English – Page 4 – MIL Submissions Engine

February 27, 2026

How China is betting cheap AI will get the world hooked on its tech

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Nicholas Morieson, Research Fellow, Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation, Deakin University

Artificial intelligence (AI) is at a very Chinese time in its life. Recent moves from Chinese AI labs are throwing the dominance of American “frontier labs” such as Google and OpenAI into question.

Last week ByteDance, the company behind TikTok, released an AI video-generating tool called Seedance 2.0 which produces high-quality film-like clips from text prompts, with a casual disregard for copyright concerns. This week Anthropic, the US company behind the chatbot Claude, said three Chinese AI labs created thousands of fake accounts to harvest Claude’s answers in a practice called “distillation” which can be used to improve AI models.

These events have led to suggestions that China may be gaining the upper hand in the battle to dominate AI. So, is China winning the “AI race”?

Cheap, widely used tools

While most advanced frontier models are still made by American companies, China is pushing hard to develop cheap, widely used AI tools, which could create global dependence on Chinese platforms.

Reuters reports the industry is bracing for a “flurry” of low-cost Chinese AI models, with Chinese systems repeatedly driving usage costs down.

What’s the plan? China’s official AI policy documents suggest China sees AI as “a new engine for building China into both a manufacturing and cyber superpower”, and “a new engine of economic development”.

Since 2017, China has recognised that the technology is at the centre of “international competition”. “By 2030,” one key policy document says, China’s AI “technology and application should achieve world-leading levels, making China the world’s primary AI innovation center”.

This focus on becoming the dominant player in AI helps explain why Chinese firms are pushing hard on price. If you can make your AI cheap enough, you might just make it globally ubiquitous.

Cost helps determine who adopts AI first, and which models are first implemented in software and services. Even if the United States remains ahead on most elite benchmarks, Chinese products could still become globally influential if they are widely used and widely depended upon.

High-tech soft power

But China does not present its AI technology to the world as only benefiting itself. Instead, it’s pitched as a contribution to humanity.

A 2019 statement of “governance principles” from a national AI governance expert committee argues that AI development should enhance “the common well-being of humanity” and “serve the progress of human civilization”.

These phrases portray AI as a technology that advances the human story itself, rather than only serving Chinese interests. It suggests Chinese AI leadership is good for everyone.

This is an example of Chinese soft power. Tools such as Seedance may threaten Hollywood’s business model, but they do something else too. High-quality, low-cost generative media can spread quickly.

If Chinese systems become widespread, they can influence creators, developer habits, and platform dependencies, especially in non-Western markets that need affordable tools and may dislike American tech dominance.

The spread of the ‘Chinese model’

For liberal democracies such as the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada, the growth of Chinese AI tools creates a strategic headache. It will not be easy to manage security concerns about Chinese technology while avoiding technological isolation if Chinese AI tools become widely adopted.

There is a darker side to China’s AI tools. US think-tank Freedom House describes China as having the world’s “worst conditions for internet freedom”, and suggests other nations are now “embracing the ‘Chinese model’ of extensive censorship and automated surveillance”.

In 2022, the Cyberspace Administration of China issued rules for the algorithms that curate news feeds and short video platforms. Providers are required to “uphold mainstream value orientations” and “vigorously disseminate positive energy”.

These algorithms are important because they shape what people see and what is suppressed. As a result, these rules suggest the Chinese government is deeply concerned with controlling information across its social media platforms and AI tools.

A dilemma for third parties

Not every Chinese AI tool is a propaganda weapon. Rather, China is building world-class AI technology within an authoritarian system that prioritises the control of information.

This means China’s ability to make generative AI commercially powerful will likely also, despite its claims about serving “human civilisation”, make censorship and narrative management cheaper and easier.

China’s business and soft-power model is a much bigger story than just Seedance’s cavalier attitude towards copyright or Anthropic’s concerns about intellectual property. China’s goal is to build AI tools that rival those created by America’s tech giants, and to make them inexpensive and adopted globally.

For other countries, this may create a dilemma. Once a technology becomes a standard, it can be difficult to justify using a different product.

The question that remains is whether liberal democracies can adopt China’s low-cost products without drifting into dependence on systems shaped by an authoritarian political model.

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

– ref. How China is betting cheap AI will get the world hooked on its tech – https://theconversation.com/how-china-is-betting-cheap-ai-will-get-the-world-hooked-on-its-tech-276878

February 26, 2026

Four years of bitter conflict in Ukraine

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

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

It would be wrong to say Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, four years ago this week, came out of the blue. For months there had been worrying reports of a huge build-up of Russian troops on Ukraine’s border. Through the winter of 2021/22, Moscow scoffed at suggestions it was planning to invade its neighbour as “alarmist”. But at the same time the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, was making aggressive noises, issuing demands for Nato to pull its troops back from its eastern front and calling for a ban on Ukraine’s accession to the western alliance.

And on February 21, he made a speech in which he called Ukraine “an inalienable part of our own history, culture and spiritual space” which had been taken over by a neo-Nazi “puppet regime” that should be removed.

Still, it was a shock to wake in the early hours of Thursday February 22 to learn that Putin had launched what he called a “special military operation … to protect people who have been subjected to abuse and genocide by the Kyiv regime for eight years”. Images began to emerge of tanks and armoured vehicles with the now-familiar “Z” (a Russian victory symbol) streaming across the borders from Russia and Belarus, the latter the shortest route to the Ukrainian capital Kyiv.

A diagram showing the build-up of Russian troops near the Ukraine borders at the end of 2021. — How Russian forces assembled in the winter of 2021/22, according to US intelligence sources.
US intelligence reported in the Washington Post.

Four years and about 1.8 million casualties later, Russia has gained about 75,000sq km of territory, about 12% of Ukraine to add to the 7% it had occupied since it annexed Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine in 2014. The war has developed into a “meat-grinder” – Russia’s advances have been glacially slow and very costly, an estimated 78 casualties per square kilometre in 2025.

But if, as many insist, the war on the battlefield itself has slowed into something resembling a stalemate, the geopolitical shifts that have accompanied the conflict have been considerable – particularly since Donald Trump was elected for a second term as US president, promising to end the conflict, “in a single day”. Of course, like many of his campaign promises this has proved to be pie in the sky, but the US president’s cordial relations with Putin, his decision to curtail US financial aid to Kyiv and his apparent support for many of the Russian president’s war aims have come as an unpleasant surprise for Ukraine and its allies.

Another big feature of this war, the biggest armed conflict in Europe since 1945, has been the huge technological changes we’ve seen employed on the battlefield. Stefan Wolff and Tetyana Malyarenko call it the “drone war”, as both sides have become heavily reliant on unmanned autonomous vehicles (UAVs) for both combat and reconnaisance. Wolff – an expert in international security at the University of Birmingham – and Malyarenko – of the National University Odesa Law Academy – have been regular contributors to our coverage of the conflict since February 2022.

This week they are part of a panel of experts analysing the four years of conflict, alongside Wolff’s colleague Mark Webber as well as Scott Lucas of University College Dublin, both also regular contributors. They have looked into the key issues raised by the four years of conflict, including the way the war has been prosecuted, the involvement of the US president and the potential for China and/or Europe to break the stalement: Beijing potentially abandoning its support for Moscow or Europe vastly increasing its support for Ukraine in an attempt to tip the balance in Kyiv’s favour.

It’s hard to imagine any reasons to be cheerful about the conflict. But optimists may take heart at the prospect of trilateral talks in March between Ukraine, Russia and the US. Realistically the prospect of the talks achieving anything significant seem pretty bleak at present. Russia continues to take Ukrainian territory and even if these are snail’s pace advances, Putin will consider that they add leverage to Russia’s negotiating position. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, meanwhile, will consider that the cost of this slow pace of advance, both in terms of casualties and the damage the war is now certainly doing to Russia’s economy, are good reasons to keep going. Surveys suggest he is supported in this by the majority of Ukrainians.

In the end it will probably be sheer exhaustion that forces and end to the conflict, writes Alex Titov of Queen’s University Belfast. Without the wholehearted support of the US president, Ukraine cannot defeat Russia on the battlefield. And, despite the massive advantage in manpower, Russia is really beginning to feel the
effects of this war of attrition – both on the health of its economy and its ability to attract enough new recruits to replace the casualties who are being either killed or wounded faster than they can be replaced. For this reason alone, Titov sees chinks of light in what is a very dark time.

Let’s share Titov’s cautious optimism for the present. Say a peace deal is struck sometime soon, Ukraine is faced with a massive task of rebuilding. The most recent World Bank estimate is that this will take more than a decade and cost around US$588 billion (£435 billion). The biggest and most immediate question facing Kyiv and its allies, writes Olena Borodyna, a senior geopolitical risks advisor at ODI Global is how this can be funded.

The consensus is that Ukraine will need to find ways to incentivise private-sector investment in reconstruction, something for which Borodyna sees varying amounts of enthusiasm for from Ukraine’s partners and friends. Part of the problem is the volatile security situation, which represents a considerable risk moving forward. Add to that the corruption which has dogged Ukraine since well before the invasion and the incentive to invest looks very shaky indeed.

Another big problem, she writes, is that so many Ukrainians left the country since February 2022, which has caused acute labour shortages. The challenge of persuading people to return will be paramount and here again, the lack of security will work against Ukraine.

There is also the strong possibility that political developments in Europe could affect the level of support for Kyiv, with elections in countries such as France, Italy and Denmark. There are already several EU members which are pretty openly hostile to the notion of supporting Ukraine, including Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Hungary – the latter is already trying to obstruct a vital €90 billion (£78 billion) to help cover Ukraine’s needs for 2026 and 2027.

Peace deal or not, it’s a long and hard road ahead for Ukraine.

But adversity can often be inspiring. Hugh Roberts, an expert in language and culture at the University of Exeter, has been charting the upsurge in Ukrainian poetry since the invasion. He has unearthed two poets who have come to represent this cultural renaissance: Yaryna Chornohuz and Artur Dron’.

Both have served in Ukraine’s armed forces. Chornohuz is still a drone operator of the Ukrainian Marine Corps in the frontline city of Kherson. Dron’ signed up in February 2022, four years before he reached the age of conscription. He’s now a veteran following serious injury. The words of both are available in English and both have been recognised with major literary awards in their home country.

Roberts gives us some of their most moving lines.

Death in Mexico

Also this week, we heard of the death of Mexican drug kingpin Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes, also known as El Mencho, in what was reportedly a massive military operation involving what appears to have been hundreds of troops and the killing of 74 people, including 25 national guard officers.

Repercussions will continue for some time, writes Raul Zepeda Gil, an expert in crime and conflict at King’s College London. The apprehension or killing of a cartel boss often causes a spike in violence as other criminal groups try to cut in on the cartel’s operations. There also likely to be a bitter and violent power struggle within El Menche’s organisation, the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG).

There has already bee speculation that Oseguera may be succeeded by his wife, Rosalinda González Valencia. Otherwise known as “La Jefa” (the boss), she is alleged to control the cartel’s finances, although apart from a five-year jail spell for money laundering, there has reportedly never been enough evidence of the wrongdoing of which she is suspected to charge her with anything else.

Adriana Marin, who specialises in terrorism, organised crime, and transnational threats in Latin America, examines the prominent role some women have played in organised crime gangs.

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

– ref. Four years of bitter conflict in Ukraine – https://theconversation.com/four-years-of-bitter-conflict-in-ukraine-277000

February 26, 2026

Self-control is a strength, but being too good at discipline can backfire

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Christy Zhou Koval, Professor, Smith School of Business, Queen’s University, Ontario

Self-control has long been regarded as one of the strongest predictors of success. Most of us can picture that colleague who never misses a deadline, volunteers for extra projects and keeps everything running smoothly.

Research shows individuals who can resist short-term temptations in pursuit of long-term goals tend to fare better across nearly every aspect of life.

As a researcher who has spent years studying workplace dynamics, I set out to examine what happens to these highly disciplined individuals. What I found was surprising: the very trait that makes them valuable — their high levels of self-control — can also come with hidden costs.

Self-control as a social signal

My colleagues and I conducted six studies examining how people treat others based on their perceived self-control. We defined perceived self-control as a person’s beliefs about someone else’s level of self-control, such as resisting temptations, staying focused and persisting in the pursuit of goals.

Across our studies, self-control functioned as a powerful social signal.

In one study, participants read about a student who either resisted the temptation to purchase music online (demonstrating self-control) or gave in to it, then imagined working with this student on a group project. Participants expected substantially higher performance from the student who had demonstrated self-control, even though resisting an impulse to buy music had nothing to do with academic ability.

We replicated this pattern in a workplace context. Participants read about an employee who either stuck to a savings goal or struggled with it. Even though saving money has nothing to do with job performance, participants expected the self-controlled employee to have an accuracy rate roughly 15 per cent higher than the employee who showed less self-control.

In another experiment, we asked people to delegate proofreading work among student volunteers. Participants consistently assigned about 30 per cent more essays to volunteers they believed had high self-control, compared to those with moderate or low self-control, even when all volunteers were described as academically qualified.

The hidden costs of high self-control

A particularly revealing set of findings suggests that observers typically underestimate the cost of self-control.

In one study, we asked participants to complete a demanding typing task requiring a high degree of self-control. Observers who were told that someone had high self-control estimated the task required less effort. But those actually doing the work found it equally draining regardless of their self-control levels. This perceptual gap is problematic because it demonstrates that exerting self-control is physically costly.

Recent research shows people will pay money to avoid having to exercise self-control. In experiments where dieters could pay to remove tempting food from their presence, most did; and they paid more when stressed or when temptation was stronger.

High self-control individuals are doing more cognitively demanding work than their peers. They are exercising self-control more frequently. And because they do it well, observers don’t see the effort required. Research suggests that people with high self-control are perceived as more robot-like, as if their discipline means they don’t struggle like everyone else.

In one of our studies using 360-degree feedback data, we analyzed archival survey data collected from MBA students and their coworkers and supervisors.

Employees who were higher in self-control reported making more personal sacrifices and feeling more burdened by coworkers’ reliance. Their colleagues, however, did not recognize this burden. While they acknowledged the sacrifices these individuals made, they did not perceive the strain they were under.

The spillover into home life

The more capable you seem, the more you’re asked to carry. For high self-control individuals, that reputation can become a fast track to burnout in the office and at home.

In an experiment with romantic couples, participants with high self-control reported feeling more burdened by their partners’ reliance on them. This sense of burden reduced their overall relationship satisfaction.

When people high in self-control are overwhelmed at home because partners assume they can handle everything, that exhaustion can carry over into work. Similarly, when high self-control individuals are overburdened at work, it can diminish their energy and presence in their personal relationships.

This creates a vicious cycle in which highly self-controlled individuals are asked to do more at both work and at home, and the cumulative demands can result in burnout.

Burnout is a widespread issue in the workplace. A Deloitte survey found that 77 per cent of professionals have experienced burnout at their current job.

Breaking the cycle

Our findings revealed a problematic cycle: the more self-control individuals were perceived to have, the more others expected of them and the more responsibility they were assigned.

For people with high self-control, our findings underscore the importance of setting boundaries in the workplace. Saying yes to everything is unsustainable. Because disciplined employees often make demanding tasks appear effortless, colleagues and loved ones may underestimate how much they are asking of them.

For managers, our findings suggest the importance of distributing responsibilities fairly and checking in with employees about workload. Managers should ask explicitly about their employees’ capacity rather than inferring it from past performance.

Self-control remains one of the most valuable traits a person can have. But when we assume it comes effortlessly to those who demonstrate it, we risk burning out the people we depend on most. Acknowledging the hidden burden is necessary if we want capable people to thrive.

Christy Zhou Koval 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. Self-control is a strength, but being too good at discipline can backfire – https://theconversation.com/self-control-is-a-strength-but-being-too-good-at-discipline-can-backfire-275634

February 26, 2026

How Canada-Cuba relations must navigate the dangers of the U.S. embargo

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Luiz Leomil, PhD candidate, Political Science, Carleton University

The United States government recently announced it will allow companies to resell Venezuelan oil to Cuba amid a severe fuel shortage on the island. Earlier this year, the U.S. cut off oil shipments to Cuba from its main supplier, Venezuela, after American forces abducted that country’s president.

Cuba’s ambassador to Canada, Rodrigo Malmierca Diaz, recently told Canadian MPs on the House foreign affairs committee that the U.S. was “suffocating an entire people.” He was referring to the decades-long American embargo against Cuba, which has become even more severe in recent weeks.

In his remarks, Diaz also urged Canada to follow through on a promised aid package to Cuba. Canadian officials have committed to sending an additional $8 million, which will be channelled through international aid organizations operating in Cuba.

This represents a modest and indirect commitment, especially in comparison with the initiatives undertaken by other countries. Mexico has sent more than 2,000 tons of direct humanitarian aid while continuing diplomatic talks on resuming oil supplies, and other countries in the Global South are reportedly preparing similar, more tangible responses.

In January, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney delivered a widely praised address in Davos, Switzerland, that many saw as an apt diagnosis of the failings of the U.S.-led “rules-based international order.” In it, he urged middle powers such as Canada to act with greater honesty and consistency, applying the same standards to allies and rivals so that states can co-exist in an international order that actually functions as advertised.

The Davos speech set high expectations. These are now, however, fading as Carney’s government wavers in sending robust aid to the people of Cuba and in denouncing the most recent unlawful coercive measures imposed by the U.S.

Explaining restraint

Canada has crafted a longstanding image as one of the largest humanitarian contributors in the world. It also has historical and economic ties with Cuba. Canada was one of the few American allies to maintain diplomatic relations with Cuba following the 1959 revolution that overthrew the U.S.-backed regime.

Cuba is Canada’s top market in the Caribbean, and Canada is the Cuba’s largest source of tourists as well as its second-largest source of direct investment. Canada is also among the overwhelming majority of United Nations member states that regularly vote in support of resolutions condemning the U.S. blockade.

However, three factors help explain the gap between the Canadian government’s rhetoric and its actions.

First, geopolitical constraints are significant. Like other middle powers, Canada’s freedom to act in open defiance of the U.S. is tightly limited. Canada’s fundamental economic and security interests are reliant on the U.S., and this is unlikely to change anytime soon.

Canada is open to a high risk of American retaliation if it chooses to aid Cuba. Such risk is even more heightened under the Trump government, which has demonstrated a willingness to use coercive measures against Canada.

Second, domestic politics shape foreign-policy choices. Contrary to simplified assumptions in classical international relations theory, state behaviour is not determined only by systemic incentives but also by domestic constituencies and how important particular issues are to segments of the population.

In Canada today, there is no broad public movement demanding robust government aid to Cuba. By contrast, there are vocal constituencies mobilized in support of Ukraine that keep assistance to that country politically salient and prioritized.

Third, officials in Global Affairs Canada have long favoured taking what they regard as a pragmatic approach toward Cuba. That posture helps explain Canada’s reluctance to provide direct, high-profile assistance during acute shortages or crises.

Canada did not intervene during Cuba’s 2024 blackout crisis, for example. On the other hand, the same approach has also led Canada to be less critical of political issues in Cuba, unlike its firmer stance toward the Venezuelan or Nicaraguan governments.

This approach has generally allowed Canada to preserve a baseline level of diplomatic engagement and safeguard economic and strategic interests. In recent years, this posture has become partly institutionalized within Global Affairs Canada and is regarded as the most workable and sustainable policy line.

Aid by proxy, unfulfilled commitments

In recent years, Canada has preferred to send assistance to Cuba through international aid organizations, but these efforts are unlikely to be sustainable given the scale of the humanitarian needs the country may face.

It remains unclear whether Canada will adopt a more robust strategy, departing from this established approach, to support Cubans. While facing their own constraints, it’s more likely that leadership in countries from the Global South, including Mexico, China and Brazil, will take action.

The outcome is twofold. Not only is the Canadian government failing to live up to a humanitarian image it has promoted on the world stage, but the international community also applauded a Davos speech that was both conflicting and somewhat disingenuous.

At times in his speech, Carney was realistic and incisive, exposing the weaknesses in the United States-led rules-based order. At key moments, however, Carney suggested that Canada still supported those rules and was willing to defend them through a more honest and equitable approach. Here, the tension between diagnosis and prescription was never resolved.

When it comes to the U.S. blockade of Cuba, Canada’s options are widely perceived as limited, and the country is seen as being forced to “go along to get along,” as Carney said in Davos. However, the blockade also presents Canada with an opportunity to showcase how middle powers can chart their own course.

Carney also said middle powers have the “the capacity to stop pretending, to name reality, to build our strength at home and to act together.” If Canada continues to equivocate on Cuba, Carney’s speech will come to reflect a familiar pattern in Canadian foreign policy: rhetorical candour about global inequities combined with reluctance to challenge them.

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

– ref. How Canada-Cuba relations must navigate the dangers of the U.S. embargo – https://theconversation.com/how-canada-cuba-relations-must-navigate-the-dangers-of-the-u-s-embargo-276875

February 26, 2026

What the Jeffrey Epstein files reveal about how elites trade toxic gifts and favours

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Hugh Gusterson, Professor of Anthropology & Public Policy, University of British Columbia

Following horrifying revelations about Jeffrey Epstein’s systematic sexual assaults and trafficking of underage girls, the United States Department of Justice has been forced to publicly release millions of the late sex offender’s emails and texts.

I am an anthropologist of elites who conducted field work among the secretive community of nuclear weapons scientists. The Epstein files opens a window into the even more closely guarded world of capitalism’s 0.1 per cent.

Anthropologists study people through what renowned American anthropologist Clifford Geertz called “deep hanging out” — mingling informally and taking notes on what we see. We call this “participant observation.”

People like Bill Gates and Elon Musk do not welcome anthropologists bearing notebooks. But the Epstein files, where the global elite are talking to each other in private — or so they thought — open a peephole into their world.

And what do we find there?

On a mundane level, we can see how they spend sums of money most of us can only dream about.

For example, we learn that in 2011, billionaire Mortimer Zuckerman, owner of the New York Post and U.S. News and World Report, spent US$219,000 on his collection of horses, $50,000 on skiing and $86,000 to insure his private art collection.

But the Epstein files are most interesting for what they reveal about a web of gifts, favours and financial transactions that knit together what would otherwise be a disparate sprawl of bankers, developers, tech bros, media personalities and high-profile academics.

A web of gifts and favours

A century ago, French anthropologist Marcel Mauss argued in The Gift that, across cultures, gifts are a way to create relationships of solidarity and obligation.

“No gift is given but in the expectation of a return,” he wrote.

This is evident in Epstein’s relationship with Leon Black, at the time the billionaire CEO of Apollo Global Management and chairman of the Museum of Modern Art in New York.

Epstein claimed his advice on Black’s finances saved the billionaire as much as $2 billion. In exchange, Black steered at least $158 million to Epstein and gave $10 million to one of Epstein’s charities, Gratitude America.

Black then made Epstein a trustee of the Debra and Leon Black Foundation, and Epstein invested in a startup where two of Black’s sons were on the board.

Epstein also helped Black manage his $2.8 billion art collection. He advised on selling individual works at a profit, getting paid by museums for loaning artworks and using art as collateral for bank loans.

Incidentally, one of the lessons I take from this is that billionaires do not look at art the way I do. I may buy (modestly priced) artworks because I like to look at them. Billionaires like Black and Zuckerman see them as investments.

Favours could also be exchanged, zig-zag style, among several people to create network solidarity. Epstein asked Leon Botstein, president of Bard College, to make sure Woody Allen’s daughter was admitted, while also gifting Allen $10,000 worth of shirts and luxury underwear.

Brad Karp, head of the Paul Weiss law firm, asked Epstein if he could intercede with Allen to get a job on his movie set for his son. In turn, Epstein asked Karp for help with a woman’s visa, and Karp steered $158 million from his client, the aforementioned Leon Black, to Epstein.

Collecting academics

When there is an asymmetry among the resources of two people, gifts lead to subordination, not reciprocity. Mauss referred to this as the “poison in the gift.”

We see this in Epstein’s transactions with academics whose research he bankrolled. He collected academics the way his billionaire friends collected artwork — Botstein, president of Bard; Larry Summers, president of Harvard; Lawrence Krauss, celebrity physicist; Dan Ariely, organizational psychologist; and the evolutionary psychologists and biologists Steven Pinker, Robert Trivers, Stephen Kosslyn, Martin Nowak, Joscha Bach and Nathan Wolfe to name a few.

Epstein was drawn to these academics because of his interest in eugenics, which he needed them to legitimize. He thought Black people were intellectually inferior and wondered if they could be improved through genetic modification. In a typo-ridden message, he texted German cognitive scientist Bach:

“Maybe climate change is a good way of dealing with overpopulation.. The earths forest fire… too many people, so many mass executions of the elderly and infirm make sense… if the brain discards unused neurons, why shold society keep their equivalent.”

And he talked about creating new superhumans by seeding batches of women with his own sperm.

After spending days reading Epstein’s messages to his associates, it reveals something essential about the contemptuous way they view the rest of the world.

One of them, lawyer Kathryn Ruemmler, texted Epstein that she would “get gas at a rest stop on the New Jersey Turnpike, will observe all of the people there who are at least 100 pounds overweight … and will then decide that I am not eating another bite of food for the rest of my life out of fear that I will end up like one of these people.”

Hopefully, most of the world is not like them.

Hugh Gusterson 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. What the Jeffrey Epstein files reveal about how elites trade toxic gifts and favours – https://theconversation.com/what-the-jeffrey-epstein-files-reveal-about-how-elites-trade-toxic-gifts-and-favours-275727

February 26, 2026

Why media were able to report the identities of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Peter Mandelson as they were arrested

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Polly Rippon, University Teacher in Journalism, University of Sheffield

When someone is arrested and under police investigation, we usually don’t know their names. Police reveal only their gender, age and the crime for which they are under suspicion, and the media reports it.

The arrests of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Peter Mandelson were a striking exception to this practice. When the police said they had “arrested a man in his sixties from Norfolk” on February 19, newspapers widely reported that it was the former prince. The image of him in the back of a car after questioning featured on nearly every front page the following day.

Days later, Mandelson was arrested at his London home. Again, police said simply they “arrested a 72-year-old man”, and the media confirmed it was the former US ambassador.

The police investigations into both men, on suspicion of misconduct in public office, were prompted by US officials’ release of a tranche of emails from the Epstein files. Both men are suspected to have passed sensitive information to the paedophile financier while serving in official positions. Both deny any wrongdoing.

Why was the media allowed to report their names?

Privacy law in the UK is enshrined in the European convention on human rights. The ECHR bans intrusion into a person’s private life, which means citizens under investigation, or arrested by the police, have “a reasonable expectation of privacy”. This is to protect those who are arrested or investigated but never charged with a criminal offence.

Legally and ethically, journalists shouldn’t breach the privacy of people under investigation. However, the public interest exceptions in the Independent Press Standards Organisation editor’s code and the Ofcom code for broadcasting allow for breaches when reporting on matters of public interest – this includes detecting and exposing crime or wrongdoing, particularly when the suspect in question is someone in a position of power. Your average theft by an unknown civilian doesn’t count.

In the cases of Mountbatten-Windsor and Mandelson, there is clearly a strong public interest. One is a member of the royal family, the other a senior politician. Both held positions of power and influence, and were longtime friends of one of the most notorious convicted sex offenders in history.

In such a case, a media organisation being sued for breach of privacy may have a defence if it can demonstrate there was a strong public interest, and it reported the information because it was deemed to be of high value to society. The ECHR also protects public interest journalism.

Other high profile people named by the media at the point of arrest due to exceptional public interest include BBC newsreader Huw Edwards, who pleaded guilty to possessing indecent images of children. Also named by the media on arrest was presenter Russell Brand. He is currently awaiting trial on sexual offence charges, which he denies.

Once charged with criminal offences, suspects become defendants, appear in court and can be officially named.

The College of Policing has just released new guidelines around police communications with the media. The guidance in relation to naming of suspects at arrest protects their right to privacy.

It says the names of those arrested or suspected of a crime should only be released “in exceptional circumstances, where there is a legitimate policing purpose to do so”, for example when a dangerous suspect is on the run.

How Cliff Richard shaped today’s privacy laws

Prior to 2013, police did release the names of those being investigated, or would at least confirm names to the media if asked. But a change in privacy law came after the police investigation into singer Cliff Richard, which toughened up the legislation.

In 2014, South Yorkshire Police raided Richard’s Berkshire home while he was out of the country. The star was unaware he was being investigated on suspicion of historical sexual assault allegations (dropped in 2016 due to lack of evidence). Richard only discovered the police probe because the raid was broadcast live on BBC News, with helicopter shots and a running commentary.

He successfully sued the BBC for £2 million for breach of privacy, telling a judge that the BBC identifying him had smeared his name and reputation around the world.

This case marked a major shift, establishing that suspects have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” before being charged with a criminal offence.

This was reinforced in the case of Alaedeen Sicri a 26-year-old Libyan arrested by police after the Manchester Arena bombings in 2017. He was later released without charge following the attack, which killed 22 people.

Sicri was not identified by Greater Manchester Police, but MailOnline published his name, images and other details after his arrest. He successfully sued Associated Newspapers Ltd and was awarded £83,000 in damages.

In the 2016 case of ZXC v Bloomberg, a businessman successfully sued Bloomberg for breach of privacy because it reported he was under investigation by a UK law enforcement agency. This was something the financial news organisation discovered by reading a confidential letter sent to him. The judge ordered his identity should not be published and awarded him £25,000 in damages. The ruling was upheld by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

These cases all demonstrate the delicate balancing exercise between the rights of the media to report on an ongoing police investigation and an individual’s right to privacy.

A democracy needs both privacy and public interest reporting. Privacy is the shield that allows people to lead their lives without unwanted interference. But public interest journalism is the spotlight that prevents the rich and famous from abusing their power and holds them to account.

Polly Rippon 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 media were able to report the identities of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Peter Mandelson as they were arrested – https://theconversation.com/why-media-were-able-to-report-the-identities-of-andrew-mountbatten-windsor-and-peter-mandelson-as-they-were-arrested-276916

February 26, 2026

Reporting the names of arrested people is against the law – why the Andrew and Mandelson cases were exceptions

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Polly Rippon, University Teacher in Journalism, University of Sheffield

Days later, Mandelson was arrested at his London home. Again, police said simply they “arrested a 72-year-old man”, and the media confirmed it was the former US ambassador.

Why was the media allowed to report their names?

Once charged with criminal offences, suspects become defendants, appear in court and can be officially named.

The College of Policing has just released new guidelines around police communications with the media. The guidance in relation to naming of suspects at arrest protects their right to privacy.

How Cliff Richard shaped today’s privacy laws

He successfully sued the BBC for £2 million for breach of privacy, telling a judge that the BBC identifying him had smeared his name and reputation around the world.

This case marked a major shift, establishing that suspects have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” before being charged with a criminal offence.

These cases all demonstrate the delicate balancing exercise between the rights of the media to report on an ongoing police investigation and an individual’s right to privacy.

– ref. Reporting the names of arrested people is against the law – why the Andrew and Mandelson cases were exceptions – https://theconversation.com/reporting-the-names-of-arrested-people-is-against-the-law-why-the-andrew-and-mandelson-cases-were-exceptions-276916

February 26, 2026

Will 2026 be another slugageddon?

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Christopher Terrell Nield, Lecturer, Chemistry and Forensic Science, Nottingham Trent University

British gardeners and farmers may remember 2024 with a shudder – it was widely referred to as “the year of the slug”. Vast numbers of slimy slitherers chomped their way through raspberries, laid waste to lettuce and toppled tomato plants.

Directly sown crops were demolished, early carrots did not germinate and main crop potatoes were damaged.

Will we see a repeat of the slugageddon in 2026?

Slugs are well suited to the UK’s damp, mild climate and have a wide diet, but only a few species feed on live plants. Slugs and snails are actually an important part of the decomposition cycle, meaning they help the composting process. Apart from those that eat your plants, they can be considered a gardener’s friend, as long as their populations remain stable.

Outbreaks of insect pests, for example, occur when checks on population growth such as predators, competitors or environmental constraints are removed.

So, what conditions favour growth of slug populations and how well did 2024 match these?

Slugs need moist conditions as they have little or no shell and their protective mucus is water based. Slugs can reproduce throughout the year, but do so mostly in spring and in autumn. They can overwinter in the egg, juvenile or adult stage. To avoid frost and predators they seek dark, damp, insulated areas, such as underground, beneath pots or within compost heaps. Slugs are resilient and most survive the winter especially under mild conditions, but hard frosts will kill them.

If it’s mild, slug populations actually increase as early plant growth in late winter provides adults with additional energy to lay eggs. These eggs can hatch in ten days, but take up to 100 days if it’s cold. Over a typical one year life span a slug can lay up to 500 eggs.

And a warm wet spring or summer with frequent rain allows populations to disperse and grow.

Reduced predator numbers also benefit slugs, with many, such as hedgehogs, facing population declines. Toads are also in decline, as are birds such as thrushes.

Grey colour slug eating leaf. — Slug numbers can change dramatically year to year.
Fotoz by David G/Shutterstock

Weather matters

The year 2024 had conditions ideal for slug breeding; a mild winter, high moisture levels in spring and summer, and no long dry spells.

According to the Met Office, 2024 climate statistics showed the UK is heading outside the “envelope of historical weather observations”. The year 2024 was the fourth warmest year since 1884. Overall it was a little wetter than average, but central and southern England had 25-30% more rain than normal, making the area both warm and damp.

In addition, 2023 had been the UK’s second warmest year, and wetter than average. This combination promoted slug population growth, setting the base for the 2024 increase.

In contrast, 2025 weather was less favourable for slugs as it varied from cold to extreme heat with little rainfall. Slug populations are disrupted by dry and unstable conditions. However, it is difficult to predict population trends when there is instability. For example, climate change is making it difficult to predict butterfly numbers.

In 2025, slug numbers declined from the 2024 peak. However, there were issues with slugs decimating some field crops and returning rainfall produced an upturn in slug numbers in autumn 2025.

Following a cold snap before Christmas 2025, UK winter was mild and very wet, with persistent cloud cover trapped by high pressure over Scandinavia. Some areas had 50% of annual rainfall in the first six weeks of 2026, with widespread flooding. When this pattern shifted, cold arctic air entered the UK. Spring could be chilly as March frequently exceeds December for snowfall and there can be cold snaps in April.

Thus, the picture for 2026 is complicated. Although flooding can kill overwintering eggs and adults, a mild wet winter will have reduced slug mortality. It may also affect slug predators. Beetles used for slug control in conservation agriculture can survive short term inundation but their larvae in saturated soil probably won’t. Flooding also creates lots of ready food for slugs from plants that have died in the water, a potential slug fest as it dries in spring.

With a global temperature above 1.4°C, compared to pre-industrial levels, the Met Office predicts a warm 2026. In addition, the UK government’s Environment Agency predicted a drought in 2026, before the winter’s heavy rainfall.

Overall the conditions point towards increased slug populations but probably not as bad as 2024.

The beginner’s guide to video games – where to start if you don’t think you like games

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tom Garner, Senior Lecturer of Human Computer Interaction, Department of Computing, Sheffield Hallam University

In 1997 I was 13 and decidedly not a gamer. I liked film, music and Stephen King novels – but I had been “blessed” with two parents who believed video games rotted your brain. They did, however, invest in a home PC, seemingly under the impression I would be drawn only to its educational functions.

Their faith was misplaced when I discovered Blade Runner (1997), an adventure game based on the 1982 Ridley Scott film that I had not seen. Before, I had understood games as “collect coins, jump on enemies, avoid spikes, get a high score”. Now I was a detective conducting something called a Voight-Kampf test. I was scouring crime scenes, analysing CCTV footage and piecing together the narrative of a crime that kept escalating the more I proceeded.

By the end I was grappling with whether to turn my character’s back on every part of their life, whether their memories were their own, whether they were even human and the broader question of how a person can act morally when they cannot be certain of themselves – or their perception of reality.

This was my entry point into a lifelong love of video games. I’m still enamoured with their ability to directly involve you in the story, to challenge your decision making and values, knowing the consequences would play out in front of you, affecting situations and characters you had become emotionally invested in.

There is growing evidence that factors such as burnout from passive streaming culture are increasingly encouraging people towards video games – and yet many people still feel excluded from them. If you’re among that group, you may assume games are all too violent, too juvenile, too technical, or simply “not for you”.

The great shame here is that games tell deep and immersive stories and present beautiful worlds in ways that are wholly unique to the medium. If you don’t engage with games, you’re increasingly missing out on meaningful new stories and aesthetics.

Here are three different kinds of potential player and the video games I would prescribe for each one.

1. The aesthetic wanderer

Potential player one is an “aesthetic wanderer”. If this is you, you love music, immersive visual arts, installations and exhibitions. You find yourself are drawn to places, whether urban or nature, that evoke mood and feeling.

The trailer for Firewatch.

Aesthetic wanderers are driven by the sensory pleasure of atmosphere and the personal meaning they extract from interpretation of art and environment. They likely perceive video games to be loud, time-pressured, visually oppressive and goal-obsessed.

If this sounds familiar, then your route to video games should be through titles that prioritise exploration, the autonomy of self-pacing and a beautiful – or possibly disgusting – world. So long as it’s evocative.

Try playing Journey (2012), a wordless traversal across a desolate yet beautiful landscape, with flowing character movement that blends interaction with music, sound and atmosphere – offering an immersive, resonating and contemplative experience.

Alternatively, Firewatch (2016) offers a slowly unfolding mystery wrapped in a summer trek in the Wyoming wilderness, emphasising reflective presence in a lonely landscape and a narrative revealed naturally through a dialogue.

A more involved, but equally beautiful classic is Shadow of the Colossus (2018) – an at times deafeningly silent world in which you are drawn into conflict with vast, awe-inspiring creatures and are confronted with moral unease in your actions.

2. The pre-digital native

Potential player two is the pre-digital native. If you’re in this camp then you grew up before video games became established. You may be intrigued by games but believe you have missed the proverbial boat. You may view games as juvenile, a distraction from “genuine” pursuits, or even morally questionable.

The trailer for Return of the Obra Dinn.

Your love of cinema and literature is based in story over spectacle, and you also appreciate opportunities for growth and personal reflection. You may also be concerned that video games present a risk to your perceived competence, not in a cognitive or cultural sense, but in the fiddly physical controls that may require precise and immediate motor actions.

If you fit into this player type, seek out games that emphasise cognitive capability over motor-skills, with critical thinking over fast reactions. You could consider contemporary detective games, such as Her Story (2015) and Return of the Obra Dinn (2018).

3. The cultural sceptic

Lastly, potential player three is the cultural sceptic. If you’re in this group, you might believe video games were simply not made for you. You may observe a deluge of games targeting young men, with male protagonists, aggressive competition-based mechanics and even hostile exclusionary communities. You are interested, but feel the need to culturally protect yourself.

The cultural sceptic values autonomy and growth through new experiences. You may especially value relatedness, seeking credible characters that you can connect with. You are drawn to opportunities to collaborate, and you particularly enjoy art as a shared experience.

The trailer for Split Fiction.

If this sounds like you, consider games that feature cooperative multiplayer experiences like It Takes Two (2021), a puzzle platformer about a couple on the brink of divorce who find themselves trapped in the bodies of two of their daughter’s dolls. Here narrative and gameplay are inseparable as the game explores matters of relationship breakdown but also reconciliation and perspective through cooperation.

You may also find yourself drawn to games built around themes that fall outside of the “guns, gore and muscles” trope, such as Gone Home (2013), a first-person exploration game in which the player-protagonist uncovers journals to follow her sister’s journey to understanding and accepting her sexuality.

Alterntively, What Remains of Edith Finch (2017), a collection of interwoven stories in which the player inhabits the final moments of Finch’s relatives in a way that demonstrates how interactive experiences can explore a genuinely wide range of themes, and can tell stories in ways that would be impossible in any other medium.

If explored openly, there is no demographic barrier to all video games. A few months ago, I introduced my partner to the farming simulation game Stardew Valley (2016), a game I have been playing for about five years. She enjoys ballet, romantic fantasy novels and Sabrina Carpenter. She hadn’t played a game since the mid-90s. Her farm is now better than mine. A lot better.

For you, my potential player, this is an invitation and not a lecture. I’d love you to take the opportunity to engage with video games on your own terms, to challenge your initial assumptions and perhaps discover a new cultural love.

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.

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

– ref. The beginner’s guide to video games – where to start if you don’t think you like games – https://theconversation.com/the-beginners-guide-to-video-games-where-to-start-if-you-dont-think-you-like-games-273737

February 26, 2026

Anthropic v the US military: what this public feud says about the use of AI in warfare

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Elke Schwarz, Professor of Political Theory, Queen Mary University of London

The very public feud between the US Department of Defense (also known these days as the Department of War) and its AI technology supplier Anthropic is unusual for pitting state might against corporate power. In the military space, at least, these are usually cosy bedfellows.

The origin of this disagreement dates back months, amid repeated criticisms from Donald Trump’s AI and crypto “czar”, David Sacks, about the company’s supposedly woke policy stances.

But tensions ramped up following media reports that Anthropic technology had been used in the violent abduction of former Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro by the US military in January 2026. It was alleged this caused discontent inside the San Francisco-based company.

Anthropic has denied this, with company insiders suggesting it did not find or raise any violations of its policies in the wake of the Maduro operation.

Nonetheless, the US secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, has issued Anthropic with an ultimatum. Unless the company relaxes its ethical limits policy by 5.01pm Washington time on Friday, February 27, the US government has suggested it could invoke the 1950 Defense Production Act. This would allow the Department of Defense (DoD) to appropriate the use of this technology as it wishes.

At the same time, Anthropic could be designated a supply chain risk, putting its government contracts in danger. These extraordinary measures may appear contradictory, but they are consistent with the current US administration’s approach, which favours big gestures and policy ambiguity.

Video: France 24.

At the heart of the dispute is the question of how Anthropic’s large language model (LLM) Claude is used in a military context. Across many sectors of industry, Claude does a range of automated tasks including writing, coding, reasoning and analysis.

In July 2024, US data analytics company Palantir announced it was partnering with Anthropic to “bring Claude AI models … into US Government intelligence and defense operations”. Anthropic then signed a US$200 million (£150 million) contract with the DoD in July 2025, stipulating certain terms via its “acceptable use policy”.

These would, for example, disallow the use of Claude in mass surveillance of US citizens or fully autonomous weapon systems which, once activated, can select and engage targets with no human involvement.

According to Anthropic, either would violate its definition of “responsible AI”. Hegseth and the DoD have pushed back, characterising such limits as unduly restrictive in a geopolitical environment marked by uncertainty, instability and blurred lines.

Responsible AI should, they insist, encompass “any lawful use” of AI models by the US military. A memorandum issued by Hegseth on January 9 2026 stated:

Diversity, Equity and Inclusion and social ideology have no place in the Department of War, so we must not employ AI models which incorporate ideological ‘tuning’ that interferes with their ability to provide objectively truthful responses to user prompts.

The memo instructed that the term “any lawful use” should be incorporated in future DoD contracts for AI services within 180 days.

Anthropic’s competitors are lining up

Anthropic’s red lines do not rule out the mass surveillance of human communities at large – only American citizens. And while it draws the line at fully autonomous weapons, the multitude of evolving uses of AI to inform, accelerate or scale up violence in ways that severely limit opportunities for moral restraint are not mentioned in its acceptable use policy.

At present, Anthropic has a competitive advantage. Its LLM model is integrated into US government interfaces with sufficient levels of clearance to offer a superior product. But Anthropic’s competitors are lining up.

Palantir has expanded its business with the Pentagon significantly in recent months, giving rise to more AI models.

Meanwhile, Google recently updated its ethical guidelines, dropping its pledge not to use AI for weapons development and surveillance. OpenAI has likewise modified its mission statement, removing “safety” as a core value, and Elon Musk’s xAI (creator of the Grok chatbot) has agreed to the Pentagon’s “any lawful use” standard.

A testing point for military AI

For C.S. Lewis, courage was the master virtue, since it represents “the form of every virtue at the testing point”. Anthropic now faces such a testing point.

On February 24, the company announced the latest update to its responsible scaling policy – “the voluntary framework we use to mitigate catastrophic risks from AI systems”. According to Time magazine, the changes include “scrapping the promise to not release AI models if Anthropic can’t guarantee proper risk mitigations in advance”.

Anthropic’s chief science officer, Jared Kaplan, told Time: “We didn’t really feel, with the rapid advance of AI, that it made sense for us to make unilateral commitments … if competitors are blazing ahead.”

Ethical language saturates the press releases of Silicon Valley companies eager to distinguish themselves from “bad actors” in Russia, China and elsewhere. But ethical words and actions are not the same, because the latter often entails a real-world cost.

That such a highly public spectacle is happening at this time is perhaps no accident. In early February, representatives of many countries – but not the US – came together for the third time to find ways to agree on “responsible AI” in the military domain. And on March 2-6, the UN will convene its latest conference discussing how best to limit the use of emerging technologies for lethal autonomous weapons systems.

Such legal and ethical debates about the role of AI technology in the future of warfare are critical, and overdue. Anthropic deserves credit for apparently resisting the US military’s efforts to undercut its ethical guidelines. But AI’s role is likely to be tested in many more conflict situations before agreement is reached.

Elke Schwarz is affiliated with the International Committee for Robot Arms Control (ICRAC)

Neil Renic is affiliated with the International Committee for Robot Arms Control (ICRAC)

– ref. Anthropic v the US military: what this public feud says about the use of AI in warfare – https://theconversation.com/anthropic-v-the-us-military-what-this-public-feud-says-about-the-use-of-ai-in-warfare-276999