destruction.

    His vision of “inexhaustible” natural resources –particularly shale oil and gas, described as “liquid gold”– reflects this ideology of relentless economic expansion and 19th century “bonanza economics”. By rejecting US conservationist traditions, Trump is prioritizing industrial growth over environmental sustainability.

    Expansionism reimagined: from the frontier to space

    Trump draws inspiration from president William McKinley (1897–1901), an advocate of expansionism during the Spanish-American War, which brought territories such as the Philippines and Puerto Rico under US control. Reviving the concept of “manifest destiny”, he merged exceptionalism with expansionism, vowing to “plant the American flag on Mars.”

    Trump restated his intention to rename the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America”–a gesture with little practical impact given that much of the gulf lies outside US territory. While he has expressed interest in purchasing Greenland (which he has also claimed to be willing to take over) and even annexing Canada, he mentioned neither in his inaugural speech. However, he did promise to take control of the Panama Canal, justifying the move with a series of lies and exaggerations regarding its history and operation.

    A new golden age or “Gilded Age”?

    Trump’s admiration for McKinley extends to his economic policies. He envisions a protectionist strategy driving national reindustrialization. Yet, McKinley’s era–the “Gilded Age”–was marked by extreme inequality, a lack of income and corporate taxes, minimal regulation and rampant corruption. The wealthiest figures of the time, later dubbed “robber barons”, mirror the oligarchic ambitions of Trump’s current supporters.

    Ironically, as economist Douglas A. Irwin notes, the economic prosperity of the late 19th century was not driven by tariffs but by mass immigration. Between 1870 and 1913, the US population doubled due to an influx of unskilled laborers, a reality at odds with Trump’s strict immigration agenda.

    A nation divided under an assertive authoritarianism

    Trump’s vision, as outlined in his speech, is one of maximal presidential power, where justice is subordinated to political goals. His decision to pardon over 1,500 individuals convicted for their involvement in the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot underscores this authoritarian approach, reinforcing the idea that traditional laws do not apply to his most loyal and even violent supporters.

    He has also launched a sweeping purge of the federal administration, citing “integrity, competence, and loyalty” as guiding values. Additionally, he has openly planned to use the Justice Department and FBI for political purposes.

    Unlike previous presidents, Trump made no effort to unite a deeply divided nation during his address. He ignored the tradition of acknowledging his predecessor, Joe Biden, and instead declared his electoral victory proof that “the entire nation is rallying behind our agenda.”

    However, the US remains fractured politically. Trump secured less than 50% of the popular vote in the November election, his party holds the narrowest House majority since the 1930s, and he entered office with one of the lowest initial approval ratings in 70 years–just 47%. His personal favorability was even lower, hovering around 41% (Reuters, NPR).

    This polarization is evident in the public reaction to his most controversial policies, such as his pardoning of the January 6 rioters just after his inaugural address. While his base celebrates these decisions, the broader American public largely disapproves. The fundamental question remains: can US institutions withstand the growing tensions? Without majority support, realising Trump’s most radical societal and political agenda may prove an uphill battle.

    Jérôme Viala-Gaudefroy ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

    – ref. Trump’s second tone: authoritarian, radical and triumphalist in a divided US – https://theconversation.com/trumps-second-tone-authoritarian-radical-and-triumphalist-in-a-divided-us-248502

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why is Trump’s preferential treatment of Russia shifting? Because there’s nothing in it for him

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By James Horncastle, Assistant Professor and Edward and Emily McWhinney Professor in International Relations, Simon Fraser University

    When Donald Trump assumed power in the United States for a second time, it was initially assumed that it didn’t bode well for Ukraine.

    During his first term, Trump maintained questionable connections to Russia. Furthermore, his claim that he would end the Russia-Ukraine conflict in a day — with Russia still occupying much of Ukraine — led many analysts to believe that any such policy would favour the Russians.



    Read more:
    Can Trump deliver on his promise to end Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?

    These fears, at least so far, have not come to pass. In Trump’s inaugural address, many of the items he highlighted on the campaign trail figured prominently.

    Noticeably absent, however, was Ukraine. When it comes to Trump’s “America First,” philosophy, Ukraine and Russia have seemingly lost significance.

    Strategy of distraction

    Trump, with his bombastic nature, dominates the media cycle. His proclamations, social media statements threats and insults occur with such regularity that it’s difficult for anyone to keep pace.

    Just as one news item comes into focus, a new comment or ultimatum overtakes it.

    In many ways, this works to Trump’s advantage. People can be too distracted by the latest outlandish statement to pay close attention as Trump pursues his ambitious domestic policy goals. Lost in the media turmoil of Trump’s executive orders, tariff threats and heightened deportation campaign has been a shift on Russia and Ukraine.

    Ukraine, for Trump, is a secondary concern. His priorities, first and foremost, are domestic and aimed at remaking America.

    As such, rather than being driven by any foreign policy goals, Trump’s engagement with Ukraine and Russia will be determined by how he perceives he can benefit domestically in return. His calculations, in this regard, appear to have shifted.

    Complicated relationship with Ukraine

    Trump’s relationship with Ukraine during his first term was, to put it mildly, difficult. His infatuation with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, and Russia’s open disdain for Ukraine, caused him to largely ignore the country.

    When he did pay attention to Ukraine, it was as part of an effort to acquire information to damage his presumed political rival, former president Joe Biden. This effort resulted in Trump withholding aid from Ukraine unless it acquiesced to his demands.

    Trump’s position on Ukraine, however, has shifted over time. His antagonistic relationship with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has seemingly improved.

    While there are still tension points, most notably when Zelenskyy visited Pennsylvania during the U.S. presidential election campaign, Trump has moderated his comments on his Ukrainian counterpart. Ukraine’s purchase of American equipment and ammunition, furthermore, supports Trump’s focus on domestic production.

    Lastly, Trump has expressed interest in accessing Ukraine’s rare earth metals. China currently dominates the rare earth metal market, which puts the U.S. at a disadvantage due to the minerals’ importance for future technological innovation. That means Trump has a stake in Ukraine’s future.

    These developments don’t mean the relationship is perfect. Instead, Trump is unlikely to be a burden to Ukraine, and this development is in part due to his declining view of Putin.

    Trump/Putin relationship

    The initial assumption of many analysts when Trump came to power again was that he would immediately favour Putin. The close relationship between the two is well-documented, and has been open to considerable speculation as to why Trump courted such favour with Putin in his first term.

    Trump, however, has upped his rhetoric against Russia since assuming the presidency. First, he threatened Putin with additional economic sanctions. Second, he stated that he would like OPEC to increase oil production and therefore inhibit Russia’s war effort by undermining its primary source of revenue.

    Why the pivot? It likely goes to the core foundation of Trump’s persona: he likes winners. Regardless of the ultimate outcome of the Russia-Ukraine war, Russia and Putin have displayed considerable weakness in execution during the war. The Russian military, once feared globally, has largely proven to be a paper tiger.

    While Russia still has several advantages in the war, it is only doing so by leveraging its future. According to Trump, Russia is in “big trouble” in terms of its economic woes. Trump is not alone in this view. Analysts, as well as perhaps Putin himself, recognize the serious challenges facing the Russian economy.

    It’s not just economically that Russia has leveraged its future. To avoid straining the Russian people, Putin has reached a deal with North Korea, which is providing soldiers for the war against Ukraine.



    Read more:
    Amid the West’s wavering aid to Ukraine, North Korea backs Russia in a mutually beneficial move

    Furthermore, Russia has deepened ties with Iran in exchange for Iranian drones.

    What Putin has provided North Korea and Iran in exchange for these soldiers is unclear. That said, Russia can only provide any technological exchanges for these soldiers and drones one time, as once shared, the same technology cannot be part of other arrangements. This reality limits Russia’s influence in the years ahead.

    The new art of the deal?

    Trump, almost certainly, wants to make a peace deal on Ukraine. It would burnish his reputation as a statesman while simultaneously demonstrating American strength and influence to the world at a minimal cost to the U.S.

    The terms of that deal, however, have shifted in the face of Russian weakness.

    That’s why it’s not surprising that the mercurial Trump has pivoted his stance on Russia. Until Russia can display the strength that Trump thought it possessed, he’s unlikely to do the Russians any favours in the future.

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

    – ref. Why is Trump’s preferential treatment of Russia shifting? Because there’s nothing in it for him – https://theconversation.com/why-is-trumps-preferential-treatment-of-russia-shifting-because-theres-nothing-in-it-for-him-248365

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why does Mark Zuckerberg want more ‘masculine energy’ in the corporate world? The patriarchy is still in charge

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ashley Morgan, Masculinities Scholar, Cardiff Metropolitan University

    Fabrizio Canneti/Shutterstock

    Out of Mark Zuckerberg’s three-hour interview on Joe Rogan’s podcast, one comment stood out to me. The Meta CEO said that large companies needed more “masculine energy”, because the corporate world was becoming “culturally neutered”.

    “I think having a culture that celebrates the aggression a bit more has its own merits that are really positive,” he told Rogan. After the interview, numerous commentators rushed to accuse the Meta CEO of toxic masculinity, and of having a “toxic revamp”.

    Zuckerberg has previously discussed his love of martial arts and butchering his own meat – anecdotes that can be seen to promote a view of masculinity steeped in archaic rhetoric about male aggression and strength.

    Toxic masculinity is generally defined as “the constellation of socially regressive male traits that serve to foster domination, the devaluation of women, homophobia and wanton violence”. This definition was used to describe men in prison by psychiatrist Terry Kupers in 2005, but he also argued that these traits were present in the male population at large.

    Yet arguably, Zuckerberg’s comment is reflective of a certain form of patriarchy rather than simply toxic masculinity.

    In a patriarchy, men’s power over women is the norm, embedded in the cultural and economic systems that men have built and in which they thrive, and from which women are frequently excluded. Many academics, myself included, have been at pains to define toxic masculinity as distinctive from patriarchy – not all qualities associated with male power (think leadership, strength) are necessarily “toxic”.

    Indeed, research has shown that in many circles, masculinity has become more inclusive of different views of “how to be a man”. But Zuckerberg’s comments show that a specific view of masculinity as aggressive still holds power in the most influential spaces. As a result, the distinction between toxic masculinity and patriarchy becomes blurred.

    How patriarchy harms men and women

    In a patriarchy, even if only a few men are in charge, all men benefit from the unequal treatment of women, which is known as the patriarchal dividend. Even if some men are not obviously powerful, they will benefit from things like certain jobs or university courses being more male-orientated.

    Patriarchy has a long history, and as men began wars and fought for domination, ideas about differences between men and women became more pronounced. These ideas are reflected today in gender stereotypes, like the view that women are more caring and nurturing, and men are naturally violent and aggressive.

    These norms, which are perpetuated by parents and society from birth, harm men as well as women, for example by communicating to boys that they must be aggressive and cannot share their emotions. It also makes things more difficult for people of all genders who challenge norms of gender and sexuality.

    They also create a smokescreen around what men and women are “good at” in terms of the workplace. That there are more men in the tech industry doesn’t mean that men are better at technologically sophisticated work than women are. It’s simply that men have greater opportunities than women do.

    This is arguably evident in statistics that show women are vastly underrepresented in computing, maths and IT roles. By saying that companies need more “aggression” and “masculine energy”, Zuckerberg sends an even stronger message that women aren’t welcome.



    Read more:
    Mark Zuckerberg thinks workplaces need to ‘man up’ − here’s why that’s bad for all employees, no matter their gender

    Threats to patriarchy

    It is difficult to argue that Zuckerberg’s business has been “neutered”, when Meta made a net profit of US$62 billion (£50 billion) in 2024. But this is a compelling narrative to men who feel that their position at the top might be under threat.

