The Conversation – Page 499 – MIL Submissions Engine

January 23, 2026

Dogs can need more than kibble, walks and love − consider the escalating expenses of their medical care before you adopt

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By David L. Weimer, Professor of Political Economy Emeritus, University of Wisconsin-Madison

A man holds his 17½-year-old Chihuahua mix, which is receiving end-of-life hospice care.
Brittany Murray/MediaNews Group via Long Beach Press-Telegram and Getty Images

Many Americans struggle to pay for health care for themselves and other members of their families, even if they have insurance coverage.

Some very big bills arise when the furriest members of their households get sick or just need an annual checkup: their dogs. Americans spend an average of about US$1,700 annually on their dogs’ food and care, including $580 for veterinary bills.

All told, Americans spent more than $41 billion on their pets’ veterinary care in 2025, primarily on dogs and cats. Veterinary costs have soared in recent years, rising much faster than inflation in the past decade.

The average cost of any visit to a veterinarian for a dog is about $214 today. Appointment costs for a routine examination for a dog range from $70 to $174, depending in part on the vet’s location and your dog’s conditions.

Estimating future costs

Aidan Vining, a Canadian public policy scholar, and I, a public policy researcher based in the U.S., considered the extent to which economics can explain our canine relationships in our 2024 book “Dog Economics.”

Our own love of dogs helps us understand how people bring dogs into their lives without fully taking account of future costs. One of these often unanticipated costs is for veterinary bills that may break the family budget.

Indeed, a Gallup survey of dog and cat owners conducted for PetSmart Charities in 2024 and 2025 found that 42% of respondents had declined veterinary care for their pets because they could not afford it. In the same study, an additional 38% declined care because they did not believe it was worth the cost.

I think that people should consider the risk of bearing these costs before bringing a dog into the family.

Part of the family

Between 60 million and 68 million U.S. households include at least one dog. That means that as many as half of all occupied U.S. homes include a dog.

Most families with dogs revere them. A survey I conducted with colleagues in 2018 found that 73% of people with pet dogs strongly agreed with the statement “I consider my pets to be part of the family.”

A 2023 Pew Research Center survey found that 51% of pet owners viewed their animals as being as much a member of their family as their human relatives.

Because many of us will spend whatever we can to save the life of our family members, being unable to afford lifesaving care for dogs can be very upsetting.

Steep veterinarian bills

But sometimes dogs require very expensive care. And veterinarians in cities where the costs of living are high tend to charge more than elsewhere.

Treating some fairly common dog ailments can cost a bundle: as much as $3,000 for gastroenteritis, $7,000 for intestinal obstruction surgery, $5,000 for severe pancreatitis and $8,000 for stomach bloat.

The tab for canine cancer treatments involving chemotherapy or radiation can set you back more than $10,000.

The initial phase of treatment for immune-mediated hemolytic anemia for my family’s poodle, for example, cost more than $10,000 in veterinary costs. She is doing well but needs continuing medical care.

A white and tan poodle stands in a grassy spot. — Ming, the author’s family poodle, needs continuing veterinary care.
Dave Weimer

Sometimes pooches require overnight veterinary supervision. That can cost you as much as $1,500 per night they spend in an animal hospital on top of those other expenses.

Many Americans cannot afford to pay for such expensive care – only 41% could cover a $1,000 unanticipated expense of any kind from their savings.

Although only a stopgap,there are charities that provide free or lower-cost veterinary care for the pets of low-income people?

Insurance coverage is rare and often falls short

Pet insurance can help make these expenses more manageable, but it covers only about 4.9 million dogs – about 8% of all American dogs.

Most of those policies have deductibles you have to meet before they’ll reimburse you for at least part of the cost of your animal’s care. Some policies cover treatment only for accidents. Many exclude routine checkups and impose caps on total claims, typically at $5,000.

Ironically, people who can most easily afford pet insurance are also the most likely to have enough money to pay for veterinary expenses.

Insurance premiums for dogs, which depend on breed, where you live, their age and coverage terms, average about $62 per month. Premiums that cover well visits and either have high caps – annual limits on what you can be reimbursed through pet insurance policies – or no caps at all cost more than that.

And pet insurers may exclude preexisting conditions. That is, unlike human patients protected by the Affordable Care Act, insurers can decline to cover dogs with prior illnesses.

To be sure, some claims of over $60,000 have been paid by insurers through policies without any claim caps.

But in most cases, it’s clear that having a dog can mean you’ll bear substantial financial risks when your dog gets injured or ill. And that’s true whether or not you’re paying pet insurance premiums throughout its lifetime – which on average lasts about a dozen years.

Going into debt to pay the vet

Americans who do pay big veterinary bills often have to borrow to do so – 39% of pet owners say they have gone into debt to pay for veterinary care, according to a survey conducted by MetLife’s pet insurance division.

Even when they can afford those bills, many families often find providing care demanding and difficult to accommodate, given their work schedules and the caregiving that other relatives require.

People who cannot afford the cost or lack the time to provide their dogs with the veterinary care required may choose to euthanize, give their dogs to someone else – known as rehoming – or surrender them to shelters. There’s no reliable data about this but I’m certain that veterinary issues contribute to the 6% of the pet surrenders that happen for financial reasons.

And these surrenders contribute to the over 330,000 dogs that U.S. shelters euthanize each year.

3 considerations before acquiring dogs

Although dogs can enrich your life with their devotion and companionship, I urge anyone considering bringing a dog into your home to think through these financial issues first.

1. The potential cost of veterinary care for dogs is high and likely to increase.

Veterinary science will continue to develop new treatments, and some inevitably will be very expensive. As a result, dog owners will more often face heartbreaking choices between extending the life of an animal they consider to be a family member and destabilizing their own finances.

2. Like your human relatives, dogs tend to have more medical problems as they age.

Most people with dogs will outlive their pets and will eventually have to confront canine medical problems. In other words, veterinary costs will at some point challenge almost all pet parents.

3. Whether or not our relatives want to get expensive medical care, we usually err on the side of providing whatever we can afford unless they demand a switch to palliative care only.

Despite our emotional bonds with our dogs, they cannot tell us how they feel about the trade-off between quality of life and longevity. We should not ignore their suffering even when we can afford extensive veterinary care. Sometimes, euthanasia is the most loving decision.

Those facing these difficult end-of-life decisions may benefit from seeking out veterinary palliative and hospice care, which is increasingly available.

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

– ref. Dogs can need more than kibble, walks and love − consider the escalating expenses of their medical care before you adopt – https://theconversation.com/dogs-can-need-more-than-kibble-walks-and-love-consider-the-escalating-expenses-of-their-medical-care-before-you-adopt-272953

January 23, 2026

Feeling unprepared for the AI boom? You’re not alone

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Patrick Barry, Clinical Assistant Professor of Law and Director of Digital Academic Initiatives, University of Michigan

Many workers feel helpless – and anticipate widespread economic displacement – as companies scramble to incorporate AI into their business models. imagedepotpro/iStock via Getty Images

Journalist Ira Glass, who hosts the NPR show “This American Life,” is not a computer scientist. He doesn’t work at Google, Apple or Nvidia. But he does have a great ear for useful phrases, and in 2024 he organized an entire episode around one that might resonate with anyone who feels blindsided by the pace of AI development: “Unprepared for what has already happened.”

Coined by science journalist Alex Steffen, the phrase captures the unsettling feeling that “the experience and expertise you’ve built up” may now be obsolete – or, at least, a lot less valuable than it once was.

Whenever I lead workshops in law firms, government agencies or nonprofit organizations, I hear that same concern. Highly educated, accomplished professionals worry whether there will be a place for them in an economy where generative AI can quickly – and relativity cheaply – complete a growing list of tasks that an extremely large number of people currently get paid to do.

Seeing a future that doesn’t include you

In technology reporter Cade Metz’s 2022 book, “Genius Makers: The Mavericks Who Brought AI to Google, Facebook, and the World,” he describes the panic that washed over a veteran researcher at Microsoft named Chris Brockett when Brockett first encountered an artificial intelligence program that could essentially perform everything he’d spent decades learning how to master.

Overcome by the thought that a piece of software had now made his entire skill set and knowledge base irrelevant, Brockett was actually rushed to the hospital because he thought he was having a heart attack.

“My 52-year-old body had one of those moments when I saw a future where I wasn’t involved,” he later told Metz.

In his 2018 book, “Life 3.0: Being Human in the Age of Artificial Intelligence,” MIT physicist Max Tegmark expresses a similar anxiety.

“As technology keeps improving, will the rise of AI eventually eclipse those abilities that provide my current sense of self-worth and value on the job market?”

The answer to that question, unnervingly, can often feel outside of our individual control.

