NewzIntel.com

Category: Global

  • MIL-OSI Global: Horses have a complex repertoire of facial expressions, just like primates

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Kate Lewis, Researcher in Animal Welfare, University of Portsmouth

    KAZLOVA IRYNA/Shutterstock

    When I started horse riding lessons at the age of eight, I was told that if a horse had its ears forward that was a good sign, and if horse had its ears back it wasn’t happy. Those riding lessons sparked a fascination with equine behaviour that is still with me and inspires my research.

    Yet when I carried out my new study into horse facial expressions I was still surprised at how complex equine communication can be.

    Horses are a social species with wild and feral populations living in complex societies. They form relatively stable herds or “bands”, typically made up of a stallion protecting his group of mares. The ranges of these bands overlap, and the need to share space and resources means that effective communication is essential for horses.

    Just like humans and non-human primates, horses have a large number of facial muscles. These allow them to produce a range of facial movements.

    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.

    We also know that facial expressions are an important method of communication for horses. In a 2016 study, equine cognition researcher Jen Wathan and her colleagues demonstrated this when they showed a group of horses images of another horse.

    The horse in the images was displaying one of three different facial expressions: aggression, positive attention and relaxation. Horses were more likely to approach the images of the horse showing positive attention and relaxation. They tended to avoid the horse showing aggression. This shows that horses can use the expression of another horse to infer that animal’s intent.

    Equine facial communication is therefore, understandably, of significant interest to those working with and around horses. Go to any stables, as I did when I was young, and you will hear talk of which signals to look out for. You will quickly learn that the ears are important. However, in recent years, scientists have become interested in the more subtle cues that are often overlooked.

    Research into horse facial expressions began in 2014 with identifying indicators of pain to try and improve horse welfare. More recently, there have been a number of studies that have looked at facial expressions outside of pain contexts. These have, however, been restricted to a small number of usually human-created, contexts.

    For example, in 2024 animal behaviour researchers Romane Phelipon and colleagues examined the facial expressions of horses when they were being led towards a bucket of feed and allowed to eat. They were also shown the bucket of feed and then prevented from eating it.

    In the positive situation, horses had a lower neck position, their ears forward, and their upper lip extended forwards. In the more frustrating situation, horses held their neck higher, with their ears backward or to the side.

    My team wanted to extend what we know about equine facial behaviour into contexts that don’t involve humans, and to identify the expressions that horses use when communicating with each other.

    To do this we used something called the equine facial action coding system (EquiFACS). This involves two types of code: action units, which correspond to the contraction of particular facial muscles; and action descriptors, which correspond to more general facial movements.

    There are already similar codes for a variety of primate and domestic species, including cats and dogs. This makes them useful for making comparisons between species and for studying the evolution of facial behaviour.

    Horses have a lot of facial muscles, like primates.
    Serhii Hromov/Shutterstock

    We observed groups of domestic horses out at pasture. Whenever they interacted with one another we would hit record on our video camera and film the facial expressions they made. This gave us a bank of 805 expressions, which were coded using EquiFACS.

    We categorised the expressions based on the behaviour they were associated with, such as a kick threat or friendly contact. Then we used network analysis techniques to assess how the individual action units and action descriptors work together to create the overall facial expression. Network analysis is a statistical method usually used to study social networks, but which also works well for understanding how the different areas of the face work together.

    This created a catalogue that identified 22 discrete facial expressions. These included expressions from a range of aggressive, friendly, playful and alert interactions. Some movements are used across several contexts, for instance rotated and flattened ears which can indicate aggression or playfulness.

    When making a threat, horses have their ears rotated backwards and flattened downwards. They often lower their head, raise the inner corner of their brow, and/or flare their nostrils.

    Most interesting are facial expressions during play, which are highly dynamic. They involve a range of different facial movements, often in quick succession. Movements include depressed lower lips, raised chins, parted lips, wide-open mouths, rotated and flattened ears, increased visibility of eye whites, and noses pushed forward.

    We also identified similarities between the facial expressions horses make during play and the play faces used by primates and carnivores. Primates and carnivores often use an open-mouthed expression to indicate that an interaction is playful. This can help prevent misunderstandings about the intent of an interaction, and is particularly useful during rough-and-tumble play. The fact that this expression is also used by horses suggests that it evolved much further back than scientists believed.

    Anyone who needs a way to assess a horse’s subjective experience can benefit from our catalogue, from researchers through to those working with horses. I certainly wish I had had it over the many years I spent riding, and later working, at my local riding school.

    Our results also highlight the importance of looking beyond our primate cousins if we are to gain a comprehensive understanding of facial expressions and their evolutionary origins.

    Kate Lewis 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. Horses have a complex repertoire of facial expressions, just like primates – https://theconversation.com/horses-have-a-complex-repertoire-of-facial-expressions-just-like-primates-257996

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s continued attacks on lawyers risks undermining the US legal system. Is that the point?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stephen Clear, Lecturer in Constitutional and Administrative Law, and Public Procurement, Bangor University

    Since returning to office, Donald Trump has often called the US legal system into question. He has criticised judges as activists, challenged the role of the courts and insisted some firms do free legal work in support of his administration’s causes to make up for working for some of his political opponents.

    Meanwhile, Vice-President J.D. Vance has advised US Supreme Court chief justice John Roberts that he ought to be “checking the excesses” of the lower courts.

    And Stephen Miller, deputy White House chief of staff, said: “We are living under a judicial tyranny,” after the US Court of International Trade ruled the president didn’t have the power to impose international trade tariffs. Meanwhile, judges are asking for more security to protect them from threats.

    Trump’s federal investigations and volley of executive orders (presidential directives that don’t require legislative approval by Congress) have also put enormous pressure on law firms. And a recent report shows that both trust in law firms’ independence, and even the rule of law itself, is perceived as under threat in the US. But what does this mean, and why is it important?

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

    The president has taken action against law firms in two prominent ways:

    First, by federal investigation. Specifically, letters to a group of 20 law firms from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. These demanded information about their diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI) policies, based on the proposition that any sort of treatment of underrepresented groups that appeared preferential to them in policy, or practice, was unequal treatment for other groups, and, consequently, discriminatory.

    Second, the president has passed numerous executive orders introducing punitive measures on specific law firms that previously represented clients opposing his administration, or employed attorneys involved in past investigations against him. His administration has also revoked government contracts and suspended security clearance from buildings. In practice, the orders would prevent attorneys from accessing from where they work, such as courthouses and federal agencies.

    In response, some prominent law firms have sought to mitigate the fallout with the Trump administration by entering into agreements with it. These have included pledging US$1 billion (£730,000,000) in pro bono (free) legal services supporting causes aligned with Trump’s agenda.

    For example, support for veterans, representing police officers, and antisemitism prevention. Noteworthy is that law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison have now agreed to discontinue certain DEI policies, in addition to committing US$40 million (£29.4 million) in pro bono work for the president’s causes. In response the Trump administration has now lifted restrictions against them.

    Judges say they are under threat.

    More broadly, it has been reported that 70% of the US Justice Department civil rights division’s attorneys are leaving their posts. The mass exodus is believed to be part of attempts to reshape the division into one focused on enforcing executive orders.

    The consequences of these developments are that the president’s actions have led to a significant realignment in the legal professions. Some US attorneys have reported that law firms are now more hesitant to engage in pro bono work that could be viewed as opposing the administration’s policies.

    By contrast, some lawyers are now trying to establish independent firms aimed at defending civil servants and challenging federal overreach, ensuring at least some, albeit less resourced, support for underrepresented groups.

    Trump criticizes judges and legal activists.

    Other lawyers have sought legal action against the orders as unconstitutional interference. Some of these have led to success. For example, Perkins Coie challenged theirs and got it struck down. The concern here centred around their representation of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. In arriving at the decision, the district judge ruled the president’s actions to be an “overt attempt to suppress and punish certain viewpoints”.

    Why this matters

    These developments call into question the balance between governmental influence and the independence of lawyers in upholding the rule of law. Lawyers must be impartial in representing their clients in order to effectively represent their interests, and allow the judiciary to fulfil their duty of checks and balances on the government’s decisions.

    When unfettered power is wielded by the government, and the law is undermined, scope for monitoring the constitutionality of decision making is compromised.

    The rule of law is a foundational principle of western democracies. It means that everyone is subject to the law, including governments. Laws must be applied equally, fairly and consistently, and no one is above them.

    In essence, laws govern the nation, not arbitrary decisions by individuals in power. In that sense, following the rule of law helps prevent tyranny, protect people’s rights and liberties, and ensures a stable and predictable society.

    In order to deliver these objectives, an independent legal sector is needed. Trump’s actions are a threat to achieving this cornerstone US constitutional principle. Some have gone as far as to suggest that by entering into agreements with Trump, law firms have become subsidiaries of his administration.

    A recent study on trust in the rule of law found that Americans’ trust in lawyers was already undermined, even before the second Trump administration.

    The results, based on public attitudes in 2024, compared public perceptions in Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Norway, the UK and the US. Norway and the UK ranked highest in respect of trust in the rule of law (81% and 74% respectively), and Spain and Italy were least trusted (49% and 43%).

    The results for the US are interesting. Around 71% of American respondents stated that they had a high level of trust in the rule of law. Yet the country came third from the bottom under the metric “you feel like you are in good hands in US courts”.

    The reasons for this are implied in the responses to the other questions in the survey. The US performed second worst (just behind Spain) in respect of belief that judges could be biased. The US also performed worst of all in the category where the public were asked if lawyers were impartial (just 41% agreed).

    In interpreting these results it is important to note that the survey was conducted in 2024, prior to Trump’s second term. But anti-elite and anti-judge rhetoric pointing to arguments for more presidential power and less judicial oversight had already been prominent in the first Trump term, and the 2024 campaign.

    The results expose the already fragile nature of trust in the legal sector in the US, and underline how this could be ramped up further after the announcements in recent weeks.

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

    – ref. Trump’s continued attacks on lawyers risks undermining the US legal system. Is that the point? – https://theconversation.com/trumps-continued-attacks-on-lawyers-risks-undermining-the-us-legal-system-is-that-the-point-256960

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Should you do cardio before or after lifting weights? New research might finally have the answer

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jack McNamara, Senior Lecturer in Clinical Exercise Physiology, University of East London

    Weightlifting before cardio had clear benefits when it came to certain aspects of health. LightField Studios/ Shutterstock

    Fitness enthusiasts have debated the question for decades: is it better to do cardio before or after lifting weights? Until recently, the answer has largely been down to preference – with some enjoying a jog to warm up before hitting the weights, while others believe lifting first is better for burning fat.

    But a new study may have finally answered this long disputed question.

    According to the study, the order of your workout does significantly affect how much fat you lose. Participants who performed weight training before cardio lost significantly more fat and became more physically active throughout the day compared to those who did cardio first.

    The researchers recruited 45 young men aged 18-30 years who were classified as obese. The researchers split participants into three groups for 12 weeks. One group was a control group. This meant they stuck to their usual lifestyle habits and didn’t make any changes to their exercise regime.

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

    The other two groups exercised for 60 minutes three times weekly. Participants were also given sports watches to objectively track daily movement. This helped the researchers avoid reliance on self-reporting, which can often be inaccurate.

    Both exercise groups followed identical training programmes, differing only in exercise sequence. Strength training involved actual weights, with participants performing exercises such as the bench press, deadlift, bicep curl and squat. The cardio sessions involved 30 minutes of stationary cycling.

    Participants in both groups experienced improvements in their cardiovascular fitness, muscle strength and body composition – specifically, they lost fat mass while gaining lean muscle mass. Interestingly, cardiovascular fitness improvements were similar regardless of sequence – echoing recent findings that exercise order has limited impact on cardiovascular adaptations.

    But the real differences emerged when it came to fat loss and muscle performance. Participants who lifted weights first experienced significantly greater reductions in overall body fat and visceral fat – the type of fat most strongly linked to cardiovascular disease risk.

    They also increased their daily step count by approximately 3,500 steps compared to just 1,600 steps for the cardio-first group. Additionally, the weights-first approach enhanced muscular endurance and explosive strength.

    Why exercise sequence matters

    The reason behind these findings is tied to how your body uses energy.

    Resistance training depletes muscle glycogen stores – the sugar that’s stored in the muscles which acts as your body’s quick-access fuel. Imagine glycogen as petrol in your car’s fuel tank. When you lift weights first, you effectively drain this fuel tank, forcing your body to switch energy sources.

    When you lift weights before cardio, it forces your body to use fat reserves for energy.
    LightField Studios/ Shutterstock

    With glycogen stores already low, when you transition to cardio, your body must rely more heavily on fat reserves for energy. It’s akin to a hybrid car switching to battery power once the petrol runs low. This metabolic shift helps explain the greater fat loss seen in the weights-first group.

    This recent study’s findings align with broader research. A comprehensive systematic review published in 2022 found resistance training alone can significantly reduce body fat and visceral fat, the type linked to chronic diseases. Muscles are metabolically active tissues, continuously burning calories even at rest, which amplifies these effects.

    Conversely, performing cardio first might compromise your strength training effectiveness. Cardio uses up glycogen stores, leaving muscles partially depleted before you even lift a weight. It also induces fatigue and may reduce your muscles’ ability to produce explosive power and strength.

    A recent systematic review on concurrent training (the practice of combining both resistance and aerobic exercise within the same program) supports this – highlighting that explosive strength gains might diminish if aerobic and strength training occur in the same session, especially if cardio is performed first.

    These findings align with other research on concurrent training. A systematic review and meta-analysis examining exercise sequence effects found that resistance-first protocols produced significantly superior strength improvements compared to endurance-first training.

    The American Heart Association’s 2023 statement on resistance training confirmed resistance exercise significantly improves lean body mass and reduces fat, especially when combined with other exercise types. However, resistance training alone was found less effective in improving cardiovascular health. This underscores the importance of including cardio in your exercise routine.

    However, it is worth noting the study’s limitations. As it only involved obese young men, this means we don’t know how the results will apply to women, older adults or those with different body compositions. A 2024 review suggests adaptations may differ by sex, indicating the need for further research involving diverse populations.

    The 12-week duration also may not capture long-term changes. Results also specifically only apply to concurrent training – performing both exercises in the same session.

    Moreover, the study did not account for nutritional intake, sleep patterns or stress levels, all of which can significantly influence body composition outcomes. Future research should incorporate these factors to offer even more comprehensive guidance.

    Workout sequence

    Whether you prefer to do cardio before or after lifting weights, the message is clear: both will improve overall health. The only difference is that weight training before cardio provides advantages for fat loss, abdominal fat reduction and increased daily physical activity.

    Interestingly, resistance training boosts confidence and energy levels, naturally encouraging more movement throughout the day, further aiding fat loss.

    If cardiovascular fitness is your primary goal, the sequence matters less, as both ways equally boost aerobic fitness. However, if fat loss and optimising daily activity are your main objectives, evidence strongly supports placing resistance training first.

    Jack McNamara 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. Should you do cardio before or after lifting weights? New research might finally have the answer – https://theconversation.com/should-you-do-cardio-before-or-after-lifting-weights-new-research-might-finally-have-the-answer-257502

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Why Israel’s ‘humane’ propaganda is such a sinister facade

    COMMENTARY: By Cole Martin in Occupied Bethlehem

    Many people have been closely following the journey this week of the Madleen, a small humanitarian yacht seeking to break Israel’s illegal blockade of Gaza with a crew of 12 on board, including humanitarian activists and journalists.

    This morning we woke to the harrowing, yet not unexpected, news that the vessel had been illegally hijacked by Israeli forces, who boarded and took the crew captive into Israeli territories, in contravention of international law.

    Yet another on the long list of war crimes Israel has committed over the last 20 months of genocide, and decades of illegal occupation.

    Communication with the crew was lost after the final moments of tense onboard footage as they donned lifejackets, threw phones and other sensitive data overboard, and raised their arms in preparation for whatever might come next.

    Israel has a detailed history of attacking all previous freedom flotillas — including the 2010 mission aboard the Mavi Marmara in which 10 crew were killed and dozens more injured when Israeli forces hijacked the humanitarian vessel.

    Another mission earlier this year was cut short when it was targeted by an airstrike in international waters, injuring crew.

    The next updates were scenes filmed by Israeli forces which appear to show them calmly handing bread rolls and water to the detained crew, painting a picture which immediately recalled my own experience last year being unlawfully arrested in the southern West Bank.

    Detained while documenting
    I was detained while documenting armed settler violence, taken illegally to a military base where myself and three other internationals were given a bathroom stop, bread and water.

    While we ate, they filmed us, saying “You are unharmed, yes? We are looking after you well?”

    We were then loaded into a police van where a Palestinian farmer sat blindfolded, in silence, with his hands zip-tied behind him.

    Eleven of the 12 crew members on board the humanitarian yacht Madleen before being arrested by Israeli forces today. Image: FFC screenshot APR

    Israel loves to put on a show of their “humane treatment” when internationals are present and cameras are rolling, but it’s a shallow and sinister facade for their abusive racism and cruelty towards Palestinians.

    It appears their response to the Madleen’s crew over the next few days will be exactly that. Don’t buy into it; this is no more than deeply sinister propaganda to cover state-backed racism, supremacy, and cruelty.

    Families in Gaza are still facing indiscriminate airstrikes, continuous displacement, forced starvation, and the phony Israel/US “Gaza Humanitarian Foundation” which has led to more than 100 civilians being shot while desperately seeking food.

    Thousands of trucks still wait at the border to Gaza, barred entry by Israeli forces, while Palestinians face severe malnutrition and a man-made famine.

    The New Zealand government has still not placed a single sanction on the Israeli state.

    Cole Martin is an independent New Zealand photojournalist based in the Middle East and a contributor to Asia Pacific Report.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump has long speculated about using force against his own people. Now he has the pretext to do so

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Emma Shortis, Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University

    “You just [expletive] shot the reporter!”

    Australian journalist Lauren Tomasi was in the middle of a live cross, covering the protests against the Trump administration’s mass deportation policy in Los Angeles, California. As Tomasi spoke to the camera, microphone in hand, an LAPD officer in the background appeared to target her directly, hitting her in the leg with a rubber bullet.

    Earlier, reports emerged that British photojournalist Nick Stern was undergoing emergency surgery after also being hit by the same “non-lethal” ammunition.

    The situation in Los Angeles is extremely volatile. After nonviolent protests against raids and arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents began in the suburb of Paramount, US President Donald Trump issued a memo describing them as “a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States”. He then deployed the National Guard.

    ‘Can’t you just shoot them?’

    As much of the coverage has noted, this is not the first time the National Guard has been deployed to quell protests in the US.

    In 1970, members of the National Guard shot and killed four students protesting the war in Vietnam at Kent State University. In 1992, the National Guard was deployed during protests in Los Angeles following the acquittal of four police officers (three of whom were white) in the killing of a Black man, Rodney King.

    Trump has long speculated about violently deploying the National Guard and even the military against his own people.

    During his first administration, at the height of the Black Lives Matter protests, former Secretary of Defence Mark Esper alleged that Trump asked him, “Can’t you just shoot them, just shoot them in the legs or something?”

    Trump has also long sought to other those opposed to his radical agenda to reshape the United States and its role in the world. He’s classified them as “un-American” and, therefore, deserving of contempt and, when he deems it necessary, violent oppression.

    During last year’s election campaign, he promised to “root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country”. Even the Washington Post characterised this description of Trump’s “political enemies” as “echoing Hitler, Mussolini”.

    In addition, Trump has long peddled baseless conspiracies about “sanctuary cities”, such as Los Angeles. He has characterised them as lawless havens for his political enemies and places that have been “invaded” by immigrants. As anyone who has ever visited these places knows, that is not true.

    It is no surprise that in the same places Trump characterises as “disgracing our country”, there has been staunch opposition to his agenda and ideology.

    That opposition has coalesced in recent weeks around the activities of ICE agents, in particular. These agents, wearing masks to conceal their identities, have been arbitrarily detaining people, including US citizens and children, and disappearing people off the streets. They have also arrested caregivers, leaving children alone.

    As Adam Serwer wrote in The Atlantic during the first iteration of Trump in America, “the cruelty is the point”.

    The Trump administration’s mass deportation program is deliberately cruel and provocative. It was always only a matter of time before protests broke out.

    In a democracy, nonviolent protest by hundreds or perhaps a few thousand people in a city of ten million is not a crisis. But it has always suited Trump and the movement that supports him to manufacture crises.

    White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, a key architect of the mass deportations program and a man described by a former adviser as “Waffen SS”, called the protests “an insurrection against the laws and sovereignty of the United States”. Trump himself also described protesters as “violent, insurrectionist mobs”.

    Nowhere does the presidential memo deploying the National Guard name the specific location of the protests. This, and the extreme language coming out of the administration, suggests it is laying the groundwork for further escalation.

    The administration could be leaving space to deploy the National Guard in other places and invoke the Insurrection Act.

    Incidents involving the deployment of the National Guard are rare, though politically cataclysmic. It is rarer still for the National Guard to be deployed against the wishes of a democratically elected leader of a state, as Trump has done in California.

    A broader assault on democracy

    This deployment comes at a time of crisis for US democracy more broadly. Trump’s longstanding attacks against independent media – what he describes as “fake news” – are escalating. There is a reason that during the current protests, a law enforcement officer appeared so comfortable targeting a journalist, on camera.

    The Trump administration is also actively targeting independent institutions such as Harvard and Columbia universities. It is also targeting and undermining judges and reducing the power of independent courts to enforce the rule of law.

    Under Trump, the federal government and its state-based allies are targeting and undermining the rights of minority groups – policing the bodies of trans people, targeting reproductive rights, and beginning the process of undoing the Civil Rights Act.

    Trump is, for the moment, unconstrained. Asked overnight what the bar is for deploying the Marines against protesters, Trump responded: “the bar is what I think it is”.

    As New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie recently observed:

    We should treat Trump and his openly authoritarian administration as a failure, not just of our party system or our legal system, but of our Constitution and its ability to meaningfully constrain a destructive and system-threatening force in our political life.

    While the situation in Los Angeles is unpredictable, it must be understood in the broader context of the active, violent threat the Trump administration poses to the US. As we watch, American democracy teeters on the brink.

    Emma Shortis is Director of International and Security Affairs at The Australia Institute, an independent think tank.

    – ref. Trump has long speculated about using force against his own people. Now he has the pretext to do so – https://theconversation.com/trump-has-long-speculated-about-using-force-against-his-own-people-now-he-has-the-pretext-to-do-so-258471

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Palestinian supporters in NZ accuse Israel of ‘state piracy’ and condemn silence

    Asia Pacific Report

    Israel’s military attack and boarding of the humanitarian boat Madleen attempting to deliver food and medical aid to the besieged people of Gaza has been condemned by New Zealand Palestinian advocacy groups as a “staggering act of state piracy”.

    The vessel was in international waters, carrying aid workers, doctors, journalists, and supplies desperately needed by the 2 million population that Israel has systematically bombed, starved, and displaced.

    “This was not a military confrontation. It was the assault of an unarmed civilian aid ship by a state acting with total impunity,” said the group Thyme4Action.

    “This is piracy, it is state terror, and it is a genocidal act of war.

    Half of the 12 crew and passengers on board are French citizens and the volunteer group includes French-Palestinian European parliamentarian Rima Hassan and Swedish climate crisis activist Greta Thunberg and two journalists.

    They all made pre-recorded messages calling for international pressure on their governments against the Israeli state. The messages were posted on the Freedom Flotilla Coalition X page.

    The group Thyme4Action said in a media release that a regime engaged in genocide would send sends drones and armed commandos to detain civilians in international waters.

    Israel’s ‘total moral collapse’
    “We are witnessing the total moral collapse of a state, supported for years by Western governments to act with utter impunity, violate our global legal system, morality and principles.

    “No amount of spin or military propaganda can hide the cruelty of deliberately starving a population, targeting children, bombing hospitals and bakeries, and then violently stopping others from bringing aid.”

    Thyme4Action said the attack on the Madleen was not a separate incident — “it is part of the same campaign to eliminate Palestinian life, hope, and survival. It is why the International Court of Justice has already ruled that Israel is plausibly committing genocide.”

    “This is not complicated,” said the statement.

    French journalist Yanis Mhandi on board the Madleen . . . “I’ve been detained by Israeli forces while doing my job as a journalist.” Image: FFC screenshot APR

    “Israel has no legal authority in international waters. Under the United Nations Convention
    on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), Israel’s boarding of a civilian aid ship beyond its territorial waters is an act of piracy, unlawful kidnapping, forcible abduction and armed
    aggression.

    Under international humanitarian law, deliberately blocking aid to a population facing
    starvation is a war crime.

    Under the Genocide Convention, when a state intentionally denies food, water, and
    medicine to a population it is bombing and displacing, this constitutes part of a genocidal
    campaign.”

    NZ silence condemned
    The advocacy group condemned the silence of the New Zealand government as being “no longer neutral”.

    The moment that the Freedom Flotilla Coalition lost communications with the Madleen as Israeli forces attacked the vessel. Image: FFC

    It demonstrated a shocking lack of respect for international law, for human rights, and for the safety of global humanitarian workers.

    “It reflects a broader decay in foreign policy — where selective outrage and Israeli
    exceptionalism undermine the credibility of everything New Zealand claims to stand for.”

    Thyme4Action called on the New Zealand government to:

    • Publicly condemn Israel’s illegal assault on the Madleen and its passengers;
    • Demand the immediate release of all aid workers, journalists, and civilians
    abducted by Israeli forces;
    • Suspend all diplomatic, military, and trade cooperation with Israel until it complies
    with international law; and
    • Support international accountability mechanisms, including referring Israel’s crimes
    to the International Criminal Court and backing enforcement of the ICJ’s provisional
    measures on genocide.

    “This has to stop. This is not just a crisis in Gaza,” said the statement.

    ‘Crisis of global morality’
    “It is a crisis of global morality, of international law, and of our basic shared humanity.

    “We stand with the people of Gaza. We stand with the brave souls aboard the Madleen, and
    we demand an end to this madness before the world forgets what it means to be human.

    “We need a government that stands for all that is right, not all that is wrong.

    “Aid is not terrorism. International waters are not Israel’s territory. And silence in the face of evil is complicity.”

    Pro-Palestinian supporters in New Zealand have held protests against the genocide and demanding a ceasefire right across the country at multiple locations for the past 87 weeks.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The blow-up between Elon Musk and Donald Trump has been entertaining, but how did things go so bad, so fast?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Henry Maher, Lecturer in Politics, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney

    A no-holds-barred and very public blow-up between the world’s richest man and the president of the United States has had social media agog in recent days, with each making serious accusations against the other.

    And while tech billionaire Elon Musk appears to have cooled the spat somewhat – deleting some of his more incendiary social media posts about Donald Trump – the president still appears to be in no mood to make up, warning Musk of “very serious consequences” if he backs Democrats at the mid-term elections in 2026.

    Tensions erupted over Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OBBB). The OBBB proposes extensive tax cuts which could add roughly US$3 trillion (A$4.62 trillion) to the US national debt.

    After stepping down from his role as advisor to Trump, Musk criticised the OBBB as “disgusting abomination” that would “burden America [sic] citizens with crushing unsustainable debt”. Trump returned fire, suggesting “Elon was ‘wearing thin’, I asked him to leave […] and he just went CRAZY!”.

    In a dramatic escalation, Musk responded by calling for Trump’s impeachment. Musk also tweeted allegations that Trump was implicated in the Epstein files related to child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. He has since deleted those tweets.

    Why has the much-hyped “bromance” between Musk and Trump suddenly ended? And what was the basis of their alliance in the first place?

    Musk in politics

    Like many billionaires, Musk had previously been hesitant to get involved in frontline politics. He says he voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020, but claimed in 2021 “I would prefer to stay out of politics”.

    In early 2024, Musk was still claiming to be politically non-aligned, suggesting he would not donate to either presidential campaign.

    This apparent neutrality ended following the attempted assassination of Trump at a July 2024 campaign rally, with Musk immediately endorsing Trump.

    In reality, Musk’s conversion to the MAGA movement long predated the assassination attempt. Musk’s hyperactive Twitter/X account shows a steady radicalisation.

    Across 2020-2024, Musk engaged with accounts sharing MAGA and far-right conspiracy theories. These include the antisemitic Great Replacement Theory, and the related South African white genocide conspiracy. Musk’s posts also show the obsession with opposing diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies characteristic of the MAGA movement.

    After endorsing Trump, Musk spent US$288 million (A$444 million) supporting Trump’s election and appeared at campaign events around the country.

    Musk’s support for Trump was both ideological and pragmatic.

    From tax cuts to immigration restrictions to opposing DEI, there were clearly many ideological commonalities between Musk and Trump.

    There were also clear practical benefits for both men. Trump gained the financial backing of the world’s wealthiest man. Musk gained not only unparalleled access to the US president, but also a role leading the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

    DOGE: success and failure

    Early reporting on the second Trump presidency noted the omnipresence of Musk, who at one point moved into Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort to be close to the president.

    However, observers were sceptical about the potential effectiveness of DOGE, and Musk’s claim it would save the government US$2 trillion (A$3.02 trillion).

    In the early months of the Trump administration, Musk cut government programs and employees at a remarkable rate. The USAID program was particularly hard hit, as were the Department of Education and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

    As the spending cuts picked up pace, Musk began to attract more controversy. Critics questioned the apparent power wielded by the unelected billionaire. Musk’s ties to the far right were also in the spotlight after he appeared to perform two “Roman salutes”, which many observers believed to be a Nazi salute.

    Trump clips Musk’s wings

    Musk’s apparent rampage through government did not last long. As Trump’s executive appointees assumed control of their departments, Musk and DOGE experienced increasing resistance. After a series of fractious cabinet meetings, Trump reportedly reduced the power of DOGE in March.

    Political attention was also clearly affecting Musk’s businesses. The negative publicity has significantly damaged the Tesla brand, leading to declining sales around the world and repeated falls in Telsa’s share price.

    On May 1, Musk announced he would be leaving DOGE, claiming the department had saved the government US$180 billion (A$277 billion) in spending. This number is likely an exaggeration, but still falls well short of his original target.

    Musk has learned a harsh lesson in politics – that the complexities of government resist simple reform and cannot be easily rolled back in the way a CEO might slim down a company.

    For Trump, his manoeuvring of Musk appears to be another smart political move. As the public face of DOGE, Musk bore the negative rap for early government cuts and chaos. Having used his money and reputation, Trump dispensed with Musk as he has with so many advisers and appointees before.

    The falling out

    Musk departed his role in a muted White House ceremony, where Trump thanked him for his service and presented him with a ceremonial “golden key” to the White House.

    However, behind the public show of civility, tension was brewing over Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill.

    Trump and Musk had originally claimed that the US$2 trillion (A$3.02 trillion) in DOGE savings could be used to fund a substantial tax cut. With the efficiency savings not eventuating, Musk worried the OBBB would significantly increase US public debt.

    Unable to convince Trump or other Republican legislators, Musk took to X, launching a “Kill the Bill” campaign that ultimately led to his incendiary showdown with Trump.

    For his part, Trump has belittled Musk, suggesting Musk only opposed the OBBB because it cut subsidies for electric vehicles.

    Though the subsidy cuts will affect Tesla, Musk has previously supported eliminating subsidies. Musk’s anger at the OBBB is more likely driven by the realisation he has been played by Trump.

    What now?

    Trump has used and discarded many other powerful figures in his chaotic political career. Musk has more power than most, and might be able to strike back at Trump.

    Yet, with his public reputation and brands already tarnished, Musk would be ill-advised to pick further fights with Trump and his adoring MAGA movement.

    Accordingly, Musk has indicated over the weekend he is open to a détente. Tesla investors will no doubt be relieved if Musk makes good on his pledge to step back from politics and return to his businesses.

    More concerning are the prospects for democracy. With wealth and power continuing to concentrate in a handful of billionaires, voters appear reduced to the role of viewers forced to watch the reality TV drama unfold.

    Though Trump appears to have won this round of billionaire battle royale, whatever happens next, democracy is the real loser.

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

    – ref. The blow-up between Elon Musk and Donald Trump has been entertaining, but how did things go so bad, so fast? – https://theconversation.com/the-blow-up-between-elon-musk-and-donald-trump-has-been-entertaining-but-how-did-things-go-so-bad-so-fast-258394

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Immortality at a price: how the promise of delaying death has become a consumer marketing bonanza

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Amy Errmann, Senior Lecturer, Marketing & International Business, Auckland University of Technology

    Living forever has become the wellness and marketing trend of the 2020s. But cheating death – or at least delaying it – will come at a price.

    What was once the domain of scientists and the uber rich is increasingly becoming a consumer product. Those pushing the idea, spearheaded by tech billionaire Bryan Johnson’s “Don’t Die” movement, believe death isn’t inevitable, but is a solvable problem.

    The global longevity market – spanning gene therapies, anti-ageing drugs, diagnostics and wellness plans – is projected to hit US$610 billion this year. At its core, the marketing of these products feeds off the age-old fear of mortality and the desire to stay young.

    But while the marketing is reaching the masses, this is still very much a luxury product. Immortality is being sold as exclusive, aspirational and symbolic. It’s not just about living longer – it’s about signalling status, controlling biology and being your “best future self”.

    Tapping into long-held fears

    What’s known as “terror management theory” puts forward the idea that humans and other animals have an instinctive drive for self-preservation. But humans are not only self-aware, they are also able to anticipate future outcomes – including the inevitability of death.

    The messaging behind the push to extend life taps into this internal tension between knowledge of our own mortality and the self-preservation instinct. And to be fair, it is not a new phenomenon.

    Cryonics – the preservation of bodies and brains at extremely low temperatures with the hope medical advancements will allow for their revival at some point in the future – was first popularised in Robert Ettinger’s 1962 book The Prospect of Immortality.

    Since then, the super-rich have invested in various companies promising to preserve their bodies for some unknown future date. It now costs US$200,000 to freeze your body, or $80,000 for just your brain.

    What’s truly new is how death is being marketed – not as fate, but as a flaw. Longevity isn’t just about living longer; it’s about turning mortality into a design problem, something to delay, manage and eventually solve.

    “Biohacking” sells the idea that with the right data, tools and discipline, you can upgrade your biology – and become your best, most future-proof self.

    This pitch targets high-income consumers aged 30 to 60, people already fluent in the language of optimisation – a mindset focused on maximising performance, productivity and longevity through data.

    The brands behind the living forever movement sell control, optimisation and elite identity. Ageing becomes a personal failure. Anti-ageing is self-discipline. Consumers are cast as CEOs of their own health – tracking sleep, fixing their gut and taking supplements.

    From biohacks to consumer branding

    There are now more than 700 companies working in the longevity market. Startups such as Elysium Health and Human Longevity Inc. offer DNA testing, supplements and personalised health plans.

    These aren’t medical treatments – they’re sold as tools to age “smarter” or “slower” and are pitched with the language of control over what once might have seemed uncontrollable.

    Don’t Die’s Bryan Johnson spends over US$2 million annually on his personal anti-ageing experiment.

    But the real pitch is to consumers: buy back time, one premium subscription at a time. Johnson’s company Blueprint offers diagnostics, supplements and exercise routines bundled into monthly plans starting at $333 and climbing to over $1,600.

    Longevity products promise more than health. They promise time, control and even immortality. But the quest to live forever, or at least a lot longer, raises moral and ethical questions about who benefits, and what kind of world is being created.

    Without thoughtful oversight, these technologies risk becoming tools of exclusion, not progress. Because if time becomes a product, not everyone will get to check out at the same counter.

    Amy Errmann 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. Immortality at a price: how the promise of delaying death has become a consumer marketing bonanza – https://theconversation.com/immortality-at-a-price-how-the-promise-of-delaying-death-has-become-a-consumer-marketing-bonanza-257009

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: 2-million-year-old pitted teeth from our ancient relatives reveal secrets about human evolution

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ian Towle, Research Fellow in Biological Anthropology, Monash University

    Ian Towle / The Conversation

    The enamel that forms the outer layer of our teeth might seem like an unlikely place to find clues about evolution. But it tells us more than you’d think about the relationships between our fossil ancestors and relatives.

    In our new study, published in the Journal of Human Evolution, we highlight a different aspect of enamel. In fact, we highlight its absence.

    Specifically, we show that tiny, shallow pits in fossil teeth may not be signs of malnutrition or disease. Instead, they may carry surprising evolutionary significance.

    You might be wondering why this matters. Well, for people like me who try to figure out how humans evolved and how all our ancestors and relatives were related to each other, teeth are very important. And having a new marker to look out for on fossil teeth could give us a new tool to help fit together our family tree.

    Uniform, circular and shallow

    These pits were first identified in the South African species Paranthropus robustus, a close relative of our own genus Homo. They are highly consistent in shape and size: uniform, circular and shallow.

    Initially, we thought the pits might be unique to P. robustus. But our latest research shows this kind of pitting also occurs in other Paranthropus species in eastern Africa. We even found it in some Australopithecus individuals, a genus that may have given rise to both Homo and Paranthropus.

    Uniform, circular and shallow pitting on teeth may be a previously undetected clue about evolutionary relationships.
    Towle et al. / Journal of Human Evolution

    The enamel pits have commonly been assumed to be defects resulting from stresses such as illness or malnutrition during childhood. However, their remarkable consistency across species, time and geography suggests these enamel pits may be something more interesting.

    The pitting is subtle, regularly spaced, and often clustered in specific regions of the tooth crown. It appears without any other signs of damage or abnormality.

    Two million years of evolution

    We looked at fossil teeth from hominins (humans and our closest extinct relatives) from the Omo Valley in Ethiopia, where we can see traces of more than two million years of human evolution, as well as comparisons with sites in southern Africa (Drimolen, Swartkrans and Kromdraai).

    The Omo collection includes teeth attributed to Paranthropus, Australopithecus and Homo, the three most recent and well-known hominin genera. This allowed us to track the telltale pitting across different branches of our evolutionary tree.

    What we found was unexpected. The uniform pitting appears regularly in both eastern and southern Africa Paranthropus, and also in the earliest eastern African Australopithecus teeth dating back around 3 million years. But among southern Africa Australopithecus and our own genus, Homo, the uniform pitting was notably absent.

    A defect … or just a trait?

    If the uniform pitting were caused by stress or disease, we might expect it to correlate with tooth size and enamel thickness, and to affect both front and back teeth. But it doesn’t.

    What’s more, stress-related defects typically form horizontal bands. They usually affect all teeth developing at the time of the stress, but this is not what we see with this pitting.

    The uniform, even nature of the pitting suggests a genetic origin rather than environmental factors such as malnutrition or disease.
    Towle et al. / Journal of Human Evolution

    We think this pitting probably has a developmental and genetic origin. It may have emerged as a byproduct of changes in how enamel was formed in these species. It might even have some unknown functional purpose.

    In any case, we suggest these uniform, circular pits should be viewed as a trait rather than a defect.

    A modern comparison

    Further support for the idea of a genetic origin comes from comparisons with a rare condition in humans today called amelogenesis imperfecta, which affects enamel formation.

    About one in 1,000 people today have amelogenesis imperfecta. By contrast, the uniform pitting we have seen appears in up to half of Paranthropus individuals.

    Although it likely has a genetic basis, we argue the even pitting is too common to be considered a harmful disorder. What’s more, it persisted at similar frequencies for millions of years.

    A new evolutionary marker

    If this uniform pitting really does have a genetic origin, we may be able to use it to trace evolutionary relationships.

    We already use subtle tooth features such as enamel thickness, cusp shape, and wear patterns to help identify species. The uniform pitting may be an additional diagnostic tool.

    For example, our findings support the idea that Paranthropus is a “monophyletic group”, meaning all its species descend from a (relatively) recent common ancestor, rather than evolving seperatly from different Australopithecus taxa.

    And we did not find this pitting in the southern Africa species Australopithecus africanus, despite a large sample of more than 500 teeth. However, it does appear in the earliest Omo Australopithecus specimens.

    So perhaps the pitting could also help pinpoint from where Paranthropus branched off on its own evolutionary path.

    An intriguing case

    One especially intriguing case is Homo floresiensis, the so-called “hobbit” species from Indonesia. Based on published images, their teeth appear to show similar pitting.

    If confirmed, this could suggest an evolutionary history more closely tied to earlier Australopithecus species than to Homo. However, H. floresiensis also shows potential skeletal and dental pathologies, so more research is needed before drawing such conclusions.

    More research is also needed to fully understand the processes behind the uniform pitting before it can be used routinely in taxonomic work. But our research shows it is likely a heritable characteristic, one not found in any living primates studied to date, nor in our own genus Homo (rare cases of amelogenesis imperfecta aside).

    As such, it offers an exciting new tool for exploring evolutionary relationships among fossil hominins.

    Ian Towle 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. 2-million-year-old pitted teeth from our ancient relatives reveal secrets about human evolution – https://theconversation.com/2-million-year-old-pitted-teeth-from-our-ancient-relatives-reveal-secrets-about-human-evolution-258390

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Curious Kids: Why do dolphins jump out of the water?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Katharina J. Peters, Lecturer in Biological Sciences, University of Wollongong

    Will Falcon/Shutterstock

    Why do dolphins jump out of the water?

    Charlize, age 8, Melbourne

    Have you ever seen images of dolphins jumping out of the waves and performing impressive acrobatics in the air? Or maybe you’ve seen it in real life?

    When a dolphin jumps, it can launch its whole body out of the water. While it looks like fun, it must also be hard work!

    So, why do dolphins jump out of the water? There are several possible reasons. Let’s jump in and explore them.

    A dolphin can launch its whole body out of the water.
    Paulphin Photography/Shutterstock

    To stay in touch

    Dolphins are social animals and live in groups. But it’s hard to see long distances underwater. So, they use the power of sound to stay in contact with each other.

    Sound travels much farther underwater than through the air. When dolphins jump, the slap of the landing makes a loud noise, and would be heard some distance away.

    Some species, such as spinner dolphins, use jumping to communicate their location to other group members, especially at night. This helps them keep track of each other.

    As an aside, spinner dolphins are very skilled jumpers. As the name suggests, they spin up to seven times in the air before landing back in the water!

    Spinner dolphins are the acrobats of the sea.

    The need for speed

    Have you ever tried to walk underwater? You will have felt how hard it is. That’s because water is more dense than air, which creates a “drag”, or resistance.

    Dolphins have streamlined bodies to reduce drag, but they still feel it. So, if they want to travel quickly – for example, if they are trying to escape a predator or hunt fish – they sometimes jump.

    While in the air, they travel faster than they would through water, and also save energy.

    To gather food

    Some dolphins weigh less than 50 kilograms, such as the Hector’s dolphin. Others weigh several tonnes, such as an orca.

    Either way, when a dolphin crashes back into the water, you can be sure it makes quite a noisy splash.

    Some dolphin species, such as dusky dolphins, use this noise to herd fish at the surface to make them easier to capture.

    Shaking off hitchhikers

    Fish called remoras can attach themselves to dolphins using a sucker on their head. This is good for the fish, because it can keep them safe and they have plenty to eat, such as small parasites and old bits of dolphin skin.

    While the remoras don’t hurt the dolphin, they probably slow it down. So dolphins may try to get rid of the little hitchhikers by jumping to dislodge them.

    A dolphin calf jumping to remove remoras.

    Fighting and frolicking

    Dolphins are highly intelligent animals. They have big brains and can learn tricks and solve puzzles. With intelligence also come other traits: playfulness and social behaviour.

    Sometimes, that social behaviour can end in a “fight”. Dolphin experts say two dolphins jumping around together might be actually trying to hit each other!

    Dolphins also love to frolic – not just with each other but with other marine mammals such as whales and sea lions, with turtles – or even just a piece of seaweed! So they might jump as some sort of “game”.

    As you can see, dolphins may jump for a range of reasons – sometimes just because it’s really fun!

    Katharina J. Peters 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. Curious Kids: Why do dolphins jump out of the water? – https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-why-do-dolphins-jump-out-of-the-water-256462

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: What can you do if you don’t like your child’s friends?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Rachael Murrihy, Director, The Kidman Centre, Faculty of Science, University of Technology Sydney

    Getty Images/ Wander Woman Collective

    Many parents will be familiar with this situation: your child has a good or even best friend, but you don’t like them.

    Perhaps the friend is bossy, has poor manners or jumps on your furniture. Maybe you don’t like the way your child behaves when they are with this friend.

    For older children, your dislike might relate to the friend’s language, attitude towards school, or risk-taking behaviours. Maybe the friend is hot and cold and elicits more drama than Mean Girls.

    What can parents do?



    Read more:
    How can you help your child make friends?

    You will have a protective instinct

    If you see your child being treated poorly, this can ignite a protective instinct in parents that manifests in a bodily “fight or flight” response.

    This provides a rush of adrenaline, which can spur parents to take actions such as criticising the friend or even attempting to ban the friendship.

    However, this approach can do more harm than good, particularly for adolescents who are hardwired to push back on their parents.

    What can you do for younger kids?

    With younger children, clear boundaries can be set at the outset of a playdate. For example, “my bedroom is off limits for playing” or “we don’t jump on the couch”.

    If kids are using mean or rude language around each other, you can say “we don’t use that word in this house, be kind to each other”.

    Playdates can be moved outside, which can be particularly helpful if a child shows loud, destructive or rude behaviour. And if you can help it, organise fewer plays with that child.

    But parents may also want to reflect on why this child rubs them the wrong way. Is the reaction warranted, or does it comes from your own biases and opinions? Your child’s friends do not have to be the friends you would choose.

    Change your approach for older kids

    To become successful adults, teens need to move through developmental milestones of becoming autonomous and self-reliant. Intervening in their friendships interferes with this vital process of developing independence and identity, which ultimately disempowers them.

    In the 1960s, US psychologist Diana Baumrind published famous research on parenting. She found an authoritarian style – where the parent exerts complete control and does not listen to the child’s needs – results in a child with less confidence and independence than one brought up in a household that has rules but is also responsive to their needs.

    Adopting an authoritarian approach to friends or potential partners also risks the “Romeo and Juliet” effect, whereby disapproval makes the child more attracted to that person.

    So, for teenagers and their friends, the approach should be more nuanced. The primary goal is to encourage the child to see the parent as a person to come to when they have problems. If parents are tempted to be critical, they could ask themself: is it in the best interests of your child to be controlled?

    It is important to let children make mistakes so they can learn from them. Learning about what they do and don’t want in relationships is a crucial life skill.



    Read more:
    ‘How was school today?’ How to help kids open up and say more than ‘fine’

    How can you talk about friendship?

    Fostering an open dialogue about friends and relationships can allow parents to have influence in a subtle and developmentally appropriate way.

    For younger children, you could use a quiet moment to ask questions like “what can you say to Charlotte if you don’t want to play her game anymore?” or “what’s a good way to deal with it if she is being too bossy?”

    For older children, ideally wait until your teen wants to connect, rather than launching into questions. Ask gentle, non-judgmental questions about their friendship, like “what do you like to do together?” or “tell me about what you have in common”.

    If they seem upset or uncomfortable in some way, resist the urge to dismiss or solve the problem. Simply listening is the key to helping the child work it out, so they feel supported but not judged.

    And remember, not all friendships last. As children move through school and grow, most will naturally make new friends and move on from old ones.

    Clearly, one exception to adopting a teen-led approach is when safety is at risk. If they are being bullied or abused in any form – even if the child is opposed – parents should step in and speak to the school or other relevant authorities.



    Read more:
    What can you do if your child is being bullied?

    Rachael Murrihy 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. What can you do if you don’t like your child’s friends? – https://theconversation.com/what-can-you-do-if-you-dont-like-your-childs-friends-257353

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Measles cases are surging globally. Should children be vaccinated earlier?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Meru Sheel, Associate Professor, Infectious Diseases, Immunisation and Emergencies (IDIE) Group, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney

    EyeEm Mobile GmbH/Getty Images

    Measles has been rising globally in recent years. There were an estimated 10.3 million cases worldwide in 2023, a 20% increase from 2022.

    Outbreaks are being reported all over the world including in the United States, Europe and the Western Pacific region (which includes Australia). For example, Vietnam has reportedly seen thousands of cases in 2024 and 2025.

    In Australia, 77 cases of measles have been recorded in the first five months of 2025, compared with 57 cases in all of 2024.

    Measles cases in Australia are almost all related to international travel. They occur in travellers returning from overseas, or are contracted locally after mixing with an infected traveller or their contacts.

    Measles most commonly affects children and is preventable with vaccination, given in Australia in two doses at 12 and 18 months old. But in light of current outbreaks globally, is there a case for reviewing the timing of measles vaccinations?

    Some measles basics

    Measles is caused by a virus belonging to the genus Morbillivirus. Symptoms include a fever, cough, runny nose and a rash. While it presents as a mild illness in most cases, measles can lead to severe disease requiring hospitalisation, and even death. Large outbreaks can overwhelm health systems.

    Measles can have serious health consequences, such as in the brain and the immune system, years after the infection.

    Measles spreads from person to person via small respiratory droplets that can remain suspended in the air for two hours. It’s highly contagious – one person with measles can spread the infection to 12–18 people who aren’t immune.

    Because measles is so infectious, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends two-dose vaccination coverage above 95% to stop the spread and achieve “herd immunity”.

    Low and declining vaccine coverage, especially since the COVID pandemic, is driving global outbreaks.



    Read more:
    What are the symptoms of measles? How long does the vaccine last? Experts answer 6 key questions

    When are children vaccinated against measles?

    Newborn babies are generally protected against measles thanks to maternal antibodies. Maternal antibodies get passed from the mother to the baby via the placenta and in breast milk, and provide protection against infections including measles.

    The WHO advises everyone should receive two doses of measles vaccination. In places where there’s a lot of measles circulating, children are generally recommended to have the first dose at around nine months old. This is because it’s expected maternal antibodies would have declined significantly in most infants by that age, leaving them vulnerable to infection.

    If maternal measles antibodies are still present, the vaccine is less likely to produce an immune response.

    Research has also shown a measles vaccine given at less than 8.5 months of age can result in an antibody response which declines more quickly. This might be due to interference with maternal antibodies, but researchers are still trying to understand the reasons for this.

    A second dose of the vaccine is usually given 6–9 months later. A second dose is important because about 10–15% of children don’t develop antibodies after the first vaccine.

    In settings where measles transmission is under better control, a first dose is recommended at 12 months of age. Vaccination at 12 months compared with nine months is considered to generate a stronger, longer-lasting immune response.

    In Australia, children are routinely given the measles-mumps- rubella (MMR) vaccine at 12 months and the measles-mumps-rubella-varicella (MMRV, with “varicella” being chickenpox) vaccine at 18 months.

    Babies at higher risk of catching the disease can also be given an additional early dose. In Australia, this is recommended for infants as young as six months when there’s an outbreak or if they’re travelling overseas to a high-risk setting.

    A new study looking at measles antibodies in babies

    A recent review looked at measles antibody data from babies under nine months old living in low- and middle-income countries. The review combined the results from 20 studies, including more than 8,000 babies. The researchers found that while 81% of newborns had maternal antibodies to measles, only 30% of babies aged four months had maternal antibodies.

    This study suggests maternal antibodies to measles decline much earlier than previously thought. It raises the question of whether the first dose of measles vaccine is given too late to maximise infants’ protection, especially when there’s a lot of measles around.

    Should we bring the measles vaccine forward in Australia?

    All of the data in this study comes from low- and middle-income countries, and might not reflect the situation in Australia where we have much higher vaccine coverage for measles, and very few cases.

    Australia’s coverage for two doses of the MMR vaccine at age two is above 92%.

    Although this is lower than the optimal 95%, the overall risk of measles surging in Australia is relatively low.

    Nonetheless, there may be a case for broadening the age at which an early extra dose of the measles vaccine can be given to children at higher risk. In New Zealand, infants as young as four months can receive a measles vaccine before travelling to an endemic country.

    But the current routine immunisation schedule in Australia is unlikely to change.

    Adding an extra dose to the schedule would be costly and logistically difficult. Lowering the age for the first dose may have some advantages in certain settings, and doesn’t pose any safety concerns, but further evidence would be required to support this change. In particular, research is needed to ensure it wouldn’t negatively affect the longer-term protection that vaccination offers from measles.

    Making sure you’re protected

    In the meantime, ensuring high levels of measles vaccine coverage with two doses is a global priority.

    People born after 1966 are recommended to have two doses of measles vaccine. This is because those born before the mid-1960s likely caught measles as children (when the vaccine was not yet available) and would therefore have natural immunity.

    If you’re unsure about your vaccination status, you can check this through the Australian Immunisation Register. If you don’t have a documented record, ask your doctor for advice.

    Catch-up vaccination is available under the National Immunisation Program.

    Meru Sheel receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

    Anita Heywood 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. Measles cases are surging globally. Should children be vaccinated earlier? – https://theconversation.com/measles-cases-are-surging-globally-should-children-be-vaccinated-earlier-257942

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Can Israel still claim self-defence to justify its Gaza war? Here’s what the law says

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Donald Rothwell, Professor of International Law, Australian National University

    On October 7 2023, more than 1,000 Hamas militants stormed into southern Israel and went on a killing spree, murdering 1,200 men, women and children and abducting another 250 people to take back to Gaza. It was the deadliest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.

    That day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the country, “Israel is at war”. The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) immediately began a military campaign to secure the release of the hostages and defeat Hamas. Since that day, more than 54,000 Palestinians have been killed, mostly women and children.

    Israel has maintained its response is justified under international law, as every nation has “an inherent right to defend itself”, as Netanyahu stated in early 2024.

    This is based on the right to self-defence in international law, which is outlined in Article 51 of the 1945 United Nations Charter as follows:

    Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations[…]

    At the start of the war, many nations agreed Israel had a right to defend itself, but how it did so mattered. This would ensure its actions were consistent with international humanitarian law.

    However, 20 months after the October 7 attacks, fundamental legal issues have arisen around whether this self-defence justification still holds.

    Can Israel exercise self-defence ad infinitum? Or is it now waging a war of aggression against Palestine?

    Self-defence in the law

    Self-defence has a long history in international law.

    The modern principles of self-defence were outlined in diplomatic exchanges over an 1837 incident involving an American ship, The Caroline, after it was destroyed by British forces in Canada. Both sides agreed that an exercise of self-defence would have required the British to demonstrate their conduct was not “unreasonable or excessive”.

    The concept of self-defence was also extensively relied on by the Allies in the second world war in response to German and Japanese aggression.

    Self-defence was originally framed in the law as a right to respond to a state-based attack. However, this scope has broadened in recent decades to encompass attacks from non-state actors, such as al-Qaeda following the September 11 2001 terror attacks.

    Israel is a legitimate, recognised state in the global community and a member of the United Nations. Its right to self-defence will always remain intact when it faces attacks from its neighbours or non-state actors, such as Hamas, Hezbollah or the Houthi rebels in Yemen.

    However, the right of self-defence is not unlimited. It is constrained by the principles of necessity and proportionality.

    The necessity test was met in the current war due to the extreme violence of the Hamas attack on October 7 and the taking of hostages. These were actions that could not be ignored and demanded a response, due to the threat Israel continued to face.

    The proportionality test was also met, initially. Israel’s military operation after the attack was strategic in nature, focused on the return of the hostages and the destruction of Hamas to eliminate the immediate threat the group posed.

    The legal question now is whether Israel is still legitimately exercising self-defence in response to the October 7 attacks.

    This is a live issue, especially given comments by Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz on May 30 that Hamas would be “annihilated” unless a proposed ceasefire deal was accepted.

    These comments and Israel’s ongoing conduct throughout the war raise the question of whether proportionality is still being met.

    A test of proportionality

    The importance of proportionality in self-defence has been endorsed in recent years by the International Court of Justice.

    Under international law, proportionality remains relevant throughout a conflict, not just in the initial response to an attack.

    While the law allows a war to continue until an aggressor surrenders, it does not legitimise the complete destruction of the territory where an aggressor is fighting.

