#naayil

#naayil Revealed: Why CBN crashed exchange rates for Customs duty‘City of Yes’ negotiations ongoing as critical vote on Adams’ zoning plan delayed

Qatar tribune Joelyn Baluyut DOHA The final Ajyal Talk at the Ajyal Film Festival featured an engaging discussion on the ability of art to drive social change, with renowned artists Ghada Al Khater and Khalid Albaih exploring how art conveys truth and serves as a form of political expression. The conversation, titled ‘Voices Through Art: Creating Change and Inspiring Action’, explored how art reflects personal values and can influence society. Khater, a Qatari multidisciplinary artist, shared her perspective on the alignment of passion and purpose in art. “Art is the thing about the cause that speaks true to your heart once you align it completely with what you want to do as a creative or an artist or a poet or a writer. Everything around you is going to radiate within that frequency,” she explained. “You put your work out there, you will attract the people you want to see in the same field, and you will. And you will meet your heroes, and you’ll probably become a hero to someone else. Just because you know you decided to go.” Khater’s statement emphasised how deeply connecting one’s artistic journey with personal values can set off a ripple effect, bringing together like-minded individuals and shaping the future of both art and activism. Khalid Albaih, a Sudanese artist and activist, expanded on the political nature of all art. “I think every art is political. It just comes down to what you do, because at the end, this is your opinion. Politics is about opinion, right? So this is your opinion. This is how you feel,” he said. “Politics doesn’t mean that it has to be journalism. I believe this is right, this is right and this is wrong.” Albaih’s thoughts underscored the idea that political expression is inherent in every form of art. Regardless of medium, artists inherently share their viewpoints, shaping political discourse through their work. Khater also reflected on the challenges faced in the Middle East, where critical stories are often overlooked. The Ajyal Talk was part of this year’s Ajyal Film Festival, which concluded on Saturday, marking the end of a celebration of creativity and cultural exchange that brought together artists, filmmakers, and thought leaders from around the world. Copy 24/11/2024 10ATHEX: Growth with new features on bourseMetLife Investment Management LLC cut its stake in A-Mark Precious Metals, Inc. ( NASDAQ:AMRK – Free Report ) by 9.0% in the third quarter, Holdings Channel.com reports. The firm owned 10,276 shares of the company’s stock after selling 1,017 shares during the quarter. MetLife Investment Management LLC’s holdings in A-Mark Precious Metals were worth $454,000 as of its most recent SEC filing. A number of other large investors have also recently added to or reduced their stakes in the company. Quarry LP lifted its holdings in shares of A-Mark Precious Metals by 94.1% in the second quarter. Quarry LP now owns 1,112 shares of the company’s stock valued at $36,000 after purchasing an additional 539 shares in the last quarter. nVerses Capital LLC acquired a new stake in A-Mark Precious Metals in the 2nd quarter valued at approximately $45,000. Strategic Investment Solutions Inc. IL bought a new stake in A-Mark Precious Metals in the 3rd quarter valued at approximately $88,000. Victory Capital Management Inc. acquired a new position in A-Mark Precious Metals during the 3rd quarter worth approximately $226,000. Finally, Fermata Advisors LLC bought a new position in shares of A-Mark Precious Metals during the 3rd quarter worth approximately $232,000. Institutional investors own 75.25% of the company’s stock. Wall Street Analyst Weigh In A number of analysts have recently commented on the stock. StockNews.com lowered shares of A-Mark Precious Metals from a “hold” rating to a “sell” rating in a research report on Friday, November 22nd. DA Davidson reduced their price objective on shares of A-Mark Precious Metals from $52.00 to $43.00 and set a “buy” rating for the company in a research note on Thursday, November 7th. One analyst has rated the stock with a sell rating, three have assigned a hold rating and two have given a buy rating to the company’s stock. According to data from MarketBeat, A-Mark Precious Metals currently has a consensus rating of “Hold” and a consensus target price of $46.33. Insider Activity In other A-Mark Precious Metals news, CEO Gregory N. Roberts sold 22,000 shares of the company’s stock in a transaction that occurred on Monday, September 16th. The stock was sold at an average price of $45.44, for a total value of $999,680.00. Following the sale, the chief executive officer now owns 28,202 shares in the company, valued at $1,281,498.88. This represents a 43.82 % decrease in their ownership of the stock. The transaction was disclosed in a filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission, which is available at this link . Also, Director Michael R. Wittmeyer sold 25,841 shares of the firm’s stock in a transaction that occurred on Wednesday, September 18th. The shares were sold at an average price of $44.35, for a total value of $1,146,048.35. Following the completion of the sale, the director now directly owns 292,535 shares of the company’s stock, valued at approximately $12,973,927.25. The trade was a 8.12 % decrease in their ownership of the stock. The disclosure for this sale can be found here . In the last ninety days, insiders have sold 110,316 shares of company stock valued at $4,911,036. 48.64% of the stock is owned by company insiders. A-Mark Precious Metals Price Performance Shares of AMRK opened at $28.75 on Friday. The company has a current ratio of 1.66, a quick ratio of 0.37 and a debt-to-equity ratio of 0.51. The company’s fifty day simple moving average is $36.26 and its 200 day simple moving average is $36.91. A-Mark Precious Metals, Inc. has a 1-year low of $24.22 and a 1-year high of $47.39. The company has a market cap of $666.43 million, a price-to-earnings ratio of 12.23 and a beta of -0.06. A-Mark Precious Metals Dividend Announcement The company also recently announced a quarterly dividend, which was paid on Tuesday, October 22nd. Stockholders of record on Tuesday, October 8th were issued a $0.20 dividend. The ex-dividend date was Tuesday, October 8th. This represents a $0.80 dividend on an annualized basis and a dividend yield of 2.78%. A-Mark Precious Metals’s payout ratio is 34.04%. A-Mark Precious Metals Profile ( Free Report ) A-Mark Precious Metals, Inc, together with its subsidiaries, operates as a precious metals trading company. It operates through three segments: Wholesale Sales & Ancillary Services, Direct-to-Consumer, and Secured Lending. The Wholesale Sales & Ancillary Services segment sells gold, silver, platinum, and palladium in the form of bars, plates, powders, wafers, grains, ingots, and coins. See Also Want to see what other hedge funds are holding AMRK? Visit HoldingsChannel.com to get the latest 13F filings and insider trades for A-Mark Precious Metals, Inc. ( NASDAQ:AMRK – Free Report ). Receive News & Ratings for A-Mark Precious Metals Daily - Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts' ratings for A-Mark Precious Metals and related companies with MarketBeat.com's FREE daily email newsletter .

By SHAWN CHEN NEW YORK (AP) — It’s time for the holidays, which means robust family conversations and seemingly never-ending courses of food. But for the more tech-savvy among us, the journey home could also mean we’ll be called on to provide a backlog of tech support to parents, grandparents and other family members. And with generative AI being used to supercharge some major cyber scams this year, it’s also a good time to teach and not just fix. Here are some tips on how to manage your tech encounters this holiday season : Whether it’s Windows , macOS , iOS or Android , simply keeping your operating system and apps up-to-date will help protect your family’s computers and devices against a surprising number of security threats, such as malware, viruses and exploits. Most operating systems, especially those for mobile devices and their app stores, typically have auto-updates turned on by default. Be sure to double-check the device to make sure it has enough storage space to carry out the update. (More on this below.) Keeping apps updated may also reduce the number of “Why isn’t this app working?” type of questions from your relatives. Chances are someone in your family is going to have a completely full mobile device. So full, in fact, that they can no longer update their phone or tablet without having to purge something first. There are many approaches to freeing up space. Here are a few you can easily take without having to triage data or apps. — Use the cloud to back up media: iPhone users can free up space occupied by songs and pictures by storing them on iCloud . Android users can use the Google Photos app to back up and store their photos on their user space. — Clear browsing data: Each major browser has an option to clear its data cache — cookies, search and download histories, autofill forms, site settings, sign-in data and so on. Over time, these bits take up a significant amount of storage space on mobile devices and home computers. So cleaning caches out periodically helps free up space and, in some cases, improves system performance. According to some admittedly unscientific studies, the average person has hundreds of passwords. That’s a lot to remember. So as you help your relatives reset some of theirs, you may be tempted to recycle some to keep things simple for them. But that’s one of the bad password habits that cybersecurity experts warn against. Instead, try introducing your forgetful family member to a password manager . They’re useful tools for simplifying and keeping track of logins. And if you want to impress a more tech-savvy cousin or auntie, you could suggest switching to a more secure digital authentication method: passkeys . As scammers find new ways to steal money and personal information, you and your family should be more vigilant about who to trust. Artificial intelligence and other technologies are giving bad actors craftier tools to work with online. Related Articles National News | What We Know About the Killing of Brian Thompson, UnitedHealthcare CEO National News | Massive lottery jackpot is set to expire. Mystery player was part of an incredibly rare draw National News | The next census will gather more racial, ethnic information National News | As data centers proliferate, conflict with local communities follows National News | NASA’s stuck astronauts hit 6 months in space. Just 2 more to go A quick way to remember what to do when you think you’re getting scammed is to think about the three S’s, said Alissa Abdullah, also known as Dr. Jay, Mastercard’s deputy chief security officer “Stay suspicious, stop for a second (and think about it) and stay protected,” she said. Simply being aware of typical scams can help, experts say. Robocalls frequently target vulnerable individuals like seniors, people with disabilities, and people with debt. So-called romance scams target lonely and isolated individuals. Quiz scams target those who spend a lot of time on social media. Check our AP guide on the latest scams and what to do when you’re victimized. Home internet speeds are getting faster, so you want to make sure your family members are getting a high-speed connection if they’ve paid for one. Run a broadband speed test on your home network if they’re still rocking an aging modem and router.

Minister Lavrov, thank you for doing this. Do you believe the United States and Russia are at war with each other right now? I wouldn't say so. And in any case, this is not what we want. We would like to have normal relations with all our neighbors, of course, but generally with all countries especially with the great country like the United States. And President Vladimir Putin repeatedly expressed his respect for the American people, for the American history, for the American achievements in the world, and we don't see any reason why Russia and the United States cannot cooperate for the sake of the universe. But the United States is funding a conflict that you're involved in, of course, and now is allowing attacks on Russia itself. So that doesn't constitute war? Well, we officially are not at war. But what is going on in Ukraine is that some people call it hybrid war. I would call it hybrid war as well, but it is obvious that the Ukrainians would not be able to do what they're doing with long-range modern weapons without direct participation of the American servicemen. And this is dangerous, no doubt about this. We don't want to aggravate the situation, but since ATACMS and other long-range weapons are being used against mainland Russia as it were, we are sending signals. We hope that the last one, a couple of weeks ago, the signal with the new weapon system called Oreshnik was taken seriously. However, we also know that some officials in the Pentagon and in other places, including NATO, started saying in the last few days something like that NATO is a defensive alliance, but sometimes you can strike first because the attack is the best defense. Some others in STRATCOM, Thomas Buchanan is his name, representative of STRATCOM, said something which allows for an eventuality of exchange of limited nuclear strikes. And this kind of threats are really worrying. Because if they are following the logic which some Westerners have been pronouncing lately, that don't believe that Russia has red lines, they announced their red lines, these red lines are being moved again and again. This is a very serious mistake. That's what I would like to say in response to this question. It is not us who started the war. Putin repeatedly said that we started the special military operation in order to end the war which Kiev regime was conducting against its own people in the parts of Donbass. And just in his latest statement, the President Putin clearly indicated that we are ready for any eventuality. But we strongly prefer peaceful solution through negotiations on the basis of respecting legitimate security interest of Russia, and on the basis of respecting the people who live in Ukraine, who still live in Ukraine being Russians, and their basic human rights, language rights, religious rights, have been exterminated by a series of legislation passed by the Ukrainian parliament. They started long before the special military operation. Since 2017, legislation was passed prohibiting Russian education in Russian, prohibiting Russian media operating in Ukraine, then prohibiting Ukrainian media working in Russian language, and the latest, of course there were also steps to cancel any cultural events in Russian, Russian books were thrown out of libraries and exterminated. The latest was the law prohibiting canonic Orthodox Church, Ukrainian Orthodox Church. You know it's very interesting when people in the West say we want this conflict to be resolved on the basis of the UN Charter and respect for territorial integrity of Ukraine, and Russia must withdraw. The Secretary General of the United Nations says similar things. Recently his representative repeated that the conflict must be resolved on the basis of international law, UN Charter, General Assembly resolutions, while respecting territorial integrity of Ukraine. It's a misnomer, because if you want to respect the United Nations Charter, you have to respect it in its entirety. The United Nations Charter, among other things, says that all countries must respect equality of states and right of people for self-determination. And they also mentioned the United Nations General Assembly resolutions, and this is clear that what they mean is the series of resolutions which they passed after the beginning of this special military operation and which demand condemnation of Russia, Russia to get out of Ukraine territory in 1991 borders. But there are other United Nations General Assembly resolutions which were not voted, but which were consensual, and among them is a Declaration on principles of relations between states on the basis of the Charter. And it clearly says, by consensus, everybody must respect territorial integrity of states whose governments respect the right of people for self-determination, and because of that represent the entire population living on a given territory. To argue that the people who came to power through military coup d'état in February 2014 represented Crimeans or the citizens of eastern and southern Ukraine is absolutely useless. It is obvious that Crimeans rejected the coup. They said, leave us alone, we don't want to have anything with you. So we did: Donbass, Crimeans held referendum, and they rejoined Russia. Donbass was declared by the putschists who came to power terrorist group. They were shelled, attacked by artillery. The war started, which was stopped in February 2015. The Minsk agreements were signed. We were very sincerely interested in closing this drama by seeing Minsk agreements implemented fully. It was sabotaged by the government, which was established after the coup d'état in Ukraine. There was a demand that they enter into a direct dialogue with the people who did not accept the coup. There was a demand that they promote economic relations with that part of Ukraine. And so on and so forth. None of this was done. The people in Kiev were saying we would never talk to them directly. And this is in spite of the fact that the demand to talk to them directly was endorsed by the Security Council. And putschists said they are terrorists, we would be fighting them, and they would be dying in cellars because we are stronger. Had the coup in February 2014 had it not happened and the deal which was reached the day before between the then president and the opposition implemented, Ukraine would have stayed one piece by now with Crimea in it. It's absolutely clear. They did not deliver on the deal. Instead they staged the coup. The deal, by the way, provided for creation of a government of national unity in February 2014, and holding early elections, which the then president would have lost. Everybody knew that. But they were impatient and took the government buildings next morning. They went to this Maidan Square and announced that they created the government of the winners. Compare the government of national unity to prepare for elections and the government of the winners. How can the people whom they, in their view, defeated, how can they pretend that they respect the authorities in Kiev? You know, the right for self-determination is the international legal basis for decolonization process, which took place in Africa on the basis of this charter principle, the right for self-determination. The people in the colonies, they never treated the colonial powers, colonial masters, as somebody who represent them, as somebody whom they want to see in the structures which govern those lands. By the same token, the people in east and south of Ukraine, people in Donbass and Novorossiya, they don't consider the Zelensky regime as something which represents their interests. How can they do that when their culture, their language, their traditions, their religion, all this was prohibited? And the last point is that if we speak about the UN Charter, resolutions, international law, the very first article of the UN Charter, which the West never, never recalls in the Ukrainian context, says, "Respect human rights of everybody, irrespective of race, gender, language, or religion." Take any conflict. The United States, UK, Brussels, they would interfere, saying, "Oh, human rights have been grossly violated. We must restore the human rights in such and such territory." On Ukraine, never, ever they mumbled the words "human rights," seeing these human rights for the Russian and Russian-speaking population being totally exterminated by law. So when people say, "Let's resolve the conflict on the basis of the Charter," - yes. But don't forget that the Charter is not only about territorial integrity. And territorial integrity must be respected only if the governments are legitimate and if they respect the rights of their own people. I want to go back to what you said a moment ago about the introduction or the unveiling of the hypersonic weapons system that you said was a signal to the West. What signal exactly? I think many Americans are not even aware that this happened. What message were you sending by showing it to the world? Well, the message is that you, I mean the United States, and the allies of the United States who also provide this long-range weapons to the Kiev regime, they must understand that we would be ready to use any means not to allow them to succeed in what they call strategic defeat of Russia. They fight for keeping the hegemony over the world on any country, any region, any continent. We fight for our legitimate security interests. They say, for example, 1991 borders. Lindsey Graham, who visited some time ago Volodymyr Zelensky for another talk, he bluntly, in his presence said that Ukraine is very rich with rare earth metals and they cannot leave this richness to the Russians. We must take it. We fight. So they fight for the regime which is ready to sell or to give to the West all the natural and human resources. We fight for the people who have been living on these lands, whose ancestors were actually developing those lands, building cities, building factories for centuries and centuries. We care about people, not about natural resources which somebody in the United States would like to keep and to have Ukrainians just as servants sitting on these natural resources. So the message which we wanted to send by testing in real action this hypersonic system is that we will be ready to do anything to defend our legitimate interests. We hate even to think about war with the United States, which will take nuclear character. Our military doctrine says that the most important thing is to avoid a nuclear war. And it was us, by the way, who initiated in January 2022 the message, the joint statement by the leaders of the five permanent members of the Security Council saying that we will do anything to avoid confrontation between us, acknowledging and respecting each other's security interests and concerns. This was our initiative. And the security interests of Russia were totally ignored when they rejected about the same time the proposal to conclude a treaty on security guarantees for Russia, for Ukraine in the context of coexistence and in the context where Ukraine would not be ever member of NATO or any other military bloc. These security interests of Russia were presented to the West, to NATO and to the United States in December 2021. We discussed them several times, including during my meeting with Antony Blinken in Geneva in January 2022. And this was rejected. So we would certainly like to avoid any misunderstanding. And since the people, some people in Washington and some people in London, in Brussels, seemed to be not very capable to understand, we will send additional messages if they don't draw necessary conclusions. The fact that we're having a conversation about a potential nuclear exchange and it's real thought I'd ever see. And it raises the question, how much back-channel dialogue is there between Russia and the United States? Has there been for the last two and a half years? Is there any conversation ongoing? There are several channels, but mostly on exchange of people who serve terms in Russia and in the United States. There were several swaps. There are also channels which are not advertised or publicized, but basically the Americans send through these channels the same message which they send publicly. You have to stop, you have to accept the way which will be based on the Ukrainian needs and position. They support this absolutely pointless ‘peace formula’ by Vladimir Zelensky, which was additioned recently by ‘victory plan’. They held several series of meetings, Copenhagen format, Burgenstock. And they brag that first half of next year they will convene another conference and they will graciously invite Russia that time. And then Russia would be presented an ultimatum. All this is seriously repeated through various confidential channels. Now we hear something different, including Volodymyr Zelensky's statements that we can stop now at the line of engagement, line of contact. The Ukrainian government will be admitted to NATO, but NATO guarantees at this stage would cover only the territory controlled by the government, and the rest would be subject to negotiations. But the end result of these negotiations must be total withdrawal of Russia from Ukrainian soil. Leaving Russian people to the Nazi regime, which exterminated all the rights of the Russian and Russian-speaking citizens of their own country. If I could just go back to the question of nuclear exchange. So there is no mechanism by which the leaders of Russia and the United States can speak to each other to avoid the kind of misunderstanding that could kill hundreds of millions of people. No. We have this channel which is automatically engaged when ballistic missile launch is taking place. As regards this Oreshnik hypersonic mid-range ballistic missile. 30 minutes in advance the system sent the message to the United States. They knew that this was the case and that they don't mistake it for anything bigger and real dangerous. I think the system sounds very dangerous. Well, it was a test launch, you know. Yes. Oh, you're speaking of the test, okay. But I just wonder how worried you are that, considering there doesn't seem to be a lot of conversation between the two countries. Both sides are speaking about exterminating the other's populations. That this could somehow get out of control in a very short period and no one could stop it. It seems incredibly reckless. No, we are not talking about exterminating anybody's population. We did not start this war. We have been, for years and years and years, sending warnings that pushing NATO closer and closer to our borders is going to create a problem. In 2007, Putin started to explain to the people who seemed to be overtaken by the ‘end of history’ and being dominant, no challenge, and so on and so forth. And of course, when the coup took place, the Americans did not hide that they were behind it. There is a conversation between Victoria Nuland and the then American ambassador in Kiev when they discuss personalities to be included in the new government after the coup. The figure of $5 billion spent on Ukraine after independence was mentioned as the guarantee that everything would be like the Americans want. So we don't have any intention to exterminate Ukrainian people. They are brothers and sisters to the Russian people. How many have died so far, do you think, on both sides? It is not disclosed by Ukrainians. Volodymyr Zelensky was saying that it is much less than 80,000 persons on Ukrainian side. But there is one very reliable figure. In Palestine during one year after the Israelis started their operation in response to this terrorist attack, which we condemned. And this operation, of course, acquired the proportion of collective punishment, which is against international humanitarian law as well. So during one year after the operation started in Palestine, the number of Palestinian civilians killed is estimated at 45,000. This is almost twice as many as the number of civilians on both sides of Ukrainian conflict who died during ten years after the coup. One year and ten years. So it is a tragedy in Ukraine. It's a disaster in Palestine, but we never, ever had as our goal killing people. And the Ukrainian regime did. The head of the office of Volodymyr Zelensky once said that we will make sure that cities like Kharkov, Nikolaev will forget what Russian means at all. Another guy in his office stated that Ukrainians must exterminate Russians through law or, if necessary, physically. Ukrainian former ambassador to Kazakhstan Petro Vrublevsky became famous when giving an interview and looking into the camera (being recorded and broadcast) he said: ”Our main task is to kill as many Russians as we can so that our children have less things to do”. And statements like this are all over the vocabulary of the regime. How many Russians in Russia have been killed since February of 2022? It's not for me to disclose this information. In the time of military operations special rules exist. Our ministry of defense follows these rules. But there is a very interesting fact that when Volodymyr Zelensky was playing not in international arena, but at his comedy club or whatever it is called, he was (there are videos from that period) bluntly defending the Russian language. He was saying: “What is wrong with Russian language? I speak Russian. Russians are our neighbors. Russian is one of our languages”. And get lost, he said, to those who wanted to attack the Russian language and Russian culture. When Volodymyr Zelensky became president, he changed very fast. Before the military operation, in September 2021, he was interviewed, and at that time he was conducting war against Donbass in violation of the Minsk agreements. And the interviewer asked him what he thought about the people on the other side of the line of contact. He answered very thoughtfully there are people and there are species. And if you, living in Ukraine, feel associated with the Russian culture, my advice to you, for the sake of your kids, for the sake of your grandkids, get out to Russia. And if this guy wants to bring Russians and people of Russian culture back under his territorial integrity, I mean, it shows that he's not adequate. So, what are the terms under which Russia would cease hostilities? What are you asking for? Sergey Lavrov: Ten years ago, in February 2014, we were asking only for the deal between the president and the opposition to have government of national unity, to hold early elections, to be implemented. The deal was signed. And we were asking for the implementation of this deal. They were absolutely impatient and aggressive. And they were, of course, pushed, I have no slightest doubt, by the Americans, because if Victoria Nuland and the U.S. ambassador agreed the composition of the government, why wait for five months to hold early elections? The next time we were in favor of something was when the Minsk Agreements were signed. I was there. The negotiations lasted for 17 hours (well, Crimea was lost by that time because of referendum). And nobody, including my colleague John Kerry, meeting with us, nobody in the West was worry about the issue of Crimea. Everybody was concentrated on Donbass. And the Minsk Agreements provided for territorial integrity of Ukraine, minus Crimea (this was not even raised) and a special status for a very tiny part of Donbass, not for the entire Donbass, not for Novorossiya at all. Part of Donbass, under these Minsk Agreements, endorsed by the Security Council, should have the right to speak Russian language, to teach Russian language, to study in Russian, to have local law enforcement (like in the states of U.S.), to be consulted when judges and prosecutors are appointed by the central authority, and to have some facilitated economic connections with neighboring regions of Russia. That's it. Something which President Macron promised to give to Corsica and still is considering how to do this. And when these agreements were sabotaged all along by Petro Poroshenko and then by Volodymyr Zelensky. Both of them, by the way, came to presidency, running on the promise of peace. And both of them lied. So when these Minsk Agreements were sabotaged to the extent that we saw the attempts to take this tiny part of Donbass by force, and we, as President Putin explained, at that time, we suggested these security arrangements to NATO and the United States, which was rejected. And when the Plan B was launched by Ukraine and its sponsors, trying to take this part of Donbass by force, it was then that we launched the special military operation. Had they implemented the Minsk Agreements Ukraine would be one piece, minus Crimea. But even then, when Ukrainians, after we started the operation, suggested to negotiate, we agreed, there were several rounds in Belarus, and one later they moved to Istanbul. And in Istanbul, Ukrainian delegation put a paper on the table saying: "Those are the principles on which we are ready to agree." And we accepted those principles. The Minsk Principles? No. The Istanbul Principles. It was April 2022. Right. Which was: no NATO, but security guarantees to Ukraine, collectively provided with the participation of Russia. And these security guarantees would not cover Crimea or the east of Ukraine. It was their proposal. And it was initialed. And the head of the Ukrainian delegation in Istanbul, who is now the chair of the Volodymyr Zelensky faction in the parliament, he recently (a few months ago) in an interview, confirmed that this was the case. And on the basis of these principles, we were ready to draft a treaty. But then this gentleman who headed the Ukrainian delegation in Istanbul said that Boris Johnson visited and told them to continue to fight. Then there was... But Boris Johnson, on behalf of... He said no. But the guy who initialed the paper, he said it was Boris Johnson. Other people say it was President Putin who ruined the deal because of the massacre in Bucha. But they never mentioned any more massacre in Bucha. I do. And we do. In a sense, they are on the defensive. Several times in the United Nations Security Council, sitting at the table with Antonio Guterres, I (last year and this year) at the General Assembly, I raised the issue of Bucha and said, guys, it is strange that you are silent about Bucha because you were very vocal when BBC team found itself on the street where the bodies were located. I inquired, can we get the names of the persons whose bodies were broadcast by BBC? Total silence. I addressed Antonio Guterres personally in the presence of the Security Council members. He did not respond. Then at my press conference in New York after the end of the General Assembly last September, I asked all the correspondents: guys, you are journalists. Maybe you're not an investigative journalists but journalists normally are interested to get the truth. And Bucha thing, which was played all over the media outlets condemning Russia, is not of any interest to anyone - politicians, UN officials. And now even journalists. I asked when I talked to them in September, please, as professional people, try to get the names of those whose bodies were shown in Bucha. No answer. Just like we don't have any answer to the question, where is the results of medical analysis of Alexey Navalny, who died recently, but who was treated in Germany in the fall of 2020. When he felt bad on a plane over Russia, the plane landed. He was treated by the Russian doctors in Siberia. Then the Germans wanted to take him. We immediately allowed the plane to come. They took him. In less than 24 hours, he was in Germany. And then the Germans continued to say that we poisoned him. And now the analysis confirmed that he was poisoned. We asked for the test results to be given to us. They said, no, we give it to the organization on chemical weapons. We went to this organization, we are members, and we said, can you show to us, because this is our citizen, we are accused of having poisoned him. They said that the Germans told us not to give it to you. They found nothing in the civilian hospital, and the announcement that he was poisoned was made after he was treated in the military Bundeswehr hospital. So it seems that this secret is not going... So how did Navalny die? Well, he died serving the term in Russia. As far as it was reported, every now and then he felt not well. Which was another reason why we continued to ask the Germans: can you show us the results which you found? Because we did not find what they found. And what they did to him, I don't know. What the Germans did to him? Yeah, because they don't explain to anybody, including us. Or maybe they explain to the Americans. Maybe this is credible. But they never told us how they treated him, what they found, and what methods they were using. How do you think he died? I am not a doctor. But for anybody to guess, even for the doctors to try to guess, they need to have information. And if the person was taken to Germany to be treated after he had been poisoned, the results of the tests cannot be secret. We still cannot get anything credible on the fate of Skripals - Sergei Skripal and his daughter. The information is not provided to us. He is our citizen, she is our citizen. We have all the rights and the conventions which the UK is party to, to get information. Why do you think that Boris Johnson, former Prime Minister of the UK, would have stopped the peace process in Istanbul? On whose behalf was he doing that? Well, I met with him a couple of times, and I wouldn't be surprised if he was motivated by some immediate desire or by some long-term strategy. He is not very predictable. But do you think he was acting on behalf of the US government, on behalf of the Biden administration, or he was doing this independently. I don't know. And I wouldn't guess. The fact that the Americans and the Brits are leading in this "situation" is obvious. Now it is becoming also clear that there is a fatigue in some capitals, and there are talks every now and then that the Americans would like to leave it with the Europeans and to concentrate on something more important. I wouldn't guess. We would be judging by specific steps. It's obvious, though, that the Biden administration would like to leave a legacy to the Trump administration as bad as they can. And similar to what Barack Obama did to Donald Trump during his first term. Then late December 2016, President Obama expelled Russian diplomats. Just very late December. 