NewzIntel.com

Category: Reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

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

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

    Sarayut Sridee/Shutterstock

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

    Essential eight

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

    King of Canada

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Or, at this moment, Mark Carney.

    Signs of support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Soft power and the Royal Family

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

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

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

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

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

    The Trump administration is vowing to eliminate it.

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

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

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

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

    Origin and limits of the endangerment finding

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

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

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

    The endangerment finding was the EPA’s response.

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

    Challenging the endangerment finding

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

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

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

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

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

    What happens if the EPA revokes the endangerment finding?

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Zeldin’s cost argument

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

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

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

    A repeal could backfire

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    A COVID merger

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Less money, less impact

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ‘Clear and easy target’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

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

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

    Sarayut Sridee/Shutterstock

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

    Essential eight

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

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

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

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

    Mental distress is under-diagnosed – but over-medicalised

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Joanna Moncrieff, Professor of Critical and Social Psychiatry, UCL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

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

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

    Martin.Dlugo/Shutterstock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

    Plants are losing their appetite

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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



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

    Hacking photosynthesis

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

    Young potato plants in bloom.
    George Trumpeter/Shutterstock

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Minsk-1 and Minsk-2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Emphasising Ukrainian sovereignty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    How to think from within GenAI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Nicotine replacement therapy

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

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

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

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

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

    ‘Healthy’ nicotine?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

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

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

    Sarayut Sridee/Shutterstock

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

    Essential eight

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Sense of smell versus brain size

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Evolutionary give and take

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Star power

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    1. Spending smart is better than spending big

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

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

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

    2. Spending together is better value

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

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

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

    3. Homegrown suddenly looks safer

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

    A new era for the union

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

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

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

    Francesco Grillo is affiliated with the think tank Vision.

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

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Minsk-1 and Minsk-2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Emphasising Ukrainian sovereignty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

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

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

    Dusan Petkovic/Shutterstock

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

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

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

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

    The complexities of microplastics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    More research is needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

    Security-driven trade

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

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

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



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

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

    A new focus for the WTO

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

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

    Contributions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Talent and innovation

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Addressing systemic issues

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

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

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

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

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

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



    Read more:
    International university grads speak about aspirations and barriers

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Nervous system support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Francesca Albanese addresses the United Nations, October 2024.

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

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

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

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

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

    Killing the future

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

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

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

    House of Commons/Flickr, CC BY-ND

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Welfare encompasses a raft of policies that are as much symbolic as they are substantive. Choosing between them has tangible implications for those directly affected. But those choices also say something – and are intended to say something – about those politicians and parties making that choice.

    For Labour governments – and in particular Labour chancellors – cuts in provision, even (indeed perhaps especially) if they involve backtracking on previous commitments, have always been a means of communicating their determination to deal with the world as it supposedly is, not as some of their more radical colleagues would like it to be.

    Think of Philip Snowden insisting on cuts to unemployment benefits in 1931 in an eventually vain attempt to retain the gold standard. Or Hugh Gaitskell insisting on charges for NHS “teeth and specs” to pay for the Korean war in 1951. Or Roy Jenkins reimposing NHS prescription charges in 1968 to calm the markets after devaluation. Or Dennis Healey committing to spending cuts to secure a loan from the IMF (and to save sterling again) in 1976. Or Gordon Brown insisting on cutting single parent benefits in 1997.

    On every occasion, those decisions have provoked outrage: a full-scale split in the 1930s, the resignation of three ministers (including Harold Wilson and leftwing titan Nye Bevan) in the 50s, parliamentary rebellions and membership resignations in the 60s, more generalised despair in Labour and trade union ranks the 70s, and yet another Commons rebellion in the 90s.

    But what we need to appreciate is that the fallout is never merely accidental. Rather, it is a vital part of the drama. For the measures to have any chance of convincing sceptical markets and media outlets (as well as, perhaps, ordinary voters) their authors have to be seen to be committing symbolic violence against their party’s own cherished principles.

    The proof that sacred cows really are being sacrificed is the anger (ideally impotent anger) of those who cherish them most – Labour’s left wingers. Their reaction is not merely predictable (and expect, by the way, to see Labour’s right wingers employ that term pejoratively in the coming days), it is also functional.

    The cruelty is the point

    Away from the Labour party itself, both those directly affected by the changes to sickness and disability benefits and those who campaign on their behalf, are – rightly or wrongly – already labelling those changes as cruel. But, likewise (and to put it at its most extreme) the cruelty, to coin a phrase, is the point.

    The government will naturally be hoping that, in reality, as few people as possible will be significantly hurt by what it is doing. But the impression that it is prepared to run that risk in pursuit of its wider aim is, in many ways, vital to its success.

    As to what that wider aim is? Labour’s essential problem is that, for all its social democratic values, it understandably aspires to become the natural party of government in what is an overwhelmingly liberal capitalist political economy.

    It has all too often sought to achieve that, not so much by creating expectations among certain key groups and then rewarding them, as it has by aiming to demonstrate a world-as-it-is governing competence. That, in the view of its leaders (if not necessarily its followers), is the master key to the prolonged success experienced by the Conservative party – a party which has traditionally enjoyed the additional advantage of being culturally attuned to the market and media environment in which governing in the UK has to be done.

    So, no, Ed Balls, you’re wrong: for good or ill, this week’s announcement is very much “a Labour thing to do”.

    Tim Bale received funding from the ESRC for the PhD upon which the book, “Sacred Cows and Common Sense: The Symbolic Statecraft and Political Culture of the British Labour Party” is based.

    – ref. Cutting welfare goes against Labour’s core values – that’s the point – https://theconversation.com/cutting-welfare-goes-against-labours-core-values-thats-the-point-252660

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Labour says benefit reforms are a ‘moral mission’ – it looks more like moral panic

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By James Morrison, Associate Professor in Journalism Studies, University of Stirling

    House of Commons/Flickr, CC BY-ND

    After weeks of speculation, Liz Kendall, work and pensions secretary, has unveiled her plans to reform welfare and cut the country’s ballooning benefits bill. The proposals include:

    • stricter eligibility requirements for Personal Independence Payments (Pip), the main disability benefit
    • scrapping the work capability assessment for universal credit
    • freezing or cutting the incapacity benefit “top-up” to universal credit for new claimants
    • reducing incapacity benefits for under-22s
    • increasing the standard rate of universal credit for claimants seeking work
    • introducing a “right to try”, so that people can try work without automatically losing benefits or being reassessed.

    Kendall, along with her fellow Labour ministers, has tried to sell the proposals as a “moral mission”. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has repeatedly framed the cuts as a “moral duty”.

    Cabinet office minister Ellie Reeves argues it is the party’s “moral obligation” to prevent “a lost generation” of young people being consigned to long-term worklessness.

    I research the impact of how the media and politicians talk about welfare (and people who claim it) on public attitudes and benefit recipients themselves. In recent weeks, I’ve asked myself: what exactly is “moral” about welfare reform? Do ministers see it as morally wrong to leave working-aged people “on the scrap heap”? Or are they more concerned with demonstrating their moral duty to taxpayers – by cutting benefits for people they claim could be working?

    The proposals do contain measures that back up ministers’ claims to genuinely want to help people, rather than simply cut costs. The “right to try” guarantee should allow those outside the labour market to give work a go without losing benefits if this doesn’t work out.

    But if ministers are being driven by morality, I would argue they have approached the problem the wrong way round. The first priority should be not to cut the benefit bill, but to introduce proper support. This, of course, will likely push costs up in the short term. Savings will follow, but only if help translates into meaningful, dignified work.

    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.

    Starmer has pledged to stop a “wasted generation” of school leavers not in education, employment or training (Neets) missing out on the “the dignity of work”.

    But by hammering home this message with the uncompromising pro-worker slogan “this is the Labour party”, he aligns himself with a specific moral orthodoxy. This affirms the moral superiority of his government’s defining shibboleth, “working people”, by defending hardworking taxpayers who feel it is “unsustainable, indefensible and unfair” to keep footing a “spiralling bill” for welfare.

    The moral crusade to promote the virtues of honest toil is doubtless fuelled by surveys suggesting tough talk on benefits remains popular with socially conservative voters the party fears losing to Reform UK.

    However, many polls are nuanced. A new Ipsos survey identifies a “benefits paradox”, wherein 37% of Britons agree that “ensuring everyone who needs health-related benefits” should be “prioritised, even if it means some who could work do not”. The same survey had just 23% favouring tougher eligibility requirements.

    Moral mission or moral panic?

    As my own research shows, when “welfare reform” agendas are couched in the language of “moral missions”, what is really happening is moral panic. We are witnessing escalating alarm at a perceived threat to the moral order that is disproportionate to the true scale of the problem.

    True, the number of people inactive due to sickness or disability is higher than before the pandemic, but suggestions that overall inactivity has reached record levels are wrong. Although a higher percentage of 16- to 64-year-olds was inactive during 2024 than in Germany or Ireland, this was lower than the previous year’s rate (down from 22% to 21.5%), and fell further in early 2025, according to the Office for National Statistics.

    Britain’s 2024 inactivity rate was also beneath those of 15 other European countries (including France and Spain), the US and the EU average. The true high point of UK inactivity came in 1983, when more than a quarter of working-aged adults were inactive.

    Kendall has distanced herself from the language of “scroungers” I analysed in my book on welfare discourse under the 2010-15 coalition government. But connotations can be just as stigmatising as overt labels.

    In endlessly employing the mantra “those who can work should work,” ministers channel timeworn tropes distinguishing between the deserving and undeserving poor.



    Read more:
    Getting Britain to work without blaming ‘scroungers’ – can Starmer change the narrative?

    The new proposals include a ‘right to try’ work without fear of losing benefits.
    SeventyFour/Shutterstock

    There is a moral case for offering tailored, sensitive support to disabled people who want to work but face significant barriers – including inflexible employers and the pressure of caring for others.

    But this should not come at the cost of impoverishing people unable to work – as some unlikely critics of the government’s proposals point out.

    Tony Blair’s onetime Cabinet Secretary Gus O’Donnell told Radio 4 it would be “immoral” to damage people with severe disabilities “who don’t have any option but to be on benefits”. And Blairite former work and pensions secretary Lord Hutton warned that sweeping benefit cuts would “drive millions and millions of people into penury”.

    The government says its reforms are a moral mission, but they are already having immoral effects. Just how moral is it to terrify people already struggling to afford basic essentials with the prospect of being driven into deeper poverty? Or to encourage young people into work that is likely to be low-paid and insecure?

    If there’s one message we can take from the unseemly spectacle of leaks and briefings leading to this week’s announcement, it may be this: we’ve been watching a government on the brink of losing its moral compass.

    James Morrison receives funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council for a project entitled Voices from the Periphery: (De)Constructing and Contesting Public Narratives about Post-Industrial Marginalisation (VOICES).

    – ref. Labour says benefit reforms are a ‘moral mission’ – it looks more like moral panic – https://theconversation.com/labour-says-benefit-reforms-are-a-moral-mission-it-looks-more-like-moral-panic-252404

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why a journalist could obtain a minister’s ChatGPT prompts – and what it means for transparency

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tom Felle, Associate Professor of Journalism, University of Galway

    When the New Scientist revealed that it had obtained a UK government minister’s ChatGPT prompts through a freedom of information (FOI) request, many in journalism and politics did a double take. Science and technology minister Peter Kyle had apparently asked the AI chatbot to draft a speech, explain complex policy and – more memorably – tell him what podcasts to appear on.

    What once seemed like private musings or experimental use of AI is now firmly in the public domain – because it was done on a government device.

    It’s a striking example of how FOI laws are being stretched in the age of artificial intelligence. But it also raises a bigger, more uncomfortable question: what else in our digital lives counts as a public record? If AI prompts can be released, should Google searches be next?

    Britain’s Freedom of Information Act was passed in 2000 and came into force in 2005. Two distinct uses of FOI have since emerged. The first – and arguably the most successful – is FOI applied to personal records. This has given people the right to access information held about them, from housing files to social welfare records. It’s a quiet success story that has empowered citizens in their dealings with the state.

    The second is what journalists use to interrogate the workings of government. Here, the results have been patchy at best. While FOI has produced scoops and scandals, it’s also been undermined by sweeping exemptions, chronic delays and a Whitehall culture that sees transparency as optional rather than essential.

    Tony Blair, who introduced the Act as prime minister, famously described it as the biggest mistake of his time in government. He later argued that FOI turned politics into “a conversation conducted with the media”.

    Successive governments have chafed against FOI. Few cases illustrate this better than the battle over the black spider memos – letters written by the then Prince (now King) Charles to ministers, lobbying on issues from farming to architecture. The government fought for a decade to keep them secret, citing the prince’s right to confidential advice.



    Read more:
    Dull content, but the release of Prince Charles letters is a landmark moment

    When they were finally released in 2015 after a Supreme Court ruling, the result was mildly embarrassing but politically explosive. It proved that what ministers deem “private” correspondence can, and often should, be subject to public scrutiny.

    The ChatGPT case feels like a modern version of that debate. If a politician drafts ideas via AI, is that a private thought or a public record? If those prompts shape policy, surely the public has a right to know.

    Are Google searches next?

    FOI law is clear on paper: any information held by a public body is subject to release unless exempt. Over the years, courts have ruled that the platform is irrelevant. Email, WhatsApp or handwritten notes – if the content relates to official business and is held by a public body, it’s potentially disclosable.

    The precedent was set in Dublin in 2017 when the Irish prime minister’s office released WhatsApp messages to the public service broadcaster RTÉ. The UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office has also published detailed guidance confirming that official information held in non-corporate channels such as private email, WhatsApp or Signal is subject to FOI requests if it relates to public authority business.

    The ongoing COVID-19 inquiry has shown how WhatsApp groups – once considered informal backchannels – became key decision-making arenas in government, with messages from Boris Johnson, Matt Hancock and senior advisers like Dominic Cummings now disclosed as official records.

    In Australia, WhatsApp messages between ministers were scrutinised during the Robodebt scandal, an illegal welfare hunt that ran from 2016-19, while Canada’s inquiry into the “Freedom Convoy” protests in 2022 revealed texts and private chats between senior officials as crucial evidence of how decisions were made.

    The principle is simple: if government work is being done, the public has a right to see it.

    AI chat logs now fall into this same grey area. If an official or minister uses ChatGPT to explore policy options or draft a speech on a government device, that log may be a record — as Peter Kyle’s prompts proved.

    This opens a fascinating (and slightly unnerving) precedent. If AI prompts are FOI-able, what about Google searches? If a civil servant types “How to privatise the NHS” into Chrome on a government laptop, is that a private query or an official record?

    The honest answer is: we don’t know (yet). FOI hasn’t fully caught up with the digital age. Google searches are usually ephemeral and not routinely stored. But if searches are logged or screen-captured as part of official work, then they could be requested.

    Similarly, what about drafts written in AI writing assistant Grammarly or ideas brainstormed with Siri? If those tools are used on official devices, and the records exist, they could be disclosed.

    Of course, there’s nothing to stop this or any future government from changing the law or tightening FOI rules to exclude material like this.

    FOI, journalism and democracy

    While these kinds of disclosures are fascinating, they risk distracting from a deeper problem: FOI is increasingly politicised. Refusals are now often based on political considerations rather than the letter of the law, with requests routinely delayed or rejected to avoid embarrassment. In many cases, ministers’ use of WhatsApp groups was a deliberate attempt to avoid scrutiny in the first place.

    There is a growing culture of transparency avoidance across government and public services – one that extends beyond ministers. Private companies delivering public contracts are often shielded from FOI altogether. Meanwhile, some governments, including Ireland and Australia, have weakened the law itself.

    AI tools are no longer experiments, they are becoming part of how policy is developed and decisions are made. Without proper oversight, they risk becoming the next blind spot in democratic accountability.

    For journalists, this is a potential game changer. Systems like ChatGPT may soon be embedded in government workflows, drafting speeches, summarising reports and even brainstorming strategy. If decisions are increasingly shaped by algorithmic suggestions, the public deserves to know how and why.

    But it also revives an old dilemma. Democracy depends on transparency – yet officials must have space to think, experiment and explore ideas without fear that every AI query or draft ends up on the front page. Not every search or chatbot prompt is a final policy position.

    Blair may have called FOI a mistake, but in truth, it forced power to confront the reality of accountability. The real challenge now is updating FOI for the digital age.

    Tom Felle 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 a journalist could obtain a minister’s ChatGPT prompts – and what it means for transparency – https://theconversation.com/why-a-journalist-could-obtain-a-ministers-chatgpt-prompts-and-what-it-means-for-transparency-252269

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How a lack of period product regulation harms our health and the planet

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Poppy Taylor, PhD Candidate, Women’s Health, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol

    JLco Julia Amaral/Shutterstock

    Did you know that in the UK period products are regulated under the same consumer legislation as candles? For 15 million people who menstruate each month, these items are used internally or next to one of the most sensitive parts of the body for extended times.

    Consumers should be entitled to know what is in their period products before choosing which ones to buy. Yet, because of the current lack of adequate regulation and transparency, manufacturers are not required to disclose all materials. And only basic information is available on brand websites. Campaigners are now calling for better regulation.

    Independent material testing shows that single-use period pads can contain up to 90% plastic. An estimated 4.6 million pads, tampons and panty liners are flushed away daily in the UK. These contribute to blocked sewers and fatbergs. They also pollute rivers and oceans.

    Meanwhile, reusable period products are promoted by aid charities as a way to tackle period poverty and reduce waste. But independent tests by organisations such as Which? have found harmful chemicals inside both single-use and reusable period products.

    These include synthetic chemicals that disrupt hormones – known as endocrine-disrupting chemicals – and forever chemicals or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) that don’t degrade. These chemicals have been associated with a range of health harms from cancers to reproductive disorders and infertility. They have no place in period products.

    I work as a women’s health researcher at the University of Bristol’s Digital Footprints Lab alongside a team of data scientists. We harness digital data, such as shopping records, to study public health issues. My research looks at how things like education affect which menstrual products people choose.

    In collaboration with the charity Women’s Environmental Network, I am exploring intersections between gender, health, equity and environmental justice – especially among marginalised women and communities. But social stigma prevents open discussions about menstruation and how best to improve period product regulation.

    Menstrual stigma influences everything from the information and support people who menstruate receive to the types of products we use and how we dispose of them. In a study of menstrual education experiences in English schools, my colleague and I found evidence of teacher attitudes perpetuating menstrual stigma.

    Lessons typically lacked content about the health or environmental consequences of period products. Our study showed that just 2.4% of 18- to 24-year-olds surveyed were taught about sustainable alternatives to single-use tampons and menstrual pads.

    An environmenstrual workshop hosted bythe charity, Women’s Environmental Network.
    Women’s Environmental Network / Sarah Larby, CC BY-NC-ND

    For decades, period product adverts portrayed menstrual blood as a blue liquid. The social taboos around periods, largely created and reinforced by period brands over decades of fear-based marketing, has left its mark.

    For example, in response to customer’s anxieties about supposed menstrual odour, manufacturers are increasingly using potentially environmentally harmful antimicrobials like silver and anti-odour additives in period products. This is despite there being no evidence that period products such as menstrual pants or pads transmit harmful bacteria that need sanitising. The silver also washes out after a couple of washes.

    The role of regulation

    In New York state, the Menstrual Products Right To Know Act means that a period product cannot be sold unless the labelling includes a list of materials. In Scotland, a government initiative provides free period products to anyone who needs them.

    Catalonia in Spain has introduced a groundbreaking law that ensures access to safe and sustainable period products, while also working to reduce menstrual stigma and taboos through education.

    A new European “eco label” is a step forward, but companies don’t have to use it. This voluntary label, which shows a product is good for the environment, doesn’t cover period underwear.

    Now, campaigners at the Women’s Environmental Network are calling for the UK government to adopt a Menstrual Health, Dignity and Sustainability Act, backed by many charities, academics and environmentalists. This will enable equal access to sustainable period products, improved menstrual education, independent testing, transparent product labelling and stronger regulations.

    The regulation of period products is currently being considered as part of the product regulation and metrology bill and the use of antimicrobials in period products is being included in the consumer products (control of biocides) bill introduced by Baroness Natalie Bennett. By tackling both health implications and environmental harms, period products can be produced in a safer way, for both people and planet.

    Poppy Taylor’s PhD is funded by the University of Bristol and the Health Foundation.
    Poppy Taylor is a member of the Women’s Environmental Network.

    – ref. How a lack of period product regulation harms our health and the planet – https://theconversation.com/how-a-lack-of-period-product-regulation-harms-our-health-and-the-planet-248941

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Only 15 countries have met the latest Paris agreement deadline. Is any nation serious about tackling climate change?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Doug Specht, Reader in Cultural Geography and Communication, University of Westminster

    Svet Foto/Shutterstock

    The latest deadline for countries to submit plans for slashing the greenhouse gas emissions fuelling climate change has passed. Only 15 countries met it – less than 8% of the 194 parties currently signed up to the Paris agreement, which obliges countries to submit new proposals for eliminating emissions every five years.

    Known as nationally determined contributions, or NDCs, these plans outline how each country intends to help limit average global temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, or at most 2°C. This might include cutting emissions by generating more energy from wind and solar, or adapting to a heating world by restoring wetlands as protection against more severe floods and wildfires.

    Each new NDC should outline more stringent emissions cuts than the last. It should also show how each country seeks to mitigate climate change over the following ten years. This system is designed to progressively strengthen (or “ratchet up”) global efforts to combat climate change.

    The February 2025 deadline for submitting NDCs was set nine months before the next UN climate change conference, Cop30 in Belém, Brazil.

    Without a comprehensive set of NDCs for countries to compare themselves against, there will be less pressure on negotiators to raise national ambitions. Assessing how much money certain countries need to decarbonise and adapt to climate change, and how much is available, will also be more difficult.

    While countries can (and some will) continue to submit NDCs, the poor compliance rate so far suggests a lack of urgency that bodes ill for avoiding the worst climate outcomes this century.

    Who submitted?

    The 15 countries that submitted NDCs on time include the United Arab Emirates, the UK, Switzerland, Ecuador and a number of small states, such as Andorra and the Marshall Islands.

    Cop30 host Brazil submitted a pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 59-67% by 2035, compared to 2005 levels. This is up from its previous commitment, a 37% reduction by 2025 and 43% by 2030. Unfortunately, Brazil is not on track to meet its 2025 target and has set a more recent emissions baseline that will make any reductions more modest than they’d otherwise be.

    Japan aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60% in 2035 and 73% in 2040, compared to 2013 levels. Japan’s previous target was for a 46% reduction by 2030. This demonstrates how the ratchet system is supposed to work.

    The UK’s NDC, which pledges to reduce all greenhouse gas emissions by at least 81% by 2035, compared to 1990 levels, was described by independent scientists as “compatible” with limiting global heating to 1.5°C.

    The US submitted a plan to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by 61-66% below 2005 levels by 2035. However, this was before Donald Trump pulled the US out of the Paris agreement (for the second time), so the commitment of one of the world’s largest polluters is in doubt.

    Who didn’t submit?

    Some of the world’s largest emitters failed to submit new NDCs, including China, India and Russia.

    India pledged to reduce its emissions by 35% below 2005 levels by 2030 at the signing of the Paris agreement. All of the country’s subsequent NDCs have been rated as “insufficient” by independent scientists. India’s recent national budget announcement offered scant additional funding for climate mitigation and adaptation measures.

    China also made big promises in 2015 with its aim to lower its CO₂ emissions by 65% by 2030, from a 2005 baseline. However, China has been responsible for over 90% of global CO₂ emissions growth since the Paris agreement was signed. China and the US also suspended formal discussions on climate change in 2022. Increased economic competition between these two nations has resulted in export control restrictions and tariffs which have made green technologies like electric vehicles more expensive, which is certain to slow down the shift from fossil fuels.

    Russia joined the Paris agreement in 2019. Its first NDC was labelled “critically insufficient” by scientists, and its follow-up in 2020 did not include increased targets. Russia is maximising the extraction of resources such as oil, gas and minerals and its 2035 strategy for the Arctic included plans to sink several oil wells on the continental shelf.

    With the USA’s 2025 NDC in limbo, President Trump is eyeing mineral reserves in Ukraine and Greenland, further ramping up oil production and cutting international climate research funding.

    The European Union could have positioned itself as a leader of global climate action, in lieu of US involvement. But the EU, which submits NDCs as a bloc alongside individual country submissions, also failed to submit on time.

    Global shifts

    The failure of most nations to submit new emission plans suggests that the era of cooperation on climate change is over. The largest and most powerful of these nations are growing their military and diplomatic presence around the world, particularly in countries with large reserves of critical minerals for electric vehicles and other technology relevant to decarbonisation. The lack of NDCs from these nations may be less a matter of middling green ambitions, more an attempt to disguise their planned exploitation of other countries’ resources.

    If countries keep failing to submit enhanced NDCs, or even withdraw from their commitments entirely, scientists warn that global heating could reach a catastrophic 4.4°C by 2100. This scenario assumes the continued, unabated use of fossil fuels, with little regard for the climate.

    In a more optimistic scenario, countries could limit warming to around 1.8°C by 2100. This will require global cooperation and significant investment in green technology, and entail a transition to net zero emissions by mid-century. This is a process that must include everyone. Simply having the most powerful nations decarbonise by exploiting and hoarding resources will imperil this critical target.

    The actual outcome will probably fall somewhere between these two scenarios, depending on forthcoming NDCs and how quickly and thoroughly they are implemented. All of the scenarios envisaged by climate scientists will involve warming continuing for decades.

    The effects of this warming will vary, however, based on the path we choose today.

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

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

    Doug Specht 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. Only 15 countries have met the latest Paris agreement deadline. Is any nation serious about tackling climate change? – https://theconversation.com/only-15-countries-have-met-the-latest-paris-agreement-deadline-is-any-nation-serious-about-tackling-climate-change-250847

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Assassin’s Creed Shadows introduces a black samurai – that’s not as unprecedented as critics claim

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Fynn Holm, Junior Professor of Japanese Studies, University of Tübingen

    Fans of the video game franchise Assasin’s Creed have been pining for a game set in feudal Japan for decades. In theory, it looked like a match made in heaven.

    The series (which started in 2007 and has sold over 200 million copies) uses historical settings, such as ancient Greece, the Italian Renaissance or the American Revolution, to tell its fictional epic story of a battle between the Order of Assassins and the Knights Templar. What better scenario, then, than the Japanese civil war (1477-1600), where samurai and ninjas (known as shinobi) were fighting each other?

    Yet when the premiere trailer for Assassin’s Creed Shadows dropped on May 15 last year, it unleashed a torrent of criticism from fans around the world. By June, a Japanese-language petition had gathered over 100,000 signatures, claiming the game “insults Japanese culture and history” and “could be tied to anti-Asian racism”.

    The publisher of the franchise Ubisoft issued a public apology, delaying the game’s release multiple times. With other Ubisoft titles under-performing, Shadows rescheduled release on March 20 has become a high-stakes endeavour.

    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.

    So what exactly had fans so enraged? Online, amateur historians highlighted what they saw as copious historical inaccuracies in the promotional material.

    However, none was deemed as damaging as the fact that one of the two playable characters in the game was based on the historical figure of Yasuke. Yasuke was a formerly enslaved black man from Mozambique who became a retainer of the Japanese warlord Oda Nobunaga (1534-1582).

    While the historical existence of Yasuke stands without question, some gamers took offence at the notion that Yasuke was being portrayed as a “black samurai”. That’s because the historical sources are not clear on whether Yasuke was considered a “samurai” by his contemporaries.

    The trailer for Assassin’s Creed Shadows.

    Some gamers argue that focusing on Yasuke, rather than a more typical Japanese-born warrior, represents a misguided attempt at diversity, equity and inclusion. Especially since the second playable character is a fictional female ninja named Naoe.

    To critics, highlighting these two characters allegedly overwrites the history of male Japanese samurai, injecting a “foreignness” they believe distorts the setting.

    White samurai in popular media

    Despite the uproar over Assassin’s Creed: Shadows, it’s not the first piece of media to depict a non-Japanese samurai.

    In James Clavell’s 1975 novel Shōgun, English navigator John Blackthorne (based on the real-life William Adams) becomes a samurai in the rank of hatamoto of the warlord Toranaga (based on Tokugawa Ieyasu).

    Historians also debate whether the real Adams was a true samurai, yet his “white samurai” image endures in adaptations like the 2024 FX series Shōgun, which garnered praise from critics across the ideological spectrum.

    Another famous instance is Nathan Algren (played by Tom Cruise) who in the movie The Last Samurai (2003) joins the Satsuma Rebellion of 1877 led by the charismatic Katsumoto (played by Ken Watanabe and based on Saigō Takamori).

    Katsumoto represents in the movie the “true” samurai spirit of male honour, duty, loyalty and principles. In the end, he dies in a final showdown against modern weaponry, but Tom Cruise’s character survives and reminds the emperor that Japan needs to honour its past despite the modernisation.

    The movie follows the formula of films like Dances with Wolves (1990), and later the first James Cameron Avatar movie (2009), in which a white character joins a minority population to “save” said people from their doom. This is also known as the “white savior complex”.

    Accuracy v authenticity

    Why, then, is Yasuke’s portrayal as a black samurai so contentious when white foreigners in similar roles have been widely accepted?

    Racism is one answer, but audience expectations about historical authenticity also play a key role. It’s critics claim that Shadows teems with historical inaccuracies, yet other celebrated titles, such as Ghost of Tsushima (2020) are just as historically inaccurate.

    Ghost of Tsushima is set during the 13th-century Mongol invasion. Yet the game developers decided to base their protagonists on the heavily idealised and romanticised samurai of 1950s Akira Kurosawa movies, which have little in common with their historical 13th-century counterparts.

    However, since these samurai conform to audience expectations of Japanese warriors with two swords that follow the largely fictional honour code of bushido, the game feels authentic even though it is historically inaccurate. By contrast, Yasuke’s presence in Shadows challenges a deeply ingrained notion of a xenophobic or sealed-off Japan – an anachronistic concept that overlooks evidence of foreign influence in the 16th century.

    While Ubisoft has taken creative liberties and introduced historical inaccuracies, this is consistent with what has been done in other Assassin’s Creed titles and historically inspired games in general. Yet while predominantly white (and even Japanese) cultures seem quick to forgive depictions of white samurai figures, the same leniency does not seem to extend to a black character.

    Fynn Holm receives funding from the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft).

    – ref. Assassin’s Creed Shadows introduces a black samurai – that’s not as unprecedented as critics claim – https://theconversation.com/assassins-creed-shadows-introduces-a-black-samurai-thats-not-as-unprecedented-as-critics-claim-251293

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Fossil face discovery highlights challenges faced by Europe’s earliest settlers

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Suzy White, Post-Doctoral Research Assistant, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Reading

    Piecing together the story of Europe’s earliest settlers is a challenge, largely
    because relevant human fossils are scarce. On March 12, researchers announced the
    discovery of a new fossil from the excavation site of Sime del Elefante, near Burgos in Spain.

    Known as ATE7-1, the new fossil consists of a partial face belonging to an ancient hominin, a biological classification that includes living humans and our closest extinct relatives, such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus. Nicknamed “Rosa” after one of her discoverers, the fossil includes part of the upper jaw, cheek and eye from an adult, and dates to between 1.1 and 1.4 million years ago. As such, she represents the oldest known partial face of a hominin from western Europe.

    Rosa is also a crucial piece of the puzzle explaining how and when humans first entered western Europe – and which species of hominin made those pioneering journeys.

    Hominins evolved in Africa. The first species to occupy multiple continents was Homo erectus, and the first fossil evidence we have of them beyond Africa comes from Dmanisi in Georgia. These fossils are around 1.8 million years old. However, stone tools from Grăunceanu (Romania) indicate that hominins had expanded further north even earlier than the Dmanisi finds – 1.95 million years ago.

    However, fossils from western Europe remain conspicuously absent until 1.4 million
    years ago. By contrast, we have more evidence of hominins moving into Asia during
    this time. They had reached Indonesia by 1.6 million years and descendants of these populations seem to have survived there until relatively recently. Early fossils from Asia are also more numerous and more complete, while their European counterparts are limited to an isolated tooth, a fragment of jaw and a partial skull cap.

    Despite being just a small part of the face, Rosa provides key insights into these
    elusive early European populations. The researchers compared Rosa’s facial
    features to Homo erectus fossils from Africa, Indonesia and Dmanisi. They also
    examined Rosa’s similarities to Homo antecessor, a later European species from Gran
    Dolina, a site close to Sima del Elefante.

    The evidence of settlement at Gran Dolina has been dated to about 860,000 years ago. While Rosa shares her delicate build with Homo antecessor, overall she has more affinities with the Homo erectus fossils – although not enough to confidently place her within this group.

    Rosa may therefore provide support for a hypothesis that the occupation of Europe
    by hominins was discontinuous, at least for the first million or so years. This means that hominins settled there, then went locally extinct and were replaced by other groups of hominins later on.

    Our closest relatives were not able to survive in Europe over long periods of time until much later. But why might that be? What made Europe harder to successfully inhabit than Asia? To begin to answer such questions, we have to combine the evidence from Rosa with what we already know about early human forays beyond their ancestral home continent of Africa.

    Smaller brains, longer legs

    The Dmanisi hominins are notable for their relatively small brains and basic tools.
    This challenged the idea that advanced tools and large brains were necessary for
    expansion beyond Africa. The tools from Grăunceanu are also relatively basic,
    despite the temperate and seasonal climate their makers would have experienced.

    The Dmanisi hominins also have relatively long legs, which would have allowed them
    to move more efficiently over long distances. Perhaps, then, efficient movement,
    rather than brain size or technology, was the driving factor allowing the initial
    expansion. But did the basic stone technology used by early Europeans prevent their long term occupation of the continent?

    It is likely that we will, in time, find even earlier fossils from western Europe. Further fossils from Sima del Elefante could reveal how variable Rosa’s group was, and enable us to either place her within an existing species, or create a new one.

    But, given the sparse information we have for now, the differences between Rosa, the Dmanisi hominins, and Homo antecessor fit within a model of short-term expansions into western Europe. These expansions were probably followed by a retreat of hominin populations into so-called refugia (locations where the environment and climate were more stable), as well as extinctions of local populations. This would have been driven by changing climatic conditions. For now, which and how many species ventured west into Europe is still unknown.

    Much else also remains unknown. Did early western Europeans survive long enough
    to give rise to later species such as Homo antecessor? And how was Homo
    antecessor     related to later European species? The European fossil record becomes
    more continuous from around 600,000 years ago, first with the appearance of
    a hominin species called Homo heidelbergensis, and then with the appearance of early Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis). In fact, these two species appear to have coexisted in Europe for some time.

    Later Europeans were also able to venture further north, with evidence of footprints of a mystery hominin at Happisburgh in the UK by 900,000 years ago. Nevertheless, as with Rosa’s species and Homo antecessor, the Neanderthals and Homo heidelbergensis eventually went extinct – along with all other species of humans globally, except our own.

    The changing climate and northern latitudes of western Europe presented a clear challenge for earlier hominins. As Europe’s climate continues to change, will Homo sapiens be the first hominin capable of long term survival here?

    Suzy White receives funding from the Leverhulme Trust, and has previously received funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council.

    – ref. Fossil face discovery highlights challenges faced by Europe’s earliest settlers – https://theconversation.com/fossil-face-discovery-highlights-challenges-faced-by-europes-earliest-settlers-252413

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The Gaza ceasefire is dead − Israeli domestic politics killed it

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Asher Kaufman, Professor of History and Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame

    Buildings and a ceasefire left in ruins after airstrikes on March 18, 2025. Majdi Fathi/NurPhoto via Getty Images

    The ceasefire in Gaza appears to be over.

    And while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has sought to blame Hamas for the resumption of fighting that killed more than 400 Palestinians on March 18, 2025 – “only the beginning,” Netanyahu warned – the truth is the seeds of the renewed violence are to be found in Israeli domestic politics.

    Ever since the first phase of the ceasefire came into effect in January, Israeli politics experts – myself included – have flagged a likely insurmountable problem. And that is the execution of the plan’s second phase – which, if implemented, would see full withdrawal of Israeli military forces from the Gaza Strip in exchange for the release of the remaining hostages – is a nonstarter for far-right elements in the Israeli ruling coalition that Netanyahu relies on for his political survival.

    Withdrawing from the Gaza Strip runs counter to the maximalist ideologies of key members of Netanyahu’s government, including some in his own party, Likud. Rather, their stated position is for Israel to remain in control of the enclave and to push as many Palestinians as possible out of it. It is why many in Netanyahu’s government cheered when President Donald Trump indicated that Palestinians should be cleared from Gaza to make way for a massive reconstruction project led by the United States.

    As an expert on Israeli history and a professor of peace studies, I believe the far-right vision for post-conflict Gaza shared by parts of Netanyahu’s government is incompatible with the ceasefire plan. But increasingly, it appears to chime with the views of some in the U.S. administration – which, as de facto sponsor of the ceasefire, may have been the only entity that could have held the Israeli government to its terms.

    Efforts to transform judiciary

    It is true Hamas is responsible for delays and manipulations during the first phase of the ceasefire deal. It also turned hostage releases into propaganda spectacles, tormenting both the families of captives and much of Israeli society in the process.

    But in my view, the resumption of war is first and foremost tied to domestic Israeli currents that predate even the Oct. 7, 2023, attack that sparked the deadliest fighting between Israelis and Palestinians since the 1948 war. It can be traced back to Netanyahu’s efforts to transform the political system in Israel and increase the power of the executive and legislative branches while weakening the judiciary.

    U.S. President Donald Trump greets Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on Feb. 4, 2025.
    Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post via Getty Images

    Since coming to power in January 2023, Netanyahu’s hard-right government has made significant efforts to turn independent institutions such as the attorney general’s office and the police into compliant arms of the government by seeking to place government loyalists in charge of both.

    Prolonging the war

    In 2023, a sustained and massive protest movement slowed Netanyahu’s attempts to overhaul the country’s judiciary.

    And then came the Hamas massacre on Oct. 7.

    Many Israeli commentators hoped that the attack would force the government to reconsider its efforts to carry out what some described as a legal coup, in a show of national unity.

    But Netanyahu and his government had other plans.

    After an initial hostage deal in November 2023 failed to yield a wider breakthrough, people gradually began to question whether Netanyahu’s primary interest was to prolong the war in the belief that doing so might be the best way to save his political career and revive his assault on the judiciary.

    Such a view has solid foundations. Having been indicted in November 2019 on breach of trust, fraud and corruption charges, Netanyahu was presented with an opportunity to muddy the logic of the long-running legal proceedings: He could hardy stand trial while defending a nation at war. The prosecution is still ongoing, but the resumption of fighting has, again, meant that Netanyahu has reason to delay his testimony.

    Meanwhile, war also provides cover for Netanyahu to neuter some of his fiercest critics. In the months after the Oct. 7 attack, Netanyahu systematically removed from office antagonistic members of the security and political leadership, accusing them of being responsible either for the Hamas attack or for the mismanagement of the conflict.

    This purging of anti-Netanyahu elements in Israel has ramped up in recent months, with Netanyahu and his allies seeking to replace Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara and fire Ronen Bar, the head of the powerful security agency Shabak, or Shin Bet, which has been carrying out sensitive investigations into Netanyahu’s closest aides.

    Shoring up the coalition

    The apparent breakdown of the ceasefire now also coincides with growing pressure on Netanyahu from the political right in his ruling coalition.

    Under Israeli law, the government must approve its annual budget by the end of March or face being dissolved, something that would trigger fresh elections.

    But Netanyahu is facing holdouts among ultra-Orthodox parties over the issue of army drafts. Since the start of the war, there has been tremendous pressure from the wider Israeli public to end the draft exemption for ultra-Orthodox men, who unlike other Israelis did not have to serve in the military. Ultra-Orthodox parties, however, are demanding the opposite: to pass legislation that would formally exempt them from military service.

    To secure the vote for the annual budget and stave off elections, Netanyahu needs support – and if it isn’t going to come from the ultra-Orthodox parties, then he needs to shore up far-right members of the coalition.

    As a result of the resumption of war, Otzma Yehudit – the far-right party that left Netanyahu’s government in January to protest the ceasefire agreement – has returned to the fold. This gives Netanyahu crucial budget votes. But in effect, it signals that the coalition has no intention of implementing the second phase of the ceasefire plan, withdrawing from Gaza. In effect, it has killed the ceasefire.

    The domestic politics of Israel alone is not to blame for the resumption of fighting. There is, too, the changing stance of the U.S. administration.

    The transition of presidency from Joe Biden to Donald Trump was a decisive reason for the timing of the ceasefire agreement in January 2025.

    But it appears that the administration is reluctant to force Netanyahu to continue to the second phase. Recent statements from Trump suggest that he supports putting extra military pressure on Hamas in Gaza. And by blaming Hamas for the resumption of the war, Trump is tacitly endorsing the position of the Israeli government.

    Hamas, in fact, has the most interest in implementing the agreement. Doing so would give the Palestinian militant group the best chance it has of remaining in control of Gaza, while also boasting that it had been responsible for the release of thousands of Palestinian prisoners from Israeli prisons.

    Thousands gather at Habima Square to protest against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government on March 18, 2025.
    Yair Palti/Anadolu via Getty Images

    Protests gaining momentum

    The majority of Israelis are in favor of ending the war, completing the ceasefire agreement and having Netanyahu resign.

    And the anti-government protest movement is gaining steam again as seen in widespread protests in Israeli cities against both the resumption of fighting in Gaza and the attempt to oust security chief Ronen Bar.

    Given that the people and the government of Israel appear to be pulling in opposite directions, the resumption of bombing in Gaza can only exacerbate the internal crisis that preceded the war and has ebbed and flowed ever since.

    But Netanyahu has seemingly bet that more war is his best chance of remaining in power and completing his plan to transform the country’s political system. Israel is facing an unprecedented situation in which, I would argue, its own prime minister has became the biggest threat to the country’s stability.

    Asher Kaufman 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. The Gaza ceasefire is dead − Israeli domestic politics killed it – https://theconversation.com/the-gaza-ceasefire-is-dead-israeli-domestic-politics-killed-it-252569

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: High school sports are losing athletes to private clubs, but schools can keep them by focusing on character development

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Mark Rerick, Assistant Professor of Kinesiology, University of North Dakota

    High school sports programs tend to emphasize character development and good sportsmanship. AP Photo/Mel Evans

    Not long ago, high school students who wanted to play football, basketball or another sport had few options other than trying out for their school team. And it was to high school gymnasiums and fields that recruiters flocked to find talent for colleges and even the pros.

    That’s changed in recent decades as private clubs have emerged and soared in popularity across the country. Today, kids interested in pretty much any sport often have multiple clubs and leagues to choose from instead of playing on their high school’s varsity squads. Clubs have been especially good at attracting the most talented student-athletes due to their intense and competitive nature.

    As a result, parents are increasingly debating something that would have been unthinkable a couple of generations ago: Where should our kids play sports?

    As a former K-12 director of athletics – and as a current parent of three youth athletes from elementary to the collegiate level – I know it can be a tough choice. I’ve seen firsthand the pros and cons of playing sports both in high school and clubs.

    While clubs may be best for the most talented athletes, I believe schools can’t be beat for the broader focus they can put on character development. Since the vast majority of student-athletes won’t play in organized leagues beyond high school, that’s where I believe the schools’ focus should be.

    My own unpublished research shows it’s also a way – along with emphasizing the fun and social aspects of athletics – to get more students who played sports as young kids to continue in high school.

    The rise of the private youth sports industry

    Although I am an unapologetic advocate for school-based athletics, I recognize the benefits that come along with participation in club or private-league programs.

    But prior to the 1980s, private clubs weren’t common. Before high school, kids played on teams organized by their schools, local parks and recreation programs or nonprofit organizations such as the YMCA. After that, the only option for most was high school sports.

    The first big step toward highly organized, privatized youth sports programs occurred during what has been referred to as “the Reagan revolution,” according to research I did for my dissertation. President Ronald Reagan’s funding cuts across the government pushed more expenses onto states and cities, which limited the ability of local parks and recreation departments to fully staff youth programs. This left many of them with only enough funds to maintain their facilities.

    At the same time, school districts began systematically reducing the number of physical education classes offered in lieu of an increased focus on subjects such as math and science. Those two factors took away the most affordable options for athletic participation for many families.

    With the reduction of public offerings, the youth sports programming gap was filled by private clubs and leagues, which placed more emphasis on athleticism, competition and sometimes elite-style training. And it’s become big business for the adults who run these programs.

    While good numbers on these leagues are hard to come by, multiple data sources show the privatized youth sports market has experienced tremendous growth in recent years. A recent estimate put total spending on youth sports at over US$40 billion as of 2024, compared with the $10 billion estimate of the youth sports economy in 2010.

    But despite their growth, one sobering statistic for aspiring elite athletes remains true: Only about 7% of teenagers who play organized sports will advance to the collegiate level or beyond.

    Knowing that 93% of high school athletes will end their competitive careers at graduation, I believe it’s important that school administrators place a premium on running athletic programs that focus on building skills they’ll need as adults instead of just winning games.

    More and more teenagers are playing on elite club teams, such as Aaliyah Chavez, right, who plays for CyFair Elite.
    Mike Caudill for The Washington Post via Getty Images

    Why most students play

    My own research backs this up.

    In my previous role as a director of athletics for public schools in Grand Forks, North Dakota, I routinely surveyed our athletes at the end of their seasons about various aspects of their experience on the team. Among those questions, I asked athletes to tell me the three most important reasons they chose to play that sport for that season and whether they were planning to play on the team again next year.

    Unsurprisingly to me, the top three reasons were consistently to have fun, spend time with friends and stay physically active, in that order. You’ll notice winning games or for competition were not among them.

    On the flip side, when asked why students chose to drop out the following year, the top reason was their relationship with the coach, while a close second was that they were not having fun. To me, this was evidence that what student-athletes most wanted from their high school programs wasn’t so much sport skills development as personal development and growth.

    Other studies back this up. Overtraining and a lack of fun are cited as the main reasons why 70% of young athletes who compete on a team stop playing before they even reach high school.

    Focus on the fun – not the competition

    Here are five things school administrators can do to help turn things around and make their sports programs more attractive to students considering clubs, as well as those who are pondering giving up on sports altogether.

    1. Develop an athletic program that teaches character traits and life skills that are usable for 100% of participants, not just the 7% who go on to play in college.

    2. Make sure programs emphasize fun, social growth and physical fitness, rather than just the competition.

    3. Encourage coaches to spend individual time throughout the season with each student-athlete to discuss the athlete’s goals, role and progress.

    4. Survey student-athletes about their experience at the end of each season and tweak the program accordingly.

    5. Include student-athlete assessments about how much they enjoy playing for the coach as a part of the coach’s postseason evaluation.

    High school sports may not be for everybody, but I believe many more students would choose to participate if the focus were on building character and having fun with friends, not winning trophies.

    Mark Rerick is affiliated with the National Interscholastic Athletic Administrators Association.

    – ref. High school sports are losing athletes to private clubs, but schools can keep them by focusing on character development – https://theconversation.com/high-school-sports-are-losing-athletes-to-private-clubs-but-schools-can-keep-them-by-focusing-on-character-development-236367

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –