Category: Academic Reportage

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By H. Christopher Frey, Glenn E. Futrell Distinguished University Professor of Environmental Engineering, North Carolina State University

The Trump administration’s plan to unravel many of the nation’s climate policies hinges on rescinding what’s known as the endangerment finding. But its strategy for doing that appears to run afoul of several federal laws.

The endangerment finding is a 2009 determination by the Environmental Protection Agency that six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, contribute to climate change and therefore pose a threat to public health and welfare.

The scientific evidence of these threats has gotten stronger in the years since the endangerment finding was made. That evidence is laid out in multiple national and international reports written by hundreds of scientists who reviewed the data and research.

In contrast, the EPA’s proposal to now rescind the endangerment finding is based in part on a new Department of Energy report written by five people, named as the “Climate Working Group.” All five have been outspoken critics of mainstream climate science. Energy Secretary Chris Wright said he handpicked the group to write the report.

The group’s report cherry-picks information and misrepresents uncertainties. Some scientists whose studies it cites have complained that the authors misrepresented their research. Others are speaking out about factual problems with the report.

I have served in the federal government and on numerous scientific federal advisory committees, and I’ve seen firsthand the rigorous requirements that federal agencies are supposed to meet so that scientific information they disseminate can be trusted by the public.

The Energy Department and the EPA seem to have run afoul of four laws in particular that may be tricky for the administration to get around.

1. Has the Energy Department produced a credible report?

A casual reader might think the Energy Department climate report is credible.

Its inside cover affirms that it “is being disseminated … in compliance with” the Information Quality Act. The word “disseminated” means that this is a final report and not just a draft.

The Information Quality Act, passed by Congress in 2000, requires “ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by Federal agencies.”

This law is the basis for federal guidance on scientific peer review for all agencies. It also requires agencies to provide the public with an opportunity to request corrections in final reports if they were not properly developed or lack balance, accuracy and objectivity. The agency decides whether to grant the request, but there is an appeals process.

Government scientific products considered final also must have previously undergone independent external peer review conducted in an “open and rigorous manner,” according to the White House Office of Management and Budget.

One author of the Energy Department’s report stated that the report was reviewed by “eight scientists/administrators employed by the DOE.” However, this does not meet the government’s standards for implementing the law, which requires a public record of review by scientific experts not affiliated with the department that issued the report.

2. Agencies cannot cherry-pick groups to give answers they want

The Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, or FACA, addressed concerns that “special interest groups” could “exercise undue influence” in promoting “their private concerns” on “matters in which they have vested interests.”

The law requires a public process for creating and appointing groups to advise the government and requires that the properly appointed group operates in public view and takes public comments along the way.

According to the DOE’s own guidance, “FACA applies when a group is asked to render advice or recommendations as a group and not a collection of individuals.”

Thus, the group chosen to write the department’s report falls within the scope of FACA. The law requires that a committee representing a fair balance of viewpoints be chartered under FACA and that members be appointed only after a public nomination process with public opportunity to comment on the list of candidates.

Once appointed, a balanced group is also required to deliberate in public and receive public comments in formulating their report. That didn’t happen.

3. Federal agencies cannot be arbitrary or inconsistent in rulemaking

The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 requires federal agencies to allow public participation in rulemaking processes and to follow consistent procedures and practices when developing regulations.

The law prohibits actions that are “arbitrary and capricious” – meaning decisions made without justification or regard for facts – or an “abuse of discretion.”

Agencies are expected to examine relevant data. They must not only follow applicable laws, such as FACA, but also must follow procedures established to implement those laws, such as balanced membership of the committee and opportunity for public comment when formulating the report.

4. Science Advisory Board review is also required

The EPA is also subject to the Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978. The act mandated that the EPA must establish a Science Advisory Board. It also requires that agency make available to its Science Advisory Board relevant scientific and technical information on any “proposed criteria document, standard, limitation, or regulation.”

The board must be given time to review the scientific and technical basis of the proposed action – in this case, the disseminated Energy Department report – now that the EPA is using this report to inform its regulatory action.

Under the Information Quality Act, the EPA may not develop a regulation based on a draft report.

The EPA’s Science Advisory Board website lists zero members as of mid-August 2025. On Jan. 28, 2025, the EPA dismissed all of the board’s previous members. Nominations for new board members were due on June 2. At best, it will be months before the EPA can seat a new Science Advisory Board because of time needed to complete the selection, appointment and ethics review processes.

Either the EPA could follow the law and suspend any proposed actions until the Science Advisory Board is available, or accept legal risk for not following the Environmental Research, Development and Demonstration Authorization Act.

What’s next?

These laws exist to protect the public by preventing the federal government from being unduly influenced by narrow interests when disseminating evidence that informs policy decisions. Science-based agencies such as the Energy Department and the EPA have a legal requirement to follow the science.

The public has a chance to comment on the EPA’s proposal to rescind the 2009 endangerment finding and greenhouse gas vehicle standards until Sept. 15, 2025. And although the Energy Department disseminated its report as a final version, the department is accepting public comments on the report through Sept. 2.

For both, the most effective comments are evidence-based and not merely opinion.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, independent nonprofit institutions that advise the government, announced in early August that they will conduct a fast-track review of the science on whether greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare to submit as a public comment.

Because the Energy Department report is presented as final, it is also subject to the “request for correction” process under the Information Quality Act within 60 days of its initial release.

Given the Energy Department report’s legal vulnerabilities, the Trump administration could consider withdrawing the report and starting over with a legally and scientifically valid approach. If these vulnerabilities are not corrected and the EPA rescinds the endangerment finding based on the Energy Department report, years of litigation are likely to slow the administration’s efforts.

Dr. H. Christopher Frey is currently a professor of environmental engineering at North Carolina State University. He has served on numerous scientific advisory committees, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (2004-2006), Science Advisory Board (2012-2018), and Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (2008-2015). He was chair of CASAC from 2012 to 2015. He has served on study committees of the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. He served at EPA from 2021 to 2022 as Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science Policy and from 2022 to 2024 as Assistant Administrator for Research and Development and Science Advisor. While in federal service he co-chaired the National Science and Technology Council Committee on Environment.

– ref. 4 laws that could stymie the Trump EPA’s plan to rescind the endangerment finding that underpins US climate policies – https://theconversation.com/4-laws-that-could-stymie-the-trump-epas-plan-to-rescind-the-endangerment-finding-that-underpins-us-climate-policies-262952

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Amy E. Stambach, Professor of Cultural Anthropology and International Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison

The U.S. government is relaxing federal vaccine requirements and cutting vaccine research and development funding here at home. Elsewhere, it’s going even further.

The Trump administration has stopped funding Gavi, a global initiative that helps millions of children in low-income and medium-income countries get vaccinated against measles, cholera and other preventable diseases. Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, is an international organization that collects money from government and private donors. It spends around US$1.7 billion annually to buy and deliver vaccines.

Gavi has helped vaccinate over 1.1 billion children in 78 countries since 2000. Those vaccinations, according to the alliance, have prevented more than 18 million deaths from meningitis, diphtheria, tetanus, polio and other deadly diseases – saving more than $250 billion in health and economic costs.

In 2024, the U.S. was its third-biggest funder – after the U.K. and the Gates Foundation. It contributed $3.7 billion between 2000 and early 2025.

The Biden administration had promised to kick in $1.6 billion over five years beginning in 2026, plus another $300 million for the rest of 2025.

But Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced on June 26, 2025, that the Trump administration would not honor those commitments, ripping a gaping hole in Gavi’s budget.

Becoming more reliant on philanthropy

Kennedy criticized what he alleged was Gavi’s weak track record on vaccine safety.

Many scientists and pediatricians have disputed his rationale for cutting funding, partly because Kennedy referred to a single, contested study in his remarks that was based on 40-year-old data.

So far, Gavi’s other donors – a mix of nations, foundations, drugmakers and other corporations, including Cisco, Mastercard and Shell – haven’t said they’ll step up their support enough to plug the $3 billion hole in Gavi’s five-year plan. But several of the initiative’s biggest donors, particularly the U.K. and the Gates Foundation, have reiterated their commitments of $1.7 and $1.6 billion, respectively, to be disbursed from 2026 to 2030.

In the meantime, Gavi is trying to cut costs and is seeking new funders. Unless other governments decide to make up for the loss of U.S. funding, which so far they have not, Gavi will likely become more dependent on philanthropy than ever before.

In 2024, more than 20% of its funding came from companies and foundations. Now, the vaccine alliance wants to grow that percentage, in part by slowly gaining new donors.

In my research with collaborators on vaccine hesitancy, and through fieldwork in clinics in South Africa and Tanzania, I have seen both the strengths and weaknesses of Gavi’s reliance on the Gates Foundation and corporate donors. These donors either provide funding for vaccines or donate vaccines directly for Gavi to distribute.

While most of the media coverage of the U.S. halting its funding focuses on the fact that U.S. pullout is likely to mean that more children around the world will die, I’m also concerned about another issue.

Encountering some complications

When philanthropy helps fill funding gaps in the public sphere, challenges can arise.

Gavi’s vaccine programs have undoubtedly increased childhood vaccination rates. But they would be even more helpful if they could more consistently help countries build the strong and lasting vaccination systems that low-income and medium-income countries need to make sure vaccines can eventually be delivered without foreign aid.

One problem is that corporate donors and foundations don’t have to answer to voters or taxpayers in the countries they give money to. This can make it harder for countries where Gavi operates to understand philanthropic decisions.

Gavi has received more funding from the Gates Foundation than from any other private contributor. The foundation says it has disbursed or pledged, since Gavi’s launch in 2000, a total of $30.6 billion to “advance vaccines – investing in their discovery, development, and distribution.” And $7.7 billion of that sum has been “directed to Gavi” to vaccinate kids.

In so doing, the Gates Foundation, which announced on Aug. 4, 2024, that it intended to devote $2.5 billion toward improving women’s health care around the world by 2030, has helped Gavi vaccinate more children against preventable diseases than government money alone could have accomplished.

But when one donor wields that much influence, I’ve observed, tensions can follow .

I heard about such tensions at African vaccine clinics where I conducted research between 2021 and 2023.

Concerns about influence

At clinics across South Africa, Tanzania and other parts of sub-Saharan Africa, I spoke with doctors, nurses and public health officials working directly with Gavi-supported programs. Many of the people I interviewed acknowledged the vital role the Gates Foundation has played in expanding access to vaccines.

I am not naming the people who I interviewed to protect their confidentiality, in keeping with social science research norms.

But many expressed concern about the outsized influence that can follow when one donor gives so much money. For example, several people I interviewed said they believed they had no control over which brand of vaccines to use or which age group to vaccinate first.

“That’s all decided by donor offices – not by our own (health) ministry,” said a doctor in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. She pointed to the walls of her clinic, plastered with promotional posters for the Gates Foundation and Gavi.

Gavi, however, says on its website that its board chooses the vaccines it invests in after extensive research.

And many of the people I interviewed said they believed that some donors push for vaccines made by companies they have invested in through their endowments and other assets.

Health workers also told me that Gates Foundation-funded reporting requirements added pressure and extra work without improving care. A district health official in rural Tanzania said his clinic had to meet strict targets set by a Gates Foundation–backed program. This meant quickly submitting forms with detailed information about numbers vaccinated and each patient’s health history – sometimes taking a toll on the quality of care.

“We’re spending more time filling out reports for the donor than talking to patients,” he said. Because the clinic had no computers and lacked a stable flow of electricity, keeping up with the paperwork was tedious.

Across interviews and locations, a common pattern emerged. I frequently heard that the Gates Foundation had helped clinics operate and pay staff with its grant money, but its programs followed a business model focused on meeting targets and showing results.

“It’s all about hitting numbers, not building systems,” one official in Cape Town, South Africa, told me. Many health care workers said this model shifted public health priorities toward the Gates Foundation’s goals at the expense of developing sustainability.

The limits of philanthropy

Funding from foreign governments can also shift local priorities, though possibly to a lesser degree than philanthropy. That’s because governments often work through bilateral agreements and are subject to diplomatic protocols and political accountability, which can temper their influence. In contrast, large foundations like the Gates Foundation may operate with more autonomy – allowing them to shape programs more directly around their goals.

Ultimately, without democratic oversight or deep roots where they donate, foreign philanthropy can be seen as overriding local priorities. Donations from foundations and corporations can be perceived as exerting influence over public health goals, stirring resentment.

The Gates Foundation agrees that philanthropy cannot replace U.S. government assistance.

“There is no foundation – or group of foundations – that can provide the funding, workforce capacity, expertise, or leadership that the United States has historically provided to combat deadly diseases and address hunger and poverty,” Rob Nabors, director of the North America Program at the Gates Foundation, wrote in response to a query from me.

Nabors’ statement underscores why the end of U.S. government funding for, and involvement in, Gavi matters.

The U.S. government has historically engaged in diplomacy and forged long-term partnerships with health ministries in other countries. It has also traditionally spent billions of dollars on infrastructure, like research labs and refrigerated systems to store and transport vaccines.

Foundations typically don’t operate on the scale of government aid operations.

The Gates Foundation provided some information upon request that pointed to efforts it has made in this regard. For example, it had spent $1 billion by 2018 to support vaccine manufacturers located in developing countries and “related grantees,” working with 19 of those manufacturers in “11 countries to bring 17 vaccines to market.” It also pointed to the $15 million it announced in 2022 for a “South African specialty pharmaceutical company to support its capabilities to manufacture lifesaving routine and outbreak vaccines for Africa.”

Regardless of where its funding comes from, Gavi is essential for everyone, including Americans, because diseases like measles don’t respect borders. Because global air travel shuffles millions of people around the world daily, an outbreak of a very contagious disease anywhere can become a threat everywhere. That makes U.S. funding for Gavi not just an act of generosity toward people in other countries, but one of protecting the U.S. as well.

The Gates Foundation has provided funding for The Conversation U.S. and provides funding for The Conversation internationally.

Amy E. Stambach has received funding from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the U.S. National Science Foundation, the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research and the U.S. Fulbright Scholars program. She has served as a CFR fellow with USAID.

– ref. US has slashed global vaccine funding – if philanthropy fills the gap, there could be some trade-offs – https://theconversation.com/us-has-slashed-global-vaccine-funding-if-philanthropy-fills-the-gap-there-could-be-some-trade-offs-260383

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Rosalyn R. LaPier, Professor of History, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

There is increasing evidence that “widespread starvation, malnutrition and disease” are driving a rise in hunger-related deaths“ in Gaza, a group of United Nations and aid organizations have repeatedly warned.

A July 29, 2025, alert by the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, a global initiative for improving food security and nutrition, reported that the “worst-case scenario of famine is currently playing out in the Gaza Strip,” as access to food and other essential items is dropping to an “unprecedented level.”

More than 500,000 Palestinians, one-fourth of Gaza’s population, are experiencing famine, the U.N. stated. And all 320,000 children under age 5 are “at risk of acute malnutrition, with serious lifelong physical and mental health consequences.”

U.N. experts have accused Israel of using starvation “as a savage weapon of war and constitutes crime under international law.”

They are calling on Israel to urgently “restore the UN humanitarian system in Gaza.”

Israel is not the only government in history to cut off access to food and water as a tool of war. As an Indigenous scholar who studies Indigenous history, I know that countries – including the United States and Canada – have used starvation to conquer Indigenous peoples and acquire their land. As a descendant of ancestors who endured forced starvation by the U.S. government, I also know of its enduring consequences.

Dismantling Indigenous food systems

From the founding of the U.S. and Canada through the 20th century, settler colonizers often tried to destroy Indigenous communities’ access to food, whether it was their farms and livestock or their ability to access land with wild animals – with the ultimate aim of forcing them off the land.

In 1791, President George Washington ordered Secretary of War Henry Knox to destroy farms and livestock of the Wea Tribe that lived along the Ohio River valley – a fertile area with a long history of growing corn, beans, squash and other fruits and vegetables.

Knox burned down their “corn fields, uprooted vegetable gardens, chopped down apple orchards, reduced every house to ash, [and] killed the Indians who attempted to escape,” historian Susan Sleeper-Smith noted in her 2018 book, “Indigenous Prosperity and American Conquest.” Women and children were taken hostage. The goal was to destroy villages and farms so that Indigenous people would leave and not return.

Seventy-two years later, General Kit Carson conducted a scorched-earth campaign to remove the Navajo from what is now Arizona and New Mexico. Similar to Knox, he destroyed their villages, crops and water supply, killed their livestock and chopped down over 4,000 peach trees. The U.S. military forced over 10,000 Navajo to leave their homeland.

Indigenous famine

By the late 19th century, numerous famines struck Indigenous communities in both the U.S. and Canada due to the “targeted, swift, wholesale destruction” of bison by settlers, according to historian Dan Flores; this, too, was done in an effort to acquire more Indigenous land. One U.S. military colonel stated at the time: “Kill every buffalo you can! Every buffalo dead is an Indian gone.”

There were an estimated 60 million bison before U.S. and Canadian settlement; by the 1890s, there were fewer than 1,000. Indigenous communities on the northern Great Plains in both the U.S. and Canada, who believed bison were a sacred animal and who relied on them for food, clothing and other daily needs, now had nothing to eat.

Historian James Daschuk revealed in his 2013 book, “Clearing the Plains: Disease, Politics of Starvation, and the Loss of Aboriginal Life,” that between 1878 to 1880, Canadian Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald did little to stop a multiyear famine on the Canadian Plains, in what is now Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Macdonald did not hide his intentions. He and his government, he said, were “doing all we can, by refusing food until the Indians are on the verge of starvation.”

Indigenous peoples on the Canadian Plains were forced to eat their dogs, horses, the carcasses of poisoned wolves and even their own moccasins. All the Indigenous peoples in the region – an estimated 26,500 people – suffered from the famine. Hundreds died from starvation and disease.

Malcolm C. Cameron, a House of Commons member at the time, accused his government of using “a policy of submission shaped by a policy of starvation” against Indigenous peoples. His denunciation did little to change their policy.

What my great-grandparents experienced

Many Indigenous peoples’ families in the U.S. and Canada have stories of surviving forced starvation by the government. Mine does, too.

In the winter of 1883-1884, my grandmother and grandfather’s parents experienced what is remembered as the “starvation winter” on the Blackfeet reservation in what is now Montana.

Similar to what happened in Canada, the near extinction of bison by American settlers led to a famine on the Blackfeet reservation. In an effort to slow the famine, Blackfeet leaders purchased food with their own money, but the U.S. government supply system delayed its arrival, creating a dire situation. Blackfeet leaders documented 600 deaths by starvation that one winter, while the U.S. government documented half that amount.

As historian John Ewers noted, the nearby “well-fed settlers” did nothing and did not offer “any effective aid to the Blackfeet.”

My family survived because a few men and women within our family were able to travel far off the reservation by horseback to hunt and harvest Native foods. I was told the story of the “starvation winter” my entire life, as were most Blackfeet. And I now share these stories with my own children.

Weapon of war

Thousands of children in Gaza are malnourished and dying of hunger-related causes.

Due to mounting international pressure, Israel is pausing its attacks in some parts of Gaza for a few hours each day to allow for some aid, but experts have noted it is not enough.

“We’re talking about 2 million people. It’s not 100 trucks or a pausing or a few hours of calm that is going to meet the needs of a population that has been starved for months,” Oxfam official Bushra Khalidi told The New York Times.

“This is no longer a looming hunger crisis – this is starvation, pure and simple,” Ramesh Rajasingham, director of the U.N.’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, said on Aug. 10, 2025.

Many might assume that the use of starvation as a weapon of war happened only in the past. Yet, in places like Gaza, it is happening now.

Rosalyn R. LaPier 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 dark history of forced starvation as a weapon of war against Indigenous peoples – https://theconversation.com/the-dark-history-of-forced-starvation-as-a-weapon-of-war-against-indigenous-peoples-262564

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Shelbie Witte, Dean, College of Education and Human Development, University of North Dakota

Each afternoon, a familiar conversation unfolds in many households.

“How was school today?”

“Fine.”

“What did you learn?”

“Nothing.”

In the classroom, teachers also struggle with stonewalling students. They’ll pose a question, only to be met with blank stares. They might incorporate “wait time” to give students a moment to gather their thoughts. But even then, their students offer brief or vague responses. Students, meanwhile, often get nervous about asking for clarification or diving deeper into a topic in front of their peers.

This can have consequences: Children who hesitate to ask or answer questions risk becoming adults with the same habits. Adults who avoid asking questions or avoid admitting what they don’t know can become willfully ignorant: They skirt the consequences of their lack of knowledge and the impact it can have on themselves and others.

With the start of school just around the corner, it’s an important time to create opportunities for children to stretch their conversational and curiosity muscles.

I’m an educator, researcher and parent who studies adolescent education and teacher preparation.

Here are five strategies parents and caregivers can use with children to make them better conversationalists and cultivate curiosity. The suggestions might appear straightforward. But they outline an easy way to avoid being iced out with “yes” or “no” answers.

1. Be creative with your questions

Part of the issue arises from asking questions that can be batted away with a one-word response.

Children want to know whether the adults in their lives are genuinely interested in their day. Asking the same, rote questions each day says otherwise.

Try shaking things up and ask more specific, open-ended questions instead: “What was the most interesting thing you did today?”

“If you could turn back time and change how you handled something at school today, what would it be?”

“If you were in charge of your class tomorrow, what would you teach?”

2. Engage with their curiosity

As important as it is for adults to ask questions that convey genuine interest, it’s just as valuable to engage with questions kids ask.

Young children ask “why” so often that adults can find themselves falling back on a classic retort: “Because I said so!”

When a “why” gets shut down, a child’s curiosity and wonder are also snuffed out. Instead, try acknowledging and engaging with this curiosity: “Good question. Here’s my thinking …” or “Let’s talk about why this is important …”

At the same time, you can also model other ways to ask questions: “I’ve wondered that too. Do you think it’s because …?”

3. Think out loud

When adults verbalize their thinking out loud, they’re showing children how their brains work and how problems get solved.

“Do you ever wonder why cats purr?”

“Do you think I can mix the dry and wet ingredients for the cake at the same time?”

“I noticed the flags were at half-staff today in front of your school. Could you ask someone to find out why?”

Doing so encourages children to listen to their inner voice – and to trust the questions that emerge, no matter how silly they might seem.

4. Be a seeker

Admitting you don’t know the answer to something can be uncomfortable, especially because children often expect their parents to know everything. But simply responding “I don’t know” to a question isn’t enough. It’s important to show children how to find answers, whether it’s through assembly manuals, recipes or a nutrition label.

If you come across a confusing passage in a book, you can show kids how to use the tools contained within the book: a glossary, table of contents or index.

Then there are the questions that don’t have a single, simple answer. You can explain how more than one internet search might be necessary and it’s probably not a great idea to simply accept the first answer that pops up.

By showing children that it’s OK to not know all the answers, you give them the confidence to ask more questions.

5. What I heard you say was …

Children can have a hard time articulating what they’re curious or confused about.

For this reason, active listening is a critical behavior to model. If you’re confused about what you’re hearing, rather than saying something like, “I don’t get what you’re saying,” you could repeat what you heard, and then ask, “Is that what you’re saying?”

If they give a meandering answer to your question – even if they go off topic – you can highlight what stood out to you to show that you were really listening: “What I really appreciated about your answer to my question was …”

Avoid the temptation to multitask when children approach you with questions. If you put your phone away, make eye contact and ask follow-up questions, kids will be more willing to keep asking questions in the future.

Children are born with a natural wonder and enthusiasm for learning. As Carl Sagan said, “The complex and subtle problems we face can only have complex and subtle solutions and we need people able to think complex and subtle thoughts. I believe a great many children have that capability if only they are encouraged.”

Prodding children to tap into their own curiosity while respecting their needs, limitations and fears can have a powerful impact on their ability to ask and answer questions about the world, big and small – or, at the very least, give them the confidence to try.

Shelbie Witte 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. Getting beyond answers like ‘fine’ and ‘nothing’: 5 simple ways to spark real talk with kids – https://theconversation.com/getting-beyond-answers-like-fine-and-nothing-5-simple-ways-to-spark-real-talk-with-kids-261823

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Donald Heflin, Executive Director of the Edward R. Murrow Center and Senior Fellow of Diplomatic Practice, The Fletcher School, Tufts University

A hastily arranged summit between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin is set for Aug. 15, 2025, in Alaska, where the two leaders will discuss a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will not attend, barring a last-minute change. The Conversation’s politics editor Naomi Schalit interviewed longtime diplomat Donald Heflin, now teaching at Tufts University’s Fletcher School, to get his perspective on the unconventional meeting and why it’s likely to produce, as he says, a photograph and a statement, but not a peace deal.

How do wars end?

Wars end for three reasons. One is that both sides get exhausted and decide to make peace. The second, which is more common: One side gets exhausted and raises its hand and says, “Yeah, we’re ready to come to the peace table.”

And then the third is – we’ve seen this happen in the Mideast – outside forces like the U.S. or Europe come in and say, “That’s enough. We’re imposing our will from the outside. You guys stop this.”

What we’ve seen in the Russia-Ukraine situation is neither side has shown a real willingness to go to the conference table and give up territory.

So the fighting continues. And the role that Trump and his administration are playing right now is that third possibility, an outside power comes in and says, “Enough.”

Now you have to look at Russia. Russia is maybe a former superpower, but a power, and it’s got nuclear arms and it’s got a big army. This is not some small, Middle Eastern country that the United States can completely dominate. They’re nearly a peer. So can you really impose your will on them and get them to come to the conference table in seriousness if they don’t want to? I kind of doubt it.

How does this upcoming Trump-Putin meeting fit into the history of peace negotiations?

The analogy a lot of people are using is the Munich Conference in 1938, where Great Britain met with Hitler’s Germany. I don’t like to make comparisons to Nazism or Hitler’s Germany. Those guys started World War II and perpetrated the Holocaust and killed 30 or 40 million people. It’s hard to compare anything to that.

But in diplomatic terms, we go back to 1938. Germany said, “Listen, we have all these German citizens living in this new country of Czechoslovakia. They’re not being treated right. We want them to become part of Germany.” And they were poised to invade.

The prime minister of Great Britain, Neville Chamberlain, went and met with Hitler in Munich and came up with an agreement by which the German parts of Czechoslovakia would become part of Germany. And that would be it. That would be all that Germany would ask for, and the West gave some kind of light security guarantees.

Czechoslovakia wasn’t there. This was a peace imposed on them.

And sure enough, you know, within a year or two, Germany was saying, “No, we want all of Czechoslovakia. And, P.S., we want Poland.” And thus World War II started.

Can you spell out the comparisons further?

Czechoslovakia wasn’t at the table. Ukraine’s not at the table.

Again, I’m not sure I want to compare Putin to Hitler, but he is a strongman authoritarian president with a big military.

Security guarantees were given to Czechoslavakia and not honored. The West gave Ukraine security guarantees when that country gave up its nuclear weapons in 1994. We told them, “If you’re going to be brave and give up your nuclear weapons, we’ll make sure you’re never invaded.” And they’ve been invaded twice since then, in 2014 and 2022. The West didn’t step up.

So history would tell us that the possibilities for a lasting peace coming out of this summit are pretty low.

What kind of expertise is required in negotiating a peace deal?

Here’s what usually happens in most countries that have a big foreign policy or national security establishment, and even in some smaller countries.

The political leaders come up with their policy goal, what they want to achieve.

And then they tell the career civil servants and foreign service officers and military people, “This is what we want to get at the negotiating table. How do we do that?”

And then the experts say, “Oh, we do this and we do that, and we’ll assign staff to work it out. We’ll work with our Russian counterparts and try to narrow the issues down, and we’ll come up with numbers and maps.”

With all the replacement of personnel since the inauguration, the U.S. not only has a new group of political appointees – including some, like Marco Rubio, who, generally speaking, know what they’re doing in terms of national security – but also many who don’t know what they’re doing. They’ve also fired the senior level of civil servants and foreign service officers, and a lot of the mid-levels are leaving, so that expertise isn’t there.

That’s a real problem. The U.S. national security establishment is increasingly being run by the B team – at best.

How will this be a problem when Trump meets Putin?

You have two leaders of two big countries like this, they usually don’t meet on a few days’ notice. It would have to be a real crisis.

This meeting could happen two or three weeks from now as easily as it could this week.

And if that happened, you would have a chance to prepare. You’d have a chance to get all kinds of documents in front of the American participants. You would meet with your Russian counterparts. You’d meet with Ukrainian counterparts, maybe some of the Western European countries. And when the two sides sat down at the table, it would be very professional.

They would have very similar briefing papers in front of them. The issues would be narrowed down.

None of that’s going to happen in Alaska. It’s going to be two political leaders meeting and deciding things, often driven by political considerations, but without any real idea of whether they can really be implemented or how they could be implemented.

Could a peace deal possibly be enforced?

Again, the situation is kind of haunted by the West never enforcing security guarantees promised in 1994. So I’m not sure how well this could be enforced.

Historically, Russia and Ukraine were always linked up, and that’s the problem. What’s Putin’s bottom line? Would he give up Crimea? No. Would he give up the part of eastern Ukraine that de facto had been taken over by Russia before this war even started? Probably not. Would he give up what they’ve gained since then? OK, maybe.

Then let’s put ourselves in Ukraine’s shoes. Will they want to give up Crimea? They say, “No.” Do they want to give up any of the eastern part of the country? They say, “No.”

I’m curious what your colleagues in the diplomatic world are saying about this upcoming meeting.

People who understand the process of diplomacy think that this is very amateurish and is unlikely to yield real results that are enforceable. It will yield some kind of statement and a photo of Trump and Putin shaking hands. There will be people who believe that this will solve the problem. It won’t.

Donald Heflin 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. This isn’t how wars are ended − a veteran diplomat explains how Trump-Putin summit is amateurish and politically driven – https://theconversation.com/this-isnt-how-wars-are-ended-a-veteran-diplomat-explains-how-trump-putin-summit-is-amateurish-and-politically-driven-262995