Category: Balkans

MIL-Evening Report: Palestine and Gaza’s Hamas resistance condemn Fiji over embassy plan

By Anish Chand in Suva

Palestine has strongly condemned Fiji’s decision to open a Fiji embassy in Jerusalem, calling it a violation of international law and relevant United Nations resolutions.

The Palestinian Foreign Ministry and the Hamas resistance group that governs the besieged enclave of Gaza issued separate statements, urging the Fiji government to reverse its decision.

According to the Palestinian Foreign Ministry, the Fijian decision is “an act of aggression against the Palestinian people and their inalienable rights”.

The Palestinian group Hamas said in a statement that the decision was “a blatant assault on the rights of our Palestinian people to their land and a clear violation of international law and UN resolutions, which recognise Jerusalem as occupied Palestinian territory”.

Fiji will become the seventh country to have an embassy in Jerusalem after the US, Guatemala, Honduras, Kosovo, Papua New Guinea, and Paraguay.

Republished from The Fiji Times with permission.

MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

February 20, 2025
MIL-OSI Global: In pushing for Ukraine elections, Trump is falling into Putin-laid trap to delegitimize Zelenskyy

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Lena Surzhko Harned, Associate Teaching Professor of Political Science, Penn State

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy meet on Sept. 25, 2019, on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly. Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was shut out of the discussions concerning the future of his country, which took place in Saudi Arabia on Feb. 18, 2025. In fact, there were no Ukrainian representatives, nor any European Union ones – just U.S. and Russian delegations, and their Saudi hosts.

The meeting – which followed a mutually complimentary phone call between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin just days earlier – was gleefully celebrated in Moscow. The absence of Ukraine in deciding its own future is very much in line with Putin’s policy toward its neighbor. Putin has long rejected Ukrainian statehood and the legitimacy of the Ukrainian government, or as he calls it the “Kyiv regime.”

While the U.S. delegation did reiterate that future discussions would have to involve Ukraine at some stage, the Trump administration’s actions and words have no doubt undermined Kyiv’s position and influence.

To that end, the U.S. is increasingly falling in line with Moscow on a key plank of the Kremlin’s plan to delegitimize Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian government: calling for elections in Ukraine as part of any peace deal.

Questioning Zelenskyy’s legitimacy

Challenging Zelenskyy’s legitimacy is part of a deliberate ongoing propaganda campaign by Russia to discredit Ukrainian leadership, weaken support for Ukraine from its key allies and remove Zelenskyy – and potentially Ukraine – as a partner in negotiations.

Claims by the Russian president that his country is ready for peace negotiations appear, to many observers of its three-year war, highly suspect given Russia’s ongoing attacks on its neighbor and its steadfast refusal to date to agree to any temporary truce.

Yet the Kremlin is pushing the narrative that the problem is that there is no legitimate Ukrainian authority with which it can deal. As such, Putin can proclaim his commitments to a peace without making any commitments or compromises necessary to any true negotiation process.

Meanwhile, painting Zelenskyy as a “dictator” dampens the enthusiastic support that once greeted him from democratic countries. This, is turn, can translate to the reduction or even end of military support for Kyiv, Putin hopes, allowing him a fillip in what has become a war of attrition.

What Putin needs for this plan to work is a willing partner to help get the message out that Zelenskyy and the current Ukraine government are not legitimate representatives of their country – and into this gap the new U.S. administration appears to have stepped.

Then-candidate Volodymyr Zelenskyy at a polling station during Ukraine’s presidential election in Kiev on March 31, 2019.
Genya Savilov/AFP via Getty Images)

Dictating terms

Take the narrative on elections.

At the meeting in Saudi Arabia, the U.S. reportedly discussed elections in Ukraine as being a key part of any peace deal. Trump himself has raised the prospect of elections, noting in a Feb. 18 press conference: “We have a situation where we haven’t had elections in Ukraine, where we have martial law.” The U.S. president went on to claim, incorrectly, that Zelenskyy’s approval rating was down to “4%.” The latest polling actually shows the Ukrainian president to be sitting on a 57% approval rating.

A day later, Trump upped the attacks, describing Zelenskyy as a “dictator without elections.”

Such statements echo Russia’s narrative that the government in Kyiv is illegitimate.

The Kremlin’s claims regarding what it describes as the “legal aspects related to his [Zelenskyy’s] legitimacy” are based on the premise that the Ukraine president’s five-year term as president of Ukraine should have ended in 2024.

And elections in Ukraine would have taken place in May of that year had it not been for the martial law that Ukraine put into place when the Russian Federation launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

The Martial Law Act – which Ukraine imposed on Feb. 24, 2022 – explicitly bans all elections in Ukraine for the duration of the emergency action.

And while the Ukrainian Constitution only includes language regarding the extension of parliament’s powers until martial law is lifted, constitutional lawyers in Ukraine tend to agree that the implication is that this also applies to presidential powers.

Notwithstanding what the law says, the Kremlin’s questioning of the democratic institutions of Ukraine and its push for elections in Ukraine have found traction in Washington of late. Trump’s special envoy Gen. Keith Kellogg declared on Feb. 1 that elections “need to be done” as part of peace process, saying that elections are a “beauty of a solid democracy.”

The ballot box trap

Zelenskyy is not opposed to elections in principle and has agreed that elections should be held when the time is right. “Once martial law is over, then the ball is in parliament’s court – the parliament then picks a date for elections,” Zelenskyy stated in a Jan. 2 interview.

And he appears to have the backing of the majority of Ukrainians. In May 2024, 69% of Ukrainians polled said Zelenskyy should remain president until the end of marshal law, after which elections should be held.

The issue, as Zelenskyy has said, is the timing and circumstances. “During the war, there can be no elections. It’s necessary to change legislation, the constitution, and so on. These are significant challenges. But there are also nonlegal, very human challenges,” he said on Jan. 4.

Even opposition politicians in Ukraine agree that now is not the time. Petro Poroshenko, Zelenskyy’s main political rival, has dismissed the idea of wartime elections, as has Inna Sovsun, the leader of the opposition Golos Party.

Apart from logistical problems of ensuring free and fair elections in the middle of a war, the conflict would present logistical hurdles to campaigning and accessing polling sites. There is also the question of whether and how to include Ukrainians in Russian-occupied territories and those who are internally displaced, as well as the 6.5 million who fled fighting and currently reside abroad.

Good elections … and bad

Russia did, of course, hold elections during the current conflict. But the 2024 election that Putin won with 87% of the vote was, according to most international observers, neither free nor fair.

Rather, it was a sham vote that only underlined what most political scientists will confirm: Elections are at best a necessary but insufficient marker of democracy.

This point is not wasted on Ukrainians, whose commitment to democracy strengthened in the years leading up to the 2022 invasion. Indeed, a survey taken a few months into the war found that 76% of Ukrainians agreed that democracy was the best form of governance – up from 41% three years earlier.

There are other reasons Ukraine might be wary of elections. The adversarial nature of political campaigns can be divisive, especially among a society in high stress.

Ukrainian politicians have openly argued that holding an election during the war would be destabilizing for Ukrainian society, undermining the internal unity in face of Russian aggression.

Outside influence

And then there is concern over outside influence in any election. Ukrainians have had enough experience with Russian meddling in their politics to take it for granted that the Kremlin will attempt to put a thumb on the scale.

Russia has since the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991 employed its substantial resources to influence Ukraine’s politics through all available means, ranging from propaganda, economic pressures and incentives to energy blackmail, threats and use of violence.

In 2004, Moscow’s electoral manipulations in favor of the pro-Russian candidate, Viktor Yanukovich, led to the Orange Revolution – in which Ukrainians rose up to reject rigged elections. Nine years later, Yanukovich – who became president in 2010 – was deposed though the Revolution of Dignity, which saw Ukrainians oust a man many saw as a Russian stooge in favor of a path toward greater integration with Europe.

Putin’s history of meddling in elections extends beyond Ukraine, of course. Most recently, the Romanian Constitutional Court annulled the country’s presidential elections, citing an electoral process compromised by foreign interference.

An impossible position

In raising elections as a prerequisite to negotiations, Putin is setting a
“catch-22” trap for Ukraine: The Ukrainian Constitution states that elections can happen only when martial law is lifted; but the lifting of the martial law is possible only when the “hot phase” of the war is over. So without a ceasefire, no election is possible.

But in refusing to agree to elections, Ukraine can be cast as the blockage to any peace deal – playing to a narrative that is already forming in the U.S. administration that Kyiv is the problem and will need to be sidelined for there to be progress.

In short, in seemingly echoing Russian talking points on an election being a prerequisite for peace, the U.S. puts the Ukrainian government in an impossible position: Agree to the vote and risk internal division and outside interference, or reject it and allow Moscow – and, perhaps, Washington – to frame Ukraine’s leaders as illegitimate and unable to negotiate on the behalf of their people.

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

– ref. In pushing for Ukraine elections, Trump is falling into Putin-laid trap to delegitimize Zelenskyy – https://theconversation.com/in-pushing-for-ukraine-elections-trump-is-falling-into-putin-laid-trap-to-delegitimize-zelenskyy-250003

MIL OSI – Global Reports –

February 20, 2025
MIL-OSI United Nations: New UN Mediator for Libya — Tenth in 14 Years — Must Avoid Past Failures, Delegate Warns Security Council

Source: United Nations General Assembly and Security Council

UN Political Chief Says Libyans’ Dream Unfulfilled after February Revolution 14 Years Ago

Libya’s leaders and security actors are prioritizing political and personal gain over national interests, the United Nations’ top political official told the Security Council today, as the country’s delegate blamed proxy wars for its instability.

Fourteen years on since the 17 February 2011 Revolution in Libya, “the dream of a civil, democratic and prosperous Libya remains unfulfilled” due to “entrenched divisions, economic mismanagement, continued human rights violations and competing domestic and external interests”, said Rosemary DiCarlo, Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs. Highlighting efforts by the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) to revive the political process, she noted the establishment of an Advisory Committee comprising legal and constitutional experts to provide proposals supporting efforts towards holding national elections.

Pointing to the lack of progress on a unified budget or an agreed spending framework, as well as disagreement over the leadership of the Libyan Audit Bureau, she said it is critical to support the Central Bank’s efforts to stabilize the financial situation. The dispute over the position of President of the High Council of State remains unresolved. “Politicization and political divisions are also hindering progress on national reconciliation,” she said, noting that amendments to a draft law on that topic have raised concerns over the independence of a future National Reconciliation Commission.

Following successful local elections in 56 municipalities in November 2024, the High National Elections Commission is preparing for the next 63 elections. “Funding from the Government is crucial to enable the High National Elections Commission to implement this next phase of municipal council elections,” she stressed. On the security front, the activities of non-State and quasi-State armed actors continue to pose a threat to Libya’s fragile stability, she said, noting that the 2020 Ceasefire Agreement has only been partially implemented.

She also expressed concern about the continuing trend of arbitrary arrests and enforced disappearances across Libya. Drawing attention to “the alarming and tragic discovery of mass graves” earlier this month in north-east and south-east Libya, she said: “This is yet another reminder of the urgent need to protect migrants and combat human trafficking.” Calling for support to the 2025 Libyan chapter of the Sudan Refugee Regional Response Plan, which requires $106 million, she urged Council members to support the newly appointed Special Representative Hanna Tetteh, who will be taking up her functions in Tripoli on 20 February.

In December 2024, a senior UN official announced a new UN-mediated process aimed at breaking the political deadlock — marked by the presence of rival Governments — and facilitating elections. (See Press Release SC/15938.)

Libya Battleground for Proxy Wars

Libya’s delegate, who spoke at the end of today’s meeting, pointed out that Ms. Tetteh will be the tenth Special Representative of the Secretary-General assigned to his country in 14 years, calling this “a record”. The Council must reflect on whether this indicates a “problem” with the imposition of solutions, UN mechanisms or the officials themselves. He added: “We hope that she will harness the lessons from the past and will not repeat the same misgivings by trying the same things and expecting different results.” He also raised several concerns about the Advisory Committee established by UNSMIL, including whether it was expected to put forward a single proposal or numerous proposals, and how exactly political stakeholders would contribute to this process.

“My country has become a ground for the settlement of disputes” in proxy wars, he said, adding that it is influenced by instability in the region, including “political and security-based changes”. However, he pointed out, the recent holding of municipal elections around the country is a good example of Libya’s ability to ensure electoral processes where there is support and political will. Any reconciliation must be based “on transitional justice, on accountability, on truth and on redress and compensation”, he stressed, while reiterating a request for the removal of individuals on the Sanctions List for humanitarian reasons or if their “listing was erroneous, or because their file was used to further political friction”.

Many Council members welcomed the establishment of the Advisory Committee and the appointment of the new Special Representative as positive steps towards relaunching the political process.

The representative of the United States said Ms. Tetteh’s prior experience in Sudan and South Sudan can inform her approach in Libya. A political solution is the path to long-term stability, and time is of the essence, she said, noting “destabilizing activities from external actors” and the need for “east-west security integration”. Recalling the visit of a delegation from her country to Libya, she urged all parties to reach agreement on a unified budget to end persistent conflicts over revenue-sharing.

The Russian Federation’s delegate expressed hope that the new Special Representative will adopt an impartial approach, informed by a sober assessment of the political climate. Ms. Tetteh will have the difficult task of redressing imbalance and revitalizing UN mediation efforts, he said. This month marks the fourteenth anniversary since the “egregious Western intervention and the virtual destruction of Libyan Statehood”, he observed, adding: “The collapse of the country took place and is ongoing to this date.”

Updating Sanctions Regime

The United Kingdom’s delegate welcomed the recent adoption of new designation criteria for the UN sanctions regime to hold those exploiting Libyan crude oil and petroleum accountable and help to safeguard its resources. “Until a unifying political agreement is achieved in Libya, it will be impossible to unlock its great potential,” she added. (See Press Release SC/15967.) Along similar lines, France’s delegate said: “Libyan money needs to benefit the Libyan people”, adding that a unified budget and a unified Government go hand in hand. Such a Government, capable of organizing presidential and legislative elections as soon as possible, is crucial.

“Good-faith engagement and demonstrating compromise” will be essential in overcoming all outstanding, contentious issues, Slovenia’s speaker advised, adding that the political process must include Libyans from all walks of life, with women and young people. Denmark’s delegate added: “No woman should fear reprisals as a consequence of political engagement — neither online, nor offline.” Further, organizations promoting women’s rights should be able to operate freely.

The representative of Panama acknowledged the enormous political challenges in Libya, where “the crisis has fragmented the social fabric and institutions in the country”, as he expressed support for efforts to hold elections representing different factions of Libyan society. Greece’s delegate pointed out that stability in Libya remains key for the region, and even more so for immediate neighbours like his own country which are impacted by the significant increase of irregular migration flows.

Communications between East-West Security Institutions

On security, the representative of Pakistan highlighted the reported agreement between Eastern and Western security institutions to establish a joint centre for communication and information exchange. Noting that these are preliminary steps, he added: “This will need a well-defined comprehensive peacebuilding and reconciliation strategy”. Also welcoming the establishment of the joint centre for border security, the representative of the Republic of Korea noted that efforts to unify military institutions will be essential for strengthening Libya’s security. Calling on “foreign Powers” to refrain from providing arms to Tripoli “for their narrow geopolitical interests”, he said that those weapons destabilize the broader region and bolster terrorism.

Several speakers echoed the need to avoid external interference and respect the leadership of the Libyan people. The representative of Guyana, also speaking for Algeria, Sierra Leone and Somalia, said the Advisory Committee’s proposals are meant to foster further consultations between UNSMIL and the relevant Libyan decision makers and stakeholders. She called for “careful attention to how this work is undertaken, so that it “avoids creating any additional challenges”. She also expressed concern about the lack of progress in convening national elections.

The representative of China, Council President for February, speaking in his national capacity, stressed the need to avoid undue external interference, while Libya is on the path to elections and national reconciliation. UNSMIL must strengthen its communication with Libyan parties and put forward practical proposals, he said, hoping that the Special Representative will advance the political process. The Mission should monitor the ceasefire, he said, noting that improving the security situation and fighting the crime trajectory are imperative.

MIL OSI United Nations News –

February 20, 2025
MIL-OSI Europe: Press release – Parliament and member states agree on new support plan for Moldova

Source: European Parliament 3

EU member states and MEPs have agreed on essential improvements to a new support facility for Moldova, focusing on better financing and democratic oversight.

Negotiators from the European Parliament and the Council of the EU have reached a provisional agreement on Wednesday on the Reform and Growth Facility for Moldova. The Facility aims to support Moldova in facing significant challenges, notably to mitigate the profound impact of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine on Moldova’s security, economy, and citizens’ livelihoods and to strengthen its resilience against the ongoing and unprecedented hybrid attacks and foreign malign interference targeting the country and democratic processes and institutions.

Key improvements:

Increased grant-based support: Negotiators agreed to allocate €520 million in grants – a €100 million increase compared to initial proposals – alongside €1.5 billion in low-interest loans. This adjustment ensures Moldova can implement reforms without unsustainable debt accumulation.

Accelerated funding access: The Facility provides 18% pre-financing, up from 7% originally, of total support, enabling rapid deployment of resources to address energy security, anti-corruption infrastructure, and public service modernisation.

Administrative capacity building: A dedicated 20% of grant funds will strengthen Moldova’s institutions through digital governance systems, civil service training, and judicial reforms – prerequisites for effective EU fund management.

Reinforced oversight framework: To ensure full parliamentary scrutiny the agreement establishes a Dialogue between Parliament and the Commission to review implementation progress regularly.

Also agreed was to make available additional voluntary contributions in the form of external assigned revenue from other donors such as international financing organisations for further financial support to Moldova, and that the Facility shall not support activities or measures which undermine the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Moldova.

Quotes

Siegfried Mureșan (EPP, Romania), co-rapporteur for the Committee on Budgets: “With a €200 million increase in pre-financing and €100 million in total allocations, we are mobilizing enhanced immediate support to assist Moldova in advancing reforms, accelerating its European integration, and countering the economic and energy repercussions of Russian aggression. This ambitious agreement underscores Europe’s capacity to respond decisively to escalating geopolitical challenges.”

Sven Mikser (S&D, Estonia), co-rapporteur for the Committee on Foreign Affairs: “This Facility underscores our commitment to Moldova’s EU accession journey and supports the country in undertaking necessary reforms to strengthen democratic institutions, enhance energy security, boost economic growth, and improve the lives of its citizens. Raising the grant component to 20.5% and the pre-financing rate to 18% secures €520 million in non-repayable support for Moldova and ensures rapid access to funding.”

Next steps

The provisional agreement will be submitted to Parliament’s plenary (March) and the Council for final approval.

Background

Between 2025 and 2027, the maximum resources to be made available to Moldova through the Facility will amount to €1.785 billion (in current prices). This includes up to €1.5 billion in concessional loans and €385 million in non-repayable financial support. Additionally, €135 million will be set aside to provision the loans.

The Reform and Growth Facility is part of a broader EU Growth Plan for Moldova aimed at doubling its economy within a decade while fostering socio-economic stability. The facility is modelled after similar initiatives in other EU candidate regions, such as the Western Balkans Facility, representing a significant step forward in Moldova’s path toward EU membership.

MIL OSI Europe News –

February 20, 2025
MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Making use of the infrastructure that has been implemented in Greece and that can ensure the energy security of the EU – E-000579/2025
Source: European Parliament
Question for written answer E-000579/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Yannis Maniatis (S&D)

According to recent statements by a representative of the Turkish Government, ‘Türkiye is one of the main routes for the supply of natural gas to the EU’. The representative proposed ‘resuming the EU-Türkiye High-level Energy Dialogue’ (opposed only by Cyprus), as well as ‘connecting Mediterranean reserves with the Southern Corridor’.

At the same time, despite increased gas needs and the extensive investment undertaken by Greece (such as upgrades to the Revithoussa terminal and national network capacity, the new FSRU in Alexandroupolis) and Bulgaria (upgrades to the national network), full use has still not been made of the Vertical Corridor. At the same time, the EastMed pipeline, which has been included in the list of European Projects of Common Interest since 2013, will allow Eastern Mediterranean reserves to be directly connected to both the Vertical Corridor and the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline.

In view of the above:

1.What initiatives does the Commission intend to take to complete the Vertical Corridor project and resolve the last outstanding issues, such as upgrading the Interconnector Greece-Bulgaria pipeline and the network in Romania and addressing the matter of high network charges between Romania and Moldova?

2.How does the Commission intend to improve the diversification of natural gas supply sources and routes, for example by promoting the implementation of the EastMed pipeline project?

3.Bearing in mind that Russia is using Türkiye to circumvent EU sanctions, is the Commission considering resuming the EU-Türkiye Energy Dialogue and under what conditions?

Submitted: 7.2.2025
Last updated: 19 February 2025
MIL OSI Europe News –
February 20, 2025
MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Illegal use of spyware in Serbia – P-000686/2025
Source: European Parliament
Priority question for written answer P-000686/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Vladimir Prebilič (Verts/ALE), Alexandra Geese (Verts/ALE)

A recent report by Amnesty International entitled ‘A Digital Prison: surveillance and the suppression of civil society in Serbia’ has revealed that Serbian authorities have engaged in widespread illegal surveillance practices by using spyware against activists, journalists and members of civil society.

These alarming revelations emerge at a time when Serbia is witnessing its largest protests in decades, fuelled by growing concerns over widespread corruption and the increasing authoritarianism of its government.

1.Is the Commission aware of the reported use of spyware and abuse of digital forensic tools targeting activists and journalists in Serbia and what steps, if any, has it taken so far?

2.What further actions, if any, is the Commission considering in response to these allegations and do these include the possibility of calling for an independent investigation and ensuring accountability?

3.To the Commission’s knowledge, has the EU been involved in the procurement of any equipment – such as forensic tools, software or other technologies – for Serbian institutions or agencies in the security sector that could potentially be misused to undermine or threaten human rights? If so, could it provide details on the EU’s involvement and specify which tools or technologies were procured?

Submitted: 13.2.2025
Last updated: 19 February 2025
MIL OSI Europe News –
February 20, 2025
MIL-OSI Europe: External pressures on judiciary in Bosnia and Herzegovina are unacceptable

Source: Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe – OSCE

Headline: External pressures on judiciary in Bosnia and Herzegovina are unacceptable

SARAJEVO, 19 February 2025 – The OSCE Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina reiterates the obligation of all elected and appointed authorities at all levels to respect independence and impartiality of the judiciary and reminds that interference in judicial matters, including political threats, are unacceptable and amount to a criminal offence.
Judicial independence is a cornerstone of the rule of law and a principle enshrined in the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and within OSCE commitments. Attempts by external actors to pressure or intimidate judges undermine the integrity of the legal system and pose a threat to security. Justice must apply to all equally and fairly, without fear or favour.
The Mission urges all political leaders and institutions to fully respect the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, uphold judicial independence, and refrain from attempting to exert any direct or indirect form of pressure or improper influence on judges.
Respect for democratic institutions and fair procedures best produce peaceful relations within a pluralistic society. The Mission remains ready to support all institutions and political actors in promoting good faith dialogue and co-operation in line with OSCE commitments.

MIL OSI Europe News –

February 20, 2025
MIL-OSI United Nations: Human Rights Council to Hold its Fifty-Eighth Regular Session from 24 February to 4 April 2025

Source: United Nations – Geneva

The United Nations Human Rights Council will hold its fifty-eighth regular session from 24 February to 4 April 2025 at the Palais des Nations in Geneva, starting with its high-level segment from 24 to 26 February, when dignitaries representing more than 100 Member States will address the Council.

The session will open at 9 a.m. on Monday, 24 February under the Presidency of Ambassador Jürg Lauber of Switzerland. Delivering statements at the opening will be the Secretary-General of the United Nations, António Guterres; the President of the United Nations General Assembly , Philemon Yang; the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk; as well as the Chief of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland, Ignazio Cassis. The Council will be meeting in room XX of the Palais des Nations.

On Monday, 3 March, the Council is scheduled to hear a global update by the High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights around the world. The general debate on his global update will start following his presentation of a number of country-specific reports and updates.

During the session, the Council will hold 30 interactive dialogues with the High Commissioner, his Office and designated experts, with Special Procedure mandate holders and investigative mechanisms, and with Special Representatives of the Secretary-General. The Council will also hold five enhanced interactive dialogues and one high-level dialogue, as well as nine general debates.

The Council will also hold the annual high-level panel discussion on human rights mainstreaming with a focus on the thirtieth anniversary of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action; the biennial high-level panel on the death penalty ; panel discussions on early warning and genocide, HIV response and leaving no one behind, and on rights to work and to social security ; the annual interactive debate on the rights of persons with disabilities; the annual discussion on the rights of the child; and a commemoration of the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

The Council will examine the situation of human rights in a number of countries under its various agenda items, including the situation in the occupied Palestinian territory, Eritrea, Sudan, South Sudan, Nicaragua, Afghanistan and Myanmar under agenda item two; in Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Ukraine, Belarus, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and Myanmar under agenda item four; and in Mali, Haiti, Ukraine, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, South Sudan and Central African Republic under agenda item 10.

The final outcomes of the Universal Periodic Review of 14 States will also be considered, namely those of Norway, Albania, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Portugal, Bhutan, Dominica, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Brunei Darussalam, Costa Rica, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Qatar and Nicaragua.

Towards the end of the session, the Council will appoint three new members of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

A detailed agenda and further information on the fifty-eighth session can be found on the session’s webpage . Reports to be presented are available here.

First Week of the Session

The fifty-eighth regular session will open at 9 a.m. on Monday, 24 February with a short opening meeting, followed by the start of the high-level segment, which will continue until 26 February, and during which the Council will hear addresses by more than 100 dignitaries. Intervening during the high-level segment will be the annual high-level panel discussion on human rights mainstreaming in the afternoon of 24 February and the biennial high-level panel on the death penalty in the morning of Tuesday, 25 February. The general segment will follow the conclusion of the high-level segment in the afternoon of Wednesday, 26 February.

On Thursday, 27 February, the Council will hold an interactive dialogue on the High Commissioner’s report on the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and the obligation to ensure accountability and justice, followed by enhanced interactive dialogues on the situation of human rights in Eritrea and on the High Commissioner’s report on Sudan, with the assistance of the designated Expert. Friday, 28 February, will see the conclusion of the discussion on Sudan, followed by an enhanced interactive dialogue on the report of the Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan. This will be followed by three interactive dialogues, the first on the report of the Group of Human Rights Experts on Nicaragua, the second with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan, and the third on the High Commissioner’s oral update on Myanmar.

Second Week of the Session

At the beginning of the second week, on the morning of Monday, 3 March, the Council will hear the High Commissioner’s global update, then conclude the interactive dialogue on the High Commissioner’s oral update on Myanmar. This will be followed by the presentation of reports on the activities of the Office of the High Commissioner in Colombia, Guatemala and Honduras, and of another report on Cyprus, and oral updates on Sri Lanka and Nicaragua. The Council will then begin the general debate under agenda item two, namely the annual report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and reports of the Office of the High Commissioner and the Secretary-General, which will conclude on Tuesday, 4 March. The Council will subsequently begin its considerations under agenda item three on the promotion and protection of all human rights, holding interactive dialogues with the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and with the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief.

On the morning of Wednesday, 5 March, the Council will hold a panel on early warning and genocide prevention, then conclude its interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief. This will be followed by an enhanced interactive dialogue on the report of the Office of the High Commissioner on transitional justice. Another panel will be held on Thursday, 6 March on HIV response and leaving no one behind, in addition to two interactive dialogues with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders and the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights. A third panel will be held in the morning of Friday, 7 March on rights to work and to social security, followed by two interactive dialogues with the Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing and the Independent Expert on the rights of persons with albinism.

Third Week of the Session

The Council will start its third week on Monday, 10 March with a focus on disability, beginning with an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities, to be followed by the annual debate on the rights of persons with disabilities. The day will conclude with an interactive dialogue with the Independent Expert on foreign debt, which will continue in the morning of Tuesday, 11 March. Two more interactive dialogues will also be held on Tuesday with the Special Rapporteur on the right to food and the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism.

Wednesday, 12 March will see a further three interactive dialogues with the Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy, and the Special Representatives of the Secretary-General on violence against children and on children and armed conflict, the latter of which will conclude on Thursday, 13 March. The focus on children will continue on Thursday, with the Council also holding its annual discussion on the rights of the child, the theme of which will be early childhood development, and starting an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, which will conclude on Friday, 14 March.

On Friday, an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the human right to a healthy environment will precede the presentation of reports by the open-ended intergovernmental working group on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights, the Secretary-General, the High Commissioner and his Office, followed by the start of the general debate on agenda item three.

Fourth Week of the Session

The first day of the Council’s fourth week, Monday 17 March, will be devoted to concluding the general debate on agenda item three. From Tuesday, 18 March, consideration of agenda item four, human rights situations that require the Council’s attention, will begin. First on the schedule is a joint interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur and the independent international fact-finding mission on the situation of human rights in Iran, followed by interactive dialogues with the independent international commission of inquiry on Syria, the fact-finding mission on Venezuela and the independent international commission of inquiry on Ukraine.

On Wednesday, 19 March, after the conclusion of the dialogue with the commission of inquiry on Ukraine, three more separate interactive dialogues will be held with the group of independent experts on the situation of human rights in Belarus and with the Special Rapporteurs on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and in Myanmar.

Thursday, 20 March, will see the Council hear the presentation of the High Commissioner’s report on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and his oral update of the situation of human rights in Venezuela. This will be followed by the general debate on agenda item four, which will conclude on the morning of Friday, 21 March. On Friday, the Council will also hold an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on minority issues, before beginning considerations under agenda item five on human rights bodies and mechanisms. After hearing the presentation of reports by the Forum on Minority Issues, the Social Forum, and the Special Procedures of the Council, it will commence the general debate on agenda item five.

Fifth Week of the Session

The Council will start its fifth week on Monday, 24 March with its consideration under agenda item six of the final outcomes of the Universal Periodic Reviews of 14 States: Norway, Albania, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Portugal, Bhutan, Dominica, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Brunei Darussalam, Costa Rica, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Qatar and Nicaragua. This consideration will continue through to the morning of Wednesday, 26 March, after which the Council will hold a general debate on agenda item six. This will be followed by the presentation of the reports of the High Commissioner and the Secretary-General under agenda item seven, namely the human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories, and the general debate on this agenda item. The general debate under agenda item eight – follow-up and implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action – is also scheduled to commence on Wednesday afternoon.

Ending racism will be the Council’s theme for Thursday, 27 March. After concluding the debate under agenda item eight, it will hear the presentation of the report of the intergovernmental working group on the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, then hold its general debate on agenda item nine, namely racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance, follow-up to and implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. From 2:30 to 4:30 p.m., the Council will also hold a meeting in commemoration of the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

Friday, 28 March will begin with the conclusion of the debate under agenda item nine, followed by three interactive dialogues conducted under agenda item 10 on technical assistance and capacity-building. The first dialogue will be with the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Mali; the second on the High Commissioner’s report on the situation of human rights in Haiti, with the participation of the Independent Expert on the subject; and the third on the High Commissioner’s oral update on the situation of human rights in Ukraine.

Sixth Week of the Session

Monday, 31 March is a United Nations holiday. On Tuesday, 1 April, the Council will hold an enhanced interactive dialogue on oral updates by the High Commissioner and by the team of international experts on the Democratic Republic of the Congo, followed by an interactive dialogue on the report of the Office of the High Commissioner on technical assistance and capacity building for South Sudan and a high-level dialogue on the Central African Republic. At the end of the day, the Council will hear the annual presentation of the High Commissioner on technical cooperation and his oral update on Georgia, and the presentation of the report of the Board of Trustees of the Voluntary Fund for Technical Cooperation, followed by the general debate on agenda item 10.

The general debate will conclude on Wednesday, 2 April, and the Council will then start to act on draft decisions and resolutions, appoint three new members of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and adopt the report of the fifty-eighth regular session, before closing the session on Friday, 4 April.

The Human Rights Council

The Human Rights Council is an inter-governmental body within the United Nations system, made up of 47 States, which is responsible for strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights around the globe. The Council was created by the United Nations General Assembly on 15 March 2006 with the main purpose of addressing situations of human rights violations and making recommendations on them.

The composition of the Human Rights Council at its fifty-eighth session is as follows: Albania (2026); Algeria (2025); Bangladesh (2025); Belgium (2025); Benin (2027); Bolivia (2027); Brazil (2026); Bulgaria (2026); Burundi (2026); Chile (2025); China (2026); Colombia (2027); Costa Rica (2025); Côte d’Ivoire (2026); Cuba (2026); Cyprus (2027); Czechia (2027); Democratic Republic of the Congo (2027); Dominican Republic (2026); Ethiopia (2027); France (2026); Gambia (2027); Georgia (2025); Germany (2025); Ghana (2026); Iceland (2027); Indonesia (2026); Japan (2026); Kenya (2027); Kuwait (2026); Kyrgyzstan (2025); Malawi (2026); Maldives (2025); Marshall Islands (2027); Mexico (2027); Morocco (2025); Netherlands (2026); North Macedonia (2027); Qatar (2027); Republic of Korea (2027); Romania (2025); South Africa (2025); Spain (2027); Sudan (2025); Switzerland (2027); Thailand (2027); and Viet Nam (2025).

The term of membership of each State expires in the year indicated in parentheses.

The President of the Human Rights Council in 2025 is Jürg Lauber (Switzerland). The four Vice-Presidents are Tareq Md Ariful Islam (Bangladesh), Razvan Rusu (Romania), Paul Empole Losoko Efambe (Democratic Republic of the Congo) and a fourth Vice-President to be elected later from the Group of Latin American and Caribbean States. Mr. Efambe will also serve as Rapporteur of the Geneva-based body.

The dates and venue of the fifty-eighth session are subject to change.

Information on the fifty-eighth session can be found here , including the annotated agenda and the reports to be presented.

For further information, please contact Pascal Sim (simp@un.org), Matthew Brown (matthew.brown@un.org) or David Díaz Martín (David.diazmartin@un.org)

___________

Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.

HRC.25.001E

MIL OSI United Nations News –

February 20, 2025
MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Protection of the rights of the Greek ethnic minority in Northern Epirus – E-002630/2024(ASW)
Source: European Parliament
The Commission attaches the highest importance to the respect of rule of law and fundamental rights, including the protection of minorities in Albania.

Through the enlargement process and the EU-Albania Stabilisation and Association Agreement[1], the Commission closely follows reforms on the rule of law and the strengthening and protection of the fundamental rights in Albania, including rights of persons belonging to minorities — matters that fall under the so-called fundamentals of the enlargement process .

The Commission assesses progress and provides policy recommendations in its annual report[2]. Moreover, as from 2024 Albania also participates in the annual Rule of Law Report[3], which assesses Albania’s progress on the protection of fundamental rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities.

[1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02009A0428%2802%29-20210901

[2] SWD(2024) 690 final , https://neighbourhood-enlargement.ec.europa.eu/document/download/a8eec3f9-b2ec-4cb1-8748-9058854dbc68_en?filename=Albania%20Report%202024.pdf

[3] SWD(2024) 828 final, https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/0154dce1-5026-45de-8b37-e3d56eff7925_en?filename=59_1_58088_coun_chap_albania_al.pdf
Last updated: 19 February 2025
MIL OSI Europe News –
February 20, 2025
MIL-OSI Europe: Greece financing from EIB Group totals €2.2 billion in 2024 with focus on energy supply, business growth and disaster preparedness
Source: European Investment Bank

EIB
- EIB Group’s fresh financing in Greece last year amounted to €2.2 billion
- Focus last year on energy supply, business growth and disaster management
- Latest annual results bring EIB Group support in Greece over past five years to €14.5 billion
The European Investment Bank (EIB) Group’s new financing in Greece amounted to €2.2 billion last year, with major support to bolster energy supplies, strengthen businesses and protect against environmental disasters in the country.

The total for 2024 included €2.03 billion from the EIB and portfolio guarantees of €152 million from the European Investment Fund (EIF), which focuses on innovative and technology-driven small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) as well as Small Mid-Caps in Europe.

Top operations included loans of €390 million to natural-gas supplier DEPA Commercial to build solar parks, €150 million to power provider HEDNO to upgrade the grid, loans and guarantees of €550 million to domestic banks to expand financing for SMEs and Mid-Caps and €220 million to the government to bolster disaster management.

Kostis Hatzidakis, Minister of Finance of the Hellenic Republic noted: “Greece’s relationship with the European Investment Bank is long-standing and strong. This was reaffirmed in 2024, with new financing reaching €2.2 billion. These funds will be used for investments in renewable energy sources, upgrades to the electricity grid, support for SMEs, and the purchase of firefighting aircraft and rescue equipment. The EIB was a valuable ally when Greece was cut off from the markets. It will remain a partner, but with a new approach. Going forward, priorities will focus on energy interconnections, research and technology, climate adaptation, and defense investments, as outlined in the EIB’s Strategic Roadmap”.

“Our work in Greece is a testament to the transformative power of strategic financing,” said EIB Vice-President Yannis Tsakiris. “In 2024, we reinforced our commitment to the country by supporting clean energy, climate resilience and critical infrastructure while strengthening SMEs, innovation, job creation and social cohesion.”

The latest annual results bring total EIB Group financing in Greece over the past five years to €14.5 billion. The yearly average in the country since 2000 is almost €2.9 billion, which reflects an unusually high sum of almost €5 billion in 2021 as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic.

The EIB Group’s support last year was almost 1% of Greece’s gross domestic product (GDP), the third-highest level among European Union countries behind only Croatia and Estonia. That means that EIB Group financing in Greece last year averaged €631 per inhabitant, making the country one of the biggest beneficiaries based on the size of the population and the economy. The funding is projected to catalyse investments in Greece of up to €6.6 billion – about 2.5% of its GDP.

Energy supply

The €390 million EIB loan to DEPA Commercial is for new photovoltaic (PV) parks in the regions of western Macedonia, Thessaly and central Greece. The sites will add approximately 800 megawatts (MW) of renewable energy – enough to power 278,000 households for a year.

Also in the area of clean energy, the EIB last year provided a €195 million loan to supplier PPC Renewables to develop 580 MW of solar plants and 175 MW of battery storage. The moves will boost renewables capacity, grid stability and energy security.

The €150 million EIB credit to HEDNO covers upgrades to Greece’s electricity-distribution network, improving grid reliability and facilitating integration of renewables.

The EIB last year also took part in the creation of an EU “Decarbonisation Fund” for Greece that will channel €1.6 billion in revenue from the European emissions-trading system into sustainable energy and development projects on Greek islands. These include grid interconnections with the mainland and the phase-out of local power plants.

Business boost

The EIB last year allocated a total €702 million to strengthen SMEs and Mid-Caps in Greece. The support – 28% of the total – took the form of intermediated loans and guarantees.

Top operations included €300 million guarantees to Eurobank and National Bank of Greece covering €600 million new loans to Mid-Caps. In addition, the EIB provided a €250 million loan to the National Bank of Greece to bolster green investments by Greek SMEs and Mid-Caps. The credit raised total EIB support for such investments in Greece to €1 billion.

The EIF also showed its agility in supporting vital investments for both debt and equity. It signed €152m with several of Greece’s financial institutions for capped portfolio guarantees. They are expected to mobilise up to €1,8bn in financing for small and medium-sized enterprises, while making the Greek economy greener, and supporting innovation and the country’s digital transition.

The EIF also signed a new €200 million equity mandate to support innovative companies in Life Sciences & Healthcare and Sustainability & Social Impact by improving their access to vital financing. Funded by Cohesion policy and national resources of the Hellenic Republic, the mandate will cover a financing gap in these sectors, supporting investments from pre-seed to growth stages based on market needs.

Disaster protection

The €220 million EIB loan last year to the Greek government is to buy fire trucks, rescue vehicles and aircraft needed to fight to natural disasters such as wildfires and floods, both of which have caused extensive damage in Greece in recent years. The credit also covers upgrades to essential disaster-management services.

The financing forms part of a European climate-adaptation plan by the EIB Group and brings its total support for Greek civil protection and disaster preparedness to €595 million.

EIB Advisory

There were also key technical assistance projects delivered from EIB Advisory, a highlight being an agreement with the Athens Water Supply and Sewerage Company (EYDAP) to back its €2 billion, 10-year investment programme to ensure the Greek capital has a more resilient water supply and supporting investments in lignite-dependent regions such as Western Macedonia and Megalopolis in the Peloponnese, facilitating their transition to a future of clean energy.

In December 2024, the continuation of advisory support by EIB advisors from the PASSA team to the Greek administration was approved. This support aims to ensure the smooth implementation of sustainable development and Just Transition projects financed by the EU.

Background information

EIB

The European Investment Bank (ElB) is the long-term lending institution of the European Union, owned by its Member States. Built around eight core priorities, , we finance investments that contribute to EU policy objectives by bolstering climate action and the environment, digitalisation and technological innovation, security and defence, cohesion, agriculture and bioeconomy, social infrastructure, important investments outside the EU, and the Capital Markets Union.

The EIB Group, which also includes the European Investment Fund (EIF), signed nearly €89 billion in new financing for over 900 high-impact projects in 2024, boosting Europe’s competitiveness and security.

All projects financed by the EIB Group are in line with the Paris Climate Agreement, as pledged in our Climate Bank Roadmap. Almost 60% of the EIB Group’s annual financing supports projects directly contributing to climate change mitigation, adaptation, and a healthier environment.

Fostering market integration and mobilising investment, the Group supported a record of over €100 billion in new investment for Europe’s energy security in 2024 and mobilised €110 billion in growth capital for startups, scale-ups and European pioneers

Approximately half of the EIB’s financing within the European Union is directed towards cohesion regions, where per capita income is lower than the EU average.

Greece financing from EIB Group totals €2.2 billion in 2024 with focus on energy supply, business growth and disaster preparedness
Greece financing from EIB Group totals €2.2 billion in 2024 with focus on energy supply, business growth and disaster preparedness
©EIB
Download original

Greece financing from EIB Group totals €2.2 billion in 2024 with focus on energy supply, business growth and disaster preparedness
Greece financing from EIB Group totals €2.2 billion in 2024 with focus on energy supply, business growth and disaster preparedness
©EIB
Download original

Greece financing from EIB Group totals €2.2 billion in 2024 with focus on energy supply, business growth and disaster preparedness
Greece financing from EIB Group totals €2.2 billion in 2024 with focus on energy supply, business growth and disaster preparedness
©EIB
Download original

Greece financing from EIB Group totals €2.2 billion in 2024 with focus on energy supply, business growth and disaster preparedness
Greece financing from EIB Group totals €2.2 billion in 2024 with focus on energy supply, business growth and disaster preparedness
©EIB
Download original

Greece financing from EIB Group totals €2.2 billion in 2024 with focus on energy supply, business growth and disaster preparedness
Greece financing from EIB Group totals €2.2 billion in 2024 with focus on energy supply, business growth and disaster preparedness
©EIB
Download original
MIL OSI Europe News –
February 20, 2025
MIL-OSI Europe: Commission allocates €99 million in emergency support to farmers in Spain, Croatia, Cyprus, Latvia and Hungary

Source: European Commission

European Commission Press release Brussels, 19 Feb 2025 Today, Member States gave a positive opinion to the Commission proposal to mobilise €98,6 million from the agricultural reserve to directly support farmers in Spain, Croatia, Cyprus, Latvia and Hungary who have been impacted by exceptional adverse climatic events and natural disasters since spring 2024.

MIL OSI Europe News –

February 20, 2025

MIL-OSI: Global-e Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2024 Results

Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

PETAH-TIKVA, Israel, Feb. 19, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Global-e Online Ltd. (Nasdaq: GLBE) the platform powering global direct-to-consumer e-commerce, today reported financial results for the fourth quarter of 2024 and full year 2024.

“2024 was yet another record-breaking year for Global-e, and it came to a great close with a fourth quarter which was our strongest quarter ever, as we continued to execute on our strategy and further solidify Global-e’s leadership position in the global e-commerce space,” said Amir Schlachet, Founder and CEO of Global-e. “In addition, we achieved two important financial milestones during the quarter. For the first time in our journey, we crossed the 20% Adjusted EBITDA Margin mark, which was the long-term target we set for ourselves at the IPO, and we reached GAAP profitability for the first time as a public company; a testament to our relentless focus on delivering fast yet durable growth.”

“As we head into 2025, we remain as committed as ever to continue on our growth path, deliver more cutting-edge and market-leading solutions to our merchants and seize more and more of the great opportunities that lie ahead of us in the world of global e-commerce. In 2025, we also expect to achieve three additional key financial milestones: surpass the 20% Adjusted EBITDA Margin mark on a full year basis, achieve annual GAAP profitability, and most importantly, for the first time, cross an annual run-rate of $1 billion in Revenues.”

Q4 2024 Financial Results

GMV¹ in the fourth quarter of 2024 was $1,713 million, an increase of 44% year over year
Revenue in the fourth quarter of 2024 was $262.9 million, an increase of 42% year over year, of which service fees revenue was $117.3 million and fulfillment services revenue was $145.6 million
Non-GAAP gross profit² in the fourth quarter of 2024 was $120.9 million, an increase of 53% year over year. GAAP gross profit in the fourth quarter of 2024 was $118.7 million
Non-GAAP gross margin² in the fourth quarter of 2024 was 46%, an increase of 330 basis points from 42.7% in the fourth quarter of 2023. GAAP gross margin in the fourth quarter of 2024 was 45.1%
Adjusted EBITDA³ in the fourth quarter of 2024 was $57.1 million compared to $35.2 million in the fourth quarter of 2023, an increase of 62% year over year
Net profit in the fourth quarter of 2024 was $1.5 million
Net cash provided by operating activities in the fourth quarter of 2024 was $129.3 million, while capital expenditures totaled $0.5 million, leading to free cash flow of $128.8 million

FY 2024 Financial Results

GMV¹ for the full year was $4,858 million, an increase of 37% year over year
Revenue for the full year was $752.8 million, an increase of 32% year over year, of which service fees revenue was $350.3 million and fulfillment services revenue was $402.5 million
Non-GAAP gross profit² for the full year was $349.4 million, an increase of 43% year over year. GAAP gross profit for the full year was $339.4 million
Non-GAAP gross margin² for the full year was 46.4%, an increase of 350 basis points from 42.9% in 2023. GAAP gross margin for the full year was 45.1%
Adjusted EBITDA³ for the full year was $140.8 million compared to $92.7 million in 2023, an increase of 51.8% year over year
Net loss for the full year was $75.5 million
Net cash provided by operating activities in the full year was $169.4 million, while capital expenditures totaled $2.3 million, leading to free cash flow of $167.1 million

Recent Business Highlights

Throughout 2024, our existing merchant base continued to stay and grow with us, as reflected in our annual enterprise NDR rate of 119% and GDR rate of 93.5%. GDR and NDR were negatively impacted by the out of the ordinary bankruptcy of Ted Baker and by several Borderfree merchants that chose not to re-platform to the Global-e platform. NDR and GDR excluding the out of the ordinary churn for 2024 is close to 123% and 97%, respectively
Recently launched with Logitech, one of the world’s largest and most innovative providers of computer peripherals and input devices, gaming accessories, audio and video gear and smart home device
On-boarded many additional new merchants located around the globe and trading in various verticals, including:
- North America – shapewear brand Spanx, Thursday Boots, and the web store of famous fashion designer Tom Ford
- UK and Europe – Spanish brand Tous, Italian fashion brand Slowear, UK footwear brand Phoebe Philo, German brand IvyOak, Swiss running gear brand Compressport, famous Austrian lingerie brand Triumph, French brands ZAPA and MOLLI, and the Finish brand HURTTA
- APAC – Japanese brands Komehyo, one of Japan’s largest retailers of second-hand goods, Kyoto-based wristwatch brand Kuoe, novelty brands Mofusand and Taito, and the tailored shirt brand Kamakura Shirts, as well as the renowned Korean cosmetics brand Depology, and Australian fashion brands Zoe Kratzmann and SECONDLEFT
Expanded to new lanes with existing merchants – added Romania and Croatia to the markets we operate for Adidas, went live with a new outlet site for John Smedley, and added Strellson, the third brand to go live with us out of the Swiss Holy Fashion Group
Shopify Managed Markets – continued joint work with Shopify to add new features and functionalities to the Managed Markets offering, aimed at making it applicable to a wider range of merchants on the Shopify platform

Q1 2025 and Full Year Outlook

Global-e is introducing first quarter and full year guidance as follows:

	Q12025	FY 2025
	(in millions)
GMV⁽¹⁾	$1,210 – $1,250	$6,190 – $6,490
Revenue	$184.5 – $191.5	$917 – $967
Adjusted EBITDA⁽³⁾	$29.5 – $33.5	$179 – $199

¹ Gross Merchandise Value (GMV) is a key operating metric. See “Non-GAAP Financial Measures and Key Operating Metrics” for additional information regarding this metric.
² Non-GAAP Gross profit and Non-GAAP gross margin are non-GAAP financial measures. See “Non-GAAP Financial Measures and Key Operating Metrics” for additional information regarding this metric.
³ Adjusted EBITDA is a non-GAAP financial measure. See “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” for additional information regarding this metric, including the reconciliations to Operating Profit (Loss), its most directly comparable GAAP financial measure. The Company is unable to provide a reconciliation of Adjusted EBITDA to Operating Profit (Loss), its most directly comparable GAAP financial measure, on a forward-looking basis without unreasonable effort because items that impact this GAAP financial measure are not within the Company’s control and/or cannot be reasonably predicted. These items may include, but are not limited to, share-based compensation expenses. Such information may have a significant, and potentially unpredictable impact on the Company’s future financial results.

Conference Call Information

Global-e will host a conference call at 8:00 a.m. ET on Wednesday, February 19, 2025.
The call will be available, live, to interested parties by dialing:

United States/Canada Toll Free:	1-800-717-1738
International Toll:	1-646-307-1865

A live webcast will also be available in the Investor Relations section of Global-e’s website at: https://investors.global-e.com/news-events/events-presentations

Approximately two hours after completion of the live call, an archived version of the webcast will be available on the Investor Relations section of the Company’s web site and will remain available for approximately 30 calendar days.

Non-GAAP Financial Measures and Key Operating Metrics

To supplement Global-e’s financial information presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America, or GAAP, Global-e considers certain financial measures and key performance metrics that are not prepared in accordance with GAAP including:

Non-GAAP gross profit, which Global-e defines as gross profit adjusted for amortization of acquired intangibles. Non-GAAP gross margin is calculated as Non-GAAP gross profit divided by revenues
Adjusted EBITDA, which Global-e defines as operating profit (loss) adjusted for stock-based compensation expenses, depreciation and amortization, commercial agreements amortization, amortization of acquired intangibles and merger related contingent consideration.
Free cash flow, which Global-e defines as net cash provided by operating activities less purchase of property and equipment.

Global-e also uses Gross Merchandise Value (GMV) as a key operating metric. Gross Merchandise Value or GMV is defined as the combined amount we collect from the shopper and the merchant for all components of a given transaction, including products, duties and taxes and shipping.

The aforementioned key performance indicators and non-GAAP financial measures are used, in conjunction with GAAP measures, by management and our board of directors to assess our performance, including the preparation of Global-e’s annual operating budget and quarterly forecasts, for financial and operational decision-making, to evaluate the effectiveness of Global-e’s business strategies, and as a means to evaluate period-to-period comparisons. These measures are frequently used by analysts, investors and other interested parties to evaluate companies in our industry. We believe that these non-GAAP financial measures are appropriate measures of operating performance because they remove the impact of certain items that we believe do not directly reflect our core operations, and permit investors to view performance using the same tools that we use to budget, forecast, make operating and strategic decisions, and evaluate historical performance.

Global-e’s definition of Non-GAAP measures may differ from the definition used by other companies and therefore comparability may be limited. In addition, other companies may not publish these metrics or similar metrics. Furthermore, these metrics have certain limitations in that they do not include the impact of certain expenses that are reflected in our consolidated statement of operations that are necessary to run our business. Thus, Non-GAAP measures should be considered in addition to, not as substitutes for, or in isolation from, measures prepared in accordance with GAAP.

For more information on the non-GAAP financial measures, please see the reconciliation tables provided below. The accompanying reconciliation tables have more details on the GAAP financial measures that are most directly comparable to non-GAAP financial measures and the related reconciliations between these financial measures.

Cautionary Note Regarding Forward Looking Statements

This press release contains estimates and forward-looking statements within the meaning of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. We intend such forward-looking statements to be covered by the safe harbor provisions for forward-looking statements as contained in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). All statements contained in this press release other than statements of historical fact, including, without limitation, statements regarding our future strategy and projected revenue, GMV, Adjusted EBITDA and other future financial and operational results, growth strategy and plans and objectives of management for future operations, including, among others, expansion in new and existing markets, the launch of large enterprise merchants, and our ongoing partnership with Shopify, are forward-looking statements. As the words “may,” “might,” “will,” “could,” “would,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “target,” “seek,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential,” “continue,” “contemplate,” “possible” or the negative of these terms or other similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements, though not all forward-looking statements use these words or expressions. Forward-looking statements are predictions, projections and other statements about future events that are based on current expectations and assumptions and, as a result, are subject to risks and uncertainties. Global-e believes there is a reasonable basis for its expectations and beliefs, but they are inherently uncertain. Many factors could cause actual future events to differ materially from the forward-looking statements in this announcement, including but not limited to, our rapid growth and growth rates in recent periods may not be indicative of future growth; the ability to retain merchants or the GMV generated by such merchants; the ability to retain existing, and attract new merchants; our business acquisitions and ability to effectively integrate acquired businesses; our ability to anticipate merchant needs or develop or acquire new functionality or enhance our existing platforms to meet those needs; our ability to implement and use artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies successfully; our ability to compete in our industry; our reliance on third-parties, including our ability to realize the benefits of any strategic alliances, joint ventures, or partnership arrangements and to integrate our platforms with third-party platforms; our ability to develop or maintain the functionality of our platforms, including real or perceived errors, failures, vulnerabilities, or bugs in our platforms; our history of net losses; our ability to manage our growth and manage expansion into additional markets; increased attention to ESG matters and our ability to manage such matters; our ability to accommodate increased volumes during peak seasons and events; our ability to effectively expand our marketing and sales capabilities; our expectations regarding our revenue, expenses and operations; our ability to operate internationally; our reliance on third-party services, including third-party providers of cross-docking services and third-party data centers, in our platforms and services and harm to our reputation by our merchants’ or third-party service providers’ unethical business practices; our ability to adapt to changes in mobile devices, systems, applications, or web browsers that may degrade the functionality of our platforms; our operation as a merchant of record for sales conducted using our platform; regulatory requirements and additional fees related to payment transactions through our e-commerce platforms could be costly and difficult to comply with; compliance and third-party risks related to anti-money laundering, anti-corruption, anti-bribery, regulations, economic sanctions and export control laws and import regulations and restrictions; our business’s reliance on the personal importation model; our ability to securely store personal information of merchants and shoppers; increases in shipping rates; fluctuations in the exchange rate of foreign currencies has impacted and could continue to impact our results of operations; our ability to offer high quality support; our ability to expand the number of merchants using our platforms and increase our GMV and to enhance our reputation and awareness of our platforms; our dependency on the continued use of the internet for commerce; our ability to adapt to emerging or evolving regulatory developments, changing laws, regulations, standards and technological changes related to privacy, data protection, data security and machine learning technology and generative artificial intelligence evolves; the effect of the situation in Ukraine on our business, financial condition and results of operations; our role in the fulfilment chain of the merchants, which may cause third parties to confuse us with the merchants; our ability to establish and protect intellectual property rights; and our use of open-source software which may pose particular risks to our proprietary software technologies; our dependency on our executive officers and other key employees and our ability to hire and retain skilled key personnel, including our ability to enforce non-compete agreements we enter into with our employees; litigation for a variety of claims which we may be subject to; the adoption by merchants of a direct to consumer model; our anticipated cash needs and our estimates regarding our capital requirements and our needs for additional financing; our ability to maintain our corporate culture; our ability to maintain an effective system of disclosure controls and internal control over financial reporting; our ability to accurately estimate judgments relating to our critical accounting policies; changes in tax laws or regulations to which we are subject, including the enactment of legislation implementing changes in taxation of international business activities and the adoption of other corporate tax reform policies; requirements to collect sales or other taxes relating to the use of our platforms and services in jurisdictions where we have not historically done so; global events such as war, health pandemics, climate change, macroeconomic events and the recent economic slowdown; risks relating to our ordinary shares, including our share price, the concentration of our share ownership with insiders, our status as a foreign private issuer, provisions of Israeli law and our amended and restated articles of association and actions of activist shareholders; risks related to our incorporation and location in Israel, including risks related to the ongoing war and related hostilities; and the other risks and uncertainties described in Global-e’s Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the SEC on March 28, 2024 and other documents filed with or furnished by Global-e from time to time with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). The foregoing list of factors is not exhaustive. You should carefully consider the foregoing factors. These filings identify and address other important risks and uncertainties that could cause actual events and results to differ materially from those contained in the forward-looking statements. These statements reflect management’s current expectations regarding future events and operating performance and speak only as of the date of this press release. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made. Readers are cautioned not to put undue reliance on forward-looking statements Although we believe that the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, we cannot guarantee that future results, levels of activity, performance and events and circumstances reflected in the forward-looking statements will be achieved or will occur. We undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statements made in this press release to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this press release or to reflect new information or the occurrence of unanticipated events, except as required by law. We may not actually achieve the plans, intentions or expectations disclosed in our forward-looking statements, and you should not place undue reliance on our forward-looking statements.

About Global-E Online Ltd.

Global-e (Nasdaq: GLBE) is the world’s leading platform enabling and accelerating global, Direct-To-Consumer e-commerce. The chosen partner of over 1,000 brands and retailers across the United States, EMEA and APAC, Global-e makes selling internationally as simple as selling domestically. The company enables merchants to increase the conversion of international traffic into sales by offering online shoppers in over 200 destinations worldwide a seamless, localized shopping experience. Global-e’s end-to-end e-commerce solutions combine best-in-class localization capabilities, big-data best-practice business intelligence models, streamlined international logistics and vast global e-commerce experience, enabling international shoppers to buy seamlessly online and retailers to sell to, and from, anywhere in the world. For more information, please visit: www.global-e.com.

Investor Contact:
Erica Mannion or Mike Funari
Sapphire Investor Relations, LLC
IR@global-e.com
+1 617-542-6180

Press Contact:
Sarah Schloss
Headline Media
Globale@headline.media
+1 786-233-7684

Global-E Online Ltd. CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS (In thousands)
	Period Ended
	December 31,			December 31,
	2023			2024
				(Unaudited)
Assets
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	200,081		$	250,773
Short-term deposits		96,939			187,322
Accounts receivable, net		27,841			41,171
Prepaid expenses and other current assets		63,967			84,613
Marketable securities		20,403			36,345
Funds receivable, including cash in banks		111,232			122,984
Total current assets		520,463			723,208
Property and equipment, net		10,236			10,440
Operating lease right-of-use assets		23,052			24,429
Long term deposits		3,552			3,786
Deferred contract acquisition costs, noncurrent		2,668			3,787
Other assets, noncurrent		4,078			4,527
Commercial agreement asset	192,721				66,527
Goodwill		367,566			367,566
Intangible assets		78,024			59,212
Total long-term assets		681,897			540,274
Total assets	$	1,202,360		$	1,263,482
Liabilities and Shareholders’ Equity
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable	$	50,943		$	79,559
Accrued expenses and other current liabilities		107,306			141,551
Funds payable to Customers		111,232			122,984
Short term operating lease liabilities		4,031			4,347
Total current liabilities		273,512			348,441
Long-term liabilities:
Deferred tax liabilities		6,507			–
Long term operating lease liabilities		19,291			20,510
Other long-term liabilities		1,071			1,098
Total liabilities	$	300,381		$	370,049

Shareholders’ deficit:
Share capital and additional paid-in capital		1,360,250			1,425,317
Accumulated comprehensive income		(1,420	)		515
Accumulated deficit		(456,851	)		(532,399	)
Total shareholders’ (deficit) equity		901,979			893,433
Total liabilities and shareholders’ equity	$	1,202,360		$	1,263,482

Global-E Online Ltd. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS (In thousands, except share and per share data)
	Three Months Ended						Year Ended
	December 31,						December 31,
	2023			2024			2023			2024
	(Unaudited)										(Unaudited)
Revenue	$	185,401		$	262,912		$	569,946		$	752,764
Cost of revenue		109,080			144,253			336,343			413,331
Gross profit		76,321			118,659			233,603			339,433

Operating expenses:
Research and development		25,169			28,284			97,568			105,487
Sales and marketing		58,756			70,936			217,035			250,661
General and administrative		15,451			14,257			56,059			51,213
Total operating expenses, net		99,376			113,477			370,662			407,361
Operating profit (loss)		(23,055	)		5,182			(137,059	)		(67,928	)
Financial expenses (income), net		(5,010	)		6,073			(5,262	)		11,465
Loss before income taxes		(18,045	)		(891	)		(131,797	)		(79,393	)
Income tax (benefit) expenses		4,055			(2,400	)		2,008			(3,845	)
Net profit (loss) attributable to ordinary shareholders	$	(22,100	)	$	1,509		$	(133,805	)	$	(75,548	)
Net profit (loss) per share attributable to ordinary shareholders, basic	$	(0.13	)	$	0.01		$	(0.81	)	$	(0.45	)
Net profit (loss) per share attributable to ordinary shareholders, diluted	$	(0.13	)	$	0.01		$	(0.81	)	$	(0.45	)
Weighted-average shares used in computing net loss per share attributable to ordinary shareholders, basic		165,626,904			168,419,800			164,353,909			167,323,350
Weighted-average shares used in computing net loss per share attributable to ordinary shareholders, diluted		165,626,904			175,674,929			164,353,909			167,323,350

Global-E Online Ltd. CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (In thousands)
	Three Months Ended						Year Ended
	December 31,						December 31,
	2023			2024			2023					2024
	(Unaudited)											(Unaudited)
Operating activities
Net profit (loss)	$	(22,100	)	$	1,509		$		(133,805	)		$	(75,548		)
Adjustments to reconcile net profit (loss) to net cash provided by operating activities:
Depreciation and amortization		489			547				1,788				2,131
Share-based compensation expenses		12,180			9,538				44,960				39,158
Commercial agreement asset		37,433			37,433				150,451				148,594
Amortization of intangible assets		5,091			4,402				20,434				18,812
Unrealized loss (gain) on foreign currency		(3,011	)		3,554				(1,901	)			4,468
Changes in accrued interest and exchange rate on short-term deposits		72			(1,373	)			(416	)			(1,329		)
Changes in accrued interest and exchange rate on long-term deposits		(144	)		364				(255	)			200
Accounts receivable		(14,390	)		15,925				(11,417	)			(13,330		)
Prepaid expenses and other assets		61			(24,164	)			(11,736	)			(18,019		)
Funds receivable		(9,038	)		8,726				(11,074	)			(3,205		)
Long-term receivables		(1,497	)		51				(339	)		551
Funds payable to customers		40,817			2,564				33,107				11,752
Operating lease ROU assets		786			991				3,230				3,691
Deferred contract acquisition costs		(772	)		(322	)			(1,207	)			(1,382		)
Accounts payable		18,438			37,176				(1,277	)			28,617
Accrued expenses and other liabilities		25,345			35,945				30,625				34,272
Deferred taxes		3,635			(2,592	)			120				(6,507		)
Operating lease liabilities		99			(987	)			(3,067	)			(3,533		)
Net cash provided by operating activities		93,494			129,287				108,222				169,393
Investing activities
Investment in marketable securities		(851	)		(18,331	)			(3,728	)			(21,128		)
Proceeds from marketable securities	–				2,028			671						4,988
Investment in short-term deposits		(43,250	)		(77,848	)			(175,237	)			(269,601		)
Proceeds from short-term deposits		34,318			22,298				125,068				180,548
Purchases of long-term investments		(4	)		(307	)			(82	)			(1,459		)
Proceeds from long-term deposits		10			24				10				24
Purchases of property and equipment		(926	)		(482	)			(1,741)				(2,335		)
Net cash used in investing activities		(10,703	)		(72,618	)			(55,039	)			(108,963		)
Financing activities
Proceeds from exercise of Warrants to ordinary shares		–		3					22		5
Proceeds from exercise of share options		244			1,632				1,969				3,271
Net cash provided by financing activities		244			1,635				1,991				3,276
Exchange rate differences on balances of cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash		3,011			(3,554	)			1,901				(4,468		)
Net Increase in cash, cash equivalents, and restricted cash		86,046			54,750				57,075				59,238
Cash and cash equivalents and restricted cash—beginning of period		182,551			273,086				211,522				268,597
Cash and cash equivalents and restricted cash—end of period	$	268,597		$	327,835		$		268,597			$	327,835

Global-E Online Ltd. SELECTED OTHER DATA (In thousands)
	Three Months Ended									Year Ended
	December 31,									December 31,
	2023					2024				2023					2024
	(Unaudited)									(Unaudited)
Key performance metrics
Gross Merchandise Value		1,189,467					1,712,903				3,557,444					4,857,970
Adjusted EBITDA (a)		35,178					57,102				92,735					140,767

Revenue by Category
Service fees		89,936		49	%		117,268	45	%		262,255		46	%		350,311	47	%
Fulfillment services		95,465		51	%		145,644	55	%		307,692		54	%		402,453	53	%
Total revenue	$	185,401		100	%	$	262,912	100	%	$	569,946		100	%	$	752,764	100	%

Revenue by merchant outbound region
United States		94,887		51	%		146,250	56	%		285,619		50	%		399,596	53	%
United Kingdom		54,962		30	%		55,807	21	%		173,584		30	%		182,904	24	%
European Union		29,421		16	%		44,469	17	%		92,566		16	%		125,547	17	%
Israel		479		0	%		1,671	1	%		1,806		0	%		2,746	0	%
Other	5,652		3		%		14,715	5	%	16,371		3		%		41,971	6	%
Total revenue	$	185,401		100	%	$	262,912	100	%	$	569,946		100	%	$	752,764	100	%

(a) See reconciliation to adjusted EBITDA table

Global-E Online Ltd. RECONCILIATION TO Non-GAAP GROSS PROFIT (In thousands)
		Three Months Ended				Year Ended
		December 31,				December 31,
		2023		2024		2023		2024
	(Unaudited)
Gross Profit			76,321		118,659		233,603		339,433

Amortization of acquired intangibles included in cost of revenue			2,796		2,198		11,183		9,994
Non-GAAP gross profit			79,117		120,857		244,786		349,427

Global-E Online Ltd. RECONCILIATION TO ADJUSTED EBITDA (In thousands)
	Three Months Ended					Year Ended
	December 31,					December 31,
	2023			2024		2023			2024
	(Unaudited)
Operating profit (loss)		(23,055	)		5,182		(137,059	)		(67,928	)
(1) Stock-based compensation:
Cost of revenue		186			275		639			929
Research and development		6,962			4,153		26,266			17,291
Selling and marketing		1,238			1,528		4,259			5,836
General and administrative		3,794			3,582		13,796			15,102
Total stock-based compensation		12,180			9,538		44,960			39,158

(2) Depreciation and amortization		489			547		1,788			2,131

(3) Commercial agreement asset amortization	37,433				37,433	150,451				148,594

(4) Amortization of acquired intangibles	5,091				4,402	20,434				18,812

(5) Merger related contingent consideration	3,040				–	12,161				–

Adjusted EBITDA		35,178			57,102		92,735			140,767

Global-E Online Ltd. RECONCILIATION TO FREE CASH FLOW (In thousands)
		Three Months Ended						Year Ended
		December 31,						December 31,
		2023			2024			2023			2024
	(Unaudited)
Net cash provided by operating activities			93,434			129,287			108,222			169,393
Less:
Purchase of property and equipment			(926	)		(482	)		(1,741	)		(2,335	)
Free cash flow			92,508			128,805			106,481			167,058

The MIL Network –

February 20, 2025

MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Change of His Majesty’s Ambassador to Somalia: Charles King

Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

Mr Charles King has been appointed His Majesty’s Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Somalia.

Charles King

Mr Charles King has been appointed His Majesty’s Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Somalia in succession to Mr Michael Nithavrianakis MVO. Mr King will take up his appointment during May 2025.

Curriculum Vitae

Full name: Charles Nicholas King

Year	Role
2023 to 2024	FCDO, Joint Head of Israel/OPTs Gaza Taskforce
2020 to 2023	FCDO, Head of Levant and North Africa Department and UK Special Representative for Syria
2017 to 2020	Paris, Counsellor, Foreign Policy and Strategic Affairs
2015 to 2016	FCO, Chief of Staff to Jonathan Powell, PM’s Special Representative for Libya
2012 to 2015	Istanbul, Head of Syria Office
2010 to 2012	FCO, Head of Afghanistan Reconciliation and Regional Team
2009 to 2010	Baghdad, Deputy Head of Political Section
2008 to 2009	Damascus, Second Secretary Political/Economic
2007 to 2008	Cairo, Arabic language training
2006 to 2007	FCO, Head of Africa/Middle East Consular Casework Team
2004 to 2006	FCO, Deputy Head of EU Accessions Bill Team and Desk Officer for Romania and Bulgaria
2004	Joined FCO

Media enquiries

Email newsdesk@fcdo.gov.uk

Telephone 020 7008 3100

Contact the FCDO Communication Team via email (monitored 24 hours a day) in the first instance, and we will respond as soon as possible.

Published 19 February 2025

MIL OSI United Kingdom –

February 20, 2025

MIL-OSI: Enlight Renewable Energy Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2024 Financial Results

Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

All of the amounts disclosed in this press release are in U.S. dollars unless otherwise noted

TEL AVIV, Israel, Feb. 19, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Enlight Renewable Energy Ltd. (NASDAQ: ENLT, TASE: ENLT) today reported financial results for the fourth quarter and full year ending December 31, 2024. The Company’s earnings conference call and webcast will be held today at 8:00 AM ET. Registration links to both the call and the webcast can be found at the end of this earnings release.

Financial Highlights

Full year 2024

Revenues and income of $399m, up 53% year over year
Adjusted EBITDA¹ of $289m, up 49% year over year
Net income of $67m, down 32% year over year
Cash flow from operations of $193, up 29% year over year

3 months ending December 31, 2024

Revenues and income of $104m, up 35% year over year
Adjusted EBITDA¹ of $65m, up 31% year over year
Net income of $8m, down 48% year over year
Cash flow from operations of $36m, up 49% year over year

________________________
_{¹ The Company is unable to provide a reconciliation of Adjusted EBITDA to Net Income on a forward-looking basis without unreasonable effort because items that impact this IFRS financial measure are not within the Company’s control and/or cannot be reasonably predicted. Please refer to the reconciliation table in Appendix 2}

	For the twelve months ended				For the three months ended
($ millions)	31/12/2024	31/12/2023	% change	31/12/2024		31/12/2023	% change
Revenue and Income	399	261	53%	104		77	35%
Net Income	67	98	(32%)	8		16	(48%)
Adjusted EBITDA	289	194	49%	65		50	31%
Cash Flow from Operating Activities	193	150	29%	36		24	49%

In 2023 the net income contained substantial one-time items
A detailed analysis of financial results appears below

2024 Guidance vs Actual Results

Reported revenues and income for 2024 was 15% higher than the Company’s original guidance at the midpoint.
Reported Adjusted EBITDA for 2024 was 18% higher than the Company’s original guidance at the midpoint.

_{Revenues and Income and Adjusted EBITDA includes $21m of U.S. tax benefits}

“We are proud to conclude 2024 with outstanding financial results that surpassed both our targets and analysts’ forecasts,” said Gilad Yavetz, CEO of Enlight Renewable Energy.

“Enlight continues to grow thanks to its diversified and innovative operations, spanning three continents and employing the three main technologies of the industry: solar, wind, and energy storage.

“The year 2025 represents another leap forward for us, as a massive capacity of 4.7 FGW – with a total investment of $5.5bn – will be under various stages of construction. Together with the Company’s operating portfolio, this will secure approximately 90% of the Company’s ambitious growth plan: to reach operating capacity of 8.6 FGW by the end of 2027. This plan will bring Enlight to an annual revenue rate of over $1bn by 2028, tripling the business in just three years.

“We expect that the average return on equity for the vast asset portfolio that will become operational by 2027 will exceed 15%. Our three-year growth plan is already reflected in our 2025 guidance: we project revenues and income in the range of $490-510 million and Adjusted EBITDA in the range of $360-380 million, a 25% increase.”

Portfolio Review

Enlight’s total portfolio is comprised of 20 GW of generation capacity and 35.8 GWh storage (30.2 FGW²)
Of this, the Mature portfolio component (including operating projects, projects under construction or pre-construction) contains 6.1 GW generation capacity and 8.6 GWh of storage (8.6 FGW)
Within the Mature portfolio component, the operating component has 2.5 GW of generation capacity and 1.9 GWh of storage (3.0 FGW)

The full composition of the portfolio appears in the following table:

Component	Status	FGW²		Annual recurring revenues ($m)³
Operating	Commercial operation	3.0			~500⁴
Under Construction	Under construction	1.8			~175
Pre-Construction	0-12 months to start of construction	3.8			~385
Total Mature Portfolio	Mature	8.6	1,060~
Advanced Development	13-24 months to start of construction	7	–
Development	2+ years to start of construction	14.7	–
Total Portfolio		30.2	–

________________________
_{² FGW (Factored GW) is a consolidated metric combining generation and storage capacity into a uniform figure based on the ratio of construction costs. The company’s current weighted average construction cost ratio is 3.5 GWh of storage per 1 GW of generation: FGW = GW + GWh / 3.5³ Does not include income from tax benefits for under construction and pre-construction projects.}
_{⁴ Based on the midpoint of 2025 guidance.}

Operating component of the portfolio: 3 FGW
- Start of commercial operations of 1.1 FGW in 2024, including projects Atrisco in the U.S., Pupin and Tapolca in Europe, the Israel Solar and Storage Cluster in MENA. These additions contribute approximately $100m to the annual revenue run rate.

Under Construction component of the portfolio: 1.8 FGW
- Consists of three projects in the U.S. with a total capacity of 1.4 FGW; the Gecama Solar project in Spain with a capacity of 0.3 FGW; and a solar and storage cluster in Israel. 35% of the cluster is expected to reach operations in 2025, with the rest commissioning in 2026.
- Projects under construction are expected to contribute $175m to the annual revenue run rate during their first full year of operation.

Pre-construction component of the portfolio: 3.8 FGW
- Two mega projects in the U.S., Snowflake and CO Bar, with a combined capacity of 2.6 FGW will begin construction in 2025 and are expected to contribute $246m to revenues on an annualized basis.
- Nardo, a stand alone storage project in Italy with a capacity of 0.25 FGW, is expected to begin construction in 2H25 and contribute $31m to revenues on an annualized basis.

Advanced Development component of the portfolio component: 7 FGW
- 5.3 FGW in the U.S., with 100% of the capacity having passed completion of the System Impact Study, the most important study of the grid connection process, significantly de-risking the portfolio.
- The U.S. portfolio includes several mega-projects and follow-ons to Mature projects, such as Cedar Island (1.4 FGW), Snowflake B (1.2 FGW), and Atrisco 2 (0.7 FGW).
- These projects reflect the Company’s “Connect and Expand” strategy, leveraging existing grid infrastructure with the development of new ones, thereby reducing construction costs and project risks while improving project returns.
- 0.7 FGW in Europe, focused on Italy, Spain, and Croatia.
- 1 FGW in MENA, focused on solar and storage projects and stand alone storage facilities, including approximately 0.5 FGW that won availability tariffs as part of the Israel Electricity Authority’s first high voltage storage availability tariff tender.

Development component of the portfolio: 14.7 FGW
- 10 FGW in the U.S. with broad geographic presence, including the PJM, WECC, SPP and MISO regions.
- 2.7 FGW in Europe, focused on Italy, Spain, Croatia and entry into stand-alone storage operations in Poland.
- 2 FGW in MENA, focused on solar combined storage projects and stand alone storage facilities.

Projected COD Timeline for the Mature Portfolio⁵

________________________
_{⁵ Additional projects currently classified in the Advanced Development portfolio are expected to reach commercial operation by 2027, however they are not included in this forecast}

Mature Portfolio Components Expected to Generate Annualized Revenues of Over $1bn⁶

All the projects in the plan are expected to be completed by the end of 2027

________________________
_{⁶ The projection is based on 2025 guidance, and only includes additional revenue growth from the sale of electricity from projects under construction and in pre-construction status.}

Financing Activities

Financial closings totaling $1.1bn in Europe and the US occurred during 2024, supporting the construction of projects with 470 MW and 2,100 MWh capacity.
Expansion of Series D bonds totaling $178m to finance the Company’s growth.
Sale of 44% of the Sunlight cluster for $50m cash at a valuation of $114m, generating a profit of up to $94m to be recognized in the first quarter of 2025. The cluster represents approximately 1% of the Company’s total portfolio.
As of the date of this report, the Company maintains $350m of revolving credit facilities, of which $70m have been drawn.

2025 Guidance

Construction and commissioning

Expected commissioning of 440 MW and 1.1 GWh of capacity, which is expected to add approximately $130m to annualized revenues and $105m annualized EBITDA, starting in 2026.
Starting construction on 1.8 GW and 3.9 GWh of capacity, which is expected to add over $300m in annualized revenues and over $250m in annualized EBITDA gradually through 2026-2027.

Financial guidance

Total revenues and income⁷ are expected to range between $490m and $510m, a 25% increase (from the midpoint) from 2024 results. Of the projected revenues and income, 38% are expected to be denominated in ILS, 35% in EUR, and 27% in USD.
Adjusted EBITDA⁸ is expected to range between $360m and $380m, a 28% increase (from the midpoint) from 2024 results.
Approximately 90% of the electricity volumes expected to be generated in 2025 will be sold at fixed prices through PPAs or hedges.

________________________
_{⁷ Total revenues and income include revenues from the sale of electricity along with income from tax benefits from US projects amounting to $60m-80m.}
_{⁸ EBITDA is a non-IFRS financial measure. The Company is unable to provide a reconciliation of EBITDA to Net Income on a forward-looking basis without unreasonable effort because items that impact this IFRS financial measure are not within the Company’s control and/or cannot be reasonably predicted. Please refer to the reconciliation table in Appendix 2.}

Financial Results Analysis

Revenue & Income by Segment
($ thousands)	For the twelve months ended			For the three months ended
Segment	31/12/2024	31/12/2023	Change %	31/12/2024	31/12/2023	Change %
MENA	155,693	67,687	130%	34,086	20,738	64%
Europe	197,143	177,471	11%	49,979	50,770	(2%)
U.S.	36,608	7,712	375%	17,894	3,571	401%
Other	9,351	8,270	13%	2,143	2,009	7%
Total Revenue & Income	398,795	261,140	53%	104,102	77,088	35%

Revenues & Income

In the fourth quarter of 2024, the Company’s total revenues and income increased to $104m, up from $77m last year, a growth rate of 35% year over year. This was composed of revenues from the sale of electricity, which rose 26% to $93m compared to $74m in the same period of 2023, as well as recognition of $11m in income from tax benefits, up 230% compared to $3m in 4Q23.

The Company benefited from the revenue contribution of newly operational projects. Since the fourth quarter of 2023, 650 MW and 1,600 MWh of projects were connected to the grid and began selling electricity, including seven of the Israel Solar and Storage Cluster units in Israel, Atrisco in the U.S, Pupin in Serbia, and Tapolca in Hungary. The most important increases in revenue from the sale of electricity originated at the Israel Solar and Storage Cluster, which added $9m, followed by Atrisco, which added $6m in. In total, new projects contributed $18m to revenues from the sale of electricity

Revenues and income were distributed between MENA, Europe, and the US, with 34% denominated in Israeli Shekel, 47% in Euros, and 18% denominated in US Dollars.

Net Income

In the fourth quarter, the Company’s net income amounted to $8m compared to $16m last year, a decrease of 48% year over year. In 4Q23 the Company recorded a $12m net profit stemming from the recalculation of earnout payments linked to the acquisition of Clenera. Adjusting for this figure, the net income in 4Q23 was $4m, implying year-on-year growth of 90%.

Adjusted EBITDA⁹

In the fourth quarter of 2024, the Company’s Adjusted EBITDA grew by 31% to $65m compared to $50m for the same period in 2023. The increase in Adjusted EBITDA was driven by the same factors that drove the increase in revenues and income, namely new projects and the recognition of higher amounts of tax benefits. This was offset by an additional $6m in higher operating expenses linked to new projects, while company overheads rose by $5m year-on-year.

________________________
_{⁹ Adjusted EBITDA is a non-IFRS measure. Please see the appendix of this presentation for a reconciliation to Net Income}

Conference Call Information

Enlight plans to hold its Fourth Quarter 2024 Conference Call and Webcast on Wednesday, February 19, 2025 at 8:00 a.m. ET to review its financial results and business outlook. Management will deliver prepared remarks followed by a question-and-answer session. Participants can join by dial-in or webcast:

The press release with the financial results as well as the investor presentation materials will be accessible from the Company’s website prior to the conference call. Approximately one hour after completion of the live call, an archived version of the webcast will be available on the Company’s investor relations website at https://enlightenergy.co.il/info/investors/.

Supplemental Financial and Other Information

We intend to announce material information to the public through the Enlight investor relations website at https://enlightenergy.co.il/info/investors, SEC filings, press releases, public conference calls, and public webcasts. We use these channels to communicate with our investors, customers, and the public about our company, our offerings, and other issues. As such, we encourage investors, the media, and others to follow the channels listed above, and to review the information disclosed through such channels. Any updates to the list of disclosure channels through which we will announce information will be posted on the investor relations page of our website.

Non-IFRS Financial Measures

This release presents Adjusted EBITDA, a financial metric, which is provided as a complement to the results provided in accordance with the International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (“IFRS”). A reconciliation of the non-IFRS financial information to the most directly comparable IFRS financial measure is provided in the accompanying tables found at the end of this release.

We define Adjusted EBITDA as net income (loss) plus depreciation and amortization, share based compensation, finance expenses, taxes on income and share in losses of equity accounted investees and minus finance income and non-recurring portions of other income, net. For the purposes of calculating Adjusted EBITDA, compensation for inadequate performance of goods and services procured by the Company are included in other income, net. Compensation for inadequate performance of goods and services reflects the profits the Company would have generated under regular operating conditions and is therefore included in Adjusted EBITDA. With respect to gains (losses) from asset disposals, as part of Enlight’s strategy to accelerate growth and reduce the need for equity financing, the Company sells parts of or the entirety of selected renewable project assets from time to time, and therefore includes realized gains or losses from these asset disposals in Adjusted EBITDA. In the case of partial assets disposals, Adjusted EBITDA includes only the actual consideration less the book value of the assets sold. Our management believes Adjusted EBITDA is indicative of operational performance and ongoing profitability and uses Adjusted EBITDA to evaluate the operating performance and for planning and forecasting purposes.

Non-IFRS financial measures have limitations as analytical tools and should not be considered in isolation or as substitutes for financial information presented under IFRS. There are a number of limitations related to the use of non-IFRS financial measures versus comparable financial measures determined under IFRS. For example, other companies in our industry may calculate the non-IFRS financial measures that we use differently or may use other measures to evaluate their performance. All of these limitations could reduce the usefulness of our non-IFRS financial measures as analytical tools. Investors are encouraged to review the related IFRS financial measure, Net Income, and the reconciliations of Adjusted EBITDA provided below to Net Income and to not rely on any single financial measure to evaluate our business.

Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. We intend such forward-looking statements to be covered by the safe harbor provisions for forward-looking statements as contained in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. All statements contained in this press release other than statements of historical fact, including, without limitation, statements regarding the Company’s business strategy and plans, capabilities of the Company’s project portfolio and achievement of operational objectives, market opportunity, utility demand and potential growth, discussions with commercial counterparties and financing sources, pricing trends for materials, progress of Company projects, including anticipated timing of related approvals and project completion and anticipated production delays, the Company’s future financial results, expected impact from various regulatory developments and anticipated trade sanctions, expectations regarding wind production, electricity prices and windfall taxes, and Revenues and Income and Adjusted EBITDA guidance, the expected timing of completion of our ongoing projects, and the Company’s anticipated cash requirements and financing plans , are forward-looking statements. The words “may,” “might,” “will,” “could,” “would,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “target,” “seek,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “potential,” “continue,” “contemplate,” “possible,” “forecasts,” “aims” or the negative of these terms and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements, though not all forward-looking statements use these words or expressions.

These statements are neither promises nor guarantees, but involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other important factors that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements, including, but not limited to, the following: our ability to site suitable land for, and otherwise source, renewable energy projects and to successfully develop and convert them into Operational Projects; availability of, and access to, interconnection facilities and transmission systems; our ability to obtain and maintain governmental and other regulatory approvals and permits, including environmental approvals and permits; construction delays, operational delays and supply chain disruptions leading to increased cost of materials required for the construction of our projects, as well as cost overruns and delays related to disputes with contractors; disruptions in trade caused by political, social or economic instability in regions where our components and materials are made; our suppliers’ ability and willingness to perform both existing and future obligations; competition from traditional and renewable energy companies in developing renewable energy projects; potential slowed demand for renewable energy projects and our ability to enter into new offtake contracts on acceptable terms and prices as current offtake contracts expire; offtakers’ ability to terminate contracts or seek other remedies resulting from failure of our projects to meet development, operational or performance benchmarks; exposure to market prices in some of our offtake contracts; various technical and operational challenges leading to unplanned outages, reduced output, interconnection or termination issues; the dependence of our production and revenue on suitable meteorological and environmental conditions, and our ability to accurately predict such conditions; our ability to enforce warranties provided by our counterparties in the event that our projects do not perform as expected; government curtailment, energy price caps and other government actions that restrict or reduce the profitability of renewable energy production; electricity price volatility, unusual weather conditions (including the effects of climate change, could adversely affect wind and solar conditions), catastrophic weather-related or other damage to facilities, unscheduled generation outages, maintenance or repairs, unanticipated changes to availability due to higher demand, shortages, transportation problems or other developments, environmental incidents, or electric transmission system constraints and the possibility that we may not have adequate insurance to cover losses as a result of such hazards; our dependence on certain operational projects for a substantial portion of our cash flows; our ability to continue to grow our portfolio of projects through successful acquisitions; changes and advances in technology that impair or eliminate the competitive advantage of our projects or upsets the expectations underlying investments in our technologies; our ability to effectively anticipate and manage cost inflation, interest rate risk, currency exchange fluctuations and other macroeconomic conditions that impact our business; our ability to retain and attract key personnel; our ability to manage legal and regulatory compliance and litigation risk across our global corporate structure; our ability to protect our business from, and manage the impact of, cyber-attacks, disruptions and security incidents, as well as acts of terrorism or war; changes to existing renewable energy industry policies and regulations that present technical, regulatory and economic barriers to renewable energy projects; the reduction, elimination or expiration of government incentives or benefits for, or regulations mandating the use of, renewable energy; our ability to effectively manage the global expansion of the scale of our business operations; our ability to perform to expectations in our new line of business involving the construction of PV systems for municipalities in Israel; our ability to effectively manage our supply chain and comply with applicable regulations with respect to international trade relations, tariffs, sanctions, export controls and anti-bribery and anti-corruption laws; our ability to effectively comply with Environmental Health and Safety and other laws and regulations and receive and maintain all necessary licenses, permits and authorizations; our performance of various obligations under the terms of our indebtedness (and the indebtedness of our subsidiaries that we guarantee) and our ability to continue to secure project financing on attractive terms for our projects; limitations on our management rights and operational flexibility due to our use of tax equity arrangements; potential claims and disagreements with partners, investors and other counterparties that could reduce our right to cash flows generated by our projects; our ability to comply with increasingly complex tax laws of various jurisdictions in which we currently operate as well as the tax laws in jurisdictions in which we intend to operate in the future; the unknown effect of the dual listing of our ordinary shares on the price of our ordinary shares; various risks related to our incorporation and location in Israel, including the ongoing war in Israel, where our headquarters and some of our wind energy and solar energy projects are located; the costs and requirements of being a public company, including the diversion of management’s attention with respect to such requirements; certain provisions in our Articles of Association and certain applicable regulations that may delay or prevent a change of control; and other risk factors set forth in the section titled “Risk factors” in our Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), as may be updated in our other documents filed with or furnished to the SEC.

These statements reflect management’s current expectations regarding future events and operating performance and speak only as of the date of this press release. You should not put undue reliance on any forward-looking statements. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, we cannot guarantee that future results, levels of activity, performance and events and circumstances reflected in the forward-looking statements will be achieved or will occur. Except as required by applicable law, we undertake no obligation to update or revise publicly any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, after the date on which the statements are made or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.

About Enlight

Founded in 2008, Enlight develops, finances, constructs, owns, and operates utility-scale renewable energy projects. Enlight operates across the three largest renewable segments today: solar, wind and energy storage. A global platform, Enlight operates in the United States, Israel and 9 European countries. Enlight has been traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange since 2010 (TASE: ENLT) and completed its U.S. IPO (Nasdaq: ENLT) in 2023.

Company Contacts

Yonah Weisz
Director IR
investors@enlightenergy.co.il

Erica Mannion or Mike Funari
Sapphire Investor Relations, LLC
+1 617 542 6180
investors@enlightenergy.co.il

Appendix 1 – Financial information

Consolidated Statements of Income
	For the year ended at December 31
	2024	*2023()**
	USD in	USD in
	thousands	thousands
Revenues	377,935	255,702
Tax benefits	20,860	5,438
Total revenues and income	398,795	261,140

Cost of sales (**)	(80,696)	(52,794)
Depreciation and amortization	(108,889)	(65,796)
General and administrative expenses	(38,847)	(31,356)
Development expenses	(11,601)	(6,347)
Total operating expenses	(240,033)	(156,293)
Gains from projects disposals	601	9,846
Other income, net	16,172	43,450
Operating profit	175,535	158,143

Finance income	20,439	36,799
Finance expenses	(107,844)	(68,143)
Total finance expenses, net	(87,405)	(31,344)

Profit before tax and equity loss	88,130	126,799
Share of loss of equity accounted investees	(3,350)	(330)
Profit before income taxes	84,780	126,469
Taxes on income	(18,275)	(28,428)
Profit for the year	66,505	98,041

Profit for the year attributed to:
Owners of the Company	44,209	70,924
Non-controlling interests	22,296	27,117
	66,505	98,041
Earnings per ordinary share (in USD) with a par value of
NIS 0.1, attributable to owners of the parent Company:
Basic earnings per share	0.37	0.61
Diluted earnings per share	0.36	0.57
Weighted average of share capital used in the
calculation of earnings:
Basic per share	118,293,556	115,721,346
Diluted per share	123,312,565	123,861,293

(*) The Consolidated Statements of Income have been adjusted to present comparable information for the previous year. For additional details please see Appendix 8.

(**) Excluding depreciation and amortization

Consolidated Statements of Financial Position as of
	December 31	December 31
	2024	2023
	USD in	USD in
	Thousands	Thousands
Assets

Current assets
Cash and cash equivalents	387,427	403,805
Deposits in banks	–	5,308
Restricted cash	100,090	142,695
Trade receivables	50,692	43,100
Other receivables	99,651	60,691
Current maturities of contract assets	–	8,070
Other financial assets	975	976
Assets of disposal groups classified as held for sale	81,661	–
Total current assets	720,496	664,645

Non-current assets
Restricted cash	48,251	38,891
Other long-term receivables	61,045	32,540
Deferred costs in respect of projects	357,358	271,424
Deferred borrowing costs	276	493
Loans to investee entities	18,112	35,878
Contract assets	–	91,346
Fixed assets, net	3,699,192	2,947,369
Intangible assets, net	291,442	287,961
Deferred taxes assets	10,744	9,134
Right-of-use asset, net	210,941	121,348
Financial assets at fair value through profit or loss	69,216	53,466
Other financial assets	59,812	79,426
Total non-current assets	4,826,389	3,969,276

Total assets	5,546,885	4,633,921

Consolidated Statements of Financial Position as of (Cont.)
	December 31	December 31
	2024	2023
	USD in	USD in
	Thousands	Thousands
Liabilities and equity

Current liabilities
Credit and current maturities of loans from
banks and other financial institutions	212,246	324,666
Trade payables	161,991	105,574
Other payables	107,825	103,622
Current maturities of debentures	44,962	26,233
Current maturities of lease liability	10,240	8,113
Financial liabilities through profit or loss	–	13,860
Other financial liabilities	8,141	1,224
Liabilities of disposal groups classified as held for sale	46,635	–
Total current liabilities	592,040	583,292

Non-current liabilities
Debentures	433,994	293,751
Other financial liabilities	107,865	62,020
Convertible debentures	133,056	130,566
Loans from banks and other financial institutions	1,996,137	1,702,925
Loans from non-controlling interests	75,598	92,750
Financial liabilities through profit or loss	25,844	34,524
Deferred taxes liabilities	41,792	44,941
Employee benefits	1,215	4,784
Lease liability	211,941	119,484
Deferred income related to tax equity	403,384	60,880
Asset retirement obligation	83,085	68,047
Total non-current liabilities	3,513,911	2,614,672

Total liabilities	4,105,951	3,197,964

Equity
Ordinary share capital	3,308	3,293
Share premium	1,028,532	1,028,532
Capital reserves	25,273	57,730
Proceeds on account of convertible options	15,494	15,494
Accumulated profit	107,919	63,710
Equity attributable to shareholders of the Company	1,180,526	1,168,759
Non-controlling interests	260,408	267,198
Total equity	1,440,934	1,435,957
Total liabilities and equity	5,546,885	4,633,921

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

	For the year ended at December 31
	2024	2023
	USD in	USD in
	Thousands	Thousands

Cash flows for operating activities
Profit for the period	66,505	98,041

Income and expenses not associated with cash flows:
Depreciation and amortization	108,889	65,796
Finance expenses, net	83,560	28,805
Share-based compensation	8,360	4,970
Taxes on income	18,275	28,428
Tax benefits	(20,860)	(5,438)
Other income, net	(4,963)	(46,991)
Company’s share in losses of investee partnerships	3,350	330
	196,611	75,900

Changes in assets and liabilities items:
Change in other receivables	12,261	(3,241)
Change in trade receivables	(9,892)	(2,841)
Change in other payables	294	6,382
Change in trade payables	746	15,474
	3,409	15,774

Interest receipts	12,684	12,490
Interest paid	(74,891)	(54,469)
Income Tax paid	(11,246)	(12,236)
Repayment of contract assets	–	14,120

Net cash from operating activities	193,072	149,620

Cash flows for investing activities
Sale (Acquisition) of consolidated entities, net	1,871	(6,975)
Changes in restricted cash and bank deposits, net	29,959	(53,131)
Purchase, development, and construction in respect of projects	(899,257)	(730,976)
Loans provided and Investment in investees	(26,444)	(28,174)
Payments on account of acquisition of consolidated entity	(32,777)	(5,728)
Proceeds from sale (purchase) of financial assets measured at fair value
through profit or loss, net	(14,719)	26,919
Net cash used in investing activities	(941,367)	(798,065)

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows (Cont.)
	For the year ended at December 31
	2024	2023
	USD in	USD in
	Thousands	Thousands

Cash flows from financing activities
Receipt of loans from banks and other financial institutions	939,627	623,927
Repayment of loans from banks and other financial institutions	(699,586)	(203,499)
Issuance of debentures	177,914	83,038
Repayment of debentures	(26,016)	(14,735)
Dividends and distributions by subsidiaries to non-controlling interests	(25,534)	(13,328)
Proceeds from investments by tax-equity investors	410,845	198,758
Repayment of tax equity investment	(839)	(82,721)
Deferred borrowing costs	(21,637)	(1,984)
Receipt of loans from non-controlling interests	–	274
Repayment of loans from non-controlling interests	(2,960)	(1,485)
Increase in holding rights of consolidated entity	(169)	–
Issuance of shares	–	266,451
Exercise of share options	15	9
Repayment of lease liability	(5,852)	(4,848)
Proceeds from investment in entities by non-controlling interest	179	5,448

Net cash from financing activities	745,987	855,305

Increase (Decrease) in cash and cash equivalents	(2,308)	206,860

Balance of cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period	403,805	193,869

Changes in cash of disposal groups classified as held for sale	(5,753)	–

Effect of exchange rate fluctuations on cash and cash equivalents	(8,317)	3,076

Cash and cash equivalents at end of period	387,427	403,805

Information related to Segmental Reporting

	For the year ended December 31, 2024
	MENA()**	Europe()**	USA	Total reportable segments	Others	Total
	USD in thousands
Revenues	155,693	197,143	15,748	368,584	9,351	377,935
Tax benefits	–	–	20,860	20,860	–	20,860
Total revenues and income	155,693	197,143	36,608	389,444	9,351	377,935

Segment adjusted EBITDA	123,724	165,385	33,539	322,648	4,141	326,789

Reconciliations of unallocated amounts:
Headquarter costs (*)						(37,774)
Intersegment profit						100
Depreciation and amortization and share-based compensation						(117,249)
Other incomes not attributed to segments						3,669
Operating profit						175,535
Finance income						20,439
Finance expenses						(107,844)
Share in the losses of equity accounted investees						(3,350)
Profit before income taxes						84,780

(*) Including general and administrative and development expenses (excluding depreciation and amortization and share based compensation).

(**) Due to the Company’s organizational restructuring, the Chief Operation Decision Maker (CODM) now reviews the group’s results by segmenting them into four business units: MENA (Middle East and North Africa), Europe, the US, and Management and Construction. Consequently, the Central/Eastern Europe and Western Europe segments have been consolidated into the “Europe” segment, and the Israel segment has been incorporated into the MENA segment. The comparative figures for the year ended December 31, 2023, have been updated accordingly.

Information related to Segmental Reporting

	For the year ended December 31, 2023
	MENA	Europe	USA	Total reportable segments	Others	Total
	USD in thousands
Revenues	67,687	177,471	2,274	247,432	8,270	255,702
Tax benefits	–	–	5,438	5,438	–	5,438
Total revenues and income	67,687	177,471	7,712	252,870	8,270	261,140

Segment adjusted EBITDA	71,350	150,677	12,133	234,160	3,035	237,195

Reconciliations of unallocated amounts:
Headquarter costs (*)						(30,434)
Intersegment profit						1,587
Repayment of contract asset under concession arrangements						(14,120)
Depreciation and amortization and share-based compensation						(70,766)
Other incomes not attributed to segments						34,681
Operating profit						158,143
Finance income						36,799
Finance expenses						(68,143)
Share in the losses of equity accounted investees						(330)
Profit before income taxes						126,469

(*) Including general and administrative and development expenses (excluding depreciation and amortization and share based compensation).

Appendix 2 – Reconciliations between Net Income to Adjusted EBITDA

($ thousands)	For the year ended		For the three months
	December 31		ended December 31
	2024	2023	2024	2023
Net Income (loss)	66,505	98,041	8,372	16,202
Depreciation and amortization	108,889	65,796	30,912	21,611
Share based compensation	8,360	4,970	2,333	970
Finance income	(20,439)	(36,799)	(2,140)	7,581
Finance expenses	107,844	68,143	22,008	16,344
Non-recurring other income (*)	(3,669)	(34,681)	–	(15,718)
Share of losses of equity accounted investees	3,350	330	1,613	(137)
Taxes on income	18,275	28,428	2,121	2,934
Adjusted EBITDA	289,115	194,228	65,219	49,787

* For the purposes of calculating Adjusted EBITDA, compensation for inadequate performance of goods and services procured by the Company are included in other income, net.

The Company has changed its presentation of its Income Statement, which includes the presentation of specified items that have been previously included within other income (i.e. tax equity). The Company believes that such presentation provides a more relevant information and better reflects the measurement of its financial performance. The Company applied such change retrospectively.

Appendix 3 – Debentures Covenants

Debentures Covenants

As of December 31, 2024, the Company was in compliance with all of its financial covenants under the indenture for the Series C-F Debentures, based on having achieved the following in its consolidated financial results:

Minimum equity
The company’s equity shall be maintained at no less than NIS 200 million so long as debentures E remain outstanding, no less than NIS 375 million so long as debentures F remain outstanding, and NIS 1,250 million so long as debentures C and D remain outstanding.

As of December 31, 2024, the company’s equity amounted to NIS 5,255 million.

Net financial debt to net CAP
The ratio of standalone net financial debt to net CAP shall not exceed 70% for two consecutive financial periods so long as debentures E and F remain outstanding, and shall not exceed 65% for two consecutive financial periods so long as debentures C and D remain outstanding.

As of December 31, 2024, the net financial debt to net CAP ratio, as defined above, stands at 37%.

Net financial debt to EBITDA
So long as debentures E and F remain outstanding, standalone financial debt shall not exceed NIS 10 million, and the consolidated financial debt to EBITDA ratio shall not exceed 18 for more than two consecutive financial periods.

For as long as debentures C and D remain outstanding, the consolidated financial debt to EBITDA ratio shall not exceed 15 for more than two consecutive financial periods.

As of December 31, 2024, the net financial debt to EBITDA ratio, as defined above, stands at 9.

Equity to balance sheet
The standalone equity to total balance sheet ratio shall be maintained at no less than 20% and 25%, respectively, for two consecutive financial periods for as long as debentures E and F, and debentures C and D remain outstanding.

As of December 31, 2024, the equity to balance sheet ratio, as defined above, stands at 55%.

Photos accompanying this announcement are available at:
https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/16dfdaab-3b06-4494-a529-7e4b98cd6ad8

https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/a4d568ee-77b0-4eab-b7ef-c865a4a26d0e

https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/ae07b0d5-09c7-404f-a71d-70494b2b64ca

The MIL Network –

February 20, 2025

MIL-OSI USA News: Interview of President Trump and Elon Musk by Sean Hannity, “The Sean Hannity Show”

Source: The White House

class=”has-text-align-center”>Roosevelt Room

11:48 A.M. EST

     Q    Mr. President, great to see you again.

     THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Thank you.

     Q    How are you?

     THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

     Q    Elon Musk.

     MR. MUSK: Hi.

     Q    Great to see you.

     MR. MUSK: Thanks. Thanks for having me.

     Q    I’ve been reading a lot about you. I’ve got to start with this. So, he’s working for free with DOGE. He’s — he’s kind of put a lot of his life on hold, and you sued Twitter a number of years ago. You just made him pay you $10 million?

     THE PRESIDENT: That’s right. That’s right.

     Q    That’s — that’s right. (Laughs.)

     THE PRESIDENT: Well, I sued — I sued from long before he had it.

     MR. MUSK: Yeah. Yeah. (Inaudible.)

     THE PRESIDENT: And, I mean, they really did a number on me, you know. And I sued, and they had to pay. You know, they paid $10 million settlement.

     Q    You’re okay with that?

     MR. MUSK: I mean, I left it up to the lawyers and, you know, the team running Twitter. So, I said, “You guys do what you think is the right — makes sense.”

     Q    I think it’s funny.

     THE PRESIDENT: I think —

     Q    Because —

     THE PRESIDENT: — it’s a very low — I was looking to get much more money than that.

     Q    So, you gave him a discount w- — in the lawsuit?

     THE PRESIDENT: He got — oh, he got a big discount. I don’t think he even knows about it.

     Q    He’s become one of your — if you read and believe the media — he’s become one of your best friends. He’s working for free for you. He’s —

     MR. MUSK: Well, I love the president. I just want to be clear about that.

     Q    You don’t care about that?

     MR. MUSK: I — no, I love the pr- — I —

     Q    You love the president?

     MR. MUSK: I think — I think President Trump is a good man, and — and he’s, you know — I — I —

     THE PRESIDENT: That’s the way he said that. You know, there’s something nice about. (Laughter.)

     MR. MUSK: No, it is. I, you know —

     THE PRESIDENT: It is.

     MR. MUSK: Because, I mean, the president has been so — so unfairly attacked in the media. It’s truly outrageous. And I’ve sp- — at this point, spent a lot of time with the president, and not once have I seen him do something that was mean or cruel or — or wrong. Not once.

     Q    You know, I’ve known him for 30 years.

     MR. MUSK: Yeah.

     Q    And I’ve never seen anybody take as much as he’s taken.

     MR. MUSK: Yeah.

     Q    And we’ve discussed this. And I’m like, “How do you deal with it?”

     THE PRESIDENT: Did have a choice? (Laughs.) I didn’t have a choice.

     Q    Well, you would say that to me. I’m like, “What — what am I going to do? Worry about it?”

     THE PRESIDENT: That’s the only thing I can say.

     Q    And, you know — and then culminating in two assassination attempts, which resulted in your endorsement.

     MR. MUSK: Well, I was going to do it anyway, but that was —

     Q    That was it?

     MR. MUSK: — a precipitating event, yeah.

     THE PRESIDENT: That speeded it up a little bit?

     MR. MUSK: Yeah. Yeah.

     Q    The day of the assassination?

     THE PRESIDENT: Nice. I didn’t know that.

     MR. MUSK: Yeah, it just — it sped it up, but I was going to do it anyway.

     Q    Mr. President, with your indulgence, I’m convinced that people only know a little bit about Elon. I don’t think they know everything about Elon, because as I studied for and prepared for this interview, I learned a lot about you that I didn’t know. I think people will think about Tesla. Democrats are demonizing you and — and trying to make the country hate you.

     I just want people to understand you a little bit better, and the person that you’ve gotten to know and have now put a lot of trust in.

     THE PRESIDENT: Sure.

     Q    And, you know, just — let’s go over a little bit of your bio, starting —

     MR. MUSK: Ah, okay.

     Q    — with PayPal and how you became involved in Tesla and SpaceX and Neuralink —

     MR. MUSK: This — this could take a while.

     Q    — and all these —

     MR. MUSK: I mean, you know, I — I think the way you think of me is, like, I’m a technologist and I try to make technologies that improve the world and make life better.

     Q    You can show them your shirt.

     MR. MUSK: Yeah, and that’s why, like, my t-shirt says “tech support” — (laughter) — because I’m here to provide the president with — with technology support.

     And now, that — that may seem, like, well, is that a silly thing? But actually, it’s a very important thing, because the president will make these executive orders, which are very sensible and good for the country, but then they don’t get implemented, you know?

     So, if you take the — for example, all the funding for the migrant hotels, the president issued an executive order: Hey, we need to stop taking taxpayer money and — and paying for luxury hotels for illegal immigrants —

     Q    It’s crazy.

     MR. MUSK: — which makes no sense. Like, obviously, people do not want their tax dollars going to — to fund high-end hotels for — for illegals. And yet, they were still doing that, even as late as last week.

     And so, you know, we went in there, and we were like, “This is in violation of the presidential executive order. It needs to stop.”

     So — so, what we’re — what we’re doing here is — is — one of the biggest functions of the DOGE team is just making sure that the presidential executive orders are actually carried out. And this is — I just want to point out, this is a very important thing, because the president is the elected representative of the people, so he’s representing the will of the people. And if the bureaucracy is fighting the will of the people and preventing the pres- — the president from implementing what the people want, then what we live in is a bureaucracy and not a democracy.

     Q    Yeah. You — you’re both aware — you have to be keenly aware that the media and — and the punditry class — not that — you know, I think you’ve proven they have no power anymore, because they threw everything they had at you, and they didn’t win. And that was, you know, the New York Times, Washington Post, three networks, every late-night comedy show, two cable channels — they — they just threw — they threw everything — lawfare, weaponization.

     THE PRESIDENT: It’s true.

     Q    And now I see they want you two to start — they want a divorce. They want you two to start hating each other. And they try — “Oh, President Elon Musk,” for example. You do know that they’re doing that to you?

     THE PRESIDENT: Oh, I see it all the time. They tried it, then they stopped. That wasn’t — they have many different things of hatred.

     Actually, Elon called me. He said, “You know they’re trying to drive us apart.” I said, “Absolutely.”

     You know, they said, “We have breaking news: Donald Trump has ceded control of the presidency to Elon Musk. President Musk will be attending a Cabinet meeting tonight at 8 o’clock.” (Laughter.) And I say — it’s just so obvious. They’re so bad at it.

     I used to think they were good at it. They’re actually bad at it, because if they were good at it, I’d never be president because I — I think nobody in history has ever gotten more bad publicity than me.

     I could do the greatest things; I get 98 percent bad publicity. I could do — outside of you and a few of your very good friends. It’s, like, the craziest thing.

     But you know what I have learned, Elon? The people are smart. They get it.

     MR. MUSK. Yeah. They do, actually. Yeah.

     THE PRESIDENT: They get it. They really see what’s happening.

     MR. MUSK: Yes.

     Q    And at the end of this interview, I — what I would like is, I — I want people to know the relationship and know more about you.

     What is the relationship, Mr. President?

     THE PRESIDENT: Well, I respect him. I’ve always respected him. I never knew that he was right on certain things, and I’m usually pretty good at this stuff. He did Starlink. He did things that were so advanced and nobody knew what the hell they were.

     I can tell you, in North Carolina, they had no communication. They were wiped out. Those people were — you know, they had rivers in between — land that never saw water, all of a sudden, there was a river and a vicious — like, rapids. People were dying all over. They had no communication.

     They said, “Do you know Elon Musk?”   And they didn’t really know I knew him. I said, “Yeah.” They said, “Could you get Starlink?” It’s, like, the first time I ever heard of it. I said, “What’s Starlink?” “A communication system that’s unbelievable.”

     Q    I have it.

     THE PRESIDENT: And he — yeah. And he said — I called him, and I said, “Listen, they really need it.” And he got, like, thousands of units of this communication, and it saved a lot of lives. He got it immediately. And you can’t get it. I mean, you have to wait a long time to get it. But he got it to him immediately.

     And I said, “That’s pretty amazing.” And I didn’t even know he had it.

     We watch the rocket ships, and we watch Tesla.

     I think, you know, something that had an effect on me was when I saw the rocket ship come back and get grabbed like you grab a beautiful little baby. You grab your baby. It just —

     MR. MUSK: Just hug the rocket.

     THE PRESIDENT: I’d never seen —

     MR. MUSK: Everyone — right. Everyone needs (inaudible) —

     Q    You hug the rocket. You hug the rocket.

     MR. MUSK: — (inaudible) rockets.

     THE PRESIDENT: Yeah. No, but — and he said, “You know, you can’t really have a rocket program if you’re going to dump a billion dollars into the ocean every time you fly. You have to save it.” And he saved it. First time —

     Q    That’s ever been done.

     THE PRESIDENT: — I’ve ever seen that done. Now nobody else can do it.

     If you look at the U.S., Russia, or China, they can’t do it, and they won’t be able to do it for a long time. He has the technology. So, you learn — I wanted somebody really smart to work with me, in terms of the country — a very important aspect. Because, I mean, he doesn’t talk about it. He’s actually a very good businessman. And when he talks about the executive orders — and this is probably true for all presidents: You write an executive order and you think it’s done, you send it out; it doesn’t get done. It doesn’t get implemented. They don’t implement it.

     They — maybe they’re from the last administration — and they are, in some cases. You try and get them out as fast as you can. But I could — as soon as he said that, I said, “You know, that’s interesting.” You write a beautiful executive — and you sign it and you assume it’s going to be done, but it’s not. What he does is he takes it, and with his hundred geniuses — he’s got some very brilliant young people working for him that dress much worse than him, actually —

     MR. MUSK: Yeah, the do.

     THE PRESIDENT: — they dress in just t-shirts. (Laughter.) You wouldn’t know they have 180 IQ.

     Q    Wait. Wait. So, what — he’s — he’s your tech support?

     MR. MUSK: I —

     THE PRESIDENT: No, no. He is —

     MR. MUSK: I actually virtually am tech support.

     THE PRESIDENT: He’s much more than that.

     MR. MUSK: I actually am tech support, though. But that’s —

     THE PRESIDENT: But he gets it done. He’s a leader. He really is a — he gets it done. You get a lot of tech people, and you have people, they’re good with tech, but they — he gets it done.

     You know, I said, in real estate, you had guys that would draw beautiful renderings of a building, and they’d draw the rendering, it would be great, and you’d say, “Great. When are you starting?” But they were never able to get it built. They couldn’t get the finances. They couldn’t get the approvals. It would never get done. And then you have other guys that are able to get it done. You know, they could just get it done.

     I was in real estate. Same thing in this. He gets it done.

     So, when he said that — he said, “You know, when you sign these executive orders, a lot of them don’t get done, and maybe the most important ones,” and he would take that executive order that I’d signed, and he would have those people go to whatever agency it was — “When are you doing it? Get it done. Get it done.” And some guy that maybe didn’t want to do it, all of a sudden, he’s signing — he just doesn’t want to bothered.

     Q    Does — do a lot of those executive orders have to be codified into law to — do you need the Republican Congress to follow up?

     THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, and they will. A lot of them will be. Yeah.

     Q    They will?

     THE PRESIDENT: Look, in the meantime, we have four years. The beauty is, we have four years. That’s why I like doing it right at the beginning. Because an executive order is great. I mean, the one problem — it’s both good and bad, because when they did all these executive orders, I’ve canceled most of them. They were terrible. I mean, we were going to go radical left, communist, okay? It was crazy. Their —

     MR. MUSK: Really crazy.

     THE PRESIDENT: — executive orders were so bad, if they ever got them codified, you’d never be able to break them. So, the damage that Biden has done to this country — and it’s not even Biden; it’s the people that circled him in the Oval Office, okay? — but the damage they did to this country, in terms of, let’s say, open borders — you know, there’s so many things, but open borders, where millions of people poured into our country, and hundreds of thousands of those people are criminals. They’re murderers. They’re drug dealers. They’re gang members. They’re people from prisons from all over the world.

     And we have a great guy, Tom Homan, and he is doing so incredibly. You saw the numbers. They’re down like 96 percent.

     Q    Ninety-five percent.

     THE PRESIDENT: He is a phenomenal guy. And Kristi Noem is doing an unbelievable job. And he wanted her. He said, “She’s so tough.” And I said, “I don’t think of her as that way. You know, she’s very nice.” He said, “No, she’s so tough.” And she is. I see her with the horses. She’s riding the horse. Let’s — (laughter) — she’s great.

     But the team we have is — is really unbelievable.

     But those executive orders, I sign them, and now they get passed on to him and his group and other people, and they’re all getting done. We’re getting them done.

     Q    Let me go back a little bit to your background, because —

     MR. MUSK: Sure.

     Q    — it’s beyond impressive. You were the chief engineer, for example — you were an early believer in Tesla. You became the CEO and — and then the chief engineer, which was phenomenal. SpaceX, same thing, which is unbelievable.

     I mean, you were the first company — private company to send astronauts successfully into — into space, first private company to send astronauts into orbit.

     MR. MUSK: Yeah.

     Q    That’s — that’s pretty deep.

     THE PRESIDENT: He’s going to go into orbit soon.

     Q    Okay.

     MR. MUSK: (Laughs.) Yeah.

     THE PRESIDENT: No, he’s going to go to Mars. He’s going to fly on his —

     Q    Starlink.

     MR. MUSK: At some point, yeah.

     Q    As in (inaudible) —

     MR. MUSK: But they say — they always ask me, like, “Do you want to die on Mars?” And I say, “Well, yes, but not on impact.” (Laughter.)

     Q    Star- — Starlink is in 100 countries.

     This is going to be hard. I feel like I’m interviewing two brothers here.

     MR. MUSK: You go ahead.

     Q    Starshield, which could be used for national defense.

     MR. MUSK: Yeah, it is already being used for national defense.

     Q    Then you have a — what is it called? Optimus, a part of Tesla.

     MR. MUSK: They’re a robot, yeah.

     Q    A robotic arm. Then you have an AI arm. And then you have something that really fascinated me, and it’s called Neuralink.

     MR. MUSK: Yes.

     Q    You might help the blind to see and people with spinal cord injuries that they — that they can recover, where in the past — how close is that to becoming a success?

     MR. MUSK: At Neuralink we’re — we’ve ha- — we’ve implanted Neuralink in three patients so far, who are quadriplegics, and it allows them to directly control their phone and computer just using their mind, just by thinking. It’s like — so, we call this product Telepathy, so you control your computer and phone just by thinking, and it’s possible to actually control the computer and phone faster than someone who has working hands.

     Then the next step would be to add a second Neuralink implant past the point where these — the neurons are damaged, so that somebody can walk again and so the pe- — they can have full-body functionality restored. And —

     THE PRESIDENT: And you like Bobby, right?

     MR. MUSK: I like Bobby, actually. Yeah. I — I supported Bobby Kennedy. I think he — you know, he’s unfairly maligned as someone who is anti-science. But I think he — he isn’t. He just wants to question the science, which is the essence of the science — the scientific method, fundamentally, is about always questioning the science.

     Q    Well, they didn’t tell us the truth about COVID.

     MR. MUSK: Correct.

     Q    That’s for sure.

     MR. MUSK: Yes.

     Q    And we learned a lot with the Twitter files. And that just, then, raises a question. You’re the richest man in the world. You may not like that part.

     THE PRESIDENT: Yeah.

     Q    You’re pretty competitive.

     MR. MUSK: I mean, it’s neither here nor there.

     Q    I’ve known you a long time.

     MR. MUSK: I don’t think it matters.

     Q    But —

     THE PRESIDENT: That’s why I became president.

     Q    — he’s on your team.

     THE PRESIDENT: (Inaudible) —

     Q    Well, that’s true. He can’t top that.

     THE PRESIDENT: He’s good. You know, I wanted to find somebody smarter than him. I searched all over. I just couldn’t do it. I couldn’t. I couldn’t.

     Q    You really tried hard.

     THE PRESIDENT: I couldn’t find anyone smarter, right? So, we had to — we had to, for the country.

     Q    But this is the thing —

     THE PRESIDENT: So, we settled on — we settled on this guy.

     MR. MUSK: Well, thanks for having me.

     THE PRESIDENT: (Laughs.) Yeah.

     Q    So —

     MR. MUSK: I’m just trying to be useful here.

     Q    But this is the interesting — but this is where we are as a so- — a society. And I — I hate to do this to you, but I’m going to do it anyway. You’re doing all of these things. At DOGE, nobody at DOGE gets paid a penny, correct?

     MR. MUSK: Well, actually, some people are federal employees, so they do.

     Q    Oh, okay.

     MR. MUSK: Yeah. They’re (inaudible). But it’s fair to say that the software engineers at DOGE could be earning millions of dollars a year and instead of earning a small fraction of that as federal employees.

     Q    Okay. So, just —

     THE PRESIDENT: And they’re very committed people.

     MR. MUSK: Yes.

     Q    So — you’re — you’re committed to helping the blind see, people with spinal cord injuries recover.

     MR. MUSK: Yes.

     Q    You’re committed to getting to Mars. You’re committed to rescue — you’re going to help rescue, next month, two astronauts that I think were abandoned. They — they dispute that in an interview.

     THE PRESIDENT: When are you — when are you getting them?

     MR. MUSK: At the — at the president’s request, we — or instruction, we are accelerating the return of the astronauts, which was postponed, kind of, to a ridiculous degree.

     THE PRESIDENT: They got left in space.

     Q    They’ve been there. They were supposed to be there eight days. They’re there almost 300.

     THE PRESIDENT: Biden.

     MR. MUSK: They were put —

     Q    Yeah.

     MR. MUSK: Yes, they were left up there for political reasons, which is not good.

     Q    Okay, it’s not good. Now, if I had the weight and pressure of doing that successfully on my shoulders, I think I’d be, you know — but you — when we spoke before we did this interview, you were very confident. You think this will be a successful mission.

     MR. MUSK: Well, we don’t want to be complacent, but we have brought astronauts back from the space station many times before, and always with success. So, as long as we’re not complacent —

     THE PRESIDENT: When are they — when are you going to launch?

     MR. MUSK: I think it’s about — about four weeks to

bring them back.

     Q    About four weeks?

     MR. MUSK: Yeah.

     THE PRESIDENT: And you have the go-ahead.

     MR. MUSK: We’re being extremely cautious.

     Q    Yeah.

     THE PRESIDENT: You now have the go-ahead.

     MR. MUSK: Yes. Well, thanks to you —

     THE PRESIDENT: They didn’t have the go-ahead with Biden.

     Q    What’s that?

     THE PRESIDENT: He was going to leave him in space. I think he was going to leave them in space.

     Q    Well, it’s like the (inaudible) —

     THE PRESIDENT: He considered it a —

     Q    — growing up, lost in space.

     THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, he didn’t want the publicity. Can you believe it?

     Q    Unbelievable. And so —

     MR. MUSK: Yeah.

     Q    — I want to echo something that the president said and then ask an overarching question. So, people in — get hit with Hurricane Helene, they have no communication with the outside world. You come to the rescue. You donated that, I believe?

     MR. MUSK: Yes. Yes.

     Q    You donated to the people of —

     THE PRESIDENT: He saved a lot of lives. In North Carolina, he saved a lot of lives.

     Q    And California, after the wildfires?

     THE PRESIDENT: California. But, I mean, in North Carolina, where they were really in trouble, they had no communication, people were dying.

     Q    Nothing.

     THE PRESIDENT: They were dying of starvation. He saved a lot of lives in North Carolina.

     Q    Okay. Now you’re going to rescue astronauts. And now — again, you do — you do all of this — I would think liberals would love the fact that you have the biggest electric vehicle company in the world.

     MR. MUSK: Yeah. I mean, I used to be adored by the left, you know.

     Q    Not anymore.

     MR. MUSK: Le- — less so these days.

     Q    He killed that, huh?

     MR. MUSK: I mean, less —

     THE PRESIDENT: I really (inaudible) —

     MR. MUSK: Well, I mean, this — this whole sort of, like, you know — it was — they call it, like, “Trump derangement syndrome.” And I didn’t — you know, you don’t realize how real this is until, like, it’s — you can’t reason with people.

     So, like, I was at a friend’s birthday party in L.A., just a birthday dinner, and it was, like, a nice, quiet dinner, and everything was — everyone was behaving normally. And then I happened to mention — this was before the election, like a month or two before — I happened to mention the president’s name, and it was like they got shot with a dart in the jugular that contained, like, the methamphetamine and rabies. Okay? (Laughter.)

     And they’re like, “Whyy?” And I’m, like, “What is wrong — like, guys, like” — you just can’t have, like, a normal conversation. And it’s like — it’s like they become completely irrational.

     Q    He — he has no idea, if you’re friends with him —

     MR. MUSK: Yeah.

     Q    — you pay a price. You know, it’s like, I walk into a restaurant in New York, and it’s like half the room gets daggers and they want to —

     MR. MUSK: The eye-daggers — eye-daggers level is insane. (Laughter.)

     I mean, there was, like — I had, like, some — some invitation because — so, I got invited to, like, so- — basically, a big, sort of, damn — damn event like that was — but I’d received the invitation, like, the beginning of last year and then — and I still attended, even after I’d endorsed President Trump, and I didn’t realize how profoundly that would affect, you know, how I was received. (Laughter.)

     I mean, I walk into the room and I’m getting just the dirty looks from — from everyone. Like, if looks could kill, I would have been dead several times over.

     Q    But that was not — (laughter) — before Trump

     MR. MUSK: (Inaudible) —

     Q    Before Trump: “BC” —

     MR. MUSK: — ashes on the floor. (Laughs.)

     Q    — or “BT.” Before Trump, that never happened. Right?

     MR. MUSK: No.

     Q    No. So —

     MR. MUSK: I — I just — doesn’t seem strange? Like, what — what is up with this total, like, madness?

     Q    You’re smarter than me. Can you — I actually think that there’s a level of irrationality. It’s almost like a trigger and —

     MR. MUSK: It totally triggers.

     Q    And it’s like — look, I — I’ve been on TV — this is my 29th year. I’ve been on radio 35 years. I will — I’ve gone hard in the paint to — for candidates that lost.

     MR. MUSK: Yeah.

     Q    And guess what? I get over it.

     MR. MUSK. Sure. Yeah, yeah.