    One of the things that men who benefit from patriarchy fear is losing power. This is reflected in recent political trends. In the US, this fear has been abated by Donald Trump winning the election, while displaying traditionally strong-man practices of misogyny, entitlement and wealth.

    This might further explain why in the UK, self-proclaimed misogynist Andrew Tate claims he is interested in running for prime minister. In many cases, whoever is in power sets the tone for what brand of patriarchy is considered dominant.



    Read more:
    Trump represents a specific type of masculinity – and it’s dangerous for women

    Much of this is part of a backlash to the apparent gains women have made. A recent survey of young people in the UK found that 45% of male respondents aged 13 to 27 said “we have gone so far in promoting women’s equality that we are discriminating against men”.

    Indeed, Zuckerberg commented to Rogan that the world had “swung culturally” to a view that “masculinity is toxic and we have to get rid of it completely”. I would argue that it’s not about getting rid of masculinity, but about recognising that there can be more than one way of being a man.

    Patriarchy is a hegemonic system, meaning that men being in a more powerful position than women is accepted by both as “the natural order of things”. It is also bolstered by views on race and ability that hold white, rich, able-bodied men at the top. That this is socially valued in US politics today is evident in who was given pride of place at Trump’s inauguration: Zuckerberg and his fellow “broligarchs” Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos.

    But what figures like Zuckerberg should remember is that a rigid view of masculinity and “masculine energy” is harmful to men as well, despite the ways in which they benefit from patriarchy. It is known to lead to shutting down emotions in men and even suicide. Not to mention that hypermasculine energy can have a negative effect on workplaces, including leading to burnout and bullying.

    Zuckerberg himself took paternity leave after the birth of his first daughter. He must know that it is possible for masculinity to be composed of things other than aggression – but perhaps he needs reminding.

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

    – ref. Why does Mark Zuckerberg want more ‘masculine energy’ in the corporate world? The patriarchy is still in charge – https://theconversation.com/why-does-mark-zuckerberg-want-more-masculine-energy-in-the-corporate-world-the-patriarchy-is-still-in-charge-248600

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Ukraine: prospects for peace are slim unless Europe grips the reality of Trump’s world

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

    When EU leaders gathered for their first ever meeting solely dedicated to defence issues on February 3, in Brussels, the war in Ukraine was uppermost on their minds. Yet, three weeks before the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion, Ukraine is only the tip of an iceberg of security challenges that Europe faces.

    War on a scale not seen in Europe since 1945 has returned to the continent. Russian sabotage of everything from critical infrastructure to elections is at levels reminiscent of the cold war. And the future of the EU’s most important defence alliance, Nato, is uncertain.

    In light of these challenges alone, let alone the ongoing instability in the Middle East, western Balkans and south Caucasus, it’s hard to disagree with the observation by EU council president António Costa that: “Europe needs to assume greater responsibility for its own defence.”

    But it’s hardly a groundbreaking statement. And at the end of proceedings, the outcome of what was ultimately only an informal meeting, was underwhelmingly summarised by Costa as “progress in our discussions on building the Europe of defence”.

    This does not bode well for Ukraine. US support is unlikely to continue at the levels reached during the final months of the Biden administration. In fact, ongoing debates in the White House on Ukraine policy have already caused some disruption to arms shipments from Washington to Kyiv.

    Building blocs

    If there is a silver lining for Ukraine here, it is Trump’s continuous search for a good deal. His latest idea is that Ukraine could pay for US support with favourable concessions on rare earths, and potentially other strategic resources.

    These would include preferential deals to supply the US with titanium, iron ore and coal, as well as critical minerals, including lithium. Whether this is a sustainable basis for US support in the long term is as unclear as whether it will make any material difference to Trump thinking beyond a ceasefire.

    The other ray of hope for Ukraine is that there is a much greater recognition in EU capitals now about the need for a common European approach to defence. A greater focus on building a “coalition of the willing” including non-EU members UK and Norway is a potentially promising path.

    But hope, as they say, is not a winning strategy. In a Trump-like transactional fashion, Brussels – in exchange for a deal on defence with London – is insisting on UK concessions on youth mobility and fishing rights. It’s unlikely that this will prove an insurmountable stumbling bloc, but it will create yet more delays at a moment when time is of the essence for Europe as a whole to signal determination about security and defence.

    This is further complicated by two factors. On the one hand, there is the looming threat of a trade war between the US and the EU. That the UK may still be able to avoid a similar fate, according to Trump, feels like good news for London. But it will also put the UK in a potentially awkward position as it seeks an ambitious post-Brexit reset with the EU and harbours hopes to improve relations with China.

    With Trump clearly hostile towards both Brussels and Beijing, this may become an impossible balancing act for the British government to pull off.

    Europe’s fragile unity

    On the other hand, EU unity has become more fragile. Trump’s victory has emboldened other populist leaders in Europe – notably the significantly more pro-Russian Slovak and Hungarian prime ministers, Robert Fico and Viktor Orbán. The same applies to the UK, where Nigel Farage, leader of the Reform UK party – which has overtaken the ruling Labour party in the latest public opinion polls – is known for his Ukraine-sceptical views.

    To that equation add a weak government in France and the likelihood of protracted coalition negotiations in Germany after hotly contested parliamentary elections at the end of February. The prospects for decisive EU and wider European action on strengthening its own security and defence capabilities right now appear vanishingly slim.

    Seen in the light of such multiple and complex challenges, it is astonishing how much the EU is still trapped in a wishful thinking exercise – and one that appears more and more disconnected from reality. Contrary to Costa’s fulsome pronouncements after the EU leaders’ meeting, there is little evidence that the US under Trump will remain Europe’s friend, ally and partner.

    There’s also little to suggest that the American president shares the values and principles that once underpinned the now rapidly dismantling international order. Other countries’ national sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of their borders are not at the forefront of Trump’s foreign policy doctrine.

    If, as Costa proclaimed, “peace in Europe depends on Ukraine winning a comprehensive, just and lasting peace”, then the future looks bleak indeed for Europe and Ukraine. At this point the EU and its member states are a long way off from being able to provide Ukraine with the support it needs to win. This is not just because they lack the military and defence-industrial capabilities. They also lack a credible, shared vision of how to acquire them while navigating a Trumpian world.

    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.

    – ref. Ukraine: prospects for peace are slim unless Europe grips the reality of Trump’s world – https://theconversation.com/ukraine-prospects-for-peace-are-slim-unless-europe-grips-the-reality-of-trumps-world-248911

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why Democrats are switching off the news – a psychologist explains

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Geoff Beattie, Professor of Psychology, Edge Hill University

    Many Democrats appear to be switching off mainstream news channels and other media, following Donald Trump’s victory in the 2024 presidential election.

    Around 72% of Democrats say they feel a need to limit their consumption of news about politics and government, according to a recent poll by AP-NORC.

    Research has highlighted the negative effects of news avoidance (resistance to, or avoidance of, news) on people’s political knowledge and civic engagement, the cornerstones of democratic thought and action.

    Research also shows what prompts news avoidance generally – and the return of Trump may be increasing the percentage of people in the US who are turning away from news and current affairs.

    Research from the University of Jyvaskyla in Finland measured how news avoidance varied across several nations between 2016 and 2019. It also attempted to identify the drivers of news avoidance.

    Researchers found the proportion of consumers who actively avoided the news varied significantly from one country to another – and for some, it was temporary.

    In their sample of five countries, they found news avoidance was highest in Argentina (45%) and the US (41%) and lowest in Finland (17%) and Japan (11%), with Israel somewhere in between. The US, it seems, has always been high but there are some suggestions it is getting worse.

    People made conscious decisions about what news to consume and what to avoid, given the amount of news available. News overload and cognitive fatigue (where people feel worn out by the amount of news they feel they should listen to) were especially important when there was intense national news focus on certain individuals. Examples of this could be coverage of the corruption case involving Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel, or Trump’s recent stream of executive orders.

    But factors can vary. The study found that in Japan, the main cognitive driver was “a reluctance to discuss or be exposed to subjective and often extreme opinions”. In Argentina, it was a distrust of politicians generally.

    However, emotional factors were also critical to news avoidance. Many interviewees reported feeling emotional distress, sadness, fear and anger with certain types of negative news, to the extent that it sometimes affected their mental health.

    But emotional factors also affect specific behaviour. News avoidance can become “news aversion” (more emotional, more visceral), turning away from the news not because of some deliberate rational judgment (“I’ll reduce my viewing a little, according to American Psychological Association guidelines”) but because of overwhelming feelings of anxiety or disgust when confronted by certain stories or individuals.

    Disgust is a powerful negative emotion linked to very quick responding, and could create a need to turn away from something immediately. Feelings of anxiety may be linked to images of political figures, for instance.

    I have just finished writing a book exploring climate anxiety. For some, this can be a debilitating form of anxiety, and it is growing globally especially among young people. It can be overwhelming, affecting study, work and sleep.

    What can you do about news avoidance?

    The recent image of Trump yelling that “we’re going to drill, baby, drill” has been implanted in the minds of many who suffer from climate anxiety, possibly intensifying their distress.

    For many Democrats, the aftermath of Trump’s victory was emotionally devastating. On October 24 2024 (two weeks before the election), an open letter was published in the New York Times signed by 233 mental health professionals with the following warning: “We have an ethical duty to warn the public that Donald Trump is an existential threat to democracy. His symptoms of severe, untreatable personality disorder – malignant narcissism – makes him deceitful, destructive, deluded and dangerous. He is grossly unfit for leadership.”

    For Democrats in particular, Trump may display many negative features including his lack of remorse or self-awareness, his break from traditional political norms and use of populist, nationalist rhetoric, or his rejection of civil discourse in favour of divisive and inflammatory language.

    So Trump’s victory seemed, to many Democrats, to signal the triumph of ignorance, bigotry and authoritarianism. An emotional response from them was always likely, and chimes with this avoiding of news.

    Cognitive dissonance

    Cognitive dissonance theory suggests that when individuals are confronted with information (in this case from Trump) that contradicts their deeply held beliefs but they still sit and listen dutifully, this can create considerable psychological discomfort.

    To reduce this discomfort, people often engage in behaviour that avoids or minimises this conflict. But they can’t change their political views, and they can’t change Trump or his policies (he has got an incredibly powerful mandate), so that leaves few other options. Or perhaps just one: avoiding the relentless media cycle of Trump’s tweets, policies, pronouncements, presidential pardons, and executive orders.

    By switching off, Democrats – and even some Republicans – can temporarily ease the cognitive dissonance they feel, and this may allow some emotional relief.

    Moreover, this avoidance might help protect them against the further erosion of their political and social identity. They might feel that if they continue to consume news that reaffirms Trump’s power, or as if they are accepting their defeat and their misreading of the American public and, by extension, the legitimacy of his presidency.

    But where will that disengagement take them? And how easy will it be for them to overcome their visceral response to reengage, to reassert themselves and fight back? It’s always more difficult when thoughts and emotion are so tightly intertwined like this.

    But for US Democrats, engagement based on accurate information is critical for the ongoing democratic process, regardless of how painful this might feel right now.

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

    – ref. Why Democrats are switching off the news – a psychologist explains – https://theconversation.com/why-democrats-are-switching-off-the-news-a-psychologist-explains-248512

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How citizen science is shaping international conservation

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sasha Woods, Director of Science and Policy, Earthwatch Institute (Europe)

    Testing the River Gade in Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire. Earthwatch Europe, CC BY-NC-ND

    Citizen science is a powerful tool for involving more people in research. By influencing policy, it is transforming conservation at global, national and local levels.

    Citizen science actively encourages non-scientists to be a part of the scientific research process. Sometimes the terminology gets confusing. We say “non-scientists” but through taking part in citizen science projects, people become scientists – they’re just not professionally involved in the research.

