Category: The Conversation – Global Perspectives

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Aleta Moriarty, PhD student, economic opportunities for people with autism, The University of Melbourne

Recent images of an emaciated Gazan child, Muhammad Zakariya Ayyoub al-Matouq, provoked global outrage. Some sought to minimise this harm, attributing it instead to pre-existing conditions or disability.

But framing starvation deaths in Gaza in terms of underlying disabilities or comorbidities is misleading. It is essential to recognise these conditions do not justify suffering or death.

Rather, the crisis in Gaza has intensified existing vulnerabilities for people with disabilities, who face extreme barriers to evacuation, aid and medical treatment.

So, what type of practical humanitarian response is needed right now for people with disabilities in Gaza?

For people with disabilities, conflict supercharges risk

Conflict and humanitarian crises intensify and compound vulnerabilities faced by people with disabilities.

Evidence shows that in armed conflicts and humanitarian crises, people with disabilities:

• have higher mortality rates
• are less likely to evacuate safely
• are less likely to access humanitarian assistance
• are often separated from supports and carers, and
• are more often left behind.

Women and children with disabilities face heightened risks of violence, neglect and exploitation, while also contending with stigma and discrimination.

A tragedy within a tragedy

International law is clear on this issue.

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which Israel ratified in 2012, requires it to take

all necessary measures to ensure the protection and safety of persons with disabilities in situations of risk, including situations of armed conflict.

The UN Security Council has also recognised the disproportionate impact of conflict on people with disabilities.

There is significant evidence suggesting Israel has not upheld these obligations.

UN special rapporteurs have expressed alarm at what they describe as “harrowing conditions for Palestinians with disabilities trapped in Gaza”.

The UN estimates about 92% of homes in Gaza have been destroyed or damaged. More than than 90% of Gazans have now been displaced, some more than ten times.

People with disabilities are at particular risk. The UN has documented cases where evacuation orders were issued by Israel in inaccessible formats, leading to additional deaths. Piles of rubble and unexploded ordinance have made access impossible for many, with 81% of roads now damaged or destroyed.

More than 83% of people with disabilities in Gaza have lost their assistive devices (such as wheelchairs or hearing aids).

UN representatives report being shocked by the account of a 14-year-old girl with cerebral palsy. She had lost her assistive devices, including a wheelchair, and had to be carried by her parents as they fled from north to south Gaza.

Exhausted and exposed to danger along the way, the girl cried out in desperation, “Mama, it’s over. Leave me here, and you run away.”

Hospitals and rehabilitation facilities are necessary for many people with disabilities. However, only half of Gaza’s hospitals and about 39% of primary health care centres are partially functional.

A mass disabling event

Israel’s war in Gaza constitutes a mass disabling event.

A joint assessment by the World Bank, United Nations and European Union found in February that the prevalence of disabilities had doubled since October 2023.

Most recent data indicates that 151,442 people have sustained injuries in this conflict.

In 2024, the World Health Organisation estimated that around 25% of all those injured are likely to have acute and ongoing rehabilitation needs.

The NGO Humanity and Inclusion UK reports Gaza now has the highest rate of child amputees per capita in the world. According to UNICEF, more than ten children per day have lost one or both of their legs.

The substantial rise in the prevalence of disability means demand for rehabilitation services and accessibility has quickly outstripped supply.

UNICEF reports more than one million children also need mental health and psychosocial support.

With historical evidence suggesting Israeli forces have pursued deliberate disablement policies, this demands urgent investigation.

What’s needed now

An immediate, sustained ceasefire is essential.

Israel’s expanded assault on Gaza city significantly threatens people with disabilities and risks further deaths and disability.

Israel should also abandon its current flawed system of aid delivery via the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. Principled aid delivery must be restored, ensuring safe access for people with disability.

To meet its obligations under international law, Israel should keep relief corridors open for the safe passage of humanitarian and medical personnel and goods. This includes assistive devices and the batteries needed to power them.

Forcible displacement must cease. Evacuations must comply with international law, be accessible, and keep families, carers and assistive devices together.

Protecting people with disabilities would mean ensuring shelters and wash facilities are accessible and equipped, and evacuation backlogs cleared.

Expanding rehabilitation, mental health support, access to assistive technology and tailored services is crucial. Civilian infrastructure and medical facilities must be protected, and rubble and ordnance cleared to ensure safe and accessible passage.

An equitable humanitarian response must be inclusive, centring the voices of persons with disabilities (especially women and children, who face heightened risks).

Without immediate action to end the violence, restore access and ensure disability inclusion, the most vulnerable will lose further dignity, safety and lives.

Aleta Moriarty previously worked for international organisations on the rights of people with disability.

– ref. Israel’s attacks on Gaza are putting people with disabilities at extreme risk – https://theconversation.com/israels-attacks-on-gaza-are-putting-people-with-disabilities-at-extreme-risk-263029

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Nial Wheate, Professor, School of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University

When your dog starts limping or your cat comes down with a sniffle, it’s natural to worry. For many families, pets are more than just animals – and we want them to have a standard of medical care similar to our own.

But it can still be surprising when the vet prescribes a medication that looks identical to something in your own bathroom cabinet.

Many human medicines are safe and effective for pets when used under veterinary guidance. But others can be harmful due to differences in how animals process drugs. So sometimes, pets need their own medicines.

So let’s examine the differences between drugs for humans and animals – and why you shouldn’t just give a pet your own medications.

Pet and human medicines explained

In Australia, the Therapeutic Goods Administration approves and regulates drugs for humans. The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority APVMA does the same for pet drugs.

While both agencies consider efficacy and safety in deciding whether to approve a product, the APVMA also considers environmental impact. For example, medicines given to animals – especially when given at scale on farms – can leach into waterways, affecting aquatic life and water quality.

The market for animal medicines is smaller than that for humans, making them less cost-effective to develop. Sometimes, no medicine exists for an animal condition and vets may need to use a human medicine.

For certain diseases and conditions, vets are legally permitted to dispense human medicines for pets through a process called off-label prescribing.

There are also medicines approved for both humans and pets. They include classes of antibiotics, antidepressants, corticosteriods (anti-inflammatory drugs), antiparasitics and chemotherapy drugs.

For example, doxorubicin is a chemotherapy drug used in humans to treat cancers including those of the lungs and bone. In dogs, it is commonly used to treat lymphomas, melanomas and cancers of the bone, among others. In both humans and dogs, doxorubicin is used to treat mammary gland (breast) cancer.

Similarly, ivermectin can be used to treat parasite infections such as scabies in humans and animals.

Beware the safety issues

While many drugs are shared between humans and pets, not all are safe. In fact, some common household medications can badly harm or kill animals.

The painkillers ibuprofen and paracetamol are toxic to both dogs and cats. They can cause damage to the animal’s stomach and kidneys, and may kill them.

This is because dogs and cats break down medicines different to the human body. For example, the proteins in a cat’s liver are different from the human liver, so they can’t break down paracetamol. It can damage their red blood cells and reduce their body’s ability to carry oxygen.

And the situation can differ between animals. The flea and tick medication permethrin, for instance, is safe for dogs but highly toxic to cats – potentially causing tremors, seizures and death.

And pets are far more sensitive to drug dosages than humans, so even small quantities of the wrong medicine can be fatal.

Animal-only medicines

Pets may also be given medicines no longer used for humans, or one specifically developed for animals.

Carprofen is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug previously used in humans but is now only prescribed for dogs. A vet might prescribe it for pain or inflammation.

We don’t use it in humans anymore because it’s expensive to manufacture. But it’s still used for dogs because it’s effective, and alternatives such as paracetamol and ibuprofen aren’t suitable for them.

Typically, medicines are developed for pets only when they address a condition specific to animals.

For example, humans don’t usually suffer from heartworm, but infection in pets is common. The arsenic-based drug melarsomine was designed specifically for animals and treats heartworm in adult dogs.

And of course, humans should not take medication prescribed for their pet.

While pet medicine may look similar to yours, there may be differences in formulation or dose that can cause side effects or toxicity in humans.

What to remember

If your pet is sick or injured, never give them a drug out of your own medicine cabinet – even if the vet has previously prescribed them the medication.

Take your animal to the vet. They will advise on the most appropriate treatment and dose, so you don’t do your pet further harm.

Nial Wheate in the past has received funding from the ACT Cancer Council, Tenovus Scotland, Medical Research Scotland, Scottish Crucible, and the Scottish Universities Life Sciences Alliance. He is a fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute. Nial is the chief scientific officer of Vaihea Skincare LLC, a director of SetDose Pty Ltd (a medical device company) and was previously a Standards Australia panel member for sunscreen agents. He is a member of the Haleon Australia Pty Ltd Pain Advisory Board. Nial regularly consults to industry on issues to do with medicine risk assessments, manufacturing, design and testing.

– ref. Yes, vets sometimes prescribe human drugs to pets. But don’t try it at home – https://theconversation.com/yes-vets-sometimes-prescribe-human-drugs-to-pets-but-dont-try-it-at-home-259675

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Bryce Barker, Professor in Archaeology, University of Southern Queensland

New research conducted at Walufeni Cave, an important archaeological site in Papua New Guinea, reveals new evidence of long-distance interactions between Oceania’s Indigenous societies, as far back as 3,200 years ago.

Our new study, published in the journal Australian Archaeology, is the first archaeological research undertaken on the Great Papuan Plateau. The findings continue to undermine the historical Eurocentric idea that early Indigenous societies in this region were static and unchanging.

Instead, we find further evidence for what Monash Professor of Indigenous Archaeology Ian J. McNiven calls the Coral Sea Cultural Interaction Sphere: a dynamic interchange of trade, ideas and movement over a vast region encompassing New Guinea, the Torres Strait, and north-eastern Australia.

Tracking movement across Sahul

The goal of the Great Papuan Plateau project was to determine whether the plateau may have been an eastern pathway for the movement of early people into north-eastern Australia, at a time when New Guinea and Australia were joined in the continent of Sahul.

The two countries as we know them separated about 8,000 years ago due to sea levels rising after the last glacial period.

Our research in Walufeni Cave, located near Mount Bosavi in New Guinea’s southern highlands province, identified occupation dating back more than 10,000 years. We also found a unique and as yet undated petroglyph rock art style.

Our analyses of cave deposits reveals significant changes in how the site was used starting from just over 3,000 years ago. This includes changes to the frequency of occupation, to plant and animal use, as well as the sudden appearance of coastal marine shell.

Specifically, we found 3,200-year-old evidence for the transport of marine shell 200km inland, which has previously been recorded as coming from the southern coast of the Gulf of Papua, and from as far away as Torres Strait.

This suggests the long-distance maritime trade and interaction networks between the societies of coastal southern New Guinea, Torres Strait and northern Australia extended far inland – and much further than previously known.

The significance of marine shells

Archaeologists and ethnographers have widely documented the use of culturally modified marine shells as important items of trade and prestige in New Guinea.

These shells were used as markers of status and prestige, for ritual purposes, as currency and wealth, as tools, and to facilitate long-distance social ties between groups.

Despite the coastal availability of a large variety of shellfish, only a relatively small selection are recorded as being commonly used in New Guinea.

The most prominent of these are dog whelks (Nassaridae), cowrie shells (Cypraeidae), cone shells (Conidae), baler shell (Volutidae), and pearl/kina shell (Pteriidae). Many of these are significant for ritual and symbolic functions across the Indo-Pacific and indeed, globally.

Dog whelks were the predominant species we found in Walufeni Cave, along with olive shells and cowrie shells. These come from very small “sea snails”, or gastropods.

All of the shells we found had been culturally modified, such as to allow stitching onto garments, or threading onto strings.

Gastropod shells continue to be used by today’s plateau societies. They may be sewn onto elaborate ceremonial costumes, or offered in long strings as trade items, or as bridal dowry.

Pottery and oral tradition

Further evidence for long-distance voyaging between the southern coast of Papua New Guinea and the Torres Strait and Northern Australia comes in the form of pottery.

Researchers have found Lapita pottery at two archaeological sites on the south coast of New Guinea (Caution Bay and Hopo). These have been dated to 2,900 and 2,600 years ago, respectively.

Lapita pottery is a distinctive feature of Austronesian long-distance voyagers with origins in modern-day Taiwan and the Philippines. Lapita peoples bought the first pottery to New Guinea about 3,300 years ago, providing the template for later localised pottery production.

In a separate finding, Aboriginal pottery dating back to 2,950 years ago was reported from Jiigurru (Lizard Island), off the coast of the Cape York Peninsula. While this pottery isn’t stylistically Lapita, the technology used to make it is.

Similar pottery dating back 2,600 years ago has been reported on the eastern Murray Islands of Torres Strait, and in the Mask Cave on Pulu Island, western Torres Strait. Analysis of the Murray Island pottery indicates the clay was derived from southern Papua New Guinea.

These studies suggest the Lapita peoples’ knowledge of how to make pottery spread to Torres Strait and northern Australia via the interaction sphere.

Furthermore, the cultural hero Sido/Souw, who is present in oral tradition on the Great Papuan Plateau, is also present in oral tradition from the Torres Strait and southern New Guinea. This demonstrates sociocultural connections across a vast area.

Our research builds on the continuing reevaluation of the capabilities of Indigenous societies, which were often characterised by early anthropologists as static and unchanging.

Bryce Barker receives funding from the Australian Research Council .

Tiina Manne receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Ancient shells and pottery reveal the vast 3,200-years-old trade routes of Oceania’s Indigenous peoples – https://theconversation.com/ancient-shells-and-pottery-reveal-the-vast-3-200-years-old-trade-routes-of-oceanias-indigenous-peoples-261950

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

Israel’s conduct in Gaza increasingly risks turning the state into a pariah.

Whereas world leaders initially rallied around Israel after the Oct. 7, 2023, massacre by Hamas militants, the resulting destruction inside the Palestinian enclave has seen the country ever more isolated on the international stage.

In recent weeks, even long-standing allies such as Germany, the U.K. and Australia have distanced themselves from the Israeli government, notably by pushing for recognition of Palestinian statehood.

As an Israeli scholar of the Middle East working in the U.S., I have seen how these international currents are affecting Israel’s standing in the world. And while the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stood defiant and unmoved by the hardening stance against it, the blowback against its citizens is certainly being felt.

Images of starvation

The change in attitude toward Israel has been unfolding since soon after the start of the war. It has been driven by Israeli actions that are increasingly seen as disproportionate and indefensible. But it has reached new heights – or lows – in recent months given the increasingly desperate plight of Palestinians being broadcast around the globe.

Horrifying images of starving children and thousands of people skirmishing for scraps of food in what a U.N.-backed body has called famine are now regularly reported in media outlets around the world and in the U.S. Even conservative platforms such as Fox News that until recently were sympathetic to Israel’s response to Oct. 7 have dedicated airtime to reporting on the hunger crisis and questioning its motives.

Increasingly, Israel’s onslaught on Gaza – which to date has killed at least 62,000 people, around half of whom are women and children, and left 70% of the strip in ruins – is being viewed through a critical lens.

Nearly two years after the attack that sparked the Israeli operation, the war aims of Israel are understood more and more as politically motivated, with the purpose being the political survival of Netanyahu and his government.

There is increasing international condemnation and sanctioning of some of the government’s more prominent members who are accused of using genocidal language against the Palestinians in Gaza and elsewhere.

Australia recently barred the entrance of one far-right Israeli parliamentarian, citing his violent and inflammatory language against Palestinians. The U.K. has sanctioned two members of Netanyahu’s government, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, for similar reasons.

Moreover, international organizations and scholars are increasingly framing the actions of the Israeli government as a whole in Gaza as genocide – and recently two Israeli human rights organizations have joined them.

Israeli public opinion

But to what extent are Israeli citizens being conflated with the Netanyahu government in international criticism?

Israeli public opinion polls tell a complex story of views on the war in Gaza. On one hand, Netanyahu’s government remains deeply unpopular among 70% of Israeli citizens, and a growing number of Israelis now fully believe that the prime minister is prolonging the war for his own political interests.

Such sentiment has seen an uptick in protests over the war. On Aug. 17, the country practically shut down during a widespread strike and demonstration against the government. Hundreds of thousands of people gathered in Tel Aviv in an unprecedented mass rally, calling for the end of the war and a ceasefire deal that would bring all hostages back.

Yet polls also show that a majority of Israelis remain either indifferent to the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza or are in support of it, as dehumanization of Palestinians is widespread among large swaths of Israeli society.

It seems that only recently cracks in this wall of indifference have emerged.

Bans, booing and ostracism

The labeling of Israel as a pariah state internationally does not seem to bother the government.

Netanyahu insists that all the reporting about the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza is fake news, orchestrated by Hamas and antisemitic forces around the world. Netanyahu has also responded to the moves by Western governments to recognize the Palestinian state by labeling their decisions as antisemitic.

But there are signs that international condemnation of the war in Gaza is affecting Israelis themselves – both at home and abroad.

Israelis and Israeli organizations from all walks of life are facing increased instances of anti-Israeli actions and sentiments.

The movement to boycott, divest and sanction Israel, known as BDS, has been in existence since 2005, but until the war in Gaza it had only limited success in generating wide support for its campaign. Now, 20 years after its establishment, the floodgates have seemingly been lifted and resulted in a deluge of boycotts and other actions that are slowly affecting almost every sector in Israel. To give one example, the British grocery chain Co-op earlier this year announced that it would stop sourcing Israeli produce at its 2,300 stores.

Israeli tourists in Greece have been targeted by pro-Palestinian demonstrations. And there are multiple reports of Israeli tourists being questioned or harassed elsewhere for their possible involvement in the war in Gaza.

There is pressure on FIFA to force Israel out of the global soccer organization, and matches involving Israeli teams in European capitals have been marred by violence by fans on both sides.

Meanwhile, a growing number of academics around the world are refusing to collaborate with their Israel peers. The EU is considering a move to block Israel from accessing its prestigious Horizon Europe research and innovation program. And Israeli artists are now regularly ostracized and disinvited from artistic events around the world, from music festivals to architecture exhibitions.

International cultural events that are scheduled to take place in Israel are now routinely modified or canceled, as just happened with the International Harp Competition, which had been scheduled for December 2025. Meanwhile, the popular Eurovision Song Contest has now been a site of anti-Israeli demonstrations for the second year in a row. This is despite Israeli fans of the event, hugely popular among the LGBTQ community, belonging predominantly to the progressive left-leaning camp in Israel – the very people most likely to be in opposition to the current government.

Israelis have responded to this challenge in multiple ways. Even prior to the mass demonstration on Aug. 17, tens of thousands of Israelis have protested the government for months on end, accusing Netanyahu and his far-right government for turning Israel into a pariah state. Artists and academics have issued petitions, acknowledging Israeli’s responsibility for the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and calling for the end of the war.

Abroad, Israelis, who are known for being avid international tourists, are now traveling more to sites that are deemed less hostile to Israel. Many prefer not to disclose their Israeli identify. Reservists and discharged soldiers are fearful of being arrested abroad after posting on social media about their military service in Gaza.

Claims of antisemitism

Yet Netanyahu, who is subject to an outstanding arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court, along with his far-right Cabinet, seem to be unmoved. The global isolation may even serve their narrow interests by putting Israel in this precarious situation and helping them mobilize their base around the argument that all anti-Israeli actions are motivated by antisemitism.

And while antisemitism is real and widespread, and some of it drives anti-Israeli actions, it is a far cry to argue that antisemitism – and not Israeli government policy – is the main reason for current global sentiments and actions against the country.

The government is particularly indifferent to areas that are considered “elitist” and that have been mainly affected by the global protest movement against Israel.

Members of the government and its supporters see Israeli academia or Israeli arts as fields filled with liberal leftists whose power should be curbed. It is telling that when the Weitzman Institute, one of Israel’s most distinguished academic centers, was hit by an Iranian missile during the 12-day war in June, a popular far-right radio and TV anchor and supporter of the government tweeted: “God 1; Weitzman Institute 0.” The suggestion was that God punished this globally renowned academic institution for its lack of support for the government.

The tweet was condemned by journalists and some members of the opposition but was endorsed and repeated on Channel 14, widely known as Netanyahu’s “house TV channel.” Government officials remained silent.

When this is the sentiment among the government and its supporters, why would they be bothered with the consequences to Israeli academia and indeed its citizens by Israel being increasingly seen as a pariah state?

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

– ref. Netanyahu remains unmoved by Israel’s lurch toward pariah status − but at home and abroad, Israelis are suffering the consequences – https://theconversation.com/netanyahu-remains-unmoved-by-israels-lurch-toward-pariah-status-but-at-home-and-abroad-israelis-are-suffering-the-consequences-263154

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Natasha Lindstaedt, Professor in the Department of Government, University of Essex

In 1946, Winston Churchill announced an “iron curtain” had descended across Europe “from Stettin in the Baltic, to Trieste in the Adriatic”. This time it is the west that is building the barriers.

Every European nation bordering Russia and its ally Belarus is accelerating plans to construct hundreds of miles of fortified border to defend against possible Russian aggression.

The reasons are clear. The post-cold war European security framework – which relied on strengthening international institutions and trade, Nato expansion and US military guarantees – is being eroded.

Finland

Sharing an 832-mile border with Russia, Finland proposed building a wall in 2023 that would cover about 15% of its border, costing over US$400 million (£297 million) and with hopes that it will be completed by 2026.

Motivated in part by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, but also due to a rise of Russians fleeing to Finland to escape conscription. Finland’s government passed a law in July 2023 to build stronger and taller fences, as the previous wooden fences were designed only to prevent livestock from crossing. Eight border posts were erected (including north of the Arctic Circle) alongside greater obstacles in the southernmost strip of the country.

There are even defences being erected in remote areas of north-eastern Finland, where in the not-too-distant past, a steady flow of Russian and Finns would regularly come and go across the border to buy groceries.

Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland

And Finland is not the first. In August 2015, Estonia announced that it would build a fence along its eastern border with Russia, after Moscow’s 2014 annexation of Crimea.

In 2024, the Baltic states and Poland proposed to further fortify their borders with a defensive wall. It would cover 434 miles, costing over £2 billion. Plans and construction are now speeding up as leaders of the Baltic states worry that the prospects of a ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia could mean Moscow redirects its military towards them.

Latvia will invest about US$350 million over the next few years to reinforce its 240-mile border with Russia, while Lithuania is planning a 30-mile defence line against a possible Russian invasion. Poland has started building a permanent fence on its border with Belarus as part of its defence against Moscow’s potential allies.

These walls will also be accompanied by other physical barriers such as antitank ditches, 15-tonne concrete dragon’s teeth (which can stop Russian tanks advancing), massive concrete blocks and pyramids, roadblocks, massive metal gates, mined fields and blocked bridgeheads.

Lithuania is planning up to 30 miles of reclamation ditches, bridges prepared for bombing and trees designated to fall on roads when necessary.

The Baltic states are also building more than 1,000 bunkers, ammunition depots and supply shelters to further protect the 600 miles of territory that borders Russia. Bunkers are expected to be about 377 square feet, capable of housing up to ten soldiers and being able to withstand artillery strikes from Russia.

The Baltic nations plus Finland and Poland also all announced in 2025 that they would withdraw from the 1997 international treaty banning antipersonnel landmines, while Lithuania revoked its pledge to a cluster bomb treaty. Poland announced in June 2025 that it had added minefields to its “East Shield” border plans.

Building a drone wall

These border defences will be using the latest technology and early warning systems and artillery units. Lithuania Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Finland and Norway met in Riga in 2024 to begin plans to build a 1,850-mile “drone wall” to protect their borders.

This drone wall will have a sensor network, consisting of radars and electronic warfare tools to identify and destroy Russian drones. Within seconds of detecting a target crossing the border, there would be a system of close reconnaissance of drones.

This project will require a great deal of cooperation among participating states. Estonian companies are already designing drones that can both detect and neutralise threats along complex terrain in lakes, swamps and forests that blanket Russia’s border with the Baltic countries.

Historical parallels

Both cooperation from all countries that border Russia in Europe and an understanding of the terrain is critical to avoid the failures of the Maginot Line, part of a set of defensive barriers that France built along its borders in the 1930s, and which failed to prevent a German invasion in the second world war. In that case, it was assumed that the Germans could not pass through the Ardennes forest in Belgium.

While the Maginot Line fortifications did cause the Germans to rethink their plan of attack, Belgium was left vulnerable. Today, European nations are aware that they cannot fully prevent a Russian attack, but they can, possibly, shape the nature of a Russian invasion. The goal of these barriers is both deterrence and to try to control the location of any invasion.

If a ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia is announced, the leaders of the Baltic nations fear the Kremlin could redeploy troops to their borders.

Countries neighbouring Russia are trying to be as prepared as possible for whatever Vladimir Putin might do next.

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

– ref. Why a new ‘iron curtain’ is being built across Europe. This time it’s to keep Russia out – https://theconversation.com/why-a-new-iron-curtain-is-being-built-across-europe-this-time-its-to-keep-russia-out-263652

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By David McMillan, Professor in Finance, University of Stirling

The price of gold reached a historic high in April and remains close to that value. Conventional investing wisdom puts gold as a “safe-haven” asset – one that investors move towards in times of crises as they desert higher-risk assets such as stocks. But in August, the S&P 500 stock index also hit a record high and, like gold, it too remains close to this value.

Historically, those who follow these markets would have expected gold and stock prices to move in opposite directions. This typically produced the “hedging” effect of gold – it would offset losses (and gains) from stocks.

But while “safe” gold and “risky” stocks rise at the same time, the value of gold as a more secure bet in times of strife could be diminishing.

Looking at the price of gold historically shows that it rose in response to the oil price shocks of the 1970s as the global economy fell towards recession. It fell during the late 1990s as stock markets boomed, and as the global economy recovered after 2009.

But since this point, it has shown a trajectory largely in common with stocks. New research I was involved in looked at several reasons these traditionally opposing forces have been converging – and causing gold’s safe-haven effect to fade.

Right now, the global economy is emerging from a period of high inflation and high interest rates. Central banks are reducing interest rates (with more cuts expected), which will encourage household spending and business investment.

Economic growth figures are generally trending upwards, as are corporate earnings. And there is positive sentiment within economies about the potential of AI and its role in growth and productivity. Together, these factors explain the rise in stock markets.

But geopolitical risks, especially involving Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and tensions in the Middle East (specifically Iran and attacks by Houthis in the Red Sea) are causing concern for stocks and the wider economy. Both can have significant effects on major international commodities (such as oil and food prices).

And there is risk too from US president Donald Trump’s trade policies. This is especially true given his unpredictability, with tariffs increased and then paused before being reinstated at different levels to those previously announced.

Both these hostilities and Trump’s trade policies create risk and uncertainty within the international economy. This would explain why investors might consider buying gold – making it more valuable.

But this does not fully explain why it is so much in demand and trading close to its all-time high. To understand this, we need to look a bit further back.

Rising demand

After the dotcom crash in the early 2000s, commodities like gold began to be treated (and traded) like other financial assets. Key in this was the development of exchange-traded funds (ETFs), with the first gold ETF launched in 2004. These allow investors to essentially buy a share in gold.

Since then, the number of gold ETFs has risen dramatically, especially after the global financial crisis. Now gold may be traded like any other asset and can become a staple of investment portfolios. Demand for these funds has been surging recently.

On top of this, the US dollar’s status as the world’s currency is under threat. Currently, it acts as a reserve currency for central banks and the vehicle for trade and international payments, including for major commodities. But some countries have increasingly questioned this status quo, considering whether they should trade commodities like oil in their own currencies.

Trump, and the uncertainty he causes, only makes these calls grow louder. As such, these doubts about the status of the dollar have led central banks to buy more gold as an alternative reserve asset.

Since the end of the global financial crisis in 2009 and especially for the past ten years, gold has broadly followed the same path as stocks. While there will always be deviations, this effectively means an end of gold as a safe-haven hedge against stock price falls.

Gold is now firmly established as another investment asset, along with stocks, bonds and other commodities. This means that these days, its investment role is as part of a diversified portfolio and not as a hedge.

But that’s not to say that gold has lost its appeal. Its limited supply and desirability for both jewellery and manufacturing are rare and valuable attributes. And with its intrinsic worth recognised all over the world, gold is likely to remain in demand.

David McMillan 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 gold may be losing its shine as a safe-haven investment – https://theconversation.com/why-gold-may-be-losing-its-shine-as-a-safe-haven-investment-263694

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Anna Batta, Associate Professor of International Security Studies, Air University

Donald Trump has raised the prospect of directs talks between Presidents Vladimir Putin of Russia and Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine, in what would be the first such encounter in more than three years of war between the two countries.

In a social media post on Aug. 18, 2025, the U.S. president announced that he had begun “the arrangements for a meeting, at a location to be determined.”

Whether the proposed meeting does go ahead given the animosity between the two men remains to be seen. Previous speculation earlier in 2025 that Putin and Zelenskyy might engage in face-to-face talks led nowhere.

But should Trump succeed in bringing Putin and Zelenkyy together, it would not be the first time they have met.

In Paris in 2019, the two men sat down together as part of what was known as the Normandy Format talks. As a scholar of international relations, I have interviewed people involved in the talks. Some five years on, the way the talks floundered and then failed can offer lessons about the challenges today’s would-be mediators now face.

Initial hopes

The Normandy Format talks started on the sidelines of events in June 2014 commemorating the 70th anniversary of the D-Day landings. The aim was to try to resolve the ongoing conflict between Ukrainian forces and pro-Russian separatist groups in the country’s Donbas region in the east. That conflict had recently escalated, with pro-Russian separatists seizing key towns in the Donetsk and Luhansk after Russia illegally annexed the peninsula of Crimea in February 2014.

The talks continued periodically until 2022, when Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Until that point, most of the discussion was framed by two deals, the Minsk accords of 2014 and 2015, which set out the terms for a ceasefire between Kyiv and the Moscow-armed rebel groups and the conditions for elections in Donetsk and Luhansk.

By the time of the sixth meeting in December 2019, the only time Zelenkyy and Putin have met in person, some still hoped that the Minsk accords could form a framework for peace.

Under discussion

Zelenskyy was only a few months into his presidency. He arrived in Paris with fresh energy and a desire to find peace.

His electoral campaign had centered on the promise of putting an end to the unrest in Donbas, which had been rumbling on for years. The increasing role of Russia in the conflict, through supporting rebels financially and with volunteer Russian soldiers, had complicated and escalated fighting, and many Ukrainians were weary of the impact of internally displaced people that it caused.

By all accounts, Zelenskyy went into Paris believing that he could make a deal with Putin.

“I want to return with concrete results,” Zelenskyy said just days before meeting Putin. By then, the Ukrainian president’s only contact with Putin had been over the phone. “I want to see the person and I want to bring from Normandy understanding and feeling that everybody really wants gradually to finish this tragic war,” Zelenskyy said, adding, “I can feel it for sure only at the table.”

One of Putin’s main concerns going into the talks was the lifting of Western sanctions imposed in response to the annexation of Crimea.

But the Russian president also wanted to keep Russia’s smaller neighbor under its influence. Ukraine gained independence after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. But in the early years of the new century, Russia began to exert increasing influence over the politics of its neighbor. This ended in 2014, when a popular revolution ousted pro-Russian Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and ushered in a pro-Western government.

More than anything, Russia wanted to arrest this shift and keep Ukraine out of the European Union and NATO.

Those desires – Ukraine’s to end the war in Donbas, and Russia’s to curb the West’s involvement in Ukraine – formed the parameters for the Normandy talks.

And for some time, there appeared to be momentum to find compromise. French President Emmanuel Macron said that the 2019 Paris talks had broken years of stalemate and relaunched the peace process. Putin’s assessment was that the peace process was “developing in the right direction.” Zelenskyy’s view was a little less enthusisastic: “Let’s say for now it’s a draw.”

Talking past each other

Yet the Putin-Zelenskyy meeting in 2019 ultimately ended in failure. In retrospect, both sides were talking past each other and could not reach agreement on the sequencing of key parts of the peace plan.

Zelenskyy wanted the security provisions of the Minsk accords, including a lasting ceasefire and the securing of Ukraine’s border with Russia, in place before proceeding with regional elections on devolving autonomy to the regions. Putin was adamant that the elections come first.

The success of the Normandy talks were also hindered by Putin’s refusal to acknowledge that Russia was a party to the conflict. Rather, he framed the Donbas conflict as a civil war between the Ukrainian government and the rebels. Russia’s role was simply to push the rebels to the negotiating table in this take – a view that was greeted with skepticism by Ukraine and the West.

As a result, the Normandy talks stalled. And then in February 2022, Russian launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Way forward today?

So what are the chances of success should Trump secure a second face-to-face meeting between Putin and Zelenskyy?

Many of the same challenges remain. The talks still revolve around the issues of security, the status of Donetsk and Luhansk.

But there are major differences – not least, 3½ years of actual direct war. Russia can no longer deny that it is a party of the conflict, even if Moscow frames the war as a special military operation to “denazify” and demilitarize Ukraine.

And three years of war have changed how the questions of Crimea and the Donbas are framed.

In the Normandy talks, there was no talk of recognizing Russian control over any Ukrainian territory. But recent U.S. efforts to negotiate peace have included a “de-jure” U.S. recognition of Russian control in Crimea, plus “de-facto recognition” of Russia’s occupation of nearly all of Luhansk oblast and the occupied portions of Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.

Another major difference between the negotiation process then and now is who is mediating.

The Normandy negotiations were led by European leaders – German Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Macron of France. Throughout the whole Normandy talks process, only Germany, France, Ukraine and Russia were involved as active participants.

Today, it is the United States taking the lead.

And this suits Putin. A constant issue for Putin of the Normandy talks was that Germany and France were never neutral mediators.

In President Donald Trump, Putin has found a U.S. leader who, at least at first, appeared eager to take on the mantle from Europe.

But like the Europeans involved in the Normandy talks, Trump may also encounter similar barriers to any meaningful progress.

Despite his recent high-profile summit with Putin and follow-up meeting with Zelenksyy, Trump has made little progress toward ending the conflict in Ukraine. And neither Zelenskyy nor Putin has shown any inclination to compromise on their goals: Zelenskyy has ruled out land swaps, while Putin insists that any peace deal address “root causes.”

Getting the leaders of Ukraine and Russia into the same room is already a massive challenge; getting them to agree to a lasting agreement may be as elusive now as it was when Putin and Zelenskyy met in 2019.

This is an updated version of an article that was first published in The Conversation on June 2, 2025.

The views expressed in this article represent the personal views of the author and are not necessarily the views of the Department of Defense or of the Department of the Air Force.

– ref. Even if Trump succeeds in bringing Putin and Zelenskyy together, don’t expect wonders − their only previous face-to-face encounter ended in failure – https://theconversation.com/even-if-trump-succeeds-in-bringing-putin-and-zelenskyy-together-dont-expect-wonders-their-only-previous-face-to-face-encounter-ended-in-failure-263509

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ran Porat, Affiliate Researcher, The Australian Centre for Jewish Civilisation, Monash University

As the longest-serving Israeli prime minister (17 years), Benjamin Netanyahu is famous for his political wizardry and survival skills. But he is also a highly controversial figure with questionable moral standards and legacy.

His latest term in office, beginning in late 2022, has been particularly challenging, thanks to the far-right radical elements of his governing coalition and the unprecedented national disaster Israel experienced at the hands of Hamas on October 7 2023.

Yet, Netanyahu has managed to neutralise almost all immediate domestic threats to his power. At times, he has done this by manoeuvring rivals and partners into postponing moves that could topple his government. Other times, he has reshuffled his Likud Party ranks or realigned with bitter foes.

Netanyahu is also facing increased criticism from the Israeli public, with hundreds of thousands of people taking part in marches in support of a hostage deal, as well as from former senior politicians and ex-security officials.

And he has clashed with Eyal Zamir, the Israel Defence Force’s (IDF) chief of staff, who argued against the plan to expand the war into Gaza City. Zamir received clear messages to fold or resign, and chose to stay.

Yet, Netanyahu chooses to ignore all of this noise, sending his entourage and loyalists to attack anyone with dissenting views. This week’s spray at Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is just one example.

As a long term political survivor, he does all of this with an eye on the next Israeli elections, due at the end of 2026.

Propping up his far-right coalition

Over the past two and a half years, Israel has faced unprecedented crises that have left society deeply divided.

Under Netanyahu’s leadership, the government introduced a highly controversial judicial reform plan in early 2023, clashing with the Supreme Court and attorney general. This resulted in mass street protests against it.

Then came the Hamas attack of October 7, 2023, which triggered an ongoing multi-front war with severe long-term social, economic and humanitarian consequences.

Netanyahu has claimed credit for successes during this time, such as the 12-day war against Iran in June, while deflecting responsibility for any failures.

Though stretched in many directions, Netanyahu is at his best in such conditions, pitting the conflicting sides around him against each other and playing them.

His coalition relies on hard-right partners, especially National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich. Despite the massive protests to agree to a hostage deal and international demands to end the war, Netanyahu has chosen to prioritise ensuring the stability of his coalition.

He has acceded to Ben Gvir and Smotrich’s demands to reject ceasefire agreements with Hamas, and instead ordered increased military action against the terrorist group to try to achieve what he has called a “total victory”.

Netanyahu has also indulged Ben Gvir and Smotrich’s talk of resettling Gaza and has enabled their moves to gradually expand Israeli settlements deeper into the West Bank and block any geographically feasible Palestinian state.

Proving Henry Kissinger’s famous observation that “Israel has no foreign policy, only domestic politics,” Netanyahu has also angrily rebuked the wave of Western countries recognising, or preparing to recognise, a Palestinian state.

His defiant letters to French President Emmanuel Macron and social media outbursts about Albanese are aimed less at diplomacy and more at cultivating his image as “a strong leader for Israel” among his base.

Supported by the Trump administration’s sanctions against the International Criminal Court (ICC), Netanayhu has also felt confident attacking it for issuing warrants against him.

Neutralising challenges from ultra-religious parties

The government’s biggest domestic challenge has been passing a draft law addressing the decades-long exemption of tens of thousands of ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) men from army service.

Following a Supreme Court ruling that the previous exemptions could not continue, religious parties in Netanyahu’s coalition demanded a bill to formally exempt the men from army service or they would bring down the government.

In response, Netanyahu enticed old rival Gideon Sa’ar from the opposition into joining his government, shoring up the coalition’s previously tiny majority.

Since then, he has bought time through broken promises, successfully persuading the ultra-Orthodox parties to wait until parliament’s return in October of this year. Meanwhile, he replaced Yuli Edelstein, the committee chair who had sought a strong bill with personal sanctions for draft evaders, with a more pliant loyalist, Boaz Bismuth.

Eyes on re-election

Now Netanyahu has his eye on the next general elections, officially set for late 2026 — though he would prefer they take place before the third anniversary of the October 7 attacks.

For two years, polls have consistently predicted his defeat. As such, he is working to reshape his image. He wants Israelis to forget his central role in the October 7 catastrophe, as well as the questions surrounding the war’s management.

He also hopes to continue diverting attention from his ongoing trial on bribery and breach of trust charges.

But Netanyahu faces a dramatic dilemma over the war. On the one hand, he may decide to sign a ceasefire deal with Hamas and secure the release of the hostages. This would win the cheers of most Israelis, but risk the loss of his government, given the far-right ministers’ threats to dissolve the coalition if he accepts any deal without fully conquering the strip.

On the other hand, he could proceed with the military operation in Gaza City, which may well result in the killing of the remaining hostages – either by Hamas or as a consequence of IDF attacks.

A third option would be to continue negotiations while escalating preparations for the attack, in the hope of achieving a better deal. We will soon know what direction he will take – and what it will mean for his political future.

Ran Porat is a research associate at The Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) and Research Fellow at the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism, Reichman University, Herzliya, Israel. He is affiliated with Australian Centre for Jewish Civilization, Monash University. He is also a former IDF military intelligence officer.

– ref. With eyes on re-election, Netanyahu’s fights with world leaders aim to distract from his many political problems – https://theconversation.com/with-eyes-on-re-election-netanyahus-fights-with-world-leaders-aim-to-distract-from-his-many-political-problems-263523

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Philip Johnson, Lecturer, College of Business, Government and Law, Flinders University

In early August, US President Donald Trump signed a not-so-secretive order to make plans for the use of US military force against specific Latin American criminal organisations.

The plans were acted upon this week. The US deployed three guided-missile destroyers to the waters off Venezuela, with the authority to interdict drug shipments.

This was not exactly a surprise move. During his inauguration in January, Trump signed an executive order designating some criminal groups as foreign terrorist organisations. At the time, he told a journalist this could lead to US special forces conducting operations in Mexico.

Weeks later, six Mexican cartels were added to the foreign terrorist list, as were two other organisations: MS-13, an El Salvadoran gang and particular focus during Trump’s first presidency, and Tren De Aragua, a Venezuelan gang and frequent target during Trump’s presidential campaign in 2024.

---

Read more:
What is Tren de Aragua? How the Venezuelan gang started − and why US policies may only make it stronger

---

In May, two Haitian groups were added to the list. Then, in July, another Venezuelan organisation known as the Cartel of the Suns was added to a similar list because of its support for other criminal groups.

Fentanyl brings a new focus on organised crime

Illicit substances have flown across the US-Mexican border for more than a century. But the emergence of the synthetic opioid fentanyl has shaken up US responses to the illicit drug trade.

Highly addictive and potent, fentanyl has caused a sharp increase in overdose deaths in the US since 2013.

Successive US governments have had little success at curbing fentanyl overdoses.

Instead, an emerging political consensus portrays fentanyl as an external problem and therefore a border problem.

When the Biden administration captured Ismael Zambada – one of Mexico’s most elusive drug barons who trafficked tonnes of cocaine into the US for 40 years – he was charged with conspiracy to distribute fentanyl. Even progressive independent Bernie Sanders has pivoted to claiming border security was the solution to the fentanyl crisis.

But focusing on border security will do little to improve or save lives within the US.

Tougher border measures have never effectively curtailed the supply of other illicit substances such as cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamine.

These measures do little to reduce harm or dependency within the US, where a largely unaccountable pharmaceutical industry first pushed synthetic opioids.

The question remains just what can be achieved by US military operations.

How to spot a cartel

While the chemical emissions from fentanyl labs are easily spotted by drones, cartels and their operatives are decidedly more difficult to identify.

Criminal organisations in Mexico tend to be loose networks of smaller factions. They don’t operate in strict hierarchies like corporations or armies.

The decentralised nature of these networks makes them extremely resilient. If one part of the chain is disrupted, the network adapts, sourcing materials from different places or pushing goods along different trafficking routes.

But US and Mexican security agencies often act as though cartels follow rigid hierarchies. The so-called “kingpin strategy” focuses on killing or arresting the leadership of criminal organisations, expecting it to render them unable to operate.

However, this strategy often exacerbates violence, as rival factions compete to take over the turf of fallen kingpins.

Combating criminal groups with the military has already been a spectacular failure in Mexico.

Former President Felipe Calderón declared war on the cartels in 2006, but his government lost credibility for leading Mexico into a war it could not win or escape.

Tens of thousands of people are now killed every year, a dramatic increase from the historically low homicide rates in the years leading up to 2006. More than 100,000 have disappeared since the beginning of the war.

Outside interventions also run the risk of increasing support for criminal groups.

In my research, I’ve found cartels sometimes market themselves as guardians of local people, successfully positioning themselves as more in touch with local people than the distant Mexican state.

Cartels can also certainly make the most of deep antipathy towards US intervention in Mexico.

All cartels are not equal

Deploying warships off the coast of Venezuela will have minimal impact on the fentanyl trade.

Fentanyl enters the US from Mexico and even from Canada – but Venezuela doesn’t feature in US threat assessments for fentanyl.

Military action against the Cartel of the Suns will also be largely ineffectual, as this group exists in name only.

Research has found this isn’t an actual cartel – rather, the name describes a loose network of competing drug-trafficking networks within the Venezuelan state. Figures in the government certainly have ties to the illicit drug trade, but they are not organised in a cartel.

In Mexico, however, the cartels do exist – albeit not as imagined by the US government.

Given the US has invaded and seized territory from Mexico in the past, US military intervention has minimal prospect of support from Mexican governments.

Current President Claudia Sheinbaum has shown a willingness to accommodate the Trump government on matters of fentanyl trafficking. She has deployed thousands of members of the National Guard to police the border and major trafficking centres, such as the state of Sinaloa.

The Mexican government has also made two mass extraditions of captured crime bosses to the US. As with the capture of Zambada by the Biden government, this is likely to be used as evidence the US is winning the battle against fentanyl.

Then again, these crime bosses could be put to other uses.

The US government recently returned an imprisoned leader of MS-13 to El Salvador, even though he was indicted for terrorism in the US.

This move was part of the deal-making between the US government and President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador.

The US government may be eager to take the fight to organised crime, but sometimes political expediency is a bigger priority.

Philip Johnson 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 Trump administration wants to use the military against drug traffickers. History suggests this may backfire – https://theconversation.com/the-trump-administration-wants-to-use-the-military-against-drug-traffickers-history-suggests-this-may-backfire-263124

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Hassan Vally, Associate Professor, Epidemiology, Deakin University

The biggest lie those who create and spread misinformation perpetrate is that they want you to think for yourself. They warn their target audience not to be “sheep” and not to let themselves be told what to believe by “mainstream” voices, the “deep state” or other bogey men.

But in a classic case of misdirection, at the same time they warn you about this, they deploy a range of manipulative tricks to ensure you don’t actually think clearly or independently.

One of these tactics is to seduce you into subscribing to “logical fallacies”. These are flawed patterns of reasoning that sound convincing but lead to false or misleading conclusions.

Logical fallacies are like optical illusions of thought: convincing on the surface, but ultimately an apparition. Like a magician who tries to convince you he really has pulled a rabbit from a hat, getting you to fall for logical fallacies is a sleight of hand that aims to trick you into believing something is true that isn’t.

But when you know how a magic trick works, it no longer fools you. If you recognise the most common logical fallacies and understand how they work, they very quickly lose their power. Once you can see behind the curtain, the illusion fades, and you begin to understand things as they really are.

Here are ten of the most common ones you need to be on the lookout for when it comes to vaccine misinformation.

1. Appeal to nature fallacy

Typical claim:

Vaccines are unnatural, so they must be bad.

Fallacy: Assumes that natural is always better or safer, which is not logically or scientifically valid. Plenty of natural substances are very harmful or deadly, and plenty of man-made products, including many medicines, are life-saving.

2. Slippery slope fallacy

Typical claim:

If we allow vaccine mandates, next we’ll lose all medical freedom.

Fallacy: Assumes a minor or reasonable action will inevitably spiral into something more extreme and implausible. This is one of the easiest logical fallacies to spot and relies on stretching logic to its breaking point in order to provoke fear. Politicians particularly like this tactic.

3. Ad hominem fallacy

Typical claim:

You can’t trust that doctor, he’s obese and doesn’t know how to look after himself.

Fallacy: Attacks the person instead of engaging with their argument or evidence. This is usually the go-to strategy when one either has no evidence to back up what they are saying or doesn’t have any capacity to engage with the evidence.

4. False dichotomy fallacy

Typical claim:

You either trust vaccines blindly or you’re a free thinker.

Fallacy: Ignores the nuanced middle ground and oversimplifies the choices. Often this is a version of the “you’re either with us or against us” ploy. It frames the debate so that one option is clearly unreasonable, creating the false impression that the right choice is obvious.

5. Straw man fallacy

Typical claim:

Pro-vaccine people think vaccines are perfect and have no risks.

Fallacy: This may be the most relied upon tactic by those spreading vaccine misinformation. It relies on misrepresenting the evidence to make it easier to attack. It often involves a number of different tactics such as distorting, cherry picking or oversimplifying the evidence. RFK Jr is a big fan of this tactic.

6. Post hoc fallacy (false cause)

Typical claim:

My child got sick after a vaccine, so the vaccine caused it.

Fallacy: Confuses correlation with causation without considering other explanations. Just because two events occur at about the same time doesn’t mean one caused the other. The false belief that the MMR vaccine causes autism stems from a single fraudulent study that wrongly inferred causation from a mere correlation.

---

Read more:
If ‘correlation doesn’t imply causation’, how do scientists figure out why things happen?

---

7. Bandwagon fallacy (appeal to popularity)

Typical claim:

Millions of people are questioning vaccines so there must be something wrong.

Fallacy: Assumes that a widespread belief is equivalent to truth. This is also called the “illusory truth effect” and it’s one of the main reasons misinformation has such an influence on social media. When people find themselves in echo chambers where they are led to believe a view is commonly held, even when it is obviously untrue, they are more likely to believe it. Humans are wired up to follow the herd.

8. Anecdotal fallacy

Typical claim:

I know someone who got vaccinated and still got sick so vaccines can’t work.

Fallacy: Uses personal stories instead of statistical or scientific evidence. This is equivalent to the reference to the grandmother who smoked a pack of cigarettes a day and lived to be 100 years old. It’s often the go-to strategy when there is no evidence to support a claim. Apart from the fact these anecdotes are usually not verifiable, anecdotes are no substitute for rigorous scientific evidence.

9. Perfectionist fallacy

Typical claim:

Vaccines aren’t 100% safe and effective, so they are useless.

Fallacy: Rejects a good solution (vaccines) because it is not perfect. No medical intervention is 100% risk-free. Even something universally used like aspirin can have side effects, and so an extension of this logic is that every single therapeutic intervention is useless because it is not perfect, which is absurd.

10. Base rate fallacy

Typical claim:

More vaccinated people are getting sick, so vaccines don’t work.

Fallacy: In a highly vaccinated population, most people will be vaccinated and inevitably some vaccinated people will still get sick. While the absolute numbers of vaccinated people who get sick will outnumber those who did not get vaccinated and got sick, this is misleading as the proportion will be much smaller due to the sheer numbers of vaccinated individuals in the population.

In a nutshell

We live in a time where bad-faith actors are easily able to spread deliberate misinformation. Therefore, we all need to educate ourselves in the tactics and tricks used by these con artists, so we’re not fooled.

Being able to recognise how logical fallacies are used to make misleading arguments seem persuasive is one of the things we can do to protect ourselves. The good news is, once you understand the most commonly used logical fallacies, it’s harder be to fooled.

Hassan Vally 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 bad arguments sound convincing: 10 tricks of logic that underpin vaccine myths – https://theconversation.com/why-bad-arguments-sound-convincing-10-tricks-of-logic-that-underpin-vaccine-myths-261778