Category: The Conversation – Global Perspectives

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

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern Studies, Australian National University; Vice Chancellor’s Strategic Fellow, Victoria University; Adjunct Professor of Social Sciences, The University of Western Australia

Italian Defence Minister Guido Crosetto said recently the Israeli cabinet has “lost its reason and humanity” in Gaza, reflecting a widespread view around the world.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s staunch defiance over the Gaza war has led many Western states to recognise the state of Palestine in recent weeks. More could come before the UN General Assembly meeting in September, too.

These Western leaders have used strong words to push for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong said when Australia pledged to recognise Palestine:

There is a risk there will be no Palestine left to recognise if the international community don’t move to create that pathway to a two-state solution.

Recognition of a Palestinian state sends a strong message of the world’s revulsion to the Netanyahu government’s actions in Gaza. However, it is unlikely to make much of a difference on the ground without Israel and the United States agreeing to move forward on a two-state solution.

So, how can Western states give teeth to their recent pledges to recognise a Palestinian state? What kind of pressure would actually work?

1. Suspend trade deals and arms exports

Israel is by no means self-sufficient. It is very much dependent on the US for its defence capability and economic and financial wellbeing, as well as military supplies coming directly and indirectly from other Western countries.

Germany has now taken the lead in this respect by suspending military exports to Israel over its decision to expand the war. Slovenia also banned all weapons trade with Israel this month.

Other Western nations should be more transparent about the exports of specific parts to a global supply chain that Israel can access, such as those for F-35 jets, and be willing to block these.

In addition, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has advocated for the European Union to suspend its trade deal with Israel for breaching an article “on respect for human rights and democratic principles”.

Suspending the deal in full would require unanimous agreement among all 27 EU members. A partial suspension is possible, however, if just 15 EU members agree.

---

Read more:
EU sanctions against Israel: here’s what’s on the table

---

2. A strong US stand on a two-state solution

Western states could also put pressure on US President Donald Trump to persuade Israel that its future peace and prosperity depends on a two-state solution.

The US has long supported a two-state solution as a core policy. However, the US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, recently suggested this might be changing. Trump has not endorsed a two-state solution nor a new US position on it.

Given Netanyahu’s long-held opposition to a two-state solution, this might be a tough sell. However, Trump could be compelled to take a firm stand on the issue, given American public opinion is gradually shifting against Israel.

This is also reflected in assertions by some key MAGA supporters, such as the strategist Steve Bannon, Congresswoman Margorie Taylor Greene and media personality Tucker Carlson, as well as some far-right podcasters. They have questioned America’s support of Israel and, in some cases, called for an end to American aid to the country.

Trump is a transactional leader and could be amenable to pressure from his base and outside allies.

3. Push for an oil embargo

An oil embargo on Israel and its supporters is another means of pressure.

Earlier this year, Israel granted exploration licenses for natural gas deposits off its coast to a consortium of oil companies, including British Petroleum (BP) and Azerbaijan’s SOCAR.

Israel imports nearly three-quarters of its crude oil from three countries: Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Gabon. It relies on this crude oil and refined petroleum to fuel its fighter jets, tanks and bulldozers.

Gabon is a member of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC); Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan are part of an expanded group called OPEC+.

The Organisation of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (part of OPEC) implemented such an embargo against the United States and other countries in 1973 in retaliation for supporting Israel in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War and its seizure of Egyptian and Syrian land afterwards. Israel itself was cut off, too.

It proved effective. The embargo prompted Henry Kissinger, then-national security advisor in the Nixon administration, to engage in “shuttle diplomacy” between Israel, Egypt and Syria. This led to force disengagement agreements in early 1974, and the lifting of the oil embargo.

It also contributed to the diplomatic path that eventually resulted in the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, with US President Jimmy Carter’s mediation, in 1978.

Under the accords, Israel withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula in return for a peace treaty with Egypt. A framework for Palestinian autonomy and self-government was also agreed to. However, subsequent talks on the path forward broke down for a number of reasons – among them Israel’s refusal to make concessions on key issues – much to Carter’s fury.

Israel also refused to withdraw from Syria’s Golan Heights, which it later annexed.

4. Move to suspend Israel from the UN

A final option is the threat of suspending Israel from the United Nations. This has been advocated by the UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, Francisca Albanese, and Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim.

Suspending a member from the UN is not easy. It requires the consent of the General Assembly, as well as the recommendation of the Security Council, which counts Israel’s steadfast ally, the US, as a member.

Nonetheless, the forthcoming UN General Assembly meeting in September would be a suitable time to heighten this threat. The assembly’s resolutions are not binding, but it is still a tool for the international community to apply pressure.

