Monday, May 19, 2025

 

Kremlin outlaws Amnesty International amid ongoing crackdown on dissent

FILE: A couple walk past billboards calling for a contract for service in the Russian armed forces in St Petersburg, 15 March 2025
Copyright AP Photo/Dmitri Lovetsky

By Clea Skopeliti
Published on 

Russian authorities branded the leading human rights NGO an "undesirable organisation," criminalising cooperating or supporting the group.

Russian authorities have banned Amnesty International, making involvement with the international human rights group illegal, the Russian Prosecutor General's office said on Monday.

Branded an “undesirable organisation” – a designation that criminalises involvement or support of such groups — the international NGO is the latest target of the Kremlin’s crackdown on dissent. The law has been widely criticised by human rights advocates.

A number of journalists, activists and others who have spoken out against the Kremlin have been imprisoned or banned from operating in the country since Moscow invaded Ukraine in February 2022.

The label means that Amnesty International must cease its work in Russia. Anyone cooperating with or supporting the organisation, even by sharing a report on social media, risks prosecution.  

Euronews contacted Amnesty International for comment.

More than 200 organisations, ranging from independent news outlets to think tanks and anti-corruption groups have been slapped with the “undesirable organisation” designation. 

Individuals accused of having links to banned organisations face severe repression: a Russian court last month sentenced four journalists to five-and-a-half years in prison after convicting them on extremism charges, over allegations they worked for an anti-corruption group founded by the late opposition leader Alexei Navalny.

In January, three lawyers who had previously represented Navalny were also sentenced to prison. Their charges – allegations of involvement with extremist groups – were linked to Navalny's organisations, which Russian authorities banned in 2021.

In its statement, the Russian Prosecutor General's office accused Amnesty International of running “Russophobic projects" and activities aimed at Russia's “political and economic isolation”. It also accused it of supporting "extremist organisations and financing the activities of foreign agents”.

Crackdown on dissent

This development also comes against the backdrop of the Kremlin's further expansion of its "foreign agent" label, a law introduced in 2012 and expanded upon in 2022.

In April, President Vladimir Putin signed a bill into law that broadened the criteria for designating individuals and groups as such to include those connected to foreign government agencies and international associations that Russia is not a member of.

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, Amnesty International has released reports accusing Moscow of crimes against humanity and has spoken out against the Kremlin's crackdown on dissent.

The international human rights organisation last week condemned a five-year prison sentence handed to Russian civil society activist Grigory Melkonyants as a “brazen and politically motivated clampdown on peaceful activism”.

It also condemned the state’s crackdown on book publishers over alleged “LGBTI propaganda” last week. “This shameless heavy-handed use of state apparatus against literature is as absurd as it is terrifying,” said Natalia Zviagina, Amnesty International’s Russia director. 

She called for the release of the publishing professionals, the charges against them to be dropped, and “the ongoing persecution of LGBTI people, organisations and initiatives in Russia must be brought to an end”.

Amnesty International was founded in 1961, and carries out research and campaigns against human rights abuses globally. Its work centres on issues including political repression and torture, and it advocates for the release of those it considers unjustly imprisoned.

By 

The Southwest Research Institute-led Ultraviolet Spectrograph (UVS) aboard NASA’s Europa Clipper spacecraft has successfully completed its initial commissioning following the October 14, 2024, launch.


Scheduled to arrive in the Jovian system in 2030, the spacecraft will orbit Jupiter and ultimately perform repeated close flybys of the icy moon Europa. Previous observations show strong evidence for a subsurface ocean of liquid water that could host conditions favorable for life.

Europa-UVS is one of nine science instruments in the mission payload, including another SwRI-led and developed instrument, the MAss Spectrometer for Planetary EXploration (MASPEX). The UVS instrument collects ultraviolet light to create images to help determine the composition of Europa’s atmospheric gases and surface materials.

“SwRI scientists started this process in January from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, however, we had to evacuate due to the fires in southern California,” said SwRI Institute Scientist Dr. Kurt Retherford, principal investigator (PI) of Europa-UVS. “We had to wait until May to open the instrument’s aperture door and collect UV light from space for the first time. We observed a part of the sky, verifying that the instrument is performing well.”

SwRI has provided ultraviolet spectrographs for other spacecraft, including ESA’s Rosetta comet orbiter, as well as NASA’s New Horizons mission to Pluto, Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter mission in orbit around the Moon and Juno mission to Jupiter.

“Europa-UVS is the sixth in this series, and it benefits greatly from the design experience gained by our team from the Juno-UVS instrument, launched in 2011, as it pertains to operating in Jupiter’s harsh radiation environment,” said Matthew Freeman, project manager for Europa-UVS and director of SwRI’s Space Instrumentation Department. “Each successive instrument we build is more capable than its predecessor.”

Weighing just over 40 pounds (19 kg) and drawing only 7.9 watts of power, UVS is smaller than a microwave oven, yet this powerful instrument will determine the relative concentrations of various elements and molecules in the atmosphere of Europa once in the Jovian system. A similar instrument launched in 2023 aboard ESA’s Jupiter Icy Moons Explorer spacecraft, which will be studying several of Jupiter’s icy moons, gases from the volcanic moon Io and Jupiter itself. Having two UVS instruments in the Jupiter system at one time offers complementary science.

In addition to performing atmospheric studies, Europa-UVS will also search for evidence of potential plumes erupting from within Europa.

“Europa-UVS will hunt down potential plumes spouting from Europa’s icy surface and study them to understand what they tell us about the nature of subsurface water reservoirs,” said Dr. Thomas Greathouse, SwRI staff scientist and Europa-UVS co-deputy PI. “The instrument is working fabulously, and we’re excited about its ability to make new discoveries once we get to Jupiter.”\


Eurasia Review

Eurasia Review is an independent Journal that provides a venue for analysts and experts to disseminate content on a wide-range of subjects that are often overlooked or under-represented by Western dominated media.

Why AI Won’t Replace Teachers In Classrooms: An ASEAN Perspective – OpEd



By 

UNESCO warns that to meet basic education goals by 2030 the world will actually need tens of millions of additional teachers. McKinsey similarly finds that teacher numbers are set to grow, not shrink – estimating school-teacher employment rising 5–24% by 2030 (in the US), and even more than doubling in rapidly developing countries like China and India. 


It might be tempting to imagine a future where sleek AI tutors quietly replace the traditional teacher at the blackboard. In practical terms, AI tools can indeed personalize content, automate grading, and provide data-driven insights to educators. Yet these very reports also note a key caveat: institutions are reluctant to “replace traditional teaching/learning methods” wholesale. 

In other words, schools are quick to embrace AI as a tool, not a substitute. Meanwhile, global trends in education tell a starkly different story than teacher obsolescence. 

The demand for qualified educators is surging even as AI marches forward. As one ASEAN policy brief notes, the quality of education “hinges on the calibre of its teachers” – they remain “the single most impactful factor” in student learning outcomes.

Balancing an AI Boom with a Teacher Gap

Indeed, the very growth of the AI-education market underscores the tension between innovation and human needs. By some counts, the global AI-in-education industry could reach over $100 billion by the mid-2030s, driven by demand for personalized learning and smart platforms. 

Yet even market analysts concede that AI’s rise faces limits: one study explicitly lists institutional “reluctance… to replace traditional teaching” as a major restraint. 


The practical effect is that today’s AI tools tend to augment teachers – automating rote tasks, delivering real-time feedback, or crafting adaptive exercises – rather than standing in for them. For example, AI-driven platforms can free educators from grading or record-keeping, theoretically giving them “more time for their students”. 

In theory, this could let teachers pour extra energy into mentoring, differentiation, or reaching disengaged learners. However, even the vendors of these tools highlight that they function best as aids: to “deliver tailored instruction and support” alongside human guidance. 

In practice, few policymakers or teachers envision a total AI takeover; instead, many see a future where technology handles menial duties while the teacher focuses on the irreplaceable job of human connection. 

At the same time, multiple reports underscore that the education system still has an enormous teacher shortage to solve. UNESCO’s Global Education Monitoring report calculates that by 2030 the world must recruit roughly 44 million new primary and secondary teachers to achieve universal schooling. Strikingly, that report notes 4.5 million of those needed teachers will be in Southeast Asia alone. 

In Malaysia and the wider ASEAN region, this shortfall is keenly felt: classrooms are crowded and attrition is high. As Dr. Carlos Tames of UNESCO warns, failing to close this gap would “threaten the attainment of universal basic education” and further degrade education quality. Even in relatively well-resourced places, teacher burnout and turnover remain problems. 

The result is that, paradoxically, educational systems are crying out for more – not fewer – human teachers, precisely as AI gains traction. This global imbalance suggests that replacing teachers with machines is neither imminent nor, arguably, desirable.

ASEAN and Malaysia: Embracing Technology, Empowering Teachers

In ASEAN policy circles, there is broad recognition that digital tools must serve teachers, not supplant them. The 2022 ASEAN Declaration on Digital Transformation of Education exhorts member states to integrate ICT into schools while explicitly linking those plans to national visions and inclusive strategies. 

For example, the declaration urges countries to “connect the digital transformation of education with national and ASEAN-wide… plans” that span learning and new workplace competencies. It also calls for strong public-private partnerships – even working with telecom firms – to ensure internet connectivity and affordable access for all learners. 

These commitments reflect an understanding that technology must be thoughtfully governed and aligned with human-centered education goals. Malaysia, for its part, has launched an ambitious Digital Education Policy 2023 to tie classroom innovation directly to economic aims. 

The policy notes that the digital economy is projected to contribute 25.5% of Malaysia’s GDP by 2025, and it seeks to prepare students accordingly. Crucially, however, the Malaysian Ministry of Education also acknowledges gaps in teacher readiness: government data show only about 2% of Malaysian teachers currently score at “Advanced” proficiency in digital competencies. 

In practice, this means most educators are still at a “Basic” level of tech comfort. Thus Malaysia’s strategy not only provides devices and AI pilots, but also invests in teacher training programs (for example, a 2023 “AI Playbook” pilot) to help teachers learn how to use these tools effectively. 

This pattern – ambitious tech deployment paired with teacher support – is mirrored region-wide. UNESCO has been actively advising ASEAN countries on AI in education. Its “AI and Education: Guidance for Policy-Makers” report and accompanying competency frameworks explicitly frame AI as a human-centered, inclusive technology. 

UNESCO stresses that technology must be harnessed under principles of equity, and it even released an “AI competency framework” for teachers (and students) so they can grasp AI’s benefits and pitfalls. In short, both ASEAN ministers and international bodies are preparing educators to work with AI – not be written out of the script. Teachers are invited to co-design tools and share best practices, ensuring that AI adoption is carefully aligned with local educational needs.

The Human Factor: Emotion, Ethics, and Culture

Beyond policy, the real game-changer is what teachers bring to the classroom that no algorithm can replicate: the emotional, moral, and cultural dimensions of education. Teachers in ASEAN societies often serve as more than instructors of math or science – they are mentors, value-guides, and community anchors. 

As one Singaporean educator remarked at an ASEAN forum, teachers “should not only serve as preservers and promoters of values but also act as shapers of characters”. In Malaysia and its neighbors, a teacher might counsel a struggling teenager in private, instill community norms in a classroom discussion, or adapt lessons to local languages and stories. 

These deeply human roles – empathy in times of crisis, ethical modeling, cultural translation – lie far beyond the reach of today’s AI. Social-emotional learning (SEL) research highlights this point. Students develop resilience, empathy, and self-control largely through human interactions in schools. 

A global OECD survey found that children who feel supported by their teachers report higher persistence, curiosity, optimism, and tolerance. In other words, teacher-student rapport literally shapes personality and motivation. 

Neuroscience is beginning to illuminate why. Brain-imaging studies show that an engaged human teacher and a pupil can become neurologically “synchronised” in ways that boost learning. In one study, students who listened to a live lecturer had brain activity patterns in higher-order regions that closely matched their teacher’s own brain – and remarkably, the tighter this neural coupling, the more the student learned. 

Another experiment showed that after an interactive lesson (as opposed to a passive video), teacher and student brains even became aligned at rest, a change linked to stronger social bonding. These findings underscore a subtle but profound truth: effective teaching involves not just delivering information, but communicating it through human connection. 

Moreover, neuroscience tells us that emotions are part of learning. A child’s brain literally lights up with curiosity or insight only when emotional and cognitive circuits work together. For instance, UNESCO-affiliated research notes that social-emotional learning engages overlapping neural pathways with academic skills. In practice, this means a caring teacher – someone who makes a lesson personally relevant or praises a student’s effort – can trigger mental processes that an impersonal machine might miss. 

In ASEAN region’s collectivist cultures, where respect and harmony are core values, the teacher’s role in modeling social norms is especially salient. These layers of context and feeling simply cannot be coded into a program. They come from the lived wisdom of human educators, their understanding of local culture, and their capacity to care.

Toward a Blended Future

So, what to expect in 10 years (2035)? Regardless, the human role will simply adapt, not vanish.  All of this suggests that the real future of ASEAN education will be blended, not binary. 

AI will play a growing role – there is no doubt it will become as commonplace as projectors or online textbooks – but as a powerful assistant to teachers, not their replacement. Already, many schools use AI-powered tutors, translation apps, and analytics to tailor learning. 

These tools can save teachers’ time: for example, automating routine grading or highlighting which students need extra help. If implemented wisely, McKinsey argues, such automation could free teachers from paperwork and let them “pour… time into improving student outcomes”. 

Indeed, McKinsey’s advice is clear: countries should “build teacher and school-leader capacity” around new tech, ensure equitable investment, and share best practices so that AI “is a boon and not a bane” for educators. This vision is already finding practical expressions. 

In Malaysia, for instance, pilot projects like Google’s AI-powered “Gemini Academy” are training teachers to co-create AI-infused lessons. Singapore’s Teachers’ AI Playbook similarly encourages educators to experiment with AI tools they help design. Such initiatives recognize that teachers must be in the loop: the best outcomes come when educators decide how to use AI to enhance their own pedagogy. 

In some frameworks being worked upon, there is talk of cross-country fellowships and resource-sharing so that innovation doesn’t just happen in isolation. In other words, technology can spread good ideas, but it is teachers who seed and nurture those ideas in each classroom. All evidence points to a future in which classrooms in Malaysia and its neighbors become richly digital and deeply human. 

A student might one day do math drills with a game-like AI tutor for homework, then come to class eager to discuss the ideas, guided by a teacher who knows her story. A classroom debate on climate change could use augmented reality visuals created by software, but the teacher will frame the ethical questions and turn it into a civic lesson. 

In the busiest schools, AI might help schedule parent-teacher conferences, track attendance, or even translate lectures into multiple languages simultaneously, yet the teacher remains the one who listens to parental concerns and understands which cultural examples resonate with the students. In short, AI’s promised efficiencies will liberate time and data, but teachers will channel those into genuinely human ends.

Conclusion: Charting a Values-Driven Future

Ultimately, the question is not whether AI can take over tasks, but what kind of education society truly values. If our goal is merely the efficient transmission of facts, one might naively think machines could do the job. But if we believe education must also cultivate conscience, curiosity, and community, then the answer is clear: human teachers remain at its heart. 

As classrooms in ASEAN evolve, they will inevitably look different – more connected, more resource-rich, more tailored to each learner. But they will continue to be places where students look up to a human guide, where laughter, question-and-answer, and even the occasional reprimand happen face-to-face. In the end, we must decide: do we want an education system that prizes empathy, cultural wisdom and human judgment, or one that values only algorithmic efficiency? 

The policies being forged in ASEAN today – from Malaysia’s Ministry of Education to UNESCO and ASEAN declarations – suggest a hope that we will choose wisely. The future need not be a choice of teacher versus AI, but of a richer collaboration: forging an education that combines the best of both. 

In doing so, we can ensure that every child in Southeast Asia grows up guided by a human educator who can truly understand them, inspire them, and help them flourish in an increasingly complex world.


Dr. Sameer Kumar, Associate Professor, Asia-Europe Institute, Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.

COOPERATION, NATURALLY


Working Together When Searching For Food Has More Benefits Than Trade-Offs For Vultures



White-backed and Rueppell's vultures in Uganda (photo by Jon A. Juarez)

By 

Together, or not together, that is the question. Hamlet is not the only one facing life-changing questions – wild animals have to make decisions pivotal to their survival on a daily basis.


In a modelling case study, scientists of the GAIA Initiative investigated whether exchange of information among African white-backed vultures (Gyps africanus) bring more advantages than disadvantages to the individual vulture in its search for food. They found that social foraging strategies are overall more beneficial than non-social strategies, but that environmental conditions such as vulture and carcass densities greatly influence which strategy yields the best results.

In a paper published in the journal “Ecological Modelling” the GAIA team led by first author Teja Curk from the Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research (Leibniz-IZW) modelled how different foraging strategies perform under different ecological conditions and compared findings with field observations. They calculated, among other variables, the searching efficiency (the time needed to find the carcass and proportion of population that found the carcass), the scavenging efficiency (the proportion of food left in the environment) and the degree of competition for resources (the number of vultures converging on a single carcass).

To do this, they built agent-based models for three different foraging strategies: non-social foraging, where every vulture relies on spotting carcasses in the landscape by itself; the “local enhancement” strategy, where vultures are attracted by directly observing conspecifics that are feeding in addition to detecting carcasses on their own; and the “chain of vultures” strategy, where vultures also sequentially follow other vultures in the sky that are potentially on their way to a carcass site.

Vultures are social and communicative – and find food more easily this way

The agent-based models were built and verified using data collected from 30 tagged vultures in Etosha National Park in Namibia, from which more than 26 million GPS positions and corresponding ACC bursts (acceleration data) were included in this evaluation. ACC sensors record small movements of the tag in three dimensions and allow fine-scale behaviours to be analysed. The GAIA scientists applied their own machine learning algorithms to classify the GPS and ACC data and identified feeding behaviour of the vultures and subsequently carcass locations in the landscape.

“In our models we compared the three strategies with the empirical data from Namibia and were thus able to reliably calculate parameters such as the searching efficiency”, explains Curk. “We found that both social strategies outperformed the non-social approach in terms of searching efficiency, as individuals located carcasses more quickly compared to the non-social model. The ‘chain of vultures’ is especially beneficial when there are many vultures in an area that can coordinate search efforts by transferring information over great distances”.


Effective ‘word of mouth’ can lead to overcrowded feeding locations

The evaluations also revealed that a chain of vultures comes with a trade-off, since it often results in large congregations of vultures at carcass sites which could reduce individual food intake. In contrast, the local enhancement strategy balanced moderate searching efficiency with reduced competition.

Comparisons of scavenging efficiency showed that with only few vultures in an area, the amount of potential food left in the environment is quite similar in social and non-social strategies. With higher vulture densities, both social strategies surpass the non-social approach to a similar degree. Only at very high vulture densities did the scavenging efficiency of the “chain of vultures” fall short of “local enhancement” – with very long vulture chains concentration on few feeding sites becomes frequent and many individuals feed on only a small number of carcasses, leaving others unoccupied.

Protection for the highly endangered vulture species is urgent and important

The authors conclude that vultures in the study area likely adopt diverse foraging strategies influenced by environmental variables such as vulture and carcass densities. This behavioural flexibility suggests that vultures can optimize their foraging success by adjusting their reliance on social information in response to changing ecological conditions. However, the confirmed benefits of social foraging strategies underline the importance of vulture conservation: when vulture densities fall below a certain threshold, there are not enough vultures to use social information.

The searching and scavenging efficiencies drop and a notable amount of food remains undetected, further raising the challenges for vultures to feed, reproduce and, by extension, survive. From a vulture conservation perspective, it is therefore crucial to understand how environmental conditions shape foraging strategies and what are the associated costs and benefits.

In recent decades, the populations of many vulture species have declined sharply and are now acutely threatened with extinction. The main causes are the loss of habitat and food in landscapes shaped by humans as well as a high number of direct or indirect incidences of poisoning. The population of the white-backed vulture, for example, declined by around 90 percent in just three generations – equivalent to an average decline of 4 percent per year.

The conservation status of the African white-backed vulture was reassessed from “least concern” to “near threatened” in the 2007 IUCN Red List. Only five years later, the species was further “upgraded” to “endangered” and in October 2015, its status was changed to “critically endangered” as the actual, continuing decline was more severe than previously expected.



Eurasia Review

Eurasia Review is an independent Journal that provides a venue for analysts and experts to disseminate content on a wide-range of subjects that are often overlooked or under-represented by Western dominated media.

 

Ron Paul: Cutting Military Spending Would Make For A Big And Beautiful Bill – OpEd




By 

Last week, Moody’s Ratings lowered the United States credit rating. Fitch Ratings and S&P Global Ratings had already lowered the US rating. This new downgrade was driven by Congress’s failure to make any efforts to reduce the almost 37 trillion dollars national debt.


When Moody’s made its announcement, the House Budget Committee was scrambling to get the votes to pass legislation extending the 2017 tax cuts.

President Trump has dubbed this the “big beautiful bill.” The bill also has new tax cuts including repealing federal taxes on tips and overtime. The bill “offsets” the “lost” revenue from the cuts by making some cost saving reforms in domestic welfare programs, most notably Medicaid and food stamps. However, it increases spending in other areas, most notably military spending.

According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the “big beautiful bill” would increase the national debt by at least 3.3 trillion dollars over ten years. This number is likely to rise because several moderate Republicans are threatening to vote against the bill unless the Medicaid and food stamps “reforms” are limited or dropped.

Tax cuts are always worth supporting because they advance liberty and sound economics by ensuring the people have more and the government has less. However, tax cuts that are not combined with real spending cuts are delayed tax increases. This is because cutting taxes without cutting spending leads to more debt that leads to higher taxes. These tax increases are likely to come from the Federal Reserve’s monetization of debt, which weakens the dollar’s purchasing power. This “inflation tax” benefits political and financial elites while hurting most Americans.

The reason Republicans are finding it difficult to offset their tax plan in a way that is politically palatable is that they are following exactly the opposite of the politically smart path to cut spending. Instead of starting by cutting welfare for the poor, Republicans should have started by cutting welfare for the rich, particularly the military-industrial complex.


 

Last week, while visiting the Middle East, President Trump delivered an important speech refuting the neocon crusade that has dominated American foreign policy thinking since 9-11. Yet, President Trump is proposing to increase the military budget to one trillion dollars.

President Trump and congressional Republicans will never cut spending until they stop pretending they can pay down the national debt, cut taxes, and continue massive spending on militarism. Similarly, fiscal conservatives need to stop targeting single mothers on food stamps while increasing federal spending on foreign intervention.

The debt that caused Moody’s and other credit rating agencies to lower the US government’s credit rating is because of spending, not tax cuts. Congress should be giving the people more tax cuts and offsetting them with deep cuts in military spending. Cutting spending wasted on a futile pursuit of a global empire is not just a fiscal necessity. It is also the best thing Congress can do to promote peace and prosperity. Congress should then begin phasing out welfare programs in a manner that does not harm those currently reliant on the programs. Congress should also rein in the welfare-warfare state’s great enabler by auditing then ending the Federal Reserve. It should also repeal the 16th Amendment. These actions would free the people from 1913’s great mistakes — fiat money and income taxes.




Ron Paul

Ronald Ernest "Ron" Paul (born August 20, 1935) is an American physician, author, and politician who served for many years as a U.S. Representative for Texas. He was a three-time candidate for President of the United States, as a Libertarian in 1988 and as a Republican in 2008 and 2012.