120 persons with family members. Did it on purpose. Demanded them leave on the day when there was no direct flight from Washington to Moscow. So they had to move to New York by buses with all their luggage, with children, and so on and so forth. And at the same time, President Obama announced the arrest of pieces of diplomatic property of Russia. And we still never were able to come and see what is the state of this Russian property. What was the property? Diplomatic. They never allowed us to come and see it though under all conventions. They just say that these pieces we don't consider as being covered by diplomatic immunity, which is a unilateral decision, never substantiated by any international court. So you believe the Biden administration is doing something similar again to the incoming Trump administration. Because that episode with the expulsion and the seizure of property certainly did not create the promising ground for beginning of our relations with the Trump administration. So I think they're doing the same. But this time President Trump was elected on the explicit promise to bring an end to the war in Ukraine. So I mean, he said that in appearance after appearance. So given that, there is hope for a resolution, it sounds like. What are the terms to which you'd agree? Well, the terms, I basically alluded to them. When President Putin spoke in this Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the 14th of June he once again reiterated that we were ready to negotiate on the basis of the principles which were agreed in Istanbul and rejected by Boris Johnson, according to the statement of the head of the Ukrainian delegation. The key principle is non-block status of Ukraine. And we would be ready to be part of the group of countries who would provide collective security guarantees to Ukraine. But no NATO? No NATO. Absolutely. No military bases, no military exercises on the Ukrainian soil with participation of foreign troops. And this is something which he reiterated. But of course, he said, it was April 2022, now some time has passed, and the realities on the ground would have to be taken into account and accepted. The realities on the ground are not only the line of contact, but also the changes in the Russian Constitution after referendum was held in Donetsk, Lugansk republics and Kherson and Zaporozhye regions. And they are now part of the Russian Federation, according to the Constitution. And this is a reality. And of course, we cannot tolerate a deal which would keep the legislation which are prohibiting Russian language, Russian media, Russian culture, Ukrainian Orthodox Church, because it is a violation of the obligations of Ukraine under the UN Charter, and something must be done about it. And the fact that the West (since this Russophobic legislative offensive started in 2017) was totally silent and it is silent until now, of course we would have to pay attention to this in a very special way. Would sanctions against Russia be a condition? You know, I would say probably many people in Russia would like to make it a condition. But the more we live under sanctions, the more we understand that it is better to rely on yourself, and to develop mechanisms, platforms for cooperation with ‘normal’ countries who are not unfriendly to you, and don't mix economic interests and policies and especially politics. And we learned a lot after the sanctions started. The sanctions started under President Obama. They continued in a very big way under the first term of Donald Trump. And these sanctions under the Biden administration are absolutely unprecedented. But what doesn't kill you makes you stronger, you know. They would never kill us, so they are making us stronger. And driving Russia east. And so the vision that I think same policymakers in Washington had 20 years ago is why not to bring Russia into a Western bloc, sort of as a balance against the rising east. But it doesn't seem like that. Do you think that's still possible? I don't think so. When recently President Putin was speaking at Valdai Club to politologists and experts, he said we would never be back at the situation of early 2022. That's when he realized (for himself, apparently, not only he, but he spoke publicly about this) that all attempts to be on equal terms with the West have failed. It started after the demise of the Soviet Union. There was euphoria, we are now part of the ‘liberal world’, democratic world, ‘end of history’. But very soon it became clear to most of the Russians that in the 1990s we were treated as - at best as junior partner, maybe not even as a partner, - but as a place where the West can organize things like it wants, striking deals with oligarchs, buying resources and assets. And then probably the Americans decided that Russia is in their pocket. Boris Yeltsin, Bill Clinton, buddies, laughing, joking. But even at the end of Boris Yeltsin's term, he started to contemplate that this was not something he wanted for Russia. And I think this was very obvious when he appointed Vladimir Putin prime minister, and then left earlier, and blessed Vladimir Putin as his successor for the elections which were coming and which Putin won. But when Vladimir Putin became president, he was very much open to cooperation with the West. And he mentions about this quite regularly when he speaks with interviewers or at some international events. I was present when he met with George Bush Jr., with Barack Obama. Well, after the meeting of NATO in Bucharest, which was followed by NATO-Russia summit meeting in 2008, when they announced that Georgia and Ukraine will be in NATO. And then they tried to sell it to us. We asked: why? There was lunch and President Putin asked what was the reason for this? Good question. And they said this is something which is not obligatory. How come? Well to start the process of joining NATO, you need a formal invitation. And this is a slogan - Ukraine and Georgia will be in NATO. But this slogan became obsession for some people in Tbilisi first, when Mikhail Saakashvili lost his senses and started the war against his own people under the protection of OSCE mission with the Russian peacekeepers on the ground. And the fact that he launched this was confirmed by the European Union investigation, which they launched and which concluded that he gave the order to start. And for Ukrainians, it took a bit longer. They were cultivating this pro-Western mood. Well, pro-Western is not bad, basically. Pro-Eastern is also not bad. What is bad is that you tell people, either/or, either you go with me or you're my enemy. What happened before the coup in Ukraine? In 2013, the president of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych negotiated with the European Union some association agreement which would nullify tariffs on most of the Ukrainian goods to the European Union and the other way around. And at some point, when he was meeting with Russian counterparts, we told him, Ukraine was part of the free trade area of the Commonwealth of Independent States. No tariffs for everybody. And we, Russia, negotiated agreement with World Trade Organization for some 17 years, mostly because we bargained with European Union. And we achieved some protection for many of our sectors, agriculture and some others. We explained to the Ukrainians that if you go zero in your trade with European Union, we would have to protect our customs border with Ukraine. Otherwise the zero tariff European goods would flood and would be hurting our industries, which we tried to protect and agreed for some protection. And we suggested to the European Union: guys, Ukraine is our common neighbor. You want to have better trade with Ukraine. We want the same. Ukraine wants to have markets both in Europe and in Russia. Why don't we sit three of us and discuss it like grownups? The head of the European Commission was the Portuguese José Manuel Barroso. He responded it's none of your business what we do with Ukraine. We, for example, the European Union, we don't ask you to discuss with us your trade with Canada. Absolutely arrogant answer. And then the president of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych convened his experts. And they said, yes, it would be not very good if we have opened the border with European Union, but the customs border with Russia would be closed. And they would be checking, you know, what is coming. So that the Russian market is not affected. So he announced in November 2013 that he cannot sign the deal immediately, and he asked the European Union to postpone it for until next year. That was the trigger for Maidan, which was immediately thrown up and ended by the coup. So my point is that this either/or. Actually, the first coup took place in 2004, when after second round of elections, the same Viktor Yanukovych won presidency. The West raised hell and put pressure on the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to rule that there must be a third round. The Constitution of Ukraine says there may be only two rounds. But the Constitutional Court, under the pressure of the West, violated the Constitution for the first time then. And pro-Western candidate was chosen. At that time, when all this was taking place and boiling, the European leaders were publicly saying Ukrainian people must decide: are they with us or with Russia? But it is the way that big countries behave. I mean, there are certain orbits, and now it's BRICS versus NATO, U.S. versus China. And it sounds like you're saying the Russian-Chinese alliance is permanent. Well, we are neighbors. And of course geography is very important. But you're also neighbors with Western Europe. And you're part of it, in effect. Through Ukraine the Western Europe wants to come to our borders. And there were plans that were discussed almost openly to put British naval bases on the Sea of Azov. Crimea was eyed. Dreaming about creating NATO base in Crimea and so on and so forth. Look, we have been very friendly with Finland, for example. Overnight, the Finns came back to the early years of preparation for World War II when they were best allies of Hitler. And all this neutrality, all this friendship, going to sauna together, playing hockey together, all this disappeared overnight. So maybe this was deep in their hearts, and the neutrality was burdening them, and niceties were burdening for them. I don't know. They're mad about the ‘winter war’. That's totally possible. Can you negotiate with Zelensky? You've pointed out that he has exceeded his term. He's not democratically elected president of Ukraine anymore. So do you consider him a suitable partner for negotiations? President Putin addressed many times this issue as well. In September 2022, during the first year of the special military operation, Vladimir Zelensky, in his conviction that he would be dictating the terms of the situation also to the West, he signed a decree prohibiting any negotiations with Putin's government. During public events after that episode, President Vladimir Putin is asked why Russia is not ready for negotiations. He said, don't turn it upside down. We are ready for negotiations, provided it will be based on the balance of interest, -tomorrow. But Volodymyr Zelensky signed this decree prohibiting negotiations. For starters, why don't you tell him to cancel it publicly? This will be a signal that he wants negotiations. Instead, Volodymyr Zelensky invented his ‘peace formula’. Lately, it was complemented by a ‘victory plan’. They keep saying, we know what they say when they meet with European Union ambassadors and in other formats, they say no deal unless the deal is on our terms. I mentioned to you that they are planning now the second summit on the basis of this peace formula, and they don't shy away from saying, we will invite Russia to put in front of it the deal which we agreed already with the West. When our Western colleagues sometimes say nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine in effect, this implies that anything about Russia without Russia. Because they discuss what kind of conditions we must accept. By the way, recently they already violated, tacitly, the concept nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine. There are passes, there are messages. They know our position. We are not playing double game. What President Putin announced is the goal of our operation. It's fair. It's fully in line with the United Nations Charter. First of all, the rights: language rights, minority rights, national minority rights, religious rights, and it's fully in line with OSCE principles. There is an Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe which is still alive. And well, several summits of this organization clearly stated that security must be indivisible, that nobody should expand his security at the expense of security of others, and that, most important, no organization in Euro-Atlantic space shall claim dominance. This was last time it was confirmed by OSCE in 2010. NATO was doing exactly the opposite. So we have legitimacy in our position. No NATO on our doorsteps because OSCE agreed that this should not be the case if it hurts us. And please restore the rights of Russians. Who do you think has been making foreign policy decisions in the United States? This is a question in the United States. Who is making these decisions? I wouldn't guess. I haven't seen Antony Blinken for years. When it was the last time? Two years ago, I think, at the G20 summit. Was it in Rome or somewhere? In the margins. I was representing President Putin there. His assistant came up to me during a meeting and said that Antony wants to talk just for 10 minutes. I left the room. We shook hands, and he said something about the need to de-escalate and so on and so forth. I hope he's not going to be angry with me since I am disclosing this. But we were meeting in front of many people present in the room, and I said, "We don't want to escalate. You want to inflict strategic defeat upon Russia." He said, "No. It is not strategic defeat globally. It is only in Ukraine." You've not spoken to him since? No. Have you spoken to any officials in the Biden administration since then? I don't want to ruin their career. But have you had meaningful conversations? No. Not at all. When I met in international events one or another person whom I know, an American, some of them say hello, some of them exchange a few words, but I never impose myself. It's becoming contagious when somebody sees an American talking to me or a European talking to me. Europeans are running away when they see me. During the last G20 meeting, it was ridiculous. Grown-up people, mature people. They behave like kids. So childish. Unbelievable. So you said that when in 2016, in December, the final moments of the Biden administration, Biden made the relationship between the United States and Russia more difficult. Obama. Biden was vice-president. Exactly. I'm so sorry. The Obama administration left a bunch of bombs, basically, for the incoming Trump administration. In the last month since the election, you have all sorts of things going on politically in bordering states in this region. In Georgia, in Belarus, in Romania, and then, of course, most dramatically in Syria, you have turmoil. Does this seem like part of an effort by the United States to make the resolution more difficult? There is nothing new, frankly. Because the U.S., historically, in foreign policy, was motivated by making some trouble and then to see if they can fish in the muddy water. Iraqi aggression, Libyan adventure - ruining the state, basically. Fleeing from Afghanistan. Now trying to get back through the back door, using the United Nations to organize some ‘event’ where the U.S. can be present, in spite of the fact that they left Afghanistan in very bad shape and arrested money and don't want to give it back. I think this is, if you analyze the American foreign policy steps, adventures, most of them are the right word - the pattern. They create some trouble, and then they see how to use it. When the OSCE monitors elections, when it used to monitor elections in Russia, they would always be very negative, and in other countries as well, Belarus, Kazakhstan. This time, in Georgia, the monitoring mission of OSCE presented a positive report. And it is being ignored. So when you need endorsement of the procedures, you do it when you like the results of the election. If you don't like the results of elections, you ignore it. It's like when the United States and other Western countries recognized unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo, they said this is the self-determination being implemented. There was no referendum in Kosovo - unilateral declaration of independence. By the way, after that the Serbs approached International Court of Justice, which ruled that (well, normally they are not very specific in their judgment, but they ruled) that when part of a territory declares independence, it is not necessarily to be agreed with the central authorities. And when a few years later, Crimeans were holding referendum with invitation of many international observers, not from international organizations, but from parliamentarians in Europe, in Asia, in post-Soviet space, they said, no, we cannot accept this because this is violation of territorial integrity. You know, you pick and choose. The UN Charter is not a menu. You have to respect it in all its entirety. So who's paying the rebels who've taken parts of Aleppo? Is the Assad government in danger of falling? What is happening exactly, in your view, in Syria? Well, we had a deal when this crisis started. We organized the Astana process (Russia, Turkiye and Iran). We meet regularly. Another meeting is being planned before the end of the year or early next year, to discuss the situation on the ground. The rules of the game are to help Syrians to come to terms with each other and to prevent separatist threats from getting strong. That's what the Americans are doing in the east of Syria when they groom some Kurdish separatists using the profits from oil and grain sold, the resources which they occupy. This Astana format is a useful combination of players, if you wish. We are very much concerned. And when this happened, with Aleppo and surroundings, I had a conversation with the Turkish minister of foreign affairs and with Iranian colleague. We agreed to try to meet this week. Hopefully in Doha at the margins of this international conference. We would like to discuss the need to come back to strict implementation of the deals on Idlib area, because Idlib de-escalation zone was the place from where the terrorists moved to take Aleppo. The arrangements reached in 2019 and 2020 provided for our Turkish friends to control the situation in the Idlib de-escalation zone and to separate the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (former Nusra) from the opposition, which is non-terrorist and which cooperates with Turkiye. And another deal was the opening of M5 route from Damascus to Aleppo, which is also now taken completely by the terrorists. So we, as ministers of foreign affairs, would discuss the situation, hopefully, this coming Friday. And the military of all three countries and the security people are in contact with each other. But the Islamist groups, the terrorists you just described, who is backing them? Well, we have some information. We would like to discuss with all our partners in this process the way to cut the channels of financing and arming them. The information which is being floated and it's in the public domain mentions among others the Americans, the Brits. Some people say that Israel is interested in making this situation aggravate. So that Gaza is not under very close scrutiny. It's a complicated game. Many actors are involved. I hope that the context which we are planning for this week will help stabilize the situation. What do you think of Donald Trump? I met him several times when he was having meetings with President Putin and when he received me twice in the Oval Office when I was visiting for bilateral talks. Well, I think he's a very strong person. A person who wants results. Who doesn't like procrastination on anything. This is my impression. He's very friendly in discussions. But this does not mean that he's pro-Russian as some people try to present him. The amount of sanctions we received under the Trump administration was very big. We respect any choice which is made by the people when they vote. We respect the choice of American people. As President Putin said, we are and we have been open all along to the contacts with the current administration. We hope that when Donald Trump is inaugurated, we will understand. The ball, as President Putin said, is on their side. We never severed our contacts, our ties in the economy, trade, security, anything. My final question is: how sincerely worried are you about an escalation in conflict between Russia and the United States, knowing what you do? Well, we started with this question, more or less. It seems the central question. Yes. The Europeans whisper to each other that it is not for Volodymyr Zelensky to dictate the terms of the deal - it's for the US and Russia. I don't think we should be presenting our relations as two guys decide for everybody. Not at all. It is not our style. We prefer the manners which dominate in BRICS, in Shanghai Cooperation Organization, where the UN Charter principle of sovereign equality of states is really embodied. The US is not used to respect sovereign equality of states. When the US says we cannot allow Russia to win on Ukraine because this would undermine our rules-based world order. And rules-based world order is American domination. Now, by the way, NATO, at least under Biden administration, is eyeing the entire Eurasian continent, Indo-Pacific strategies, South China Sea, East China Sea, is already on NATO agenda. NATO is moving infrastructure there. AUKUS, building ‘quartet’ Indo-Pacific Four as they call it (Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea). US, South Korea, and Japan are building military alliance with some nuclear components. And Jens Stoltenberg, the former Secretary General of NATO, last year after the summit he said that the Atlantic security is indivisible from Indo-Pacific security. When he was asked does it mean that you go beyond territorial defense, he answered - no, it doesn't go beyond territorial defense, but to defend our territory, we need to be present there. This element of preemption is more and more present. We don't want war with anybody. And as I said, five nuclear states declared at the top level in January 2022 that we don't want confrontation with each other and that we shall respect each other's security interests and concerns. And it also stated nuclear war can never be won, and therefore nuclear war is not possible. And the same was reiterated bilaterally between Russia and the United States, Putin-Biden, when they met in 2021 in Geneva in June. Basically, they reproduced the statement by Reagan-Gorbachev of 1987 ‘no nuclear war’. And this is absolutely in our vital interest, and we hope that this is also in vital interest of the United States. I say so because some time ago John Kirby, who is the White House communications coordinator, was answering questions about escalation and about possibility of nuclear weapons being employed. And he said, "Oh, no, we don't want escalation because then if there is some nuclear element, then our European allies would suffer." So even mentally, he excludes that the United States can suffer. And this is something which makes the situation a bit risky. It might – if this mentality prevails, then some reckless steps would be taken, and this is bad. What you're saying is American policy makers imagine there could be a nuclear exchange that doesn't directly affect the United States, and you're saying that's not true. That's what I said, yes. But professionals in deterrence, nuclear deterrence policy, they know very well that it's a very dangerous game. And to speak about limited exchange of nuclear strikes is an invitation to disaster, which we don't want to have.

House rejects Democratic efforts to force release of Matt Gaetz ethics reportHow Route Optimization APIs Are Transforming Logistics and Delivery EfficiencyThe standard Lorem Ipsum passage, used since the 1500s "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum." Section 1.10.32 of "de Finibus Bonorum et Malorum", written by Cicero in 45 BC "Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit voluptatem accusantium doloremque laudantium, totam rem aperiam, eaque ipsa quae ab illo inventore veritatis et quasi architecto beatae vitae dicta sunt explicabo. Nemo enim ipsam voluptatem quia voluptas sit aspernatur aut odit aut fugit, sed quia consequuntur magni dolores eos qui ratione voluptatem sequi nesciunt. Neque porro quisquam est, qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit, sed quia non numquam eius modi tempora incidunt ut labore et dolore magnam aliquam quaerat voluptatem. Ut enim ad minima veniam, quis nostrum exercitationem ullam corporis suscipit laboriosam, nisi ut aliquid ex ea commodi consequatur? Quis autem vel eum iure reprehenderit qui in ea voluptate velit esse quam nihil molestiae consequatur, vel illum qui dolorem eum fugiat quo voluptas nulla pariatur?" Thanks for your interest in Kalkine Media's content! To continue reading, please log in to your account or create your free account with us.

Predicting Next NBA Trades to Happen Following Dorian Finney-Smith Deal to LakersBengals keep confidence and playoff hopes high as they head for a showdown with PittsburghCNN panelist's embarrassing takedown after praising Biden's Middle East 'accomplishments'Vital+ SaunaPod: A world-first, at-home portable infrared sauna for just $985

Fianna Fáil has edged ahead in the last opinion poll before Friday’s general election. Fianna Fáil is unchanged at 21pc, while the trend of Fine Gael support falling has continued in the latest Business Post/Red C poll , which shows the party at 20pc, down 2pc. Fine Gael support is the lowest since Simon Harris took over as leader last March. Sinn Féin is also up by 2pc and ranks at 20pc. Fine Gael has now had a series of bad polls, with last weekend’s Sunday Independent/Ireland Thinks poll showing the party drop by 4pc and the Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI poll showing it is down by 6pc. While tonight’s Business Post poll does not show as a dramatic drop, it shows a continued trend in a drop of public support for Fine Gael ahead of the general election on Friday. The Fine Gael campaign has been dogged by controversies, starting with Ryanair’s Michael O’Leary making controversial remarks about teachers, Mr Harris’s interaction with a disability worker in Cork, as well as poor performances in leaders’ debates. Fine Gael has also faced questions over its handling of Independent general election candidate Cllr Patsy O’Brien, who was expelled from the party after sending pornographic material to a party staffer. Some 14pc of respondents said they would give Independents their first-preference vote, while 6pc said they would give their No.1 to the Social Democrats. Labour, the Greens, Aontú and Independent Ireland all rank at 4pc. People Before Profit-Solidarity come in at 2pc. Some 21pc of respondents to the latest poll said they will give their second preferences to Fianna Fáil, while 17pc said Fine Gael and 13pc said Sinn Féin. Red C interviewed a random sample of adults aged over 18 between Wednesday November 20 and Tuesday November 26. The margin of error in the Business Post/Red C poll is 3pc. The results come as political parties have just one day left of campaigning before Friday’s election.

By SHAWN CHEN NEW YORK (AP) — It’s time for the holidays, which means robust family conversations and seemingly never-ending courses of food. But for the more tech-savvy among us, the journey home could also mean we’ll be called on to provide a backlog of tech support to parents, grandparents and other family members. And with generative AI being used to supercharge some major cyber scams this year, it’s also a good time to teach and not just fix. Here are some tips on how to manage your tech encounters this holiday season : Whether it’s Windows , macOS , iOS or Android , simply keeping your operating system and apps up-to-date will help protect your family’s computers and devices against a surprising number of security threats, such as malware, viruses and exploits. Most operating systems, especially those for mobile devices and their app stores, typically have auto-updates turned on by default. Be sure to double-check the device to make sure it has enough storage space to carry out the update. (More on this below.) Keeping apps updated may also reduce the number of “Why isn’t this app working?” type of questions from your relatives. Chances are someone in your family is going to have a completely full mobile device. So full, in fact, that they can no longer update their phone or tablet without having to purge something first. There are many approaches to freeing up space. Here are a few you can easily take without having to triage data or apps. — Use the cloud to back up media: iPhone users can free up space occupied by songs and pictures by storing them on iCloud . Android users can use the Google Photos app to back up and store their photos on their user space. — Clear browsing data: Each major browser has an option to clear its data cache — cookies, search and download histories, autofill forms, site settings, sign-in data and so on. Over time, these bits take up a significant amount of storage space on mobile devices and home computers. So cleaning caches out periodically helps free up space and, in some cases, improves system performance. According to some admittedly unscientific studies, the average person has hundreds of passwords. That’s a lot to remember. So as you help your relatives reset some of theirs, you may be tempted to recycle some to keep things simple for them. But that’s one of the bad password habits that cybersecurity experts warn against. Instead, try introducing your forgetful family member to a password manager . They’re useful tools for simplifying and keeping track of logins. And if you want to impress a more tech-savvy cousin or auntie, you could suggest switching to a more secure digital authentication method: passkeys . As scammers find new ways to steal money and personal information, you and your family should be more vigilant about who to trust. Artificial intelligence and other technologies are giving bad actors craftier tools to work with online. Related Articles National News | The next census will gather more racial, ethnic information National News | As data centers proliferate, conflict with local communities follows National News | Fox News loses bid for Smartmatic voting-tech company’s records about Philippines bribery case National News | Gunman who killed UnitedHeathcare CEO Brian Thompson outside NYC Hilton left eerie message on bullets: NYPD sources National News | Who is Brian Thompson, the UnitedHealthcare CEO killed by a masked gunman in NYC? A quick way to remember what to do when you think you’re getting scammed is to think about the three S’s, said Alissa Abdullah, also known as Dr. Jay, Mastercard’s deputy chief security officer “Stay suspicious, stop for a second (and think about it) and stay protected,” she said. Simply being aware of typical scams can help, experts say. Robocalls frequently target vulnerable individuals like seniors, people with disabilities, and people with debt. So-called romance scams target lonely and isolated individuals. Quiz scams target those who spend a lot of time on social media. Check our AP guide on the latest scams and what to do when you’re victimized. Home internet speeds are getting faster, so you want to make sure your family members are getting a high-speed connection if they’ve paid for one. Run a broadband speed test on your home network if they’re still rocking an aging modem and router.House rejects Democratic efforts to force release of Matt Gaetz ethics report

Biometric technology from is being deployed at the largest football stadium in South America. A release says the FaceID system, a collaboration with , will enable fans entering El Mâs Monumental in Buenos Aires, Argentina to make use of technology for fast, secure entry. With a capacity of 85,000, Mâs Monumental – home to the River Plate football club – is the largest stadium in the world to adopt for ticketing. As per usual, fans pre-register biometrics via their mobile device by uploading a and an ID document. Face biometrics on record are then matched with fans’ faces on game day as they enter the stadium. They will be able to do so at one of 300 FaceID terminals set to be installed at the stadium starting in December. Speed and efficiency are key goals: Veridas says it takes as little as ten seconds to enroll, and that the system “recognizes fans in less than a second, enabling over 60 people to enter per minute.” Security is also paramount, as the system can be used to combat fraud, impersonation, and unauthorized entry. Eduardo Azanza, CEO of Veridas, says “it is an honor that a club as historic and prestigious as has chosen Veridas technology.” Veridas, he says, has developed a “robust, efficient, private, and secure solution designed to deliver the best possible . We are confident this collaboration will set a new standard for experiencing football in Argentina and beyond.” Veridas’ identity verification platform is now available on Google Cloud Marketplace, increasing access to its for businesses of every size. The company says any organization, anywhere in the world, can quickly integrate its identity verification tools to protect against the rising tide of and fraud. Availability on Google Marketplace also allows Veridas to expand its cloud capabilities in the Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA) region. Dai Vu, managing director, marketplace & ISV GTM programs at Google Cloud, says “Veridas can now securely scale and support customers on their journeys.” Azanza says the firm offers “a comprehensive solution that protects more than 300 clients in 25 countries against advanced fraud, including injection attacks and .” As of 2024, Veridas has completed over 100 million identity verifications. While it manages new partnerships in events and access management, Veridas also has an eye on the so-called wallet wars. The company has supported the launch of a digital identity wallet for the government of , an autonomous community in northern Spain, which aims to increase equitable access to government services. A on LinkedIn describes how the wallet was developed in consultation with real users, “including those with disabilities and those unfamiliar with digital tools,” in order to ensure that the tech was intuitive, user-friendly and centered on . “This initiative has created a model for other governments to follow,” says the post. “It’s not just about making services digital – it’s about ensuring that digital services work for everyone.” | | | | | |None

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House shut down Democrats' efforts Thursday to release the long-awaited ethics report into former Rep. Matt Gaetz , pushing the fate of any resolution to the yearslong investigation of sexual misconduct allegations into further uncertainty. The nearly party-line votes came after Democrats had been pressing for the findings to be published even though the Florida Republican left Congress and withdrew as President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for attorney general. Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., was the sole Republican to support the effort. Most Republicans have argued that any congressional probe into Gaetz ended when he resigned from the House. Speaker Mike Johnson also requested that the committee not publish its report, saying it would be a terrible precedent to set. While ethics reports have previously been released after a member’s resignation, it is extremely rare. Shortly before the votes took place, Rep. Sean Casten, D-Ill., who introduced one of the bills to force the release, said that if Republicans reject the release, they will have “succeeded in sweeping credible allegations of sexual misconduct under the rug.” Gaetz has repeatedly denied the claims. Earlier Thursday, the Ethics panel met to discuss the Gaetz report but made no decision, saying in a short statement that the matter is still being discussed. It's unclear now whether the document will ever see the light of day as lawmakers only have a few weeks left before a new session of Congress begins. It's the culmination of weeks of pressure on the Ethics committee's five Republicans and five Democrats who mostly work in secret as they investigate allegations of misconduct against lawmakers. The status of the Gaetz investigation became an open question last month when he abruptly resigned from Congress after Trump's announcement that he wanted his ally in the Cabinet. It is standard practice for the committee to end investigations when members of Congress depart, but the circumstances surrounding Gaetz were unusual, given his potential role in the new administration. Rep. Michael Guest, R-Miss., the committee chairman, said Wednesday that there is no longer the same urgency to release the report given that Gaetz has left Congress and stepped aside as Trump's choice to head the Justice Department. “I’ve been steadfast about that. He’s no longer a member. He is no longer going to be confirmed by the Senate because he withdrew his nomination to be the attorney general,” Guest said. The Gaetz report has also caused tensions between lawmakers on the bipartisan committee. Pennsylvania Rep. Susan Wild, the top Democrat on the panel, publicly admonished Guest last month for mischaracterizing a previous meeting to the press. Gaetz has denied any wrongdoing and said last year that the Justice Department’s separate investigation against him into sex trafficking allegations involving underage girls ended without federal charges. His onetime political ally Joel Greenberg , a fellow Republican who served as the tax collector in Florida’s Seminole County, admitted as part of a plea deal with prosecutors in 2021 that he paid women and an underage girl to have sex with him and other men. The men were not identified in court documents when he pleaded guilty. Greenberg was sentenced in late 2022 to 11 years in prison.

Budget Blinds Announces Strategic Changes to Executive Leadership TeamThe Senate, on Thursday, passed for second reading the 2025 Appropriation Bill of N49.7 trillion. The appropriation bill was presented to the joint session of the National Assembly by President Bola Tinubu on Wednesday. The passage of the bill for second reading followed the presentation of its general principles at plenary on Thursday by the Majority Leader, Sen. Opeyemi Bamidele (APC-Ekiti). Leading the debate on the general principles, Bamidele said that the bill was deemed to have been read the first time when it was laid before the joint session of the national assembly. He said that the bill sought to authorise issuance of N49.7 trillion out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the federation for the 2025 fiscal year. Mr Bamidele said: “The 2025 budget proposal christened, “Budget of Restoration: Securing Peace, Rebuilding Prosperity,” strikes at the very core of the Renewed Hope Agenda. “It demonstrates this administration’s commitment to stabilising the economy, improving lives and repositioning our country for greater performance. “The 2025 budget has seen a significant increase of 74.18 per cent, reaching N47.9 trillion in nominal terms, signalling a bold fiscal strategy aimed at addressing persistent infrastructure gaps and development challenges. “However, in dollar terms, the budget contracted by 23.22 per cent, dropped from 36.7 billion dollars in 2024 to 28.18 billion dollars in 2025. “This reduction in real value limits the potential impacts of the budget on economic growth and the well-being of the population. “What remains for us is to closely examine the contents and the details to sort things out and smoothen the rough edges.” Mr Bamidele listed the budget highlights to include: oil price benchmark of 75 dollars per barrel, daily oil production estimate of 2.06 million barrels per day and exchange rate of N1,500 to a dollar, with the inflation rate standing at 15.75 per cent. Contributing, Sen. Abdul Ningi (PDP-Bauchi) expressed optimism about the budget, emphasising the critical role of the national assembly in shaping it to address the nation’s challenges. He said that while the president had presented his proposals, the real question laid in what the parliament could do to refine the proposal for the benefit of Nigerians. Ningi stressed the need for prioritising outcomes that would improve citizens’ lives, such as addressing hunger, economic hardship and security concerns. He described security as the foundation for progress, urging the president to devote significant attention to it. “As a parliament, it should not be about what the president brought; it should be about what the parliament can do with what the president brought,” he said. In his contributions, Sen. Tahir Monguno (APC- Borno) said that protection of lives and property was the fundamental responsibility of any government. Mr Monguno said that the allocation of N2.6 billion to infrastructure was a significant step toward economic development, saying that it had the potential to generate a multiplier effect. He, however, expressed concern that without effective implementation, such allocations would remain mere projections, with no tangible impacts on citizens’ lives. The senator urged the executive arm to prioritise budget implementation, referencing the president’s recent disclosure that only 48 per cent to 50 per cent of the current budget had been executed. He called for a significant improvement, suggesting that implementation levels should reach at least 80 per cent or 90 per cent. Sen. Adams Oshiomhole (APC-Edo) said that security was critical to national development, stressing that no sector could thrive without it. He lauded the allocation to defence, emphasising that it reflected the nation’s pressing need to address insecurity. Mr Oshiomhole called for a shift in defence policies and procurement strategies, advocating for a stronger focus on technology to enhance security capabilities. Sen. Asuquo Ekpenyong (APC-Cross River) said that the budget should include provisions for South-West Development Commission. Also, Sen. Victor Umeh (LP-Anambra) expressed concern over what he called the omission of Port Harcourt-Maiduguri eastern railway line in the budget. Mr Umeh, while acknowledging the plans to construct the Sokoto-Badagry and Lagos-Calabar highways, stressed the importance of the eastern rail line, which he had previously championed through a motion co-sponsored by 35 senators. He urged his colleagues to ensure that the eastern rail line was included in the detailed budget breakdown. In his remarks, President of the Senate, Godswill Akpabio, thanked his colleagues for their contributions to the general principles of the 2025 appropriation bill. He urged the lawmakers responsible for the various ad-hoc committees to get their reports ready upon resumption in January. The senate, thereafter, adjourned plenary till January 14, 2025 for the Christmas and New Year celebrations. NANPresident Jimmy Carter recognized there was political value for a young congressman to be seen in proximity to the president. President Jimmy Carter, with U.S. Rep. John Cavanaugh right behind him as Carter suggested, is greeted on the tarmac by Gen. Richard H. Ellis after exiting Air Force One at SAC on Oct 22, 1977. So as Air Force One landed at Offutt Air Force Base in 1977 during Carter’s first presidential visit to the state, he offered Omaha congressman John Cavanaugh a little advice just before they exited the plane. “Stay close, John,” he said. Sure enough, the hundreds who had gathered on the tarmac to greet the president also saw Cavanaugh right in Carter’s shadow, which got Cavanaugh featured in news photos from the day. President Jimmy Carter never enjoyed much electoral success in Nebraska. The Democrat lost to Omaha native Gerald Ford in 1976 and conservative icon Ronald Reagan in 1980. But both during his four years as president and his many years after as an international champion of peace, the modest peanut farmer from Georgia gained a lot of admirers. Cavanaugh and other Nebraskans who met Carter described the former president — who died Sunday, according to his son and multiple news reports — as a kind and genuine man with a personality that sparkled as much as his signature wide-toothed grin. “What a wonderful person,” recalled Cavanaugh, a Democrat whose two terms in the House of Representatives coincided with Carter’s 1977-1981 term as president. Preston Love Jr. of Omaha also mourned Carter’s death at age 100. The North Omaha civic leader and recent Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate had the chance to meet the former president at Carter's home in 1983 as a then-staffer for Rev. Jesse Jackson. “I mourn the fact that he, to this date, has not received his due — as president, and for his post presidential exploits, which have been enormous,” Love said in 2023. Amanda Brewer, Habitat for Humanity of Omaha CEO, met Carter while volunteering to help build a Habitat home in Georgia in 1998 — an encounter that helped to inspire her to a career with the charity. "I think his legacy, and inspiration to me, is that everyone has the ability to make a difference," she said. Carter first came to Nebraska during campaign trips in 1975 and 1976. He had been doing a lot of campaigning across the Missouri River for the Iowa caucuses, the first test of the presidential election cycle. In fact, Carter ultimately wrote the book on how to use early success in Iowa and New Hampshire to propel a bid for a presidential party nomination. Carter was elected in November 1976, though in Nebraska incumbent Ford pulled in 59% of the vote and prevailed in 89 of the state’s 93 counties. Carter that spring also narrowly finished second to Frank Church of Idaho in the Nebraska Democratic primary. Carter’s first visit to the state as president came on Oct. 22, 1977, when he flew into Omaha to tour the Strategic Air Command headquarters at Offutt. At the time, tensions with the Soviet Union were high. The chance that a nuclear war could be waged one day from SAC’s bunker south of Omaha was very real. Carter received a tour of both the underground command post and the doomsday plane that could launch the nation’s nuclear arsenal in a time of emergency. He also picked up the “red phone” and spoke a message of thanks to SAC servicemen around the globe for their work to prevent “the possible destruction of our nation.” At the time, there was a little internal tension within SAC, too. Carter had recently canceled the B-1 bomber program, which was strongly supported by Gen. Richard H. Ellis, the SAC Commander. Carter didn’t back off the decision. He was focused on reducing the deficit at a time of high inflation. He felt the B-1 had been made obsolete by the development of accurate cruise missiles that could fly the same speed and distance and a new generation of B-2 stealth bombers that was on the drawing table. A display at SAC headquarters had included a model of the B-1. Before the president’s visit, it was replaced with a model of a B-52. Carter also toured a B-52 on the Offutt runway. (Reagan as president revived the B-1.) Cavanaugh was given the opportunity to fly into Omaha with Carter. The two talked about depressed farm prices, a chief concern in Nebraska, and the president’s energy bill during the flight. Carter stopped in Nebraska again during a cross-country flight on June 10, 1980, to tour tornado-ravaged Grand Island. A week earlier, a freakish storm sent at least seven tornadoes descending on the city, killing five, injuring 200 and destroying or damaging nearly a third of the city. Touring the devastation with then-Gov. Charles Thone, Carter’s motorcade stopped in front of what had once been the home of Del Kosmicki. The Grand Island man told the president everyone was working together in the recovery. Carter then crossed the street and stood atop the foundation of another former home to speak. Against a backdrop of shattered houses and stripped-bare trees, he told those gathered that God had blessed them by minimizing the damage. He encouraged them to keep their selfless attitudes during the rebuilding to come. "He was very genuine and sincere," Kosmicki told the Grand Island Independent. "I thought he did a really good job." Reagan’s Nebraska campaign chair called Carter’s visit an election-year political stunt. But Thone, a Republican, defended it as a sincere effort by the president to buoy spirits in the city. Later that year, Reagan swept Nebraska with 65% of the vote. Reagan’s landslide victory nationally sent Carter back to his farm in Plains, Georgia. But the loss certainly didn't send Carter into retirement. Carter worked for decades as an international ambassador for peace and human rights, creating an all-new model for post-presidential life. Love had the chance to meet Carter in Plains in 1983. At the time, Love was the lone staffer to Rev. Jesse Jackson as he registered voters in the South and laid the groundwork for Jackson's bid for president in 1988. Carter and his wife Rosalynn were gracious hosts, Love said, providing insight into the presidency and its history and even giving the visitors a tour of the peanut operation. “While President Carter encouraged Rev. Jackson to pursue a run for president, he was very clear and forthright about the pitfalls and the realities of doing such,” Love said. “I felt after meeting him in that situation, a tremendous like and respect for the man.” Amanda Brewer, left, with Rosalynn and Jimmy Carter and Brewer's mother, Kathy Jedlicka. Brewer recalled Carter as a down-to-earth and compassionate man when she met him in 1998 while she and her mom volunteered at a Habitat home in Americus, Georgia, near Plains. Carter and his wife, who died in November 2023, had fully embraced the charity. They became among its biggest advocates and fundraisers, and even picked up hammers and saws themselves. That day, the Carters were going around thanking all the volunteers. "He used his influence, rolled up his sleeves and was willing to do the work," Brewer said. "His values aligned with Habitat's values of putting your faith in action and doing something to make the world a better place." As president, Carter will likely be best known for brokering the peace deal between Egypt and Israel. It was a prelude to his work once out of office. Cavanaugh was present on the White House lawn when the parties signed the Camp David Accords. Carter won the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize "for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development." But Cavanaugh said Carter actually accomplished a lot domestically, much of it overshadowed by the Iran hostage crisis and continued economic problems that largely doomed his re-election bid. With his high ethics, Carter was also the right man to lead the nation into the post-Watergate era, Cavanaugh said. “He was always kind, hard-working and thoughtful,” Cavanaugh said. “He was just a sweetheart.” President Jimmy Carter shakes hands during a visit at Offutt Air Force base on Oct. 22, 1977. Capt. David L. Young gives a tour of a B-52 to President Jimmy Carter at Offutt Air Force Base on Oct. 22, 1977. President Jimmy Carter visits Strategic Air Command on Oct 22, 1977. 1977: SAC Commander-in-Chief Gen. Richard H. Ellis leads President Jimmy Carter past experts who man the command post console at Offutt Air Force Base. President Jimmy Carter speaks at the Grand Island airport on June 10, 1980. From left are Nebraska Gov. Charles Thone, Maj. Gen. Edward Binder of the Nebraska National Guard and Grand Island Mayor Bob Kriz. Carter's visit came after seven tornadoes touched down in or near the city, killing five people and injuring 200 on the night of June 3. President Jimmy Carter gives a speech near the destroyed home of Dennis Williams home at 707 Joehnck Road in Grand Island on June 10, 1980. Seven tornadoes touched down in or near the city that, killing five people and injuring 200. President Jimmy Carter gives a speech near the destroyed home of Dennis Williams home at 707 Joehnck Road in Grand Island on June 10, 1980. Seven tornadoes touched down in or near the city that, killing five people and injuring 200. Grand Island Mayor Bob Kriz, Nebraska Gov. Charles Thone and Jimmy Carter at the Grand Generation Center on June 10, 1980. Seven tornadoes touched down in or near the city that, killing five people and injuring 200. Former President Jimmy Carter receives an honorary degree from Creighton University in September 1987. Jimmy Carter speaks in Omaha on June 6th, 1975 during his run for president. President Jimmy Carter, with U.S. Rep. John Cavanaugh right behind him as Carter suggested, is greeted on the tarmac after exiting Air Force One at SAC on Oct 22, 1977. President Jimmy Carter at the Grand Generation Center on On June 10, 1980, a week after seven tornadoes touched down in or near the city that night, killing five people and injuring 200. Jimmy Carter holds a cigar tube full of dimes given to him by teen-aged supporters in Omaha on May 8th, 1976 during his run for president. Jimmy Carter in Grand Island May 9, 1976 during his run for president. Jimmy Carter speaks in Omaha on May 31, 1974, a prelude to his run for president. cordes@owh.com , ​402-444-1130, twitter.com/henrycordes Get local news delivered to your inbox!

Trump convinced Republicans to overlook his misconduct. But can he do the same for his nominees?