In the 1970s, for example, the General Assembly moved to suspend South Africa’s membership over its apartheid system of government. Although the Security Council blocked South Africa’s expulsion, it remained suspended in the General Assembly until 1994.

These measures are now needed to maximise the pressure on Netanyahu’s leadership to relent on a two-state solution. Whether Western countries have the political will to go beyond mere recognition and implement them is another question.

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

– ref. How can Western countries back up Palestine recognition with action? Here are 4 ways to pressure Israel – https://theconversation.com/how-can-western-countries-back-up-palestine-recognition-with-action-here-are-4-ways-to-pressure-israel-263273

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Simon Copland, Honorary Fellow in Sociology, Australian National University

New, extreme, and often bizarre social movements and communities are popping up around the world. As each one arises, journalists and academics are pumping out books that do “deep dives” into these communities.

In liberal sociologist Arlie Hochschild’s Strangers in Their Own Land, published in 2016, she looks at the Tea Party voters who who would become Donald Trump’s MAGA base. And in her 2021 book, QAnon and On, Australian journalist Van Badham investigated the QAnon conspiracy theory.

Such books can give us real insight into why these communities grow and develop – in turn, helping us address both extremism, and its impact on the broader community. Yet, such deep dives can be risky. At times, they turn into journalistic sideshows that simply give these communities more (unneeded) attention.

In his third book, Lost Boys, Guardian journalist James Bloodworth adds to this catalogue. As I did in my own, research-based recent book, he conducts a “deep dive” into the manosphere: a loose network of blogs, forums and social media channels dedicated to “men’s rights”, anti-feminism and extreme misogyny.

---

Review: Lost Boys: A Personal Journey Through the Manosphere – James Bloodworth (Atlantic)

---

He attends a manosphere conference. He participates in seduction workshops: events where manosphere leaders teach men how to pick up women, often involving going onto the street or into bars, where men “practice” on women in real life. And he interviews manosphere leaders, seeking to understand this community.

He asks:

Why are so many men susceptible to the sinister beliefs these groups promote? What does the emergence of these communities say about Western society? And what can we do about it?

While the book asks these big, important questions, it struggles to actually answer any of them. Bloodworth doesn’t really formulate a clear argument about the manosphere, and it is unclear what his stance is in relation to the community.

Instead, his meandering book unfortunately tells us more about how not to do these types of investigations than about the manosphere itself.

Behind the scenes of the manosphere

Lost Boys begins promisingly. Bloodworth takes us back to being a 23-year-old, awkward, young straight man, when he spent thousands of dollars to take a seduction course. He reassures us he didn’t believe a lot of the manosphere stuff – but, like many other men, just wanted more confidence in picking up women.

His course ended up on a night out in the West End of London, where he nervously avoided trying to use the techniques he’d been taught, until his instructor encouraged him, using slogans like “your organ is a spear”. Despite his anxiety, Bloodworth eventually began approaching women in a bar, feeling deflated after he was pushed by his instructor, but was flatly rejected.

I hoped this was going to take us somewhere exciting and different. Accounts from men who have been sucked into these communities in the past are few and far between – particularly from someone who can then turn their experience into a major book. A genuine reflection on how Bloodworth ended up in this place at that time – and how we could take those lessons to other men – could be very interesting.

Unfortunately, that moment is left behind after the opening chapters. The rest of the book lacks this personal touch. Instead, we get a meandering and broad description of the manosphere that jumps from major player to major player.

He details the rise of Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson and his campaigns against political correctness and examines the violent attack of manosphere adherent Lyndon McLeod, who murdered five people in Colorado in 2021. He concludes by documenting the accusations against notorious self-proclaimed misogynist and manosphere influencer Andrew Tate.

Yet, these descriptions add little to our knowledge. Bloodworth tells us who these figures are, what they believe and how they become famous, but not much more.

He interviews some of these figures, such as former pickup artist Anthony “Dream” Johnson – the so-called “president of the manosphere”, who organised the annual 21 Convention manosphere conference. Even these interviews, which are briefly described, offer very little.

They yield no actual new information about these men, how they operate, or what is going on behind the scenes.

Major sins

This isn’t the major sin of the book, however. This comes about halfway through, when Bloodworth travels to the United States. He starts with a trip to Florida, where he attends multiple talks at the 21 Convention, the so-called “Woodstock of the manosphere” (last organised in 2023, though cancelled that year). The 21 Convention included talks from manosphere leaders about the evils of feminism and how men can become masculine again, as well as tips for seduction and how to live.

This moment, I am sure, was full of trepidation and fear: conference participants would have been unlikely to welcome an undercover journalist seeking to document their ideas. But Bloodworth reports on it almost as if he is going to a science show: he details the content of each talk he attends, then moves on. Again, it lacks a personal touch, and there’s not even much reflection of what this content actually means.

Things get worse when he travels to Las Vegas to participate in a “Men of Action” course, hosted by dating and performance coach Michael Sartain. The course promises men to “learn how to meet incredible women, make high status friends, and attend exclusive venues”.

Some academics, such as feminist media and culture studies scholar Rachel O’Neill, who embedded herself in seduction communities in London for her PhD, have taken this approach, to great effect. O’Neill uses her research to fully investigate the underlying economy of this community, exposing it for the business fraud it is.

Bloodworth, however, goes even further than O’Neill: he doesn’t just attend the course, but also takes up a role in coaching the young men. While he is a little unclear in the book about how he managed to get this role and what he was doing, in a later interview with GQ Magazine, he explained.

I was invited to do it by one of the people who was working for [Sartain]. I’d take a group of men to the club – the big nightclubs in Vegas, like Omnia, Encore, XS – supervise them and make sure they weren’t being weird.

He also explains that he never hid who he was; organisers knew he was a journalist.

As a coach, Bloodworth explains how he took men to clubs and provided them tips on how to approach women. (He does say, at times, he tries to guide students in a “certain direction”, less sexist than their official teachings).

In doing so, he provides some interesting titbits, including a section where students complain about how “shallow and disingenuous” the techniques are. In another moment, he overhears sexist commentary repeating classic ideas from within the manosphere. One man says “women nowadays only want attention from the most valuable men in the world”.

‘I hadn’t gone out there to save anybody’

Despite some of these minor insights, however, I found this extremely problematic. As Bloodworth himself explains, the techniques used in these courses are based on extremely sexist stereotypes, and often involve coercion and manipulation. “The problem with courses like this one is that men are essentially being taught to view women as prettifying props: ornamentation for their high-status content,” he writes.

These courses are also terrible for the men themselves. They teach unrealistic ideas about what it is to be a man, and terrible notions of how they should engage with women.

Despite acknowledging all this, Bloodworth still helps to lead a course. This could have been worth it if he explored some of these ethical qualms – or if he managed to gain some valuable new insight. But he doesn’t.

At the end of his trip to Vegas, for example, Bloodworth offers little actual analysis. He concludes:

It was time for me to leave Vegas. I hadn’t gone out there to save anybody; but I didn’t want to participate (inadvertently or otherwise) in making anybody worse either. I was exhausted by the merry-go-round of electric pastel clubs, narcoleptic bedtimes and pay-as-you-go sincerity. They could keep their Lambos, ripped jeans, velvet ropes, red-carpet events, bikini competitions, Playboy playmates, high-status social networks, Facetuned deltoids and Dan Bilzerian. I just wanted to get home and have a nice cup of tea, even if it wouldn’t generate a lot of heat on the “gram”.

This just leaves more questions. How did he feel giving men dodgy advice on how to improve their lives? Did he have ethical qualms about participating in an inherently sexist industry?

Bloodworth doesn’t even attempt to answer any of these questions.

How not to do it

This was the major problem with Lost Boys. For me, the book is a perfect guide on how not to engage in deep dives on extreme communities. For a book seeking to understand the manosphere, it seems to lack any purpose, let alone a point of view. It feels like the project of a journalist who gets a thrill out of “going undercover” and reporting his heroics.

This may be OK for other topics, but when it comes to the manosphere, it is not good enough. This community is creating real violence: primarily for women, the victims of the sexism emanating from it, but also for the men who get sucked into the space. To embed yourself within these spaces without any seeming attempt to do something about this harm may be a thrill for the journalist, but in the end it just adds to the pain these communities cause.

Here, I cannot help but compare Lost Boys to Jamie Tahsin and Matt Shea’s 2024 book on Andrew Tate, Clown World, described as “part Gonzo journalism, part masculinity rabbit hole”.

For a short period, Tahsin and Shea become close to Tate, even participating in one of his infamous War Room programs. But they are unflinchingly critical of him and his cronies. They used their opportunity not just to challenge him, but also to do real investigations into his dodgy dealings. In particular, they uncovered the first criminal allegations against Tate – and their journalism played a role in him facing criminal charges in the UK.

Unlike Bloodworth, Tahsin and Shea took a position. They used their journalism and writing to expose the fault lines in these communities, producing real-life outcomes.

Time for a sideshow is over

While promising in its scope, therefore, Bloodworth’s book fails. While he asks the question of why so many men are attracted to the manosphere, he seems unable to even try to answer it. And in writing it, he fell into into common journalistic traps we need to be avoiding while studying these communities.

He treats the manosphere as a sideshow to be gawked at, even when acknowledging the real harm it can do. He spends too much time simply describing rather than analysing, which just ends up giving them more attention. And he offers nothing substantive that can help us deal with the community.

And the worst sin of all: Bloodworth centres himself. The book’s subtitle, “a personal journey through the manosphere” makes clear from the outset that this is its central premise. But in practice, it makes the book seem like it’s more about trying to have an adventure in an extreme community than trying to make a real impact.

When it comes to the manosphere and the far-right, the time for a journalistic sideshow is over. These spaces have been described enough, and its leaders have been interviewed to death. At this critical global period, we must be clear about why we are researching these communities – and how our work can help reduce their harm. Lost Boys does not do this.

Simon Copland 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. ‘I hadn’t gone out there to save anybody’: a deep dive into the manosphere fails to address its harms – https://theconversation.com/i-hadnt-gone-out-there-to-save-anybody-a-deep-dive-into-the-manosphere-fails-to-address-its-harms-261468

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Kelvin (Shiu Fung) Wong, Senior Lecturer in Clinical Psychology, Swinburne University of Technology

Personality tests have become increasingly popular in daily life. From hiring to dating, they promise to help us understand who we are and how we are similar, or different, to others.

But do these tests paint an accurate picture? And could it be harmful to take them too seriously?

What are personality tests?

A personality test is an instrument designed to elicit a response that may reveal someone’s “personality” – that is, their patterns of behaving and thinking across different situations.

These tests can take the form of self-reporting questionnaires, such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (first developed in the 1940s) and the Big Five Inventory (developed in the 1990s).

Or they may be “projective” tests, where the individual talks freely about their interpretation of ambiguous stimuli. One famous example of this is the Rorschach inkblot test, developed in the early 1920s by Swiss psychiatrist Hermann Rorschach.

Early beginnings

Personality testing isn’t new. Historical texts from across the globe suggest humans have been interested in understanding and categorising personality for thousands of years.

Around 400 BCE, Greek philosopher Hippocrates suggested an individual’s temperament was influenced by the balance of four bodily fluids, known as “humours”.

Even earlier, around 1115 BCE, government officials in ancient China examined the behaviour and character of individuals to determine their suitability for different jobs in the public system.

However, the systematic and scientific development of tools to understand and categorise personality only began in the 20th century.

One of the first was developed in 1917 by the United States army to predict how new recruits may react to war, and whether they were at risk of “shell shock” (now classified as post-traumatic stress disorder). The goal was to identify individuals who may be unsuitable for combat.

This assessment had 116 “yes” or “no” items, including questions about somatic symptoms, social adjustment, and medical and family history. Examples included “Have you ever fainted away?” and “Do you usually feel well and strong?”. Those who scored highly were referred to a psychologist for further assessment.

Since then, thousands of similar “personality” tests have been developed and used across clinical, occupational and educational settings. Many of these, such as the Myers-Briggs test, have gained mainstream appeal thanks to the internet and media.

Why are we drawn to these tests?

The answer to this lies not in the specific characteristics of the tests, but in the deep-seated psychological need they promise to satisfy.

The drive to understand oneself starts at an early age and continues throughout life. We ask ourselves questions such as “who am I?” and “how do I fit into the world?”

Personality tests are a simple way to get answers to these difficult questions. It can be quite comforting – even exhilarating – to see yourself reflected in the results.

According to American psychologist Abraham Maslow’s theory of human needs, people are driven towards self-improvement and “self-actualisation”, which broadly refers to the realisation of one’s potential.

So, people may be drawn to personality tests in the hope that knowing their personality “type” will help them make better choices for their personal growth, whether that’s in their career, relationships, or health.

Maslow also identified another human need: the need for belonging. Learning your personality type, and the types of those around you, is one way to find “your kind of people”. According to social identity theory, finding a group we feel we belong to feeds back into our sense of who we are.

The Barnum effect

It’s worth noting there is psychological research which questions the validity and reliability of the Myers-Briggs test.

One of the main critiques is that completing the test more than once within a short period of time can generate different results (what is called poor “test-retest reliability”). Since personality is generally stable in the short-term, you would ideally expect the same results.

Furthermore, Myers-Briggs and similar tests use broad, positive, and sufficiently vague language when describing personality types. In doing so, they effectively harness the “Barnum effect” or “Forer effect”: the tendency for people to accept general statements as unique descriptions of themselves.

Sound familiar? That’s because horoscopes do the same thing. The results of horoscopes and personality tests can “feel right” because they are designed to resonate with universal human experiences and aspirations.

That said, personality tests are still routinely used in research and clinical practice – although experts suggest using measures that are proven to be scientifically sound.

One common test used in clinical practice is the revised form of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2-RF). This 338-item test measures problematic personality traits that may impact an individual’s mental health.

While it has its own set of problems, the MMPI-2-RF is useful in accurately assessing for symptoms of personality disorders, and predicting how different personality traits may impact treatment outcomes.

Taking tests too seriously

If you pigeonhole yourself into a rigid personality type, you run the danger of limiting yourself to the boundaries of this label. You may even use the label to excuse your own or others’ problematic behaviours as “just ESTP things”.

Moreover, by seeing the world purely through these simplified categories, we may ignore the fact that personality can evolve over long periods. By putting others, or ourselves, into a box, we fail to see people as individuals who are capable of change and growth.

While there’s nothing wrong with taking a personality test for fun, out of curiosity, or even to explore aspects of your identity, it’s important to not get too attached to the labels – lest they become all that you are.

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. Are you really an ISFJ? The truth about personality tests – and why we keep taking them – https://theconversation.com/are-you-really-an-isfj-the-truth-about-personality-tests-and-why-we-keep-taking-them-261183

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Nerilie Abram, Chief Scientist, Australian Antarctic Division and Professor of Climate Science, Australian National University

Antarctica has long been seen as a remote, unchanging environment. Not any more.

The ice-covered continent and the surrounding Southern Ocean are undergoing abrupt and alarming changes. Sea ice is shrinking rapidly, the floating glaciers known as ice shelves are melting faster, the ice sheets carpeting the continent are approaching tipping points and vital ocean currents show signs of slowing down.

Published today in Nature, our new research shows these abrupt changes are already underway – and likely to significantly intensify in the future.

Several authors of this article have witnessed these startling changes during fieldwork on the ice. These changes spell bad news for wildlife, both iconic and lesser known. But the changes will reach much further. What’s happening in Antarctica right now will affect the world for generations to come, from rising sea levels to extreme changes in the climate system.

What is an abrupt change?

Scientists define an abrupt change as a climatic or environmental shift taking place much faster than expected.

What makes abrupt changes so concerning is they can amplify themselves. For example, melting sea ice allows oceans to warm more rapidly, which melts more sea ice. Once triggered, they can be difficult or even impossible to reverse on timescales meaningful to humans.

While it’s common to assume incremental warming will translate to gradual change, we’re seeing something very different in Antarctica. Over past decades, the Antarctic environment had a much more muted response overall to human-caused climate warming compared to the Arctic. But about a decade ago, abrupt changes began to occur.

Shrinking sea ice brings cascading change

Antarctica’s natural systems are tightly interwoven. When one system is thrown out of balance, it can trigger cascading effects in others.

Sea ice around Antarctica has been declining dramatically since 2014. The expanse of sea ice is now shrinking at double the rate of Arctic sea ice. We found these unfolding changes are unprecedented – far outside the natural variability of past centuries.

The implications are far reaching. Sea ice has a reflective, high-albedo surface which reflects heat back to space. When there’s less sea ice, more heat is absorbed by darker oceans. Emperor penguins and other species reliant on sea ice for habitat and breeding face real threats. Less sea ice also means Antarctica’s ice shelves are more exposed to waves.

Vital ocean currents are slowing

The melting of ice is actually slowing down the deep ocean circulation around Antarctica. This system of deep currents, known as the Antarctic Overturning Circulation, plays a critical role in regulating Earth’s climate by absorbing carbon dioxide and distributing heat.

In the northern hemisphere, the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation is facing a slowdown.

We’re now observing a similar risk in Southern Ocean currents. Changes to the Antarctic Overturning Circulation may unfold at twice the rate of the more famous North Atlantic counterpart.

A slowdown could reduce how much oxygen and carbon dioxide the ocean absorbs and leave vital nutrients at the seafloor. Less oxygen and fewer nutrients would have major consequences for marine ecosystems and climate regulation.

Melting giants

The West Antarctic Ice Sheet as well as some regions of East Antarctica are now losing ice and contributing to sea level rise. Ice loss has increased sixfold since the 1990s.

The West Antarctic Ice Sheet alone has enough ice to raise global sea levels by more than five metres – and scientists warn we could be nearing the point where this ice sheet could collapse even without substantial further warming, though this might take centuries to millennia.

These enormous ice sheets represent the risk of a global tipping point. They contribute the greatest uncertainty to projections of future sea level rise because we don’t know just how quickly they could collapse.

Worldwide, at least 750 million people live in low-lying areas near the sea. Rising sea levels threaten coastal infrastructure and communities globally.

Wildlife and ecosystems under threat

Antarctica’s biological systems are also undergoing sudden shifts. Ecosystems both under the sea and on land are being reshaped by warming temperatures, unreliable ice conditions and human activity bringing pollution and the arrival of invasive species.

It’s essential to protect these ecosystems through the Antarctic Treaty, including creating protected areas of land and sea and restricting some human activities. But these conservation measures won’t be enough to ensure emperor penguins and leopard seals survive. That will require decisive global action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Which future?

Antarctica is often seen as a symbol of isolation and permanence. But the continent is now changing with disturbing speed – much faster than scientists anticipated.

These abrupt changes stem largely from the extra heat trapped by decades of unchecked greenhouse gas emissions. The only way to avoid further abrupt changes is to slash emissions rapidly enough to hold warming as close to 1.5°C as possible.

Even if we achieve this, much change has already been set in motion. Governments, businesses and coastal communities must prepare for a future of abrupt change. What happens in Antarctica won’t stay there.

The stakes could not be higher. The choices made now will determine whether we face a future of worsening impacts and irreversible change or one of managed resilience to the changes already locked in.

Nerilie Abram received funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC).

Ariaan Purich receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC).

Felicity McCormack receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC).

Jan Strugnell receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC).

Matthew England receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC).

– ref. From sea ice to ocean currents, Antarctica is now undergoing abrupt changes – and we’ll all feel them – https://theconversation.com/from-sea-ice-to-ocean-currents-antarctica-is-now-undergoing-abrupt-changes-and-well-all-feel-them-262615

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Sonia Mycak, Research Fellow in Ukrainian Studies, Australian National University

The last time Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky visited the White House earlier this year, he was berated by Donald Trump.

On Monday, he returned with European leaders by his side. He emerged with some signs of progress on a peace deal to end Russia’s war against Ukraine.

The presence of the European leaders no doubt had a great impact on the meeting. After Trump’s recent summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, they were concerned he was aligning the United States with the Russian position by supporting Putin’s maximalist demands.

We see from Trump’s statements over the last couple of months, the only pullback from his erratic pronouncements, largely based on Russian disinformation, seems to come when a body politic around him brings him back to a more realistic and informed position. So, this show of European unity was very important.

Security guarantees remain vital

There was considerable progress on one critical part of the negotiations: security guarantees for Ukraine.

It is significant that the US is to be involved in future security guarantees. It was not that long ago Trump was placing all the responsibility on Europe. So, this signals a positive development.

I listened to the briefing Zelensky gave outside the White House in Ukrainian for Ukrainian journalists. He explained it will take time to sort out the details of any future arrangement, as many countries would be involved in Ukraine’s future security guarantees, each with different capabilities to assist. Some would help Ukraine finance their security needs, others could provide military assistance.

Zelensky also emphasised that funding and assistance for the Ukrainian military will be a part of any future security arrangement. This would involve strategic partnerships in development and production, as well as procurement.

Zelensky made a point of this at a news conference in Brussels prior to Monday’s meeting. It is a priority for Ukraine to have a military strong enough to defend itself from future Russian attacks.

Reports also indicate the security guarantees would involve Ukraine buying around US$90 billion (A$138 billion) of US military equipment through its European allies. Zelensky also suggested the possibility of the US buying Ukrainian-made drones in the future.

According to NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, there was also discussion about an Article 5-type security guarantee for Ukraine, referring to the part of the NATO treaty that enshrines the principle of collective defence for all members.

However, contrary to popular belief, NATO’s Article 5 does not actually commit members of the alliance to full military intervention if any one member is attacked. It allows NATO states to decide what type of support, if any, to provide. This would not be enough for Ukraine.

Ukraine has already seen the result of a failed security arrangement. In the
Budapest Memorandum of 1994, the United States, the United Kingdom and Russia guaranteed to respect Ukraine’s borders and territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine giving up the third-largest nuclear arsenal in the world.

However, look what happened. Russia invaded in 2014 without any serious consequences, and then launched a full-scale invasion in 2022.

Given this, any future security guarantee for Ukraine will need to be rigorous. Ukrainians are very cognisant of this.

Loss of Ukrainian territory

Prior to his Alaska summit with Trump, I would have said Putin is not interested in any kind of deal. We saw how in previous meetings in Istanbul, Russia sent low-level delegations, not authorised to make any decisions at all.

However, I think the scenario has changed because, unfortunately, in Alaska, Trump aligned himself with Putin in supporting Russia’s maximalist demands. It’s highly likely Putin now believes he has an advocate for those demands in the White House.

This could mean Putin now perceives there is a realistic chance Russia could secure Donbas, the regions of Donetsk and Luhansk.

I don’t believe Ukraine would ever agree to any formal or legal recognition of a Russian annexation of Crimea or any of the other four regions that Russia now partly occupies – Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.

Zelensky has been adamant Ukraine would not cede territory to Russia in any peace deal. And he alone cannot make such a decision. Changing any borders would need a referendum and a change to the constitution. This would not be easy to do. For one thing, it’s a very unpopular move. And Ukrainians living in Russian-occupied territory would not be given a free and fair vote.

---

---

Putin’s war against Ukraine is an attempt at illegally appropriating very valuable land. In Alaska, he demanded Russia essentially be gifted the entire regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, including land not currently occupied by the Russian military.

This land has extensive Ukrainian military fortifications. Giving up this territory would leave Ukraine completely exposed to future Russian invasions – the country would effectively have no military protection along its eastern border regions. This would put Russia in a very advantageous position in future plans to regroup and attack again.

Even if Zelensky felt compelled to agree to some kind of temporary occupation and a frozen conflict along the current front lines, I don’t believe Ukraine could give up any land still under Ukrainian control.

In a recent Gallup poll, 69% of Ukrainians favoured a negotiated settlement to the war as soon as possible. In my view, this reflects the fact the United States, under the Trump administration, is proving to be an unreliable partner.

A settlement that rewards Russia for its genocidal war against Ukraine would set a very dangerous precedent, not only for the future of Ukraine but for Europe and the rest of the world.

At recent negotiations between the two sides in Istanbul, the head of the Russian delegation reportedly said “Russia is prepared to fight forever”.

That has not changed, no matter what niceties have occurred between Trump and Putin. They are prepared to continue to fight.

Sonia Mycak 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. Zelensky leaves Washington with Trump’s security guarantees, but are they enough? – https://theconversation.com/zelensky-leaves-washington-with-trumps-security-guarantees-but-are-they-enough-263423

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Clare Corbould, Associate Professor of History and Associate Head (Research) of the School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Deakin University

Omar El Akkad does not want you to look away. An award-winning journalist and novelist, El Akkad was born in Egypt, lived as a teenager in Qatar and Canada, and migrated as an adult to the US, where he now lives with his family in the Pacific Northwest.

His essay collection, One Day, Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This, draws on his life, from childhood to new fatherhood. He combines these reflections with a sharp grasp of modern history to examine responses in the west to “the world’s first livestreamed genocide” in Gaza.

Finding that response wanting, he urges readers to watch, listen, reflect and act.

---

Review: One Day, Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This – Omar El Akkad (Text Publishing)

---

As someone whose parents migrated to the west for the freedoms and opportunities it would afford their children, El Akkad has an acute sense of the past events, ideas and structures that have shaped the present. He pays keen attention to the legacies of colonial rule.

Witnessing history

El Akkad’s descriptions of atrocity are not easy to read. Nor is his blunt demand to do something. Yet the force of his observations and the bite of his prose make it hard to turn away.

His purpose is akin to many famed witnesses in history. Contemporaneous statements about violence often serve later as testimony in determining what happened, who was responsible, and what recompense is due.

Think of George Orwell on propaganda in Spain. Or British journalists Gareth Jones and Malcolm Muggeridge exposing famine in 1930s USSR, while other western communists looked away. Or Victor Klemperer’s diaries, published after the war, which tracked how the Nazis twisted everyday speech.

Above all, this kind of testimony guards against future claims of innocence, against the reassuring assertion that “they didn’t know what was going on” or “they were of their time”.

Less well-known to Australian readers may be American journalist Ida B. Wells, but El Akkad’s fire and fury also brought her to mind. In the 1890s, Wells fiercely attacked lynching in her own newspaper, the Memphis Free Speech. She investigated specific instances of ritualised mob violence.

Wells also catalogued how news outlets told those stories. They minced words to protect the perpetrators, while smearing the reputations of the dead, who were always named.

El Akkad also pays close attention the way the violence in Gaza is framed and described. He observes how reporters use the passive voice, which not only hides the names of killers but implies mass death came about by accident or magic. “Palestinian Journalist Hit in Head by Bullet During Raid on Terror Suspect’s Home,” read one Guardian headline, he notes.

Both Wells and El Akkad show how victims of racist and colonial violence are cast as already guilty. With lynching, the pretext was often an accusation of rape, though that was rarely the actual spark. Far more common were disputes between men over land, pay, labour organising, business competition or voting drives.

In the case of Gaza, the media mimics the claims of Israeli politicians, its military and allies of both. They all cast civilians as terrorists or terrorists-in-waiting, even children. The words clean the consciences of onlookers. They launder harm as if it were cash.

Modes of resisting

As the book’s title, which began life as a viral tweet, goes: One Day, Everyone Will Have Always Been Against This.

Bearing witness to the atrocities and the gutless responses, El Akkad reminds liberal readers that if Gaza had happened in the past, they would condemn the violence. What’s more, they would imagine that, had they been alive at the time, they would have firmly resisted the wrong or even taken a heroic stance against it.

One blistering passage will hit very close to home for Australian readers:

I read an op-ed in which a writer argues that the model for Palestinian-Israeli coexistence is something like Canada’s present-day relationship with the Indigenous population, and I marvel at the casual, obvious, but unstated corollary: that there is an Indigenous population being colonized, but that we should let this unpleasantness run its course so we can arrive at true justice in the form of land acknowledgments at every Tel Aviv poetry reading.

As well as diagnosing the problem, El Akkad surveys and evaluates modes of resisting what is happening in Gaza. He discards as ineffective the old appeal to westerners’ self-interest. Pointing out that horrors they permit elsewhere will eventually come for them just doesn’t work.

His essays were written between the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, and August 2024, when the US presidential campaign was in full swing. Much of his energy goes to addressing the “lesser of two evils” debate about voting in a democracy where the options are far right and, at most, centre-a-bit-left. Only from a relatively protected position, he observes, could one vote for the Democratic Party on the grounds that the other side “would be so much worse”.

Making this case, El Akkad says, rests on a quiet assent to mass death. He calls this a “reticent acceptance of genocide” and asks liberals in the United States (and by implication in other western democracies) to examine their consciences.

The remedying action El Akkad proposes is widespread negation, or “walking away”. People, en masse, must refuse to accept that the meagre promises of the less conservative political parties are the best options on offer.

This will require sacrifices. El Akkad provides examples of people he admires: the writer who refused a prize from an organisation that had been silent about Gaza; the teacher brave enough to talk with teenage students about the intolerable rate of children and civilians (not “noncombatants”) dying. Most starkly, he writes of Aaron Bushnell, the US Air Force veteran, whose last words before setting himself on fire outside the Israeli embassy in Washington D.C. were “free Palestine”.

Systematic violence

Like Wells, El Akkad links systematic violence to the structures that underpin the modern world. Chief among them is capitalism. Real change, he suggests, will come when enough of us, to use the old 1960s parlance, “drop out”, though he prefers “negation”, a word that that implies there is something to defy.

It is time, he argues, for a well-educated western citizenry to say “enough”. Our phones are smart enough; we are (collectively) rich and sated enough.

It might be hard at first, but we will learn that “maybe it’s not all that much trouble to avoid ordering coffee and downloading apps and buying chocolate-flavored hummus from companies that abide slaughter”.

Doing so might just halt a genocide. In time, this kind of collective action might also stop other looming calamities, not least climate collapse. El Akkad’s steady focus throughout the book on the death, maiming and immeasurable psychic injury to the children of Gaza makes that case feel urgent.

If that sounds hyperbolic, El Akkad might ask what children you had in mind when you flinched from his diagnosis and prognosis. Your answer likely turns on the location, colour and wealth of the children you have in mind. Children in Tuvalu, for example, know he is not exaggerating.

In one of the book’s most arresting lines, El Akkad asks: “How does one finish the sentence: ‘It is unfortunate that tens of thousands of children are dead, but …’”

Better, he suggests, that we all behave in a way whose ethics is grounded in the claim: “there’s no such thing as someone else’s children.”

---

Omar El Akkad will be appearing at the Wheeler Centre, Melbourne, on October 22, 2025

Clare Corbould 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. ‘There’s no such thing as someone else’s children’ – Omar El Akkad bears witness to the destruction of Gaza and the West’s quiet assent – https://theconversation.com/theres-no-such-thing-as-someone-elses-children-omar-el-akkad-bears-witness-to-the-destruction-of-gaza-and-the-wests-quiet-assent-251615