    The principle of proportionality also provides protections for civilians. Military actions are to be directed at the foreign forces who launched the attack, not civilians.

    While Israel has targeted Hamas fighters in its attacks, including those who orchestrated the October 7 attacks, these actions have caused significant collateral deaths of Palestinian civilians.

    Therefore, taken overall, the ongoing, 20-month military assault against Hamas, with its high numbers of civilian casualties, credible reports of famine and devastation of Gazan towns and cities, suggests Israel’s exercise of self-defence has become disproportionate.

    The principle of proportionality is also part of international humanitarian law. However, Israel’s actions on this front are a separate legal issue that has been the subject of investigation by the International Criminal Court.

    My aim here is to solely assess the legal question of proportionality in self-defence and international law.

    Is rescuing hostages in self-defence?

    Israel could separately argue it is exercising legitimate self-defence to rescue the remaining hostages held by Hamas.

    However, rescuing nationals as an exercise of self-defence is legally controversial. Israel set a precedent in 1976 when the military rescued 103 Jewish hostages from Entebbe, Uganda, after their aircraft had been hijacked.

    In current international law, there are very few other examples in which this interpretation of self-defence has been adopted – and no international consensus on its use.

    In Gaza, the size, scale and duration of Israel’s war goes far beyond a hostage rescue operation. Its aim is also to eliminate Hamas.

    Given this, rescuing hostages as an act of self-defence is arguably not a suitable justification for Israel’s ongoing military operations.

    An act of aggression?

    If Israel can no longer rely on self-defence to justify its Gaza military campaign, how would its actions be characterised under international law?

    Israel could claim it is undertaking a security operation as an occupying power.

    While the International Court of Justice said in an advisory opinion last year that Israel was engaged in an illegal occupation of Gaza, the court expressly made clear it was not addressing the circumstances that had evolved since October 7.

    Israel is indeed continuing to act as an occupying power, even though it has not physically reoccupied all of Gaza. This is irrelevant given the effective control it exercises over the territory.

    However, the scale of the IDF’s operations constitute an armed conflict and well exceed the limited military operations to restore security as an occupying power.

    Absent any other legitimate basis for Israel’s current conduct in Gaza, there is a strong argument that what is occurring is an act of aggression. The UN Charter and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court prohibit acts of aggression not otherwise justified under international law.

    These include invasions or attacks by the armed forces of a state, military occupations, bombardments and blockades. All of this has occurred – and continues to occur – in Gaza.

    The international community has rightly condemned Russia’s invasion as an act of aggression in Ukraine. Will it now do the same with Israel’s conduct in Gaza?

    Donald Rothwell receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

    – ref. Can Israel still claim self-defence to justify its Gaza war? Here’s what the law says – https://theconversation.com/can-israel-still-claim-self-defence-to-justify-its-gaza-war-heres-what-the-law-says-257822

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How Trump’s trade war is supercharging the fast fashion industry

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Mona Mashhadi Rajabi, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, University of Technology Sydney

    Jade Gao/Getty Images

    When US President Donald Trump introduced sweeping new tariffs on Chinese imports the goal was to bring manufacturing back to American soil and protect local jobs.

    However, this process of re-shoring is complex and requires years of investment and planning – far too slow for the world of ultra-fast fashion, where brands are used to reacting in weeks, not years.

    Many clothing companies started to move production out of China during Trump’s first term. They relocated to countries such as Vietnam and Cambodia when the initial China-specific tariffs hit.

    This trend accelerated with the newer “reciprocal” tariffs. Instead of re-shoring production, many fashion brands are simply sourcing from whichever country offers the lowest total cost after tariffs. The result? The ultra-fast fashion machine adapted quickly and became even more exploitative.

    From Guangzhou to your wardrobe in days

    Platforms such as Shein and Temu built their success by offering trend-driven clothing at shockingly low prices. A $5 dress or $3 top might seem like a bargain, but those prices hide a lot.

    Much of Shein’s production takes place in the so-called “Shein village” in Guangzhou, China, where workers often sew for 12–14 hours a day under poor conditions to keep pace with the demand for new items.

    When the US cracked down on Chinese imports, the intention was to make American-made goods more competitive. This included raising the tariff on Chinese goods as high as 145% (since paused), and closing the “de minimis” loophole, which had allowed imports under US$800 to enter tariff-free.

    But these tariffs did not halt ultra-fast fashion. They just rerouted production to countries with lower tariffs and even lower labour costs. The Philippines, with a comparatively low tariff rate of 17%, emerged as a surprising alternative. However, the country can’t provide the industrial scale and infrastructure to match what China can offer.

    So why does Australia matter?

    Much of the cheap fashion previously bound for the US is now flooding other markets, including Australia.

    Australia still allows most low-value imports to enter tax-free, and platforms such as Shein and Temu have taken full advantage. Australian consumers are among the most frequent Shein and Temu buyers per capita globally.

    Just 3% of clothing is made in Australia and most labels rely on offshore manufacturing. This makes Australia an ideal target market for ultra-fast fashion imports. We have high purchasing power, lenient import rules and strong demand for low-cost style, especially due to the cost-of-living crisis.

    The hidden costs of cheap clothes

    The environmental impact of fast fashion is well known. However, amid the chaos of Trump’s tariff announcements, far less attention has been paid to how these policies – together with the retreat from climate commitments – worsen environmental harms, including those linked to fast fashion.

    The irony is that the tariffs meant to protect American workers have, in some cases, worsened conditions for workers elsewhere. Meanwhile, consumers in Australia now benefit from faster delivery of even cheaper goods as Temu, Shein and others have improved their shipping capabilities to Australia.

    Australian consumers send more than 200,000 tonnes of clothing to landfill each year. But the deeper problem is structural. The entire business model is built on exploitation and environmental damage.

    Factory workers bear the brunt of cost-cutting. In the race to stay competitive, many manufacturers reduce wages and overlook hazardous working conditions.

    Will ethical fashion ever compete?

    Fixing these problems will require a global rethink of how fashion operates.
    Governments have a role in regulating disclosures about supply chains and enforcing labour standards.

    Brands need to take responsibility for the conditions in their factories, whether directly owned or outsourced. Transparency is essential.

    Alternatives to fast fashion are gaining traction. Clothing rentals are emerging as a promising business model that help build a more circular fashion economy. Charity-run op shops have long been a sustainable source of second-hand clothing.

    Australia’s new Seamless scheme seeks to make fashion brands responsible for the full life of the clothes they sell. The aim is to help people buy, wear and recycle clothes in a more sustainable way.

    Consumers also matter. If we continue to expect clothes to cost less than a cup of coffee, change will be slow. Recognising that a $5 t-shirt has hidden costs, borne by people on the factory floor and the environment, is a first step.

    Some ethical brands are already showing a better way and offer clothes made under fairer conditions and with sustainable materials. These clothes are not as cheap or fast, but they represent a more conscious alternative especially for consumers concerned about synthetic fibres, toxic chemicals and environmental harm.

    Trump reshuffled the deck, but did not change the game

    Trump’s trade rules aim to re-balance global trade in favour of American industry, yet have cost companies more than US$34 billion in lost sales and higher costs. This cost will eventually fall on US consumers. In ultra-fast fashion, it mostly exposed how fragile and exploitative the system already was.

    Today, brands such as Shein and Temu are thriving in Australia. But unless we address the systemic inequalities in fashion production and rethink the incentives that drive this market, the true cost of cheap clothing will continue to be paid by those least able to afford it.

    Mona Mashhadi Rajabi receives funding from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), the Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand (AFAANZ), and a Business Research Grant from the University of Technology Sydney.

    Lisa Lake previously received funding from NSW Department of Education Innovation and Collaboration grant to establish the Centre of Excellence in Sustainable Fashion + Textiles.

    Martina Linnenluecke receives funding from The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) and the Australian Research Council. Her work is also supported by a Strategic Research Accelerator Grant from the University of Technology Sydney (UTS).

    Yun Shen 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 Trump’s trade war is supercharging the fast fashion industry – https://theconversation.com/how-trumps-trade-war-is-supercharging-the-fast-fashion-industry-257727

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: From Kent State to Los Angeles, using armed forces to police civilians is a high-risk strategy

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Brian VanDeMark, Professor of History, United States Naval Academy

    Smoke and tear gas surround a protester in Los Angeles on June 7, 2025, amid confrontations between immigration rights advocates and law enforcement personnel. Taurat Hossain/Anadolu via Getty Images

    Responding to street protests in Los Angeles against federal immigration enforcement raids, President Donald Trump ordered 2,000 soldiers from the California National Guard into the city on June 7, 2025, to protect agents carrying out the raids. Trump also authorized the Pentagon to dispatch regular U.S. troops “as necessary” to support the California National Guard.

    The president’s orders did not specify rules of engagement about when and how force could be used. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who did not request the National Guard and asserted it was not needed, criticized the president’s decision as “inflammatory” and warned it “will only escalate tensions.”

    I am a historian who has written several books about the Vietnam War, one of the most divisive episodes in our nation’s past. My recent book, “Kent State: An American Tragedy,” examines a historic clash on May 4, 1970, between anti-war protesters and National Guard troops at Kent State University in Ohio.

    The confrontation escalated into violence: troops opened fire on the demonstrators, killing four students and wounding nine others, including one who was paralyzed for life.

    In my view, dispatching California National Guard troops against civilian protesters in Los Angeles chillingly echoes decisions and actions that led to the tragic Kent State shooting. Some active-duty units, as well as National Guard troops, are better prepared today than in 1970 to respond to riots and violent protests – but the vast majority of their training and their primary mission remains to fight, to kill, and to win wars.

    Protests in Los Angeles began after federal agencies conducted immigration raids across the city on June 6, 2025. Local police responded with pepper spray, rubber bullets and tear gas.

    Federalizing the Guard

    The National Guard is a force of state militias under the command of governors. It can be federalized by the president during times of national emergency, or for deployment on combat missions overseas. Guardsmen train for one weekend per month and two weeks every summer.

    Typically, the Guard has been deployed to deal with natural disasters and support local police responses to urban unrest. Examples include riots in Detroit in 1967, Washington DC in 1968, Los Angeles in 1965 and 1992, and Minneapolis and other cities in 2020 after the death of George Floyd.

    Presidents rarely deploy National Guard troops without state governors’ consent. The main modern exceptions occurred in the 1950s and 1960s during the Civil Rights Movement, when Southern governors defied federal court orders to desegregate schools in Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama. In each case, the federal government sent troops to protect Black students from crowds of white protesters.

    The 1807 Insurrection Act grants presidents authority to use active-duty troops or National Guard forces to restore order within the United States. President Trump did not invoke the Insurrection Act. Instead, he relied on Section 12406 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code, a narrower federal statute that allows the president to mobilize the National Guard in situations including “rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.”

    Trump did not limit his order to Los Angeles. He authorized armed forces to protect immigration enforcement operations at any “locations where protests against these functions are occurring or are likely to occur.”

    ICE officers and national guards confront protesters outside of the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles on June 8, 2025.
    Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu via Getty Images

    The standoff at Kent State

    The war in Vietnam had grown increasingly unpopular by early 1970, but protests intensified on April 30 when President Richard Nixon authorized expanding the conflict into Cambodia. At Kent State, after a noontime anti-war rally on campus on May 1, alcohol-fueled students harassed passing motorists in town and smashed storefront windows that night. On May 2, anti-war protesters set fire to the building where military officers trained Kent State students enrolled in the armed forces’ Reserve Officer Training Corps program.

    In response, Republican Governor Jim Rhodes dispatched National Guard troops, against the advice of university and many local officials, who understood the mood in the town of Kent and on campus far better than Rhodes did. County prosecutor Ron Kane had vehemently warned Rhodes that deploying the National Guard could spark conflict and lead to fatalities.

    Nonetheless, Rhodes – who was trailing in an impending Republican primary for a U.S. Senate seat – struck the pose of a take-charge leader who wasn’t going to be pushed around by a long-haired rabble. “We’re going to put a stop to this!” he shouted, pounding the table at a press conference in Kent on May 3.

    Hundreds of National Guard troops were deployed across town and on campus. University officials announced that further rallies were banned. Nonetheless, on May 4, some 2,000 to 3,000 students gathered on the campus Commons for another anti-war rally. They were met by 96 National Guardsmen, led by eight officers.

    There was confrontation in the air as student anger over Nixon’s expansion of the war blended with resentment over the Guard’s presence. Protesters chanted antiwar slogans, shouted epithets at the Guardsmen and made obscene gestures.

    Archival footage from CBS News of the clash between campus anti-war protesters and Ohio National Guard troops at Kent State University on May 4, 1970.

    ‘Fire in the air!’

    The Guardsmen sent to Kent State had no training in de-escalating tension or minimizing the use of force. Nonetheless, their commanding officer that day, Ohio Army National Guard Assistant Adjutant General Robert Canterbury, decided to use them to break up what the Department of Justice later deemed a legal assembly.

    In my view, it was a reckless judgment that inflamed an already volatile situation. Students started showering the greatly outnumbered Guardsmen with rocks and other objects. In violation of Ohio Army National Guard regulations, Canterbury neglected to warn the students that he had ordered Guardsmens’ rifles loaded with live ammunition.

    As tension mounted, Canterbury failed to adequately supervise his increasingly fearful troops – a cardinal responsibility of the commanding officer on the scene. This fundamental failure of leadership increased confusion and resulted in a breakdown of fire control discipline – officers’ responsibility to maintain tight control over their troops’ discharge of weapons.

    When protesters neared the Guardsmen, platoon sergeant Mathew McManus shouted “Fire in the air!” in a desperate attempt to prevent bloodshed. McManus intended for troops to shoot above the students’ heads to warn them off. But some Guardsmen, wearing gas masks that made it hard to hear amid the noise and confusion, only heard or reacted to the first word of McManus’ order, and fired at the students.

    The troops had not been trained to fire warning shots, which was contrary to National Guard regulations. And McManus had no authority to issue an order to fire if officers were nearby, as they were.

    Many National Guardsmen who were at Kent State on May 4 later questioned why they had been deployed there. “Loaded rifles and fixed bayonets are pretty harsh solutions for students exercising free speech on an American campus,” one of them told an oral history interviewer. Another plaintively asked me in a 2023 interview, “Why would you put soldiers trained to kill on a university campus to serve a police function?”

    Doug Guthrie, a student at Kent State in 1970, looks back 54 years later at the events of May 4.

    A fighting force

    National Guard equipment and training have improved significantly in the decades since Kent State. But Guardsmen are still military troops who are fundamentally trained to fight, not to control crowds.

    In 2020, then-National Guard Bureau Chief General Joseph Lengyel told reporters that “the civil unrest mission is one of the most difficult and dangerous missions … in our domestic portfolio.”

    In my view, the tragedy of Kent State shows how critical it is for authorities to be thoughtful in responding to protests, and extremely cautious in deploying military troops to deal with them. The application of force is inherently unpredictable, often uncontrollable, and can lead to fatal mistakes and lasting human suffering. And while protests sometimes break rules, they may not be disruptive or harmful enough to merit responding with force.

    Aggressive displays of force, in fact, can heighten tensions and worsen situations. Conversely, research shows that if protesters perceive authorities are acting with restraint and treating them with respect, they are more likely to remain nonviolent. The shooting at Kent State demonstrated that using military force in these situations is an option fraught with grave risks.

    This is an updated version of an article originally published Aug. 27, 2024.

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

    – ref. From Kent State to Los Angeles, using armed forces to police civilians is a high-risk strategy – https://theconversation.com/from-kent-state-to-los-angeles-using-armed-forces-to-police-civilians-is-a-high-risk-strategy-258468

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Phil Goff: Israel doesn’t care how many innocent people it’s killing in Gaza

    COMMENTARY: By Phil Goff

    “What we are doing in Gaza now is a war of devastation: indiscriminate, limitless, cruel and criminal killing of civilians. It’s the result of government policy — knowingly, evilly, maliciously, irresponsibly dictated.”

    This statement was made not by a foreign or liberal critic of Israel but by the former Prime Minister and former senior member of Benjamin Netanyahu’s own Likud party, Ehud Olmet.

    Nightly, we witness live-streamed evidence of the truth of his statement — lethargic and gaunt children dying of malnutrition, a bereaved doctor and mother of 10 children, nine of them killed by an Israeli strike (and her husband, another doctor, died later), 15 emergency ambulance workers gunned down by the IDF as they tried to help others injured by bombs, despite their identity being clear.

    Statistics reflect the scale of the horror imposed on Palestinians who are overwhelmingly civilians — 54,000 killed, 121,000 maimed and injured. Over 17,000 of these are children.

    This can no longer be excused as regrettable collateral damage from targeted attacks on Hamas.

    Israel simply doesn’t care about the impact of its military attacks on civilians and how many innocent people and children it is killing.

    Its willingness to block all humanitarian aid- food, water, medical supplies, from Gaza demonstrates further its willingness to make mass punishment and starvation a means to achieve its ends. Both are war crimes.

    Influenced by the right wing extremists in the Coalition cabinet, like Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel’s goal is no longer self defence or justifiable retaliation against Hamas terrorists.

    Israel attacks Palestinians at US-backed aid hubs in Gaza, killing 36. Image: AJ screenshot APR

    Making life unbearable
    The Israeli government policy is focused on making life unbearable for Palestinians and seeking to remove them from their homeland. In this, they are openly encouraged by President Trump who has publicly and repeatedly endorsed deporting the Palestinian population so that the Gaza could be made into a “Middle East Riviera”.

    This is not the once progressive pioneer Israel, led by people who had faced the Nazi Holocaust and were fighting for the right to a place where they could determine their own future and be safe.

    Sadly, a country of people who were themselves long victims of oppression is now guilty of oppressing and committing genocide against others.

    New Zealand recently joined 23 other countries calling out Israel and demanding a full supply of foreign aid be allowed into Gaza.

    Foreign Minister Winston Peters called Israel’s actions “ intolerable”. He said that we had “had enough and were running out of patience and hearing excuses”.

    While speaking out might make us feel better, words are not enough. Israel’s attacks on the civilian population in Gaza are being increased, aid distribution which has restarted is grossly insufficient to stop hunger and human suffering and Palestinians are being herded into confined areas described as humanitarian zones but which are still subject to bombardment.

    People living in tents in schools and hospitals are being slaughtered.

    World must force Israel to stop
    Like Putin, Israel will not end its killing and oppression unless the world forces it to. The US has the power but will not do this.

    The sanctions Trump has imposed are not on Israel’s leaders but on judges in the International Criminal Court (ICC) who dared to find Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu guilty of war crimes.

    New Zealand’s foreign policy has traditionally involved working with like-minded countries, often small nations like us. Two of these, Ireland and Sweden, are seeking to impose sanctions on Israel.

    Both are members of the European Union which makes up a third of Israel’s global trade. If the EU decides to act, sanctions imposed by it would have a big impact on Israel.

    These sanctions should be both on trade and against individuals.

    New Zealand has imposed sanctions on a small number of extremist Jewish settlers on the West Bank where there is evidence of them using violence against Palestinian villagers.

    These sanctions should be extended to Israel’s political leadership and New Zealand could take a lead in doing this. We should not be influenced by concern that by taking a stand we might offend US president Donald Trump.

    Show our preparedness to uphold values
    In the way that we have been proud of in the past, we should as a small but fiercely independent country show our preparedness to uphold our own values and act against gross abuse of human rights and flagrant disregard for international law.

    We should be working with others through the United Nations General Assembly to maximise political pressure on Israel to stop the ongoing killing of innocent civilians.

    Moral outrage at what Israel is doing has to be backed by taking action with others to force the Israeli government to end the killing, destruction, mass punishment and deliberate starvation of Palestinians including their children.

    An American doctor working at a Gaza hospital reported that in the last five weeks he had worked on dozens of badly injured children but not a single combatant.

    He noted that as well as being maimed and disfigured by bombing, many of the children were also suffering from malnutrition. Children were dying from wounds that they could recover from but there were not the supplies needed to treat them.

    Protest is not enough. We need to act.

    Phil Goff is Aotearoa New Zealand’s former Minister of Foreign Affairs. This article was first published by the Stuff website and is republished with the permission of the author.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Tracking apps monitor remote employees’ performance — and invade their privacy

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Danielle E. Thompson, PhD Candidate, Sociology and Legal Studies, University of Waterloo

    Business owners and managers claim that monitoring apps improve worker productivity. (Shutterstock)

    Digital monitoring is now a regular part of our working reality. From CCTV cameras to call recording, surveillance in the workplace is not new.

    But workers now face a more detailed and intrusive type of monitoring that is less understood, and at times even entirely unknown, by employees: employee monitoring applications (EMAs).

    It’s no longer just about being captured in the frame of a CCTV camera or having phone calls recorded. Workers now must be concerned about the collection of any and all activities that occur on their devices, and the use of this information to make decisions about their productivity, performance and risk to company security.

    Behaviour-monitoring software

    EMAs are a type of monitoring software that can be installed on worker devices to monitor their behaviours and activities. Common features include tracking time, keyboard strokes, email communications, websites visited, applications used and webcam video footage. Many of these apps also operate in an “invisible mode” that runs in the background, unknown to the employee.

    Amid the move to remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada, employers faced the challenge of managing their employees while they worked from home. EMAs provided employers with a quick and easy solution.



    Read more:
    Remote work requires us to reconsider how to evaluate and pay employees

    My research focuses on surveillance and privacy. Working alongside surveillance scholar Adam Molnar of the University of Waterloo, we conducted a survey between January and February 2022 of 402 managers, supervisors and employers working in companies in Ontario (60 per cent), British Columbia (30 per cent) and Québec (10 per cent) to better understand the use of these apps during the pandemic.

    Both remote working and EMA use were found to have increased after the start of the pandemic. Many, but not all, companies turned to EMAs to monitor their remote workers.

    A comparison of remote work and use of EMA rates before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.
    (D.E. Thompson), CC BY

    Privacy concerns

    We asked participants about the specific EMA software their company uses. A variety of EMAs exist on the market and are advertised for uses from security to workforce analytics. The most frequently used apps in our sample were Kickidler (49.8 per cent), Spyera (49.5 per cent), Flexispy (49.3 per cent), and Teramind (48.4 per cent).

    We then took a deeper dive into their advertised features and found that all four apps collected data using at least two highly invasive features, such as video surveillance or keystroke logging.

    Table comparing features and uses for the top four employee monitoring applications.
    (D.E. Thompson), CC BY

    Collecting data in these ways can raise serious concerns for employee privacy, especially when they work at home — a space that is typically viewed as private and often contains personal information that employers should not be privy to.

    If we’re concerned about employee privacy, then we need to understand exactly what companies are using the data for.

    We know that employee monitoring apps were adopted by many Canadian companies to manage remote workers, but what does that mean exactly? What is the data actually telling employers and how are they using it?

    We asked employers, managers and supervisors how their company currently uses EMAs, and found the most common uses to be productivity (28.9 per cent), efficiency (20.1 per cent), remote workforce management (19.9 per cent) and company analytics (18.2 per cent).

    Privacy versus productivity

    Owners and managers appear to be aware of the harmful consequences of these applications: 87.1 per cent were at least somewhat concerned about the negative impacts of these apps on employee trust. More than two-thirds — 70.7 per cent — also reported that they would be more likely adopt an app if it did not use invasive features like keystroke logging and video surveillance.

    Are the gains in productivity and efficiency worth the losses to employee privacy and trust? For some companies, the answer appears to be yes. While most owners and managers reported concerns about the invasiveness of EMAs, 51.7 per cent were still using the applications.

    For other companies, the gains in productivity are not worth the risks to employee privacy. For example, 29.3 per cent of owners and managers stated that significant changes to app features would be necessary before they would consider using it in their company.

    Protecting employees

    As hybrid working arrangements remain a normal part of our working lives, employee monitoring apps appear to be here to stay.

    A public opinion poll by the Center for Democracy and Technology in the United States found that American workers wanted to know why and how they were being monitored by their employers.

    Workers also felt they should be able to review any and all data collected about them, and that employers should be prohibited from sharing worker data without their permission, monitoring workers while off the clock, tracking their locations and monitoring productivity in ways that are harmful to the mental or physical health of workers.

    In Canada, the protection of employee privacy falls under a patchwork of federal and provincial laws that is insufficient for the management of EMAs.

    Worker protections vary by province and territory. Ontario’s Bill 88, passed in April 2022, established the first notification law for electronic monitoring in Canada. While a step in the right direction, notification alone is insufficient for the protection of worker privacy and well-being.

    Restrictions must be placed on the types of data collected, how it is collected and what it can be used for.

    Companies that continue to use EMAs must respect the privacy of workers by limiting the use of invasive features and providing workers with transparency and agency in their monitoring.

    Business owners considering the use of EMAs should ask themselves if the software is necessary to reach their goals. Do they need to track the location and activity of workers or access their webcams to determine productivity? Or are there other less harmful ways to measure performance, such as the quality of outputs and whether tasks are completed on time?

    Danielle E. Thompson 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. Tracking apps monitor remote employees’ performance — and invade their privacy – https://theconversation.com/tracking-apps-monitor-remote-employees-performance-and-invade-their-privacy-256261

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why bystanders defend bad behaviour at work — even when they know it’s wrong

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Zhanna Lyubykh, Assistant Professor, Beedie School of Business, Simon Fraser University

    Rather than intervening, supporting targets or reporting the misconduct, bystanders may downplay it, withdraw support or even blame the target, which ultimately reinforces the mistreatment. (Shutterstock)

    “You always mess things up. Why are you even on this project? Just quit already.” Demeaning, hostile or undermining behaviour like this is more common in the workplace and damaging than many people realize. One in three employees experience such behaviours, and almost half witness them.

    Rather than intervening, supporting targets or reporting the misconduct, research shows bystanders may downplay it, withdraw support or even blame the target, which ultimately reinforces the mistreatment.

    As our recent study shows, this is largely because when mistreatment seems inevitable or commonplace, bystanders are psychologically motivated to justify it rather than challenge it.

    Why do bystanders rationalize mistreatment?

    Humans are hardwired to see mistreatment as wrong. Most of us value fairness and want to punish wrongdoing. But if this is the case, why do bystanders so often fail to act when they witness mistreatment?

    Our recent research explores this question drawing on system justification theory — the idea that people are motivated to see the systems they live and work in as fair, legitimate and stable.

    When mistreatment seems inevitable — when people think “that’s just how things work around here” — bystanders face a psychological dilemma. They can either challenge the behaviour and risk conflict, exclusion or backlash, or they can rationalize it as normal or deserved.

    Most people, often without realizing it, choose the latter. This mental shortcut allows them to preserve the comforting belief that the system is fair and people get what they deserve.

    One in three employees experience demeaning, hostile or undermining behaviour in the workplace, and almost half witness them.
    (Shutterstock)

    Witnessing workplace mistreatment

    We interviewed 554 employees who had witnessed workplace mistreatment within the past two weeks at the time the survey was conducted. They shared their thoughts on how inevitable they believed the mistreatment incident was, and how tolerant they felt their organization was toward such behaviour.

    In a follow-up survey, we asked these employees whether they felt the incident they witnessed was justifiable and the target as deserving. A week later, in a third survey, we asked these bystanders to report how they behaved toward the target, and whether they tried to address or minimize the incident.

    We found that when bystanders perceived mistreatment as inevitable, they were more likely to see the incident as justified and targets as deserving of that treatment. These bystanders were more likely to socially distance themselves from the target, engage in negative gossip about them and were less willing to offer help.

    Bystander inaction wasn’t due to cowardice or callousness, but was often a defence mechanism. Rationalizing mistreatment allowed bystanders to preserve the belief that their workplace was just. But this coping strategy can deepen harm for those who experience mistreatment, who may be further marginalized, isolated or discredited.

    How mistreatment is normalized

    Workplace climates play a key role in the normalization of mistreatment. Our findings indicate when employees believed their workplace tolerated mistreatment, they were more likely to rationalize it and less likely to support the person being mistreated.

    In these contexts, mistreatment isn’t just ignored, but is quietly accepted. Tacit acceptance sends a powerful message: this is normal, this is deserved, this is not worth challenging.

    What does a toxic, permissive workplace look like? Warning signs include staff who feel anxious about coming to work and leaders who publicly criticize employees or tell them to “toughen up” or “not take it personally.”

    If negative gossip is tolerated, or reports of mistreatment are ignored or delayed, these are also strong indicators that mistreatment has been normalized.

    Organizations may fail to acknowledge these patterns for a variety of reasons, including resistance, denial or a lack of readiness. But surfacing these issues is a strength, not a weakness. It allows organizations to address root causes, retain valuable employees, and foster a more respectful environment.

    When mistreatment is ignored in the workplace, it sends a message to employees that it is normal, deserved and not worth challenging.
    (Unsplash/Borja Verbena)

    4 ways to create positive change

    Even in workplaces where mistreatment has become normalized, positive change is possible. Research shows that effectively managing everyday incidents can create bottom-up effects that support broader positive change within the workplace, ultimately improving workplace climate.

    Managers have a particularly pivotal role to play. When they respond quickly, support targets openly and hold perpetrators accountable, they challenge the perception that mistreatment is inevitable. They also send a broader message about what behaviours are and aren’t acceptable in the workplace.

    Here are four evidence-based strategies that can help disrupt the bystander dynamic and improve workplace culture:

    1. Challenge the narrative of inevitability

    Organizations should clearly signal that mistreatment will not be tolerated in their workplace. This includes explicitly communicating behavioural expectations, investigating reports quickly and transparently, and ensuring senior leaders model respectful behaviour. These small but visible actions disrupt the sense that mistreatment is “just how things work.”

    2. Reduce ambiguity

    When organizations don’t define behavioural norms clearly, bystanders are more likely to rationalize mistreatment. Organizations should define what mistreatment includes, such as exclusion and sarcastic comments, and distinguish it from tough feedback or constructive conflict. Training can help employees recognize subtle forms of harm and reflect on how their reactions would appear to someone they respect.

    3. Enforce consequences consistently

    When policies exist but aren’t enforced, bystanders learn that mistreatment carries no cost. Organizations need to follow through on mistreatment policies, protect those who report it and make it clear that retaliation is unacceptable. Visibility matters: people need to see that action is taken.

    4. Support targets openly and meaningfully

    System justification often works by undermining the credibility of those being mistreated. Managers can counteract this by affirming the value of a person targeted, encouraging reintegration and monitoring their teams for subtle social exclusion. When targets are supported by respected leaders, bystanders are more likely to follow suit because people tend to look to leader behaviour towards employees as a sign of their value to the group.

    When targets are supported by respected leaders, bystanders are more likely to follow suit.
    (Shutterstock)

    Why this matters

    Much of the existing research on workplace mistreatment has focused on the importance of bystander and leader intervention. Our research adds a deeper layer by illustrating that bystanders may not intervene because they are subconsciously defending their belief in a fair and legitimate system.

    This defence mechanism is especially dangerous when mistreatment is common, creating a cycle in which the most vulnerable employees are harmed twice: first by the perpetrator, and then by those who fail to stand by them.

    Breaking this cycle requires more than training videos or one-off statements. It requires reshaping the climate that makes mistreatment seem normal, inevitable or trivial.

    The encouraging news is that even small, consistent actions can begin to shift these dynamics. Research has shown that incivility training that teaches people how to engage in civil ways, for example, has lasting effects on employee well-being and relationships. When these harmful dynamics are shifted, it improves the workplace for everyone.

    Zhanna Lyubykh receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

    Laurie J. Barclay receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the University of Guelph’s Research Leader Award.

    Nick Turner receives research funding from Cenovus Energy Inc., Haskayne School of Business’s Future Fund, Mitacs, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

    Sandy Hershcovis receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

    – ref. Why bystanders defend bad behaviour at work — even when they know it’s wrong – https://theconversation.com/why-bystanders-defend-bad-behaviour-at-work-even-when-they-know-its-wrong-257941

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: We design cities and buildings for earthquakes and floods — we need to do the same for wildfires

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Ramla Karim Qureshi, Assistant Professor, Structural Engineering, McMaster University

    We live in an age of increasing wildfire disasters because more of us are living in places where wildfires and human development collide. Right now, fast-moving wildfires are forcing mass evacuations and destroying homes across Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, where entire communities are under threat.

    Despite the growing impacts of extreme weather events, including prolonged droughts and increasing temperatures, we continue building and even rebuilding homes in likely paths of destructive wildfires.

    As cities grow, the demand for new home developments in previously forested areas means that we’re rapidly losing buffers between developed and natural land. Consequently, we’re also losing much of our protection from wildfire.

    I’m a structural engineer, and I was living in British Columbia during the 2023 Kelowna fires. I remember the smoke and anxiety about what was coming next. Seeing news coverage of January’s fires in Los Angeles brought back those memories. Hearing people ask how this could have happened led me to ask in response: How could it not have happened?

    My research speciality is in protecting structures from fires, earthquakes and explosions. From my work, I know that improved materials and engineering can protect homes much better than we do today.

    As we enter another wildfire season in Canada, I worry there will soon be new reminders of what we still haven’t done and urgently need to do.

    CP24 News covers wildfires burning from British Columbia to Ontario.

    Wildfire risk

    Wildfires can ignite structures in three key ways: direct fire flux from the forest, heat radiation from nearby burning buildings and wind-driven ember showers. These embers can travel several kilometres and spark new fires far from the main blaze.

    Recent research shows that about 14.3 per cent of all Canadian buildings sit directly in the wildland-urban-interface — the area where development neighbours or intersects with wildland vegetation. However, if we expand this interface buffer by a kilometre to account for windborne travelling embers, over 79 per cent of all Canadian structures fall under some level of wildfire ignition risk.

    While researchers are working on developing more sophisticated technologies for early fire detection and monitoring, we also need to make homes safer in at-risk areas. Programs like FireSmart Canada educate communities about managing fire risk, but broader public engagement and co-ordinated action are still lacking.

    Primary hazards

    Historically, structural design has not treated fire as a primary hazard in the same way it does earthquakes or wind. We’ve designed and constructed buildings and bridges that can withstand earthquakes and high winds, but fire design is still largely governed by prescriptive, often overly simplified, insulation and building standards.

    This mismatch in design priorities introduces vulnerability. Just as we wouldn’t build in seismically active regions like Vancouver, Victoria or San Francisco without accounting for earthquake risk, or in flood-prone areas like Winnipeg or New Orleans without proper mitigation, we must begin to treat fire risk as an equally fundamental design consideration.

    It’s certainly daunting to consider the expense of building or retrofitting homes and adapting properties to resist wildfires, but the consequences of not planning or preparing better — both in terms of lives lost and homes ruined and in terms of the financial costs of rebuilding — will only worsen if societies don’t do much more.

    Alternative materials

    It’s obvious that buildings at elevated risk from fire should not be made from combustible materials, like exposed timber. Now, there are impressive alternatives such as new forms of concrete and metal roofing that can prevent fire from taking hold in a home, garage or other building.

    Improved land-use planning and community-scale design can also meaningfully decrease the exposure and vulnerability of buildings to wildfire. What we need is a cohesive, risk-averse and data-driven framework that allows for architectural and structural design choices based on quantified fire risk.

    Research — only if we make it a funding priority — can give us such a framework.

    Enhancing safety

    In Jasper, Alta., which is in a national park, new federal guidelines for rebuilding after last year’s devastating fire call for enhanced safety. These include new separations between buildings and flammable landscaping, including nonflammable buffers to separate homes from wooden fences and decks.

    If we continue to build (and rebuild) within forest boundaries, we have to expand standards, mandates and engineering efforts to protect people and their homes.

    How can we make them safer?

    We can start by much-needed building code updates. And we can educate residents and home-buyers about reducing their risk.

    FireSmart Canada, for example, offers practical advice on what kinds of trees, shrubs and lawns are safest to use in landscaping, and how far they should be from one’s house, depending on the degree of local fire risk. However, a more community-driven safety mindset is required for successful implementation of these guidelines; individual efforts alone are not enough to reduce the wildfire risk in interconnected neighbourhoods.

    For developers, designers and builders, improving safety may mean tighter new zoning rules and stricter building codes to govern where and how we build to protect against fire. Suppliers will need access to safer materials, some of which have yet to be developed.

    Research priorities

    To develop a framework, recommendations and guidelines to enhance fire safety and reduce loss, we need evidence, and that requires research.

    In Canada, we have excellent researchers working on forest fires. But as a fire crosses from a natural setting to an urban one, everything changes — the fuel, wind patterns and movement of the fire — so we need to study and model it differently too.

    These forms of knowledge are all within reach, but until we prioritize them, we are deciding to put lives and neighbourhoods at risk. The price of doing nothing will be much greater than the cost of taking action.

    Ramla Karim Qureshi receives funding from Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).

    – ref. We design cities and buildings for earthquakes and floods — we need to do the same for wildfires – https://theconversation.com/we-design-cities-and-buildings-for-earthquakes-and-floods-we-need-to-do-the-same-for-wildfires-257297

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Canada must take action to prevent climate-related migration

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Christopher Campbell-Duruflé, Assistant Professor, Lincoln Alexander School of Law, Toronto Metropolitan University

    As wildfire season begins, the destructive impacts of climate change are being felt across Canada. Several communities in northern Saskatchewan have been issued evacuation orders due to wildfires. In Manitoba, Pimicikamak Cree Nation worked to evacuate hundreds of people as wildfires closed in, while smoke from those fires caused air-quality issues across the country.

    It isn’t just wildfires threatening people’s homes and livelihoods. In May, 1,600 residents from the Kashechewan Cree First Nation in Northern Ontario evacuated again due to flooding of the Albany River, which happens almost every year.

    The 2018 United Nations Climate Conference called on all states to adopt “laws, policies and strategies” meant “to avert, minimize and address displacement related to the adverse impacts of climate change.”

    The figures are disquieting. By 2050, more than 140 million people could become internal climate migrants in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and Latin America alone, especially if action towards reaching net-zero carbon emissions continues to be insufficient.

    Canada is not spared: 192,000 people were evacuated in 2023 due to disasters made more severe by climate change, including floods and wildfires. As climate change leads to more extreme weather, temporary climate displacement could become permanent migration.

    Climate migration

    The World Bank defines internal climate migration as having to relocate for at least a decade to a location 14 kilometres or more away from your community because of climate impacts.

    Research I presented at the 2025 Canadian Association for Refugee and Forced Migration Studies Conference at Toronto Metropolitan University analyzed how Canada addresses the climate migration challenge in its submissions under the Paris Agreement, which requires parties to adapt to climate change.

    The Canadian government understated the reality of internal climate migration in its submissions under the 2015 Paris Agreement, which obscure the gravity of this phenomenon.

    One of those submissions is the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), the cornerstone report each state party must present every five years. Canada’s NDC from 2021 recognizes that climate change harms certain populations more than others, but does not address temporary displacement, let alone internal climate migration.

    The Fort McMurray wildfires displaced more than 80,000 people in 2016, with its population declining 11 per cent between 2015 and 2018. Similarly, the 2019 Québec spring floods displaced more than 10,000 people and, in Sainte-Marie, hundreds of low-income families abandoned the city because they could not afford the reconstructed homes.

    A clear definition of internal climate migrants in Canada, robust data and better co-ordination among Indigenous, municipal, provincial and federal governments is needed.

    This is something a National Adaptation Act could deliver, as a part of a comprehensive framework to bolster adaptation action across the country.

    Transparency lacking

    Canada submitted an adaptation communication in 2024. The communication discusses climate impacts but mentions internal displacement only once. It contains no data or discussion of when displacement becomes permanent, nor does it focus on the disproportionate impact on equity-deserving groups.

    The government submitted an updated NDC earlier this year. It noted “the devastating impact of wildfires, floods, drought and melting permafrost on communities across the country” but only briefly discusses adaptation, referring instead to the 2023 National Adaptation Strategy. The only mentions of displacement come in appended submissions by Indigenous Peoples, including Trʼondëk Hwëchʼin First Nation and Makivvik.

    Indigenous Peoples suffer from flawed adaptation policies and institutional barriers that prevent them from effectively responding to emergencies. As a result, First Nations evacuate 328 times more frequently than settler communities during climate disasters.

    In 2011, for example, officials in Manitoba diverted flood waters to Lake St. Martin to protect urban, cottage and agricultural properties. In the process, they flooded 17 First Nations and displaced 4,525 people. Return of the 1,400 residents of the Lake St. Martin First Nation to a new location only started in 2017, and as recently as 2020 displaced families were protesting on highways for their right to housing.

    A national adaptation act

    Canada should adopt a clear definition of internal climate migrants that captures displacement from climate disasters and slow-onset phenomena like sea-level rise, permafrost thaw and biodiversity loss.

    UN experts released a Technical Guide on Human Mobility in 2024, calling for “a sound evidence base on the patterns and trends, as well as on the drivers and outcomes” of climate-induced mobility. It also highlighted the need for adaptation efforts “that are informed by stakeholder consultations” and “existing (Indigenous) adaptation practices.”

    Defining internal climate migrants would allow Canada to gather robust data at last, and to act decisively on it.

    One first step is the federal government’s pledge of a National Recovery Strategy by 2028, which would set out “shorter time frames for displaced individuals to be able to return to their homes or resettle after climate change disaster events.” But a comprehensive approach is needed to go beyond the fragmented landscape of federal and provincial strategies.

    The Canadian government should work with all stakeholders toward the adoption of a National Adaptation Act, like Brazil, Germany and Japan.

    Such a law could remove barriers to Indigenous adaptation action, co-ordinate efforts across orders of governments to prevent displacements, define internal climate migration, ensure data collection and protect the rights of people temporarily displaced or internally migrating because of climate change.

    It should also aim for greater transparency and accountability than what Canada has so far achieved with its Paris Agreement submissions.

    Christopher Campbell-Duruflé receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for his research. He serves on the Legal Committee of the Centre québécois du droit de l’environnement.

    – ref. Canada must take action to prevent climate-related migration – https://theconversation.com/canada-must-take-action-to-prevent-climate-related-migration-257607

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: New Zealand’s foreign policy stance on Palestine lacks transparency

    COMMENTARY: By John Hobbs

    It is difficult to understand what sits behind the New Zealand government’s unwillingness to sanction, or threaten to sanction, the Israeli government for its genocide against the Palestinian people.

    The United Nations, human rights groups, legal experts and now genocide experts have all agreed it really is “genocide” which is being committed by the state of Israel against the civilian population of Gaza.

    It is hard to argue with the conclusion genocide is happening, given the tragic images being portrayed across social and increasingly mainstream media.

    Prime Minister Netanyahu has presented Israel’s assault on Gaza war as pitting “the sons of light” against “the sons of darkness”. And promised the victory of Judeo-Christian civilisation against barbarism.

    A real encouragement to his military there should be no-holds barred in exercising indiscriminate destruction over the people of Gaza.

    Given this background, one wonders what the nature of the advice being provided by New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to the minister entails?

    Does the ministry fail to see the destruction and brutal killing of a huge proportion of the civilian people of Gaza? And if they see it, are they saying as much to the minister?

    Cloak of ‘diplomatic language’
    Or is the advice so nuanced in the cloak of “diplomatic language” it effectively says nothing and is crafted in a way which gives the minister ultimate freedom to make his own political choices.

    The advice of the officials becomes a reflection of what the minister is looking for — namely, a foreign policy approach that gives him enough freedom to support the Israeli government and at the same time be in step with its closest ally, the United States.

    The problem is there is no transparency around the decision-making process, so it is impossible to tell how decisions are being made.

    I placed an Official Information Act request with the Minister of Foreign Affairs in January 2024 seeking advice received by the minister on New Zealand’s obligations under the Genocide Convention.

    The request was refused because while the advice did exist, it fell outside the timeline indicated by my request.

    It was emphasised if I were to put in a further request for the advice, it was unlikely to be released.

    They then advised releasing the information would be likely to prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand and the international relations of the government of New Zealand, and withholding it was necessary to maintain legal professional privilege.

    Public interest vital
    It is hard to imagine how the release of such information might prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand or that the legal issues could override the public interest.

    It could not be more important for New Zealanders to understand the basis for New Zealand’s foreign policy choices.

    New Zealand is a contracting party to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Under the convention, “genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they [the contracting parties] undertake to prevent and punish”.

    Furthermore: The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention, and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide. (Article 5).

    Accordingly, New Zealand must play an active part in its prevention and put in place effective penalties. Chlöe Swarbrick’s private member’s Bill to impose sanctions is one mechanism to do this.

    In response to its two-month blockade of food, water and medical supplies to Gaza, and international pressure, Israel has agreed to allow a trickle of food to enter Gaza.

    However, this is only a tiny fraction of what is needed to avert famine. Understandably, Israel’s response has been criticised by most of the international community, including New Zealand.

    Carefully worded statement
    In a carefully worded statement, signed by a collective of European countries, together with New Zealand and Australia, it is requested that Israel allow a full resumption of aid into Gaza, an immediate return to ceasefire and a return of the hostages.

    Radio New Zealand interviewed the Foreign Minister Winston Peters to better understand the New Zealand position.

    Peters reiterated his previous statements, expressing Israel’s actions of withholding food as “intolerable” but when asked about putting in place concrete sanctions he stated any such action was a “long, long way off”, without explaining why.

    New Zealand must be clear about its foreign policy position, not hide behind diplomatic and insincere rhetoric and exercise courage by sanctioning Israel as it has done with Russia over its invasion of Ukraine.

    As a minimum, it must honour its responsibilities under the Convention on Genocide and, not least, to offer hope and support for the utterly powerless and vulnerable Palestinian people before it is too late.

    John Hobbs is a doctoral candidate at the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (NCPACS) at the University of Otago. This article was first published by the Otago Daily Times and is republished with the author’s permission.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: African prisoners made sound recordings in German camps in WW1: this is what they had to say

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Anette Hoffmann, Senior Researcher at the Institute for African Studies and Egyptology, University of Cologne

    During the first world war (1914-1918) thousands of African men enlisted to fight for France and Britain were captured and held as prisoners in Germany. Their stories and songs were recorded and archived by German linguists, who often didn’t understand a thing they were saying.

    Now a recent book called Knowing by Ear listens to these recordings alongside written sources, photographs and artworks to reveal the lives and political views of these colonised Africans from present-day Senegal, Somalia, Togo and Congo.

    Anette Hoffmann is a historian whose research and curatorial work engages with historical sound archives. We asked her about her book.

    How did these men come to be recorded?

    About 450 recordings with African speakers were made with linguists of the so-called Royal Prussian Phonographic Commission. Their project was opportunistic. They made use of the presence of prisoners of war to further their research.

    In many cases these researchers didn’t understand what was being said. The recordings were archived as language samples, yet most were never used, translated, or even listened to for decades.

    The many wonderful translators I have worked with over the years are often the first listeners who actually understood what was being said by these men a century before.

    What did they talk about?

    The European prisoners the linguists recorded were often asked to tell the same Bible story (the parable of the prodigal son). But because of language barriers, African prisoners were often simply asked to speak, tell a story or sing a song.

    We can hear some men repeating monotonous word lists or counting, but mostly they spoke of the war, of imprisonment and of the families they hadn’t seen for years.

    Abdoulaye Niang from Senegal sings in Wolof.
    Courtesy Lautarchiv, Berlin275 KB (download)

    In the process we hear speakers offer commentary. Senegalese prisoner Abdoulaye Niang, for example, calls Europe’s battlefields an abattoir for the soldiers from Africa. Others sang of the war of the whites, or speak of other forms of colonial exploitation.

    When I began working on colonial-era sound archives about 20 years ago, I was stunned by what I heard from African speakers, especially the critique and the alternative versions of colonial history. Often aired during times of duress, such accounts seldom surface in written sources.

    Joseph Ntwanumbi from South Africa speaks in isiXhosa.
    Courtesy Lautarchiv, Berlin673 KB (download)

    Clearly, many speakers felt safe to say things because they knew that researchers couldn’t understand them. The words and songs have travelled decades through time yet still sound fresh and provocative.

    Can you highlight some of their stories?

    The book is arranged around the speakers. Many of them fought in the French army in Europe after being conscripted or recruited in former French colonies, like Abdoulaye Niang. Other African men got caught up in the war and were interned as civilian prisoners, like Mohamed Nur from Somalia, who had lived in Germany from 1911. Joseph Ntwanumbi from South Africa was a stoker on a ship that had docked in Hamburg soon after the war started.

    In chapter one Niang sings a song about the French army’s recruitment campaign in Dakar and also informs the linguists that the inmates of the camp in Wünsdorf, near Berlin, do not wish to be deported to another camp.

    An archive search reveals he was later deported and also that Austrian anthropologists measured his body for racial studies.

    His recorded voice speaking in Wolof travelled back home in 2024, as a sound installation I created for the Théodore Monod African Art Museum in Dakar.

    Chapter two listens to Mohamed Nur from Somalia. In 1910 he went to Germany to work as a teacher to the children of performers in a so-called Völkerschau (an ethnic show; sometimes called a human zoo, where “primitive” cultures were displayed).

    After refusing to perform on stage, he found himself stranded in Germany without a passport or money. He worked as a model for a German artist and later as a teacher of Somali at the University of Hamburg. Nur left a rich audio-visual trace in Germany, which speaks of the exploitation of men of colour in German academia as well as by artists. One of his songs comments on the poor treatment of travellers and gives a plea for more hospitality to strangers.

    Stephan Bischoff, who grew up in a German mission station in Togo and was working in a shoe shop in Berlin when the war began, appears in the third chapter. His recordings criticise the practices of the Christian colonial evangelising mission. He recalls the destruction of an indigenous shrine in Ghana by German military in 1913.

    Also in chapter three is Albert Kudjabo, who fought in the Belgian army before he was imprisoned in Germany. He mainly recorded drum language, a drummed code based on a tonal language from the Democratic Republic of Congo that German linguists were keen to study. He speaks of the massive socio-cultural changes that mining brought to his home region, which may have caused him to migrate.

    Together these songs, stories and accounts speak of a practice of extracting knowledge in prisoner of war camps. But they offer insights and commentary far beyond the “example sentences” that the recordings were meant to be.

    Why do these sound archives matter?

    As sources of colonial history, the majority of the collections in European sound archives are still untapped, despite the growing scholarly and artistic interest in them in the last decade. This interest is led by decolonial approaches to archives and knowledge production.

    Sound collections diversify what’s available as historical texts, they increase the variety of languages and genres that speak of the histories of colonisation. They present alternative accounts and interpretations of history to offer a more balanced view of the past.

    Anette Hoffmann 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. African prisoners made sound recordings in German camps in WW1: this is what they had to say – https://theconversation.com/african-prisoners-made-sound-recordings-in-german-camps-in-ww1-this-is-what-they-had-to-say-254127

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Eating wild meat carries serious health risks – why it still happens along the Kenya-Tanzania border

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Ekta Patel, Scientist, International Livestock Research Institute

    Pastoralist communities, their livestock and diverse wildlife species coexist within a biodiversity-rich landscape stretching along the Kenya–Tanzania border.

    However, at this wildlife-livestock interface, local communities face mounting challenges. Shifts in land use, prolonged droughts, erratic rainfall patterns and increasing land degradation are placing growing pressure on the landscape. In addition, conflict between people and wildlife is on the rise, and many households rely on wild animals for food.

    Communities in the region eat a wide range of wild animals, from rodents, elephant shrews and birds to small antelopes and larger ungulates like bushbuck. This meat (“bush meat” as it is also popularly known in Africa) provides a valuable source of animal protein and minerals, especially where alternative domestic protein sources are scarce.

    Although hunting and consuming wild animals is illegal in Kenya, this is not the case in Tanzania, where certain forms of hunting for wild animals are permitted. Yet in both countries, many people eat wild meat regularly, often without awareness of the risks. These risks include zoonotic disease transmission and potential impacts on wildlife populations.

    Wild meat is a known source of zoonotic infections and disease spillover to humans. In fact, as many as three-quarters of emerging infectious diseases originate from wildlife. Illnesses such as anthrax, mpox, Ebola, and HIV have all been linked to close interactions between humans and wild animals.

    Despite these risks, wild meat consumption remains widespread, with some households eating it daily or weekly. Preventing future disease outbreaks requires a clear understanding of these health risks, as well as the underlying social, cultural and economic reasons that drive people to rely on wild meat.

    We set out to understand why people were eating wild meat along the Kenya-Tanzania border and whether they understood the risks of zoonotic diseases. Cases of anthrax have already been reported in this area.

    Our study involved interviews in border communities during the COVID pandemic – the most famous case of zoonotic disease transmission in recent times. We wanted to know whether communities understood the pandemic’s link to wild meat and if this affected their consumption of it.

    What stood out was that people at the border settlements kept eating wild meat or even ate more of it. This shows that economic necessity, cultural preferences and limited alternatives remain key drivers even when the world is in crisis.

    Though this research was done during COVID-19, it gives us insights into how people react when things get tough, especially when it comes to food and health.

    What’s driving wild meat consumption

    We found that several factors drove wild meat consumption, despite growing awareness of the health risks.

    Poverty

    Economic factors, particularly household income and limited financial means, strongly influenced wild meat consumption, particularly in communities with limited alternative protein sources. For instance, the COVID-19 pandemic had a severe impact on local economies. Tourism, a key source of income for border communities, experienced sharp declines. As household revenues fell, reliance on wild meat as an affordable protein source increased.

    Economic stability plays a crucial role in shaping consumption behaviours: 81% of those surveyed at the border settlements indicated they would stop eating wild meat if cheaper alternatives were available.

    The type of animal

    Perceptions of disease risks varied depending on the species consumed.

    Approximately 79% of respondents believed that certain animals posed a higher risks of zoonotic disease transmission. Hyenas were perceived as the most dangerous, followed by primates and snakes. These findings suggest that while economic necessity influences wild meat consumption, risk perception also shapes dietary choices.

    Gender plays a role

    Men expressed more concern over conservation and health risks than women. Men were also more likely to advocate against selling wild meat. Women exhibited lower concern regarding zoonotic disease risks, including COVID-19. These insights highlight the need for gender-sensitive interventions to address wild meat consumption.

    Education levels

    Education levels also influenced risk perception. Respondents with formal education displayed a stronger awareness of zoonotic transmission pathways. They were also more receptive to conservation and public health messaging. This highlights the importance of education in promoting safer and more sustainable practices within communities.

    National policies

    Despite sharing ecosystems and wildlife populations, Kenya and Tanzania have adopted fundamentally different governance approaches to wild meat. This in turn shapes outcomes for conservation, biodiversity and public health.

    Kenya follows a centralised and protectionist model. Hunting and consumption of wild animals are prohibited under the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act. This zero-tolerance policy is rooted in strong conservation principles aimed at protecting biodiversity.

    However, in practice, it has driven the activity underground, creating a thriving black market. This undermines conservation and enforcement efforts. It also increases the risk of zoonotic disease transmission due to unregulated handling and consumption of wild animals.

    Tanzania, by contrast, uses a decentralised, regulated slaughterhouse model. Licensed wild meat hunting and consumption is legal under regulation, particularly through game-controlled areas and permits introduced in 2020. This approach is meant to enable communities to benefit economically from wildlife and reduce incentives for illegal hunting.

    The existence of two divergent systems across a porous border creates challenges. These include illegal cross-border trade, conflicting conservation objectives, and uneven protection of biodiversity. There are also difficulties in implementing coordinated surveillance or public health interventions.

    The contrasting regulations in Kenya and Tanzania significantly influence wild meat consumption choices.

    In Kenya, where wild meat is strictly prohibited, consumption appears to be through informal and unregulated channels. This increases health risks and limits consumer awareness. In contrast, Tanzania’s regulated licensing system provides a legal pathway for access. This makes wild meat consumption more visible and, in some cases, perceived as safer. These differing policies shape how communities access, justify and engage with wild meat, often driving cross-border trade and complicating enforcement and risk communication efforts.

    What’s next?

    Addressing the risks associated with wild meat trade requires a multifaceted strategy that balances health, equity and sustainability.

    We suggest an intervention that prioritises economic stability and ensuring affordable alternative protein sources are accessible, especially in food-insecure settings.

    Public health education is also essential. An increasing awareness of zoonotic disease risks can help shift consumption behaviour.

    Because men and women perceived the dangers of wild meat consumption differently, gender-sensitive approaches should be integrated. It should also be noted that, although women are rarely the primary hunters, they are often prosecuted for possession or sale of wild meat. Gender disparities on how laws are applied must be addressed.

    Legal frameworks and enforcement mechanisms must be strengthened to address cross-border wildlife trade, particularly in regions with differing policies like Kenya and Tanzania. They should also reduce the risks faced by individuals who may unknowingly engage in illegal practices due to a lack of clarity.

    We continue to work with national and regional stakeholders. This includes government bodies and technical partners who are actively engaging with us to co-develop One Health solutions. These solutions integrate public health, environmental sustainability and community well-being.

    Finally, community engagement and participation should be at the core of any intervention. This will ensure that policies are locally relevant, culturally sensitive and supported by those directly affected to reduce the risks of zoonotic disease spillover.

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

    – ref. Eating wild meat carries serious health risks – why it still happens along the Kenya-Tanzania border – https://theconversation.com/eating-wild-meat-carries-serious-health-risks-why-it-still-happens-along-the-kenya-tanzania-border-252947

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Gaza plea: RSF, CPJ and 150+ media outlets call on Israel to open Strip to foreign journalists, protect Palestinian reporters

    Pacific Media Watch

    More than 150 press freedom advocacy groups and international newsrooms have joined Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) in issuing a public appeal demanding that Israel grant foreign journalists immediate, independent and unrestricted access to the Gaza Strip.

    The organisations are also calling for the full protection of Palestinian journalists, nearly 200 — the Gaza Media Office says more than 230 — of whom have been killed by the Israeli military over the past 20 months.

    For more than 20 months, Israeli authorities have barred foreign journalists from entering the Gaza Strip, says RSF in a media release.

    During the same period, the Israeli army killed nearly 200 Palestinian journalists in the blockaded territory, including at least 45 slain for their work.

    Palestinian journalists who continue reporting — the only witnesses on the ground — are facing unbearable conditions, including forced displacement, famine, and constant threats to their lives.

    This collective appeal, launched by RSF and CPJ, brings together prominent news outlets from every continent demanding the right to send correspondents into Gaza to report alongside Palestinian journalists.

    The signatories include Asia Pacific Report from Aotearoa New Zealand.

    “The media blockade imposed on Gaza, combined with the massacre of nearly 200 journalists by the Israeli army, is enabling the total destruction and erasure of the blockaded territory,” said RSF director-general Thibaut Bruttin.

    “Israeli authorities are banning foreign journalists from entering and ruthlessly asserting their control over information.

    “This is a methodical attempt to silence the facts, suppress the truth, and isolate the Palestinian press and population.

    Asia Pacific Report . . . one of the signatories to the Gaza plea. Image: APR

    “We call on governments, international institutions and heads of state to end their complicit silence, enforce the immediate opening of Gaza to foreign media, and uphold a principle that is frequently trampled — under international humanitarian law, killing a journalist is a war crime.

    “This principle has been violated far too often and must now be enforced.”

    RSF director-general Thibaut Bruttin speaking at the reception celebrating seven years of Taipei’s Asia Pacific office in October 2024. Image: Pacific Media Watch

    The media blockade on Gaza persists despite repeated calls from RSF to guarantee foreign journalists independent access to the Strip, and legal actions such as the Foreign Press Association’s (FPA) petition to the Israeli Supreme Court.

    Palestinian journalists, meanwhile, are trapped, displaced, starved, defamed and targeted due to their work.

    Those who have survived this unprecedented massacre of journalists now find themselves without shelter, equipment, medical care or even food, according to a CPJ report. They face the risk of being killed at any moment.

    To end the enduring impunity that allows these crimes to continue, RSF has repeatedly referred cases to the International Criminal Court (ICC), urging it to investigate alleged war crimes committed against journalists in Gaza by the Israeli army.

    RSF also provides aid to Palestinian journalists on the ground — particularly in Gaza — through partnerships with local organisations such as ARIJ (Arab Reporters for Investigative Journalism).

    This partnership provides Palestinian journalists with psychological and professional support, ensuring the continued publication of high-quality reporting despite the blockade and the risks.

    Through this cooperation, RSF reaffirms its commitment to defending independent, rigorous journalism — even under the most extreme conditions.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Coral reefs face an uncertain recovery from the 4th global mass bleaching event – can climate refuges help?

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Noam Vogt-Vincent, Postdoctoral Fellow in Marine Biology, University of Hawaii

    The Great Barrier Reef stretches for 1,429 miles just off Australia’s northeastern coast. Auscape/Universal Images Group via Getty Image

    Although tropical reefs might look like inanimate rock, these colorful seascapes are built by tiny jellyfish-like animals called corals. While adult corals build solid structures that are firmly attached to the sea floor, baby corals are not confined to their reefs. They can drift with ocean currents over great distances to new locations that might give them a better chance of survival.

    The underwater cities that corals construct are home to about a quarter of all known marine species. They are incredibly important for humans, too, contributing at least a trillion dollars per year in ecosystem services, such as protecting coastlines from wave damage and supporting fisheries and tourism.

    Unfortunately, coral reefs are among the most vulnerable environments on the planet to climate change.

    Since 2023, exceptionally warm ocean water has been fueling the planet’s fourth mass coral bleaching event on record, causing widespread mortality in corals around the world. This kind of harm is projected to worsen considerably over the coming decades as ocean temperatures rise.

    A healthy coral reef in American Samoa, left, experiencing coral bleaching due to a severe marine heatwave, center, and eventually dying, right.
    The Ocean Agency and Ocean Image Bank., CC BY-NC

    I am a marine scientist in Hawaii. My colleagues and I are trying to understand how coral reefs might change in the future, and whether new coral reefs might form at higher latitudes as the tropics become too warm and temperate regions become more hospitable. The results lead us to both good and bad news.

    Corals can grow in new areas, but will they thrive?

    Baby corals can drift freely with ocean currents, potentially traveling hundreds of miles before settling in new locations. That allows the distribution of corals to shift over time.

    Major ocean currents can carry baby corals to temperate seas. If new coral reefs form there as the waters warm, these areas might act as refuges for tropical corals, reducing the corals’ risk of extinction.

    A close-up of double star corals (Diploastrea heliopora) off Indonesia.
    Bernard DuPont/Flickr, CC BY-SA

    Scientists know from the fossil record that coral reef expansions have occurred before. However, a big question remains: Can corals migrate fast enough to keep pace with climate change caused by humans? We developed a cutting-edge simulation to find the answer.

    Field and laboratory studies have measured how coral growth depends on temperature, acidity and light intensity. We combined this information with data on ocean currents to create a global simulation that represents how corals respond to a changing environment – including their ability to adapt through evolution and shift their ranges.

    Then, we used future climate projections to predict how coral reefs may respond to climate change.

    We found that it will take centuries for coral reefs to shift away from the tropics. This is far too slow for temperate seas to save tropical coral species – they are facing severe threats right now and in the coming decades.

    How coral reefs form.

    Underwater cities in motion?

    Under countries’ current greenhouse gas emissions policies, our simulations suggest that coral reefs will decline globally by a further 70% this century as ocean temperatures continue to rise. As bad as that sounds, it’s actually slightly more optimistic than previous studies that predicted losses as high as 99%.

    Our simulations suggest that coral populations could expand in a few locations this century, primarily southern Australia, but these expansions may only amount to around 6,000 acres (2,400 hectares). While that might sound a lot, we expect to lose around 10 million acres (4 million hectares) of coral over the same period.

    In other words, we are unlikely to see significant new tropical-style coral reefs forming in temperate waters within our lifetimes, so most tropical corals will not find refuge in higher latitude seas.

    Even though the suitable water temperatures for corals are forecast to expand poleward by about 25 miles (40 kilometers) per decade, corals would face other challenges in new environments.

    Our research suggests that coral range expansion is mainly limited by slower coral growth at higher latitudes, not by dispersal. Away from the equator, light intensity falls and temperature becomes more variable, reducing growth, and therefore the rate of range expansion, for many coral species.

    It is likely that new coral reefs will eventually form beyond their current range, as history shows, but our results suggest this may take centuries.

    Fish hide out in the safety of Kingman Reef, in the Pacific Ocean between the Hawaiian Islands and American Samoa. Coral reefs provide protection for many species, particularly young fish.
    USFWS, Pacific Islands

    Some coral species are adapted to the more challenging environmental conditions at higher latitudes, and these corals are increasing in abundance, but they are much less diverse and structurally complex than their tropical counterparts.

    Scientists have used human-assisted migration to try to restore damaged coral reefs by transplanting live corals. However, coral restoration is controversial, as it is expensive and cannot be scaled up globally. Since coral range expansion appears to be limited by challenging environmental conditions at higher latitudes rather than by dispersal, human-assisted migration is also unlikely to help them expand more quickly.

    Importantly, these potential higher latitude refuges already have rich, distinct ecosystems. Establishing tropical corals within those ecosystems might disrupt existing species, so rapid expansions might not be a good thing in the first place.

    A temperate reef near southern Australia, which could be threatened by expansions of tropical coral species.
    Stefan Andrews/Ocean Image Bank, CC BY-NC

    No known alternative to cutting emissions

    Despite enthusiasm for coral restoration, there is little evidence to suggest that methods like this can mitigate the global decline of coral reefs.

    As our study shows, migration would take centuries, while the most severe climate change harm for corals will occur within decades, making it unlikely that subtropical and temperate seas can act as coral refuges.

    What can help corals is reducing greenhouse gas emissions that are driving global warming. Our study suggests that reducing emissions at a faster pace, in accordance with the Paris climate agreement, could cut the coral loss by half compared with current policies. That could boost reef health for centuries to come.

    This means that there is still hope for these irreplaceable coral ecosystems, but time is running out.

    Noam Vogt-Vincent receives funding from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    – ref. Coral reefs face an uncertain recovery from the 4th global mass bleaching event – can climate refuges help? – https://theconversation.com/coral-reefs-face-an-uncertain-recovery-from-the-4th-global-mass-bleaching-event-can-climate-refuges-help-255804

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: It’s time to stop debating whether AI is genuinely intelligent and focus on making it work for society

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew Rogoyski, Innovation Director, Surrey Institute of People-Centred AI, University of Surrey

    ‘Pleased to beat you.’ Aileenchik

    Half of entry-level white collar jobs might cease to exist in the near future, according to Dario Amodei, the CEO of leading AI company Anthropic. Amodei, whose company is behind the Claude platform, has since called for transparency standards requiring companies making AI models to demonstrate how they are handling risks such as the AI enabling cyberattacks or helping to make bioweapons.

    Time and again, such claims suggest the pace of development in artificial intelligence is vastly outstripping our ability to adapt and adopt, creating a series of short-term crises.

    Yet the debate between AI doomers, accelerationists, utopians and other factions is largely trapped in arguments about whether current AIs are truly demonstrating creativity, problem solving, planning and other intelligent characteristics. It’s as if we’re collectively in denial.

    AI is arguably the most important technology humankind will ever invent. We owe it to ourselves, and future generations, to make conscious decisions about introducing AI into everything we do, ensuring that humanity benefits.

    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.

    We know that AI is threatening the creative industries, for example. We can argue about whether AI is truly creative or we can set about preserving human creativity, originality and income security.

    For instance, the new CREAATIF report from Queen Mary University of London lays out a series of recommendations, such as treating creatives as co-designers along with AIs, not victims. It calls for clear disclosures about AI-generated creative works, and ensuring creatives can opt out of having their work in AI training datasets.

    We know that AI is being used in warfare. We can argue about what it means for a human to still take crucial battlefield decisions – the idea of “human in the loop”. Or we can set down explicit rules of war, as hinted at by the UN meeting in May on possible restrictions in the use of lethal autonomous systems.

    We know that AI is being used in medicine, from screening blood tests to virtual hospitals – as created by Tsinghua University in China. We can argue about whether AI can ever replace doctors, or we can actively explore where it is most appropriate and desirable to supplement human healthcare expertise with AI.

    Jobs and knowledge

    We also strongly suspect that AI will displace human jobs more broadly. Besides Amodei’s warnings, certain companies are already adopting “AI first” strategies. These treat AIs as the core driver of company operations, not just support tools.

    The canary in the coalmine may be graduate jobs, since companies will likely initially use AI for jobs requiring the least experience. Graduate hiring in the UK is falling. We can argue about whether there is a link with AI, or we can start putting serious thought into the future of education, skills and the meaning of a career in the 21st century.

    Finally, we know that AI is being used to mediate human access to knowledge, whether it’s the recommendation engines in platforms like TikTok and X, or search engines like Google and Bing providing AI summaries in preference to linked websites.

    Misinformation, disinformation and fakery is rife, often enabled by AI tools. And a more insidious side-effect of AI-mediated access to knowledge is the potential decline in how we know what’s true or reliable.

    We can argue about whether this is happening or we can focus on protecting reliable sources of information, and making sure everyone can access them. For example, the US-based Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA) develops standards to verify where digital media comes from and whether it has been tampered with.

    What you can do

    AI is not going away, and there will be positives as well as negatives. For instance, AI will undoubtedly help to solve the hard problems of global health, energy generation and climate change.

    We need to recognise the power of existing AI technologies, and acknowledge that AI is likely to get even more advanced very quickly and that we need to act personally and collectively. And there are several things we can do now.

    First, take a personal interest. AI literacy is fast becoming a life skill. Leading AI platforms like ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini can create, summarise or rewrite text for you, compile research reports, jazz up presentations, create music, do data analysis, come up with new cooking recipes – the options are endless.

    The future is here.
    Aileenchik

    I’ve seen schoolteachers create AI mentors for students, pensioners create songs and presentations, children transform their artwork into historical contexts, all with no technical skills. Similarly, anyone can now use AI to code. So-called “vibe-coding” allows anyone to describe, in words, what they want a piece of software to do, and the AI will create a version of it – to an increasingly good level of completeness.

    The ability to adapt and adopt is key. Knowing and practising how to use AI will not only position you for future opportunities and changes, but may allow you to steer your workplace to a better outcome too.

    Second, become an advocate for how AI should be used. AI developments in the US and China will continue to drive AI innovation, but we have some choices when it comes to adoption and use.

    So become an “informed buyer”, actively selecting AI technology from companies which have strong ethical, security and privacy standpoints. For instance, I prefer Anthropic’s Claude to OpenAI’s ChatGPT, largely because of the former’s constitutional approach, which means its AIs are trained on a set of principles rather than on what it thinks the user will prefer.

    I like Meta’s track record on publishing detailed papers of how it trained and tested its LLMs (a type of AI model), and the fact that it open-sources them. This makes the best models available to a wider and more diverse range of people or organisations, not just to the wealthiest companies. I’m uncomfortable with the way that OpenAI sought to change its non-profit status recently. These are personal opinions and we should each form our own views.

    Third, voice your advocacy, to your boss, your local MP, and other decision makers you may come across. It’s only by making AI an everyday topic that we can influence the world we live in. As Tim Cook, CEO of Apple once said, “Artificial intelligence is the future, but we must ensure it is a future that we want.”

    Andrew Rogoyski’s department receives research funding from UKRI. He acts as an advisor to TechUK, one of the UK’s leading tech industry trade associations, as is a member of the NatWest Technology Advisory Board.

    – ref. It’s time to stop debating whether AI is genuinely intelligent and focus on making it work for society – https://theconversation.com/its-time-to-stop-debating-whether-ai-is-genuinely-intelligent-and-focus-on-making-it-work-for-society-258430

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Women’s prize for fiction 2025: six experts review the shortlisted novels

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Éadaoin Agnew, Senior lecturer in English literature, Kingston University

    From a longlist of 16, six novels have been shortlisted for the 2025 Women’s prize for fiction. Our experts review the finalists ahead of the announcement of the winner on June 12.

    The Safekeep by Yael van der Wouden

    The Safekeep, a novel about the expropriation and theft of Jewish property during and after the second world war, revisits a dark chapter of Dutch history.

    When Holland fell to Nazi Germany, many Dutch Jews were deported to the death camps and were stripped of their homes and belongings. Van der Wouden’s debut novel shines alight on the act of keeping or maintaining things left behind that were to be reclaimed by their rightful owners, but which were lost or stolen in the war.

    The trauma of this history hangs over the lives of three siblings grieving the loss of their mother in 1961.

    Isabel, the novel’s lonely protagonist, lives alone in the family house, keeping it in order as her late mother would have wanted. All the while she suspects that their maid is stealing from the kitchen. But following the arrival of her brother’s girlfriend, Eva, Isabel discovers the truth of the house and attempts to right historical wrongs.

    By Manjeet Ridon, Associate Dean International, Arts, Design and Humanities

    Good Girl by Aria Aber

    Aria Aber’s debut is a frequently poetic and powerful künstlerroman (a novel that maps the development of an artist). It follows Nila, a young Afghan woman in Berlin, as she tries to escape from her own cultural heritage and that of the German city in which she lives.

    For much of the novel, Nila moves through the margins of society, from her family home in a brutalist rundown apartment block in the neighbourhood of Neukölln to a seemingly endless cycle of underground clubs, parties and festivals. She pushes away her family, her childhood friends, and her college education to pursue an alternative creative life and a destructive love affair. Ultimately though, Nila realises that her artistic work and a truly independent life can only be forged through her reconciliation with the past.

    Set against the real far-right violence of the 2000s, Aber makes clear how social inequalities and racial prejudices effect artistic access and creativity. She also acutely captures the tensions between freedom and tradition as experienced by bicultural Muslim women grappling with the expectation to be “good girls”.

    By Éadaoin Agnew, Senior lecturer in English literature

    All Fours by Miranda July

    “Everyone thinks doggy style is so vulnerable,” remarks one of the characters in Miranda July’s latest work of fiction. This story takes sexuality as its subject along with its relationship with creativity and ageing – or more specifically, the midlife plunge from a cliff that is female menopause.

    Like the author, July’s nameless protagonist is 45, a successful artist, and married with a non-binary child. This auto-fiction puts the author’s erotic nonconformity at the centre of the frame. Our heroine embarks on a road-trip to New York, but only 20 minutes from her home she falls in love with a young man. The pair spend two weeks together in a motel pursuing a mutual obsession, which ultimately remains unconsummated. This experience upends her life and she rebounds into turbulent adventures in sex, discovering a new sense of self.

    Perhaps it could have been a little tighter than its 322 pages – but then again, it’s a work that explores a capacious road to excess. All Fours is a funny, honest, rambunctious tale

    Elizabeth Kuti, Professor in the Department of Literature Film and Theatre Studies

    The Persians by Sanam Mahloudji

    “Do they think we were just some refugees?” Shirin, one of the characters in The Persians, asks her niece Bita. “Weren’t we?” Bita replies. The question of what a refugee looks like and what kind of stories they are expected to tell is a central theme in Mahloudji’s raucous, poignant novel.

    The story shifts back and forward in time, from Tehran in the 1940s to Los Angeles in the Reagan years, and to both America and Iran in the 2000s, interweaving the voices of five women from the wealthy and powerful Valiat family. Mahloudji explores love, miscommunication, loyalties and betrayal across generations as well as between those who left and those who stayed behind.

    Jewellery is a central theme in the novel: glistening in shops, hidden in suitcases or flung away in protest. It represents both the adornment of female identity and the weight of the history that the migrants carry with them.

    Alexandra Peat, Lecturer in English and Director of the MA in Literature and Publishing

    Tell Me Everything by Elizabeth Strout

    Tell Me Everything is the tenth novel in Elizabeth Strout’s well-known series that sketches the lives of ordinary, yet complex characters, who enter and exit each other’s lives in the nowhere town of Crosby, Maine. The three main figures in this latest instalment are 90-year-old retired schoolteacher Olive Kitteridge (recognisable from Frances McDormand’s realisation in the award-winning TV series by the same name), early 60s fiction writer Lucy Barton, and 65-year-old lawyer Bob Burgess.

    Loosely, this novel can be described as a murder mystery, though the plot twist of an alleged matricide, and Burgess’s decision to defend the case, are secondary to the three main characters’ process of sharing previously untold accounts of forbidden, traumatic, guilty and unrequited love. It is this telling and memorialising that produces the emotional core of the novel. If sharing their past gives the ageing storytellers some respite from the burden of their hidden lives, it is not in the kind that comforts with meaning and purpose. In Strout’s novel, this relief is unavailable and is replaced with the more ephemeral solace of simply being heard.

    Yianna Liotsis, Associate Professor in the School of English Irish and Communication

    Fundamentally by Nussaibah Younis

    At the heart of Fundamentally is the affinity that forms between narrator Nadia, appointed by the United Nations to rehabilitate “Isis brides” in Iraq, and one of her subjects, Sara, an east Londoner on the cusp of adulthood.

    They connect through a shared love of rollerblading, Dairy Milk and X-Men, as well as their caustic sense of humour. But the two British Muslim women have followed vastly different routes – Nadia to academia and the UN and Sara to a detention camp in Ninewah.

    Nadia’s story of her journey through the vagaries of the humanitarian sector, punctuated by flashbacks to her failed relationship with first love Rosy and fraught relationship with her mother, is told with a compelling mix of verve and vulnerability. It raises hard ethical and political questions along the way. But it is Nadia’s mission to help Sara that gives the novel its emotional complexity and depth, drawing the reader in while denying us any easy answers.

    Rehana Ahmed, Reader in Postcolonial and Contemporary Literature

    Éadaoin Agnew receives funding from AHRC.

    Alexandra Peat has received funding from the British Academy

    Elizabeth J Kuti, Manjeet Ridon, and Rehana Ahmed do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Women’s prize for fiction 2025: six experts review the shortlisted novels – https://theconversation.com/womens-prize-for-fiction-2025-six-experts-review-the-shortlisted-novels-253573

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: What the UK’s ‘Nato-first’ defence approach tells us about Britain’s place in a volatile world

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nick Whittaker, Subject Lead in Social Sciences & Law, University of Sussex

    Since the end of the cold war, the relevance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) has regularly been questioned, even by its most prominent leaders. Its members, therefore, find it necessary to remind each other and the world of its value from time to time.

    The latest example of this is the UK government’s new strategic defence review, which announces a “Nato-first” posture.

    Nato has long been a cornerstone of UK foreign, defence and security policies. But this marks a particularly strident prioritisation of the organisation. It comes just a few years after Boris Johnson’s government began moving the country’s foreign and defence policy priorities towards the Indo-Pacific.

    It tells us much about how Keir Starmer’s administration sees the UK’s place in the world in an unsettled era: as both an influential ally of the US and a reliable partner to European powers, eager to maintain regional and global influence.

    Signed in 1949, the North Atlantic treaty committed its original 12 members to collective security: an attack on one would be an attack on all. In the shadow of the second world war, Nato went further than the nascent United Nations in its defence and security commitments. It brought together a somewhat eclectic mix of states straddling the Atlantic, from the North American behemoths of the US and Canada to tiny Iceland and Luxembourg, the dictatorship of Salazar’s Portugal and the democracies of Norway and Belgium.

    The UK’s participation was largely heralded across an enthusiastic parliament. Winston Churchill, then leader of the opposition, praised this new “fraternal association”. The foreign secretary, Ernest Bevin, celebrated the community of interest [and] cooperation with like-minded people”. UK politicians saw Nato as a means to connect with the US and Canada in particular.

    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.

    The language at the time also reflected the casting of the Soviet Union as a threat to European security. Although the UK welcomed Nato as a liberal democratic organisation dominated by English-speaking peoples, its primary purpose was always to act as a strategic counterweight to the influence and encroachment of the Soviet Union in Europe. Hence the claimed irrelevance of Nato in the 1990s after the cold war, and its renewed importance today in the face of Russian aggression.

    As always with UK foreign and defence policies, the relationship with the US is paramount. The UK’s Nato-first position is no exception. Starmer clearly believes he can forge a working relationship with the US president. Although seemingly far from natural bedfellows (although neither were John F. Kennedy and Harold Macmillan or even, politics aside, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher), Donald Trump appears unthreatened by the sober, understated Starmer.

    The thought within Starmer’s foreign policy circle may well be that a loud and unequivocal statement of the UK’s commitment to Nato could help persuade Trump to stay the course with an organisation that he has often threatened to pull the US out of.

    If, on the other hand, Starmer et al are more pessimistic and fear Trump making good on his threats, Nato clearly remains an attractive proposition in terms of the UK’s defence policy. While it does commit the UK to the defence of, say, the Baltic States and Finland, by the same token, Nato puts the UK in lockstep with fellow nuclear power, France, as well as the growing military power of Germany and significant others such as Turkey. In uncertain times, such allies are to be valued.

    Global influence

    Even before Brexit, a fear of losing global and regional influence has stalked every British government since 1945.

    Questioning the wisdom of the departure from the EU remains a Westminster taboo. Yet one might forgive the incoming Labour government for feeling the chill of isolation while Trump occupies the White House and Russia threatens the continent. Nato thus also represents a valuable opportunity to retain regional and global influence. Note the language in Starmer’s introduction to the report when he refers to a desire to “lead in Nato”.

    Can Starmer’s ‘Nato-first’ pivot convince Trump to stay?
    Simon Dawson / No 10 Downing Street, CC BY-NC-ND

    While the other defenestrated European colonial powers found post-1945 influence through the Francophonie or becoming leading civilian forces in what became the EU, the UK had the Commonwealth and Nato. These were the prime proxies for the lost colonial influence, even during the long EU interregnum.

    Without the EU and with a more restive Commonwealth, Nato is of even greater importance. Although France’s president Emmanuel Macron is generally enthusiastic about Nato, there is a history of French ambivalence. The UK could well make the claim to be the most steadfastly committed of all the larger European members.

    This renewed commitment to Nato from the UK government is consistent with the historic prioritisation of the organisation by successive administrations. The difference here is the urgency of the context: Europe faces an unprecedented military threat, while the US president is unpredictable and dubious in his attitude towards continental defence.

    The Nato-first stance is a recognition of grim, strategic realities and also a “Hail Mary”, both pragmatic and hopeful. The UK is not alone in desperately hoping to keep the US commitment to European security alive. The strategic review’s commitment to a Nato-first policy may help – at the very least, it signals a UK administration keen to maximise its influence and retain robust ties with European allies.

    Nick Whittaker 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. What the UK’s ‘Nato-first’ defence approach tells us about Britain’s place in a volatile world – https://theconversation.com/what-the-uks-nato-first-defence-approach-tells-us-about-britains-place-in-a-volatile-world-258336

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The UK is gearing up for autonomous warfare – but missing the reality of war today

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Anthony King, Professor of War Studies, University of Exeter

    The UK is facing a security crisis. Great power competition has returned, and the threat of hostility from Russia, China, Iran and North Korea is increasing. The west can no longer assume military superiority, and the UK can no longer depend unconditionally on the US. The character of war itself is changing as new technology is introduced.

    This is the situation laid out in the latest strategic defence review. The implications for the UK are clear: the country must prepare for high-intensity, protracted war, not counter-insurgency operations like Iraq or Afghanistan.

    In order to address these challenges, the review says, “the UK must pivot to a new way of war.” Nuclear weapons are important here, and will be renewed and expanded. But the recommendations in the review focus on conventional weaponry and, above all, new remote and autonomous technology.

    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.

    The ongoing Ukraine war underpins much of the thinking about the military changes the UK needs to make. That conflict has demonstrated a significant change in the character of 21st-century warfare. Most obviously, it has involved a proliferation of cheap, expendable remote systems, some of which have autonomous capabilities.

    Remote first-person-view drones, and drones controlled by unjammable fibre-optic cables, have become ubiquitous on the frontline – reconnoitring, targeting and striking troops on both sides. They have made conventional strategic manoeuvres at the front almost impossible, while also striking civilian and military targets deep in Russia and Ukraine.

    At sea, uncrewed naval drones have struck Russian shipping and infrastructure in Crimea. The Ukrainian armed forces have also developed a digital battle management system and live-data, AI-enabled targeting system, drawing together information from satellite, open-source, ground-sensor and signal intelligence. This has allowed Ukrainian commanders to see deeply across the battlespace, and target Russian forces with an unprecedented depth and precision.

    As a result of remote systems enabled by digitised targeting, military forces have become exponentially more lethal in close battle – and also in the deep.

    The strategic defence review aims for the UK to incorporate these two elements into its war-fighting capabilities, recommending massive investment in remotely controlled and autonomous systems.

    It calls for the UK to create a “leading, tech-enabled defence power”. Part of this involves integrating UK forces and the construction of a unified “digital targeting web”. This would be fed by sensors from every domain (land, air and sea) so that all forces have access to the same intelligence and a common operating picture. The idea is that a target identified in one domain might be prosecuted by forces in another, to “enhance the Armed Forces’ precision and lethality at scale and reach”.

    In order to achieve this, the review also calls for improved and more innovative relationships between British defence, tech and industry. Once again, a lot has been learnt from Ukraine, whose industrial and tech sectors have been integrated into the war from the start.

    The missing link

    The review’s authors – three external experts led by former defence secretary and Nato chief, Lord Robertson – are correct to highlight the increasing importance of remote (and sometimes autonomous) systems in warfare. They are clear that military forces should increasingly draw on live data, processed by artificial intelligence, to help them understand the battlespace, plan and target. The UK must remain competitive with peer enemies who are developing these capabilities.

    However, even assuming that all of this is affordable at 2.5% of the UK’s GDP from 2027 (a 0.2% rise from where defence spending is now), there is a serious gap in the review’s proposals.

    As a scholar who has studied war in the 21st century, and has just completed a book on AI and war, I believe the document vastly overexaggerates the capability of AI and autonomy. For example, it states:

    In modern warfare, simple metrics such as the number of people and platforms deployed are outdated and inadequate. It is through dynamic networks of crewed, uncrewed, and autonomous assets and data flows that lethality and military effect are now created.

    This analysis presumes that autonomy will be vital in the future, and implies it will displace the need for large numbers of human combatants. In fact, true autonomy is still rare in combat – and will remain so, according to my research.

    Even if autonomous drone swarms appear, they will not eliminate the need for human programmers or operators behind the frontline. AI has limited military functions which require a huge amount of human input.

    Defence secretary John Healey being shown unmanned and autonomous units on a demonstration.
    UK MOD Crown Copyright 2025

    The review prioritises preparedness for protracted inter-state war. But it ignores the blindingly obvious from Ukraine: the imperative of mass.

    The Ukrainian frontline combat forces have expanded to about 300,000 – Ukraine claims its whole force, including allied fighters, is around 1 million. There are about 400,000 Russian combat troops in Ukraine. Casualties have been eye-watering: the Russians have suffered about 800,000 casualties, the Ukrainians nearly 500,000.

    In my view, the strategic defence review has been mesmerised by the prospect of new technology – and, perhaps, by some wishful thinking.

    In 21st-century war, troop mass matters. Fleets of drones and the most sophisticated digital targeting will be irrelevant without human forces willing to fight and to operate them.

    What is the review’s answer to this? While acknowledging that in the cold war, the British fielded forces of 311,000, UK regular armed forces are to remain the same size: 136,000, of which the army will consist of only 73,000 troops and staff.

    The review proposes that active reserves (volunteer, part-time forces) will be increased by 20%, and that the strategic reserve (ex-regulars) “is central to military mobilisation and must be reinvigorated”.

    It is not surprising that the review’s authors have offered such thin solutions to the question of mass. There has been profound resistance from successive governments, Whitehall and civil society to any expansion in the size of British military forces in the UK. But it is doubtful that an expanded reserve and a reinvigorated strategic reserve will be remotely enough for the UK to fight and win a war of any kind in the coming decade.

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

    – ref. The UK is gearing up for autonomous warfare – but missing the reality of war today – https://theconversation.com/the-uk-is-gearing-up-for-autonomous-warfare-but-missing-the-reality-of-war-today-258240

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Zia Yusuf turned Reform into an election winner – his angry resignation leaves Nigel Farage weakened

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Parveen Akhtar, Senior Lecturer: Politics, History and International Relations, Aston University

    Zia Yusuf, a self-made billionaire and Muslim, has resigned as chairman of Reform, breaking with Nigel Farage just weeks after delivering unprecedented success for the party in local elections.

    Yusuf announced his sudden departure on social media platform X, saying he no longer believed “working to get a Reform government elected is a good use of my time”.

    Having been one of the party’s largest donors, Yusuf was appointed to the role less than a year ago and has widely been credited as the power behind Reform’s professionalisation. He is said to be the driving force behind growing its national infrastructure and membership, which now stands at around 235,000.

    Yusuf’s resignation post came a few hours after another, in which he referred to a question posed in the House of Commons by new Reform MP Sarah Pochin as “dumb”.

    Pochin had used her first chance to speak in the Commons to call on prime minister Keir Starmer to ban burqas in the UK. It is reported that there had been tensions between Yusuf and other figures in Reform, but this appears to have been the straw that broke the camel’s back.

    Sarah Pochin uses a question at PMQs to call for a burqa ban.

    Yusuf has faced Islamophobic abuse from some within the party’s ranks. On social media, some Reform supporters have questioned whether a Muslim can ever truly belong in the party, while others have threatened to leave it because of him.

    Asked on GB News whether Yusuf viewed Pochin’s question as a slight against himself, party leader Nigel Farage suggested instead that Yusuf more likely didn’t see banning the burqa as a high priority issue for Reform. Both Farage and former party chairman Richard Tice have stood by Pochin, saying a debate is needed on banning the burqa.

    Yusuf, once heralded as a rising star in Reform and in British politics, didn’t go into further detail but referred to his successes in the party instead: “I’ve worked full time as a volunteer to take the party from 14 to 30%, quadrupled its membership and delivered historic electoral results.”

    Yusuf was referring to the fact that Reform is currently polling at 30%, has five MPs and has recently taken control of ten councils in England – the first time it has ever held governing roles.

    Shortly after Yusuf’s departure, Nathaniel Fried, who had been brought into Reform to spearhead the party’s Doge-style efficiency drive in local councils, also resigned, stating he had doubts about the future of the project.

    Reform will now be asking itself if it can continue its successful trajectory without theses figures. We’ll soon find out if it was Yusuf alone who was responsible for the professionalisation that has recently delivered so much electoral success.

    Treading a fine line from the start

    When he was first appointed, Yusuf promised to “bring all my expertise, energy and passion to the role to ensure we achieve our mission of returning Great Britain to greatness”. Mirroring the Maga project is the US, Yusuf’s focus was on making the UK great again by controlling the country’s borders and restoring sovereignty.

    Yusuf’s attachment to Reform, a party which has made anti-immigration its political focus, was significant given that his own parents were first-generation immigrants from Sri Lanka. Yet Yusuf was the face of established ethnic minority communities in the UK who have immigration backgrounds but take a tough line on newcomers.

    He describes himself as a British Muslim patriot, who loves his country. My forthcoming research with colleagues details how the justifications used by minorities who voted for Brexit were very similar to those in the public at large – with an uncontrolled immigration being a key issue.

    Party leader Nigel Farage said he was sorry to see Yusuf go and recognised that he was a loss for the party. Farage claimed that the two of them “barely had a disagreement” in working together but that others had not got on well with Yusuf.

    Farage claimed that Yusuf’s business background left him struggling in politics and that he brought a “bit of a Goldman Sachs mentality” to his job, which put him at odds with others. He said interpersonal skills were “at the top of his list of attributes”.

    However, in a significant new development, Farage did acknowledge that Yusuf had faced abuse on social media from the “alt-right”. This was the first time he has ever publicly acknowledged the abundance of racist and Islamophobic abuse Yusuf has received on social media by Reform supporters.

    He did somewhat contradict himself later by blaming “Indian bots” for spreading content that misled Reform voters. Tim Montgomerie, another high-profile former Conservative Reform supporter also cited personal abuse as a factor: “He faced a lot of prejudice, not necessarily from inside the party but on social media, I think that affected him.”

    Given that for years the racism and Islamaphobia faced by Yusuf was never publicly acknowledged, it’s interesting that the party elite clearly see the need to recognise the racism as part of the damage limitation exercise they’ve now had to undertake.

    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.

    No doubt Farage saw Yusuf as an asset to the party. Only days before the falling out, he had heralded him as an example of why Reform could not be accused of being racist: “I would remind everybody that the chairman of the party is Scottish-born, but comes from parents who come from the Indian subcontinent. But we don’t talk about race at all. We think everybody should be treated equally. We object very strongly to the segmentation of people into different types.” Farage acknowledged that Yusuf’s race was a benefit to him when responding to his resignation, too.

    It matters that Reform’s highest profile minority member is no more. It also shows the disunity in a political party which is growing very quickly. This is a pattern from yesteryear. Party infighting used to happen in the old days of Reform’s predecessors, UKIP and the Brexit Party.

    It was a big part of why they did not reach the heights currently being enjoyed by Reform. This is, ironically, the first big test of the professionalisation drive that Yusuf led.

    Parveen Akhtar has previously received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council and the British Academy.

    – ref. Zia Yusuf turned Reform into an election winner – his angry resignation leaves Nigel Farage weakened – https://theconversation.com/zia-yusuf-turned-reform-into-an-election-winner-his-angry-resignation-leaves-nigel-farage-weakened-258382

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –