NewzIntel.com

Category: Education

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: As Netanyahu meets Trump in Washington, what hope for peace in Gaza? Expert Q&A

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonathan Este, Senior International Affairs Editor, Associate Editor

    The US government “remains upbeat” about the prospects for at least a ceasefire in Gaza, according to the latest reports from Washington, where the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has been meeting the US president, Donald Trump.

    Netanyahu handed the US president a letter nominating him for the Nobel peace prize, saying he deserved it for “forging peace, as we speak, in one country in the region after another”. But as yet there are no signs that either Hamas or Israel have moved any closer to accepting each other’s terms.

    In fact, reports emerging from the White House meeting are that the two leaders discussed the displacement of much of the Palestinian population. And a plan revealed by the Israeli foreign minister, Israel Katz, proposed the contruction of a “humanitarian city” at Rafah in the north of the Gaza Strip to house more than 600,000 Palestinians.

    The Conversation’s senior international affairs editor, Jonathan Este, spoke with Middle East expert, Scott Lucas, of University College Dublin to address this and other questions.

    The two leaders’ discussions in Washington seemed to centre around displacement of the Palestinian population in lieu of a two-state solution. What does this tell you about the chance of a ceasefire deal?

    I am fascinated – and sometimes disillusioned – by how some media outlets, led by the nose, miss the main story. Last week Donald Trump pronounced on social media that Israel had agreed to a 60-day ceasefire and Hamas “should take this deal”.

    But the Netanyahu government has not accepted the framework, circulated by Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff, let alone consented to a halt of their attacks, which have continued even as the Israeli prime minister travelled to Washington to meet the US president.

    As Trump hosted Netanyahu in the White House on Monday, the line was that the US president was “upbeat on Gaza ceasefire talks”. Meanwhile, few of them seemed to notice the important development. Hamas responded to the US framework with proposals for the staged release of 28 of the remaining 50 Israeli hostages over the 60 days while Israeli troops withdrew from positions inside the Strip and humanitarian aid was restored.

    But the Israeli government has thus far not given a substantive response. Instead, while pursuing a plan for the long-term military occupation of Gaza, it may also be seeking the displacement of a large portion of the more than 2.2 million population.

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

    Hard-right members of Netanyahu’s cabinet, such as finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, and internal security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, have long called for more than a million Gazans to be moved out of the territory. Reports over the weekend confirmed that this is not rhetoric. Israeli businessmen and venture capitalists have reportedly been working on plans for postwar Gaza, to include a “Trump riviera”, mirroring the displacement declaration by the US President, and an “Elon Musk smart manufacturing zone”.

    On Tuesday, security cabinet member Ze’ev Elkin, a Netanyahu loyalist, proclaimed “a substantial chance” for a ceasefire. But Qatari negotiators have said there are currently no talks, only discussions with each side about the framework for talks.

    Meanwhile, citing the killing of five Israeli soldiers in Gaza on Sunday night by an improvised explosive device, Ben-Gvir said: “We should not negotiate with those who kill our soldiers. They should be crushed to pieces, starved to death, and not resuscitated with humanitarian aid that gives them oxygen.”

    He called for “a complete siege, crushing them militarily” and reiterated the plan for “encouraging [Palestinian] immigration and [Jewish] settlement — these are the keys to complete victory”.

    Smotrich also called for a ban on any aid to Gaza: “In addition, I demand … that any territory that was conquered and cleansed of terror with the blood of our fighters not be abandoned.”

    So I am not optimistic at the moment.

    Looking at the region as a whole, two events have ‘reset’ the Middle East: the October 7 Hamas attacks and Israel’s recent 12-day war. Can you tell me more about the kaleidoscope effect these two events had?

    In October 2023, there was no open-ended war in Gaza. Benjamin Netanyahu’s focus was on curbing the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, blocking any possibility of a two-state solution. His tactic was to ease the economic pressure on Gaza and Hamas, maintaining that organisation as a balance against its West Bank rivals.

    Hamas ripped up that approach with its mass murder on October 7 – the first of the two kaleidoscope moments which changed the whole picture in a matter of hours. The attack triggered the deadly Israeli response that continues 21 months later. That response did not “destroy” Hamas, as Netanyahu pledged, but it led the Israelis to take on other foes in the region.

    Pursuing its “octopus doctrine”, Israel severely damaged one of the tentacles, Hezbollah, when it destroyed much of the Lebanese group’s leadership in the autumn of 2024. It assassinated senior Iranian commanders and officials in Damascus, and received a further boost when Turkish-backed factions toppled the Assad regime in December.

    The 12-day war in June aimed to destroy the head of the octopus: Iran. Israel’s strikes and assassinations killed much of the country’s military leadership and many of its top nuclear scientists. The supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, hid in a bunker, only emerging on July 6. But Israel failed to topple his regime, as it had hoped.

    The war was another kaleidoscope moment. Israel had its regional victory. But paradoxically, because there has been no resolution in Gaza, this has come at the cost of further international isolation. Gulf States, having moved away from “normalisation” with Israel, put out tougher statements about “genocide” of Gazans and the violation of Iranian sovereignty. Saudi Arabia’s state media highlighted a letter from Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi to Saudi counterpart Faisal bin Farhan for “ways to support and enhance [relations] across all fields”.

    This implies that for any normalisation to occur, Israel must end its military operation in Gaza?

    That question cuts to the chase. The Gulf states, with the notable exception of Qatar, are no friends of Hamas. They might even have accepted the destruction of the group if Israel had been able to accomplish it quickly.

    But there is no way that they can publicly acquiesce in the killing of almost 60,000 Gazans, the large majority of them civilians, and the humanitarian blockade that threatens every single person living in the Gaza Strip. Nor will they want to see Israel export Gazans across the region in an echo of the 1948 “Nakba” whose legacy is the millions of Palestinians living in refugee camps across the Middle East.

    Netanyahu can pursue his “absolute destruction” of Hamas by pursuing the destruction and displacement of Gazans. Or he can try to capitalise on his war with Iran through links with Arab countries. He cannot do both.

    Will Donald Trump get his Nobel peace prize?

    I don’t know, for that is a question which does not have a logical answer.

    Herny Kissinger was the US secretary of state who oversaw an escalation of the Vietnam war in which up to 3 million Vietnamese, 310,000 Cambodians, 62,000 Laotians and 58,220 US service members died. The singer-songwriter Tom Lehrer aptly noted: “Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.”

    We are in a world where having caused so much disorder and chaos, having enabled violence, including Israel’s open-ended war, Donald Trump may succeed in a pose as “peacemaker”.

    Some may see the least worst option as flattery, which seems to work as a strategy for dealing with the US president. They may accept the White House theatre in which Netanyahu, wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes, personally hands Trump a peace prize nomination.

    Meanwhile, in the past 24 hours, according to the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry, the number of casualties in Gaza rose to 57,575 people killed and 136,879 wounded. Twenty hostages spent another day in limbo. That’s what matters here.

    – ref. As Netanyahu meets Trump in Washington, what hope for peace in Gaza? Expert Q&A – https://theconversation.com/as-netanyahu-meets-trump-in-washington-what-hope-for-peace-in-gaza-expert-qanda-260722

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: How to support someone who is grieving: five research-backed strategies

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Lucy Poxon, Senior Lecturer in Counselling Psychology, Department of Social Work Counselling & Social Care , School of Childhood and Social Care, University of East London

    PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock

    When someone we care about is grieving the loss of a loved one, our natural instinct is to ease their pain. But when words feel clumsy and gestures fall short, it can be hard to know how to help.

    Drawing on both my research as a counselling psychologist and 18 years of supporting bereaved clients in therapy, I’ve identified five compassionate, research-backed ways to walk alongside someone who is mourning.

    Whether you’re a close friend, family member, or caring colleague, these approaches will help you offer support in meaningful and authentic ways.

    1. Grief wears many disguises

    Our expectations of how grief should look are often shaped by culture, the media or personal experience, and they may bear little resemblance to how grief is actually lived.

    Grief can appear as physical symptoms like exhaustion, loss of appetite, or insomnia; as behaviour like withdrawing from others or drinking more; and as thoughts or emotions ranging from apathy and numbness to anger or intense sadness.

    It can be loud and overwhelming or quiet and barely perceptible. Some people feel deep sorrow immediately; others feel nothing for weeks or even months. A lack of overt sadness isn’t necessarily cause for concern; it may reflect relief that a loved one is no longer suffering, or be a sign of early adjustment.



    Read more:
    Not all mourning happens after bereavement – for some, grief can start years before the death of a loved one

    One of the most compassionate things you can do is validate whatever shape grief takes. Reassure the person that there’s no “right” way to grieve and support them in tuning into what their body and emotions need.

    2. Acknowledge the death and don’t rush the tears

    Nearly every grieving client I’ve worked with has described someone, often a friend, colleague, or even family member, who avoided or ignored them after the loss. It’s one of the most painful experiences for someone already feeling vulnerable.

    Often, the avoidance isn’t malicious. It’s driven by fear of saying the wrong thing or not knowing how to help. But by avoiding the subject, we send an unintended message: your grief is too much.

    Acknowledging the death, even simply by saying “I’m so sorry to hear about your loss”, is not a reminder of their pain, it’s a sign that you see it and honour it. Inviting someone out, even if they decline, communicates that they still belong and are welcome.

    If someone begins to cry, it’s natural to want to fix things, to offer comfort, or even to pass a tissue. But giving a tissue too soon can inadvertently signal that they should stop crying. Sometimes the most supportive thing you can do is to sit with your own discomfort, and simply be present. That silent witness can help a grieving person feel less alone.

    3. Let go of the “stages of grief” myth

    Many people are still taught to expect a tidy progression of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance, popularised by Swiss-American psychiatrist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross in the 1960s. While these emotions are real and common, research shows that most people don’t experience them in a neat order, or even experience all five at all.

    Despite being widely critiqued, stage-based models are still found in healthcare training manuals and TV scripts, and they can leave people feeling like they’re grieving “wrong”.

    If your loved one is worried they should feel more sadness, or wonders why they haven’t yet felt angry, remind them: grief is personal and unpredictable. There’s no timeline, no script and no shame in not following one.

    Helping someone let go of these expectations may ease guilt, reduce internal pressure and encourage gentler self-care.

    4. Encourage communication – with the living and the lost

    Grief often comes with emotional loneliness, a deep sense of aloneness that persists even in the presence of others. It’s different from social isolation; it’s the ache of missing someone irreplaceable.



    Read more:
    What we can learn from death rites of the past will help us treat the dead and grieving better today

    While you can’t fix that loneliness, you can help the bereaved maintain a continuing bond with their loved one. This might include writing letters to the person who has died, speaking to them at a graveside or special place, saying prayers or engaging in meditation or creating memory boxes or rituals.

    These forms of connection can help integrate the loss into a new reality. You might offer to visit a meaningful place together, or support them in planning a small memorial gesture.

    5. Make specific, practical offers

    It’s common to say “Let me know if you need anything”, but for someone in deep grief, reaching out can feel impossible. Emotional overwhelm, fatigue and even shame can prevent them from asking for help, even when they desperately need it.

    Instead, make intentional, concrete offers that remove decision-making and emotional labour. These might include:

    • delivering a home-cooked meal once a week

    • taking care of pets or houseplants

    • helping with funeral admin or paperwork

    • offering regular lifts to appointments

    • updating others on their behalf

    • messaging with a clear “no need to reply” reassurance

    If you live far away, sending a card, text, or voice note can still be powerful; just be mindful that they may receive many, and feel pressure to respond. A line like, “No need to write back, just wanted you to know I’m thinking of you” can go a long way.

    Grief is not a puzzle to solve or a wound to fix. It’s a human response to love and loss – and it’s different for everyone.

    The most powerful thing you can do? Be there. Stay present. Listen without judgement. And remember that it’s okay not to have the perfect words. Showing up with authenticity, patience and compassion is what matters most.

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

    – ref. How to support someone who is grieving: five research-backed strategies – https://theconversation.com/how-to-support-someone-who-is-grieving-five-research-backed-strategies-260265

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Brics is sliding towards irrelevance – the Rio summit made that clear

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Amalendu Misra, Professor of International Politics, Lancaster University

    The Brics group of nations has just concluded its 17th annual summit in the Brazilian city of Rio de Janeiro. But, despite member states adopting a long list of commitments covering global governance, finance, health, AI and climate change, the summit was a lacklustre affair.

    The two most prominent leaders from the group’s founding members – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – were conspicuously absent. Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, only attended virtually due to an outstanding arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court over his role in the war in Ukraine.

    China’s Xi Jinping avoided the summit altogether for unknown reasons, sending his prime minister, Li Qiang, instead. This was Xi’s first no-show at a Brics summit, with the snub prompting suggestions that Beijing’s enthusiasm for the group as part of an emerging new world order is in decline.

    Perhaps the most notable takeaway from the summit was a statement that came not from the Brics nations but the US. As Brics leaders gathered in Rio, the US president, Donald Trump, warned on social media: “Any Country aligning themselves with the Anti-American policies of BRICS, will be charged an ADDITIONAL 10% Tariff. There will be no exceptions to this policy.”

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

    Trump has long been critical of Brics. This is largely because the group has consistently floated the idea of adopting a common currency to challenge the dominance of the US dollar in international trade.

    Such a move makes sense if we focus on trade figures. In 2024, the value of trade among the Brics nations was around US$5 trillion, accounting for approximately 22% of global exports. Member nations have always felt their economic potential could be fully realised if they were not reliant upon the US dollar as their common currency of trade.

    During their 2024 summit, which was held in the Russian city of Kazan, the Brics nations entered into serious discussions around creating a gold-backed currency. At a time when the Trump administration is waging a global trade war, the emergence of an alternative to the US dollar would be a very serious pushback against US economic hegemony.



    Read more:
    Why Donald Trump’s election could hasten the end of US dollar dominance

    But the freshly concluded Brics summit did not present any concrete move towards achieving that objective. In fact, the 31-page Rio de Janeiro joint declaration even contained some reassurances about the global importance of the US dollar.

    There are two key obstacles hindering Brics from translating its vision of a common currency into reality. First is that some founding member nations are uncomfortable with adopting such an economic model, in large part due to internal rivalries within Brics itself.

    India, currently the fourth-largest economy in the world, has a history of periodic confrontation and strategic competition with China. It is reticent about adopting an alternative to the US dollar, concerned that this could make China more powerful and undercut India’s long-term interests.

    Second is that the Brics member nations are dependent on their bilateral trade with the US. Simply put, embracing an alternative currency is counterproductive when it comes to the current economic interests of individual countries. Brazil, China and India, for example, all export more to the US than they import from it.

    In December 2024, following his election as US president, Trump said: “We require a commitment from these countries that they will neither create a new Brics currency nor back any other currency to replace the mighty US dollar or they will face 100% tariffs and should expect to say goodbye to selling into the wonderful US economy”. This blunt message all but killed any enthusiasm that was there for this grand economic model.

    Caught in contradiction

    The Brics group is a behemoth. Its full 11 members account for 40% of the world’s population and economy. But the bloc is desperately short of providing any cohesive alternative global leadership.

    While Brazil used its position as host to highlight Brics as a truly multilateral forum capable of providing leadership in a new world order, such ambitions are thwarted by the many contradictions plaguing this bloc.

    Among these are tensions between founding members China and India, which have been running high for decades.

    There are other contradictions, too. In their joint Rio declaration, the group’s members decried the recent Israeli and US attacks on Iran. Brazil’s president, Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva, also used his position as summit host to criticise the Israeli offensive in Gaza.

    But this moral high ground appears hollow when you consider that the Russian Federation, a key member of Brics, is on a mission to destroy Ukraine. And rather than condemning Russia, Brics leaders used the Rio summit to criticise recent Ukrainian attacks on Russia’s railway infrastructure.

    Brics declared intention to address the issue of climate change is also problematic. The Rio declaration conveyed the group’s support for multilateralism and unity to achieve the goals of the Paris agreement. But, despite China making significant advances in its green energy sector, Brics contains some of the world’s biggest emitters of greenhouse gases as well as several of the largest oil and gas producers.

    Brics can only stay relevant and provide credible leadership in a fast-changing international order when it addresses its many inner contradictions.

    Amalendu Misra is a recipient of British Academy and Nuffield Foundation Fellowships.

    – ref. Brics is sliding towards irrelevance – the Rio summit made that clear – https://theconversation.com/brics-is-sliding-towards-irrelevance-the-rio-summit-made-that-clear-260653

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Why many kidney patients are still choosing hospital dialysis – and how the NHS can help more people access care at home

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Leah McLaughlin, Research Fellow in Health Services, Bangor University

    PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock

    Every week, thousands of people with kidney disease in the UK spend long hours in hospital receiving life-saving dialysis. For many, this means travelling to a kidney unit three times a week and sitting through sessions that last four hours or more. It’s a huge commitment that affects people’s ability to work, travel and maintain a normal social life.

    But for many with kidney failure, there’s another option: dialysis at home. It’s more flexible, often less disruptive and, in the long run, more cost-effective for the NHS. So why do most people still choose hospital dialysis?

    A parliamentary summit in May reflected on how to make dialysis more accessible to patients at home. My colleagues and I published research on this topic in 2019. Working in partnership with people who have kidney disease, their families, NHS staff, dialysis providers and kidney charities, we explored the barriers to home dialysis, and how to overcome them.

    People with kidney failure need either a transplant or regular dialysis to filter waste from their blood. Despite NHS guidance that at least 20% of people on dialysis should be supported to have this treatment at home, this target isn’t being met in many parts of the UK.

    A kidney dialysis machine.
    ali.can0707/Shutterstock

    Our research team, which included people who had experienced dialysis, held discussions with 50 people from across Wales. Many told us that hospital dialysis was presented by healthcare staff as the default option. For those who had not yet come to terms with needing dialysis, or who had delayed planning due to the unpredictable nature of kidney disease, hospital treatment felt like the path of least resistance.

    Some were concerned about the disruption home dialysis might bring. This included changes to their living space or worries that partners or family members might become their carers. Others valued the routine and regular social contact of hospital dialysis.

    Healthcare professionals may unintentionally reinforce this choice. Some feel more comfortable monitoring patients in clinical settings or are unsure about how to support home dialysis effectively. In some cases, home dialysis isn’t an option because local services don’t have the infrastructure to support it.

    Rather than simply identifying problems, we worked together to develop practical solutions. In 2021, working with patients, healthcare professionals, charities, commissioners and industry, we devised a new service plan that outlines how kidney services could be redesigned to support more people to choose home dialysis.

    One important finding was the power of talking to others already doing it. It’s not just about practical advice, but reassurance that it can work.

    We also identified the need for better training for both professionals and patients. People told us they wanted to understand their options earlier, ideally a year before dialysis starts. That means tackling difficult topics, such as advance care planning, sooner and with the right support.

    Social care also has an important role to play. People with complex needs – like living alone, having mobility challenges, or experiencing financial hardship – may need home support, welfare advice or help navigating the system.

    The cost of choice

    In a linked study, published in 2022, we analysed the costs of different dialysis options. Home dialysis was found to cost between £16,000 and £23,000 per person per year.

    Hospital dialysis costs more, between £20,000 and £24,000, rising to over £30,000 when ambulance transport is needed. This suggests that encouraging more people to have dialysis at home could deliver savings for the NHS.

    In Wales, where all kidney services are coordinated through a single clinical network, home dialysis is more widely available. But in England, services are more fragmented, so access can depend on where you live.

    Even if these changes were implemented, fundamental issues may still prevent progress. Beneath the surface of patient satisfaction lies a deeper problem – the NHS dialysis service is no longer working as intended.

    Transport is one of the most frequently cited concerns among people receiving hospital dialysis, and no one seems satisfied with current arrangements. But satisfaction surveys fail to capture the complexity of the situation.

    People often begin dialysis in a unit that isn’t closest to home due to availability. Later, when given the option to move closer or switch to home dialysis, they may decline. These dialysis units begin to function as surrogate families, offering comfort, routine and social interaction, especially for people who live alone or are isolated.

    This emotional connection can obscure the bigger picture. Patients may focus on transport as the issue, rather than recognising that their own decisions – shaped by understandable human needs and system design – are part of the wider challenge.

    shutterstock.
    ali.can0707/Shutterstock

    Staff are caught in the same dynamic. They worry about losing patients they’ve built relationships with or fear someone may not cope alone. But as a result, the service ends up operating not to help people live well for longer but to preserve a sense of satisfaction with a suboptimal status quo.

    By focusing too heavily on keeping people content with the status quo, we risk obscuring what’s truly working, or not. Worse, we may end up wasting already limited resources trying to fix problems that are byproducts of a system shaped more by sentiment than strategy.

    Meanwhile, staff are caught in the middle, trying to deliver care under mounting pressure, with increasingly blurred expectations.

    What needs to change

    To break out of this cycle, different questions should be asked, and not just whether people are satisfied, but whether they are living well, maintaining independence and receiving care that truly reflects their needs and values.

    Our research shows that people already on home dialysis are a valuable and underused resource. They can offer support and insight to others who are starting their treatment.

    The collaborative approach we used could be a model for other parts of the NHS. By designing services with people, not just for them, we can move closer to a future where more people live comfortably with kidney disease, and care that truly fits around their lives and not the other way round.

    Leah McLaughlin receives funding from Health and Care Research Wales. She is affiliated with the Wales Kidney Research Unit.

    We would like to acknowledge Dr Gareth Roberts Chief Investigator of the Dialysis Options and Choices study. Dr Gareth Roberts is a Consultant Nephrologist and Associate Medical Director at Aneurin Bevan University Health Board and is clinical lead of the Welsh Renal Clinical Network.

    – ref. Why many kidney patients are still choosing hospital dialysis – and how the NHS can help more people access care at home – https://theconversation.com/why-many-kidney-patients-are-still-choosing-hospital-dialysis-and-how-the-nhs-can-help-more-people-access-care-at-home-254747

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: I rode the Tour de France to study its impact on the human body – here’s what I learned

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Steve Faulkner, Senior Lecturer in Exercise Physiology, Nottingham Trent University

    The Tour de France is often called the world’s biggest annual sporting event. Each July up to 12 million people line the roadside, while the cumulative TV audience tops 3 billion viewers across 190 countries.

    In 2025, 184 riders will compete in teams of eight, racing a punishing 3,500 km route with nearly 50,000 metres of climbing – roughly the height of Mount Everest six times over. Across 21 stages riders tackle time trials, flat sprints and brutal mountain passes through the Alps, Pyrenees and Massif Central.

    Professional cyclists possess extraordinary endurance and are capable of generating high power outputs day after day. Yet, despite having far less training and support, in recent years a number of amateur cyclists have begun riding the Tour route just days before the pros. The Tour 21 is one such effort and offers cyclists a chance to follow in the tyre tracks of the elite while raising money for a good cause.

    In 2021 I joined 19 others to ride the full route in support of Cure Leukaemia, with a shared goal of raising £1 million for blood cancer research. As a blood cancer survivor diagnosed at 16, this challenge combined my love of cycling, my background in science and my deep desire to give back to the community that helped save my life. It was also a unique opportunity to study how amateur cyclists cope with one of the most demanding endurance events in the world.

    The research findings were published in the Journal of Science and Cycling, to coincide with 2025’s Grand Départ (the official start of the race) in Lille.

    Training for the impossible

    Originally, the study planned to include lab-based physiological assessments of the amateur cyclists undertaking the Tour de France route, but the COVID-19 pandemic forced us to adapt and rely instead on data from training diaries. These gave us insight into how much (or little) training had been done leading up to the ride, and how riders managed the physical and mental strain during the event itself.

    While professional cyclists typically train 20–25 hours a week – often at altitude, with tailored coaching and racing schedules – our group of amateurs had full-time jobs, were typically 15–20 years older than the pros and trained around seven to ten hours a week.

    Our preparation was far from ideal, averaging just 47km per ride and 350 metres of climbing; a fraction of what the Tour demands. In fact, this amounted to less than 10% of the required climbing during the mountain stages.

    Once the ride began, the contrast between training and reality was stark. The group averaged nearly seven hours of riding a day, a 300% increase from their usual routine. Within four days signs of overtraining began to emerge: riders were no longer able to elevate their heart rates, a classic marker of central nervous system fatigue and excessive physical stress.

    As the days progressed, performance metrics continued to decline: heart rates dropped, power outputs fell and mood scores deteriorated. The cumulative fatigue was undeniable.

    Surprisingly, when we compared our amateur data to metrics from professional riders, we found that although pros ride at much higher power outputs, amateurs were subject to greater relative stress. On some days they spent almost double the time in the saddle, which meant they operated closer to their physical limits, with far less time for recovery – and often suboptimal sleep and nutrition.

    By the final week many of the riders could no longer produce the same power they had in the first few days. In some cases, heart rates wouldn’t rise above 100 beats per minute – a clear sign of accumulated fatigue and physiological overload.

    How to prepare for an ultra-endurance challenge

    If you’re planning to take on a major endurance event – whether it’s cycling, running, or hiking – here are some lessons from the road:

    1. Train specifically for the event

    Your training should mirror the challenge ahead. For the Tour, this meant preparing for long, back-to-back days with significant climbing. Mimic the intensity, volume and terrain as closely as possible.

    2. Understand how quickly fatigue builds

    Over multiple days, fatigue doesn’t just accumulate – it compounds. Listen to your body, adapt your plan and include plenty of recovery time.

    3. Prioritise nutrition and recovery

    These two factors can make or break your performance. You’ll need to consume enough energy to fuel the effort, but avoid excessive intake that leads to unnecessary weight gain. Recovery – through sleep, rest and refuelling – is equally vital.

    4. Work with an experienced coach

    More than fancy bikes or high-tech gear, a good coach is your best investment. They can help tailor your training plan, track your progress and adapt strategies as needed. Don’t underestimate this support.

    A ride to remember

    Completing the Tour de France route is a monumental achievement for any cyclist — amateur or pro. In 2021, our team not only rode the full route, but also raised over £1 million for Cure Leukaemia. For me, it marked a deeply personal milestone in my cancer journey.

    Throughout those 21 days, I thought often of the physical and emotional battles I faced during treatment; moments when I didn’t know if I’d survive, let alone ride across France. That experience gave me the resilience to keep going, even when my body was screaming to stop.

    Riding the Tour taught me that we’re capable of far more than we realise, especially when we ride with purpose.

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

    – ref. I rode the Tour de France to study its impact on the human body – here’s what I learned – https://theconversation.com/i-rode-the-tour-de-france-to-study-its-impact-on-the-human-body-heres-what-i-learned-260524

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Four reasons why many of us feel the global economy is not on our side

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Cahal Moran, Visiting Fellow in the Department of Psychological and Behavioural Science, London School of Economics and Political Science

    During my adult life, I have never experienced what it’s like to live in a “good” economy. Starting with the global financial crash in 2008, which hit just as I began studying economics, the world seems to have lurched from crisis to crisis and the UK economy even more so.

    Some of those crises, like the crash and COVID, are sudden shocks. Others have been more gradual, such as increasingly unaffordable housing or the rising dominance of the world’s ultra rich.

    As I explore in my new book, Why We’re Getting Poorer, the result of these crises is an economic system which works for some much more than it does for others. Here are four reasons why you may be feeling let down.

    1. Grasping for growth

    Like many of his fellow leaders across the world, the British prime minister, Keir Starmer, is aiming to make economic growth the primary mission of his government. And understandably so.

    A growing economy puts more money in people’s pockets and brings other benefits such as low unemployment. But economic growth is not easy (in the UK it has been poor for a long time).

    That’s because there’s no GDP dial that a prime minister or president can simply turn up. Research shows that economic growth is an amorphous and difficult goal which depends on many factors – geopolitical, demographic, technological – outside any single country’s control.

    One option is to focus on achievable goals around investment, like the public investments of £113 billion on homes, transport and energy planned in the UK. But big projects can take a long time to build and develop, so even if they do boost growth, it can take a while for households to feel the benefits.

    2. Inherent inequality

    Against the backdrop of low growth in the UK has been high inequality, under Conservative and Labour governments. And again, inequality is an international issue.

    The wealth of the richest people in the world skyrocketed over COVID, buoyed in many cases by the increased importance of the tech sector during lockdowns. Even before the pandemic, wealth inequality was a problem across the globe.

    This imbalance has given the very richest opportunities to buy up commercial competitors, indulge in space travel and control large parts of the media, exerting extreme economic, social and political power. Needless to say, their economic priorities are not the same as everyone else’s.

    Meanwhile, communities and regions may be left behind, with declining physical and social infrastructure. People living in hollowed out areas where incomes and opportunities are limited are unlikely to feel that the economic system is working for them.

    3. Globalisation

    Globalisation has made a lot of people – in places like China, India and Brazil – better off. But it is not a system which ensures economic benefits for everyone.

    With global competition, big businesses are often under pressure to reduce costs. Free trade deals have often failed to enforce labour standards or redistribute gains to poorly paid workers, and in many cases simply made the rich richer.

    Such a distorted form of economic governance, where large sections of society end up feeling left behind was bound to provoke a response. Some would link it to recent political events like Brexit and the presidencies of Donald Trump, whose international tariffs are a clear attempt to reverse the rise of globalisation.

    Sporadic supply chains.
    Corona Borealis Studio/Shutterstock

    Since the pandemic, more fault-lines have been exposed. The global economy has become too dependent on certain regions, epitomised by Taiwanese dominance in the manufacturing of semiconductors, or European reliance on Russia for gas and oil.

    Recent years have also seen supply chain bottlenecks, leading to shortages of goods including cars, phones and even salad ingredients. Inflexible global systems have been ineffective, and internationally agreed fixes are hard to achieve.

    4. Climate change

    World news at the start of 2020 was dominated by the massive wildfires raging across Australia. At the start of 2025, Los Angeles burned.

    As the global climate shifts and lurches, extreme weather events are becoming more common. Floods, hurricanes and extreme temperatures look to be the likely outcome.

    When sea levels rise, countless coastal cities will experience flooding, and many Pacific islands may disappear altogether. The UN’s climate science advisory group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggests that humanity will struggle with food production, disease and massive migration.

    This will all result in huge economic costs, impeding growth and disrupting livelihoods across the world. According to the IPCC, the impacts could range from extreme weather events disrupting infrastructure to changing weather reducing yields in agriculture, forestry and fishing.

    Yet many countries appear to be backtracking on their commitment to reducing emissions. It seems they would prefer to deal with the fallout of climate change rather than invest in potential solutions like carbon taxes, walkable cities or alternative fuels. But such acts of self-harm are not a sound basis for a prosperous economy, society or planet.

    Cahal Moran 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. Four reasons why many of us feel the global economy is not on our side – https://theconversation.com/four-reasons-why-many-of-us-feel-the-global-economy-is-not-on-our-side-252220

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: As Netanyahu meets Trump in Washington, what hope for peace in Gaza? Expert Q&A

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonathan Este, Senior International Affairs Editor, Associate Editor

    The US government “remains upbeat” about the prospects for at least a ceasefire in Gaza, according to the latest reports from Washington, where the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has been meeting the US president, Donald Trump.

    Netanyahu handed the US president a letter nominating him for the Nobel peace prize, saying he deserved it for “forging peace, as we speak, in one country in the region after another”. But as yet there are no signs that either Hamas or Israel have moved any closer to accepting each other’s terms.

    In fact, reports emerging from the White House meeting are that the two leaders discussed the displacement of much of the Palestinian population. And a plan revealed by the Israeli foreign minister, Israel Katz, proposed the contruction of a “humanitarian city” at Rafah in the north of the Gaza Strip to house more than 600,000 Palestinians.

    The Conversation’s senior international affairs editor, Jonathan Este, spoke with Middle East expert, Scott Lucas, of University College Dublin to address this and other questions.

    The two leaders’ discussions in Washington seemed to centre around displacement of the Palestinian population in lieu of a two-state solution. What does this tell you about the chance of a ceasefire deal?

    I am fascinated – and sometimes disillusioned – by how some media outlets, led by the nose, miss the main story. Last week Donald Trump pronounced on social media that Israel had agreed to a 60-day ceasefire and Hamas “should take this deal”.

    But the Netanyahu government has not accepted the framework, circulated by Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff, let alone consented to a halt of their attacks, which have continued even as the Israeli prime minister travelled to Washington to meet the US president.

    As Trump hosted Netanyahu in the White House on Monday, the line was that the US president was “upbeat on Gaza ceasefire talks”. Meanwhile, few of them seemed to notice the important development. Hamas responded to the US framework with proposals for the staged release of 28 of the remaining 50 Israeli hostages over the 60 days while Israeli troops withdrew from positions inside the Strip and humanitarian aid was restored.

    But the Israeli government has thus far not given a substantive response. Instead, while pursuing a plan for the long-term military occupation of Gaza, it may also be seeking the displacement of a large portion of the more than 2.2 million population.

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

    Hard-right members of Netanyahu’s cabinet, such as finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, and internal security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, have long called for more than a million Gazans to be moved out of the territory. Reports over the weekend confirmed that this is not rhetoric. Israeli businessmen and venture capitalists have reportedly been working on plans for postwar Gaza, to include a “Trump riviera”, mirroring the displacement declaration by the US President, and an “Elon Musk smart manufacturing zone”.

    On Tuesday, security cabinet member Ze’ev Elkin, a Netanyahu loyalist, proclaimed “a substantial chance” for a ceasefire. But Qatari negotiators have said there are currently no talks, only discussions with each side about the framework for talks.

    Meanwhile, citing the killing of five Israeli soldiers in Gaza on Sunday night by an improvised explosive device, Ben-Gvir said: “We should not negotiate with those who kill our soldiers. They should be crushed to pieces, starved to death, and not resuscitated with humanitarian aid that gives them oxygen.”

    He called for “a complete siege, crushing them militarily” and reiterated the plan for “encouraging [Palestinian] immigration and [Jewish] settlement — these are the keys to complete victory”.

    Smotrich also called for a ban on any aid to Gaza: “In addition, I demand … that any territory that was conquered and cleansed of terror with the blood of our fighters not be abandoned.”

    So I am not optimistic at the moment.

    Looking at the region as a whole, two events have ‘reset’ the Middle East: the October 7 Hamas attacks and Israel’s recent 12-day war. Can you tell me more about the kaleidoscope effect these two events had?

    In October 2023, there was no open-ended war in Gaza. Benjamin Netanyahu’s focus was on curbing the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, blocking any possibility of a two-state solution. His tactic was to ease the economic pressure on Gaza and Hamas, maintaining that organisation as a balance against its West Bank rivals.

    Hamas ripped up that approach with its mass murder on October 7 – the first of the two kaleidoscope moments which changed the whole picture in a matter of hours. The attack triggered the deadly Israeli response that continues 21 months later. That response did not “destroy” Hamas, as Netanyahu pledged, but it led the Israelis to take on other foes in the region.

    Pursuing its “octopus doctrine”, Israel severely damaged one of the tentacles, Hezbollah, when it destroyed much of the Lebanese group’s leadership in the autumn of 2024. It assassinated senior Iranian commanders and officials in Damascus, and received a further boost when Turkish-backed factions toppled the Assad regime in December.

    The 12-day war in June aimed to destroy the head of the octopus: Iran. Israel’s strikes and assassinations killed much of the country’s military leadership and many of its top nuclear scientists. The supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, hid in a bunker, only emerging on July 6. But Israel failed to topple his regime, as it had hoped.

    The war was another kaleidoscope moment. Israel had its regional victory. But paradoxically, because there has been no resolution in Gaza, this has come at the cost of further international isolation. Gulf States, having moved away from “normalisation” with Israel, put out tougher statements about “genocide” of Gazans and the violation of Iranian sovereignty. Saudi Arabia’s state media highlighted a letter from Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi to Saudi counterpart Faisal bin Farhan for “ways to support and enhance [relations] across all fields”.

    This implies that for any normalisation to occur, Israel must end its military operation in Gaza?

    That question cuts to the chase. The Gulf states, with the notable exception of Qatar, are no friends of Hamas. They might even have accepted the destruction of the group if Israel had been able to accomplish it quickly.

    But there is no way that they can publicly acquiesce in the killing of almost 60,000 Gazans, the large majority of them civilians, and the humanitarian blockade that threatens every single person living in the Gaza Strip. Nor will they want to see Israel export Gazans across the region in an echo of the 1948 “Nakba” whose legacy is the millions of Palestinians living in refugee camps across the Middle East.

    Netanyahu can pursue his “absolute destruction” of Hamas by pursuing the destruction and displacement of Gazans. Or he can try to capitalise on his war with Iran through links with Arab countries. He cannot do both.

    Will Donald Trump get his Nobel peace prize?

    I don’t know, for that is a question which does not have a logical answer.

    Herny Kissinger was the US secretary of state who oversaw an escalation of the Vietnam war in which up to 3 million Vietnamese, 310,000 Cambodians, 62,000 Laotians and 58,220 US service members died. The singer-songwriter Tom Lehrer aptly noted: “Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.”

    We are in a world where having caused so much disorder and chaos, having enabled violence, including Israel’s open-ended war, Donald Trump may succeed in a pose as “peacemaker”.

    Some may see the least worst option as flattery, which seems to work as a strategy for dealing with the US president. They may accept the White House theatre in which Netanyahu, wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes, personally hands Trump a peace prize nomination.

    Meanwhile, in the past 24 hours, according to the Hamas-run Gaza health ministry, the number of casualties in Gaza rose to 57,575 people killed and 136,879 wounded. Twenty hostages spent another day in limbo. That’s what matters here.

    – ref. As Netanyahu meets Trump in Washington, what hope for peace in Gaza? Expert Q&A – https://theconversation.com/as-netanyahu-meets-trump-in-washington-what-hope-for-peace-in-gaza-expert-qanda-260722

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: How to support someone who is grieving: five research-backed strategies

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Lucy Poxon, Senior Lecturer in Counselling Psychology, Department of Social Work Counselling & Social Care , School of Childhood and Social Care, University of East London

    PeopleImages.com – Yuri A/Shutterstock

    When someone we care about is grieving the loss of a loved one, our natural instinct is to ease their pain. But when words feel clumsy and gestures fall short, it can be hard to know how to help.

    Drawing on both my research as a counselling psychologist and 18 years of supporting bereaved clients in therapy, I’ve identified five compassionate, research-backed ways to walk alongside someone who is mourning.

    Whether you’re a close friend, family member, or caring colleague, these approaches will help you offer support in meaningful and authentic ways.

    1. Grief wears many disguises

    Our expectations of how grief should look are often shaped by culture, the media or personal experience, and they may bear little resemblance to how grief is actually lived.

    Grief can appear as physical symptoms like exhaustion, loss of appetite, or insomnia; as behaviour like withdrawing from others or drinking more; and as thoughts or emotions ranging from apathy and numbness to anger or intense sadness.

    It can be loud and overwhelming or quiet and barely perceptible. Some people feel deep sorrow immediately; others feel nothing for weeks or even months. A lack of overt sadness isn’t necessarily cause for concern; it may reflect relief that a loved one is no longer suffering, or be a sign of early adjustment.



    Read more:
    Not all mourning happens after bereavement – for some, grief can start years before the death of a loved one

    One of the most compassionate things you can do is validate whatever shape grief takes. Reassure the person that there’s no “right” way to grieve and support them in tuning into what their body and emotions need.

    2. Acknowledge the death and don’t rush the tears

    Nearly every grieving client I’ve worked with has described someone, often a friend, colleague, or even family member, who avoided or ignored them after the loss. It’s one of the most painful experiences for someone already feeling vulnerable.

    Often, the avoidance isn’t malicious. It’s driven by fear of saying the wrong thing or not knowing how to help. But by avoiding the subject, we send an unintended message: your grief is too much.

    Acknowledging the death, even simply by saying “I’m so sorry to hear about your loss”, is not a reminder of their pain, it’s a sign that you see it and honour it. Inviting someone out, even if they decline, communicates that they still belong and are welcome.

    If someone begins to cry, it’s natural to want to fix things, to offer comfort, or even to pass a tissue. But giving a tissue too soon can inadvertently signal that they should stop crying. Sometimes the most supportive thing you can do is to sit with your own discomfort, and simply be present. That silent witness can help a grieving person feel less alone.

    3. Let go of the “stages of grief” myth

    Many people are still taught to expect a tidy progression of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance, popularised by Swiss-American psychiatrist Elisabeth Kübler-Ross in the 1960s. While these emotions are real and common, research shows that most people don’t experience them in a neat order, or even experience all five at all.

    Despite being widely critiqued, stage-based models are still found in healthcare training manuals and TV scripts, and they can leave people feeling like they’re grieving “wrong”.

    If your loved one is worried they should feel more sadness, or wonders why they haven’t yet felt angry, remind them: grief is personal and unpredictable. There’s no timeline, no script and no shame in not following one.

    Helping someone let go of these expectations may ease guilt, reduce internal pressure and encourage gentler self-care.

    4. Encourage communication – with the living and the lost

    Grief often comes with emotional loneliness, a deep sense of aloneness that persists even in the presence of others. It’s different from social isolation; it’s the ache of missing someone irreplaceable.



    Read more:
    What we can learn from death rites of the past will help us treat the dead and grieving better today

    While you can’t fix that loneliness, you can help the bereaved maintain a continuing bond with their loved one. This might include writing letters to the person who has died, speaking to them at a graveside or special place, saying prayers or engaging in meditation or creating memory boxes or rituals.

    These forms of connection can help integrate the loss into a new reality. You might offer to visit a meaningful place together, or support them in planning a small memorial gesture.

    5. Make specific, practical offers

    It’s common to say “Let me know if you need anything”, but for someone in deep grief, reaching out can feel impossible. Emotional overwhelm, fatigue and even shame can prevent them from asking for help, even when they desperately need it.

    Instead, make intentional, concrete offers that remove decision-making and emotional labour. These might include:

    • delivering a home-cooked meal once a week

    • taking care of pets or houseplants

    • helping with funeral admin or paperwork

    • offering regular lifts to appointments

    • updating others on their behalf

    • messaging with a clear “no need to reply” reassurance

    If you live far away, sending a card, text, or voice note can still be powerful; just be mindful that they may receive many, and feel pressure to respond. A line like, “No need to write back, just wanted you to know I’m thinking of you” can go a long way.

    Grief is not a puzzle to solve or a wound to fix. It’s a human response to love and loss – and it’s different for everyone.

    The most powerful thing you can do? Be there. Stay present. Listen without judgement. And remember that it’s okay not to have the perfect words. Showing up with authenticity, patience and compassion is what matters most.

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

    – ref. How to support someone who is grieving: five research-backed strategies – https://theconversation.com/how-to-support-someone-who-is-grieving-five-research-backed-strategies-260265

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Brics is sliding towards irrelevance – the Rio summit made that clear

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Amalendu Misra, Professor of International Politics, Lancaster University

    The Brics group of nations has just concluded its 17th annual summit in the Brazilian city of Rio de Janeiro. But, despite member states adopting a long list of commitments covering global governance, finance, health, AI and climate change, the summit was a lacklustre affair.

    The two most prominent leaders from the group’s founding members – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – were conspicuously absent. Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, only attended virtually due to an outstanding arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court over his role in the war in Ukraine.

    China’s Xi Jinping avoided the summit altogether for unknown reasons, sending his prime minister, Li Qiang, instead. This was Xi’s first no-show at a Brics summit, with the snub prompting suggestions that Beijing’s enthusiasm for the group as part of an emerging new world order is in decline.

    Perhaps the most notable takeaway from the summit was a statement that came not from the Brics nations but the US. As Brics leaders gathered in Rio, the US president, Donald Trump, warned on social media: “Any Country aligning themselves with the Anti-American policies of BRICS, will be charged an ADDITIONAL 10% Tariff. There will be no exceptions to this policy.”

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

    Trump has long been critical of Brics. This is largely because the group has consistently floated the idea of adopting a common currency to challenge the dominance of the US dollar in international trade.

    Such a move makes sense if we focus on trade figures. In 2024, the value of trade among the Brics nations was around US$5 trillion, accounting for approximately 22% of global exports. Member nations have always felt their economic potential could be fully realised if they were not reliant upon the US dollar as their common currency of trade.

    During their 2024 summit, which was held in the Russian city of Kazan, the Brics nations entered into serious discussions around creating a gold-backed currency. At a time when the Trump administration is waging a global trade war, the emergence of an alternative to the US dollar would be a very serious pushback against US economic hegemony.



    Read more:
    Why Donald Trump’s election could hasten the end of US dollar dominance

    But the freshly concluded Brics summit did not present any concrete move towards achieving that objective. In fact, the 31-page Rio de Janeiro joint declaration even contained some reassurances about the global importance of the US dollar.

    There are two key obstacles hindering Brics from translating its vision of a common currency into reality. First is that some founding member nations are uncomfortable with adopting such an economic model, in large part due to internal rivalries within Brics itself.

    India, currently the fourth-largest economy in the world, has a history of periodic confrontation and strategic competition with China. It is reticent about adopting an alternative to the US dollar, concerned that this could make China more powerful and undercut India’s long-term interests.

    Second is that the Brics member nations are dependent on their bilateral trade with the US. Simply put, embracing an alternative currency is counterproductive when it comes to the current economic interests of individual countries. Brazil, China and India, for example, all export more to the US than they import from it.

    In December 2024, following his election as US president, Trump said: “We require a commitment from these countries that they will neither create a new Brics currency nor back any other currency to replace the mighty US dollar or they will face 100% tariffs and should expect to say goodbye to selling into the wonderful US economy”. This blunt message all but killed any enthusiasm that was there for this grand economic model.

    Caught in contradiction

    The Brics group is a behemoth. Its full 11 members account for 40% of the world’s population and economy. But the bloc is desperately short of providing any cohesive alternative global leadership.

    While Brazil used its position as host to highlight Brics as a truly multilateral forum capable of providing leadership in a new world order, such ambitions are thwarted by the many contradictions plaguing this bloc.

    Among these are tensions between founding members China and India, which have been running high for decades.

    There are other contradictions, too. In their joint Rio declaration, the group’s members decried the recent Israeli and US attacks on Iran. Brazil’s president, Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva, also used his position as summit host to criticise the Israeli offensive in Gaza.

    But this moral high ground appears hollow when you consider that the Russian Federation, a key member of Brics, is on a mission to destroy Ukraine. And rather than condemning Russia, Brics leaders used the Rio summit to criticise recent Ukrainian attacks on Russia’s railway infrastructure.

    Brics declared intention to address the issue of climate change is also problematic. The Rio declaration conveyed the group’s support for multilateralism and unity to achieve the goals of the Paris agreement. But, despite China making significant advances in its green energy sector, Brics contains some of the world’s biggest emitters of greenhouse gases as well as several of the largest oil and gas producers.

    Brics can only stay relevant and provide credible leadership in a fast-changing international order when it addresses its many inner contradictions.

    Amalendu Misra is a recipient of British Academy and Nuffield Foundation Fellowships.

    – ref. Brics is sliding towards irrelevance – the Rio summit made that clear – https://theconversation.com/brics-is-sliding-towards-irrelevance-the-rio-summit-made-that-clear-260653

    MIL OSI –

  • UP: Meerut gets Agritech Innovation Hub to boost rural farming technology

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan and Minister of State for Skill Development and Education Jayant Chaudhary on Tuesday inaugurated an Agritech Innovation Hub and Startup Technology Showcase at Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel University of Agriculture and Technology (SVPUAT) in Meerut, aiming to promote precision farming and sustainable agriculture in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh.

    Pradhan said the initiative is part of a broader push to modernise India’s farming sector and increase farmers’ incomes, adding that the vision of a developed India remains incomplete without prosperous villages and self-reliant farmers.

    The new hub will deploy artificial intelligence, machine learning and real-time data analytics to help farmers increase productivity while adopting chemical-free, natural farming practices.

    “India’s services sector has reached global standards, but the soul of India still resides in its fields and barns,” Pradhan said, crediting Prime Minister Narendra Modi for encouraging technology-driven farming solutions.

    The centre is being developed in collaboration with the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Ropar, which will contribute IoT-enabled sensors, automation technologies and cloud computing infrastructure worth up to Rs. 75 lakhs. An MoU was signed between IIT Ropar and SVPUAT to expand research and academic collaboration in agritech.

    Speaking at the launch, Chaudhary said the project would create a collaborative ecosystem for farmers, startups and researchers to co-develop practical solutions for the agriculture sector.

    The event also featured an exhibition of 20 agritech startups, a demonstration at SVPUAT’s Model Smart Farm and the felicitation of farmers adopting modern and sustainable practices.

    The hub will work with Krishi Vigyan Kendras and Farmer Producer Organisations to train rural youth and farmers, with the aim of scaling region-specific solutions across North India.

  • UP: Meerut gets Agritech Innovation Hub to boost rural farming technology

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan and Minister of State for Skill Development and Education Jayant Chaudhary on Tuesday inaugurated an Agritech Innovation Hub and Startup Technology Showcase at Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel University of Agriculture and Technology (SVPUAT) in Meerut, aiming to promote precision farming and sustainable agriculture in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh.

    Pradhan said the initiative is part of a broader push to modernise India’s farming sector and increase farmers’ incomes, adding that the vision of a developed India remains incomplete without prosperous villages and self-reliant farmers.

    The new hub will deploy artificial intelligence, machine learning and real-time data analytics to help farmers increase productivity while adopting chemical-free, natural farming practices.

    “India’s services sector has reached global standards, but the soul of India still resides in its fields and barns,” Pradhan said, crediting Prime Minister Narendra Modi for encouraging technology-driven farming solutions.

    The centre is being developed in collaboration with the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Ropar, which will contribute IoT-enabled sensors, automation technologies and cloud computing infrastructure worth up to Rs. 75 lakhs. An MoU was signed between IIT Ropar and SVPUAT to expand research and academic collaboration in agritech.

    Speaking at the launch, Chaudhary said the project would create a collaborative ecosystem for farmers, startups and researchers to co-develop practical solutions for the agriculture sector.

    The event also featured an exhibition of 20 agritech startups, a demonstration at SVPUAT’s Model Smart Farm and the felicitation of farmers adopting modern and sustainable practices.

    The hub will work with Krishi Vigyan Kendras and Farmer Producer Organisations to train rural youth and farmers, with the aim of scaling region-specific solutions across North India.

  • UP: Meerut gets Agritech Innovation Hub to boost rural farming technology

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan and Minister of State for Skill Development and Education Jayant Chaudhary on Tuesday inaugurated an Agritech Innovation Hub and Startup Technology Showcase at Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel University of Agriculture and Technology (SVPUAT) in Meerut, aiming to promote precision farming and sustainable agriculture in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh.

    Pradhan said the initiative is part of a broader push to modernise India’s farming sector and increase farmers’ incomes, adding that the vision of a developed India remains incomplete without prosperous villages and self-reliant farmers.

    The new hub will deploy artificial intelligence, machine learning and real-time data analytics to help farmers increase productivity while adopting chemical-free, natural farming practices.

    “India’s services sector has reached global standards, but the soul of India still resides in its fields and barns,” Pradhan said, crediting Prime Minister Narendra Modi for encouraging technology-driven farming solutions.

    The centre is being developed in collaboration with the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Ropar, which will contribute IoT-enabled sensors, automation technologies and cloud computing infrastructure worth up to Rs. 75 lakhs. An MoU was signed between IIT Ropar and SVPUAT to expand research and academic collaboration in agritech.

    Speaking at the launch, Chaudhary said the project would create a collaborative ecosystem for farmers, startups and researchers to co-develop practical solutions for the agriculture sector.

    The event also featured an exhibition of 20 agritech startups, a demonstration at SVPUAT’s Model Smart Farm and the felicitation of farmers adopting modern and sustainable practices.

    The hub will work with Krishi Vigyan Kendras and Farmer Producer Organisations to train rural youth and farmers, with the aim of scaling region-specific solutions across North India.

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: expert reaction to study looking at underlying mechanisms of the known, rare side effect, vaccine-induced immune thrombosis and thrombocytopenia (VITT), associated with adenoviral Covid vaccines

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    A study published in the NIHR’s Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation journal looks at the mechanisms of a known rare side effect, vaccine-induced immune thrombosis (VITT) and thrombocytopenia, associated with adenoviral Covid vaccines.

    Prof Adam Finn, Professor of Paediatrics, University of Bristol, said:

    “This is a summary of the findings to date of several distinct pieces of research intended to increase our understanding of VITT.  The work was extensive, took a number of different approaches, and provided some additional evidence around the potential pathogenetic mechanisms.  However, a complete understanding of the genetic and environmental factors which drive these rare reactions remains elusive, partly because of the relatively small number of individuals affected who could be studied.”

    ‘Understanding mechanisms of thrombosis and thrombocytopenia with adenoviral SARS-CoV-2 vaccines: a comprehensive synopsis’ by Phillip LR Nicolson et al. was published in the NIHR’s Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation journal.

    DOI: 10.3310/FFSS9010

    Declared interests

    Prof Adam Finn: “Adam Finn is a member of JCVI subcommittees relating to varicella-zoster, pneumococcal and respiratory syncytial virus vaccines and of the WHO working group on COVID19 vaccines.  He leads epidemiological research for the University of Bristol funded by Pfizer.  He undertakes paid consultancy for multiple vaccine development and manufacturing companies.  He was an investigator in trials of the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID19 vaccine during the pandemic.”

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Individual Arrested for Child Exploitation

    Source: US FBI

    SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico – On June 26, 2025, a federal grand jury in the District of Puerto Rico returned an indictment charging Juan Edgardo Negrón-Navarro, age 27, of Jayuya, PR, with coercion and enticement of minors, sexual exploitation of children, and interstate threat communications. Today, FBI special agents arrested Negrón-Navarro. 

    According to court documents, from in or about April 2023 to in or about May 2023, Juan Edgardo Negrón-Navarro did knowingly employ, use, persuade, induce, entice, and coerce a female minor between 15 and 16 years old (Minor 1) to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing visual depictions of such conduct. The defendant produced sexually explicit images of such conduct. Negrón-Navarro threatened Minor 1 by threatening to post the sexually explicit images on the Internet and to damage her reputation if she did not comply with sending sexually explicit images to him.

    Additionally, from in or about September 2024 to in or about November 2024, Juan Edgardo Negrón-Navarro did knowingly employ, use, persuade, induce, entice, and coerce another female minor while she was 17 years of age (Minor 2), to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing visual depictions of such conduct. At the same time, the defendant produced sexually explicit images of such conduct.

    Moreover, on or about August 3, 2024, Negrón-Navarro, through the Internet, threatened to kill an adult female if she did not send him sexually explicit images.

    The defendant is scheduled for his initial court appearance today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Marcos E. López of the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. If convicted, the defendant faces a minimum term or imprisonment of 15 years and a maximum term of imprisonment of 30 years for the charge of sexual exploitation of children; a minimum term of imprisonment of 10 years up to life for the charge of coercion and enticement of a minor; and a maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years for the charge of interstate communications. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

    U.S. Attorney W. Stephen Muldrow of the District of Puerto Rico; and Devin J. Kowalski, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI San Juan Field Office made the announcement.  

    “Child exploitation, in all its forms, are the most heinous crimes a person can commit, and the emotional pain inflicted on the victims is overwhelming,” said W. Stephen Muldrow, United States Attorney for the District of Puerto Rico. “The U.S. Attorney’s Office and our law enforcement partners are fully committed to identify, locate, arrest, and prosecute these criminals to the fullest extent of the law. Nonetheless, the community, including teachers and parents, must be vigilant and proactive with our children and educate them on how to protect themselves from these offenders.”

    “There is no place in Puerto Rico—or anywhere in America—for child predators,” said Devin J. Kowalski, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s San Juan Field Office. “If you exploit children, the heroic men and women of the FBI and our law enforcement partners are coming for you—no matter how long it takes or how much you try to hide.  That is a promise we intend to keep, every single time.”

    The FBI is investigating the case with the collaboration of the Puerto Rico Police Bureau.

    Assistant US Attorney (AUSA) Emelina Agrait-Barreto of the Child Exploitation and Immigration Unit is prosecuting the case.

    This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative to combat the epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice. Led by U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state, and local resources to better locate, apprehend, and prosecute individuals who exploit children via the internet, as well as to identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit www.justice.gov/psc.

    An indictment is merely an allegation, and all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

    ###

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Economics: How ASHABot empowers rural India’s frontline health workers

    Source: Microsoft

    Headline: How ASHABot empowers rural India’s frontline health workers

    When Mani Devi, an Accredited Social Health Activist (ASHA) in rural Rajasthan, saw the underweight infant, she knew something was wrong—but not how serious it might be, or what advice to give. 

    So she reached for her phone and opened WhatsApp: In Hindi, she typed a question to a new tool called ASHABot: What’s the ideal weight for a baby this age? 

    The chatbot—trained in Hindi, English, and a hybrid known as Hinglish—responded within seconds: a baby that age should weigh around 4 to 5 kilograms. This one weighed less.

    The bot’s answer was clear and specific. It encouraged feeding the baby eight to 10 times a day, and it explained how to counsel the mother without causing alarm. 

    That, she said, was one of the many encounters with ASHABot that changed the way she does her job. 

    The tool is part of a quiet but significant shift in public health, one that blends cutting-edge artificial intelligence with on-the-ground realities in some of India’s most underserved communities.

    ASHABot, launched in early 2024, is what happens when a generative AI model akin to OpenAI’s ChatGPT or GPT-4 is not only trained on the broader internet, but is connected to a knowledge base containing India’s public health manuals, immunization guidelines, and family planning protocols. It takes voice notes when prompted and provides answers that help the ASHAs serve patients.

    Built by the nonprofit Khushi Baby (opens in new tab) using technology developed and open sourced by Microsoft Research, the bot has been transforming how some of the country’s ASHA workers do their jobs. These women are the glue between India’s rural households and the health system, responsible for everything from vaccination records to childbirth counseling. But they receive just 23 days of basic training and often work in settings where doctors are distant, supervisors are overburdened, and even mobile signal is unreliable. 

    “ASHAs have always been on the front lines,” said Ruchit Nagar, co-founder and CEO of Khushi Baby and a Harvard-trained physician. “But they haven’t always had the tools.”

    Nagar’s relationship with ASHAs goes back nearly a decade. In 2015, he launched Khushi Baby with the goal of digitizing health data in underserved communities, often designing tech systems that were locally grounded. The idea of ASHABot emerged in late 2023, during a summit with stakeholders in Rajasthan. 

    At the time, Khushi Baby was working with Microsoft Research on a separate AI project—one that used eye images to detect anemia. But the buzz around large language models, especially ChatGPT, was rising fast. Nagar and his collaborators began to ask whether this technology could help ASHAs, who often lacked real-time access to quality, understandable, medically sound guidance.

    “ASHAs were already using WhatsApp and YouTube. We saw an inflection point, new digital users ready for something more,” said Nagar, now a resident at the Yale School of Medicine in New Haven, Conn.

    So they began building. 

    Microsoft researcher Pragnya Ramjee joined the project around that time, leaving a design job at a hedge fund to focus on technology with social impact. With a background in human-centered design, she helped lead the qualitative research, interviewing ASHAs in Rajasthan alongside a trained translator.  

    “It made a huge difference that the translator and I were women,” she said. “The ASHAs felt more comfortable being open with us, especially about sensitive issues like contraception or gender-based violence.” 

    An ASHA worker encourages children to attend the Anganwadi center, helping them stay healthy through essential care and support.

    Ramjee and the team helped fine-tune the system in collaboration with doctors and public health experts. The model, based on GPT-4, was trained to be highly accurate. When it receives a question, it consults a carefully curated database—around 40 documents from the Indian government, UNICEF, and other health bodies. If the bot doesn’t find a clear answer, it doesn’t guess. Instead, it forwards the question to a small group of nurses, whose responses are then synthesized by the model and returned to the ASHA within hours.

    The goal, Ramjee said, is to ensure the bot always stays grounded in reality and in the real training ASHAs receive.

    So far, more than 24,000 messages have been sent through the system and 869 ASHAs have been onboarded. Some workers have used it only once or twice. Others send up to 20 messages in a single day. Topics range from the expected—childhood immunization schedules, breastfeeding best practices—to the unexpected.  

    “They’re asking about contraception, about child marriage, about what to do if there’s a fight in the family,” Ramjee said. “These aren’t just medical questions. They’re social questions.” 

    An ASHA worker educates community members on how to protect themselves against seasonal illnesses.

    One woman came to Mani Devi saying she’d missed her period for two months but wasn’t pregnant. The bot provided Devi with information that gave her the confidence to assure the patient she had nothing to worry about. 

    The responses come in both text and voice note, the latter often played aloud by ASHAs for the patient to hear. In some cases, voice responses about long-acting contraception help persuade hesitant women to begin treatment. 

    There is no question the technology works. But the team is quick to emphasize that it doesn’t replace human knowledge. Instead, it amplifies it. ASHABot illustrates how LLM-powered chatbots can help bridge the information gap for people, particularly those with limited access to formal training and technology, said Mohit Jain, principal researcher at Microsoft Research India. 

    “There is a lot of debate about whether LLMs are a boon or a bane,” Jain said. “I believe it’s up to us to design and deploy them responsibly, in ways that unlock their potential for real societal benefit. ASHABot is one example of how that’s possible.” 

    – Mohit Jain, Principal Researcher, Microsoft Research India

    During a door-to-door visit, an ASHA worker uses ASHABot to guide a pregnant woman through essential information on material health and nutrition.

    Of course, the chatbot isn’t perfect. Some users still prefer to call people they know, and the big question of scaling remains. The team is exploring personalization options, multimodal support like image inputs, and parallel LLM agents to ensure quality assurance at scale. 

    Still, the vision is expansive. As of now, ASHABot is only used in Udaipur, one of the 50 districts in Rajasthan. The long-term goal is to bring ASHABot to all one million ASHAs across the country, who take care of about 800 to 900 million people in rural India. The potential ripple effect across maternal health, vaccination, and disease surveillance is immense. 

    Nagar, who has traveled to India twice yearly for the last 10 years to research the needs of ASHAs, said there are still “many things yet to explore, and many big questions to answer.” 

    For ASHAs like Mani Devi, the shift is already real. She says she feels more informed, more confident. She can talk about previously taboo subjects, because the bot helps her break the silence. 

    “Overall, I can give better information to people who need help,” she said. “I can ask it anything.”

    MIL OSI Economics –

  • MIL-OSI Security: MS-13 Gang Leader Sentenced to 68 Years in Prison for Eight Murders, Multiple Attempted Murders, Arson, Narcotics Trafficking, and Firearms Offenses

    Source: US FBI

    Alexi Saenz Led a Brutal Crime Wave that Terrorized the Communities of Brentwood and Central Islip in 2016 and 2017

    Earlier today, in federal court in Central Islip, Alexi Saenz, also known as “Blasty” and “Plaky,” the leader of the Brentwood/Central Islip chapter of the Sailors Locos Salvatruchas Westside (Sailors) clique of La Mara Salvatrucha, also known as the MS-13, a transnational criminal organization, was sentenced by United States District Judge Gary R. Brown to 68 years’ imprisonment.  On July 10, 2024, Saenz pleaded guilty to racketeering charges in connection with his participation in eight murders, namely, the January 28, 2016 murder of Michael Johnson; the April 29, 2016 murder of Oscar Acosta; the September 5, 2016 murder of Marcus Bohannon; the September 13, 2016 murders of Kayla Cuevas and Nisa Mickens; the October 10, 2016 murder of Javier Castillo; the October 13, 2016 murder of Dewann Stacks; and the January 30, 2017 murder of Esteban Alvarado-Bonilla, in addition to his participation in three attempted murders, and arson, narcotics trafficking, and firearms offenses.   

    Joseph Nocella, Jr, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York; Christopher G. Raia, Assistant Director in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation, New York Field Office (FBI New York); and Kevin Catalina, Commissioner, Suffolk County Police Department (SCPD), announced the sentence.

    “Alexi Saenz led an unspeakable reign of terror, killing, and crime that damaged his community and cost several people their lives,” stated United States Attorney Nocella.  “My Office and our law enforcement partners will continue to work tirelessly to hold the MS-13 and its members accountable for their horrific acts, including the pain they’ve caused victims and their loved ones.  This sentencing is one of many in our relentless pursuit to dismantle the MS-13 and other violent criminal organizations.” 

    “For years, Alexi Saenz wielded his role as a local MS-13 leader to facilitate and participate in eight brutal murders of perceived rivals. Saenz terrorized Long Island as he indiscriminately targeted and hunted a wide range of victims, with careless regard to innocent bystanders harmed by his actions. May today’s sentencing emphasize the FBI’s relentless determination to crush all gang violence plaguing our communities,” stated FBI New York Assistant Director in Charge Raia.

    “Alexi Saenz is a violent career criminal whose path of destruction ripped apart families and terrorized Suffolk County with his MS-13 cohorts,” stated SCPD Commissioner Catalina.  “I commend the efforts of the SCPD officers and our law enforcement partners who are dedicated to bringing violent gang criminals to justice and offering closure to the victims’ families.”

    As set forth in the government’s sentencing memorandum, prior court filings, and statements during the sentencing, Alexi Saenz was the local leader of the Brentwood/Central Islip chapter of the Sailors clique of the MS-13 – one of the more powerful, violent, and well-established cliques on the East Coast of the United States.  He committed the following crimes in order to maintain and increase his membership and status within the gang and to further the mission of the MS-13:

    January 28, 2016 Murder of Michael Johnson

    On January 28, 2016, Alexi Saenz and other MS-13 members and associates were at the Jocorena Deli in Brentwood, where they saw 29-year-old Michael Johnson, and claimed to recognize him as a member of the rival Bloods street gang.  At that point, Johnson was marked as their “food” – a reference to their intention to kill him. 

    After receiving the requisite approval from the New York leader of the Sailors clique to commit this murder, Alexi Saenz contacted several other MS-13 members, informed them of the plan to kill Johnson, and instructed them to bring weapons, including a machete and a baseball bat, to a wooded area in Brentwood.  Alexi Saenz then lured Johnson to that secluded meeting location under the guise of smoking marijuana.  The MS-13 members and associates ambushed Johnson from behind – striking Johnson with the baseball bat, stabbing him with a knife, and taking turns hacking him with the machete.  They fled after hearing police sirens in the area.   

    Johnson was reported missing by family members. Less than one week after his murder, on February 2, 2016, members of the SCPD responded to a 911 call about a body found in the woods by a passerby, and recovered Johnson’s body.  An autopsy determined Johnson’s cause of death to be sharp and blunt force injuries.   

    April 29, 2016 Murder of Oscar Acosta

    In early 2016, Alexi Saenz and his fellow Sailors clique members decided to “green light,” or approve, the murder of 19-year-old Oscar Acosta because they suspected that he was associating with the rival 18th Street gang after previously aligning himself with the MS-13. The New York Sailors clique leader assigned roles as to which members would take the lead in planning and carrying out the murder. 

    On April 29, 2016, MS-13 members met Acosta in a wooded area near an elementary school in Brentwood where he had been lured under the guise of smoking marijuana.  They brutally beat Acosta with tree limbs, knocking him unconscious. They bound Acosta’s hands and feet, wrapped an article of clothing around his mouth to prevent him from making noise, and summoned other MS-13 members, including Alexi Saenz.  The MS-13 members loaded Acosta into the trunk of Alexi Saenz’s car, and drove to a more secluded area in Brentwood near the abandoned Pilgrim State Psychiatric Hospital.  At the direction of Alexi Saenz, the MS-13 members removed Acosta, who was still alive, from the trunk and carried him deeper into the woods where they took turns hacking him to death with a machete.  The murder was supervised by Alexi Saenz, as his role as the local clique leader.  The MS-13 members then buried Acosta’s body in a shallow grave.   

    Acosta’s body was discovered by law enforcement nearly five months later, on September 16, 2016, during a search for another MS-13 victim.  His cause of death was homicidal violence, including sharp and blunt force injuries to his head and torso.

    July 18, 2016 Attempted Murders of John Doe #1 and John Doe #2

    On July 18, 2016, during a Sailors clique meeting at Alexi Saenz’s house in Central Islip, the defendant instructed the group to hunt for rival gang members who had been disrespectful to the MS-13, in order to attack and kill them.

    Later that evening, other members of the MS-13, who were driving around Brentwood armed with firearms and a machete, spotted a group of men on Apple Street. Believing these men to be members of a rival gang, three MS-13 members got out of the car and attacked the group, firing rounds from two different guns, and then using a machete to hack at one of the men who had fallen to the ground.  After the attack, the group drove back to Alexi Saenz’s house, where they hid the weapons.

    Two individuals were injured as a result of this attack.  John Doe #1 was struck with a bullet, but survived.  John Doe #2 was attacked with a machete, and was permanently disfigured.

    August 10, 2016 Attempted Murders of Suspected Rival Gang Members

    In 2016, members of the MS-13 were engaged in a series of disputes with members of the Goon Squad, a rival gang in Brentwood. 

    On August 10, 2016, Alexi Saenz and another MS-13 member drove through the neighborhood around Lukens Avenue in Brentwood, and spotted several men who they believed were members of the Goon Squad. They then rallied other members of the Sailors clique to come kill the rivals. 

    The MS-13 members divided into two vehicles, and drove towards the house where the suspected Goon Squad members had been spotted. Alexi Saenz’s car kept watch for the police, while two other MS-13 members, each bearing a gun, approached the group of suspected rivals and fired numerous shots in their direction.  No one was hit, although a stray bullet entered a neighbor’s house and struck the headboard of a bed in which the neighbor was sleeping.

    September 5, 2016 Murder of Marcus Bohannon

    On September 4, 2016, during a Sailors clique meeting at Alexi Saenz’s house in Central Islip, the defendant and other MS-13 members went out hunting for rival gang members to kill.

    The MS-13 members separated into several cars and drove around Central Islip and Brentwood, until Alexi Saenz’s group spotted 27-year old Marcus Bohannon walking along Lowell Avenue in Central Islip in the early morning hours of September 5.  Suspecting that Bohannon was a member of the rival Bloods gang, two MS-13 members, carrying firearms, got out of the vehicle, approached him, and started shooting.  Alexi Saenz then drove them away.  Bohannon was struck nine times, including in his head, neck, and chest, and died from his wounds.

    September 12, 2016 Arson

    During the summer of 2016, Sailors clique members of the MS-13 engaged in regular altercations with local gang members based in a neighborhood on Freeman Avenue in Brentwood.

    On September 12, 2016, MS-13 members retaliated by setting fire to a car parked in the driveway of one of the houses in that rival gang neighborhood.  Alexi Saenz directed other gang members to purchase gasoline and carry out the arson, while he drove around watching for police presence.  The other MS-13 gang members drove to that house, where they poured gasoline on a car parked in the driveway, and set it on fire.  The car exploded, and set another parked car on fire.   

    September 13, 2016 Murders of Kayla Cuevas and Nisa Mickens

    On September 13, 2016, Sailors clique members brutally murdered 15-year-old Nisa Mickens and 16-year-old Kayla Cuevas, both students at Brentwood High School.

    In the months leading up to the murders, Cuevas was involved in a series of disputes with members and associates of the MS-13.  Approximately one week before the murders, these disputes escalated when Cuevas and several friends were involved in an altercation with MS-13 members at Brentwood High School.  After that incident, the MS-13 members vowed to seek revenge against Cuevas.

    On the evening of September 13, 2016, Alexi Saenz and other members of the Sailors clique of the MS-13 were driving in separate cars around Brentwood in search of rival gang members to attack and kill.  One group of MS-13 members spotted Cuevas and Mickens walking down residential Stahley Street.  Recognizing Cuevas, they called Alexi Saenz and were granted permission to kill the girls. Several MS-13 members then chased down and attacked both Cuevas and Mickens, wielding baseball bats and a machete, striking each of the girls numerous times in their heads and bodies, while Alexi Saenz’s car drove around watching for police.  After the murders, the group retreated to Alexi Saenz’s home in Central Islip, where they changed clothes and hid the weapons.   

    Mickens, whose body was discovered later that evening on Stahley Street, not far from Cuevas’s home, sustained significant sharp force trauma to her face and blunt force trauma to her head.  Cuevas, whose body was discovered the following day behind a house adjacent to where Mickens’s body was found, sustained significant blunt force trauma to her head and body and multiple lacerations.

    October 10, 2016 Murder of Javier Castillo

    In October 2016, the MS-13 targeted 15-year-old Javier Castillo because he was believed to be a member of the 18th Street gang, one of MS-13’s principal rivals. 

    On October 10, 2016, several members of the Sailors clique convinced Castillo, who lived in Central Islip, to drive with them to Freeport – approximately 30 miles away – to smoke marijuana.  Once there, they met Alexi Saenz and other Sailors clique members.  The group then lured Castillo to an isolated marsh area in Cow Meadow Park, where they attacked him, taking turns hacking him to death with a machete. 

    Afterwards, the MS-13 members dug a hole and buried Castillo’s body, which was not recovered until one year later, in late October 2017.  Castillo was determined to have suffered multiple sharp force injuries to his head, neck, torso, and extremities.

    October 13, 2016 Murder of Dewann Stacks

    On the evening of October 13, 2016, Alexi Saenz and other members of the Sailors clique of MS-13 were driving around Central Islip and Brentwood in search of rival gang members to attack and kill.

    That night, they spotted 34-year-old Dewann Stacks and, believing him to be a rival gang member, Alexi Saenz authorized his murder.  While Alexi Saenz drove around watching for police presence, another group of MS-13 members, armed with two machetes and a baseball bat, drove over to attack Stacks.  Three armed MS-13 members got out of the car, and beat and hacked Stacks to death on American Boulevard, a residential street in Brentwood.  Stacks sustained severe sharp and blunt force trauma to his face and head, leaving his body nearly unrecognizable.

    January 30, 2017 Murder of Esteban Alvarado-Bonilla

    On the morning of January 30, 2017, Alexi Saenz and other members of the Sailors clique of MS-13 spotted 29-year-old Esteban Alvarado-Bonilla inside El Campesino Deli in Central Islip.  Since Alvarado-Bonilla was wearing a football jersey bearing the number “18,” the MS-13 concluded that he was a member of a rival gang and plotted to kill him.

    Several other MS-13 members obtained a mask and another vehicle that would be used to commit the murder.  Alexi Saenz provided the clique’s 9-millimeter handgun for use in the murder.

    At approximately 10:30 a.m., a masked MS-13 member entered the deli, approached Alvarado-Bonilla from behind, and shot him multiple times, killing him.  One of the bullets pierced through Alvarado-Bonilla’s head and struck the chest of a female employee of the deli, who was standing directly in front of him.  The deli employee survived the gunshot wound.   

    Narcotics Trafficking Conspiracy

    For a year and a half, from approximately April 2016 through March 2017, in order to finance the illegal operations of the Sailors clique, Alexi Saenz obtained wholesale quantities of cocaine and marijuana, which he distributed to other Sailors clique members and associates for street-level sales in Brentwood and its surrounding areas.  After the sales, the profits were turned over to Alexi Saenz, for use in, among other things, purchasing firearms for use by clique members, wiring money to MS-13 leaders in El Salvador, and buying additional narcotics for further distribution.     

                                       *          *          *          *

    Today’s sentencing is the latest achievement in a series of federal prosecutions by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York targeting members of the MS-13, a violent, transnational criminal organization.  The MS-13’s leadership is based in El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, and Mexico, but the gang has thousands of members across the United States.  With numerous branches, or “cliques,” the MS-13 is the most violent criminal organization on Long Island.  Since 2003, hundreds of MS-13 members, including dozens of clique leaders, have been convicted on federal felony charges in the Eastern District of New York. A majority of those MS-13 members have been convicted on federal racketeering charges for participating in murders, attempted murders, and assaults.  Since 2010, this Office has obtained indictments charging MS-13 members with carrying out more than 75 murders in the Eastern District of New York, resulting in the convictions of dozens of MS-13 leaders and members in connection with those murders.  These prosecutions are the product of investigations led by the FBI’s Long Island Gang Task Force, which is comprised of agents and officers of the FBI, SCPD, Nassau County Police Department, Nassau County Sheriff’s Department, Suffolk County Probation Office, Suffolk County Sheriff’s Office, the New York State Police, the Hempstead Police Department, the Rockville Centre Police Department, and the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision.

    The case is part of Operation Take Back America, a Department of Justice initiative aimed at eradicating transnational criminal organizations, combating violent crime, and restoring the rule of law.

    This prosecution is also part of an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) investigation.  OCDETF identifies, disrupts, and dismantles the highest-level drug traffickers, money launderers, gangs, and transnational criminal organizations that threaten the United States by using a prosecutor-led, intelligence-driven, multi-agency approach that leverages the strengths of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies against criminal networks.

    The government’s case is being handled by the Criminal Section of the Office’s Long Island Division.  Assistant United States Attorneys John J. Durham, Paul G. Scotti, Justina L. Geraci, and Megan E. Farrell are in charge of the prosecution, with the assistance of Paralegal Specialist Kerryanne Ucci and Automated Litigation Specialist Michael Compitello.

    The Defendant:

    ALEXI SAENZ (also known as “Blasty” and “Plaky”)
    Age: 30
    El Divisadero, Morazán, El Salvador; and Central Islip, New York

    E.D.N.Y. Docket No. 16-CR-403 (S-8) (GRB)

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Boozman Recognized for Support of Medical Education and Research

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Arkansas – John Boozman

    WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator John Boozman (R-AR) was recognized with the 2025 Champion of Academic Medicine Award from the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) for demonstrating extraordinary leadership advancing priorities that benefit patients, medical educators, academic institutions and the broader health care system. 

    “I’m proud to champion the vital work of our nation’s academic medical centers, medical schools and the future physicians they train. Strengthening our health care workforce, especially in rural and underserved communities, is critical to improve access to care and support the next generation of providers in Arkansas and across the country for years to come. I look forward to further advocating key policies that protect and enhance medical education,” Boozman said.

    AAMC President and CEO Dr. David Skorton, along with Founding Dean and CEO of Alice L. Walton Medical School Dr. Sharmila Makhija and University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences outgoing Chancellor Dr. Cam Patterson, presented Boozman with the award in his Washington office.

    “We applaud Sen. Boozman for his tireless efforts to highlight and support the critical work of the nation’s academic health systems and teaching hospitals in driving innovation and improving patient care,” Skorton said. “His strong support and steadfast leadership has paved the way for lawmakers to better understand what’s at stake –– a growing nationwide physician shortage, a dire need for the United States to remain competitive in health care innovation and economic growth, and an urgent need to invest in the advancements that save patient lives.” 

    In March, Boozman introduced the Physicians for Underserved Areas Act and the Resident Education Deferred Interest (REDI) Act to increase available medical residency spots, prioritize placement in rural and underserved areas and ease financial burdens on medical professionals completing their medical training. 

    Boozman has also been at the forefront of a bipartisan push to lift the 25-year freeze on Medicare-supported graduate medical education positions, including helping to secure more than 1,000 new residency slots.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Approval set to be a blur as Leeds council chiefs all go hand in hand to back £23.9m new Parklife sports hubs

    Source: City of Leeds

    New sports facilities set for Woodhall in Calverley and Green Park in Temple Newsam

    Senior councillors in Leeds are set to give a final green light next week to a £23.9million investment in two new sports hubs in the city.

    At the meeting of the council’s executive board at Civic Hall on Wednesday 16 July, councillors are expected to approve work starting on new sports pitches and supporting pavilion facilities at Woodhall in Calverley and Green Park in Temple Newsam.

    The plans for the sites have been developed by Leeds City Council in partnership with the Football Foundation as part of their national Parklife (Sports Hubs) programme, which aims to increase the number of third generation artificial grass pitches in the country.  

    At each site, three new full-sized pitches with floodlighting will be created for football and rugby use along with other play areas, biodiversity habitats, landscaping and parking. The Green Park site will also include a large multi-use hard court space that can be used for accessible or wheelchair sports or those sports needing a hard surface such as hockey or basketball. It will also offer walking and running routes in a park setting to encourage active lifestyles.

    Both sites will also feature a new sports pavilion building providing a café and meeting space together with ancillary features such as toilets and changing rooms, including Changing Places toilet facilities.

    The plans have been refined and developed following consultation with the public, local sports clubs, disability groups and local councillors, with changes made to accommodate feedback received.

    The new hubs are to be funded by Leeds City Council, the Football Foundation, Section 106 developer contributions and private sector funding. Proposals are also being developed for a possible third site at the former Matthew Murray High School in Holbeck, with further details on those plans to follow.

    If approved, work would begin at Woodhall in August to be completed in a year with the new facilities open the end of August 2026. At Green Park initial ecological works would begin in August before construction starting in October, with the new pitches ready for play in August 2026 and the new sports pavilion opening the following month.

    Once opened the hubs will be managed by the National Football Trust, a not-for-profit organisation, with all surplus income generated to be reinvested in outdoor sports facilities across Leeds.

    Leeds City Council executive member for adult social care, active lifestyles and culture Councillor Salma Arif said:

    “These new facilities look fantastic and this project represents a significant investment in helping encourage people of all ages to live active and healthy lifestyles. Not only will they offer superb new sports facilities, these hubs will become focal points for entire communities to make use of and enjoy, so we look forward to seeing them created and open next year. We are delighted to be working with the Football Foundation, National Football Trust and all partners and stakeholders in making this wonderful project a reality.”

    To see the report being considered by the executive board visit Council and democracy (agenda item 6).

     

    ENDS

     

    For media enquiries please contact:

    Leeds City Council communications and marketing,

    Email: communicationsteam@leeds.gov.uk

    Tel: 0113 378 6007

     

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI: Ageas and BlackRock, Inc.: Transparency notification

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    In accordance with the rules on financial transparency*, BlackRock, Inc. has notified Ageas on 3 July 2025 that, on 1 July 2025, its interest has exceeded the legal threshold of 5% of the shares issued by Ageas. Its current shareholding stands at 7,78%.

    Reason for the notification
    Acquisition or disposal of the control of an undertaking that holds a participating interest in an issuer

    Notification by
    A parent undertaking or a controlling person

    Persons subject to the notification requirement
    See annex 1a

    Date on which the threshold is crossed
    1 July 2025

    Threshold that is crossed (in %)
    5%

    Denominator
    198.938.286

    Notified details
    See annex 1 b

    Chain of controlled undertakings through which the holding is effectively held, if applicable
    The full chain of command can be found on https://www.ageas.com/investors/shareholders

    Additional information
    As a result of the acquisition of HPS Investment Partners, there has been a change to BlackRock’s group structure. Upon the close of the transaction, BlackRock, Inc. contributed all of its equity interests in BlackRock Finance, Inc. and Global Infrastructure Management, LLC to BlackRock Saturn Subco, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company.

    This press release and the notifications received by Ageas are available on the website.

    * article 14, paragraph 1 of the law of 2 May 2007 on disclosure of major holdings us provisions.

    Ageas is a Belgian rooted listed international insurance Group with a heritage spanning 200 years. It offers Retail and Business customers Life and Non-Life insurance products designed to suit their specific needs, today and tomorrow, and is also engaged in reinsurance activities. As one of Europe’s larger insurance companies, Ageas concentrates its activities in Europe and Asia, which together make up the major part of the global insurance market. It operates successful insurance businesses in Belgium, the UK, Portugal, Türkiye, China, Malaysia, India, Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Singapore, and the Philippines through a combination of wholly owned subsidiaries and long term partnerships with strong financial institutions and key distributors. Ageas ranks among the market leaders in the countries in which it operates. It represents a staff force of about 50,000 people and reported annual inflows of EUR 18.5 billion in 2024.

    ANNEX 1a

    Name Address (for legal entities)
    BlackRock, Inc. 50 Hudson Yards, New York, NY, 10001, U.S.A.
    BlackRock (Singapore) Limited 20 Anson Road #18-01, Singapore, 79912, Singapore
    BlackRock Advisors (UK) Limited 12 Throgmorton Avenue, London, EC2N 2DL, U.K.
    BlackRock Advisors, LLC 50 Hudson Yards, New York, NY, 10001, U.S.A.
    BlackRock Asset Management Canada Limited 161 Bay Street, Suite 2500, Toronto, Ontario, M5J 2S1, Canada
    BlackRock Asset Management Deutschland AG Lenbachplatz 1 1st Floor, Munich, 80333-MN3, Germany
    BlackRock Asset Management North Asia Limited 15/F, 16/F, 17/F Citibank Tower & 17/F ICBC Tower, 3 Garden Road, Central, Hong Kong
    BlackRock Financial Management, Inc. 50 Hudson Yards, New York, NY, 10001, U.S.A.
    BlackRock Fund Advisors 400 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA, 94105, U.S.A.
    BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, National Association 400 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA, 94105, U.S.A.
    BlackRock International Limited Exchange Place One, 1 Semple Street, Edinburgh, EH3 8BL, U.K.
    BlackRock Investment Management (Australia) Limited Level 37 Chifley Tower, 2 Chifley Square, Sydney NSW 2000, Australia
    BlackRock Investment Management (UK) Limited 12 Throgmorton Avenue, London, EC2N 2DL, U.K.
    BlackRock Investment Management, LLC 1 University Square Drive, Princeton, NJ, 8540, U.S.A.
    BlackRock Japan Co., Ltd. 1-8-3 Marunouchi Chiyoda-ku, Trust Tower Main, Tokyo, 100-8217, Japan
    Aperio Group, LLC 3 Harbor Dr Suite 204, Sausalito, CA 94965, U.S.A.
    SpiderRock Advisors, LLC Corporation Service Company, 251 Little Falls Drive, Wilmington, DE 19808, U.S.A.

    ANNEX 1b

    A) Voting rights Previous notification After the transaction  
      # of voting rights # of voting rights % of voting rights  
    Holders of voting rights   Linked to securities Not linked to the securities Linked to securities Not linked to the securities S
    BlackRock, Inc. 0 0   0,00%   1
    BlackRock (Singapore) Limited 26.755 26.310   0,01%   1
    BlackRock Advisors (UK) Limited 2.917.790 3.172.318   1,59%   1
    BlackRock Advisors, LLC 203.203 332.981   0,17%   1
    BlackRock Asset Management Canada Limited 147.243 262.978   0,13%   1
    BlackRock Asset Management Deutschland AG 1.811.227 1.362.308   0,68%   1
    BlackRock Asset Management North Asia Limited 25.474 25.829   0,01%   1
    BlackRock Financial Management, Inc. 50.348 190.132   0,10%   1
    BlackRock Fund Advisors 3.769.688 3.810.650   1,92%   1
    BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, National Association 2.088.675 2.690.187   1,35%   1
    BlackRock International Limited 1.637 12.647   0,01%   1
    BlackRock Investment Management (Australia) Limited 69.199 56.242   0,03%   1
    BlackRock Investment Management (UK) Limited 895.264 1.142.495   0,57%   1
    BlackRock Investment Management, LLC 418.682 373.405   0,19%   1
    BlackRock Japan Co., Ltd. 285.173 300.448   0,15%   1
    Aperio Group, LLC 18.343 21.757   0,01%   1
    Subtotal 12.728.700 13.780.688   6,93%   S
      TOTAL 13.780.688 0 6,93% 0,00%  
    B) Equivalent financial instruments After the transaction
    Holders of equivalent
    financial instruments    		 Type of financial instrument Expiration date Exercise period or date # of voting rights that may be acquired if the instrument is exercised % of voting rights Settlement  
    BlackRock Advisors, LLC Contract Difference     641.303 0,32% cash  
    BlackRock Financial Management, Inc. Contract Difference     513.136 0,26% cash  
    BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, National Association Contract Difference     326.027 0,16% cash  
    BlackRock Investment Management (UK) Limited Contract Difference     13.097 0,01% cash  
    BlackRock Investment Management, LLC Contract Difference     845 0,00% cash  
    Aperio Group, LLC Depositary Receipt     195.684 0,10%    
    SpiderRock Advisors, LLC Depositary Receipt     158 0,00%    
      TOTAL   1.690.250 0,85%    
      TOTAL (A & B)     # of voting rights % of voting rights    
          CALCULATE 15.470.938 7,78%    

            

    Attachment

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Alcohol sales changed subtly after Canada legalized cannabis

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Michael J. Armstrong, Associate Professor, Operations Research, Brock University

    In Canada, some studies indicate alcohol consumption declined slightly as medical cannabis use became more common. Did similar decreases follow recreational legalization? (Unsplash+)

    Before Canada legalized recreational cannabis in October 2018, it was unclear how the change might affect beverage alcohol consumption. Would consumers drink less or more after cannabis became legal?

    Drinking might decrease, for example, if people used cannabis in place of alcohol. That switch potentially could reduce alcohol-related harms. But economically, it would mean any gains in the cannabis industry would likely come at the expense of alcohol producers.

    Conversely, drinking might increase if people used alcohol along with cannabis. That could boost alcohol industry profits and government tax revenues, but at the cost of increased health risks of both substances.

    In response to this uncertainty, some businesses diversified. One alcohol producer bought a cannabis grower, while a cannabis firm took took over several beer brewers.

    Research from the United States into the relationship between alcohol and cannabis use is inconclusive. Some studies report that alcohol use decreased in states that allowed cannabis, while others said usage increased or didn’t significantly change. Those conflicting conclusions might reflect the complex legal situation in the United States, where cannabis remains illegal under federal law, even in states that allow its use.

    In Canada, some studies indicate alcohol consumption declined slightly as medical cannabis use became more common. Did similar decreases follow recreational legalization?

    To investigate this question, I first collaborated with health science researchers Daniel Myran, Robert Talarico, Jennifer Xiao and Rachael MacDonald-Spracklin to study Canada’s overall alcohol sales.

    Total sales looked stable

    We started our research by examining annual alcohol sales from 2004 to 2022. During that period, beer sales gradually fell, while the sale of coolers and other drinks steadily rose. That left total sales basically unchanged.

    So consumers were apparently switching from beer to other beverages. But there were no obvious effects from 2018’s cannabis legalization.

    Annual Canadian beverage alcohol sales from 2004 to 2022, in litres of ethanol content per capita. The vertical gray bar marks cannabis legalization.
    (Statistics Canada), CC BY-ND

    We also compared monthly sales during the 12 months before legalization versus the 12 after. This included national average sales by liquor retailers and beer producers. In both cases, sales trends showed no significant changes in October 2018.

    However, this research on Canada-wide sales was mainly designed to detect large changes. To find subtler ones, I focused on the province of Nova Scotia.

    Some liquor stores sold cannabis

    When Canada legalized cannabis, most provinces banned liquor stores from selling it to avoid tempting alcohol drinkers into trying cannabis.

    Nova Scotia did the opposite. Its government-owned liquor corporation became the main cannabis retailer. After legalization in October 2018, most provincial liquor stores kept selling only alcohol, but some began selling cannabis as well.

    This unique situation prompted me to study the province’s sales. I focused on the 17 months before and 17 months after legalization.

    The corporation’s total alcohol sales initially fell in October 2018, then slowly regrew. As a result, monthly sales after legalization averaged about $500,000 below their earlier levels.

    More interestingly, the changes differed between the cannabis-selling stores and the alcohol-only ones. At the alcohol-only stores, sales immediately fell. They averaged $800,000 below previous levels.

    But at cannabis-sellers, alcohol sales began growing. Total monthly sales from October 2018 to February 2020 averaged $300,000 above earlier levels.

    Seasonally adjusted Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation retail sales of beverage alcohol in Canadian dollars, from May 2017 to February 2020. The vertical gray bar marks cannabis legalization.
    (Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation), CC BY-ND

    The divergence in sales was larger for beers than for spirits or wines.

    Interestingly, alcohol-only stores located near cannabis-selling stores had changes similar to those located farther away, suggesting that cannabis-seller proximity didn’t matter.

    Switching substances or stores?

    My data can’t say why the sales split occurred, but I can speculate.

    Consider the immediate sales drop at alcohol-only stores — this could suggest some consumers switched from alcohol to cannabis right after legalization.

    Meanwhile, the lack of a drop at cannabis sellers might mean some consumers simply changed where they shopped. Instead of visiting their local alcohol-only retailer, they went to cannabis sellers to shop for alcohol and cannabis together.

    The cannabis sellers’ ongoing growth might reflect people increasingly buying cannabis from licensed stores instead of illegal dealers. They went to those stores to buy weed, but picked up some extra booze while they were there.

    Looking ahead

    My research so far has focused on the initial post-legalization period, from October 2018 to February 2020.

    I plan to study later periods next, when cannabis retailing was more widespread and perhaps more influential.

    That will be more challenging, however, because COVID-19 arrived in March 2020. The pandemic disrupted sales of alcohol, though not of cannabis. It will be tricky to separate cannabis effects from pandemic ones, or from Canadian consumers’ evolving drinking habits in general.

    My guess is that cannabis legalization had little short-term impact on existing drinkers overall. Most Canadians didn’t suddenly consume cannabis with their cabernet or replace vodka with vapes.

    Instead, we might see gradual long-term shifts. Young Canadians now reach legal age in a context where cannabis and alcohol are both allowed. Some folks who previously would have started drinking alcohol might now choose cannabis instead, or in addition.

    For now, alcohol drinking is still three times more common than cannabis use. Whether that continues, only time will tell.

    Michael J. Armstrong 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. Alcohol sales changed subtly after Canada legalized cannabis – https://theconversation.com/alcohol-sales-changed-subtly-after-canada-legalized-cannabis-260375

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Alcohol sales changed subtly after Canada legalized cannabis

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Michael J. Armstrong, Associate Professor, Operations Research, Brock University

    In Canada, some studies indicate alcohol consumption declined slightly as medical cannabis use became more common. Did similar decreases follow recreational legalization? (Unsplash+)

    Before Canada legalized recreational cannabis in October 2018, it was unclear how the change might affect beverage alcohol consumption. Would consumers drink less or more after cannabis became legal?

    Drinking might decrease, for example, if people used cannabis in place of alcohol. That switch potentially could reduce alcohol-related harms. But economically, it would mean any gains in the cannabis industry would likely come at the expense of alcohol producers.

    Conversely, drinking might increase if people used alcohol along with cannabis. That could boost alcohol industry profits and government tax revenues, but at the cost of increased health risks of both substances.

    In response to this uncertainty, some businesses diversified. One alcohol producer bought a cannabis grower, while a cannabis firm took took over several beer brewers.

    Research from the United States into the relationship between alcohol and cannabis use is inconclusive. Some studies report that alcohol use decreased in states that allowed cannabis, while others said usage increased or didn’t significantly change. Those conflicting conclusions might reflect the complex legal situation in the United States, where cannabis remains illegal under federal law, even in states that allow its use.

    In Canada, some studies indicate alcohol consumption declined slightly as medical cannabis use became more common. Did similar decreases follow recreational legalization?

    To investigate this question, I first collaborated with health science researchers Daniel Myran, Robert Talarico, Jennifer Xiao and Rachael MacDonald-Spracklin to study Canada’s overall alcohol sales.

    Total sales looked stable

    We started our research by examining annual alcohol sales from 2004 to 2022. During that period, beer sales gradually fell, while the sale of coolers and other drinks steadily rose. That left total sales basically unchanged.

    So consumers were apparently switching from beer to other beverages. But there were no obvious effects from 2018’s cannabis legalization.

    Annual Canadian beverage alcohol sales from 2004 to 2022, in litres of ethanol content per capita. The vertical gray bar marks cannabis legalization.
    (Statistics Canada), CC BY-ND

    We also compared monthly sales during the 12 months before legalization versus the 12 after. This included national average sales by liquor retailers and beer producers. In both cases, sales trends showed no significant changes in October 2018.

    However, this research on Canada-wide sales was mainly designed to detect large changes. To find subtler ones, I focused on the province of Nova Scotia.

    Some liquor stores sold cannabis

    When Canada legalized cannabis, most provinces banned liquor stores from selling it to avoid tempting alcohol drinkers into trying cannabis.

    Nova Scotia did the opposite. Its government-owned liquor corporation became the main cannabis retailer. After legalization in October 2018, most provincial liquor stores kept selling only alcohol, but some began selling cannabis as well.

    This unique situation prompted me to study the province’s sales. I focused on the 17 months before and 17 months after legalization.

    The corporation’s total alcohol sales initially fell in October 2018, then slowly regrew. As a result, monthly sales after legalization averaged about $500,000 below their earlier levels.

    More interestingly, the changes differed between the cannabis-selling stores and the alcohol-only ones. At the alcohol-only stores, sales immediately fell. They averaged $800,000 below previous levels.

    But at cannabis-sellers, alcohol sales began growing. Total monthly sales from October 2018 to February 2020 averaged $300,000 above earlier levels.

    Seasonally adjusted Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation retail sales of beverage alcohol in Canadian dollars, from May 2017 to February 2020. The vertical gray bar marks cannabis legalization.
    (Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation), CC BY-ND

    The divergence in sales was larger for beers than for spirits or wines.

    Interestingly, alcohol-only stores located near cannabis-selling stores had changes similar to those located farther away, suggesting that cannabis-seller proximity didn’t matter.

    Switching substances or stores?

    My data can’t say why the sales split occurred, but I can speculate.

    Consider the immediate sales drop at alcohol-only stores — this could suggest some consumers switched from alcohol to cannabis right after legalization.

    Meanwhile, the lack of a drop at cannabis sellers might mean some consumers simply changed where they shopped. Instead of visiting their local alcohol-only retailer, they went to cannabis sellers to shop for alcohol and cannabis together.

    The cannabis sellers’ ongoing growth might reflect people increasingly buying cannabis from licensed stores instead of illegal dealers. They went to those stores to buy weed, but picked up some extra booze while they were there.

    Looking ahead

    My research so far has focused on the initial post-legalization period, from October 2018 to February 2020.

    I plan to study later periods next, when cannabis retailing was more widespread and perhaps more influential.

    That will be more challenging, however, because COVID-19 arrived in March 2020. The pandemic disrupted sales of alcohol, though not of cannabis. It will be tricky to separate cannabis effects from pandemic ones, or from Canadian consumers’ evolving drinking habits in general.

    My guess is that cannabis legalization had little short-term impact on existing drinkers overall. Most Canadians didn’t suddenly consume cannabis with their cabernet or replace vodka with vapes.

    Instead, we might see gradual long-term shifts. Young Canadians now reach legal age in a context where cannabis and alcohol are both allowed. Some folks who previously would have started drinking alcohol might now choose cannabis instead, or in addition.

    For now, alcohol drinking is still three times more common than cannabis use. Whether that continues, only time will tell.

    Michael J. Armstrong 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. Alcohol sales changed subtly after Canada legalized cannabis – https://theconversation.com/alcohol-sales-changed-subtly-after-canada-legalized-cannabis-260375

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Alcohol sales changed subtly after Canada legalized cannabis

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Michael J. Armstrong, Associate Professor, Operations Research, Brock University

    In Canada, some studies indicate alcohol consumption declined slightly as medical cannabis use became more common. Did similar decreases follow recreational legalization? (Unsplash+)

    Before Canada legalized recreational cannabis in October 2018, it was unclear how the change might affect beverage alcohol consumption. Would consumers drink less or more after cannabis became legal?

    Drinking might decrease, for example, if people used cannabis in place of alcohol. That switch potentially could reduce alcohol-related harms. But economically, it would mean any gains in the cannabis industry would likely come at the expense of alcohol producers.

    Conversely, drinking might increase if people used alcohol along with cannabis. That could boost alcohol industry profits and government tax revenues, but at the cost of increased health risks of both substances.

    In response to this uncertainty, some businesses diversified. One alcohol producer bought a cannabis grower, while a cannabis firm took took over several beer brewers.

    Research from the United States into the relationship between alcohol and cannabis use is inconclusive. Some studies report that alcohol use decreased in states that allowed cannabis, while others said usage increased or didn’t significantly change. Those conflicting conclusions might reflect the complex legal situation in the United States, where cannabis remains illegal under federal law, even in states that allow its use.

    In Canada, some studies indicate alcohol consumption declined slightly as medical cannabis use became more common. Did similar decreases follow recreational legalization?

    To investigate this question, I first collaborated with health science researchers Daniel Myran, Robert Talarico, Jennifer Xiao and Rachael MacDonald-Spracklin to study Canada’s overall alcohol sales.

    Total sales looked stable

    We started our research by examining annual alcohol sales from 2004 to 2022. During that period, beer sales gradually fell, while the sale of coolers and other drinks steadily rose. That left total sales basically unchanged.

    So consumers were apparently switching from beer to other beverages. But there were no obvious effects from 2018’s cannabis legalization.

    Annual Canadian beverage alcohol sales from 2004 to 2022, in litres of ethanol content per capita. The vertical gray bar marks cannabis legalization.
    (Statistics Canada), CC BY-ND

    We also compared monthly sales during the 12 months before legalization versus the 12 after. This included national average sales by liquor retailers and beer producers. In both cases, sales trends showed no significant changes in October 2018.

    However, this research on Canada-wide sales was mainly designed to detect large changes. To find subtler ones, I focused on the province of Nova Scotia.

    Some liquor stores sold cannabis

    When Canada legalized cannabis, most provinces banned liquor stores from selling it to avoid tempting alcohol drinkers into trying cannabis.

    Nova Scotia did the opposite. Its government-owned liquor corporation became the main cannabis retailer. After legalization in October 2018, most provincial liquor stores kept selling only alcohol, but some began selling cannabis as well.

    This unique situation prompted me to study the province’s sales. I focused on the 17 months before and 17 months after legalization.

    The corporation’s total alcohol sales initially fell in October 2018, then slowly regrew. As a result, monthly sales after legalization averaged about $500,000 below their earlier levels.

    More interestingly, the changes differed between the cannabis-selling stores and the alcohol-only ones. At the alcohol-only stores, sales immediately fell. They averaged $800,000 below previous levels.

    But at cannabis-sellers, alcohol sales began growing. Total monthly sales from October 2018 to February 2020 averaged $300,000 above earlier levels.

    Seasonally adjusted Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation retail sales of beverage alcohol in Canadian dollars, from May 2017 to February 2020. The vertical gray bar marks cannabis legalization.
    (Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation), CC BY-ND

    The divergence in sales was larger for beers than for spirits or wines.

    Interestingly, alcohol-only stores located near cannabis-selling stores had changes similar to those located farther away, suggesting that cannabis-seller proximity didn’t matter.

    Switching substances or stores?

    My data can’t say why the sales split occurred, but I can speculate.

    Consider the immediate sales drop at alcohol-only stores — this could suggest some consumers switched from alcohol to cannabis right after legalization.

    Meanwhile, the lack of a drop at cannabis sellers might mean some consumers simply changed where they shopped. Instead of visiting their local alcohol-only retailer, they went to cannabis sellers to shop for alcohol and cannabis together.

    The cannabis sellers’ ongoing growth might reflect people increasingly buying cannabis from licensed stores instead of illegal dealers. They went to those stores to buy weed, but picked up some extra booze while they were there.

    Looking ahead

    My research so far has focused on the initial post-legalization period, from October 2018 to February 2020.

    I plan to study later periods next, when cannabis retailing was more widespread and perhaps more influential.

    That will be more challenging, however, because COVID-19 arrived in March 2020. The pandemic disrupted sales of alcohol, though not of cannabis. It will be tricky to separate cannabis effects from pandemic ones, or from Canadian consumers’ evolving drinking habits in general.

    My guess is that cannabis legalization had little short-term impact on existing drinkers overall. Most Canadians didn’t suddenly consume cannabis with their cabernet or replace vodka with vapes.

    Instead, we might see gradual long-term shifts. Young Canadians now reach legal age in a context where cannabis and alcohol are both allowed. Some folks who previously would have started drinking alcohol might now choose cannabis instead, or in addition.

    For now, alcohol drinking is still three times more common than cannabis use. Whether that continues, only time will tell.

    Michael J. Armstrong 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. Alcohol sales changed subtly after Canada legalized cannabis – https://theconversation.com/alcohol-sales-changed-subtly-after-canada-legalized-cannabis-260375

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Alcohol sales changed subtly after Canada legalized cannabis

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Michael J. Armstrong, Associate Professor, Operations Research, Brock University

    In Canada, some studies indicate alcohol consumption declined slightly as medical cannabis use became more common. Did similar decreases follow recreational legalization? (Unsplash+)

    Before Canada legalized recreational cannabis in October 2018, it was unclear how the change might affect beverage alcohol consumption. Would consumers drink less or more after cannabis became legal?

    Drinking might decrease, for example, if people used cannabis in place of alcohol. That switch potentially could reduce alcohol-related harms. But economically, it would mean any gains in the cannabis industry would likely come at the expense of alcohol producers.

    Conversely, drinking might increase if people used alcohol along with cannabis. That could boost alcohol industry profits and government tax revenues, but at the cost of increased health risks of both substances.

    In response to this uncertainty, some businesses diversified. One alcohol producer bought a cannabis grower, while a cannabis firm took took over several beer brewers.

    Research from the United States into the relationship between alcohol and cannabis use is inconclusive. Some studies report that alcohol use decreased in states that allowed cannabis, while others said usage increased or didn’t significantly change. Those conflicting conclusions might reflect the complex legal situation in the United States, where cannabis remains illegal under federal law, even in states that allow its use.

    In Canada, some studies indicate alcohol consumption declined slightly as medical cannabis use became more common. Did similar decreases follow recreational legalization?

    To investigate this question, I first collaborated with health science researchers Daniel Myran, Robert Talarico, Jennifer Xiao and Rachael MacDonald-Spracklin to study Canada’s overall alcohol sales.

    Total sales looked stable

    We started our research by examining annual alcohol sales from 2004 to 2022. During that period, beer sales gradually fell, while the sale of coolers and other drinks steadily rose. That left total sales basically unchanged.

    So consumers were apparently switching from beer to other beverages. But there were no obvious effects from 2018’s cannabis legalization.

    Annual Canadian beverage alcohol sales from 2004 to 2022, in litres of ethanol content per capita. The vertical gray bar marks cannabis legalization.
    (Statistics Canada), CC BY-ND

    We also compared monthly sales during the 12 months before legalization versus the 12 after. This included national average sales by liquor retailers and beer producers. In both cases, sales trends showed no significant changes in October 2018.

    However, this research on Canada-wide sales was mainly designed to detect large changes. To find subtler ones, I focused on the province of Nova Scotia.

    Some liquor stores sold cannabis

    When Canada legalized cannabis, most provinces banned liquor stores from selling it to avoid tempting alcohol drinkers into trying cannabis.

    Nova Scotia did the opposite. Its government-owned liquor corporation became the main cannabis retailer. After legalization in October 2018, most provincial liquor stores kept selling only alcohol, but some began selling cannabis as well.

    This unique situation prompted me to study the province’s sales. I focused on the 17 months before and 17 months after legalization.

    The corporation’s total alcohol sales initially fell in October 2018, then slowly regrew. As a result, monthly sales after legalization averaged about $500,000 below their earlier levels.

    More interestingly, the changes differed between the cannabis-selling stores and the alcohol-only ones. At the alcohol-only stores, sales immediately fell. They averaged $800,000 below previous levels.

    But at cannabis-sellers, alcohol sales began growing. Total monthly sales from October 2018 to February 2020 averaged $300,000 above earlier levels.

    Seasonally adjusted Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation retail sales of beverage alcohol in Canadian dollars, from May 2017 to February 2020. The vertical gray bar marks cannabis legalization.
    (Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation), CC BY-ND

    The divergence in sales was larger for beers than for spirits or wines.

    Interestingly, alcohol-only stores located near cannabis-selling stores had changes similar to those located farther away, suggesting that cannabis-seller proximity didn’t matter.

    Switching substances or stores?

    My data can’t say why the sales split occurred, but I can speculate.

    Consider the immediate sales drop at alcohol-only stores — this could suggest some consumers switched from alcohol to cannabis right after legalization.

    Meanwhile, the lack of a drop at cannabis sellers might mean some consumers simply changed where they shopped. Instead of visiting their local alcohol-only retailer, they went to cannabis sellers to shop for alcohol and cannabis together.

    The cannabis sellers’ ongoing growth might reflect people increasingly buying cannabis from licensed stores instead of illegal dealers. They went to those stores to buy weed, but picked up some extra booze while they were there.

    Looking ahead

    My research so far has focused on the initial post-legalization period, from October 2018 to February 2020.

    I plan to study later periods next, when cannabis retailing was more widespread and perhaps more influential.

    That will be more challenging, however, because COVID-19 arrived in March 2020. The pandemic disrupted sales of alcohol, though not of cannabis. It will be tricky to separate cannabis effects from pandemic ones, or from Canadian consumers’ evolving drinking habits in general.

    My guess is that cannabis legalization had little short-term impact on existing drinkers overall. Most Canadians didn’t suddenly consume cannabis with their cabernet or replace vodka with vapes.

    Instead, we might see gradual long-term shifts. Young Canadians now reach legal age in a context where cannabis and alcohol are both allowed. Some folks who previously would have started drinking alcohol might now choose cannabis instead, or in addition.

    For now, alcohol drinking is still three times more common than cannabis use. Whether that continues, only time will tell.

    Michael J. Armstrong 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. Alcohol sales changed subtly after Canada legalized cannabis – https://theconversation.com/alcohol-sales-changed-subtly-after-canada-legalized-cannabis-260375

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Alcohol sales changed subtly after Canada legalized cannabis

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Michael J. Armstrong, Associate Professor, Operations Research, Brock University

    In Canada, some studies indicate alcohol consumption declined slightly as medical cannabis use became more common. Did similar decreases follow recreational legalization? (Unsplash+)

    Before Canada legalized recreational cannabis in October 2018, it was unclear how the change might affect beverage alcohol consumption. Would consumers drink less or more after cannabis became legal?

    Drinking might decrease, for example, if people used cannabis in place of alcohol. That switch potentially could reduce alcohol-related harms. But economically, it would mean any gains in the cannabis industry would likely come at the expense of alcohol producers.

    Conversely, drinking might increase if people used alcohol along with cannabis. That could boost alcohol industry profits and government tax revenues, but at the cost of increased health risks of both substances.

    In response to this uncertainty, some businesses diversified. One alcohol producer bought a cannabis grower, while a cannabis firm took took over several beer brewers.

    Research from the United States into the relationship between alcohol and cannabis use is inconclusive. Some studies report that alcohol use decreased in states that allowed cannabis, while others said usage increased or didn’t significantly change. Those conflicting conclusions might reflect the complex legal situation in the United States, where cannabis remains illegal under federal law, even in states that allow its use.

    In Canada, some studies indicate alcohol consumption declined slightly as medical cannabis use became more common. Did similar decreases follow recreational legalization?

    To investigate this question, I first collaborated with health science researchers Daniel Myran, Robert Talarico, Jennifer Xiao and Rachael MacDonald-Spracklin to study Canada’s overall alcohol sales.

    Total sales looked stable

    We started our research by examining annual alcohol sales from 2004 to 2022. During that period, beer sales gradually fell, while the sale of coolers and other drinks steadily rose. That left total sales basically unchanged.

    So consumers were apparently switching from beer to other beverages. But there were no obvious effects from 2018’s cannabis legalization.

    Annual Canadian beverage alcohol sales from 2004 to 2022, in litres of ethanol content per capita. The vertical gray bar marks cannabis legalization.
    (Statistics Canada), CC BY-ND

    We also compared monthly sales during the 12 months before legalization versus the 12 after. This included national average sales by liquor retailers and beer producers. In both cases, sales trends showed no significant changes in October 2018.

    However, this research on Canada-wide sales was mainly designed to detect large changes. To find subtler ones, I focused on the province of Nova Scotia.

    Some liquor stores sold cannabis

    When Canada legalized cannabis, most provinces banned liquor stores from selling it to avoid tempting alcohol drinkers into trying cannabis.

    Nova Scotia did the opposite. Its government-owned liquor corporation became the main cannabis retailer. After legalization in October 2018, most provincial liquor stores kept selling only alcohol, but some began selling cannabis as well.

    This unique situation prompted me to study the province’s sales. I focused on the 17 months before and 17 months after legalization.

    The corporation’s total alcohol sales initially fell in October 2018, then slowly regrew. As a result, monthly sales after legalization averaged about $500,000 below their earlier levels.

    More interestingly, the changes differed between the cannabis-selling stores and the alcohol-only ones. At the alcohol-only stores, sales immediately fell. They averaged $800,000 below previous levels.

    But at cannabis-sellers, alcohol sales began growing. Total monthly sales from October 2018 to February 2020 averaged $300,000 above earlier levels.

    Seasonally adjusted Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation retail sales of beverage alcohol in Canadian dollars, from May 2017 to February 2020. The vertical gray bar marks cannabis legalization.
    (Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation), CC BY-ND

    The divergence in sales was larger for beers than for spirits or wines.

    Interestingly, alcohol-only stores located near cannabis-selling stores had changes similar to those located farther away, suggesting that cannabis-seller proximity didn’t matter.

    Switching substances or stores?

    My data can’t say why the sales split occurred, but I can speculate.

    Consider the immediate sales drop at alcohol-only stores — this could suggest some consumers switched from alcohol to cannabis right after legalization.

    Meanwhile, the lack of a drop at cannabis sellers might mean some consumers simply changed where they shopped. Instead of visiting their local alcohol-only retailer, they went to cannabis sellers to shop for alcohol and cannabis together.

    The cannabis sellers’ ongoing growth might reflect people increasingly buying cannabis from licensed stores instead of illegal dealers. They went to those stores to buy weed, but picked up some extra booze while they were there.

    Looking ahead

    My research so far has focused on the initial post-legalization period, from October 2018 to February 2020.

    I plan to study later periods next, when cannabis retailing was more widespread and perhaps more influential.

    That will be more challenging, however, because COVID-19 arrived in March 2020. The pandemic disrupted sales of alcohol, though not of cannabis. It will be tricky to separate cannabis effects from pandemic ones, or from Canadian consumers’ evolving drinking habits in general.

    My guess is that cannabis legalization had little short-term impact on existing drinkers overall. Most Canadians didn’t suddenly consume cannabis with their cabernet or replace vodka with vapes.

    Instead, we might see gradual long-term shifts. Young Canadians now reach legal age in a context where cannabis and alcohol are both allowed. Some folks who previously would have started drinking alcohol might now choose cannabis instead, or in addition.

    For now, alcohol drinking is still three times more common than cannabis use. Whether that continues, only time will tell.

    Michael J. Armstrong 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. Alcohol sales changed subtly after Canada legalized cannabis – https://theconversation.com/alcohol-sales-changed-subtly-after-canada-legalized-cannabis-260375

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Alcohol sales changed subtly after Canada legalized cannabis

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Michael J. Armstrong, Associate Professor, Operations Research, Brock University

    In Canada, some studies indicate alcohol consumption declined slightly as medical cannabis use became more common. Did similar decreases follow recreational legalization? (Unsplash+)

    Before Canada legalized recreational cannabis in October 2018, it was unclear how the change might affect beverage alcohol consumption. Would consumers drink less or more after cannabis became legal?

    Drinking might decrease, for example, if people used cannabis in place of alcohol. That switch potentially could reduce alcohol-related harms. But economically, it would mean any gains in the cannabis industry would likely come at the expense of alcohol producers.

    Conversely, drinking might increase if people used alcohol along with cannabis. That could boost alcohol industry profits and government tax revenues, but at the cost of increased health risks of both substances.

    In response to this uncertainty, some businesses diversified. One alcohol producer bought a cannabis grower, while a cannabis firm took took over several beer brewers.

    Research from the United States into the relationship between alcohol and cannabis use is inconclusive. Some studies report that alcohol use decreased in states that allowed cannabis, while others said usage increased or didn’t significantly change. Those conflicting conclusions might reflect the complex legal situation in the United States, where cannabis remains illegal under federal law, even in states that allow its use.

    In Canada, some studies indicate alcohol consumption declined slightly as medical cannabis use became more common. Did similar decreases follow recreational legalization?

    To investigate this question, I first collaborated with health science researchers Daniel Myran, Robert Talarico, Jennifer Xiao and Rachael MacDonald-Spracklin to study Canada’s overall alcohol sales.

    Total sales looked stable

    We started our research by examining annual alcohol sales from 2004 to 2022. During that period, beer sales gradually fell, while the sale of coolers and other drinks steadily rose. That left total sales basically unchanged.

    So consumers were apparently switching from beer to other beverages. But there were no obvious effects from 2018’s cannabis legalization.

    Annual Canadian beverage alcohol sales from 2004 to 2022, in litres of ethanol content per capita. The vertical gray bar marks cannabis legalization.
    (Statistics Canada), CC BY-ND

    We also compared monthly sales during the 12 months before legalization versus the 12 after. This included national average sales by liquor retailers and beer producers. In both cases, sales trends showed no significant changes in October 2018.

    However, this research on Canada-wide sales was mainly designed to detect large changes. To find subtler ones, I focused on the province of Nova Scotia.

    Some liquor stores sold cannabis

    When Canada legalized cannabis, most provinces banned liquor stores from selling it to avoid tempting alcohol drinkers into trying cannabis.

    Nova Scotia did the opposite. Its government-owned liquor corporation became the main cannabis retailer. After legalization in October 2018, most provincial liquor stores kept selling only alcohol, but some began selling cannabis as well.

    This unique situation prompted me to study the province’s sales. I focused on the 17 months before and 17 months after legalization.

    The corporation’s total alcohol sales initially fell in October 2018, then slowly regrew. As a result, monthly sales after legalization averaged about $500,000 below their earlier levels.

    More interestingly, the changes differed between the cannabis-selling stores and the alcohol-only ones. At the alcohol-only stores, sales immediately fell. They averaged $800,000 below previous levels.

    But at cannabis-sellers, alcohol sales began growing. Total monthly sales from October 2018 to February 2020 averaged $300,000 above earlier levels.

    Seasonally adjusted Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation retail sales of beverage alcohol in Canadian dollars, from May 2017 to February 2020. The vertical gray bar marks cannabis legalization.
    (Nova Scotia Liquor Corporation), CC BY-ND

    The divergence in sales was larger for beers than for spirits or wines.

    Interestingly, alcohol-only stores located near cannabis-selling stores had changes similar to those located farther away, suggesting that cannabis-seller proximity didn’t matter.

    Switching substances or stores?

    My data can’t say why the sales split occurred, but I can speculate.

    Consider the immediate sales drop at alcohol-only stores — this could suggest some consumers switched from alcohol to cannabis right after legalization.

    Meanwhile, the lack of a drop at cannabis sellers might mean some consumers simply changed where they shopped. Instead of visiting their local alcohol-only retailer, they went to cannabis sellers to shop for alcohol and cannabis together.

    The cannabis sellers’ ongoing growth might reflect people increasingly buying cannabis from licensed stores instead of illegal dealers. They went to those stores to buy weed, but picked up some extra booze while they were there.

    Looking ahead

    My research so far has focused on the initial post-legalization period, from October 2018 to February 2020.

    I plan to study later periods next, when cannabis retailing was more widespread and perhaps more influential.

    That will be more challenging, however, because COVID-19 arrived in March 2020. The pandemic disrupted sales of alcohol, though not of cannabis. It will be tricky to separate cannabis effects from pandemic ones, or from Canadian consumers’ evolving drinking habits in general.

    My guess is that cannabis legalization had little short-term impact on existing drinkers overall. Most Canadians didn’t suddenly consume cannabis with their cabernet or replace vodka with vapes.

    Instead, we might see gradual long-term shifts. Young Canadians now reach legal age in a context where cannabis and alcohol are both allowed. Some folks who previously would have started drinking alcohol might now choose cannabis instead, or in addition.

    For now, alcohol drinking is still three times more common than cannabis use. Whether that continues, only time will tell.

    Michael J. Armstrong 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. Alcohol sales changed subtly after Canada legalized cannabis – https://theconversation.com/alcohol-sales-changed-subtly-after-canada-legalized-cannabis-260375

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI USA: $3M Awarded to Integrate EV Into the Grid

    Source: US State of New York

    overnor Kathy Hochul today announced $3 million has been awarded to three projects to advance technologies that can help integrate electric vehicles efficiently into the electric grid. The Governor has also made available $4 million to advance technologies that overcome data collection, transmission and operational challenges faced by utilities to manage electric vehicle (EV) charging. Together, these solutions will help to enhance grid flexibility, shift charging to accommodate energy demand, and lower charging costs for consumers.

    “New York is leading the way in building a smarter, more sustainable energy future,” Governor Hochul said. “By investing in innovative technologies that support EV charging and integration with the grid, we are strengthening our clean energy infrastructure to meet the demands of tomorrow. We are also improving grid resiliency while making it easier and more affordable for New Yorkers to drive electric.”

    The $3 million has been awarded to three projects through the Vehicle Grid Integration Program, administered by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), which provides funding for projects that are scalable and advance electric vehicle charging infrastructure through product development, technology demonstrations, or new business models. Technologies include bi-directional charging, energy storage, on-site energy generation, and EV managed charging.

    New York State Energy Research and Development Authority President and CEO Doreen M. Harris said, “Investing in vehicle to grid integration is a game changer for utilities and consumers when it comes to balancing demand on the electric grid and these awarded companies have put forward innovative solutions to improve the way we achieve that balance. Advancing technologies that can shift when electric vehicle charging happens will open the door for future cost reductions, more renewable energy resources like wind and solar, increased grid flexibility and fewer infrastructure upgrades.”

    The awarded projects include:

    • Charging Platform Lamppost Conduit Interconnection: Voltpost was awarded $775,000 to develop lamppost EV charging in the New York City area, Capital Region, and Hudson Valley focusing on UL certification, retrofits, and plans to deploy at least ten additional Level 2 charging stations in New York State.
    • Demonstrating Statewide Implementations of Flexible Interconnections for Fleets: The Mobility House was awarded $867,000 to show how utility distribution capacity can be maximized with flexible interconnections to support electric school bus charging at a depot in Staten Island and a second location yet to be determined in New York State to pilot a method for fast charger deployment that decouples charger construction from electric grid development timelines.
    • Distribution-Optimized EV Managed Charging to Enhance Grid Flexibility: Weave Grid, Inc. was awarded nearly $1 million to control when EV managed charging will occur in the Orange and Rockland Utilities service area by using software and topology data to coordinate schedules and balance the energy load.

    Managed EV Funding
    Also announced today is $4 million in new funding for a competitive solicitation offered through NYSERDA’s Electric Vehicle Managed Charging program. Proposals are sought from researchers, developers and consultants, who individually or as a team, will develop or demonstrate technologies that can solve the data collection, data transmission and operational challenges faced by utilities when integrating electric vehicles, regardless of supplier, with the electric grid. Proposals must include behind-the-meter EV integrated solutions including the transfer of bi-directional data and utility control over charging, or both to study how these solutions can alleviate demand on the electric grid.

    The focus of this solicitation was identified by NYSERDA working with Avangrid, parent company of Rochester Gas & Electric (RG&E) and New York State Electric & Gas (NYSEG), to provide data that will help inform future utility rate and program planning for EV managed charging.

    Proposals are due on September 16, 2025, by 3:00 p.m. ET. For more information on this funding opportunity please visit NYSERDA’s website.

    For more than fifty years, NYSERDA has been a trusted and objective resource for New Yorkers, taking on the critical role of energy planning and policy analysis, along with making investments that drive New York toward a more sustainable future. Today’s announcement builds on the success of NYSERDA’s Grid Modernization program, which since 2016 has awarded approximately $65 million to over 110 grid technology companies and research organizations for projects that improve low-cost high-accuracy grid sensors, modeling and simulation tools, and advanced engineering solutions. New York State’s investments in research, development, and commercialization support innovators accelerating the clean energy transition. NYSERDA’s Innovation and Research program is deploying approximately $1.2 billion over 15 years as direct research investments and commercialization support. To date, more than $800 million in investments have supported more than 700 companies and made nearly 300 products commercially available to individuals, businesses, and utilities.

    In addition, New York State is investing nearly $3 billion in electrifying its transportation sector and rapidly advancing measures that all new passenger cars and trucks sold, are zero emissions, along with all school buses being zero emissions the same year. There are a range of initiatives to grow access to EVs and improve clean transit for all New Yorkers including the Drive Clean Rebate, EV Make Ready, EVolve NY, the New York Truck Voucher Incentive Program (NYTVIP), the New York School Bus Incentive Program, and the Direct Current Fast Charger Program.

    Funding for this initiative is through the Clean Energy Fund (CEF).

    New York State’s Climate Agenda
    New York State’s climate agenda calls for an affordable and just transition to a clean energy economy that creates family-sustaining jobs, promotes economic growth through green investments, and directs a minimum of 35 percent of the benefits to disadvantaged communities. New York is advancing a suite of efforts to achieve an emissions-free economy by 2050, including in the energy, buildings, transportation, and waste sectors.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Attorney General James Takes Action to Block Unlawful Termination of Environmental Justice Grant Program

    Source: US State of New York

    EW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James co-led a coalition of 19 other attorneys general in filing an amicus brief supporting a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for unlawfully terminating the Environmental and Climate Justice Block Grant Program. The grant program, created and funded by Congress through the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, is designed to provide critical support to communities disproportionately impacted by pollution and climate change. Attorney General James and the coalition argue EPA’s abrupt and unlawful termination of the program and cancellation of grants has already caused widespread harm across their states, particularly in low-income communities and communities of color, and are urging the court to block the program termination while the lawsuit continues.

    “These climate and environmental justice grants are a lifeline for communities that have been historically left behind,” said Attorney General James. “From Buffalo to Far Rockaway, New Yorkers were counting on these funds to access clean energy, clean up air pollution, and prepare for climate disasters. When the federal government breaks its promises to our most vulnerable communities, the consequences can be devastating, even deadly. My office is fighting to ensure this grant program is restored so that New Yorkers are protected as we combat the climate crisis.”

    In the brief filed today in Appalachian Voices v. EPA, Attorney General James and the coalition emphasize that by terminating this grant program, the federal government is inflicting serious, lasting harm on vulnerable communities already grappling with disproportionate pollution burdens and the escalating effects of climate change. These communities, which are often low-income, communities of color, indigenous, or in rural areas, face overlapping environmental and public health crises. The attorneys general explain that these challenges have only been made worse by historical discriminatory policies, including racial segregation, redlining, and a systemic lack of investment in disadvantaged neighborhoods. These communities are under-resourced, have less access to infrastructure like clean drinking water and sanitation, and end up bearing the brunt of the burden from extreme weather disasters, since they are less equipped to recover from devastating events or easily adapt to a changing climate.

    In 2022, Congress created the grant program under the Inflation Reduction Act, mandating that EPA distribute $3 billion in funding specifically to help address these disparities. In New York alone, 22 grantees were awarded more than $70 million in funding to carry out projects to protect vulnerable residents from extreme heat, flooding, air pollution, and other environmental hazards. Another grantee, Fordham University in the Bronx, was awarded $50 million to provide as grants to community-based organizations in New York, as well as New Jersey, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and eight Indigenous Nations, for environmental justice projects. Grantees, often in partnership with non-profit organizations, academic institutions, and city agencies, would use the funds to protect residents from extreme weather events in Albany, Rochester, and Buffalo; combat flooding and excess heat in the Bronx and Yonkers; protect the Rockaways from storm surges; and more.

    Now, the sudden termination of these grants has forced grantees to lay off staff, halt programming, and freeze hiring. Attorney General James and the coalition argue that EPA’s mass cancellation of the environmental and climate justice grant program violates clear congressional mandates and fundamental constitutional principles. Congress directed the EPA to distribute these funds using mandatory language in the Inflation Reduction Act, leaving the agency no discretion to unilaterally withdraw support. The attorneys general emphasize that the executive branch cannot override Congress’s appropriations decisions based on its own policy preferences, and that in doing so, the administration violated the U.S. Constitution.

    Attorney General James and the coalition are urging the court to grant the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and ensure that the environmental justice grants will remain available for the communities that so desperately need them.

    Joining Attorney General James in filing this brief, which was co-led with Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell and California Attorney General Rob Bonta, are the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: SPbU Enters Top 5 Russian Universities According to Forbes Education | Saint Petersburg State University

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: Saint Petersburg State University –

    An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.

    In 2025, the ranking included 564 universities with Russian accreditation, entitled to issue state diplomas. Universities were assessed based on five key indicators: quality of networking, global reputation, authority among employers, development of the academic environment, and the Forbes factor. The calculations used data from monitoring the activities of higher education institutions by the Ministry of Education and Science of Russia in 2024 and the results of a survey of Russian companies with the highest ESG indicators.

    The full Forbes rating “Best Russian Universities – 2025” is available here Here.

    With a score of 61.49 points, Saint Petersburg State University took fifth place in the ranking, ahead of such universities as the National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, the National Research University ITMO, the Moscow State Institute of International Relations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation and others.

    The authors awarded St Petersburg University 19.85 points in the Networking category, while employers rated the level of trust in the quality of specialist training at 20.77 points. The University scored another 8.63 points in the International Recognition metric due to its regular inclusion in global and subject rankings. According to the authors of the rating, the quality of the academic environment formed at St Petersburg University deserves 8.24 points out of 10 possible. In the Forbes Factor category, which takes into account the number of university graduates on the list of Russian billionaires in 2025, St Petersburg University scored 4 out of 5 points.

    The top lines of the ranking are occupied by universities with the largest endowments, which include the endowment management fund “Development of St. Petersburg State University”. In 2024, the value of its net assets increased to 1.6 billion rubles. Thanks to contributions from donors, the fund supports students and postgraduates who have achieved particular success in their academic and research activities. Endowment fund scholarships are paid to university athletes, and large grants are provided to teams that win the annual competition of interdisciplinary innovative projects “Start-up St. Petersburg State University”. Funding is allocated for events in the fields of culture, science and education. A full list of programs is presented on the website of the St. Petersburg State University Endowment Fund.

    Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    .

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Cancellations at Canadian film festivals raise questions about accountability

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Dorit Naaman, Alliance Atlantis Professor of Film and Media, Queen’s University, Ontario

    Film festivals are unique cultural institutions, spaces to see diverse films by local and global filmmakers and an important market for distributors. These films are often difficult to see, or even know about, outside of festival circuits.

    Festivals are also answerable to funders and to different stakeholders’ interests. Cancellations of planned films raise questions about festivals’ roles and accountability to community groups who find certain films objectionable, the wider public, politicians, festival sponsors, audiences, filmmakers and the films themselves.

    In September 2024, The Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) faced a backlash from pro-Ukrainian groups — and former deputy prime minister Chrystia Freeland, who is of Ukrainian descent — when the documentary Russians at War was included in the program.



    Read more:
    ‘Russians at War’ documentary: From the Crimean to the Iraq War, soldier images pose questions about propaganda

    The Ukrainian Canadian Congress and other advocates called on TIFF to cancel the film, directed by Russian Canadian Anastasia Trofimova, which they accused of being Russian propaganda.

    TIFF did cancel festival screenings after it was “made aware of significant threats to festival operations and public safety,” but once the festival was over, showed Russians at the TIFF Lightbox Theatre.

    In November, the Montréal International Documentary Festival (RIDM) cancelled the Canadian premiere of Rule of Stone, directed by Israeli Canadian director Danae Elon. As a film and media professor, I supervised Elon’s research for the film while she pursued a master’s degree at Queen’s University.

    RIDM acknowledged Elon’s “personal commitment to criticizing and questioning the state of Israel” through her story about the stone that, by Israeli law, has to be used on the exterior of every new building in Jerusalem.

    In the film, Elon examines how, in post-1967 Jerusalem, “architecture and stone are the main weapons in a silent, but extraordinarily effective colonization and dispossession process” of Palestinians.

    As a documentarist and a researcher in Israeli and Palestinian media representations of fighters, I have analyzed both films and followed the controversies. Each focuses on contemporary political issues relevant to our understanding of current affairs.

    While the reasons for the cancellations are different, in both cases the festivals responded to pressures from community groups, placing the public right to a robust debate at the festival and beyond as secondary.

    ‘Russians at War’

    Director Anastasia Trifamova embedded herself in a Russian supply unit, and later a medical team, eventually making her way to the front lines in occupied Ukraine.

    Trifamova comes across as a naive filmmaker, using an observational, non-judgmental form of filmmaking common in 21st-century war documentaries, as seen in films like Armadillo and Restrepo (respectively following Danish and U.S. troops in Afghanistan).

    As noted by TIFF, Russians was “an official Canada-France co-production with funding from several Canadian agencies,” and Trifamova said she did not seek or receive official permission from the Russian army to film.

    The film documents the machination of war, where soldiers are both perpetrators of violence and its victims. It humanizes the soldiers, which understandably can be upsetting to Ukrainian and pro-Ukrainian publics. But should emotions of one group, outraged and incensed as they may be, prevent the public from having the difficult conversations promoted by the film?

    Early in the film, Trifamova confronts the soldiers about why they are fighting and they respond with Russian propaganda (fighting Nazism, defending the borders).

    Later, soldiers approach Trifamova — on camera — to express doubts about the justification of the war and their presence in Ukraine. The film provides an unflattering view of Russia’s attack on Ukraine, emphasizing the futility of the war and the incredible toll on soldiers and civilians (including some Ukrainian civilians). Russian troops appear untrained and poorly equipped to fight in chaotically managed battles.

    Like Armadillo and Restrepo, Russians at War represents the soldiers without judgment and contributes to necessary conversations about war. In my analysis, while Trifamova refrains — in her sporadic voice-over — from condemning the war outright, it is difficult to read the film as Russian propaganda.

    While TIFF cited security concerns as the reason for cancellation, security was in place for another film that attracted controversy, Bliss.

    A cancellation from such an established festival likely has an effect on how a film is able to circulate. For example, TVO, one of the funders of Russians at War, cancelled its scheduled broadcast days after the TIFF cancellation.

    ‘Rule of Stone’

    Rule of Stone, as noted by RDIM, “critically examines the colonialist project of East Jerusalem following its conquest by Israeli forces in 1967.”

    The title references a colonial bylaw to clad building with stone, first introduced by the British, which still exists today.

    The film, which examines architecture’s role in creating modern Jerusalem, is led by Elon’s voice-over. It mixes her memories of growing up in 1970s Jerusalem and her reckoning with the “frenzy of building,” which included projects by architect Moshe Safdie, a citizen of Israel, Canada and the United States. Elon recounts that her father, journalist and author Amos Elon, was a close friend of Safdie, as well as legendary Jerusalem mayor Teddy Kolek.

    Safdie is among the Israeli architects, architectural historians and planners who Elon interviews. The expansion of Jewish neighbourhoods is contrasted with the restrictions on and disposession of Palestinians in Jerusalem. Multiple scenes show the demolition of Palestinian homes or the aftermath. In intervwoven segments, Izzat Ziadah, a Palestinian stonemason who lives in a stone quarry, gives a tour of what is left of his destroyed home.

    Viewers hear how the planning, expansion and building of Jewish neighbourhoods, post-1967, were designed to evoke biblical times. As architectural historian Zvi Efrat notes, the new neighbourhoods look like, or attempt to look like, they were there forever.

    ‘Rule of Stone’ trailer.

    As reported by La Presse, the RIDM cancellation came after the festival received information about the documentary’s partial Israeli financing, something that “embarrassed” them with some of the festival’s partners. Funding for the development of the film came from the Makor Foundation for Israeli Films, which receives support from Israel’s Ministry of Culture and Sport.

    Two organizations, the Palestinian Film Institute and Regards Palestiniens, opposed the film’s showing on the basis of their commitment to the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI).

    In the organizations’ logic, Israel state funding means a film should be subject to boycott as “PACBI specifically targets Israeli institutional funding in the arts which serves to culturally whitewash and legitimize the Israeli state.”

    In my view, this position differs from the PACBI guidelines, which state:

    “As a general overriding rule, Israeli cultural institutions, unless proven otherwise, are complicit in maintaining the Israeli occupation and denial of basic Palestinian rights, whether through their silence or actual involvement in justifying, whitewashing or otherwise deliberately diverting attention from Israel’s violations of international law and human rights.”

    Makor should be exempted since it regularly funds films that draw attention to Israel’s violations of Palestinian human rights. In 2024 alone, the list includes The Governor, The Village League and Death in Um al hiran.

    RIDM’s website does not disclose support for a boycott. In the end, RIDM announced that Elon withdrew her film. She stated: “Screening my film at RIDM does not serve the long-term purpose of the festival, nor is it possible now to address the nuances in our common fight for justice for Palestine. I am deeply saddened and distressed by [what] has brought it to this point.”

    To date, the film has not found a cinema in Montréal willing to screen it.

    Provoking important conversations

    The two festivals’ mission statements promise high-quality films that transform or renew audiences’ relationships to the world.

    It is clear why programmers chose both films, since they’re cinematically innovative and provoke important conversations.

    However, both festivals silenced these films and signalled to other filmmakers that these festivals are not brave spaces to have difficult and necessary conversations.

    Dorit Naaman 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. Cancellations at Canadian film festivals raise questions about accountability – https://theconversation.com/cancellations-at-canadian-film-festivals-raise-questions-about-accountability-250892

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Nearly two-thirds of voters think Starmer doesn’t respect them – new poll

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Marc Stears, Director of UCL Policy Lab and Professor of Political Science, UCL

    Simon Dawson/Number 10/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

    Exhausted from a long campaign but buoyed by an extraordinary victory, Keir Starmer stood on the steps of Downing Street just over one year ago to deliver his victory speech. “Your government,” the new prime minister said, “should treat every single person in this country with respect.”

    This message of respect resonated strongly in the year leading up to the campaign, coming as close as anything to providing a central argument to Labour’s case for government. And, according to polling and focus groups that my team at UCL Policy Lab designed along with polling company More in Common, it seemed to work.

    As our research at the time showed, voters felt that “respecting ordinary people” was the most important attribute that any politician could have, more important than having ideas for the future, managing effectively or having real experience. And they thought Starmer was the leader who displayed that respect most.

    A year later, the picture looks quite different. In new polling, we asked a representative sample of over 7,000 people to evaluate the government one year on. On respect, the judgement has not been good.

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

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

    During the general election campaign, 41% of the electorate said that they believed that Starmer “respected people like them”. One year on, that stands at only 24%. At the same time, the number who say that he does not respect them has risen from 32% to 63%. Starmer is now outstripped on that question by Nigel Farage – 33% say the Reform UK leader respects people like them.

    Losing support

    This view has had crucial political consequences. Of those who voted for Labour in the general election, only 60% of our respondents say they would vote for the party in an election held tomorrow.

    And that is not because some other political party is suddenly swooping in for their supporters. Labour’s voters are defecting in a host of different directions: 11% say they would vote Reform; 8% would vote Liberal Democrat; 4% would vote Green and 4% would vote Conservative. A further one in ten say they simply don’t know how they would vote.

    Labour’s losses have been most dramatic among their first-time voters. Of those who voted for Labour in 2024 but not in any other general election since 2010, barely a third still support the party, while a fifth would vote for Reform UK.

    These political failures, our report contends, are directly related to the declining sense of respect. The top reason voters gave for turning away from Labour are the broken promises and U-turns made by Labour in government, followed by the party’s failure to reduce the cost of living and changes to the winter fuel payment.

    The idea of “respect” being key to the public’s sense of whether a government is on their side or not has been growing for many years now, both in academia and in politics itself. Since at least the 2007/8 financial crisis there has been a sense that large swathes of the public feel neglected, overlooked and even disdained by those who govern them.

    When people talk about wanting to see “change” in Britain, this is often what they mean. It was a theme I touched on recently in two books, Out of the Ordinary and, with my co-author Tom Baldwin, England.

    Just over a year ago, a happier Starmer delivers his victory speech.
    Shutterstock

    But respect is not just an abstract idea. People appear to judge whether they are respected by those who govern them or not primarily on the basis of whether the government stands up for them against powerful vested interests.

    Our earlier research demonstrated that there is a widespread sense among the British public that certain groups have had it too easy for too long. This is either because they have been able to intimidate the government, or because government ministers and advisers have themselves been recruited from among these groups.

    In our new report, therefore, we see that the new government’s most popular act was their willingness to raise the minimum wage by £1,400 in April, against the objections of some in business who suggested that such a move was too burdensome on them.

    Changes to the winter fuel allowance and proposed changes to the disability benefits system, on the other hand, registered poorly. They suggest that the interests of ordinary and vulnerable people count for too little in decision-making.

    These judgements currently shape the mood of the country and probably top the list of issues that the government now needs to address. There is still time for the government to rebuild its appeal, of course. Indeed, our respondents who said they would vote for Labour said they would do so because the party needs more time to fix the problems they inherited.

    But as it seeks to do so, voters will want to know who this government stands for. Whose interests does it put first? What kind of people does it respect?

    Much of the electorate thought they knew the answer to these questions one year ago. Now they’re not so sure.

    Marc Stears directs the UCL Policy Lab, a non-partisan think tank based at University College London. He was previously chief speechwriter to the UK Labour Party.

    – ref. Nearly two-thirds of voters think Starmer doesn’t respect them – new poll – https://theconversation.com/nearly-two-thirds-of-voters-think-starmer-doesnt-respect-them-new-poll-260606

    MIL OSI Analysis –