Category: MIL-OSI

Report by Dr David Robie – Café Pacific. –

BookHero Review

Eyes of Fire: The Last Voyage and Legacy of the Rainbow Warrior, by David Robie, isn’t only a gripping tale of adventure and tragedy but also a testament to the enduring spirit of environmental activism. It serves as an important reminder of the power of collective action and the indomitable human spirit in the face of adversity.’

This book is a compelling narrative that delves into a poignant moment in history and its lasting repercussions. Set against the backdrop of Pacific activism, the book meticulously chronicles the ill-fated journey of the Greenpeace vessel, the Rainbow Warrior, in a vividly detailed account that captures the tension and ideals of environmental advocacy.

The story unfolds as the Rainbow Warrior embarks on a critical mission to protest nuclear testing in the Pacific. The ship’s crew, a resolute group of environmental activists, intends to disrupt nuclear tests that threaten to devastate the delicate ecology of the region. Traversing the vast and often perilous waters of the Pacific, the campaigners demonstrate unwavering commitment to their cause.

Traversing the vast and often perilous waters of the Pacific, the campaigners demonstrate unwavering commitment to their cause.

However, their journey turns tragic on the night of 10 July 1985, when French secret agents carry out a covert sabotage operation in Auckland Harbour, New Zealand, bombing the ship in a stunning act of violence that reverberates globally.

David Robie, a veteran journalist and witness to the events, offers an insightful account filled with his personal experiences and observations. Through his lens, readers gain a comprehensive understanding of the geopolitical dynamics at play and the fierce dedication of those aboard the vessel.

[embedded content]
40 years on: The Rainbow Warrior, the bombing and French colonial culture in Pacific – David Robie talks to the Fabian Society

Dr Robie incorporates a deeply human perspective, portraying the hope, courage, and grief that accompany such a devastating loss.

The tragedy claimed the life of Fernando Pereira, a courageous Portuguese-born photographer who tragically perished in the attack, igniting international outrage and drawing widespread attention to both the cause of environmental protection and the political tensions underlying the act of sabotage.

Dr Robie’s narrative goes beyond the immediate incident, reflecting on the far-reaching consequences for Greenpeace and the environmental movement at large.

Following the attack, the remnants of the Rainbow Warrior were repurposed into a living reef in a New Zealand bay in 1987, a symbol of resilience and renewal. Subsequently, Rainbow Warrior II was commissioned, and later still, Rainbow Warrior III, carrying on the legacy of their predecessor in the fight for environmental justice.

The prologue in the 2025th edition is by former Prime Minister Helen Clark and the foreword by former Greenpeace International co-executive director Bunny McDiarmid. This edition has major new sections on climate crisis and updates.

This article was first published on Café Pacific.

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/01/29/eyes-of-fire-gripping-tale-of-adventure-tragedy-and-testament-to-environmental-activism/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Keiran Hardy, Associate Professor, Griffith Criminology Institute, Griffith University

As controversy over Australia’s new hate laws continues, last weekend’s so-called March for Australia rallies were the latest in a string of events that have raised the temperature of public debate.

It’s hard to generalise about the motivations of those involved. Politicians representing Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party attended. So did members of the wider community who oppose immigration policies and a smaller number of more extreme agitators.

Some people crossed a line into criminal behaviour. One man was charged with inciting racial hatred against Jewish people. Police are investigating another man for throwing a bomb into the crowd at an Invasion Day rally in Perth.

The neo-Nazi group National Socialist Network formally disbanded to avoid the new hate offences passed earlier this month. But links have been uncovered between its former members and rally organisers. It remains to be seen how the authorities will approach far-right groups who continue to operate while skirting the law’s boundaries.

The strong anti-immigration sentiment expressed at these rallies raises complex questions about freedom of speech, rights to political protest and growing threats of extremism.

A fundamental source of these challenges is the difficulty in saying – especially in a democracy that values freedom of speech – when someone crosses the line from legitimate social and political beliefs into “extremism”.

It now seems rare for a day to go by without some mention of extremism in the news. But the meaning of this important word is also rarely explained or interrogated.

So what is extremism really, and how do we decide who and what is extremist?

Extremism: violent or not?

Defining extremism is difficult in part because most counter-terrorism policies target violent extremism.

In its recent counter-terrorism and violent extremism strategy, the Australian government defined violent extremism as:

acts of or support for violence to achieve social, political or legal outcomes or in response to specific political or social grievances.

If someone commits a violent act or supports violence, it’s easier to say they have crossed the line into behaviour worthy of government intervention.

Violent extremism can be a crime, such as advocating terrorism, urging violence or inciting racial hatred. Depending on the seriousness of the conduct and a person’s individual circumstances, though, the authorities might instead recommend a different type of intervention. This could include counselling or other support.

Confusing definitions

If we consider just the “extremism” part of violent extremism, things get much trickier.

The United Kingdom, in its “Prevent” strategy, has long targeted extremism, without requiring a link to violence. Until recently, it favoured a broad definition that said extremism meant actively opposing “fundamental British values”.

This was controversial for its impacts on freedom of speech. It also sparked concerns in schools, universities, hospitals and other institutions. These places are required to monitor for signs of extremism in their students, patients and communities.

Strategy toolkits and training materials explained that Prevent applied to ideologies “beyond the norm”.

This is particularly unhelpful. Who gets to say what are fundamental British values, and what’s normal?

After the Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel on October 7 2023, the UK government responded to these criticisms and offered a new definition of extremism. It focuses on threats to democracy:

Extremism is the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to:

1. negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; or

2. undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights; or

3. intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2).

This definition improves on the previous one, though it blurs the boundaries between non-violent extremism, violent extremism and terrorism.

On the one hand, it could involve a plot to overthrow the UK government or destroy the fundamental rights of a group based on their ethnicity or religious beliefs.

Read more:
Blaming ‘extremists’ for March For Australia rallies lets ‘mainstream’ Australia off the hook

On the other hand, it could mean someone seeking to deny a group’s rights based on hatred and intolerance. That would still be highly problematic, but it would be more in the realm of hate speech and hate crime than a terrorist coup.

Without a link to violence, extremism can be understood as views and behaviours that undermine the health of our democracy, or discriminate against groups based on their race, religion or other attributes, while creating permissive environments for serious harm.

Extremism may still breach civil or criminal laws, including for hate speech. But it would not trigger more serious terrorism offences – or else we would be in the realm of violent extremism.

How do we decide?

By calling something or someone extremist, we are saying the beliefs and behaviours fall outside legitimate contributions to the public sphere. This must mean something more than views we consider to be highly controversial, offensive or generally unpalatable.

Agreeing on this thin dividing line is probably an impossible task. Extremism occupies a liminal space where someone’s beliefs and behaviours do not involve or advocate violence, but there is a strong public sense that they are, nonetheless, undermining the terms of our (increasingly fragile) social contract.

Still, we should not be afraid to call out extremist behaviour where we see it. But we should take into account what the term means and consider whether the behaviour fits the definition.

Then, extremism will not just be another buzzword, but a term with real meaning that can help us all to determine appropriate limits for democratic debate.

Keiran Hardy receives funding from the Australian Research Council for a Discovery Project on conspiracy-fuelled extremism.

– ref. What is extremism, and how do we decide? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-extremism-and-how-do-we-decide-274419

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/01/29/what-is-extremism-and-how-do-we-decide-274419/

SPECIAL REPORT: By Stephanie Tran

Since 2013, more than $400 million in tax-deductible donations have flowed through an Australian charity, including direct to IDF soldiers.

United Israel Appeal (UIA) Australia has remitted $376m to Israel via its global partner Keren Hayesod, according to Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) financial disclosures.

In 2024 alone, UIA Australia received $50.9 million in tax-deductible donations and sponsorships.

Financial statements from Keren Hayesod, the Israel-based body that receives and distributes UIA funds, show it received A$323 million in global donations in 2024, with 98.5 percent originating overseas.

On that basis, Australian fundraising accounted for roughly 13 percent of Keren Hayesod’s worldwide donation base last year.

‘Every dollar aligned with Israel’s national priorities’
At the UIA Victoria AGM in November 2025, UIA leadership were explicit about the organisation’s role in Israel. David Slade, president of UIA Victoria, told members:

“We are the only organisation in Australia raising funds for Israel that holds a seat at every table of decision-making authority mandated to rebuild the country from the north to the south.”

“We are proud that every dollar we distribute is aligned with Israel’s national priorities.”

Julian Black, outgoing federal treasurer of UIA, reported that $39.2 million had been sent to Israel nationally, including $14.4 million from Victoria, in the 2025 campaign period to mid-November.

UIA Australia describes its central mission as supporting aliyah, “ascent”, referring to Jewish immigration to Israel, and strengthening Israeli society. They state that they “raise funds within Australia and transfer them directly to Keren Hayesod-UIA”.

Keren Hayesod, founded in 1920, describes itself as the “preeminent worldwide fundraising arm for the people of Israel,” operating in dozens of countries. UIA Australia functions as its Australian partner, channelling hundreds of millions of dollars in tax-deductible donations to the fund.

At the 2025 AGM, Slade said:

“This is not theory. It’s delivery. It’s national in scale, national in scope. It aligns with Israel’s priorities and is executed by our global partners.”

Support for ‘lone immigrant soldiers’
Among the programmes UIA promotes in Australia is assistance for “lone immigrant soldiers”, individuals who migrate to Israel and serve in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) without immediate family support in the country.

Through the “Wings Programme”, UIA partners with the Jewish Agency for Israel to provide grants and assistance to immigrant IDF soldiers. UIA states that they supported 2200 lone immigrant soldiers in 2024.

According to a report compiled by the Knesset, in August 2024, there were 6731 lone soldiers serving in the IDF.

At the same AGM, Slade disclosed that his own son is currently serving in the IDF as a lone soldier, describing himself as “a lifelong Zionist”.

UIA also funds the Net@ programme, which provides technology education for youth. Promotional materials for the programme state that graduates are “strong candidates for elite IDF units”.

Overseas funding networks and settlement links
In 2022, Pastor Larry Huch raised $8 million for Keren Hayesod through his ministry to help “settlements take over produce farms in the West Bank”.

“One of the main Bible prophecies is helping Jews return to the nation of Israel, so we started working with Keren Hayesod with projects such as making aliyah. We help settlements take over produce farms in the West Bank, which is Judea and Samaria,” Pastor Hutch said.

According to an analysis by Canadian human rights organisation Just Peace Advocates, public filings by UIA Canada show that funds linked to the broader Keren Hayesod network have supported organisations assisting IDF veterans and institutions located in Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.

Comparable programme-level detail is not disclosed in Australian ACNC filings, which aggregate remittances to Keren Hayesod.

UIA Australia did not respond to questions regarding whether they have oversight of which initiatives are supported by the funds they provide to Keren Kayesod and whether they engage in due diligence practices to ensure that these programmes comply with ACNC External Conduct Standards and DGR conditions.

A charity operating in a genocide
UIA’s fundraising expansion has occurred during the Gaza genocide and escalating violence across the occupied Palestinian territories.

A January 2026 report by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights found that Israeli laws, policies and practices have created “asphyxiating” conditions for Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The report stated that there has been an “unprecedented deterioration of the human rights situation” since October 2023, as Israeli government “further expanded the use of unlawful force, arbitrary detention and torture, repression of civil society and undue restrictions on media freedoms, severe movement restrictions, settlement expansion and related violations in the occupied West Bank”.

In his National Press Club address, Chris Sidoti, a commissioner on the UN Commission of Inquiry on Palestine and Israel, stated that in light of the commission’s finding that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza,

“anyone who has served in any arm of the Israeli military in Gaza should be treated as a suspect.”

UIA CEO Yair Miller previously told Michael West Media that “the United Israel Appeal is fully compliant with Australian law”. They did not respond to a follow-up request for comment regarding the matters discussed in this article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/01/29/united-israel-appeal-australian-charity-channels-tax-free-donations-direct-to-idf-soldiers/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Garritt C. Van Dyk, Senior Lecturer in History, University of Waikato

Donald Trump took time out this week from dramatic events at home and abroad to reveal three new design concepts for his proposed “Independence Arch” in Washington DC.

All three renderings resemble the famous Arc de Triomphe in Paris, although one features gilded livery not unlike Trump’s chosen adornments to the Oval Office in the White House.

Commissioned in preparation for the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, the triumphal arch draws on a long history of celebrating military conquest, from Roman emperors to Napoleon Bonaparte.

As such, it aligns seamlessly with Trump’s foreign policy and his stated mission for the United States to control the western hemisphere – as he has dubbed it, the “Donroe Doctrine”.

But as many have been asking, while the design is a copy of an iconic monument, is a personal tribute necessarily the best way to mark the anniversary of America’s break with absolute rule and the British monarchy?

The ‘Arc de Trump’

When Trump first displayed models of the proposed arch last October, a reporter asked him who it was for. Trump replied “Me. It’s going to be beautiful.”

In a December update, the president said the new arch “will be like the one in Paris, but to be honest with you, it blows it away. It blows it away in every way.”

There was one exception, he noted: “The only thing they have is history […] I always say [it’s] the one thing you can’t compete with, but eventually we’ll have that history too.”

The president clearly believes his arch will be part of creating that history. “It’s the only city in the world that’s of great importance that doesn’t have a triumphal arch,” he said of Washington DC.

Set to be located near Arlington National Cemetery and the Lincoln Memorial, the site would put the new structure in a visual conversation with many of the most famous landmarks in the national capital.

This also aligns with other projects that will leave Trump’s mark on the physical fabric of Washington: changes to the White House last year that included paving over the famous Rose Garden, decorating the Oval Office in rococo gold, and demolishing the East Wing for a US$400 million ballroom extension.

The “Arc de Trump” (as it has been branded) is now the “top priority” for Vince Haley, the director of the Domestic Policy Council for the White House.

Triumph and design

The Arc de Triomphe in Paris, located at the top of the Champs-Élysées, was commissioned by Napoleon Bonaparte in 1806 to honour the French imperial army following his victory at the Battle of Austerlitz. It was not finished until 1836, under the reign of King Louis Philippe I.

Architects for the project, Jean-François Thérèse Chalgrin and Jean-Arnaud Raymond, drew on classical arches for inspiration, with Rome’s Arch of Titus (circa 85 CE) as the main source. It was built by Emperor Domitian (51–96 CE), a cruel and ostentatious tyrant who was popular with the people but battled with the Senate and limited its power to make laws.

Domitian commissioned the arch to commemorate the deification of his brother Titus, and his military victory crushing the rebellion in Judea.

Given its inspiration, Trump’s proposed arch doesn’t reference any uniquely American design features. But the neoclassical style recalls earlier monuments that also reference antiquity.

The Washington Monument, for example, is built in the form of an Egyptian obelisk. A four-sided pillar, it tapers as it rises and is topped with a pyramid, a tribute to the sun god Ra.

But it also incorporated an element that was meant to symbolise American technological advancement and innovation – a pyramid cap made of aluminium.

When the obelisk was completed in 1884, aluminium was rare because the process for refining it had not been perfected. The top of the monument was the largest piece of cast aluminium on the planet at that time.

‘Truth and sanity’

Trump’s triumphal arch is likely destined to join a long debate about the merits of public monuments and what they represent.

During the Black Lives Matter movement, many statues of historical figures were removed from public display because they were seen as celebrations of racism and imperialism.

Trump has since restored at least one Confederate statue toppled during that time, and his desire to add a new monument to himself should come as little surprise.

During the Jim Crow era of racial segregation and throughout the civil rights movement, there was a sharp spike in the number of monuments erected to Confederate soldiers and generals.

Just as tearing down those statues was a statement, so is the creation of a new memorial to promote Trump’s positive interpretation of the nation’s past. It is also consistent with his administration’s declared mission of “restoring truth and sanity to American history”.

Maybe the more immediate question is whether the Independence Arch can even be built by Independence Day on July 4, a tall order even for this president. As for its reception, history will have to be the judge.

Garritt C. Van Dyk has received funding from the Getty Research Institute.

– ref. Monumental ambitions: the history behind Trump’s triumphal arch – https://theconversation.com/monumental-ambitions-the-history-behind-trumps-triumphal-arch-273567

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/01/29/monumental-ambitions-the-history-behind-trumps-triumphal-arch-273567/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bradley P. Smith, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, CQUniversity Australia

After the tragic death of Canadian backpacker Piper James on K’gari (Fraser Island) on January 19, a coroner found the 19–year–old had been bitten by dingoes while she was still alive, but the most likely cause of death was drowning.

Days later, the Queensland government announced it would cull the entire pack of ten dingoes seen near where Piper’s body was found. Most of those animals have now been killed.

Authorities justified the targeted cull on “public safety” grounds, while also signalling a strong desire to keep tourism moving. Queensland Tourism Minister Andrew Powell reassured tourism operators “the island is open” and urged people to continue to visit.

The cull took place without the knowledge or approval of the Butchulla people, the Traditional Owners of K’Gari. James’ parents also publicly opposed a cull, saying it was “the last thing” their nature-loving daughter would have wanted. There has been backlash from scientific experts, as well as the public.

So, does killing dingoes actually make K’gari safer for people?

The perfect storm

K’gari’s dingoes (called Wongari by the Butchulla) are a population of high conservation and cultural value on this World Heritage–listed sand island. Estimates put their numbers at between 70 and 200.

