NewzIntel.com

Category: Reportage

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why are the US and Israel not on the same page over how to deal with Iran? Expert Q&A

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Scott Lucas, Professor of International Politics, Clinton Institute, University College Dublin

    The US president, Donald Trump, claimed on May 28 to have personally stopped Israel from attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities. When asked if he’d intervened during a phone call with the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump replied: “Well, I’d like to be honest. Yes, I did … I said, I don’t think it’s appropriate right now”. The Trump administration is currently in talks with Iran over the future terms of its nuclear programme.

    Middle East expert Scott Lucas answered the Conversation’s questions about the disagreement over Iran and how it might affect US-Israel relations.

    The US wants a nuclear deal with Iran. Israel doesn’t. Why the disagreement?

    Israel has long been sceptical of diplomatic overtures to Tehran, saying Iran is committed to Israel’s destruction. This position has not changed.

    When Trump apparently told Netanyahu recently that he wanted a diplomatic solution with Iran and believed in his ability to “make a good deal”, the Israeli leader insisted that the only “good deal” would be one that dismantled Iran’s nuclear facilities.

    But Trump’s priority is not a “good deal”. He is more interested in a photo opportunity portraying him as a “dealmaker” even when there is no substantive agreement.

    Trump’s first term saw him embrace North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, whom he had previously threatened with “fire and fury” and denounced as “little rocket man”, to proclaim a breakthrough in stalled nuclear talks. There wasn’t anything beyond a meaningless one-page memorandum, but Trump became the first serving US president to step into North Korea and garnered international attention for doing so.

    Then, at the start of his second term, Trump claimed he could end Russia’s war in Ukraine within 24 hours. But, more than four months later, he is frustrated and embittered. He recently called Russia’s leader Vladimir Putin “absolutely crazy”.

    Trump also said he could resolve Israel’s assault on Gaza. He claimed the glory of a phase one ceasefire agreement in which Hamas freed some hostages in return for Israel releasing hundreds of Palestinians detained in its prisons. But he walked away when Netanyahu’s government refused to move to a second phase.

    So now his hope, as outlandish as it might seem, is to appear alongside Iran’s president, Masoud Pezeshkian, or even the supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, making some kind of deal.

    What do the Gulf states hope for?

    Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are rivals of Iranian regional leadership, but they want to avoid Israeli military action against Tehran as this could spark a conflagration across the region.

    They are looking to extract themselves from a decade-long war in Yemen, where their intervention has not toppled the Iran-backed Houthi insurgency. And they would like space for Syria to develop after five decades of Assad family rule came to an end in December 2024 – with possible profits for Gulf companies involved in recovery and reconstruction.

    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.

    Qatar, which Trump also visited in May, as well as Oman have long burnished their reputations as peace brokers. This has included facilitating talks between the US and Iran.

    What is Iran’s position and how close is it to building a nuclear weapon?

    When Iran agreed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA) in 2015 with the UK and other world powers, it gave up any potential for a military nuclear programme. Enrichment of uranium was limited to 3.67%, and stocks of 20% grade were shipped out of the country. While uranium enriched to 20% is not weapons-grade, it shortens the time it will take to produce a nuclear weapon considerably.

    It was Trump who allowed Iran to restart its nuclear programme when he pulled the US out of the JCPoA in May 2018 and imposed comprehensive sanctions six months later. Iran not only resumed 20% enrichment but began production of 60% uranium, which can be further enriched to the 90% required for military use.

    Tehran is still stopping short of that 90% level. And it has said it will forego any potential for a military programme in a renewed agreement with the US, but is refusing US demands to end enrichment for civil purposes.

    What might Israel do to disrupt the talks?

    Netanyahu could defy Trump and order military strikes. But such action would further alienate Israel from the international community, unsettle relations with Washington, and risk regional conflicts that would overstretch the Israeli military.

    Israeli intelligence and military institutions have opposed Netanyahu’s plans to attack Iran in the past, notably in 2010 and 2011. When he tried to lay the foundations for military action, they raised political, diplomatic and logistical obstacles that put an attack on hold.

    And, despite Netanyahu’s attempts to replace intelligence heads and military commanders with his loyalists, the new appointees are still likely to take the same position.

    For more than 15 years, Israel has pursued covert operations to disrupt Iran’s nuclear programme. These include sabotage, cyber-attacks, assassinations and explosions set off by agents inside Iran. Those operations have appeared to diminish in recent months, but they might be renewed without raising Trump’s ire.

    How does the disagreement over Iran affect US-Israel relations, especially when it comes to Gaza?

    We are in a world where Trump can hold back Netanyahu over Iran, but give him a blank cheque for the assault and starvation of Gaza.

    Trump’s administration did nothing to oppose the Netanyahu government’s inevitable rejection of the phase two ceasefire in Gaza at the start of March. This subsequently saw renewed military operations and imposition of a blockade on humanitarian aid. Trump’s envoy, real estate developer Steve Witkoff, has been ineffectual in his purported mediation efforts.

    Netanyahu has not only tabled the plan for Israel’s long-term occupation of Gaza, with four military zones and Gazans penned into three areas with limited movement. He has publicly embraced Trump’s proposal for the displacement – some would call it “ethnic cleansing” – of hundreds of thousands of Gazans.

    In October 2024, Trump reportedly told Netanyahu to “do what you have to do” in the offensive against Hamas. Then, in mid-February, he said: “Bibi, you do whatever you want”.

    So, even as Trump does what he wants over Iran to Netanyahu’s chagrin, the Israeli prime minister is finding that Trump is not restricting what he does closer to home in Gaza.

    Scott Lucas 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 are the US and Israel not on the same page over how to deal with Iran? Expert Q&A – https://theconversation.com/why-are-the-us-and-israel-not-on-the-same-page-over-how-to-deal-with-iran-expert-qanda-257758

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Nato faces a make-or-break decision about how to protect Europe and its future in next few weeks

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Amelia Hadfield, Head of Department of Politics, University of Surrey

    Nato is facing a pivotal moment in its history.

    Ahead of its June 24-25 summit in The Hague, Nato is weighing up whether it can truly continue to count on US support (and membership), whether it will become a European-only organisation, or whether it has a future at all. This suggests a massive shift for the intergovernmental organisation that sits at the heart of defence and security for Europe, and beyond.

    The past year has changed everything. Trump’s anti-Nato rhetoric has become increasingly vociferous and disrespectful, undermining both the organisation itself, and the other 31 Nato member countries, which include Germany, France, Canada, Turkey, the UK, Sweden and Norway. Add to this the Trump administration’s embrace of international isolationism, and the potential, consequential loss of clear US backing for the alliance, all of which highlight the organisation’s historical dependence on the US.

    This is what makes the June 2025 summit so critical. It is a make-or-break opportunity to unveil a plan for Nato’s wholesale transformation, or an event conclusively marking its obsolescence. The plan itself is simple: build – or rebuild – Nato as a possible Europe-only endeavour.



    Read more:
    Why it matters for European security if an American no longer commands Nato troops – by a former Trident submarine commander

    If this plan becomes reality, historians of European security and defence may spot earlier parallels for Nato with the original Western European Union (WEU). The WEU was the European defence security structure established in 1954 under the Paris Accords, which helped to redefine relations with West Germany.

    Ultimately subsumed into both Nato and EU governance structures, the WEU’s prime goal at the time was to bolster the European content of the Atlantic alliance.

    US never wanted Europe to lead

    There is a deep irony in Trump’s bluster about Nato states paying more towards their defence. The US has, for decades, been sanguine at best, and hostile at worst on almost every form of European defence autonomy, from basic ops-based endeavours established by the EU to more ambitious strategies. Instead, the US has insisted almost exclusively on increased defence spending by other Nato members, improved interoperability between the various national forces, but all “in furtherance of a US-dominated alliance”, rather than a more authentically US-European approach to safeguarding both European and American interests according to Max Bergman, a former senior adviser to the US state department.

    What is the future of Nato?

    If the US is now reducing its involvement in Nato, or abdicating entirely, the only option for Nato is to reduce its dependence on the US, and in doing so, to focus more on Europe. A clear mandate is needed, to ensure that being US-less does not render Nato itself useless. Without a mandate, opportunistic space would quickly open up for an aggressive Russia.

    Trump made clear early in his first administration that he was no fan of Nato, and argued that its funding structure should no longer overburden the US. In his second administration, Trump has been even clearer, has variously threatened to pull US troops from Nato joint exercises, reduce US security commitments to Nato as a whole, remove some or all of the 80,000 US troops on permanent rotation in Europe and vastly reduce the US’s contribution to Nato’s central budget of US$5 billion (£3.6 billion).

    These threats are now repeated routinely by US defence secretary Pete Hegseth and others in the Trump administration. This has profoundly rattled Nato as an institution and its individual member states.

    As Nato’s own records show, from 2023 onward, there have been major increases in European defence spending. But the opportunity to keep spending commitments high, as well as overhaul the organisation to meet Ukraine’s demands and defence opportunities for the EU as a whole – which could have been nailed onto Nato’s 75th anniversary summit in 2024 – did not materialise.

    There are pros and cons of a new Europe-focused approach for Nato, and these will work themselves out in the final five-to-ten-year plan which is being prepared ahead of the June summit.

    For some, building a European defence mission within Nato is an opportunity to plot a new and more sustainable course for Nato, rather than trying to shore up an expanding US-shaped hole. Spending increases that reduce Nato’s perceived helplessness, or reliance on the US, may also be a benefit.

    For others, the removal of US command and control, hardware, software, intelligence and much more from Nato is a futile endeavour that will leave the organisation in pieces at best, and present Russia with a golden opportunity for continued eastern aggression at worst.

    The signals from Washington remain confusing. Trump’s suggestion of a sudden and total US withdrawal from European defence was tempered in April by US secretary of state Marco Rubio’s suggestion that Trump remained supportive of Nato but also demanding expanded spending commitments (these demands vary from 2.5% to 5% of GDP), and for other members to take on far greater responsibility for developing Nato’s capabilities.

    An emerging European coalition

    Many members now support the emerging “coalition of the willing”, led by France and Britain, to underwrite a force and secure a post-conflict deal for Ukraine. In figuring out the current provision of military force, including logistics and intelligence capacities in addition to air, land and sea forces, Nato members are aiming to remove the US’s presence and fill the vacuum with European assets over a decade.

    The task is colossal, and not without risks. Nato does not want an overnight abdication of the US, as it currently relies far too heavily upon US capabilities, such as long-range precision missiles, and crucially, heavy-lift aircraft which are vital in shifting armoured forces around the continent rapidly. Nato also wants a clear plan, which new member Finland has emphasised as crucial, to prevent an abrupt and disjointed transition that Russia could exploit.

    A new vision must be set out by the end of June in order to deal sensibly with ongoing defence spending commitments, reworked governance structures, and possible planned responses to the war in Ukraine.

    Scrapping Nato is unnecessary and lays Europe – and the US, if the White House could but see far enough ahead – open to innumerable threats and consequences. Even without the US, Nato provides a valuable structure for security cooperation in Europe. Strengthening European capabilities within Nato, rather than creating an entirely new defence structure, makes sense.

    Amelia Hadfield 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. Nato faces a make-or-break decision about how to protect Europe and its future in next few weeks – https://theconversation.com/nato-faces-a-make-or-break-decision-about-how-to-protect-europe-and-its-future-in-next-few-weeks-256348

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Pulp are back and more wistfully Britpop than before

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Mark RJ Higgins, PhD Candidate, Department of Music, University of Bristol

    Ah, the 90s. A decade when the future seemed bright, technological modernity was pregnant with promise, and Britannia was revelling in a rediscovered sense of cool. The pop-culture emblem of this was Britpop.

    After the economically turbulent 1970s and the intense industrial restructuring of the 1980s, Britpop bands hearkened romantically back to the 1960s with a reimagining of a swinging Britain as the place to be.

    Looking back on Britpop today echoes something of what those bands were themselves doing: peering across three decades of cultural and technological change.

    Britpop was a preface to what cultural critic Simon Reynolds later called “retromania”, a pop culture obsessed with its own archaeological detritus. Reynolds, along with despondent contemporaries like the late Mark Fisher, were critics of a future irreverently assembled within a growing repository of the past.

    Against the grain of Britpop’s 1960s upcycling, however, were Pulp.

    After a big breakthrough in the 90s, Pulp were strongly associated with the retro-maniacal, “hey look, Britain still swings” Britpop era. Unlike the Blurs and Oases of the time, though, Pulp had traipsed their way through the decidedly unswinging 1980s indie scene. They shunned the tropes of repurposed mod fashions and appeals to the spirit of John Lennon, and some of their lyrics even read like critiques of Britpop’s cultural romanticism.

    For example, in Common People the band caution that working-class life is not an opportunity to indulge in immersive performance art. Between the lines of Disco 2000, meanwhile, is a musing on how weird it would probably feel to revisit the past at some point in the future.

    Pulp sang in counterpoint to their contemporaries, offering something different to the flaccidly nationalistic, wistful nostalgia common among the other acts of the time.

    And now, returning with More, their first album since Britpop, how might Pulp reflect upon our experience of the present? A time in which digital media has etched deep divisions across society and the only surety seems to be socioeconomic uncertainty. Amid all of this, Brexit Britain doesn’t feel so cool any more.

    If the lead single, “Spike Island”, is anything to go by, it looks like the retro-maniacal Britpop ethos might have registered belatedly with the band.

    The sonic vocabularies of britfunk, disco and early indie converge in a texture of juicy synth bass, lively hand claps and sharp, edgy guitar sounds. These musical components are roughly contemporaneous with Pulp’s formation in 1978, but the pristine 21st-century production quality assures us we are listening in the present.

    Lyrically, meanwhile, singer Jarvis Cocker seems to be reaching through the disastrously absurd cultural kaleidoscope of the 2020s in search of something more certain, back in the 90s perhaps.

    Here, the refrain “Spike Island come alive” references a concert by Manchester indie band The Stone Roses, which became mythologised in British music history.

    Held in 1990 on Spike Island in Widnes, Merseyside, the gig was a makeshift, outdoor, all day event, which attracted around 27,000 people. The warm up acts were back to back DJs, creating a rave atmosphere ahead of the band’s headlining show. This combined two of the currents that set Britain’s 1990s cultural optimism in motion: rave culture and “madchester”, a musical and cultural movement born in Manchester in the late-80s. Madchester birthed bands like The Stone Roses and The Happy Mondays, who injected indie rock with a rave-like hedonism.

    By referencing the concert, Cocker effectively romanticises a time three decades gone, just as Britpop did its peak. The Spike Island concert, where rave and madchester met, represents a twin-headed crest of pop-culture. The pent up energy of this swept through the 90s with a wave of promise before it abruptly met the epochal breakwater of 9/11 and sluiced terminally into the bottomless drains of social media.

    More by Pulp

    In the way it looks back on more jubilant times, Spike Island suggests the return of Pulp in a spirit more wistfully Britpop than the band were back in the day. What could reviving the essence of Britpop mean in 2025 when comparing the climate with the heady optimism that carried the movement 30 years ago?

    Like Pulp, Gen Z are nostalgic for the 90s, a now mythical period that predates many of their births. From the vantage point of 2025, the 90s perhaps seem simpler, cooler and rather more stable socially and economically.

    In a world now saturated by the distractions of digital media, it might be a stretch to hope for a 1990’s style period of collective optimism anytime soon. The sounds of that decade echo on, though. Maybe with More we can join Pulp for a moment in briefly reanimating the spirit of a time when the winds of change felt like they were blowing in a rather more positive direction.

    More by Pulp will be released on June 6, 2025

    Mark RJ Higgins received funding from UK Research and Innovation / Art & Humanities Research Council.

    – ref. Pulp are back and more wistfully Britpop than before – https://theconversation.com/pulp-are-back-and-more-wistfully-britpop-than-before-253289

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Sebastião Salgado: a photographer of great humanity

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Joe Miles, Subject Lead for Film & Photography, Birmingham City University

    The world has lost one of its most compassionate and visionary visual storytellers. Sebastião Salgado, the Brazilian-born photographer whose haunting black-and-white images shaped global consciousness for decades, has died at the age of 81.

    Salgado’s work often provoked a powerful conflict of emotions. Perhaps more than any other documentary photographer, he produced technically flawless, mesmerising images of some of the world’s harshest realities, from the gold mines of Brazil and famine in the Sahel, to the horror of the Rwandan genocide. His photographs were often shocking, yet stunningly beautiful. You couldn’t look away – and that was the point.

    Born in 1944 in Aimorés, Brazil, Salgado initially trained as an economist. While working for the International Coffee Organization, he travelled across Africa and Latin America, witnessing economic disparity and social injustice. Initially borrowing his wife’s camera, photography became his way to document what he saw, not as a distant observer, but as someone deeply affected by human suffering. He once said he took pictures “not only with my camera, but with my life – I cannot do it another way”.

    Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

    His background in economics informed the focus of his work, particularly his concern with inequality, labour, and migration. In Workers (1993), a six-year study of manual labour around the world, he wrote, “The planet remains divided, the First World in a crisis of excess, the Third World in a crisis of need.”

    However, Salgado ensured that he highlighted both the hardship and the dignity of those engaged in physically demanding jobs. In doing so, he redefined documentary photography as a tool not only for exposure, but for elevation.

    What set Salgado apart was his immersive approach. Rejecting the “parachute” style of photojournalism, he embedded himself in the communities he documented – sometimes for years – fostering deep empathy with his subjects. This emotional authenticity was at the heart of his iconic Serra Pelada series, which captured the intensity and desperation of labourers in Brazil’s largest gold mine.

    Standing at the edge of the mine, he later wrote that it felt like seeing “the history of mankind, the building of the pyramids, the Tower of Babel”. And, crucially, he successfully conveyed that same emotion through his images.

    At a time where colour documentary photography was increasingly favoured, Salgado always shot in black and white. This helped the viewer to focus on form, emotion and narrative, as well as emphasising the grim reality of the subject matter. However, documenting the world’s suffering took its toll.

    His time covering the Rwandan genocide in 1994 nearly broke him. He once described the effect of witnessing 10,000 people die from cholera in a single day in a refugee camp in Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo. Like other photojournalists who have endured such trauma – Don McCullin and Kevin Carter among them – Salgado carried a deep psychological burden. He nearly gave up photography altogether.

    Instead, Salgado found solace in nature. His project Genesis (2013) celebrated the planet’s untouched regions, landscapes, traditional communities and endangered wildlife. While it marked a shift from his earlier focus, it was still deeply humanist in spirit. The work served as both a tribute to the Earth’s beauty and a reminder of what remains to be protected.

    His environmental commitment extended beyond the camera. With his wife and creative partner, Lélia Wanick Salgado, he founded Instituto Terra, a reforestation initiative on land once owned by his family. Together, they restored a devastated patch of Brazil’s Atlantic forest. It was an act of reciprocity: having documented environmental destruction, he dedicated himself to repairing it.

    Salgado’s work was not without controversy, contributing to ongoing ethical debates about the power imbalance between photographers and their subjects. While some may have felt a sense of empowerment from having their struggles recognised, others uneasy about being displayed to a global audience. Without them having a voice, we will never truly know – which further contributes to the sense of a power imbalance.

    Others accused Salgado of aestheticising suffering. In a 1991 piece in The New Yorker, Ingrid Sischy argued that the powerful beauty of his images risked turning tragedy into spectacle. Salgado countered: “Art critics have criticised me, but I am not an artist. I published these pictures in magazines, to make a debate.”

    And make a debate he did. His 2000 exhibition and book Exodus, a chronicle of global migration and displacement, challenged viewers to reckon with the human cost of political and economic upheaval. “Globalisation is presented to us as a reality, but not as a solution,” he wrote. “We have to create a new regimen of coexistence.”

    In his later years, Salgado championed the role of photography in education and social change. He became the subject of The Salt of the Earth (2014), an Oscar-nominated documentary co-directed by Wim Wenders, and his son, Juliano Ribeiro Salgado. The film offered a moving portrait of a man who saw his photography not just as art, but as testimony and witness.

    Despite international acclaim, Salgado remained grounded. He consistently shifted attention away from himself and toward those he photographed. “I hope that the person looking at my photographs will see more than just a picture,” he once said. “They will see the story. They will feel the life.”

    Sebastião Salgado’s death is a great loss, but his images remain. In a world flooded with visuals, he showed us that photography could still be a force for understanding, connection and change.

    Joe Miles 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. Sebastião Salgado: a photographer of great humanity – https://theconversation.com/sebastiao-salgado-a-photographer-of-great-humanity-257772

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Champions League final 2025: a battle for glory against a backdrop of money and fashion

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Simon Chadwick, Professor of AfroEurasian Sport, EM Lyon Business School

    The 2025 men’s Champions League final will end in triumph for either Paris Saint-Germain or Inter Milan. And whichever side wins, Uefa will no doubt claim that the tournament’s new format, involving more teams, more games and more fans, has been a success.

    Not everyone will agree of course. But in commercial terms, there is no doubt that the Champions League continues to generate huge amounts of money for everyone involved.

    Thanks to lucrative broadcasting rights, sponsorship deals and ticket sales, the sums handed out to clubs following this season’s competition are eye-watering, with over £2 billion in prize money on offer (up from £1.7 billion last year).

    By reaching the final, Paris Saint-Germain (PSG) has already earned £116.96 million, and Inter Milan £115.86 million.

    The winner will receive an additional £5.45 million in prize money, while victory is also expected to generate around £30 million in future revenues through participation in tournaments like the European Super Cup.

    Qualifying for the final has also boosted the clubs’ brand value and fan engagement. In the latter stages of the tournament, Inter Milan saw huge growth in its number of followers on social media.

    But for all the big numbers on revenue statements and social media accounts, this year’s final has a cultural dimension which is hard to measure in numbers alone.

    Football and fashion

    Paris and Milan are both global fashion capitals, home to famous designers and globally coveted labels. PSG and Inter Milan are on a mission to emulate those brands, with attractive football which brings prestige and heritage.

    And some parallels can be drawn between the style of the teams and the cities they call home. PSG for example, with its focus on building a team packed with young local talent, has managed to mirror the sophistication and flamboyance of Paris.

    The side’s partnerships with Jordan and Dior position the club as a vessel for the city’s global image: one that is bold, luxurious, cosmopolitan.

    Inter meanwhile, though lacking big name players, embodies a classic disciplined and defensively minded Italian approach to football (historically referred to as “catenaccio” and translated as “locked door”). It’s a fitting match for the crisp, distinctive style of the fashion houses based in Milan.

    The side’s identity is rooted not in flamboyance, but in structure and refinement – like the precise tailoring of Prada and Armani. So perhaps while PSG is the billboard of global luxury, Inter is the blueprint of Italian design culture – less performative, more exacting.

    Together, PSG and Inter are brand ambassadors of urban identity for cities looking to exert influence far beyond Parisian and Milanese borders, projecting soft power not just through architecture or tourism, but through the aesthetic performance of sport.

    In this way, football becomes a stage for symbolic competition between cities, where civic identity is channelled through symbolic and material images such as kits, campaigns and international fandom. In this final, there will be a clash of urban ambition, a soft power play between two of Europe’s most image-conscious metropolises.

    Geopolitically, there is plenty at stake too. PSG’s second appearance in a Champions League final is of huge importance to the club’s Qatari owners who have spent years investing in star players from overseas to help build the Gulf state’s image. In recent seasons the club has switched strategy towards signing young, local talent.

    This has helped PSG position itself as a Parisian club whilst strengthening Qatari relations with the French government. This is particularly important right now as, from next season, PSG will have a local rival. Last year, French luxury goods business LVMH acquired Paris FC, which looks set to battle its local rival for the title of the capital’s most prominent club.

    For its part, Inter has been through a recent ownership change. Acquired by a Chinese company in 2016, the club struggled (notwithstanding another Champions League final in 2023) as China’s attempted football revolution faltered.

    Then in May 2024, the club was bought by a US investment fund. In recent years, this has been a trend across European football whereby American private equity has triumphed Chinese, state-backed investment.

    All of this sets up another classic football battle of our age, as 450 million people watch a Champions League final contested between American and Gulf money. The game will be a clash of ideologies as much as it is about stars, cities and fashion.

    Simon Chadwick teaches for UEFA’s Academy.

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

    – ref. Champions League final 2025: a battle for glory against a backdrop of money and fashion – https://theconversation.com/champions-league-final-2025-a-battle-for-glory-against-a-backdrop-of-money-and-fashion-257377

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Like today’s selfie-takers, Walt Whitman used photography to curate his image – but ended up more lost than found

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Trevin Corsiglia, PhD Candidate in Comparative Literature and Thought, Washington University in St. Louis

    Though Walt Whitman insisted to friends that the moth was real – and landed on his finger spontaneously – it was a cardboard prop. Library of Congress

    When I read and study Walt Whitman’s poetry, I often imagine what he would’ve done if he had a smartphone and an Instagram account.

    Unlike many of his contemporaries, the poet collected an “abundance of photographs” of himself, as Whitman scholar Ed Folsom points out. And like many people today who snap and post thousands of selfies, Whitman, who lived during the birth of commercial photography, used portraits to craft a version of the self that wasn’t necessarily grounded in reality.

    One of those portraits, taken by photographer Curtis Taylor, was commissioned by Whitman in the 1870s.

    In it, the poet is seated nonchalantly, with a moth or butterfly appearing to have landed on his outstretched finger. According to at least two of his friends, Philadelphia attorney Thomas Donaldson and nurse Elizabeth Keller, this was Whitman’s favorite photograph.

    Though he told his friends that the winged insect happened to land on his finger during the shoot, it turned out to be a cardboard prop.

    Feigned spontaneity

    The scene with the butterfly reflects one of the main themes of Whitman’s “Leaves of Grass,” his best-known collection of poems: The universe is naturally drawn to the poet.

    “To me the converging objects of the world perpetually flow,” he insists in “Song of Myself.”

    “I have instant conductors all over me whether I pass or stop,” Whitman adds. “They seize every object and lead it harmlessly through me.”

    Whitman told Horace Traubel, the poet’s close friend and earliest biographer, that “[y]es – that was an actual moth, the picture is substantially literal.” Likewise, he told historian William Roscoe Thayer: “I’ve always had the knack of attracting birds and butterflies and other wild critters.”

    Of course, historians now know that the butterfly was, in fact, a cutout, which currently resides at the Library of Congress.

    The cardboard prop used by Walt Whitman in the portrait.
    Library of Congress

    So what was Whitman doing? Why would he lie? I can’t get inside his head, but I suspect he wanted to impress his audience, to verify that the protagonist of “Leaves of Grass,” the one with “instant conductors,” was not a fictional creation.

    Today’s selfies often give the impression of having been taken on the spot. In reality, many of them are a carefully calculated creative act.

    Media scholars James E. Katz and Elizabeth Thomas Crocker have argued that most selfie-takers strive for informality even as they carefully stage the images. In other words, the selfie weds the spontaneous to the intentional.

    Whitman does exactly this, presenting a designed photo as if it were a happy accident.

    Too much me

    As Whitman biographer Justin Kaplan notes, no other writer at the time “was so systematically recorded or so concerned with the strategic uses of his pictures and their projective meanings for himself and the public.”

    Walt Whitman in an 1854 photograph likely taken by Gabriel Harrison.
    Wikimedia Commons

    The poet jumped at the opportunity to have his photo taken. There is, for instance, the famous portrait of the young, carefree poet that was used as the frontispiece for the first edition of “Leaves of Grass.” Or the 1854 photograph of a bearded and unkempt Whitman likely captured by Gabriel Harrison. Or the 1869 image of Whitman smiling lovingly at Peter Doyle, the poet’s intimate friend and probable lover.

    Some social scientists have argued that today’s selfies can aid in the search for one’s “authentic self” – figuring out who you are and understanding what makes you tick.

    Other researchers have taken a less rosy view of the selfie, warning that snapping too many can be a sign of low self-esteem and can, paradoxically, lead to identity confusion, particularly if they’re taken to seek external validation.

    Whitman spent his life searching for what he termed the “Me myself” or the “real Me.” Photography provided him another medium, besides poetry, to carry on this search. But it seems to have ultimately failed him.

    Having collected these images, he would then obsessively chew over what they all added up to, ultimately finding that he was far more lost than found in this sea of portraits.

    I wonder if – to use today’s parlance – Whitman “scrolled” his way into a crisis of self-identity, overwhelmed by the sheer number of photos he possessed and the various, contradictory selves they represented.

    “I meet new Walt Whitmans every day,” he once said. “There are a dozen of me afloat. I don’t know which Walt Whitman I am.”

    Trevin Corsiglia 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. Like today’s selfie-takers, Walt Whitman used photography to curate his image – but ended up more lost than found – https://theconversation.com/like-todays-selfie-takers-walt-whitman-used-photography-to-curate-his-image-but-ended-up-more-lost-than-found-256195

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Beyond the backlash: What evidence shows about the economic impact of DEI

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Rodney Coates, Professor of Critical Race and Ethnic Studies, Miami University

    DEI has a long history. Nora Carol Photography via Getty Images

    Few issues in the U.S. today are as controversial as diversity, equity and inclusion – commonly referred to as DEI.

    Although the term didn’t come into common usage until the 21st century, DEI is best understood as the latest stage in a long American project. Its egalitarian principles are seen in America’s founding documents, and its roots lie in landmark 20th-century efforts such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act and affirmative action policies, as well as movements for racial justice, gender equity, disability rights, veterans and immigrants.

    These movements sought to expand who gets to participate in economic, educational and civic life. DEI programs, in many ways, are their legacy.

    Critics argue that DEI is antidemocratic, that it fosters ideological conformity and that it leads to discriminatory initiatives, which they say disadvantage white people and undermine meritocracy. Those defending DEI argue just the opposite: that it encourages critical thinking and promotes democracy − and that attacks on DEI amount to a retreat from long-standing civil rights law.

    Yet missing from much of the debate is a crucial question: What are the tangible costs and benefits of DEI? Who benefits, who doesn’t, and what are the broader effects on society and the economy?

    As a sociologist, I believe any productive conversation about DEI should be rooted in evidence, not ideology. So let’s look at the research.

    Who gains from DEI?

    In the corporate world, DEI initiatives are intended to promote diversity, and research consistently shows that diversity is good for business. Companies with more diverse teams tend to perform better across several key metrics, including revenue, profitability and worker satisfaction.

    Businesses with diverse workforces also have an edge in innovation, recruitment and competitiveness, research shows. The general trend holds for many types of diversity, including age, race and ethnicity, and gender.

    A focus on diversity can also offer profit opportunities for businesses seeking new markets. Two-thirds of American consumers consider diversity when making their shopping choices, a 2021 survey found. So-called “inclusive consumers” tend to be female, younger and more ethnically and racially diverse. Ignoring their values can be costly: When Target backed away from its DEI efforts, the resulting backlash contributed to a sales decline.

    But DEI goes beyond corporate policy. At its core, it’s about expanding access to opportunities for groups historically excluded from full participation in American life. From this broader perspective, many 20th-century reforms can be seen as part of the DEI arc.

    Consider higher education. Many elite U.S. universities refused to admit women until well into the 1960s and 1970s. Columbia, the last Ivy League university to go co-ed, started admitting women in 1982. Since the advent of affirmative action, women haven’t just closed the gender gap in higher education – they outpace men in college completion across all racial groups. DEI policies have particularly benefited women, especially white women, by expanding workforce access.

    Many Ivy League universities didn’t admit women until surprisingly recently.

    Similarly, the push to desegregate American universities was followed by an explosion in the number of Black college students – a number that has increased by 125% since the 1970s, twice the national rate. With college gates open to more people than ever, overall enrollment at U.S. colleges has quadrupled since 1965. While there are many reasons for this, expanding opportunity no doubt plays a role. And a better-educated population has had significant implications for productivity and economic growth.

    The 1965 Immigration Act also exemplifies DEI’s impact. It abolished racial and national quotas, enabling the immigration of more diverse populations, including from Asia, Africa, southern and eastern Europe and Latin America. Many of these immigrants were highly educated, and their presence has boosted U.S. productivity and innovation.

    Ultimately, the U.S. economy is more profitable and productive as a result of immigrants.

    What does DEI cost?

    While DEI generates returns for many businesses and institutions, it does come with costs. In 2020, corporate America spent an estimated US$7.5 billion on DEI programs. And in 2023, the federal government spent more than $100 million on DEI, including $38.7 million by the Department of Health and Human Services and another $86.5 million by the Department of Defense.

    The government will no doubt be spending less on DEI in 2025. One of President Donald Trump’s first acts in his second term was to sign an executive order banning DEI practices in federal agencies – one of several anti-DEI executive orders currently facing legal challenges. More than 30 states have also introduced or enacted bills to limit or entirely restrict DEI in recent years. Central to many of these policies is the belief that diversity lowers standards, replacing meritocracy with mediocrity.

    But a large body of research disputes this claim. For example, a 2023 McKinsey & Company report found that companies with higher levels of gender and ethnic diversity will likely financially outperform those with the least diversity by at least 39%. Similarly, concerns that DEI in science and technology education leads to lowering standards aren’t backed up by scholarship. Instead, scholars are increasingly pointing out that disparities in performance are linked to built-in biases in courses themselves.

    That said, legal concerns about DEI are rising. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Department of Justice have recently warned employers that some DEI programs may violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Anecdotal evidence suggests that reverse discrimination claims, particularly from white men, are increasing, and legal experts expect the Supreme Court to lower the burden of proof needed by complainants for such cases.

    The issue remains legally unsettled. But while the cases work their way through the courts, women and people of color will continue to shoulder much of the unpaid volunteer work that powers corporate DEI initiatives. This pattern raises important equity concerns within DEI itself.

    What lies ahead for DEI?

    People’s fears of DEI are partly rooted in demographic anxiety. Since the U.S. Census Bureau projected in 2008 that non-Hispanic white people would become a minority in the U.S by the year 2042, nationwide news coverage has amplified white fears of displacement.

    Research indicates many white men experience this change as a crisis of identity and masculinity, particularly amid economic shifts such as the decline of blue-collar work. This perception aligns with research showing that white Americans are more likely to believe DEI policies disadvantage white men than white women.

    At the same time, in spite of DEI initiatives, women and people of color are most likely to be underemployed and living in poverty regardless of how much education they attain. The gender wage gap remains stark: In 2023, women working full time earned a median weekly salary of $1,005 compared with $1,202 for men − just 83.6% of what men earned. Over a 40-year career, that adds up to hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost earnings. For Black and Latina women, the disparities are even worse, with one source estimating lifetime losses at $976,800 and $1.2 million, respectively.

    Racism, too, carries an economic toll. A 2020 analysis from Citi found that systemic racism has cost the U.S. economy $16 trillion since 2000. The same analysis found that addressing these disparities could have boosted Black wages by $2.7 trillion, added up to $113 billion in lifetime earnings through higher college enrollment, and generated $13 trillion in business revenue, creating 6.1 million jobs annually.

    In a moment of backlash and uncertainty, I believe DEI remains a vital if imperfect tool in the American experiment of inclusion. Rather than abandon it, the challenge now, from my perspective, is how to refine it: grounding efforts not in slogans or fear, but in fairness and evidence.

    Rodney Coates 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. Beyond the backlash: What evidence shows about the economic impact of DEI – https://theconversation.com/beyond-the-backlash-what-evidence-shows-about-the-economic-impact-of-dei-252143

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The rise and fall – and rise again – of white-tailed deer

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Elic Weitzel, Peter Buck Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Smithsonian Institution

    White-tailed deer in North America are back to their precolonial population levels. John Woodhouse Audubon/Heritage Images/Hulton Archive via Getty Images

    Given their abundance in American backyards, gardens and highway corridors these days, it may be surprising to learn that white-tailed deer were nearly extinct about a century ago. While they currently number somewhere in the range of 30 million to 35 million, at the turn of the 20th century, there were as few as 300,000 whitetails across the entire continent: just 1% of the current population.

    This near-disappearance of deer was much discussed at the time. In 1854, Henry David Thoreau had written that no deer had been hunted near Concord, Massachusetts, for a generation. In his famous “Walden,” he reported that:

    “One man still preserves the horns of the last deer that was killed in this vicinity, and another has told me the particulars of the hunt in which his uncle was engaged. The hunters were formerly a numerous and merry crew here.”

    But what happened to white-tailed deer? What drove them nearly to extinction, and then what brought them back from the brink?

    As a historical ecologist and environmental archaeologist, I have made it my job to answer these questions. Over the past decade, I’ve studied white-tailed deer bones from archaeological sites across the eastern United States, as well as historical records and ecological data, to help piece together the story of this species.

    Precolonial rise of deer populations

    White-tailed deer have been hunted from the earliest migrations of people into North America, over 15,000 years ago. The species was far from the most important food resource at that time, though.

    Archaeological evidence suggests that white-tailed deer abundance only began to increase after the extinction of megafauna species like mammoths and mastodons opened up ecological niches for deer to fill. Deer bones become very common in archaeological sites from about 6,000 years ago onward, reflecting the economic and cultural importance of the species for Indigenous peoples.

    A 16th-century engraving of Indigenous Floridians hunting deer while disguised in deerskins.
    Theodor de Bry/DEA Picture Library/De Agostini via Getty Images

    Despite being so frequently hunted, deer populations do not seem to have appreciably declined due to Indigenous hunting prior to AD 1600. Unlike elk or sturgeon, whose numbers were reduced by Indigenous hunters and fishers, white-tailed deer seem to have been resilient to human predation. While archaeologists have found some evidence for human-caused declines in certain parts of North America, other cases are more ambiguous, and deer certainly remained abundant throughout the past several millennia.

    Human use of fire could partly explain why white-tailed deer may have been resilient to hunting. Indigenous peoples across North America have long used controlled burning to promote ecosystem health, disturbing old vegetation to promote new growth. Deer love this sort of successional vegetation for food and cover, and thus thrive in previously burned habitats. Indigenous people may have therefore facilitated deer population growth, counteracting any harmful hunting pressure.

    More research is needed, but even though some hunting pressure is evident, the general picture from the precolonial era is that deer seem to have been doing just fine for thousands of years. Ecologists estimate that there were roughly 30 million white-tailed deer in North America on the eve of European colonization – about the same number as today.

    Elic Weitzel and volunteers excavate for deer bones at a 17th-century colonial site in Connecticut.
    Scott Brady

    Colonial-era fall of deer numbers

    To better understand how deer populations changed in the colonial era, I recently analyzed deer bones from two archaeological sites in what is now Connecticut. My analysis suggests that hunting pressure on white-tailed deer increased almost as soon as European colonists arrived.

    At one site dated to the 11th to 14th centuries – before European colonization – I found that only about 7% to 10% of the deer killed were juveniles.

    Hunters generally don’t take juvenile deer if they’re frequently encountering adults, since adult deer tend to be larger, offering more meat and bigger hides. Additionally, hunting increases mortality on a deer herd but doesn’t directly affect fertility, so deer populations experiencing hunting pressure end up with juvenile-skewed age structures. For these reasons, this low percentage of juvenile deer prior to European colonization indicates minimal hunting pressure on local herds.

    However, at a nearby site occupied during the 17th century – just after European colonization – between 22% and 31% of the deer hunted were juveniles, suggesting a substantial increase in hunting pressure.