    It’s also worth noting that the “citizen” in citizen science is completely unrelated to ideas of national citizenship. Put simply, it’s science by the people for the people.

    Citizen scientists can take part in every stage of the research process. Depending on the project, participants can write the research questions, choose the methods, collect the data, analyse and interpret the results, and share the research as widely as possible. By broadening people’s understanding of scientific problems and solutions, citizen science can act as a powerful catalyst for change.

    It is already making an impact across lots of disciplines, including conservation, by addressing barriers to policy change such as lack of evidence and low levels of public engagement and input. While it’s not yet common for citizen science to directly influence policy, in our research we’ve seen how citizen science can shape policy at every scale: through promoting policy, monitoring progress towards policy or advocating for policy enforcement.

    At a local level, citizen science can influence policy and transform conservation science. The clean air coalition of western New York is a group of citizens concerned about smells and smoke, and their connection to chronic health problems in the community. The group collected samples in 2004 to determine what was in the air and presented this data to the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the US Environmental Protection Agency.

    In response, the DEC monitored air pollutants in four locations in the city of Tonawanda for a year between 2007 and 2008 – an investigation which formed the basis for compliance monitoring and regulatory actions. As a direct result of citizen science, the Tonawanda Coke Corporation agreed to improve its operations, monitor for leaks and upgrade pollution controls. By December 2019, levels of carcinogenic benzene had dropped 92% since the end of DEC’s sampling in 2008.

    Citizen science can also run at the national level. For example, the annual Big Butterfly Count, run by the Butterfly Conservation charity, encourages people in the UK to advocate for conservation policy by counting butterflies.

    Over 25 days in July and August 2024, 85,000 volunteers recorded their sightings, with alarming results. Average butterfly numbers were at their lowest in the survey’s 14-year history.

    The charity and its citizen scientists called on the UK government to ban pesticides that can harm butterflies and bees. And on January 23 2025, the government confirmed that, for the first time in five years, an emergency application for the use of a neonicotinoid pesticide on sugar beet in England will not be granted.

    The government highlighted that the decision was “based on robust assessments of environmental, health and economic risks and benefits” and, although not explicitly stated, it is clear that citizen scientists contributed to those assessments.

    Going global

    Citizen science also contributes data to international conservation policies. For example, the UN incorporates citizen science data into two of its largest environmental policy frameworks: the sustainable development goals (SDGs) – a set of targets to end poverty, protect the environment, and promote prosperity for all people – and the Kunming-Montreal agreement, which aims to halt and reverse biodiversity decline.

    As part of our work at the European branch of the Earthwatch Institute research organisation, we’re involved with a global water quality monitoring project called FreshWater Watch. This project has successfully engaged communities and governments in Sierra Leone and Zambia to collect data on the proportion of rivers and lakes with good water quality within a country. Over time, this indicator can be used to measure progress towards the SDG for clean water and sanitation.

    A volunteer tests water quality at Faendre Reen near Cardiff.
    Earthwatch Europe, CC BY-NC-ND

    Currently, only five of the 231 indicators used to measure progress for the SDGs include citizen science data. But recent research suggests such projects could contribute to up to 33% of these indicators and over half of the 365 indicators for the global biodiversity framework.

    And even where citizen science data is not used in official monitoring towards policy, it can still transform conservation science by educating people and empowering them to advocate for change.

    The Great UK WaterBlitz is a national example of this. WaterBlitzes are four-day campaigns in which volunteers assess the water quality of local rivers, ponds and lakes, using simple-but-reliable testing kits for nitrates and phosphates.

    Nitrates and phosphates occur naturally in the environment and are essential for plant growth. But high concentrations found in sewage and agricultural runoff trigger a process called eutrophication: an overgrowth of algae which leads to increased levels of bacteria and, therefore, decreased oxygen concentrations, which harms aquatic plants and animals.

    Citizen scientists used these simple testing kits to assess water quality.
    Sasha Woods/Earthwatch Europe, CC BY-NC-ND

    Our team has used such testing kits in river catchments for over 10 years, but recently expanded to a UK-wide campaign. In September 2024, we ran our largest event to date, with 4,500 participants investigating 2,300 locations. This created a national snapshot of freshwater health at a granular scale, which we have used to highlight pollution hotspots to the Environment Agency (EA).

    Although this data is not yet used for official monitoring or the development of conservation policy, its contribution to improving water ecosystems is increasingly acknowledged. As the EA’s deputy director for monitoring, insight and innovation told the Guardian: “The Environment Agency values the contribution of England’s growing network of citizen scientists and welcomes the Great UK WaterBlitz and other initiatives that complement our own research, monitoring and assessment work.”

    Despite demonstrating valuable contributions to research – particularly by providing robust datasets – citizen science still faces multiple challenges. The engagement, motivation and retention of volunteers is resource-intensive, and citizen science is not particularly well funded.

    And even though citizen science methods are frequently validated by laboratory scientists, policymakers can still be hesitant to integrate this into their monitoring frameworks, due to often unfounded concerns about the data’s quality and reliability.

    But citizen science is already influencing conservation. This will only increase as policymakers recognise it as a legitimate and valuable scientific approach. And because there are citizen science projects all over the world, anyone can be a part of this positive change.

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

    Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

    Sasha Woods works for Earthwatch Europe.

    Stephen Parkinson works for Earthwatch Europe.

    – ref. How citizen science is shaping international conservation – https://theconversation.com/how-citizen-science-is-shaping-international-conservation-247033

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: September 5: tense and taut drama vividly recreates the Munich massacre

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Barry Langford, Professor of Film Studies, Royal Holloway University of London

    In the 21st-century, it’s become horrifyingly normal for terrorist atrocities to play out over live visual media. Countless millions watched the fall of the twin towers on television in September 2001. The 2019 Christchurch mass murderer live streamed his assault on Facebook Live. Hamas commandos on October 7 wore bodycams.

    Director Tim Fehlbaum’s new film September 5 vividly recreates the historical moment when this relationship arguably snapped into sharp focus for the first time. The US network ABC’s live coverage of the Black September attack on the Israeli team at the 1972 Munich Olympics introduced the term “terrorist” to many viewers for the first time.

    The Munich attack unfolded over a single day and culminated in the murder of all nine Israeli hostages. Two athletes were also killed during the initial attack on their residence, as were all of the Palestinian gunmen during a firefight with West German police.

    There have been numerous film and television treatments of the Munich attack. One of the best-known is Kevin Macdonald’s Oscar-winning 1999 documentary One Day in September, which prosecutes the negligence and incompetence of the German authorities. Another is Steven Spielberg’s drama Munich (2005). A heavily fictionalised account of the Mossad reprisals against Palestinians allegedly associated with the Munich attack, it includes a detailed and graphic flashback of the massacre itself.

    The trailer for September 5.

    Fehlbaum opts against providing another synoptic overview of this well-known sequence of events. Instead, September 5 focuses exclusively on the ABC Sports team whose assignment switched in an instant from broadcasting the achievements of record-breaking athletes to covering the unfolding crisis and its bloody denouement.

    Running a tense and taut 94 minutes, the drama unfolds almost entirely within the cramped, sweaty confines of the ABC control room. Located adjacent to the athletes’ village, the sports reporters must suddenly adapt to documenting actual, not sporting, disaster. We share their perspective on the unravelling catastrophe, from a distance, trying to cut through the chaotic and confused stream of conflicting information, all filtered through the cumbersome broadcast technologies of the time.

    Decades before smartphones and the internet, ABC Sports chief Roone Arledge (Peter Sarsgaard) and inexperienced director Geoffrey Mason (John Magaro) battle myriad challenges. They haggle with rival networks for scarce satellite time (live satellite transmission was used for the first time at the Munich Games). They struggle to manoeuvre a weighty studio camera rig outdoors to gain a precious live feed on the apartment where the athletes are being held hostage. They even have to turn around magazines of 16mm film (in 1972 still the standard format for TV news reporting) in just minutes from negative to broadcast-ready clips.

    The meticulous period recreation, low-light filming and handheld camerawork lend the film an immediacy and a grainy intensity. It recalls classic journalistic 1970s thrillers such as All the President’s Men (1976).

    The unit transforms from a hardworking but relaxed outfit choosing whether to cover water polo or “soccer” to a team covering a grimly determined band of brothers (and one crucial sister, German translator Marianne, played by Leonie Benesch). Overcoming the odds to pursue the story to its bitter end, the story takes on the quality of a classic platoon movie.

    The film’s real focus is not so much the technical, but rather the novel ethical challenges the team must confront and decide, live and on-air. The young Peter Jennings (an uncanny impersonation by Benjamin Walker) is their sole trained news correspondent. But the sports crew need to parse the complex contexts of the conflict for a home audience far less steeped than today’s in Middle Eastern geopolitics.

    At the same time, they must fend off the intrusions of West German authorities increasingly panicked by the unfolding PR catastrophe, as Jews once again fall victim on German soil, less than three decades after the Holocaust.

    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.

    Meanwhile, it becomes increasingly clear that the Palestinian guerrillas have chosen the Olympics precisely because of the opportunity to stage their cause to a global audience. Hence, the broadcasters are inescapably complicit in the crisis. They’re not simply reporters, but participants.

    In the film’s highest stakes sequence – and a moment of head-spinning reflexivity – the team become aware the terrorists are watching their live broadcast. It means they are able to see the German police manoeuvring into place as they ineptly prepare a rescue.

    Predictably, the pressure to nail the story in an era of scarce information collides with the ethical imperative to get the story right. This leads to the film’s grim climax, where Arledge initially directs anchor Jim McKay (seen only in archive broadcast footage) to repeat the German authorities’ claim that the hostages have been successfully rescued. Only to have to go back on his words when the awful truth emerges and McKay is forced into his famous declaration: “They’re all gone.”

    In the aftermath, the reporters must prepare for another day’s work, while wondering to what degree they may have contributed to the disaster. September 5 is all the more powerful for leaving us, like its protagonists, without ready answers to the weighty questions it so deftly raises, and which have become only more pressing over half a century later.

    Barry Langford 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. September 5: tense and taut drama vividly recreates the Munich massacre – https://theconversation.com/september-5-tense-and-taut-drama-vividly-recreates-the-munich-massacre-248725

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How to outwit gambling adverts by ‘inoculating’ people against them

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jamie Torrance, Lecturer and Researcher in Psychology, Swansea University

    Gambling companies spend an estimated £1.5 billion annually on ad campaigns in the UK alone. Maxx-Studio/Shutterstock

    In a world awash with enticing promises of quick riches and thrilling wins, gambling advertisements have practically become inescapable. These meticulously crafted promotions aim to tap into the hearts and minds of consumers persuading them to gamble – whether that means starting or keeping going.

    With gambling advertising showing no signs of abating, and gambling addiction an ongoing problem across the UK, it is vital that consumers are given tools to resist. Our recent research has found that a targeted approach using “counteradvertising” videos can help people combat these persuasive tactics.

    Gambling advertisements portray gambling in a consistently positive light. They emphasise wins over losses and integrate logos into sporting events, exploiting fans’ emotional bonds with their teams and favourite athletes. For example, our previous research found that an average of 1,565 gambling logos were visible via pitch-side hoardings and on players’ kit during each English Premier League match in the 2022-23 season.

    They also widely promote financial incentives like “free bets”. These are promotions typically giving customers a chance to place a bet without using their own money.

    These incentives often come with opaque terms and conditions, encouraging riskier and potentially more harmful betting behaviour. Social media influencers and affiliates also play a role, disguising promotions as expert advice while profiting from players’ losses.

    The scale of the gambling industry’s investment in advertising is staggering. In the UK alone, companies spend an estimated £1.5 billion annually on ad campaigns spanning television, sports sponsorships and social media.

    While much attention has focused on the effects of gambling ads on children and people with gambling disorders, young adults aged 18 to 29 represent another vulnerable demographic. With lower levels of advertising literacy, young adults are less equipped to recognise and resist manipulative techniques. They also face heightened risks of gambling-related harm when exposed to legal gambling.

    A 2023 study showed that the “safer gambling” messages displayed at the end of gambling ads, such as “take time to think”, are ineffective at reducing harm. Even the term “safer gambling” itself is often seen by viewers, academics and some policymakers as an industry-favoured concept. Research has shown how it can downplay risks, leading to less regulatory oversight by implying that gambling is inherently “safe”. So, it is vital that consumers have the tools to resist the persuasive techniques used in gambling advertising.

    Inoculation theory

    To address this issue, we designed a seven-minute counteradvertising video informed by “inoculation theory”, which is a concept similar to vaccination. By exposing viewers to weakened forms of persuasive gambling tactics, the video aimed to build resistance to these strategies when encountered in the real world.

    Our video targeted five common advertising strategies: the positive portrayal of gambling, demographic targeting, embedding gambling in sports, “free” offers and affiliate marketing. Input from people who had experienced harm from gambling helped ensure the video’s relevance and effect.

    In the video, viewers saw real-world examples of these advertising strategies. Expert narration helped to unpack the manipulative tactics involved. In the segment on “free” offers, the narrator dissected the fine print of a real “free £10 bet” ad. Viewers learned that the offer’s terms were so restrictive that withdrawing the “free” £10 was nearly impossible. It required a £300 deposit of their own money and 50 wagers on slots before any withdrawal was allowed.

    We then conducted a randomised online experiment involving 1,200 young adult gamblers (aged 18 to 29). Half of the participants watched the counteradvertising video, while the other half viewed a video on healthy eating. Participants completed surveys before and after the video and again one month later, measuring their scepticism toward gambling ads, awareness of persuasive tactics and engagement with “free” offer promotions.

    Can counteradvertising videos help to ‘inoculate’ people against harmful gambling?
    REDPIXEL.PL/Shutterstock

    The participants who watched the counteradvertising video reported significantly higher levels of scepticism and awareness of gambling advertising strategies compared to the control group. These effects persisted over time. Even a month later, those who viewed the video maintained their heightened resistance to gambling ads.

    The intervention also led to tangible behavioural changes. Participants who watched the video showed a statistically significant decrease in their use of “free offers”. And 21% of them reported completely ceasing their engagement with such promotions within a month.

    Our findings highlight the potential for counteradvertising to complement broader harm reduction efforts in gambling, such as education and awareness campaigns. In autumn 2024, the UK government announced a statutory levy on gambling operators. It’s expected to generate approximately £100 million annually for research, prevention and treatment of gambling-related harm. But there’s not enough attention on tackling gambling advertising specifically.

    Empowering consumers

    Counteradvertising could be scaled up and delivered alongside independent “safer gambling” messages. By empowering consumers to critically evaluate gambling promotions, our videos have the potential to reduce gambling-related harm at its source.

    Future research could explore alternative delivery formats, such as shorter videos tailored for social media platforms. Or they could examine the long-term effects of repeated exposure to counteradvertising messages.

    With gambling ads dominating our screens, it’s time to level the playing field. Counteradvertising offers a powerful way to help consumers see through the allure of “free bets” and “wins”. And it could help people make more informed choices about their gambling behaviour.

    In the last three years, Jamie Torrance has received: Open access publication funding from Gambling Research Exchange Ontario (GREO), Conference travel and accommodation funding from the Academic Forum for the Study of Gambling (AFSG), and an exploratory research grant from the ASFG and GREO.

    Philip Newall is a member of the Advisory Board for Safer Gambling – an advisory group of the Gambling Commission in Great Britain. In the last three years, Philip Newall has contributed to research projects funded by the Academic Forum for the Study of Gambling, Clean Up Gambling, Gambling Research Australia, and the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation. Philip Newall has received honoraria for reviewing from the Academic Forum for the Study of Gambling and the Belgium Ministry of Justice, travel and accommodation funding from the Alberta Gambling Research Institute and the Economic and Social Research Institute, and open access fee funding from the Academic Forum for the Study of Gambling and Greo Evidence Insights.

    – ref. How to outwit gambling adverts by ‘inoculating’ people against them – https://theconversation.com/how-to-outwit-gambling-adverts-by-inoculating-people-against-them-247637

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Friendship, a covenant, romance – no matter what you call it, David’s love for Jonathan is one of the Bible’s most beautiful

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jacob F. Love, Lecturer in Religious Studies, University of Tennessee

    An illustration of David and Jonathan from ‘Sunday at Home – A Family Magazine for Sabbath reading, 1883,’ published by the Religious Tract Society in London. whitemay/DigitalVision Vectors via Getty Images

    For the idea of love, biblical Hebrew has precious few synonyms. Yet the Hebrew of the Bible can communicate a rich sensation of love: the love of a man for a woman, the love of any human being for their fellow human, the love of Israel for Israel’s God, and the love of God for all people.

    As a religion scholar, however, I believe one of the greatest loves in the Bible is a story of friendship: the intense devotion between the warrior Jonathan and David, who later became king of Israel and Judah. For many readers, their relationship represents a platonic ideal, while others see something more.

    ‘With all your heart’

    The main word for expressing love in the Hebrew Bible is “ahavah,” from the root “ahav.” It appears, for example, in the classic description of the relationship between God and Israel in the Book of Deuteronomy, Chapter 6: “You shall love (v’ahavta) the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might.”

    There are several places in the Hebrew Bible that demand that people care for one another, regardless of membership in any group, such as a tribe. Consider Leviticus 19:34, which invokes the Israelites’ suffering as slaves in Egypt: “you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.”

    The word “ahav” is also used to express emotional, romantic and sexual love, as in Genesis 29, the story of Jacob and Rachel. The young man serves Laban, Rachel’s father, for seven years in exchange for her hand in marriage – which seem “but a few days because of his love for her.” But Laban tricks Jacob into marrying Rachel’s sister, Leah, first – then working another seven years for Rachel.

    A steadfast love

    Among the more passionate poems in the Hebrew Bible is one David is said to have pronounced for Jonathan and his father, Saul, the Israelite king.

    A 14th century illustration of David and Jonathan’s first meeting.
    National Manuscript Center/Wikmedia Commons

    The three first meet when David, portrayed as a young shepherd, volunteers to fight Goliath, who is portrayed as a towering giant of a soldier, a champion of the Philistines battling Israel. Shockingly, David slays him with a simple sling and stone, and Saul meets with the boy.

    “After David finished speaking to Saul,” the author of 1 Samuel relates, “the body of Jonathan was bound to the body of David, and Jonathan loved him as he loved his own self.” The Hebrew word I translate as “body” here is a famously ambiguous one, “nefesh,” usually rendered as “soul,” “life” or “personality.”

    Many translators read this passage to mean that Jonathan and David form a covenant, a pact. Jonathan immediately removes his clothing and weapons and gives them to the other young man.

    Their loyalty is tested as Saul becomes jealous of David’s increasing success. Yet the young men’s bond is steadfast.

    Jonathan eventually dies in battle, and Saul commits suicide. David composes a beautiful eulogy poem mourning both men, but his description of Jonathan is particularly striking:

    Jonathan lies slain upon your high places. I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; greatly beloved were you to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.

    How the mighty have fallen, and the weapons of war perished!

    The passage uses a rare synonym for “ahav” when it describes Jonathan as “greatly beloved”: “na’am,” suggesting “love,” “affection” or “pleasantness.”

    Labeling love

    What could David have meant by “your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women”? It is not surprising that many have wondered whether this suggests an intimate relationship.

    That would appear to contradict prohibitions on homosexuality found in the Book of Leviticus. One thing to consider, however, is that Leviticus is devoted to priestly concerns. The prohibition is not found in the Book of Deuteronomy, which repeats so many of the prohibitions found in Leviticus. Another question is whether we really know what the Levitical language means: What exactly is being prohibited here?

    Rembrandt’s painting of the pair, after Jonathan warns David of Saul’s plan to kill him.
    Hermitage Museum via Wikimedia Commons

    One thing we can say with certainty is that LGBTQ+ love and identities have existed throughout human history, regardless of what they are called. Various cultures have been more or less sympathetic to sexual variation, but that variation has always been there.

    David had many wives. Indeed, one of the most famous stories about him is his depravity in condemning a soldier, Uriah the Hittite, to a brutal death so that David could take Uriah’s wife, Bat-Sheva, as his own. But who’s to say whether David might have been open to an intimate relationship with a man he essentially called his lover?

    David’s life was fraught with tragedy, and his family infamous for scandal – perhaps none greater than the tale of his son Amnon raping his half-sister Tamar. Nevertheless, tradition reveres him as the greatest king of Israel and Judah, the author of beautiful poetry and the father of King Solomon, who is credited with the ultimate biblical love poem, the Song of Songs.

    I’d like to give the final word to the sages of the Mishnah, rabbinic literature written around the year 250 C.E.:

    “All love that depends on something, when that something ceases, the love fails; but all love that does not depend on anything will never cease. What is an example of love that depended on something? Such was the love of Amnon for Tamar. And what is an example of love that did not depend on anything? Such was the love of David and Jonathan.”

    Jacob F. Love is affiliated with Marble City Opera.

    – ref. Friendship, a covenant, romance – no matter what you call it, David’s love for Jonathan is one of the Bible’s most beautiful – https://theconversation.com/friendship-a-covenant-romance-no-matter-what-you-call-it-davids-love-for-jonathan-is-one-of-the-bibles-most-beautiful-248080

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Nigeria’s Brics partnership: economist outlines potential benefits

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Stephen Onyeiwu, Professor of Economics & Business, Allegheny College

    During its 16th annual summit in Kazan, Russia, Brics – a group of emerging economies determined to act as a counterweight to the west and to whittle down the influence of global institutions – invited Nigeria and eight other countries to join it as “partner” countries. Nigeria formally accepted the invitation in January 2025. That invitation has generated questions about how Nigeria stands to benefit, especially when US president Donald Trump is threatening to sanction members of the group if they replace the US dollar as reserve currency. It was established in 2006 and initially composed of Brazil, Russia, India, and China. South Africa joined in 2010 and the bloc added four new members (Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates) in 2023. In this interview, development economist Stephen Onyeiwu argues that Nigeria stands to gain from a Brics partnership, but would have to carefully balance its domestic interests with those of its western allies and Brics.

    What does it mean to be a Brics ‘partner’ country?

    The introduction of Brics partnership is an expansion mechanism designed to bring in more participants without giving them full membership. It is akin to “observer” status.

    Brics partners can participate in special sessions of summits and foreign ministers’ meetings, as well as other high-level events. Partners can also contribute to the organisation’s official documents and policy statements.

    But partners cannot host annual Brics summits or determine the venue. Neither can they select new members and partners.

    How beneficial is Brics partnership to Nigeria?

    The main benefit would be access to finance offered by Brics’ New Development Bank.

    The New Development Bank was established as an alternative to western-dominated international financial institutions like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. These institutions are sometimes used by the leading western countries to keep developing countries in line on global issues.

    Some developing countries are reluctant to criticise western countries for fear of losing access to funding by western-backed international financial institutions.

    Nigeria has been running a budget deficit of about 5% of GDP since 2019, and it needs funding to pay for the deficits. The New Development Bank could be an important source of funding for investment in Nigeria’s infrastructure, manufacturing, agriculture, and so on.

    New Development Bank loans are also available in member countries’ local currencies. They don’t have to earn foreign exchange to repay the loans. This fosters exchange rate stability and promotes economic growth. The New Development Bank raises funds in member countries’ local currencies, and lends them to member countries.

    Nigeria could use its Brics partnership to garner the group’s support in matters that affect Nigeria globally. For instance, there have been requests for African countries to be included as permanent members (without veto power) of the UN security council. South Africa and Nigeria have been touted as potential candidates. Should this issue be raised at the UN, Nigeria can count on the support of its Brics allies, which includes two permanent members (China and Russia) of the security council.

    Mutual understanding and cooperation with other Brics members and partners might spill over into economic, trade and investment agreements. Friendly countries are more likely to trade with each other and invest in each other’s economy.

    How can Nigeria maximise its status as a Brics partner?

    Nigeria should use it to attract foreign direct investment in strategic sectors of the economy, such as infrastructure, manufacturing, agriculture and technology.

    Some Brics members, like China, India, and the UAE, have investors that are seeking investment outlets abroad. Nigeria could use the bloc’s annual summits to showcase investment opportunities.

    The global economy is transitioning into “frontier industries and technologies”, such as big data, artificial intelligence, solar, drones, gene editing, 3D printing, blockchains, Internet of Things (IoT), 5G, robotics and nanotechnology. China, India and Brazil are already well advanced in these technologies.

    Nigeria should use its partnership with these countries to build capabilities in frontier industries and technologies. It could get favourable terms in the transfer of these technologies.

    Nigeria seeks to diversify its economy from reliance on the export of hydrocarbons. But Nigerian producers have had a hard time accessing global markets. The country should negotiate trade deals that provide access to Brics markets, especially agricultural and agro-processed products, arts and crafts.

    But Nigeria has to promote economic growth and structural transformation at home. If the Nigerian economy falters, it is unlikely the country will be invited to become a full member of Brics.

    Would adding new members and partners reduce western dominance?

    Brics has so far not been able to significantly change the dynamics of the international political economy. Adding new members and partners, while symbolic, will not act as an effective counterweight to the influence of the G7 and G20 groups of nations.

    Most of the countries and partners in Brics are either allies of western countries or neutral on global issues. They are unlikely to support decisions or actions that are grossly inimical to western interests.

    Egypt and the UAE, for instance, receive military aid from the United States. Ethiopia and Nigeria are top recipients of foreign aid in Africa, much of it from western-backed financial institutions.

    The only outlier in the mix is Iran, whose membership was promoted by Russia. But Iran has no leverage to influence others in the bloc.

    On balance, therefore, Brics will not be a threat to western countries.

    Brics aspires to weaken the dominance of the US dollar for international transactions. Close to 90% of international trade transactions are conducted with the US dollar.

    Brics countries plan to reduce dollar dominance by encouraging member countries to settle their trade and financial transactions using their domestic currencies. For instance, South African businesses could purchase Chinese goods using the South African rand, while the Chinese could do the same for South African goods using the Chinese yuan. The more members you have in Brics swapping their currencies, the less important the US dollar will be.

    It is unlikely, however, that an increase in the number of Brics members and partners will weaken the dollar. Most will continue to have significant economic relationships with the west, including trade and foreign aid.

    They will also continue to conduct business with many non-Brics countries, which also have economic relationships with the west. They will need the US dollar to transact with many other countries.

    So increasing the number of Brics members and partners does not pose a threat to dollar dominance.

    Stephen Onyeiwu 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. Nigeria’s Brics partnership: economist outlines potential benefits – https://theconversation.com/nigerias-brics-partnership-economist-outlines-potential-benefits-248943

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why Trump’s rage defies historical and literary comparisons, according to a classics expert

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Rachel Hadas, Professor of English, Rutgers University – Newark

    Donald Trump’s anger has been building and now seems volcanic. Abstract Aerial Art/Getty Images

    The Greek divinity Nemesis, rarely depicted in art, has no place in the Olympian pantheon of a dozen gods and goddesses. But she’s an omnipresent force of retribution, an implacable force of punishment that arrives, if not sooner, then later.

    Nemesis can bide her time for generations, but there’s no escaping her.

    So too, it seems, with President Donald Trump, who is “clearly not a man who discards his grudges easily,” William Galston of the Brookings Institution said recently. This observation is an understatement.

    Trump’s resentment has been steaming since the 2020 presidential election. Now that he is again president, he’s far from appeased; his ire is boiling over.

    “Flooding the zone,” a term borrowed from football, was former Trump adviser Steve Bannon’s way of describing the Trumpian tactic of issuing a barrage of statements whose sheer pace and multiplicity, not to mention contents, are intended to stymie any impulse at rational response.

    As he has gained fame and power, Trump’s contemptuous rage at his opponents and his appetite for vengeance appear to have sharpened.

    Like Nemesis, Trump is now pursuing his perceived enemies, using the power of the presidency. Among his recent retribution: He has
    fired Department of Justice officials and staff who worked on criminal investigations and prosecutions of him; he has revoked security clearances for intelligence officials to “punish his perceived opponents,” as one news story put it. And he has removed the portrait of Gen. Mark Milley from the Pentagon wall that traditionally features portraits of the retired chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as Milley was. In 2024, journalist Bob Woodward reported that Milley had told him, “No one has ever been as dangerous to this country as Donald Trump. Now I realize he’s a total fascist. He is the most dangerous person to this country” – clearly sparking Trump’s ire.

    As a poet and student of the classics, my impulse is to find analogs for this behavior, this temperament – precedents that might help provide some perspective.

    Trump displays his anger during a rally on Nov. 3, 2024, in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.

    Tyrants, heroes and horses

    Historians, I thought, would be able to come up with analogs. For example, Trump’s initial choice of a political ally, Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, as attorney general – widely seen as unqualified for the post and who later withdrew – was likened to the Roman emperor Caligula, who made his horse a senator. Figures from Greek history, from the Athenian tyrant Pisistratus to Alexander the Great, could be famously power-hungry and vindictive.

    Classical epic and drama furnish plenty of rage, which is the first word of the Homeric epic “The Iliad.”

    Since epic and tragic heroes are in positions of power, temperament and action mesh. The Greek hero Achilles’ clash with the Greek army’s commander Agamemnon at the outset of “The Iliad” is psychologically plausible. Each man feels insulted and slighted by the other; both have cause for resentment.

    Achilles nurses his rage at all his fellow Greeks until, much later in the epic, his grief at the death of his beloved Patroklos sends him back into battle. This larger-than-life hero is vulnerable, changeable and human.

    Perhaps the most famous example of vengeance in Greek tragedy is Aeschylus’ trilogy, “The Oresteia.” When Clytemnestra murders her husband, Agamemnon, on his return from Troy, she has three comprehensible motives. Agamemnon has sacrificed their daughter; he has brought home a mistress, Cassandra; and Clytemnestra feels loyalty, both personal and political, to Aegisthus, her husband’s cousin, whom she has taken as a lover in her husband’s absence and who has his own reasons for hating Agamemnon.

    So vindicated does Clytemnestra feel in having murdered Agamemnon – and Cassandra as well – that she proudly compares her action to rain that fertilizes the crops. As rain is part of the cycle of the seasons, her act has righted the balance of justice.

    Agamemnon was murdered in cold blood by Clytemnestra and Aegisthus, in vengeance for Iphigenia’s death and all the grief he’d given them both.
    Flaxman, artist, from The Print Collector/Getty Images

    Cunning rage leads to death

    Turning to a few of Shakespeare’s more vengeful characters, Iago in “Othello” is an embodiment of a cunning rage that leads him to systematically destroy the innocent Othello’s marriage. He does this by falsely hinting – and then planting a chain of evidence suggesting – that Othello’s bride, Desdemona, is unfaithful.

    Othello eventually kills both Desdemona and himself. But the Romantic critic Samuel Taylor Coleridge famously referred to Iago’s “motiveless malignancy,” since it’s hard to be sure exactly why Iago is so set on destroying Othello.

    Hamlet himself is a reluctant avenger who keeps putting off the act of revenging his father’s murder. In the history play named for him, Richard III’s resentment, going back to having been a deformed and unloved child, makes more sense. Richard lusts after power; he systematically and clandestinely murders his own brother and nephews, who would stand between him and his elder brother Edward’s throne.

    Whether motivated by political ambition, generalized rancor or an inherited assignment, none of these figures ends well. They all have enemies, and they all – except Iago, who will be tortured and executed – die on stage. All have done plenty of damage; none survives long to feel vindicated. Even Clytemnestra’s triumph is short-lived, since her own son, Orestes, will soon avenge his father’s death by murdering his mother – Clytemnestra.

    But all these figures seem to feel personal passion. Even the opaque Iago has one chief target: Othello. They don’t present compelling parallels to Trump, whose anger appears to be simultaneously private and public.

    Easily offended, Trump is quick to strike back with insults; but he also seems to have an insatiable appetite for broader and deeper punishment, meted out to more people and even after a lapse of time. Hence literary parallels are less than compelling.

    Trump’s anger seems more general than personal. His aggrieved sense of having been wronged, victimized by his enemies, is a constant in his career. But his targets shift. One day it’s judges; another day it’s election officials. Yet another day, it’s the “deep state.”

    And Trump’s implacable resentment has struck a chord among many Americans whose resentment has a more rational basis. Trump’s base may believe he is speaking for them – “I am your warrior. I am your justice,” he said in a speech at a conservative forum, but his first priority has always been himself.

    A spirit, ranging for revenge

    The damage done by Trump is often inflicted by others. Their threats, harassment and even violence are done in the name of Trump.

    He has pardoned almost all of the Jan. 6 insurrectionists, some of whom have now boasted they will acquire guns.

    Trump has removed government protection from figures who have dared to disagree with him and have received death threats, including Dr. Anthony Fauci.

    Shakespeare, turning history into great poetry, comes to mind after all. In “Julius Caesar,” knowing that his funeral oration over the body of the assassinated Caesar will stir up an angry mob, Mark Antony muses:

    “And Caesar’s spirit, ranging for revenge,
    With Ate by his side come hot from hell,
    Shall in these confines with a monarch’s voice
    Cry ‘Havoc!’ and let slip the dogs of war”

    Antony imagines Caesar’s vengeful spirit rising from the underworld to incite further violence. Not only will Caesar’s assassins be punished, but the hell of civil war will be let loose to cause widespread suffering. Precisely who Trump wants to punish appears secondary to his delight in releasing precisely those hellish dogs. Everyone is a potential enemy and a potential victim.

    “I am your retribution,” Trump has said. Nothing in Trump’s continuing story more clearly echoes the classics than this ominous melding of self with a superhuman principle of revenge.

    Such a merging of a mortal individual with a pitilessly abstract power like Nemesis is closer to myth than to history. Or so it would be comforting to assume.

    Rachel Hadas 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. Why Trump’s rage defies historical and literary comparisons, according to a classics expert – https://theconversation.com/why-trumps-rage-defies-historical-and-literary-comparisons-according-to-a-classics-expert-248510

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: As Trump tries to slash US foreign aid, here are 3 common myths many Americans mistakenly believe about it

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Joannie Tremblay-Boire, Assistant Professor of Public Policy, University of Maryland

    U.S. lawmakers and employees and supporters of the U.S. Agency for International Development speak outside the agency’s headquarters on Feb. 3, 2025. Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

    U.S. foreign aid is in disarray.

    The Trump administration froze most aid disbursements on Jan. 20. According to billionaire Elon Musk, an adviser to President Donald Trump with “special government employee status,” the U.S. Agency for International Development, widely known as USAID, had been shut down as of Feb. 3, 2025.

    Although the Trump administration lacks the legal authority to do this, hundreds of people on the agency’s staff have been put on unpaid leave or fired, according to news reports.

    And the agency’s official website wasn’t working. A partial replacement, however, had appeared within the State Department’s website.

    I’m a scholar of public policy who researches nonprofits, which in the foreign aid sphere are often called nongovernmental organizations. These groups are responsible for carrying out many programs funded by foreign aid from governments such as the United States.

