NewzIntel.com

Category: Global

  • MIL-OSI Global: 5 years on, true counts of COVID-19 deaths remain elusive − and research is hobbled by lack of data

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Dylan Thomas Doyle, Ph.D. Candidate in Information Science, University of Colorado Boulder

    National COVID-19 memorial wall for the five-year anniversary on March 11, 2025, in London, England. Andrew Aitchison/In Pictures via Getty Images

    In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers struggled to grasp the rate of the virus’s spread and the number of related deaths. While hospitals tracked cases and deaths within their walls, the broader picture of mortality across communities remained frustratingly incomplete.

    Policymakers and researchers quickly discovered a troubling pattern: Many deaths linked to the virus were never officially counted. A study analyzing data from over 3,000 U.S. counties between March 2020 and August 2022 found nearly 163,000 excess deaths from natural causes that were missing from official mortality records.

    Excess deaths, meaning those that exceed the number expected based on historical trends, serve as a key indicator of underreported deaths during health crises. Many of these uncounted deaths were later tied to COVID-19 through reviews of medical records, death certificates and statistical modeling.

    In addition, lack of real-time tracking for medical interventions during those early days slowed vaccine development by delaying insights into which treatments worked and how people were responding to newly circulating variants.

    Five years since the beginning of COVID-19, new epidemics such as bird flu are emerging worldwide, and researchers are still finding it difficult to access the data about people’s deaths that they need to develop lifesaving interventions.

    How can the U.S. mortality data system improve? I’m a technology infrastructure researcher, and my team and I design policy and technical systems to reduce inefficiency in health care and government organizations. By analyzing the flow of mortality data in the U.S., we found several areas of the system that could use updating.

    Critical need for real-time data

    A death record includes key details beyond just the fact of death, such as the cause, contributing conditions, demographics, place of death and sometimes medical history. This information is crucial for researchers to be able to analyze trends, identify disparities and drive medical advances.

    Approximately 2.8 million death records are added to the U.S. mortality data system each year. But in 2022 – the most recent official count available – when the world was still in the throes of the pandemic, 3,279,857 deaths were recorded in the federal system. Still, this figure is widely considered to be a major undercount of true excess deaths from COVID-19.

    In addition, real-time tracking of COVID-19 mortality data was severely lacking. This process involves the continuous collection, analysis and reporting of deaths from hospitals, health agencies and government databases by integrating electronic health records, lab reports and public health surveillance systems. Ideally, it provides up-to-date insights for decision-making, but during the COVID-19 pandemic, these tracking systems lagged and failed to generate comprehensive data.

    Getting real-time COVID-19 data from hospitals and other agencies into the hands of researchers proved difficult.
    Gerald Herbert/AP Photo

    Without comprehensive data on prior COVID-19 infections, antibody responses and adverse events, researchers faced challenges designing clinical trials to predict how long immunity would last and optimize booster schedules.

    Such data is essential in vaccine development because it helps identify who is most at risk, which variants and treatments affect survival rates, and how vaccines should be designed and distributed. And as part of the broader U.S. vital records system, mortality data is essential for medical research, including evaluating public health programs, identifying health disparities and monitoring disease.

    At the heart of the problem is the inefficiency of government policy, particularly outdated public health reporting systems and slow data modernization efforts that hinder timely decision-making. These long-standing policies, such as reliance on paper-based death certificates and disjointed state-level reporting, have failed to keep pace with real-time data needs during crises such as COVID-19.

    These policy shortcomings lead to delays in reporting and lack of coordination between hospital organizations, state government vital records offices and federal government agencies in collecting, standardizing and sharing death records.

    History of US mortality data

    The U.S. mortality data system has been cobbled together through a disparate patchwork of state and local governments, federal agencies and public health organizations over the course of more than a century and a half. It has been shaped by advances in public health, medical record-keeping and technology. From its inception to the present day, the mortality data system has been plagued by inconsistencies, inefficiencies and tensions between medical professionals, state governments and the federal government.

    The first national efforts to track information about deaths began in the 1850s when the U.S. Census Bureau started collecting mortality data as part of the decennial census. However, these early efforts were inconsistent, as death registration was largely voluntary and varied widely across states.

    In the early 20th century, the establishment of the National Vital Statistics System brought greater standardization to mortality data. For example, the system required all U.S. states and territories to standardize their death certificate format. It also consolidated mortality data at the federal level, whereas mortality data was previously stored at the state level.

    However, state and federal reporting remained fragmented. For example, states had no unifom timeline for submitting mortality data, resulting in some states taking months or even years to finalize and release death records. Local or state-level paperwork processing practices also remained varied and at times contradictory.

    Death record processing varies by state.
    eric1513/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    To begin to close gaps in reporting timelines to aid medical researchers, in 1981 the National Center for Health Statistics – a division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – introduced the National Death Index. This is a centralized database of death records collected from state vital statistics offices, making it easier to access death data for health and medical research. The system was originally paper-based, with the aim of allowing researchers to track the deaths of study participants without navigating complex bureaucracies.

    As time has passed, the National Death Index and state databases have become increasingly digital. The rise of electronic death registration systems in recent decades has improved processing speed when it comes to researchers accessing mortality data from the National Death Index. However, while the index has solved some issues related to gaps between state and federal data, other issues, such as high fees and inconsistency in state reporting times, still plague it.

    Accessing the data that matters most

    With the Trump administration’s increasing removal of CDC public health datasets, it is unclear whether policy reform for mortality data will be addressed anytime soon.

    Experts fear that the removal of CDC datasets has now set precedent for the Trump administration to cross further lines in its attempts to influence the research and data published by the CDC. The longer-term impact of the current administration’s public health policy on mortality data and disease response are not yet clear.

    What is clear is that five years since COVID-19, the U.S. mortality tracking system remains unequipped to meet emerging public health crises. Without addressing these challenges, the U.S. may not be able to respond quickly enough to public health crises threatening American lives.

    Dylan Thomas Doyle 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. 5 years on, true counts of COVID-19 deaths remain elusive − and research is hobbled by lack of data – https://theconversation.com/5-years-on-true-counts-of-covid-19-deaths-remain-elusive-and-research-is-hobbled-by-lack-of-data-244799

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Tyrannical leader? Why comparisons between Trump and King George III miss the mark on 18th-century British monarchy

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Carla Gardina Pestana, Professor and Joyce Appleby Endowed Chair of America in the World, University of California, Los Angeles

    Are there legitimate comparisons between President Donald Trump and King George III? Rebecca Noble/Getty Images; Kean Collection/Getty Images

    George III, king of Great Britain and its colonies at the time of the American Revolution, has been maligned unfairly.

    During both the first and now the second term of President Donald Trump, commentators in the U.S. have invoked the king’s misdeeds to criticize Trump. When the president bypassed Congress to create a new government agency, appointed its head and stopped payment of millions of dollars of allocated federal funds, his critics noted that he assumed the role of Congress, a power grab that supposedly made him similar to George III. According to this criticism, the president engaged in tyranny, just as the founders accused George of doing.

    As a scholar of early America, I believe, however, that George III has gotten a bad rap. He was not the all-powerful monarch that Trump allegedly aspires to be.

    In the 1770s, the power of the British king was limited by the authority of Parliament. In that system, which Americans and others praised at the time as balanced, the king and the legislature each had specific duties and powers so that neither could control the government alone.

    George III was not an absolutist monarch, to use the language of the day for a power-hungry ruler. The English had struggled in the previous century over the extent of the king’s power. After fighting two civil wars, executing one king, and, eventually, forcing the monarch to agree to rule with Parliament rather than on his own, they believed their liberties were safeguarded.

    This system, known as limited monarchy, was the pride of Great Britain. It was also admired by the American founders. As late as 1774, in his Summary View of the Rights of British America, Thomas Jefferson praised the “free and ancient principles” of the British constitution in which “kings are the servants, not the proprietors of the people.”

    Trump has been compared with King George III by many writers and commentators; the White House on Feb. 19, 2024, issued the fake magazine cover of Trump crowned like a king.
    Various

    No kingly tyranny

    Britons, whether in Great Britain or the colonies, did fear a tyrant, a controlling and abusive leader.

    Some fears came from their study of political theory, which taught that government worked best when composed of various branches that represented the concerns of the different political classes.

    As this theory went, an unbalanced government would descend into tyranny with a too-powerful monarch; oligarchy under a dominant aristocratic class; or anarchy with the people out of control. They believed these perils could be avoided only by maintaining balance.

    Even though the British did not fear imbalance or a tyrant king in their own case, they could see the danger threatening elsewhere in Europe.

    France represented a worst-case scenario. Its absolutist kings had ruled without France’s legislature – the Estates General – for more than a century and a half at the time of the American Revolution. British poet Robert Wolseley’s often reprinted poem declared: “Let France grow proud beneath the tyrant’s lust, While the rackt people crawl and lick the dust. The mighty Genius of this isle disdains Ambitious slavery and golden chains.”

    Within a few years, Anglo-American criticism of kingly tyranny in France would be validated: That country descended into a violent revolution that resulted in decades of warfare and political violence, including the execution of the entire royal family.

    This experience confirmed for the British and Americans that a balanced system was best and that they should count their blessings.

    Why revolt?

    A list of grievances held by the American Colonies against King George III, set down in Thomas Jefferson’s first draft of the American Declaration of Independence, which ultimately included 27 grievances against the king.
    MPI/Getty Images

    If the American revolutionaries admired the British system and sought to copy it in the United States, why did they reject the link to Britain and revolt in the first place?

    Americans did not revolt against the nature of British government. Rather they objected to their changing place within the British Empire. The revolutionary crisis had a number of roots, but most of them arose out of changes in the management of the relationship between the American Colonies and the imperial center.

    From the 1760s, the British government took a more activist role in its American Colonies, limiting their geographical expansion and imposing taxes directly on the population. In the past, Colonists had been free to move west, challenged only by the indigenous residents who fought to defend their lands.

    Now the British government, aiming to put an end to these wars, blocked expansion. At the same time, to pay down the debt accrued in recent war with France – and fought in part in North America – the government levied taxes not via the Colonial legislatures, as it had before, but directly on residents. This change sparked revolt and, eventually, revolution.

    Turning on the king

    American Colonists pull down a statue of King George III in New York City during the American Revolution.
    Corbis via Getty Images

    Before 1776, the Colonists believed that George III would come to their rescue and halt these changes imposed by Parliament. They thought initially that he did not realize how the new policies affected them.

    Only in 1776 did they accept that George III supported the policy changes and would not defend their rights. It was in that context that they turned on him and declared him tyrannical, blaming him for the new policies and calling for a break with Britain. As the Declaration of Independence said: “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.”

    Although they complained about the tyranny of George III, their true objection was that their subordinate position within the empire gave them little leverage when opposing policies that king and Parliament agreed to impose on them.

    Once independent, the founders created a system that imitated the British model of mixed governance and created barriers – the powers of Congress and the oversight of the Supreme Court – that they hoped would safeguard their liberties against the threat of renewed tyranny.

    Carla Gardina Pestana 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. Tyrannical leader? Why comparisons between Trump and King George III miss the mark on 18th-century British monarchy – https://theconversation.com/tyrannical-leader-why-comparisons-between-trump-and-king-george-iii-miss-the-mark-on-18th-century-british-monarchy-251869

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Atlantic sturgeon were fished almost to extinction − ancient DNA reveals how Chesapeake Bay population changed over centuries

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Natalia Przelomska, Research Associate in Archaeogenomics, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution

    Sturgeon can be several hundred pounds each. cezars/E+ via Getty Images

    Sturgeons are one of the oldest groups of fishes. Sporting an armor of five rows of bony, modified scales called dermal scutes and a sharklike tail fin, this group of several-hundred-pound beasts has survived for approximately 160 million years. Because their physical appearance has changed very little over time, supported by a slow rate of evolution, sturgeon have been called living fossils.

    Despite their survival through several geological time periods, many present-day sturgeon species are at threat of extinction, with 17 of 27 species listed as “critically endangered.”

    Conservation practitioners such as the Virginia Commonwealth University monitoring team are working hard to support recovery of Atlantic sturgeon in the Chesapeake Bay area. But it’s not clear what baseline population level people should strive toward restoring. How do today’s sturgeon populations compare with those of the past?

    VCU monitoring team releases an adult Atlantic sturgeon back into the estuary.
    Matt Balazik

    We are a molecular anthropologist and a biodiversity scientist who focus on species that people rely on for subsistence. We study the evolution, population health and resilience of these species over time to better understand humans’ interaction with their environments and the sustainability of food systems.

    For our recent sturgeon project, we joined forces with fisheries conservation biologist Matt Balazik, who conducts on-the-ground monitoring of Atlantic sturgeon, and Torben Rick, a specialist in North American coastal zooarchaeology. Together, we wanted to look into the past and see how much sturgeon populations have changed, focusing on the James River in Virginia. A more nuanced understanding of the past could help conservationists better plan for the future.

    Sturgeon loomed large for millennia

    In North America, sturgeon have played important subsistence and cultural roles in Native communities, which marked the seasons by the fishes’ behavioral patterns. Large summertime aggregations of lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) in the Great Lakes area inspired one folk name for the August full moon – the sturgeon moon. Woodland Era pottery remnants at archaeological sites from as long as 2,000 years ago show that the fall and springtime runs of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus) upstream were celebrated with feasting.

    Archaeologists uncover bony scutes – modified scales that resemble armor for the living fish – in places where people relied on sturgeon for subsistence.
    Logan Kistler and Natalia Przelomska

    Archaeological finds of sturgeon remains support that early colonial settlers in North America, notably those who established Jamestown in the Chesapeake Bay area in 1607, also prized these fish. When Captain John Smith was leading Jamestown, he wrote “there was more sturgeon here than could be devoured by dog or man.” The fish may have helped the survival of this fortress-colony that was both stricken with drought and fostering turbulent relationships with the Native inhabitants.

    This abundance is in stark contrast to today, when sightings of migrating fish are sparse. Exploitation during the past 300 years was the key driver of Atlantic sturgeon decline. Demand for caviar drove the relentless fishing pressure throughout the 19th century. The Chesapeake was the second-most exploited sturgeon fishery on the Eastern Seaboard up until the early 20th century, when the fish became scarce.

    Conservation biologists capture the massive fish for monitoring purposes, which includes clipping a tiny part of the fin for DNA analysis.
    Matt Balazik

    At that point, local protection regulations were established, but only in 1998 was a moratorium on harvesting these fish declared. Meanwhile, abundance of Atlantic sturgeon remained very low, which can be explained in part by their lifespan. Short-lived fish such as herring and shad can recover population numbers much faster than Atlantic sturgeon, which live for up to 60 years and take a long time to reach reproductive age – up to around 12 years for males and as many as 28 years for females.

    To help manage and restore an endangered species, conservation biologists tend to split the population into groups based on ranges. The Chesapeake Bay is one of five “distinct population segments” the U.S. Endangered Species Act listing in 2012 created for Atlantic sturgeon.

    Since then, conservationists have pioneered genetic studies on Atlantic sturgeon, demonstrating through the power of DNA that natal river – where an individual fish is born – and season of spawning are both important for distinguishing subpopulations within each regional group. Scientists have also described genetic diversity in Atlantic sturgeon; more genetic variety suggests they have more capacity to adapt when facing new, potentially challenging conditions.

    The study focused on Atlantic sturgeon from the Chesapeake Bay region, past and present. The four archaeological sites included are highlighted.
    Przelomska NAS et al., Proc. R. Soc. B 291: 20241145, CC BY

    Sturgeon DNA, then and now

    Archaeological remains are a direct source of data on genetic diversity in the past. We can analyze the genetic makeup of sturgeons that lived hundreds of years ago, before intense overfishing depleted their numbers. Then we can compare that baseline with today’s genetic diversity.

    The James River was a great case study for testing out this approach, which we call an archaeogenomics time series. Having obtained information on the archaeology of the Chesapeake region from our collaborator Leslie Reeder-Myers, we sampled remains of sturgeon – their scutes and spines – at a precolonial-era site where people lived from about 200 C.E. to about 900 C.E. We also sampled from important colonial sites Jamestown (1607-1610) and Williamsburg (1720-1775). And we complemented that data from the past with tiny clips from the fins of present-day, live fish that Balazik and his team sampled during monitoring surveys.

    Scientists separate Atlantic sturgeon scute fragments from larger collections of zooarchaeological remains, to then work on the scutes in a lab dedicated to studying ancient DNA.
    Torben Rick and Natalia Przelomska

    DNA tends to get physically broken up and biochemically damaged with age. So we relied on special protocols in a lab dedicated to studying ancient DNA to minimize the risk of contamination and enhance our chances of successfully collecting genetic material from these sturgeon.

    Atlantic sturgeon have 122 chromosomes of nuclear DNA – over five times as many as people do. We focused on a few genetic regions, just enough to get an idea of the James River population groupings and how genetically distinct they are from one another.

    We were not surprised to see that fall-spawning and spring-spawning groups were genetically distinct. What stood out, though, was how starkly different they were, which is something that can happen when a population’s numbers drop to near-extinction levels.

    We also looked at the fishes’ mitochondrial DNA, a compact molecule that is easier to obtain ancient DNA from compared with the nuclear chromosomes. With our collaborator Audrey Lin, we used the mitochondrial DNA to confirm our hypothesis that the fish from archaeological sites were more genetically diverse than present-day Atlantic sturgeon.

    Strikingly, we discovered that mitochondrial DNA did not always group the fish by season or even by their natal river. This was unexpected, because Atlantic sturgeon tend to return to their natal rivers for breeding. Our interpretation of this genetic finding is that over very long timescales – many thousands of years – changes in the global climate and in local ecosystems would have driven a given sturgeon population to migrate into a new river system, and possibly at a later stage back to its original one. This notion is supported by other recent documentation of fish occasionally migrating over long distances and mixing with new groups.

    Our study used archaeology, history and ecology together to describe the decline of Atlantic sturgeon. Based on the diminished genetic diversity we measured, we estimate that the Atlantic sturgeon populations we studied are about a fifth of what they were before colonial settlement. Less genetic variability means these smaller populations have less potential to adapt to changing conditions. Our findings will help conservationists plan into the future for the continued recovery of these living fossils.

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

    – ref. Atlantic sturgeon were fished almost to extinction − ancient DNA reveals how Chesapeake Bay population changed over centuries – https://theconversation.com/atlantic-sturgeon-were-fished-almost-to-extinction-ancient-dna-reveals-how-chesapeake-bay-population-changed-over-centuries-241104

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Islamic State in Somalia: the terrorist group’s origins, rise and recent battlefield defeats

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Stig Jarle Hansen, Professor of International Relations, Norwegian University of Life Sciences

    The Islamic State in Somalia is an affiliate of the transnational jihadist group Islamic State, known in short as ISIS. Based in the semi-autonomous northern Somalia territory of Puntland, the terrorist group was the target of the first foreign combat operation of the Trump administration in February 2025. Previously, the group has been linked to planned terror attacks on the Vatican and on the Israeli embassy in Stockholm. Stig Jarle Hansen, a researcher and author of several books on jihadism in Africa, examines its origins, rise and recent battlefield defeats in the mountains of Puntland.

    1. The rise of the Islamic State

    Before the establishment of the Islamic State in Somalia in 2015, the Somali jihadist group al-Shabaab had established itself in the north. The small group had extensive connections to smuggling networks. It later split into two and the future leader of the Islamic State in Somalia, Sheikh Abdulqader Muumin, emerged from one of the splinter groups.

    In Somalia, clans define the relationship between people and all actors in the society. The connections of the new group to the Ali Suleiban sub-clan enabled it to profit from the clan’s links to smuggling and maritime piracy groups.

    Puntland is the hub of communication and maritime trade between Somalia and Yemen, as well as the wider Middle East. Smuggling has gone on in the region for centuries. The rugged terrain is ideal for piracy, illegal smuggling and insurgents.

    Puntland has been more or less autonomous from the rest of Somalia for more than three decades, and the Somali government has little influence there today.

    2. The jihadist behind the Islamic State in Somalia

    Muumin lived in Sweden through the 1990s and early 2000s and later moved to the UK. Back in Somalia, he joined al-Shabaab and became a prominent figure in the group’s jihadist videos. Such videos aim to maintain morals, attract new recruits and create sympathy for the group.

    In 2015, Muumin defected to lead the Islamic State in Somalia. His second-in-command was another Ali Suleiban clansman, Mahad Moalim. In 2016, the first video of the group was circulated through Islamic State media outlets.

    A milestone for the group followed its 2017 suicide bombing of the Juba Hotel in Bosaso, Puntland’s commercial capital and sea port. This enabled the Islamic State in Somalia to pressure Bossaso-based businesses to pay it protection money, the single most important source of income. In 2017-2018, the group is believed to have been behind as many as 50 assassinations in central Somalia. The killings were a forceful tool to generate protection money.

    On 27 July 2018, the Somali group was officially designated as a full province by the Islamic State, also known as ISIS. The Maktab al-Karrar regional office was based in the small Puntland chapter, giving it global responsibilities.

    The Somali group was made responsible for the central African and the Mozambique provinces of the Islamic State. Money flowed to the group from the Islamic State, as did extortion money from Bossaso, other northern Puntland cities and more infrequently from Mogadishu.

    In the first half of 2022, the US Treasury claimed that the organisation generated US$2.3 million from extortion payments, related imports, livestock and agriculture. The regional office and Muumin emerged as key financial players in east Africa, and even outside it, from their base in Buur Dexhtaal in Bari Puntland. Indeed, unnamed US officials claimed in 2023 that Muumim had been made the transnational leader of the Islamic State.

    3. An overblown reputation

    The Islamic State’s reputation in Somalia is often overstated. The group has never captured or held large territories. Its numbers in 2024 were estimated to be between 600 and 1,600. That pales in comparison to al-Shabaab in the south of Somalia.

    Its links to a planned attack on the Israeli embassy in Stockholm 2024 were probably weak and failed to hold up in court. And the jihadist linked to a planned attack in the Vatican 2018 seems to have left Islamic State prior to the planning.

    It is also doubtful that Muumin is the global leader of the Islamic State as claimed by some. That’s for two main reasons. First, an Islamic State leader has to be drawn from a tribe related to the prophet (Qureshi). Muumin is not. Second, the Islamic State in Somalia is the smallest of the Islamic State provinces in Africa. It is likely that a leader of a stronger province would have ranked higher.

    Although the income-gathering capacities of the Puntland-based group give it prominence in the Islamic State media, the Islamic State in Somalia does not rank higher than the Islamic State in the Sahara and Mozambique.

    4. Down but not out

    The Puntland authorities launched a relatively successful counter-offensive against the Islamic State in January 2025. This was combined with air support by the US and the United Arab Emirates.

    Puntland won important battles in January and February, including an attack in which it killed 70 Islamic State fighters.

    By late February, the morale of the Islamic State fighters seemed to break. With the fall of Buur Dexhtaal, the main base, in March, all the larger known bases had fallen. Many of the fleeing foreign fighters were captured.

    But the Islamic State is not defeated. The terrain enabled some of the fighters to hide. Neither Muumin, who is in his 70s, nor his second-in-command Abdirahman Fahiye have been reported killed. There are at least several hundred fighters left.

    If the Islamic State is still able to extort money from the northern business community, it could recruit from the large numbers of Oromo Ethiopian refugees in and around Bosaso, as well as locals who need jobs.

    Stig Jarle Hansen 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. Islamic State in Somalia: the terrorist group’s origins, rise and recent battlefield defeats – https://theconversation.com/islamic-state-in-somalia-the-terrorist-groups-origins-rise-and-recent-battlefield-defeats-252303

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The PKK says it will lay down its arms. What are the chances of lasting peace between Turkey and the Kurds? Podcast

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Gemma Ware, Host, The Conversation Weekly Podcast, The Conversation

    For over 40 years, the Kurdistan Workers Party, the PKK, has waged an armed insurgency against Turkey, fighting for Kurdish rights and autonomy.

    But in late February, Abdullah Öcalan, the PKK’s imprisoned founder, called for the group to lay down its arms and dissolve itself. Days later, the PKK, which is labelled as a terrorist organisation by Turkey, Europe and the US, declared a ceasefire with Turkey.

    In this episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast, we speak to political scientist Pinar Dinc about what’s led to this moment and whether it could be the beginning of a lasting peace between Turkey and the Kurds.

    Despite being imprisoned in solitary confinement since his capture in 1999, Öcalan has remained a central figure in the Kurdish movement, both in Turkey and across the region.

    His call for the PKK to abandon its armed struggle came months after the leader of a Turkish ultra-nationalist political party launched an initiative to bring an end to the conflict.

    Over the past few decades, previous rounds of peace talks between the PKK and Turkey, most notably in 2009 and 2013-15, have collapsed.

    But Pinar Dinc, an associate professor of political science at Lund University in Sweden, says that since the Hamas-led October 7 attacks on Israel and the war in Gaza, the situation in the Middle East has rapidly changed. “It’s mutually beneficial to put an end to this war,” she says. “Both groups recognise the necessity of addressing regional tensions.”

    Dinc says international support for the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces in north-eastern Syria, and its Rojava revolution, means that Turkey has been forced to recognise a new “Syrian Kurdish reality”. At the same time, she says, the Kurdish movement has also reached a limit in what it can achieve in an era of modern warfare.

     Turkey has a huge army. It’s one of the biggest armies of Nato. Now we see increased use of drones surveillance and advanced weaponry, and I think the PKK guerrillas in the Qandil mountains, what they refer to as the medya defence zones, they’re also realising that this is getting more and more difficult.

    Limited discussions began in March between the Turkish government and Kurdish political parties on a way forward in peace negotiations. Dinc says this is a real opportunity for a broader reconciliation process, but there will be real challenges in the detail of what it means for Turkey’s Kurdish population.

     The PKK is an outcome of structural problems arising from the longstanding oppression and marginalisation of Kurds in Turkey, and addressing these root causes is essential for achieving lasting peace.

    Listen to the conversation with Dinc on The Conversation Weekly podcast.

    This episode of The Conversation Weekly was written and produced by Mend Mariwany. Sound design was by Eloise Stevens and theme music by Neeta Sarl. Gemma Ware is the executive producer.

    Newsclips in this episode from AP Archive, AFP News Agency, Sky News, Med TV, Gazete Duvar, DW News, Al Jazeera English and France 24 English.

    Listen to The Conversation Weekly via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed or find out how else to listen here.

    Pinar Dinc is the principal investigator of the ECO-Syria project, which receives funding from the Strategic Research Area: The Middle East in the Contemporary World (MECW) at the Centre for Advanced Middle Eastern Studies, Lund University, Sweden.

    – ref. The PKK says it will lay down its arms. What are the chances of lasting peace between Turkey and the Kurds? Podcast – https://theconversation.com/the-pkk-says-it-will-lay-down-its-arms-what-are-the-chances-of-lasting-peace-between-turkey-and-the-kurds-podcast-252646

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: ‘Declare your city genocide free’ – lessons from NZ’s nuclear-free movement

    COMMENTARY: By Eugene Doyle

    Today I attended a demonstration outside both Aotearoa New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Israeli Embassy in Wellington.

    The day before, the Israelis had blown apart 174 children in Gaza in a surprise attack that announced the next phase of the genocide.

    About 174 Wellingtonians turned up to a quickly-called protest: they are the best of us — the best of Wellington.

    In 2023, the City made me an Absolutely Positively Wellingtonian for service across a number of fronts (water infrastructure, conservation, coastal resilience, community organising) but nothing I have done compares with the importance of standing up for the victims of US-Israeli violence.

    What more can we do?  And then it crossed my mind: “Declare Wellington Genocide Free”.  And if Wellington could, why not other cities?

    Wellington started nuclear-free drive
     The nuclear-free campaign, led by Wellington back in the 1980s, is a template worth reviving.

    Wellington became the first city in New Zealand — and the first capital in the world — to declare itself nuclear free in 1982.  It followed the excellent example of Missoula, Montana, USA, the first city in the world to do so, in 1978.

    These were tumultuous times. I vividly remember heading into Wellington harbour on a small yacht, part of a peace flotilla made up of kayakers, yachties and wind surfers that tried to stop the USS Texas from berthing. It won that battle that day but we won the war.

    This was the decade which saw the French government’s terrorist bomb attack on a Greenpeace ship in Auckland harbour to intimidate the anti-nuclear movement.

    Also, 2025 is the 40th anniversary of the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior and the death of Fernando Pereira. Little Island Press will be reissuing a new edition of my friend David Robie’s book Eyes of Fire later this year. It tells the incredible story of the final voyage of the Rainbow Warrior.

    “Eyes of Fire: the Last Voyage of the Rainbow Warrior” . . . a new book on nuclear-free activism on its way. Image: Little Island Press

    Standing up to bullies
     Labour under David Lange successfully campaigned and won the 1984 elections on a nuclear-free platform which promised to ban nuclear ships from our waters.

    This was a time when we had a government that had the backbone to act independently of the US. Yes, we had a grumpy relationship with the Yanks for a while and we were booted out of ANZUS — surely a cause for celebration in contrast to today when our government is little more than a finger puppet for Team Genocide.

    In response to bullying from Australia and the US, David Lange said at the time:  “It is the price we are prepared to pay.”

    With Wellington in the lead, nuclear-free had moved over the course of a decade from a fringe peace movement to the mainstream and eventually to become government policy.

    The New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987 was passed and remains a cornerstone of our foreign policy.

    New Zealand took a stand that showed strong opposition to out-of-control militarism, the risks of nuclear war, and strong support for the international movement to step back from nuclear weapons.

    It was a powerful statement of our independence as a nation and a rejection of foreign dominance. It also reduced the risk of contamination in case of a nuclear accident aboard a vessel (remember this was the same decade as the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in Ukraine).

    The nuclear-free campaign and Palestine
     Each of those points have similarities with the Palestinian cause today and should act as inspiration for cities to mobilise and build national solidarity with the Palestinians.

    To my knowledge, no city has ever successfully expelled an Israeli Embassy but Wellington could take a powerful first step by doing this, and declare the capital genocide-free.  We need to wake our country — and the Western world — out of the moral torpor it finds itself in; yawning its way through the monstrous crimes being perpetrated by our “friends and allies”.

    Shun Israel until it stops genocide
     No city should suffer the moral stain of hosting an embassy representing the racist, genocidal state of Israel.

    Wellington should lead the country to support South Africa’s case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), end all trade with Israel, and end all intelligence and military cooperation with Israel for the duration of its genocidal onslaught.  Other cities should follow suit.

    Declare your city Nuclear and Genocide Free.

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

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why sharing meals can make people happier – what evidence from 142 countries shows

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alberto Prati, Assistant Professor in Economics, UCL

    Sharing meals can contribute to feelings of happiness, a new report suggests. Ground picture/Shutterstock

    The importance of sharing meals is recognised across cultures, from the Jewish Shabbat meal to the fast-breaking Iftar meals during Ramadan. The known link between food and social relationships is ancient. The English word companion, the French copain (friend) and the Italian compagno (partner) come from the Latin cum and pānis – literally “with-bread”. The Chinese term for companion/partner (伙伴) stems from a similar term (火伴) which literally translates to “fire mate”, a reference to sharing meals over a campfire.

    But how important is eating together to our happiness? This is the question that I and my co-authors answer in the World Happiness Report 2025. In our new data and analysis we looked at the link between how often people share meals and whether they feel good about their lives and experience positive emotions. We also documented that there was a massive difference between countries and regions when it came to how often people shared meals.

    Comparing the statistics from the 2022-23 Gallup World Poll about sharing meals with standard measures of wellbeing, we found a significant, positive relationship in almost all regions. Not only do countries where meal sharing is more common tend to report higher levels of wellbeing, but this is true even when comparing people who live in the same country.

    The Gallup poll asked more than 150,000 people from 142 countries and territories how many lunches and dinners they shared with someone they know during the past week. The scores varied widely between regions.

    Latin Americans share approximately two-third of their meals, with residents of Paraguay, Ecuador and Colombia reporting an average of more than ten shared meals per week. At the bottom of the scale, there are relatively low levels of meal sharing in south and east Asian countries – in particular India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Japan and South Korea, where people share less than one meal out of three, on average.

    While there is an association between sharing meals and wellbeing pretty much everywhere, this association is stronger in some regions than others. For instance, for a person who always dines alone in North America, Australia and New Zealand, the wellbeing benefit of starting to share most of their meals (eight or more times a week) in the life evaluation scale is big (the life evaluation scale is how people judge their life, with zero being the worst possible life and 10 being the best). This boost is equivalent to the effect of doubling their income.

    However, in Latin America, the Caribbean and sub-Saharan Africa, this effect is half as great and is essentially nil in south-east Asia. The reasons for this difference is as yet unclear.

    For social scientists, the frequency of sharing meals offers an indicator for social connectedness (the ways that people interact with and relate to one another). Unlike measures that capture people’s subjective feelings about social wellbeing, the number of shared meals gives us a concrete measure on which to base our analysis.

    While interpretations of friendship or perceptions of closeness may change over time or between countries, the number of meals shared with others does not.

    Meal sharing by region and age:

    Of course, those who share more meals can differ in many other aspects, but even when we take into account characteristics such as gender, age, income, living alone and people’s ability to meet basic needs for food, the relationship between sharing meals and wellbeing still holds strong.

    While the global data we used was only introduced in 2022, some countries have collected information on meal sharing for longer. In the United States, where the American Time Use Survey has been running for more than 20 years, we find clear evidence that with every passing year, Americans are dining alone more often, particularly young adults.

    Today, 18 to 24-year-olds in the US are 90% more likely to eat every meal alone on a given day than they were in 2003. We also find that Americans who eat at least one meal with others report higher levels of happiness and lower levels of stress, pain and sadness on that day.

    How meals sharing is linked to emotions in the US:

    From our data, we can’t tell how much of a wellbeing boost sharing an extra meal
    creates, and to what extent people share more meals because they are already happy, but it is reasonable to assume that it is not just the latter. This would reflect previous research which has shown the importance of social capital (networks of social connections which are conducive to a well-functioning society) and the positive benefits of in-person interactions.

    In a world where loneliness is increasingly recognised as a public health issue, rethinking how we gather around the table, and how often, could provide practical solutions to reduce social isolation and raise wellbeing.

    Institutions where people routinely eat their meals together can play a critical role on this front. The other side of the coin is the surge in working from home, which could raise levels of solitude.

    So, if you don’t have plans for lunch tomorrow, maybe this is the good moment to message someone you would like to spend more time with.

    Alberto Prati is affiliated with the Wellbeing Research Centre at the University of Oxford and the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics.

    – ref. Why sharing meals can make people happier – what evidence from 142 countries shows – https://theconversation.com/why-sharing-meals-can-make-people-happier-what-evidence-from-142-countries-shows-252352

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How Canadian small businesses can expand into Asian markets and reduce their dependence on the U.S.

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Michael Joseph Dominic Roberts, Associate Dean & Associate Professor, Faculty of Business and Communications Studies, Mount Royal University

    The recent escalation of trade tensions under United States President Donald Trump has significantly increased uncertainty for Canadian SMEs (small- and medium-sized enterprises), particularly in the high-value service sector.

    Examples of this sector include financial technology and investment services, aerospace and advanced manufacturing, and clean technology sectors focused on renewable energy and sustainable resource management.

    For decades, Canadian businesses have relied on a stable trade relationship with the U.S. But under Trump’s “America First” protectionist policies, that stability has crumbled.

    With tariffs, trade barriers and shifting political dynamics making North American markets increasingly unpredictable, many Canadian businesses are searching for ways to reduce their dependence on the U.S. and expand elsewhere.

    Expanding into Asia

    Asia has emerged as an attractive alternative for businesses due to its rapidly expanding middle class, growing investments in infrastructure and technology, and rising demand for specialized expertise.

    This trend is particularly evident in the energy sector. The Asia-Pacific region — though currently accounting for only eight per cent of the global market — is expected to grow significantly as countries expand energy infrastructure and seek advanced technologies to improve resource extraction for environmental sustainability.



    Read more:
    Trump’s tariff threat is a sign that Canada should be diversifying beyond the U.S.

    This presents promising growth opportunities for Canadian businesses in sectors like engineering consulting, technology, energy and environmental services, where they already have a competitive edge.

    However, entering Asian markets presents unique challenges, requiring businesses to rethink their strategies.

    Breaking into Asian markets

    Expanding into Asian markets is no easy task for SMEs. These businesses face substantial barriers, including significant differences in regulatory environments, business practices and customer expectations.

    For service-based businesses, the challenge is even greater. Unlike physical products, which can be easily displayed and tested, services are harder to quantify and prove to new clients. This makes it more difficult for SMEs to build credibility and demonstrate their value in unfamiliar markets.

    Our recent study explored how Canadian SMEs in the service sector can successfully overcome these barriers when entering Asian markets like China, India and South Korea.

    We brought together industry experts, government officials and senior executives from SMEs already operating successfully in Asia for a two-day workshop. We analyzed their firsthand experiences, challenges and recommendations to develop a clear and actionable framework called the 4P strategy (potential, proposition, presence and policy).

    These four steps offer SMEs a structured approach to understanding local conditions, differentiating offerings, establishing trusted partnerships and gaining government support.

    1. Potential: Understand the local market

    SMEs must understand Asian market regulations, business culture and market structures. Unlike North America’s relatively stable environment, Asian markets often feature rapidly evolving regulations and unpredictable policy changes.

    Businesses should balance these regulatory uncertainties against economic opportunities and be prepared to swiftly adapt when necessary. For example, policy changes in Asian markets, such as shifting foreign investment regulations or evolving environmental standards, can create uncertainty for SMEs operating abroad.

    Companies must remain agile to navigate regulatory shifts while leveraging the relative economic stability of the region.

    Patience and flexibility are also critical. In many Asian markets, business deals take longer to close due to hierarchical, relationship-driven decision-making. SMEs should anticipate these extended timelines and factor them into their planning.

    Our study found that deals that might be finalized quickly in North America can take years to develop in Asia, requiring firms to exercise patience before realizing significant profits. Successful market entry depends on a long-term approach and the ability to adapt to extended gestation periods.

    2. Proposition: Adapt services to fit local needs

    SMEs need to localize their offerings beyond language translation, adapting their branding, marketing and customer-engagement strategies to fit local contexts.

    A clearly defined and differentiated service offering is critical. Businesses must clearly define what sets them apart from local competitors and ensure their services address specific market needs.

    Pricing strategies should also align with local market expectations. Many Asian markets, especially in business-to-business services, are highly price-sensitive. SMEs must balance competitive pricing with value.

    In some cases, businesses may need to use performance-based pricing models — where clients pay based on results rather than a fixed fee — to remain competitive while protecting profit margins.

    3. Presence: Build a local network and partnerships

    A strong local presence is vital for success in Asia. SMEs should invest in trusted local partnerships or regional offices to build credibility, facilitate smoother operations and better understand local customer needs.

    Relationships play a central role in doing business in Asia. Unlike in North America, where successful transactions often lead to partnerships, in Asia, relationships must be built first.

    This relationship-first approach is deeply embedded in business culture, requiring firms to prioritize long-term engagement over immediate gains. Research has shown that trust-building is essential for long-term success in Asian markets, as strong relationships ultimately lead to transactions.

    Canadian SMEs entering these markets should be prepared to shift their approach, recognizing that sustained commitment and relationship-building are key to unlocking business opportunities.

    4. Policy: Take advantage of government support

    Many Canadian SMEs underestimate the extent of available government support and miss out on resources that reduce risks and make it easier to establish a foothold abroad.

    Our study found that SMEs expanding to Asia can access valuable support from government departments and trade commissioners at Canadian embassies. In energy services subsectors, government and non-governmental organizations can assist SMEs in forming partnerships with Asian firms.

    Additionally, agencies like Export Development Canada offer training, financial support and market-entry resources that many SMEs overlook. Taking advantage of these programs can help businesses navigate regulatory challenges and accelerate their international expansion.

    Government-backed programs also support research, development and technology adaptation to help businesses tailor their services to local markets. Our study found that making use of these resources reduces barriers, lowers entry risks and significantly enhances businesses’ likelihood of success in Asia.

    Seizing the opportunity

    Rather than merely serving as an alternative to the increasingly restrictive U.S. market, Asia presents significant growth opportunities for Canadian SMEs but demands strategic patience, adaptability and sustained commitment.

    However, success in Asia won’t come overnight. Unlike the relatively familiar North American market, expanding into Asia requires a patience, adaptability and a willingness to learn a different business culture.

    By adopting the 4P strategies, Canadian businesses can effectively navigate market-entry barriers and position themselves for success in an era of shifting global trade dynamics.

    Etayankara Muralidharan receives funding from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC).

    Michael Joseph Dominic Roberts 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 Canadian small businesses can expand into Asian markets and reduce their dependence on the U.S. – https://theconversation.com/how-canadian-small-businesses-can-expand-into-asian-markets-and-reduce-their-dependence-on-the-u-s-251991

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s defiance of a federal court order fuels a constitutional crisis − a legal scholar unpacks the complicated case

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Cassandra Burke Robertson, Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Professional Ethics, Case Western Reserve University

    The Supreme Court is seen on March 17, 2025, one day before Chief Justice John Roberts issued a rare rebuke of a president. Win McNamee/Getty Images

    President Donald Trump invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act on March 15, 2025, and deported about 200 Venezuelan immigrants his administration alleged have ties to a Venezuelan gang. U.S. District Court Judge James Bloasberg verbally issued an order that same day telling the government that the planes carrying the deportees must return to the United States.

    The U.S. government, though, allowed the flights to continue and for the Venezuelans to be detained at a facility in El Salvador infamous for its mistreatment of prisoners.

    The subsequent legal back-and-forth, which is still going on, intensified so quickly and dramatically that many legal scholars say the U.S. is past the point of a constitutional crisis, as the Trump administration appears to be defying a federal court order, for which Boasberg may hold the government in contempt. Trump has also called for Bloasberg to be impeached. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts then issued a rare public statement that day rejecting Trump’s statement.

    “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said in a written statement on March 18.

    Amy Lieberman, a politics and society editor at The Conversation U.S., posed a few questions to Cassandra Burke Robertson, a scholar of civil proceedings and legal ethics, to break down some of the dynamics of this complex, evolving case.

    President Donald Trump shakes hands with Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts in Washington, D.C., on March 4, 2025.
    Win McNamee/Getty Images

    Is it rare for a Supreme Court justice to weigh in on politicians’ activities or statements?

    It’s uncommon for a Supreme Court justice to publicly contradict a president. Roberts has typically shown great respect for the separation of powers between branches of government. He has also consistently recognized that presidents have broad authority to run the federal government.

    However, this isn’t the first time Roberts has spoken up to protect judicial independence. During Trump’s first term in 2018, the president criticized rulings as coming from “Obama judges.” Roberts responded publicly, and said, “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”

    Why is Roberts’ statement of note, and what influence does he have in this situation?

    Roberts leads the U.S. Supreme Court. He also oversees all federal courts across the country.

    Roberts takes this leadership role very seriously. He has been willing to speak up when he believes something threatens judicial operations and independence.

    Since Roberts was confirmed as chief justice in 2005, he has often spoken publicly about why judges need to remain independent from political pressure. He has pointed out four main threats to judges’ independence: “violence, intimidation, disinformation and threats to defy lawfully entered judgments.”

    When Roberts makes a public statement, it carries weight because he speaks as the top judicial officer in the country. His words are a reminder about the importance of keeping courts free from political interference.

    What is most important for people to understand about the Alien Enemies Act case that Judge Boasberg is currently considering?

    First, Trump is using a rarely used wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act. This law allows for deportations during a time of war without the normal legal protections like court hearings. Some legal experts argue that Trump doesn’t have the authority to use this law since the U.S. isn’t officially at war with Venezuela or with the gang the administration has cited, Tren de Aragua. They worry that invoking the Alien Enemies Act inappropriately expands presidential power beyond constitutional limits and could be misused to target other immigrant groups.

    Second, Boasberg ordered a stop to these deportations on March 15. But the Trump administration went ahead with the deportations anyway. It later claimed it did not violate the judge’s order because the planes were over international waters. Under our legal system, the executive branch must obey valid court orders. This case raises concerns about whether the president is respecting the authority of the courts.

    James E. Boasberg, chief judge of the District Court, District of Columbia.
    https://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/content/chief-judge-james-e-boasberg

    Third, Trump has publicly called for Boasberg to be impeached, saying the judge overstepped his authority by ruling against the president’s actions. There’s no evidence that Boasberg acted corruptly or improperly – he simply made a legal ruling the president disagreed with.

    The case touches on fundamental questions about the balance of power between presidents and courts, and what happens when an administration chooses not to follow a judge’s orders. This confrontation between branches represents one of the most direct challenges to judicial authority by a president in American history.

    What would it take for a judge to be impeached, and what is the precedent for doing so, based on disagreements about a case?

    Federal judges can only be impeached by Congress for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” That generally means serious wrongdoing, not just making unpopular decisions.

    The impeachment process for judges works just like it does for presidents.

    First, the House of Representatives votes to impeach, needing just a simple majority. Then, the Senate holds a trial where a two-thirds majority is needed to remove the judge.

    Only 15 federal judges have ever been impeached in the U.S., and of those, only eight were convicted by the Senate.

    The only two judicial impeachments during this century involved very serious misconduct – including a judge who lied about sexually abusing two female employees in 2009.

    Only judges who have serious misconduct have been impeached and removed from office – not those involved in cases of political disagreements about judicial decisions.

    What are the most important legal and ethical questions that this case raises?

    This case raises important questions about the rule of law in the U.S. A key American belief is that no one, not even the president, is above the law. As Thomas Paine famously wrote in 1776, “In America, the law is king.”

    This doesn’t mean every court decision is always right. That’s why the legal system has appellate courts, as Roberts pointed out – so decisions people disagree with can be challenged through an appeal in proper channels. My scholarly research on the right to appeal explores how this process serves as a crucial safeguard in the country’s legal system.

    Twenty years ago, Roberts also stressed how important the rule of law is, saying it “protects the rights and liberties of all Americans.”

    When a government chooses to ignore court orders instead of appealing them through the legal system, it creates a serious threat to this principle. The current situation raises concerns about whether the federal government will continue to respect the boundaries established by the Constitution in the country’s legal system.

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

    – ref. Trump’s defiance of a federal court order fuels a constitutional crisis − a legal scholar unpacks the complicated case – https://theconversation.com/trumps-defiance-of-a-federal-court-order-fuels-a-constitutional-crisis-a-legal-scholar-unpacks-the-complicated-case-252591

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Eight ways to reduce your stroke risk – no matter what age you are

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Siobhan Mclernon, Senior Lecturer, Adult Nursing and co-lead, Ageing, Acute and Long Term Conditions. Member of Health and Well Being Research Center, London South Bank University

    Sarayut Sridee/Shutterstock

    As a nurse working in a neurocritical care, I witnessed the sudden and devastating effects of stroke on survivors and their carers.

    Following my nursing career, I became a researcher specialising in stroke. Knowledge of stroke risk factors in the general public is poor, so stroke prevention is a priority for public health.

    Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability in England – yet it is largely preventable. It’s often considered an older person’s illness but, although stroke risk does increase with age, it can happen at any time of life. In fact, stroke incidence is increasing among adults below the age of 55 years.

    Stroke risk factors that tend to be more common among older people – such as high blood pressure (hypertension), high cholesterol, obesity, diabetes, smoking, physical inactivity and poor diet – are increasingly found in younger people. Other lifestyle risks include heavy alcohol consumption or binge drinking and recreational drugs such as amphetamines, cocaine and heroin.



    Read more:
    Stroke: young people can have them too – here’s how to know if you’re at risk and what to look out for

    Some risk factors are not modifiable such as age, sex, ethnicity, family history of stroke, genetics and certain inherited conditions. Women, for example, are particularly susceptible to strokes – and women of all ages are more likely than men to die from a stroke.

    Stroke risks unique to women include pregnancy and some contraceptive pills (especially for smokers), as well as endometriosis, premature ovarian failure (before 40 years of age), early-onset menopause (before 45 years of age) and oestrogen for transgender women.

    Also, inherited vascular abnormalities such as cerebral aneurysms – a weakness in the artery wall – can increase the risk of haemorrhagic stroke.

    Some risk factors are social rather than biological, however. Studies have found that people with a lower income and education level are at a higher risk of having a stroke. This is due to a combination of factors. Unhealthy lifestyle habits, such as smoking, heavier drinking and lower physical activity levels are more common in people with lower incomes.



    Read more:
    Rising income inequalities are linked to unhealthy diets and loneliness

    However, research also shows that people with lower socioeconomic status are less likely to receive good quality healthcare than people with higher incomes.

    But, regardless of biological or social risk factors, there are things you can do – right now – to reduce your risk of having a stroke.

    Essential eight

    1. Stop smoking Smokers are more than twice as likely to have a stroke than non-smokers. Smoking causes damage to blood vessel walls, increases blood pressure and heart rate but reduces oxygen levels. Smoking also causes blood to become sticky, further increasing the risk of blood clots that can block blood vessels and cause a stroke.

    2. Keep blood pressure in check High blood pressure damages the walls of blood vessels, making them weaker and more prone to rupture or blockage. It can also cause blood clots to form, which can then travel to the brain and block blood flow, leading to a stroke. If you’re over 18 years of age, get your blood pressure checked regularly so, if you do show signs of developing high blood pressure, you can nip it in the bud and make appropriate changes to your lifestyle to help reduce your risk of stroke.

    3. Keep an eye on your cholesterol According to the UK Stroke Association your risk of a stroke is nearly three and a half times higher if you have both high cholesterol and high blood pressure. To lower cholesterol, aim to keep saturated fat – found in fatty meats, butter, cheese, and full-fat dairy – below 7% of your daily calories, stay active and maintain a healthy weight.



    Read more:
    How can I lower my cholesterol? Do supplements work? How about psyllium or probiotics?

    4. Watch your blood sugar High blood glucose levels are linked to an increased risk of stroke. This is because high blood sugar damages blood vessels, which can lead to blood clots that travel to the brain. To reduce blood glucose levels, try to take regular exercise, eat a balanced diet rich in fibre, drink enough water, maintain a healthy weight, and try to manage stress.

    5. Maintain a healthy weight Being overweight is one of the main risk factors for stroke. It is associated with almost one in five strokes, and increases your stroke risk by 22%. Being obese raises that risk by 64%. Carrying too much weight increases your risk of high blood pressure, heart disease, high cholesterol and type 2 diabetes, which all contribute to higher stroke risk.

    6. Follow a Mediterranean diet One way to eat a fibre-rich balanced diet and maintain a healthy weight is to follow a Mediterranean diet. This has been shown to reduce the risk of stroke, especially when supplemented with nuts and olive oil.

    7. Sleep well Try to to get seven to nine hours of sleep daily. Too little sleep can lead to high blood pressure, one of the most important modifiable risk factors for stroke. Too much sleep, however, is also associated with increased stroke risk, so try to stay as active as possible so you can sleep as well as possible.



    Read more:
    Exercise really can help you sleep better at night – here’s why that may be

    8. Stay active The NHS recommends that people should avoid prolonged sedentary behaviour and aim for at least 150 minutes of moderate intensity activity or 75 minutes of vigorous intensity activity a week. Exercise should be spread evenly over four to five days a week, or every day. Do strengthening activities, usually more than two days per week.

    The good news is that while the effects of stroke can be devastating and life-changing, it is largely preventable. Adopting these eight simple lifestyle changes can help to reduce stroke risk and optimise both heart and brain health.

    Siobhan Mclernon 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. Eight ways to reduce your stroke risk – no matter what age you are – https://theconversation.com/eight-ways-to-reduce-your-stroke-risk-no-matter-what-age-you-are-251524

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How King Charles is sending Canada subtle signals of support amid Trump’s threats

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Justin Vovk, Royal Historian, McMaster University

    It started as a joke. In December 2024, Donald Trump glibly told Justin Trudeau that Canada should become the 51st state. Three months later, the “joke” seems to have become an American foreign policy goal for the second Trump administration.



    Read more:
    How Donald Trump’s attacks on Canada are stoking a new Canadian nationalism

    Canadian Parliament has been unanimous in its response: “Canada is not for sale.” But Canada’s head of state, King Charles, has remained largely silent on the matter — until recently.

    Over the last several weeks, observers have started to pick up on subtle signs of support for Canadians from the King. But many people have no doubt been wondering why there’s not been a direct statement of support from King Charles.

    The answer to that question isn’t as simple as many people might think.

    King of Canada

    Since 1689, Britain has been a constitutional monarchy. The sovereign is the head of state, but the prime minister leads the government. As such, the King can’t interfere with politics. He is supposed to remain neutral and be the embodiment of the nation.

    This crucial separation between palace and Parliament was solidified in Canada and throughout the Commonwealth in 1931 with the Statute of Westminster. In 1954, the Royal Styles and Titles Act separated the British Crown from the other Commonwealth realms. Queen Elizabeth became the first sovereign to ever be called Queen of Canada.

    As a constitutional monarch, King Charles is bound by parliamentary limitations on his authority. He cannot act without taking advice from the prime ministers in his various realms.

    This means King Charles can’t make a political statement about the ongoing tensions between Canada and the U.S. without the green light from Ottawa. When asked about the situation in January, a palace official said simply that this is “not something we would comment on.”

    As former Alberta premier Jason Kenney later explained on social media:

    “For Canadians disappointed that King Charles has not commented on President Trump’s threats to annex Canada: in his capacity as King of Canada, he can only act on the advice of his Canadian first minister, i.e. Justin Trudeau.”

    Or, at this moment, Mark Carney.

    Signs of support

    The King met with Trudeau at Sandringham, the royal family’s private estate in Norfolk, England, on March 3. This meeting seems to have prompted a series of symbolic gestures demonstrating the monarchy’s solidarity with Canadians.

    The next day, the King conducted an inspection of the British aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales in his capacity as head of the Armed Forces. Canadian medals and honours adorned his naval dress uniform during the inspection.

    A week later, the King planted a red maple tree at Buckingham Palace to honour Queen Elizabeth’s commitment to the preservation of forests and the bonds among Commonwealth nations.

    On March 12, the King met with representatives from the Canadian Senate.

    He presented a ceremonial sword to Gregory Peters, the Usher of the Black Rod (one of the Senate’s chief protocol officers). Raymonde Gagné, the speaker of the Senate, was also present for that meeting.

    And on March 17, the King met with Carney as part of new prime minister’s whirlwind diplomatic tour of western Europe.

    Some observers even pointed to the Princess of Wales’s red dress at the Commonwealth Day Service of Celebration on March 10 as yet another nod of recognition for Canada.

    Soft power and the Royal Family

    These sorts of gestures are examples of what is known as “soft power.” Unlike the hard power of military and economic force used by governments, soft power describes any number of ways that people or groups can influence others through culture, personal diplomacy and even fashion.

    As one Buckingham Palace source remarked: “The King knows that seemingly small gestures can send a reassuring sign of recognition about what is going on around the world.”

    One of the best known forms of the monarchy wielding soft power is through the use of state visits. At the British prime minister’s request, world leaders are invited to London by the sovereign. The red carpet is rolled out for them, they’re wined and dined in lavish dinners at Buckingham Palace and they often make a speech to Parliament.

    These state visits are a way for the Royal Family to use their soft power to positively influence diplomatic relations.

    In February, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer presented Trump with an invitation from the King for a second state visit to the U.K.. So far, no date for the trip has been announced, but the King’s meetings with Trudeau and Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy reportedly irritated Trump.

    It remains to be seen how King Charles navigates his constitutional role as both king of the United Kingdom and of Canada. Will Trump’s state visit only be about British interests? Or will Charles use it as a chance to address the concerns of his Canadian subjects?

    Justin Vovk received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Justin Vovk is an advisory board member for the Institute of the Study of the Crown in Canada.

    – ref. How King Charles is sending Canada subtle signals of support amid Trump’s threats – https://theconversation.com/how-king-charles-is-sending-canada-subtle-signals-of-support-amid-trumps-threats-252142

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Revoking EPA’s endangerment finding – the keystone of US climate policies – won’t be simple and could have unintended consequences

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Patrick Parenteau, Professor of Law Emeritus, Vermont Law & Graduate School

    Several U.S. climate regulations aim to reduce burning of fossil fuels, a driver of climate change. Visions of America/Joseph Sohm/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

    Most of the United States’ major climate regulations are underpinned by one important document: It’s called the endangerment finding, and it concludes that greenhouse gas emissions are a threat to human health and welfare.

    The Trump administration is vowing to eliminate it.

    Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin referred to the 2009 endangerment finding as the “holy grail of the climate religion” when he announced on March 12, 2025, that he would reconsider the finding and all U.S. climate regulations and actions that rely on it. That would include rules to control planet-warming emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane from power plants, vehicles and oil and gas operations.

    But revoking the endangerment finding isn’t a simple task. And doing so could have unintended consequences for the very industries Trump is trying to help.

    EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announces plans to reconsider more than 30 climate regulations.

    As a law professor, I have tracked federal climate regulations and the lawsuits and court rulings that have followed them over the past 25 years. To understand the challenges, let’s look at the endangerment finding’s origins and Zeldin’s options.

    Origin and limits of the endangerment finding

    In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Massachusetts v. EPA that six greenhouse gases are pollutants under the Clean Air Act and that the EPA has a duty under the same law to determine whether they pose a danger to public health or welfare.

    The court also ruled that once the EPA made an endangerment finding, the agency would have a mandatory duty under the Clean Air Act to regulate all sources that contribute to the danger.

    The Court emphasized that the endangerment finding was a scientific determination and rejected a laundry list of policy arguments made by the George W. Bush administration for why the government preferred to use nonregulatory approaches to reduce emissions. The court said the only question was whether sufficient scientific evidence exists to determine whether greenhouse gases are harmful.

    The endangerment finding was the EPA’s response.

    The finding was challenged and upheld in 2012 by the U.S. District Circuit for the District of Columbia. In that case, Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, the court found that the “body of scientific evidence marshaled by the EPA in support of the endangerment finding is substantial.” The Supreme Court declined to review the decision. The endangerment finding was updated and confirmed by the EPA in 2015 and 2016.

    Challenging the endangerment finding

    The scientific basis for the endangerment finding is stronger today than it was in 2009.

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest assessment report, involving hundreds of scientists and thousands of studies from around the world, concluded that the scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is “unequivocal” and that greenhouse gases from human activities are causing it.

    According to the National Climate Assessment released in 2023, the effects of human-caused climate change are already “far-reaching and worsening across every region of the United States.”

    Summer temperatures have climbed in much of the U.S. and the world as greenhouse gas emissions have risen.
    Fifth National Climate Assessment

    During President Donald Trump’s first term, then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt considered repealing the endangerment finding but ultimately decided against it. In fact, he relied on it in proposing the Affordable Clean Energy Rule to replace President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan for regulating emissions for coal-fired power plants.

    What happens if the EPA revokes the endangerment finding?

    For the Trump administration to now revoke that finding, Zeldin must first recruit new members of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board to replace those dismissed by the Trump administration. Congress created the board in 1978 to provide independent, unbiased scientific advice to the EPA administrator, and it has consistently supported the 2009 endangerment finding.

    Zeldin must then initiate rulemaking in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act, provide the opportunity for public comment and respond to comments that are likely to be voluminous. This process could take several months if done properly.

    If Zeldin then decides to revoke the endangerment finding, lawsuits will immediately challenge the move.

    Even if Zeldin is able to revoke the finding, that does not automatically repeal all the rules that rely on it. Each of those rules must go through separate rulemaking processes that will also take months.

    Zeldin could simply refuse to enforce the rules on the books while he reconsiders the endangerment finding.

    However, a blanket policy abdicating any enforcement responsibility could be challenged in lawsuits as arbitrary and capricious. Further, the regulated industries would be taking a chance if they delayed complying with regulations only to find the endangerment finding and climate laws still in place.

    Zeldin’s cost argument

    Zeldin previewed his arguments in a news release on March 12.

    His first argument is that the 2009 endangerment finding did not consider costs. However, that argument was rejected by the D.C. Circuit Court in Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA. Cost becomes relevant once the EPA considers new regulations – after the endangerment finding.

    Moreover, in a unanimous 2001 decision, the Supreme Court in Whitman v. American Trucking Associations held that the EPA cannot consider cost in setting air quality standards.

    A repeal could backfire

    Repealing the endangerment finding could also backfire on the fossil fuel industry.

    States and cities have filed dozens of lawsuits against the major oil companies. The industry’s strongest argument has been that these cases are preempted by federal law. In AEP v. Connecticut in 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that the Clean Air Act “displaced” federal common law, barring state claims for remedies related to damages from climate change.

    However, if the endangerment finding is repealed, then there is arguably no basis for federal preemption, and these state lawsuits would have legal grounds. Prominent industry lawyers have warned the EPA about this and urged it to focus instead on changing individual regulations. The industry is concerned enough that it may try to get Congress to grant it immunity from climate lawsuits.

    To the extent that Zeldin is counting on the conservative Supreme Court to back him up, he may be disappointed.

    In 2024, the court overturned the Chevron doctrine, which required courts to defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations when laws were ambiguous. That means Zeldin’s reinterpretation of the statute is not entitled to deference. Nor can he count on the court overturning its Massachusetts v. EPA ruling to free him to disregard science for policy reasons.

    Patrick Parenteau 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. Revoking EPA’s endangerment finding – the keystone of US climate policies – won’t be simple and could have unintended consequences – https://theconversation.com/revoking-epas-endangerment-finding-the-keystone-of-us-climate-policies-wont-be-simple-and-could-have-unintended-consequences-252271

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: US isn’t first country to dismantle its foreign aid office − here’s what happened after the UK killed its version of USAID

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Sarah Stroup, Professor of Political Science; Director, Conflict Transformation Collaborative, Middlebury

    The U.S. and U.K. used to be major funders of global immunization programs for children. AP Photo/Sunday Alamba, File

    The Trump administration’s dismantling of the United States Agency for International Development is unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled on March 18, 2025. The court order to pause the agency’s shuttering came days after Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that 83% of its programs had been cut.

    USAID was created in 1961 as the lead agency for U.S. international development. Until recently, it funded health and humanitarian aid programs in more than 130 countries. Despite the administration’s claim of cost-cutting, USAID was a relatively small and economical operation. Its US$40 billion budget accounted for just 0.7% of annual federal spending. Congress also required regular reporting and evaluations on USAID, helping to ensure substantial oversight of how it spent its taxpayer dollars.

    USAID’s swift destruction has sent shock waves across the globe. But as a scholar of the global humanitarian aid sector and donor agencies, I know this assault on foreign aid is not unprecedented.

    In June 2020, Boris Johnson, then the prime minister of the United Kingdom, used similar claims of budget-tightening to effectively close the Department for International Development, Britain’s equivalent of USAID.

    A COVID merger

    Both the U.S. and British foreign aid programs have long prompted heated debates over the proper relationship between development, diplomacy and national security. The U.S. and Britain have long been among the top five providers of development assistance worldwide, and both USAID and DFID have played leading roles in the development community.

    Countries give foreign aid for both altruistic and self-interested reasons. Treating global diseases and addressing civil conflicts is a way for wealthy Western governments to limit threats that could destabilize their countries, as well as the rest of the world. It also burnishes their reputation and encourages cooperation with other governments.

    Scholars from across the political spectrum and around the world have questioned the general efficacy of foreign assistance, arguing that these programs are designed to serve the interests of donors, not the needs or recipients. Other development experts contend that foreign aid programs, while imperfect, have still made meaningful progress in improving health, education and freedoms.

    Britain’s DFID was created in 1997 as an independent, Cabinet-level department deliberately independent of partisan politics. It quickly developed a reputation as a model donor, even among skeptics of international aid.

    British Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced the DFiD merger in June 2020.
    AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth, file

    For example, a staffer at the international medical charity Doctors without Borders told me in a 2006 interview that he had scoffed at the idea of a politics-free aid agency.

    Yet, he said, he had found DFID “relatively easier to work with” than other donors.

    “I have never heard of someone being told, as a result of accepting DFID funds, what to do, either explicitly or behind closed doors,” he told me.

    But its good reputation could not protect DFID. At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, Johnson announced that DFID would merge with the Foreign Office, Britain’s equivalent of the State Department, to create a new government agency. By uniting aid and diplomacy, Johnson said, the new Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office would get “maximum value for the British taxpayer,” and he cited the economic impact of COVID to justify his decision.

    Foreign aid dropped sharply after the merger, from 0.7% of Britain’s gross national income to 0.5% – a cut of about US$6 billion.

    Development professionals decried Johnson’s merger, arguing it could not have happened at a worse time, with the pandemic heightening the need for global health funding. And coming shortly after Brexit, Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union, DFID’s demise further called into question Britain’s commitment to global cooperation.

    Less money, less impact

    Five years later, it’s not clear that dismantling DFID has made British foreign aid more efficient or effective, as Johnson pledged.

    “We have seen evidence of where a more integrated approach has improved the organisation’s ability to respond to international crises and events, which has led to a better result,” reads one 2025 report by the U.K.’s National Audit Office.

    Two departments in one – but not twice the budget.
    Mike Kemp/In Pictures via Getty Images

    Yet, the auditors add, the British government has spent at least £24.7 million – US$32 million – to merge its aid and diplomacy offices, and it failed to track these costs. Nor did the leaders of the merger set out a clear vision for its new purpose.

    Britain’s slimmer new Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has also relinquished the U.K.’s past leadership in research and expertise, largely due to pay reductions and restrictions on hiring non-British nationals.

    From the outset, DFID had invested substantially in building expertise in global development, particularly in conflict-ridden states. In 2001, for example, it spent almost 5% of its budget – an unusually high amount – on research and policy analysis to design and assess its programs.

    DFID produced regular case studies of the projects it funded, which included getting Syrian refugee children back in school, building roads that help Rwandan farmers move their products to market, and providing health care after Pakistan’s 2010 floods.

    Given the “development expertise that was lost with the merger,” the U.K. government can no longer conduct “the kind of rigorous, long-term focus necessary to make a real impact,” said the Center for Global Development in a recent report.

    A 2022 study suggests that DFID’s dismantling was a fundamentally political move, “divorced from substantive analysis of policy or inter-institution relationships.”

    Britain’s new Prime Minister Keir Starmer, of the leftist Labour Party, initially promised to boost British foreign aid. But in early March 2025, he backtracked, announcing instead a further cut to foreign aid.

    By 2027, the U.K. government will spend just 0.3% of its budget on overseas aid. That’s roughly $11 billion less than before the merger in 2019.

    ‘Clear and easy target’

    USAID’s budget was much larger than DFID’s, and the administration apparently wants not to streamline U.S. foreign aid but halt it almost entirely. If this effort succeeds, it will have even more severe effects worldwide, at least in the immediate term.

    The global health programs administered by USAIDm which combat diseases such as HIV, tuberculosis and malaria, have received bipartisan and global praise. The PEPFAR program, which USAID helps administer, distributes antiretroviral drugs worldwide. It alone has saved 25 million lives over the past two decades, including the lives of 5.5 million babies born healthy to mothers with HIV.

    Development professionals tend to see independent government agencies such as USAID and DFID as better able to prioritize the needs of the poor because their programming is run separately from partisan policies.

    Yet standalone agencies are also more visible – and so more vulnerable to political targeting.

    DFID was a clear and easy target when Johnson began his pandemic-era budget-slashing. USAID is now suffering a similar fate.

    Sarah Stroup 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. US isn’t first country to dismantle its foreign aid office − here’s what happened after the UK killed its version of USAID – https://theconversation.com/us-isnt-first-country-to-dismantle-its-foreign-aid-office-heres-what-happened-after-the-uk-killed-its-version-of-usaid-250868

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Eight ways to reduce your stroke risk – by an expert in vascular brain injury

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Siobhan Mclernon, Senior Lecturer, Adult Nursing and co-lead, Ageing, Acute and Long Term Conditions. Member of Health and Well Being Research Center, London South Bank University

    Sarayut Sridee/Shutterstock

    As a nurse working in a neurocritical care, I witnessed the sudden and devastating effects of stroke on survivors and their carers.

    Following my nursing career, I became a researcher specialising in stroke. Knowledge of stroke risk factors in the general public is poor, so stroke prevention is a priority for public health.

    Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability in England – yet it is largely preventable. It’s often considered an older person’s illness but, although stroke risk does increase with age, it can happen at any time of life. In fact, stroke incidence is increasing among adults below the age of 55 years.

    Stroke risk factors that tend to be more common among older people – such as high blood pressure (hypertension), high cholesterol, obesity, diabetes, smoking, physical inactivity and poor diet – are increasingly found in younger people. Other lifestyle risks include heavy alcohol consumption or binge drinking and recreational drugs such as amphetamines, cocaine and heroin.



    Read more:
    Stroke: young people can have them too – here’s how to know if you’re at risk and what to look out for

    Some risk factors are not modifiable such as age, sex, ethnicity, family history of stroke, genetics and certain inherited conditions. Women, for example, are particularly susceptible to strokes – and women of all ages are more likely than men to die from a stroke.

    Stroke risks unique to women include pregnancy and some contraceptive pills (especially for smokers), as well as endometriosis, premature ovarian failure (before 40 years of age), early-onset menopause (before 45 years of age) and oestrogen for transgender women.

    Also, inherited vascular abnormalities such as cerebral aneurysms – a weakness in the artery wall – can increase the risk of haemorrhagic stroke.

    Some risk factors are social rather than biological, however. Studies have found that people with a lower income and education level are at a higher risk of having a stroke. This is due to a combination of factors. Unhealthy lifestyle habits, such as smoking, heavier drinking and lower physical activity levels are more common in people with lower incomes.



    Read more:
    Rising income inequalities are linked to unhealthy diets and loneliness

    However, research also shows that people with lower socioeconomic status are less likely to receive good quality healthcare than people with higher incomes.

    But, regardless of biological or social risk factors, there are things you can do – right now – to reduce your risk of having a stroke.

    Essential eight

    1. Stop smoking Smokers are more than twice as likely to have a stroke than non-smokers. Smoking causes damage to blood vessel walls, increases blood pressure and heart rate but reduces oxygen levels. Smoking also causes blood to become sticky, further increasing the risk of blood clots that can block blood vessels and cause a stroke.

    2. Keep blood pressure in check High blood pressure damages the walls of blood vessels, making them weaker and more prone to rupture or blockage. It can also cause blood clots to form, which can then travel to the brain and block blood flow, leading to a stroke. If you’re over 18 years of age, get your blood pressure checked regularly so, if you do show signs of developing high blood pressure, you can nip it in the bud and make appropriate changes to your lifestyle to help reduce your risk of stroke.

    3. Keep an eye on your cholesterol According to the UK Stroke Association your risk of a stroke is nearly three and a half times higher if you have both high cholesterol and high blood pressure. To lower cholesterol, aim to keep saturated fat – found in fatty meats, butter, cheese, and full-fat dairy – below 7% of your daily calories, stay active and maintain a healthy weight.



    Read more:
    How can I lower my cholesterol? Do supplements work? How about psyllium or probiotics?

    4. Watch your blood sugar High blood glucose levels are linked to an increased risk of stroke. This is because high blood sugar damages blood vessels, which can lead to blood clots that travel to the brain. To reduce blood glucose levels, try to take regular exercise, eat a balanced diet rich in fibre, drink enough water, maintain a healthy weight, and try to manage stress.

    5. Maintain a healthy weight Being overweight is one of the main risk factors for stroke. It is associated with almost one in five strokes, and increases your stroke risk by 22%. Being obese raises that risk by 64%. Carrying too much weight increases your risk of high blood pressure, heart disease, high cholesterol and type 2 diabetes, which all contribute to higher stroke risk.

    6. Follow a Mediterranean diet One way to eat a fibre-rich balanced diet and maintain a healthy weight is to follow a Mediterranean diet. This has been shown to reduce the risk of stroke, especially when supplemented with nuts and olive oil.

    7. Sleep well Try to to get seven to nine hours of sleep daily. Too little sleep can lead to high blood pressure, one of the most important modifiable risk factors for stroke. Too much sleep, however, is also associated with increased stroke risk, so try to stay as active as possible so you can sleep as well as possible.



    Read more:
    Exercise really can help you sleep better at night – here’s why that may be

    8. Stay active The NHS recommends that people should avoid prolonged sedentary behaviour and aim for at least 150 minutes of moderate intensity activity or 75 minutes of vigorous intensity activity a week. Exercise should be spread evenly over four to five days a week, or every day. Do strengthening activities, usually more than two days per week.

    The good news is that while the effects of stroke can be devastating and life-changing, it is largely preventable. Adopting these eight simple lifestyle changes can help to reduce stroke risk and optimise both heart and brain health.

    Siobhan Mclernon 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. Eight ways to reduce your stroke risk – by an expert in vascular brain injury – https://theconversation.com/eight-ways-to-reduce-your-stroke-risk-by-an-expert-in-vascular-brain-injury-251524

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Are mental health conditions overdiagnosed in the UK? Two experts go head to head

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Joanna Moncrieff, Professor of Critical and Social Psychiatry, UCL

    Speaking on BBC One’s Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg, Wes Streeting, the UK health secretary, expressed concerns that some mental health conditions were overdiagnosed. The Conversation asked two experts to comment on Streeting’s claim. Is the health secretary right?

    Mental distress is under-diagnosed – but over-medicalised

    Susan McPherson, Professor in Psychology and Sociology, University of Essex

    A year ago, the UK’s then prime minister, the Conservative Rishi Sunak, announced “sick note culture” had gone too far. His work and pensions secretary claimed “mental health culture”, Mel Stride, had gone too far.

    These statements merged concern about affordability of disability benefits with ideas about overdiagnosis of mental illness. This appeared to be in response to a report from the Resolution Foundation, a thinktank.

    The report said that people in their 20s were more likely to be out of work than people in their 40s. The report attributed this to an increase in young people reporting mental distress (from 24% in 2000 to 34% in 2024).

    This was used by some journalists to support the idea of young people as work-shy snowflakes feigning mental illness, which angered many including disability activists, mental health campaigners and members of the opposition Labour party.

    A year on, the UK now has a Labour government. Wes Streeting, the secretary of state for health and social care, is facing criticism for appearing to echo conservative tropes. In an interview about government plans to reduce benefits for disabled people, he agreed that overdiagnosis accounts for an increase in people on benefits due to mental illness. This appears to mirror those media stereotypes about work-shy millennials.

    If that is what Streeting meant, then the evidence is not on his side. Ten years ago, a UK national survey of psychiatric symptoms found that a third of people whose psychological symptoms were severe enough to merit a diagnosis, did not have a diagnosis.

    More recent research using the UK Longitudinal Household Study grouped people according to whether they do or do not have a psychiatric diagnosis and whether they do or do not have psychological symptoms severe enough to merit a diagnosis. The study found 12 times as many people in the “undiagnosed distress” category (with severe symptoms but no diagnosis) than the overdiagnosed category.

    The study also identified significant inequalities. People living with a disability had nearly three times the risk of undiagnosed distress compared with people without a disability.

    Women had 1.5 times the risk of undiagnosed distress compared with men. Lesbian, gay or bisexual people were 1.4 times more likely to have undiagnosed distress compared with heterosexual people. People aged 16-24 had the highest risk compared with all other age groups.

    This all suggests inequalities in undiagnosed distress are a much bigger problem than overdiagnosis in the UK. Given that many forms of support in the UK depend on having a diagnosis, undiagnosed distress probably means people are not getting the support they need.

    However, Streeting also said that too many people “just aren’t getting the support they need. So if you can get that support to people much earlier, then you can help people to either stay in work or get back to work.”

    Given this nod towards prevention and the importance of non-medical support, it is conceivable that Streeting’s sentiment may have been about “over-medicalisation” of mental distress rather than overdiagnosis. The difference is important.

    The term “diagnosis” reflects a medical model of mental illness. Many would agree that the medical idea of “diagnose and treat” does not serve people with mental distress well. This is because there is a lot of evidence suggesting the underlying causes of mental distress are social, economic, environmental or a result of past trauma.

    If Streeting had said “over-medicalised”, he would have been in tune with a growing global concern about over-medicalisation and over-use of medication to treat mental distress, a position advocated by the UN and the World Health Organization.

    Despite UK guidelines recommending psychological treatments as first line interventions for depression, antidepressant prescribing has risen 46% over the last seven years with over 85 million prescriptions in 2022-23. This alongside an increase in long-term use of psychiatric medication with no reduction in mental distress at the population level. If Streeting had said “over-medicalised”, the evidence would have been on his side.

    A mental health diagnosis is just a label – and usually an unhelpful one

    Joanna Moncrieff, Professor of Critical and Social Psychiatry, UCL

    There has been a dramatic escalation in the number of people seeking treatment for mental health problems in recent years. In the year from April 2023 to 2024, 3.8 million people were in contact with mental health services in England alone, which is 40% higher than before the COVID pandemic. The figures include 1 million children. One in five 16-year-old girls is in contact with services.

    The statistics reveal a tendency to over-medicalise a variety of human problems that was supercharged by the pandemic and is likely to result in harmful effects on physical and mental health.

    What many people don’t realise about a mental health diagnosis is that it is nothing like the diagnosis of a physical condition. It doesn’t name an underlying biological state or process that can explain the symptoms someone is experiencing, as it does when someone gets a diagnosis of cancer or rheumatoid arthritis, for example.

    A mental health diagnosis doesn’t explain anything. It is simply a label that can be applied to a certain set of problems. The process by which this label is conferred is not scientific or objective and is influenced by commercial, professional and political interests.

    In most situations, giving people with mental health problems a diagnostic label is unhelpful. It convinces people they have a biological defect, it leads to ineffective and often harmful medical treatment, and most of the time, it misses the actual problems.

    Because getting a diagnosis implies you have a medical condition, it misleads people into thinking that they have an underlying biological abnormality, such as a chemical imbalance, even though there is no good evidence that mental disorders are caused by underlying brain or bodily dysfunctions. Research has shown this makes people pessimistic about their chances of recovery and less likely to improve.

    Being diagnosed often leads to being prescribed a psychiatric drug, such as an antidepressant. About 8.7 million people in England now take an antidepressant, half of them on a long-term basis.

    Prescriptions for other drugs, such as stimulants (prescribed for a diagnosis of ADHD), are also rising fast, even leading to medication shortages. Yet the evidence that any of these drugs improve people’s wellbeing or ability to function is minimal. Moreover, like all substances that alter our normal biological make-up, particularly those that interfere with brain function, they cause side-effects and health risks.

    Antidepressants can cause severe and prolonged withdrawal symptoms, sexual dysfunction (which may persist) and emotional numbing or apathy, among other unwanted effects. Stimulants can cause cardiovascular problems and neurological conditions. The widespread, unwarranted prescribing of these drugs will adversely affect the health of the population.

    Giving people a diagnosis can also obscure the nature of the person’s underlying problems and prevent these from being addressed.

    Mental health problems are often meaningful reactions to stressful circumstances, such as financial, housing and relationship problems and experiences of abuse, trauma, loneliness and lack of meaning. Reducing over-medicalisation doesn’t necessarily mean fewer services. What we need is different services that provide appropriate support for people’s actual problems, not treatment for medical labels.

    We also need ways to excuse people from responsibilities when necessary, without making them feel like they have to take on a “sick” role that implies they are forever ill and helpless.

    Much of today’s employment is poorly paid, insecure, boring, exploitative and pressurising. It shouldn’t surprise us that some people find it hard to endure. We need to improve working conditions for everyone, but we also need to support people who find these conditions especially challenging, without having to label them as sick.

    Joanna Moncrieff is or has been a co-investigator on grants funded by the UK’s National Institute of Health Research and the Australian government Medical Research Future Fund for studies exploring methods of antidepressant discontinuation. She is co-chair person of the Critical Psychiatry Network, an informal and unfunded group of psychiatrists

    Susan McPherson receives funding from NIHR Applied Research Collaboration East of England. She is affiliated with the Labour Party.

    – ref. Are mental health conditions overdiagnosed in the UK? Two experts go head to head – https://theconversation.com/are-mental-health-conditions-overdiagnosed-in-the-uk-two-experts-go-head-to-head-252535

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Earth’s lungs are choking on plastic and smoke – scientists hope to unblock them

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

    Martin.Dlugo/Shutterstock

    A graph I saw in high school appeared to show the Earth breathing.

    It was a graph that plotted carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the course of the 20th century and into the 21st. CO₂ had risen steadily, and then more rapidly, but it hadn’t gone up in a straight line. Each year it had fallen sharply before rising to a new peak, increasing over time in an upwards zig-zag.

    What explained this annual, temporary fall in CO₂, the gas that is overwhelmingly responsible for climate change? The answer was photosynthesis, my physics teacher explained – the miracle by which plants turn light and CO₂ into food.

    This is how our planet has regulated atmospheric carbon for longer than our species has existed. Fossil fuels are disrupting this equilibrium in several ways.

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

    Spring is dawning in the northern hemisphere, where most of the planet’s green land is situated. Trees are unfurling leaves that will soak up carbon in the air and turn it into new bark, roots and branches. On a global scale, it’s like a gigantic inhalation of carbon. In autumn, when trees shed their leaves, Earth will exhale again.

    The air we all breathe is increasingly polluted by fossil fuels. That includes products of fossil fuels, like plastic, which is now so ubiquitous that research suggests simply breathing can introduce microscopic fragments into your brain.



    Read more:
    Breathing may introduce microplastics to the brain – new study

    Something similar is happening in plants – and it could have global consequences.

    Plants are losing their appetite

    “Microplastics are hindering photosynthesis, the process by which plants convert energy from the sun into the fruit and vegetables we eat,” says Denis J. Murphy, an emeritus professor of biotechnology at the University of South Wales.

    “This threatens massive losses in crop and seafood production over the coming decades that could mean food shortages for hundreds of millions of people.”

    Photosynthetic algae feed the fish that ultimately feed us.
    Sinhyu Photographer/Shutterstock

    These are the conclusions of a recent study by researchers in China, Germany and the US. Murphy wasn’t involved, but his own research with plant cells – which the tiniest microplastics can infiltrate, and damage the organs involved in photosynthesis – has him worried.



    Read more:
    Microplastics: are they poisoning crops and jeopardising food production?

    “Given the potential (albeit speculative) risk to global food production, more priority should be given to rigorous scientific research of microplastics and their effects on both crops and the marine life that supports fish and seafood stocks,” he says.

    Not so long ago, people wondered if our fossil fuel habit might actually benefit plant photosynthesis. After all, plants eat CO₂. Flooding the atmosphere with more of it each year could only whet their appetites, right?

    “The amount of CO₂ used by photosynthesis and stored in vegetation and soils has grown over the past 50 years, and now absorbs at least a quarter of human emissions in an average year,” say ecologists Amanda Cavanagh (University of Essex) and Caitlin Moore (University of Western Australia).

    Most of this extra carbon absorption has come from crops and young trees, the pair say, less from mature forests where a lot of the world’s carbon is stored. Cavanagh and Moore say this carbon pump is slowing down, as the other necessary ingredients for photosynthesis – soil nutrients and water – have fallen or stayed the same.



    Read more:
    Carbon dioxide feeds plants, but are earth’s plants getting full?

    Microplastics could slow the rate at which plants remove carbon further. And then there are the effects of climate change, like drought, fires and floods, which will intensify as long as we continue burning fossil fuels.

    After monitoring forests and shrublands in Australia for 20 years, Moore and a team of six colleagues concluded that these ecosystems are at risk of losing their ability to bounce back, and continue absorbing carbon, after successive climate disasters.



    Read more:
    In 20 years of studying how ecosystems absorb carbon, here’s why we’re worried about a tipping point of collapse

    Hacking photosynthesis

    We may have done plenty to reduce global photosynthesis, but a team of scientists at the University of Oxford and the Fraunhofer Society in Germany is trying to turn things around. How? By hacking plants to help them get more out of the process.

    “You would be forgiven for thinking nature has perfected the art of turning sunlight into sugar,” say Jonathan Menary, Sebastian Fuller and Stefan Schillberg.

    “But that isn’t exactly true. If you struggle with life goals, it might reassure you to know even plants haven’t yet reached their full potential.”

    The team say that plants tend to convert less than 5% of sunlight into new tissue – often as little as 1%. That’s because of a mistake plants regularly make, in which an enzyme involved in photosynthesis latches on to oxygen instead of CO₂.

    “If we could prevent this mistake, it would leave plants more energy for photosynthesis,” they say.



    Read more:
    How scientists are helping plants get the most out of photosynthesis

    Cyanobacteria are Earth’s most ancient photosynthesisers. Menary, Fuller and Schillberg say these microscopic organisms could possess useful genes for better sunlight management that might benefit crops like rice and potato plants. Another technique involves helping plants recover from high light exposure quicker.

    Young potato plants in bloom.
    George Trumpeter/Shutterstock

    More efficient photosynthesis, with the help of gene editing and other tools, is not “a silver bullet”, the team stress. Certainly not while fossil fuels continue to drown our green planet in carbon it cannot metabolise.

    However, this work is likely to prove useful as farmers seek to grow more in an increasingly volatile environment, while sparing enough land for nature.

    “This research is about making sure we can grow enough food to feed ourselves,” the team say.

    – ref. Earth’s lungs are choking on plastic and smoke – scientists hope to unblock them – https://theconversation.com/earths-lungs-are-choking-on-plastic-and-smoke-scientists-hope-to-unblock-them-252549

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Ukraine deal: Europe has learned from the failed 2015 Minsk accords with Putin. Trump has not

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Natalya Chernyshova, Senior Lecturer in Modern European History, Queen Mary University of London

    Germany’s ex chancellor, Angela Merkel, and France’s former president, François Hollande, were key to brokering the Minsk agreements. Sodel Vladyslav / Shutterstock

    The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has agreed to pause attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure for 30 days following a phone call with his American counterpart, Donald Trump. On social media, Trump said the call was “very good and productive” and came “with an understanding that we will be working quickly to have a complete ceasefire”.

    This optimism is misplaced. The White House did not mention that Putin issued additional conditions for a ceasefire. The Kremlin demands that Ukraine be effectively disarmed, leaving it defenceless against a Russian takeover. Such terms would be unacceptable to Ukraine and its European partners.

    At this juncture, Trump and his negotiators would do well to ponder why previous attempts to restrain Russia and secure a lasting peace for Ukraine did not succeed.

    This war did not start when shells began to rain on Kyiv in February 2022. Russia had already been waging an undeclared war on its neighbour for nearly eight years in eastern Ukraine’s Donbas, where pro-Russian proxy forces have been stoking up trouble in the border regions of Luhansk and Donetsk.

    Attempts to end the fighting there were made in September 2014 and February 2015, when Russia and Ukraine signed ceasefire agreements during negotiations in Minsk, Belarus.

    Both sets of Minsk agreements proved to be non-starters. The fighting in the region rumbled on until it culminated in Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The accords stored problems for the future.

    Russia-backed separatists have controlled the south-eastern Ukrainian regions of Donetsk and Luhansk since 2015.
    Viacheslav Lopatin / Shutterstock

    Minsk-1 and Minsk-2

    The first Minsk protocols were signed in 2014 by Russia, Ukraine, separatists from Donbas and representatives from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). The agreement provided for an immediate ceasefire monitored by the OSCE, the withdrawal of “foreign mercenaries” from Ukraine and the establishment of a demilitarised buffer zone.

    But Moscow also insisted that Kyiv grant temporary “special status” to the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics, the two separatist regions in Donbas. Instead of helping Ukraine regain control over its eastern territories, the agreement allowed the Russia-backed rebels to hold local elections and legalised them as a party to the conflict.

    The ceasefire collapsed within days of signing. The provisions that sought to demarcate the lines of the conflict and give Ukraine back control over its eastern border were not observed by the rebels, and fighting intensified during the winter.

    With the death toll rising, the leaders of France and Germany rushed to broker a fresh round of negotiations in February 2015. The resulting accords, which were known as Minsk-2, also failed to bring peace.

    Russia and its proxy militants in Donbas immediately and repeatedly violated its terms. Astonishingly, Minsk-2 did not even mention Russia, despite it signing the protocols. Moscow continued to deny its involvement in eastern Ukraine, while stepping up armed assistance to the rebels.

    Kyiv was saddled with peace terms that were impossible to implement unless Ukraine was prepared to throw away its sovereignty. Minsk-2 stipulated that the “special status” of the eastern separatist regions was to become permanent, and that the Ukrainian constitution was to be amended to allow for “decentralisation” of power from Kyiv to the rebel regions.

    These regions were to be granted autonomy in financial matters, responsibility for their stretch of the border with Russia, and the right to conclude foreign agreements and hold referenda. To undercut Ukrainian independence further, a neutrality clause inserted into its constitution would effectively bar the country’s entry into Nato.

    Understandably, no one in Kyiv rushed to implement these self-destructive terms. In an interview with German magazine Der Spiegel in 2023, Volodymyr Zelensky said that when he became Ukraine’s president in 2019 and examined Minsk-2, he “did not recognise any desire in the agreements to allow Ukraine its independence”.

    Russia-backed separatists in Sloviansk, a city in Donetsk Oblast, in 2014.
    Fotokon / Shutterstock

    Zelensky’s comment points to the fundamental flaw of the Minsk-2 agreement. Its western brokers failed to recognise that Russian war aims were irreconcilable with Ukrainian sovereignty. Moscow’s objective from the start was to use Donbas to destabilise the government in Kyiv and gain control over Ukraine.

    Western peacemakers searched for a compromise, but the Kremlin used Minsk-2 to advance its goals. As Duncan Allan of the Chatham House research institute noted in 2020: “Russia sees the Minsk agreements as tools with which to break Ukraine’s sovereignty.” The war in Donbas raged on and, by 2020, had claimed 14,000 lives, with 1.5 million people becoming refugees.

    Germany’s ex-chancellor, Angela Merkel, a key broker, subsequently defended the Minsk agreements. She said they bought Kyiv time to arm itself against Russia. It was a costly purchase. Minsk-2 froze the conflict in one locality rather than ended it. And it encouraged Russia, paving the way for a full-scale invasion.

    Emphasising Ukrainian sovereignty

    The existential differences between Ukraine and Russia that plagued the Minsk agreements remain today. Ukraine has demonstrated its resolve to defend its sovereignty, while Russia’s invasion in 2022 testifies to its determination to squash Ukrainian resolve. The timing of the attack so close to the seventh anniversary of Minsk-2 adds grim emphasis to that point.

    This clash of objectives must be addressed head-on in any peace negotiations. The only way to secure lasting peace in Europe is to avoid rewarding the aggressor and punishing its victim.

    The Kremlin has already openly declared that it sees Trump-led brokerage as the west’s acknowledgement of Russian strategic superiority. It needs to be disabused of this notion. As argued by Nataliya Bugayova, a fellow at the Institute for the Study of War, the war is not lost yet. Russia is far from invulnerable, and it can be made to accept defeat.

    But for any agreement to be effective, there can be no ambiguity or middle ground on the subject of Ukrainian sovereignty. It must be protected and backed by security guarantees.

    So far, the Trump administration has shown little understanding of this. But ten years down the line from Minsk-2, Europeans have finally grasped it.

    Finland’s president, Aleksander Stubbs, told reporters on March 19 that Ukraine must “absolutely” not lose sovereignty and territory. And, on the day Trump and Putin had their discussion, Germany’s parliament voted for a massive boost in defence spending – another indicator that Europeans are no longer taking Putin on trust.

    Natalya Chernyshova received funding from the British Academy during 2020-2022.

    – ref. Ukraine deal: Europe has learned from the failed 2015 Minsk accords with Putin. Trump has not – https://theconversation.com/ukraine-deal-europe-has-learned-from-the-failed-2015-minsk-accords-with-putin-trump-has-not-252540

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: If we fully engage with how generative AI works, we can still create original art

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Anthony Downey, Professor of Visual Culture, Birmingham City University

    Even before the recent protest by a group of well-known musicians at the UK government’s plans to allow AI companies to use copyright-protected work for training, disquiet around artists’ rights was already growing.

    In early February, an open letter from artists around the world called on Christie’s auction house to cancel a sale of art created with the assistance of generative AI (GenAI). This is a form of artificial intelligence that creates content – including text, images, or music – based on the patterns learned from colossal data sets.

    Without giving specific examples, the letter suggested that many of the works included in the sale, which was entitled “Augmented Intelligence” were “known to be trained on copyrighted work without a licence” and suggested that such sales further “incentivises AI companies’ mass theft of human artists’ work”.

    This article is part of our State of the Arts series. These articles tackle the challenges of the arts and heritage industry – and celebrate the wins, too.

    If we think about Dall-E, Midjourney, and Stable Diffusion, all of which use text prompts to generate images and are trained on data sets harvested from online sources, the letter raised significant issues about the nature of artistic creativity and how the legal concept of “fair use” and originality is applied in such cases.

    These are complex debates, encompassing perennial misgivings about machine automation, intellectual property (IP), and the cherished ideal that ingenuity and originality remain the sole preserve of humanity.

    How to think from within GenAI

    The impact of AI on the creative industries has become a major issue in the UK and elsewhere, so much so that we are faced with an existential question: how do we understand the evolving impact of AI on human creativity today?

    The scope of this enquiry reveals a simple fact: we need to develop more accessible and inclusive ways to think from within AI image processing models. This is exactly what my latest research, produced in collaboration with the acclaimed artist and photographer Trevor Paglen, proposes.

    How, this research asks, do we better understand the mechanisms behind the collation and labelling of the data sets that are used to train AI? And how, in turn, can we create new ways for understanding the extent to which AI image-production models inform our experience the world?

    It is, I argue, through the development of interdisciplinary research methods that draw upon the arts and humanities that we can critically engage with these concerns.

    Although the open letter addressed to Christie’s alluded to these topics, it did not, perhaps unsurprisingly, observe the degree to which some of the more prominent artists in the Augmented Intelligence sale had actively engaged in providing visual methods and insights into how GenAI functions.

    It is notable that Holly Herndon and Mat Dryhurst’s work xhairymutantx scrutinises how the data sets used in AI models of image production both define and transform images. For example, if you type the word “Holly Herndon” into Midjourney, it will produce images that are based on data sets derived from Herndon’s online presence.

    To draw attention to, and simultaneously disrupt, this process, the artists generated their own data sets of images and labelled them “Holly Herndon”. The images in these data sets had been previously manipulated to emphasise certain qualities associated with Herndon (her red hair, for example). Once fed back into the AI image processing model, the ensuing images of “Holly Herndon” became evermore outlandish and exaggerated.

    This clearly shows that AI image processing is a highly inconsistent and selective procedure that can be manipulated with ease.

    If we consider how models of AI image processing are used in facial recognition and drone technologies – often with fatal consequences – this is an urgent concern.

    Reflecting upon aerial photography in his work Machine Hallucinations – ISS Dreams, artist and data visualisation pioneer Refik Anandol used a data set of 1.2 million images collated by the International Space Station (ISS). Alongside other satellite images of Earth, he produced an AI-generated composition.

    Employing generative adversarial networks (GANs) – an AI model that trains neural networks to recognise, classify and, crucially, generate new images – Anandol effectively produced a unique landscape that changes over time and never seems to repeat itself.

    In both these examples, artists are not simply engaging in either “mass theft” or using AI models that have been trained on large data sets to mechanically produce images. They are explicitly drawing attention to how the data sets used to train AI can be both strategically engineered and actively disrupted.

    In our recent book (to which I contributed as editor and author), Trevor Paglen, whose work was not in the Christie’s sale, reveals how data sets regularly produce disquieting, hallucinatory allegories of our world.

    Given that GANs are trained on specific data sets and do not experience the world as such, they often produce hallucinatory and uncanny versions of it. Although often considered to be a fault or a glitch in the system, the event of hallucination, as Paglen demonstrates, is nevertheless central to GenAI.

    In images such as Rainbow, which was produced using a data set created and labelled by Paglen, we see a ghostly image of our world that discloses the inner, latent mechanics of image production in GANs.

    Paglen’s practice, alongside that of Dryhurst, Herndon and Anandol, defines a clear distinction between those artists who casually use AI to generate yet more images and those who critically investigate the operative logic of AI. The latter approach is precisely what is needed when it comes to thinking through GenAI and rendering it more accountable as a technology that has evolved to define significant aspects of our lives.

    If we allow that the internal workings of AI are opaque to users and programmers alike, it is all the more crucial that we explore how art practices – and the humanities more broadly – can encourage us to think from within these unaccountable systems. In doing so we could significantly improve levels of understanding and engagement with a technology that is defining the future and our relationship to it.

    Anthony Downey 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. If we fully engage with how generative AI works, we can still create original art – https://theconversation.com/if-we-fully-engage-with-how-generative-ai-works-we-can-still-create-original-art-251993

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why nicotine pouches may not be the best choice to help you to stop smoking

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dipa Kamdar, Senior Lecturer in Pharmacy Practice, Kingston University

    Evidence suggests that nicotine pouch use is becoming more popular Andrey_Popov/Shutterstock

    If you are trying to stop smoking, you may have heard of nicotine patches or gum to help reduce cravings. But how about nicotine pouches? Small, tobacco-free sachets containing a powder made up of nicotine, flavourings and other additives, nicotine patches are placed between the upper lip and gum to release a nicotine buzz without the damage to lungs.

    Nicotine pouches were first introduced to the UK market in 2019. Common brands in the UK include ZYN, Velo and Nordic Spirit. Nicotine pouches are similar to snus – loose tobacco in a pouch that is used in the same way as nicotine pouches. Although snus has been used for many years in Scandinavia, it was banned in the UK in 1992. Today’s generation of nicotine pouches are marketed as a way to get the benefits of nicotine without the harmful effects of cigarettes or vapes.

    So, are they a helpful tool for those trying to kick the habit?

    Nicotine replacement therapy

    Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is available to buy over-the-counter in the UK. Common brands include Nicorette and Niquitin. NRT comes in different forms such as patches, lozenges and chewing gum. Nicotine pouches haven’t been approved for use as NRT – so why are they becoming a popular alternative to smoking and vaping?

    Pouches are heavily marketed on social media and, unlike NRTs, they’re readily available from supermarkets and shops from as little as £5 per box. Social media influencers are sponsored to promote nicotine pouches as “clean”, discreet and convenient. They come in a wide range of flavours, from cinnamon to citrus, which attracts younger consumers.

    Recent research found that approximately 1% of adults and 1.2% of youths aged 11-18 years-old reported currently using nicotine pouches. However, over 5% of adults and more than 3% of youths said they had used these pouches at some point. Although these are relatively low figures, data shows nicotine pouches are becoming increasingly popular in the UK and US.

    Unlike NRT, nicotine pouches are classed as consumer products, so are not regulated by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Since they do not contain tobacco, nicotine pouches cannot be regulated by the Tobacco and Related Product Regulations either. This means there is no age restriction to buy them.

    Instead, nicotine pouches are governed by the General Product Safety Regulations, which means they are not regulated as stringently as NRT. Companies producing NRTs must apply for a marketing license because medicinal products have to undergo extensive testing to show they are safe and effective. This is not the case for nicotine pouches.

    ‘Healthy’ nicotine?

    Nicotine acts on receptors in the brain, releasing chemical messengers including the “happy hormone” dopamine. These chemical messengers are responsible for the pleasurable feelings and addictive behaviour that people often experience when using tobacco or nicotine products. The faster a drug is absorbed and activates brain receptors, the higher the addiction potential.

    Research shows that nicotine is released more slowly from pouches compared to cigarettes, so it may be less addictive than cigarettes. However, pouches can also vary in the amount of nicotine they contain – evidence shows some have very high levels, higher than cigarettes and NRT.

    Pouches can be marketed as a “clean” form of nicotine consumption – but, although they are smoke-free, they can contain other chemical ingredients such as pH adjusters like sodium carbonate, which allow nicotine to be absorbed in the mouth more easily. Pouches do not contain tobacco, which contains many chemicals and cancer-causing agents. However, nicotine on its own can still be harmful.

    Common side effects of nicotine pouch use include nausea, vomiting, headaches and heart palpitations. Nicotine causes the body to release of chemicals such as adrenaline and noradrenaline. Studies show increased levels of these can raise heart rate and blood pressure and the heart’s need for oxygen.

    Animal studies suggest that nicotine use during teenage years can cause long-term changes in the brain and behaviour as well as an increased likelihood of using other drugs, lower attention levels and mood problems.

    Young people have more nicotine receptors in the areas of the brain related to reward. This makes nicotine’s effects stronger in teenagers than in adults.

    Currently there is not enough evidence to confirm nicotine pouches are harmful to oral health but dentists are concerned about their potential effects. Last year, a review found that oral side effects include dry mouth, sore mouth, blisters on the gums and sometimes changes in the gum area – such as receding gumline – where the pouches were placed. This is similar to side effects of oral NRT. Unlike NRT, which is normally used for a three-month course, pouches may be used for longer – potentially raising the risk of side effects.

    Belgium and the Netherlands have banned nicotine pouches because of the potential risks. In the UK, the new Tobacco and Vapes bill will allow the government to regulate the use of nicotine pouches so that they can only be sold to people aged 18 and older. Advertising will be banned and the content and branding regulated.

    This could be a welcome move for those concerned that nicotine pouch brands are targeting young people who’ve never smoked. But, for current smokers looking for a product to help them quit, it might be wise to opt for the regulated NRTs – even if the flavours aren’t as appealing.

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

    – ref. Why nicotine pouches may not be the best choice to help you to stop smoking – https://theconversation.com/why-nicotine-pouches-may-not-be-the-best-choice-to-help-you-to-stop-smoking-251856

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Eight ways to reduce your stroke risk – no matter what your age you are

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Siobhan Mclernon, Senior Lecturer, Adult Nursing and co-lead, Ageing, Acute and Long Term Conditions. Member of Health and Well Being Research Center, London South Bank University

    Sarayut Sridee/Shutterstock

    As a nurse working in a neurocritical care, I witnessed the sudden and devastating effects of stroke on survivors and their carers.

    Following my nursing career, I became a researcher specialising in stroke. Knowledge of stroke risk factors in the general public is poor, so stroke prevention is a priority for public health.

    Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability in England – yet it is largely preventable. It’s often considered an older person’s illness but, although stroke risk does increase with age, it can happen at any time of life. In fact, stroke incidence is increasing among adults below the age of 55 years.

    Stroke risk factors that tend to be more common among older people – such as high blood pressure (hypertension), high cholesterol, obesity, diabetes, smoking, physical inactivity and poor diet – are increasingly found in younger people. Other lifestyle risks include heavy alcohol consumption or binge drinking and recreational drugs such as amphetamines, cocaine and heroin.



    Read more:
    Stroke: young people can have them too – here’s how to know if you’re at risk and what to look out for

    Some risk factors are not modifiable such as age, sex, ethnicity, family history of stroke, genetics and certain inherited conditions. Women, for example, are particularly susceptible to strokes – and women of all ages are more likely than men to die from a stroke.

    Stroke risks unique to women include pregnancy and some contraceptive pills (especially for smokers), as well as endometriosis, premature ovarian failure (before 40 years of age), early-onset menopause (before 45 years of age) and oestrogen for transgender women.

    Also, inherited vascular abnormalities such as cerebral aneurysms – a weakness in the artery wall – can increase the risk of haemorrhagic stroke.

    Some risk factors are social rather than biological, however. Studies have found that people with a lower income and education level are at a higher risk of having a stroke. This is due to a combination of factors. Unhealthy lifestyle habits, such as smoking, heavier drinking and lower physical activity levels are more common in people with lower incomes.



    Read more:
    Rising income inequalities are linked to unhealthy diets and loneliness

    However, research also shows that people with lower socioeconomic status are less likely to receive good quality healthcare than people with higher incomes.

    But, regardless of biological or social risk factors, there are things you can do – right now – to reduce your risk of having a stroke.

    Essential eight

    1. Stop smoking Smokers are more than twice as likely to have a stroke than non-smokers. Smoking causes damage to blood vessel walls, increases blood pressure and heart rate but reduces oxygen levels. Smoking also causes blood to become sticky, further increasing the risk of blood clots that can block blood vessels and cause a stroke.

    2. Keep blood pressure in check High blood pressure damages the walls of blood vessels, making them weaker and more prone to rupture or blockage. It can also cause blood clots to form, which can then travel to the brain and block blood flow, leading to a stroke. If you’re over 18 years of age, get your blood pressure checked regularly so, if you do show signs of developing high blood pressure, you can nip it in the bud and make appropriate changes to your lifestyle to help reduce your risk of stroke.

    3. Keep an eye on your cholesterol According to the UK Stroke Association your risk of a stroke is nearly three and a half times higher if you have both high cholesterol and high blood pressure. To lower cholesterol, aim to keep saturated fat – found in fatty meats, butter, cheese, and full-fat dairy – below 7% of your daily calories, stay active and maintain a healthy weight.



    Read more:
    How can I lower my cholesterol? Do supplements work? How about psyllium or probiotics?

    4. Watch your blood sugar High blood glucose levels are linked to an increased risk of stroke. This is because high blood sugar damages blood vessels, which can lead to blood clots that travel to the brain. To reduce blood glucose levels, try to take regular exercise, eat a balanced diet rich in fibre, drink enough water, maintain a healthy weight, and try to manage stress.

    5. Maintain a healthy weight Being overweight is one of the main risk factors for stroke. It is associated with almost one in five strokes, and increases your stroke risk by 22%. Being obese raises that risk by 64%. Carrying too much weight increases your risk of high blood pressure, heart disease, high cholesterol and type 2 diabetes, which all contribute to higher stroke risk.

    6. Follow a Mediterranean diet One way to eat a fibre-rich balanced diet and maintain a healthy weight is to follow a Mediterranean diet. This has been shown to reduce the risk of stroke, especially when supplemented with nuts and olive oil.

    7. Sleep well Try to to get seven to nine hours of sleep daily. Too little sleep can lead to high blood pressure, one of the most important modifiable risk factors for stroke. Too much sleep, however, is also associated with increased stroke risk, so try to stay as active as possible so you can sleep as well as possible.



    Read more:
    Exercise really can help you sleep better at night – here’s why that may be

    8. Stay active The NHS recommends that people should avoid prolonged sedentary behaviour and aim for at least 150 minutes of moderate intensity activity or 75 minutes of vigorous intensity activity a week. Exercise should be spread evenly over four to five days a week, or every day. Do strengthening activities, usually more than two days per week.

    The good news is that while the effects of stroke can be devastating and life-changing, it is largely preventable. Adopting these eight simple lifestyle changes can help to reduce stroke risk and optimise both heart and brain health.

    Siobhan Mclernon 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. Eight ways to reduce your stroke risk – no matter what your age you are – https://theconversation.com/eight-ways-to-reduce-your-stroke-risk-no-matter-what-your-age-you-are-251524

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Evolution: features that help finding a mate may lead to smaller brains

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Benjamin Padilla-Morales, Postdoctoral Researcher of Bioinformatics, University of Bath

    Male southern elephant seals are much larger than females. Jeremy Richards/Shutterstock

    A longstanding question in evolutionary biology is how sexual selection influences how entire genomes develop. Sexual selection is where individuals with certain traits have higher reproductive success, leading to the spread of those traits throughout a species.

    A study by me and my colleagues at the Milner Centre for Evolution has uncovered a significant link between the difference in body size between males and females – known as sexual size dimorphism (SSD) – and genetic changes in mammals. These findings provide new insights into how sexual selection shapes the structure and function of the genome.

    Sexual selection is a powerful evolutionary force that influences reproductive traits. It typically acts through mate choice (intersexual selection) and competition among individuals of the same sex (intrasexual selection). Over time, these constant pressures shape genome architecture, driving rapid evolution in genes associated with reproductive success.

    This may affect the voice, body size, plumage or other feature of a species over time. In fact, such pressures may be behind a rise in height in male humans compared with females.

    Recent work highlights how sexual selection contributes to changes in the genetic blueprint (genome) and genes actively used (transcriptome).

    Many sexually dimorphic traits arise through sex-specific differences in gene expression. This allows a single shared genome to produce distinct male and female types.

    Males and females differing in body size is a common outcome of sexual selection. Some examples are the southern elephant seal (Mirounga leonina), domestic ferret (Mustela putorius furo) and northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus), where males are more than 250% heavier than females. In contrast, species such as the natal long-fingered bat (Miniopterus natalensis), humans and wombats (vombatus ursinus) show lower SSD, with males weighting less than 50% more than females.

    Male sumatran orangutans (left) are much larger than female ones (right).
    wikipedia, CC BY-SA

    A large difference often correlates with intense male-male competition, leading to the evolution of traits that enhance reproductive success, such as tall stature. However, while the impact of this difference on physical traits is well documented, its influence on genome evolution has remained largely unexplored.

    Sense of smell versus brain size

    We analysed groups of related genes called gene families across 124 mammalian species. Our study provides compelling evidence that SSD is associated with major shifts in the sizes of such families.

    Specifically, species with high SSD have an expansion of gene families linked to sense of smell. At the same time, their gene families related to brain development tend to contract.

    This suggests that in species with strong male competition, investment in traits that aid in reproductive success, such as olfactory cues for mate recognition, is prioritised over cognitive development.

    Conversely, species with low SSD show an expansion of brain-related gene families. This pattern suggests that in these mammals, natural selection may favour cognitive abilities and complex social behaviours rather than traits driven by sexual competition.

    Sexual conflict, where selection acts in opposing directions in males and females, plays an important role in genome evolution. This may involve males evolving brighter colours and outstanding features, as seen in peacocks (Pavo cristatus) and guppies (Poecilia reticulata). While these traits enhance male success by attracting females, they might also increase the risk of being spotted by predators.

    Many sex differences arise due to selection acting differently on shared genetic material, creating evolutionary tension. This can lead to sex-biased gene expression, allowing genes to function differently in males and females. This is the case for genes controlling bright colouration in guppies, for example.

    Studies have suggested that genes under strong sexual selection tend to evolve rapidly, particularly those associated with male reproductive traits, such as body size or colour. Additionally, genomic features, such as the duplication of genes, can help the evolution of sex-specific traits, helping to alleviate conflicts between the sexes.

    Our findings support these ideas by demonstrating that SSD influences gene family evolution, shaping molecular pathways critical for sexual and cognitive development.

    Evolutionary give and take

    Sexual selection does not act in isolation. It interacts with other evolutionary forces, such as natural selection and ecological pressures, to shape diversity. For example, larger body size in males may confer advantages in physical competition. But it can also increase metabolic demands and the risk of being caught by predators.

    Similarly, large brains and complex social structures may be favoured in species where cognitive abilities play a role in reproductive success, such as humans. But this comes at the cost of slower development and greater energy expenditure.

    This interplay between sexual selection and other evolutionary pressures highlights the complexity of genome evolution. Traits that provide reproductive advantages may not always align with those that enhance survival. This leads to give-and-take situations that shape species diversity over time.

    By examining the genetic underpinnings of SSD, our study provides new perspectives on how these situations play out at the molecular level. Our findings ultimately refine our understanding of how sexual selection influences genome evolution among mammals.

    Future research should explore in depth how these genomic changes influence behaviour and cognitive abilities in different species. These findings will open exciting new avenues for research, helping to answer fundamental questions about how evolution shapes biodiversity at the genetic level.

    Benjamin Padilla-Morales 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. Evolution: features that help finding a mate may lead to smaller brains – https://theconversation.com/evolution-features-that-help-finding-a-mate-may-lead-to-smaller-brains-252069

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why the future of women’s rugby in England looks stronger than ever

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Christina Philippou, Associate Professor in Accounting and Sport Finance, University of Portsmouth

    The women’s rugby side Gloucester-Hartpury have had a pretty good season. On March 16 they won their third Premiership Women’s Rugby Championship in a row, beating Saracens 31-19 in the final.

    But the sport as a whole is enjoying an impressive run too. Fellow Premiership side Harlequins broke the world attendance record for a women’s rugby club game at the Allianz Stadium (Twickenham) in December 2024, with a crowd of 18,055. And ticket sales for the Women’s Rugby World Cup in August (hosted by England) have already broken records.

    There has also been a surge in commercial interest. Research I was involved in suggests that rugby is following a trend seen in other women’s sports, including football and basketball, where brands previously not associated with sport are finally joining the party. The skincare brand Clinique is now a key sponsor of Premiership Women’s Rugby (PWR), for example.

    And despite issues with financial sustainability across rugby union clubs generally, some clubs are showing a clear appetite for commercial growth. Leicester Tigers’ women’s side, for example, is currently seeking a “principal partner” to sign up to a “six-figure annual commitment” of investment and sponsorship – in return for naming rights of a planned new stadium.

    Broadcasting interest (and income) has increased too. PWR and TNT Sports have a multi-year deal to show live matches, while BBC Sport had live access to four key games this year, starting with Harlequins against Bristol Bears in February and ending with the PWR final. For the national teams, the 2025 Women’s Six Nations tournament will also be shown on the BBC.

    Overall then, women’s rugby in England is winning more coverage, higher attendances, and greater involvement from commercial brands just in time for the World Cup. And the effects are already visible for the tournament, with “unprecedented demand” for tickets an early indicator of financial success. A number of matches already have limited availability.

    That said, any large sporting event carries risks, and research shows that the aftermath (for sporting involvement) can be disappointing and the effects on the domestic game limited. A proper legacy depends on the support of national governing bodies.

    Star power

    So women’s rugby still faces barriers. But without wishing to place further weight on her shoulders, the sport has a not-so-secret weapon in the form of a player who has elevated the sport to new levels in a very short space of time.

    Ilona Maher, 28, has 3.5 million followers on Tiktok, more than any other rugby player in the world, of any gender. She represented the US rugby sevens national team at the Paris Olympics (they came third) and her appearance on the US dance competition show Dancing With the Stars (where she finished in second place) made her even more famous. Next on her list it playing for her country in this year’s World Cup.

    To do so, she needed to bolster her experience in the 15-a-side game – so ended up signing for PWR side Bristol Bears.

    This was a commercially shrewd deal for both sides. Maher is getting semi-professional experience, and Bristol Bears have already seen a financial boost. They doubled their attendance record (to 9,240) on Maher’s debut weekend in January 2025, having moved venue to accommodate the surge in ticket sales. The club is also selling more merchandise.

    Nor is it just Bristol Bears which have benefited from the Ilona Maher effect. Interest in the league as a whole has increased, both in the UK and abroad, bringing new audiences to the sport just in time for the international competition.

    Those audiences can hopefully look forward to an entertaining and exciting World Cup in England this summer. And if the current momentum behind the sport continues, a bright future for women’s rugby.

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

    – ref. Why the future of women’s rugby in England looks stronger than ever – https://theconversation.com/why-the-future-of-womens-rugby-in-england-looks-stronger-than-ever-247117

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: European defence spending: three technical reasons for political cooperation

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Francesco Grillo, Academic Fellow, Department of Social and Political Sciences, Bocconi University

    How much would it really cost the European Union to defend itself against aggression? In the immediate term, that question, of course makes us think of Russia, but we can no longer exclude multiple other possibilities, including the potential need to defend territory – say, Greenland – from a former ally.

    How much would it cost to defend Europe if we added in the need to defend the UK, Norway, Turkey or even Canada – and any other Nato country willing to pool resources to fill the void left by US disengagement? Is there an intelligent way to avoid painful trade-offs between this and, say, spending on healthcare or education?

    It looks like EU institutions are finally “doing something” (as former Italian prime minister Mario Draghi recently asked them to do). They may even break the taboo of raising common debt in order to increase spending on joint defence procurements.

    Yet, it also seems they are about to launch a plan that could change the very nature of the European Union without even tackling the question of its financial feasibility. The answer to how joint defence can be paid for certainly doesn’t come from the plan that the European Commission has unveiled on “rearming Europe”. At the very last line of that statement, a figure of €800 billion is posited, but it is not clear how the sum was calculated and quite a few critical qualifications are missing.

    The debate over how much it costs to prevent a war (which is a very different notion from fighting one), has been dominated by what I would call “the fallacy of the percentage of GDP”.

    In 2014 (at the time of Russia’s annexation of Crimea), the leaders of Nato countries agreed to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defence (specifying that retirement benefits to veterans should be included). Yet by 2022, the overall ratio for Nato defence spending had, in fact, shrunk from 2.58% of GDP to 2.51% (thanks to the sharp reduction in the percentage of GDP contributed by the US). And, according to the European Defence Agency, the EU is spending around €279 billion, which is 1.6% of its GDP. Most likely, the €800 billion figure that European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen was citing in her communique is simply an estimate of how much it would yield to increase that spending up to 2% of GDP for each of the next ten years.

    Politicians sometimes need to make back-of-the-envelope calculations, but I would argue that here it points to a much broader problem. Europe hasn’t yet bothered to try to develop a strategy for how this additional money would be spent. A proper strategy should, in fact, start from three key technical considerations. To which I would add a no-less important political one.

    1. Spending smart is better than spending big

    Technologies (including AI) are radically changing the equation. The conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza demonstrate that cheap drones are now the key to modern warfare – not super expensive F35 strike fighters. Why spend billions designing, building and maintaining 2,500 F35s when a drone the size of a mobile phone can cross enemy lines unnoticed?

    In a world in which data is a weapon, and a large-scale attack can be mounted by taking remote control of pagers, what generals call “supremacy” doesn’t necessarily belong to the biggest spender.

    Israel’s military budget is one-third that of Saudi Arabia, yet it dominates the Middle East because its perpetual state of conflict forces innovation. Russia spends less than half of the 27 EU member states, but it has much more experience in hacking other countries’ infrastructures. The EU spends as much as China, but China invests more than twice in research and development and is the world’s largest exporter of drones as a result.

    2. Spending together is better value

    The European parliament estimates that merging the 27 member states’ defence budgets would free up €56 billion (which is a third of what the defence bonds proposed by the Commission would raise).

    Yet the trend is to spend more alone than together. According to the European Defence Agency, the bloc has more than doubled its expenditure on new digital technologies; yet the percentage of that going into joint projects between member states fell from 11% before Ukraine’s invasion to 6.5% in 2023.

    Joint tech spending in Europe.
    Vision, CC BY-ND

    3. Homegrown suddenly looks safer

    Any common defence would also have to rely on “buying European” as much as possible. The F35 fighter jet is another good example here. Denmark agreed to buy 27 of them (to the tune of around €3 billion) with an idea to station four of them in Greenland. The problem is that, according to the former president of the Munich security conference Wolfgang Ischinger, they cannot even take off if remotely disabled by the US. Again, Europe is not walking the walk. The share of equipment that European nations import from the US has massively increased in the last five years.

    A new era for the union

    Defence is probably the most important issue when talking about the Europe of the future. It provides a concrete opportunity to fill a technological gap out of the necessity to do so. Spending on defence in the interests of self-protection may have longer-term benefits beyond the military arena. It has been often the case that military research leads to major breakthroughs that can applied in public services. Who knows. Military innovations with drone or AI technology on today’s battlefields could lead to beneficial uses in peace time.

    The historic opportunity to transform the way we protect ourselves may even force a radical rethinking of not just the EU treaties but of the nature of the EU. The idea of the “coalition of the willing” may, indeed, push Europe towards an alliance which does not include some of its members (such as Hungary) but does include non-members like the UK, Norway and even Turkey. New arrangements will need to be pragmatically flexible.

    Europeans need much more strategy, whereas we now largely have rhetorical announcements with little substance. And we need much more democracy. After all, defence is one of the defining dimensions of the state. Having a common defence policy in Europe could make people feel more like European citizens. But that cannot happen without engaging citizens in an intelligent debate.

    Francesco Grillo is affiliated with the think tank Vision.

    – ref. European defence spending: three technical reasons for political cooperation – https://theconversation.com/european-defence-spending-three-technical-reasons-for-political-cooperation-252410

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Ukraine deal: Europe has learned from the failed 2014 Minsk accords with Putin. Trump has not

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Natalya Chernyshova, Senior Lecturer in Modern European History, Queen Mary University of London

    Germany’s ex chancellor, Angela Merkel, and France’s former president, François Hollande, were key to brokering the Minsk agreements. Sodel Vladyslav / Shutterstock

    The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has agreed to pause attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure for 30 days following a phone call with his American counterpart, Donald Trump. On social media, Trump said the call was “very good and productive” and came “with an understanding that we will be working quickly to have a complete ceasefire”.

    This optimism is misplaced. The White House did not mention that Putin issued additional conditions for a ceasefire. The Kremlin demands that Ukraine be effectively disarmed, leaving it defenceless against a Russian takeover. Such terms would be unacceptable to Ukraine and its European partners.

    At this juncture, Trump and his negotiators would do well to ponder why previous attempts to restrain Russia and secure a lasting peace for Ukraine did not succeed.

    This war did not start when shells began to rain on Kyiv in February 2022. Russia had already been waging an undeclared war on its neighbour for nearly eight years in eastern Ukraine’s Donbas, where pro-Russian proxy forces have been stoking up trouble in the border regions of Luhansk and Donetsk.

    Attempts to end the fighting there were made in September 2014 and February 2015, when Russia and Ukraine signed ceasefire agreements during negotiations in Minsk, Belarus.

    Both sets of Minsk agreements proved to be non-starters. The fighting in the region rumbled on until it culminated in Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The accords stored problems for the future.

    Russia-backed separatists have controlled the south-eastern Ukrainian regions of Donetsk and Luhansk since 2015.
    Viacheslav Lopatin / Shutterstock

    Minsk-1 and Minsk-2

    The first Minsk protocols were signed in 2014 by Russia, Ukraine, separatists from Donbas and representatives from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). The agreement provided for an immediate ceasefire monitored by the OSCE, the withdrawal of “foreign mercenaries” from Ukraine and the establishment of a demilitarised buffer zone.

    But Moscow also insisted that Kyiv grant temporary “special status” to the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics, the two separatist regions in Donbas. Instead of helping Ukraine regain control over its eastern territories, the agreement allowed the Russia-backed rebels to hold local elections and legalised them as a party to the conflict.

    The ceasefire collapsed within days of signing. The provisions that sought to demarcate the lines of the conflict and give Ukraine back control over its eastern border were not observed by the rebels, and fighting intensified during the winter.

    With the death toll rising, the leaders of France and Germany rushed to broker a fresh round of negotiations in February 2015. The resulting accords, which were known as Minsk-2, also failed to bring peace.

    Russia and its proxy militants in Donbas immediately and repeatedly violated its terms. Astonishingly, Minsk-2 did not even mention Russia, despite it signing the protocols. Moscow continued to deny its involvement in eastern Ukraine, while stepping up armed assistance to the rebels.

    Kyiv was saddled with peace terms that were impossible to implement unless Ukraine was prepared to throw away its sovereignty. Minsk-2 stipulated that the “special status” of the eastern separatist regions was to become permanent, and that the Ukrainian constitution was to be amended to allow for “decentralisation” of power from Kyiv to the rebel regions.

    These regions were to be granted autonomy in financial matters, responsibility for their stretch of the border with Russia, and the right to conclude foreign agreements and hold referenda. To undercut Ukrainian independence further, a neutrality clause inserted into its constitution would effectively bar the country’s entry into Nato.

    Understandably, no one in Kyiv rushed to implement these self-destructive terms. In an interview with German magazine Der Spiegel in 2023, Volodymyr Zelensky said that when he became Ukraine’s president in 2019 and examined Minsk-2, he “did not recognise any desire in the agreements to allow Ukraine its independence”.

    Russia-backed separatists in Sloviansk, a city in Donetsk Oblast, in 2014.
    Fotokon / Shutterstock

    Zelensky’s comment points to the fundamental flaw of the Minsk-2 agreement. Its western brokers failed to recognise that Russian war aims were irreconcilable with Ukrainian sovereignty. Moscow’s objective from the start was to use Donbas to destabilise the government in Kyiv and gain control over Ukraine.

    Western peacemakers searched for a compromise, but the Kremlin used Minsk-2 to advance its goals. As Duncan Allan of the Chatham House research institute noted in 2020: “Russia sees the Minsk agreements as tools with which to break Ukraine’s sovereignty.” The war in Donbas raged on and, by 2020, had claimed 14,000 lives, with 1.5 million people becoming refugees.

    Germany’s ex-chancellor, Angela Merkel, a key broker, subsequently defended the Minsk agreements. She said they bought Kyiv time to arm itself against Russia. It was a costly purchase. Minsk-2 froze the conflict in one locality rather than ended it. And it encouraged Russia, paving the way for a full-scale invasion.

    Emphasising Ukrainian sovereignty

    The existential differences between Ukraine and Russia that plagued the Minsk agreements remain today. Ukraine has demonstrated its resolve to defend its sovereignty, while Russia’s invasion in 2022 testifies to its determination to squash Ukrainian resolve. The timing of the attack so close to the seventh anniversary of Minsk-2 adds grim emphasis to that point.

    This clash of objectives must be addressed head-on in any peace negotiations. The only way to secure lasting peace in Europe is to avoid rewarding the aggressor and punishing its victim.

    The Kremlin has already openly declared that it sees Trump-led brokerage as the west’s acknowledgement of Russian strategic superiority. It needs to be disabused of this notion. As argued by Nataliya Bugayova, a fellow at the Institute for the Study of War, the war is not lost yet. Russia is far from invulnerable, and it can be made to accept defeat.

    But for any agreement to be effective, there can be no ambiguity or middle ground on the subject of Ukrainian sovereignty. It must be protected and backed by security guarantees.

    So far, the Trump administration has shown little understanding of this. But ten years down the line from Minsk-2, Europeans have finally grasped it.

    Finland’s president, Aleksander Stubbs, told reporters on March 19 that Ukraine must “absolutely” not lose sovereignty and territory. And, on the day Trump and Putin had their discussion, Germany’s parliament voted for a massive boost in defence spending – another indicator that Europeans are no longer taking Putin on trust.

    Natalya Chernyshova received funding from the British Academy during 2020-2022.

    – ref. Ukraine deal: Europe has learned from the failed 2014 Minsk accords with Putin. Trump has not – https://theconversation.com/ukraine-deal-europe-has-learned-from-the-failed-2014-minsk-accords-with-putin-trump-has-not-252540

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Microplastics: are they poisoning crops and jeopardising food production?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Denis J. Murphy, Emeritus Professor of Biotechnology, University of South Wales

    Dusan Petkovic/Shutterstock

    Microplastics are hindering photosynthesis, the process by which plants convert energy from the sun into the fruit and vegetables we eat. This threatens massive losses in crop and seafood production over the coming decades that could mean food shortages for hundreds of millions of people.

    So concludes an alarming new study. The authors combined more than 3,000 observations of the effects of microplastics on plants from 157 separate scientific reports, and then extrapolated the results using machine learning, a type of computer model that trains AI to spot patterns in data.

    Microplastic exposure, they found, reduces photosynthesis in land plants and marine and freshwater algae by 7% to 12%. The authors calculated that this could eventually reduce yields of staple crops such as rice, wheat and maize by between 4% and 14%.

    How realistic is this scenario? While the new study does not fully support such dramatic conclusions, it does draw attention to the possible future risks from microplastics.

    The complexities of microplastics

    Plastics are useful and versatile products. But they are also difficult to recycle and during 2025 alone, will probably account for 360 million tonnes of solid waste.

    More insidious are the trillions of tiny fragments these plastic products break up into, now found everywhere from the deep sea to your brain. These microplastics are less than 5mm in size and some of them are as small as 1 micron (micro-metre), meaning that 10,000 of them could easily fit inside an average plant or animal cell.

    More microplastics are formed as larger plastic waste breaks down in the environment.
    Chayanuphol/Shutterstock

    Scientists have estimated that about 11 million tonnes of these microplastics, including 51 trillion individual particles, are released into the ocean each year.

    Researchers increasingly use AI models to analyse complex datasets. The results can often be useful. My colleagues and I used similar methods to analyse massive molecular datasets and determine the chemical composition of palm oil in different regions of the tropics.

    In that case, it was difficult to analyse one group of compounds across a relatively small geographic region. The risks of misleading conclusions are many times greater when trying to analyse microplastics and their different effects globally, as in this new study.

    Indeed, the authors of the new study sought to answer questions that are orders of magnitude more complex, involving vast quantities of microplastics in the entirety of the global biosphere. Other scientists have expressed concern about the limited data used by the current model, that could lead to overspeculation about the possible consequences for food supplies.

    Despite these concerns, the new study is useful for highlighting the growing body of scientific data on the deleterious effects of microplastics, found in ecosystems from the Arctic to the Amazon. Over the past 20 years, evidence of the potential risk of microplastics has steadily accumulated.

    More research is needed

    The main conclusions of the new study are based on extrapolations that may not apply on a global scale. The reality is that there are many thousands of types of microplastics, that differ significantly in their chemical composition, size, environmental distribution and biological effects. The new study did not discriminate between them. This means that it is difficult to study their effects on individual processes within human or plant health.

    Larger microplastics accumulate in the soil while much smaller microplastics can be present in the air and can be directly absorbed into plant cells. In some cases, the smaller microplastics can damage the cellular bodies, called chloroplasts, involved in photosynthesis.

    Previous studies have shown that exposing some algae to microplastics can reduce photosynthesis and increase stress, leading to cell damage similar to the effects of ageing in people. Other studies on crop plants such as tobacco have concluded that the effects of microplastics on photosynthesis vary with the type and dose, exposure duration and plant species. In other words, there is no single approach for comparing the effects on plants as different as a lettuce and an apple tree.

    Plants exposed to microplastics respond in various ways.
    Volodymyr_Shtun/Shutterstock

    Given the potential (albeit speculative) risk to global food production, more priority should be given to rigorous scientific research of microplastics and their effects on both crops and the marine life that supports fish and seafood stocks.

    The World Economic Forum has labelled microplastics as a top ten threat and recommends urgent action. In its latest analysis, it also reported that the average person could ingest between 78,000 and 211,000 of these particles each year. It is estimated that the emission of microplastic particles is likely to more than double in the next 15 years, possibly over 40 million tonnes annually.

    Despite growing concern among scientists and civil society, several of the larger public bodies involved in microplastics research in the US and Europe are considering radical cuts to both environmental research funding and regulatory oversight.

    While poorly understood, the threat of microplastics could rival other serious threats, including climate change and biodiversity loss.

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

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

    Denis J. Murphy 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. Microplastics: are they poisoning crops and jeopardising food production? – https://theconversation.com/microplastics-are-they-poisoning-crops-and-jeopardising-food-production-252060

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: A ‘golden age’ of global free trade is over. Smaller alliances can meet the moment

    Source: The Conversation – France – By Armin Steinbach, Professor of Law and Economics, HEC Paris Business School

    The global trade landscape is shifting, and not in the way free traders had hoped. For decades, the belief that economic openness could foster peace and stability reigned supreme. Trade, it was argued, could transform authoritarian regimes into more peaceful players. But Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has shattered this way of thinking. Rather than mourning the end of a multilateralism based on states’ commitments to jointly agreed trade rules, we should see it as a necessary adjustment to a world where economic security takes precedence over market efficiency, and resilience over cost minimization.

    The World Trade Organization (WTO), which has constrained protectionism since its inception in 1995, is no longer the linchpin of global trade it once was. Multilateral trade talks have stagnated, and the WTO’s dispute settlement system is in paralysis. The US, once a champion of rules-based trade, now finds strategic advantage in a world where power dynamics outweigh legal frameworks. Years of negotiations on agriculture and fisheries subsidies have yielded little progress, underscoring the difficulty of reaching consensus among increasingly divergent national interests.


    A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!

    Consider the Uruguay Round negotiations in the 1990s that led to the establishment of the WTO – a rare moment when 123 countries found common ground on liberalizing trade in goods, services and intellectual property. That success stemmed from a broad agenda that offered enough variety to create win-win scenarios for all. Today, narrow negotiation agendas make compromise far harder to achieve.

    Free trade agreements are emerging less frequently: the average number of new trade agreements per year since 2020 is less than half the average of the previous decade. Meanwhile, protectionist measures have proliferated: there were about five times as many in 2023 as in 2015. Regardless of US President Donald Trump’s tariff frenzy, governments are erecting trade barriers and adopting policies that favour domestic industries, driven by the need to secure critical supply chains.

    The trend is clear: trade liberalization is no longer the top priority for most countries. Instead, security concerns are reshaping trade policy, echoing the arguments of the 18th-century philosopher Adam Smith. In The Wealth of Nations, Smith argued that national defence is more valuable than economic wealth. (“Defence,” he wrote, “is of much more importance than opulence”). This idea feels particularly relevant today. In a world of geopolitical conflict, trade is often yielding to strategic concerns.

    The United Nations, despite its mission to maintain peace, has struggled to prevent conflict. If international law cannot deter aggression, economic policy must step in.

    Security-driven trade

    For the EU, this translates into using its trade policy instruments, especially vis-à-vis China, on the basis of a careful dependency analysis that identifies strategic commodities and products. As the European Commission sets self-sufficiency benchmarks for green technologies following the bloc’s Net-Zero Industry Act, it errs if it sees the substitution of domestic products for imports as the right way to reduce dependencies. In most cases, reducing import concentration will require diversifying suppliers rather than European self-production.

    Security-driven trade requires shifting away from fragile multilateralism toward more selective, regional alliances. These “trade clubs” would align economic interests with shared security priorities. The EU’s strengthening ties with the South American Mercosur states, a group of non-hegemonic countries reliant on open trade, exemplify this approach. Intensifying trade with targeted countries could be the best response to Trump’s tariffs, avoiding the lose-lose outcome of tit-for-tat tariff wars. The goal of autonomy from an unpredictable US offers a good framework for crafting new bilateral relationships.

    Another example is the idea of a “climate club”, which policy-makers have discussed for some time. Climate clubs would consist of countries that agree on joint strategies to reduce carbon emissions while fostering energy security and protecting their economies from competitors without adequate carbon pricing.



    À lire aussi :
    Trump protectionism and tariffs: a threat to globalisation, or to democracy itself?

    The challenge is to distinguish between “legitimate” and “illegitimate” security claims. The latter refer to countries’ growing abuse of the national security card to justify trade policies. WTO dispute settlement panels ruled against the “self-judging” character of national security claims, hence subjecting them to legal scrutiny, but this “rule of law” approach has only heightened rejection of the WTO system on the US side. To limit abuse, the EU should seek alignment with the US on issues of common concern, such as responding to industrial overcapacity or preventing technology leaks. A joint approach could avert nationalist unilateralism.

    A new focus for the WTO

    Some worry this shift away from multilateralism could disadvantage poorer nations, leaving them vulnerable to the whims of powerful ones. However, regional trade alliances can empower smaller states. For example, the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) gives African nations collective bargaining power they might lack individually. Since its inception with 22 signatories, AfCFTA has grown to include 48 countries, enhancing the continent’s influence in global trade.

    Abandoning multilateralism doesn’t mean sidelining the WTO entirely. Instead, the WTO can refocus on smaller, “plurilateral” agreements among like-minded countries. This “coalition of the willing” approach has already proven effective in areas like e-commerce and investment facilitation. The WTO can remain a forum for building consensus, but its future lies in fostering flexible partnerships rather than pursuing grand, all-encompassing trade deals. In a fragmented world, these smaller agreements could yield the most meaningful progress. Nascent but promising plurilateral efforts are under way to tackle fossil fuel subsidies and environmentally sustainable plastics trade.

    The golden age of global free trade may be over, but that doesn’t spell disaster. As nations grapple with security challenges, trade policy must evolve to reflect new priorities. Strategic alliances, diversified supply chains and targeted trade agreements will shape the future of global commerce. Rather than lament the decline of multilateralism, we should embrace this shift as a necessary response to a more volatile world. In doing so, we can craft a trade policy that prioritizes resilience and security, safeguarding both economic stability and national interests.

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

    – ref. A ‘golden age’ of global free trade is over. Smaller alliances can meet the moment – https://theconversation.com/a-golden-age-of-global-free-trade-is-over-smaller-alliances-can-meet-the-moment-251438

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why international students could be a critical factor in bolstering Canada’s economic resilience

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Isaac Garcia-Sitton, Associate Faculty, School of Education and Technology, Royal Roads University

    In early 2024, the federal government imposed a two-year cap on new study permits. (Shutterstock)

    For decades, international students have contributed to Canada’s research enterprise, workforce development and economic growth.

    Now, as Canada navigates strained relations and an escalating trade war with its largest economic partner, it’s important policymakers stop overlooking international education that could be a critical factor in bolstering Canada’s resilience.

    Unlike volatile trade agreements and fragile supply chains, international education provides a stable, long-term economic and social advantage.



    Read more:
    Canadian supply chains are at the epicentre of Trump’s potential trade war

    Contributions

    In 2018, international students contributed $21.6 billion to Canada’s post-secondary institutions, local communities and gross domestic product (GDP).

    By 2022, that figure had grown to $37.3 billion. This represented just over 23 per cent of Canada’s total service exports and around five per cent of total merchandise exports. The economic contributions from international education outpaced economic contributions from other industries — such as softwood lumber and auto parts.

    But their contributions extend far beyond financial impact. International students drive cutting-edge research in artificial intelligence, clean energy, biotechnology and climate science. This strengthens Canada’s innovation ecosystem and global competitiveness.

    International students also serve as vital ambassadors — diversifying trade connections and expanding Canada’s global reach.

    Despite their undeniable value, recent policy shifts risk undermining Canada’s position as a top destination for global talent. In early 2024, the federal government imposed a two-year cap on new study permits. The cap would mean approximately 360,000 study permits would be approved in 2024 — a decrease of 35 per cent from the previous years.

    However, institutions fell well below the imposed cap. This wasn’t due to a lack of demand but because of the rushed, poorly managed roll-out that amplified disruption beyond expectations. In fall 2024, the number of permits granted was on track to drop by 45 per cent compared to the previous year.

    The government plans a further 10 per cent cut in 2025 and 2026 and will cap approvals at 437,000. They will also, for the first time, restrict master’s and PhD students — limiting access to Canada’s research ecosystem.

    Talent and innovation

    While a cap may have been necessary to moderate the sector’s growth, its rollout created uncertainty for institutions and students. This damaged Canada’s reputation for high-quality education. The impact to our global standing as a top destination for international students will take years to repair.

    The government plans cap student visa approvals at 427,000 by 2026.
    (Shutterstock)

    This policy shift is especially concerning given Canada’s ongoing innovation and productivity challenges. A recent report from U15 research institutions shows Canada lags behind its peers in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). It’s mainly falling behind in research and development intensity, private sector innovation and technology adoption.

    In 2022, Canada’s research and development spending stood at just under two per cent of GDP. This is well below the OECD average of around three per cent.

    Many small and medium-sized businesses rely on university partnerships for research and development. Cutting international graduate student numbers disrupts these collaborations — hindering innovation at a time when Canada can least afford it.

    Policymakers claim restricting international student permits will ease labour market pressures. But the real problems with the labour market lie in skill mismatches, underemployment and employer hiring biases — not the number of international students.



    Read more:
    Canadian immigrants are overqualified and underemployed — reforms must address this

    With unemployment at around six-and-a-half per cent and youth unemployment at 13.6 per cent, concerns about job competition are valid. Yet newcomers and international students face significant barriers in finding jobs in their fields.

    In 2024, the unemployment rate for recent immigrants reached 11 percent. This is nearly double the unemployment rate for Canadian-born workers. Despite holding advanced degrees, two-thirds of foreign-trained professionals remain underemployed. This may be due to employers undervaluing international credentials and prioritizing “Canadian experience.”

    This trend extends to international student graduates who remain less likely than their Canadian peers to find jobs that match their level of education. In 2023, just over 36 per cent of international graduates with a bachelor’s degree secured roles requiring a university-level qualification, compared to just under 59 per cent of Canadian graduates. International student graduates also earn significantly lower salaries, despite having similar levels of job satisfaction.

    International student graduates face barriers in findings employment.
    (Shutterstock)

    Like many newcomers, I personally faced this Canadian experience barrier when I entered the workforce over 15 years ago as a permanent resident. Despite my education, multilingual abilities and professional skills, I submitted hundreds of applications and secured only a handful of interviews before landing my first opportunity. This frustrating, unnecessary and economically wasteful struggle remains just as prevalent today.

    These barriers not only limit individual potential but also weaken Canada’s ability to harness the talent it attracts.

    Addressing systemic issues

    International students are more than workers — they’re entrepreneurs, innovators and future job creators.

    For instance, as of 2022, nearly 180 of the U.S.’s billion-dollar companies were founded by former international students. Each of these companies created an average of 800 jobs and made up nearly a quarter of all dollar companies.

    Canada risks losing similarly bright minds to more welcoming countries if clear pathways for them to stay, contribute and build businesses aren’t established. This would cost the country both talent and billions in economic potential.

    If Canada is serious about building a stronger, more competitive economy, it must address the systemic issues that stand in the way of international student success.

    This includes modernizing credential recognition so employers can fairly assess international experience and qualifications, expanding co-op programs, internships and mentorships so international students can gain relevant Canadian experience before graduation and protect them from misinformation and questionable recruitment practices.

    Employers need to be educated about immigration pathways to reduce hiring hesitancy. The government also must create a stable and predictable immigration policy framework to give businesses confidence in hiring international graduates.



    Read more:
    International university grads speak about aspirations and barriers

    As Canada continues to face labour shortages and growing economic and political volatility, international education remains a strategic asset. It fuels research, diversifies trading partners, supports innovation and supplies the workforce Canada needs for long-term prosperity.

    The future of Canada’s economy depends on its ability to attract and retain the thinkers, creators, and innovators who will define the next generation of progress. At this critical moment, Canada must decide if it will invest in the talent that fuels innovation, or close the door on opportunity.

    Isaac Garcia-Sitton is affiliated with the Canadian Bureau for International Education (CBIE), the Council of Ontario Universities (COU), and the Council of International Schools (CIS)

    – ref. Why international students could be a critical factor in bolstering Canada’s economic resilience – https://theconversation.com/why-international-students-could-be-a-critical-factor-in-bolstering-canadas-economic-resilience-251985

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Emergency alerts and news notifications can make us stressed and anxious — here’s what you can do to cope

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Indu Subramanian, Clinical Professor of Neurology, University of California, Los Angeles

    Emergency alerts may amplify distress in people who already have anxiety. (Shutterstock)

    When there’s a disaster, it’s helpful to know what’s going on — and know whether you’re truly at risk. But as essential as emergency alert systems are, they can leave many of us feeling anxious — even when the alert may be a false alarm or test.

    This is because emergency alerts, whether real or tests, can activate the same neural circuits involved in real danger. This can trigger stress, confusion and anxiety.

    Our nervous systems are constantly processing information from both our bodies and our environment, trying to distinguish between warnings that demand action and those that can be safely ignored.

    But over time, the stress associated with being on constant alert can have lasting effects on mental health. Chronic stress can contribute to the risk of developing anxiety disorders and depression, and even physical disorders such as heart disease. This is especially true for people who live in war-torn or natural disaster-prone areas.

    In people who already have anxiety, being unable to distinguish between real and perceived threats can be particularly debilitating. This can amplify their distress, making it difficult to navigate a world filled with both real and perceived threats.

    Similarly, neurological conditions such as migraines, Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease can be exacerbated by chronic stress responses. This can lead to a worsening of symptoms and lower quality of life.

    The constant barrage of information we’re exposed to — from daily news alerts to “doomscrolling” on social media — highlights a broader challenge we all face: learning to navigate a world increasingly filled with real and perceived threats that can further exacerbate anxiety.

    Chronic anxiety can disrupt sleep and circadian function. This can lead to a downward cycle in which poor sleep and poor mood can worsen cognitive and physical function.

    People who are chronically anxious may also be at risk for loneliness and social isolation. And when people get lonely, they tend to fixate on threatening stimuli, which can further exacerbate anxiety and perpetuate a vicious cycle.

    The body’s interoceptive system — the brain’s ability to sense and interpret internal physiological signals — plays a crucial role in determining which environmental signals warrant our attention.

    This systems helps us detect when our heart is racing from actual danger, versus when it’s simply responding to stress or uncertainty. But when interoception is disrupted, as it often is during heightened anxiety states, distinguishing between true and false alarms becomes increasingly difficult.

    Nervous system support

    Thankfully, there are things we can do to help better support our nervous systems in making these critical distinctions.

    It’s helpful to be conscious and deliberate about what we expose ourselves to in our internal and external environment. Creating a daily schedule with set times for exercise, sleep and social connection can be effective. Practising mind-body approaches such as mindfulness, breath work, yoga and tai chi might also help to facilitate an inward focus. Sustaining this inward focus can help reset our interoceptive system.

    Spending time with friends and sharing your concerns with them can also be helpful when dealing with perceived threats. This can also enhance social connection, which can buffer stress. It can be very comforting to feel connected to others who are experiencing a similar trauma. Limiting time with people who increase your anxiety is also key.

    Stepping away from information streams might also help. Finding ways to temporarily turn off or physically separate from digital devices such as laptops, cellphones and smart-watches for set periods of time can effectively facilitate a break from media. This can allow our minds to settle and reset our attention on priorities that are meaningful to us.

    Spending time in nature or finding time for stillness in other ways, such as listening to calming music, can also helpful.

    A novel strategy that has recently been studied for reducing anxiety and resetting the interoceptive nervous system is flotation tank immersion, also known as float therapy or flotation-REST. This involves lying in a shallow bath of warm water filled with concentrated levels of Epsom salt. When combined with reduced visual and auditory stimulation, this is thought to enhance the body’s interoceptive signals.

    Float therapy may be helpful for mental health.
    (Shutterstock)

    Float therapy has been shown to quickly reduce anxiety and stress levels, increase relaxation and even lead to lasting improvements in body image.

    Ultimately, understanding the brain’s role in processing internal and external threats is vital to improving our mental and physical wellbeing.

    Using our interoceptive nervous system as a way of developing resilience involves learning to be proactive rather than reactive. Sensing when our body is getting the preliminary cues of anxiety or stress that can mount into full-blown disarray can help. Not reacting to these cues, and consciously and deliberately choosing alternative actions, can help to unwind the anxiety from these cues. This may also potentially even help us avoid an episode of panic.

    Being more in tune with our nervous system can help us better equip ourselves to face the challenges ahead — whether they’re true threats or false alarms.

    Sahib Khalsa receives funding from the National Institute of Mental Health. He is an associate editor of several journals, Biological Psychology and JMIR Mental Health. He is a board member of several nonprofit organizations, the International Society for Contemplative Research and the Float Research Collective, which are non-compensated positions.

    Indu Subramanian 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. Emergency alerts and news notifications can make us stressed and anxious — here’s what you can do to cope – https://theconversation.com/emergency-alerts-and-news-notifications-can-make-us-stressed-and-anxious-heres-what-you-can-do-to-cope-249112

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Israel’s war on Gaza is deliberately targeting children – new UN report

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rachel Rosen, Associate Professor of Childhood, UCL

    A fresh round of Israeli airstrikes on Gaza which has killed more than 400 Palestinians has destroyed any hope that the ceasefire negotiated in January would hold. A statement from the child rights group Defence for Children Palestine claimed that 174 children had been killed in the bombing, claiming: “Today is one of the deadliest days for Palestinian Children in history.”

    The renewed bombing follows repeated violations of the ceasefire terms by Israel and comes days after a report commissioned by the United Nations said Israel is “deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of Palestinians as a group”. The March 13 report from the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory examines what it calls Israel’s “systematic use of
    sexual, reproductive and other forms of gender-based violence
    since 7 October 2023”.

    The report alleges deliberate acts have been aimed against mothers and children, including the destruction of Gaza’s main fertility clinic, Basma IVF clinic, which it said amounted to “a genocidal act under the Rome Statute and Genocide Convention”. It concluded that “this was done with the intent to destroy the Palestinians in Gaza as a group, in whole or in part, and that this is the only inference that could reasonably be drawn from the acts in question”.

    The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has yet to rule on a case brought by South Africa in December 2023 accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza. In January 2024 it issued a ruling saying that Palestinians in Gaza had “plausible rights to protection from genocide” and set out provisional measures that Israel should follow to prevent genocide. There is no evidence that Israel has heeded this advice.

    Addressing the UN human rights committee in October 2024, special rapporteur Francesca Albanese said she believed it is important to “call a genocide as a genocide”. While noting the legal position according to the ICJ, we agree with her on the grounds that a post-hoc judgement of genocide does nothing to prevent it from occurring.

    Francesca Albanese addresses the United Nations, October 2024.

    The commission’s report is not the first time that international organisations and lawmakers have called attention to Israel’s violence against Palestinian mothers and children. In March 2024, Philippe Lazzarini, the commissioner-general of the UN agency Unrwa, wrote on X: “This is a war on children. It is a war on their childhood and their future.” The numbers are “staggering” he said. More children had been killed in Gaza in four months than in all global conflicts in the previous four years.

    This has continued throughout Israel’s assault on Gaza. Between October 7 2023 and January 15 2025, children made up at least 18,000 of the 46,707 Palestinians killed in Gaza, according to data collected by the Gaza health ministry. Both figures are likely to be underestimates, as so many bodies remain buried under the rubble.

    Most children have been killed by direct military strikes. Israel has dropped an estimated 85,000 tonnes of explosives on Gaza, killing Palestinians through direct hits, biolding collapses, fires and inhalation of toxic substances. Doctors have also reported evidence of children being killed in drone attacks and by snipers, including by shots to the head and chest.

    On March 2 Israel blocked the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza, using starvation and dehydration as military strategy. On March 15 a Unicef report claimed that 31% of children under two years of age in the north of the Strip were acutely malnourished. There has also been a “dramatic increase in child deaths due to acute malnutrition”.

    Israel’s destruction of medical and other infrastructure in the strip has resulted in “indirect deaths” by communicable illness and noncommunicable conditions. In April 2024, a report published in science journal Frontiers found that more than 90% of children in Gaza were affected by infectious diseases. There have also been multiple infant deaths from hypothermia as displaced families attempt to survive winter conditions.

    Killing the future

    The abnormally high child death rate is partly down to demographics. About 47% of Gaza’s population was under 18 years of age at the end of 2022. Children are generally more “susceptible to dehydration, diarrhoea, disease, and malnutrition” according to Unicef which says the nutritional needs for infants under 23 months “are greater per kilogram of bodyweight than at any other time of life”.

    But the problem with these arguments is that they make child mortality rates in Gaza appear as a simple reflection of natural factors. They are not. They are a direct consequence of Israel’s military aggression in Gaza.

    Israel has systematically used powerful explosives in densely populated areas and, through AI tracking systems such as “Where’s Daddy?”, deliberately targeted Palestinians in their family homes. Given the deep evidence base about childhood health, the logical outcome of using starvation as a method of war, actively denying aid, and destroying infrastructures that enable life is that children will die disproportionately.

    Palestinian children are being killed by design. This has been explicitly articulated by the Israeli state.

    Itamar Ben-Gvir, who was this week reappointed to the Netanyahu government as police minister, has publicly defended the army’s “open-fire” directive declaring: “We cannot have women and children getting close to the border … anyone who gets near must get a bullet in the head.” In January, MP and deputy speaker of the Knesset, Nissim Vaturi, said every child born in Gaza is “already a terrorist, from the moment of his birth”.

    But children represent their community’s dreams for their futures. Killing large number of children in Gaza is not simply forcible depopulation. It is an effort to destabilise communities and crush their hopes for liberation and the right of return as mandated by the UN.

    Palestinian children in Gaza have been telling their stories to a global audience. The killing, injury and starvation they are testifying to has proved a powerful counternarrative to the idea that Israel is simply “defending itself”. International humanitarian law states that: “Children affected by armed conflict are entitled to special respect and protection.”

    But in Gaza, children are being killed in their thousands.

    Rachel Rosen receives funding from Independent Social Research Foundation. She is affiliated with BDS @ UCL.

    Mai Abu Moghli is a policy member at Al- Shabaka: the Palestinian Policy Network.

    – ref. Israel’s war on Gaza is deliberately targeting children – new UN report – https://theconversation.com/israels-war-on-gaza-is-deliberately-targeting-children-new-un-report-252398

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Cutting welfare goes against Labour’s core values – that’s the point

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tim Bale, Professor of Politics, Queen Mary University of London

    House of Commons/Flickr, CC BY-ND

    “It’s one thing to say the economy is not doing well and we’ve got a fiscal challenge … but cutting the benefits of the most vulnerable in our society who can’t work, to pay for that, is not going to work. And it’s not a Labour thing to do.”

    So says former Labour big beast turned centrist-dad podcaster Ed Balls about the government’s welfare reform proposals. Cue furious nods from all those who were hoping and expecting better – or at least not this – from Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves.

    Reactions like these are wholly understandable. After all, the Labour party has long viewed support for the welfare state as both a flag around which the party can rally, and a stick with which to beat the Conservatives.

    But while that may have been the case in opposition, in office things have been a little more complicated.

    Going all the way back to the MacDonald and Attlee governments, through the Wilson era, and into the Blair and Brown years, Labour governments have often seen fit to talk and act tough to prove to voters, the media and the markets that they have a head as well as a heart. And if that means upsetting some of their MPs, their grassroots members and their core supporters in the electorate, then so be it.

    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.

    Welfare encompasses a raft of policies that are as much symbolic as they are substantive. Choosing between them has tangible implications for those directly affected. But those choices also say something – and are intended to say something – about those politicians and parties making that choice.

    For Labour governments – and in particular Labour chancellors – cuts in provision, even (indeed perhaps especially) if they involve backtracking on previous commitments, have always been a means of communicating their determination to deal with the world as it supposedly is, not as some of their more radical colleagues would like it to be.

    Think of Philip Snowden insisting on cuts to unemployment benefits in 1931 in an eventually vain attempt to retain the gold standard. Or Hugh Gaitskell insisting on charges for NHS “teeth and specs” to pay for the Korean war in 1951. Or Roy Jenkins reimposing NHS prescription charges in 1968 to calm the markets after devaluation. Or Dennis Healey committing to spending cuts to secure a loan from the IMF (and to save sterling again) in 1976. Or Gordon Brown insisting on cutting single parent benefits in 1997.

    On every occasion, those decisions have provoked outrage: a full-scale split in the 1930s, the resignation of three ministers (including Harold Wilson and leftwing titan Nye Bevan) in the 50s, parliamentary rebellions and membership resignations in the 60s, more generalised despair in Labour and trade union ranks the 70s, and yet another Commons rebellion in the 90s.

    But what we need to appreciate is that the fallout is never merely accidental. Rather, it is a vital part of the drama. For the measures to have any chance of convincing sceptical markets and media outlets (as well as, perhaps, ordinary voters) their authors have to be seen to be committing symbolic violence against their party’s own cherished principles.

    The proof that sacred cows really are being sacrificed is the anger (ideally impotent anger) of those who cherish them most – Labour’s left wingers. Their reaction is not merely predictable (and expect, by the way, to see Labour’s right wingers employ that term pejoratively in the coming days), it is also functional.

    The cruelty is the point

    Away from the Labour party itself, both those directly affected by the changes to sickness and disability benefits and those who campaign on their behalf, are – rightly or wrongly – already labelling those changes as cruel. But, likewise (and to put it at its most extreme) the cruelty, to coin a phrase, is the point.

    The government will naturally be hoping that, in reality, as few people as possible will be significantly hurt by what it is doing. But the impression that it is prepared to run that risk in pursuit of its wider aim is, in many ways, vital to its success.

    As to what that wider aim is? Labour’s essential problem is that, for all its social democratic values, it understandably aspires to become the natural party of government in what is an overwhelmingly liberal capitalist political economy.

    It has all too often sought to achieve that, not so much by creating expectations among certain key groups and then rewarding them, as it has by aiming to demonstrate a world-as-it-is governing competence. That, in the view of its leaders (if not necessarily its followers), is the master key to the prolonged success experienced by the Conservative party – a party which has traditionally enjoyed the additional advantage of being culturally attuned to the market and media environment in which governing in the UK has to be done.

    So, no, Ed Balls, you’re wrong: for good or ill, this week’s announcement is very much “a Labour thing to do”.

    Tim Bale received funding from the ESRC for the PhD upon which the book, “Sacred Cows and Common Sense: The Symbolic Statecraft and Political Culture of the British Labour Party” is based.

    – ref. Cutting welfare goes against Labour’s core values – that’s the point – https://theconversation.com/cutting-welfare-goes-against-labours-core-values-thats-the-point-252660

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –