Category: The Conversation – Global Perspectives

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Peter Rutland, Professor of Government, Wesleyan University

Perceived wisdom has it that the longer a war goes on, the less enthusiastic a public becomes for continuing the conflict. After all, it is ordinary citizens who tend to bear the economic and human costs.

And yet, as the war following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 enters its fifth year, the attitude of the Russian public remains difficult to gauge: Just over half of Russians, according to one recent poll, expect the war to end in 2026; yet a majority say that should negotiations fail, Moscow needs to “escalate” with greater use of force.

As observers of Russian society, we believe this ambiguity in Russian public opinion gives President Vladimir Putin the cover to continue pushing hard for his goals in Ukraine. Yet at the same time, a deeper dive into the Russian public’s apparent support for the war suggests that it is more fragile than the Russian president would like to believe.

Putin’s social contract

From Day 1 of the conflict, Western strategy has been predicated on the belief that economic sanctions would eventually cause either the Russian elite or its society to persuade Putin to abandon the war.

This, in turn, is based on the assumption that the legitimacy of Putinism rests on a social contract of sorts: The Russian people will be loyal to the Kremlin if they enjoy a stable standard of living and are allowed to pursue their private lives without interference from the state.

The Russian economy has been struggling since 2014, so many analysts believed that this social contract was coming under strain even before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. However, after four years of war, the combination of exclusion from European markets and a tripling of military spending has led to economic stagnation and mounting pressure on living standards.

One problem with the social contract approach is that it tends to downplay the role of ideology.

It is possible that Putin’s “Make Russia Great Again” propaganda resonates with a significant part of the Russian public. Polling has consistently placed Putin’s approval rating above 80% since the beginning of the Ukraine conflict.

Of course, the validity of the results of polls in an authoritarian society at war cannot be taken at face value. Yet, one shouldn’t rule out that some of that support is genuine and rests not just on a stable economy but also on popular endorsement of Putin’s pledge to restore Russia’s power and influence on the world stage.

Rallying Russians

Some scholars point to a “rally around the flag” effect. There was an apparent surge in Putin’s approval rating after the use of military force against Ukraine in 2014 and 2022.

It is hard to tell whether the surge in support for Putin reflects a genuine shift in opinion or just a response to media coverage and what people perceive as the acceptable response.

The Kremlin has tried to hide the costs of the war from the public: concealing the true death toll and avoiding full-scale mobilization of conscripts by recruiting highly paid volunteers. It is also trying to keep the economy stable by drawing down the country’s reserve funds.

That leaves open the question of whether the “Putin consensus” will break down at some point in the future if the costs of the war start to hit home for a majority of Russians.

The problem with polls

The consensus view among observers is that a small minority of Russians oppose the war, a slightly larger minority enthusiastically support the war, and the majority passively go along with what the state is doing.

There are still some independent pollsters conducting surveys in Russia that report a high level of support among respondents for the “special military operation” against Ukraine, with figures ranging between 60% and 70%.

A number of researchers have pointed out the difficulty in getting an accurate snapshot of Russian public opinion, given that the polling questions might make the respondent fearful of being accused of breaking laws that penalize “spreading fake news” and “discrediting the army” with a lengthy prison sentence.

The Levada Center, which is still regarded as an independent and relatively reliable pollster, conducts its interviews face to face in people’s homes but has a very low response rate. Polls conducted online, in return for monetary rewards, can try to find demographically balanced respondents, but the problem of wariness about giving answers that are critical of the regime remains. In Russia’s current political environment, refusing to answer or giving a socially acceptable response is a rational strategy.

Some scholars, such as those associated with the Public Sociology Laboratory, which looks at public sentiment in post-Soviet states, still conduct fieldwork inside Russia, sending researchers to live incognito in provincial towns and observe social practices involving support for the war.

Their ethnographic research finds little evidence for a “rally around the flag” effect in provincial Russian society. Other analysts have turned to digital ethnography of social media as an alternative source of insight. But analysts unfamiliar with the local and digital context risk mistaking performative loyalty for genuine belief.

‘Internal emigration’

Most Russian citizens try to avoid political discussion altogether and retreat into what is often described as “internal emigration” – living their own lives while keeping interactions with the authorities to a minimum.

This practice dates back to the Soviet period but resurfaced as political repression increased after Putin’s return to the presidency in 2012.

There is no doubt that there are many fervent war supporters in Russia. They are quite vocal and visible because the state allows them to be – such as the military bloggers reporting from the front lines.

Apart from looking at opinion polls and social media, one can also probe the level of genuine support for the war by looking at everyday practices. If popular support for the war were enthusiastic, recruitment offices would be overwhelmed. They are not.

Instead, Russia has relied heavily on financial incentives, aggressive advertising, prison recruitment and coercive mobilization. At the same time, hundreds of thousands of men have sought to avoid conscription by leaving the country, hiding from authorities or exploiting legal exemptions.

Symbolic participation follows a similar pattern. State-sponsored Z symbols continue to dominate public space – the letter Z is used as a symbol of support for the war, in slogans such as “Za pobedu,” which translates to “for victory.” But privately displayed signs of support have largely disappeared.

Humanitarian aid to be sent to soldiers on the front lines or occupied Ukraine is often collected through schools and churches, where participation is shaped by social or administrative pressure. But many participants frame their involvement as helping individuals rather than supporting the war itself.

Reality vs. lived experience

High-profile propaganda products frequently fail to resonate. Music charts and streaming platforms in Russia are dominated not by patriotic anthems but by an eclectic mix of songs about personal relationships, such as Jakone’s moody ballad “Eyes As Wet As Asphalt,” songs in praise of “Hoodies” and even a catchy Bashkir folk song.

Book sales show strong demand for works such as George Orwell’s “1984” and Viktor Frankl’s Holocaust memoir “Man’s Search for Meaning,” suggesting that readers are searching for ways to understand authoritarianism, trauma and moral responsibility rather than celebrating militarism.

And instead of watching the state-backed film “Tolerance,” a dystopian tale of moral decay in the West, Russians are streaming the “Heated Rivalry” gay hockey romance.

Putin’s campaign to promote what he sees as traditional values appears not to be cutting through. Divorce rates are among the highest in the world – and birth rates continue to fall.

Heading into the Ukraine war’s fifth year, the gulf between the Kremlin version of reality and the lived experience of ordinary Russians remains. It echoes a pattern we have seen before: In the final decade of the Soviet Union the Kremlin became increasingly out of touch with the views of its people.

History will not necessarily repeat itself – but the masters of the Kremlin should be conscious of the parallels.

Elizaveta Gaufman receives funding from European Union’s Horizon Research and Innovative Programme under Grant Agreement No. 101132671.

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

– ref. As war in Ukraine enters a 5th year, will the ‘Putin consensus’ among Russians hold? – https://theconversation.com/as-war-in-ukraine-enters-a-5th-year-will-the-putin-consensus-among-russians-hold-275666

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Jo Coghlan, Associate Professor, Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, University of New England

When a royal faces scrutiny, it can feel like a rupture with tradition. Yet across the ages, British royals have repeatedly fallen under suspicion. What makes the arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor so striking is that we have to reach back to the 17th century to find anything comparable.

The royals are by no means strangers to scandal, but allegations of law-breaking are another matter entirely. Mountbatten-Windsor’s fall from grace will have huge repercussions for the British royals, and it also gives us an insight into how the handling of the royals has changed since Queen Elizabeth’s death.

When the crown fell

This is not the first time the British royals have crossed paths with the law. In 1483, Richard III became associated with the disappearance of his nephews, the Princes in the Tower. The two princes were legitimate heirs and therefore direct threats to Richard’s claim to the throne. He was never tried in court, and historians still debate the evidence.

The most dramatic confrontation between monarchy and law came with Charles I. He was accused of treason during the English Civil War. He was arrested in 1649, tried and publicly executed. This act stunned Europe and shattered the belief royals were above the law.

As a consequence, England abolished the monarchy and became a republic under Oliver Cromwell. So the last time a member of the royal family was arrested and tried, the crown itself fell.

That precedent matters because it underscores how rare royal arrests are. For more than three centuries the monarchy has avoided that spectacle. The fact Andrew’s arrest forces comparison with Charles I reveals how rare the moment is.

Reputation as royal strategy

By the 19th century, the monarchy survived less through force and more through reputation. Under Queen Victoria (1837-1901), the crown cultivated domestic virtue and moral seriousness as a shield against instability. Respectability became a strategic defence against scandal.

However, fame and power inevitably lead to very high public interest, and scandals made their way into print culture and later mass media. Prince Albert Victor, the grandson of Queen Victoria, was accused of being Jack the Ripper. It’s a claim historians have largely rejected as conspiracy theory, yet it persists because it speaks to fears about royal cover-ups.

James II was removed from the throne in 1688 during the Glorious Revolution amid claims he undermined Protestantism laws and promoted Catholic officials. His perceived abuse of power, rather than a single prosecutable crime, cost him the throne.

In the 20th century, Edward VIII generated a different kind of unease. After his abdication in 1936, evidence emerged of his sympathy toward Nazi Germany followed by his 1937 meeting with Adolf Hitler in Germany. While there was no prosecution, it did cause serious damage to Edward’s standing and public trust.

The collapse of deference

For much of the 20th century, the monarchy operated within a culture of deference. The press refrained from reporting royals’ private lives and indiscretions were quietly managed. The arrangement insulated the royal family from sustained exposure. However, this began to change after a series of scandals in the 1990s. This eventually led Elizabeth II to call 1992 her annus horribilis.

The rise of tabloid journalism eroded old boundaries, and digital media dissolved them entirely. Silence now intensifies suspicion rather than calming it, as was the case with royal silence about the Princess of Wales’ health in early 2024, forcing them to go public with her cancer battle.

Influence, access and optics

Even before Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest, the optics were damaging.

His arrest lands in this transformed landscape. During his tenure as the United Kingdom’s Special Representative for International Trade and Investment, he cultivated relationships with political leaders and wealthy business figures across the Middle East and Central Asia. Critics questioned whether he blurred the line between official trade promotion and private networking.

The 2010 “cash for access” episode involving Mountbatten-Windsor’s wife Sarah Ferguson deepened that perception. She was filmed offering introductions to Andrew in exchange for substantial payment. Although she apologised and Andrew denied involvement, the imagery of monetised proximity to the crown was corrosive.

In 2021, an undercover investigation suggested the queen’s cousin Prince Michael of Kent was prepared to use his royal status to assist a fictitious company in exchange for payment. He denied wrongdoing, but the harm was done.

A brand without insulation

Under Elizabeth II, longevity conferred authority and steadiness that often softened scandal. Under Charles II, the institution appears more exposed. Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest disrupts and exposes the royal family to reputational damage. While he was later released, the scandal still has a long way to play out.

Charles is a constitutional monarch. He can’t interfere in police investigations or prosecutorial decisions without provoking a constitutional crisis. His authority is symbolic rather than executive.

But he can excise Andrew’s inner circle, including his daughters, further from public life. He has already stripped his brother of his royal titles and told him to leave his home, Royal Lodge.

Yet even that has limits. Charles’s power now rests less on control than on credibility. In a permanently watchful society, judgement is delivered not in private but in full view.

The precedent that lingers

The last time a reigning monarch was arrested, England abolished the monarchy and became a republic. The historical echo is impossible to ignore. It reminds us that when the crown becomes entangled with criminal process, the consequences resonate beyond the individual.

Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest underscores how fragile that trust can be and how decisively it is shaped by the court that really matters, that of public opinion. While Andrew is not the king, the scandal may have been softened if his brother Charles acted more decisevly and sooner to remove him from the inner circles of the monarchy.

Royal scandals chip away at the sense of mystery that has long protected the crown. The monarchy survives not because it holds real political power, but because it represents stability, dignity and something slightly removed from everyday life.

When royals are caught up in scandal, that sense of distance collapses, and the institution can begin to feel more fragile than untouchable.

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

– ref. Could Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest bring down the British monarchy? – https://theconversation.com/could-andrew-mountbatten-windsors-arrest-bring-down-the-british-monarchy-276508

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Emma Shortis, Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University

The stunning arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor by UK police on suspicion of misconduct in public office must have chilled many powerful American men to the bone. They may now wonder: could something like this now happen in the US?

The former prince’s arrest is related to his association with dead sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and allegations he shared confidential material. Andrew has consistently denied wrongdoing and has been released under investigation.

To see UK police making arrests over allegations relating to Epstein contrasts strongly with the US where, so far, little has happened to further investigate those linked to the disgraced financier.

So, will we now see stronger Epstein-related investigative efforts and possibly even arrests in the US? And why haven’t we seen anything like that, so far?

Will this actually prompt stronger action in the US now?

It’s possible. The whole situation is fairly unpredictable, and there has been mounting pressure on people named in the Epstein files to resign or step aside, particularly in higher education.

In Congress, US lawmakers are pushing hard for accountability.

It’s important to remember the collapse of the rule of law in the US is far from inevitable.

The Epstein story still has a long way to play out yet, if only because of the weight of the documentary evidence that needs to be sorted through.

It’s also possible the arrest and potential prosecution of Mountbatten-Windsor (and others outside the UK) may end up revealing more from the Epstein story than has come out of the Department of Justice (DOJ) releases, which have been selective.

If the Mountbatten-Windsor case goes to trial – which is still far from certain – and as the scandal reverberates across Europe, that may end up circumventing efforts we have seen so far from the DOJ to slow-walk the release of Epstein-related documents and information.

Why haven’t big arrests like this happened in the US so far?

The most obvious reason is the stranglehold the Trump administration has on the DOJ.

The performance of the attorney-general, Pam Bondi, in the recent judiciary committee hearing is a fair indication of that.

To have the attorney-general – instead of being accountable and answering legitimate questions about the Epstein files – waxing lyrical about US President Donald Trump being the greatest president in American history tells you a lot about the political capture of that department.

Another extremely unsubtle sign of that capture is the large banner featuring Trump’s face that has just been slung across the Justice Department building.

All this tells you the DOJ is not an independent government department anymore. It has been captured and weaponised by the Trump administration.

It’s the same story at the FBI; instead of taking strong action over revelations appearing the Epstein files, the agency appears to be focused on investigating Trump’s claims about 2020 election “fraud” in Georgia.

That shouldn’t exactly be a surprise, given FBI Director Kash Patel wrote a series of children’s books depicting Trump as an unjustly wronged “king”.

The unfortunate truth is there’s no satisfactory answer as to why no significant arrests have been made in the US in relation to the Epstein files.

It’s partly the Trump administration’s capture of these agencies and departments.

But it’s also that the Epstein scandal implicates so many of the powerful in the US. These are enormous networks that span political divides, including some of the richest people in the world. And, of course, they’re very good at protecting themselves.

It’s also a marker of Trump’s capture of his political base. Viewed from the outside, it defies logic. You’d think a movement that coalesced around conspiracy theories there was a powerful cabal of paedophiles at work in the US would be loudly calling for arrests after the Epstein revelations.

The fact they’re not shows how ingrained their loyalty is, and the depth of the personality cult that has developed around Trump.

This base is far from a majority of the American people, but it is one that has – for now at least – largely captured the major levers of power in the US.

So following Andrew’s arrest, will anything happen in the US? It’s possible, but don’t hold your breath.

The other major news is it now looks increasingly likely Trump is about to start a war in Iran.

It’s common for people to say he does things like that to distract from the Epstein story.

But I see his efforts in Iran (and Venezuela, and elsewhere) as part of a concerted effort to radically reshape American society and the United States’ role in the world. It’s about the reassertion of American power – which Trump understands to mean his own power.

The president unilaterally declaring a war on Iran without the ascent of Congress would defy the law. This is all part of a broader pattern of the Trump administration’s attacks on rule of law and the institutions charged with implementing it.

Overall, Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest throws into stark relief the state of the US compared to other democracies like the UK.

What’s happened in the UK shows the collapse of the rule of law is not inevitable. Institutions can hold, even if they they are slow and deeply flawed.

Perhaps we will one day see institutions in the US working as they are supposed to, too.

Emma Shortis is director of International and Security Affairs at The Australia Institute, an independent think tank.

– ref. Andrew’s arrest: will anything like this now happen in the US? Why hasn’t it so far? – https://theconversation.com/andrews-arrest-will-anything-like-this-now-happen-in-the-us-why-hasnt-it-so-far-276512

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Francesca Jackson, PhD candidate, Lancaster Law School, Lancaster University

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has been arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office. The arrest comes after the US government released files that appeared to indicate he had shared official information with financier and convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein while serving as a trade envoy for the UK. But the police have not given details of exactly what they are investigating.

It is important to be clear that the arrest is not related to accusations of sexual assault or misconduct. In 2022, Mountbatten-Windsor reached a settlement with the late Virginia Giuffre for an undisclosed sum that did not include an admission of liability.

Being named in the Epstein files is not an indication of misconduct. Mountbatten-Windsor has previously denied any wrongdoing in his association with Epstein and and has previously rejected any suggestion he used his time as trade envoy to further his own interests.

What was Mountbatten-Windsor’s official role and why did he lose it?

In 2001, Tony Blair’s government made the then-prince the UK’s special representative for trade and investment. According to the government at the time, his remit was to “promote UK business internationally, market the UK to potential inward investors, and build relationships in support of UK business interests”. He did not receive a salary, but he did go on hundreds of trips to promote British businesses.

Members of the royal family are often deployed by the government on international missions to promote trade. When negotiating with other countries, particularly those which are also monarchies, sending a prominent figure like a royal may help seal the deal. Indeed, the then-government claimed that the former Duke of York’s “unique position gives him unrivalled access to members of royal families, heads of state, government ministers and chief executives of companies”.

It is not unusual for members of the royal family to be deployed by the government for diplomatic missions. Royals often host incoming state visits and lead similar visits abroad, and can be deployed to lead delegations on more specific missions.

However, Mountbatten-Windsor had an official role as trade envoy. He stepped down from this role in 2011 following reports about his friendship with Epstein, who was convicted of sex offences in 2011.

---

Read more:
What exactly is misconduct in public office and could Peter Mandelson be convicted?

---

Are royals protected from prosecution?

The monarch is protected by sovereign immunity, a wide-ranging constitutional principle exempting him from all criminal and civil liability. According to the leading 19th century constitutionalist Alfred Dicey, the monarch could not even be prosecuted for “shooting the Prime Minister through the head”. The Prince of Wales also enjoys immunity as Duke of Cornwall, which protects him from punishment for breaking a range of laws.

The State Immunity Act 1978, which confers immunity on the head of state, also extends to “members of the family forming part of the household”. However, this phrase has been interpreted narrowly to apply to a very tight circle of people and does not appear to apply to the monarch’s children in general. For example, in 2002 Princess Anne was prosecuted (though not arrested) for failing to control her dogs in Windsor Great Park after they bit two children.

Nevertheless, there has often been a perception that members of the royal family are held to a different standard when it comes to the law. In 2016 Thames Valley Police were criticised by anti-monarchy groups for not prosecuting the then-prince after newspaper reports alleged he had driven his car through the gates of Windsor Great Park. In 2019 the Crown Prosecution Service declined to prosecute Prince Philip for causing a car crash which injured two people.

The monarch also cannot be compelled to give evidence in court. For example, prosecutors were unable to summon the late queen to give evidence in the trial of Princess Diana’s former butler, who was accused of stealing her jewellery.

In response to Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest, the king said: “What now follows is the full, fair and proper process by which this issue is investigated in the appropriate manner and by the appropriate authorities. In this, as I have said before, they have our full and wholehearted support and co-operation. Let me state clearly: the law must take its course.”

When was the last time a royal was arrested?

You have to go back quite a long way to find the last time that a member of the British royal family was arrested. This was during the English civil war, when Charles I was taken prisoner for treason before being found guilty and ultimately executed in 1649.

A number of royals, including Princess Anne, have committed driving-related offences, including speeding. But this arrest makes Mountbatten-Windsor the first member of the royal family to be arrested in modern times, though it should be noted that he is no longer a royal – he was stripped of all his official titles in October 2025 as his friendship with Epstein came under even more scrutiny.

What limits do police have on investigating royal estates?

Sovereign immunity also prevents police from entering private royal estates to investigate alleged crimes without permission. This can, theoretically, protect members of the royal family from arrest and prosecution. The Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Act 2017 also bans police from searching royal estates for stolen or looted artefacts.

In 2007, two hen harriers were illegally shot at Sandringham estate. However, Norfolk Police first needed to ask Sandringham officials for permission to enter the estate, by which time the dead birds’ bodies had been removed. Police questioned Prince Harry, but did not bring charges.

Other incidents have allegedly led to Sandringham being accused of becoming a wildlife crime hotspot, with at least 18 reported cases of suspected wildlife offences taking place between 2003-23 – yet only one resulting in prosecution.

Another longstanding legal precedent is that no one may be arrested in the presence of the monarch or within the precincts of a royal palace. It was thought that this rule could protect other members of the royal family and royal employees. However, Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest at Sandringham suggests that this antiquated principle may no longer hold true today.

Francesca Jackson 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 has Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor been arrested, and what legal protections does the royal family have? – https://theconversation.com/why-has-andrew-mountbatten-windsor-been-arrested-and-what-legal-protections-does-the-royal-family-have-276466

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Robyn Schofield, Professor and Associate Dean (Environment and Sustainability in Faculty of Science), The University of Melbourne

Space junk returning to the Earth is introducing metal pollution to the pristine upper atmosphere as it burns up on re-entry, a new study has found.

Published today in the journal Communications Earth & Environment, the study was led by Robin Wing from the Leibniz Institute of Atmospheric Physics in Germany. Using highly sensitive lasers, he and his team of international researchers observed a plume of lithium pollution, tracking it back to the uncontrolled re-entry of a discarded Space X Falcon 9 rocket upper stage.

This is the first observational evidence that re-entering space debris leaves a detectable, human-caused chemical fingerprint in the upper atmosphere. This was also the first time a pollutant plume from a specific space junk re-entry event has been monitored from the ground.

With many more satellite launches planned for the future, this event won’t be the last. It highlights the urgent need for governments and the space industry to tackle this problem before it gets out of hand.

A part of the atmosphere we barely understand

The region that comprises the upper stratosphere, mesosphere, and lower thermosphere (around 80 to 120 kilometres above Earth) is one of the least studied parts of the Earth system. It’s too high for balloons, too low for satellites, and too harsh for aircraft.

Yet this region is crucial for radio and GPS communications, upper atmospheric weather patterns, and stratospheric ozone.

The upper atmosphere is largely unpolluted by humans. But the new space age is injecting growing quantities of metals and other pollutants from satellites, rocket bodies and space debris.

The impact this will have on the stratospheric ozone layer, which is crucial to protecting life on Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation, is as yet unquantified. But early findings are cause for concern.

For example, research from 2024 suggests aluminium and chlorine emissions related to rocket launches and re-entries may slow the ozone layer’s recovery.

Soot from rocket launches is also likely to cause warming in the upper atmosphere.

Finding lithium with lasers

For the new study, the researchers used a highly sensitive laser-based sensor to detect the fluorescence of trace metals in the mesosphere and lower thermosphere. This is not an off-the-shelf and readily available observation system, but it could be.

On February 20 2025, they captured a clear, sudden enhancement in lithium ions from lithium batteries and human-made metal casings used in satellites. These are quite distinct from natural meteor material.

Using atmospheric trajectory modelling, they traced the timing and altitude of the lithium plume directly to the re-entry path of a discarded Falcon 9 rocket stage as it burnt up through the lower thermosphere into the mesosphere over the Atlantic Ocean, west of Ireland.

A rapidly escalating problem

The number of satellites in orbit has exploded from a few thousand a couple years ago to roughly 14,000 right now, driven largely by megaconstellations.

There are many more satellites planned. In fact, SpaceX has applied to launch a megaconstellation of up to one million satellites to power data centres in space. Every one of these satellites will eventually re-enter the atmosphere. So too will the rockets that launch them.

Current estimates suggest that by 2030, several tonnes of spacecraft material will burn up in the upper atmosphere every single day.

So far, there is no regulatory framework for these emissions, few monitoring options and limited scientific understanding of the likely impacts.

The new lithium detection demonstrates that pollutants from re-entry are measurable and can be traced back to individual re-entry events. This is an important step when it comes to holding companies involved in space accountable.

International regulatory bodies need to be set up to liaise with governments and scientists to establish monitoring networks and instruments to track changes to our atmosphere from this emerging threat.

As the space industry skyrockets, our efforts to understand, monitor and regulate upper-atmospheric emissions must keep pace.

Robyn Schofield receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Medical Research Future Fund, the Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program and Murujuga Rock Art Monitoring Program. She is an ACCESS-NRI board member, an expert advisory group member of The Safer Air Project, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society expert chair of atmospheric and oceanographic composition and an Associate Investigator of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Weather of the 21st Century. From 2016-2024 she was also an elected member of the International Ozone Commission.

Robert George Ryan receives funding from the Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program and Murujuga Rock Art Monitoring Program. He has also received funding from the European Research Council to research upper tropospheric chemistry. He is an early career researcher member of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (AMOS).

– ref. SpaceX rocket left behind a plume of chemical pollution as it burnt up in the atmosphere – https://theconversation.com/spacex-rocket-left-behind-a-plume-of-chemical-pollution-as-it-burnt-up-in-the-atmosphere-276266

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Frederic Lemieux, Professor of the Practice and Faculty Director of the Master’s in Applied Intelligence, Georgetown University

Russian aircraft, drones and missiles have violated NATO airspace dozens of times since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine began in February 2022.

Individually, many of these incidents appear minor: a drone crash here, a brief fighter incursion there, a missile discovered only after the fact.

But taken together, I believe the numbers tell a far more troubling story.

To get a full picture of the scale of violations, I conducted a systematic review of Russian airspace violations against NATO members from 2022 through the end of 2025.

It reveals not just an increase but a sharp acceleration accompanied by rising severity and widening geographic scope. In 2025 alone, NATO members recorded 18 confirmed Russian airspace violations – three times as many as in 2024 and more than half of all incidents recorded over the four-year period. This was not a gradual escalation; it was a dramatic change.

Picking up pace

I identified airspace violations through a systematic review of international news media coverage, corroborated with official NATO press releases and cross-validated against operational assessments and geospatial reporting from the Institute for the Study of War. Included were violations of airspace by drones heavily suspected to be Russian but that could not be 100% confirmed.

Between 2022 and 2024, the annual number of violations rose steadily but modestly. There were four incidents in 2022, five in 2023 and six in 2024.

That corresponds to year-on-year increases of roughly 25% and 20%. In 2025, the count jumped from six to 18, a 200% increase in a single year. And that pace has continued into 2026 – as of Feb. 18 there have been at least two violations of NATO airspace by Russia.

Such a surge is statistically and strategically significant. It strongly suggests that Russian airspace violations are no longer episodic spillovers from the war in Ukraine, but part of a sustained pattern of pressure directed at NATO itself.

The character of these incidents has also changed. In 2022, all four violations were what I classify as low-intensity events: brief incursions into Swedish airspace by Russian fighters, the crash of an Orlan-10 reconnaissance drone in Romania and the later discovery of a Russian cruise missile in Poland. These incidents were serious but short-lived and geographically limited.

By 2023, violations had become more repetitive. Romania alone experienced multiple drone incursions and debris discoveries over several months, often triggering fighter scrambles. All five incidents that year fell into a midrange severity category: more persistent than before but still largely confined to border regions.

The transition toward higher-intensity incursions became clearer in 2024. Of the six violations that year, half involved high-severity characteristics such as deeper penetration of a NATO country or broader geographic exposure.

A Russian cruise missile crossed into Polish airspace, drones entered Romania on multiple consecutive nights, and a Russian drone crashed well inside Latvian territory. These incidents expanded both the depth and the geographic footprint of violations.

Then came 2025. Of the 18 violations recorded that year, a clear majority qualify as high-severity events. These include a Russian drone that penetrated nearly 60 miles (100 kilometers) into Polish territory before crashing near Osiny without prior radar detection; a drone that remained inside Romanian airspace for approximately four hours, crossing multiple counties before crashing in Vaslui; and a massive 21-drone swarm over Poland on Sept. 9-10 that forced the closure of major civilian airports in Warsaw, Rzeszów and Lublin.

Manned aircraft also returned in force. Russian MiG-31 interceptors flew over Estonia for about 12 minutes with transponders – onboard devices that automatically respond to radar signals by transmitting an aircraft’s identity and altitude, enabling air traffic control and air defense systems to track it – switched off. In October, a Russian Su-30 fighter accompanied by an Il-78 refueling tanker violated Lithuanian airspace – an unmistakable signal of endurance and deliberate mission planning.

In December, suspected Russian drones were shot down and later recovered in Turkey on multiple dates, indicating a persistent provocation rather than a one-off incursion.

Perhaps most strikingly, Western Europe was seemingly no longer exempt. On Dec. 4, 2025, five unidentified drones flew over France’s Île Longue naval base, home to the country’s nuclear ballistic missile submarines. French personnel reportedly fired at the suspected Russian drones.

Just weeks later, on Christmas Day, Polish fighters intercepted a Russian reconnaissance aircraft over the Baltic Sea.

Grey-zone tactics

Severity and frequency are not the only dimensions that changed. Geographical reach has, too.

In 2022, Russian violations affected three NATO members. By 2024, that number had grown to four. In 2025, it expanded to six: Romania, Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Turkey and France.

Pressure was applied simultaneously in the Black Sea region, the Baltic states and Western Europe.

This widening scope matters because it undermines the idea that these incidents are localized accidents. Instead, they resemble a distributed pattern of Russia probing across NATO’s eastern and southern flanks and into its strategic core.

NATO’s political response reflects this shift. For the first time since the war began, members invoked Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty, the mechanism for collective consultation when a member feels its security is threatened.

Poland did so after the September 2025 drone swarm, and Estonia followed after the MiG-31 incursion later that month. Although only two of the 18 incidents triggered Article 4, their timing is revealing: No such invocations occurred in the previous three years combined.

From a strategic standpoint, the danger lies less in any single violation than in their cumulative effect. Airspace incursions sit in a grey zone between peace and open conflict. They impose operational and psychological costs, test air defense systems and provide valuable intelligence on NATO’s detection thresholds and response times, all while staying below the legal threshold of armed attack.

Testing NATO’s resolve

The data from 2025 and early 2026 show that this grey-zone activity has intensified dramatically. A threefold increase in one year, coupled with a shift toward deeper, longer and more disruptive incidents across multiple theaters, points to a deliberate campaign rather than accidental spillover.

For NATO, the implication is clear. Monitoring individual incidents is no longer sufficient. What now matters is the rate of acceleration, the severity profile and the geographic dispersion of violations.

If current trends persist as the war in Ukraine enters its fifth year, the alliance’s greatest challenge may not be responding to a single dramatic breach but managing the mounting pressure created by many smaller ones – each calibrated to test resolve without triggering open conflict.

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

– ref. Russia tested NATO’s airspace 18 times in 2025 alone – a 200% surge that signals a dangerous shift – https://theconversation.com/russia-tested-natos-airspace-18-times-in-2025-alone-a-200-surge-that-signals-a-dangerous-shift-273318

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Francesca Jackson, PhD candidate, Lancaster Law School, Lancaster University

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor has been arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office. The arrest comes after the US government released files that appeared to indicate he had shared official information with financier and convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein while serving as a trade envoy for the UK. But the police have not given details of exactly what they are investigating.

It is important to be clear that the arrest is not related to accusations of sexual assault or misconduct. In 2022, Mountbatten-Windsor reached a settlement with the late Virginia Giuffre for an undisclosed sum that did not include an admission of liability.

Being named in the Epstein files is not an indication of misconduct. Mountbatten-Windsor has previously denied any wrongdoing in his association with Epstein and and has previously rejected any suggestion he used his time as trade envoy to further his own interests.

What was Mountbatten-Windsor’s official role and why did he lose it?

In 2001, Tony Blair’s government made the then-prince the UK’s special representative for trade and investment. According to the government at the time, his remit was to “promote UK business internationally, market the UK to potential inward investors, and build relationships in support of UK business interests”. He did not receive a salary, but he did go on hundreds of trips to promote British businesses.

Members of the royal family are often deployed by the government on international missions to promote trade. When negotiating with other countries, particularly those which are also monarchies, sending a prominent figure like a royal may help seal the deal. Indeed, the then-government claimed that the former Duke of York’s “unique position gives him unrivalled access to members of royal families, heads of state, government ministers and chief executives of companies”.

It is not unusual for members of the royal family to be deployed by the government for diplomatic missions. Royals often host incoming state visits and lead similar visits abroad, and can be deployed to lead delegations on more specific missions.

However, Mountbatten-Windsor had an official role as trade envoy. He stepped down from this role in 2011 following reports about his friendship with Epstein, who was convicted of sex offences in 2011.

---

Read more:
What exactly is misconduct in public office and could Peter Mandelson be convicted?

---

Are royals protected from prosecution?

The monarch is protected by sovereign immunity, a wide-ranging constitutional principle exempting him from all criminal and civil liability. According to the leading 19th century constitutionalist Alfred Dicey, the monarch could not even be prosecuted for “shooting the Prime Minister through the head”. The Prince of Wales also enjoys immunity as Duke of Cornwall, which protects him from punishment for breaking a range of laws.

The State Immunity Act 1978, which confers immunity on the head of state, also extends to “members of the family forming part of the household”. However, this phrase has been interpreted narrowly to apply to a very tight circle of people and does not appear to apply to the monarch’s children in general. For example, in 2002 Princess Anne was prosecuted (though not arrested) for failing to control her dogs in Windsor Great Park after they bit two children.

Nevertheless, there has often been a perception that members of the royal family are held to a different standard when it comes to the law. In 2016 Thames Valley Police were criticised by anti-monarchy groups for not prosecuting the then-prince after newspaper reports alleged he had driven his car through the gates of Windsor Great Park. In 2019 the Crown Prosecution Service declined to prosecute Prince Philip for causing a car crash which injured two people.

The monarch also cannot be compelled to give evidence in court. For example, prosecutors were unable to summon the late queen to give evidence in the trial of Princess Diana’s former butler, who was accused of stealing her jewellery.

In response to Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest, the king said: “What now follows is the full, fair and proper process by which this issue is investigated in the appropriate manner and by the appropriate authorities. In this, as I have said before, they have our full and wholehearted support and co-operation. Let me state clearly: the law must take its course.”

When was the last time a royal was arrested?

You have to go back quite a long way to find the last time that a member of the British royal family was arrested. This was during the English civil war, when Charles I was taken prisoner for treason before being found guilty and ultimately executed in 1649.

A number of royals, including Princess Anne, have committed driving-related offences, including speeding. But this arrest makes Mountbatten-Windsor the first member of the royal family to be arrested in modern times, though it should be noted that he is no longer a royal – he was stripped of all his official titles in October 2025 as his friendship with Epstein came under even more scrutiny.

What limits do police have on investigating royal estates?

Sovereign immunity also prevents police from entering private royal estates to investigate alleged crimes without permission. This can, theoretically, protect members of the royal family from arrest and prosecution. The Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Act 2017 also bans police from searching royal estates for stolen or looted artefacts.

In 2007, two hen harriers were illegally shot at Sandringham estate. However, Norfolk Police first needed to ask Sandringham officials for permission to enter the estate, by which time the dead birds’ bodies had been removed. Police questioned Prince Harry, but did not bring charges.

Other incidents have allegedly led to Sandringham being accused of becoming a wildlife crime hotspot, with at least 18 reported cases of suspected wildlife offences taking place between 2003-23 – yet only one resulting in prosecution.

Another longstanding legal precedent is that no one may be arrested in the presence of the monarch or within the precincts of a royal palace. It was thought that this rule could protect other members of the royal family and royal employees. However, Mountbatten-Windsor’s arrest at Sandringham suggests that this antiquated principle may no longer hold true today.

Francesca Jackson 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 has Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor been arrested, and what legal protections do the royal family have? – https://theconversation.com/why-has-andrew-mountbatten-windsor-been-arrested-and-what-legal-protections-do-the-royal-family-have-276466

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Lakshini Gunasekera, PhD Candidate in Neurology, Monash University

A migraine attack is not just a “bad headache”.

Migraine is a debilitating neurological condition which can cause nausea, vomiting, and sensitivity to light or sound, in addition to severe headaches.

Migraine affects roughly five million Australians, but few people understand the different stages of a migraine attack.

Knowing the four distinct phases can help you recognise the symptoms and manage pain at each stage.

Phase 1: Premonitory

The first phase of migraine development is the “premonitory” or “prodrome” phase. It functions like a warning period which begins 24 to 48 hours before a migraine attack fully sets in.

The premonitory phase has a lot to do with the hypothalamus. The hypothalamus is the part of the brain which regulates key functions such as body temperature, appetite, mood and sleep.

When a person experiences a migraine attack, their hypothalamus becomes abnormally activated. The hypothalamus is connected to other parts of the brain with different functions, so this abnormal activation can also disrupt how those parts function.

This can lead to symptoms such as poor concentration, food cravings, irritability and insomnia. If you notice these early signs, you’re more likely to “catch” the start of a migraine attack and be able to treat it early.

Phase 2: Aura

The second phase of a migraine attack is called “aura”. Aura refers to various neurological symptoms which affect your vision, speech or ability to feel sensations. Visual auras, which mainly affect your vision, are the most common kind.

Visual aura symptoms can include seeing flashing lights, swirling shapes or blind spots. A sensory aura can lead to numbness or tingling in your face or limbs. In severe cases, people may even have trouble speaking.

Research suggests a process called cortical spreading depression contributes to aura symptoms. During this process, a wave of electrical activity spreads very slowly through the brain and can impact how certain brain regions function.

Only 30% of people experience migraine with aura.

Phase 3: Headache

The third phase of a migraine attack is the headache. This is when people typically experience a throbbing or pulsating headache, alongside other symptoms like nausea and sensitivity to light and sound.

This phase usually lasts between four and 72 hours if untreated.

When different brain networks become activated during a migraine attack, other symptoms can develop in addition to headache.

When the medulla or “vomit centre” of the brain is abnormally activated, it can lead to nausea and vomiting.

The trigeminal nerve, the nerve which allows you to feel sensations on your face, can also become abnormally activated. This causes the release of chemicals which may be perceived by the brain as pain.

One of these chemicals is a protein called calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP). Some injectable types of migraine medication block this protein to reduce pain.

Phase 4: Postdrome

The fourth and final phase is the “postdrome”. It is also known as the “migraine hangover”.

During this recovery phase, your brain is working hard to return to its normal functioning. That is why you may feel even more fatigued or have difficulty concentrating after a migraine attack.

So, how can I manage a migraine attack?

It helps to know the symptoms and stages of migraine development.

If you have predictable symptoms, particularly during the premonitory phase, it’s best to carry pain medications or anti-nausea tablets with you. That way you can treat early symptoms as soon as they arise. It can also be a sign to rest, ideally before the headache phase sets in.

In the aura phase, taking migraine-specific pain medications such as triptans, aspirin or anti-inflammatory pain killers may stop the headache phase from starting.

If you have more than four migraine attacks each month, you may also consider taking preventive medications. These are usually daily tablets which help control the baseline level of head pain you experience. Injectable options are also available.

Finally, don’t ignore the postdrome phase. If you push yourself too hard during this recovery period, you may experience overlapping migraine attacks. This is when one migraine attack starts before the last one resolves itself. Overlapping migraine attacks are much harder to treat.

You may also experience other symptoms related to the migraine attack. These can include dizziness, neck pain, or ringing in the ears. If you have any of these additional symptoms, you should consult your neurologist to check they are not caused by a more serious underlying condition.

And if you are a woman who experiences migraine with aura, speak to your doctor before starting hormone-based contraception. This is because you may need different treatment than someone who does not experience aura symptoms.

By understanding the different phases and symptoms of migraine, you will be better equipped to tackle any future attacks that come.

---

Read more:
Why is migraine more common in women than men?

---

Lakshini Gunasekera receives funding from the Victorian government’s Catalyst grant program to investigate hormonal therapies for menstrual migraine, and she has received royalties from Pain Management Today.

– ref. Migraine is more than just a headache. A neurologist explains the 4 stages – https://theconversation.com/migraine-is-more-than-just-a-headache-a-neurologist-explains-the-4-stages-267973

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Timothy Graham, Associate Professor in Digital Media, Queensland University of Technology

A new study published today in Nature has found that X’s algorithm – the hidden system or “recipe” that governs which posts appear in your feed and in which order – shifts users’ political opinions in a more conservative direction.

Led by Germain Gauthier from Bocconi University in Italy, it is a rare, real-world randomised experimental study on a major social media platform. And it builds on a growing body of research that shows how these platforms can shape people’s political attitudes.

Two different algorithms

The researchers randomly assigned 4,965 active US-based X users to one of two groups.

The first group used X’s default “For You” feed. This features an algorithm that selects and ranks posts it thinks users will be more likely to engage with, including posts from accounts that they don’t necessarily follow.

The second group used a chronological feed. This only shows posts from accounts users follow, displayed in the order they were posted. The experiment ran for seven weeks during 2023.

Users who switched from the chronological feed to the “For You” feed were 4.7 percentage points more likely to prioritise policy issues favoured by US Republicans (for example, crime, inflation and immigration). They were also more likely to view the criminal investigation into US President Donald Trump as unacceptable.

They also shifted in a more pro-Russia direction in regards to the war in Ukraine. For example, these users became 7.4 percentage points less likely to view Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy positively, and scored slightly higher on a pro-Russian attitude index overall.

The researchers also examined how the algorithm produced these effects.

They found evidence that the algorithm increased the share of right-leaning content by 2.9 percentage points overall (and 2.5 points among political posts), compared with the chronological feed.

It also significantly demoted the share of posts from traditional news organisations’ accounts while promoting or boosting posts from political activists.

One of the most concerning findings of the study is the longer-term effects of X’s algorithmic feed. The study showed the algorithm nudged users towards following more right-leaning accounts, and that the new following patterns endured even after switching back to the chronological feed.

In other words, turning the algorithm off didn’t simply “reset” what people see. It had a longer-lasting impact beyond its day-to-day effects.

One piece of a much bigger picture

This new study supports findings of similar studies.

For example, a study in 2022, before Elon Musk had bought Twitter and rebranded it as X, found the platform’s algorithmic systems amplified content from the mainstream political right more than the left in six out of the seven countries.

An experimental study from 2025 re-ranked X feeds to reduce exposure to content that expresses antidemocratic attitudes and partisan animosity. They found this shifted feelings towards their political opponents by more than two points on a 0–100 “feeling thermometer”. This is a shift the authors argued would have normally taken about three years to occur organically in the general population.

My own research offers another piece of evidence to this picture of algorithmic bias on X. Along with my colleague Mark Andrejevic, I analysed engagement data (such as likes and reposts) from prominent political accounts during the final stages of the 2024 US election.

Our findings unearthed a sudden and unusual spike in engagement with Musk’s account after his endorsement of Trump on July 13 – the day of the assassination attempt on Trump. Views on Musk’s posts surged by 138%, retweets by 238%, and likes by 186%. This far outstripped increases on other accounts.

After July 13, right-leaning accounts on X gained significantly greater visibility than progressive ones. The “playing field” for attention and engagement on the platform was tilted thereafter towards right-leaning accounts – a trend that continued for the remainder of the time period we analysed in that study.

Not a niche product

This matters because we are not talking about a niche product.

X has more than 400 million users globally. It has become embedded as infrastructure – a key source of political and social communication. And once technical systems become infrastructure, they can become invisible – like background objects that we barely think about, but which shape society at its foundations and can be exploited under our noses.

Think of the overpass bridges Robert Moses designed in New York in the 1930s. These seemed like inert objects. But they were designed to be very low, to exclude people of colour from taking buses to recreation areas in Long Island.

Similar to this, the design and governance of social media platforms also has real consequences.

The point is that X’s algorithms are not neutral tools. They are an editorial force, shaping what people know, whom they pay attention to, who the outgroup is and what “we” should do about or to them – and, as this new study shows, what people come to believe.

The age of taking platform companies at their word about the design and effects of their own algorithms must come to an end. Governments around the world – including in Australia where the eSafety Commissioner has powers to drive “algorithmic transparency and accountability” and require that platforms report on how their algorithms contribute to or reduce harms – need to mandate genuine transparency over how these systems work.

When infrastructure become harmful or unsafe, nobody bats an eye when governments do something to protect us. The same needs to happen urgently for social media infrastructures.

Timothy Graham receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC) for the Discovery Project, ‘Understanding and Combatting “Dark Political Communication”‘.

– ref. A few weeks of X’s algorithm can make you more right-wing – and it doesn’t wear off quickly – https://theconversation.com/a-few-weeks-of-xs-algorithm-can-make-you-more-right-wing-and-it-doesnt-wear-off-quickly-276153

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ilayaraja Subramanian, Lecturer in Marketing, University of Canterbury

American artificial intelligence (AI) company Anthropic this month attracted applause – and a surge in users – for clever advertisements poking fun at its competition.

In the commercials, an AI assistant awkwardly breaks away mid-conversation to push products such as shoe insoles and dating services. “Ads are coming to AI”, the Super Bowl-tied spots warned, but not to Anthtropic’s own chatbot Claude.

The campaign quickly generated buzz because it played to peoples’ worries that inviting advertising into AI platforms which many of us now rely on – and confide in – risks blurring the line between helpful advice and paid influence.

But that anxiety, while understandable, overlooks how advertising already works across much of the digital world.

In many ways, ads based on our interactions with AI aren’t such a big leap from the kinds of targeted advertising that already dominate search engines, social media feeds and e-commerce platforms.

And if transparent and well-designed, the shift could help people complete tasks faster and keep these tools widely accessible.

AI’s access and equity headache

This month, OpenAI’s ChatGPT began testing adverts with users in the United States. The company assures us any ads will be clearly labelled, kept separate from answers and accompanied by privacy protections and user controls.

The stakes are high: ChatGPT now boasts 800 million weekly users and ranks as the internet’s fifth most visited website. It has operated largely ad-free since its launch three years ago and only about 5% of users pay a subscription.

With room to grow, OpenAI has strong incentives to find a sustainable model that protects trust without undermining what made the service so popular.

If indeed transparent and optional, its advertising could help solve a basic funding problem. In practice, a small paying group cannot carry the full burden forever.

A light, clearly labelled ad model is one way the wider user base could contribute indirectly – much as they already do via television, YouTube, search engines and many news websites.

That matters for access. Around one in six people worldwide already use generative AI, but adoption is uneven and a digital divide is widening between richer and poorer countries.

If wealthier nations move faster, sustainable business models can help spread access by keeping costs down for students, job seekers and small organisations in emerging economies.

The convenience of ‘contextual’ advertising

For everyday ChatGPT users, the main upside of ads is that they can reflect what is needed in the moment, rather than what a tracker infers from past browsing.

Traditional digital ads use cookies and cross-site tracking to guess people’s interests over time. Contextual advertising, by contrast, targets what is happening on the page or in the moment and is often seen as a more privacy-friendly alternative.

OpenAI says ads will be matched to the conversation and may use past chats and ad interactions. Users will be able to dismiss ads, see why they were shown one and delete ad data.

If those controls work as promised, relevance would come from the question being asked, not from tracking across other websites. Imagine asking: “I’m hosting friends. What are two easy Mexican dishes, and what ingredients do I need?”.

ChatGPT could give the recipe guidance first, then show a clearly labelled ad option, such as a local supermarket delivery link for the exact ingredients, or a sponsored meal kit that fits the budget and dietary needs. Instead of jumping between tabs, the user moves straight from decision to action.

For consumers, that is convenience. For advertisers, it is also efficiency, because the ad appears at the moment of genuine intent rather than being sprayed across the internet.

Another benefit is smoother communication. Conversational ads have the potential to function more like a shop assistant than a static banner. Instead of clicking away, opening tabs and filling in forms, follow-up questions can be asked in the same chat and personalised details returned quickly.

OpenAI suggests this could include sponsored listings that users can interact with in the chat. For instance, while planning a trip, a sponsored accommodation option might appear, allowing questions about availability, cancellation, location and total cost for specific dates and group size to be handled in one place.

Done well, this could reduce frustration and curb misleading advertising, because people can challenge vague claims and ask for specifics before spending money.

Trust, transparency and limits

None of this removes the risks. Advertisements should not be allowed to change what a trusted AI tool such as ChatGPT recommends. And because ads are currently being tested with only a small group of users, the full extent of those risks cannot yet be observed or properly assessed.

That is why transparency and separation are not cosmetic. They are safeguards.

For now, it may be tempting to treat “ad-free” as the only ethical position, as Anthropic’s new campaign implies. But the world is still early in this shift. These systems should be judged by what happens in practice – especially on transparency, user control and real protections against manipulation.

If those guardrails hold, it is worth considering the upside too: ads in AI tools could support access, reduce friction and help more people benefit from this powerful technology.

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

– ref. Ads are coming to AI. Does that really have to be such a bad thing? – https://theconversation.com/ads-are-coming-to-ai-does-that-really-have-to-be-such-a-bad-thing-274955