    Researchers can tell from the size and development of a deer’s bones its stage of life. Here is a fawn’s mandible with teeth.
    Elic Weitzel

    This elevated hunting pressure likely resulted from the transformation of deer into a commodity for the first time. Venison, antlers and deerskins may have long been exchanged within Indigenous trade networks, but things changed drastically in the 17th century. European colonists integrated North America into a trans-Atlantic mercantile capitalist economic system with no precedent in Indigenous society. This applied new pressures to the continent’s natural resources.

    Deer – particularly their skins – were commodified and sold in markets in the colonies initially and, by the 18th century, in Europe as well. Deer were now being exploited by traders, merchants and manufacturers desiring profit, not simply hunters desiring meat or leather. It was the resulting hunting pressure that drove the species toward its extinction.

    20th-century rebound of white-tailed deer

    Thanks to the rise of the conservation movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, white-tailed deer survived their brush with extinction.

    Concerned citizens and outdoorsmen feared for the fate of deer and other wildlife, and pushed for new legislative protections.

    The Lacey Act of 1900, for example, banned interstate transport of poached game and – in combination with state-level protections – helped end commercial deer hunting by effectively de-commodifying the species. Aided by conservation-oriented hunting practices and reintroductions of deer from surviving populations to areas where they had been extirpated, white-tailed deer rebounded.

    The story of white-tailed deer underscores an important fact: Humans are not inherently damaging to the environment. Hunting from the 17th through 19th centuries threatened the existence of white-tailed deer, but precolonial Indigenous hunting and environmental management appear to have been relatively sustainable, and modern regulatory governance in the 20th century forestalled and reversed their looming extinction.

    Elic Weitzel received funding from the National Science Foundation (award #2128707) to support this research.

    – ref. The rise and fall – and rise again – of white-tailed deer – https://theconversation.com/the-rise-and-fall-and-rise-again-of-white-tailed-deer-257307

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: What Peru’s Virgen de la Puerta represents about unity and inclusion

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Caitlin Cipolla-McCulloch, Researcher in Marianist Studies, University of Dayton

    La Virgen de la Puerta behind a glass window at the pinnacle of the church. Caitlin Cipolla-McCulloch

    Leo XIV, the first pope born in the United States, is also claimed by the Peruvian people whom he served for over two decades as one of their own.

    Then known as Robert Francis Prevost, he lived and worked in the cities of Trujillo and Chiclayo in northern Peru. In Chiclayo he served as bishop from 2015-2023. Trujillo is a few hours south of Chiclayo, where the pope lived for a decade.

    His ministry there is particularly exciting to me because I also lived in northern Peru, during a service year with the Marianist Family between my undergraduate experience at the University of Dayton and my first year of full-time ministry. The Marianist Family was founded in response to specific needs in postrevolutionary French society. Composed of lay people and vowed religious sisters, brothers and priests, it emphasizes devotion to Mary and a communal lifestyle as a distinctive way of living out one’s Roman Catholicism.

    About a two-hour bus ride away from Trujillo lies the mountainous town of Otuzco, where I lived with other members of the Marianist Family – a place that would later become a significant focus of my research as a lay Marianist and Mariologist. An image of Mary – La Virgen de la Puerta – now housed in a shrine church, has been venerated and revered in the community for over 300 years.

    The shrine church of La Virgen de la Puerta.

    The majority of those who maintain a devotional relationship with this image, both local or from the surrounding villages, are part of the Catholic religious majority in Peru. But some other Peruvians – including non- Catholics, some members of the LGBTQ+ community, and others who are marginalized, such as former prisoners and migrants – also revere her. Many of the devotees do not live near Otuzco but maintain a spiritual relationship with La Virgen de la Puerta.

    The founding of Otuzco

    The Augustinians – the religious congregation of brothers and priests that Leo XIV is a member of – settled in Otuzco in 1560.

    As part of the founding of the town, the Augustinian Fathers placed the town under the protection of Mary, the mother of Jesus. They acquired a Spanish image, a statue of Mary made mostly of wood, and selected Dec. 15 to celebrate her locally. This tradition has continued since 1664, about 100 years after the Augustinian Fathers settled in Otuzco.

    Frequently riddled by threats of pirates and other dangers, the people of Otuzco prayed fervently to this image of Mary for protection.

    A Virgen de la Puerta procession in the evening in the streets of Otuzco.
    Caitlin Cipolla-McCulloch

    During one particular threat to their safety, around 1670, they took this image into the streets in procession to protect their town. They placed this image of Mary above the door of the church in the center of town and called the image “Nuestra Señora de la Puerta” – transliterated into English: “Our Lady of the Door.”

    Contemporary pilgrimage in Otuzco

    In modern times, the fiesta of La Virgen de la Puerta is lavishly celebrated in the town of Otuzco, where thousands of faithful descend upon the mountain community for the multiday fiesta patronal, a festive celebration that honors the patron saint to whom a site is dedicated or entrusted.

    The fiesta patronal of La Virgen de la Puerta begins annually on Dec. 14, with the principal day observed on Dec. 15, and concludes on Dec. 16.

    During the days of the fiesta, the road between Trujillo and Otuzco is transformed into a pilgrimage route. The purpose of the journey can vary from pilgrim to pilgrim, yet it often reflects a deeply personal act of devotion.

    Some pilgrims arrive from Otuzco, Trujillo and neighboring villages, while others travel long distances – in Peru or from abroad – to honor La Virgen de la Puerta. Some pilgrims journey the roughly 50 miles (over 80 kilometers) between Trujillo and Otuzco on foot.

    I personally made this journey with a group of fellow pilgrims, the very people I was living among and ministering with during my service year in Peru. My pilgrimage involved a backpack with basic medical supplies for the group. After an overnight walk to Otuzco in camping pants, a T-shirt, hat and sneakers, I arrived before the image of Mary with quarter-size blisters on my feet.

    La Virgen de la Puerta procession through the streets of Otuzco.
    Caitlin Cipolla-McCulloch

    Some pilgrims, unlike me, mark the final kilometers of their journey by advancing to the shrine through the streets on their knees.

    Devotion outside Otuzco

    In addition to the thousands who descend on the town of Otuzco each year for the celebration, there are those who are deeply devoted to La Virgen de la Puerta but do not or cannot make the journey to the shrine. Their celebrations take place at times at a great distance from Otuzco.

    Among them are members of the LGBTQ+ community, who to this day remain marginalized in broader Peruvian and Catholic culture. Although members of the LGBTQ+ community reside throughout Peru, the neighborhood of Cerro El Pino in Lima has historically been the site of a festive celebration in honor of La Virgen de la Puerta, which many community members observe.

    Differing communities come with differing needs to La Virgen de la Puerta. The LGBTQ+ community in this particular neighborhood believes she has protected them throughout their history. During the early years of the AIDS epidemic in the 1990s, when over 10% of the male population in Lima was infected by HIV, members of this community sought the protection of La Virgen de la Puerta for their physical health. Although some people died from AIDS, others continued to participate in the rituals of the fiesta to honor her protection over time, even amid their suffering. They wore special costumes, sang and performed the dances that have been part of the fiesta patronal for over 300 years.

    Francisco Rodríguez Torres is a Peruvian photographer who lives in the capital city, Lima, but has roots in the northern region where the image of La Virgen de la Puerta is located. He is one of those who has documented the activities of the fiesta patronal both in Otuzco and in Lima in his text La Mamita de Otuzco.

    He writes both about the local faithful as well as those who venerate the image from a distance. In his Spanish language text, he has documented that La Virgen de la Puerta is considered a mother by groups who find themselves on the margins of society. These groups include those who are part of the LGBTQ+ community, the poor, former prisoners and migrants. They “hope to find in her gaze a consolation,” he explains.

    Devotees bring their special petitions before La Virgen de la Puerta: They ask for her support in making decisions and for their everyday needs. Some even pray for miraculous healing.

    Echoing this sentiment of finding hope in La Virgen de la Puerta, Pope Francis, during his apostolic journey to Peru, crowned La Virgen de la Puerta and gave her the title of Mother of Mercy and Hope. In his address during a special prayer service in Trujillo on Jan. 20, 2018, Francis recounted that La Virgen de la Puerta has defended and protected all of her children throughout history.

    Leo, following the example of Francis, has focused on the importance of dialogue and peace. In his first message from the balcony upon being announced pope he said that members of the Catholic Church must build “bridges, dialogue, always open to receive like this square with its open arms, all, all who need our charity, our presence, dialogue and love.”

    I believe that La Virgen de la Puerta – a source of mercy and hope for all her devotees, regardless of whether they have been historically marginalized or excluded – offers an example to the world community of the greater unity with one another that Leo XIV is seeking to prioritize.

    Caitlin Cipolla-McCulloch 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. What Peru’s Virgen de la Puerta represents about unity and inclusion – https://theconversation.com/what-perus-virgen-de-la-puerta-represents-about-unity-and-inclusion-256766

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: More Colorado workplaces are becoming safe places for employees in recovery

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Liliana Tenney, Assistant Professor, Department of Environmental & Occupational Health, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

    Cliff and Cara Blauvelt, owners of Odie B’s sandwich shops in Denver, have created a recovery-friendly workplace thanks in part to a program from the Colorado School of Public Health. Courtesy of BehindTheApronMedia

    At Odie B’s, a sandwich shop in Denver, recovery from drug and alcohol use is part of daily operations.

    “Seventy percent of our staff is active in recovery,” Cliff Blauvelt, co-owner of Odie B’s, said in a video testimonial. “We try to provide a safe space where people can feel comfortable.”

    Blauvelt has struggled with alcohol use for more than 20 years. He co-owns Odie B’s with his wife, Cara Blauvelt.

    One employee, Molly, said working at Odie B’s helped her focus on sobriety and reconnect with her sense of purpose.

    “I was burned out, I was working a lot of hours. … I started dry January, and after a few months I realized I needed to quit drinking,” she said in the same video testimonial. “Cara definitely helped with my sobriety journey, just reminding me one day at a time, and now, I have been sober for going on two years.”

    Staffers at Odie B’s, a sandwich shop in Denver, participated in Colorado’s Recovery Friendly Workplace Initiative and were interviewed about the experience.

    Colorado is one of more than 30 states that have launched recovery-friendly workplace programs in recent years. They’re part of a growing effort to reframe how employers address addiction, mental health and recovery for the well-being of their employees and businesses.

    Our team from the Centers for Health, Work & Environment at the Colorado School of Public Health works with employers to develop training guidelines and policies to help make their workplaces supportive of recovery.

    Over the past three years, we’ve worked to understand the tools employers need to better support employees with substance use disorders.

    Many are deeply motivated but lack formal policies or training. That gap is what the Colorado Recovery Friendly Workplace Initiative is designed to fill.

    Since 2021, our team has developed and delivered recovery and mental health training to more than 8,000 Colorado employees. They represent more than 100 businesses in industries ranging from local government to construction companies and health care providers. Our training sessions focus on equipping individuals with an understanding of mental health and substance use disorders, explaining how to combat stigma, and outlining how to navigate accommodations in the workplace.

    The toll of addiction

    Substance use is not just a personal issue; it’s a public health and workforce challenge.

    In 2023, 1,865 Coloradans died from a drug overdose, according to data from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. That’s up about 65 deaths from the previous year. Nationally, overdose deaths have more than doubled since 2015.

    In high-risk industries, such as construction and mining, where physically demanding work, long hours and job insecurity are common, workers have some of the highest rates of nonmedical opioid use. These workers are thus at a high risk of developing substance use disorders.

    They also face other mental health challenges. These same sectors face the highest suicide rates across all occupations and nearly double that of the general public.

    Recovery, as defined by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, a federal agency, includes “a process of change through which people improve their health and wellness, live self-directed lives, and strive to reach their full potential.” In Colorado, an estimated 400,000 people identify as being in recovery. Many of them are working, raising families and rebuilding their lives.

    The economic impact of substance use is significant. Colorado has lost more than 360 million work hours to opioid use over the past decade, according to the American Action Forum, a nonprofit that conducts economic analyses. That’s the equivalent of 173,000 full-time jobs for one year.

    In 2017 alone, the cost of lost productivity due to opioid use disorder and fatal opioid overdose in Colorado was estimated to be US$834 million.

    Employers save an average of $8,500 per year for each employee in recovery, according to the National Safety Council. These savings come from lower health care costs, reduced absenteeism and decreased turnover. In other words, when employers retain and support workers through recovery rather than lose them to untreated substance use, they see measurable benefits.

    A shifting policy landscape

    In 2024, Colorado lawmakers passed a bill for supporting recovery and addressing the opioid epidemic. The legislation provided funding to establish the Recovery Friendly Workplaces Initiative and the voluntary employer participation and certification program.

    Colorado Gov. Jared Polis signs legislation into law. The Recovery Friendly Workplace Initiative received state funding as part of a 2024 bill aimed at addressing the state’s opioid epidemic.
    Aaron Ontiveroz/Getty Images

    In early 2025, funding for the initiative was removed from the state budget due to a broader fiscal shortfall. The funding cut disrupted many of our planned activities, and we are currently relying on interim support from counties and state offices.

    Looking ahead

    Small businesses remain a priority for our team, despite recent funding cuts. Many lack human resources departments or formal wellness programs but are nonetheless deeply committed to helping their employees succeed.

    Sarah Deering, vice president of Absolute Caulking & Waterproofing of Colorado, joined the Recovery Friendly Workplace Initiative.
    Courtesy of the Center for Health, Work and Environment

    A Colorado Recovery Friendly Workplace Initative participant, Absolute Caulking & Waterproofing of Colorado, employs 39 people. Absolute has championed recovery-friendly policies as something the business values.

    “This partnership saves us time and resources, which is invaluable for our small, family-owned business,” said Sarah Deering, vice president of the company.

    The road ahead presents challenges, including limited funding, the societal stigma around recovery and all of the complexities of recovery itself. But we continue to follow the scientific evidence. Our research team is evaluating the outcomes of our programs to better understand their impact and hopefully inform future policy recommendations. We are committed to the belief that work can and should be a place of healing.

    Liliana Tenney receives funding from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

    Olivia Zarella receives funding from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

    – ref. More Colorado workplaces are becoming safe places for employees in recovery – https://theconversation.com/more-colorado-workplaces-are-becoming-safe-places-for-employees-in-recovery-251784

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: There’s no evidence work requirements for Medicaid recipients will boost employment, but they are a key piece of Republican spending bill

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Colin Gordon, Professor of History, University of Iowa

    Work requirements for receiving government benefits have a long history. FatCamera/E+ via Getty Images

    Republicans in the U.S. Senate are sparring over their version of the multitrillion-dollar budget and immigration bill the House of Representatives passed on May 22, 2025.

    Some GOP senators are insisting on shrinking the budget deficit, which the House version would increase by about US$3.8 trillion over a decade.

    Others are saying they oppose the House’s cost-cutting provisions for Medicaid, the government’s health insurance program for people who are low income or have disabilities.

    Despite the calls from U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri and a few other Republican senators to protect Medicaid, as a scholar of American social policy I’m expecting to see the Senate embrace the introduction of work requirements for many adults under 65 who get health insurance through the program.

    The House version calls for the states, which administer Medicaid within their borders and help pay for the program, to adopt work requirements by the end of 2026. The effect of this policy, animated by the conviction that coverage is too generous and too easy to obtain, will be to deny Medicaid eligibility to millions of those currently covered – leaving them without access to basic health services, including preventive care and the management of ongoing conditions such as asthma or diabetes.

    Ending welfare

    The notion that people who get government benefits should prove that they deserve them, ideally through paid labor, is now centuries old. This conviction underlay the Victorian workhouses in 19th-century England that Charles Dickens critiqued through his novels.

    U.S. Rep. Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., put it bluntly earlier this month: Medicaid is “subsidizing capable adults who choose not to work,” he said.

    Demonstrators in Illinois hold signs in support of Medicaid in 2018.
    Charles Edward Miller via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

    This idea also animated the development of the American welfare state, from its origins in the 1930s organized around the goals of maintaining civil order and compelling paid labor. Enforcing work obligations ensured the ready availability of low-wage labor and supported the growing assumption that only paid labor could redeem the lives and aspirations of the poor.

    “We started offering hope and opportunity along with the welfare check,” Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson argued in the early 1990s, “and expecting certain responsibilities in return.”

    This concept also was at the heart of the U.S. government’s bid to end “welfare as we know it.”

    In 1996, the Democratic Clinton administration replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children, or AFDC, a long-standing entitlement to cash assistance for low-income families, with Temporary Aid for Needy Families, known commonly as TANF. The TANF program, as its name indicates, was limited to short-term support, with the expectation that most people getting these benefits would soon gain long-term employment.

    Since 1996, Republicans serving at the state and federal levels of government have pressed to extend this principle to other programs that help low-income people. They’ve insisted, as President Donald Trump put it halfway through his first term, that unconditional benefits have “delayed economic independence, perpetuated poverty, and weakened family bonds.”

    Such claims are unsupported. There is no evidence to suggest that work requirements have ever galvanized independence or lifted low-income people out of poverty. Instead, they have punished low-income people by denying them the benefits or assistance they require.

    Work requirements haven’t worked

    Work requirements have consistently failed as a spur to employment. The transition from the AFDC to TANF required low-income families to meet work requirements, new administrative burdens and punitive sanctions.

    The new work expectations, rolled out in 1997, were not accompanied by supporting policies, especially the child care subsidies that many low-income parents with young children require to hold a job. They were also at odds with the very low-paying and unstable jobs available to those transitioning from welfare.

    Scholars found that TANF did less to lift families out of poverty than it did to shuffle its burden, helping the nearly poor at the expense of the very poor.

    The program took an especially large toll on low-income Black women, as work requirements exposed recipients to long-standing patterns of racial and gender discrimination in private labor markets.

    Restricting access to SNAP

    Work requirements tied to other government programs have similar track records.

    The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which helps millions of Americans buy groceries, adopted work requirements for able-bodied adults in 1996.

    Researchers have found that SNAP’s work requirements have pared back eligibility without any measurable increase in labor force participation.

    As happens with TANF, most people with SNAP benefits who have to comply with SNAP work requirements are already working to the degree their personal circumstances and local labor markets allow.

    The requirements don’t encourage SNAP recipients to work more hours; they simply lead people to be overwhelmed by red tape and stop renewing their SNAP benefits.

    Failing in Arkansas

    The logic of work requirements collapses entirely when extended to Medicaid.

    Red states have been pressing for years for waivers that would allow them to experiment with work requirements – especially for the abled-bodied, working-age adults who gained coverage under the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion.

    The first Trump administration granted 13 such waivers for what it saw as “meritorious innovations,” building “on the human dignity that comes with training, employment and independence.”

    The House passed the budget bill on May 22, 2025. It includes steep cuts to Medicaid and imposes work requirements for eligibility.

    Arkansas got the furthest with adding work requirements to Medicaid at that time. The results were disappointing.

    “We found no evidence that the policy succeeded in its stated goal of promoting work,” as one research team concluded, “and instead found substantial evidence of harm to health care coverage and access.”

    The Biden administration slowed down the implementation of these waivers by directing the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to suspend or stem any state programs that eroded coverage. Meanwhile, state courts consistently ruled against the use of Medicaid work requirements.

    In Trump’s second term, Iowa, Arizona and at least a dozen other states have proposed “work requirement” waivers for federal approval.

    Trying it again

    The waiver process is meant to allow state experiments to further the statutory objectives of the Medicaid program, which is to furnish “medical assistance on behalf of families with dependent children and of aged, blind, or disabled individuals, whose income and resources are insufficient to meet the costs of necessary medical services.”

    On these grounds, the courts have consistently held that state waivers imposing work requirements not only fail to promote Medicaid’s objectives but amount to an arbitrary and capricious effort to undermine those objectives.

    “The text of the statute includes one primary purpose,” the D.C. Circuit ruled in 2020, “which is providing health care coverage without any restriction geared to healthy outcomes, financial independence or transition to commercial coverage.”

    Changing Medicaid in all states

    The House spending bill includes a work requirement that would require all able-bodied, childless adults under 65 to demonstrate that they had worked, volunteered or participated in job training for 80 hours in the month before enrollment.

    It would also allow states to extend such work requirements to six months and apply the new requirements not just to Medicaid recipients but to people who get subsidized health insurance through an Affordable Care Act exchange.

    If passed in some form by the Senate, the House spending bill would transform the landscape of Medicaid work requirements, pushing an estimated 4.8 million Americans into the ranks of the uninsured.

    Colin Gordon 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. There’s no evidence work requirements for Medicaid recipients will boost employment, but they are a key piece of Republican spending bill – https://theconversation.com/theres-no-evidence-work-requirements-for-medicaid-recipients-will-boost-employment-but-they-are-a-key-piece-of-republican-spending-bill-257289

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s white genocide claims about South Africa have deep roots in American history

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Alex Hinton, Distinguished Professor of Anthropology; Director, Center for the Study of Genocide and Human Rights, Rutgers University – Newark

    President Donald Trump shows printed news articles during a meeting with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa at the White House on May 21, 2025. Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post via Getty Images

    President Donald Trump says there is a genocide of white people taking place in South Africa, meaning that Black South Africans are deliberately attempting to kill white farmers because of their race.

    Trump and his spokesperson, Karoline Leavitt, have said violence targeting white farmers in South Africa justifies admitting about 60 white Afrikaner farmers to the U.S. as refugees in May 2025.

    This comes after Trump, in January, suspended admitting people, most of whom are not white, from other countries through the United States’ refugee program. The U.S. had previously given refugee status – a legal right to remain and work in the country – to tens of thousands of people each year who were fleeing violence and persecution in their home countries.

    During a May 21 White House meeting with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, Trump highlighted white genocide in South Africa, saying, “We have thousands of stories talking about it.” Ramaphosa denied that a white genocide is happening in his country. Trump then had a staffer dim the lights and play a video that, among other inflammatory content, showed white crosses along a road.

    “These are burial sites,” Trump said. “Over a thousand white farmers.”

    Trump’s white genocide claims, which echoed assertions he made during his first term, were quickly debunked by independent fact-checkers.

    Fact-checkers pointed out that while crime rates in South Africa are high in general, there is no evidence of white genocide there. The crosses in the video Trump showed did not mark mass graves of white farmers. They were part of a 2020 tribute to two white farmers murdered by armed men who stormed their house that year.

    As someone who has studied genocide and far-right extremists for years, I think it is necessary to understand what white genocide is and how it developed into a central issue in U.S. immigration debates starting in Trump’s first term.

    A group of South Africans who were granted admission to the U.S. as refugees arrive at Washington Dulles International Airport in Virginia on May 12, 2025.
    Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

    The origins of white genocide

    As I detail in my 2021 book “It Can Happen Here: White Power and the Rising Threat of Genocide in the US,” white genocide is a far-right extremist conspiracy theory claiming that allegedly bad people, often Jews, are carrying out a dangerous plot to destroy the white race. While this idea circulates worldwide, it has distinctly American roots.

    This conspiracy dates back to the 1800s and the rise of nativism, a xenophobic belief held by some white Protestant Americans that certain immigrants, especially German and Irish Catholics, were dangerous and threatened to disrupt American traditions, culture and economic security.

    Nativist fears have continued to influence U.S. politics and culture.

    The American lawyer Madison Grant, for example, made nativist arguments in his 1916 book “The Passing of the Great Race,” which warned of immigrants’ threat to Americans and “race suicide.” Adolf Hitler once called Grant’s book his bible.

    Nativism has also influenced white power extremists, who believe in white superiority and dominance. They began using the specific term “white genocide” after the 1960s Civil Rights Movement, which they perceived as eroding white people’s power.

    The growth in this term’s popularity among some right-wing extremists also coincided with Congress approving the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1965. This act significantly increased the number of immigrants the U.S. legally accepted into the country each year and also allowed more non-European – and nonwhite – immigrants to settle in America.

    In the 1970s, William Pierce, an American former physics professor turned neo-Nazi, wrote a book called “The Turner Diaries.” The book, which the FBI has called the “bible of the racist right,” is about how a fictional extremist group, “The Order,” overthrows a U.S. government that gives power to nonwhite citizens and is controlled by Jews. The order proceeds to kill nonwhite people and Jews, as well as “race traitors” who don’t support their cause.

    The book inspired a 1980s group of violent neo-Nazis who also called themselves The Order, based off the fictitious group in Pierce’s book. Timothy McVeigh’s 1995 bombing of Oklahoma City’s Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, which killed 168 people, was modeled on a scene from “The Turner Diaries,” which depicts the extremist group’s bombing of the FBI headquarters.

    In 1988, David Lane, a former member of The Order, crystallized the idea of white genocide in a short essay, “The White Genocide Manifesto.” The manifesto asserts that there is a “Zionist conspiracy to mix, overrun and exterminate the White race.”

    Jews do this, Lane claims, through “control of the media … industry, finance, law and politics” and by promoting antiwhite policies such as desegregation. To prevent white genocide, Lane calls for the establishment of a white homeland in North America – by violence, if necessary.

    White genocide’s entry into the mainstream

    Research shows that 61% of Trump voters believe “a group of people in this country are trying to replace native-born Americans with immigrants and people of color who share their political views.”

    This belief is often known as replacement theory, a variant of the idea of white genocide.

    Many of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrectionists believed that white Americans were being replaced. So, too, did the far-right protesters who chanted, “You will not replace us!” at the extremist Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017.

    There are also instances of such white power extremist views leading to violent acts. One example is the mass shooting of 11 Jewish people at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh in 2018. Another is the El Paso Walmart shooting that resulted in 23 murdered Latino victims in 2019.

    Right-wing populists such as Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk have helped fuel replacement theories by contending that Democrats are trying to replace white voters with nonwhite immigrants.

    Neo-Nazis and white supremacists march leading up to the ‘Unite the Right’ rally in Charlottesville, Va., in August 2017.
    Zach D Roberts/NurPhoto via Getty Images

    Concern for white farmers isn’t actually about South Africa

    I believe that Trump’s recent focus on alleged white genocide in South Africa has little to do with South Africa. It is all about American politics and advancing some of Trump’s goals, such as reducing immigration into the U.S.

    First, by suggesting white genocide is taking place in South Africa, Trump amplifies his supporters’ fears that they, too, could soon be outnumbered by nonwhite people – in this case, immigrants.

    Trump has been harping on the alleged dangers of nonwhite immigration since he first ran for election in 2015, and it was central to his 2024 election victory.

    Replacement theory claims also help justify Trump’s goal of deporting immigrants living illegally in the U.S., as well as stopping refugee admissions from many countries, by highlighting the supposed dangers nonwhite immigrants pose to Americans, both in terms of potential threats to their physical safety and job prospects and security.

    This recent example is not the first time Trump has made white genocide claims to advance his agenda. Based on his track record, it is likely he will do so again.

    Alex Hinton receives receives funding from the Rutgers-Newark Sheila Y. Oliver Center for Politics and Race in America, Rutgers Research Council, and Henry Frank Guggenheim Foundation.

    – ref. Trump’s white genocide claims about South Africa have deep roots in American history – https://theconversation.com/trumps-white-genocide-claims-about-south-africa-have-deep-roots-in-american-history-257510

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Weaponized storytelling: How AI is helping researchers sniff out disinformation campaigns

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Mark Finlayson, Associate Professor of Computer Science, Florida International University

    The human proclivity for storytelling makes disinformation difficult to combat. Westend61 via Getty Images

    It is not often that cold, hard facts determine what people care most about and what they believe. Instead, it is the power and familiarity of a well-told story that reigns supreme. Whether it’s a heartfelt anecdote, a personal testimony or a meme echoing familiar cultural narratives, stories tend to stick with us, move us and shape our beliefs.

    This characteristic of storytelling is precisely what can make it so dangerous when wielded by the wrong hands. For decades, foreign adversaries have used narrative tactics in efforts to manipulate public opinion in the United States. Social media platforms have brought new complexity and amplification to these campaigns. The phenomenon garnered ample public scrutiny after evidence emerged of Russian entities exerting influence over election-related material on Facebook in the lead-up to the 2016 election.

    While artificial intelligence is exacerbating the problem, it is at the same time becoming one of the most powerful defenses against such manipulations. Researchers have been using machine learning techniques to analyze disinformation content.

    At the Cognition, Narrative and Culture Lab at Florida International University, we are building AI tools to help detect disinformation campaigns that employ tools of narrative persuasion. We are training AI to go beyond surface-level language analysis to understand narrative structures, trace personas and timelines and decode cultural references.

    Disinformation vs. misinformation

    In July 2024, the Department of Justice disrupted a Kremlin-backed operation that used nearly a thousand fake social media accounts to spread false narratives. These weren’t isolated incidents. They were part of an organized campaign, powered in part by AI.

    Disinformation differs crucially from misinformation. While misinformation is simply false or inaccurate information – getting facts wrong – disinformation is intentionally fabricated and shared specifically to mislead and manipulate. A recent illustration of this came in October 2024, when a video purporting to show a Pennsylvania election worker tearing up mail-in ballots marked for Donald Trump swept platforms such as X and Facebook.

    Within days, the FBI traced the clip to a Russian influence outfit, but not before it racked up millions of views. This example vividly demonstrates how foreign influence campaigns artificially manufacture and amplify fabricated stories to manipulate U.S. politics and stoke divisions among Americans.

    Humans are wired to process the world through stories. From childhood, we grow up hearing stories, telling them and using them to make sense of complex information. Narratives don’t just help people remember – they help us feel. They foster emotional connections and shape our interpretations of social and political events.

    Stories have profound effects on human beliefs and behavior.

    This makes them especially powerful tools for persuasion – and, consequently, for spreading disinformation. A compelling narrative can override skepticism and sway opinion more effectively than a flood of statistics. For example, a story about rescuing a sea turtle with a plastic straw in its nose often does more to raise concern about plastic pollution than volumes of environmental data.

    Usernames, cultural context and narrative time

    Using AI tools to piece together a picture of the narrator of a story, the timeline for how they tell it and cultural details specific to where the story takes place can help identify when a story doesn’t add up.

    Narratives are not confined to the content users share – they also extend to the personas users construct to tell them. Even a social media handle can carry persuasive signals. We have developed a system that analyzes usernames to infer demographic and identity traits such as name, gender, location, sentiment and even personality, when such cues are embedded in the handle. This work, presented in 2024 at the International Conference on Web and Social Media, highlights how even a brief string of characters can signal how users want to be perceived by their audience.

    For example, a user attempting to appear as a credible journalist might choose a handle like @JamesBurnsNYT rather than something more casual like @JimB_NYC. Both may suggest a male user from New York, but one carries the weight of institutional credibility. Disinformation campaigns often exploit these perceptions by crafting handles that mimic authentic voices or affiliations.

    Although a handle alone cannot confirm whether an account is genuine, it plays an important role in assessing overall authenticity. By interpreting usernames as part of the broader narrative an account presents, AI systems can better evaluate whether an identity is manufactured to gain trust, blend into a target community or amplify persuasive content. This kind of semantic interpretation contributes to a more holistic approach to disinformation detection – one that considers not just what is said but who appears to be saying it and why.

    Also, stories don’t always unfold chronologically. A social media thread might open with a shocking event, flash back to earlier moments and skip over key details in between.

    Humans handle this effortlessly – we’re used to fragmented storytelling. But for AI, determining a sequence of events based on a narrative account remains a major challenge.

    Our lab is also developing methods for timeline extraction, teaching AI to identify events, understand their sequence and map how they relate to one another, even when a story is told in nonlinear fashion.

    Objects and symbols often carry different meanings in different cultures, and without cultural awareness, AI systems risk misinterpreting the narratives they analyze. Foreign adversaries can exploit cultural nuances to craft messages that resonate more deeply with specific audiences, enhancing the persuasive power of disinformation.

    Consider the following sentence: “The woman in the white dress was filled with joy.” In a Western context, the phrase evokes a happy image. But in parts of Asia, where white symbolizes mourning or death, it could feel unsettling or even offensive.

    In order to use AI to detect disinformation that weaponizes symbols, sentiments and storytelling within targeted communities, it’s critical to give AI this sort of cultural literacy. In our research, we’ve found that training AI on diverse cultural narratives improves its sensitivity to such distinctions.

    Who benefits from narrative-aware AI?

    Narrative-aware AI tools can help intelligence analysts quickly identify orchestrated influence campaigns or emotionally charged storylines that are spreading unusually fast. They might use AI tools to process large volumes of social media posts in order to map persuasive narrative arcs, identify near-identical storylines and flag coordinated timing of social media activity. Intelligence services could then use countermeasures in real time.

    In addition, crisis-response agencies could swiftly identify harmful narratives, such as false emergency claims during natural disasters. Social media platforms could use these tools to efficiently route high-risk content for human review without unnecessary censorship. Researchers and educators could also benefit by tracking how a story evolves across communities, making narrative analysis more rigorous and shareable.

    Ordinary users can also benefit from these technologies. The AI tools could flag social media posts in real time as possible disinformation, allowing readers to be skeptical of suspect stories, thus counteracting falsehoods before they take root.

    As AI takes on a greater role in monitoring and interpreting online content, its ability to understand storytelling beyond just traditional semantic analysis has become essential. To this end, we are building systems to uncover hidden patterns, decode cultural signals and trace narrative timelines to reveal how disinformation takes hold.

    Mark Finlayson receives funding from US Department of Defense and the US National Science Foundation for his work on narrative understanding and influence operations in the military context.

    Azwad Anjum Islam receives funding from Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

    – ref. Weaponized storytelling: How AI is helping researchers sniff out disinformation campaigns – https://theconversation.com/weaponized-storytelling-how-ai-is-helping-researchers-sniff-out-disinformation-campaigns-251349

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The anatomy of a smile: how to spot a fake from the real thing

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Michelle Spear, Professor of Anatomy, University of Bristol

    Axel Bueckert / Alamy Stock Photo

    You’ve probably heard the claim that it takes more muscles to frown than to smile. It’s usually framed as a feel-good reason to turn your frown upside down – less effort, more joy. But anatomically, the numbers don’t quite add up.

    We’ve all seen it – the smile that doesn’t quite reach the eyes. From awkward family photos to strained workplace pleasantries, our brains often detect that something is off long before we consciously realise why.

    But what is it about a smile that makes it feel sincere — or fake? The answer lies in a surprising blend of facial anatomy, neurology and emotional authenticity.

    Not all smiles are created equal, and anatomically speaking, there are at least two distinct kinds: the Duchenne smile, which reflects genuine happiness, and the non-Duchenne smile, which tends to be more social or strategic.

    Named after 19th-century French neurologist Guillaume Duchenne de Boulogne, the Duchenne smile activates two key muscle groups. The first group is associated with the corners of the mouth – where, for example, the risorius (from the Latin to smile) draws the corners outward and the zygomaticus major muscle lifts them.

    The second, and most telling, muscle is the orbicularis oculi, which tightens the muscles around the eyes, producing the familiar “crow’s feet” and the gentle narrowing we associate with warmth and delight.

    Fake or polite smiles, on the other hand, usually involve only the mouth muscles. The eyes remain wide or indifferent, and the smile appears more mechanical than meaningful – a kind of emotional camouflage.

    Both real and fake smiles depend on cranial nerve VII, also known as the facial nerve, which sends signals from the brain to the muscles of facial expression. However, there’s a key neurological difference: Duchenne smiles tend to be generated by the limbic system, the brain’s emotional core – particularly the amygdala, an almond-shaped group of neurons that processes emotional salience.

    Non-Duchenne smiles, by contrast, are often under more conscious cortical control, originating in the motor cortex. This divide means that authentic, emotionally driven smiles are involuntary.

    You can’t easily will your orbicularis oculi to contract convincingly unless you’re genuinely feeling the emotion behind the expression. Even professional actors must tap into real memories or method techniques to produce them convincingly.

    Why our brains notice the difference

    Humans are remarkably good at detecting emotional authenticity. Studies show that even infants as young as ten months can distinguish between real and fake smiles.

    Evolutionarily, this ability may have helped us assess trustworthiness, recognise true allies and avoid deception. The fusiform gyrus, a part of the brain involved in facial recognition, works closely with the superior temporal sulcus to decode expressions — helping us gauge intention as much as emotion.

    In modern life, our sensitivity to facial nuance continues to matter. Politicians, customer service workers and public figures frequently rely on the social smile to navigate complex interpersonal expectations. But observers – consciously or not – often pick up on these micro-discrepancies.

    Fake smiles aren’t necessarily malicious. In fact, they serve important social functions: smoothing awkward interactions, signalling politeness, defusing conflict and showing deference. They are a vital part of what sociologists call “emotional labour” – managing one’s expressions to meet societal or professional expectations.

    But this kind of smiling, when sustained for long periods, can be emotionally exhausting. Studies of emotional labour suggest that being required to smile without genuine feeling – especially in service roles – is associated with increased stress, burnout and even cardiovascular strain.

    As we move further into the age of AI, synthetic faces – from chatbots to virtual assistants – are being programmed to replicate human expressions. Yet the challenge remains: how do you fake authenticity? Engineers can program a smile, but without the micro-contractions around the eyes, many of these expressions still seem disingenuous. Our own anatomy sets the gold standard.

    So next time you’re trying to decode someone’s expression, don’t just look at the mouth. Watch the eyes. The orbicularis oculi rarely lies.

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

    – ref. The anatomy of a smile: how to spot a fake from the real thing – https://theconversation.com/the-anatomy-of-a-smile-how-to-spot-a-fake-from-the-real-thing-256481

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Is Sudan’s war the reason for South Sudan’s economic crisis? What’s really going on with oil revenue

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Jan Pospisil, Associate Professor at the Centre for Peace and Security, Coventry University

    The civil war in Sudan between the Sudanese army and paramilitary Rapid Support Forces, which began in April 2023, has had an impact on its neighbours. One of the most keenly affected countries is South Sudan, which became an independent state in 2011 and went on to endure its own civil war. This ended in 2018 with a tenuous peace agreement.

    The impact of the Sudanese war on South Sudan, however, isn’t a straightforward spillover catastrophe. The picture is more nuanced, and this is most clearly seen in South Sudan’s oil economy. Jan Pospisil, who has studied the dynamics in Sudan and South Sudan, explains.

    What is the current status of oil exports from South Sudan through Sudan?

    Landlocked South Sudan is reliant on its neighbour to the north to transport oil from its fields to the international market. Crude oil is transported via pipeline to Port Sudan on the Red Sea.

    However, recent drone strikes on Port Sudan carried out by the Rapid Support Forces targeted power plants that supply electricity to pumping stations along Sudan’s critical oil pipelines.

    Soon after, the Sudanese army formally notified South Sudan that it would have to halt exports. Following hectic negotiations, the South Sudanese government released a statement that the stoppage could be prevented.

    This back and forth has reopened the pressing question of the impact of Sudan’s war on South Sudan’s economy and, in particular, the role of crude oil.

    Assessments of the impact of Sudan’s war on South Sudan suggest the worst: oil revenues would account for 80% of South Sudan’s budget and 90% of its fiscal revenue.

    This informs the International Monetary Fund’s warnings of looming economic collapse in case of a breakdown of oil exports. The predominant view is that a shutdown of the oil pipeline through Sudan would lead to a collapse of dollar inflows to South Sudan, triggering a severe economic crisis.

    However, South Sudan’s 2024-25 budget suggests a high reliance on non-oil revenue.

    In fact, government oil revenues for 2024-25 are based on a volume of only around 16,000 barrels per day. This is the share of total production of about 130,000 barrels per day controlled by South Sudan. Attempts to increase production to pre-war levels of up to 400,000 barrels failed. The substantial drop in production is explained by a decline in the quality of South Sudan’s oil wells, especially in Paloch in the north-east’s Upper Nile State, and Unity State in the north-central region.

    South Sudan additionally lacks the operational capacity to extract the oil it has in the ground.

    The 2024-25 budget projects a hefty fiscal deficit. The revenues projected will cover only about half of total planned state spending. Oil and non-oil revenues – which mainly include tax income from international NGOs and businesses – each account for about half of the revenue that’s expected to come in.

    Oil income has to account for debt (capital and interest) repayments on loans, as well as pipeline transport fees paid to Sudan. This means that even the optimistically assessed net contributions of oil revenue would only pay for 16% of planned government spending. South Sudan remains with a hefty deficit.

    What are the challenges South Sudan is facing in growing oil revenues?

    First, Petronas, a Malaysian multinational oil and gas company, withdrew from South Sudan in August 2024 after three decades.

    It left behind substantial challenges, including an arbitration process worth more US$1 billion. This followed the government preventing Petronas from selling its shares to the British-Nigerian group Savannah Energy.

    As a short-term solution, South Sudan de facto nationalised Petronas’ shares. It did this by transferring the shares to the state’s oil and gas company, Nile Petroleum Corporation (NilePet). This was perhaps in the hope of increasing revenue in the short term.

    However, NilePet hasn’t been able to replace Petronas’ production logistics. This has resulted in huge challenges in restoring production to levels before the 2024 pipeline disruptions.

    A second factor is the sale of oil forward. The then finance minister said in 2022 that most of the oil production had been sold in advance until 2027. He later retracted the statement, saying instead that some oil advances were merely “spread up to 2027”. While this walk-back attempted to soften the political fallout, it reinforced wider uncertainty about how much control NilePet actually retains over the revenues formally under its authority.

    Given the limited relevance of oil revenues for the official South Sudanese budget, why the major concern about disruptions?

    There are three reasons.

    First, NilePet plays a structural role in South Sudan’s informal and often dubious hard currency circulation, which international observers would call large-scale corruption. NilePet’s accounts rarely appear in any official financial accounts and are often channelled off-budget. NilePet functions as a black box within the public finance system where real money flows can only rarely be traced. Recent intentions by the president to structurally reform the company might implicitly confirm this.

    Second, there are indirect oil revenues that are important to the country’s security apparatus. This includes protection rents which come from protecting South Sudanese oil fields. This revenue never hits the budget. It pays the National Security Service either directly as salaries, or is reinvested in the considerable conglomerate of companies owned by the security service to multiply profits. Losing this revenue could destabilise the country because the funds are used to pay the salaries of the best-trained and best-equipped security service in the country.

    Third, South Sudan’s ability to attract new loans depends on the repayment of existing ones. These repayments largely depend on oil production. As the 2024-24 budget shows, South Sudan desperately needs new loans to keep even core state functions operational. Yet, funding from multilateral agencies has dwindled to small-scale loans from the African Development Bank. The International Monetary Fund has currently ended all its funding programmes.

    This is not a result of the war in Sudan. It is due to persistent concerns over insufficient financial governance in South Sudan and the state’s performance. Negotiations with Qatar and the United Arab Emirates for new loans appear to have stalled, not least because of a default in repayments to Qatar.

    These factors show that the flow of oil to Port Sudan is significant to the availability of hard currency in South Sudan’s economy. But this is in more indirect ways than the outdated claim of an 80% budgetary dependency would suggest.

    The war in Sudan has a significant yet multifaceted impact on South Sudan’s economic health. But Juba’s biggest challenges are internal.

    South Sudan’s economy over the last six years has been mainly dependent on international loans coming in – a flow which has now dried up, resulting in a severe economic crisis unprecedented in the young country’s history.

    Jan Pospisil receives funding from the Peace and Conflict Resolution Evidence Platform (PeaceRep), funded by UK International Development from the UK government. However, the views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the UK government’s official policies. Any use of this work should acknowledge the authors and the Peace and Conflict Resolution Evidence Platform.

    – ref. Is Sudan’s war the reason for South Sudan’s economic crisis? What’s really going on with oil revenue – https://theconversation.com/is-sudans-war-the-reason-for-south-sudans-economic-crisis-whats-really-going-on-with-oil-revenue-257375

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Germany steps up to replace ‘unreliable’ US as guarantor of European security

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

    Two statements from world leaders this week bear closer examination. On May 27, the US president Donald Trump took to his Truth Social social media channel to proclaim that if it wasn’t for him, “lots of really bad things would have already happened to Russia”. The following day the German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, announced that his country would assist Ukraine in developing long-range missiles to deploy against targets inside Russia. Both statements are quite extraordinary.

    Even by Trump’s own standards, the public declaration by a sitting US president that he is protecting the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, is unprecedented. Putin is under indictment for war crimes and has been waging a war of aggression against Ukraine for more than three years after having illegally annexed Crimea over a decade ago. There can now be no doubt left that the US has become an unreliable ally for Ukraine and its European partners.

    This is the context in which Merz’s announcement of increasing defence cooperation with Ukraine becomes significant. While Trump continues to chase an impossible deal with Putin – even after threatening to abandon his mediation efforts less than ten days ago – Germany has doubled down on Ukraine’s defence.

    Not only that, but as the EU’s largest and Nato’s second-largest economy, Germany is now also aiming to turn its Bundeswehr (the German army, navy and air force) into the “strongest conventional army in Europe”. Its most senior military officer and chief of defence, Carsten Breuer, has published plans for a rapid and wide-ranging expansion of defence capabilities.

    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.

    Germany is finally beginning to pull its weight in European defence and security policy. This is absolutely critical to the credibility of the EU in the face of the threat from Russia. Berlin has the financial muscle and the technological and industrial potential to make Europe more of a peer to the US when it comes to defence spending and burden sharing. This will be important to salvage what remains of Nato in light of a highly probable American down-scaling – if not complete abandonment – of its past security commitments to the alliance.

    After decades of failing to develop either a grand strategy to deal with Russia or the hard power capabilities that need to underpin it, achieving either will take some time. But it is important to acknowledge that some critical first steps have been taken by the new German government.

    Facing a growing threat

    For Germany, and much of the rest of Europe, the investment in more defence capabilities does not simply require producing more ammunition or procuring more advanced defence systems. These are important – but what is also needed is a significant investment in developing manpower. This means either finding more volunteers or reintroducing conscription, which is now no longer a taboo in Germany.

    Sending a whole new brigade to Lithuania, in its first international deployment since the second world war, is an important signal to Nato allies about Germany’s commitment to the alliance. It is also a clear signal to Russia that Germany finally is putting its money where its mouth is when it comes to containing the threat from Russia. It’s a threat which has grown significantly since the beginning of the Kremlin’s full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

    The three years of Russia’s war against its neighbour have also highlighted the threat that Russia poses beyond Ukraine’s borders. The war against Ukraine has exposed European vulnerabilities and its dependence on the US. And it has taught military planners important lessons about what a future confrontation with Russia might look like. This is why Germany’s military planners have identified air defence systems, precision strike capabilities, drones, and electronic and cyber warfare assets as procurement priorities.

    Beyond Germany, the signs have have been that Europe more broadly is beginning to learn to stand on its own feet when it comes to its security. For the continent, the challenge is threefold. It needs to beef up its defence spending in light of the ongoing war against Ukraine and Russian threats to expand it further. Europe also needs to come to terms with the dismantling of the transatlantic alliance by Trump. And, finally, there is a populist surge that threatens the very foundations of European democracy and risks undermining efforts to stand up to both Trump and Putin. This has been given extra fuel by the alignment of Trump’s “America-first” Maga movement with Putin’s Russia.

    Major challenges ahead

    These are enduring challenges with no quick fixes. The first test of this apparent new-found European mettle will be the war in Ukraine. Giving Ukraine permission to use long-range missiles against targets in Russia is not a new development. Such a move was first taken by the then US president, Joe Biden, in November 2024 when he authorised Ukraine to launch limited strikes into Russia using US-made long-range missiles, followed by similar authorisations from London and Paris at the time, but not Berlin.

    Now, as then, how effective this will be depends not only on how many actual missiles Ukraine has but also on whether US intelligence sharing will continue. This is crucial for targeting. What’s more, effectiveness will also be difficult to measure. In a best-case scenario, Ukraine will now be able to stave off Russia’s reportedly impending summer offensive.

    The Kremlin has already indicated its displeasure and ratcheted up its nuclear sabre rattling.

    Trump, meanwhile, remains all talk when it comes to putting any pressure on Russia. By contrast, the Europeans, for once, are much more action orientated, which is another indication of the increasing rift across the Atlantic.

    This does not mean an end to transatlantic relations and pragmatic cooperation, as demonstrated by the meeting between the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, with his German counterpart, Johann Wadephul, which happened almost simultaneously with Trump’s and Merz’s statements.

    What it does mean, however, is that Europe’s security now entirely depends on whether key players on the continent can muster the will to mobilise the resources required to defend the continent against an aggressive foe to the east. Berlin and other European capitals seem to have recognised at long last that this needs to happen. Now they need to demonstrate that they can follow through with swift and decisive action.

    Stefan Wolff is a past recipient of grant funding from the Natural Environment Research Council of the UK, the United States Institute of Peace, the Economic and Social Research Council of the UK, the British Academy, the NATO Science for Peace Programme, the EU Framework Programmes 6 and 7 and Horizon 2020, as well as the EU’s Jean Monnet Programme. He is a Trustee and Honorary Treasurer of the Political Studies Association of the UK and a Senior Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre in London.

    – ref. Germany steps up to replace ‘unreliable’ US as guarantor of European security – https://theconversation.com/germany-steps-up-to-replace-unreliable-us-as-guarantor-of-european-security-257735

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s global trade plans are in disarray, after a US court ruling on ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Susan Stone, Credit Union SA Chair of Economics, University of South Australia

    A United States court has blocked the so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs that US President Donald Trump imposed on imported goods from around 90 nations. This puts implementation of Trump’s current trade policy in disarray.

    The Court of International Trade ruled the emergency authority Trump used to impose the tariffs could not override the role of Congress, which has the right to regulate commerce with other countries.

    Tariffs imposed via other legislative processes – such as those dealing with cars, steel and aluminium – continue to stand. But the broad-based “reciprocal” tariffs will need to be removed within ten days of the court’s ruling. Trump administration officials have already filed plans to appeal.

    The ruling calls into question trade negotiations underway with more than 18 different nations, which are trying to lower these tariffs. Do these countries continue to negotiate or do they wait for the judicial process to play out?

    The Trump administration still has other mechanisms through which it can impose tariffs, but these have limits on the amount that can be imposed, or entail processes which can take months or years. This undermines Trump’s preferred method of negotiation: throwing out large threats and backing down once a concession is reached.

    Emergency powers were a step too far

    The lawsuits were filed by US importers of foreign products and some US states, challenging Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977.

    The lawsuits argued the national emergencies cited in imposing the tariffs – the trade deficit and the fentanyl crisis – were not an emergency and not directly addressed by the tariff remedy. The court agreed, and said by imposing tariffs Trump had overstepped his authority.

    The ruling said the executive orders used were “declared to be invalid as contrary to law”.

    The act states the president is entitled to take economic action in the face of “an unusual and extraordinary threat”. It’s mainly been used to impose sanctions on terrorist groups or freeze assets from Russia. There’s nothing in the act that refers to tariffs.

    The decision means all the reciprocal tariffs – including the 10% tariffs on most countries, the 50% tariffs Trump was talking about putting on the EU, and some of the Chinese tariffs – are ruled by the court to be illegal. They must be removed within 10 days.

    The ruling was based on two separate lawsuits. One was brought by a group of small businesses that argued tariffs materially hurt their business. The other was brought by 12 individual states, arguing the tariffs would materially impact their ability to provide public goods.

    Some industry tariffs will remain in place

    The ruling does not apply to tariffs applied under Section 201, known as safeguard tariffs. They are intended to protect industries from imports allegedly being sold in the US market at unfair prices or through unfair means. Tariffs on solar panels and washing machines were brought under this regulation.

    Also excluded are Section 232 tariffs, which are applied for national security reasons. Those are the steel and aluminium tariffs, the automobile and auto parts tariffs. Trump has declared all those as national security issues, so those tariffs will remain.

    Most of the tariffs against China are also excluded under Section 301. Those are put in place for unfair trade practices, such as intellectual property theft or forced technology transfer. They are meant to pressure countries to change their policies.

    Other trade investigations are still underway

    In addition, there are current investigations related to copper and the pharmaceuticals sector, which will continue. These investigations are part of a more traditional trade process and may lead to future tariffs, including on Australia.

    The Trump administration is still weighing possible sector-specific tariffs on pharmaceuticals.
    Planar/Shutterstock

    Now for the appeals

    The Trump administration has already filed its intention to appeal to the federal appeals court. This process will take some time. In the meantime, there are at least five other legal challenges to tariffs pending in the courts.

    If the appeals court provides a ruling the Trump administration or opponents don’t like, they can appeal to the Supreme Court.

    Alternatively, the White House could direct customs officials to ignore the court and continue to collect tariffs.

    The Trump administration has ignored court orders in the past, particularly on immigration rulings. So it remains to be seen if customs officials will release goods without the tariffs being paid in ten days’ time.

    The administration is unlikely to lie down on this. In addition to its appeal process, officials complained about “unelected judges” and “judicial overreach” and may contest the whole process. The only thing that continues to be a certainty is that uncertainty will drive global markets for the foreseeable future.

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

    – ref. Trump’s global trade plans are in disarray, after a US court ruling on ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs – https://theconversation.com/trumps-global-trade-plans-are-in-disarray-after-a-us-court-ruling-on-liberation-day-tariffs-257812

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Influencer Andrew Tate is charged with a raft of sex crimes. His followers will see him as the victim

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Steven Roberts, Professor of Education and Social Justice, Monash University

    British prosecutors have this week charged social media influencer Andrew Tate with a string of serious sexual offences, including rape and human trafficking, alleged to have been committed in the United Kingdom between 2012 and 2015.

    This comes in the wake of an ongoing case in Romania. There, Tate and his brother Tristan face similar charges of coercing and exploiting women through what is sometimes described as the “loverboy method” of manipulation that is used to control and monetise women through webcam performances.

    A self-described misogynist, Tate is a widespread figure of notoriety for his views on women and his role in the internet “manosphere”. He has millions of followers globally, including ten million on X alone.

    This latest round of prosecutions will likely further entrench the loyalty of those followers: boys and young men who will see their leader as the victim of a corrupt system.

    Who is Andrew Tate?

    Tate is a British-American social media influencer and former kickboxer. He gained international notoriety for his violently misogynistic videos and pronouncements.

    He’s built a massive, loyal social media following through a brand that is part provocateur, part self-help guru and part conspiracy theorist.

    His rhetoric emphasises an aspirational masculinity geared towards extreme wealth and a physically fit body, combined with resentment towards women and so-called “feminised” societies. He has, for example, stated that women should “bear responsibility” for sexual assault.

    Tate is a leading ideological figurehead of what is often called the “manosphere” – a loose network of online communities and content creators who promote regressive ideas about masculinity, gender roles and male identity.

    Tate offers a template for many boys and young men to make sense of their place in the world, playing up ideas that boys are disenfranchised by social, economic, or cultural change.

    This is part of an emotional hook that provides belonging and clarity in a world his followers are told is stacked against them.

    Tate’s content involves both overt and, more often, insidious celebration of harmful gender norms and misogynistic ideologies.

    Research has found boys’ exposure to this content has contributed to a resurgence of a sense of male supremacy in classrooms. This then increases sexism and hostility towards women teachers and girl peers.

    Reinforcing the narrative

    Given this context, it is unlikely the new charges will erode his popularity.

    To be clear, he is not universally admired. In fact, the majority of boys reject what he stands for.

    However, for the significant minority who comprise his hardcore followers, these new charges will likely be used to reinforce a persecution narrative.

    In this way, Tate has paved the way for more violent and extreme misogyny to become standard, not rare.

    This was exactly the pattern when the Romanian charges first emerged. His followers flooded platforms with hashtags like #FreeTopG, reframing his arrest as proof that he was “telling the truth” and being punished for it.

    Figures like US President Donald Trump provide a relevant comparison. Trump has faced multiple criminal indictments and was found liable in a civil trial for sexually assaulting E. Jean Carroll.

    Yet, his popularity among his base has held firm.

    For many of his supporters, these legal challenges are not signs of wrongdoing, but evidence their champion is being unfairly targeted by corrupt institutions.

    Tate is similar in that his hypermasculine posturing and anti-establishment bravado ensures his audience see him the same way.

    Prompting more loyalty

    Given their previous responses, we can already predict how the Tate brothers will respond this time. They will deny the charges, of course, but more importantly, they will use the moment to deepen their mythos.

    We might expect to see talk of “the matrix” of shadowy elites, and the weaponisation of justice systems to silence truth-telling men.

    They will insist the charges are not about what they did, but about who they are: disruptors of a weak, feminised society. This victim-persecutor framing is central to their appeal and will remain so as this unfolds.

    Their followers will, then, likely respond with greater loyalty. For those already steeped in online misogyny and disillusionment, legal accusations such as these don’t raise doubt, but instead confirm the story they already buy into.

    This makes combating Tate’s influence a complex challenge. Simply “calling it out” is not enough.

    As our research shows, Tate’s brand thrives not in spite of controversy, but because of it.

    This is why we need a more strategic, long-term approach to address the harms Tate and other such figureheads represent.

    We need robust gender education in schools, stronger commitments to critical media literacy, and the elevation of alternative role models who can speak to the same emotional terrain without reinforcing misogyny.

    This can include other content creators, like Will Hitchins, but also youth workers or people of any gender from boy’s existing communities.

    A key lesson here is that, for the manosphere’s key figures, being charged or even found guilty of crimes (should that occur) might not signal their downfall or diminish their relevance.

    Steven Roberts receives funding from Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety, the Australian Research Council and the Australian Government. He is a Board Director at Respect Victoria, but this article is written wholly separate from and does not represent that role.

    Stephanie Wescott receives funding from Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety.

    – ref. Influencer Andrew Tate is charged with a raft of sex crimes. His followers will see him as the victim – https://theconversation.com/influencer-andrew-tate-is-charged-with-a-raft-of-sex-crimes-his-followers-will-see-him-as-the-victim-257805

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why we need testosterone products designed for women

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By David Haddleton, Professor in Polymer Chemistry , University of Warwick

    Many women need testosterone during menopause — but most can’t get it Andrey_Popov/Shutterstock

    Menopause is something nearly every woman will go through. As fertility ends, levels of oestrogen and progesterone drop significantly – changes that can deeply affect physical health, emotional wellbeing and everyday life.

    For many, the effects of this hormonal shift are more than frustrating – they can be life altering. Symptoms like brain fog, hot flushes, night sweats, headaches, insomnia, fatigue, joint pain, low libido, anxiety, depression and even bone loss from osteoporosis are all common.



    Read more:
    Horrific, bizarre, lonely: how women going through the menopause describe their experiences

    Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) has helped many women manage these symptoms – but one key hormone is often overlooked in both treatment and conversation: testosterone.

    Testosterone is typically viewed as a “male hormone,” but it plays a crucial role in women’s health too. In fact, women have higher levels of testosterone than either oestrogen or progesterone for most of their adult lives. And like the other sex hormones, testosterone also declines with age – with consequences that are only now being fully explored.

    The testosterone gap

    Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is now widely used to replace oestrogen and progesterone during and after menopause. These treatments – available as tablets, patches, gels and implants – are regulated, evidence-based and increasingly accessible through the NHS.

    But when it comes to testosterone, the situation is entirely different.

    Currently, there are no testosterone products licensed for use by women in the UK or Europe. The only exception is in Australia, where a testosterone cream specifically designed for women is available. Europe once had its own option – a transdermal patch called Intrinsa, designed and approved by regulators based on clinical evidence to treat low libido in women with surgically induced menopause. But the manufacturer withdrew product in 2012, citing “commercial considerations” in their letter to the European Medicines Agency, the agency in charge of the evaluation and supervision of pharmaceutical products in Europe.

    Since then, women across Europe have been left without an approved option.

    In the absence of licensed treatments, some clinicians – mainly in private practice – are prescribing testosterone “off label”, often using products developed for men. These are typically gels or creams with dosages several times higher than most women need. While doctors may advise on how to adjust the dose, this kind of improvisation comes with risks: inaccurate dosing, inconsistent absorption and a lack of long-term safety data.

    Some women report significant improvements – not just in libido, but also in brain fog, mood, joint pain and energy levels. However, the only proven clinical benefit of testosterone in women is in improving sexual desire for those with hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) following surgical menopause.

    Even so, interest is growing – fuelled by patient demand, celebrity use, social media buzz and a growing sense that testosterone may be a missing piece in midlife women’s care.

    While there is increasing consensus that testosterone can play a role in supporting women’s health, the current situation presents two serious problems:

    Safety and regulation: without licensed products, standardised dosing guidelines, or long-term safety data, off-label use puts both patients and clinicians in uncertain territory.

    Access and inequality: testosterone therapy is rarely available through the NHS and is often only accessible through private clinics, creating a two-tier system. Those who can pay hundreds of pounds for consultations and prescriptions can access care, while others are left behind.

    Innovation

    There are signs of change. For example, I founded Medherant, a University of Warwick spin-out company that is currently developing a testosterone patch designed specifically for women. It’s in clinical trials and, if approved, could become the first licensed testosterone product for women in the UK in over a decade. It’s a much-needed step – and one that could pave the way for further innovation and broader access.

    But the urgency remains. Millions of women are currently going without effective, evidence-based care. In the meantime, off-label prescribing should used with care and use based on the best available science – not hype or anecdote – and delivered through transparent, regulated healthcare channels.

    Women deserve more than workarounds. They deserve treatments that are developed for their bodies, rigorously tested, approved by regulators and accessible to all – not just the few who can afford private care.

    When half the population is affected, this isn’t a niche issue. It’s a priority.

    David Haddleton works for and owns shares in Medherant Ltd

    – ref. Why we need testosterone products designed for women – https://theconversation.com/why-we-need-testosterone-products-designed-for-women-256927

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: After a chaotic 6 months, South Koreans will elect a new president – and hope for bold leadership

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Alexander M. Hynd, Lecturer, Korean Politics/International Relations, The University of Melbourne

    On June 3, South Koreans will head to the polls to choose the country’s new president. The election may draw to a close one of the most chaotic and contentious periods in the country’s post-1987 democratic era.

    South Korea has been embroiled in a political crisis since December, when former President Yoon Suk Yeol disastrously declared martial law.

    Yoon ordered security forces to block lawmakers from entering the National Assembly, leading to a dramatic late night confrontation. His unconstitutional decree was overturned after just six hours.

    The fall-out was equally dramatic: Yoon was impeached and removed from office in a drawn-out process that was not finally resolved until April.

    This period coincided with massive street demonstrations both opposing and supporting Yoon, a far-right assault on a courthouse and a physical stand-off between investigators and Yoon’s personal security team.

    The country, meanwhile, has cycled through three short-lived caretaker leaders.

    With weak economic growth and high costs of living, in addition to an equally challenging security environment, South Korea is in desperate need of bold and effective leadership.

    Who are the candidates?

    The Democratic Party’s Lee Jae-myung is the clear frontrunner to be the next president, after finishing a close second in the previous 2022 election.

    Recent polling put the veteran left-leaning politician at around 49% support as the race entered the final week.

    This is a double-digit lead over his main conservative opponent, Kim Moon-soo, polling at 35%. Another conservative candidate, Lee Jun-seok, is polling at 11%. Notably, for the first time since 2007, there are no female candidates standing to be president.

    The high levels of support for Lee Jae-myung suggest a widespread desire among the public to repudiate Yoon’s martial law declaration.

    Kim, the labour minister in Yoon’s administration, has apologised for December’s declaration. But his opponents have continued to question him about it.

    Kim’s challenge has been to build a coalition of moderates and mainstream conservatives who firmly opposed the martial law declaration, while also winning support from those who believe far-right conspiracy theories around election fraud. Yoon, the former president, is continuing to promote these narratives.

    Lee’s compelling background

    Lee Jae-myung’s personal story has uplifting parallels with South Korea’s own history of economic and political development.

    Lee was born into poverty; the exact date of his birth is not known. He worked in factories from a very young age and permanently injured his left arm in an industrial accident when he was still a child.

    Lee went on to earn a scholarship to study law and, by the late 1980s, had established himself as a labour lawyer and activist.

    This activist image was highlighted when he live-streamed himself dramatically scaling a fence to enter the National Assembly and vote down Yoon’s martial law declaration in December. He has previously compared himself to populist, progressive US Senator Bernie Sanders.

    More recently, however, he has moderated his political rhetoric and policy platform to appeal to centrists and even some conservative voters.

    This shift may also help shield Lee from the “red-baiting” claims left-leaning South Korean candidates typically face from conservative opponents that they are “communists”, “pro-China”, or “pro-North Korea”.

    But Lee is also plagued by legal troubles, including corruption charges linked to a land development project. These charges, frequently highlighted by his opponents, risk derailing his administration if he wins the election.

    What are the main issues?

    Some international commentators have focused on how the next president will handle North Korea. South Koreans, however, are more interested in the candidates’ plans to fix the country’s troubled economy.

    Lee Jae-myung has pledged to immediately establish an emergency economic taskforce if he takes office.

    There has also been a vigorous debate over South Korea’s future energy policy. Kim favours expanding nuclear energy production to around 60% of the country’s energy mix. Lee has voiced safety concerns about nuclear power, arguing “the era of building more reactors should come to an end”.

    Additionally, questions remain over potential constitutional reform to end South Korea’s so-called “imperial presidency” system, which has been blamed for centralising too much power in the hands of the president.

    The system dates back to the rewriting of the constitution following mass protests in 1987. This established direct presidential elections and a single, five-year term.

    Both Lee and Kim support changing this to a four-year, two-term presidential system, similar to the United States.

    Big challenges lie ahead

    On the international stage, the new leader will face an uphill battle negotiating with US President Donald Trump over his punitive tariffs. Trump imposed 25% tariffs on South Korean goods in April, but lowered them temporarily to 10% until early July.

    Before his impeachment, Yoon was widely reported to be practising his golf skills to attempt to find common ground with Trump, much as former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe did.

    The new leader will also face massive challenges bringing South Korean society together in the current climate. Political polarisation and the spread of disinformation worsened under Yoon’s presidency – and these trends will be hard to reverse.

    Alexander M. Hynd 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. After a chaotic 6 months, South Koreans will elect a new president – and hope for bold leadership – https://theconversation.com/after-a-chaotic-6-months-south-koreans-will-elect-a-new-president-and-hope-for-bold-leadership-257348

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: RFK Jr. says annual COVID-19 shots no longer advised for healthy children and pregnant women – a public health expert explains the new guidance

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Libby Richards, Professor of Nursing, Purdue University

    Until now, the CDC has recommended that everyone ages 6 months and older get a yearly COVID-19 vaccine. Asiaselects via Getty Images

    On May 27, 2025, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will no longer include the COVID-19 vaccine on the list of immunizations it recommends for healthy children and pregnant women.

    The announcement, made in a video posted on the social platform X, comes on the heels of another announcement, made on May 20, in which the Food and Drug Administration revealed that it will approve new versions of the vaccine only for adults 65 years of age and older and for people with one or more risk factors for severe COVID-19 outcomes. The agency will require vaccine manufacturers to conduct clinical trials to demonstrate that the vaccine benefits low-risk groups.

    The Conversation U.S. asked Libby Richards, a nursing professor from Purdue University involved in public health promotion, to explain what these announcements mean for the general public.

    Why are HHS and FDA diverging from past practice?

    Currently, getting a yearly COVID-19 vaccine is recommended for everyone ages 6 months and older, regardless of their health risk.

    In the video announcing the plan to remove the vaccine from the CDC’s recommended immunization schedule for healthy children and healthy pregnant women, Kennedy spoke alongside National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya and FDA Commissioner Marty Makary. The trio cited a lack of evidence to support vaccinating healthy children. They did not explain the reason for the change to the vaccine schedule for pregnant people, who have previously been considered at high-risk for severe COVID-19.

    Similarly, in the FDA announcement made a week prior, Makary and the agency’s head of vaccines, Vinay Prasad, said that public health trends now support limiting vaccines to people at high risk of serious illness instead of a universal COVID-19 vaccination strategy.

    Was this a controversial decision or a clear consensus?

    Many public health experts and professional health care associations have raised concerns about Kennedy’s latest announcement, saying it contradicts studies showing that COVID-19 vaccination benefits pregnant people and children. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, considered the premier professional organization for that medical specialty, reinforced the importance of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy, especially to protect infants after birth. Likewise, the American Academy of Pediatrics pointed to the data on hospitalizations of children with COVID-19 during the 2024-to-2025 respiratory virus season as evidence for the importance of vaccination.

    Kennedy’s announcement on children and pregnant women comes roughly a month ahead of a planned meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a panel of vaccine experts that offers guidance to the CDC on vaccine policy. The meeting was set to review guidance for the 2025-to-2026 COVID-19 vaccines. It’s not typical for the CDC to alter its recommendations without input from the committee.

    Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has removed COVID-19 vaccines from the vaccine schedule for healthy children and pregnant people.

    FDA officials Makary and Prasad also strayed from past established vaccine regulatory processes in announcing the FDA’s new stance on recommendations for healthy people under age 65. Usually, the FDA broadly approves a vaccine based on whether it is safe and effective, and decisions on who should be eligible to receive it are left to the CDC, which bases its decision on the advisory committee’s research-based guidance.

    The advisory committee was expected to recommend a risk-based approach for the COVID-19 vaccine, but it was also expected to recommend allowing low-risk people to get annual COVID-19 vaccines if they want to. The CDC’s and FDA’s new policies on the vaccine will likely make it difficult for healthy people to get the vaccine.

    What conditions count as risk factors?

    The CDC lists several medical conditions and other factors that increase peoples’ risk for severe COVID-19. These conditions include cancer, diabetes, heart disease, obesity, chronic kidney disease and some lung conditions like COPD and asthma. Pregnancy is also on the list.

    The article authored by Makary and Prasad describing the FDA’s new stance on the vaccine also contain a lengthy list of risk factors and notes that about 100 million to 200 million people will fall into this category and will thus be eligible to get the vaccine. Pregnancy is included. Reversing the recommendation for vaccinating healthy pregnant women thus contradicts the new framework described by the FDA.

    Studies have documented that COVID-19 vaccines are safe during pregnancy and may reduce the risk of stillbirth. A study published in May 2025 using data from 26,783 pregnancies found a link between COVID-19 infection before and during pregnancy and an increased risk for spontaneous abortions.

    Importantly, a 2024 analysis of 120 studies including a total of 168,444 pregnant women with COVID-19 infections did not find enough evidence to suggest the infections are a direct cause of early pregnancy loss. Nonetheless, the authors did state that COVID-19 vaccination remains a crucial preventive measure for pregnant women to reduce the overall risk of serious complications in pregnancy due to infection.

    Immune changes during pregnancy increase the risk of severe illness from respiratory viruses. Vaccination during pregnancy also provides protection to the fetus that lasts into the first few months of life and is associated with a lower risk of COVID-19 related hospitalization among infants.

    Change is coming to COVID-19 vaccine policy.
    Rick Obst, CC BY-SA

    The changes to the CDC’s and the FDA’s plan for COVID-19 vaccines also leave out an important group – caregivers and household members of people at high risk of severe illness from infection. This omission leaves high-risk people more vulnerable to exposure to COVID-19 from healthy people they regularly interact with. Multiple countries with risk-based vaccination policies do include this group.

    What about vaccines for children?

    High-risk children age 6 months and older who have conditions that increase the risk of severe COVID-19 are still eligible for the vaccine. Existing vaccines already on the market will remain available, but it is unclear how long they will stay authorized and how the change in vaccine policy will affect childhood vaccination overall.

    To date, millions of children have safely received the COVID-19 vaccine. Data on whether children benefit from annual COVD-19 vaccines is less clear. Parents and clinicians make vaccination decisions by weighing potential risks with potential benefits.

    Will low-risk people be able to get a COVID-19 shot?

    Not automatically. Kennedy’s announcement does not broadly address healthy adults, but under the new FDA framework, healthy adults who wish to receive the fall COVID-19 vaccine will likely face obstacles. Health care providers can administer vaccines “off-label”, but insurance coverage is widely based on FDA recommendations. The new, narrower FDA approval will likely reduce both access to COVID-19 vaccines for the general public and insurance coverage for COVID-19 vaccines.

    Under the Affordable Care Act, Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance providers are required to fully cover the cost of any vaccine endorsed by the CDC. Kennedy’s announcement will likely limit insurance coverage for COVID-19 vaccination.

    Overall, the move to focus on individual risks and benefits may overlook broader public health benefits. Communities with higher vaccination rates have fewer opportunities to spread the virus.

    This is an updated version of an article originally published on May 22, 2025.

    Libby Richards has received funding from the American Nurses Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute.

    – ref. RFK Jr. says annual COVID-19 shots no longer advised for healthy children and pregnant women – a public health expert explains the new guidance – https://theconversation.com/rfk-jr-says-annual-covid-19-shots-no-longer-advised-for-healthy-children-and-pregnant-women-a-public-health-expert-explains-the-new-guidance-257705

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Vladimir Putin’s bombing of Ukrainian civilians won’t end the war any faster. So, why is he doing it?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Mark Edele, Hansen Professor in History and Deputy Dean, The University of Melbourne

    United States President Donald Trump was “not happy” with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, this week.

    For three consecutive nights, from Friday to Sunday, Russia launched about 900 drones and scores of missiles at Ukraine. At least 18 people were killed, including three children.

    “We’re in the middle of talking and he’s shooting rockets into Kyiv and other cities,” Trump told reporters on Sunday, after Putin ordered the largest air assault on Ukraine’s civilians in its three-year war.

    Following up on his remarks, Trump posted on social media that Putin had “gone absolutely CRAZY!”

    Putin is not crazy. He is a tactician with a long-term goal: to make Russia a great power again and secure his place in the history books as the re-builder of Russia’s imperial might.

    Trump announced after a phone call with Putin on May 19 that Russia and Ukraine would “immediately start negotiations” towards a ceasefire.

    With his latest air campaign on Ukraine, however, Putin is threatening to destroy the goodwill he’s built up in Washington, where Trump has been consistently soft on Russia and tough on his allies.

    So, what is Putin’s strategy? Why is he launching these massive air bombardments on Ukrainian civilians now?

    Putin sees weakness in the West

    One theory is these attacks are somehow preparations for a major offensive. That makes little sense.

    Attacking military facilities, weapons depots or even frontline troops are useful preparations for an impending attack. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians, meanwhile, is a sign of either desperation or impatience.

    Britain and the US bombed German cities during the second world war because they had no alternatives until they built up enough capacity to transport land forces across the sea to invade the continent.

    The US also sent bombers to Japan in the final stages of the war because the American public became tired of seeing their sons, husbands, brothers and fathers die on Pacific islands they had never heard of. The war had dragged on forever by this point, and there seemed no end in sight.

    Is Putin desperate or impatient? Likely the latter.

    From the perspective of the Kremlin, Russia’s strategic situation is as good as it has been for years.

    The US is trying to destroy itself through trade wars and boorish diplomacy. Trump clearly dislikes Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and hopes the war will somehow end if he just demands it.

    Europe is continuing to back Ukraine. However, for the time being, it still needs US support because its entire security structure is built around NATO and US strength, both economic and military.

    What Putin sees when he surveys the international scene is weakness. In his thinking, such weakness needs to be exploited – now is the time to hurt Ukraine as much as possible, and hope it will crack. Analysts call this a “cognitive warfare effort”.

    Indiscriminate air war on civilians is the only means Putin currently has to pressure Ukraine. His army has been advancing, but painfully slowly. There is no breakthrough in sight, even once the spring muds dry and the summer fighting season starts in earnest.

    Russia has gradually advanced in Ukraine throughout 2024, but with no perceivable change in the overall situation. Putin does not command precision weapons or super spies, which he could use to take out Ukraine’s leadership.

    All he can do is rain death on women, children and the elderly from relatively cheap, unsophisticated weapons, such as drones. He now has these in large supply, thanks to ramping up military production at home.

    Bombing campaigns do not end wars

    A strategic air war on civilians seldom works, however.

    Japan’s surrender in 1945 is an exception, but it is misleading in many ways. The Americans had flattened Japan’s cities for a while already, just not using their new atomic weapons. Japan had already lost the war and the real question was if there would be a bloody US invasion or surrender.

    And as the US dropped its two nuclear bombs in August of that year, the Red Army joined the fight, racing across Manchuria to help occupy Japanese territories.

    In Germany, the British-American bombings from 1942 onwards certainly had an effect on war production, as they killed workers and destroyed factories. But they did not incapacitate the German army and certainly did not break morale.

    Instead, the bombings led to embitterment and a closing of ranks around the regime. German society fought to the last moment. It did so not just despite, but because of the air war. The German army was eventually defeated by the ground troops of the Red Army, who took Berlin in an incredibly bloody fight.

    Other historical failures are even more spectacular. The US air force dropped 864,000 tons of bombs on North Vietnam during an air campaign of more than 300,000 sorties lasting from 1965 to late 1968. The North Vietnamese lost maybe 29,000 people (dead and wounded), more than half of them civilians. The Americans and their South Vietnamese allies still lost the war.

    Putin’s air war will likely follow the historical pattern: it has further embittered the Ukrainians, who know very well that what comes from the east is not liberation.

    Another summer of fighting lies ahead. Ukraine’s friends in the democratic world need to urgently redouble their efforts to support Ukraine. The misguided hopes that Putin would somehow “make a deal” lie under the rubble his drones leave behind in Ukraine’s cities.

    Mark Edele receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

    – ref. Vladimir Putin’s bombing of Ukrainian civilians won’t end the war any faster. So, why is he doing it? – https://theconversation.com/vladimir-putins-bombing-of-ukrainian-civilians-wont-end-the-war-any-faster-so-why-is-he-doing-it-257630

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Anxious over AI? One way to cope is by building your uniquely human skills

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Nitin Deckha, Lecturer in Justice Studies, Early Childhood Studies, Community and Social Services and Electives, University of Guelph-Humber

    The concern over the loss and transformation of work by generative AI is well-founded and widely documented. (Shutterstock)

    We live in a time of growing anxiety and fear, where the disruptive forces of artificial intelligence (AI), automation, Big Data, virtual reality and augmented reality loom ominously over people’s lives.

    In a recent Scientific American article, psychologist Mary Alvord described how these anxieties are manifesting in her clients. Their concerns ranged from the increase in students cheating with generative AI to the erosion of online data privacy, to more existential fears of job loss and even the “possibility of overall human obsolescence.”

    These aren’t abstract concerns. Beyond the psychologist’s chair, the concern over the loss and transformation of work by generative AI is well-founded and widely documented by academic research studies and reports. As AI becomes more capable and embedded in daily routines, anxieties surrounding it are likely to intensify.

    The future of work

    The World Economic Forum’s (WEF) 2025 Future of Jobs Report found that 85.7 per cent of employers surveyed see AI, information processing, Big Data, virtual reality and augmented reality as the biggest technological driver of business transformation. Robots and automation follow at 57.8 per cent.

    While the report notes that long-term productivity gains from these technologies remain uncertain, it found that certain jobs are being impacted more than others. Roles where generative AI can mimic human capacities — like data entry, administration, legal and executive secretaries, claim adjusters and examiners, and graphic designers — are declining the fastest.

    These findings are corroborated by a recent joint report from the International Labour Organization (ILO) and Poland’s National Research Institute. It found that 25 per cent of jobs are at risk of being changed by generative AI, a number that jumps to 34 per cent in higher-income countries.

    Roles where generative AI can mimic human capacities, like administration, are most at risk of job loss.
    (Shutterstock)

    The report also noted a gendered impact: in high-income countries, 9.6 per cent of jobs held by women are at high risk of automation, compared to just 3.5 per cent of jobs held by men.

    The impact on clerical jobs noted by the WEF is supported by ILO’s data as well. Joining these roles are what the ILO describes as “highly digitized cognitive jobs in media, software, and finance-related” fields.

    The significant exposure of jobs such as securities and finance dealers and brokers, software developers, financial advisers, authors and writers, translators, interpreters and journalists underscores the encroachment of generative AI onto all sorts of “thinking” and creative work.

    It is no wonder psychologists like Alvord suggest some humans are questioning what role they will have in the future world of work.

    Work in a time of disruption

    The COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on work — including the “great resignation” which saw record numbers of employees quitting their jobs — encouraged workers to reflect on their relationship to work.

    Although workplace trends like remote work, flexible hours and employees re-evaluating their job expectations were already underway before the pandemic, COVID-19 accelerated these shifts.

    According to futurists at Policy Horizons Canada, there are a number of “game changers” transforming the future of work. Disruptive technologies like generative AI and automation are just one driver.



    Read more:
    Generative AI can boost innovation – but only when humans are in control

    Another major force is the fraying of the social contract between employers and employees. This shift speaks to larger currents of anxiety, fear and employee disengagement and low morale. Put simply, employers and employees are no longer investing in each other as much as before.

    With the erosion of benefits, the rise of the gig economy and the increasing cost of living, employees were already feeling vulnerable and anxious about their work before the launch of ChatGPT in 2023.

    How can we cope with AI anxiety?

    As with any form of anxiety, it’s important to acknowledge your feelings and take steps to avoid becoming overwhelmed.

    Psychologists suggest several specific strategies for managing anxiety about generative AI. These include: trying out AI tools to figure out how and where they can be useful; taking breaks from technology to restore and revitalize; building new skills; and pursuing activities that activate human creativity and imagination.

    I would like to expand on the third strategy — building new skills. In a recent research study, my colleagues and I investigated the skills that are required to succeed in the future of work. We reviewed six research studies from around the world and created a skills inventory of future of work skills.

    One of the most effective responses to anxiety about AI is focusing on developing our own human capacities.
    (Shutterstock)

    We identified 10 skills that were most frequently identified as key for the future of work: collaboration, communication, creativity and innovation, critical thinking, cross-cultural competency, decision-making and judgment, learning/willingness to learn, problem-solving and social intelligence/perceptiveness.

    For those concerned about remaining employable in the face of AI disruption, focusing on these skills is a practical starting point, as they are likely to remain in demand as workplaces evolve.

    Importantly, all these skills are “human” skills, meaning not digital or technological. In this context, perhaps one of the most effective responses to anxiety about AI is focusing on developing our own human capacities.

    Rethinking our relationship with AI and work

    Researchers argue that the disruptive potential of AI in the workplace involves one of three channels: replacing aspects of human work; complementing or augmenting human workers and their skills; and creating new tasks for workers.

    Of these, the second — complementing or augmenting human work — might be the best path forward. Rather than viewing generative AI solely as a threat, it can be seen as a tool that enhances human abilities.

    Exploring how our own cognitive and creative capacities could be augmented through “collaborative intelligence” with generative AI, might be a useful antidote to being anxious about it.

    Such collaboration may also catalyze our re-imagining of our relationship to work and enhance our sense of purpose in a rapidly changing world.

    Nitin Deckha 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. Anxious over AI? One way to cope is by building your uniquely human skills – https://theconversation.com/anxious-over-ai-one-way-to-cope-is-by-building-your-uniquely-human-skills-256213

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The Phoenician Scheme: a fun watch even though it’s the same journey in a different vehicle

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Daniel O’Brien, Lecturer, Department of Literature Film and Theatre Studies, University of Essex

    As someone attuned to the distinct styles of auteur filmmakers, I came to Wes Anderson’s latest offering The Phoenician Scheme intrigued, feeling a mix of distance and familiarity.

    My appreciation for other auteur directors like Stanley Kubrick, Spike Lee and Alfred Hitchcock may have sometimes inadvertently pushed Anderson’s work to the periphery of my viewing habits, but The Phoenician Scheme (his 13th directorial film) provides an opportunity to reassess that omission.

    The cinematic trademarks were all there: deadpan performances, meticulous symmetry, whip-pan camera work (when the camera whips round so fast, everything blurs), ice-cream colour palettes and trains, frequently present in some form throughout Anderson’s
    filmography.

    Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

    And a Bill Murray cameo? Of course – along with other minor roles from Tom Hanks, Bryan Cranston, Scarlett Johansson, Richard Ayoade, Riz Ahmed and Benedict Cumberbatch (as well as many others), all appearing briefly across the film’s brisk 90-minute runtime – a fairly typical length for an Anderson feature.

    Although I found The Phoenician Scheme a fairly enjoyable film and one that ardent fans will surely embrace, my issue was perhaps precisely within the formulaic nature of this work. This sense of familiarity makes the viewing simultaneously comfortable, but also a little predictable.

    Aside from a genuinely unexpected explosion in the film’s opening moments, there was little that caught me off guard, making it difficult to gauge just how memorable The Phoenician Scheme will be in the long run. It entertains but rarely surprises and despite the litany of cameos, each one is fairly unmemorable. In fact, while writing this, I’ve only just remembered that Willem Dafoe is in a scene or two as well.

    It’s not that anyone is necessarily giving a bad performance but rather each iteration of wry whimsy results in a kind of stylistic uniformity that renders them indistinct from one another. By contrast, the film’s three leading roles benefit from sustained screen time, allowing for a little more nuance.

    Benicio del Toro leads the cast as Zsa-Zsa Korda, a rich and morally ambiguous industrialist, set within the fictional Middle Eastern nation of Phoenicia during the 1950s. Korda is on the point of political and personal ruin. His life is constantly in danger with ongoing visual and verbal gags from the beginning about his nonchalance towards assassination.

    Korda faces execution threats from shadowy agencies and members of his own board to the extent that his suspiciousness has become a comfortable characteristic. Newcomer Mia Threapleton (daughter of Kate Winslet) stars as Liesl Korda, his estranged daughter who has spent years in quiet devotion as a nun in a remote convent.

    Her sudden appointment as her father’s heir thrusts her back into a world she had long abandoned, continuing Anderson’s other fascination with fractured, complex familial dynamics, as the rest of her siblings look on. Michael Cera portrays Bjorn Lund, a docile yet quietly astute tutor with a fascination for insects, who is brought in to help Liesl adjust to her new responsibilities.

    Without revealing too much, Lund turns out to be more than he initially seems, giving Cera the chance to slip back into that awkward, mock-cool persona –reminiscent of his Twin Peaks: The Return role, in which he channels a Marlon Brando–style rebel straight out of The Wild One.

    In typical Anderson style, visual gags (here in the form of props) propel the film along, from Lund’s bugs to Liesl’s jewel-encrusted rosary and Korda’s weapons, which include grenades that he politely offers to other diplomats as a formal greeting.

    The visually rich and symmetrical arrangement of characters, against a static or sideways moving camera reminded me of how much Anderson is inspired by Peter Greenaway’s work, particularly The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover (1989).

    Anderson draws on this auteur aesthetically and thematically but also through absurdity. While Greenaway’s films take inspiration from canvas painting, the closing credit sequence of The Phoenician Scheme also features well known artworks, serving as inspiration for the content.

    The visuals, which are rich throughout, are also interestingly compacted to a 1.50 aspect ratio, making the frame of the screen quite box like. This is perhaps also relevant to the structure of the film in which most of the events and visitations of external characters are pre-organised into a range of numbered shoeboxes, which is afforded a lengthy sequence, with plenty of overview shots of the boxes neatly arranged.

    Each section of the film that follows pertains to a certain box. Viewers are reminded as to which box they are in through a range of title cards which divides the film into a series of vignettes, not unlike Anderson’s chapter structure in The Royal Tenenbaums.

    This earlier film is perhaps his better-known one about the estrangement and reconnection of dysfunctional family members. This trait can also be found in The Darjeeling Limited aboard a train, or in a submarine in The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. The Phoenician Scheme echoes these familiar tropes (domestic dysfunction wrapped in whimsical packaging) aboard a number of private plane journeys (with a token train scene in the middle).

    While it may feel like a familiar journey aboard a new vessel, that familiarity will probably be either the reason you enjoy the ride – or the very thing that makes it feel like an exhausting commute, one where you’re tempted to pull the emergency cord.

    While there is much to enjoy, I doubt The Phoenician Scheme will be remembered as one of Anderson’s most essential works. At times, it teeters on the edge of parodying its own auteur style. Despite this I found it compelling enough to spark a renewed interest in his earlier films.

    And any work that can reignite curiosity, even while treading familiar ground, is worth your time, even if it’s only for a chance to play cameo bingo.

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

    – ref. The Phoenician Scheme: a fun watch even though it’s the same journey in a different vehicle – https://theconversation.com/the-phoenician-scheme-a-fun-watch-even-though-its-the-same-journey-in-a-different-vehicle-257658

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Have sanctions against Russia backfired? What apartheid-era South Africa tells us about who may be profiting

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By John Luiz, Professor of International Management and Strategy, University of Sussex

    There are no longer any golden arches logos in Russia, but is the firm hoping for a return? forden/Shutterstock

    Even as the war in Ukraine grinds on, some multinational companies are quietly positioning themselves for a thaw in relations with Russia.

    Many of those who rushed to divest from the country, selling off assets after the full-scale invasion in 2022, may now be reassessing their options. It’s also becoming clear that some of these companies never completely left to begin with.

    What is apparent is that divestment was, in many cases, provisional rather than permanent – with firms embedding “buy-back” clauses in their sales contracts, or structuring their exits in ways that would make future re-entry simple.

    This should not come as a surprise. Our research into foreign divestment from apartheid-era South Africa shows this is a well-trodden business path.

    In South Africa, sanctions inadvertently strengthened local white business elites aligned with the ruling regime. Multinationals sold their assets under pressure – often at discounts, often to the local companies of politically connected elites – and later bought them back at a premium.

    Today, the same dynamic could be playing out in Russia.

    When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, more than 1,600 multinational enterprises announced they were pulling out of the country. However, reports last year suggested that 2,175 foreign companies, including some who had announced they were pulling out, remained in Russia – and were becoming increasingly open about their operations.

    One CEO stated that investors did not “morally care” about doing business in Russia, and that if they pulled out, rivals would simply take their place.

    Even for those companies that did leave, many of these exits were more symbolic than substantial. Research has shown that even companies that claimed to have fully divested left behind options to return.

    Carmaker Nissan, for example, appears to have sold its Russian subsidiary to state-owned NAMI in 2022 with a six-year buy-back clause. In a statement at the time, the company said the terms allowed it “the option to buy back the entity and its operations within the next six years”.

    And fast-food giant McDonald’s can reportedly reacquire its Russian business within 15 years. A statement from McDonald’s in 2022 said that, for the first time in its history, it was “de-Arching” a major market – but suggested it hoped to return eventually.

    Such arrangements, often quietly written into exit contracts, allow multinationals to comply with sanctions in the short term – while keeping the door open for a future comeback.

    In many cases, the operations have continued seamlessly under new ownership. While the brand names may have changed in Russia, the staff and product designs remain almost identical. And sometimes, the foreign supply chains and intellectual property are still in play too.

    Who profits?

    The South African precedent is instructive. During the 1980s, foreign companies divested under pressure from shareholders, activists and governments over apartheid. But very few truly left. Most sold their operations to local elites – powerful business groups aligned with the ruling regime. They then continued to supply products, license trademarks and support operations through quiet back channels.

    The intention of sanctions is to weaken the sanctioned state. However, our study shows that the economic value created by foreign multinationals in South Africa did not disappear.

    The aim of sanctions against Russia is to weaken the economic position of the Kremlin.
    E.O./Shutterstock

    In Russia, foreign companies have sold assets at big discounts to Russian oligarchs and state-linked entities since 2022. In some cases, the buyers were longstanding local partners or franchisees. In others, they were entities unknown to consumers but which were thought to have close ties to the Kremlin.

    The consequences are predictable. Rather than weakening the regime’s economic base, sanctions may have consolidated it. As in South Africa, the departure of foreign firms appears to have strengthened domestic elites and allowed them to accumulate new assets and market power.

    Some companies that left Russia are reported to be reconsidering their decisions. Negotiations are taking place behind the scenes about how to ree-stablish operations should conditions shift. Their re-entry may be smoothed by structures – buy-back clauses, licensing deals or local partnerships – that firms put in place on their way out.

    This strategy mirrors what we found in South Africa. In the 1990s, once apartheid ended, foreign multinationals returned in large numbers. But they didn’t start from scratch. They repurchased their former assets, often at a much higher price, from the local elites.

    In short, in the case of South Africa at least, the period of supposed withdrawal was often one of careful preparation for re-entry. Meanwhile, our study also found that South African conglomerates used their windfalls to fund international expansion and entrench their power in the new economy.

    Unintended results

    Sanctions remain a key tool of international diplomacy. But our research shows their effectiveness depends heavily on how firms implement them – and who ends up with the assets that are divested. If those assets are consistently transferred to politically connected insiders, the long-term outcome may be to reinforce the very regimes the sanctions were intended to pressure.

    Sanctions policy should not just consider whether firms have divested, but how and to whom. Without that, even the most well-intentioned measures may end up producing unintended results.

    This means that governments should go beyond imposing sanctions and develop mechanisms to ensure transparency, monitoring and accountability in how corporate exits are structured.

    South African sanctions are generally seen as having played a useful role in ending apartheid. But as unemployment and inequality continue to plague the country along old institutional lines, the South African experience offers a clear historical warning. If sanctions are meant to promote accountability and change, it’s vital to pay close attention to what happens after the headlines fade.

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

    – ref. Have sanctions against Russia backfired? What apartheid-era South Africa tells us about who may be profiting – https://theconversation.com/have-sanctions-against-russia-backfired-what-apartheid-era-south-africa-tells-us-about-who-may-be-profiting-257422

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: From soil to slugs to songbirds – how plastic is moving through ecosystems

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Emily Thrift, PhD Candidate and Doctoral Tutor in Ecology, University of Sussex

    Philippe Clement / shutterstock

    For many people, “plastic pollution” calls to mind pictures of turtles and other marine life drowning in single-use plastic bottles and discarded fishing nets. My own research looks at how the same story is playing out on land.

    Plastics are increasingly found in small mammals, insects and the soil. But how it moves through these ecosystems – and the damage it might be doing – is still poorly understood.

    My own research into this started during my masters degree. I wanted to find out if plastic pollution was affecting UK mammals – and the results were startling.

    Colleagues and I first looked at the faeces of a range of small UK mammals. We then used a special machine that detects infrared light to identify different types of plastic.

    We found plastics in the faeces of European hedgehogs, wood mice, field vole, and brown rats. Of the 189 hedgehog samples, 19% contained plastics. In one sample alone I was shocked to find a total of 12 pink and clear fibres of polyester. This is the UK’s most popular wild mammal, and no one knew they were ingesting plastic.

    Where the microplastics came from

    As part of my ongoing PhD, the next step was figuring out how this plastic was getting into the hedgehogs in the first place. Hedgehogs feed on invertebrates like beetles, snails, slugs, earthworms, caterpillars and woodlice. We wanted to see if those creatures could themselves be contaminated by plastic.

    We collected over 2,000 invertebrates and soil samples from 51 sites in Sussex, England. The sites covered farmland, grassland and suburban areas.

    To trace how plastic might move through the food web, we sampled creatures at various different points in the food web (known as “trophic levels”). This meant plant-eaters, like peacock butterfly caterpillars, and earthworms and other animals that feed on dead plants. We sampled omnivores who will eat all sorts, like the red-footed soldier beetle, and carnivores like ladybirds and ground beetles, who eat other animals and are found higher up the food web.

    After we had grouped the invertebrates by both species and location, we had 530 samples to analyse. We recently published our results in the journal Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.

    Overall, plastic showed up in 12% of the invertebrate samples. Earthworms had the highest rate at 29%, followed by snails & slugs at 24%. Interestingly, the types of plastic found in carnivores didn’t match those in herbivores and dead plant-eaters. That suggests the carnivores are not just getting it from eating contaminated prey – they might also be picking up plastic as they move through the soil or even from airborne particles that land on their next meal.

    Earthworms are particularly plastic pollution-prone.
    VaskePro / shutterstock

    We also found the first evidence of plastic in species of caterpillar like the peacock, powder blue and red admiral butterflies, and in beetles such as ladybirds.

    The most common plastic we found was polyester, probably from clothing and furniture. Other common plastics were those used in single-use packaging, agricultural materials (such as fleece, mulch film, greenhouse films and silage wrap), and even paint.

    So, does it matter if a few slugs or worms are ingesting plastic? Absolutely.

    Invertebrates play important roles within their ecosystems. Earthworms, for example, add air to the soil and help cycle nutrients. Therefore, when they consume plastic, it affects the animals that prey on them, the soil they live in, and even the food we grow.

    In fact, plants grown in plastic-contaminated soil have been shown to take microplastics into their cells. This can stunt their growth and limit the water they can retain, and ultimately reduce our ability to grow the food we need.

    Insect-eating birds like swifts,thrushes and blackbirds are also ingesting similar plastic, likely from their prey. This can stunt their growth, damage organs, and make them less fertile.

    It is too easy to place the responsibility solely on individuals to avoid single-use packaging, recycle more, and avoid synthetic materials. These things make a difference, of course, but big polluters must be held accountable. That means fast fashion companies, drinks giants, supermarket chains and the agriculture sector, which all produce a huge amount of plastic waste and have failed to take responsibility for the damage this causes.

    If we want to protect ecosystems from plastic – on land as well as at sea – we need more than personal action. We need serious accountability, better waste management, and real investment in truly sustainable alternatives.

    Emily Thrift 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. From soil to slugs to songbirds – how plastic is moving through ecosystems – https://theconversation.com/from-soil-to-slugs-to-songbirds-how-plastic-is-moving-through-ecosystems-257685

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why Islamic State is expanding its operations in north-eastern Nigeria

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Folahanmi Aina, Lecturer in Political Economy of Violence, Conflict and Development, SOAS, University of London

    Islamic State West Africa Province (Iswap), one of the most powerful global affiliates of the Islamic State jihadist organisation, is in the middle of its largest offensive against the Nigerian military in years.

    The group has overrun security positions in Borno state, a region of north-east Nigeria, a dozen times in the past few months. Borno state has been the epicentre of a conflict between the Nigerian army and jihadist insurgents for 15 years. The UN Development Programme said in 2021 that the violence had killed more than 35,000 people there directly.

    The latest offensive began in March with a string of attacks. This included an improvised explosive device planted underneath a commercial vehicle in Biu, a town in southern Borno state, which killed four people and injured four others.

    Iswap then launched several more attacks the following month, including an operation on a Nigerian army barracks in Yamtage town. It claimed to have killed three soldiers. The group sustained its campaign into May, with the launch of one of its most sophisticated attacks in recent memory.

    On May 12, suspected Iswap militants stormed the town of Marte, capturing several soldiers and forcing others to retreat. A coordinated dual strike on nearby Rann and Dikwa towns followed hours later. The insurgents now have a strong presence in Marte, which holds immense strategic value due to its access to Lake Chad smuggling corridors.

    Iswap, which was originally formed in 2015 as an offshoot of Boko Haram and has around 5,000 fighters, appears to be adapting to the Nigerian army’s military strategy. Since 2019, the Nigerian army has consolidated its forces in a heavily fortified “super camp” in key towns and cities in the north-east, from which they can respond to reported insurgent activity.

    However, Iswap militants have launched several attacks on some of these camps by using tactics such as nighttime raids. They have also targeted bridges and roads between the camps, as well as launching attacks on nearby positions as a diversion, to prevent reinforcements from reaching targeted bases.

    Iswap has been carrying out a sustained offensive against the Nigerian army since March.
    Institute for the Study of War

    There are several factors that could explain Iswap’s resurgence. The first is that there have been strategic shifts on the ground, including a lull in fighting between Iswap and rival faction Boko Haram over territorial control.

    Niger also withdrew its troops from the region’s counter-terrorism joint task force in March. The security vacuum created by this withdrawal may have further emboldened Iswap to carry out its offensive.

    Nigeria and Niger share a long border, so the reduction in military patrols could have led to an increase in the number of weapons and militants supplied to Iswap from its regional network.

    The second factor is that the authorities have relied too heavily on responding militarily to the threat posed by Boko Haram and Iswap. The joint task force has launched several major offensives against the two groups in recent years, helping to contain the insurgency. This has led to the return of refugees to some parts of the Lake Chad basin.

    But the reliance on military offensives has only prolonged the conflict, allowing the terrorist groups to evolve. Iswap, for instance, is now using sophisticated weaponry including armed drones to stage attacks.

    A recent assault on a military base in Wajikoro in north-eastern Borno state began with the use of four drones armed with grenades. The group had previously used drones almost entirely to conduct surveillance and gather intelligence.

    Dismantling and ultimately defeating terrorist groups such as Iswap in the region will require addressing the root causes and drivers of insecurity. These include poverty, inequality, unemployment, poor governance and weak institutions. Poverty rates in north-eastern Nigeria are estimated at over 70%, almost double the rate in the rest of the country.

    The third factor that could explain Iswap’s resurgence is that it has been using technology effectively to expand its appeal, particularly among young people, and drive recruitment.

    It has intensified its presence on social media, using TikTok to post videos justifying killings, lecture young audiences about extremist ideologies and spreading jihadist propaganda. It is also deploying AI tools to edit videos and written communications.

    At the same time, it is making use of new satellite-based internet services such as Starlink to record footage of prayers and sermons. Starlink launched in 2019 with the aim of providing high-speed broadband internet to people all over the world, especially in remote areas.

    Another factor is that Iswap has expanded its sources of funding. The group collects tax revenue from local populations in areas where it has a strong presence, with farmers in some parts of Borno state reportedly paying about ₦10,000 (£5) per hectare.

    But Iswap is also allegedly tapping into Nigeria’s fast-growing cryptocurrency markets and earns considerable revenue from black market operations. The groups’s ability to rely on multiple revenue sources has ensured its supremacy over other terrorist groups in the region, while enabling it to plan and execute more sophisticated attacks.

    The growing strength of Iswap will undoubtedly have dire consequences for peace and security in Nigeria. It could help coordinate Islamic State’s activity in west Africa, giving it a stronger foothold in the region.

    Emphasis should be placed on addressing the root causes of the insurgency in Nigeria, as well as implementing tighter measures to constrain Iswap’s sources of funding.

    Folahanmi Aina 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 Islamic State is expanding its operations in north-eastern Nigeria – https://theconversation.com/why-islamic-state-is-expanding-its-operations-in-north-eastern-nigeria-256935

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: What is AI slop? Why you are seeing more fake photos and videos in your social media feeds

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jon Roozenbeek, Lecturer in Psychology, University of Cambridge

    Pikselstock/Shutterstock

    In May 2025, a post asking “[Am I the asshole] for telling my husband’s affair partner’s fiancé about their relationship?” quickly received 6,200 upvotes and more than 900 comments on Reddit. This popularity earned the post a spot on Reddit’s front page of trending posts. The problem? It was (very likely) written by artificial intelligence (AI).

    The post contained some telltale signs of AI, such as using stock phrases (“[my husband’s] family is furious”) and excessive quotation marks, and sketching an unrealistic scenario designed to generate outrage rather than reflect a genuine dilemma.

    While this post has since been removed by the forum’s moderators, Reddit users have repeatedly expressed their frustration with the proliferation of this kind of content.

    High-engagement, AI-generated posts on Reddit are an example of what is known as “AI slop” – cheap, low-quality AI-generated content, created and shared by anyone from low-level influencers to coordinated political influence operations.

    Estimates suggest that over half of longer English-language posts on LinkedIn are written by AI. In response to that report, Adam Walkiewicz, a director of product at LinkedIn, told Wired it has “robust defenses in place to proactively identify low-quality and exact or near-exact duplicate content. When we detect such content, we take action to ensure it is not broadly promoted.”

    But AI-generated low-quality news sites are popping up all over the place, and AI images are also flooding social media platforms such as Facebook. You may have come across images like “shrimp Jesus” in your own feeds.

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

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

    AI-generated content is cheap. A report by the Nato StratCom Center of Excellence from 2023 found that for a mere €10 (about £8), you can buy tens of thousands of fake views and likes, and hundreds of AI-generated comments, on almost all major social media platforms.

    While much of it is seemingly innocent entertainment, one study from 2024 found that about a quarter of all internet traffic is made up of “bad bots”. These bots, which seek to spread disinformation, scalp event tickets or steal personal data, are also becoming much better at masking as humans.

    In short, the world is dealing with the “enshittification” of the web: online services have become gradually worse over time as tech companies prioritise profits over user experience. AI-generated content is just one aspect of this.

    From Reddit posts that enrage readers to tearjerking cat videos, this content is extremely attention-grabbing and thus lucrative for both slop-creators and platforms.

    This is known as engagement bait – a tactic to get people to like, comment and share, regardless of the quality of the post. And you don’t need to seek out the content to be exposed to it.

    AI-generated images like this one are designed to get as much engagement (likes, comments and shares) as possible.
    Microsoft Copilot, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons

    One study explored how engagement bait, such as images of cute babies wrapped in cabbage, is recommended to social media users even when they do not follow any AI-slop pages or accounts. These pages, which often link to low-quality sources and promote real or made-up products, may be designed to boost their follower base in order to sell the account later for profit.

    Meta (Facebook’s parent company) said in April that it is cracking down on “spammy” content that tries to “game the Facebook algorithm to increase views”, but did not specify AI-generated content. Meta has used its own AI-generated profiles on Facebook, but has since removed some of these accounts.

    What the risks are

    This may all have serious consequences for democracy and political communication. AI can cheaply and efficiently create misinformation about elections that is indiscernible from human-generated content. Ahead of the 2024 US presidential elections, researchers identified a large influence campaign designed to advocate for Republican issues and attack political adversaries.

    And before you think it’s only Republicans doing it, think again: these bots are as biased as humans of all perspectives. A report by Rutgers University found that Americans on all sides of the political spectrum rely on bots to promote their preferred candidates.

    Researchers aren’t innocent either: scientists at the University of Zurich were recently caught using AI-powered bots to post on Reddit as part of a research project on whether inauthentic comments can change people’s minds. But they failed to disclose that these comments were fake to Reddit moderators.

    Reddit is now considering taking legal action against the university. The company’s chief legal officer said: “What this University of Zurich team did is deeply wrong on both a moral and legal level.”

    Political operatives, including from authoritarian countries such as Russia, China and Iran, invest considerable sums in AI-driven operations to influence elections around the democratic world.

    How effective these operations are is up for debate. One study found that Russia’s attempts to interfere in the 2016 US elections through social media were a dud, while another found it predicted polling figures for Trump. Regardless, these campaigns are becoming much more sophisticated and well-organised.

    And even seemingly apolitical AI-generated content can have consequences. The sheer volume of it makes accessing real news and human-generated content difficult.

    What’s to be done?

    Malign AI content is proving to be extremely hard to spot by humans and computers alike. Computer scientists recently identified a bot network of about 1,100 fake X accounts posting machine-generated content (mostly about cryptocurrency) and interacting with each other through likes and retweets. Problematically, the Botometer (a tool they developed to detect bots) failed to identify these accounts as fake.

    The use of AI is relatively easy to spot if you know what to look for, particularly when content is formulaic or unapologetically fake. But it’s much harder when it comes to short-form content (for example, Instagram comments) or high-quality fake images. And the technology used to create AI slop is quickly improving.

    One of these days, these bots are gonna walk all over you.
    Summit Art Creations/Shutterstock

    As close observers of AI trends and the spread of misinformation, we would love to end on a positive note and offer practical remedies to spot AI slop or reduce its potency. But in reality, many people are simply jumping ship.

    Dissatisfied with the amount of AI slop, social media users are escaping traditional platforms and joining invite-only online communities. This may lead to further fracturing of our public sphere and exacerbate polarisation, as the communities we seek out are often comprised of like-minded individuals.

    As this sorting intensifies, social media risks devolving into mindless entertainment, produced and consumed mostly by bots who interact with other bots while us humans spectate. Of course, platforms don’t want to lose users, but they might push as much AI slop as the public can tolerate.

    Some potential technical solutions include labelling AI-generated content through improved bot detection and disclosure regulation, although it’s unclear how well warnings like these work in practice.

    Some research also shows promise in helping people to better identify deepfakes, but research is in its early stages.

    Overall, we are just starting to realise the scale of the problem. Soberingly, if humans drown in AI slop, so does AI: AI models trained on the “enshittified” internet are likely to produce garbage.

    Jon Roozenbeek has received funding from the UK Cabinet Office, the US State Department, the ESRC, Google, the American Psychological Association, the US Centers for Disease Control, EU Horizon 2020, the Templeton World Charity Foundation, and the Alfred Landecker Foundation.

    Sander van der Linden has received funding from the UK Cabinet Office, Google, the American Psychological Association, the US Centers for Disease Control, EU Horizon 2020, the Templeton World Charity Foundation, and the Alfred Landecker Foundation.

    Yara Kyrychenko receives funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and is supported by the Alan Turing Institute’s Enrichment Scheme.

    – ref. What is AI slop? Why you are seeing more fake photos and videos in your social media feeds – https://theconversation.com/what-is-ai-slop-why-you-are-seeing-more-fake-photos-and-videos-in-your-social-media-feeds-255538

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s West Point speech brought partisanship to the home of the US military − 2 essential reads

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jeff Inglis, Environment + Energy Editor, The Conversation US

    President Donald Trump delivers the commencement address at West Point on May 24, 2025. AP Photo/Adam Gray

    President Donald Trump’s speech at the graduation of the class of 2025 from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point included segments that were clearly scripted and portions that were obviously not.

    During the unscripted portions, Trump, who wore a bright red “Make America Great Again” campaign hat during his entire appearance on May 24, 2025, delivered remarks that hit many of his frequent partisan political talking points. That included attacking presidential predecessors Barack Obama and Joe Biden, describing immigrants to the U.S. as “criminals” and trumpeting other policy accomplishments in his first and second terms.

    That level of partisanship in a military setting – on the campus of the nation’s first military academy, and before an audience of cadets and their families, many of whom are veterans – is unusual in the United States.

    The Conversation U.S. has published several articles discussing the importance to democracy of keeping the military and partisan politics separate. Here are two highlights from that coverage.

    1. Cadets focus on the Constitution

    During the West Point ceremony, the graduates themselves took an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” And all of them had studied the significance of that oath, including in classes like those taught by Joseph G. Amoroso and Lee Robinson, active-duty Army officers who graduated from West Point and later served as professors there.

    As Amoroso and Robinson wrote, those classes teach cadets that, like all military personnel, they serve the Constitution and the American people, not a particular person or political party:

    “(O)ur oath forms the basis of a nonpartisan ethic. In the U.S., unlike in many other countries, the oath implies military leaders should be trusted for their expertise and judgment, not for their loyalty to an individual or political party. We emphasize to cadets the rules and professional expectations associated with this profound responsibility.”



    Read more:
    Military personnel swear allegiance to the Constitution and serve the American people – not one leader or party

    2. A tradition of nonpartisanship

    Retired U.S. Air Force Maj. Gen. Samuel C. Mahaney, who teaches history, national security and constitutional law at Missouri University of Science and Technology, observed:

    “(S)ince the days of George Washington, the military has been dedicated to serving the nation, not a specific person or political agenda. … (N)onpartisanship is central to the military’s primary mission of defending the country.”

    Mahaney wrote that if Trump’s actions during his second term meant a change from the centuries of precedent, “military personnel at all levels would face a crucial question: Would they stand up for the military’s independent role in maintaining the integrity and stability of American democracy or follow the president’s orders – even if those orders crossed a line that made them illegal or unconstitutional?”

    Presenting a key question for military personnel.



    Read more:
    Trump’s firings of military leaders pose a crucial question to service members of all ranks

    This story was updated to highlight two articles from The Conversation’s archives.

    – ref. Trump’s West Point speech brought partisanship to the home of the US military − 2 essential reads – https://theconversation.com/trumps-west-point-speech-brought-partisanship-to-the-home-of-the-us-military-2-essential-reads-257673

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Most South African farmers are black: why Trump got it so wrong

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Johann Kirsten, Director of the Bureau for Economic Research, Stellenbosch University

    When world leaders engage, the assumption is always that they engage on issues based on verified facts, which their administrative staff are supposed to prepare. Under this assumption, we thought the meeting at the White House on 21 May between South Africa’s president, Cyril Ramaphosa, and US president Donald Trump would follow this pattern.

    Disappointingly, the televised meeting was horrifying to watch as it was based on misrepresenting the reality of life in South Africa.

    Issues of agriculture, farming and land (and rural crime) were central to the discussions. What is clear to us as agricultural economists is that the skewed views expressed by Trump about these issues originate in South Africa. This includes Trump’s statement: “But Blacks are not farmers.”

    In our work as agricultural economists, we have, in many pieces and books (our latest titled The Uncomfortable Truth about South Africa’s Agriculture), tried to present South Africans with the real facts about the political economy policy reforms and structural dimensions of South African agriculture.

    Writing on these matters was necessary given that official data – agricultural census 2017, as well as the official land audit of 2017 – all provide an incomplete picture of the real state and structure of South African agriculture. The reason is that the agricultural census, which is supposed to provide a comprehensive and inclusive assessment of the size and structure of the primary agricultural sector, and the land audit, which was supposed to record the ownership of all land in South Africa, are incomplete in their coverage.

    The incomplete and inaccurate official data provides fertile ground for radical statements by the left and the right – and novices on social media. This is why South Africa has to deal with falsehoods coming from the US. These include Trump’s statement that black people are not farmers in South Africa.

    South Africa is to blame for providing inaccurate data to feed these false narratives.

    The facts presented here should allow a more nuanced interpretation of South Africa’s farm structure. Firstly, there are more black farmers in South Africa than white farmers. And not all white commercial farm operations are “large-scale”, and not all black farmers are “small-scale”, “subsistence” or “emerging”. Most farm operations can be classified as micro, or small in scale.

    This is important so that one doesn’t view South Africa’s agriculture as mainly white farmers. Indeed, we are a country of two agricultures with black farmers mainly at small scale and accounting for roughly 10% of the commercial agricultural output. Still, this doesn’t mean they are not active in the sector. They mainly still require support to expand and increase output, but they are active.

    The facts

    In the wake of the circus in the Oval Office, we were amazed by the total silence of the many farmers’ organisations in South Africa. We have not seen one coming out to reject all of Trump’s claims. The only thing we can deduce from this is that these falsehoods suit the political position of some farmer organisations. But at what cost? Will many of their members be harmed by trade sanctions or tariffs against South Africa? The US is an important market for South Africa’s agriculture, accounting for 4% of the US$13.7 billion exports in 2024.

    When Ramaphosa highlighted the fact that crime, and rural crime in particular, has an impact on all South Africans and that more black people than white people are being killed, Trump’s response was disturbing, to say the least: “But Blacks are not farmers”. This requires an immediate fact check.

    We returned to the text from our chapter in the Handbook on the South African Economy we jointly prepared in 2021. In the extract below, we discuss the real numbers of farmers in South Africa and try to provide a sensible racial classification of farmers to denounce Trump’s silly statement.

    As highlighted earlier, the two latest agricultural censuses (2007 and 2017) are incomplete as they restricted the sample frame to farm businesses registered to pay value added tax. Only firms with a turnover of one million rands (US$55,500) qualify for VAT registration.

    We were able to expand the findings from the censuses with numbers from the 2011 population census and the 2016 community survey to better understand the total number of commercial farming units in South Africa. The Community Survey 2016 is a large-scale survey that happened between Censuses 2011 and 2021. The main objective was to provide population and household statistics at municipal level to government and the private sector, to support planning and decision-making.

    Data from the 2011 population census (extracted from three agricultural questions included in the census) shows that 2,879,638 households out of South Africa’s total population, or 19.9% of all households, were active in agriculture for subsistence or commercial purposes.

    Only 2% of these active households reported an annual income derived from agriculture above R307,000 (US$17,000). This translates into 57,592 households that can be considered commercial farmers, with agriculture as the main or only source of household income. This corresponds in some way with the 40,122 farming businesses that are registered for VAT as noted in the 2017 agricultural census report.

    If we use the numbers from the agricultural census it is evident almost 90% of all VAT-registered commercial farming businesses could be classified as micro or small-scale enterprises. If the farm businesses excluded from the census are accounted for under the assumption that they are too small for VAT registration, then the fact still stands that the vast majority of all farm enterprises in South Africa are small family farms.

    There are, however, 2,610 large farms (with turnover exceeding R22.5 million (US$1.2 million per annum) which are responsible for 67% of farm income and employed more than half the agricultural labour force of 757,000 farm workers in 2017.

    Another way to get to farm numbers is to use the 2016 Community Survey. Using the shares as shown in Table 2, we estimate there are 242,221 commercial farming households in South Africa, of which only 43,891 (18%) are white commercial farmers. (This is very much in line with the VAT registered farmers but also acknowledging the fact that many white farm businesses are not necessarily registered for VAT.)

    Let’s consider only the agricultural households with agriculture as their main source of income, surveyed in the 2016 community survey. We end up with a total of 132,700 households, of whom 93,000 (70%) are black farmers. This reality is something that policy makers and farm organisations find very difficult to deal with and it seems that Trump also found this too good to be true.

    We have tried here in a long winded way to deal with farm numbers and how to get to a race classification of farmers in South Africa. In the end we trust that we have managed to show that there are more black farmers in South Africa than white farmers. Their share in total output is smaller than that of their white counterparts. The National Agricultural Marketing Council puts black farmers’ share of agricultural production as roughly 10%. But these numbers are also incomplete and largely an undercount.

    It will always be challenging to get to the real number of black farmers’ share of agricultural output as nobody would ever know whether the potato or the cabbage on the shelf came from a farm owned by a black farmer or a white person but operated by a black farmer, for example. As South Africans know, the labour on farms, in pack houses, distribution systems and retail are all black. So, the sweat and hard work of black South African workers are integral to the food supply chain in South Africa.

    Let’s get these facts straight and promote them honestly.

    Wandile Sihlobo is the Chief Economist of the Agricultural Business Chamber of South Africa (Agbiz) and a member of the Presidential Economic Advisory Council (PEAC).

    Johann Kirsten 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. Most South African farmers are black: why Trump got it so wrong – https://theconversation.com/most-south-african-farmers-are-black-why-trump-got-it-so-wrong-257668

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –