Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Marcel Vondermassen, Scientific Coordinator and Deputy Executive Manager of the IZEW, University of Tübingen

Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, recently signed a decree to withdraw from the Ottawa convention banning the use of anti-personnel landmines. This move follows the example of Finland, Poland, Estonia and Lithuania, who all quit the treaty in recent months.

The logic behind these states withdrawing from the treaty is mostly because of the threat posed by Russia. At first glance landmines seem like a cost-effective way to deter or slow an invader. Proponents see them as a necessary evil to protect national sovereignty against the threat from a much larger conventional force deployed by an aggressive neighbour.

But this short-term thinking can be dangerous, because it doesn’t consider the long-term cost of putting explosive devices into the ground. According to the Landmine Monitor for 2024, more than 110,000 people were killed by landmines and explosive remnants of war in the past 25 years, and over 5,700 died just last year. Eight out of ten of those killed were civilians, many of whom were children.

---

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

---

Although it is cheap to lay landmines, demining is expensive and creates a financial burden for future generations. The UN estimates that it can cost between five and 100 times more to clear a mine than to lay one, depending on the circumstances.

In Angola, for example, demining efforts continue nearly 50 years after the civil war broke out and 23 years after it ended. Encouragingly, Angola has reduced the threat with help of Halo Trust, a UK-based nongovernmental organisation. In 30 years they destroyed over 123,000 landmines. But to get Angola landmine free will require about US$240 million (£177 million) in additional funding.

While Angola aims to be landmine-free within a few years, the current scale of contamination in Ukraine will pose a deadly hazard to civilians for generations, as Sarah Njeri – a landmines expert at SOAS, University of London, wrote in 2023.

Looking through the prism of peace

What Europe needs today is better analysis and more public awareness of the current crisis and its long-term effects. This is a tricky task, especially for the media, because the violence is “asynchronous”. This means that mines can be laid years before anyone is harmed by them. It’s important to have open and honest conversations in public so that both politicians and the public have something clear and trustworthy to rely on when making these fateful decisions.

This means accepting that the concerns of the Baltic nations, Poland and Finland are valid. Their actions are a response the threat posed by Russia and the uncertainty surrounding America’s future role on the world stage. But there’s also an opportunity. Nobody in these countries takes the decision to use landmines lightly. This means, that if their European allies can provide credible security guarantees, these countries might change their plans.

Nevertheless, the Peace Report 2025, compiled by four leading German peace research institutes, highlights that this way of thinking remains rooted in a military mindset. The planned increase in military budgets among Nato countries should be complemented by greater investment in diplomacy, peace research and peace building.

The Peace Report lists nine recommendations for a more peaceful world, which are not pacifist. They recognise the need to close the gaps in European defence capabilities – but this is not enough. To create a peaceful Europe the legitimate security interests of all sides need to be considered. This includes Russia. At the same time, the report emphasises the need to strengthen, not weaken, the rules-based order. Abandoning the Ottawa treaty will further weaken that order.

Withdrawing from the landmine treaty is not just a military calculation, and it affects more than just eastern European countries. It’s an issue that presents a real challenge to Europe as a whole. Laying mines would litter future farmland and forests with an indiscriminate threat that recognises no ceasefire and cannot distinguish friend from enemy, combatant from civilian or adult from child.

If we don’t learn from the past, future reports will still be counting thousands of child casualties, but from the landmines laid in the 2020s.

---

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

Marcel Vondermassen 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. Ukraine joins other Russian neighbours in quitting landmines treaty: another deadly legacy in the making – https://theconversation.com/ukraine-joins-other-russian-neighbours-in-quitting-landmines-treaty-another-deadly-legacy-in-the-making-261684

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Petra Alderman, Manager of the Saw Swee Hock Southeast Asia Centre, London School of Economics and Political Science

There has been a dramatic escalation in a long-running border conflict between Thailand and Cambodia. On July 23, five Thai soldiers from a border patrol unit in Ubon Ratchathani province were seriously injured after stepping on a land mine – a second such incident in a week.

This prompted the Thai government to expel Cambodia’s ambassador from the country and recall its own ambassador from Cambodia. The following morning, Cambodia retaliated by expelling the Thai ambassador and recalling its embassy staff from Bangkok. Both sides have exchanged increasingly lethal fire.

Cambodia has fired rockets and artillery across the Thai border into several provinces, killing at least 11 civilians and one soldier. Thailand launched air strikes at Cambodia in return, reportedly targeting military bases in the disputed area around the Preah Vihear Hindu temple. Verified information is currently scarce as both sides are blaming each other for starting the fight.

The current flare-up started in late May, when a Cambodian soldier was killed in a exchange of fire between the two armies. But the roots of the conflict date back to the colonial era in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Before European powers expanded their colonial interests to south-east Asia, the concept of a bordered nation-state was alien to local rulers. Life in pre-colonial south-east Asia was organised into loosely structured polities that had no clear boundaries.

There were several larger cities, which served as important centres of power and trade, and many smaller towns and villages that maintained relations with these cities. The further these towns and villages were from the cities, the less control and influence the cities had over them.

The British and French introduced the concept of nations with borders to mainland south-east Asia, drawing the first official maps of Thailand (then known as Siam) and Cambodia. In the case of Thailand, the only south-east Asian nation never to be formally colonised, the mapping was also done at the request of the Siamese kings.

Thailand’s current borders were shaped by several different maps and treaties that followed the 1893 Paknam incident, during which two French gunboats sailed up the Chao Praya River and blockaded Bangkok.

To preserve its sovereignty as an emerging nation, Siam ceded considerable territorial claims to France after this incident. This included several provinces in present-day Cambodia, which are home to ancient temples.

A 1907 map drawn by the French defined these territories, although with a considerable degree of vagueness. The map became a sore point in Cambodia-Thai relations following Cambodia’s independence in 1953, especially in regard to disputes over the Preah Vihear temple.

Preah Vihear temple

Following France’s withdrawal from south-east Asia in 1954, Thailand occupied Preah Vihear. Cambodia raised the issue of Thai occupation with the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which ruled in 1962 that the temple belonged to Cambodia based on the French map. Thailand reluctantly accepted the ruling, but continued to dispute the area surrounding the temple.

The conflict flared up again in 2008 when the UN world heritage body Unesco awarded the temple world heritage status. Cambodia’s application initially received support from the then new Thai government of prime minister Samak Sundaravej, a close ally of the recently ousted Thaksin Shinawatra.

Anti-Thaksin groups used the government’s support to drive an ultra-nationalist campaign against the Samak government. This eventually contributed to large-scale domestic political protests that saw Samak’s government and that of his successor, Somchai Wongsawat, both ousted from power in 2008 in a series of judicial coups.

The period from 2008 to 2011 was marked by high tensions between the two countries, with sporadic armed clashes between their respective armies in the areas surrounding the temple.

The newly appointed Thai government of Abhisit Vejjajiva was sympathetic towards the ultra-nationalist anti-Thaksin groups. So there was no de-escalation of the conflict from the Thai side. Hun Sen, who was then Cambodia’s prime minister, also benefited from the conflict as it helped buttress his nationalist credentials.

But a particularly violent round of armed clashes followed in February 2011, resulting in at least eight civilian fatalities, 20 injured soldiers and many displaced civilians on both sides. Hun Sen then raised the issue of Cambodian sovereignty over the temple and its surrounding area with the ICJ.

The ICJ issued a provisional ruling favouring Cambodia and ordered both sides to withdraw military personnel from the area. Despite the initial refusal of Thai troops to leave, the two countries agreed to withdraw their forces in December 2011.

The final ICJ ruling came in late 2013, again affirming Cambodia’s sovereignty of the area. It coincided with another period of domestic political instability in Thailand. The government of Yingluck Shinawatra, Thaksin’s younger sister, was facing mass public protests from anti-Thaksin groups.

While the ruling did not play a decisive role in the eventual downfall of her government, it added fuel to the already explosive political environment. The border conflict went largely dormant after the 2013 ICJ ruling, until the new round of clashes broke out in May 2025.

Given the history of tensions and armed disputes over territory between Cambodia and Thailand, the recent escalation is not without precedent. What is new, though, is that this round is as much between two countries as it is between two ruling families.

Over the past 20 years, a close personal relationship formed between Hun Sen and Thaksin. But this relationship unravelled when Hun Sen, who remains a hugely influential figure in Cambodian politics, released a private audio recording of his call with Thaksin’s daughter, Paetongtarn. The leak put her premiership on the line.

Paetongtarn has since been suspended from office pending a court ruling, with Cambodia-Thai relations reaching new lows. Given the intermixing of personal animosities, a quick diplomatic resolution to the escalating conflict seems unlikely.

---

Read more:
A border conflict may cost the Thai prime minister her job

---

---

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

Petra Alderman 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. Thailand and Cambodia’s escalating conflict has roots in century-old border dispute – https://theconversation.com/thailand-and-cambodias-escalating-conflict-has-roots-in-century-old-border-dispute-261873

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Holly Ingram, Senior Midwifery Lecturer, Anglia Ruskin University

Are you a woman who exercises regularly? If so, here’s a vital question: do you train your pelvic floor muscles as part of your routine?

If the answer is no, now’s the time to start. It’s never too late to protect yourself from pelvic floor dysfunction – and the benefits go far beyond avoiding leaks.

The pelvic floor is a complex hammock of muscles and ligaments stretching from the front of your pelvis to your tailbone. It weaves around the urethra, vagina and anus, supporting the pelvic organs and helping them stay in the right place.

These muscles are essential for bladder and bowel control, sexual function and core stability. In fact, your pelvic floor works alongside the diaphragm, abdominal muscles, and back muscles in what’s known as the “core canister” or “core rectangle.” Together, they help stabilise the spine, protect internal organs, and support movement, especially in high-impact or strength-based activities.

How does sport affect pelvic floor health?

Many sports rely heavily on core strength. Running, jumping, lifting and full-contact sports like rugby all demand stability, control and muscular endurance. But they also place significant strain on the pelvic floor.

That’s why pelvic floor dysfunction is surprisingly common among sportswomen. Around one in two women in the UK will experience pelvic floor symptoms at some point in their lives – but rates are even higher among female athletes. A 2024 study of female rugby players found that 63% experienced pelvic floor dysfunction serious enough to affect both their performance and daily life, often requiring physiotherapy or specialist support.

Movements such as jumping, running, landing and breath-holding during exertion all increase intra-abdominal pressure, which pushes down on the pelvic floor. Without proper conditioning, these muscles can become strained or fatigued, especially if they’re weaker than the surrounding core muscles.

Endurance sports can also take their toll, causing the pelvic floor to repeatedly contract under pressure. Like any muscle, the pelvic floor is susceptible to overuse injuries and needs time to recover.

Pelvic floor dysfunction can show up in several ways, including leaking urine or faeces during exercise, coughing or sneezing; disrupted bowel habits; a heavy or dragging feeling in the lower abdomen or vagina; pain during sex; a bulging sensation or visible tissue in the vaginal area; and pelvic organ prolapse.

These symptoms may appear during exercise – or at rest – and often worsen over time without the right support or training.

Exercise can help with pelvic floor dysfunction – only if the pelvic floor is actively and effectively engaged. Many workouts target the abs or general core, but if the pelvic floor isn’t included with the same intensity, muscular imbalances can develop. Combined with gravity and high-impact movement, this puts the pelvic floor at greater risk of dysfunction.

The good news? The pelvic floor responds well to training. With regular, focused practice, these muscles become stronger, more coordinated and more resilient – helping to prevent dysfunction and even aiding recovery after childbirth.

How to train your pelvic floor

Not sure where to start? Here’s a simple exercise:

1. Imagine you’re holding in wind – gently contract your anus.

2. Next, squeeze your urethra as if stopping a flow of urine.

3. Now, lift upwards through the vagina.

4. Hold the contraction for a few seconds (or as long as you comfortably can), then release.

That’s one pelvic floor contraction: well done!

Try doing a few reps at a time, and gradually build up. You can incorporate these into your run, add them to your core workout, or practise them during rest days or cool-downs. The goal is to make pelvic floor training a regular part of your routine.

Your pelvic floor deserves just as much attention as your abs, glutes or quads. If you’re a woman who exercises, training these deep core muscles can boost your performance, reduce your risk of injury and support your overall health now and in the future.

So next time you lace up your trainers or hit the gym, don’t forget your pelvic floor. Your body will thank you.

Holly Ingram 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. Pelvic floor training can help active women avoid exercise-related symptoms – https://theconversation.com/pelvic-floor-training-can-help-active-women-avoid-exercise-related-symptoms-259711

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Justin Stebbing, Professor of Biomedical Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University

In an unexpected twist in the fight against cancer, humble kitchen bacteria and a plant best known for sweetening tea could one day help in treating one of humanity’s deadliest diseases, new research suggests.

A group of scientists in Japan has discovered that fermented stevia, a plant commonly used as a calorie-free sweetener, may hold intriguing anti-cancer properties. While these findings are early and need much more research, they hint at a potential future role for stevia in tackling pancreatic cancer.

Pancreatic cancer remains one of the most difficult cancers to treat. Symptoms typically appear only after the disease has spread, and conventional therapies like chemotherapy rarely result in a cure. The outlook is bleak: fewer than 10% of patients survive five years beyond diagnosis.

This urgent need for more effective and less toxic treatments has driven researchers to explore plant-based compounds. Many chemotherapy drugs already used today have botanical origins – including paclitaxel, derived from the bark of the Pacific yew tree, and vincristine, sourced from the Madagascar periwinkle – offering a proven pathway for discovering new cancer-fighting agents.

---

Read more:
Chemotherapy can be a challenging treatment – here’s how to deal with some of the side-effects

---

Stevia, a leafy plant native to South America, is widely known for its natural sweetness. It’s a familiar presence on supermarket shelves, but few think of it as a medicinal plant.

Stevia leaves are rich in bioactive compounds, some of which have shown hints of anticancer and antioxidant activity in previous research. The challenge has been harnessing this potential, as unfermented stevia extracts are only mildly effective in laboratory settings, often requiring high doses to affect cancer cells.

That’s where fermentation comes in. Known for creating yogurt, kimchi and sourdough bread, fermentation is more than a culinary technique. I’s a form of microbial alchemy that can transform plant compounds into new, bioactive molecules.

Researchers at Hiroshima University asked a simple but innovative question: what if stevia was fermented with the right bacteria? They experimented with a strain called Lactobacillus plantarum SN13T, a relative of a bacteria commonly found in fermented foods. Fermentation produced a compound called chlorogenic acid methyl ester (CAME), which showed much stronger anti-cancer effects than raw stevia extract.

In lab tests, the fermented stevia extract caused pancreatic cancer cells to die in large numbers but left healthy kidney cells largely unharmed. Further analysis revealed that CAME was responsible for this effect. It worked by blocking cancer cells at a specific phase of their life cycle, preventing them from multiplying and by triggering apoptosis, a natural process where cells self-destruct when damaged or no longer needed.

CAME seems to alter the genetic programming of cancer cells. It activates genes that promote cell death while simultaneously suppressing those that help cancer cells grow and survive. This double hit both slows cancer progression and encourages malignant cells to kill themselves.

The power of fermentation

Fermented stevia extract was also found to be a stronger antioxidant than its unfermented counterpart. Oxidative stress – an imbalance of potentially harmful moelcules known as free radicals in the body — is linked to cancer and other diseases. By neutralizing these free radicals more effectively, the fermented extract may offer extra protection for healthy cells.

This is not the first time fermentation has been shown to unlock hidden benefits. Fermented soy and ginseng have been found to offer enhanced health properties compared to their raw forms.

But the stevia findings stand out because of the compound’s selectivity. Killing cancer cells while sparing healthy ones is the holy grail for cancer researchers.

It’s important to note that these results come from lab-grown cells, not from animal or human studies. Many substances that look promising in petri dishes fail in clinical trials due to the complexity of the human body. Still, the discovery is exciting and warrants further exploration.

This research highlights the potential of everyday foods and their natural microbes as untapped sources of new medicines. It also reflects growing interest in “microbialbiotransformation” – using beneficial bacteria to create powerful compounds from plants.

In the case of stevia, a simple quest for a natural sweetener has evolved into something potentially far more profound: a stepping stone toward a cancer therapy that’s natural, targeted and cost-effective.

---

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

Justin Stebbing 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. From sweetener to cancer fighter? Fermented stevia shows promise in pancreatic cancer study – https://theconversation.com/from-sweetener-to-cancer-fighter-fermented-stevia-shows-promise-in-pancreatic-cancer-study-261599

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Noelia Noël, Senior Lecturer, School of Mathematics and Physics, University of Surrey

Every night, as telescopes around the world open their domes to study the cosmos, astronomers are forced to contend with an unexpected form of pollution: bright white streaks slicing across their images.

These luminous trails are caused by satellites. Specifically, the growing number of “megaconstellations” launched into low Earth orbit (LEO). These mega-constellations consist of many, sometimes hundreds, of satellites. They are intended to work as a system, providing services such as global internet access. Commercial companies that operate mega-constellations include SpaceX, Amazon and OneWeb.

The streaks in astronomy images aren’t just cosmetic. They can corrupt sensitive astronomy data, generate false signals, and even trigger alerts for events that never happened.

There may now be a partial solution to the luminous trails vexing astronomers. An ultra-black coating could be applied to the satellites themselves, dimming the trails that they leave in images. This material, called Vantablack 310, absorbs more than 99.99% of visible light.

Modern astronomical observations rely on long exposure imaging, collecting faint light from distant galaxies, exoplanets, or supernovae over several minutes or hours. When a satellite crosses the field of view during that time, it reflects sunlight into the telescope, creating a saturated streak across the image.

The impact is already substantial. Researchers at the Vera C Rubin Observatory in Chile – a flagship survey telescope set to revolutionise our understanding of the Universe – estimate that over 30% of the telescope’s twilight images already contain at least one satellite trail. And it’s not only visible light astronomy that’s at risk.

Radio telescopes, infrared detectors, and even gravitational wave observatories are reporting increasing interference from satellites – including reflected light, unwanted radio emissions, and other forms of contamination. The ultra-black coating won’t alleviate these issues, of course. Other solutions will need to be found for these other forms of interference.

---

Read more:
Could the first images from the Vera Rubin telescope change how we view space for good?

---

A crowded sky

With more than 16,000 active satellites already in orbit and tens of thousands more planned, the skies are becoming increasingly congested. While these constellations offer enormous benefits, including global internet access, disaster response, agricultural monitoring, and climate surveillance, they also threaten the clarity of astronomical observations.

Satellites in low Earth orbit (typically 500km-600km altitude) are often visible to the naked eye shortly after sunset or before sunrise. For sensitive telescopes, they can be ten to 100 times brighter than the recommended limits set by the International Astronomical Union.

I am one of a team of researchers at the University of Surrey that is exploring Vantablack 310 as a next generation coating to reduce satellite brightness. The trials are being carried out by UK scientists in partnership with the Surrey Space Centre, and materials innovators Surrey NanoSystems.

Originally developed for high-contrast optical systems – such as instruments that need to spot faint signals next to very bright ones – the coating absorbs more than 99.99% of visible light.

In 2026, Vantablack 310 will be tested in orbit for the first time aboard Jovian 1, a CubeSat – a small satellite about the size of a cereal box. It was developed at the University of Surrey and launched as part of the UK’s Jupiter programme, a university-led initiative that trains students in real-world satellite design, testing and operations, while supporting cutting-edge space research.

The mission will assess how the coating performs under the harsh conditions in space, such as temperature swings, ultraviolet radiation, and micro-meteoroid impacts. If successful, it could significantly reduce how bright satellites appear to telescopes – making the streaks they leave behind much fainter and easier to remove from astronomical images.

Ultra-black coatings will not make satellites invisible. Even the darkest object in orbit will reflect some light. But the goal is not invisibility – it is compatibility. Reducing satellite brightness below key thresholds ensures that scientific observations remain viable.

What’s at stake is more than just clean astronomical data. The night sky is one of humanity’s oldest shared resources – a source of scientific insight, cultural heritage, and spiritual meaning across time and geography. From the star lore of indigenous people to ancient navigation systems, the night sky has always helped us understand our place in the universe.

Publicly funded observatories in lower income countries – where many of the world’s darkest skies still exist – are also disproportionately affected, despite those countries having little say in the decisions that affect their skies.

Framing the issue solely as a technical inconvenience for elite institutions misses the point. This is also about equity, access, and environmental justice. Who gets to access the sky, and who decides how it is altered, are global questions that demand inclusive solutions.

---

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

This project was funded with six months of support from the Research England Development Fund (UKRI), focusing on mitigating satellite light pollution, including the in-orbit testing of ultra-black coatings.

– ref. An ultra-black coating for satellites could stop them spoiling astronomy pictures – https://theconversation.com/an-ultra-black-coating-for-satellites-could-stop-them-spoiling-astronomy-pictures-259171

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stefan Wolff, Professor of International Security, University of Birmingham

Russia and Ukraine met in Istanbul on July 23 for a third round of talks since face-to-face negotiations resumed in May. Expectations were low. Two previous rounds have yielded very few concrete results, apart from agreements on prisoner exchanges the return of the bodies of soldiers killed in action.

The latest meeting was the shortest yet, lasting just 40 minutes. The negotiating teams were led by former Ukrainian defence minister Rustem Umerov and Vladimir Medinsky, a senior aide to Russian president Vladimir Putin. They agreed on another exchange of prisoners and on setting up three working groups on political, military and humanitarian issues to engage online rather than in face-to-face meetings.

But if the talks have achieved very little, they have demonstrated two things. First, that the two sides remain very far apart on what they would consider acceptable terms for a ceasefire, let alone a peace agreement. And, second, that neither side is prepared to walk away from the negotiations, worried about incurring the wrath of the US president, Donald Trump.

A fourth round of negotiations has not been ruled out, but it is unlikely to involve either Vladimir Putin or Volodymyr Zelensky, given that their negotiating positions still offer little hope of a deal ready to be signed at a leaders’ summit.

---

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

---

The latest round of talks, however, took place in a different context to the earlier two meetings. Earlier in July, Trump set a deadline of 50 days, ending on September 2, for the fighting to stop.

After this if there’s no progress towards a ceasefire, the US president will consider imposing hefty secondary sanctions on Russia’s remaining trade partners. The aim would be to starve Moscow’s war economy of crucial foreign income, principally from heavily discounted sales of oil and gas to willing buyers including India and China.

The first ten days of this 50-day ultimatum have now passed. While the talks in Istanbul might be seen as a sign that Kyiv and Moscow are taking Trump seriously, the lack of tangible results suggests otherwise. There is no indication that either Russia or Ukraine have moved from their maximalist demands.

Russia keeps insisting on the recognition of its illegal occupation in Ukraine, on future limits to Ukraine’s military strength, and on a denial of the country’s accession to Nato. Ukraine meanwhile asks for its territory to be restored and its sovereignty – including its ability to determine its alliance arrangements – to be respected.

Playing for time

Developments on and around the battlefields in Ukraine don’t offer any signs that Moscow or Kyiv are ready even for a ceasefire either. Russia continues to make incremental gains along the 1,000km of frontlines in Ukraine.

It also keeps pounding Ukrainian cities, including the capital Kyiv, with nightly drone and missile attacks. These have taken place at unprecedented scales of hundreds of drones that have repeatedly overwhelmed Ukraine’s already stretched air defence systems.

Yet, Ukraine has been buoyed by the promise of more US arms deliveries – paid for by other Nato allies – and the continuing commitments by its international partners to support the country. These include those made at the recent Nato summit in The Hague and the Ukraine Recovery Conference in Rome.

Add to that Trump’s apparent pivot away from Putin and his recently more constructive relationship with Zelensky, and it becomes clear why Kyiv – like Moscow – thinks that time is on its side.

Both may be proved wrong. Zelensky’s latest efforts to consolidate his power – a large-scale cabinet reshuffle and a decree to curb the independence of two of Ukraine’s anti-corruption agencies – have caused alarm among EU officials in Brussels. More importantly, they have also triggered rare public protests against the government in Kyiv and other major Ukrainian cities, including Dnipro, Lviv and Odesa.

The protests may not get enough traction to pose a real danger to the government. But they indicate that support for Zelensky is not unconditional.

This is something that the Ukrainian president appeared to acknowledge when he outlined his plans to submit an additional bill to parliament to protect the independence of the embattled anti-corruption agencies. What is widely seen as a power grab by the president’s inner circle also has the potential of undermining public morale at a critical time in the war.

All of this also feeds into a Russian narrative of Zelensky as an illegitimate leader of his country who Russia cannot negotiate with. But it would be a mistake to assume that Russia can simply wait until Ukrainians are simply too exhausted to continue resisting Russia’s invasion or when western support will stop keeping Ukraine in the fight.

Even if Europeans become disillusioned with Zelensky, Russia’s war against Ukraine is too much of an existential question for European security that they will abandon Kyiv just because they do not agree with its anti-corruption policies.

It’s also not clear how long Russia can sustain the intensity of its ground and air campaigns against Ukraine or how long these will provide even the kinds of incremental gains that they currently achieve. Trump’s new plan for arming Ukraine by selling arms and ammunition to European Nato allies who would then deliver them to Kyiv is likely to blunt the effectiveness of the Russian air campaign and stymie its ground offensive.

So playing for time is unlikely to get either Moscow or Kyiv any closer to achieving their war aims. But preventing the other side’s victory – whether that’s on the battlefield or at the negotiation table – may well be enough for now for both Putin and Zelensky.

At the moment, continuing their war of attrition is the second-best solution that both presidents can agree on. The outcome of the third round of talks between their negotiators indicates that they may have reached such an implicit understanding already.

---

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

Stefan Wolff is a past recipient of grant funding from the Natural Environment Research Council of the UK, the United States Institute of Peace, the Economic and Social Research Council of the UK, the British Academy, the NATO Science for Peace Programme, the EU Framework Programmes 6 and 7 and Horizon 2020, as well as the EU’s Jean Monnet Programme. He is a Trustee and Honorary Treasurer of the Political Studies Association of the UK and a Senior Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre in London.

– ref. Russia-Ukraine talks: both sides play for time and wait for Donald Trump’s 50 days to run out – https://theconversation.com/russia-ukraine-talks-both-sides-play-for-time-and-wait-for-donald-trumps-50-days-to-run-out-261793

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Gemma Ware, Host, The Conversation Weekly Podcast, The Conversation

Israel has never officially confirmed or denied having nuclear weapons and has never signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Instead, even as evidence has emerged about its nuclear capabilities, Israel has maintained a policy of nuclear ambiguity.

The origins of this opacity lie in a secret deal forged in a one-on-one meeting between Israeli prime minister, Golda Meir, and the US president, Richard Nixon, at the White House in September 1969.

In this episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast, we speak to Avner Cohen, professor of non-proliferation studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterrey in the US, about that 1969 deal and why it has endured for more than 50 years. Cohen is the author of Israel and the Bomb, considered the definitive work on Israel’s nuclear programme, and has been interrogated by the Israeli state for his research.

Cohen tells us that the understanding between Meir and Nixon meant the US accepted Israel as a special kind of nuclear weapon state. In turn, Israel committed to restraint, not to test nuclear weapons, and not to be the first to introduce them to the region. Neither side has confirmed the existence of a deal, and there are only hints at it in the historical record. Cohen explains:

 Once you realise that there is actually a deal, it explains a great deal of the situation. Why the US [is] looking the other way, why the issue is determined to be removed from the diplomatic agenda, and why many other countries, especially in the west, prefer not to see the Israeli nuclear issue.

Listen to the conversation with Avner Cohen on The Conversation Weekly podcast.

---

This episode of The Conversation Weekly was written and produced by Mend Mariwany and Gemma Ware with assistance from Katie Flood and Ashlynne McGhee. Mixing and sound design by Eloise Stevens and theme music by Neeta Sarl.

Newclips in this episode from CNN, AP Archive, BBC News and ABC.

Listen to The Conversation Weekly via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed or find out how else to listen here. A transcript of this episode is available on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

Avner Cohen 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. Origins of Israel’s nuclear ambiguity lie in a secret deal forged between Richard Nixon and Golda Meir – podcast – https://theconversation.com/origins-of-israels-nuclear-ambiguity-lie-in-a-secret-deal-forged-between-richard-nixon-and-golda-meir-podcast-261789

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dylan Ryan, Lecturer in Mechanical & Energy Engineering, Edinburgh Napier University

Solar power is the fastest growing source of electricity globally. Normally, anyone wanting to tap into it would have to rely on roof-mounted panels. But in many parts of Europe, people have found a simple alternative in the form of “plug-in panels” that can be arranged on balconies.

Instead of having to be wired into the house, you can feed the power generated by these panels into an inverter and a standard plug. Is this something that might catch on in the UK? Let’s investigate.

First, solar installations usually come under “permitted development” with regard to planning permission. But you still might need to apply, particularly if you live in a shared development or a listed building.

For example, some apartment blocks are insured collectively; if solar panels are going to affect the building’s insurance, it’s going to affect the whole block. There may also be rules regarding what you can put on your balcony, so consult your building manager.

The UK government is promising to ease restrictions on solar balconies, but we shall have to see how it addresses these issues.

There are also safety concerns. The power generated by the panel has to be balanced with consumption. Which, in practice, may restrict their use to a circuit that only connects to low-power devices (lights, TVs or computers are fine, but not ovens or kettles).

So you need to be aware of what the panels are connected to, particularly if you have an older home which may have been built before modern electrical safety standards. Also, to connect the panels, you would need a weatherised external plug, which not all flats have.

How much power could you get?

As luck would have it, I have a south-facing balcony, so let us run the numbers.

I came across a 800W system online that sells for £499 (with supports that would allow me to mount it). It has an area of 3.95m² and is made of a thin photovoltaic film (about 10-12% efficient).

The optimum angle for a solar panel in Edinburgh where I live is 37.6 degrees. Mounting them vertically (draped over the railing of a balcony, as is often the case) will reduce performance, with typical losses of 30-45%. My balcony is also completely shaded for half of the day due to a neighbouring building, so a panel will generate little power at those times.

The position of the sun varies as it moves across the sky during the day, as well as seasonally, as does the solar energy received. We can input this data plus our location into an online calculator, which will account for hourly and seasonal variations.

This estimates output for a vertically mounted panel at 132 kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/yr). Assuming electricity costs of £0.24/kWh, that means a payback period of 15.7 years (thin film solar systems typically last between ten and 20 years).

If we could orientate the panel at the optimum angle of 37.6° (tilt them out from the edge of the balcony), the power generated would rise to 182 kWh/yr (a payback period of 11.4 years, although this could fall foul of planning rules).

Free from the shading of my neighbour on the top floor and angled optimally, output from a plug-in panel could rise to 370 kWh/yr (payback 5.6 years). But this is for south-facing balconies. An east- or west-facing balcony would produce 30% less power and a north-facing panel, half as much or less.

Is it worth it?

Another issue is that you can only use the generated electricity when you are in the house. If, for example, I’m out half the time the panels are generating power (which is likely), the payback period doubles – so they will probably never pay for themselves. A battery could help store power for use later, but that adds costs plus the hassle of wiring everything up.

Let’s look at a monocrystalline panel (these last longer than film and are more efficient) that is roof-mounted at the optimum angle (so it’s clear of any obstructions) and wired up to feed into the grid so any power you don’t use, you can sell it to the network.

Assuming a 4kW monocrystalline array at an installation cost of £5,500, the online calculator estimates generation of 2,970 kWh/yr for a payback period of 7.7 years (on a system that will last 25-30 years). And that’s not even considering any possible grants that you might be eligible for.

Whether or not balcony solar is feasible is going to be very site-specific. If you have a balcony with an uninterrupted view south and you are not going to fall foul of any planning or electrical issues, it might be worth it.

If you face north, or there’s another building in the way, or your fuse box looks like a prop from Downton Abbey, less so. In many cases, a solar generator mounted at an optimum angle and exporting electricity to the grid might be a better idea, even if the initial installation costs are higher.

---

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

---

Dylan Ryan 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. Plug-in solar panels are the latest green energy trend – here’s what you need to know – https://theconversation.com/plug-in-solar-panels-are-the-latest-green-energy-trend-heres-what-you-need-to-know-260467

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jack McNamara, Senior Lecturer in Clinical Exercise Physiology, University of East London

Your fitness tracker might be lying to you. That 10,000-step target flashing on your wrist? It didn’t come from decades of careful research. It came from a Japanese walking club and a marketing campaign in the 1960s.

A major new study has found that 7,000 steps a day dramatically cuts your risk of death and disease. And more steps bring even greater benefits.

People hitting 7,000 daily steps had a 47% lower risk of dying prematurely than those managing just 2,000 steps, plus extra protection against heart disease, cancer and dementia.

The findings come from the biggest review of step counts and health ever done. Researchers gathered data from 57 separate studies tracking more than 160,000 people for up to two decades, then combined all the results to spot patterns that individual studies might miss. This approach, called a systematic review, gives scientists much more confidence in their conclusions than any single study could.

So where did that magic 10,000 number come from? A pedometer company called Yamasa wanted to cash in on 1964 Tokyo Olympics fever. It launched a device called Manpo-kei – literally “10,000 steps meter”. The Japanese character for 10,000 resembles a walking person, while 10,000 itself is a memorable round number. It was a clever marketing choice that stuck.

At that time, there was no robust evidence for whether a target of 10,000 steps made sense. Early research suggested that jumping from a typical 3,000 to 5,000 daily steps to 10,000 would burn roughly 300 to 400 extra calories a day. So the target wasn’t completely random – just accidentally reasonable.

This latest research paper looked across a broad spectrum – not just whether people died, but heart disease, cancer, diabetes, dementia, depression and even falls. The results tell a fascinating story. Even tiny increases matter. Jump from 2,000 to 4,000 steps daily and your death risk drops by 36%. That’s a substantial improvement.

But here’s where it gets interesting. The biggest health benefits happen between zero and 7,000 steps. Beyond that, benefits keep coming, but they level off considerably. Studies have found meaningful benefits starting at just 2,517 steps per day. For some people, that could be as little as a 20-minute stroll around the block.

Age changes everything, too. If you’re over 60, you hit maximum benefits at 6,000 to 8,000 daily steps. Under 60? You need 8,000 to 10,000 steps for the same protection. Your 70-year-old neighbour gets 77% lower heart disease risk at just 4,500 steps daily.

The real secret of why fitness targets often fail? People give up on them.

Research comparing different step goals found a clear pattern. Eighty-five per cent of people stuck with 10,000 daily steps. Bump it to 12,500 steps and only 77% kept going. Push for 15,000 steps and you lose nearly a third of people.

One major study followed middle-aged adults for 11 years. Those hitting 7,000 to 9,999 steps daily had 50-70% lower death risk. But getting beyond 10,000 steps? No extra benefit. All that extra effort for nothing. Other researchers watching people over a full year saw the same thing. Step programmes worked brilliantly at first, then people slowly drifted back to old habits as targets felt unrealistic.

Most steps happen without you realising it

Here’s something that might surprise you. Most of your daily steps don’t come from structured walks or gym sessions. Eighty per cent happen during everyday activities – tidying up, walking to the car, general movement around the house.

People naturally build steps through five main routes: work (walking between meetings), commuting (those train station treks), household chores, evening strolls and tiny incidental movements. People using public transport clock up 19 minutes of walking daily just getting around.

Research has also found something else interesting. Frequent short bursts of activity work as well as longer walks. Your body doesn’t care if you get steps from one epic hike or dozens of trips up the stairs. This matters because it means you don’t need to become a completely different person. You just need to move a bit more within your existing routine.

So, what does this mean for you? Even 2,500 daily steps brings real health benefits. Push up to 4,000 and you’re in serious protection territory. Hit 7,000 and you’ve captured most of the available benefits.

For older people, those with health conditions, or anyone starting from a sedentary baseline, 7,000 steps is brilliant. It’s achievable and delivers massive health returns. But if you’re healthy and can manage more, keep going. The benefits climb all the way up to 12,000 steps daily, cutting death risk by up to 55%.

The 10,000-step target isn’t wrong exactly. It’s just not the magic threshold everyone thinks it is.

What started as a Japanese company’s clever marketing trick has accidentally become one of our most useful health tools. Decades of research have refined that original guess into something much more sophisticated: personalised targets based on your age, health and what you can actually stick to.

The real revelation? You don’t need to hit some arbitrary target to transform your health. You just need to move more than you do now. Every single step counts.

Jack McNamara 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. Sweet spot for daily steps is lower than often thought, new study finds – https://theconversation.com/sweet-spot-for-daily-steps-is-lower-than-often-thought-new-study-finds-261605

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rosa Busquets, Associate Professor, School of Life Sciences, Pharmacy and Chemistry, Kingston University

When actor Orlando Bloom revealed recently that he’d undergone a procedure to have his blood “cleaned”, many people raised eyebrows. The Pirates of the Caribbean star had turned to a treatment known as apheresis – a medical process in which blood is removed from the body, centrifuged or filtered to extract certain components, then returned in an attempt to flush out microplastics and other toxins.

Apheresis is typically used to treat conditions such as autoimmune diseases or abnormally high levels of blood cells or proteins. Its use as a detox for microplastics, however, is scientifically unproven.

Still, Bloom said he suspected his body had absorbed plastic through daily exposure, and wanted it out of his system.

He’s probably right about the exposure. Scientists have found microplastics – tiny plastic fragments less than 5mm in size – in our air, water, soil, food and even inside human tissue. But when it comes to removing them from the bloodstream, that’s where the science gets murky.

As researchers studying microplastic contamination, we’ve examined this issue in the context of dialysis – a life-saving treatment for patients with kidney failure. Dialysis filters waste products like urea and creatinine from the blood, regulates electrolytes, removes excess fluid and helps maintain blood pressure.

But our study found that while dialysis is a medical marvel, it can also have an ironic downside: it could be introducing microplastics into the bloodstream. In some cases, we found that patients undergoing dialysis were being exposed to microplastics during treatment due to the breakdown of plastic components in the equipment – a troubling contradiction for a procedure designed to cleanse the blood.

Apheresis is closely related to dialysis: both involve drawing blood from the body, circulating it through plastic tubing and filters, then returning it – so both procedures carry a similar risk of introducing microplastics from the equipment into the bloodstream.

What are microplastics?

Microplastics are plastic particles that range in size from about 5mm (roughly the length of a grain of rice) down to 0.1 microns – smaller than a red blood cell.

Some microplastics are manufactured deliberately, like the plastic microbeads once common in facial scrubs. Others form when larger plastic objects degrade over time due to sunlight, friction, or physical stress.

They’re everywhere: in the food we eat, air we breathe and water we drink. Plastic packaging, synthetic clothing such as polyester, and even artificial lawns contribute to the spread. Car tyres shed plastic particles as they wear down, and food heated or stored in plastic containers may leach microplastics.

One estimate suggests the average adult may ingest around 883 microplastic particles – over half a microgramme – per day.

So far, large-scale epidemiological studies have not established an association between microplastic exposure and specific diseases. Such studies are needed, but yet to be completed.

However, early research suggests that microplastics may be associated with inflammation, cardiovascular conditions, and DNA damage – a potential pathway to cancer.

What remains unclear is how microplastics behave inside the body: whether they accumulate, how they interact with tissues, and how (or if) the body clears them.

The irony of filtration

It’s tempting to believe, as Bloom seems to, that we can simply “clean” the blood, like draining pasta or purifying drinking water. Just as a sieve filters water from pasta, dialysis machines do filter blood – but using far more complex and delicate systems.

These machines rely on plastic components, including tubes, membranes and filters, which are exposed to sustained pressure and repeated use. Unlike stainless steel, these materials can degrade over time, potentially shedding microplastics directly into the bloodstream.

Currently, there is no published scientific evidence that microplastics can be effectively filtered from human blood. So, claims that dialysis or other treatments can remove them should be viewed with scepticism, especially when the filtration systems themselves are made of plastic.

While it’s tempting to chase quick fixes or celebrity-endorsed cleanses, we are still in the early stages of understanding what microplastics are doing to our bodies – and how to get rid of them. Rather than focusing solely on ways to flush plastics from the bloodstream, the more effective long-term strategy may be reducing our exposure in the first place.

Bloom’s story taps into a growing public unease: we all know we’re carrying the burden of plastic. But addressing it requires more than wellness trends: it calls for rigorous science, tougher regulation, and a shift away from our reliance on plastic in daily life.

---

Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

Rosa Busquets receives funding from UKRI, in a UKRI/ Horizons Staff exchanges Clean Water project (101131182). She is honorary Associate Professor at UCL and Honorary Professor at Al-Farabi Kazakh National University. She is panel member of the UNEP EEAP, where is work group lead in a field that includes microplastics. She is also funded by DASA.

Luiza C Campos is a Professor of Environmental Engineering at University College London.

– ref. Orlando Bloom tried to ‘clean’ his blood to get rid of microplastics – here’s what the science says – https://theconversation.com/orlando-bloom-tried-to-clean-his-blood-to-get-rid-of-microplastics-heres-what-the-science-says-261203