“We’re seeing more AI-related products and advancements in a single day than we saw in a single year a decade ago,” a Silicon Valley product manager told a reporter for Vanity Fair back in 2023. Things have only accelerated since then.

Even Dario Amodei – the co-founder and CEO of Anthropic, the company that created the popular chatbot Claude – has been shaken by the increasing power of AI tools. “I think of all the times when I wrote code,” he said in an interview on the tech podcast “Hard Fork.” “It’s like a part of my identity that I’m good at this. And then I’m like, oh, my god, there’s going to be these (AI) systems that [can perform a lot better than I can].”

Graphic of blue 100-dollar bill covered in ones and zeroes looming over silhouetted people holding bags and briefcases. — What will happen to workers who have spent their entire lives learning a skill that AI can replicate?
jokerpro/iStock via Getty Images

The irony that these fears live inside the brain of someone who leads one of the most important AI companies in the world is not lost on Amodei.

“Even as the one who’s building these systems,” he added, “even as one of the ones who benefits most from (them), there’s still something a bit threatening about (them).”

Autor and agency

Yet as the labor economist David Autor has argued, we all have more agency over the future than we might think.

In 2024, Autor was interviewed by Bloomberg News soon after publishing a research paper titled Applying AI to Rebuild Middle-Class Jobs. The paper explores the idea that AI, if managed well, might be able to help a larger set of people perform the kind of higher-value – and higher-paying – “decision-making tasks currently arrogated to elite experts like doctors, lawyers, coders and educators.”

This shift, Autor suggests, “would improve the quality of jobs for workers without college degrees, moderate earnings inequality, and – akin to what the Industrial Revolution did for consumer goods – lower the cost of key services such as healthcare, education and legal expertise.”

It’s an interesting, hopeful argument, and Autor, who has spent decades studying the effects of automation and computerization on the workforce, has the intellectual heft to explain it without coming across as Pollyannish.

But what I found most heartening about the interview was Autor’s response to a question about a type of “AI doomerism” that believes that widespread economic displacement is inevitable and there’s nothing we can do to stop it.

“The future should not be treated as a forecasting or prediction exercise,” he said. “It should be treated as a design problem – because the future is not (something) where we just wait and see what happens. … We have enormous control over the future in which we live, and [the quality of that future] depends on the investments and structures that we create today.”

At the starting line

I try to emphasize Autor’s point about the future being more of a “design problem” than a “prediction exercise” in all the AI courses and workshops I teach to law students and lawyers, many of whom fret over their own job prospects.

The nice thing about the current AI moment, I tell them, is that there is still time for deliberate action. Although the first scientific paper on neural networks was published all the way back in 1943, we’re still very much in the early stages of so-called “generative AI.”

No student or employee is hopelessly behind. Nor is anyone commandingly ahead.

Instead, each of us is in an enviable spot: right at the starting line.

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

– ref. Feeling unprepared for the AI boom? You’re not alone – https://theconversation.com/feeling-unprepared-for-the-ai-boom-youre-not-alone-273192

January 23, 2026

Doing things alone is on the rise, and businesses should pay more attention to that – even on Valentine’s Day

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Peter McGraw, Professor of Marketing and Psychology, University of Colorado Boulder

Every February, Valentine’s Day amplifies what single people already know – that public life is built for two. Restaurants roll out prix fixe menus for couples. Hotels promote “romantic getaway” packages designed for double occupancy. A table for one still invites the question, “Just you?”

Yet there’s irony that’s hard to miss. While Valentine’s Day doubles down on togetherness, more adults are living – and moving through the world – alone.

As a behavioral economist, I study what I call the “solo economy.” A growing share of economic life today is organized around people who live, spend and make decisions on their own.

1-person households aren’t outliers

Half of U.S. adults are unmarried, and one-person households are now the nation’s most common living arrangement. This isn’t a temporary phase confined to young adults waiting to settle down. It includes never-married professionals, divorced empty nesters, widows and widowers, and people who simply prefer to live independently.

Lifelong singlehood is also rising: 25% of millennials and 33% of Gen Z are projected to never marry.

It’s a slow-moving demographic shift away from long-term partnership as the dominant adult life path, but a consequential one – reshaping everything from housing and travel to social policy and commerce. One of its clearest expressions is the number of people doing things alone in public.

The rise of public solo life

It would be one thing if the economy were built for two and solos stayed home. But they are going to museums, traveling and, of course, dining alone in restaurants. To assess this behavior, I surveyed single and married Americans about their participation in 25 activities that occur in public – from shopping and dining to attending movies and concerts.

The pattern was striking. Overall, singles were much more likely to do things alone in public than their married counterparts – 56% versus 39%. The difference held across every activity I measured.

The biggest gaps weren’t for practical tasks like grocery shopping. They were for leisure experiences like going to the movies, dining out and attending concerts. In fact, seven of the 10 largest differences involved retail or entertainment settings – the very places most designed and marketed with couples in mind.

Bias that keeps people from having fun alone

Why hasn’t the business world paid more attention to the singles market?

The answer lies in psychology. Some reluctance stems from the belief that other customers will perceive solo diners or moviegoers as sad or lonely. These fears are amplified by what psychologists call the spotlight effect – our tendency to overestimate how much other people notice and judge us.

Findings by consumer researchers Rebecca Hamilton and Rebecca Ratner can help explain why this bias is so persistent. Across studies conducted in the U.S., China and India, people consistently predicted they would enjoy activities less if they did them alone – even though they’d be seeing the same movie or visiting the same museum.

But when people actually went alone, they enjoyed the experience just as much as those who went with others. The fear, it turns out, is largely imagined.

Another problem is that solo consumers don’t always feel welcome.

While behavior is changing, markets have been slower to adapt. Most businesses still design experiences around pairs, families or groups. Consider restaurants that seat solo diners at the bar or near the kitchen or bathrooms, or ticketing systems that require purchasing in pairs. The result is friction for solo consumers – and missed opportunities for companies.

Valentine’s Day promotions make that mismatch especially visible. In 2024, IKEA Canada offered a Valentine’s Day dining experience in its showroom priced and designed for two – and only two – people.

After backlash, the company revised the promotion the following year to be more inclusive: “Bring a loved one, a good friend, or the whole family.” It was a small change, but a revealing one.

Why solo shoppers have outsized influence

Solo consumers represent a large, growing and profitable market segment, yet they’re navigating a marketplace that still treats them as edge cases.

Another study that Ratner conducted with business school professor Yuechen Wu adds an important twist.

Analyses of more than 14,000 Tripadvisor reviews of restaurants and museums show that reviews written by solo diners and solo museumgoers are rated as more helpful – and receive more positive feedback – than reviews written by people who went with others.

Follow-up experiments showed that when otherwise identical recommendations differed only in whether the reviewer experienced the activity alone or with others, respondents were more likely to rely on the solo reviewer when deciding what to do.

Why? Observers infer that people who go alone are more genuinely interested in the experience and more focused on its quality, rather than simply going along with someone else’s preferences.

Being alone, it turns out, functions as a credibility cue. For businesses, that means solo customers aren’t just customers − they can be very influential customers.

Designing for 1 in Asia

Asian businesses are far ahead of the West in recognizing the buying power of people doing things alone.

In South Korea, for example, “honjok,” which translates as “alone tribe,” culture has fueled products and services designed explicitly for solo living. Think single-serve meals at convenience stores, one-person karaoke booths, and restaurants that promise judgment-free service.

Similarly, in Japan, the ramen chain Ichiran built its brand around the idea of “flavor concentration,” which encourages diners to eat alone in private booths.

Officially, the design is meant to eliminate distractions and heighten the dining experience. In practice, it does something more important: It legitimizes solo dining.

Progress in the US

In the U.S., Disney theme parks and some of the company’s competitors have long used single-rider lines that reward solo visitors with shorter waits, turning independence into operational efficiency – a logic ski resorts adopted decades ago to fill empty seats on chairlifts.

And solo tourism has become a major trend. Demand is growing, and tour operators are adapting offerings to meet it, including specialized tours for singles and adjustments to historically prohibitive pricing practices.

Industry analysis also shows the global solo travel market expanding rapidly, with tailored products and experiences emerging worldwide. Some companies now offer dedicated solo travel collections with no single supplement − the extra fee traditionally charged to travelers who occupy a room alone − and tours designed specifically for independent travelers.

Doing things alone is an opportunity

Valentine’s Day offers a chance to see how outdated many widespread assumptions still are.

It treats solitude as a problem to be solved, even as people’s behavior tells a different story. Yet businesses, policymakers and U.S. culture more broadly have not designed a world that fully acknowledges that about 42% of American adults are single.

In the meantime, singles aren’t waiting at home. They’re out there – at the movies, on planes, in museums and restaurants – moving through public life on their own terms.

Valentine’s Day may always be built for two. But the economy won’t be.

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

– ref. Doing things alone is on the rise, and businesses should pay more attention to that – even on Valentine’s Day – https://theconversation.com/doing-things-alone-is-on-the-rise-and-businesses-should-pay-more-attention-to-that-even-on-valentines-day-273227

January 23, 2026

Is being virtuous good for you – or just people around you? A study suggests traits like compassion may support your own well-being

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Michael Prinzing, Research and Assessment Scholar, Wake Forest University

Opportunities to show compassion often feel difficult, but exercising virtue seems to help people cope. FG Trade/E+ via Getty Images

Virtues such as compassion, patience and self-control may be beneficial not only for others but also for oneself, according to new research my team and I published in the Journal of Personality in December 2025.

Philosophers from Aristotle to al-Fārābī, a 10th-century scholar in what is now Iraq, have argued that virtue is vital for well-being. Yet others, such as Thomas Hobbes and Friedrich Nietzsche, have argued the opposite: Virtue offers no benefit to oneself and is good only for others. This second theory has inspired lots of research in contemporary psychology, which often sees morality and self-interest as fundamentally opposed.

Many studies have found that generosity is associated with happiness, and that encouraging people to practice kindness increases their well-being. But other virtues seem less enjoyable.

For example, a compassionate person wants to alleviate suffering or misfortune, but that requires there be suffering or misfortune. Patience is possible only when something irritating or difficult is happening. And self-control involves forgoing one’s desires or persisting with something difficult.

Two people in red coats crouch on a sidewalk, speaking with someone in a green jacket seated atop blankets. — Volunteers who drive homeless people to shelters talk with a person from Ukraine in Berlin on Jan. 7, 2026.
Michael Ukas/dpa/picture alliance via Getty Images

Could these kinds of virtues really be good for you?

My colleagues and I investigated this question in two studies, using two different methods to zoom in on specific moments in people’s daily lives. Our goal was to assess the degree to which, in those moments, they were compassionate, patient and self-controlled. We also assessed their level of well-being: how pleasant or unpleasant they felt, and whether they found their activities meaningful.

One study, with adolescents, used the experience sampling method, in which people answer questions at random intervals throughout the day. The other, studying adults, used the day reconstruction method, in which people answer questions about the previous day. All told, we examined 43,164 moments from 1,218 people.

During situations that offer opportunities to act with compassion, patience and self-control – encountering someone in need, for example, or dealing with a difficult person – people tend to experience more unpleasant feelings and less pleasant ones than in other situations. However, we found that exercising these three virtues seems to help people cope. People who are habitually more compassionate, patient and self-controlled tend to experience better well-being. And when people display more compassion, patience and self-control than usual, they tend to feel better than they usually do.

In short, our results contradicted the theory that virtue is good for others and bad for the self. They were consistent with the theory that virtue promotes well-being.

Why it matters

These studies tested the predictions of two venerable, highly influential theories about the relationship between morality and well-being. In doing so, they offered new insights into one of the most fundamental questions debated in philosophy, psychology and everyday life.

Moreover, in the scientific study of morality, lots of research has examined how people form moral judgments and how outside forces shape a person’s moral behavior. Yet some researchers have argued that this should be complemented by research on moral traits and how these are integrated into the whole person. By focusing on traits such as patience, compassion and self-control, and their roles in people’s daily lives, our studies contribute to the emerging science of virtue.

What still isn’t known

One open question for future research is whether virtues such as compassion, patience and self-control are associated with better well-being only under certain conditions. For example, perhaps things look different depending on one’s stage of life or in different parts of the world.

Our studies were not randomized experiments. It is possible that the associations we observed are explained by another factor – something that increases well-being while simultaneously increasing compassion, patience and self-control. Or maybe well-being affects virtue, instead of the other way around. Future research could help clarify the causal relationships.

One particularly interesting possibility is that there might be a “virtuous cycle”: Perhaps virtue tends to promote well-being – and well-being, in turn, tends to promote virtue. If so, it would be extremely valuable to learn how to help people kick-start that cycle.

The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.

This research was made possible through the support of grants from the John Templeton Foundation (#61221, #62208). The opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation.

– ref. Is being virtuous good for you – or just people around you? A study suggests traits like compassion may support your own well-being – https://theconversation.com/is-being-virtuous-good-for-you-or-just-people-around-you-a-study-suggests-traits-like-compassion-may-support-your-own-well-being-273641

January 23, 2026

UK earmarks £1.5 billion in arts funding until 2030 – expert panel responds

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Adam Behr, Reader in Music, Politics and Socieity, Newcastle University

Visitors enjoying Manchester Art Gallery. Mark Saxby/Shutterstock

The UK government has announced a £1.5 billion funding package for the arts, which it says marks a turning point after a decade of underinvestment. Spread across five years from 2025 to 2030, the money includes £600 million for national museums and other organisations backed by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. A further £160 million has been set aside for regional and local museums.

While many cultural leaders have applauded the move, others are more critical, pointing to UK National Audit Office reports that the culture department consistently underspends. We asked three industry experts to weigh in.

Wider support is needed

Adam Behr, Reader in Music, Politics and Society, Newcastle University

A £1.5 billion investment is welcome news for a sector buffeted by years of austerity and inflation (not to mention the long tail of pandemic shutdowns). But the devil is in the detail, as ever, and the wider context: definitions of “infrastructure” beyond the landmarks, and its relationship to cultural workers.

While the scale of this settlement is encouraging, it will need to support the wider cultural ecosystems in which headline assets sit. Culture is not a series of isolated institutions; it depends on networks of freelancers, grassroots venues and small organisations operating on tight margins. Many are reeling from rising costs, including increased employers’ national insurance contributions.

The policy ambition here, especially alongside growing recognition of the regions, is a clear step forward. But capital funding that stabilises national and regional flagships will be degraded if the surrounding ecology continues to thin out. Careful deployment of the Creative Foundations Fund for capital projects and Arts Everywhere Fund for local growth will be vital to ensure benefits flow throughout the system, supporting sustainable work and everyday cultural activity.

Consider the artists not just the buildings

Wanja Kimani, PhD Candidate in Fine Art, University of the Arts London

The £1.5 billion government commitment, particularly the £160 million for regional museums, is a vital lifeline. By addressing urgent infrastructure needs, this funding ensures the physical survival of museums and galleries after a decade of strain.

However, these spaces are more than buildings. They provide room to reconnect and reimagine our future, but this potential requires new ways of working that reflect our current reality. To truly serve communities, museums must be willing to interrogate the gap between intention and impact, becoming more experimental and open to new forms of collaboration.

Crucially, I question how this benefits artists, often the most precarious and underpaid members of the cultural ecosystem. For this significant investment to be truly effective, museums and galleries must actively create equitable opportunities, remove economic barriers for visitors and facilitate genuine community-rooted collaborations. We must invest in the people who inspire us, not just the assets that house them.

Questions remain

Charlie Gregson, Senior Lecturer in Museum Studies, Nottingham Trent University

The new funding aims to address foundational issues through its emphasis on repairing cultural venues and creating more sustainable business models. This directly responds to several pressing issues, particularly in context of the Arts Council England suggestion that they will be less prescriptive to artists and organisations and reduce grant administration.

Key details are not yet available, particularly regional distribution of funds, how recipients are prioritised and whether strategic initiatives will fill specialist skills shortages. Criticisms from the sector include lack of funding for core costs, with no news on the continuation of the funding stream for Local Authority museums facing a shortfall.

The funding represents potential opportunities to develop socially engaged decision-making. What happens when a site cannot be saved, what value do communities place in the asset and what might be the impact of radical new approaches such as “adaptive reuse or release” (giving an old building a new purpose instead of tearing it down)? Developing such co-productive approaches could embed sustainability-led practice to create a leap in resilience that the funding seeks to achieve.

This article is part of our State of the Arts series. These articles tackle the challenges of the arts and heritage industry – and celebrate the wins, too.

Adam Behr has received funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council and the British Academy.

Charlie Gregson has previously received funding from Arts Council England and National Lottery Heritage Fund, and subsequently worked as for Arts Council England.

Wanja Kimani 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. UK earmarks £1.5 billion in arts funding until 2030
– expert panel responds – https://theconversation.com/uk-earmarks-1-5-billion-in-arts-funding-until-2030-expert-panel-responds-274230

January 23, 2026

How romanticised images of London fog shaped the way we see polluted air

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Michelle Henning, Chair in Photography and Media, University of Liverpool

Researching in the archives of the British photographic company Ilford Limited, I recently came across a curious memo pasted into an experiment book by one of the company’s chemists. Dated January 19 1923, it appears as a small interruption in the page: a practical instruction that “in future, coating of any kind of emulsion must not be commenced or proceeded with during a fog”.

This brief directive was my first clue to a connection between the photographic term “fogging” and the noxious London fogs which, though often associated with the 19th-century city, persisted well into the 1950s.

The memo was attached to a page otherwise dedicated to photographic fog. In chemical photography, “fogging” describes an effect caused by chemical contamination or light leaks during the processing of prints or negatives, producing a mist-like veil across the image.

In the experiment book, the memo registers the intrusion of London smog itself – laden with chemical pollutants, not least sulphurous compounds – which reacted with the silver in photographic emulsions. The fog therefore disrupted not only photographic manufacture, but also the taking and processing of photographs.

London’s fog literally fogged photographs with the yellowish hue of the capital’s notorious “pea-soupers”. This presented difficulties for early “orthochromatic” photographic emulsions, which were insensitive to orange and red (which appear darker in a positive print).

In the 1920s and 30s, British press photographers sent out to capture the winter fog found it hard to prevent the fog from appearing very dark because of this. But it was also difficult to get decent exposures because of the reduced light.

Press photographers also struggled to protect their glass plates and films within the camera or the darkroom. The fog seemed to penetrate even the interior of portrait studios, via chimneys or even keyholes.

Movie studios similarly found it virtually impossible to keep out the fog, which both softened the picture and muffled the sound, just as the talkies were being introduced. Yet despite these difficulties there is a proliferation of fog photographs from the interwar period and from the 1950s. Many still circulate today in online collections devoted to historical images of London.

The fogs were significant, newsworthy events. They were highly toxic: it’s estimated that more than 4,000 people died as a result of the fog of 1952, which led to the Clean Air Act of 1956. Yet far from communicate the poisonous dangers of urban atmospheric pollution, the press photographs often seem to emphasise the beauty and mystery of the fog.

The photographs in the magazine Picture Post’s photo-feature “Foggy Morning” (January 21 1939), as in many press photos, made the most of the picturesque opportunities given by artificial lighting in the fog: headlamps, flares, neon advertising lights and traffic lights.

They also made use of the ways in which fog transforms familiar figures and landmarks into silhouettes. The accompanying text claimed the images represented a “natural beauty … the beauty of atmosphere”, going so far as to say: “A foggy morning in London is as beautiful as an Arctic night, if shorter.”

One reader of Picture Post, Ernest Restell, wrote to complain about the feature. He objected not simply to the claims made in the article but to the fact that the “pictures were so beautiful, for fog is an ugly harmful thing”. Which – as he goes on to point out, is the concentrated result of the “inefficient combustion of raw coal” (combined with meteorological conditions).

Today, some writers argue that sublime beauty is a way to make photographs of environmental destruction more impactful, while others share Restell’s concern that spectacular images detract from attention to the causes of pollution and climate change.

It’s tempting to see beauty as intrinsic to the photograph or to the scene itself, but it was a technical struggle to photograph the London fog, and photographers drew on existing pictorial traditions to do so, in the process suppressing and concealing the foulness of the air.

The art of fog

There was already a nostalgia associated with the London fog in which the romantic visual effects of the filthy air were inseparable from ideas about the might of the industrial, imperial centre at its 19th-century peak.

Impressionist painters, notably Claude Monet, had been drawn to the London fog. And in photography, the pictorialists (photographers keen to establish the medium as an expressive art form) followed the impressionists in their attraction to mist and fog as a means to convey emotional as well as physical atmosphere.

By the 1930s, pictorialism was a popular aesthetic in Britain. Encouraged by magazines such as The Amateur Photographer and Cinematographer, the amateur photography scene was dominated by an aesthetic of atmosphere. The British Journal of Photography, as early as 1898, lambasted “mud-and-slush photographers” who would seek out bad weather conditions and foggy atmosphere for aesthetic effect.

painting of a bridge in fog — Waterloo Bridge in the Fog by Claude Monet (1903).
Denver Art Museum

Fog allowed photography to be expressive, it introduced mystery through softening and blurring effects but also a shallowness to the pictorial space, an aesthetic of silhouettes and lighting effects anticipating film noir, especially films like The Third Man (1949), with their dramatic use of night-time urban lighting, smoke and shadow.

In the hands of the press photographers, it gave rise to a distinctive repertoire, of London buses and archways, policemen with their distinctive helmets and white gloves, lamplighters and classical buildings outlined in the mist. The fog appeared as an opaque backdrop against which an increasingly cliched and nostalgic image of the imperial city could emerge, at a time when Britain’s colonies were fighting for independence.

As the historical geographer Stephen Legg argues, when a severe “black smoke fog” plagued the first India Round Table Conference in November and December 1930, the press commented on developments in the conference in relation to differences in climate and dress, interpreting Indian “difference as inferiority or nonmodernity”.

As Legg and other writers on atmosphere and climate have shown, ideas about weather and climate, and especially fog, go hand in hand with ideas about race and empire. As well as making the polluted atmosphere appear picturesque, and despite the difficulties involved in photographing in fog, photographs of foggy London reproduce and circulate an ideological vision of the British empire.

The climate crisis has a communications problem. How do we tell stories that move people – not just to fear the future, but to imagine and build a better one? This article is part of Climate Storytelling, a series exploring how arts and science can join forces to spark understanding, hope and action.

Michelle Henning received funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council for some of the work informing this article, under grant no. AH/R014639.

– ref. How romanticised images of London fog shaped the way we see polluted air – https://theconversation.com/how-romanticised-images-of-london-fog-shaped-the-way-we-see-polluted-air-272851

January 23, 2026

Russian knowledge of Soviet-era energy systems has helped it to target Ukraine’s heating and homes

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Pauline Sophie Heinrichs, Lecturer in War Studies, Climate and Energy Security, King’s College London

In the middle of Ukraine’s fiercest winter of the war, many Ukrainians are unable to prepare hot meals or are unable to heat their homes while temperatures have dipped as low as -20C in the past few weeks. Harsher weather is forecast.

Russia has once again targeted Ukraine with sustained attacks on power stations, energy grids and heating nodes affecting electricity, as well as heating systems and water pumps.

Following the Russian strikes on January 20, around 5,600 apartment buildings in Kyiv were left without heating and almost half of Kyiv was believed to be without heat and power, affecting around one million people. The situation is so dire that the city has set up “heating tents” to help people stay warm in the freezing temperatures. Other cities have also been attacked.

Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky declared the situation an energy emergency.

One factor is that as a legacy of Ukraine’s membership of the Soviet Union, Russia probably holds deeper knowledge about Ukraine’s centralised energy systems than an outside nation would generally have.

For decades Ukraine’s energy system was linked to Russia and Belarus as part of a centralised grid, and was “tightly connected to Russia’s energy architecture”. While this did not mean Ukraine was dependent on Russia for its energy supply, it did mean that Russia played the central role in coordinating frequency and balancing supply and demand across the whole network.

Some Ukrainian officials have argued that the nature of these attacks suggests that Russian knowledge of Soviet-era energy systems has helped it to target Ukraine’s energy centres.

There’s another big factor for the Ukrainian authorities to struggle with.

While Ukraine’s authorities were quick to restore heating in around 1,600 buildings, an estimated 4,000 remained without heating on January 21. The challenge in Ukraine is more severe than it might be in other countries because of the centralised systems for water, sewage and heating used by its urban neighbourhoods, known as district heating.

What is district heating?

Ukraine still relies heavily on Soviet-era thermal heating systems using mostly gas. The percentage of households that rely on district heating varies by region and city, with a particularly high percentage of these buildings, mostly built in the 1960s, in densely populated urban cities including Kyiv.

Thermal power plants usually heat water which is then piped around districts and to individual pumping stations. It is then distributed to apartment buildings. But if the pipes are full of water and power for heating is off, the pipes can burst if the water freezes. Right now, with temperatures spiralling downwards this is a major threat.

Russian attacks on Ukraine leave thousands without heating in middle of winter.

Each district heating system can serve tens of thousands of citizens across multiple buildings and, when powered with renewable energy, they can be significantly more efficient, cost-effective and low-carbon than individual boilers. District heating systems depend much more on fixed physical infrastructure, including large pipes and pumping stations, to circulate hot water.

But centralised infrastructure is inherently vulnerable to physical attack. Damage to a major transmission pipe or the loss of a key pumping station can disable heating across entire neighbourhoods, particularly during winter.

Russia has damaged around 8.5GW of Ukraine’s power generation since October 2025, or around 15% of pre-war capacity. With the amount available nearly matching the amount generated there’s little room to redistribute energy within the system.

Whatever the system’s weaknesses may be, no energy system in the world is built to sustain continued bombardment.

Ukraine relies on nuclear power

Ukraine’s energy system is also largely dependent on nuclear power. Around half of Ukraine’s electricity is nuclear-powered, with coal-fired power plants making 23% and gas-fired plants 9%. In all cases these are features of a highly centralised energy system.

Patterns of attacks indicate that Russian forces monitor where repairs are under way and then hit the same sites again once they are restored. This has compounded repair costs and prolonged the loss of critical services. Kyiv’s mayor Vitali Klitschko said that the situation was difficult because most of those buildings that were being reconnected for the second time were damaged as part of a previous attack on January 9.

Russia uses “double-tap” strikes, where a second attack follows closely after the first. This often endangers emergency services and repair crews rushing to restore heat and electricity. Such tactics force officials to balance the urgent need to fix infrastructure with the risk to workers and civilians.

Even before the war, there were weaknesses in Ukraine’s energy and power networks. Old water systems and heating devices — and often entire buildings — need to be reconstructed.

However, Ukraine had already started to reduce technical reliance on Russia before the war. The dependency on the post-Soviet system changed in March 2022, when Ukraine’s grid was integrated with the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity, (Entso-E), a Europe-wide association of national electricity transmission system operators.

These attacks have had significant consequences on hospitals, transport systems, and vulnerable people in their homes. This devastating cycle of repeat strikes in the middle of an incredibly cold winter has intensified Russia’s energy terror.

Pauline Sophie Heinrichs 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. Russian knowledge of Soviet-era energy systems has helped it to target Ukraine’s heating and homes – https://theconversation.com/russian-knowledge-of-soviet-era-energy-systems-has-helped-it-to-target-ukraines-heating-and-homes-274052

January 23, 2026

The rise of Reza Pahlavi: Iranian opposition leader or opportunist?

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Eric Lob, Associate Professor of Politics and International Relations, Florida International University

Reza Pahlavi, Iranian opposition leader and son of the last shah of Iran. Joel Saget/AFP via Getty Images

During the protests that ripped through Iran in January, one person who gained attention was Reza Pahlavi. Pahlavi, who lives in Los Angeles, is the son of the late shah of Iran, who ruthlessly ruled the country before being deposed during the Iranian Revolution in 1979.

Pahlavi emerged during the recent upheaval as a prominent political dissident in exile who encouraged and inspired Iranians to demonstrate. It remained unclear, however, what level of popular support he commanded inside Iran, not to mention whether he was, in fact, dedicated to democracy as the descendant of a monarch.

While some Iranians perceived Pahlavi as an opposition leader, others considered him an opportunistic figure with monarchical designs and a mixed track record.

Crown prince to political dissident

Born in Tehran in 1960, Reza Pahlavi was the eldest son of the shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and his wife, Queen Farah Diba, making him the crown prince.

From 1941 to 1979, the shah ruled Iran with an iron fist. With funding and training from France, the United States and Israel, he established and deployed a secret police force, the SAVAK, that subjected political opponents to surveillance, imprisonment, torture and execution.

As popular discontent against the shah grew in 1974-75, Amnesty International estimated there were between 25,000 and 100,000 political prisoners in Iran.

Although the shah stated during the 1979 revolution that he would rather flee the country than fire on protesters, his security forces killed approximately 500 to 3,000 Iranians – though those figures are lower than those killed in the latest Iran protests.

In 1980, the shah admitted to mistakes, including acknowledging that his regime had tortured Iranians.

CBS Evening News anchor Walter Cronkite reports on Jan. 16, 1979, that a “tearful” Shah and his family had left Iran “on a vacation from which he may never return.”

The shah and his family fled Iran in 1979, and the Islamic Republic subsequently was established. After the shah died in 1980, Reza Pahlavi declared himself the next shah and started his political activism against the Islamic Republic from abroad.

More recently, he attempted to organize and unify a divided opposition composed of ethnic and religious groups, leftists, rightists, centrists, republicans and, of course, monarchists. In the process, Pahlavi also aspired to raise his public profile.

From 2013 to 2017, he served as co-founder and spokesperson of the Iran National Council, an umbrella organization of opposition groups, headquartered in Paris. It reportedly suffered defections from some groups, which stifled its ability to accomplish much. In February 2019, Pahlavi helped establish the Phoenix Project of Iran, a think tank in Washington, D.C., dedicated to regime change and a transition plan in Iran.

During the 2022-23 Woman, Life, Freedom protests, sparked by the death of the young Iranian woman Mahsa Amini while in the custody of the morality police, Pahlavi called for rallies against the Iranian government in the United States, Canada and other countries. Leading opposition figures spoke at these rallies, and thousands of people participated.

That same year, some high-profile activists and celebrities, including some his father had imprisoned, endorsed Pahlavi as a leader or figure who could unite the opposition.

Presence and politics

In April 2023, Pahlavi made his first official visit to Israel, where he was hosted by Intelligence Minister Gila Gamliel and met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The visit was condemned by Iranians, from regime supporters to anti-government activists, who were opposed to monarchy and unsympathetic to Israel.

After Pahlavi’s participation in the February 2025 Munich security conference was nixed, he and his supporters gathered in the city that month and in the summer to unify the political opposition and plan a post-regime transition. For Pahlavi, the meetings may have been simply a face-saving measure after the security conference snub.

As a political dissident, Pahlavi continually called for a popular uprising, regime change and a secular and democratic state. At the same time, he did not rule out the return of the monarchy, albeit a constitutional one, based on a national referendum and constituent assembly.

In an attempt to appease other opposition groups and some anti-monarchy Iranian citizens, Pahlavi occasionally insisted he was “not a political leader” and was “not personally seeking political office” in Iran if the regime fell.

On the foreign policy front – and following in his father’s footsteps – Pahlavi has advocated for Iran to align itself with the United States and Israel.

Protesters holding enlarged photos of Reza Pahlavi as they stand on a street, some of them wearing flags around their shoulders. — Iranian protesters hold a photograph of Reza Pahlavi during a Free Iran rally in London on Jan. 18, 2026.
Dinendra Haria/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

Unclear support, mixed record

As Pahlavi became more politically active abroad, questions surfaced about his viability as an opposition leader in Iran.

Discounting a 2023 poll conducted by a pro-Pahlavi institute indicating he was widely popular in Iran, it remained difficult to determine his support in Iranian society.

In a 2022 poll conducted by an independent, nonprofit research foundation with 158,000 respondents in Iran, Pahlavi received the highest percentage – 32.8% – among 34 candidates listed to serve on a transitional solidarity council, should the regime collapse.

At the same time, Pahlavi apparently lacked a serious monarchist movement and a strong connection with local opposition leaders and activists in Iran. He purportedly had little, if any, support among reformist or liberal groups in the country.

The lack of clarity concerning support for Pahlavi in Iran explained the hesitation of U.S. officials, including President Donald Trump, to engage with him. That did not deter Pahlavi from attempting to persuade them to abandon diplomatic talks and negotiations with the Islamic Republic over its nuclear program.

Despite the debates outside Iran about Pahlavi’s support within the country, pro-monarchy slogans increasingly appeared in Iranian social media postings and anti-government protests, including those in 2017-18, 2019-20, and 2022-23.

During the 2019-20 protests, the security forces arrested members of monarchist groups around the country and acknowledged their rising popularity and ability to infiltrate the government. Some reformist intellectuals suggested that monarchist slogans were merely a means for Iranian youth and other citizens to channel their anger and frustration at the authorities rather than expressions of true support for Pahlavi.

The slogans also reinforced the regime’s efforts to delegitimize the protests by portraying them as a plot by external and internal enemies, including the monarchists, to destabilize the country.

A young boy standing in front of a line of boys in military uniforms. — Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi of Iran inspects a ‘guard of honour’ composed of young boys in uniform in Tehran, Iran, on Sept. 19, 1963.
Keystone Hulton Archive/Getty Images.

Throughout the 12-day war in June 2025 between Iran and Israel, which claimed the lives of 1,190 Iranian civilians and injured and displaced thousands more, Pahlavi publicly lamented the destruction of Iran’s military infrastructure that his father had initially built and the price its people paid for a war he blamed on Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the regime.

At the same time, he was criticized by prominent political prisoners and other Iranian activists and citizens for betraying his country by supporting the Israeli strikes and failing to condemn them.

After the war, Israeli investigative journalists uncovered an influence operation conducted and funded by Israeli public and private entities to promote – among Persian-speaking audiences on social media – Pahlavi as a potential leader in a post-Islamic Republic Iran. The disinformation campaign created cynicism and controversy concerning Pahlavi’s true popularity inside the country and his tacit connection with Israel before and during the war.

Latest protests and future prospects

During the most recent protests, Pahlavi expressed support for protesters and encouraged them to demonstrate at certain times in the evening. The timing of the protests and demonstrations was intended to increase turnout by accommodating people’s work schedules and to maximize media coverage by aligning with news cycles.

Thousands of protesters turned out in the streets at those times, with some chanting anti-government slogans and others pro-monarchy ones.

His role in the protests was reduced after the regime cut off the internet and telecommunications between the people of Iran and the outside world, as well as among activists inside the country.

While some people praised Pahlavi for inspiring protesters, others asked whether he was responsible for sending them to detention and possible death, as some believed Trump was for similarly encouraging the protesters.

For the last 15 years, Pahlavi has intensified his efforts to unify the political opposition and gain greater exposure, culminating in him emerging as a central figure in the latest protests.

Yet there remain questions about whether he is viable as an opposition leader or is simply an opportunist.

His message about a democratic future for Iran has been largely consistent. However, his father’s repressive and imperial legacy, combined with his own royal pedigree and American and Israeli proximity, prevent him from finding favor with Iranians who oppose monarchy and prioritize sovereignty.

Now, the prospect of Iranians across the country rallying around Pahlavi remains as much of an open question as whether they will succeed in creating the conditions for his return by toppling the regime.

Eric Lob is affiliated with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

– ref. The rise of Reza Pahlavi: Iranian opposition leader or opportunist? – https://theconversation.com/the-rise-of-reza-pahlavi-iranian-opposition-leader-or-opportunist-273423

January 23, 2026

Le « Board of Peace » pour Gaza de Donald Trump : diplomatie de façade et remise en cause de l’ordre international

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Elizabeth Sheppard Sellam, Responsable du programme « Politiques et relations internationales » à la faculté de langues étrangères, Université de Tours

Le Conseil de la Paix que Donald Trump vient d’instituer correspond pleinement à sa vision de la diplomatie : celle-ci est transactionnelle et fluide, non contrainte par les règles complexes de l’ONU et du droit international, et repose avant tout sur des relations personnelles et des intérêts immédiats, bien plus que sur des valeurs.

Présenté dans le contexte de la guerre à Gaza comme une initiative « historique » destinée à accompagner la négociation d’un cessez-le-feu durable et à structurer l’après-guerre à Gaza, le Board of Peace voulu par Donald Trump a été officiellement lancé ce 22 janvier, à Davos, en marge du Forum économique mondial, lors d’une cérémonie de signature largement médiatisée.

Derrière cette mise en scène, une question s’impose : le Board est-il un véritable instrument de négociation politique, ou avant tout un objet trumpien de communication et de personnalisation du pouvoir, conçu en concurrence avec les cadres multilatéraux existants ? À ce stade, il apparaît surtout comme l’expression d’une diplomatie transactionnelle, profondément individualisée et potentiellement déstabilisatrice pour l’ordre international.

Une initiative floue et transactionnelle

Derrière l’affichage diplomatique, c’est une logique de communication politique qui domine. Le lancement à Davos a surtout mis en scène un dispositif centré sur Trump, sans cadre juridique clair ni mandat précis, laissant planer la plus grande ambiguïté sur sa nature : institution internationale, forum informel ou structure privée adossée à la Maison Blanche ?

La vision de la paix sur laquelle s’appuie ce projet est avant tout marchande. À Davos, Trump parle, à propos de Gaza, de reconstruction et de valorisation territoriale dans un langage de promoteur immobilier, son propos étant illustré par la diffusion dans la salle d’images fabriquées par l’IA, présentant une Gaza rutilante.

La paix devient un projet économique, et l’accès au Board une transaction. Certes, l’adhésion au Board of Peace est, en soi, gratuite : aucun État n’est tenu de payer pour en être membre, y compris des pays relativement pauvres comme le Bélarus ou l’Ouzbékistan. En revanche, les États qui souhaiteraient obtenir un siège permanent devront verser une contribution financière. Le dispositif ne dispose d’aucun calendrier ni de mécanismes de décision ou de mise en œuvre des accords. En réalité, il relève davantage d’un instrument symbolique que d’un véritable processus de résolution des conflits. Si bien qu’il a pu être qualifié de « club privé pour diriger le monde », fondé sur l’affichage politique et la personnalisation du pouvoir.

Ce dispositif ne cherche pas à réformer les institutions existantes, mais à leur substituer une diplomatie parallèle, détachée du droit international et dominée par l’autorité personnelle du président américain. Il installe une logique ouvertement transactionnelle, où la participation repose sur l’échange d’intérêts : reconnaissance contre loyauté, accès contre financement, visibilité contre alignement stratégique.

Une remise en cause directe de l’ordre international existant

Le Board prétend promouvoir la paix tout en réunissant des acteurs qui ne partagent ni normes démocratiques ni principes juridiques communs. À ce stade, sur près de soixante États invités par l’administration Trump, environ 35 pays ont accepté de participer au Board of Peace.

Parmi eux figurent plusieurs régimes autoritaires ou illibéraux, tels que l’Azerbaïdjan, le Bélarus, l’Arabie saoudite, l’Ouzbékistan ou encore le Vietnam, ce qui interroge directement la cohérence politique et normative de cette initiative. La Russie de Vladimir Poutine, bien qu’officiellement invitée, n’a pas encore confirmé son adhésion, le Kremlin affirmant devoir en « clarifier les modalités ».

Cette configuration renforce l’ambiguïté du dispositif : l’adhésion, nous l’avons dit, est gratuite, mais l’accès à un siège permanent repose sur une contribution financière dite volontaire d’un milliard de dollars, ce qui donne au Conseil l’allure d’un assemblage diplomatique hétéroclite fondé sur des logiques transactionnelles plus que sur des principes communs. Il donne l’image d’un cercle où la légitimité se mesure moins aux valeurs qu’à l’utilité politique. Trump s’y impose comme arbitre central, concentrant la reconnaissance diplomatique et faisant de la paix un capital politique.

Ce fonctionnement prolonge une évolution déjà engagée par les États-Unis, marquée par une réticence croissante à s’inscrire dans des cadres juridiques contraignants.

Le Board n’ouvre donc pas une rupture ; il accélère une dynamique d’érosion. Il fait primer la décision politique immédiate sur la régulation collective et fragmente la gouvernance mondiale, désormais fondée sur des dispositifs informels et personnels.

L’Europe face au Board : méfiance, refus et lucidité stratégique

Des alliés majeurs des États-Unis comme l’Australie, le Japon ou la Corée du Sud n’ont pas confirmé leur participation, tandis que le Canada a été placé dans une situation encore plus singulière, son invitation ayant été unilatéralement retirée par Donald Trump, révélant le caractère à la fois politique et arbitraire de la composition du Board of Peace.

En Europe, l’initiative suscite d’emblée une méfiance marquée, et dans plusieurs cas un refus assumé d’y participer. La France, l’Allemagne, les Pays-Bas, la Belgique, l’Espagne, la Suède et la Norvège ont exprimé leurs réserves face à un dispositif dont la légitimité politique et juridique apparaît incertaine. Ce n’est pas un désaccord tactique, mais un désaccord de principe : participer reviendrait à cautionner une structure qui contourne les institutions internationales existantes, sans cadre juridique clair ni articulation avec le droit international.

Pour les Européens, le Board apparaît comme un facteur de déstabilisation plus que comme un outil de pacification. Il légitime l’idée que les grandes crises peuvent être traitées en dehors de toute architecture collective, alors que la diplomatie européenne repose précisément sur l’inverse : la centralité du droit, la primauté du multilatéralisme et la recherche de compromis institutionnalisés.

L’incompatibilité est aussi idéologique. Le Board incarne une diplomatie transactionnelle, peu sensible aux normes juridiques et aux valeurs démocratiques, là où l’UE continue de revendiquer une action extérieure fondée sur des principes. L’enjeu dépasse ainsi Gaza pour toucher à la définition même de ce qui constitue une action internationale légitime.

Enfin, le Board s’impose comme un marqueur supplémentaire de la fracture transatlantique. Il révèle une divergence croissante entre Washington, qui privilégie des formats ad hoc et personnalisés, et les Européens, attachés à une architecture collective, imparfaite mais structurante.

Le Board et Israël : attentes, désillusions et instrumentalisation politique

Pour Israël, l’initiative touche au cœur de ses intérêts sécuritaires. Dans le contexte de la guerre à Gaza, l’attente demeure celle d’un leadership américain capable de structurer l’après-conflit. Jérusalem ne peut donc ignorer un dispositif porté par Washington, même imparfait.

La méfiance est cependant apparue immédiatement. L’annonce de la composition du Board, qui inclut notamment la Turquie et le Qatar, a suscité de fortes réserves, du fait de l’hostilité politique croissante d’Ankara envers Israël, et des liens que Doha entretient avec le Hamas. Le bureau de Benyamin Nétanyahou a rappelé que la démarche n’avait pas été coordonnée avec Jérusalem… avant qu’Israël accepte finalement d’y participer, faute de pouvoir rester en dehors d’un processus directement piloté par l’administration américaine. Cette séquence illustre une constante de la diplomatie israélienne : Israël est directement concerné, il ne peut pas dire non, mais avance avec prudence structurelle.

La centralité accordée à Steve Witkoff comme émissaire principal est d’autant plus controversée que, selon plusieurs responsables israéliens, il aurait pesé pour empêcher une frappe américaine contre l’Iran mi-janvier, ce qui alimente une forte défiance à son égard, d’autant plus qu’il siège au cœur de l’Executive Board du Board of Peace, instance restreinte appelée à concentrer l’essentiel du pouvoir décisionnel.

Steve Witkoff agit comme l’émissaire personnel de Donald Trump bien au-delà du Board of Peace : c’est lui qui a conduit les échanges directs avec le ministre iranien des affaires étrangères et qui a été au cœur des négociations menées à Doha, notamment sur Gaza. Sa présence dans l’Executive Board du Board of Peace renvoie donc moins à un rôle symbolique qu’à une position de pouvoir réel, cet organe restreint concentrant l’essentiel de l’impulsion politique et du contrôle opérationnel de l’initiative. Cela fait de Witkoff à la fois un négociateur de terrain et l’un des pivots décisionnels du dispositif, ce qui explique l’ampleur des critiques qu’il suscite, notamment en Israël.

La question polarise en tout cas le débat israélien, entre acceptation pragmatique et rejet d’un mécanisme perçu comme dangereux par les ministres israéliens d’extrême droite, parce qu’il implique des acteurs qu’ils estiment hostiles ou complaisants envers le Hamas et qu’il s’oppose à leur objectif de contrôle direct et durable de Gaza au nom de la sécurité d’Israël.

Le Board devient ainsi le symbole de la tension permanente entre la dépendance stratégique d’Israël envers Washington et sa défiance face à une diplomatie trop fondée sur les liens personnels pour constituer un cadre fiable de long terme.

Du côté palestinien, la réaction est plus nuancée qu’on ne le dit souvent : l’Autorité palestinienne a accueilli l’initiative avec prudence mais sans hostilité frontale, y voyant une possible ouverture diplomatique, tandis que d’autres acteurs palestiniens dénoncent un dispositif conçu dans un cadre avant tout américano-israélien et ne leur offrant pas de garanties politiques réelles. En parallèle, des pays qui se présentent traditionnellement comme des défenseurs de la cause palestinienne – comme l’Égypte, l’Indonésie ou l’Arabie saoudite – mais qui sont aussi, pour certains, en paix avec Israël ou engagés dans des processus de normalisation, justifient leur participation au Board of Peace par un discours de pragmatisme diplomatique : mieux vaut siéger à la table des discussions pour peser sur la reconstruction de Gaza et l’après-guerre que rester en dehors d’un processus piloté par Washington.

Une rupture profonde

« Une fois que ce conseil sera complètement formé, nous pourrons faire à peu près tout ce que nous voulons ». Cette phrase prononcée par Trump à Davos résume le Board of Peace. Elle ne parle pas de paix, mais de pouvoir : une diplomatie fondée sur la maîtrise, la transaction et la personnalisation de l’action internationale.

Ce qui devait constituer le socle d’un processus durable au Moyen-Orient s’est transformé en un exercice de mise en scène, où l’ego présidentiel, l’argent et les projets portés par Witkoff ou Jared Kushner, gendre du président et businessman très actif dans la région, prennent le pas sur toute logique de négociation réelle. La paix n’y apparaît plus comme un objectif politique, mais comme un actif et un instrument de valorisation.

Plus qu’un projet de paix, le Board révèle une rupture profonde : celle d’un ordre international où la règle cède devant la transaction, où l’institution recule face à la personnalisation, et où la diplomatie devient un espace de démonstration de puissance plus qu’un lieu de construction du compromis.

Elizabeth Sheppard Sellam ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

– ref. Le « Board of Peace » pour Gaza de Donald Trump : diplomatie de façade et remise en cause de l’ordre international – https://theconversation.com/le-board-of-peace-pour-gaza-de-donald-trump-diplomatie-de-facade-et-remise-en-cause-de-lordre-international-274204

January 23, 2026

Des géants de l’armement aux start-up du logiciel : le secteur de la défense en pleine transformation

Source: The Conversation – France (in French) – By Nicolas Minvielle, Spécialiste du design et de l’innovation, Audencia

Alors que le contexte géopolitique change en profondeur, de nouvelles entreprises émergent dans le monde de la défense. Après des décennies dominées par la puissance d’entreprises industrielles à l’ancienne, les start-up du logiciel deviennent des actrices clés. Retour sur une mutation en cours et décryptage des nouveaux enjeux qu’elle pose.

Dans le contexte de la guerre en Ukraine où l’« autonomie stratégique » devient un problème concret apparaît, à côté du traditionnel « complexe militaro-industriel »), un nouveau modèle que l’on pourrait décrire comme étant un complexe technocapitaliste. Un écosystème où start-up, fonds de capital-risque, fonds souverains, initiatives européennes et philanthropes techno-nationalistes investissent massivement dans la défense et la sécurité.

Non pas pour remplacer d’un coup la base industrielle et technologique de défense (BITD) – et ce malgré les annonces tonitruantes de certains de ces acteurs –, mais pour en modifier progressivement l’architecture, les acteurs et les temporalités.

Le dernier souper est servi

Le modèle qui domine encore aujourd’hui a pris forme dans les années 1990, avec la grande consolidation de l’industrie américaine de défense sous l’administration Clinton. Durant cette période, la base industrielle de défense américaine a connu une consolidation d’une ampleur inédite. Surnommé le last supper, ce moment d’accélération des fusions a donné naissance aux cinq géants qui dominent encore largement la défense américaine – Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon et General Dynamics. Quelques grands maîtres d’œuvre – ces fameux Big Five – se partagent ainsi depuis l’essentiel des grands programmes : avions de combat, frégates, satellites, systèmes de commandement intégrés.

Leur logique est celle de la commande publique lourde : des besoins définis par l’État, des appels d’offres longs, des cycles de développement qui se comptent en décennies, une forte intégration verticale, une relation quasi organique avec les ministères de la Défense. Ce modèle assure une certaine visibilité budgétaire et une capacité à gérer des systèmes d’une complexité extrême. Il produit aussi une grande inertie tant sur le plan technologique que procédural.

L’arrivée du monde du logiciel

Depuis une dizaine d’années, ce paysage est bousculé par des acteurs qui viennent, pour l’essentiel, du monde du logiciel : Anduril, Palantir, Helsing, Shield AI, et en France des entreprises comme Command AI. Leur point de départ n’est pas une plateforme matérielle (un avion, un navire, un char), mais le logiciel : fusion de données, IA, capteurs distribués, systèmes autonomes, couches de command & control.

Leurs méthodes de travail et de production, héritées de la tech consistent en itérations rapides, tests fréquents, déploiements progressifs, adaptation au retour du terrain plutôt qu’exécution d’un cahier des charges figé. Aux États-Unis, des dispositifs comme les Other Transaction Authority (OTA) ont été créés pour faciliter cette collaboration avec des acteurs non traditionnels, ce qui permet d’en contourner certaines lourdeurs réglementaires.

Traverser la « vallée de la mort »

Au sein de ces organisations, on sait prototyper plus vite, expérimenter plus tôt, et ce qu’elles que soient leurs origines géographiques. Mais le cœur du problème reste entier : beaucoup de ces start-up valident un démonstrateur… puis butent sur la « vallée de la mort » entre prototypes financés en mode agile et programmes pérennes inscrits en loi de finances. L’appareil budgétaire, taillé pour les grands industriels historiques, peine à absorber des solutions issues de ce nouveau monde.

En Europe, on tente d’importer cet esprit à travers des marchés d’innovation, des programmes d’expérimentation accélérée, des dispositifs dual-use. Mais la culture d’acquisition reste largement calibrée pour les grands programmes industriels, plutôt que pour des produits logiciels qui changent de version plusieurs fois par an.

La défense devient une classe d’actifs

Parallèlement à cette rupture technologique, c’est la structure du financement de la défense qui se transforme. La sécurité n’est plus seulement affaire de budgets ministériels ; elle devient aussi un segment identifié du capital-risque. Aux côtés des commandes publiques et des investissements des grands groupes se constitue un nouvel écosystème d’investisseurs composé :

des fonds privés spécialisés dans la défense, la sécurité et les technologies dites « civilisationnelles » (IA, autonomie, cyber, spatial, résilience d’infrastructures) ;
des fonds souverains et publics qui cherchent à orienter l’innovation vers des priorités de souveraineté ;
des dispositifs européens (fonds de fonds, véhicules dédiés) qui tentent de structurer un marché encore fragmenté ;
des philanthropes techno-nationalistes qui investissent par conviction politique ou civilisationnelle autant que pour le rendement (Peter Thiel par exemple).

Tous partagent la conviction que certaines technologies – IA militaire, lutte anti-drones, robotique autonome, surveillance avancée, sécurité spatiale – vont devenir structurantes, et que la valeur se créera très en amont, bien avant les grands contrats publics. Le schéma de l’industriel finançant la R&D sur fonds propres pour vendre ensuite un produit à marge encadrée recule. Le risque est socialisé dans le capital : les VC, les fonds souverains, les programmes européens prennent le risque initial, en misant sur l’hypothèse qu’un jour, une partie de la commande publique basculera vers ces nouvelles solutions.

Ce mouvement ne remplace pas le financement traditionnel par les États ; il l’encercle, le complète et le pousse à se réorganiser. Ministères de la Défense, Union européenne, Otan tentent désormais de co-concevoir des instruments (fonds, equity facilities, fonds d’innovation) pour ne pas laisser au seul capital privé le soin de définir, par ses paris, l’architecture future de la BITD.

Un dialogue nécessaire entre deux modèles

On l’aura compris, dans ce nouvel environnement, deux grandes logiques industrielles cohabitent. Du côté des industriels historiques, la chaîne de valeur part de l’expression de besoin : l’État formalise une exigence (un avion de combat, un système de défense antiaérienne, une frégate de nouvelle génération), lance un appel d’offres, sélectionne un industriel, et s’engage sur des décennies. La robustesse, la certification, l’intégration dans des architectures complexes sont centrales. Les marges sont encadrées, le risque est partagé, mais le tempo reste celui du temps long.

Les start-up de défense, à l’inverse, développent des produits avant que le besoin ne soit formalisé. Elles financent le développement puis se tournent vers les États en disant, en substance : « voilà ce que nous savons déjà faire, regardez si vous pouvez vous en passer ».

Cette asymétrie se voit dans la façon dont on conçoit les systèmes. Là où les grands industriels ont longtemps construit d’abord la plateforme matérielle, puis ajouté des couches logicielles au fil du temps, les nouveaux entrants adoptent une logique software first.

Un nouveau rapport de forces

Le cas d’Anduril est emblématique. Au cœur de sa stratégie se trouve un système d’exploitation tactique, conçu pour connecter capteurs, drones, effecteurs et flux de données. À partir de cette brique logicielle, l’entreprise déploie ensuite ses propres drones, capteurs, systèmes d’armes, en gardant la maîtrise de l’architecture logicielle qui fait la jonction. Le tout étant principalement focalisé sur La clientèle militaire.

Cette inversion du rapport de force – la valeur se loge dans le logiciel, la plateforme matérielle devient, jusqu’à un certain point, substituable – rend très concrète la question de la souveraineté : qui contrôle la brique logicielle qui orchestre l’ensemble ? Qui décide du rythme des mises à jour ? Où se situent les dépendances critiques ?

Elle rebat aussi les cartes du Hi–Low mix : comment articuler des systèmes lourds, rares et coûteux (avion de combat, frégate) avec des objets plus simples, distribués, produits en masse (drones, capteurs, effecteurs low cost). Les nouveaux acteurs occupent volontiers ce bas et ce milieu du spectre, la « masse agile » ; les industriels historiques doivent, eux, apprendre à descendre vers des produits plus modulaires, plus rapides, tout en continuant à garantir l’excellence sur les systèmes de très haute complexité.

Des horizons temporels différents

La rencontre entre capital-risque et défense met aussi au jour une tension structurante : celle des horizons temporels. Le Venture Capital (VC, ou capital-risque) raisonne en cycles de cinq à sept ans, avec l’idée que l’entreprise doit, soit atteindre une taille critique, soit être rachetée, soit entrer en bourse. Les ministères de la défense, eux, raisonnent sur vingt ou trente ans, voire davantage.

Ce décalage pose des questions très concrètes. Que se passe-t-il si un acteur clé de l’IA tactique ou du contre-drone, devenu indispensable sur le terrain, se retrouve fragilisé par la conjoncture financière, ou racheté par un acteur étranger ? Comment garantir la continuité d’une capacité opérationnelle dont la brique critique est portée par une entreprise structurée selon les logiques de la tech ?

Trois idées structurantes

À l’inverse, la défense ne peut plus ignorer le rythme d’innovation propre au logiciel. Attendre dix ans pour figer une architecture revient souvent à se condamner à déployer des systèmes déjà dépassés. D’où la montée en puissance de trois idées structurantes :

Le dual-use : privilégier les technologies qui ont, par construction, des débouchés civils et militaires (cyber, spatial, IA, robotique, résilience d’infrastructures). Cela élargit la base industrielle, répartit le risque et évite de concentrer des capacités critiques sur des marchés de niche.
Le « software-defined, hardware-enabled » : concevoir des systèmes où le cœur de valeur est dans l’algorithme (détection, fusion de capteurs, décision), et où le matériel – drone, capteur, effecteur – peut évoluer plus librement.
La modularisation et les architectures ouvertes : prévoir dès la conception des points d’insertion réguliers pour de nouvelles briques logicielles, de nouveaux capteurs, sans devoir réinventer tout le système.

Ces leviers ne font pas disparaître la tension entre temps court financier et temps long doctrinal, mais ils la rendent plus gérable. L’État peut, en théorie, remplacer une brique sans casser l’ensemble. Et le capital peut se concentrer sur des modules identifiables plutôt que sur des mégaprogrammes monolithiques.

BFM, 2025.

Jungle et zoo ou concilier l’inconciliable

On décrit parfois la situation actuelle comme la rencontre d’un « zoo » – celui des grands programmes, très régulés, très documentés, pensés pour durer – et d’une « jungle » peuplée d’insurgés technologiques, financés par les VC, en constante exploration.

Les nouveaux acteurs occupent des niches, souvent à la périphérie des grands programmes, mais avec un fort potentiel de diffusion. Pour l’instant, une grande partie d’entre eux reste dépendante de tremplins publics (contrats d’étude, expérimentations, appels à projets). Le marché réel, celui des grands volumes, demeure largement capté par les industriels historiques.

Dans le même temps, et le point est clé, les investisseurs privés se concentrent progressivement sur des profils plus mûrs : des entreprises qui ont déjà fait la preuve de leur solidité technique, de leur capacité à dialoguer avec les armées, de leur compréhension des contraintes réglementaires. On s’éloigne du fantasme de la start-up de défense sortie de nulle part pour se rapprocher d’acteurs hybrides, où se mêlent les cultures tech, industrielle et stratégique. Dit autrement, malgré le marketing ambiant, les investisseurs préfèrent accélérer des sociétés ayant une forme de maturité plutôt qu’une forme de risque extrême à tout va.

Quelles réponses européennes ?

Pour l’Europe, l’enjeu n’est pas de choisir entre la jungle et le zoo, ni de rêver à une table rase. Il est d’apprendre à articuler ces deux univers :

en assumant plus clairement une politique industrielle de défense, qui fixe des priorités et des lignes rouges ;
en construisant des passerelles institutionnelles et financières entre fonds souverains, VC et industriels historiques ;
en pensant la souveraineté non seulement en termes de plates-formes matérielles, mais aussi en termes d’architectures logicielles, de données, de standards.

Le « complexe technocapitaliste » ne supprime pas le complexe militaro-industriel. Il le met à l’épreuve, l’oblige à se transformer et offre, si l’on sait le canaliser, de nouveaux leviers pour renforcer une souveraineté européenne qui ne peut plus se contenter de dépendre des choix technologiques et politiques des autres.

Nicolas Minvielle est membre du comité d’orientation de La Fabrique de la Cité, et du collectif Making Tomorrow

Marie Roussie travaille au sein de Alt-a et est membre du Collectif Making Tomorrow.

– ref. Des géants de l’armement aux start-up du logiciel : le secteur de la défense en pleine transformation – https://theconversation.com/des-geants-de-larmement-aux-start-up-du-logiciel-le-secteur-de-la-defense-en-pleine-transformation-273707