Huge visitor numbers (about 450,000 per year) to the roughly  1,600 square kilometre island means dingoes and humans share the same beaches and come into contact in ways they generally don’t on the mainland. Most encounters are harmless, even enjoyable. Less than 1% of visitors experience a negative interaction and many tourists visit the island specifically to see the dingoes.

Of course, risk increases when dingoes and people are in close proximity. Dingoes are often deliberately or carelessly rewarded with food scraps or find rubbish, which encourages loitering.

Most injuries caused by dingoes are minor, such as nips, bites and scratches. Serious attacks by dingoes are rare on K’gari and the mainland. Children are most vulnerable given their smaller size.

The Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service has consistently worked to reduce incidents. Their “Be dingo safe” campaign includes education, signs, fenced areas and even “dingo sticks” to deter the animals from approaching. But too often these safety warnings are not heeded. People feed dingoes or leave food in their tents or bags, come too close to dingoes and let kids roam unsupervised.

For an apex predator, dingoes are relatively small and dog-like. To many visitors, they don’t look especially dangerous, and people forget dingoes are wild predators.

Decades of lethal control

Authorities have long relied on lethal control of dingoes on K’gari. Between 2001 and 2013, 110 dingoes were killed. In 2001, after the death of nine-year-old Clinton Gage, 28 were immediately killed. In a typical year, one to two are killed.

Removing up to ten dingoes carries serious costs for a small island population. Genetically, the K’gari population has low diversity and an effective population size of about 25 (meaning only about 25 animals are effectively passing genes on, even though more dingoes exist). Studies have found inbreeding, genetic isolation and declining genetic variation in K’gari dingoes over the past two decades.

High levels of inbreeding may lead to physical deformities, reduced breeding success and an increased risk of local extinction. On an island, there is limited scope for “new” dingoes and their genes to arrive, so every avoidable death is important.

That is why our 2025 population viability analysis was sobering. We found if the number of dingo deaths stays close to natural levels, the population could remain stable. But extra deaths due to mass culls or disease outbreaks expose the animals to higher extinction risk. This makes it more likely the island’s dingoes could die out. In the highest-risk scenarios we modelled (that includes several mass culling events), the risk of extinction becomes substantial in about 50 years. Survival can fall close to zero by 100 years.

Culling rarely solves safety problems

Records of dingo incidents on K’gari offer little evidence killing dingoes delivers lasting safety. Our analysis of the “highest severity” incidents reported found the island had an average of 10.7 reports a year from 2001 to 2015. There was no clear downward trend in incidents, even though more than 110 dingoes were destroyed in that period.

What we did find was a predictable seasonal pattern. About 40% of serious incidents took place during breeding season (March to May) and 30% during whelping (June to August). These are periods when dingoes are more active and social dynamics intensify. During breeding, dingoes (especially younger males) may range more widely and test boundaries. During whelping, adults can become more vigilant and take greater foraging risks to meet the demands of pups.

The chance of serious incidents rose and fell with dingo life history and behaviour, as well as what people did around them. Incidents are not explained by visitor numbers alone.

When a dingo approaches people or loiters near them, they can be labelled as “problematic” and are more likely to be culled. But these behaviours aren’t abnormal in a wildlife tourism setting. They are predictable responses to people, food and opportunity. Younger males are often the most persistent around people, but become less exploratory as they mature or disperse.

A people problem, not a dingo problem

K’gari’s dingoes are doing what wild predators do, just as sharks and crocodiles do in Australia’s oceans and rivers.

Our safety depends on how we behave in wild places. To reduce risky encounters with wildlife, secure your food and waste, keep your kids close, don’t venture out alone, respect park guidelines and stop giving rewards such as food.

Killing dingoes won’t make K’gari safer. Changing human behaviour and attitudes will.

Bradley Smith is an unpaid director of the Australian Dingo Foundation, a non-profit environmental charity that advocates for dingo conservation. He is also a member of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) dingo working group.

Kylie M. Cairns receives scientific research funding from the Australian Dingo Foundation, the Australia and Pacific Science Foundation, the NSW and ACT state governments and donations from the general public. She is an unpaid director of the Paddy Pallin Foundation and provides scientific advice to the Australian Dingo Foundation and the New Guinea Highland Wild Dog Foundation. She serves as co-coordinator of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) dingo working group.

– ref. Will killing dingoes on K’gari make visitors safer? We think it’s unlikely – https://theconversation.com/will-killing-dingoes-on-kgari-make-visitors-safer-we-think-its-unlikely-274429

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/01/29/will-killing-dingoes-on-kgari-make-visitors-safer-we-think-its-unlikely-274429/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jessica Kolbusz, Research Fellow, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Western Australia

When most of us look out at the ocean, we see a mostly flat blue surface stretching to the horizon. It’s easy to imagine the sea beneath as calm and largely static – a massive, still abyss far removed from everyday experience.

But the ocean is layered, dynamic and constantly moving, from the surface down to the deepest seafloor. While waves, tides and currents near the coast are familiar and accessible, far less is known about what happens several kilometres below, where the ocean meets the seafloor.

Our new research, published in the journal Ocean Science, shows water near the the seafloor is in constant motion, even in the abyssal plains of the Pacific Ocean. This has important consequences for climate, ecosystems and how we understand the ocean as an interconnected system.

Enter the abyss

The central and eastern Pacific Ocean include some of Earth’s largest abyssal regions (places where the sea is more than 3,000 metres deep). Here, most of the seafloor lies four to six kilometres below the surface. It is shaped by vast abyssal plains, fracture zones and seamounts.

It is cold and dark, and the water and ecosystems here are under immense pressure from the ocean above.

Just above the seafloor, no matter the depth, sits a region known as the bottom mixed layer. This part of the ocean is relatively uniform in temperature, salinity and density because it is stirred through contact with the seafloor.

Rather than a thin boundary, this layer can extend from tens to hundreds of metres above the seabed. It plays a crucial role in the movement of heat, nutrients and sediments between the pelagic ocean and the seabed, including the beginning of the slow return of water from the bottom of the ocean toward the surface as part of global ocean circulation.

Observations focused on the bottom mixed layer are rare, but this is beginning to change. Most ocean measurements focus on the upper few kilometres, and deep observations are scarce, expensive and often decades apart.

In the Pacific especially, scientists have long known that cold Antarctic waters flow northward, along topographic features such as the Tonga-Kermadec Ridge and the Izu-Ogasawara and Japan Trenches.

But the finer details of how these waters interact with seafloor features in ways that intermittently stir and reshape the bottom layer of the ocean has remained largely unknown.

Investigating the abyss

To investigate the Pacific abyssal ocean, my colleagues and I combined new surface-to-seafloor measurements collected during a trans-Pacific expedition with high-quality repeat data about the physical features of the ocean gathered over the past two decades.

These observations allowed us to examine temperature and pressure all the way down to the seafloor over a wide range of latitudes and longitudes.

We then compared multiple scientific methods for identifying the bottom mixed layer and used machine learning techniques to understand what factors best explain the variations in its thickness.

Rather than being a uniform layer, we found the bottom mixed layer in the abyssal Pacific varies dramatically. In some regions it was less than 100m thick; in others it exceeded 700m.

This variability is not random; it’s controlled by the seafloor depth and the interactions between waves generated by surface tides and rough landscapes on the seabed.

In other words, the deepest ocean is not quietly stagnant as is often imagined. It is continually stirred by remote forces, shaped by seafloor features, and dynamically connected to the rest of the ocean above.

Just as coastal waters are shaped by waves, currents and sediment movement, the abyssal ocean is shaped by its own set of drivers. However, it is operating over larger distances and longer timescales.

Connected to the rest of the world

This matters for several reasons.

First, the bottom mixed layer influences how heat is stored and redistributed in the ocean, affecting long-term climate change. Some ocean and climate models still simplify seabed mixing, which can lead to errors in how future climate is projected.

Second, it plays a role in transporting sediment and seabed ecosystems. As interest grows in deep-sea mining and other activities on the high seas, understanding how the seafloor environment changes, and importantly how seafloor disturbances might spread, becomes increasingly important.

Our results highlight how little of the deep ocean we actually observe.

Large areas of the abyssal Pacific remain effectively unsampled, even as international agreements such as the new UN High Seas Treaty seek to manage and protect these regions.

The deep ocean is not a silent, static place. It is active, connected to the oceans above and changing. If we want to make informed decisions about the future of the high seas, we need to understand what’s happening at the very bottom in space and time.

Jessica Kolbusz receives funding from the marine research organisation Inkfish LLC. The funder was not involved in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, the writing of this article, or the decision to submit it for publication.

– ref. Submarine mountains and long-distance waves stir the deepest parts of the ocean – https://theconversation.com/submarine-mountains-and-long-distance-waves-stir-the-deepest-parts-of-the-ocean-274124

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/01/29/submarine-mountains-and-long-distance-waves-stir-the-deepest-parts-of-the-ocean-274124/