     Q    And I just keep doing my show, and I just — you know, I come back to fight another day.

     So, here’s the big — then this is the million dollar or billion dollar — I’m among billionaires — question. So, you have all this going on and you stop, in a way — you’re still doing it — and you partner with him. And this is what you get for it from the Democrats. You get “nobody voted for Elon.” Well, nobody voted for any of your Cabinet nominees. Okay? “People are dying because of DOGE cuts.” I’ll give you a chance to respond to all that. “What DOGE is doing is illegal.” “Elon Musk is” — more street vernacular for a male body part. “It’s a constitutional crisis.”

     MR. MUSK: How c- — why — why are they reacting like this?

     Q    Well, first of all, do you give a flying rip? Number one. And —

     MR. MUSK: Well, I guess we must be — if we’re the target, we’re doing something right. You know, if — like, they wouldn’t be complaining so much if they — we weren’t doing something useful, I think.

     What — all we’re really trying to do here is restore the will of the people through the president. And — and what we’re finding is there’s an unelected bureaucracy. Speaking of unelected, there’s a — there’s a vast federal bureaucracy that is implacably opposed to the — the president and the Cabinet.

     And you look at, say, D.C. voting. It’s 92 percent Kamala. Okay, so we’re in 92 percent Kamala. That’s a lot.

     Q    Yeah. They don’t like me here either.

     MR. MUSK: I think about that number a lot. I’m like, 92 percent. That’s, basically, almost everyone. And so — but if — but how can you — if — if the will of the president is not implemented, and the president is representative of the people, that means the will of the people is not being implemented, and that means we don’t live in a democracy, we live in a bureaucracy.

     And so, I think what we’re seeing here is the — sort of, the thrashing of the bureaucracy as we try to restore democracy and the will of the people.

     Q    You —

     MR. MUSK: Is this making sense? I mean — sorry.

     Q    Y- — no, of course it does. I mean, to me, if you look at our framers and our founders — and you’ve really become a student of history, Mr. President, and we’ve ta- — we’ve had conversations both on air and off air — and if we talk about constitutional order or transformational change, nobody can argue that what’s happening here is going at the speed of light.

     But however, what were the principles of our framers and our founders? They wanted limited government, greater freedom for the people — and we’ll get to the specific cutting of waste, fraud, and abuse. That — that is your goal, is it not?

     THE PRESIDENT: Yeah. And my goal was to get great people. And when you look at what this man has done, I mean, it was something — I knew him a little bit through the White House. Originally, I’d see him around a little bit. I didn’t know him before that, and I respected what he did. And he fought hard. You know, he was a — he was maybe questioned for a while. He was having some difficulties. It was not easy doing what he did.

     I mean, how many people have started a car company and made it really successful and made a better car where it’s, you know, beating these big companies that that’s all they do is cars? I mean, it’s really amazing the things that he’s done.

     But I didn’t know it as much then as now. I mean, the fruits have sort of taken hold.

     But I wanted great people, and he’s a great person. He’s an amazing person. He’s also a caring person. You know, he uses the word “care.”

     So, they sign a contract in a government agency, and it has three months. And the guy leaves that signed the contract, and nobody else is there, and they pay the contract for 10 years.

     So, the guy is getting checks for years and years and years, and he’s telling his family, obviously — maybe it was crooked, maybe he paid to get the contract, or maybe he paid that they didn’t terminate him. But, you know, we have contracts that go forever, and they’ve been going for years, and they’re supposed to end in three months or five months or two years or something, and they go forever. So, the guy is either crooked — you know, where he knew this was going to happen — or he’s crooked because he’s getting payments that he knows he shouldn’t be getting.

     MR. MUSK: Yeah.

     THE PRESIDENT: But they’re finding things like that. They’re finding things far worse than that. And they’re finding billions — and it will be hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of fraud. I say waste and abuse, but fraud, waste, and abuse. And he’s doing an amazing job.

     And he attracts a young, very smart type of person. I call them high-IQ individuals, and they are. They’re very high Q and — high IQ. And when they go in to see the people and talk to these people — you know, the people think they’re going to pull it over. They don’t. These guys are smart, and they love the country. You know, there’s a certain something.

     But he uses the word “care.” So, people have to care. Like, when I bought Air Force One —

     MR. MUSK: Exactly.

     THE PRESIDENT: — I negotiated the price. It was $5.7 billion, and I got it — I got them down $1.7 billion. Now they’re not building the plane fast enough. I mean, they’re actually in default — Boeing. They’re supposed to —

     Q    When is it —

     THE PRESIDENT: They’ve been building this thing forever. I don’t know —

     Q    This is the new Air Force One?

     THE PRESIDENT: — what’s going on.

     MR. MUSK: Yeah.

     THE PRESIDENT: We don’t build the way we used to build. You know, we used to build like a ship a day, and now to build a ship is, like, a big deal, and we’re going to get this country back on track. We could do it, but so many things — it takes so long to get things built and get things done.

     And a lot of it could be something we’ve been discussing. The regulators go in and they make it impossible to build. They make it very difficult to build anything, whether it’s a ship, a plane, or a building or anything. And some of them do it because they want to show how important they are. Some of them do it maybe because they think they’re right. They use the environment to stop progress and to stop things. It’s always the environment. “It’s an environmental problem.” It’s not an environmental problem at all. But they do a lot of things.

     And, by the way, speaking of that, Lee Zeldin is going to be fantastic in the position. So important. He could take 10 years to approve or disapprove something, or he could do it in a month. You know, just as good.

     Q    Sure.

     THE PRESIDENT: And I think you’re going to see some fantastic — a fantastic job done by him. He’s a tremendous guy.

     Q    Newt — you echoed something when I had just met you, and it was very similar to what Newt has been saying, that we’re — he brought this country to the dance. This is the opportunity to be transformational, and to have, I would argue, a — the most consequential presidency if we — if we’d really dig down and do something that had never been done before, and that is get rid of this bureaucracy. And I’m going —

     MR. MUSK: Yes.

     Q    — to get to specifics. You say the same thing. It’s not done yet.

     MR. MUSK: Absolutely.

     Q    And what did you mean by that?

     MR. MUSK: Well, I mean the — w- — winning the election is really the opportunity to fix the system. It is not fixing the system itself. So, it’s an opportunity to fix the system and to restore the power of democracy.

     And, you know, people — like, it’s funny how — how often it — you — when these attacks occur, the thing that they’re accusing the administration of is what they are guilty of. They’re saying that things are — are being done are unconstitutional, but what they are doing is unconstitutional. They are guilty of the crime of which they accuse us.

     THE PRESIDENT: That’s always the first thing they do.

     MR. MUSK: Yeah.

     THE PRESIDENT: “He’s in violation of the Constitution.” They don’t even know what they’re talking — well, they know.

     MR. MUSK: It’s absurd.

     THE PRESIDENT: It’s just a con job. It’s a big con job. And they’re so bad for the country, so dangerous and so bad.

     And the media is so bad. When I watch MSNBC, which I don’t watch much, but you have to watch the enemy on occasion, the level of arrogance and — and cheating and — they’re just horrible people. These are horrible people.

     Q    They lie.

     THE PRESIDENT: These are horrible people.

     Q    They tell conspiracy theories.

     THE PRESIDENT: They lie, and they start up with the Constitution. They couldn’t care less about the Constitution.

     CNN, likewise. I mean, I watched them asking questions with, you know, the hatred with the — why — I said, “What are you asking the question with such anger? You’re asking me a normal question.” But you see the bias. The bias is so incredible. Those two are bad.

     PBS is bad. AP is bad. CBS is terrible.

     I mean, CBS now — they changed an answer in Kamala. They asked her some questions. She answered them like, you know, a low-IQ person. The opposite of him — the absolute opposite. But she gave a horrible answer. They took the entire answer out, and they put another answer that she gave 20 minutes later into the — in- — as the answer.

     Q    It was part of her word salad.

     THE PRESIDENT: I’ve never even heard of that be- — I thought I heard of it all.

     MR. MUSK: Right.

     Q    That wh- — “60 Minutes” once — one — wanted to do an interview with me, and I said, “Live to tape.”

     MR. MUSK: Yeah, exactly.

     Q    They said, “No.” And I said, “No” —

     MR. MUSK: Right.

     Q    — “No deal.”

     MR. MUSK: Exactly. They can- —

     Q    Like, this interview will —

     THE PRESIDENT: I’ve never even heard — you know, I’ve seen where they take a sentence off or something and they’ll do — but they —

     Q    Sometimes you cut for time o- —

     THE PRESIDENT: No, no. They took the entire — this long, terrible statement that she made and put another.

     Nobody’s ever seen what’s happening. And, you know, the people that do all this complaining, they’re very dishonest people.

     MR. MUSK: Yeah.

     Q    Yeah. I — I’m going to, just for the sake of saving time —

     THE PRESIDENT: Yeah.

     Q    — because I could spend — and I’ve done this on radio and TV, I — I can spend an hour finding the outrageous amounts of money being spent abroad, like USAID.

     MR. MUSK: Sure.

     Q    And I do want to mention a couple, but I’m going to —

     MR. MUSK: Yeah.

     Q    — scroll it and —

     MR. MUSK: Well — well, I guess, at a high level, I think it’s what the president mentioned earlier, which is that in order to save taxpayer money, it comes down to two things: competence and caring. And —

     THE PRESIDENT: That’s right.

     MR. MUSK: — and when — when president was shown the outrageous bill for the new Air Force One and — and then negotiated it down, if he had — if the president had not applied competence and caring, the price would have been 50 percent higher — literally, 50 percent higher. The president cared. The president was competent. The price was not 50 percent higher as the result.

     And so, when you add more competence and caring, you get a better deal for the American people.

     THE PRESIDENT: But we could take — we were talking about this yesterday. I could take — give me thousands of bills — any — I could pick any one of them, and I could —

     MR. MUSK: Yes, exactly.

     THE PRESIDENT: — take all thousand. And let’s say it’s a bill for $5,000 — just $5,000, and it’s done by some bureaucrat. And if he would say, “I’ll give you three. I don’t want to pay you five. It’s too high. I’ll give you three.” But they don’t do that. If a guy sends in a bill for $5,000, they pay $5,000. They expect to be cut. Everybody expects to be cut. When you send in a bill, you expect to be cut. They send in the bill higher, for the most part. This is true with lawyers, legal fees. When they send in legal fees, you — I can cut — I wish I had the time, I would save so — but I could cut these bills in half — much better than half.

     But you offer people a much lower number because you know they — they actually put fat — I’m not even saying it’s — it’s like a way of business. They put more on because they expect to be negotiated. When you send in a bill to the government, there’s nobody to negotiate.

     MR. MUSK: Yes.

     THE PRESIDENT: You send it a bill for $10,000, and they send you a check back for $10,000. If you would call them and said, “We’ll give you five.” “No, no, no. I need more than five.” “We’ll give you a five.” “I’m not going to pay any more than five.” “Make it six.” “No, I’m not going to make it six.” And you’ll settle for $5,500. You’ve just cut the bill almost in half, and it took, like, two minutes. When did that stop? But —

     Q    (Inaudible) the art of the deal?

     THE PRESIDENT: — that’s caring. No, it’s not even the art of the deal. It’s caring. He uses the word —

     MR. MUSK: It’s — it’s competence and caring.

     THE PRESIDENT: — it’s caring.

     Q    Yeah.

     THE PRESIDENT: It’s — it’s a certain competence, but I think it’s more caring.

     MR. MUSK: I — if you —

     THE PRESIDENT: (Inaudible.)

     MR. MUSK: Actually, if you add either ingredient — either competence or caring — you’ll — you’ll get a better outcome. But it stands to reason —

     Q    Right. People don’t want to do this (inaudible.)

     MR. MUSK: — that’s the reason that if you don’t have competency and you don’t have caring, you’re going to get a terrible deal. And the problem is that the American taxpayer has been — been getting a terrible deal, because — look at the last administration. Can you — can anyone — can any reasonable person say that last administration was either competent or caring?

     Q    But they lied to us and said that Joe didn’t have a cognitive decline.

     MR. MUSK: They fully lied.

     Q    They said the borders were closed. They said that the borders were secure. They said that —

     MR. MUSK: Right.

     Q    You know, they said Obamacare would save —

     MR. MUSK: They flat out lied.

     Q    They flat out lied —

     MR. MUSK: It was insane.

     Q    — on many occasions.

     MR. MUSK: Yes.

     Q    I tell my audience all the time: Don’t trust government.

     MR. MUSK: Yes.

     Q    So, the — I want — as I scroll this information, and it’s — it’s — I’ll scroll a lot more than I’ll mention to both of you, and this is the cost savings. I want you — I want people at home to understand this part: The average American makes $66,000 a year.

     MR. MUSK: Yeah.

     Q    Okay? We have $37 trillion in national debt.

     MR. MUSK: Yes.

     Q    Now, all the money I’m about to mention and what we’re going to scroll on our screen — and all of this is going to foreign countries. It is not being spent here in America —

     MR. MUSK: Yes.

     Q    — for better schools, law and order.

     MR. MUSK: I — I think the average taxpaying American should be mad as hell because their tax money is being poorly spent.

     Q    I’m mad. It’s stealing from —

     MR. MUSK: It’s a — it’s an outrage —

     Q    — our kids and grandkids.

     MR. MUSK: Yes, and the — and people —

     THE PRESIDENT: And a lot of fraud, Sean. A lot of fraud.

     Q    Yes.

     THE PRESIDENT: And a lot of kickbacks.

     They’re sending money out. They’re not that stupid. These people aren’t that stupid. They’re sending for transgender — something having to do with the opera, and they’re sending out $7 million —

     MR. MUSK: (Laughs.) Literally.

     THE PRESIDENT: — $7 million. (Inaudible) —

     Q    You just stole my next line. I can’t believe that.

     THE PRESIDENT: No, it’s incredible.

     Q    I was going to mention that.

     THE PRESIDENT: No, but it’s incredible: $7 million.

     Now, you know they — they’re not so stupid. They’re sending all this money. They expect to get a lot of it back. And that’s what happens.

     Q    Okay. So, let’s go through it.

     MR. MUSK: Yes, they’re — a bunch of —

     Q    So, for the average person at home —

     MR. MUSK: — this stuff is round-tripping. To the president’s point, they’ll — they’ll make it sound like it’s going to help some people in a foreign country, but then they — then they get kickbacks.

     Q    All right. Let me go to the ne- — to the fir- —

     MR. MUSK: Yeah.

     Q    — to the second question first. I want to know, because people like Joni Ernst, and — and House —

     MR. MUSK: Yeah, Joni — Joni Ernst has been —

     Q    They tried to get —

     MR. MUSK: — has tried for a long time, and she’s actually got a lot of good data. Senator Ernst has been really helpful, actually.

     Q    Okay, but they — they actually hide what the real purpose of the spending is.

     MR. MUSK: That’s true.

     Q    In other words, they — and — and h- — this is a question: How did you decipher? It will say, “Humanitarian blah, blah, blah in Serbia or Afghanistan.” We’ve been giving money to China for crying out loud, which I think is nuts.

     MR. MUSK: Well, we’re giving money to the Taliban.

     Q    Money to the Taliban?

     MR. MUSK: Like a lot.

     Q    All right. So —

     MR. MUSK: (Laughs.) I’m like, for what?

     Q    But they —

     MR. MUSK: I — I want to see pictures of what they did.

     Q    But they try to obscure it, and — and — but then you got to the bottom line, which is what I’m now scrolling on the screen —

     MR. MUSK: Yes.

     Q    — and that is: $20 million on a Sesame Street show in Iraq; $56 million to boost tourism in Tunisia and Egypt; $40 million to build schools in Jordan; $11 million to tell the Vietnamese to stop burning trash; $45 million for DEI scholarships in Burma; $520 million for consultant-driven ESG investments in Africa; DEI programs in Serbia; the president’s favorite — I’m sure you — you love that taxpayer money was spent on a DEI musical in Ireland or a chan- — transgender opera in Colombia or a —

     MR. MUSK: If I could, like, it sounds like —

     Q    — transgender comic book in Peru.

     MR. MUSK: It sounds like — it sounds like how can these things be real? But this is actually what was done.

     Q    Okay. The — I —

     MR. MUSK: It — it sounds like a comedy sketch or something. It’s like —

     Q    I have 20 pages of this.

     MR. MUSK: Right. It’s not — the list is a mile long.

     THE PRESIDENT: The one thing you didn’t mention, the media. The media is getting millions of dollars.

    MR. MUSK: Yes.

     THE PRESIDENT: Now, they say Politico, which is a radical left —

     Q    Subscriptions.

     THE PRESIDENT: — you know, garbage magazine or — or program. I guess they have magazine and they have some — some media of all types. $8 million.

     I hear the New York Times got a lot. I hear they get subscriptions — where they have subscriptions but maybe the paper is not sent. I have no idea if that’s true or not, but it’s — they call it subscriptions. Lots of subscri- — to different media, not just the Times — maybe the Times, and maybe not the Times.

     Q    A million dollars in subscriptions is a lot.

     THE PRESIDENT: Well — but — but millions of dollars going to media that’s radical-left, crooked, dishonest media.

     MR. MUSK: Well — well, Reuters — this is actually really wild: Reuters got like — something like $10 million for something that was literally titled “mass disinformation campaign.”

     Q    Well —

     MR. MUSK: That was on the purchase order. Well, I — I

thought that was a little bold. (Laughs.)

     Q    I will tell you what was bold is when you released —

     MR. MUSK: I’m like —

     Q    — the Twitter files.

     MR. MUSK: — shouldn’t you at least try to call it something else? (Laughs.)

     Q    The Twitter files — how they targeted him; how Twitter, at the time, worked closely with the FBI, the CIA; and, even before the release of Hunter’s very real laptop, they were feeding them disinformation. That —

     MR. MUSK: Absolutely.

     Q    — you found all that out.

     MR. MUSK: Well, I think —

     Q    That’s called transparency, right?

     THE PRESIDENT: The FBI has to be rehabbed. The FBI —

     MR. MUSK:   Yeah.

     THE PRESIDENT: What’s happened with the FBI and the DOJ is just — their — their stock has gone way down. I mean, their reputation is shot.

     Q    And intelligence.

     THE PRESIDENT: And I think Pam is going to do great. I think Kash is going to do great. I think they have to do great or we have a problem.

     But when you look at what they did, the raid of Mar-a-Lago — the raid of Mar-a-Lago — you look at what they did, their reputation is shot.

     Q    It is.

     What — you were going to say, Elon?

     MR. MUSK: Well, no, I was going to say that I think probably a — like, a lot of people still —

     Q    How — how did you find (inaudible)?

     MR. MUSK: — still believe, like, the Russia hoax, even though you’ve done a lot to combat that. The — you know, the — the Steele dossier was an incre- — a massive scam that was concocted by Hillary Clinton and her — her campaign.

     Q    She bought and paid it — for it —

     MR. MUSK: Right.

     Q    — Russian disinformation.

     MR. MUSK: There was — it was — the — people still think the — the Russia hoax is real. Like a lot of people s- — because they never — they never heard the counterpoint. I mean — I mean, a bunch of people should be in prison for that. That was a — that was outrageous election interference, creating a fake Russia hoax.

     Q    How much — if you had to put a number on it, how much do you think you’ve identified waste, fraud, abuse, corruption at this point? And again, we’ve been — we’re going to be scrolling this throughout the program.

     MR. MUSK: Well, the — the overall goal is to try to get a trillion dollars out of the deficit. And if we — if we — if the deficit is not brought under control, America will go bankrupt. This is a very important thing for people to understand. A country is no different from an individual, in that if an individual overspends, an individual can go bankrupt, and so can a country.

     And — and the out- — the massive waste, fraud, and abuse that has been going on, which is leading to a $2-trillion-a-year deficit, that — that’s what the president was handed on Jan. 20th, a $2 trillion deficit. It’s insane.

     Q    For this fiscal year?

     THE PRESIDENT: Two trill- — yeah. We inherited it.

     MR. MUSK: Two —

     THE PRESIDENT: Yeah. And inflation is back. I’m only here for two and a half weeks.

     Q    That was January —

     THE PRESIDENT: Inflating is back —

     Q    — you were there for a week.

     THE PRESIDENT: No, think of it, inflation is back. And they said, “Oh, Trump infla-” — I had nothing to do with it. These people have — have run the country. They spent money like nobody has ever spent. They were — they were given $9 trillion to throw out the window — $9 trillion, and they spent it on the Green New Scam, I call it. It’s the greatest scam in the history of the country. One of them. We have a lot of them, I guess. But one of them.

     Q    Well —

     THE PRESIDENT: Dollar-wise, probably —

     Q    — and DEI —

     THE PRESIDENT: — it is.

     Q    — and wokeism —

     THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, yeah.

     Q    — and transgenderism —

     THE PRESIDENT: Well, that’s all part of it. Yeah.

     Q    — and LGBTQ+.

     MR. MUSK: Yes.

     Q    And, by the way, not in America — other countries, not here.

     THE PRESIDENT: You know, the amazing thing is when you see, like, the teaching of DEI: $9 million. How do you spend $9 million to teach no matter what it is?

     MR. MUSK: Right.

     THE PRESIDENT: You could teach physics.

     MR. MUSK: Exactly. Totally.

     THE PRESIDENT: You could go to MIT for a lot less.

     MR. MUSK: It’s (inaudible) expensive. (Laughs.) Expensive.

     THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, the teaching —

     MR. MUSK: Expensive BS.

     THE PRESIDENT: — of DEI.

     Q    Well, I think it would be better spent on —

     THE PRESIDENT: No, it’s a kickback. It’s got to be a kickback. Nobody is that — nobody could do that. Nobody is —

     Q    Well, it —

     THE PRESIDENT: Nobody is giving — to assess the dialog of an audience coming out of a theater: $4 million.

     Q    How much do you believe, Elon, you’ve identified in — in waste, fraud, abuse, corruption now? And how much —

     MR. MUSK: Well —

     Q    — do you anticipate you will?

MR. MUSK: Sure. Well, the — I — I think —

THE PRESIDENT: One percent.

MR. MUSK: (Laughs.)

THE PRESIDENT: No, because it’s so massive. It’s — this is —

MR. MUSK: Yeah, exactly.

THE PRESIDENT: — huge money. Huge money. Look —

Q    So, what we’ve found now is one percent?

MR. MUSK: Well, we’ve j- — we’ve just gotten started here.

THE PRESIDENT: As good as they are, they’re not going to find some contract that was crooked — you know, crooked as hell. And, I mean, there’s going to be so much that isn’t found. But what is found — I think he’s going to find a trillion dollars.

MR. MUSK: Yeah, I think so.

THE PRESIDENT: But I think it’s a very small percentage compared to what it is. I mean, he could tell you about treasuries; he could tell you about a woman that worked for Biden that became a very wealthy woman while she was working for him. Right?

MR. MUSK: Yeah.

Q    Yeah, I know who you’re talking about.

MR. MUSK: I mean, there are some strange situations where people — where, you know, someone’s working for the government earning $200,000 a year, and then, suddenly, they’re worth tens of millions of dollars within a few years. Where’d the money come?

Q    How’d they earn it?

MR. MUSK: Yeah.

Q    They have a private company on the side?

MR. MUSK: We’re just curious. Like, can you —

THE PRESIDENT: While they were working.

MR. MUSK: Can you show us — because, like, in order to be worth tens of millions of dollars, you’d have to start a company, or you’ve got to get some kind — the compensation has got to come from somewhere. So, how does a civil servant with — earning $200,000 a year suddenly, within a span of a few years, be worth tens of millions dollars?

Q    W- —

MR. MUSK: So, I just want to connect the dots here.

Q    All right, s- —

MR. MUSK: Maybe there’s a legitimate explanation, but I don’t think so. (Laughter.)

Q    So, you know, and this gets to kind of the heart of where I am. I — I looked at your work, and I look at this amount of money, and I get angry. And I don’t get v- — I’m not an angry person.

MR. MUSK: Sure.

Q    I don’t get angry. I get a- — I get annoyed sometimes, but I don’t get angry.

And I did live paycheck to bay- — paycheck a part of my life. And I think of, you know, the working men and women in this country that the — 56 percent of which cannot afford a $1,000 emergency after four years of Harris and Biden.

MR. MUSK: Sure.

Q    Okay? That is serious, you know, financial trouble. Or they’re putting bare necessities on credit cards.

And I’m looking at this and I’m thinking, well, how much — when we — when all is said and done, we could have written a check or cut the taxes or fixed our schools —

MR. MUSK: Yes. Yes.

Q    — or deported these illegals that we keep finding, known terrorists, cartel members, gang members.

MR. MUSK: Yeah.

Q    And — and we’re not doing it.

THE PRESIDENT: Sean, the saddest thing is they don’t talk about the individual lines. I could go on your show right now, I could get a list that I have on the beautiful Resolute Desk in the Oval Office, and it’s got 40 points, and all they are is the heading of what this money is.

You don’t have to go deep into it, and you see it’s, you know, all different things and it’s so ridiculous.

I mean, normally, when you look for fraud, you’re looking for one thing out of a hundred. Here, out of a hundred, 95 are going to be bad. I mean, they’re — and they’re so obvious just by the heading.

But they never mention that. They only mention, “This is a violation of our Constitution. This is a” — the word they give, you know, it’s like a sound bite — “constitutional crisis.” It’s a new thing, “constitution-” — But they never mention about where the money is going.

MR. MUSK: Yes. Exactly.

THE PRESIDENT: And when people hear that — I had a very smart man, John Kennedy — he’s actually a very smart man. He said, “Sir, you should just go on television and just read the name of the topic that you’re giving all the money — just the topic that you’re giving this money to, and don’t say anything more,” and he’s right.

MR. MUSK: Yeah.

THE PRESIDENT: And I’ll do it at some point, you know, when —

But they never talk about where the money is going. They just talk about, “It’s a constitutional crisis.”

It’s so sad. And honestly, I think they’re bad people. I used to give them the benefit of the doubt, but you almost think they hate the country. I think they hate the country. They’re sick people.

Q    Remember, what they can’t — what they couldn’t accomplish at the ballot box, what they can’t accomplish legislatively, now they’re using the courts.

MR. MUSK: Yes.

Q    And they c- — they’re trying to bury you in lawsuits.

THE PRESIDENT: That’s right. You know the good news, though? They’ve lost their confidence. They’re not the same people.

Q    I think you’re right.

THE PRESIDENT: They’re — they’re not the same people.

This election was brutal for them. We won every swing state. We won by millions and millions of votes. We won everything. We — all 50 states went up — all 50. It’s never happened.

Q    Popular vote.

THE PRESIDENT: Every one. All 50 states went up.

They’ve lost their confidence. I see it. And they’re — they’re just swirling and twirling. They don’t know what the hell is happening. They’re much different. They’re just as mean, but they’re not getting to the point.

Q    Why do you invite them into the Oval Office nearly every day?

MR. MUSK: (Laughs.)

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the media — you’re talking about the media.

Q    Yeah, your friends in the media.

THE PRESIDENT: The media — no, they’re — you know, the anger that — they ask questions so angry — a question — a normal question. I give them an answer. They — but they — I say, “Why are you so angry when you ask a question?” Just a standard question. And, I don’t know, there’s something —

Q    They haven’t had a- — they haven’t been allowed in that office for the last four years, and here you’re giving them access.

Let me go to an area that I think is key, and — and you talked about this in recent interviews, and that is: We don’t need a Department of Education. Okay. And what some people are trying to do is stoke fears that, “Oh, my gosh, my kid is not going to get the money for education.”

THE PRESIDENT: (Laughs.) Yeah.

Q    Or “grandma’s Social Security and Medicare.” This was a big promise of yours on the campaign trail.

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah. Yeah.

Q    So, I really want to give you both an opportunity to assure the American people you will keep — that money will be allocated for students, but with higher standards. For example, I would assume associated with monies given or vouchers.

THE PRESIDENT: (Inaudible) so much and — and then Elon goes. But, look, Social Security won’t be touched —

Q    Won’t be touched.

THE PRESIDENT: — other than if there’s fraud or something — we’re going to find it; it’s going to be strengthened — but won’t be touched. Medicare, Medicaid, none of that stuff is going to be touched. It’s just —

Q    Nothing. I want you to —

THE PRESIDENT: (Inaudible) don’t have to.

Now, if there are illegal migrants in the system, we’re going to get them out of the system, and all of that fraud. But it’s not going to be touched.

School — I want to bring school back to the states, so that Iowa, Indiana — all these places — Idaho, New Hampshire — there’s so many places, the states. I figure 35 really run well.

And right now, it’s Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, China — China, can you imagine? — has top — top schools. We’re last.

So, they have a list of 40 countries. We’re number 40. Usually we’re 38, 39, but last time, we were number 40. And what I say is you’ve got to give it back.

So, it doesn’t work.

I’ll tell you what we’re number one in: cost per pupil. We spend more money than any other country by far — it’s not even close — per pupil. Okay? So, we know it doesn’t work.

So, we spend the most and we have the worst — right? — the worst result. When we give that — when we give that back to Indiana, when we give that b- — back to Iowa and back to a lot of the states that run well — they run well, a lot of them — 35, 37, 38 — now, you’re going to have 10 laggards, but you’re going to have 5 real laggards, but that’s going to be okay.

Take New York — you give it to Westchester County, you give it to Suffolk County, you give it to Upstate New York, and you give it to Manhattan — but you give it to four or five subsections. Same thing in California. Los Angeles is going to be a problem, but you’re going to give it to places that run well. We can change education

Now, school choice is important, but that will get care — taken care of automatically.

We want to bring education back to the states. You will spend half the number. And I’m not even doing this —

Q    So, you’re leaning more towards grants not vouchers, like to parents?

THE PRESIDENT: I’m not even — I’m not even doing this to save, but you will save. It will cost you much less money. You get a much better education.

If you go to some of these states, you’ll be the equivalent of Norway, Sweden, Denmark — places that really have a good school system. You’ll have — those places will be the equivalent, and your overall numbers will get so much better.

Q    Do you want standards associated with the money?

THE PRESIDENT: The only thing I want to do from — from Washington, D.C., is make sure they’re teaching English, reading, writing —

Q    Math and science.

THE PRESIDENT: — and arithmetic. Okay?

Q    Science? Science might help.

THE PRESIDENT: Okay. A little science. You know —

Q    Computers.

THE PRESIDENT: — you’re not going to have much of a problem with that, but that’s it.

Do you know, we have half the buildings — I mean, you look at Department of Education —

MR. MUSK: It’s empty.

THE PRESIDENT: Look at the real estate and the —

MR. MUSK: Yeah.

THE PRESIDENT: — the level. For what? To — to — I mean, for — what do they do?

We have really bad educa- — the teachers — I love teachers. I respect teachers. And, by the way, there’s no reason why teachers can’t form a union. They can do whatever they want to do, if it’s back in the states. So, we’re not looking to hurt the teacher — I’m — I’m going to help the teachers. I think the teachers should be incentivized, because a good teacher is like a good scientist, is like a great doctor.

MR. MUSK: Sure.

THE PRESIDENT: It’s a valuable commodity.

MR. MUSK: Yeah.

THE PRESIDENT: I think they should be incentivized.

MR. MUSK: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: So, I’m totally for the teachers.

MR. MUSK: Absolutely.

Q    I interview a guy a lot on radio. He’s from Wichita, Kansas. And he started —

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q    — as a medical doctor. Started Atlas.MD, and he’s now — he’s rolled it out nationwide. Concierge care, $50 a month, 24-hour access to a doctor.

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q    You know, they use a lot of telemedicine now as part of it — very innovative. He negotiates directly with pharmaceutical companies. People — if they have high blood pressure, they walk out with their medicine. They have high cholesterol, they walk out with their medicine. And they pay pennies on the dollar.

You mentioned —

THE PRESIDENT: By the way, forms of that could be done.

Q    Forms of that?

THE PRESIDENT: Forms of that could be done.

Q    Innovation.

THE PRESIDENT: We got hurt when we didn’t get the vote on Obamacare. I made Obamacare — I had a choice: I could let it rot and win a point, or I could do the best you could do with it. And that’s what I did. We did a great job with it, and we made it sort of work, but it’s lousy. We could do so much better.

And when you say — you go to certain areas, they — they have doctors round the clock. They have great medical care for a fraction of what we’re paying right now.

There are things we could do.

But, look, just overall, this man has been so valuable. I hate to see the way they go after him. They go after him. It’s so unfair. He doesn’t need this. He wants to do this.

First of all, this is bigger than anything he’s ever done. He’s done great companies and all, but this is much — you know, this is trillion — everything’s trillions, right?

MR. MUSK: Yeah. The numbers are crazy.

Q    To go back to my original point —

THE PRESIDENT: He can save —

MR. MUSK: Yeah.

Q    But let me — give him his $10 million back.

MR. MUSK: Well — well — I — no. So, people ask me, like, “What’s — what’s the — what’s the — what’s, like, the — what’s your biggest surprise in — in D.C.?” And I’m like, “The sheer scale.”

Q    It’s massive. So, you love the challenge?

MR. MUSK: Well, I mean, to —

THE PRESIDENT: He’ll never do anything bigger.

MR. MUSK: To the president’s point —

THE PRESIDENT: That’s the only thing you can say, “He’ll

never do anything” —

     MR. MUSK: But, I mean, you do something slightly better, and you save billions of dollars for the American taxpayer — just slightly better. Slightly. (Laughs.)

     Q    When you say “tech support” —

     MR. MUSK: You go one percent better, and it’s, like, you know, tens of billions of dollars saved to the American taxpayer.

Now, if I may address the point that you — the question you asked earlier, which is, you know, how do we assure people that —

Q    They want to know.

MR. MUSK: Yeah, how do we assure people that we’re going to do the right thing, that their — that their Social Security benefits will be there, that their — the medical care will be good and s- — and — in fact, how do we make it — ensure that there’s better medical care in the future? How do we improve their benefits? How do we make sure that their Social Security check goes further than it did in the past and not — it doesn’t get weakened by inflation?

So, the — if we — if we address the — the massive deficit spending, the sort of — the — the waste in the government, then — then we can actually address inflation.

So, provided the economy grows faster than the money supply, which means you stop the government overspending and the waste, and the output of real useful goods and services exceeds the increase in the money supply, you have no inflation.

Q    Yeah.

MR. MUSK: And — and you also drop the — the interest payments that people pay, because if the government keeps —

Q    Way too high.

MR. MUSK: Yes. The — the reason the interest payments are so high is because the — the national debt keeps increasing. So, the — the government is competing for — to sell debt with — for — with — with the private citizens. This drives up the interest rate.

So, if you have a — if you have a — if you cut back on the deficit, you actually have an amazing situation for people, because you get r- — you get rid of inflation and you drop the interest rates. And that means people’s mortgage payments go down, their credit card payments go down, their car payments go down, their student loans go down. Everything — their — their life becomes more affordable and they’re standard of living improves.

Q    How quickly? Because I think people are suffering now. We’re still living under the Biden-Harris economy.

THE PRESIDENT: But, Sean, you have states right now —

Q    Yeah.

THE PRESIDENT: You have some states that operate that way. They operate as well as any corporation. They really operate well.

MR. MUSK: Yeah.

Q    Florida.

THE PRESIDENT: They have surpluses. They ha- — they don’t —

MR. MUSK: Texas is — has a surplus, for example.

Q    Yeah.

THE PRESIDENT: When they — when they look at New York and — and California and some of these places that should have an advantage — I mean, there’s a big advantage — or Pritzker does such a bad job in Illinois; it’s horrible how bad he is — and they don’t have that advantage.

You know, New York has stock exchange and a lot of things. And California has the weather and the beautiful water and all the thing- —

MR. MUSK: California has — has great weather. The most expensive weather on Earth.

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah. (Laughter.) But — but —

Q    I like Florida.

MR. MUSK: Yeah.

THE PRESIDENT: But some states operate the way he’s talking about.

Q    Efficiently.

THE PRESIDENT: When you go into some of these states, you’re going to find very little. You’re going to find almost nothing. They really operate well — big surpluses, low taxes. And —

Q    You know, my taxes went up the first time you were president, because you took away the SALT deduction —

THE PRESIDENT: I — well, I did.

Q    — which, by the way, I thought was the right decision.

THE PRESIDENT: It was the right decision — in fact, Reagan tried to do it — because it rewards badly run states.

But at the same time, it’s a tough — it was — it’s tough for the states. I mean, it really is tough for the states.

The sad part is it rewards really badly run states.

Q    Yeah.

THE PRESIDENT: And Reagan tried to do it. He was unable to do it. I got it done.

Q    You got it done, and —

THE PRESIDENT: And now we’re going to give some back.

     Q    A little bit.

THE PRESIDENT: Because you know what? We’ve got to help them.

Q    It’s only a little.

THE PRESIDENT: We’ve got to help.

Q    Because otherwi- — we’re encouraging people to elect high taxes, spen- —

THE PRESIDENT: Nobody had any idea it would be that devastating. I did the right thing. I got something that Reagan couldn’t do. I got it done, where everybody is — are the same. But you know what? We’ve got to help them out.

Q    Reagan had the Grace Commission, some of the best business minds in the country.

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q    And they came up with recommendations. Congress adopted none of them, and none of them were implemented.

I’ve got to ask this question, because the media is obsessed about it: What — what if there is a conflict? In other words, because you do business — it was funny, when it came out the other day, that there was going to be, I think, $400 million — billio- — I don’t know if it was millions or billions — a lot of money on Teslas that Joe Biden’s administration w- — did with Tesla, and —

MR. MUSK: I’m not familiar with that.

Q    You’re not even familiar with it? But —

MR. MUSK: I — I don’t think — are you talking about, like, the Inflation Reduction Act stuff or —

Q    It was some — it was a purchase order of Tesla vehicles.

MR. MUSK: Oh. Oh, that was — that was incorrect. There was s- — like, there’s some sort of — the media claim that there was, like, $400 million worth of Cybertrucks —

Q    That was it.

MR. MUSK: — being bought by the DOD.

Q    And that he gave it to you.

MR. MUSK: No — well, first of all, that was —

THE PRESIDENT: No, actually, it was —

MR. MUSK: Th- — it was fa- —

THE PRESIDENT: It was Biden.

Q    It was Biden.

THE PRESIDENT: And you know Biden wouldn’t give him much.

MR. MUSK: But — but it wasn’t even — it was fake news, six weeks to Sunday. Tesla is not getting $400 million for Cybertrucks. And the — and the — and this alleged —

Q    That’s what it was, Cybertrucks.

MR. MUSK: This — yeah. This alleged award occurred in December, before the president took office. So, it’s — it’s fake on multiple levels. There i- — Tesla isn’t getting $400 million. And even if it — even if it was, which it isn’t, it was awarded during the Biden administration.

Q    Okay, but you’re — you — you —

MR. MUSK: It’s total fake news.

Q    There — there is —

MR. MUSK: It’s fake on, like — it’s like multiple leverals —

Q    There is some integration —

MR. MUSK: — multiple layers of fake.

Q    So, you’re — you’re tasked now — and I pray to God this is successful. I really do. I wish you Godspeed.

MR. MUSK: Yeah.

Q    You know, “Godspeed, John Glenn.”

THE PRESIDENT: It’s — it’s going to be, by the way. I really believe it’s going to be.

Q    But — but there —

MR. MUSK: Oh, yeah.

Q    But there are legitimate areas —

THE PRESIDENT: Because the country is going to do well beside this.

This is cutting. We’re only talking about cutting.

We’re also going to make a lot of money. We’re g- — we’re taking in so much money.

Q    But what about his business? What if — if there is —

THE PRESIDENT: Then we won’t let him do it.

Q    — a contract he would otherwise get?

THE PRESIDENT: We’re not going to let him do it. He — if —

Q    You’re not going to let him do it?

THE PRESIDENT: If he’s got a conflict — I mean, look — he —

Q    Y- — now y- —

THE PRESIDENT: He’s in certain areas — I mean, I see this morning — I didn’t — I didn’t know, but I said, “Do the right thing” — where they’re cutting way back on the electric vehicle subsidies.

MR. MUSK: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: They’re cutting back.

Q    You’re losing —

THE PRESIDENT: Not only cutting back —

Q    It hurts you.

MR. MUSK: Correct.

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah.

Now, I will tell you —

Q    You don’t care?

MR. MUSK: Well —

THE PRESIDENT: He’s probably not that happy with it, but that would have been one thing he would have come to me and said, “Listen, you got to do me a favor. This is crazy.” (Laughter.) But this was in the tax bill. They’re cutting back on the subsidies.

I didn’t — I wasn’t involved in it. I said, “Do what’s right, and you get” — and they’re coming up with the tax, but it’s just preliminary.

     But I mean, if he were involved, wouldn’t you think he’d probably do that? Now, maybe he does better if you cut back on the subsidies. Who knows. Because he figures — he does think differently. He thinks he has a better product, and as long as he has a level playing field, he doesn’t care what you do —

     MR. MUSK: Exactly.

     THE PRESIDENT: — which he’s very — he’s told me that.

MR. MUSK: Yeah. I mean, I haven’t asked the president for anything ever.

THE PRESIDENT: It’s true.

Q    And if it comes up, how — how will you handle it? (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT: He won’t be involved.

MR. MUSK: Yeah, I’ll — I’ll re- — I’ll recuse myself if it is a conflict.

THE PRESIDENT: If there’s a conflict, he won’t be involved.

MR. MUSK: Yeah.

THE PRESIDENT: I mean, I wouldn’t want that, and he won’t want it.

MR. MUSK: Right. And — and also, I’m getting a — sort of a daily proctology exam here. You know, it’s not like I’ll be getting away from something in the dead of night.

Q    Welcome to D.C. If you want a friend, get a dog.

MR. MUSK: Well, I do have a dog, but I also have friends. (Laughter.) My dog loves me, poor little creature.

THE PRESIDENT: You know the truth was —

MR. MUSK: I need to bring him to D.C.

THE PRESIDENT: He’s — I know every businessman. I know the — the good ones, the bad ones, the smart ones, the lucky ones. I know them all. This guy is a ver- — he’s a brilliant guy. He’s a great guy. He’s got tremendous imagination and scientific imagin- — far beyond — you know, you keep talking about a technologist and all, but you’re much more than a technologist. You are that. But he’s also a good person. He’s a very good person, and he wants to see the country do well.

And I know a lot of great businesspeople, really great business people, but, you know, they’re not really, in some cases, very good people. And I know people that would try and take advantage of the situation.

This guy is somebody that really cares for the country, and I saw that very early on. I saw it, really, a long time ago when I got to know him. He’s a very different kind of a character.

That’s why — you know who loves him: young people that are very smart and that love the country. He’s got, like, a tremendous following, because that’s what he’s — he’s a good person.

And he doesn’t need this. He didn’t need this, and he’s doing this to help the country. If I didn’t win this election, this country was — I don’t think it could have made it. I don’t — I mean, we’re allowing criminals — millions of criminals into our country, where everything is transgender, it’s men playing in women’s sports.

I mean, none of this stuff — you could go — I could give you a hundred things. It’s almost like they’re trying to destroy the fabric of — of the country, of the world, because the world was following us. Now the world is following us out of this pit.

We’ve done a lot. I’ll tell you what, in three weeks, we’ve done more — I think we’ve done more — in — in terms of meaningful, not just dollars — than maybe any president ever. And a lot of people are saying that.

Q    Shock — it’s been shock and awe.

THE PRESIDENT: I mean, if we can keep it going at this level, this country is going to be at a level that it’s never seen before.

Q    You know one of the things you did that I really thought was pretty clever and smart and fair, and that was reciprocal tariffs.

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, reciprocal.

Q    Ta- — I didn’t know India charged so much. I didn’t know the European Union to charge them.

MR. MUSK: Yeah, totally.

Q    I didn’t know Canada was charging us.

THE PRESIDENT: Everybody. Everybody. Everybody but us.

Q    Brazil, why?

THE PRESIDENT: And I was doing it — you know, I charged China tariffs. I took in hundreds of billions of dollars, and I was doing that. But when we got — we had the greatest economy in history. But then we got hit with COVID, and we had to solve that problem, because I was doing it — and now I said, I want to come back and do the recipri- — because every country in the world almost — we have a deficit with almost every country — not every one, but just about, pretty close.

And — but every country in the world takes advantage of us, and they do it with tariffs. They makes — make it — it’s impossible for him to sell a car, practically, in, as an example, India. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but I think —

MR. MUSK: The tariffs are like 100 percent import duty.

THE PRESIDENT: The tariffs are so high —

MR. MUSK: Yeah.

THE PRESIDENT: — they don’t want to — now, if he built the factory in India, that’s okay, but that’s unfair to us. It’s very unfair.

And I said, “You know what we do?” I told Prime Minister Modi yesterday — he was here. I said, “Here’s what you do. We’re going to do — be very fair with you.” They charge the highest tariffs in the world, just about.

Q    36 percent?

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, much — much higher.

MR. MUSK: It’s 100 percent on — auto imports are 100 percent.

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, that’s peanuts. So, much higher. And — and others too. I said, “Here’s what we’re going to do: reciprocal. Whatever you charge, I’m charging.” He goes, “No, no, I don’t like that.” “No, no, whatever you charge, I’m going to charge.” I’m doing that with every country.

MR. MUSK: It seems fair.

Q    Don’t you —

THE PRESIDENT: (Laughs.) It does.

MR. MUSK: It’s — it’s like fair is fair.

THE PRESIDENT: Nobody can argue with me. You know, the media can’t argue — I said — they said, “Tariffs — you’re going to charge tariffs?” You know, if I said, like, 25 percent they’d say, “Oh, that’s terrible.” I don’t say that anymore —

Q    Can I — (inaudible) —

THE PRESIDENT: — because I say, “Whatever they charge, we’ll charge.” And you know what?

     Q    They stop.

     THE PRESIDENT: They — then they say, “Oh, that sounds fair.”

MR. MUSK: All the president is saying is that —

     Q    (Inaudible.)

     MR. MUSK: — it needs to be at a level playing field and — and fair and square.

Q    Yeah. And how does — how —

THE PRESIDENT: And we’re going to make a lot of money and a lot of businesses are going to come pouring in.

MR. MUSK: How can you argue with a fair and square situation?

Q    Don’t — don’t you think most of them will look at the — the — for example, without America, China’s economy will tank. They need our business.

THE PRESIDENT: They do. Everybody needs us.

Q    Everybody needs it.

THE PRESIDENT: And you know what?

Q    Do- — don’t you think they’ll stop?

THE PRESIDENT: We only have so long left where we’re in this position. We’re the bank, and the bank is getting smaller and smaller and smaller. We — we’re the bank. We got to do this now. We can’t wait another 10 years and have a shell of a country left, because that’s what was going to happen.

Q    Mr. President —

THE PRESIDENT: This country — if I didn’t win this election and have people like this man right here that really do care, because that’s the other word — if you don’t care, you could be the smartest guy in the world, it’s not going to matter. But if we didn’t win this election, I’m telling you, we would not have had a country for very long.

Q    How quickly —

MR. MUSK: May I say —

Q    — do you balance the budget and — and when do we start paying down that debt?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, potentially, very quickly, between what he’s doing and with income coming in from tariffs and other things. I mean, I hope we can — I don’t want to give a date, because then these people are going to say, “Oh, well, he didn’t make the date.” But I think we can do it very quickly.

We would have never done it if this didn’t happen. Never. It would have never been — it would only get worse and worse, and ultimately, it would have exploded.

This country was headed down a very bad track. And the whole DEI thing, that was — that was a trap. That was a sick trap.

Q    (Inaudible.)

     MR. MUSK: (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT: And, you know, we’ve destroyed that. That’s gone. That’s pretty much gone.

Q    I agree.

     MR. MUSK: (Inaudible) —

     Q    We’re not — we’re not funding it.

MR. MUSK: If — I really want to — I really want to emphasize to people that — this is a very important point — if we don’t solve the deficit, there won’t be money for medical care. There won’t be money —

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

MR. MUSK: — for Social Security. We either solve the deficit or all we’ll be doing is paying debt.

Q    Nobody —

MR. MUSK: It’s — it’s got to be solved, or there’s no medical care, there’s no Social Security, there’s no nothing. That’s got to be solved. It’s not optional. America will go bankrupt if this is not done. That’s why I’m here.

Q    The president’s —

THE PRESIDENT: Europe takes advantage of us.

MR. MUSK: And — and I’d like to also just send a message — like, because, as the president said, like, this — there’s a lot of rich people out there. They should be caring more about the country because — the reason they should be caring about — more about country is: America falls, what do you think is going to happen to your business? What do — what do you think — do you think you’re be going to be okay if — if the ship of America sinks? Of course not.

Like, what — what I’m doing here, what the president is doing is it’s just long-term thinking. The ship of America must be strong. The ship of America cannot sink. If it sinks, we all sink with it.

     THE PRESIDENT: Sean, you’re a —

Q    This is what — this is what drives you?

MR. MUSK: Yes.

Q    This is important. It says “tech support.” So, you’re not trying to be president, as the media suggests. You are really here because your heart and your passion is this. And the president described you as being — this is the biggest thing you ever done. Now you trying to bring sight to —

THE PRESIDENT: There could be nothing bigger. There’s nothing —

Q    You’re sending ships up to Mars — you know, spaceships up in the sky all the time —

THE PRESIDENT: That’s peanuts.

Q    — and saving astronauts. That’s pretty big.

THE PRESIDENT: That’s peanuts compared to what we’re talking about.

Q    It’s peanuts?

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah.

Q    Do you agree with that?

MR. MUSK: Well, it’s esse- — it’s essential that America be healthy, that America’s economy be strong. And — and if that — if — basically, like, my concern is like, if — if — America is the central pillar holding up Western civilization. That pillar must be strong. If that pillar falls, the whole roof comes crashing down.

THE PRESIDENT: Including his ships.

MR. MUSK: There’s no place to hide.

THE PRESIDENT: Including his ships going up.

MR. MUSK: There’s no place to run.

THE PRESIDENT: Nothing. There’s nothing left.

Q    Why — why, if this is your goal, your motivation, you’re losing money in the process, you’re offeri- — you do all these nice things for people for free; you’re trying to solve, you know, blindness; you’re going to rescue astronauts; you help the people in North Carolina, California; you’re cutting money that was sent abroad that’s not helping the American people, then why the rage —

MR. MUSK: Actually, I think it was like —

     Q    But why this rage?

     MR. MUSK: — it was not helping the American people and hurting people overseas, to be clear.

Q    Why this rage against you now? First, they hated him. Now they hate both of you.

MR. MUSK: Well, I think we’re seeing an antibody reaction from — from those who are receiving the — the wasteful and fraudulent money.

Q    They’re being exposed.

MR. MUSK: Yes.

Q    Nobody wants to be exposed when you’re corrupt.

MR. MUSK: I’ll — I’ll tell you a lesson I learned at PayPal. You know who complained the loudest — the quickest and the loudest and with the most amount of righteous indignation? The fraudsters. That’s who complained first, loudest, and — and they would generally have this immense overreaction. That’s how we knew there were the fraudsters. That’s how we knew. There’s a tell.

Q    What di- — I’ve never — I’ve never met you before today.

MR. MUSK: Yeah.

Q    And it’s nice to meet you, by the way. Thank — thank you for doing this.

You guys are really friends. I could s- — you guys — I could see you kicking up your shoes.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, he doesn’t do this kind of thing. And the way I figured that you’d get to know him is if I did it with him. I said, “Come on, let’s do it together.” He doesn’t do this.

I think he’s smarter not doing it, overall. Because, you know, I mean, he’s done very well without doing it. But he doesn’t feel it’s really worthwhile. He wants the product to speak for itself, or whatever he does speak for itself. But he views it as — you know, does it matter?

And I’m doing this with you today because I wanted to have people understand him. And I think it’s very important — I disagree with him. I think it’s very important that they do understand him.

He doesn’t need this. He doesn’t need it. Now, I happen to think it’s made him very popular. I think it — he’s more popular now because there are so many people — you know, you’re talking about the radical left — they have the lowest ratings. MSNBC is dying. CNN is dying. They’re all dying. The New York Times is doing lousy. The Washington Post is doing horribly. They’re all doing badly because people don’t buy it anymore.

But I think it was important that he do this one interview. You’ve been a very fair guy. I think you were the right guy to do it. If we could get some radical left guy — and he’d do just as well, frankly, because it’s all about common sense.

Q    They would attack him —

THE PRESIDENT: But this — Sean —

Q    — as being unconstitutional, not — a fascist.

THE PRESIDENT: — to me this was a — it was important for people to understand, he’s doing a big job. He’s doing a very thankless job. He’s doing a thankless job, but he’s helping us to save our country.

Our country was in serious trouble, and I had to get the best guy, somebody with credibility, because if he were just a regular, good — very good, solid businessman, he wouldn’t have the credibility. He’s got the best credibility for this.

And people also know he’s an honest guy. He’s an honest guy. He’s just a very, very smart guy who’s done amazing things. And this will be the biggest thing he’s ever done, because, you know, his companies are all great. But if this country goes bad — I guess where he is a little selfish is this. He knows one thing and probably doesn’t think — but if his — if this country goes bad, his stuff is not going to be worth very much, I can tell you.

MR. MUSK: Well, I’d say, if the — if the ship of America sinks, we’re all go- — going down with it. You know, this idea that people can escape to New Zealand or some other place is false. If the central pillar of Western civilization that is America falls, the whole roof comes crashing down and there is no escape.

Q    It’s amazing, since you’ve been elected, to watch Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia — I — I was shocked at the statements that Vladimir Putin made about you. I — I was shocked at the hostage release. I was shocked that Venezuela had done it — had done it. Zelenskyy wants a deal. Putin wants a deal.

THE PRESIDENT: All good statements.

Q    King Abdullah was interested.

THE PRESIDENT: You mean by that all good statements. Look, they respect the president of this country. They respect — they did not respect the last president. They laughed at him, and they laughed at our country, and he’s done great damage to our country.

Q    Have foreign leaders told you what they thought of Biden?

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, they have, but I’d rather not say. They — they have. It’s not — it — look —

Q    It’s the obvious.

THE PRESIDENT: He was not George Washington, let’s put it that way.

MR. MUSK: (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT: Not the greatest.

Q    Sorry, if that’s (inaudible).

THE PRESIDENT: He’s done a tremendous disservice.

Q    Will you be here —

THE PRESIDENT: And, by the way, the Democrats have done a great disservice, and they ought to get their act together and use a little judgment, and they ought to work with us on straightening out this mess that —

Q    Who? John Fetterman?

THE PRESIDENT: — a lot of people have —

Q    Maybe? Who — what Democrat is not radicalized?

THE PRESIDENT: Actually, you mention John.

Q    John Fetterman.

THE PRESIDENT: He’s become the best voice in the Democrat party. You know, I had lunch with him, and I thought he was terrific, but he’s a much different man than he was before he had this difficulty. He used to be radical left, and I think he became much smarter, actually. He’s really — he’s really a voice of reason.

But the Democrats have to get together. They have to get their act together, because the stuff they — they talk about makes no sense. It makes — none whatsoever. And they must know it. They must know.

MR. MUSK: Yeah. I mean, like, the country has spoken very clearly and rejected the core tenets of the Demo- — Democratic Party. The country voted t- — fo- — I mean, the country made the — America has made its vote clear. The president won the popular vote decisively. The Republicans won the House. Repub- — Republicans won the Senate. What more do you need?

The Democratic Party needs to take a hard look in the mirror and — and change their ways.

Q    I think they went from shock, denial, into the depression stage of grief, and now they’re in the rage stage, where I anticipate they’ll stay for four years, and if they get the chance, they’ll want to impeach him 10 times. Do you anticipate you’ll be here in four years? My last question.

MR. MUSK: I’ll — I’ll be as helpful as long as I can be helpful.

THE PRESIDENT: That’s a good question. I mean, I was thinking about that just now. I said, “I wonder how long he’s going to be doing it.” You can’t get somebody like this. He cares, and he’s brilliant, and he’s got energy.

You need energy, also, in addition to those other things.

You know, I have a lot of guys that are very smart, but they have no energy. They want to sleep all day long. You need a lot of energy. He’s got a lot of energy. He’s doing a great job.

If there’s any conflict, he — he will stop it. But if he didn’t, I’d stop it. I’d see if there’s a conflict. I mean, we’re talking about big stuff.

But he’s under a pretty big microscope.

MR. MUSK: Yeah, seriously.

THE PRESIDENT: I mean, everybody is watching him. If there’s a conflict, you’re going to be reading about it within about two minutes after the conflict.

MR. MUSK: Exactly. There — there’s — the possibility of me getting away with something is 0 percent — 0.0. I — I’m scrutinized to a ridiculous degree.

And — and the other thing is that we — you know, what — what’s — you know what’s better than saying “trust — trust me” is just full transparency. So, what we’re doing with — with the DOGE — DOGE dot — just go to DOGE.gov. You can see every single action that’s being taken.

And now –and I want to be clear, we are going to make some mistakes. We’re not going to be perfect. Nobody bats a thousand. But we’re going to fix the mistakes very quickly. That’s what matters: not that you don’t make mistakes, but that you fix the mistakes very fast.

THE PRESIDENT: And you’re going to ask the other side, when they talk about, “This is a constitutional crisis,” you got to a- — what are they paying for? Where are those tax — because when you read off the list of things, it’s a big con job. See, when they talk Constitution —

MR. MUSK: Totally.

THE PRESIDENT: — it’s a total con job.

MR. MUSK: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: They never talk — and I watch some of the shows —

MR. MUSK: It’s specifics — they avoid specifics.

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, when you start talking about how did — how come they spent money on transgender here and transgender there —

MR. MUSK: Yeah, totally.

THE PRESIDENT: — and all the stuff in some country that nobody ever heard of, they don’t want to talk about it. They just talk about, “This is a constitutional crisis.”

Q    It shocks the conscious.

THE PRESIDENT: The money is being squandered purposely — tremendous theft, tremendous kickbacks, everything — and we’re straightening it out. And thank goodness. I look up, and I say, “Thank you,” because I think if it went on for four more years, it would not be salvageable. You wouldn’t be able —

MR. MUSK: Absolutely.

THE PRESIDENT: You wouldn’t be able to save it.

Q    You believe, too, that when you were in Butler, came within a millimeter being assassinated —

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah.

Q    The day you endorsed him, that was that day.

MR. MUSK: Yes.

Q    But you had been planning on it?

MR. MUSK: Yeah.

Q    Pretty — I think everybody will never forget that iconic blood on your face. “Fight, fight, fight.” I actually was afra- — watching it and thought you might drop again. You know, I didn’t know if it had hit you. You can sometimes get up and then the blood starts to accumulate. It was scary — pretty scary.

MR. MUSK: Well, I mean, th- — this is how you know someone’s true character, because everyone can say they’re brave, but the president was actually shot. Okay? Courage under fire. “Fight, fight, fight,” blood streaming down the face. That’s true courage. You can’t fake that.

Q    Yeah. Thank you both.

     Mr. President, thank you, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much.

Q    Appreciate it. Elon, thank you for your time. Really nice to meet you.

                              END                    1:01 P.M. EST

MIL OSI USA News –

February 19, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Requires Transparency for the American People About Wasteful Spending

US Senate News:

Source: The White House
PROMOTING TRANSPRENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY: Today, President Donald J. Trump signed a memorandum requiring radical transparency regarding wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars by the federal government.
It requires all departments and agencies to disclose details about terminated programs, cancelled contracts, and discontinued grants to the fullest extent allowed by law.
PUTTING AN END TO WASTEFUL SPENDING: By signing this memorandum, President Trump recognizes that the American people have a right to see how the federal government has wasted their hard-earned wages.
The United States government has wasted taxpayer dollars on programs, contracts, and grants that do not serve the American public’s interests.
For too long, taxpayers have subsidized ideological projects overseas and domestic organizations engaged in actions that undermine the national interest.
The Biden Administration spent billions on electric vehicle charging stations, yet only a fraction were completed.
The Trump Administration recently canceled a Biden-era $50 million environmental justice grant to an organization that believes “climate justice travels through a Free Palestine.”
Numerous USAID grants have come under review, including $1.5 million to “advance diversity equity and inclusion in Serbia’s workplaces and business communities.”
The Biden Administration gave nearly $4.6 million to help foreign groups promote LGBT projects like drag shows and pride parades.
The Trump Administration found $20 billion parked at a financial institution by the Biden Administration to fund partisan pet projects.
President Trump’s Department of Education canceled $881 million in unnecessary contracts that were not benefiting students, including a $4.6 million contract just to coordinate Zoom and in-person meetings.
President Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has already recovered $1.9 billion in taxpayer funds “misplaced” by the Biden Administration.
The Government Accountability Office released a report last year estimating that the federal government “could lose between $233 billion and $521 billion annually to fraud.”
KEEPING HIS PROMISE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE: President Trump campaigned on a promise to return power back to the American people by “cleaning out the Deep State, firing rogue bureaucrats and career politicians, and targeting government corruption.”
President Trump recently signed a memorandum to stop last-minute collective bargaining agreements issued by the Biden Administration designed to constrain the incoming Trump Administration from reforming government.
President Trump created the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to bring accountability and transparency to federal spending, ensuring taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and effectively.
President Trump launched a 10-to-1 deregulation initiative, ensuring every new rule is justified by clear benefits for taxpayers.
The Trump Administration is aggressively investigating Biden-era programs that wasted billions of taxpayer dollars on inefficient and politically-driven projects, including canceling unnecessary government contracts and grants that do not serve the national interest.

MIL OSI USA News –

February 19, 2025
MIL-OSI United Nations: In Day-Long Security Council Debate, Speakers Offer Divergent Views on ‘New’ Global Order, Stress Need to Update Global Governance

Source: United Nations General Assembly and Security Council

During a day-long Security Council debate on practicing multilateralism and reforming global governance today, speakers stressed the urgent need to update the United Nations — founded 80 years ago — including reforms to the Council itself and to the global economic order to better address twenty-first-century challenges.

“One can draw a direct line between the creation of the United Nations and the prevention of a third world war,” said António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, recalling that the UN was “born out of the ashes” of the second. The UN remains the “essential, one-of-a-kind meeting ground to advance peace, sustainable development and human rights”, he said. However, “eight decades is a long time”, he said, emphasizing that while the “hardware” for international cooperation exists, “the software needs an update”.

As global challenges demand multilateral solutions, he pointed out that the Pact for the Future puts forward concrete solutions to strengthen the machinery of peace, advance coordination with regional organizations and includes the first multilateral agreement on nuclear disarmament in more than a decade. It also includes efforts to prevent an arms race in outer space, advance discussions on lethal autonomous weapons and recognizes the UN’s role in preventive diplomacy.

“But the Pact does even more for peace,” he said, as it recognizes that the international community must address the root causes of conflict and tension and that the Council “must reflect the world of today”. Guided by the Pact, he said that multilateralism — “the beating heart of the United Nations” — can became an even more powerful instrument of peace. “But multilateralism is only as strong as each and every country’s commitment to it,” he added, urging all Member States to continue updating global problem-solving mechanisms to “make them fit for purpose, fit for people and fit for peace”.

Shift of Power to Global South

Wang Yi, Minister for Foreign Affairs of China — Council President for February — then spoke in his national capacity to recall that representatives of his country were the first to sign the Charter of the United Nations, “writing with the Chinese calligraphy brush an important chapter in world history”. Now, though, comprehensive peace and shared prosperity remain elusive. Noting the rise of the Global South on the world stage, he insisted that “international affairs should no longer be monopolized by a small number of countries” and the fruits of global development should not be enjoyed by only a few countries. China, as the world’s largest developing country, has become the major trading partner of more than 150 countries and regions and is promoting high-quality Belt and Road cooperation to contribute to global prosperity and development.

“The continuing inequalities of the global financial system have further aggravated today’s crises,” said Mohammad Ishaq Dar, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan, adding that “the very fabric of the world order established under the UN Charter is in danger of being torn apart”. Urging reform of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, he pointed out that the current system favours the rich, while developing nations are trapped in a cycle of poverty and debt.

Also underlining the need to reform the global economic order, Selma Bakhta Mansouri, Secretary of State to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Algeria, said that current financial arrangements are largely led by developed States. It is necessary to ensure a “flexible and sustainable financing mechanism for African States and to work towards improving or easing their debt burden,” she stressed. She also noted that Africa represents more than a quarter of UN Member States, but continues to be deprived of permanent representation on the Council.

Similarly, Francess Piagie Alghali, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Sierra Leone, said that Africa remains the most glaring victim of inequitable Council composition. Without structural reform, the organ’s performance and legitimacy will continue to be questioned, she said, also highlighting Africa’s exclusion from multilateral development banks. Highlighting the African Union’s theme of the year — Justice for Africans and People of African Descent through Reparations — she stressed the need to urgently rectify the historical injustices perpetuated against the continent.

Push for Two Permanent Security Council Seats for Africa

Ahmed Moallim Fiqi, Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Somalia, also reiterated the need for a “deep-rooted reform” of the Council, stressing that African States should be granted two permanent seats that include the right to veto. Stating that the UN Charter must be the “linchpin” and “our lodestar” as the international community embarks on reforming the multilateral system, he also noted that Council resolutions are being trampled upon, calling for effective mechanisms to bolster the UN’s capacity to guarantee international peace and security.

“It is illogical that Africa does not feature among permanent members,” observed France’s representative, underscoring: “That must change.” Two African States must hold permanent seats on the Council, and he added that Africa’s demand for veto power is “legitimate”. The representative of Denmark, in that vein, stated that the world needs a more-representative Council — “one which redresses the historical injustice done to the African continent”. She added: “We cannot seriously tackle the issues facing multilateralism when the Security Council continues to operate in a reality of yesteryear.”

“The Security Council is arguably the least representative and most undemocratic of global institutions,” added Guyana’s representative, pointing out that the Council faces the risk of becoming irrelevant. “We have seen repeatedly how the current structure and decision-making format — particularly the use of the veto — have thwarted the will” of the wider membership, she said. Greece’s representative, for his part, expressed support for “any model of reform that is fair, strengthens the UN as a whole and transforms the Security Council into a more democratic, efficient, representative and accountable body”.

Russian Federation, China Accused of Being Drivers of Instability

Meanwhile, the representative of the United States said that “two of the greatest drivers of instability in the world today hold veto power”, spotlighting the Russian Federation’s bloody war in Ukraine and China’s exploitation of its developing-nation status. “We need to take a close look at where this institution is falling short,” she added. Therefore, the United States is currently reviewing its support to the UN, and she said that “we will consider whether actions of the Organization are serving American interests, and whether it can be reformed”.

As to why the UN is falling short of its ambitions, the representative of the United Kingdom observed that “there is more to this than the often-mentioned liquidity crisis”. While the Organization’s membership has increased, it is not fully representative of today’s “multipolar world”, she said. Further, the Council is often characterized as “ineffective geopolitical theatre”, and she added that — while reform is needed — “this body has the tools to implement its peace and security mandate”.

“It is time to rescue multilateralism from ruinous mistrust,” stressed Panama’s representative, urging States to ensure that, rather that floundering, the system flourishes and prospers. Observing that his country has been reaping the rewards of multilateralism since its independence, he said that diplomatic efforts lead to the end of the colonial enclave and to the recovery of “our Canal”.

BRICS Surpasses G7 in Gross Domestic Product

The representative of the Russian Federation noted that developed countries have siphoned off $62 trillion in resources from the Global South since 1960, highlighting Moscow’s efforts to advance anti-colonial agendas at the UN. And “there have been tectonic shifts in the global economy”, with BRICS (Brazil, Russian Federation, India, China, South Africa) accounting for 37 per cent of the global gross domestic product (GDP), surpassing 29 per cent represented by the Group of 7 (G7) countries, he added, stressing the need for a more equitable global financial architecture. Rejecting the West’s domination at the Security Council as “a relic of the past”, he said that his country advocates for indivisible security in Eurasia without infringing on others’ interests.

“It is extraordinary that 193 Member States — with each of us at different stages of political and economic development, like-minded or even antagonistic — gather every day in this very building to discuss and solve current and future issues,” observed the representative of the Republic of Korea. “This should not be taken for granted,” he stressed, stating that the UN’s convening role is the “driving engine of multilateralism”. Slovenia’s representative, similarly, noted that the UN “enabled the power of rules to replace the rule of power”. Citing former Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld, he said: “It is not big Powers who need the UN for their protection. It is all the others.”

Unilateralism Versus Multilateralism

As the floor opened to the wider membership, Celinda Sosa Lunda, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Bolivia, pointed to the need for radical change within the UN structure in view of the myriad threats to the planet’s very existence. “We are fighting for the transition towards a multipolar world,” she stressed. “Today the world is in a state of flux,” said Jeje Odongo Abubakhar, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Uganda, pointing to the “palpable loss of trust” in age-old institutions and mechanisms. Observing that many world leaders now favour unilateralism, he stressed: “The future of multilateralism depends on the willingness of State and non-State actors to re-imagine and revitalize the system.”

On that, Carlos Fernández de Cossío, Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs of Cuba, said that it has become crucial to defend multilateralism given “the withdrawal of the world’s greatest Power from international bodies”. He also opposed “trends towards the privatization of the Organization, turning it into a tool that represents the interests of major Powers and large transnational capital”. Meanwhile, Péter Szijjártó, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade of Hungary, said that, during the “global dictatorship of the international liberal mainstream”, the UN has failed to be a platform for peace. He therefore stressed that the UN must adjust itself to the new global political reality or “lose its significance”.

Waleed Abdul Karim El-Khereiji, Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs of Saudi Arabia, also said that the increasing crisis of confidence in the UN demands reform. Further, “current bloody incidents” call for firm responses from the multilateral system. “No people should feel abandoned by the international community,” stressed Fedor Rosocha, Director General of the Directorate for International Organizations and Human Rights in the Ministry for Foreign and European Affairs of Slovakia, stressing that the Council must not be passive in the fact of conflict, crisis and atrocity.

The fact that “no new world war has happened” is not a consolation to Ukrainians whose towns have been destroyed, observed Mariana Betsa, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine. Multilateral institutions are being undermined from within, she said, urging that permanent Council members be limited in their use of the veto when they have a conflict of interest in the matter under consideration. She added: “If the UN begins to resemble a boxing ring — with fighters, their supporters and passive spectators — the prospects for global security will be bleak.”

MIL OSI United Nations News –

February 19, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Romanian Man Guilty of Access Device Fraud Conspiracy

Source: Office of United States Attorneys

NEW ORLEANS, LA – Acting U.S. Attorney Michael Simpson announced that DORU ADAMESC, a/k/a “Petru Golban,” (“ADAMESC”), age 32, a national of Romania, pled guilty on February 13, 2025 before Chief United States District Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown, to conspiracy to commit access device fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1029(b)(2).

According to court documents, on May 19, 2024 and May 20, 2024, ADAMESC, and a co-conspirator, purchased items at retail establishments so that they could approach the credit card reading machines. ADAMESC’s co-conspirator then distracted the cashiers while ADAMESC covertly installed card skimmers on the credit card reading machines. ADAMESC was arrested on June 5, 2024, when he returned to one of the stores to attempt to retrieve a skimming device. A search of his vehicle resulted in the seizure of two large magnets, commonly used to activate the Bluetooth capabilities on skimming devices. ADAMESC’s cellular phones were seized; one phone contained a photo of approximately 60 gift cards spread out on a counter. Such gift cards are typically re-encoded with stolen card numbers in order to make fraudulent purchases or withdrawals.

Law enforcement officers also seized six credit card skimmers before ADAMESC was able to retrieve them. These skimmers captured approximately 421 credit, debit, and Electronic Benefit Transfer (“EBT”) cards.

ADAMESC faces up to 7.5 years imprisonment, up to 3 years of supervised release, a fine of up to $250,000, and a mandatory $100.00 special assessment fee. Sentencing before Chief Judge Brown has been scheduled for May 22, 2025.

Acting U.S. Attorney Simpson praised the work of the Special Agents of the United States Department of Agriculture – Office of Inspector General; Special Agents with the United States Secret Service; Deputies with the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office; Deputies with the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff’s Office; Deputies with the Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff’s Office; and Officers of the New Orleans Police Department, in investigating this matter. Assistant United States Attorney Maria M. Carboni of the Financial Crimes Unit is in charge of the prosecution.

MIL Security OSI –

February 19, 2025
MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – How can Romania ensure full absorption of NRRP funding by 2026 given the frequent delays in reaching its milestones? – P-000148/2025(ASW)
Source: European Parliament
The Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF)[1] is a temporary instrument governed by the RRF Regulation. The facility finances reforms and investments in EU Member States which must be completed by 31 August 2026. It is distinct from the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF)[2], which constitutes the EU long-term budget.

In the case of the RRF, i f the Commission assesses that not all milestones and targets associated with specific instalments are satisfactorily met, the Commission can make partial payments and suspend part of the payment.

Member States then have six months to take the necessary measures to ensure the satisfactory fulfilment of the relevant milestones and targets. If measures are not taken within six months, the overall amount of the financial or loan contribution under the RRF is correspondingly reduced.

The implementation of Romania’s recovery and resilience plan is currently delayed due to, in particular, deficiencies in administrative capacity. In its 2024 country-specific recommendations, the Council thus asked Romania to significantly accelerate the implementation of the recovery and resilience plan by guaranteeing effective governance and strengthening administrative capacity.

Like with all Member States, the Commission is working closely with Romania to support the implementation of its plan. The Commission is discussing reforms and investments, allowing the Romanian authorities identifying potential risks and possible measures in addressing them.

This is done through e.g. the technical support instrument, regular meetings and an upcoming revision of the plan prepared in cooperation with the Romanian authorities, to ensure that all the investments which can be implemented by August 2026 are prioritised.

[1] https://commission.europa.eu/business-economy-euro/economic-recovery/recovery-and-resilience-facility_en

[2] https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/long-term-eu-budget/2021-2027/documents_en
Last updated: 18 February 2025
MIL OSI Europe News –
February 19, 2025
MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Reform Agendas and compatibility with ‘do no significant harm’ principle – E-000599/2025
Source: European Parliament
Question for written answer E-000599/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Gordan Bosanac (Verts/ALE), Lena Schilling (Verts/ALE), Thomas Waitz (Verts/ALE), Vladimir Prebilič (Verts/ALE)

The Commission recently approved Reform Agendas under the Reform and Growth Facility for Albania, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia and Serbia. Regulation 2024/1449[1], which establishes the Facility, clearly states that investment projects ‘shall be guided’ (Article 4(5)) and ‘must be compatible’ (Article 13(1)(e)) with the ‘do no significant harm’ (DNSH) principle. However, when analysing four of the Reform Agendas (all the above except for Albania), we detected at least 15 environmentally damaging projects that go against the DNSH principle. These include six gas projects proposed by Serbia and North Macedonia that constitute a direct investment of EU funds in fossil fuels (contrary to Article 4(7)) and are in danger of becoming stranded assets in the medium or long term.

1.Will the Commission revise its Implementing Decision of 23 October 2024 approving the Reform Agendas and the multiannual work programme under the Reform and Growth Facility for the Western Balkans (C(2024)7375)?

2.What steps will the Commission take to ensure that future projects proposed by the countries benefiting from the Reform and Growth Facility strictly adhere to the DNSH principle?

Submitted: 10.2.2025

[1] Regulation (EU) 2024/1449 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2024 on establishing the Reform and Growth Facility for the Western Balkans, OJ L, 2024/1449, 24.5.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1449/oj.
Last updated: 18 February 2025
MIL OSI Europe News –
February 19, 2025
MIL-OSI Europe: Cooperation agreements and minorities: Federal Councillor Ignazio Cassis on official visit to Romania

Source: Switzerland – Federal Administration in English

The head of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA) is scheduled to visit Romania from 19 to 21 February 2025. His agenda includes several bilateral meetings and the signing of cooperation agreements related to the second Swiss contribution to selected EU states. The theme of minorities will also be a common thread throughout the upcoming visit, with Mr Cassis taking part in a cultural event in Bucharest to mark the fifth edition of Romansh Language Week (Emna rumantscha) as well as in a debate in the city of Constanța on linguistic minorities.

MIL OSI Europe News –

February 19, 2025
MIL-OSI Economics: Press Release: Zion Oil & Gas Announces Renewed Operations Underway for MJ-01 Well Testing & Recompletion Project in Israel

Source: Zion Oil and Gas

Headline: Press Release: Zion Oil & Gas Announces Renewed Operations Underway for MJ-01 Well Testing & Recompletion Project in Israel

Zion Oil & Gas Announces Renewed Operations Underway for MJ-01 Well Testing & Recompletion Project in Israel

Current Unit Program Ends on February 28

DALLAS, Texas, and CAESAREA, Israel, February 18, 2025

DALLAS, Texas, and CAESAREA, Israel, February 18, 2025 – Zion Oil & Gas, Inc. (OTC: ZNOG) is pleased to announce a significant operational milestone as work resumes on the recompletion of the Megiddo-Jezreel 1 (MJ-01) well in Israel. This marks a crucial phase in Zion’s ongoing efforts to unlock Israel’s onshore energy potential.

Operations Update: Crews on the Ground and Progress Underway

Zion’s rig crew arrived in Israel on February 15, 2025, and has commenced critical maintenance and preparatory work. The rig, which was safely “warm stacked” in September, is undergoing necessary maintenance procedures, including fluid changes, lubrication and greasing, and mechanical, electrical, and safety audits to ensure peak functionality.

Following maintenance, the team will begin drilling out the temporary plug at approximately 1,100 meters. This phase is expected to take 2-3 weeks, paving the way for the subsequent well recompletion and testing operations. Once the plug is removed, Zion will proceed with setting a permanent plug at the deeper part of the well to isolate the targeted zones of interest for testing.

Global Coordination & Logistics

Zion Oil & Gas has successfully navigated complex logistical challenges to ensure the timely delivery of essential equipment. Resources are currently enroute from across the globe, including India, Romania, Germany, the Netherlands, the UAE, the United States, and Tanzania. This unprecedented international cooperation underscores the dedication and perseverance of Zion’s team and partners.

“As we move forward with this phase of operations, we are witnessing God’s provision in extraordinary ways,” said Monty Kness, VP of Operations. “The ability to coordinate a project of this scale, with equipment and expertise sourced from multiple continents, is a testament to both our team’s determination and the global support behind our mission.”

Security and Site Preparedness

Zion has maintained continuous security at the MJ-01 site, ensuring a stable and secure operational environment. Additionally, commercial air travel into Israel has steadily resumed, further supporting logistical operations.

“Our focus remains on safety, precision, and execution,” said Zion CEO Rob Dunn. “With boots on the ground and critical equipment in motion, we are committed to seeing this project through knowing God has directed our steps forward.”

Completion Timeline & Next Steps

With all necessary equipment expected to be on-site by mid-March, barring unforeseen circumstances Zion anticipates its well completion and testing operations should be nearing completion in Q2 2025. The team remains confident in its planned operations and will continue to provide updates as milestones are achieved.

Final Opportunity: Unit Program Closing February 28, 2025

Zion Oil & Gas reminds investors that the current Unit Program will close on February 28, 2025. This is the final opportunity to participate before the program concludes.

For every $250.00 UNIT purchased, investors receive:
– Common stock based on the high-low average sale price on OTCQB: ZNOG for the day of purchase (or the next trading day if purchased after 4:00 PM EST).
– 50 Warrants with an exercise price of $0.25 each.
– 50 Additional Warrants for those enrolled in Automatic Monthly Investments (AMI) at $50/month or more (one-time only).
– Warrants are exercisable for 12 months from March 31, 2025, to March 31, 2026.

To learn more, click HERE.

Faith & Perseverance

John Brown, Zion’s Founder and Chairman, expressed gratitude for the unwavering support from shareholders and believers in its mission. “We remain steadfast in our calling, knowing that each step forward is guided by the Lord. As we embark on this critical phase of operations, we are encouraged by His promises and the faithfulness of our supporters.”

About Zion Oil & Gas, Inc.

Zion Oil & Gas, a U.S. public company traded on OTCQB: ZNOG, is dedicated to exploring for oil and gas onshore in Israel under its Megiddo Valleys License 434 which covers approximately 75,000 acres.

For more information, visit www.zionoil.com.

“The end of a matter is better than its beginning, and patience is better than pride.”
Eccl 7:8 NIV

“Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits, who forgives all your iniquity, who heals all your diseases, who redeems your life from the pit, who crowns you with steadfast love and mercy, who satisfies you with good so that your youth is renewed like the eagle’s.”
Ps 103:2-5 ESV

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS: Statements in this communication that are not historical fact, including, but not limited to, statements regarding Zion’s operations and the results therefrom, including testing and completion; Zion’s ability to discover and produce oil in commercial quantities; Zion’s ability to continue as a going concern; operational risks in ongoing exploration efforts; regulatory approvals needed for exploration within our license and the rig’s operation; the effect, if any, of the uncertainties associated with wars and skirmishes between Israel and other organizations and/or countries, and liquidity for shareholders on the OTC market are forward-looking statements as defined in the “Safe Harbor” provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements are based on assumptions that are subject to significant known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other unpredictable factors, many of which are described in Zion’s periodic reports filed with the SEC and are beyond Zion’s control. These risks could cause Zion’s actual performance to differ materially from the results predicted by these forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, those described in Item 1A in Zion’s Annual Report on Form 10-K, which is expressly incorporated herein by reference, and other factors as may periodically be described in Zion’s filings with the SEC. Zion can give no assurance that the expectations reflected in these statements will prove to be correct and assumes no responsibility to update these statements.

MIL OSI Economics –

February 19, 2025
MIL-OSI Security: Romanian Police Serve Dozens of Warrants Following Parallel Investigation with the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office
Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) State Crime Alerts (b)

Romanian law enforcement officials conducted dozens of warrants this week in the Romanian counties of Brasov and Mures, following a parallel investigation with the FBI.

The search warrants targeted locations suspected to have ties to an organized crime group engaged in ATM skimming in the United States and money laundering.

During the operation, Romanian officials also detained several individuals for questioning and seized large amounts of cash, several vehicles, as well as skimming devices and associated instruments.

“This group profited handsomely by targeting vulnerable EBT recipients who rely on funds to support their families and callously deprived victims of their basic needs,” said Akil Davis, the Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Los Angeles Field Office. “This investigation is yet another example of FBI Agents working closely with our foreign partners to identify, disrupt and dismantle transnational criminal enterprises who enter the United States illegally for the sole purpose of conducting criminal activity.”

Today’s operation is the culmination of a two-year investigation conducted by the FBI and Romanian authorities to dismantle the command and control of the Dorneanu Organized Crime Group: a transnational criminal organization whose members conduct ATM skimming operations in the United States and then launder the profits back to Romania.

“These individuals targeted and stole from our community’s most vulnerable citizens,” said Acting United States Attorney Joseph T. McNally. “Working together with our local, federal, and international partners, we can and will continue to root out and punish transnational criminal organizations and protect the less fortunate and American taxpayers.”

The subjects targeted in this investigation worked directly for, or were associated with, Mihai Dorneanu—the alleged leader of the Dorneanu Organized Crime Group. Five members of this organization were arrested by the FBI and convicted in the Central District of California with violations including conspiracy, bank fraud, aggravated identity theft, and visa fraud. Four others were arrested for state violations by local authorities in Ventura and San Bernardino Counties. As a result of ongoing efforts in this case to disrupt ATM skimmers in Southern California, law enforcement recovered over 8,500 stolen credit card numbers belonging to victims in the United States.

The five federal defendants include the following:
- Marius Oprea was sentenced to six years and three months in federal prison. U.S. Attorney Press Release
- Dan Eugen Boar was sentenced to four years in federal prison.
- Radu-Marian Moldovan was sentenced to time served in federal prison.
- Attila Ravasz was sentenced to one year and three months in federal prison.
- Andrei-Raul Cirilescu was sentenced to two years and four months in federal prison.
A statement announcing the operation was also issued by Romanian authorities (translation available upon visiting page).

The domestic investigation was conducted jointly by the Ventura County District Attorney’s Office; the San Bernardino County Human Services Fraud Investigation Unit; the Diplomatic Security Service; the Los Angeles Police Department; and the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. The federal defendants were prosecuted by the United States Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles.

The FBI’s foreign partners include the Brașov Brigade for Combatting Organized Crime; prosecutors with the Directorate for the Investigation of Organized Crime and Terrorism—Brașov Territorial Service; and Europol.

MIL Security OSI –
February 19, 2025
MIL-OSI Economics: Young innovators shine: Meet the finalists of the Verizon Unloc Young Entrepreneurs Challenge

Source: Verizon

Headline: Young innovators shine: Meet the finalists of the Verizon Unloc Young Entrepreneurs Challenge

LONDON, U.K. – Five young entrepreneurs have been named as finalists in the latest Young Entrepreneurs Challenge (YEC), an initiative launched by Verizon and Unloc.

The challenge, now in its seventh year, aims to discover the business leaders of tomorrow by tasking young European entrepreneurs between the ages of 16 and 25 to devise a tech-led business idea that addresses a key industry or societal issue.

This year’s challenge has brought to light a number of business models that tackle current sustainability and healthcare challenges including water restoration robots, biodegradable textiles from kombucha by-products, reforestation hexapod robots, a floating solar solution and a robotic glove for stroke rehabilitation. The team received over 100 competitive and innovative business ideas from a wide range of countries across Europe including the UK, Ireland, Spain, Italy, France, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, Greece, Slovakia, Turkey, Portugal, Austria, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Estonia and Poland.

“Throughout the past seven years, the Young Entrepreneurs Challenge has been a brilliant opportunity to discover young and promising talent across Europe. There is nothing like the imagination and innovation of a young mind. The YEC serves as a platform to help bring their ideas to life,” said Sanjiv Gossain, General Manager and Head of EMEA for Verizon Business.

“Young entrepreneurs in Europe often face hurdles and scepticism in accessing funding and mentorship. Verizon Business is proud to play a small role in helping this next generation of tech leaders stay a step ahead in the industry, as they work to make a positive impact around the world.”

“We are in an era where technological innovation is crucial for tackling complex challenges in sustainability, climate change, and health. Investing in the next generation of leaders and their ideas is essential to addressing these issues,” said Hayden Taylor, Co-Founder and Chief Executive of Unloc. “Each year, we are amazed by the ingenuity of young entrepreneurs and are impressed to see the innovative ideas submitted for the Young Entrepreneurs Challenge.”

The five finalists will now compete head-to-head in a grand finale held in March 2025, pitching their business concept live to a panel of expert judges and invited guests representing both the worlds of business and education.

The winner receives £10,000 (€11,750*), mentorship and a technology support package to help kickstart their business. In addition, the winner will also receive a ticket to attend the Global One Young World 2025 Munich Summit.

Each runner-up will receive £977 (€1175) to fund their start-up business, a personalised development plan that focuses on key priorities, and access to a series of masterclasses over the next year that will pair the finalists with various industry experts.

Here are the 2025 finalists:

Aleksandra Daniljuk – AquaRenew

Aleksandra aims to address the global environmental crisis of water pollution caused by excess nitrogen and phosphorus in water bodies. Her solution involves small, solar-powered robots that use wire meshes to collect harmful algae blooms, release oxygen through air stones to combat oxygen depletion, and utilise zeolite biofilters to absorb excess nutrients, thereby preventing further eutrophication.

The key selling point is its self-sustaining business model. The collected algae will be sold to businesses that convert them into biofuels and other sustainable products, creating a revenue stream to fund more robots. This approach not only restores aquatic ecosystems but also fosters sustainability and generates economic value.

Aleksandra’s solution also aligns with the UN SDG 14: Life Below Water, promoting ecological restoration and sustainability.

Luisanny Martinez – Skomby by Tex

Skomby by Tex is a solution to modern challenges in fashion and sustainability that offers a sustainable, biodegradable material made from kombucha fermentation by-products. The eco-friendly alternative to traditional leather and textiles is crafted from bacterial cellulose, offering a lightweight, durable, and unique texture.

The material is 100% biodegradable and compostable, and can even be reused as planting capsules. To further enhance the sustainable model of the business, the team uses natural dyes like turmeric, spirulina, and saffron, ensuring no toxic chemicals are involved.

Skomby by Tex collaborates with local kombucha producers in order to reduce waste and emissions. Luisanny’s long-term vision is to scale production while maintaining low-impact manufacturing practices, such as sun drying and ambient-temperature fermentation.

Marta Bernardino – Trovador

The precision reforestation market is projected to reach $9.77 billion by 2033, growing at a 5.74% CAGR, with high demand from the private sector. Recognising a billion-dollar opportunity, Marta developed Trovador, a reforestation robotics company that combats climate change by planting trees in hard-to-reach areas. Unlike drones, which have a low survival rate for seeds, Trovador’s hexapod robots plant saplings with a 90% survival rate. These AI-driven robots navigate challenging terrains like cliffs and slopes, ensuring effective reforestation.

Trovador’s unique hexapod design preserves essential soil conditions for sapling survival and operates autonomously, overcoming obstacles in real-time. This innovative approach supports sustainability by providing rural communities with a safe, efficient reforestation solution, aligning with several UN Sustainable Development Goals.

The service is quite simple and self-explanatory: clients select the planting site, the robot is deployed, and reforestation is monitored remotely. With just £2.5 (€3) per tree, Trovador is 30% more affordable than traditional methods, while excelling in speed, safety, and sustainability.

Sebastiaan Schalkwijk – Solar Sub

Solar Sub’s floating solar solution revolutionises renewable energy by placing solar panels on water bodies, maximising land use and harnessing natural cooling. This approach enhances system efficiency, increasing energy yield by up to 27% compared to traditional solar systems.

Solar Sub’s advanced cooling technology and optimal panel positioning improve efficiency and durability, reducing operational costs and extending the lifespan of solar installations. This innovation sets Solar Sub apart from competitors facing issues with panel overheating and degradation.

Sebastiaan adopts a licensing business model which allows rapid scaling without significant capital investment. This reduces upfront costs and risks, enabling us to focus on strategic partnerships. His model has gained traction with support from key industry players, confirming market interest and feasibility.

Zain Sumdani – Exoheal

Exoheal addresses the global shortage of physiotherapists and the inaccessibility of effective therapy with a robotic glove and a machine-learning-powered app. This solution delivers personalised, real-time therapy, enabling stroke recovery from home. Early trials show a 50% improvement in recovery time compared to traditional methods.

Exoheal app connects patients with hospitals and clinics, allowing remote monitoring and real-time feedback. Its modular design and scalable production ensure affordability and the ability to meet global demand.

By 2028, Zain and his team aim to transform 100,000 lives, saving governments $178 million in healthcare costs and enabling $16 million in inpatient earnings.

For more information on the Young Entrepreneurs Challenge visit: youngentrepereneurschallenge.com

About Unloc

Unloc was founded in 2013 by award-winning young leaders and advocates Hayden Taylor and Ben Dowling. Our mission is to empower young people to be innovative changemakers who seek to build stronger communities and sustainable businesses. We develop young people’s skills, enhance their potential and boost their determination to succeed. This is encapsulated in our ‘Developing Young Potential’ tagline. We work towards our mission by delivering inspiring educational programmes in our growing network of schools and colleges, our physical Changemaker Studios spaces in Portsmouth and London, and work with business leaders to deliver a range of programmes that help us achieve our mission. For more information about Unloc visit www.unloc.org.uk

MIL OSI Economics –

February 19, 2025
MIL-OSI Banking: Huawei Europe Bags Prestigious Top Employer 2025 Award for Sixth Consecutive Year Feb 18, 2025

Source: Huawei

Headline: Huawei Europe Bags Prestigious Top Employer 2025 Award for Sixth Consecutive Year
Feb 18, 2025

[Düsseldorf, Germany, February 18, 2025] Huawei Europe earned recognition as a Top Employer in Europe for the sixth consecutive year in 2025. This prestigious certification covers the following 17 countries: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, the Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal, Poland, Romania, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden and Turkey.
Huawei received the Top Employer Europe Award during the Top Employers Institute celebration dinner event

The recognition is a testament to Huawei Europe’s exemplary human resources practices and underscores its commitment to fostering a culture of innovation, inclusivity, and continuous improvement.
Lesley White, Vice President of Human Resources, Huawei European Region said: “Europe is home to a diverse and highly skilled talent pool, driving innovation and excellence. Being certified as a Top Employer in Europe is a testament to Huawei’s commitment to fostering a supportive, inclusive, and growth-oriented workplace. This recognition underscores the importance of investing in employee development, well-being and engagement, ensuring that the company not only attracts top talent but also retains and empowers them to thrive in a competitive global landscape.”
The Top Employers Institute is a globally recognized authority in certifying excellence in employment practices. The certification process involves a comprehensive survey across six core dimensions, with over 250 detailed questions assessing various HR practices. Each topic is evidence-based, ensuring answers are factual and aligned with industry benchmarks, followed by a rigorous audit to guarantee certification accuracy.
Patrik Rendel, Regional Manager DACH & CEE of Top Employers Institute said: ” On behalf of the Top Employers Institute, we extend our heartfelt congratulations to Huawei for achieving the prestigious Top Employer certification with an impressive score of 91.26%. This remarkable accomplishment reflects commitment to implementing best HR practices. Huawei’s dedication to empowering talent and driving innovation sets a benchmark for excellence in the industry. We are proud to recognize Huawei as a leader in people practices and look forward to your continued success in shaping the future of work. ”
Lesley White, Vice President of Human Resources, Huawei European Region with Top Employers Institute CEO David Plink

Huawei is dedicated to driving digital transformation and innovation, connecting the world through cutting-edge ICT technology. With a focus on excellence, we empower individuals to lead, excel, and shape the future of connectivity. Join us in a dynamic, supportive environment where your contributions will be recognized, and your potential can break boundaries, advancing both your career and global progress.
To learn more visit: https://career.huawei.com/reccampportal/euportal/portal/index.html

MIL OSI Global Banks –

February 19, 2025
MIL-OSI Banking: Huawei Europe Bags Prestigious Top Employer 2025 Award for Sixth Consecutive Year

Source: Huawei

Headline: Huawei Europe Bags Prestigious Top Employer 2025 Award for Sixth Consecutive Year

[Düsseldorf, Germany, February 18, 2025] Huawei Europe earned recognition as a Top Employer in Europe for the sixth consecutive year in 2025. This prestigious certification covers the following 17 countries: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, the Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal, Poland, Romania, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden and Turkey.
Huawei received the Top Employer Europe Award during the Top Employers Institute celebration dinner event

The recognition is a testament to Huawei Europe’s exemplary human resources practices and underscores its commitment to fostering a culture of innovation, inclusivity, and continuous improvement.
Lesley White, Vice President of Human Resources, Huawei European Region said: “Europe is home to a diverse and highly skilled talent pool, driving innovation and excellence. Being certified as a Top Employer in Europe is a testament to Huawei’s commitment to fostering a supportive, inclusive, and growth-oriented workplace. This recognition underscores the importance of investing in employee development, well-being and engagement, ensuring that the company not only attracts top talent but also retains and empowers them to thrive in a competitive global landscape.”
The Top Employers Institute is a globally recognized authority in certifying excellence in employment practices. The certification process involves a comprehensive survey across six core dimensions, with over 250 detailed questions assessing various HR practices. Each topic is evidence-based, ensuring answers are factual and aligned with industry benchmarks, followed by a rigorous audit to guarantee certification accuracy.
Patrik Rendel, Regional Manager DACH & CEE of Top Employers Institute said: ” On behalf of the Top Employers Institute, we extend our heartfelt congratulations to Huawei for achieving the prestigious Top Employer certification with an impressive score of 91.26%. This remarkable accomplishment reflects commitment to implementing best HR practices. Huawei’s dedication to empowering talent and driving innovation sets a benchmark for excellence in the industry. We are proud to recognize Huawei as a leader in people practices and look forward to your continued success in shaping the future of work. ”
Lesley White, Vice President of Human Resources, Huawei European Region with Top Employers Institute CEO David Plink

Huawei is dedicated to driving digital transformation and innovation, connecting the world through cutting-edge ICT technology. With a focus on excellence, we empower individuals to lead, excel, and shape the future of connectivity. Join us in a dynamic, supportive environment where your contributions will be recognized, and your potential can break boundaries, advancing both your career and global progress.
To learn more visit: https://career.huawei.com/reccampportal/euportal/portal/index.html

MIL OSI Global Banks –

February 19, 2025
MIL-Evening Report: Ukraine isn’t invited to its own peace talks. History is full of such examples – and the results are devastating

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matt Fitzpatrick, Professor in International History, Flinders University

(From left to right): Neville Chamberlain, Édouard Daladier, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Italian Foreign Minister Galeazzo Ciano before signing the Munich Agreement, which gave the Sudetenland to Germany. German Federal Archives/Wikimedia Commons

Ukraine has not been invited to a key meeting between American and Russian officials in Saudi Arabia this week to decide what peace in the country might look like.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Ukraine will “never accept” any decisions in talks without its participation to end Russia’s three-year war in the country.

A decision to negotiate the sovereignty of Ukrainians without them – as well as US President Donald Trump’s blatantly extortionate attempt to claim half of Ukraine’s rare mineral wealth as the price for ongoing US support – reveals a lot about how Trump sees Ukraine and Europe.

But this is not the first time large powers have colluded to negotiate new borders or spheres of influence without the input of the people who live there.

Such high-handed power politics rarely ends well for those affected, as these seven historical examples show.

1. The Scramble for Africa

In the winter of 1884–85, German leader Otto von Bismarck invited the powers of Europe to Berlin for a conference to formalise the division of the entire African continent among them. Not a single African was present at the conference that would come to be known as “The Scramble for Africa”.

Among other things, the conference led to the creation of the Congo Free State under Belgian control, the site of colonial atrocities that killed millions.

Germany also established the colony of German South West Africa (present-day Namibia), where the first genocide of the 20th century was later perpetrated against its colonised peoples.

How the boundaries of Africa changed after the Berlin conference.
Wikimedia Commons/Somebody500

2. The Tripartite Convention

It wasn’t just Africa that was divided up this way. In 1899, Germany and the United States held a conference and forced an agreement on the Samoans to split their islands between the two powers.

This was despite the Samoans expressing a desire for either self-rule or a confederation of Pacific states with Hawai’i.

As “compensation” for missing out in Samoa, Britain received uncontested primacy over Tonga.

German Samoa came under the rule of New Zealand after the first world war and remained a territory until 1962. American Samoa (in addition to several other Pacific islands) remain US territories to this day.

3. The Sykes-Picot Agreement

As the first world war was well under way, British and French representatives sat down to agree how they’d divide up the Ottoman Empire after it was over. As an enemy power, the Ottomans were not invited to the talks.

Together, England’s Mark Sykes and France’s François Georges-Picot redrew the Middle East’s borders in line with their nations’ interests.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement ran counter to commitments made in a series of letters known as the Hussein-McMahon correspondence. In these letters, Britain promised to support Arab independence from Turkish rule.

Read more:
What was the Sykes-Picot agreement, and why does it still affect the Middle East today?

The Sykes-Picot Agreement also ran counter to promises Britain made in the Balfour Declaration to back Zionists who wanted to build a new Jewish homeland in Ottoman Palestine.

The agreement became the wellspring of decades of conflict and colonial misrule in the Middle East, the consequences of which continue to be felt today.

Map showing the areas of control and influence in the Middle East agreed upon between the British and French.
The National Archives (UK)/Wikimedia Commons

4. The Munich Agreement

In September 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French Prime Minister Édouard Daladier met with Italy’s fascist dictator, Benito Mussolini, and Germany’s Adolf Hitler to sign what became known as the Munich Agreement.

The leaders sought to prevent the spread of war throughout Europe after Hitler’s Nazis had fomented an uprising and began attacking the German-speaking areas of Czechoslovakia known as the Sudetenland. They did this under the pretext of protecting German minorities. No Czechoslovakians were invited to the meeting.

The meeting is still seen by many as the “Munich Betrayal” – a classic example of a failed appeasement of a belligerent power in the false hope of staving off war.

5. The Évian Conference

In 1938, 32 countries met in Évian-les-Bains, France, to decide how to deal with Jewish refugees fleeing persecution in Nazi Germany.

Before the conference started, Britain and the US had agreed not to put pressure on one another to lift the quota of Jews they would accept in either the US or British Palestine.

While Golda Meir (the future Israeli leader) attended the conference as an observer, neither she nor any other representatives of the Jewish people were permitted to take part in the negotiations.

The attendees largely failed to come to an agreement on accepting Jewish refugees, with the exception of the Dominican Republic. And most Jews in Germany were unable to leave before Nazism reached its genocidal nadir in the Holocaust.

6. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact

As Hitler planned his invasion of Eastern Europe, it became clear his major stumbling block was the Soviet Union. His answer was to sign a disingenuous non-aggression treaty with the USSR.

Joseph Stalin and Joachim von Ribbentrop after the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
German Federal Archives/Wikimedia Commons

The treaty, named after Vyacheslav Molotov and Joachim von Ribbentrop (the Soviet and German foreign ministers), ensured the Soviet Union would not respond when Hitler invaded Poland. It also carved up Europe into Nazi and Soviet spheres. This allowed the Soviets to expand into Romania and the Baltic states, attack Finland and take its own share of Polish territory.

Unsurprisingly, some in Eastern Europe view the current US-Russia talks over Ukraine’s future as a revival of this kind of secret diplomacy that divided the smaller nations of Europe between large powers in the second world war.

7. The Yalta Conference

With the defeat of Nazi Germany imminent, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, Soviet dictator Josef Stalin and US President Franklin D Roosevelt met in 1945 to decide the fate of postwar Europe. This meeting came to be known as the Yalta Conference.

Alongside the Potsdam Conference several months later, Yalta created the political architecture that would lead to the Cold War division of Europe.

At Yalta, the “big three” decided on the division of Germany, while Stalin was also offered a sphere of interest in Eastern Europe.

This took the form of a series of politically controlled buffer states in Eastern Europe, a model some believe Putin is aiming to emulate today in eastern and southeastern Europe.

Matt Fitzpatrick receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is affiliated with the History Council of South Australia.

– ref. Ukraine isn’t invited to its own peace talks. History is full of such examples – and the results are devastating – https://theconversation.com/ukraine-isnt-invited-to-its-own-peace-talks-history-is-full-of-such-examples-and-the-results-are-devastating-250049

MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

February 18, 2025
MIL-OSI Global: Ukraine isn’t invited to its own peace talks. History is full of such examples – and the results are devastating

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Matt Fitzpatrick, Professor in International History, Flinders University

(From left to right): Neville Chamberlain, Édouard Daladier, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Italian Foreign Minister Galeazzo Ciano before signing the Munich Agreement, which gave the Sudetenland to Germany. German Federal Archives/Wikimedia Commons

Ukraine has not been invited to a key meeting between American and Russian officials in Saudi Arabia this week to decide what peace in the country might look like.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Ukraine will “never accept” any decisions in talks without its participation to end Russia’s three-year war in the country.

A decision to negotiate the sovereignty of Ukrainians without them – as well as US President Donald Trump’s blatantly extortionate attempt to claim half of Ukraine’s rare mineral wealth as the price for ongoing US support – reveals a lot about how Trump sees Ukraine and Europe.

But this is not the first time large powers have colluded to negotiate new borders or spheres of influence without the input of the people who live there.

Such high-handed power politics rarely ends well for those affected, as these seven historical examples show.

1. The Scramble for Africa

In the winter of 1884–85, German leader Otto von Bismarck invited the powers of Europe to Berlin for a conference to formalise the division of the entire African continent among them. Not a single African was present at the conference that would come to be known as “The Scramble for Africa”.

Among other things, the conference led to the creation of the Congo Free State under Belgian control, the site of colonial atrocities that killed millions.

Germany also established the colony of German South West Africa (present-day Namibia), where the first genocide of the 20th century was later perpetrated against its colonised peoples.

How the boundaries of Africa changed after the Berlin conference.
Wikimedia Commons/Somebody500

2. The Tripartite Convention

It wasn’t just Africa that was divided up this way. In 1899, Germany and the United States held a conference and forced an agreement on the Samoans to split their islands between the two powers.

This was despite the Samoans expressing a desire for either self-rule or a confederation of Pacific states with Hawai’i.

As “compensation” for missing out in Samoa, Britain received uncontested primacy over Tonga.

German Samoa came under the rule of New Zealand after the first world war and remained a territory until 1962. American Samoa (in addition to several other Pacific islands) remain US territories to this day.

3. The Sykes-Picot Agreement

As the first world war was well under way, British and French representatives sat down to agree how they’d divide up the Ottoman Empire after it was over. As an enemy power, the Ottomans were not invited to the talks.

Together, England’s Mark Sykes and France’s François Georges-Picot redrew the Middle East’s borders in line with their nations’ interests.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement ran counter to commitments made in a series of letters known as the Hussein-McMahon correspondence. In these letters, Britain promised to support Arab independence from Turkish rule.

Read more:
What was the Sykes-Picot agreement, and why does it still affect the Middle East today?

The Sykes-Picot Agreement also ran counter to promises Britain made in the Balfour Declaration to back Zionists who wanted to build a new Jewish homeland in Ottoman Palestine.

The agreement became the wellspring of decades of conflict and colonial misrule in the Middle East, the consequences of which continue to be felt today.

Map showing the areas of control and influence in the Middle East agreed upon between the British and French.
The National Archives (UK)/Wikimedia Commons

4. The Munich Agreement

In September 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French Prime Minister Édouard Daladier met with Italy’s fascist dictator, Benito Mussolini, and Germany’s Adolf Hitler to sign what became known as the Munich Agreement.

The leaders sought to prevent the spread of war throughout Europe after Hitler’s Nazis had fomented an uprising and began attacking the German-speaking areas of Czechoslovakia known as the Sudetenland. They did this under the pretext of protecting German minorities. No Czechoslovakians were invited to the meeting.

The meeting is still seen by many as the “Munich Betrayal” – a classic example of a failed appeasement of a belligerent power in the false hope of staving off war.

5. The Évian Conference

In 1938, 32 countries met in Évian-les-Bains, France, to decide how to deal with Jewish refugees fleeing persecution in Nazi Germany.

Before the conference started, Britain and the US had agreed not to put pressure on one another to lift the quota of Jews they would accept in either the US or British Palestine.

While Golda Meir (the future Israeli leader) attended the conference as an observer, neither she nor any other representatives of the Jewish people were permitted to take part in the negotiations.

The attendees largely failed to come to an agreement on accepting Jewish refugees, with the exception of the Dominican Republic. And most Jews in Germany were unable to leave before Nazism reached its genocidal nadir in the Holocaust.

6. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact

As Hitler planned his invasion of Eastern Europe, it became clear his major stumbling block was the Soviet Union. His answer was to sign a disingenuous non-aggression treaty with the USSR.

Joseph Stalin and Joachim von Ribbentrop after the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
German Federal Archives/Wikimedia Commons

The treaty, named after Vyacheslav Molotov and Joachim von Ribbentrop (the Soviet and German foreign ministers), ensured the Soviet Union would not respond when Hitler invaded Poland. It also carved up Europe into Nazi and Soviet spheres. This allowed the Soviets to expand into Romania and the Baltic states, attack Finland and take its own share of Polish territory.

Unsurprisingly, some in Eastern Europe view the current US-Russia talks over Ukraine’s future as a revival of this kind of secret diplomacy that divided the smaller nations of Europe between large powers in the second world war.

7. The Yalta Conference

With the defeat of Nazi Germany imminent, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, Soviet dictator Josef Stalin and US President Franklin D Roosevelt met in 1945 to decide the fate of postwar Europe. This meeting came to be known as the Yalta Conference.

Alongside the Potsdam Conference several months later, Yalta created the political architecture that would lead to the Cold War division of Europe.

At Yalta, the “big three” decided on the division of Germany, while Stalin was also offered a sphere of interest in Eastern Europe.

This took the form of a series of politically controlled buffer states in Eastern Europe, a model some believe Putin is aiming to emulate today in eastern and southeastern Europe.

Matt Fitzpatrick receives funding from the Australian Research Council. He is affiliated with the History Council of South Australia.

– ref. Ukraine isn’t invited to its own peace talks. History is full of such examples – and the results are devastating – https://theconversation.com/ukraine-isnt-invited-to-its-own-peace-talks-history-is-full-of-such-examples-and-the-results-are-devastating-250049

MIL OSI – Global Reports –

February 18, 2025
MIL-OSI United Nations: Use Upcoming Tenth Anniversary of Minsk Accord’s Signing to Renew Diplomatic Efforts towards De-escalation in Ukraine, Assistant Secretary-General Urges Security Council

Source: United Nations MIL OSI b

The Minsk Agreements show that the signing of a peace pact alone does not ensure a durable end to conflict, the Security Council heard today as it met a decade after the adoption of Council resolution 2202 (2015), which called for the full implementation of those accords.

The international community must use the 10-year anniversary as an opportunity to “recall past diplomatic efforts towards de-escalation” as well as reflect “on what happens when peacemaking fails”, Miroslav Jenča, Assistant Secretary-General for Europe, Central Asia and Americas in the Departments of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs and Peace Operations, said. He noted that in one week, it will be “three tragic years” since the Russian Federation’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Highlighting the crucial role of regional and subregional organizations, he praised the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Special Monitoring Mission for monitoring ceasefire violations and helping to maintain dialogue for “eight difficult years”. Any peaceful settlement must respect the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine, he said, welcoming all initiatives with the full participation of Ukraine and the Russian Federation. Ensuring the conflict does not reoccur or escalate requires genuine political will and understanding of its “multidimensional complexity”, he said.

Peace Activist Haunted by Dead Ukrainian, Russian Soldiers, Says War Could Have Been Avoided through Diplomacy

“The people of Ukraine are divided – they are either pro- or anti-Russian,” stated Roger Waters, civil peace activist, who also addressed the Council today. To those questioning his credentials, he said: “I’m here to talk about war and peace and love, and my credentials are firmly in place.” “Hundreds of thousands of dead Ukrainian and Russian soldiers […] are in this room with us today [and] they haunt me,” he said.

Recalling the Maidan protests in Kyiv, he stressed that this is one of the problems with regime change — “dead bodies, they are somebody’s loved one”. Immediately after the Government change in 2014, Crimea seceded from Ukraine and joined the Russian Federation. “Did it secede or was it annexed?” he asked, pointing to a referendum held at the time, in which 95 per cent of Ukrainians in Crimea voted to secede.

The agreements — Minsk I, signed in September 2014, and Minsk II, in February 2015 — outlined steps for ending the conflict in eastern Ukraine through a political settlement. The latter accord stipulated a ceasefire in certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions and the withdrawal of military equipment by both sides. It also included a commitment by Kyiv to organize local elections and grant special status to the separatist-held areas in eastern Ukraine and the reinstatement of Ukraine’s full control over its border.

Mr. Waters said that despite campaigning on the promise to resume Minsk II, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who came to power in 2019, did not do so, and in 2022, Russian troops crossed the border to Ukraine. This war could have been avoided through diplomacy, he insisted, adding that President Zelenskyy had started talking to Russian President Vladimir Putin and by the end of April 2014, a ceasefire agreement had been agreed upon in Istanbul. The war could have been a stillborn, but then United Kingdom Prime Minister Boris Johnson arrived in Kyiv with the message that the war should be continued as it “suits the Americans” — “the longer it takes, the better”.

Citing the telephone talks between United States President Donald Trump and President Putin as a potential move in the right direction, he concluded: “Maybe there is a glimmer of light at the end of this dark tunnel of war — it comes three years and hundreds of thousands of priceless lives too late, but maybe it’s a start.”

United States Committed to Ending Carnage, Restoring Europe’s Stability, its Speaker Says

Washington, D.C., is committed to ending the carnage and restoring Europe’s stability, the representative of the United States said, adding: “We want a sovereign and prosperous Ukraine but we must start by recognizing that returning to Ukraine’s pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective.” Further, he added: “Chasing this illusionary goal will only prolong the war and cause more suffering.” At the same time, he underscored that the Russian Federation has consistently undermined the Minsk Agreement; therefore, a durable peace for Ukraine must include robust security guarantees to ensure the war will not begin again. Describing Moscow’s illegal war of conquest as “a strategic error”, he said that “the easy way out is through negotiations”. If Moscow, instead, “chooses the hard way”, it will incur greater and escalating costs to its economy and losses on the battlefield, he warned.

New United States Administration Has Created Space for Diplomacy, Russian Federation’s Representative Says

For his part, the Russian Federation’s delegate said that “the entry into office of the Republican United States Administration” has created space for the emergence of diplomacy. Those who seized power in Ukraine, following the 2014 anti-constitutional coup, had no intention of implementing the Minsk Agreements, he said. Citing statements by various Ukrainian officials who described the Agreements as “a noose on the neck” and “not binding in nature”, he said the Agreements were “a smokescreen” for Western countries while they provided Ukraine armaments.

Outlining lessons to draw from the failure of the Minsk process, he said European Union countries and the United Kingdom are “unfaithful to their word and they cannot be a party to any future agreement”. Also stressing the need to provide autonomy to the east of Ukraine and guarantees for its Russian language population, he said that President Zelenskyy “is deathly afraid of elections and is doing everything possible to drag them out”. A future Ukraine needs to be “a demilitarized neutral State, not a part of any blocs or alliances,” he said, adding that it was the prospect of the entry of Ukraine into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) that triggered the crisis.

Entire History of Minsk Agreement “Long List of Violations’ by Moscow”, Ukraine’s Delegate Says

However, Ukraine’s delegate countered that the entire history of the Minsk Agreements “was a long list of violations” by Moscow. In 2022, “on this very day”, “in this very chamber”, when her country expressed concern about the buildup of troops along its border and other developments, the Russian Federation had underscored that there is no alternative to the Minsk Agreements, she recalled. Four days later, that country recognized the so-called independence of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine. Among others, it never implemented paragraph 4 of the Minsk Protocol, concerning the establishment of a security area in the border regions of the two countries, she said.

“It is because people of Ukraine are pro-Ukrainian [that] the Russian Federation has failed,” she added. Any future arrangement involving the Kremlin must include enforcement mechanisms and preventive measures, she stressed, adding: “What responsible States see as commitments to be upheld, the Russian Federation treats as a tactical ploy.” Ukraine is working with its partners to find strong solutions, she said, stressing: “Weak agreements will not bring real peace; they will only lead to the greater war.”

Other Council Members Weigh In

Denmark’s delegate described the current meeting as “part of an ongoing disinformation campaign” to try and distract the international community from the subjugation of Ukraine. Welcoming Ukraine’s ratification of the Rome Statute, she expressed support for a special tribunal to investigate crimes conducted in that country. While “no one wants this war to end more than Ukraine”, the United Kingdom’s delegate said, President Putin’s preconditions for talks have been that Ukraine withdraws from large swathes of its own sovereign territory and abandons its right to choose its alliances. “No country could accept this,” she said, reaffirming that London will provide concrete support for Ukraine for as long as needed.

“The Minsk Agreements were a diplomatic initiative designed to prevent further bloodshed and establish a political pathway to peace in Ukraine,” said Germany’s representative, adding that Moscow obstructed its implementation and chose to pursue expansionist conquest. “This war should not have been started in the first place,” she stressed, calling on all States to unite behind the draft General Assembly resolution on advancing peace in Ukraine. Along similar lines, France’s delegate highlighted the tireless mediation by Paris and Berlin, to enable Ukraine and Russian Federation to find common ground. However, Moscow chose war, he said, while Greece’s delegate stressed that “no interpretation of the Minsk Agreements can ever justify the invasion of Ukraine”.

“We need something more than Minsk III,” Slovenia’s delegate said, adding that the abstract nature of the Agreements allowed for multiple interpretations. Any future accord must be much be more specific with clear timelines, defined sequencing and a monitoring mechanism, he stressed. Similarly, Somalia’s delegate underscored the importance of clarity, particularly in diplomatic tools, and said the implementation of ceasefire provisions requires robust and impartial verifying mechanisms. The Republic of Korea’s delegate stressed that “the entire world is well aware of who is aggressor and who is the victim,” also adding that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s support of the Russian Federation, with troops and munitions, is a grave violation of the Organization’s resolutions.

Several speakers expressed concern about the failure of diplomacy, while others called on the international community to rally behind new diplomatic efforts. Since the onset of the Ukraine crisis, Beijing has been calling for a political solution through dialogue and has been actively engaged in diplomatic mediations, China’s representative, Council President for the month, said in his national capacity. The legitimate security concerns of all countries should be taken seriously, he said, welcoming the Washington, D.C.-Moscow agreement to start peace talks.

“We have been consistent in our calls for restraint,” said Pakistan’s delegate, as he expressed regret that the Minsk Agreement could not reach just and lasting peace in the region. “We must learn from the past so we do not commit the same errors,” Panama’s delegate added, stressing that dialogue and diplomacy is the only path to peace.

“The failed implementation of the Minsk Agreement cannot be the reason to prolong this war,” said Guyana’s delegate, reiterating calls for an end to the hostilities and for the withdrawal of Russian Federation’s forces from Ukraine’s territory. “Until this day more and more civilians are losing their lives, including women and children,” pointed out Algeria’s representative, while Sierra Leone’s delegate underscored that “the conflict in Ukraine will not be resolved by military means”.

MIL OSI United Nations News –

February 18, 2025
MIL-Evening Report: With just 5 years to go, the world is failing on a vital deal to halt biodiversity loss

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Justine Bell-James, Professor, TC Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland

Almost 200 nations have signed an ambitious agreement to halt and reverse biodiversity loss but none is on track to meet the crucial goal, our new research reveals.

The agreement, known formally as the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, seeks to coordinate global efforts to conserve and restore biodiversity. Its overarching goal is to safeguard biodiversity for future generations.

Biodiversity refers to the richness and variety within and between plant and animal species, and within ecosystems. This diversity is declining faster than at any time in human history.

Five years remain until the framework’s 2030 deadline. Our research shows a more intense global effort is needed to achieve the goals of the agreement and stem the biodiversity crisis.

Biodiversity is in decline

Biodiversity decline is a growing global issue. Around one million animal and plant species are threatened with extinction.

The problem is driven by human activities such as land clearing, climate change, pollution, excessive resource extraction and the introduction of invasive species.

As biodiversity continues to degrade, the foundation of life on Earth becomes increasingly unstable. Biodiversity loss threatens our food, water and air. It increases our vulnerability to natural disasters and imperils ecosystems crucial for human survival and wellbeing.

The Global Biodiversity Framework was adopted in late 2022 after four years of consultation and negotiation. It involved 23 core commitments to be met by 2030 involving both land and sea. Key to the deal is protecting areas from future harm, and restoring past harms.

These aims are captured in two targets.

The first is ensuring 30% of degraded areas are under “effective restoration” to enhance biodiversity. This could involve replanting vegetation, reducing weeds and other pests, or restoring water to drained areas.

The second is to effectively conserve and manage 30% of land and sea areas – especially those important for biodiversity and the ways ecosystems function and benefit humans. This could mean creating national or marine parks, or nature refuges on private land.

Importantly, countries should both increase the size of areas protected or under restoration (a matter of quantity), and choose areas where interventions will most benefit biodiversity (a matter of quality).

Nations were asked to provide an action plan before October 2024. In a paper published today, we reviewed these plans.

What we found

Our findings were disappointing. Only 36 countries (less than one quarter of signatory nations) submitted a plan. Australia was one of them.

And the plans provided were underwhelming. In particular, nations fell badly short on the restoration target. Only nine out of 36 countries committed to restoring a specific percentage of land and sea.

For example, Italy pledged only to restore “large surfaces of degraded areas” and Australia committed to restoring “priority degraded areas”.

Defining commitments with numbers is important, because it allows progress to be monitored and measured, and forces nations to be accountable.

Of those nine countries that made specific restoration commitments, only six committed to the 30% goal: Aruba, China, Curaçao, Japan, Luxembourg and Uganda.

The results were better when it came to protecting land and sea. Some 22 of the 36 countries set a percentage target for protection. However, only 14 committed to protecting at least 30% of areas, in line with the goals of the deal.

Again, quality is also important here. Under the deal nations signed up to, protected land should enhance biodiversity, and cover areas very valuable for biodiversity recovery. However, many nations were silent on the issue of quality when outlining their planned protections. It means their efforts could, in some cases, do little for biodiversity.

A spotlight on Australia

In recent years, Australia has sought to establish itself as a biodiversity leader on the international stage. This included hosting the global Nature Positive Summit in October last year.

Following the summit, the federal government claimed it was:

a tangible demonstration of Australia’s commitments under the Kunming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. It showed our willingness to work collaboratively towards the goal of halting and reversing biodiversity loss.

But despite the rhetoric, our research shows Australia’s plans are not particularly impressive.

As noted above, Australia does not provide a percentage target for ecosystem restoration. Instead, its plan refers broadly to restoring “priority areas” without defining what these areas are.

Australia’s plan pledges to identify “priority degraded areas” and define what “under effective restoration” means, but does not outline how this will be done.

Australia is more aligned with global leaders on protection of biodiversity. It committed to safeguarding 30% of land and water in protected areas.

However, it provided limited details on how it will select, implement and enforce protection measures. The plan also fails to recognise current shortcomings in protected areas, both in oceans and on land – in particular, Australia’s focus to date on quantity over quality when it comes to selecting sites.

In contrast, the nation of Slovenia mapped out proposed protected areas.

So, while Australia did submit an action plan, it has missed the opportunity to be a true global leader.

Running out of time

The Global Biodiversity Framework aims to unite nations in the fight to conserve and restore biodiversity. But as our research shows, many countries do not have plans to achieve this, and plans submitted to date are largely inadequate.

As species and habitats are lost, ecosystems become less stable. This damages human health and wellbeing, as well as economies. Biodiversity loss also undermines vital cultural and spiritual connections to nature.

All countries must accelerate efforts to avert the biodiversity crisis, and preserve Earth’s precious natural places for future generations.

Justine Bell-James receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Environmental Science Program, and Queensland Government’s Department of Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation. She is a Director of the National Environmental Law Association.

James Watson has received funding from the Australian Research Council, National Environmental Science Program, South Australia’s Department of Environment and Water, Queensland’s Department of Environment, Science and Innovation as well as from Bush Heritage Australia, Queensland Conservation Council, Australian Conservation Foundation, The Wilderness Society and Birdlife Australia. He serves on the scientific committee of BirdLife Australia and has a long-term scientific relationship with Bush Heritage Australia and Wildlife Conservation Society. He serves on the Queensland government’s Land Restoration Fund’s Investment Panel as the Deputy Chair.

– ref. With just 5 years to go, the world is failing on a vital deal to halt biodiversity loss – https://theconversation.com/with-just-5-years-to-go-the-world-is-failing-on-a-vital-deal-to-halt-biodiversity-loss-249841

MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

February 18, 2025

Category: Balkans

Questioning Zelenskyy’s legitimacy

Dictating terms

The ballot box trap

Good elections … and bad

Outside influence

An impossible position

UN Political Chief Says Libyans’ Dream Unfulfilled after February Revolution 14 Years Ago

Libya Battleground for Proxy Wars

Updating Sanctions Regime

Communications between East-West Security Institutions

Curriculum Vitae

Share this page

Updates to this page

Zion Oil & Gas Announces Renewed Operations Underway for MJ-01 Well Testing & Recompletion Project in Israel

Current Unit Program Ends on February 28

DALLAS, Texas, and CAESAREA, Israel, February 18, 2025

Operations Update: Crews on the Ground and Progress Underway

Global Coordination & Logistics

Security and Site Preparedness

Completion Timeline & Next Steps

Final Opportunity: Unit Program Closing February 28, 2025

Faith & Perseverance

About Zion Oil & Gas, Inc.

Here are the 2025 finalists:

1. The Scramble for Africa

2. The Tripartite Convention

3. The Sykes-Picot Agreement

4. The Munich Agreement

5. The Évian Conference

6. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact

7. The Yalta Conference

1. The Scramble for Africa

2. The Tripartite Convention

3. The Sykes-Picot Agreement

4. The Munich Agreement

5. The Évian Conference

6. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact

7. The Yalta Conference

Biodiversity is in decline

What we found

A spotlight on Australia

Running out of time