Category: Analysis

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Matthew Powell, Teaching Fellow in Strategic and Air Power Studies, University of Portsmouth

Russia has announced it will no longer uphold its obligations under the intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) treaty, signed by the Soviet Union and the United States in December 1987. The decision has raises questions about the future of nuclear deterrence and the danger of global nuclear proliferation.

The timing of this announcement from the Kremlin must be considered. It was just days after a spat on social media between the US president, Donald Trump, and former Russian president Dymitri Medvedev, a strong ally of Vladimir Putin.

Responding to the US president’s threats to punish Russia for its war in Ukraine, Medvedev took to X on July 28 to warn Trump that: “Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war. Not between Russia and Ukraine, but with his own country.” Medvedev added: “Don’t go down the Sleepy Joe road!”

Trump responded by announcing that the US would redeploy two of its nuclear submarines into closer striking distance with Russia.

Russia’s decision also comes just three days before the deadline of August 8 set by Trump for Russia to agree to a ceasefire in its war with Ukraine.

It’s also important to remember that, while the Russian withdrawal from the INF treaty is attracting attention now, the US withdrew from the same treaty in August 2019, during Trump’s first presidency. So it’s tempting to see all this as diplomatic posturing.

However, when it comes to nuclear weapons – and given the rising global tensions – such moves must be taken seriously.

Arms limitation treaties

The INF treaty was part of a series of agreements between the US and Soviet Union that began with the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (Salt) of 1972 and 1979. These led to agreements to reduce the strategic weapons held by both sides, including intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and ballistic missile defences.

This was then followed in 1987 by the INF treaty, which was struck between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. Both sides agreed to reduce their stockpile of ground-based ballistic and cruise missiles with a range of between 500km to 5,500km (an entire category of nuclear weapon).

They also put in place provisions for inspection to ensure both were keeping to the agreement. Thanks to the treaty, 2,692 missiles were eliminated.

Despite these agreements, there remain significant stockpiles of nuclear weapons, with Russia and the US the most heavily armed nuclear powers. The size of their stockpiles is difficult to assess with complete accuracy, but the latest estimate by the non-profit Arms Control Association is that Russia is the most heavily armed nuclear power with 5,580 warheads, while the US maintains 5,225.

Both powers operate what is known as the “nuclear triad” of air, land and sea-launched systems. Russia’s decision to withdraw from the INF treaty only concerns ground-based missile systems, which in 1987 had the capability of striking targets in Europe withing a short period of time. Air- or sea-launched nuclear weapons were not seen at the time as a major concern to European security so were not covered by the treaty.

The other remaining non-proliferation treaty, New Start, which limits the US and Russia’s total number of deployed strategic missiles, warheads and launchers, does cover air and sea-launched weapons. However, its future is also in doubt.

Russia claims to still abide by the central limits of the agreement, despite having suspended official participation in February 2023. But the deal is due to expire in February 2026 and there are real concerns whether it will be possible for new negotiations to take place given the Russo-Ukrainian War and the current state of relations between Washington and Moscow.

There is also currently no treaty that covers the amount of tactical nuclear weapons a nation can hold. These are designed to be used on the battlefield (rather than against long-range targets) and, as they have never been deployed, it is not clear what damage they could do to a nation’s own forces as well as the enemy. This raises interesting questions with regards to the proximity of Nato members to Ukraine and Russia.

Defence systems

In May 2025, Trump announced a funding package of US$175 billion (£131 billion) for the development of a new “Golden Dome” defensive system that he said would render Russian strategic nuclear weapons redundant. Critics have pointed out that the US attempted something similar before without success, the Reagan-era “Star Wars” defence system, which ended up being scrapped as too expensive.

Missile defence systems against nuclear weapons do exist, such as the US ground-based midcourse defense system, which aims to track and shoot down incoming nuclear missiles. But these have never actually been tested in operational conditions. So the extent to which they provide guaranteed protection against every nuclear warhead is not known.

Russia’s decision to end compliance with the INF treaty should be viewed by the west with a great deal of concern. But it should also be seen in the context of previous Russian statements about its nuclear arsenal and willingness to use it, as well as the recent changes to the country’s nuclear doctrine to make it easier for Russia to use these weapons.

The Kremlin has made several changes to this doctrine since it started the war in Ukraine, usually to warn Kyiv’s western allies of the potential consequences of supplying more powerful and advanced weapons for use against Russia.

The true power of nuclear weapons in the 21st century is not necessarily their awesome destructive capacity, but the way that awesome destructive capacity can be used by nuclear-armed states to manoeuvre and protect their political power.

Matthew Powell 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. Russia’s decision to pull out of nuclear treaty makes the world more dangerous – https://theconversation.com/russias-decision-to-pull-out-of-nuclear-treaty-makes-the-world-more-dangerous-262742

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Chris Marley, Senior Lecturer in Exercise Physiology, University of South Wales

A greasy takeaway may seem like an innocent Friday night indulgence. But our recent research suggests even a single high-fat meal could impair blood flow to the brain, potentially increasing the risk of stroke and dementia.

Dietary fat is an important part of our diet. It provides us with a concentrated source of energy, transports vitamins and when stored in the body, protects our organs and helps keep us warm. The two main types of fat that we consume are saturated and unsaturated (monounsaturated and polyunsaturated), which are differentiated by their chemical composition.

But these fats have different effects on our body. For example, it is well established that eating a meal that is high in saturated fat, such as that self-indulgent Friday night takeaway pizza, can be bad for our blood vessels and heart health. And these effects are not simply confined to the heart.

The brain has limited energy stores, which means it is heavily reliant on a continuous supply of blood delivering oxygen and glucose to maintain normal function.

One of the ways the body maintains this supply is through a process known as “dynamic cerebral autoregulation”. This process ensures that blood flow to the brain remains stable despite everyday changes in blood pressure, such as standing up and exercising. It’s like having shock absorbers that help keep our brains cool under pressure.

But when this process is impaired, those swings in blood pressure become harder to manage. That can mean brief episodes of too little or too much blood reaching the brain. Over time, this increases the risk of developing conditions like stroke and dementia.

What role might diet play?

After eating a meal high in saturated fat, levels of fat in the blood rise and peak after around four hours. At the same time, blood vessels become stiffer and lose their ability to relax and expand. This restricts blood flow around the body. But little is known about what happens to the brain during this time and how well its blood supply is protected.

To address this for the first time, we recruited 20 young men between the ages of 18 and 35, and 21 men between 60 and 80. We measured how well blood vessels linked to heart and brain health worked before, and four hours following, consumption of a meal high in saturated fat.

We assessed how well a blood vessel in the arm could open up in response to increased blood flow to obtain an indication of heart health. This is a method known as “flow-mediated dilatation”.

To evaluate how well blood vessels in the brain could cope with swings in blood pressure, our participants performed body-weight squats. We used ultrasound to determine how well blood flowed through vessels during both methods.

The test meal was a milkshake, which we called “the brain bomb” because it consisted mostly of heavy whipping cream. The drink contained 1,362 calories and 130g of fat, mimicking the fat load of a fast-food takeaway.

Our findings confirmed previous research that has shown that a high-fat meal impairs the ability of the blood vessels linked to heart health to open in both young and old participants. These impairments reduced the brain’s ability to buffer changes in blood pressure. This was more pronounced (by about 10%) in the older adults, suggesting that older brains may be more vulnerable to the effects of the meal.

Although we didn’t directly test for the long-term effects of a high-fat meal on mental functioning in this study, we have previously shown that such a meal increases free radicals (unstable, cell-damaging molecules) and decreases nitric oxide (molecules that help blood vessels relax and open up to transport oxygen and glucose around the body).

This may explain the reduced blood flow regulation we observed in our recent study.

This has important clinical implications. While an occasional takeaway is unlikely to cause harm on its own, our results suggest that even one fatty meal has an immediate effect on the body.

Our study highlights the importance of consuming a diet that is low in saturated fat to protect not only our heart health, but also our brain health. This is particularly important for older adults whose brains appear to be more vulnerable to the effects of such a meal and are already at increased risk of stroke and neurodegenerative diseases.

The NHS recommendeds that men consume no more than 30g of saturated fat a day, while women should consume no more than 20g. Yet many of us routinely exceed that, particularly during weekend takeaways, pub lunches or fast-food splurges.

What’s more, we may spend much of our waking lives in a post-meal state. This period, known as “post-prandial lipaemia”, is when fat levels are elevated, and when the body, it seems, may be most at risk.

Food for thought

There’s still so much more we need to learn about this topic.

Public health guidance recommends swapping saturated fats for polyunsaturated ones. These are found in foods like oily fish, walnuts and seeds, which are associated with better heart and brain health over the long term. But we don’t yet know how the brain responds to a single meal that is high in polyunsaturated fat.

Nor do we know how the female brain responds to a high-fat meal. This is a crucial gap in our knowledge since women face a greater risk of stroke and dementia in later life compared to men.

Our study offers a timely reminder that diet doesn’t just shape our long-term health. It also affects our body and brain in real time. And as we’re learning, when it comes to protecting brain health, every meal may count.

D.M.B. is supported by a Royal Society Wolfson Research Fellowship (Grant No. WM170007). D.M.B. is Editor-in-Chief of Experimental Physiology, Chair of the Life Sciences Working Group, member of the Human Spaceflight and Exploration Science Advisory Committee to the European Space Agency, member of the Space Exploration Advisory Committee to the UK and Swedish National Space Agencies and member of the National Cardiovascular Network for Wales and South-East Wales Vascular Network. D.M.B. is also affiliated to Bexorg, Inc. (USA) focused on the technological development of novel biomarkers of cerebral bioenergetic function and structural damage in humans.

Chris Marley 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. We fed people a milkshake with 130g of fat to see what it did to their brains – here’s what we learned – https://theconversation.com/we-fed-people-a-milkshake-with-130g-of-fat-to-see-what-it-did-to-their-brains-heres-what-we-learned-259961

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tom Harper, Lecturer in International Relations, University of East London

Chinese weapons are starting to show up in the world’s biggest conflict zones, underscoring its technological advancement and investment in this area.

In the 1990s and 2000s, Chinese weapons systems and military equipment were seen as being little more than imitations of old Russian or even Soviet systems. China was largely reliant on exports from Moscow and lacked the capacity to create its own systems.

However, with China’s recent economic development and technological growth, state-run Chinese firms are now increasingly significant military players. Reports suggest that China now has significantly more advanced weapons systems. An example of this is a J-20 fighter flying seemingly undetected through Tsushima Strait in June 2025, in range of US, Japanese and South Korean radar systems.

As conflicts, including the war in Ukraine, are increasingly dominated by drone warfare, China’s drone technology has become more sophisticated. It has also made advances in developing hypersonic missiles and stealth technology.

China’s recent moves in the Pacific show off its military power, most recently its unannounced naval exercises off the coast of Australia. The exercise caused significant disruption to flights in the Tasman Sea. And China’s fleet sailed close to sensitive military sites in Australia including the Amberley airbase, which hosts the US’s B-2 stealth bomber fleet. This also shows how bold China has become, as well as illustrating how sensitive assets are in striking range of China’s forces.

Latest Chinese weaponry

Chinese weapons systems were in action in the Indo-Pakistani conflict in June. Pakistan used several Chinese-made J-10C fighters to shoot down several Indian jets, most notably the French-made Rafale fighter.

The Asian conflict sparked interest in the Chinese jet, with Egypt and Nigeria now showing interest in buying the J-10. A year earlier at the Zhuhai airshow in China, several Middle Eastern nations, including the UAE, made significant purchases of Chinese systems, following up earlier purchases of Chinese drones and fighter jets.

Chinese military companies now may have also found another potential client – Iran. Several Iranian military officials were recently photographed in the cockpit of a J-10 at the Zhuhai airshow.

The history of why China has invested significantly in military hardware is significant. Chinese military weaknesses were highlighted during the Gulf war and the third Taiwan Strait crisis in 1996. This saw China conduct missile tests in the Taiwan Strait as a signal to Taipei, which was seen as moving towards independence.

Washington deployed two carrier groups in response, consisting of two aircraft carriers and a large number of escorts. These significantly outclassed China’s ships, with more firepower and more advanced technology. At that time, Beijing was dependent on Soviet-made equipment. Its limitations were highlighted by the Chinese navy’s inability to detect US submarines in the Taiwan Strait.

The need to upgrade its military led to a continuous 10% increase in the Chinese defence budget, as well as widespread military reforms. These occurred under Jiang Zemin, chairman of the Central Military Commission (the supreme military body for the Chinese Communist Party) from 1989 to 2004, and president of China from 1993 to 2003. These changes laid the foundations for China’s modernised military systems today.

Technological power

China’s military modernisation has also been representative of its wider investment in technology. With some Chinese technology, such as AI chatbot DeepSeek, now challenging western domination.

Scholars have long argued that economic power leads to greater military power and a greater global role.

With the conflicts in Ukraine, south Asia, and the Middle East showing the limitations of more established European and Russian hardware, there are growing opportunities for Chinese weapons technology. It’s also likely that Chinese military systems will find customers among countries that are not on Donald Trump’s list of favoured nations, such as Iran. Should Iran be able to equip itself with Chinese systems, it will be better placed to go head-to-head with Israel.

All of these military advancements have given Beijing greater confidence as well as making the strategic position of the US and its allies in Asia more precarious. While the J-20 demonstrated the vulnerability of the first island chain, (a string of strategically important islands in east Asia) the latest innovation, the J-36, could reshape aerial warfare in the region. Integrated with AI and linked with drone swarms, the system has the potential to serve as a flying server, creating an integrated system not unlike the one recently used by Pakistan, but with even more advanced technologies.

All of these military manoeuvres show how China is becoming a significant player in global conflicts, and how this may give it more strength to challenge the current world order.

Tom Harper 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. China’s increased military might gives it new weapon in challenging global order – https://theconversation.com/chinas-increased-military-might-gives-it-new-weapon-in-challenging-global-order-262731

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Michelle McManus, Professor of Safeguarding and Violence Prevention, Co-Director of the Institute for Children’s Futures, Manchester Metropolitan University

Parenting over the summer holidays, especially when juggling work and childcare, comes with significant challenges. One of those is screen time and staying safe online.

Children’s time online has the potential to soar in the summer, and when you’re doing your best to work from home with the kids around, it’s pretty difficult to monitor what they’re doing on the tablet or TV. Devices help us get through the day, but they also open the door to risks we may not fully see.

I get it because I live it. I’m a safeguarding expert who researches child online safety, and I’m also the parent of two children currently on their school summer holidays.

According to a 2025 Ofcom report on child media use, over half (55%) of under-13s are already using social media, although many of these apps – such as TikTok, Snapchat and Instagram – have a 13+ age limit.

Among older children, around one in five (21%) of 13- to 17-year-olds are now livestreaming their own videos, adding a further layer of visibility and vulnerability. Around 30% of children aged between 13 and 17 couldn’t correctly identify a fake social media profile.

So how do we keep kids safe online this summer without becoming full-time tech experts? Here are four real-life scenarios and some practical ways to stay ahead.

You’re working from home… and they’re on YouTube

You finally have 15 quiet minutes to answer that backlog of emails. Meanwhile, your child is watching YouTube in the next room.

Even with the best intentions, YouTube’s autoplay and content suggestions can lead children down unexpected rabbit holes. According to Ofcom, YouTube is the most-watched online platform for children aged three to 17 – and therefore likely to be one of the first platforms where they may come across unsafe or confusing content.

Use YouTube Kids for younger children, and set restricted mode on regular YouTube for older ones. Turn off autoplay, which automatically plays a new video after the one you chose finishes, and check the watch history regularly.

Watch a few videos with them when you have a moment, and make it routine to ask: “What’s the funniest (or weirdest, or most interesting) video you watched today?” Openness beats surveillance every time.

Even among younger children, Ofcom’s data shows that social media is often used unsupervised, highlighting the importance of settings, filters and shared conversations about what they’re watching.

Your kids’ friends come over, and bring their phones

You might have set your own digital rules at home: no Snapchat or TikTok yet, for instance. Then a friend visits and pulls out their phone, casually opening apps your child isn’t allowed to use.

This kind of peer-led digital exposure is a challenge for parents, especially when visiting devices come with open access and fewer restrictions. Establish clear and simple house rules that are easy to apply to all devices, such as “No phones upstairs”. Limiting where children use their devices is helpful because it encourages openness and reduces the risk of hidden or unsupervised activity.

Talk with your child about why these rules matter: they might encounter age-inappropriate content, for instance. Make communal areas like the living room or kitchen tech-visible zones: places where screens are used in plain sight. This helps normalise check-ins and casual supervision, so it feels natural rather than intrusive.

What matters most is that children feel safe talking to you when something doesn’t feel right, whether it’s their phone or someone else’s.

“Everyone’s on Snapchat – why can’t I be?”

This is the classic peer-pressure moment. Your child tells you they’re the only one without a particular app and they just want to stay in touch with friends over the holidays.

This exact situation came up in our household. My daughter told me all her friends were using Snapchat, and she didn’t want to feel left out. Instead of simply saying no, I invited her to do some research first. She wrote a short summary explaining why she wanted the app, what the benefits were for her, what the potential dangers were and how she would reduce those risks.

She took the task seriously – she wanted the app! It turned into a great learning moment for both of us and gave her a sense of ownership and responsibility.

If this comes up in your household, you could try the same approach. Ask your child to present a case for any new app, including how they plan to stay safe. Discuss age limits (Snapchat is rated 13+) and why they exist.

You can say no to their request, but talk about why, and perhaps make a plan for when they can use it. If you agree, explore the app together. Review privacy settings, turn off location visibility, and look at any built-in safety tools.

When children feel informed and included in the process, they’re more likely to come to you when something doesn’t feel right.

You’re not a tech expert – and you’re worried

Let’s face it, many of us feel outpaced by the variety of new platforms. But here’s the truth: you don’t need to master every app. What matters most is creating a home culture where communication is open, boundaries are clear, and digital safety is part of everyday life, not something reserved for a crisis.

Set screen time limits early and revisit them together as your child grows. Where possible, link accounts, use family management tools or set up parental controls (even older children can benefit from some guardrails). Don’t be afraid to pick up your child’s phone and scroll through it, but with them, not behind their back. Openness builds trust.

If something feels off, talk about it. And if you’re unsure, ask for help, from schools, other parents, or one of the many expert resources available.

You don’t need to know everything. You just need to stay curious, stay involved and let your child know that if something goes wrong, you’re the first person they can turn to for support.

Michelle McManus has received funding from Home Office, Department for Education and National Independent Safeguarding Board Wales. She is also currently seconded as part of a Chancellor’s Fellowship at Manchester Met, with the VKPP, which is part of the National Centre for VAWG and Public Protection.

– ref. A parents’ guide to keeping kids safe online in the summer holidays – https://theconversation.com/a-parents-guide-to-keeping-kids-safe-online-in-the-summer-holidays-262361

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Leonie Fleischmann, Senior Lecturer in International Politics, City St George’s, University of London

Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu is reportedly considering an expansion of fighting and a “full occupation of the Gaza Strip”.

There is strong opposition to the idea from within Israel’s senior military ranks, amid growing international condemnation of Israel for the increasingly dire humanitarian disaster in Gaza. Yet Netanyahu is expected to present the plan to his cabinet to capture the last areas of the strip not held by the Israeli military, including areas where the remaining hostages are believed to be being held.

A majority of Israelis want the war to end and see any remaining live hostages returned safely. But a section of the population are preparing for the very real possibility that their dreams of resettling Gaza will be realised. Netanyahu’s decision is not necessarily driven by the same motives as the would-be settlers, but the consequences on the ground may end up aligning.

This reflects similar dynamics in the history of Israeli settlement building. Based on security rationale, successive Israeli governments have set about controlling the Palestinian population.

In the wake of military conquest, settlers have moved in to establish outposts. Gradually, these outposts have become settlements as families have flooded in, whether driven by secular Zionist ideology, encouraged by cheaper properties, stirred through religious beliefs, or inspired by dreams of a better quality of life.

The Gaza Strip was first occupied by Israel at the beginning of what became known as the “six-day war”. Responding to intelligence reports that its neighbours were mobilising against it, Israel launched a series of pre-emptive strikes against Syria, Jordan and Egypt.

On June 5 1967, Israel Defense Forces (IDF) major general, Yeshayahu Gavish, commanded his troops to occupy the Gaza Strip, which was then under the control of Egypt. He did so in defiance of orders from Israel’s then defence minister, Moshe Dayan, who had warned against being “stuck with a quarter of a million Palestinians” in an area “bristled with problems … a nest of wasps”.

But once it had moved IDF troops into the Strip, the Israeli government followed a policy of breaking up Palestinian-populated areas by establishing military outposts, which then became civilian settlements.

In 1970, Israel’s then Labour government established two “Nahal settlements”. Named after the Nahal brigade, founded by Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben Gurion, these settlements were agricultural communities established by military force. By 2005, there were 21 civilian settlements in the strip, with a total estimated population of 8,600, living alongside a Palestinian population of around 1.3 million.

The settlers’ ideology at that stage did not include the sort of racist anti-Arab sentiments that have become prolific in the ultranationalist corners of the settler movement. But the disparities between the overpopulated Palestinian refugee camps and the flourishing Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip – protected by IDF troops – led to growing Palestinian resentment.

Disengagement from Gaza

Things began to change with the second intifada (uprising), which erupted in 2000 and led to a reassessment of Israel’s settlement policy. Security considerations and a desire to reduce confrontations between the IDF and Palestinian civilians necessitated a new policy of separation.

The Israeli government also wanted to maintain a majority-Jewish population in areas under its control. So the idea of separating off majority Arab areas under the control of a Palestinian authority was appealing to the government of the then prime minister, Ariel Sharon.

Sharon had previously been known as the father of the settlement project. But in 2004 he ordered the evacuation of all Israeli settlements from the Gaza Strip and four settlements in the north of the West Bank, a project which was accomplished in 2005.

The previously consistent alignment between the settler movement and the state came to an abrupt end. While the majority of Israelis supported the plan, the religious right was violently opposed.

The Jerusalem Post reported: “For Religious Zionists, who link Torah, people, and land, the state’s bulldozers felt like a theological betrayal.”

The “disengagement plan” had significant consequences on the settler movement which then fragmented. A militant racist wing emerged, which has since grown in power and influence.

After the 2022 Israeli national elections, two of the wing’s leaders, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, were included in Netanyahu’s cabinet. The pair have been able to use their leverage over the prime minister to influence the trajectory of the war in Gaza.

The call for renewed Jewish settlement

Since Israel began its onslaught in Gaza, settler groups have been calling for the resettlement of Gaza. These radicals go beyond the families that were evacuated in 2005. They include the Nachala settler organisation whose raison d’etre is establishing Jewish settlements to control the West Bank and Gaza.

The liberal newspaper Haaretz recently reported a Nachala-organised march by thousands of Israelis on July 30 to the borders of Gaza, calling for the settlement of areas of the northern Gaza Strip currently occupied by the IDF. Operational plans to establish settlements have been drawn up and 1,000 families have signed up to reestablish a Jewish community in Gaza.

It’s not yet clear whether Netanyahu will order the full occupation of Gaza – or whether he plans to allow the establishment of civilian settlements there. But historical precedent makes this a very real possibility.

Leonie Fleischmann 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. Israel’s plans for a full occupation of Gaza would pave the way for Israeli resettlement – https://theconversation.com/israels-plans-for-a-full-occupation-of-gaza-would-pave-the-way-for-israeli-resettlement-262723

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Glenn Burgess, Professor of Early Modern History, University of Hull

During the early years of the second world war, George Orwell believed that England’s revolutionary moment had arrived. The defeat at Dunkirk had discredited the country’s ruling elite. Their bungling had left England on the verge of invasion and defeat.

To win the war and defeat fascism, a social revolution was needed, as Orwell explained in his socialist manifesto, The Lion and the Unicorn (1941). Now was the time, he argued, to turn “this war into a revolutionary war and England into a socialist democracy”.

Orwell believed this revolution, though likely to be violent, would also conserve much, setting free “the native genius of the English people”. England’s long liberal tradition would be retained and enhanced, and the revolution would be more patriotic than class-based:

From the English-speaking culture … a society of free and equal human beings will ultimately arise.

However, while Orwell never overtly abandoned his commitment to socialist revolution, he quickly came to lose heart in its imminence. He came to think that the war would defeat fascism but not totalitarianism, and that real socialism still lay a long way in the future.

In this mood, he wrote Animal Farm in the last months of 1943 and first half of 1944 – with much support and possibly substantial input from his first wife, Eileen O’Shaughnessy. August 17 2025 marks the 80th anniversary of the novel’s publication.

This article is part of Rethinking the Classics. The stories in this series offer insightful new ways to think about and interpret classic books and artworks. This is the canon – with a twist.

In September 1944, just after completing Animal Farm (it wouldn’t be published for another year), Orwell explained some of his wider purposes in a letter to the American intellectual and fellow liberal socialist, Dwight Macdonald.

The Soviet Union, Orwell thought, really did provide people with hope in a socialist future, and for that reason it would not be good to see it destroyed. But at the same time, working people in the west needed “to become disillusioned about it and to realise that they must build their own Socialist movement without Russian interference”. The success of this might then have a “regenerative influence upon Russia” itself.

Orwell, Zamyatin and Animal Farm

It was while writing Animal Farm that Orwell first learned something of substance about the Russian author Yevgeny Zamyatin and his dystopian satire, We, published in 1924.

That book became a significant influence for Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949). Though Orwell did not read We in full until late 1945, he knew a little about the book from Gleb Struve’s anthology 25 Years of Soviet Russian Literature in early 1944, and wrote to Struve to tell him it had whetted his appetite to know more about Zamyatin.

Struve’s anthology quotes a passage that Orwell would pick out as important. In it, one character declares that “our revolution was the last and there can never be another”. To which his interlocutor responds: “Just like numbers, revolutions are infinite and there can never be a final one.”

When he adapted Animal Farm for the radio in 1946, Orwell had Napoleon the pig say: “When there has been one rebellion, there can never be another.” But he must surely have had in mind the reply: “There can always be another.”

It was again to Macdonald that Orwell spelled out the implications of Animal Farm in December 1946. Though “primarily” a “satire on the Russian revolution”, Orwell was clear it had “wider application” as a denunciation of “that kind of revolution (violent, conspiratorial) that can only lead to a change of masters”. Revolutions can improve things, he wrote, but only when “the masses … know how to chuck out their leaders as soon as … they have done their job”.

Orwell had earlier written in September 1944 that “all revolutions are failures, but they are not all the same failure”. They all fail because perfection is beyond human grasp – the challenge is to fail better and in ways that improve things, as he told Macdonald:

If people think I am defending the status quo [in Animal Farm], that is … because they have grown pessimistic and assume that there is no alternative except dictatorship and or laissez faire capitalism.

Animal Farm is one of those very short and very accessible books that defy easy interpretation. Classic examples are Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince (1532) and Thomas More’s Utopia (1516). Though political, they are not manifestos, unlike Orwell’s The Lion and the Unicorn – that book sought to mobilise people behind a clear vision of an attainable better future.

Animal Farm, in contrast, is a melancholy reflection on the corruption of revolution, and the need to keep looking for a better one.

Beyond the classics

As part of the Rethinking the Classics series, we’re asking our experts to recommend a book or artwork that tackles similar themes to the canonical work in question, but isn’t (yet) considered a classic itself. Here is Glenn Burgess’s suggestion:

Orwell could not have read anything by Yevgeny Zamyatin other than his dystopian novel, We. It is not much easier for us. Little of Zamyatin’s other fiction is currently in print in English translation, apart from a very recent collection of a few stories from Alma Classics.

His two short satires of middle-class English sanctimonious hypocrisy, which Orwell would have greatly enjoyed, were once available as Islanders and the Fisher of Men. Penguin also used to publish a collection of Zamyatin’s diverse short fiction: The Dragon and Other Stories. This contains, among much else, “two tales for grown-up children” (a description that could apply to Animal Farm). One of them is a two-page story, The Church of God, which tells what happens when violent acts are used to pursue noble (in this case, holy) purposes.

Like Animal Farm, the story is a reflection on the relationship of ends to means. Zamyatin’s stories include more on this theme. He was an early supporter of the Bolsheviks, and an equally early critic of the Bolshevik revolution.

This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

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.

Glenn Burgess 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. Animal Farm at 80: George Orwell’s enduring commitment to socialist revolution – https://theconversation.com/animal-farm-at-80-george-orwells-enduring-commitment-to-socialist-revolution-251952