    In light of the Trump administration’s attack on the government’s main foreign aid agency and the disruption of this funding, I believe it’s important to debunk three common myths:

    1. The U.S. spends too much on foreign aid.
    2. The U.S. spends more than its fair share on foreign aid compared with other countries.
    3. Corrupt governments squander U.S. foreign aid.

    What is foreign aid?

    Foreign aid consists of money, goods and services – such as training – that government agencies provide to other countries. Foreign aid falls into two broad categories: economic assistance and military – sometimes called security – aid.

    Economic assistance includes all programs with development or humanitarian objectives. That tends to include projects related to health, disaster relief, the promotion of civil society, agriculture and the like. Most U.S. economic aid dollars come from the State Department budget, including spending allocated by USAID, which has operated as an independent agency since the Kennedy administration.

    On Feb. 3, Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared that he was serving as USAID’s acting director, indicating that the agency was no longer independent of the State Department.

    While U.S. taxpayers have long spent just a few bucks each on foreign aid every year, the impact is profound, saving millions of people from hunger, averting the worst of natural disasters such as droughts and flooding, tackling life-threatening diseases such as tuberculosis and malaria, and more.

    Myth No. 1: US spends too much on foreign aid

    The United States consistently spends only about 1% of its budget on foreign aid, including military and economic support. The 2023 aid managed by USAID totaled about US$40 billion.

    Americans tend to believe that their government spends a far bigger share of its budget on foreign aid than it does.

    In a survey the Kaiser Family Foundation conducted in 2015, it found that, on average, Americans believed that foreign aid accounts for nearly one-third of the budget. Only 3% of those polled answered correctly that foreign aid constituted 1% or less of total federal spending.

    Myth No. 2: US spends more than its fair share

    According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United States is by far the leading national source of economic assistance dollars. In 2023, it contributed $64.7 billion in overseas development assistance, far outpacing the $37.9 billion spent by Germany, the second-biggest source of that kind of aid. Some of this assistance is managed by USAID, some by the Department of State, and a small portion by other government agencies, such as the Treasury and Health and Human Services departments.

    That tells only part of the story, however. The United States spends very little on foreign aid relative to the size of its economy, particularly compared with other rich countries. The U.S. spent about 0.24% of its gross national income on overseas development assistance in 2023. By comparison, Norway, the top contributor by this metric, gave 1.09% of its gross national income in overseas development aid that year. The United States ranks toward the bottom of OECD countries, close to Portugal and Spain, by this measurement.

    In 1970, the United Nations General Assembly agreed that “economically advanced countries” would aim to direct at least 0.7% of their national income to overseas development assistance. Although developed countries have repeatedly mentioned this target in agreements and at summits since then, very few countries have reached that goal. In 2023, only five countries met the 0.7% target.

    The OECD average was just 0.37% in 2023 – far higher than the 0.24% the U.S. provided that year.

    Myth No. 3: Corrupt governments squander US aid

    You may think that foreign aid consists of government-to-government transfers of money. But governments channel most aid through nonprofits such as Catholic Relief Services, public-private partnerships, private companies such as Chemonics International and Deloitte, and multilateral organizations such as the United Nations and the World Bank.

    In fact, according to the Congressional Research Service, between 2013 and 2022, most U.S. foreign assistance bypassed governments altogether: NGOs received 24% of the money, for-profit companies 21%, multilateral organizations 34%, and other organizations, such as universities, research institutes and faith-based organizations, 7%.

    When the political scientist Simone Dietrich researched this question, she found that the United States outsources a lot of its foreign aid to NGOs. This is especially the case with the support it provides countries with bad governance and rampant corruption such as Sudan and Sri Lanka, which could be likely to squander or swipe those funds.

    To be sure, corrupt governments sometimes do squander U.S. foreign aid. But it is important to understand that most aid never enters the coffers of those corrupt governments in the first place.

    Even without Trump’s proposed cuts, US fails to lead

    Even if Trump fails at his current bid to greatly reduce foreign aid spending, other countries, including the United Kingdom and Denmark, are spending far more on economic assistance for the world’s poorest people, as a share of their economies, than the U.S. does.

    Slashing foreign aid would damage U.S. credibility with American allies, reduce U.S. influence around the globe and – as a group of more than 120 retired generals and admirals predicted when Trump tried to slash foreign aid in his first administration – make Americans less safe.

    Parts of this article appeared in a story first published on April 6, 2017, and have been updated.

    Joannie Tremblay-Boire 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 Trump tries to slash US foreign aid, here are 3 common myths many Americans mistakenly believe about it – https://theconversation.com/as-trump-tries-to-slash-us-foreign-aid-here-are-3-common-myths-many-americans-mistakenly-believe-about-it-248979

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Water is the other US-Mexico border crisis, and the supply crunch is getting worse

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Gabriel Eckstein, Professor of Law, Texas A&M University

    View of the Rio Grande flowing through Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, photographed from the Paso Del Norte International Bridge. Paul Rarje/AFP via Getty Images

    Immigration and border security will be the likely focus of U.S.-Mexico relations under the new Trump administration. But there also is a growing water crisis along the U.S.–Mexico border that affects tens of millions of people on both sides, and it can only be managed if the two governments work together.

    Climate change is shrinking surface and groundwater supplies in the southwestern U.S. Higher air temperatures are increasing evaporation rates from rivers and streams and intensifying drought. Mexico is also experiencing multiyear droughts and heat waves.

    Growing water use is already overtaxing limited supplies from nearly all of the region’s cross-border rivers, streams and aquifers. Many of these sources are contaminated with agricultural pollutants, untreated waste and other substances, further reducing the usability of available water.

    As Texas-based scholars who study the legal and scientific aspects of water policy, we know that communities, farms and businesses in both countries rely on these scarce water supplies. In our view, water conditions on the border have changed so much that the current legal framework for managing them is inadequate.

    Unless both nations recognize this fact, we believe that water problems in the region are likely to worsen, and supplies may never recover to levels seen as recently as the 1950s. Although the U.S. and Mexico have moved to address these concerns by updating the 1944 water treaty, these steps are not long-term solutions.

    The Rio Grande flows south from Colorado and forms the 1,250-mile (2,000-kilometer) Texas-Mexico border.
    Kmusser/Wikimedia, CC BY-SA

    Growing demand, shrinking supply

    The U.S.-Mexico border region is mostly arid, with water coming from a few rivers and an unknown amount of groundwater. The main rivers that cross the border are the Colorado and the Rio Grande – two of the most water-stressed systems in the world.

    The Colorado River provides water to more than 44 million people, including seven U.S. and two Mexican states, 29 Indian tribes and 5.5 million acres of farmland. Only about 10% of its total flow reaches Mexico. The river once emptied into the Gulf of California, but now so much water is withdrawn along its course that since the 1960s it typically peters out in the desert.

    The Rio Grande supplies water to roughly 15 million people, including 22 Indian tribes, three U.S. and four Mexican states and 2.8 million irrigated acres. It forms the 1,250-mile (2,000-kilometer) Texas-Mexico border, winding from El Paso in the west to the Gulf of Mexico in the east.

    The Colorado River flows through seven U.S. states and crosses into Mexico at the Arizona-California border.
    USGS

    Other rivers that cross the border include the Tijuana, San Pedro, Santa Cruz, New and Gila. These are all significantly smaller and have less economic impact than the Colorado and the Rio Grande.

    At least 28 aquifers – underground rock formations that contain water – also traverse the border. With a few exceptions, very little information on these shared resources exists. One thing that is known is that many of them are severely overtapped and contaminated.

    Nonetheless, reliance on aquifers is growing as surface water supplies dwindle. Some 80% of groundwater used in the border region goes to agriculture. The rest is used by farmers and industries, such as automotive and appliance manufacturers.

    Over 10 million people in 30 cities and communities throughout the border region rely on groundwater for domestic use. Many communities, including Ciudad Juarez; the sister cities of Nogales in both Arizona and Sonora; and the sister cities of Columbus in New Mexico and Puerto Palomas in Chihuahua, get all or most of their fresh water from these aquifers.

    A booming region

    About 30 million people live within 100 miles (160 kilometers) of the border on both sides. Over the next 30 years, that figure is expected to double.

    Municipal and industrial water use throughout the region is also expected to increase. In Texas’ lower Rio Grande Valley, municipal use alone could more than double by 2040.

    At the same time, as climate change continues to worsen, scientists project that snowmelt will decrease and evaporation rates will increase. The Colorado River’s baseflow – the portion of its volume that comes from groundwater, rather than from rain and snow – may decline by nearly 30% in the next 30 years.

    Precipitation patterns across the region are projected to be uncertain and erratic for the foreseeable future. This trend will fuel more extreme weather events, such as droughts and floods, which could cause widespread harm to crops, industrial activity, human health and the environment.

    Further stress comes from growth and development. Both the Colorado River and Rio Grande are tainted by pollutants from agricultural, municipal and industrial sources. Cities on both sides of the border, especially on the Mexican side, have a long history of dumping untreated sewage into the Rio Grande. Of the 55 water treatment plants located along the border, 80% reported ongoing maintenance, capacity and operating problems as of 2019.

    Drought across the border region is already stoking domestic and bilateral tensions. Competing water users are struggling to meet their needs, and the U.S. and Mexico are straining to comply with treaty obligations for sharing water.

    Cross-border water politics

    Mexico and the United States manage water allocations in the border region mainly under two treaties: a 1906 agreement focused on the Upper Rio Grande Basin and a 1944 treaty covering the Colorado River and Lower Rio Grande.

    Under the 1906 treaty, the U.S. is obligated to deliver 60,000 acre-feet of water to Mexico where the Rio Grande reaches the border. This target may be reduced during droughts, which have occurred frequently in recent decades. An acre-foot is enough water to flood an acre of land 1 foot deep – about 325,000 gallons (1.2 million liters).

    Allocations under the 1944 treaty are more complicated. The U.S. is required to deliver 1.5 million acre-feet of Colorado River water to Mexico at the border – but as with the 1906 treaty, reductions are allowed in cases of extraordinary drought.

    Until the mid-2010s, the U.S. met its full obligation each year. Since then, however, regional drought and climate change have severely reduced the Colorado River’s flow, requiring substantial allocation reductions for both the U.S. and Mexico.

    In 2025, states in the U.S. section of the lower Colorado River basin will see a reduction of over 1 million acre-feet from prior years. Mexico’s allocation will decline by approximately 280,500 acre-feet under the 1944 treaty.

    This agreement provides each nation with designated fractions of flows from the Lower Rio Grande and specific tributaries. Regardless of water availability or climatic conditions, Mexico also is required to deliver to the U.S. a minimum of 1,750,000 acre-feet of water from six named tributaries, averaged over five-year cycles. If Mexico falls short in one cycle, it can make up the deficit in the next five-year cycle, but cannot delay repayment further.

    The U.S. and Mexico are struggling to share a shrinking water supply in the border region.

    Since the 1990s, extraordinary droughts have caused Mexico to miss its delivery obligations three times. Although Mexico repaid its water debts in subsequent cycles, these shortfalls raised diplomatic tensions that led to last-minute negotiations and large-scale water transfers from Mexico to the U.S.

    Mexican farmers in Lower Rio Grande irrigation districts who had to shoulder these cuts felt betrayed. In 2020, they protested, confronting federal soldiers and temporarily seizing control of a dam.

    U.S. President Donald Trump and Mexican President Claudia Scheinbaum clearly appreciate the political and economic importance of the border region. But if water scarcity worsens, it could supplant other border priorities.

    In our view, the best way to prevent this would be for the two countries to recognize that conditions are deteriorating and update the existing cross-border governance regime so that it reflects today’s new water realities.

    Gabriel Eckstein is affiliated with the Permanent Forum on Binational Waters, International Association for Water Law, and International Water Resources Association.

    Rosario Sanchez receives funding from the USGS under the Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Program Act. She is affiliated with Texas A&M University and the non-profit as a volunteer to the Permanent Forum of Binational Waters, the International Association of Hydrogeologists, and the International Water Resources Association.

    – ref. Water is the other US-Mexico border crisis, and the supply crunch is getting worse – https://theconversation.com/water-is-the-other-us-mexico-border-crisis-and-the-supply-crunch-is-getting-worse-244722

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Reverence for the sacred waters of the Ganga and belief in its power to wash away sins bring millions to India’s Maha Kumbh festival

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Sudipta Sen, Professor of History, University of California, Davis

    Pilgrims take a dip in the sacred waters of Sangam, at the confluence of Ganga, Yamuna and mythical Saraswati rivers during the Maha Kumbh festival in Prayagraj on Jan.13, 2025. Niharika Kulkarni/AFP via Getty Images

    Millions of people have been visiting Prayagraj, a city in the northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, to take part in the Maha Kumbh festival – a six-week-long event that began on Jan. 13, 2025.

    Called the world’s largest religious gathering, the event has already drawn 148 million people. Attendance is expected to exceed 400 million by the time it ends on Feb. 26, and surging crowds have already claimed dozens of lives at the sacred site.

    Attendees range from Indian business tycoons and members of parliament to social media personages, film stars and celebrities, including the philanthropist billionaire Laurene Powell Jobs, widow of Apple founder Steve Jobs, who is a member of an ashram in Prayagraj.

    As a historian of the Ganga and its ecology, I am captivated by the enduring power of unwavering devotion that continues to drive pilgrims to this sacred site, despite the dangers posed by surging crowds and the spread of contagion. At least 30 people have been trampled to death and 60 have been injured in the stampede that followed this year.

    Ritual bathing at the confluence of large rivers has always had a special significance in Hindu rituals. Of such places, the Sangam, or confluence, at the city of Prayagraj is the most revered because this is where the rivers Ganga and Yamuna meet with the fabled Saraswati, also known as the goddess of learning and the arts – the unseen, mythical river that flows underneath.

    Hindus believe that bathing at the pilgrimage of Prayag has the power to wash away every sin known to humankind.

    Mythology behind the Kumbh

    The Kumbh festival is named after the celestial pitcher or “kumbha” that held the much coveted “amrita,” the nectar of immortality. In Hindu mythology, during what is known as the Age of Truth, the powerful clans of the asuras (demons) and devas (gods) fiercely battled over the source of eternal life.

    The cosmic ocean then was filled with milk, which they churned to draw out the nectar that would make them immortal. According to mythology, the asuras succeeded in the beginning, but their exertions disturbed Vasuki, the coiled, eternal snake at the Earth’s core, releasing a deadly poison that threatened to destroy the heavens. When the turn of the devas came, nectar was finally released from the depths of the netherworld. They drank the elixir and defeated the asuras.

    An illustration of the cosmic churning of the ocean.
    245CMR via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY

    During this epic battle, four drops of the nectar fell to the Earth in places that are held scared. Two are cities in present-day northern India, Haridwar and Prayag, and two in central India, Nashik and Ujjain – all located along meeting points of rivers.

    An overwhelming multitude of people

    The festival of the Kumbh also marks the 12-year orbital circuit of the planet Jupiter, or Brihaspati, the harbinger of good fortune and wealth.

    The present gathering commemorates the Maha Kumbh, or “Great” Kumbh, which is an exceptionally rare and auspicious event that takes place once every 144 years, following the completion of 12 regular Kumbh cycles. This sacred gathering is celebrated exclusively at Prayag.

    A gathering of this immense scale presents a monumental challenge for local and national authorities, testing their ability to coordinate the arrival and departure of hundreds of millions of people and housing them in thousands of tents in a city that is assembled just for the few weeks of the gathering.

    It serves as a showcase of the nation’s organizational prowess while striving to preserve the sanctity of this ancient festival. Not only have sandbags been laid for miles along the banks where pilgrims are congregating, local authorities have deployed 2,760 CCTV cameras to keep track of the throngs, prevent stampedes and prevent families from being separated.

    The 2025 event has been dubbed the first digital Maha Kumbh, where police and volunteers are using artificial intelligence-based software to locate missing people and deliver emergency alerts during unexpected crowd surges. They have also installed underwater drones to monitor bathers and prevent drowning. The state government allocated US$765 million (64 billion rupees) for infrastructure and support of police, medical staff and ambulances.

    Despite extensive preparations, the early rush for a bathing spot in the Ganga spiraled out of control just before dawn on Jan. 26 and many people were trampled. Such tragedies are not new to the Kumbh gathering. During the 1954 Kumbh, a much more devastating stampede resulted in the deaths of nearly 800 people. A melee at the train station during the 2013 Kumbh killed 36 people.

    The enduring appeal

    Over the centuries, countless pilgrims have bathed and prayed in the Ganga, driven by the enduring belief that its waters possess the power to cleanse the spirit and cure diseases.

    However, throngs of people wading into the Ganga often stoked the dread of infection and disease. In the latter half of the 19th century, during the heyday of British colonial rule, administrative officials considered mass ritual bathing at festivals such as Kumbh a great threat to public sanitation and hygiene and a potential source of cholera outbreaks. The colonial empire grew increasingly concerned after the number of pilgrims arriving in Prayag rose exponentially after the advent of the railways in the 1860s.

    Despite such fears, barring isolated episodes of cholera – the last one being in 1906, attributed to pilgrims drinking water from polluted pools – there has been little evidence of a major epidemic at the Kumbh in recorded history.

    Faith in the river’s purity has also been emboldened by research on high levels of oxygenation of the river water from algae and concentrations of the bacteriophage virus in the Ganga’s shallow pools, capable of eliminating harmful bacteria like E. coli.

    The magnificent celebration of the Kumbh and the enduring reverence for the sacred waters of the Ganga reflect a live connection to both myth and history across the great subcontinent of India.

    For the millions of pilgrims who bathe in the sacred waters, it is a continuation of the enduring belief in healing and spiritual redemption, both in this life and the next.

    Sudipta Sen 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. Reverence for the sacred waters of the Ganga and belief in its power to wash away sins bring millions to India’s Maha Kumbh festival – https://theconversation.com/reverence-for-the-sacred-waters-of-the-ganga-and-belief-in-its-power-to-wash-away-sins-bring-millions-to-indias-maha-kumbh-festival-247676

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s administration seems chaotic, but he’s drawing directly from Project 2025 playbook

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Zachary Albert, Assistant Professor of Politics, Brandeis University

    The Heritage Foundation flag flies over its building in July 2024 in Washington. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

    In his first few days back in office, President Donald Trump engaged in a whirlwind of executive actions, from exiting the World Health Organization, to deploying military personnel and National Guard troop to the U.S.-Mexico border.

    Many of these actions are unprecedented. Some appear to be illegal and unconstitutional, according to legal experts and judges. But none of them should come as a surprise – nearly all of them were outlined in 2022 in a plan called Project 2025.

    A Heritage Foundation representative attends a Moms for Liberty National Summit in Washington on Aug. 30, 2024.
    Dominic Gwinn/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images

    Project 2025 is top of Trump’s to-do list

    Project 2025 is a multifaceted strategy to advance conservative policies in the federal government. Part of this effort revolves around the “Mandate for Leadership,” a 922-page document published in April 2023 that outlines a slew of proposed governmental policy changes.

    The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank and advocacy group, organized the collaborative effort. A long list of other right-leaning research organizations and interest groups, like Moms for Liberty and Turning Point USA, also participated in Project 2025.

    In the lead-up to the 2024 presidential election, Project 2025 participants wrote on the plan’s website that “to rescue the country from the grip of the radical Left,” they would “need both a governing agenda and the right people in place, ready to carry this agenda out on day one of the next conservative administration.”

    In my research on think tanks, I’ve investigated how these research organizations can influence public policymaking. The most potent strategy is to ally with a political party and support its objectives through research and advocacy. This is exactly what the Heritage Foundation has done via Project 2025.

    Even though Trump said during his 2024 campaign that he was not affiliated with the project, evidence of Project 2025’s agenda can be seen throughout the beginning of his second term – as well as in his first administration.

    For example, on Jan. 20, 2025, Trump echoed the plan’s statement that “men and women are biological realities” when he signed an executive order that, in part, recognizes “two sexes, male and female” that are “not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.” This order led to the removal of transgender references from government websites.

    Other orders are similarly aligned with Project 2025. Take Trump’s executive order that, in part, eliminated the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or OFCCP, a government office previously charged with ensuring companies working with the government did not discriminate against any employees. Project 2025 recommended, quite simply, to “eliminate OFCCP.”

    Some news reports have found that there are already many other examples of Trump policy decisions and executive orders that appear to mirror Project 2025 recommendations.

    One CNN analysis from Jan. 31 found that more than two-thirds of the 53 executive orders Trump issued during his first week in office “evoked proposals outlined in [the] ‘Mandate for Leadership.‘”

    Heritage Foundation’s decades of activism

    Project 2025’s influence on Trump reflects the Heritage Foundation’s growing importance to the Republican Party.

    In my forthcoming book about the polarization and politicization of policy research organizations, I show the many ways that think tanks like the Heritage Foundation have become embedded within partisan networks and intimately connected to politicians. Increasingly, Heritage and other partisan-aligned think tanks, including progressive groups like the Center for American Progress, use their research to consistently support partisan agendas that align with their policy goals.

    The relationship between the Heritage Foundation and the GOP represents the most extreme version of this dynamic. The think tank has supported Republican presidents as far back as Ronald Reagan, using another policy document – also called the “Mandate for Leadership” – to secure significant policy gains through his administration. But the symbiosis between the Heritage Foundation and the GOP has been particularly notable since Trump gained more influence in the party.

    At the start of Trump’s first term, as one Heritage Foundation researcher told me in 2017, the think tank recognized that the “administration didn’t have much policy depth, so when they won the election they were sort of like, ‘Now what do we do?’ And that’s where Heritage comes in. … We work on these issues year-round, so we’ll stand by your side.”

    The Heritage Foundation also vetted potential staffers for federal government positions. This led to more than 66 Heritage employees or former employees working for the Trump administration by the middle of 2018.

    But Heritage has not entirely dictated Trump’s agenda. While the group did say that Trump “embraced 64 percent of our 321 recommendations” by the end of 2017, the think tank has also revamped its agenda to align with Trump on the issues he cared most about, like trade and culture wars.

    As the think tank’s president, Kevin Roberts, said in 2024, Heritage views its job as “institutionalizing Trumpism.”

    The people connecting Trump to Project 2025

    Many of the contributors to the “Mandate for Leadership” had been Trump administration officials, like Russ Vought, the former director of the Office of Management and Budget and current nominee for the same position.

    This list also includes John Ratcliffe, the former director of National Intelligence and incoming CIA director, and Tom Homan, former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and current border czar.

    In all, more than half of the plan’s 312 authors, editors and contributors previously worked in the first Trump administration.

    An incredibly important but often underappreciated part of Project 2025 was its staffing effort: The coalition worked to identify, vet and train potential staffers and appointees who are now making their way into the Trump administration and executive agencies.

    Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer gestures toward a visual aid about Project 2025 during a news conference in September 2024 in Washington.
    Kent Nishimura/Getty Images

    What people – and the law – say about Project 2025

    Polling from January 2025 shows that a majority of Americans oppose many of Trump’s actions since retaking office, sometimes by large margins.

    Even during the presidential campaign, both Project 2025 itself and the policy ideas it advocated were broadly unpopular. Democrats consistently warned about the plan in their attacks against Republicans.

    The lack of popular approval for Project 2025 and its proposals is notable because the Heritage Foundation has historically invested time and money into gaining public support for its work. It even operates an initiative that polls citizens on how they “interpret arguments for and against our policy recommendations and how we can best gain their understanding and support.”

    There are also legal considerations.

    Many of Trump’s actions – like saying the government will deny citizenship to children born to some immigrants in the U.S. – rest on potentially unconstitutional interpretations and expansions of presidential power.

    This represents another about-face for the think tank, which has historically opposed efforts to empower the president at the expense of congressional authority. Indeed, the Heritage Foundation was founded to work through Congress to accomplish its goals. But with Project 2025, it seems it is pursuing a new strategy.

    How successful the Heritage Foundation is in helping Trump implement Project 2025 proposals will partially depend on how the public reacts. Whether Congress asserts its control over budgetary matters and exercises general oversight of the executive branch will also matter, as will the decisions made by the American judicial system.

    These checks and balances have helped sustain American democracy for nearly 250 years – whether they will continue to do so remains to be seen.

    Zachary Albert 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. Trump’s administration seems chaotic, but he’s drawing directly from Project 2025 playbook – https://theconversation.com/trumps-administration-seems-chaotic-but-hes-drawing-directly-from-project-2025-playbook-248821

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Lightning strikes link weather on Earth and weather in space

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Lauren Blum, Assistant Professor of Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Colorado Boulder

    Lightning, when coupled with solar flares, can knock electrons flying above the Earth out of place. AP Photo/David Zalubowski

    There are trillions of charged particles – protons and electrons, the basic building blocks of matter – whizzing around above your head at any given time. These high-energy particles, which can travel at close to the speed of light, typically remain thousands of kilometers away from Earth, trapped there by the shape of Earth’s magnetic field.

    Occasionally, though, an event happens that can jostle them out of place, sending electrons raining down into Earth’s atmosphere. These high-energy particles in space make up what are known as the Van Allen radiation belts, and their discovery was one of the first of the space age. A new study from my research team has found that electromagnetic waves generated by lightning can trigger these electron showers.

    A brief history lesson

    At the start of the space race in the 1950s, professor James Van Allen and his research team at the University of Iowa were tasked with building an experiment to fly on the United States’ very first satellite, Explorer 1. They designed sensors to study cosmic radiation, which is caused by high-energy particles originating from the Sun, the Milky Way galaxy, or beyond.

    James Van Allen, middle, poses with a model of the Explorer 1 satellite.
    NASA

    After Explorer 1 launched, though, they noticed that their instrument was detecting significantly higher levels of radiation than expected. Rather than measuring a distant source of radiation beyond our solar system, they appeared to be measuring a local and extremely intense source.

    This measurement led to the discovery of the Van Allen radiation belts, two doughnut-shaped regions of high-energy electrons and ions encircling the planet.

    Scientists believe that the inner radiation belt, peaking about 621 miles (1000 kilometers) from Earth, is composed of electrons and high-energy protons and is relatively stable over time.

    The outer radiation belt, about three times farther away, is made up of high-energy electrons. This belt can be highly dynamic. Its location, density and energy content may vary significantly by the hour in response to solar activity.

    Charged particles, with their trajectories shown as blue and yellow lines here, exist in the radiation belts around Earth, depicted here as the yellow, green and blue regions.

    The discovery of these high-radiation regions is not only an interesting story about the early days of the space race; it also serves as a reminder that many scientific discoveries have come about by happy accident.

    It is a lesson for experimental scientists, myself included, to keep an open mind when analyzing and evaluating data. If the data doesn’t match our theories or expectations, those theories may need to be revisited.

    Our curious observations

    While I teach the history of the space race in a space policy course at the University of Colorado, Boulder, I rarely connect it to my own experience as a scientist researching Earth’s radiation belts. Or, at least, I didn’t until recently.

    In a study led by Max Feinland, an undergraduate student in my research group, we stumbled upon some of our own unexpected observations of Earth’s radiation belts. Our findings have made us rethink our understanding of Earth’s inner radiation belt and the processes affecting it.

    Originally, we set out to look for very rapid – sub-second – bursts of high-energy electrons entering the atmosphere from the outer radiation belt, where they are typically observed.

    Many scientists believe that a type of electromagnetic wave known as “chorus” can knock these electrons out of position and send them toward the atmosphere. They’re called chorus waves due to their distinct chirping sound when listened to on a radio receiver.

    Feinland developed an algorithm to search for these events in decades of measurements from the SAMPEX satellite. When he showed me a plot with the location of all the events he’d detected, we noticed a number of them were not where we expected. Some events mapped to the inner radiation belt rather than the outer belt.

    This finding was curious for two reasons. For one, chorus waves aren’t prevalent in this region, so something else had to be shaking these electrons loose.

    The other surprise was finding electrons this energetic in the inner radiation belt at all. Measurements from NASA’s Van Allen Probes mission prompted renewed interest in the inner radiation belt. Observations from the Van Allen Probes suggested that high-energy electrons are often not present in this inner radiation belt, at least not during the first few years of that mission, from 2012 to 2014.

    Our observations now showed that, in fact, there are times that the inner belt contains high-energy electrons. How often this is true and under what conditions remain open questions to explore. These high-energy particles can damage spacecraft and harm humans in space, so researchers need to know when and where in space they are present to better design spacecraft.

    Determining the culprit

    One of the ways to disturb electrons in the inner radiation belt and kick them into Earth’s atmosphere actually begins in the atmosphere itself.

    Lightning, the large electromagnetic discharges that light up the sky during thunderstorms, can actually generate electromagnetic waves known as lightning-generated whistlers.

    Lightning strikes generate electromagnetic waves, which can travel into the radiation belts above the Earth’s atmosphere.
    mdesigner125/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    These waves can then travel through the atmosphere out into space, where they interact with electrons in the inner radiation belt – much as chorus waves interact with electrons in the outer radiation belt.

    To test whether lightning was behind our inner radiation belt detections, we looked back at the electron bursts and compared them with thunderstorm data. Some lightning activity seemed correlated with our electron events, but much of it was not.

    Specifically, only lightning that occurred right after so-called geomagnetic storms resulted in the bursts of electrons we detected.

    Geomagnetic storms are disturbances in the near-Earth space environment often caused by large eruptions on the Sun’s surface. This solar activity, if directed toward Earth, can produce what researchers term space weather. Space weather can result in stunning auroras, but it can also disrupt satellite and power grid operations.

    We discovered that a combination of weather on Earth and weather in space produces the unique electron signatures we observed in our study. The solar activity disturbs Earth’s radiation belts and populates the inner belt with very high-energy electrons, then the lightning interacts with these electrons and creates the rapid bursts that we observed.

    These results provide a nice reminder of the interconnected nature of Earth and space. They were also a welcome reminder to me of the often nonlinear process of scientific discovery.

    Lauren Blum receives funding from NASA and the NSF.

    – ref. Lightning strikes link weather on Earth and weather in space – https://theconversation.com/lightning-strikes-link-weather-on-earth-and-weather-in-space-243772

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump wants the US to ‘take over’ Gaza and relocate the people. Is this legal?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Tamer Morris, Senior lecturer, international law, University of Sydney

    In an astonishing news conference in Washington, US President Donald Trump proposed the United States “take over” the Gaza Strip and permanently relocate the nearly two million Palestinians living there to neighbouring countries.

    Trump has previously called on Egypt and Jordan to resettle Palestinians from Gaza, which both countries firmly rejected.

    His new comments – and the possibility of a US takeover of a sovereign territory – were immediately met with criticism and questions about the legality of such a move.

    When asked what authority would allow the US to do this, Trump did not have an answer. He only noted it would be a “long-term ownership position”. He also did not rule out using US troops.

    So, what does international law say about this idea?

    Can the US take over a sovereign territory?

    The quick answer is no – Trump can’t just take over someone else’s territory.

    Since the end of the second world war in 1945, the use of force has been prohibited in international law. This is one of the foundations of international law since the creation of the United Nations.

    The US could only take control of Gaza with the consent of the sovereign authority of the territory. Israel can’t cede Gaza to the US. The International Court of Justice has ruled that Gaza is an occupied territory – and that this occupation is illegal under international law.

    So, for this to happen legally, Trump would require the consent of Palestine and the Palestinian people to take control of Gaza.

    And what about removing a population?

    One of the biggest obligations of an occupying power comes under Article 49 of the Geneva Conventions. This prohibits an occupying power from forcibly transferring or removing people from a territory.

    All other states also have an obligation not to assist an occupying power in violating international humanitarian law. So that means if the US wanted to move the population of Gaza by force, Israel could not assist in this action. And likewise, the US cannot assist Israel in violating the rules.

    Occupying powers are allowed to remove a population for the reason of safety.

    Trump and his Middle East envoy who visited Gaza last week have repeatedly referenced how dangerous it is. Trump questioned how people could “want to stay” there, saying they have “no alternative” but to leave.

    However, removing people for this reason has to only be temporary. Once it’s fine for someone to return, they must be returned.

    What if people voluntarily leave?

    Transferring a population has to be consensual. But in this specific case, it would mean the consent of all Palestinians in Gaza. The US could not force anyone to move who does not want to.

    Further to this, a government, such as the Palestinian Authority, cannot give this consent on behalf of a people. People have a right to self-determination – the right to determine their own future.

    A perfect example is migration – if a person migrates from one state to another, that is their right. It’s not displacement. But forcefully displacing them is not permitted.

    And using what sounds like a threat would arguably not be consensual, either. This could be saying, for instance, “If you stay, you’ll die because there’s only going to be more war. But if you leave, there’s peace.” This is the threat of force.

    Would forcing people to leave be ethnic cleansing?

    Ethnic cleansing has not been defined in any treaty or convention.

    However, most international law experts rely on the definition in the Commission of Experts report on the former state of Yugoslavia to the UN Security Council in 1994. It defined ethnic cleansing as:

    rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area.

    So, under that definition, what is being suggested by Trump could be classified as ethnic cleansing – removing the Palestinian people from a certain geographical area through force or intimidation.

    What can be done if Trump follows through?

    If Trump follows through with this plan, it would be a violation of what is known as jus cogens, or the paramount, foundational rules that underpin international law.

    And international law dictates that no country is allowed to cooperate with another in violating these rules and all countries must try to stop or prevent any potential violations. This could include placing sanctions on a country or not providing support to that country, for example, by selling it weapons.

    A perfect example of this is when Russia illegally annexed Crimea in 2014, very few countries recognised the move. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 was then followed by sanctions and the freezing of Russian assets, among other actions.

    If Trump pursued this course of action, he too could be personally liable under international criminal law if he’s the one instigating the forcible transfer of a population.

    The International Criminal Court has already issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the former Israeli defence minister and a Hamas commander in relation to the conflict.

    The risk of this kind of language

    One of the dangers of this kind of rhetoric is the potential to dehumanise the enemy, or the other side.

    Trump does this through statements such as, “You look over the decades, it’s all death in Gaza”, and resettling people in “nice homes where they can be happy” instead of being “knifed to death”. This language implies the situation in Gaza is due to the “uncivilised” nature of the population.

    The risk at the moment, even if Trump doesn’t do what he says, is that the mere vocalisation of his proposal is dehumanising to the Palestinian people. And this, in turn, could lead to more violations of the rules of war and international humanitarian law.

    The nonchalant way Trump is discussing things such as taking over a territory and moving a population gives the impression these rules can easily be broken, even if he doesn’t break them himself.

    Tamer Morris 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. Trump wants the US to ‘take over’ Gaza and relocate the people. Is this legal? – https://theconversation.com/trump-wants-the-us-to-take-over-gaza-and-relocate-the-people-is-this-legal-249143

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –