Category: Middle East

MIL-OSI USA News: Experts Agree: Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Have Been Obliterated

Source: US Whitehouse

From nuclear regulators to foreign policy experts to members of the intelligence community, every knowledgeable person is in agreement that President Donald J. Trump obliterated Iran’s nuclear facilities.

International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Rafael Grossi: “Given the power of these devices and the technical characteristics of a centrifuge, we already know that these centrifuges are no longer operational, because they are fairly precise machines: there are rotors, and the vibrations [from the bombs] have completely destroyed them.”

CIA Director John Ratcliffe: “CIA can confirm that a body of credible intelligence indicates Iran’s Nuclear Program has been severely damaged by the recent, targeted strikes. This includes new intelligence from a historically reliable and accurate source/method that several key Iranian nuclear facilities were destroyed and would have to be rebuilt over the course of years.”

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard: “New intelligence confirms what @POTUS has stated numerous times: Iran’s nuclear facilities have been destroyed. If the Iranians chose to rebuild, they would have to rebuild all three facilities (Natanz, Fordow, Esfahan) entirely, which would likely take years to do. The propaganda media has deployed their usual tactic: selectively release portions of illegally leaked classified intelligence assessments (intentionally leaving out the fact that the assessment was written with “low confidence”) to try to undermine President Trump’s decisive leadership and the brave servicemen and women who flawlessly executed a truly historic mission to keep the American people safe and secure.”

Former ODNI National Intelligence Manager for Iran Norman Roule: “I am confident that Iran has suffered a catastrophic — catastrophic — blow … and that this has set them back for a very, very long time.”

Former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe Gen. Philip Breedlove (Ret.): “It went off magnificently … They did it perfectly, so we should have … an expectation that there was significant damage.”

Institute for Science and International Security President David Albright: “Iran can’t make centrifuges and can’t produce, in a sense, the equivalent of the gas … so their program is severely damaged.”

President Trump: “Monumental Damage was done to all Nuclear sites in Iran, as shown by satellite images. Obliteration is an accurate term! The white structure shown is deeply imbedded into the rock, with even its roof well below ground level, and completely shielded from flame. The biggest damage took place far below ground level. Bullseye!!!”

Israel Atomic Energy Commission: “The devastating US strike on Fordo destroyed the site’s critical infrastructure and rendered the enrichment facility inoperable. We assess that the American strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, combined with Israeli strikes on other elements of Iran’s military nuclear program, has set back Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons by many years. The achievement can continue indefinitely if Iran does not get access to nuclear material.”

IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir: “I can say here that the assessment is that we significantly damaged the nuclear program, and I can also say that we set it back by years, I repeat, years.”

Iran Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei: “Our nuclear installations have been badly damaged, that’s for sure.”

Vice President JD Vance: “I can say to the American people with great confidence that they are much further away from a nuclear program today than they were 24 hours ago. That was the objective of the mission, to destroy that Fordow nuclear site, and of course, do some damage to the other sites as well, but we feel very confident that the Fordow nuclear site was substantially set back, and that was our goal.”

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth: “Based on everything we have seen — and I’ve seen it all — our bombing campaign obliterated Iran’s ability to create nuclear weapons. Our massive bombs hit exactly the right spot at each target and worked perfectly. The impact of those bombs is buried under a mountain of rubble in Iran; so anyone who says the bombs were not devastating is just trying to undermine the President and the successful mission.”

Secretary Hegseth: “Given the 30,000 pounds of explosions and the capability of those munitions, it was DEVASTATION underneath Fordow … Any assessment that tells you otherwise is speculating with other motives.”

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan “Razin” Caine: “Initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction. More than 125 US aircraft participated in this mission, including B2 stealth bombers, multiple flights of fourth and fifth generation fighters, dozens and dozens of air refueling tankers, a guided missile submarine, and a full array of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft, as well as hundreds of maintenance and operational professionals.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio: “The Iranian program — the nuclear program — today looks nothing like it did just a week ago … That story is a false story and it’s one that really shouldn’t be re-reported because it doesn’t accurately reflect what’s happening.”

Secretary Rubio: “Everything underneath that mountain is in bad shape … There’s no way Iran comes to the table if somehow nothing had happened. This was complete and total obliteration. They are in bad shape. They are way behind today compared to where they were just seven days ago because of what President Trump did.”

Special Envoy Steve Witkoff: “We put 12 bunker buster bombs on Fordow. There’s no doubt that it breached the canopy, there’s no doubt that it was well within reach of the depth that these bunker buster bombs go to, and there’s no doubt that it was obliterated — so the reporting out there that in some way suggests that we did not achieve the objective is just completely preposterous.”

Director Gabbard: “The operation was a resounding success. Our missiles were delivered precisely and accurately, obliterating key Iranian capabilities needed to quickly assemble a nuclear weapon.”

Director General Grossi: “Given the explosive payload utilized, and the extreme vibration-sensitive nature of centrifuges, very significant damage is expected to have occurred. At the Esfahan nuclear site, additional buildings were hit, with the US confirming their use of cruise missiles. Affected buildings include some related to the uranium conversion process. Also at this site, entrances to tunnels used for the storage of enriched material appear to have been hit. At the Natanz enrichment site, the Fuel Enrichment Plant was hit, with the US confirming that it used ground-penetrating munitions.”

Mr. Albright: “Overall, Israel’s and U.S. attacks have effectively destroyed Iran’s centrifuge enrichment program. It will be a long time before Iran comes anywhere near the capability it had before the attack.”

Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Nonproliferation and Biodefense Program Deputy Director Andrea Stricker: “I think that because of the massive damage and the shock wave that would have been sent by 12 Massive Ordnance Penetrators at the Fordow site, that it likely would render its centrifuges damaged or inoperable.”

American Enterprise Institute Middle East Portfolio Manager Brian Carter: “There is no question that the bombing campaign ‘badly, badly damaged’ the three sites.”

Institute for Science and International Security Senior Research Fellow Spencer Faragasso: “Overall, it may possibly take years for Iran to reconstitute the capabilities it lost at these facilities.”

MIL OSI USA News –

June 27, 2025
MIL-OSI Analysis: Why flattering Donald Trump could be dangerous

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

This article was first published in The Conversation UK’s World Affairs Briefing email newsletter. Sign up to receive weekly analysis of the latest developments in international relations, direct to your inbox.

Once again Donald Trump and his senior team are unhappy with their press coverage. Here’s the US president, fresh from his triumph in The Hague, having persuaded Nato’s leaders to open their wallets and agree to up their defence spending to 5% of GDP (apart from Spain, that is, which can expect to hear of triple-digit tariffs coming its way in the near future) – and do the media focus on Trump’s tour de force? Do they hell. Instead they focus on whether his strikes against Iran had been as successful as he claimed.

As you can imagine, this would have been irksome in the extreme for the president, who might reasonably have expected that the story of the day would be his victory in getting pledges from virtually all Nato’s members to pull their weight in terms of their own defence. Certainly the Nato secretary-general, Mark Rutte, could appreciate the scale of his achievement. Even before the summit, Rutte was talking it up.

“Donald, you have driven us to a really, really important moment for America and Europe, and the world,” he wrote in a message to Trump as the US president prepared to fly to The Netherlands. “You will achieve something NO American president in decades could get done.”

The fact that Trump promptly posted this message to his TruthSocial website suggests how important praise is to the the US president. It’s something that many world leaders (including Benjamin Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin who have become past-masters at pouring honey in the president’s ear) have recognised and are willing to use as a diplomatic tool when dealing with the man Rutte calls “Daddy”.

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

But while flattery as a tactic seems to be effective with the US president, Andrew Gawthorpe, a political historian from Leiden University, cautions that flattery, appeasement and compliance are a flawed approach when dealing with a man like Trump. For a start, he writes it means that not much actually gets done and that problems are often merely avoided rather than solved.

But more worryingly, simply capitulating in the face of Trumpian pressure or ire risks giving this US president the idea that he can do anything he wants. “When his targets roll over, it sends a message to others that Trump is unstoppable and resistance is futile,” writes Gawthorpe. It encourages not just the next presidential abuse of power, but also the next surrender from its victims.

Read more:
Why bending over backwards to agree with Donald Trump is a perilous strategy

We got a taste of what the US president’s anger at being defied sounds like as he prepared to fly to The Netherlands for the Nato summit. Asked about the ceasefire he had negotiated between Israel and Iran, he lashed out at both countries who had breached the peace within hours of agreeing to stop firing missiles at each other. “We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the fuck they’re doing,” he told reporters as he walked to the presidential helicopter.

Psychologist Geoff Beattie, of Edge Hill University, believes this was no accidental verbal slip. Trump wanted to let the world know how angry he was and chose to use the “f-bomb” as a way of showing it. Beattie looks at what this can tell us about the character of the US president – and how it might reflect a tendency to make rapid decisions based on emotional reactions.

Read more:
Trump’s f-bomb: a psychologist explains why the president makes fast and furious statements

And so to Nato

What was remarkable about the Nato summit was that it was condensed to one fairly short session which focused solely on the issue of Nato members’ defence budgets. Usually there’s a much broader agenda. Over the past couple of years the issue of Ukraine has been fairly high on the list, but this time – perhaps to avoid any potential divisions – it was relegated to a side issue.

Perhaps the biggest success for Nato, writes Stefan Wolff, is that they managed to get Trump to the summit and keep him in the room. After all, less than a fortnight previously he walked out of the G7 leaders’ meeting in Canada a day early before authorising the bombing raids on Iran’s nuclear installations (of which more later).

Wolff, an expert in international security from the University of Birmingham (and a regular contributor to this newsletter) believes that the non-US members realised they had little choice but to comply – or at least to be seen to be complying. There’s a significant capability deficit: “European states also lack most of the so-called critical enablers, the military hardware and technology required to prevail in a potential war with Russia.”

So keeping the US president onside – and inside Nato with a remaining commitment to America’s article 5 mutual defence pledge – was top of the list this year and something they appear to have pulled off.

Read more:
At June’s Nato summit, just keeping Donald Trump in the room will be seen as a victory

The fact is, writes Andrew Corbett, a defence expert at King’s College London, that Europe and the US have different enemies these days. Europe is still focused on the foe it faced across the Iron Curtain after 1945, against which Nato was designed as a defensive bulwark.

The US is now far more focused on the threat from China. This means it will increasingly shift the bulk of its naval assets to the Pacific (although the Middle East seems to be delaying this shift at present). This inevitably means downgrading its presence in Europe, something of which European leaders are all-too aware.

The importance of continuing US involvement in European defence via Nato was underlined, as Corbett highlights, by a frisson of unease when it appeared that the US president might be preparing to reinterpret article 5, which requires that members come to the aid of another member if they are attacked.

So there was relief all round when the US president reaffirmed America’s commitment to the principle of collective defence. But one feels Rutte will need to use all his diplomatic wiles to keep things that way.

Read more:
How Nato summit shows Europe and US no longer have a common enemy

The trouble with Iran

Rutte, who has the nickname “Trump whisperer”, is clever enough to know that emollient words will have been just what the US president was looking for given the stress of the past couple of weeks. The decision to launch strikes against Iran was controversial even within his own base as we noted last week.

But by directly engaging in hostility against Iran, Trump risked embroiling the US in the “forever war” that he always promised his supporters he would avoid. The move was freighted with risk. Nobody knew how Iran might retaliate or how the situation could escalate. There was (and remains) the chance that an angry Iran could try to shut down the Strait of Hormuz. This is one of the world’s most important waterways though which 20% of the world’s oil transits. This would have huge ramifications for the global economy, seriously damaging Iran’s Gulf neighbours and angering China, which gets much of its oil from the region.

Read more:
Iran is considering closing the strait of Hormuz – why this would be a major escalation

For now it appears that Iran has contented itself with performative strikes against US bases in Iraq and Qatar, having given advance warning. This token retaliation was made shortly before the ceasefire was negotiated. Despite a defiant message from Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran is reported to be making noises about coming to the negotiating table. A deal to restore calm to the region would be an achievement indeed.

But legal questions remain about the US decision to launch strikes. For a start, Article 2(4) of the UN charter strictly forbids the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state, or “in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations”.

But, as Caleb Wheeler, an expert in international law from the University of Cardiff writes, it’s a rule that has rarely been either observed or enforced. He points out that the Korean War, when following a resolution of the UN security council, a number of countries went to war with North Korea to defend its southern neighbour which had been attacked in violation of article 2(4), was the high watermark of compliance with the UN on conflict.

In most other international conflicts since, the use of vetoes by one or another of the permanent members of the security council has effectively prevented the UN acting the way it was supposed to.

Now, writes Wheeler, there can be little doubt the US has violated article 2(4) by bombing Iran, particularly as Trump expressed his opinion that a regime change might be appropriate. Given that the US is one of the leading lights of the UN, Wheeler thinks you could reasonably expect a degree of condemnation from other world leaders. He worries that the absence of criticism could seriously lower the bar for aggression in the future.

Read more:
Bombing Iran: has the UN charter failed?

And if, as remains unclear at present, Iran’s nuclear programme was not set back by years, as the US claims, but merely by months, then you could expect Tehran to redouble its efforts to acquire a bomb. The Islamic Republic will be mindful of the fact that there has been little talk of bombing North Korea in recent years, for example. Possession of a nuclear deterrent means exactly what it says.

So, conclude David Dunn and Nicholas Wheeler, these strikes which were conducted on what they feel was the false premise of defence against an “imminent” threat from a nuclear Iran, could actually have the opposite effect of encouraging Iran to rapidly develop its own bomb.

Read more:
US attack on Iran lacks legal justification and could lead to more nuclear proliferation

Elon Musk’s geopolitical eye in the sky

After Israel began its latest campaign of airstrikes against Iran earlier this month, the government moved to restrict internet access around the country to discourage criticism of the regime and make it difficult for protesters to organise. But in June 14 in response to a plea over social media, Elon Musk announced, appropriately on X, that he would open up access to his Starlink satellite system.

Joscha Abels, a political scientist at the University of Tübingen, recalls that Starlink became very popular in Iran during the protests that followed the killing of Mahsa Amini in 2022, and which really rocked the regime to its core. He also points to the use of Starlink by Ukraine as a vital communications tool in its defence against Russia over the past three years.

But Abels warns that what is given is also too easily switched off, as Musk did in Ukraine in 2023. At the time a senior Starlink executive warned that the tool was “never intended to be weaponized”. The concern is that such an important tool, which can make or break a regime or cripple a country’s defence, could be a risk in the hands of a private individual.

Read more:
In the sky over Iran, Elon Musk and Starlink step into geopolitics – not for the first time

World Affairs Briefing from The Conversation UK is available as a weekly email newsletter. Click here to get updates directly in your inbox.

– ref. Why flattering Donald Trump could be dangerous – https://theconversation.com/why-flattering-donald-trump-could-be-dangerous-259940

MIL OSI Analysis –

June 27, 2025
MIL-OSI Analysis: Why flattering Donald Trump could be dangerous

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

This article was first published in The Conversation UK’s World Affairs Briefing email newsletter. Sign up to receive weekly analysis of the latest developments in international relations, direct to your inbox.

Once again Donald Trump and his senior team are unhappy with their press coverage. Here’s the US president, fresh from his triumph in The Hague, having persuaded Nato’s leaders to open their wallets and agree to up their defence spending to 5% of GDP (apart from Spain, that is, which can expect to hear of triple-digit tariffs coming its way in the near future) – and do the media focus on Trump’s tour de force? Do they hell. Instead they focus on whether his strikes against Iran had been as successful as he claimed.

As you can imagine, this would have been irksome in the extreme for the president, who might reasonably have expected that the story of the day would be his victory in getting pledges from virtually all Nato’s members to pull their weight in terms of their own defence. Certainly the Nato secretary-general, Mark Rutte, could appreciate the scale of his achievement. Even before the summit, Rutte was talking it up.

“Donald, you have driven us to a really, really important moment for America and Europe, and the world,” he wrote in a message to Trump as the US president prepared to fly to The Netherlands. “You will achieve something NO American president in decades could get done.”

The fact that Trump promptly posted this message to his TruthSocial website suggests how important praise is to the the US president. It’s something that many world leaders (including Benjamin Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin who have become past-masters at pouring honey in the president’s ear) have recognised and are willing to use as a diplomatic tool when dealing with the man Rutte calls “Daddy”.

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

But while flattery as a tactic seems to be effective with the US president, Andrew Gawthorpe, a political historian from Leiden University, cautions that flattery, appeasement and compliance are a flawed approach when dealing with a man like Trump. For a start, he writes it means that not much actually gets done and that problems are often merely avoided rather than solved.

But more worryingly, simply capitulating in the face of Trumpian pressure or ire risks giving this US president the idea that he can do anything he wants. “When his targets roll over, it sends a message to others that Trump is unstoppable and resistance is futile,” writes Gawthorpe. It encourages not just the next presidential abuse of power, but also the next surrender from its victims.

Read more:
Why bending over backwards to agree with Donald Trump is a perilous strategy

We got a taste of what the US president’s anger at being defied sounds like as he prepared to fly to The Netherlands for the Nato summit. Asked about the ceasefire he had negotiated between Israel and Iran, he lashed out at both countries who had breached the peace within hours of agreeing to stop firing missiles at each other. “We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the fuck they’re doing,” he told reporters as he walked to the presidential helicopter.

Psychologist Geoff Beattie, of Edge Hill University, believes this was no accidental verbal slip. Trump wanted to let the world know how angry he was and chose to use the “f-bomb” as a way of showing it. Beattie looks at what this can tell us about the character of the US president – and how it might reflect a tendency to make rapid decisions based on emotional reactions.

Read more:
Trump’s f-bomb: a psychologist explains why the president makes fast and furious statements

And so to Nato

What was remarkable about the Nato summit was that it was condensed to one fairly short session which focused solely on the issue of Nato members’ defence budgets. Usually there’s a much broader agenda. Over the past couple of years the issue of Ukraine has been fairly high on the list, but this time – perhaps to avoid any potential divisions – it was relegated to a side issue.

Perhaps the biggest success for Nato, writes Stefan Wolff, is that they managed to get Trump to the summit and keep him in the room. After all, less than a fortnight previously he walked out of the G7 leaders’ meeting in Canada a day early before authorising the bombing raids on Iran’s nuclear installations (of which more later).

Wolff, an expert in international security from the University of Birmingham (and a regular contributor to this newsletter) believes that the non-US members realised they had little choice but to comply – or at least to be seen to be complying. There’s a significant capability deficit: “European states also lack most of the so-called critical enablers, the military hardware and technology required to prevail in a potential war with Russia.”

So keeping the US president onside – and inside Nato with a remaining commitment to America’s article 5 mutual defence pledge – was top of the list this year and something they appear to have pulled off.

Read more:
At June’s Nato summit, just keeping Donald Trump in the room will be seen as a victory

The fact is, writes Andrew Corbett, a defence expert at King’s College London, that Europe and the US have different enemies these days. Europe is still focused on the foe it faced across the Iron Curtain after 1945, against which Nato was designed as a defensive bulwark.

The US is now far more focused on the threat from China. This means it will increasingly shift the bulk of its naval assets to the Pacific (although the Middle East seems to be delaying this shift at present). This inevitably means downgrading its presence in Europe, something of which European leaders are all-too aware.

The importance of continuing US involvement in European defence via Nato was underlined, as Corbett highlights, by a frisson of unease when it appeared that the US president might be preparing to reinterpret article 5, which requires that members come to the aid of another member if they are attacked.

So there was relief all round when the US president reaffirmed America’s commitment to the principle of collective defence. But one feels Rutte will need to use all his diplomatic wiles to keep things that way.

Read more:
How Nato summit shows Europe and US no longer have a common enemy

The trouble with Iran

Rutte, who has the nickname “Trump whisperer”, is clever enough to know that emollient words will have been just what the US president was looking for given the stress of the past couple of weeks. The decision to launch strikes against Iran was controversial even within his own base as we noted last week.

But by directly engaging in hostility against Iran, Trump risked embroiling the US in the “forever war” that he always promised his supporters he would avoid. The move was freighted with risk. Nobody knew how Iran might retaliate or how the situation could escalate. There was (and remains) the chance that an angry Iran could try to shut down the Strait of Hormuz. This is one of the world’s most important waterways though which 20% of the world’s oil transits. This would have huge ramifications for the global economy, seriously damaging Iran’s Gulf neighbours and angering China, which gets much of its oil from the region.

Read more:
Iran is considering closing the strait of Hormuz – why this would be a major escalation

For now it appears that Iran has contented itself with performative strikes against US bases in Iraq and Qatar, having given advance warning. This token retaliation was made shortly before the ceasefire was negotiated. Despite a defiant message from Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran is reported to be making noises about coming to the negotiating table. A deal to restore calm to the region would be an achievement indeed.

But legal questions remain about the US decision to launch strikes. For a start, Article 2(4) of the UN charter strictly forbids the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state, or “in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations”.

But, as Caleb Wheeler, an expert in international law from the University of Cardiff writes, it’s a rule that has rarely been either observed or enforced. He points out that the Korean War, when following a resolution of the UN security council, a number of countries went to war with North Korea to defend its southern neighbour which had been attacked in violation of article 2(4), was the high watermark of compliance with the UN on conflict.

In most other international conflicts since, the use of vetoes by one or another of the permanent members of the security council has effectively prevented the UN acting the way it was supposed to.

Now, writes Wheeler, there can be little doubt the US has violated article 2(4) by bombing Iran, particularly as Trump expressed his opinion that a regime change might be appropriate. Given that the US is one of the leading lights of the UN, Wheeler thinks you could reasonably expect a degree of condemnation from other world leaders. He worries that the absence of criticism could seriously lower the bar for aggression in the future.

Read more:
Bombing Iran: has the UN charter failed?

And if, as remains unclear at present, Iran’s nuclear programme was not set back by years, as the US claims, but merely by months, then you could expect Tehran to redouble its efforts to acquire a bomb. The Islamic Republic will be mindful of the fact that there has been little talk of bombing North Korea in recent years, for example. Possession of a nuclear deterrent means exactly what it says.

So, conclude David Dunn and Nicholas Wheeler, these strikes which were conducted on what they feel was the false premise of defence against an “imminent” threat from a nuclear Iran, could actually have the opposite effect of encouraging Iran to rapidly develop its own bomb.

Read more:
US attack on Iran lacks legal justification and could lead to more nuclear proliferation

Elon Musk’s geopolitical eye in the sky

After Israel began its latest campaign of airstrikes against Iran earlier this month, the government moved to restrict internet access around the country to discourage criticism of the regime and make it difficult for protesters to organise. But in June 14 in response to a plea over social media, Elon Musk announced, appropriately on X, that he would open up access to his Starlink satellite system.

Joscha Abels, a political scientist at the University of Tübingen, recalls that Starlink became very popular in Iran during the protests that followed the killing of Mahsa Amini in 2022, and which really rocked the regime to its core. He also points to the use of Starlink by Ukraine as a vital communications tool in its defence against Russia over the past three years.

But Abels warns that what is given is also too easily switched off, as Musk did in Ukraine in 2023. At the time a senior Starlink executive warned that the tool was “never intended to be weaponized”. The concern is that such an important tool, which can make or break a regime or cripple a country’s defence, could be a risk in the hands of a private individual.

Read more:
In the sky over Iran, Elon Musk and Starlink step into geopolitics – not for the first time

World Affairs Briefing from The Conversation UK is available as a weekly email newsletter. Click here to get updates directly in your inbox.

– ref. Why flattering Donald Trump could be dangerous – https://theconversation.com/why-flattering-donald-trump-could-be-dangerous-259940

MIL OSI Analysis –

June 27, 2025
MIL-OSI: Ethereum ETF Momentum Drives Whale Interest in Meme Coin Little Pepe (LILPEPE) Ahead of Stage 4 Presale Jump

Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates, June 26, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — As excitement builds around the Ethereum ETF buzz, smart money is pouring into promising altcoins—and Little Pepe (LILPEPE) is catching the attention of whale wallets. With Stage 3 of its presale nearly 93% complete and over $2.33 million raised, LILPEPE is quickly emerging as a top contender in the meme coin space. Backed by an Ethereum-compatible Layer 2 blockchain, the project offers real utility beyond the hype, positioning itself for a strong price surge as it heads into Stage 4.

While most meme tokens are still chasing whatever’s trending, LILPEPE is putting down real roots. It’s creating the kind of infrastructure that could actually shift the direction of the space, and somehow, it’s still trading for less than $0.002 in its presale.

A Meme Coin That’s Actually Building Something

What sets LILPEPE apart is that it’s not just living on someone else’s chain. It’s gone a step further and built its own custom Layer-2 blockchain—something rarely seen in the meme coin scene. Most projects just stick their token on Solana or BNB Chain and call it a day. But LILPEPE actually went for the tough stuff—like fixing insane gas fees, slow transactions, and the fact that a lot of communities have zero real protection.

A Meme Coin with Real Tech

The Little Pepe chain’s fully EVM-compatible, so it works straight out of the box with usual wallets, dApps, and tools. No weird steps, no messing around—just a meme coin that actually took the time to build something smoother and way more user-friendly.

The chain’s actually built with meme projects in mind—it’s not just some repurposed tech. It comes with zero trading taxes, sniper bot protection, and lightning-fast transactions, which is a huge deal if ever been rugged or stuck waiting forever on a slow chain. This isn’t just some surface-level hype or flashy graphics—it’s actual tech built with meme culture at the core.

One of the best parts is a launchpad made to give new meme tokens a safe space to launch—just a cleaner way to get started. And they’re just getting started—staking, community voting through a DAO, and even NFT integration are all lined up next. It’s turning into a full ecosystem, not just another hype token.

Presale Picking Up Serious Steam

LILPEPE’s presale is heating up fast. The early stages have sold out rapidly, raising $500,000 in Stage 1 (at $0.001 per token) and $1.325 million in Stage 2 (at $0.0011). Now in Stage 3, tokens are priced at $0.0012, and over $2.33 million has already been raised, with more than 93% of this stage completed. The presale follows a tiered pricing model meaning early buyers lock in lower prices while supporting the ongoing development of LILPEPE’s Ethereum-compatible Layer-2 network. The next stage will increase the token price to $0.0013, continuing the momentum ahead of its public launch.

Getting in on the presale is super simple. LILPEPE tokens can be purchased using ETH or USDT (ERC-20) directly from supported wallets such as MetaMask or Trust Wallet. For those new to crypto, there’s also an option to buy using a credit or debit card. It’s important to note that USDT transactions still require a small amount of ETH in the wallet to cover gas fees.

A Token Setup Built to Last

LILPEPE’s token supply is actually thought out, not just thrown together. There’s a hard cap of 100 billion tokens, with 26.5 billion set aside for the presale. The rest is split across different parts of the project—13.5 billion for staking rewards, 10 billion for liquidity, 30 billion held in reserve for the chain, and 20 billion saved for marketing and future listings on decentralized exchanges. And here’s a big plus—there are zero buy or sell taxes, so it’s clean and fair whether holding or trading.

The tokenomics are crafted not only to reward early holders but also to ensure sustainable growth through community incentives, ecosystem scaling, and utility integrations planned on the roadmap.

What makes it even better is that Little Pepe’s chain is fully EVM-compatible. That means it works seamlessly with popular wallets, dApps, and crypto tools—no complicated setups or extra steps. It’s designed specifically for meme projects and the roadmap includes upcoming features like DAO governance, an NFT marketplace and creator tools that support community-driven development.

About Little Pepe:

Little Pepe ($LILPEPE) is a next-generation meme coin built for the community, by the community. Inspired by crypto culture’s favorite frog, Little Pepe combines viral meme energy with real utility, launching on a fast, secure Layer 2 blockchain to ensure low fees and high scalability. With over $2.3 million raised in its presale, a growing army of holders, and a transparent roadmap, Little Pepe is more than just a meme—it’s a movement.

For more information about Little Pepe, visit the links below:

Website: https://littlepepe.com/
Twitter/X: https://x.com/littlepepetoken
Telegram: https://t.me/littlepepetoken

Contact Details:
COO – James Stephen
media@littlepepe.com

Disclaimer: This content is provided by Little Pepe. The statements, views, and opinions expressed in this content are solely those of the content provider and do not necessarily reflect the views of this media platform or its publisher. We do not endorse, verify, or guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of any information presented. We do not guarantee any claims, statements, or promises made in this article. This content is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial, investment, or trading advice. Investing in crypto and mining-related opportunities involves significant risks, including the potential loss of capital. It is possible to lose all your capital. These products may not be suitable for everyone, and you should ensure that you understand the risks involved. Seek independent advice if necessary. Speculate only with funds that you can afford to lose. Readers are strongly encouraged to conduct their own research and consult with a qualified financial advisor before making any investment decisions. However, due to the inherently speculative nature of the blockchain sector—including cryptocurrency, NFTs, and mining—complete accuracy cannot always be guaranteed. Neither the media platform nor the publisher shall be held responsible for any fraudulent activities, misrepresentations, or financial losses arising from the content of this press release. In the event of any legal claims or charges against this article, we accept no liability or responsibility. Globenewswire does not endorse any content on this page.

Legal Disclaimer: This media platform provides the content of this article on an “as-is” basis, without any warranties or representations of any kind, express or implied. We assume no responsibility for any inaccuracies, errors, or omissions. We do not assume any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information presented herein. Any concerns, complaints, or copyright issues related to this article should be directed to the content provider mentioned above.

A photo accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/d9f7c50a-36f4-494c-b0e1-ef1e438807e9

The MIL Network –

June 27, 2025
MIL-OSI: Ethereum ETF Momentum Drives Whale Interest in Meme Coin Little Pepe (LILPEPE) Ahead of Stage 4 Presale Jump

Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates, June 26, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — As excitement builds around the Ethereum ETF buzz, smart money is pouring into promising altcoins—and Little Pepe (LILPEPE) is catching the attention of whale wallets. With Stage 3 of its presale nearly 93% complete and over $2.33 million raised, LILPEPE is quickly emerging as a top contender in the meme coin space. Backed by an Ethereum-compatible Layer 2 blockchain, the project offers real utility beyond the hype, positioning itself for a strong price surge as it heads into Stage 4.

While most meme tokens are still chasing whatever’s trending, LILPEPE is putting down real roots. It’s creating the kind of infrastructure that could actually shift the direction of the space, and somehow, it’s still trading for less than $0.002 in its presale.

A Meme Coin That’s Actually Building Something

What sets LILPEPE apart is that it’s not just living on someone else’s chain. It’s gone a step further and built its own custom Layer-2 blockchain—something rarely seen in the meme coin scene. Most projects just stick their token on Solana or BNB Chain and call it a day. But LILPEPE actually went for the tough stuff—like fixing insane gas fees, slow transactions, and the fact that a lot of communities have zero real protection.

A Meme Coin with Real Tech

The Little Pepe chain’s fully EVM-compatible, so it works straight out of the box with usual wallets, dApps, and tools. No weird steps, no messing around—just a meme coin that actually took the time to build something smoother and way more user-friendly.

The chain’s actually built with meme projects in mind—it’s not just some repurposed tech. It comes with zero trading taxes, sniper bot protection, and lightning-fast transactions, which is a huge deal if ever been rugged or stuck waiting forever on a slow chain. This isn’t just some surface-level hype or flashy graphics—it’s actual tech built with meme culture at the core.

One of the best parts is a launchpad made to give new meme tokens a safe space to launch—just a cleaner way to get started. And they’re just getting started—staking, community voting through a DAO, and even NFT integration are all lined up next. It’s turning into a full ecosystem, not just another hype token.

Presale Picking Up Serious Steam

LILPEPE’s presale is heating up fast. The early stages have sold out rapidly, raising $500,000 in Stage 1 (at $0.001 per token) and $1.325 million in Stage 2 (at $0.0011). Now in Stage 3, tokens are priced at $0.0012, and over $2.33 million has already been raised, with more than 93% of this stage completed. The presale follows a tiered pricing model meaning early buyers lock in lower prices while supporting the ongoing development of LILPEPE’s Ethereum-compatible Layer-2 network. The next stage will increase the token price to $0.0013, continuing the momentum ahead of its public launch.

Getting in on the presale is super simple. LILPEPE tokens can be purchased using ETH or USDT (ERC-20) directly from supported wallets such as MetaMask or Trust Wallet. For those new to crypto, there’s also an option to buy using a credit or debit card. It’s important to note that USDT transactions still require a small amount of ETH in the wallet to cover gas fees.

A Token Setup Built to Last

LILPEPE’s token supply is actually thought out, not just thrown together. There’s a hard cap of 100 billion tokens, with 26.5 billion set aside for the presale. The rest is split across different parts of the project—13.5 billion for staking rewards, 10 billion for liquidity, 30 billion held in reserve for the chain, and 20 billion saved for marketing and future listings on decentralized exchanges. And here’s a big plus—there are zero buy or sell taxes, so it’s clean and fair whether holding or trading.

The tokenomics are crafted not only to reward early holders but also to ensure sustainable growth through community incentives, ecosystem scaling, and utility integrations planned on the roadmap.

What makes it even better is that Little Pepe’s chain is fully EVM-compatible. That means it works seamlessly with popular wallets, dApps, and crypto tools—no complicated setups or extra steps. It’s designed specifically for meme projects and the roadmap includes upcoming features like DAO governance, an NFT marketplace and creator tools that support community-driven development.

About Little Pepe:

Little Pepe ($LILPEPE) is a next-generation meme coin built for the community, by the community. Inspired by crypto culture’s favorite frog, Little Pepe combines viral meme energy with real utility, launching on a fast, secure Layer 2 blockchain to ensure low fees and high scalability. With over $2.3 million raised in its presale, a growing army of holders, and a transparent roadmap, Little Pepe is more than just a meme—it’s a movement.

For more information about Little Pepe, visit the links below:

Website: https://littlepepe.com/
Twitter/X: https://x.com/littlepepetoken
Telegram: https://t.me/littlepepetoken

Contact Details:
COO – James Stephen
media@littlepepe.com

Disclaimer: This content is provided by Little Pepe. The statements, views, and opinions expressed in this content are solely those of the content provider and do not necessarily reflect the views of this media platform or its publisher. We do not endorse, verify, or guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of any information presented. We do not guarantee any claims, statements, or promises made in this article. This content is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial, investment, or trading advice. Investing in crypto and mining-related opportunities involves significant risks, including the potential loss of capital. It is possible to lose all your capital. These products may not be suitable for everyone, and you should ensure that you understand the risks involved. Seek independent advice if necessary. Speculate only with funds that you can afford to lose. Readers are strongly encouraged to conduct their own research and consult with a qualified financial advisor before making any investment decisions. However, due to the inherently speculative nature of the blockchain sector—including cryptocurrency, NFTs, and mining—complete accuracy cannot always be guaranteed. Neither the media platform nor the publisher shall be held responsible for any fraudulent activities, misrepresentations, or financial losses arising from the content of this press release. In the event of any legal claims or charges against this article, we accept no liability or responsibility. Globenewswire does not endorse any content on this page.

Legal Disclaimer: This media platform provides the content of this article on an “as-is” basis, without any warranties or representations of any kind, express or implied. We assume no responsibility for any inaccuracies, errors, or omissions. We do not assume any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information presented herein. Any concerns, complaints, or copyright issues related to this article should be directed to the content provider mentioned above.

A photo accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/d9f7c50a-36f4-494c-b0e1-ef1e438807e9

The MIL Network –

June 27, 2025
MIL-OSI Analysis: How Israeli and U.S. strikes against Iran were facilitated by the Russia-Ukraine war

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

The American intervention in Iran is being touted as an outstanding success by President Donald Trump. At the very least, Trump’s decision to attack Iran facilitated a ceasefire as it created angst in Gulf states about being caught in the crossfire after Iran symbolically attacked an American air base, Al Udeid, in Qatar.

The long-term implications and viability of the ceasefire are open for debate.

If Iran preserved its nuclear stockpile of fissile material, it has more incentive to develop a nuclear weapon, despite the damage Israel and the United States did to its production facilities. This is especially true if the damage to facilities like Fordow was less than Trump is proclaiming.

Russian-Iranian relations

While the future of Iran’s nuclear weapons capacity remains unknown, what is clear is that the U.S. and Israel were able to strike at Iran in large part due to Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine.

In the modern era, relations between Russia and Iran have frequently been tense. Russia and the Soviet Union’s interests in the region have provoked several conflicts, most notably during the 1940s when the Soviets encouraged the formation of the People’s Republic of Azerbaijan on Iranian soil.

The shah of Iran’s close relationship with the U.S. further discouraged a strong relationship between Moscow and Tehran.

The shah’s fall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, allowed for a working relationship to develop between Iran and Russia. They’re still rivals but nevertheless work together when it suits their best interests. Russian and Iranian co-operation on the Syrian civil war is an example.

Furthermore, both Iran and Russia have provided diplomatic support for each other. Russia’s insertion into the Iran nuclear deal framework in 2015 benefited both parties. It provided economic benefits to Russia, and it also allowed Iran to develop its nuclear ambitions.

When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, Iran was one of the few countries that didn’t oppose the move. It abstained from voting on a United Nations resolution in March 2022 condemning Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, which amounted to tacit support.

More importantly, Iran’s own success in evading oil sanctions helped Russia do the same, allowing the Russians to maintain their war effort in Ukraine.

The connections between Russia and Iran, however, goes beyond the political and economic.

Drones and other weapons

Iran has played a pivotal role in Russia’s war in Ukraine. One of Ukraine’s initial advantages was in drone technology, including the drone expertise of its allies. The Russian military, which had not fully embraced the implications of drone technology, was at a severe disadvantage.

Iran, however, had embraced the role of drones in warfare and both provided drones to Russia and helped the Russians develop their own domestic production.

Iran, at an arms disadvantage against Israel and the U.S., sought to use drones to offset this weakness. The Iranians, in fact, pioneered the use of drones, most notably the Shahed 131 and 136.

Read more:
How Russian and Iranian drone strikes further dehumanize warfare

Before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, however, the flow of weapons between Russia and Iran was more one-sided. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Iran has been a vital market for Russian military technology. Russian leaders have viewed the sale of weapons to Iran as both a way of supporting the Russian economy and to counter American interests in the Middle East.

So what’s all this have to do with Ukraine?

Iran left open to bombardment

The most crucial weapon provided by Russia to Iran is arguably the S-300, an advanced surface-to-air missile systems.

Israel’s air dominance and its ability to overcome Iranian air defences in the past meant that the S-300 was a vital piece of technology for Iran. Israeli officials recognized the S-300’s importance to countering their operations when they, for several years, used political pressure to block S-300 sales to Iran.

In October 2024, Israel likely breached the software that operates the S-300, disabling the system’s radar. This breach allowed Israel to eliminate Iran’s S-300s, and left Iran vulnerable to Israeli and American air attacks.

Iran has been unable to acquire replacements for one simple reason: Russia needs the weapon systems in Ukraine. Ukraine has prioritized eliminating Russian air defences like the S-300.

The enduring Ukraine-Russia conflict has served as a bleeding ulcer for the Russian armaments industry. Russian military hardware has been destroyed at such a rate that it’s delayed Russia’s sale of weapons to key markets, including Iran and India.

The situation has caused Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to pivot away from Russian military technology — a key feature in Russian-Indian relations — for domestic arms backed by western technology.

Iran, meantime, has been left open to aerial bombardment by Israel and the U.S.

Although Iran reportedly possesses the even more advanced S-400, this hasn’t been confirmed and Iran has denied it.

Ukraine advances U.S. interests

Rightly or wrongly, the U.S. government identified bombing Iran alongside Israel as being in its national interest. But it’s unlikely American involvement would have been possible without Ukraine draining Russian resources.

The problem is that the current U.S. administration views the world and its events in an isolated manner. But in a globalized world, few events remain in isolation.

The U.S. government may argue that supporting Ukraine is not in American interests, but Ukraine’s ongoing fight against Russia is actually assisting Americans elsewhere — most notably, in Iran.

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

– ref. How Israeli and U.S. strikes against Iran were facilitated by the Russia-Ukraine war – https://theconversation.com/how-israeli-and-u-s-strikes-against-iran-were-facilitated-by-the-russia-ukraine-war-259845

MIL OSI Analysis –

June 27, 2025
MIL-OSI Analysis: Why bending over backwards to agree with Donald Trump is a perilous strategy

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew Gawthorpe, Lecturer in History and International Studies, Leiden University

Donald Trump is a difficult figure to deal with, both for foreign leaders and figures closer to home who find themselves in his crosshairs. The US president is unpredictable, sensitive and willing to break the rules to get his way.

But in Trump’s second term, a variety of different leaders and institutions seem to have settled on a way to handle him. The key, they seem to think, is flattery. The most obvious example came at the recently concluded Nato summit in The Hague, Netherlands, where world leaders got together to discuss the future of the alliance.

Previous summits with Trump have descended into recrimination and backbiting. The organisers were determined to avoid a repeat – and decided the best way to do it was to make Trump feel really, really good about himself.

Even before the summit began, Nato secretary-general Mark Rutte had texted Trump to thank him for his “decisive action” in bombing Iran. This, he said, was something “no one else dared to do”.

Then, when discussing Trump’s role in ending the war between Israel and Iran, Rutte referred to Trump as “daddy” – a name the White House has already transformed into a meme.

The summit itself was light on the sort of contentious and detailed policy discussions that have historically bored and angered Trump.

Instead, it was reduced to a series of photo opportunities and speeches in which other leaders lavished praise on Trump. Lithuania’s president, Gitanas Nausėda, even suggested the alliance ought to copy Trump’s political movement by adopting the phrase “make Nato great again”.

Nato leaders aren’t the only ones trying this trick. British prime minister Keir Starmer has had a go at it too. Starmer has made sure that Trump will be the first US president to make a second state visit to the UK. He described the honour in Trump-like terms: “This has never happened before. It’s so incredible. It will be historic.”

After Trump announced global trade tariffs earlier in the year, Starmer was the first leader to give Trump a much-needed victory by reaching a framework trade agreement. But it worked both ways, with Starmer able to land a political victory too.

In his first term, flattery was also seen as a tool to be used to get Trump onside. Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky tried it in phone conversations with the US president, calling him a “great teacher” from whom he learned “skills and knowledge”.

Flattery and compliance clearly have their uses. Trump is extremely sensitive to criticism and susceptible to praise, however hyperbolic and transparent it might be. Buttering him up may be an effective way to get him to back off.

But it doesn’t achieve much else. At the Nato summit, an opportunity was missed to make progress on issues of real importance, such as how to better support Ukraine in its war against Russia or to better coordinate European defence spending.

A summit dedicated to the sole aim of making Trump feel good is one with very limited aims indeed. All it does is push the difficult decisions forward for another day.

A missed opportunity

Individual decisions to bow down to Trump also mean missing the opportunity to mount collective resistance. One country might not be able to stand up to the president, but the odds of doing so would be greatly improved if leaders banded together.

For example, Trump’s trade tariffs will damage the US economy as well as those of its trading partners. That is especially the case if those partners impose tariffs of their own on US goods.

If each country instead follows Britain’s lead in the hope of getting the best deal for itself, they will have missed the opportunity to force the president to feel some discomfort of his own – and possibly change course.

But perhaps the greatest danger of flattering Trump is that it teaches him that he can get away with doing pretty much whatever he likes. For a president who has threatened to annex the territory of Nato allies Denmark and Canada to nevertheless be feted at a Nato summit sends a message of impunity.

That’s a dangerous lesson for Trump to learn. He has spent much of his second term undermining democratic and liberal norms at home and key tenets of US foreign policy abroad, such as hostility to Russia. He is attempting to undermine all traditional sources of authority and expertise and instead make the world dance to his own tune.

Given the expansive scope of his aims, which many experts already think is leading to a constitutional crisis that threatens democracy, the willingness to suck up to Trump normalises him in a menacing way.

When his targets roll over, it sends a message to others that Trump is unstoppable and resistance is futile. It encourages not just the next presidential abuse of power, but also the next surrender from those he chooses to attack.

Perhaps the best that can be said for this strategy is that maybe it will appease Trump enough to prevent him from doing too much actual harm. But when dealing with such an unpredictable and vindictive president, that is a thin reed of hope.

It is much more likely to encourage him to press on – until the harm becomes too severe to ignore.

Andrew Gawthorpe 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 bending over backwards to agree with Donald Trump is a perilous strategy – https://theconversation.com/why-bending-over-backwards-to-agree-with-donald-trump-is-a-perilous-strategy-259936

MIL OSI Analysis –

June 27, 2025
MIL-OSI Analysis: Canada needs a national AI literacy strategy to help students navigate AI

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Mohammed Estaiteyeh, Assistant Professor of Digital Pedagogies and Technology Literacies, Faculty of Education, Brock University

AI literacy equips learners to understand and navigate the pervasive influence of AI in their daily lives. (Shutterstock)

With students’ use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools on the rise in Canada and globally, reports of cheating and unethical behaviors are making headlines.

One recent study indicates that 78 per cent of Canadian students have used generative AI to help with assignments or study tasks. In China, authorities have even shut down AI apps during nationwide exams to prevent cheating.

Students seem unprepared to navigate this new world and educators are unsure how to handle it. This is a problem Canada and other countries can’t afford to ignore.

The support structures and policies to guide students’ and educators’ responsible use of AI are often insufficient in Canadian schools. In a recent study, Canada ranked 44th in AI training and literacy out of 47 countries, and 28th among 30 advanced economies. Despite growing reliance on these technologies at homes and in the classrooms, Canada lacks a unified AI literacy strategy in K-12 education.

Without co-ordinated action, this gap threatens to widen existing inequalities and leave both learners and educators vulnerable. Canadian schools need a national AI literacy strategy that provides a framework for teaching students about AI tools and how to use them responsibly.

What is AI literacy?

AI literacy is defined as:

“An individual’s ability to clearly explain how AI technologies work and impact society, as well as to use them in an ethical and responsible manner and to effectively communicate and collaborate with them in any setting.”

Acknowledging its importance, scholars and international organizations have been developing AI literacy frameworks. UNESCO has developed AI competency frameworks for students and teachers, highlighting key capabilities they should acquire to navigate AI implications.

More recently, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the European Commission released their joint draft AI Literacy Framework for primary and secondary education. This framework defines AI literacy as the technical knowledge, durable skills and future-ready attitudes required to thrive in a world influenced by AI.

The framework aims to empower learners to engage with, create with, manage and design AI, while critically evaluating its benefits, risks and ethical implications.

AI-literate students are better able to develop an ethical and human-centred mindset as they learn to consider AI’s social and environmental impacts.
(Shutterstock)

Why does AI literacy matter?

AI literacy equips learners to understand and navigate the pervasive influence of AI in their daily lives. It fosters critical thinking skills to assess AI outputs for misinformation and bias.

AI literacy also enables students to make safe and informed decisions about when and how to use AI, preventing habits that compromise academic integrity. In addition, student knowledge of AI’s technical foundations demystifies AI, dispelling misconceptions that it is all-knowing, and highlights its capabilities and limitations.

Furthermore, AI-literate students are better able to develop an ethical and human-centred mindset as they learn to consider AI’s social and environmental impacts, including issues of transparency, accountability, privacy and the environmental cost of AI systems.

AI literacy prepares students to collaborate effectively and ethically with AI tools (for example, with writing) and helps them understand how to delegate only certain tasks to AI without cognitive offloading that may be detrimental at various developmental stages.

Finally, AI literacy aims to ensure inclusive access to AI learning environments for all students, regardless of background, status or ability.

Canadian and international landscape

In Canada, some provinces and school boards are moving ahead with AI integration, while others offer very little teacher training and resources to do so.

Some universities and community organizations are also taking the lead in building AI literacy by providing curricula, resources and training to teachers and students.

These scattered efforts, while appreciated, lead to AI learning opportunities that are often ad-hoc or extracurricular. Without national or province-wide requirements, many students — especially in marginalized communities and under-resourced schools — may graduate high school with no exposure to AI concepts at all, worsening the digital divide.

To put Canada’s situation in context, it is useful to compare with other countries that are implementing or proposing national AI education initiatives. As part of its National AI Strategy, Singapore launched a partnership to strengthen students’ AI literacy, building on earlier initiatives that focused on teacher training.

A meaningful AI literacy strategy must begin in the classroom with age-appropriate content.
(Shutterstock)

In China, the Ministry of Education issued systematic guidelines to promote AI education in primary and secondary schools. Similarly, the United Arab Emirates introduced AI classes into its curricula starting in the primary years.

More recently, the United States established an AI framework and a task force aimed at “building essential AI literacy from an early age to maintain a competitive edge in global technology development and prepare students for an AI-driven economy.”

Canada, in comparison to these examples, has strengths in its bottom-up innovation but lacks a guiding vision. Canada needs a co-ordinated strategy that leverages federal-provincial collaboration through a unifying framework, shared resources and a common baseline of AI knowledge that every Canadian student should acquire.

What should this strategy include?

A meaningful AI literacy strategy must begin in the classroom with age-appropriate content. Students can start with the technical foundations and advance to think critically about AI’s limitations, ethical issues and social implications.

It’s important that this content is woven across subjects and presented in ways that reflect the cultural and social contexts of learners.

Equally essential is supporting educators. Teachers need practical, research-informed professional development and teaching toolkits that equip them to guide students through both the opportunities and risks of AI.

To make these efforts sustainable and equitable, a national strategy must also include policy directions, regulations for the tech industry, community outreach programs and intentional opportunities for collaboration between various stakeholders (researchers, policymakers, school boards, teacher education programs and so on).

Whether you think AI is a good or bad thing, the fact is it’s here. This is not a call to incorporate AI tools in schools. It is a call to make Canadian students aware of its abilities and implications. Our kids need to learn about this technology and how to use it responsibly.

Mohammed Estaiteyeh 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. Canada needs a national AI literacy strategy to help students navigate AI – https://theconversation.com/canada-needs-a-national-ai-literacy-strategy-to-help-students-navigate-ai-257513

MIL OSI Analysis –

June 27, 2025
MIL-OSI Analysis: Canada needs a national AI literacy strategy to help students navigate AI

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Mohammed Estaiteyeh, Assistant Professor of Digital Pedagogies and Technology Literacies, Faculty of Education, Brock University

AI literacy equips learners to understand and navigate the pervasive influence of AI in their daily lives. (Shutterstock)

With students’ use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools on the rise in Canada and globally, reports of cheating and unethical behaviors are making headlines.

One recent study indicates that 78 per cent of Canadian students have used generative AI to help with assignments or study tasks. In China, authorities have even shut down AI apps during nationwide exams to prevent cheating.

Students seem unprepared to navigate this new world and educators are unsure how to handle it. This is a problem Canada and other countries can’t afford to ignore.

The support structures and policies to guide students’ and educators’ responsible use of AI are often insufficient in Canadian schools. In a recent study, Canada ranked 44th in AI training and literacy out of 47 countries, and 28th among 30 advanced economies. Despite growing reliance on these technologies at homes and in the classrooms, Canada lacks a unified AI literacy strategy in K-12 education.

Without co-ordinated action, this gap threatens to widen existing inequalities and leave both learners and educators vulnerable. Canadian schools need a national AI literacy strategy that provides a framework for teaching students about AI tools and how to use them responsibly.

What is AI literacy?

AI literacy is defined as:

“An individual’s ability to clearly explain how AI technologies work and impact society, as well as to use them in an ethical and responsible manner and to effectively communicate and collaborate with them in any setting.”

Acknowledging its importance, scholars and international organizations have been developing AI literacy frameworks. UNESCO has developed AI competency frameworks for students and teachers, highlighting key capabilities they should acquire to navigate AI implications.

More recently, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the European Commission released their joint draft AI Literacy Framework for primary and secondary education. This framework defines AI literacy as the technical knowledge, durable skills and future-ready attitudes required to thrive in a world influenced by AI.

The framework aims to empower learners to engage with, create with, manage and design AI, while critically evaluating its benefits, risks and ethical implications.

AI-literate students are better able to develop an ethical and human-centred mindset as they learn to consider AI’s social and environmental impacts.
(Shutterstock)

Why does AI literacy matter?

AI literacy equips learners to understand and navigate the pervasive influence of AI in their daily lives. It fosters critical thinking skills to assess AI outputs for misinformation and bias.

AI literacy also enables students to make safe and informed decisions about when and how to use AI, preventing habits that compromise academic integrity. In addition, student knowledge of AI’s technical foundations demystifies AI, dispelling misconceptions that it is all-knowing, and highlights its capabilities and limitations.

Furthermore, AI-literate students are better able to develop an ethical and human-centred mindset as they learn to consider AI’s social and environmental impacts, including issues of transparency, accountability, privacy and the environmental cost of AI systems.

AI literacy prepares students to collaborate effectively and ethically with AI tools (for example, with writing) and helps them understand how to delegate only certain tasks to AI without cognitive offloading that may be detrimental at various developmental stages.

Finally, AI literacy aims to ensure inclusive access to AI learning environments for all students, regardless of background, status or ability.

Canadian and international landscape

In Canada, some provinces and school boards are moving ahead with AI integration, while others offer very little teacher training and resources to do so.

Some universities and community organizations are also taking the lead in building AI literacy by providing curricula, resources and training to teachers and students.

These scattered efforts, while appreciated, lead to AI learning opportunities that are often ad-hoc or extracurricular. Without national or province-wide requirements, many students — especially in marginalized communities and under-resourced schools — may graduate high school with no exposure to AI concepts at all, worsening the digital divide.

To put Canada’s situation in context, it is useful to compare with other countries that are implementing or proposing national AI education initiatives. As part of its National AI Strategy, Singapore launched a partnership to strengthen students’ AI literacy, building on earlier initiatives that focused on teacher training.

A meaningful AI literacy strategy must begin in the classroom with age-appropriate content.
(Shutterstock)

In China, the Ministry of Education issued systematic guidelines to promote AI education in primary and secondary schools. Similarly, the United Arab Emirates introduced AI classes into its curricula starting in the primary years.

More recently, the United States established an AI framework and a task force aimed at “building essential AI literacy from an early age to maintain a competitive edge in global technology development and prepare students for an AI-driven economy.”

Canada, in comparison to these examples, has strengths in its bottom-up innovation but lacks a guiding vision. Canada needs a co-ordinated strategy that leverages federal-provincial collaboration through a unifying framework, shared resources and a common baseline of AI knowledge that every Canadian student should acquire.

What should this strategy include?

A meaningful AI literacy strategy must begin in the classroom with age-appropriate content. Students can start with the technical foundations and advance to think critically about AI’s limitations, ethical issues and social implications.

It’s important that this content is woven across subjects and presented in ways that reflect the cultural and social contexts of learners.

Equally essential is supporting educators. Teachers need practical, research-informed professional development and teaching toolkits that equip them to guide students through both the opportunities and risks of AI.

To make these efforts sustainable and equitable, a national strategy must also include policy directions, regulations for the tech industry, community outreach programs and intentional opportunities for collaboration between various stakeholders (researchers, policymakers, school boards, teacher education programs and so on).

Whether you think AI is a good or bad thing, the fact is it’s here. This is not a call to incorporate AI tools in schools. It is a call to make Canadian students aware of its abilities and implications. Our kids need to learn about this technology and how to use it responsibly.

Mohammed Estaiteyeh 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. Canada needs a national AI literacy strategy to help students navigate AI – https://theconversation.com/canada-needs-a-national-ai-literacy-strategy-to-help-students-navigate-ai-257513

MIL OSI Analysis –

June 27, 2025
MIL-OSI Russia: US Gains Nothing from War with Iran: Iran’s Supreme Leader

Translation. Region: Russian Federal

Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

TEHRAN, June 26 (Xinhua) — The United States has gained nothing from its war against Iran and has received a “harsh slap in the face,” Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in a video message broadcast by state-run IRIB TV.

The Supreme Leader congratulated the Iranian people on their “victory” in the war with Israel and the United States.

“Despite all its propaganda and statements, Israel was almost defeated and crushed by Iran’s attacks,” A. Khamenei noted.

According to him, Iranian missiles and other weapons managed to penetrate Israel’s “forward multi-layered defense” and raze many urban and military areas of the Jewish state to the ground.

As the Supreme Leader pointed out, Israel must know that any aggression against Iran will cost it dearly.

A. Khamenei also drew attention to the fact that the United States entered the war to save Israel, “but did not gain anything from this war.”

The US exaggerated its achievements in the war because it failed to achieve its goal and needed this to hide the truth, A. Khamenei said, stressing that “here too, the Islamic Republic of Iran achieved victory and responded to the United States with a harsh slap in the face.”

The supreme leader said Iran had attacked and damaged the US Al Udeid air base in Qatar, “one of the important US bases in the West Asian region,” although some, he noted, had tried to downplay it and said nothing had happened. –0–

MIL OSI Russia News –

June 27, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Schatz Warns Against Rescinding Foreign Assistance Funding, Ceding Appropriations Authority To Trump Administration
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator for Hawaii Brian Schatz

WASHINGTON – Today, during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on President Trump’s proposed rescission request to Congress, U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawai‘i) warned colleagues against rescinding foreign assistance funding for programs that have long had bipartisan support. Schatz, who is a senior member of the committee and ranking member of the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee which oversees much of the funding being cut in the package, questioned White House Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought about the lack of clarity from the administration about which specific programs will get cut should the package pass.

“We do not have to spend foreign assistance dollars in the same way that we always have been spending foreign assistance dollars. There’s plenty of room for reform. But we’re being asked to rescind billions of dollars without even knowing which programs are being canceled,” said Senator Schatz.

Senator Schatz added, “What’s at stake here is more than the particular provisions of the rescissions package. It is whether we’re going to willingly set up a situation where bipartisan negotiations are ripped up whenever there is a trifecta. If that’s what you want, I think you should vote yes. But if you want to preserve your prerogative, for yourself, for your home state and for this institution—then this is not a particularly close call. Why be an appropriator and just turn around and surrender your authority?”

The text of Senator Schatz’s testimony, as delivered, is below. Video of the testimony and his exchange with Director Vought is available here.

Thank you, Chair Collins, Vice Chair Murray, members of the Committee. This is the first time I’ve been on this side of the dais. I have to say that the altitude difference is affecting me a little bit. It really is an honor to be here to argue against this rescissions package on behalf of all of you. On behalf of all of you as appropriators.

Now, I want to be abundantly clear—I like Eric Schmitt a lot, but this is a very important point, and it’s actually fatal to the rescissions package—every single program that Senator Schmitt just mentioned has already been canceled. Every single program. And there’s a longer list that was on a Fox News chyron and Senator Graham and I have kind of gone over all of this. There are a bunch of different examples of terrible sounding things. They are all done, and they all belong in the previous federal fiscal year.

So, now that it’s Marco Rubio’s State Department, and Marco Rubio’s USAID agency, and now that it is Donald Trump’s White House, none of these things are happening. This is a rescission of Trump’s CR in the current federal fiscal year. And so, if you have a problem with any of those programs, let Lindsey and I write a bill that prohibits the use of funds for any of those seemingly improper uses of funds. That’s the way to do this.

Colleagues are being asked on this Committee to cut programs that I know each one of you have personally prioritized, because we get the letters. Whether you’re the Chair or the Rank[ing Member] of a subcommittee, you get a letter from your colleagues saying, could you please prioritize XYZ program. And many of the programs—I mean I’m talking about right now. In the same time period, we are receiving letters. Please save this. Please save that. Please, plus up that. That’s what we’re cutting right now in this rescissions package.

We do not have to spend foreign assistance dollars in the same way that we always have been spending foreign assistance dollars. There’s plenty of room for reform. You’re pushing on an open door. And in fact, the administration has until the end of next year. This is two-year money. There is no rush on this. This is two-year money to align this funding with its new priorities. But we’re being asked to rescind billions of dollars without even knowing which programs are being canceled.

Just so you understand how this legislation works; it’s big baskets of money. So, you have no idea whether the program that you are prioritizing is going to be cut or not. And they are not providing any clarity about that. You would think that if you’re asking the Congress to use this extraordinary authority under statutory law, that you would have a line by line—here’s what we’re cutting, here’s what we’re keeping, here’s what we’re cutting, here’s what we’re keeping. The answer that we are going to receive is, let me take that under advisement and get back to you. Or—I don’t know—that it’s none of your business. Or, I’m not sure what it is. There is no reason not to have specificity other than, the math doesn’t add up. The things that you care about are being cut in here, and they don’t want to specify it.

And that brings me to what it is definitely in this package:
- $900 million in cuts from global health programs including PEPFAR and efforts to combat diseases like malaria, TB and polio.
- $1.3 billion in cuts to humanitarian assistance, which save lives, provide food, and shelter, and water, and support victims of sexual assault.
- And $4.6 billion in cuts to economic development assistance to key partners. Whether it’s Jordan with increasing regional tension, the Philippines as it counters Chinese aggression, the Burmese opposition, or Ukraine.
- And gone is a billion dollars in support for organizations like UNICEF.
Everybody that was opposed to those things that were on that Fox chyron—everybody that found some of the things that Senator Schmitt talked about as objectionable—also hastened to say I don’t want to cut UNICEF, I don’t want to cut PEPFAR, I don’t want to cut the World Food Programme.

Guess what is in this rescissions package? All of those things are being cut, and none of the things that you object to. They’ve already been eliminated. This is not just a question of policy. This is also a question of what this committee is even for. Being a Senate appropriator is an honor. It means something. It means that the executive branch proposes and the legislative branch disposes. It means that we, as the article one branch, hold the purse strings. That, that is subject to cloture.

So, what’s at stake here is more than the particular provisions of the rescissions package. It is whether we’re going to willingly set up a situation where bipartisan negotiations are ripped up whenever there is a trifecta. If that’s what you want, I think you should vote yes. But if you want to preserve your prerogative, for yourself, for your home state and for this institution—then this is not a particularly close call. Why be an appropriator and just turn around and surrender your authority? Because it is SFOPS today, but it’s going to be THUD, it’s going to be Ag, it’s going to be Labor-H, it’s going to be MilCon-VA, it’s going to be CJS tomorrow.

So, I encourage all of my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to think hard about the precedent that we would be setting if we voted yes on this package.
MIL OSI USA News –
June 27, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Durbin Delivers Floor Speech On President Trump’s Decision To Bomb Iranian Nuclear Sites Without Congressional Authority

US Senate News:

Source: United States Senator for Illinois Dick Durbin

June 26, 2025

Durbin also highlighted his support for Senator Kaine’s war powers resolution

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) delivered a speech on the Senate floor regarding President Trump’s decision to bomb three nuclear sites in Iran without Congressional authority. Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states that the power to declare war is an explicit power of Congress and Congress overwhelmingly reaffirmed this constitutional provision when it passed the War Powers Act in 1973 over the veto of President Nixon.

“We are here today to ensure the Senate fulfills its constitutional duties regarding the sole power to involve our nation in war,” said Durbin. “Under the [War Powers Act], the President has the authority to approve military attacks as a response to an imminent threat or with the expressed authorization of Congress. Neither of these was the case with President Trump’s decision to bomb Iran over the weekend.”

“The Iranian regime sponsors terrorism, wants to destroy Israel and undermine U.S. interests, and represses its own people. And it is interested in building a nuclear weapon. But those are not justifications to ignore the Constitution. If the U.S. is to start a war with Iran over these or any other issues—the Constitution itself requires it must be with the consent of Congress,” said Durbin.

During his first term, President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal which required mandatory inspections that were working at the time. The rash decision ultimately contributed to the dangerous situation with Iran today in which its leadership was moving closer to nuclear weapon capability.

During his speech, Durbin expressed his support for Senator Tim Kaine’s (D-VA) war powers resolution, which would require a prompt debate and vote prior to using additional U.S. military force against Iran.

“When I reflect on the time that I’ve served in the Senate, one of the most memorable votes was on the question of the invasion of Iraq… There were 23 who voted against the war in Iraq. I believe it was the best vote I ever cast as a Senator. There were no weapons of mass destruction. We were invading a country under a false premise, we were going to wage a war there and unfortunately did at the expense of American lives for a long period of time,” said Durbin.

“The Senate should not be led into another war in the Middle East without the consent of the American people through Congress. Our founders knew this point. One should never send our sons and daughters into war without the consent of the American people—an argument I’ve made regardless of who the president is of either party… We’ve already ceded too much [congressional] power on appropriations and other key items—let’s not do that when it comes to war.”

Video of Durbin’s remarks on the Senate floor is available here.

Audio of Durbin’s remarks on the Senate floor is available here.

Footage of Durbin’s remarks on the Senate floor is available here for TV Stations.

-30-

MIL OSI USA News –

June 27, 2025
MIL-OSI Analysis: In the sky over Iran, Elon Musk and Starlink step into geopolitics – not for the first time

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Joscha Abels, Post-Doctoral Researcher, Institute of Political Science, University of Tübingen

It was the briefest of messages, but the potential consequences could have been significant. Elon Musk posted a four-word tweet on June 14: “The beams are on”. The message prefigured a consequential intervention – not only in Iranian domestic affairs but potentially in the geopolitics of the Middle East. The US billionaire was responding to a request on his online platform X, asking him to activate the Starlink satellite system over Iran in support of anti-government protests.

Following Israel’s military strikes on critical sites in Iran, the Islamic Republic imposed a large-scale internet shutdown that saw a drastic drop in connectivity throughout the county. Nationwide restrictions were placed on access to websites, social media platforms and mobile networks.

This has effectively limited the inflow of media reports to the Iranian public. It has also made it more difficult for Iranians to organise amid violent crackdowns by the regime’s security forces. The activation of Starlink could allow them to bypass government censorship and restore contact with the outside world – and each other.

It is not the first time Iran’s government has restricted internet access to stifle unrest – nor is it the first time that Musk got involved. In 2022, amid nationwide protests following the death of a 22-year-old Kurdish Iranian woman, Mahsa Amini, at the hands of the security forces, ostensibly for wearing her hijab incorrectly, Musk activated Starlink over Iran for the first time.

This triggered the smuggling of thousands of Starlink terminals into the country from neighbouring states. These terminals are flat rectangular devices, no larger than a baking tray. It is estimated that around 20,000 of them have found their way into Iran, giving Musk’s latest move a more immediate impact.

Still, reestablishing internet coverage remains difficult. The few available Starlink terminals are traded on the black market at exorbitant prices, and Starlink services in Iran still require payments of a monthly subscription fee. Iran’s government has also issued threats against citizens who use the system.

A new kind of warfare

Starlink is the most advanced communication satellite system in the world. Orbiting Earth at an altitude of about 550kms, its satellites deliver high-speed internet to customers around the globe. Out of more than 12,000 active satellites in orbit, around 7,600 belong to Starlink.

The system is operated by SpaceX, a space tech firm headquartered in Texas. SpaceX has recently become the world’s most valuable privately held company according to Bloomberg, surpassing even ByteDance (TikTok) and OpenAI.

Musk continues to act as the company’s largest stakeholder and chief executive, even while wielding huge political influence (following his recent rift with the US president, there is evidence he still wields considerable political clout in the US).

Starlink owes much of its geopolitical relevance to modern warfare. Secure communications have become essential on today’s data-driven battlefields. The mass availability of drones has fundamentally changed how wars are fought. High-bandwidth connections are needed for drones to transmit live video and receive targeting data.

As land-based connections are vulnerable to sabotage and outright attacks, mega-constellations such as Starlink provide a robust alternative. Comprising thousands of units, several hundreds of kilometres above ground, their services are difficult to disrupt.

Ukraine: a cautionary tale

Nowhere has the importance of satellite communications for geopolitics been more evident than in Ukraine. Russia prepared its invasion by conducting cyberattacks on Ukraine’s Viasat system. Musk responded by activating Starlink, announcing the move in the same casual style that he used for Iran.

The effect was immediate. Starlink quickly became indispensable for Ukraine’s counter-offensive efforts. Amid the Russian onslaught, it provided the nation’s military with secure communications to push back against the invasion. For SpaceX, this yielded not just hugely positive publicity but also substantial financial injections from investors.

Just months into Starlink’s activation, SpaceX initiated a strategic shift. Ukrainian forces reported outages along the front lines, especially when pushing into Russian-occupied territory. In October 2022, Musk floated the idea that SpaceX might withdraw support altogether, citing high operational costs.

By February 2023, the company had begun limiting Starlink’s use for the operation of Ukrainian drones. SpaceX’s chief operating office, Gwynne Shotwell stated that the system was “never intended to be weaponized”.

Power in private hands

Starlink’s role in Ukraine offers a striking example of how modern communications can change the course of conflicts, as I argued in a recent article in the European Journal of International Relations. At the same time, it serves as a cautionary tale about the reliability of critical systems in the hands of private corporations and powerful individuals.

In Ukraine, Musk held the power to effectively veto military operations. No democratic body provided oversight – the signal could be switched off with a tweet. Starlink’s role in Iran raises similarly uncomfortable questions: who decides when – or whether – citizens get to communicate?

While the region is struggling to establish a fragile ceasefire, political unrest in Iran is unlikely to subside soon. The deeper truth remains that communications within Iran’s civil society currently depend on the world’s wealthiest person – and no alternatives are in sight.

Joscha Abels receives funding from the German Research Foundation (DFG), grant 526359979.

– ref. In the sky over Iran, Elon Musk and Starlink step into geopolitics – not for the first time – https://theconversation.com/in-the-sky-over-iran-elon-musk-and-starlink-step-into-geopolitics-not-for-the-first-time-259833

MIL OSI Analysis –

June 27, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Duckworth, Booker Renew Push to Ban the U.S. Sale and Manufacturing of “K-Leather” and Protect Kangaroos from Largest Commercial Slaughter in the World

US Senate News:

Source: United States Senator for Illinois Tammy Duckworth
June 25, 2025
[WASHINGTON, D.C.] – Today, U.S. Senators Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) and Cory Booker (D-NJ) reintroduced legislation to ban the sale and manufacturing of products made from kangaroo skin, also known as “k-leather.” After years of the two lawmakers leading the charge on this issue, this week Mizuno and UMBRO joined cleat manufacturing giants—including Nike, Adidas, Puma and ASICS—in pledging to halt production of k-leather in their soccer cleats and other products. To help build on this momentum, reverse this inhumane trend and safeguard the kangaroo species from commercial exploitation, Senators Duckworth and Booker are introducing the Kangaroo Protection Act, which would help protect millions of wild kangaroos and their innocent babies who are needlessly killed every year for the use of their leather in commercial products. Additionally, this legislation would empower the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with other agencies, to issue civil and criminal penalties of fines up to $10,000 and other regulations.
“The mass killing of millions of kangaroos to make commercial products is needless and inhumane,” said Senator Duckworth. “While it is encouraging that more and more cleat manufacturers are pledging to stop using k-leather, the U.S. must stop incentivizing this cruel practice once and for all. I’m proud to reintroduce this bill with Senator Booker that would help prevent the deadly exploitation of kangaroos and promote the use of more humane alternatives to k-leather.”
“We should not allow the unnecessary killing of animals just so that big corporations can maximize profits,” said Senator Booker. “This legislation will help conserve the kangaroo species by ensuring that no one in the United States can distribute kangaroo products for commercial gain.”
The commercial slaughter of kangaroos isn’t just widespread—it’s unnecessarily cruel. It uses similar killing methods and is ten times larger than the infamously brutal Canadian seal hunt, which prompted the United States to ban the import of seal pelts in 1972. Despite having similar import bans for other animals, the U.S. is currently the second largest commercial market for k-leather products in the world. The Senators’ proposed legislation would help change that.
Copy of the bill text is available on Senator Duckworth’s website.
“It’s profit from the sale of skins and other body parts that drives the killing of more than a million kangaroos a year in their native habitats in Australia,” said Wayne Pacelle, president of Animal Wellness Action and the Center for a Humane Economy. “Senator Duckworth’s bill is a tremendous complement to the decisions by all the big athletic shoe brands to halt sourcing of kangaroo skins for cleats and her measure has the potential to spare the lives of hundreds of thousands of the iconic marsupials every year.”
This legislation is supported by 13 Hands Equine Rescue Team (Clinton Corners, NY), A Place Called Hope (Killingworth, CT), A Voice for the Voiceless (Louisville, KY), Alaqua Animal Refuge & Wildlife Rehabilitation Center, (Freeport, FL), Albuquerque Vegan (NM), Alliance for Animals (Madison, WI), Allied Scholars for Animal Protection, Angels Grove Ranch and Horse Rescue (Bush, LA), Animal & Earth Advocates (Seattle, WA), Animal Advocates of South Central Pennsylvania, Animal Alliance Network, Animal Behavior and Healing (Portland, ME), Animal Care Society (Mathews, VA), Animal Education & Rescue (Libertyville, IL), Animal Kindness Foundation (Las Vegas, NV), Animal Protection Affiliates (NV), Animal Protection League of New Jersey, Animal Protection New Mexico, Animal Rights Foundation of Florida, Animal Rights Initiative, Animal Rights Maine, Animal Save Movement, Animal Welfare Society (Kennebunk, ME), Animal Wellness Action, Animal Wellness Foundation, Animals’ Angels, Anonymous for the Voiceless – Las Vegas (NV), Arizona Humane Society, Arrow Fund (Louisville, KY), Associated Humane Societies, Ballydídean Farm Sanctuary (Clinton, WA), Basin and Range Watch (NV), Berkeley Animal Rights Center (CA), Berkshire Voters for Animals (MA), Bleating Hearts Sanctuary (Golden, CO), Blissful Dreams Rescue Ranch (Huger, SC), Boulder Bear Coalition (CO), Bucky’s Bull Rescue (Cedar Grove, WI), Cedar Cove Conservation & Education Center (Louisburg, KS), Center for, Ethical Science, Charleston Carriage Horse Advocates (SC), Chicago Alliance for Animals (IL), Christian Animal Rights Association, Citizens for Alternatives to Animal Research and Experimentation (CAARE), Climate Save Movement, Coalition for NYC Animals, Inc. (NY), Coalition to Ban Horse-Drawn Carriages (NY), Colorado Voters for Animals, Compassionate Action for Animals (Minneapolis, MN), Compassionate & Responsible Tourism (NY), Connecticut Votes for Animals, DC Voters for Animals, Dead Broke Farm (Raleigh, NC), Defend Them All Foundation (Portland, OR), Difference Makers Media (Wilmette, IL), Direct Action Everywhere (Berkeley, CA), EarthAction, Emerald City Pet Rescue (Seattle, WA), Endangered Habitats League (West Hollywood, CA), Endangered Species Coalition, Environmental Protection Information Center (CA), Equine Collaborative International, Equine Voices Rescue & Sanctuary (Amado, AZ), Erika’s Equine Center (Nerstrand, MN), Exotic Avian Sanctuary of Tennessee, Fair Start Movement, Fayette Regional Humane Society (Washington Court House, OH), Federation of Humane Organizations of West Virginia, Fish Feel, Footloose Montana, Forever Home Beagle Rescue (Pittsburgh, PA), Four Paws USA (Boston, MA), Friends of Animals of Metro Detroit (MI), Friends of the Merry Meeting Bay (Richmond, ME), Friends of the Wisconsin Wolf and Wildlife, Friends of Washoe (Ellensburg, WA), Georgia Animal Rights and Protection, Georgia Equine Rescue League, Ginger’s Pet Rescue (Seattle, WA), Global Coalition of Farm Sanctuaries, Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries, Good Karma Pet Rescue (Pompano Beach, FL), Great Spirit Animal Sanctuary (Snowflake, AZ), Green Mountain Animal Defenders (Burlington, VT), Grit and Grace Farm & Wildlife Rehabilitation (Cynthiana, KY), Hanaeleh Horse Rescue and Advocacy (Trabuco Canyon, CA), Harmony Farm Sanctuary (Bend, OR), Heart of Alabama (Killen, AL), Heartland Equine Rescue (IN), Heartwood Haven (Roy, WA), Hope Haven Farm Sanctuary (Sewickley, PA), Hot Springs Village Animal Welfare League (AR), Hotchkiss Humane Society (CT), Houston Animal Activism (TX), Howling for Wolves (Hopkins, MN), Humane Action Pennsylvania, Humane Action Pittsburgh (PA), Humane Animal Rescue of Pittsburgh (PA), Humane Long Island (NY), Humane Society of Central Arizona, Humane Society of Huron Valley (MI), Humane Voters of Washington, In Defense of Animals, In-Sync Wildlife Rescue and Educational Center (Wylie, TX), Indiana Skunk Rescue (North Salem), Indraloka Animal Sanctuary (Dalton, PA), Indraloka Sanctuary Children’s Programs (Dalton, PA), Iowa Farm Sanctuary, Jefferson County Humane Society (OH), Jewish Vegan Life, Keepers of the Wild (Valentine, AZ), Kentuckians Vote for Animals, Kindred Spirits, Rescue Ranch (Darlington, PA), Klamath Forest Alliance (CA), LA Animal Save (Los Angeles, CA), Lancaster Farm Sanctuary (PA), League of Humane Voters – Georgia, League of Humane Voters – New Jersey, Liberty Equine (Park City, UT), Los Angeles Alliance for Animals (CA), Luvin Arms Farm Animal Sanctuary (Erie, CO), Madrean Archipelago Wildlife Center (Canelo, AZ), Magical Creatures Sanctuary (Laupahoehoe, HI), Maine Animal Coalition, Maine Friends of Animals, Marley’s Mutts (Tehachapi, CA), Maryland Votes for Animals, Inc., Massachusetts for Elephants, Massachusetts Society for the, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals – Angell, Mauritius Primate Rescue, Mayor’s Alliance for NYC’s Animals (NY), Michelson Center for Public Policy, Misfits Coven Animal Haven (Pittsburgh, PA), Mississippi Animal Rescue League, Monmouth County SPCA (Eatontown, NJ), My Pegasus Project (Duncanville, TX), Nevada Paws – The Link, New Hampshire Animal Rights League, Noah’s, Lost Ark Animal Sanctuary (Berlin Center, OH), North Country Animal League (Morrisville, VT), Northeast Equine Rescue (West Newbury, ME), NYC Plover Project (New York City, NY), NYCLASS (New York City, NY), Ocean Conservation Research, Oceanic Preservation Society , OceansWide (Newcastle, ME), Off the Plate Farm Animal Sanctuary (Montgomery, VT), Oregon Animal Rescue, Oregon Horse Rescue, Out to Pasture Animal Sanctuary (Estacada, OR), Off the Table Farm Sanctuary (Westfield, WI), Open Sanctuary Project, Ozarks, Kat and K9 Shelter (Sunrise Beach, MO), Palm Springs Animal Shelter (CA), Panhandle Equine (Cantonment, FL), Partnership to Ban Horse Carriages Worldwide, Pasado’s Safe Haven (Sultan, WA), Patchwork Pastures (Wantage, NJ), Pawsitive Beginnings, Inc. (Key Largo, FL), Peace Ridge Sanctuary (Brooks, ME), Peaceful Planet Foundation, Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary (Deer Trail, CO), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Phoenix Zones Initiative, Piedmont Farm Animal Rescue (Pittsboro, NC), Pigsburgh Squealers (Tarentum, PA), Pittie Posse Rescue (ME), Pittsburgh Vegan Society (PA), Plant Based in Baja (CA), Plant-Based Treaty, Plant Peace Daily (Glorieta, NM), Pollination Project (Marin County, CA), Possums Welcome (San Rafael, CA), Potter’s Angels Rescue (Montpelier, VT), Pride & Joy Horse Rescue (Fargo, ND), Project Animal Freedom (Eureka, MO), Protect Our Wildlife Vermont, Rainbow Meadows Equine Rescue (Junction City, KS), Red Robin Song Animal Sanctuary (West Lebanon, NY), Revolution Philadelphia (PA), Rise for Animals, Rocket, Dog Rescue (Oakland, CA), Rowdy Girl Sanctuary (Waedler, TX), Safe Haven Wildlife Sanctuary (Imlay, NV), Sanctuary Education Advisory Specialists (East Hartford, CT), Santa Fe Vegan (NM), Santa Paula Animal Rescue Center (CA), Save Our Sky Blue Waters (Duluth, MN), Save Your Ass Long Ear Rescue (South Acworth, NH), SHARK (Showing Animals Respect and Kindness), Social Compassion in Legislation (Laguna Beach, CA), Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Los Angeles (spcaLA), Southern Cross Animal Rescue, (Laurel, MS), SPCA International, SPCA of Hancock County (ME), Species United (Brooklyn, NY), Spirit’s Promise Equine Rescue (Riverhead, NY), Stray Dog Support, Inc., Supporting and Promoting Animal Ethics for the Animal Kingdom (SPEAK) (Tucson, AZ), Switch4Good (Irvine, CA), Tahoe Wolf Center (CA), TevaLand Sanctuary Farm (Hillburn, NY), Texas Humane Legislation Network, The Animal Law Office (San Rafael, CA), The Buddy Fund (New York City, NY), The Center for a Humane Economy, The Parrot Club (Hartford, CT), The Urban Wildlands Group (Los Angeles, CA), The Wild Animal Sanctuary (Keenesburg, CO), Their Turn, Think Wild (Bend, OR), Trailsafe Nevada, Tulsa Vegan Guide (OK), Turtle Island Restoration Network (CA/TX), Unitarian Universalist Animal Ministry (Boulder, CO), Urban Acres Horse Farm (Omaha, NE), Urban Wildlife Research Project (CA), Vegan Organic Network, Vegan Pittsburgh (PA), Veganville Animal Sanctuary (Seaside, OR), VegMichigan, VENDX (Edgewater, FL), Vermont Wildlife Patrol, Victorian Kangaroo Alliance, Voice for Animals (York, ME), Voices of Wildlife in New Hampshire, Voters for Animal Rights (Brooklyn, NY), West Virginia Voters for Animal Welfare, Western Massachusetts Animal Rights Advocates, Western Wildlife Outreach (WA), WildAid (San Francisco, CA), Wildcare Oklahoma, Wildcat Creek Wildlife Center, Inc. (Delphi, IN), Wildlife for All, Wildlife in Crisis (Weston, CT), Wildlife Rescue & Rehabilitation, Inc. (San Antonio, TX), Wildlife Watch, Inc., World Vegan Vision (Paterson, NJ), Wynnwood Wildlife Rehabilitation Center (Elizabethton, TN), Wyoming Untrapped and Wyoming Wildlife Advocates.
-30-

MIL OSI USA News –

June 27, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Tri-Cities Man Who Strangled and Assaulted His Girlfriend Sentenced to Federal Prison

Source: US FBI

Yakima, Washington – Acting United States Attorney Richard R. Barker announced that Jordan Michael Gunlock, age 33, was sentenced after pleading guilty to strangling and assaulting his girlfriend. United States District Judge Mary K. Dimke imposed a sentence of 24 months in prison to be followed by 3 years supervised release.

According to court documents and information presented at the sentencing hearing, in November 2023, Gunlock got into an argument with his girlfriend at her home in Wapato, Washington, after she moved his jacket. During the argument, Gunlock grabbed his girlfriend by the back of the head and pulled her hair, injuring her. After Gunlock stopped pulling her hair, the girlfriend told Gunlock to leave her home. Gunlock initially refused, but fled the residence after his girlfriend called for law enforcement to respond.

In November 2024, Gunlock and his girlfriend were staying at the Legends Hotel Casino in Toppenish, Washington. While in their room, Gunlock put his hands on his girlfriend’s neck and strangled her. After Gunlock stopped strangling his girlfriend, she left the hotel room and went to the hotel lobby. While sitting in the hotel lobby, the girlfriend was crying and gasping for air. Legends employees approached the girlfriend and called for law enforcement to respond. Gunlock’s strangulation assault left red marks on her neck that were still visible to law enforcement later that evening.

In asking for the 2-year sentence, Assistant United States Attorney Bree Black Horse noted that Gunlock has repeatedly assaulted and threatened to harm his girlfriend and members of her family if she left Gunlock or did not act had he directed. AUSA Black Horse argued that the 2-year sentence of imprisonment in a federal facility followed by 3 years of supervised release as well as a federal no-contact order with his girlfriend would deter future acts of Intimate Partner Violence perpetrated by Gunlock against his girlfriend.

At the sentencing hearing Judge Dimke noted that at the time of his arrest, Gunlock was located at his girlfriend’s residence in violation of a state court domestic violence protection order and that he had pressured her not to cooperate with state and federal authorities pursuing domestic violence assault charges against him. The Court specifically noted text messages from Gunlock indicating that he believed if his girlfriend did not show up to court that domestic violence charges against him would be “dropped.” In sentencing Gunlock to 2 years imprisonment, the Court stated it wanted to send a message that it takes domestic violence crimes on the Yakama Nation Indian Reservation seriously, and that interfering with the criminal justice system and demonstrating a lack of respect for court orders would result in serious consequences.

“Protecting victims and ensuring their safety is a top priority for our office, particularly in cases involving intimate partner violence in Indian Country,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Richard R. Barker. “This prosecution reflects our ongoing commitment to working with Tribal partners to hold offenders accountable and to disrupt cycles of abuse that threaten the safety and well-being of Native women. Prosecution of MMIP-adjacent cases like this one is critical to protecting our Tribal communities throughout Eastern Washington.”

“Mr. Gunlock’s sentencing demonstrates the FBI’s continued commitment to the safety of the state’s tribal communities,” said W. Mike Herrington, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Seattle field office. “Domestic violence cannot and will not be tolerated, and the FBI will continue to work diligently with our partners to bring justice for the victims of these deplorable crimes.”

This case is part of the Department of Justice’s Missing or Murdered Indigenous Persons (MMIP) Regional Outreach Program, which aims to aid in the prevention and response to missing or murdered Indigenous people through the resolution of MMIP and MMIP-related cases and communication, coordination, and collaboration with federal, Tribal, state, and local partners. The Department views this work as a priority for its law enforcement components. Through the MMIP Regional Outreach Program, a broad spectrum of stakeholders work together to identify MMIP cases and issues in Tribal communities and develop comprehensive solutions to address them.

This case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Bree Black Horse.

1:25-cr-02005-MKD

MIL Security OSI –

June 27, 2025
MIL-OSI Russia: Iran’s Guardian Council approves bill to suspend cooperation with IAEA

Translation. Region: Russian Federal

Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

TEHRAN, June 26 (Xinhua) — Iran’s Guardian Council on Thursday approved a bill already ratified by parliament to suspend the country’s cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

A bill calling on the Iranian government to stop cooperating with the IAEA has been reviewed by the council and found to be in line with religious precepts, laws and the country’s constitution, council spokesman Hadi Tahan Nazif told state-run IRIB TV on Thursday.

“Given the violation of Iran’s state sovereignty by the United States and Israel, their encroachment on the country’s territorial integrity, as well as attacks on peaceful nuclear facilities and threats to national interests, the Iranian administration is obliged to suspend all cooperation with the IAEA until respect for the country’s national sovereignty and territorial integrity is fully guaranteed, and the safety of Iranian nuclear centers and scientists is ensured,” he said. –0–

MIL OSI Russia News –

June 27, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Former Medical Doctor Charged with Naturalization Fraud
Source: Office of United States Attorneys

Defendant currently serving sentence for attempted murder of his unborn child in 2014
CLEVELAND – A federal grand jury has returned an indictment charging a former medical doctor with naturalization fraud, for providing false answers on a U.S. citizenship application and during an in-person interview.

According to the factual allegations in the indictment, Yousif Abdulraouf Alhallaq, 46, of Canton, was born in Kuwait but was a Jordanian citizen at the time he entered the United States on an H1B visa in 2006. In 2011, Alhallaq filed an application to become a permanent resident of the United States, which was approved and granted him lawful status. Since approximately 2012, Alhallaq worked as a medical doctor in Northeast Ohio. Then, in December 2014, the defendant poisoned a victim who was pregnant with his child, in an attempt to terminate the pregnancy without her knowledge. On March 18, 2021, Alhallaq was indicted in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas and charged with one count of attempted murder and two counts of felonious assault for trying to purposely cause the termination of the victim’s pregnancy and knowingly causing serious physical harm to the victim and her unborn child. In September 2021, Alhallaq pleaded guilty to the charges and was sentenced to four years in prison.

Before Alhallaq was indicted and sentenced in 2021, Alhallaq mailed a federal application in late 2017, Form N-400, to become a naturalized U.S. citizen. In the application he submitted “no” answers to the following questions:
- 14C – Were you ever involved in any way with killing or trying to kill someone?
- 14D – Were you ever involved in any way with badly hurting, or trying to hurt a person on purpose?
- 22 – Have you ever committed, assisted in committing, or attempted to commit a crime or offense for which you were not arrested?
In March 2018, Alhallaq continued with the process of applying for U.S. citizenship and was interviewed by an immigration officer to review the previously submitted naturalization application. Under oath, the defendant verbally confirmed answers to questions 14C, 14D, and 22 as “no” which matched those initially submitted by mail. On May 4, 2018, the defendant became a naturalized U.S. citizen during a ceremony in Stark County, Ohio.

The grand jury charges that although Alhallaq knowingly committed acts of attempted murder and felonious assault against his unborn child in 2014, he nonetheless proceeded to sign his naturalization application in 2017 and then provided verbal confirmation to an immigration official during an interview in 2018 and in both instances attested to the truthfulness of the information he provided, which resulted in being granted U.S. citizenship.

Alhallaq faces a maximum of up to 10 years in prison for naturalization fraud.

If convicted, the defendant’s sentence will be determined by the Court after a review of factors unique to this case, including the defendant’s prior criminal record, his role in the offense, and the characteristics of the violation. In all cases, the sentence will not exceed the statutory maximum, and in most cases, it will be less than the maximum.

The investigation preceding the indictment was conducted by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). This case is being prosecuted by Matthew W. Shepherd for the Northern District of Ohio.

An indictment is merely an allegation. The defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
MIL Security OSI –
June 27, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Former Medical Doctor Charged with Naturalization Fraud
Source: Office of United States Attorneys

Defendant currently serving sentence for attempted murder of his unborn child in 2014
CLEVELAND – A federal grand jury has returned an indictment charging a former medical doctor with naturalization fraud, for providing false answers on a U.S. citizenship application and during an in-person interview.

According to the factual allegations in the indictment, Yousif Abdulraouf Alhallaq, 46, of Canton, was born in Kuwait but was a Jordanian citizen at the time he entered the United States on an H1B visa in 2006. In 2011, Alhallaq filed an application to become a permanent resident of the United States, which was approved and granted him lawful status. Since approximately 2012, Alhallaq worked as a medical doctor in Northeast Ohio. Then, in December 2014, the defendant poisoned a victim who was pregnant with his child, in an attempt to terminate the pregnancy without her knowledge. On March 18, 2021, Alhallaq was indicted in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas and charged with one count of attempted murder and two counts of felonious assault for trying to purposely cause the termination of the victim’s pregnancy and knowingly causing serious physical harm to the victim and her unborn child. In September 2021, Alhallaq pleaded guilty to the charges and was sentenced to four years in prison.

Before Alhallaq was indicted and sentenced in 2021, Alhallaq mailed a federal application in late 2017, Form N-400, to become a naturalized U.S. citizen. In the application he submitted “no” answers to the following questions:
- 14C – Were you ever involved in any way with killing or trying to kill someone?
- 14D – Were you ever involved in any way with badly hurting, or trying to hurt a person on purpose?
- 22 – Have you ever committed, assisted in committing, or attempted to commit a crime or offense for which you were not arrested?
In March 2018, Alhallaq continued with the process of applying for U.S. citizenship and was interviewed by an immigration officer to review the previously submitted naturalization application. Under oath, the defendant verbally confirmed answers to questions 14C, 14D, and 22 as “no” which matched those initially submitted by mail. On May 4, 2018, the defendant became a naturalized U.S. citizen during a ceremony in Stark County, Ohio.

The grand jury charges that although Alhallaq knowingly committed acts of attempted murder and felonious assault against his unborn child in 2014, he nonetheless proceeded to sign his naturalization application in 2017 and then provided verbal confirmation to an immigration official during an interview in 2018 and in both instances attested to the truthfulness of the information he provided, which resulted in being granted U.S. citizenship.

Alhallaq faces a maximum of up to 10 years in prison for naturalization fraud.

If convicted, the defendant’s sentence will be determined by the Court after a review of factors unique to this case, including the defendant’s prior criminal record, his role in the offense, and the characteristics of the violation. In all cases, the sentence will not exceed the statutory maximum, and in most cases, it will be less than the maximum.

The investigation preceding the indictment was conducted by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Homeland Security Investigations (HSI). This case is being prosecuted by Matthew W. Shepherd for the Northern District of Ohio.

An indictment is merely an allegation. The defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.
MIL Security OSI –
June 27, 2025
MIL-OSI Africa: Sudan: foreign interests are deepening a devastating war – only regional diplomacy can stop them

Source: The Conversation – Africa – By John Mukum Mbaku, Professor, Weber State University

The war between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces has raged since April 2023. It’s turned Sudan into the site of one of the world’s most catastrophic humanitarian and displacement crises.

At least 150,000 people have been killed. More than 14 million have been displaced, with over 3 million fleeing to neighbouring countries like Chad, Ethiopia and South Sudan. Once a vibrant capital city, Khartoum is now a “burnt-out shell”.

This devastating war, rooted in long-standing ethnic, political and economic tensions, has been compounded by what international and regional actors have done and failed to do. As Amnesty International notes, the international response remains “woefully inadequate”.

The problem lies in the fact that external involvement has not been neutral. Instead of halting the conflict, many external players have complicated it. In some cases, international interventions have escalated it.

More than 10 countries across Africa, the Middle East and Asia have been drawn into Sudan’s war. This has turned it into a proxy conflict that reflects the interests of external actors, such as Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

Several actors have taken sides.

Saudi Arabia, for instance, backs the Sudanese army. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is alleged to support the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces. Egypt, citing historical ties, backs the army. For their part, Ethiopia and Eritrea reportedly support the paramilitary group. Chad has been accused of facilitating arms shipments to the Rapid Support Forces via its eastern airports. Russia, Ukraine, Turkey and Iran have also been linked to diplomatic and military support to Sudan’s army.

These geopolitical entanglements have made peace nearly impossible, deepening the conflict instead of resolving it.

I have studied Africa’s governance failures for more than 30 years, from military elites and coups to state capture and political instability. Based on this, my view is that Sudan’s conflict cannot be resolved without serious international commitment to neutrality and peace.

Read more: Sudan’s peace mediation should be led by the African Union: 3 reasons why

The involvement of foreign actors on opposing sides must be reversed. International involvement must be premised on helping the Sudanese people develop the capacity to resolve governance problems themselves.

For this to happen, regional diplomacy must be stepped up. The African Union must assert its legitimacy and take the lead in addressing this challenging crisis. It can do this by putting pressure on member states to ensure that any ceasefire agreements are enforced.

The East African Community and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development can provide assistance in securing a peace agreement and ensuring it’s enforced. Members of these continental organisations can encourage external actors to limit their intervention in Sudan to activities that promote democratic governance and sustainable development.

The African Union

The African Union should play a central role in bringing peace to Sudan. But its absence has been conspicuous.

Despite adopting the “African solutions to African problems” mantra, the African Union has neither held Sudan’s warlords accountable nor put in place adequate civilian protection measures.

First, it could have worked closely with the UN to deploy a mission to Sudan with a mandate to protect civilians, monitor human rights (especially the rights of women and girls), assist in the return of all displaced persons and prevent any further attacks on civilians.

Second, the African Union could have sent an expert group to investigate human rights violations, especially sexual violence. The results could have been submitted to the union’s Peace and Security Council for further action.

Third, the African Union could have worked closely with regional and international actors, including the Arab League. This would ensure a unified approach to the conflict, based on the interests of Sudanese people for peace and development.

Finally, the AU could have addressed the root causes of Sudan’s conflicts, which include extreme poverty, inequality, political exclusion and economic marginalisation.

The African Union could also make use of the insights and knowledge gleaned by African leaders like Kenya’s William Ruto and Egypt’s Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who have attempted to mediate, but have failed. The AU should also use the political expertise of elder statesmen, such as Thabo Mbeki, Moussa Faki and Olusegun Obasanjo, to help address the conflict and humanitarian crisis.

The United Arab Emirates

The UAE is alleged to back the paramilitary troops in the war. In recent years, the UAE has become increasingly involved in African conflicts. It has supported various factions to conflicts in the Horn of Africa, the Sahel region and Libya.

Its increased involvement in Africa is driven by several strategic interests. These include fighting terrorism, securing maritime routes, and expanding its trade and influence.

Read more: Sudan is burning and foreign powers are benefiting – what’s in it for the UAE

In 2009, the UAE helped Sudan mediate its border conflict with Chad. The UAE supported the ouster of Omar al-Bashir in April 2019, as well as Sudan’s transitional military council.

In 2021, the UAE signed a strategic partnership with Sudan to modernise its political institutions and return the country to the international community. The UAE has stated that it has taken a neutral position in the present conflict. However, on 6 March 2025, Sudan brought a case against the UAE to the International Court of Justice. It accused the UAE of complicity in genocide, alleging that the UAE “has been arming the RSF with the aim of wiping out the non-Arab Massalit population of West Darfur.”

The United States

During his first term, US president Donald Trump spearheaded the Abraham Accords. These agreements were aimed at normalising relations between Israel and several Arab countries, including Sudan. Subsequently, Sudan was removed from the US list of state sponsors of terrorism.

The accords appeared to have brought Khartoum closer to Washington. They provided avenues for the type of engagement that could have placed it in good stead when Trump returned to the White House in 2025.

However, Sudan’s internal political and economic instability, including the present civil war, has complicated the situation.

The Abraham Accords were a significant foreign policy achievement for Trump. A peaceful, democratically governed, and economically stable and prosperous Sudan could serve as the foundation for Trump’s “circle of peace” in the Middle East.

But Trump and his administration are preoccupied with other domestic and foreign policy priorities. During his May 2025 visit to Saudi Arabia, Trump did not officially address the conflict in Sudan. Instead, he placed emphasis on securing business deals and investments.

The European Union

The European Union has strongly condemned the violence and the atrocities committed during the war in Sudan, especially against children and women. The organisation has appealed for an immediate and lasting ceasefire while noting that Sudan faces the “most catastrophic humanitarian crisis of the 21st century”.

Unfortunately, member countries will remain preoccupied with helping Ukraine, especially given the growing uncertainty in Washington’s relationship with the authorities in Kyiv.

The preoccupation and focus of the EU and the US on Gaza, Ukraine and Iran may, however, be underestimating the geopolitical risks Sudan’s war is generating.

A peaceful and democratically governed Sudan can contribute to peace not just in the region, but also in many other parts of the world.

What now?

To end Sudan’s war and prevent future ones, international and African actors must do more than issue statements. They must act coherently, collectively and with genuine commitment to the Sudanese people’s right to peace, democratic governance and sustainable development.

Democracy and the rule of law are key to peaceful coexistence and sustainable development in Sudan. However, establishing and sustaining institutions that enhance and support democracy is the job of the Sudanese people. The external community can provide the financial support that Sudan is likely to need. It can also support the strengthening of electoral systems, civic education and citizen trust in public institutions.

– Sudan: foreign interests are deepening a devastating war – only regional diplomacy can stop them
– https://theconversation.com/sudan-foreign-interests-are-deepening-a-devastating-war-only-regional-diplomacy-can-stop-them-259824

MIL OSI Africa –

June 27, 2025
MIL-OSI Analysis: Sudan: foreign interests are deepening a devastating war – only regional diplomacy can stop them

Source: The Conversation – Africa – By John Mukum Mbaku, Professor, Weber State University

The war between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces has raged since April 2023. It’s turned Sudan into the site of one of the world’s most catastrophic humanitarian and displacement crises.

At least 150,000 people have been killed. More than 14 million have been displaced, with over 3 million fleeing to neighbouring countries like Chad, Ethiopia and South Sudan. Once a vibrant capital city, Khartoum is now a “burnt-out shell”.

This devastating war, rooted in long-standing ethnic, political and economic tensions, has been compounded by what international and regional actors have done and failed to do. As Amnesty International notes, the international response remains “woefully inadequate”.

The problem lies in the fact that external involvement has not been neutral. Instead of halting the conflict, many external players have complicated it. In some cases, international interventions have escalated it.

More than 10 countries across Africa, the Middle East and Asia have been drawn into Sudan’s war. This has turned it into a proxy conflict that reflects the interests of external actors, such as Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

Several actors have taken sides.

Saudi Arabia, for instance, backs the Sudanese army. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is alleged to support the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces. Egypt, citing historical ties, backs the army. For their part, Ethiopia and Eritrea reportedly support the paramilitary group. Chad has been accused of facilitating arms shipments to the Rapid Support Forces via its eastern airports. Russia, Ukraine, Turkey and Iran have also been linked to diplomatic and military support to Sudan’s army.

These geopolitical entanglements have made peace nearly impossible, deepening the conflict instead of resolving it.

I have studied Africa’s governance failures for more than 30 years, from military elites and coups to state capture and political instability. Based on this, my view is that Sudan’s conflict cannot be resolved without serious international commitment to neutrality and peace.

Read more:
Sudan’s peace mediation should be led by the African Union: 3 reasons why

The involvement of foreign actors on opposing sides must be reversed. International involvement must be premised on helping the Sudanese people develop the capacity to resolve governance problems themselves.

For this to happen, regional diplomacy must be stepped up. The African Union must assert its legitimacy and take the lead in addressing this challenging crisis. It can do this by putting pressure on member states to ensure that any ceasefire agreements are enforced.

The East African Community and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development can provide assistance in securing a peace agreement and ensuring it’s enforced. Members of these continental organisations can encourage external actors to limit their intervention in Sudan to activities that promote democratic governance and sustainable development.

The African Union

The African Union should play a central role in bringing peace to Sudan. But its absence has been conspicuous.

Despite adopting the “African solutions to African problems” mantra, the African Union has neither held Sudan’s warlords accountable nor put in place adequate civilian protection measures.

First, it could have worked closely with the UN to deploy a mission to Sudan with a mandate to protect civilians, monitor human rights (especially the rights of women and girls), assist in the return of all displaced persons and prevent any further attacks on civilians.

Second, the African Union could have sent an expert group to investigate human rights violations, especially sexual violence. The results could have been submitted to the union’s Peace and Security Council for further action.

Third, the African Union could have worked closely with regional and international actors, including the Arab League. This would ensure a unified approach to the conflict, based on the interests of Sudanese people for peace and development.

Finally, the AU could have addressed the root causes of Sudan’s conflicts, which include extreme poverty, inequality, political exclusion and economic marginalisation.

The African Union could also make use of the insights and knowledge gleaned by African leaders like Kenya’s William Ruto and Egypt’s Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who have attempted to mediate, but have failed. The AU should also use the political expertise of elder statesmen, such as Thabo Mbeki, Moussa Faki and Olusegun Obasanjo, to help address the conflict and humanitarian crisis.

The United Arab Emirates

The UAE is alleged to back the paramilitary troops in the war. In recent years, the UAE has become increasingly involved in African conflicts. It has supported various factions to conflicts in the Horn of Africa, the Sahel region and Libya.

Its increased involvement in Africa is driven by several strategic interests. These include fighting terrorism, securing maritime routes, and expanding its trade and influence.

Read more:
Sudan is burning and foreign powers are benefiting – what’s in it for the UAE

In 2009, the UAE helped Sudan mediate its border conflict with Chad. The UAE supported the ouster of Omar al-Bashir in April 2019, as well as Sudan’s transitional military council.

In 2021, the UAE signed a strategic partnership with Sudan to modernise its political institutions and return the country to the international community. The UAE has stated that it has taken a neutral position in the present conflict. However, on 6 March 2025, Sudan brought a case against the UAE to the International Court of Justice. It accused the UAE of complicity in genocide, alleging that the UAE “has been arming the RSF with the aim of wiping out the non-Arab Massalit population of West Darfur.”

The United States

During his first term, US president Donald Trump spearheaded the Abraham Accords. These agreements were aimed at normalising relations between Israel and several Arab countries, including Sudan. Subsequently, Sudan was removed from the US list of state sponsors of terrorism.

The accords appeared to have brought Khartoum closer to Washington. They provided avenues for the type of engagement that could have placed it in good stead when Trump returned to the White House in 2025.

However, Sudan’s internal political and economic instability, including the present civil war, has complicated the situation.

The Abraham Accords were a significant foreign policy achievement for Trump. A peaceful, democratically governed, and economically stable and prosperous Sudan could serve as the foundation for Trump’s “circle of peace” in the Middle East.

But Trump and his administration are preoccupied with other domestic and foreign policy priorities. During his May 2025 visit to Saudi Arabia, Trump did not officially address the conflict in Sudan. Instead, he placed emphasis on securing business deals and investments.

The European Union

The European Union has strongly condemned the violence and the atrocities committed during the war in Sudan, especially against children and women. The organisation has appealed for an immediate and lasting ceasefire while noting that Sudan faces the “most catastrophic humanitarian crisis of the 21st century”.

Unfortunately, member countries will remain preoccupied with helping Ukraine, especially given the growing uncertainty in Washington’s relationship with the authorities in Kyiv.

The preoccupation and focus of the EU and the US on Gaza, Ukraine and Iran may, however, be underestimating the geopolitical risks Sudan’s war is generating.

A peaceful and democratically governed Sudan can contribute to peace not just in the region, but also in many other parts of the world.

What now?

To end Sudan’s war and prevent future ones, international and African actors must do more than issue statements. They must act coherently, collectively and with genuine commitment to the Sudanese people’s right to peace, democratic governance and sustainable development.

Democracy and the rule of law are key to peaceful coexistence and sustainable development in Sudan. However, establishing and sustaining institutions that enhance and support democracy is the job of the Sudanese people. The external community can provide the financial support that Sudan is likely to need. It can also support the strengthening of electoral systems, civic education and citizen trust in public institutions.

John Mukum Mbaku 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. Sudan: foreign interests are deepening a devastating war – only regional diplomacy can stop them – https://theconversation.com/sudan-foreign-interests-are-deepening-a-devastating-war-only-regional-diplomacy-can-stop-them-259824

MIL OSI Analysis –

June 27, 2025
MIL-OSI Analysis: Sudan: foreign interests are deepening a devastating war – only regional diplomacy can stop them

Source: The Conversation – Africa – By John Mukum Mbaku, Professor, Weber State University

The war between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces has raged since April 2023. It’s turned Sudan into the site of one of the world’s most catastrophic humanitarian and displacement crises.

At least 150,000 people have been killed. More than 14 million have been displaced, with over 3 million fleeing to neighbouring countries like Chad, Ethiopia and South Sudan. Once a vibrant capital city, Khartoum is now a “burnt-out shell”.

This devastating war, rooted in long-standing ethnic, political and economic tensions, has been compounded by what international and regional actors have done and failed to do. As Amnesty International notes, the international response remains “woefully inadequate”.

The problem lies in the fact that external involvement has not been neutral. Instead of halting the conflict, many external players have complicated it. In some cases, international interventions have escalated it.

More than 10 countries across Africa, the Middle East and Asia have been drawn into Sudan’s war. This has turned it into a proxy conflict that reflects the interests of external actors, such as Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

Several actors have taken sides.

Saudi Arabia, for instance, backs the Sudanese army. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is alleged to support the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces. Egypt, citing historical ties, backs the army. For their part, Ethiopia and Eritrea reportedly support the paramilitary group. Chad has been accused of facilitating arms shipments to the Rapid Support Forces via its eastern airports. Russia, Ukraine, Turkey and Iran have also been linked to diplomatic and military support to Sudan’s army.

These geopolitical entanglements have made peace nearly impossible, deepening the conflict instead of resolving it.

I have studied Africa’s governance failures for more than 30 years, from military elites and coups to state capture and political instability. Based on this, my view is that Sudan’s conflict cannot be resolved without serious international commitment to neutrality and peace.

Read more:
Sudan’s peace mediation should be led by the African Union: 3 reasons why

The involvement of foreign actors on opposing sides must be reversed. International involvement must be premised on helping the Sudanese people develop the capacity to resolve governance problems themselves.

For this to happen, regional diplomacy must be stepped up. The African Union must assert its legitimacy and take the lead in addressing this challenging crisis. It can do this by putting pressure on member states to ensure that any ceasefire agreements are enforced.

The East African Community and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development can provide assistance in securing a peace agreement and ensuring it’s enforced. Members of these continental organisations can encourage external actors to limit their intervention in Sudan to activities that promote democratic governance and sustainable development.

The African Union

The African Union should play a central role in bringing peace to Sudan. But its absence has been conspicuous.

Despite adopting the “African solutions to African problems” mantra, the African Union has neither held Sudan’s warlords accountable nor put in place adequate civilian protection measures.

First, it could have worked closely with the UN to deploy a mission to Sudan with a mandate to protect civilians, monitor human rights (especially the rights of women and girls), assist in the return of all displaced persons and prevent any further attacks on civilians.

Second, the African Union could have sent an expert group to investigate human rights violations, especially sexual violence. The results could have been submitted to the union’s Peace and Security Council for further action.

Third, the African Union could have worked closely with regional and international actors, including the Arab League. This would ensure a unified approach to the conflict, based on the interests of Sudanese people for peace and development.

Finally, the AU could have addressed the root causes of Sudan’s conflicts, which include extreme poverty, inequality, political exclusion and economic marginalisation.

The African Union could also make use of the insights and knowledge gleaned by African leaders like Kenya’s William Ruto and Egypt’s Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who have attempted to mediate, but have failed. The AU should also use the political expertise of elder statesmen, such as Thabo Mbeki, Moussa Faki and Olusegun Obasanjo, to help address the conflict and humanitarian crisis.

The United Arab Emirates

The UAE is alleged to back the paramilitary troops in the war. In recent years, the UAE has become increasingly involved in African conflicts. It has supported various factions to conflicts in the Horn of Africa, the Sahel region and Libya.

Its increased involvement in Africa is driven by several strategic interests. These include fighting terrorism, securing maritime routes, and expanding its trade and influence.

Read more:
Sudan is burning and foreign powers are benefiting – what’s in it for the UAE

In 2009, the UAE helped Sudan mediate its border conflict with Chad. The UAE supported the ouster of Omar al-Bashir in April 2019, as well as Sudan’s transitional military council.

In 2021, the UAE signed a strategic partnership with Sudan to modernise its political institutions and return the country to the international community. The UAE has stated that it has taken a neutral position in the present conflict. However, on 6 March 2025, Sudan brought a case against the UAE to the International Court of Justice. It accused the UAE of complicity in genocide, alleging that the UAE “has been arming the RSF with the aim of wiping out the non-Arab Massalit population of West Darfur.”

The United States

During his first term, US president Donald Trump spearheaded the Abraham Accords. These agreements were aimed at normalising relations between Israel and several Arab countries, including Sudan. Subsequently, Sudan was removed from the US list of state sponsors of terrorism.

The accords appeared to have brought Khartoum closer to Washington. They provided avenues for the type of engagement that could have placed it in good stead when Trump returned to the White House in 2025.

However, Sudan’s internal political and economic instability, including the present civil war, has complicated the situation.

The Abraham Accords were a significant foreign policy achievement for Trump. A peaceful, democratically governed, and economically stable and prosperous Sudan could serve as the foundation for Trump’s “circle of peace” in the Middle East.

But Trump and his administration are preoccupied with other domestic and foreign policy priorities. During his May 2025 visit to Saudi Arabia, Trump did not officially address the conflict in Sudan. Instead, he placed emphasis on securing business deals and investments.

The European Union

The European Union has strongly condemned the violence and the atrocities committed during the war in Sudan, especially against children and women. The organisation has appealed for an immediate and lasting ceasefire while noting that Sudan faces the “most catastrophic humanitarian crisis of the 21st century”.

Unfortunately, member countries will remain preoccupied with helping Ukraine, especially given the growing uncertainty in Washington’s relationship with the authorities in Kyiv.

The preoccupation and focus of the EU and the US on Gaza, Ukraine and Iran may, however, be underestimating the geopolitical risks Sudan’s war is generating.

A peaceful and democratically governed Sudan can contribute to peace not just in the region, but also in many other parts of the world.

What now?

To end Sudan’s war and prevent future ones, international and African actors must do more than issue statements. They must act coherently, collectively and with genuine commitment to the Sudanese people’s right to peace, democratic governance and sustainable development.

Democracy and the rule of law are key to peaceful coexistence and sustainable development in Sudan. However, establishing and sustaining institutions that enhance and support democracy is the job of the Sudanese people. The external community can provide the financial support that Sudan is likely to need. It can also support the strengthening of electoral systems, civic education and citizen trust in public institutions.

John Mukum Mbaku 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. Sudan: foreign interests are deepening a devastating war – only regional diplomacy can stop them – https://theconversation.com/sudan-foreign-interests-are-deepening-a-devastating-war-only-regional-diplomacy-can-stop-them-259824

MIL OSI Analysis –

June 27, 2025
MIL-OSI Global: How huge migrating animal puppets captivate in ways that climate news can’t

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Matt Smith, Reader in Applied Theatre and Puppetry, University of Portsmouth

A herd of puppet animals is migrating north from Africa. This 12,000 mile journey represents wildlife’s response to the climate crisis as species are forced to move north due to rising temperatures. As The Herds travels through the UK en route to the Arctic, the organisers hope this artistic project will help spectators along the route understand what is happening to the environment.

Events like this are “louder than traffic”, according to US-based puppeteer Peter Schumann. The giant puppets are a visual tool to capture the public’s imagination.

Over the past 30 years working as a theatre scholar, I have observed that puppetry has become an important artform for telling stories that explore the way we respond to and interact with nature.

Like traditional street theatre such as Punch and Judy, puppets grab the audience’s attention against the backdrop of everyday life. Now with the rise of social media, modern culture is now even more visually oriented. Puppetry is a big hit in these new digital spaces, according to some researchers.

The Herds project was created by a theatre company called Little Walk after the success of Little Amal, a Syrian refugee puppet project about human migration and climate relocation. One of the Little Amal puppeteers told me that, ironically, it was easier for the puppets to cross borders but the human artists and puppeteers had to take major detours to carry out the Little Amal project in 17 countries.

The Herds aims to inspire people to think about the direct consequences of the climate crisis as the animal puppets travel from Africa to the Arctic. Puppeteers animate the life-size puppets in full view of the audience. As each puppeteer focuses on moving the puppet, they transfer their energy and emotion into the puppets body.

The Herds takes puppets on a 12,000-mile-long migration from Africa to the Arctic.

I was trained in these techniques during the 1990s. I know that when a performer intensely focuses on a performing object, the result is mesmerising. It can enable the audience to feel empathy for another non-human being. The aim is to cut through discourses and affect people directly with images performed beyond language and local agendas.

Puppetry is both an interdisciplinary and interactive artform that is as old as human culture. Animated figures have been employed in both the popular spaces of folk theatres and the avant garde spaces of high art. Puppet characters can tell very simple stories in slapstick shows or speak to complex issues in projects like The Herds.

Even having researched puppetry in communities for more than three decades, the many varied uses for puppetry continue to surprise me. Beyond theatres, puppets can affect people in everyday spaces, just as The Herds does. My book, published in 2024, explores how the popular global practice of puppetry by communities and groups brings pleasure through both making and performing with puppets.

Communicating complexity

In 2023, I collaborated with scientists at the Centre for Enzyme Innovation at University of Portsmouth who are developing enzymes that can break down plastic waste. We found that puppets could help to communicate complex science about innovative recycling to audiences through workshops and a showcase event. The puppets as entertaining figures symbolising ideas could animate the science and engage audiences in a playful and non-elitist fashion.

Puppetry is a powerful and engaging art form that can capture the imagination of audiences globally. Even during our advanced technological times puppetry is still employed both by technologies – for example our own XR lab used puppets recently exploring their use with avatars.

With successful West End productions in London such as Lion King and War Horse (a show which changed the fortunes of the National Theatre, puppetry has become mainstream in the UK. Now with The Herds, animal puppets are having a global reach.

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 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

Matt Smith receives funding from Royal Academy of Engineering for the enzyme puppet project.

– ref. How huge migrating animal puppets captivate in ways that climate news can’t – https://theconversation.com/how-huge-migrating-animal-puppets-captivate-in-ways-that-climate-news-cant-259592

MIL OSI – Global Reports –

June 27, 2025
MIL-OSI Global: How huge migrating animal puppets captivate in ways that climate news can’t

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Matt Smith, Reader in Applied Theatre and Puppetry, University of Portsmouth

A herd of puppet animals is migrating north from Africa. This 12,000 mile journey represents wildlife’s response to the climate crisis as species are forced to move north due to rising temperatures. As The Herds travels through the UK en route to the Arctic, the organisers hope this artistic project will help spectators along the route understand what is happening to the environment.

Events like this are “louder than traffic”, according to US-based puppeteer Peter Schumann. The giant puppets are a visual tool to capture the public’s imagination.

Over the past 30 years working as a theatre scholar, I have observed that puppetry has become an important artform for telling stories that explore the way we respond to and interact with nature.

Like traditional street theatre such as Punch and Judy, puppets grab the audience’s attention against the backdrop of everyday life. Now with the rise of social media, modern culture is now even more visually oriented. Puppetry is a big hit in these new digital spaces, according to some researchers.

The Herds project was created by a theatre company called Little Walk after the success of Little Amal, a Syrian refugee puppet project about human migration and climate relocation. One of the Little Amal puppeteers told me that, ironically, it was easier for the puppets to cross borders but the human artists and puppeteers had to take major detours to carry out the Little Amal project in 17 countries.

The Herds aims to inspire people to think about the direct consequences of the climate crisis as the animal puppets travel from Africa to the Arctic. Puppeteers animate the life-size puppets in full view of the audience. As each puppeteer focuses on moving the puppet, they transfer their energy and emotion into the puppets body.

The Herds takes puppets on a 12,000-mile-long migration from Africa to the Arctic.

I was trained in these techniques during the 1990s. I know that when a performer intensely focuses on a performing object, the result is mesmerising. It can enable the audience to feel empathy for another non-human being. The aim is to cut through discourses and affect people directly with images performed beyond language and local agendas.

Puppetry is both an interdisciplinary and interactive artform that is as old as human culture. Animated figures have been employed in both the popular spaces of folk theatres and the avant garde spaces of high art. Puppet characters can tell very simple stories in slapstick shows or speak to complex issues in projects like The Herds.

Even having researched puppetry in communities for more than three decades, the many varied uses for puppetry continue to surprise me. Beyond theatres, puppets can affect people in everyday spaces, just as The Herds does. My book, published in 2024, explores how the popular global practice of puppetry by communities and groups brings pleasure through both making and performing with puppets.

Communicating complexity

In 2023, I collaborated with scientists at the Centre for Enzyme Innovation at University of Portsmouth who are developing enzymes that can break down plastic waste. We found that puppets could help to communicate complex science about innovative recycling to audiences through workshops and a showcase event. The puppets as entertaining figures symbolising ideas could animate the science and engage audiences in a playful and non-elitist fashion.

Puppetry is a powerful and engaging art form that can capture the imagination of audiences globally. Even during our advanced technological times puppetry is still employed both by technologies – for example our own XR lab used puppets recently exploring their use with avatars.

With successful West End productions in London such as Lion King and War Horse (a show which changed the fortunes of the National Theatre, puppetry has become mainstream in the UK. Now with The Herds, animal puppets are having a global reach.

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 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

Matt Smith receives funding from Royal Academy of Engineering for the enzyme puppet project.

– ref. How huge migrating animal puppets captivate in ways that climate news can’t – https://theconversation.com/how-huge-migrating-animal-puppets-captivate-in-ways-that-climate-news-cant-259592

MIL OSI – Global Reports –

June 27, 2025
MIL-OSI: Maris-Tech Secures New Purchase Order for Innovative AI-Powered Surveillance Solution for the Defense Industry

Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

Marks Entry into a New Market Segment with Advanced Threat Detection Capabilities

Rehovot, Israel, June 26, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Maris-Tech Ltd. (Nasdaq: MTEK, MTEKW) (“Maris-Tech” or the “Company”), a global leader in video and artificial intelligence (“AI”) – based edge computing technology, today announced that it has received a $100,000 purchase order for a new surveillance solution to be designed for the defense sector.

This innovative solution will be based on the Company’s Jupiter-AI edge solution and will be integrated into an advanced military surveillance system to allow real-time threat detection and monitoring. This order marks the Company’s entry into a new field, extending its technology to new market segments.

“We believe that this order is a strong indication of the market’s growing confidence in our ability to address a wide variety of operational needs,” said Israel Bar, Chief Executive Officer of Maris-Tech. “It also represents an important step into a new segment for us, which broadens the scope of our video and AI-powered edge computing solutions, as well as our presence in the defense industry.”

About Maris-Tech Ltd.

Maris-Tech is a global leader in video and AI-based edge computing technology, pioneering intelligent video transmission solutions that conquer complex encoding-decoding challenges. Our miniature, lightweight, and low-power products deliver high-performance capabilities, including raw data processing, seamless transfer, advanced image processing, and AI-driven analytics. Founded by Israeli technology sector veterans, Maris-Tech serves leading manufacturers worldwide in defense, aerospace, Intelligence gathering, homeland security (HLS), and communication industries. We’re pushing the boundaries of video transmission and edge computing, driving innovation in mission-critical applications across commercial and defense sectors.

For more information, visit https://www.maris-tech.com/

Forward-Looking Statement Disclaimer

This press release contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, that are intended to be covered by the “safe harbor” created by those sections. Forward-looking statements, which are based on certain assumptions and describe our future plans, strategies and expectations, can generally be identified by the use of forward-looking terms such as “believe,” “expect”,” “may”, “should,” “could,” “seek,” “intend,” “plan,” “goal,” “estimate,” “anticipate” or other comparable terms. For example, the Company is using forward-looking statements when it is discussing the innovative solution to be developed pursuant to the purchase order and integration of the solution into an advanced military surveillance system to allow real-time threat detection and monitoring and the timing of delivery thereof; the Company’s expansion of its technology to new market segments; the Company’s ability to address a wide variety of operational needs; and the broadening of the scope of the Company’s video and AI-powered edge computing solutions, as well as its future presence in the defense industry. The Company’s actual results and financial condition may differ materially from those indicated in the forward-looking statements. Therefore, you should not rely on any of these forward-looking statements. Important factors that could cause our actual results and financial condition to differ materially from those indicated in the forward-looking statements include, among others, the following: its ability to successfully market its products and services, including in the United States; the acceptance of its products and services by customers; its continued ability to pay operating costs and ability to meet demand for its products and services; the amount and nature of competition from other security and telecom products and services; the effects of changes in the cybersecurity and telecom markets; its ability to successfully develop new products and services; its success establishing and maintaining collaborative, strategic alliance agreements, licensing and supplier arrangements; its ability to comply with applicable regulations; and the other risks and uncertainties described in the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the SEC on March 28, 2025, and its other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company undertakes no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statement, whether written or oral, that may be made from time to time, whether as a result of new information, future developments or otherwise.

Investor Relations:

Nir Bussy, CFO
Tel: +972-72-2424022
Nir@maris-tech.com

The MIL Network –

June 27, 2025
MIL-OSI: Maris-Tech Secures New Purchase Order for Innovative AI-Powered Surveillance Solution for the Defense Industry

Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

Marks Entry into a New Market Segment with Advanced Threat Detection Capabilities

Rehovot, Israel, June 26, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Maris-Tech Ltd. (Nasdaq: MTEK, MTEKW) (“Maris-Tech” or the “Company”), a global leader in video and artificial intelligence (“AI”) – based edge computing technology, today announced that it has received a $100,000 purchase order for a new surveillance solution to be designed for the defense sector.

This innovative solution will be based on the Company’s Jupiter-AI edge solution and will be integrated into an advanced military surveillance system to allow real-time threat detection and monitoring. This order marks the Company’s entry into a new field, extending its technology to new market segments.

“We believe that this order is a strong indication of the market’s growing confidence in our ability to address a wide variety of operational needs,” said Israel Bar, Chief Executive Officer of Maris-Tech. “It also represents an important step into a new segment for us, which broadens the scope of our video and AI-powered edge computing solutions, as well as our presence in the defense industry.”

About Maris-Tech Ltd.

Maris-Tech is a global leader in video and AI-based edge computing technology, pioneering intelligent video transmission solutions that conquer complex encoding-decoding challenges. Our miniature, lightweight, and low-power products deliver high-performance capabilities, including raw data processing, seamless transfer, advanced image processing, and AI-driven analytics. Founded by Israeli technology sector veterans, Maris-Tech serves leading manufacturers worldwide in defense, aerospace, Intelligence gathering, homeland security (HLS), and communication industries. We’re pushing the boundaries of video transmission and edge computing, driving innovation in mission-critical applications across commercial and defense sectors.

For more information, visit https://www.maris-tech.com/

Forward-Looking Statement Disclaimer

This press release contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, that are intended to be covered by the “safe harbor” created by those sections. Forward-looking statements, which are based on certain assumptions and describe our future plans, strategies and expectations, can generally be identified by the use of forward-looking terms such as “believe,” “expect”,” “may”, “should,” “could,” “seek,” “intend,” “plan,” “goal,” “estimate,” “anticipate” or other comparable terms. For example, the Company is using forward-looking statements when it is discussing the innovative solution to be developed pursuant to the purchase order and integration of the solution into an advanced military surveillance system to allow real-time threat detection and monitoring and the timing of delivery thereof; the Company’s expansion of its technology to new market segments; the Company’s ability to address a wide variety of operational needs; and the broadening of the scope of the Company’s video and AI-powered edge computing solutions, as well as its future presence in the defense industry. The Company’s actual results and financial condition may differ materially from those indicated in the forward-looking statements. Therefore, you should not rely on any of these forward-looking statements. Important factors that could cause our actual results and financial condition to differ materially from those indicated in the forward-looking statements include, among others, the following: its ability to successfully market its products and services, including in the United States; the acceptance of its products and services by customers; its continued ability to pay operating costs and ability to meet demand for its products and services; the amount and nature of competition from other security and telecom products and services; the effects of changes in the cybersecurity and telecom markets; its ability to successfully develop new products and services; its success establishing and maintaining collaborative, strategic alliance agreements, licensing and supplier arrangements; its ability to comply with applicable regulations; and the other risks and uncertainties described in the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the SEC on March 28, 2025, and its other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company undertakes no obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statement, whether written or oral, that may be made from time to time, whether as a result of new information, future developments or otherwise.

Investor Relations:

Nir Bussy, CFO
Tel: +972-72-2424022
Nir@maris-tech.com

The MIL Network –

June 27, 2025
MIL-OSI Africa: United Arab Emirates (UAE) leaders congratulate President of Madagascar on Independence Day

Source: Africa Press Organisation – English (2) – Report:

Download logo

President His Highness Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan has sent a message of congratulations to President Andry Rajoelina of the Republic of Madagascar on the occasion of his country’s Independence Day.

His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President, Prime Minister and Ruler of Dubai, and His Highness Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Vice President, Deputy Prime Minister and Chairman of the Presidential Court, dispatched similar messages to President Rajoelina and to Prime Minister Christian Ntsay on the occasion.

– on behalf of United Arab Emirates, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

MIL OSI Africa –

June 27, 2025
MIL-OSI Africa: United Arab Emirates (UAE) to Chair United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) Support Group for 2025–2026 Term

Source: Africa Press Organisation – English (2) – Report:

Download logo

The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) Support Group unanimously endorsed the appointment of His Excellency Ambassador Jamal Jama Al Musharakh, UAE’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations and other international organizations in Geneva, as Chair of the Support Group for the 2025–2026 term, as of August 2025.

The UAE will assume the Chairmanship from the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, which currently holds the position for the 2024–2025 term. This appointment marks a significant milestone, as the UAE becomes the first Arab country to assume this role.

The UAE’s leadership reflects the country’s strong commitment to multilateralism, sustainable development, and proactive engagement in tackling the rising risks posed by climate change and disasters.

Addressing the group during the meeting, H.E. Al Musharakh stated: “The UAE is fully committed to leveraging its leadership of the UNDRR Support Group to drive forward practical, long-term disaster risk reduction strategies. The UAE’s priority will be to enhance international cooperation, ensuring that disaster resilience becomes integrated into every aspect of development. Furthermore, the country is committed to working closely with all partners to protect the most vulnerable groups and mitigate the growing challenges posed by climate change and disasters.”

The UNDRR Support Group plays a pivotal role in fostering dialogue among Member States and supporting the implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. It also serves as a vital platform for strengthening international coordination and cooperation to reduce disaster risks and enhance resilience to both natural disasters.

As the incoming Chair, the UAE will work to set priorities and guide discussions aimed at addressing the increasing challenges posed by such disasters, including those exacerbated by climate change.

– on behalf of United Arab Emirates, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

MIL OSI Africa –

June 27, 2025
MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Dubai-based director who falsified VAT returns banned after his four companies owed HMRC more than £1 million
Source: United Kingdom – Government Statements

Press release

Dubai-based director who falsified VAT returns banned after his four companies owed HMRC more than £1 million

Director submitted falsified documentation to reclaim VAT
Hassan Waqar has been disqualified as a director for 11 years after his four companies reclaimed almost £400,000 in VAT they were not entitled to

The four companies – HN Restaurants Limited, Kiani Construction Limited, Moneemint Ventures Limited and Zoya Investments Limited – submitted falsified documents to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) or failed to provide supporting evidence for VAT repayment claims

All four companies were struck-off the Companies House register between February and June 2023, with total debts to HMRC of more than £1.1 million in VAT assessments, penalties and interest

The boss of four companies which owed HMRC more than £1 million, including £400,000 in VAT they falsely reclaimed, has been banned as a director.

Hassan Waqar was the director of HN Restaurants Limited, Kiani Construction Limited and Moneemint Ventures Limited when they submitted falsified documents to HMRC.

A fourth company, Zoya Investments Limited, failed to supply evidence to HMRC to support the repayment returns it had submitted.

The four companies owed HMRC more than £1.1 million in VAT and penalties when they were all struck-off the Companies House register during the first half of 2023.

Waqar, 30, who is now based in Dubai, has been disqualified as a company director for 11 years.

Victoria Edgar, Chief Investigator at the Insolvency Service, said:

Hassan Waqar submitted falsified documentation for VAT reclamations that his companies were not entitled to receive.

Our investigations found that he failed to provide supporting evidence for claims across multiple businesses, with over £1.1 million owed when these companies were struck off the Companies House register in 2023.

The Insolvency Service is committed to taking action against directors who fail to meet their legal and financial obligations, protecting the integrity of the business environment and the tax system.

HN Restaurants Limited was set up in May 2020 as a fast-food business. Kiani Construction Limited was a construction company incorporated in August 2021 which was involved in real estate sales.

Moneemint Ventures Limited, like HN Restaurants Limited, was established in May 2020, and was described by Waqar as a banking service platform. Zoya Investments Limited, incorporated in March 2021, traded in carrying out fitouts.

The four companies received a total of £396,982 in VAT repayments.

HN Restaurants Limited, Kiani Construction Limited and Moneemint Ventures Limited provided invoices to HMRC in support of their claims. HMRC contacted several of the suppliers who confirmed they had not issued the invoices to the companies.

Bank statements were provided by HN Restaurants Limited and Moneemint Ventures Limited to HMRC to support the repayment return, but they differed to the ones supplied by the banks.

Zoya Investments Limited did not provide any evidence to support its VAT repayment claims.

HMRC issued penalties to the four companies totalling £706,692.

The four companies were struck-off the Companies House register between February and June 2023.

Combined, the four companies owed £1,136,832 in VAT assessments, penalties and interest.

The Secretary of State for Business and Trade accepted a disqualification undertaking from Waqar, and his ban started on Thursday 26 June.

It prevents him from being involved in the promotion, formation or management of a company, without the permission of the court.

HMRC issued a joint and several liability notice to Waqar for HN Restaurants, making him personally responsible for paying the tax debts of the company.

Further information

Hassan Waqar is of 21A Street, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. His date of birth is 1 August 1994

HN Restaurants Limited (company number 12727857)

Kiani Construction Limited (company number 13576285)

Moneemint Ventures Limited (company number 12631542)

Zoya Investments Limited (company number 13285735)

Individuals subject to a disqualification order or undertaking are bound by a range of restrictions

Further information about the work of the Insolvency Service, and how to complain about financial misconduct.

Share this page

The following links open in a new tab

Share on Facebook (opens in new tab)

Share on Twitter (opens in new tab)

Updates to this page

Published 26 June 2025
MIL OSI United Kingdom –
June 27, 2025
MIL-OSI Russia: Nuclear emergency exercise concludes to test international response to simulated reactor accident

Translation. Region: Russian Federal

Source: International Atomic Energy Agency –

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in cooperation with more than 75 countries and 10 international organizations, successfully completed a 36-hour exercise that tested global preparedness and response arrangements for a severe nuclear accident scenario at the Cernavoda NPP in Romania. The ConvEx-3 (2025) exercise started on 24 June and concluded at 17:45 CET on 25 June.

Such exercises are conducted every three to five years and are based on simulated events at a nuclear facility in the host IAEA member state.

The exercise simulated a significant release of radioactive material, requiring participating countries and organizations to make decisions in real time, exchange information, inform the public and coordinate protective measures, including aspects of medical response and cross-border logistics.

“ConvEx-3 (2025) demonstrated the power of international cooperation in nuclear emergency preparedness,” said Carlos Torres Vidal, Director of the IAEA Incident and Emergency Centre. “By working together under realistic scenarios, we are strengthening our collective capacity to protect people and the environment.”

Among the main innovations in this year’s exercise program were the following.

Enhanced regional cooperation: Recognizing the cross-border consequences of severe nuclear accidents, neighbouring countries Bulgaria and the Republic of Moldova coordinated protective measures to ensure a coherent cross-border response. Integrating nuclear security scenarios: Simulations also included tests related to physical security and cybersecurity threats, reflecting new and evolving risks. Enhanced crisis communication testing: An enhanced social media simulator was used to evaluate and improve public communication strategies. Deploying international assistance missions: As part of the IAEA Response and Assistance Network (RANET) Expert groups from Bulgaria, Canada, Lithuania, Moldova, the United States, Sweden and France carried out a number of joint operations, including the use of air and ground-based radiation monitoring equipment.

The exercise highlighted the importance of timely information sharing, accurate assessments and forecasts, and effective public communication in the event of nuclear emergencies.

ConvEx-3 exercises are conducted every three to five years to evaluate and strengthen emergency response mechanisms established in accordance with Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident And Convention on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency.

In the coming weeks, the IAEA will gather feedback from all participants to identify good practices and areas for improvement, contributing to the continued strengthening of global nuclear emergency preparedness. The final report of the exercise will be taken into account in preparation for the upcoming International Conference “Nuclear and Radiological Emergencies”, which is scheduled for December this year in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

A selection of photos from the ConvEx3 exercise is available at this link.

Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

MIL OSI Russia News –

June 27, 2025
MIL-OSI Analysis: Self-censorship and the ‘spiral of silence’: Why Americans are less likely to publicly voice their opinions on political issues

Source: The Conversation – USA – By James L. Gibson, Sidney W. Souers Professor of Government, Washington University in St. Louis

Polarization has led many people to feel they’re being silenced. AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

For decades, Americans’ trust in one another has been on the decline, according to the most recent General Social Survey.

A major factor in that downshift has been the concurrent rise in the polarization between the two major political parties. Supporters of Republicans and Democrats are far more likely than in the past to view the opposite side with distrust.

That political polarization is so stark that many Americans are now unlikely to have friendly social interactions, live nearby or congregate with people from opposing camps, according to one recent study.

Social scientists often refer to this sort of animosity as “affective polarization,” meaning that people not only hold conflicting views on many or most political issues but also disdain fellow citizens who hold different opinions. Over the past few decades, such affective polarization in the U.S. has become commonplace.

Polarization undermines democracy by making the essential processes of democratic deliberation – discussion, negotiation, compromise and bargaining over public policies – difficult, if not impossible. Because polarization extends so broadly and deeply, some people have become unwilling to express their views until they’ve confirmed they’re speaking with someone who’s like-minded.

I’m a political scientist, and I found that Americans were far less likely to publicly voice their opinions than even during the height of the McCarthy-era Red Scare.

A supporter of Donald Trump tries to push past demonstrators in Philadelphia on June 30, 2023.
AP Photo/Nathan Howard

The muting of the American voice

According to a 2022 book written by political scientists Taylor Carlson and Jaime E. Settle, fears about speaking out are grounded in concerns about social sanctions for expressing unwelcome views.

And this withholding of views extends across a broad range of social circumstances. In 2022, for instance, I conducted a survey of a representative sample of about 1,500 residents of the U.S. I found that while 45% of the respondents were worried about expressing their views to members of their immediate family, this percentage ballooned to 62% when it came to speaking out publicly in one’s community. Nearly half of those surveyed said they felt less free to speak their minds than they used to.

About three to four times more Americans said they did not feel free to express themselves, compared with the number of those who said so during the McCarthy era.

Censorship in the US and globally

Since that survey, attacks on free speech have increased markedly, especially under the Trump administration.

Issues such as the Israeli war in Gaza, activist campaigns against “wokeism,” and the ever-increasing attempts to penalize people for expressing certain ideas have made it more difficult for people to speak out.

The breadth of self-censorship in the U.S. in recent times is not unprecedented or unique to the U.S. Indeed, research in Germany, Sweden and elsewhere have reported similar increases in self-censorship in the past several years.

How the ‘spiral of a silence’ explains self-censorship

In the 1970s, Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, a distinguished German political scientist, coined the term the “spiral of silence” to describe how self-censorship arises and what its consequences can be. Informed by research she conducted on the 1965 West German federal election, Noelle-Neumann observed that an individual’s willingness to publicly give their opinion was tied to their perceptions of public opinion on an issue.

The so-called spiral happens when someone expresses a view on a controversial issue and then encounters vigorous criticism from an aggressive minority – perhaps even sharp attacks.

People rally at the University of California, Berkeley, to protest the Trump administration on March 19, 2025.
AP Photo/Godofredo A. Vásquez

A listener can impose costs on the speaker for expressing the view in a number of ways, including criticism, direct personal attacks and even attempts to “cancel” the speaker through ending friendships or refusing to attend social events such as Thanksgiving or holiday dinners.

This kind of sanction isn’t limited to just social interactions but also when someone is threatened by far bigger institutions, from corporations to the government. The speaker learns from this encounter and decides to keep their mouth shut in the future because the costs of expressing the view are simply too high.

This self-censorship has knock-on effects, as views become less commonly expressed and people are less likely to encounter support from those who hold similar views. People come to believe that they are in the minority, even if they are, in fact, in the majority. This belief then also contributes to the unwillingness to express one’s views.

The opinions of the aggressive minority then become dominant. True public opinion and expressed public opinion diverge. Most importantly, the free-ranging debate so necessary to democratic politics is stifled.

Not all issues are like this, of course – only issues for which a committed and determined minority exists that can impose costs on a particular viewpoint are subject to this spiral.

The consequences for democratic deliberation

The tendency toward self-censorship means listeners are deprived of hearing the withheld views. The marketplace of ideas becomes skewed; the choices of buyers in that marketplace are circumscribed. The robust debate so necessary to deliberations in a democracy is squelched as the views of a minority come to be seen as the only “acceptable” political views.

No better example of this can be found than in the absence of debate in the contemporary U.S. about the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis, whatever outcome such vigorous discussion might produce. Fearful of consequences, many people are withholding their views on Israel – whether Israel has committed war crimes, for instance, or whether Israeli members of government should be sanctioned – because they fear being branded as antisemitic.

Many Americans are also biting their tongues when it comes to DEI, affirmative action and even whether political tolerance is essential for democracy.

But the dominant views are also penalized by this spiral. By not having to face their competitors, they lose the opportunity to check their beliefs and, if confirmed, bolster and strengthen their arguments. Good ideas lose the chance to become better, while bad ideas – such as something as extreme as Holocaust denial – are given space to flourish.

The spiral of silence therefore becomes inimical to pluralistic debate, discussion and, ultimately, to democracy itself.

James L. Gibson 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. Self-censorship and the ‘spiral of silence’: Why Americans are less likely to publicly voice their opinions on political issues – https://theconversation.com/self-censorship-and-the-spiral-of-silence-why-americans-are-less-likely-to-publicly-voice-their-opinions-on-political-issues-251979

MIL OSI Analysis –

June 27, 2025