In the 2022 federal election, two demographics were key to the final outcome: women and young people.
With another election fast approaching, will they swing the result again?
To answer this question, I turned to the Australian Election Study (AES) data spanning the period from 1987 to 2022, to investigate how different demographics have voted over time.
I found that, generally, Australian women and young people tend to favour left-of-centre parties.
However, specific election issues can have a substantial impact, making the political context of each election crucial. So what can we expect this time around?
Young women are increasingly progressive. Young men – particularly Gen Z (born after 1994) – are leaning more conservative in many countries, including the United States, China, South Korea and Germany.
My analysis of the Australian data mirrors global trends, but with a twist.
Young Australian women are moving sharply to the left. But unlike in many other countries, young Australian men are also shifting left, just at a slower pace.
Australia’s leftward move across generations is reflected in both self-placement on a left-right ideological scale, and in the vote in federal elections.
In the 2022 Australian election, the Coalition received its lowest-ever share of the women’s vote at just 32%.
Only 24.3% of Millennials (21.9% of men and 25.7% of women) voted for the Coalition in 2022.
These are the lowest levels of support for either major party among younger people in the history of the survey.
Among Gen Z, a slightly higher proportion of 24.6% voted for the Coalition (34.0% of men and 19.8% of women).
What’s driving this?
In theory, women’s leftward shift is driven by several factors. These include higher education levels, greater participation in professional work, and exposure to feminist values. Despite Australia’s post-industrial, egalitarian image, persistent gendered inequalities and discrimination also play a role.
Meanwhile, young men’s move to the left can be attributed to progressive and egalitarian socialisation. Plus, unlike in other countries, Australia lacks Donald Trump-like figures who could mobilise anti-feminist or hardline conservative sentiments. This limits the expression of such views at an aggregate level.
This leftward shift is, in part, a generational effect – or at least a reflection of the times.
The generational angle is crucial, as the 2025 federal election will be the first in which Millennials and Gen Z together will outnumber Baby Boomers as the dominant voting bloc in Australia.
This shift should shape how political parties campaign, whom they target, and which issues take centre stage.
Policies are voter priorities
My analysis highlights another important angle. Over the study period, voting decisions have increasingly been driven by policy issues, with 48% of Australians citing them as the primary factor. This is followed by party affiliation (29%), party leaders (14%) and local candidates (9%).
In 2022, 54% of voters reported policy issues as the main factor influencing their choice.
Across election years, I identified the most prominent and recurrent election issues that voters identified as influential. I added these issues to my model to see how people who care about these issues lean (left-right) and whether men and women differ in their political leanings (progressive-conservative). I also considered other factors known to impact voting, including:
sociodemographic factors (education, marital status, social class, home ownership and rural/urban residency)
familial socialisation (what their parents’ political preferences were)
social network factors (whether they’re religious or a member of a union)
electoral context (what each respondent said were the most important voting issues)
Overall, women tend to be slightly more left-leaning on policy issues than men, and while this difference is statistically significant, it is small and the general trend holds across both sexes.
Compared with Boomers, each successive generation is more likely to vote for a left party. Gen Z is the most left-leaning (though their smaller sample size warrants some caution in interpretation).
So who votes for whom?
Unsurprisingly, people vote according to who they think will best address the policy areas they care about most.
Those prioritising interest rates, taxation or economic management favour right-wing parties. Voters most concerned with health, Medicare and climate change are more likely to vote for the left.
Education, class and social networks matter, too. Highly educated, working-class, non-religious and union-affiliated voters tend to support left parties. So, too, do those raised in left-leaning households.
While the size of these effects varies slightly between men and women, the overall direction remains the same.
How might this play out in 2025?
The thing about election issues is that they are highly time-sensitive. Take the GST: it was one of the defining issues of the 1998 election, yet was largely irrelevant after 2004.
In recent years, left-leaning issues — the environment, health and Medicare — were more likely to be front-of-mind when Australians all of ages headed to the polls. This gives Labor and the Greens an issue-owner advantage.
Cost of living (spanning day-to-day expenses, interest rates and housing affordability) has now become the defining issue of this election cycle. At first thought, among the two major parties, the Coalition is traditionally seen as a better economic manager.
However, my analysis from 2022 election data shows that, compared with the 2019 election, fewer people considered the Coalition the best manager of the economy among those who considered it the most important election issue.
Further, for the first time in the past five elections, a majority of the voters perceived Labor as more aligned with their own views on immigration, refugees and asylum seekers. These issues, historically seen as Coalition strongholds, are also likely to be key this time around.
For the Coalition, this is bad news. But for Labor, the challenge is twofold: retaining younger, progressive voters while addressing broader economic anxieties.
With growing voter volatility and a diminished sense of party loyalty, neither major party can rely on a stable base.
Australians are increasingly willing to shift allegiances, including to the increasing supply of independent alternatives. Both Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton will have to convince voters they have the best solutions for the key issues.
Intifar Chowdhury does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Question for written answer E-000641/2025 to the Commission Rule 144 Axel Voss (PPE)
Several mental health specialists in Germany have alerted me to the fact that illegal and harmful content is still available on TikTok, despite the implementation of the Digital Services Act. In fact, content including graphic content of suicide and self-harm can still be found easily on TikTok, as well as other depressing content, e.g. of children expressing their wish to commit suicide. No trigger warnings are in place, nor are these videos taken down, even after being flagged as illegal content. Instead, the algorithm produces even more of this type of content on the ‘For You’ page.
1.How does the Commission respond to the fact that not only harmful but also illegal content is still easily accessible on one of the most widely used social media platforms in the EU?
2.When is such content taken down?
3.And how can the Commission ensure that it is not possible to upload such content?
When I first arrived at the top secret Porton Down laboratory, I was aware of very little about its activities. I knew it was the UK’s chemical defence research centre and that over the years it had conducted tests with chemical agents on humans.
But what really happened there was shrouded in mystery. This made it a place which was by turns fascinating and scary. Its association with the cold war, reinforced by images of gas mask-wearing soldiers and reports of dangerous (and in one case fatal) experiments, also made it seem a little sinister.
The shroud of secrecy resulted in it being the subject of some lively fiction, such as The Satan Bug by Alistair MacLean, which revolves around the theft of two deadly germ warfare agents from a secret research facility and in the “Hounds of Baskerville” episode of the BBC drama Sherlock in which the hero uncovers a sinister plot involving animals experiments.
Even Porton’s own publicity material recognises that where secrecy exists imagination can take flight, and attests:
No aliens, either alive or dead have ever been taken to Porton Down or any other Dstl [Defence Science and Technology Laboratory] site.
But it’s also the place where in recent years scientists analysed samples confirming that a Novichok nerve agent had been used to poison former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter (coincidentally, just a few miles away). And where an active research programme on Ebola played an important role in the UK’s support to Sierra Leone during the 2014 outbreak.
So what is the truth? Over three years my research took me into the heart of the mystery, as I studied its extensive historical archive. The reality was not as I expected. I came across no aliens, but I did discover records of experiments that ran from the ordinary, through to the bizarre. And sadly, in one isolated case, the lethal.
Arriving at Porton Down, for example, was unexpectedly low key. The main gate is located off a public road on an otherwise quiet stretch between Porton Down village and the A30. It is in many ways visually similar to the entrance to Lancaster University in the north of England where I work as a lecturer in epidemiology.
Bar some signs announcing it as the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (dstl) of the Ministry of Defence, the road is devoid of obvious security. No barriers block entry. This sense of the extraordinary hiding behind the ordinary was reinforced by the undistinguished visitor car park from where it is a short walk to the nondescript single story reception building.
There is also (perhaps unusually for a government chemical weapons research centre) a bus stop next to the main gate, from where you can get the number 66 to Salisbury.
So on my first visit in 2002 I made that short walk from the visitor car park to the reception and announced myself. I was pleased to find I was expected and looked into the security camera as bidden. After a hard stare from the receptionist I was issued, on that my first day, with a temporary pass. On it was written: “MUST BE ACCOMPANIED AT ALL TIMES” in bright red.
My contact, Dawn, arrived and led me through the main gate where security started to become more obvious. An armed policeman gave us a small nod as we passed through, his hands staying firmly on the machine gun strapped to his chest. Dawn paid little attention other than a brief hello and we were inside, heading to the headquarters.
It was from here that the management of Porton Down organised the programmes of testing which had ultimately resulted in my presence there – to research the health effects of chemical experiments on humans.
The Insights section is committed to high-quality longform journalism. Our editors work with academics from many different backgrounds who are tackling a wide range of societal and scientific challenges.
Since its inception in 1916 it has researched chemical weapons, protective measures against chemical weapons, and has recruited over 20,000 volunteers to participate in tests in its research programmes.
Hut 42 – opening the archive
This archive was opened to my colleagues and I after previously being firmly hidden from public view. This shift in approach was the result of government approval for a study into the long-term health of the human volunteers. The action was triggered by complaints from a group of people who had been tested on and who claimed their health had been damaged as a result.
The government was also keen to ward off accusations of cover ups. In 1953 Ronald Maddison, a young RAF volunteer, died in a nerve agent experiment at the site. The original inquest was held in secret and returned a verdict of misadventure. But in 2004 the government ordered a second, public, inquest.
This, along with a police investigation into the behaviour of some of the Porton Down scientists persuaded the government to fund independent research into the health effect of the experiments.
A research group from the department of public health at the University of Oxford won IS WON RIGHT WORD? sk I was part of that group. Porton participated fully and opened its doors and archive to the project. I went ahead of the research team to deal with the practicalities of gaining access. My first task was to set up an office. So Dawn led me onwards to the building that had been put aside for our use.
We passed into the inner, more secure, area. This part of Porton Down was where the main scientific work was carried out. This inner secure area was surrounded by a high chain link fence and there was one principal entry point, next to a guard room.
Inspecting our passes was another armed MoD police officer. Alerted by my red pass he was all for barring my way until Dawn stepped in. Now vouched for, we were waved through and passed onwards to the building that would become my home for the best part of three years – hut 42.
‘People had neat handwriting then’
Hut 42 was a nondescript redbrick, single-story building, which sits next to the main library and information centre and from the outside could be mistaken for a school boiler room. In it were five desks and several metal filing cabinets closed with combination locks.
Our purpose there was to study the historical archive, including the handwritten books of experiment data. We then transferred that material into a database for later analysis. This process took four people two years of hard work, but we were lucky.
Porton Down’s record keeping was excellent. Early on I had worried that handwritten records would be hard to decipher and had asked a Porton Down librarian whether they would be legible. “Definitely”, was the reply. “People had neat handwriting then. It’s the records from the 1970s you’ll have to watch. They’re dreadfully scrappy,” he said.
And so it was proved. The records of tests from an era before computers, carried out with substances such as mustard gas, were routinely neatly and clearly documented.
Porton Down experiment book, showing drop tests to the arms during one of the first nerve agent tests.
A picture of a page in one of the experiment books on which is recorded the first nerve agent test for Tabun on April 10, 1945. Thomas Keegan
I met Porton Down’s resident medical doctor in the archive to start discussing the nature of the experiments. Simon (not his real name) was in his mid-thirties with boyish curly hair and an anorak. “You’ll find everything you’ll need in here, in these cupboards,” he said. “First, I’ll show you how to open the cupboard. It’s like this”, he said. “A five number combination. Five times anticlockwise to reach the first number, four times clockwise for the second, three times anticlockwise for the third and so on.”
There was a pause while he demonstrated. “Sometimes they can be a bit sticky”, he said after the first attempt. He got the cupboard open on the second try.
The archive was a mixture of handwritten experimental and administrative records. The administrative records were essentially lists of attendees with dates and personal characteristics such as age. The experimental records reported the results of the tests with people in a variety of ways. Some were in the form of descriptive text, others used pictograms to record the site visually, for example where a drop of mustard gas was placed on the skin. Many contained tables of data, all hand drawn and as legible as if they had been printed. Our cupboards contained around 140 such books spanning a period from the start of the second world war to the end of the 1980s.
The story the records told was a fascinating one.
In the 50 years following the outbreak of the second world war, Porton Down encouraged over 20,000 men, nearly all members of the UK armed forces, to take part in experiments at the site.
These men (the regular armed forces had yet to admit women) took part in a programme of tests that ran from experiments using liquid mustard “gas” dropped onto bare skin to inhalation of nerve agents. There were also tests with antidotes and other gasses and liquids too.
Chemical experiments
The records show that between 1939 and 1989, over 400 different substances were tested at Porton. Mustard gas, sarin, and nitrogen mustard were frequently tested. These chemicals are known as “vesicants” for their ability to cause fluid filled blisters (or vesicles) on the skin or any other site of contact. First world war soldiers were familiar with the horrors of this gas, which was first used by Germany at the Battle of Ypres in 1915. John Singer Sergeant’s powerful painting Gassed expressed the effect of mustard gas on soldiers exposed in the trenches.
Other major chemical tests were riot control agents, such as CS and CR, these being the only chemicals tested that have been used by UK forces in peacetime, their purpose being crowd control.
Mostly, we were kept far away from anything other than paper records. As Britain had given up its chemical arsenal and any offensive capability in the 1950s, there was, as Simon had explained, no stores of chemical agents at Porton Down, except of course, small amounts of those that were needed to test human defences. By a circuitous route however, I came nearer to some than I was expecting.
‘Would you like a sniff?’
Hut 42, was not, it turned out, wholly for our use. While some Porton staff shared access to the archive and popped in now and then to examine records and take photocopies, the building had one other permanent resident – Porton Down’s in-house historian Gradon Carter. Carter was in his late 70s and had worked at Porton Down as an archivist for more than 20 years. He prided himself on knowing more than anyone alive about the history and administration of the institution.
He wore tweed and had the air of a world weary Latin master, but rather than the accoutrements of his trade being Latin textbooks, his were the paraphernalia of chemical warfare. Around his desk were examples of gas masks from various periods of history, and on the wall, posters inviting people to “always carry your gas mask”.
One of his exhibits was a box, about the size of a packet of breakfast cereal, which contained glass phials, each carefully labelled with the contents. These included mustard gas, lewsite and phosgene.
The box was from the 1940s. It was a training tool to help troops recognise different gasses on the battlefield. “Would you like a sniff of mustard?”, he offered. It so happened I did. Nearly 60 years after it was first bottled, I can report that Carter’s mustard gas had very little smell, but I was reluctant to get close to test any of its other properties. He re-corked it. “Some lewisite?” he suggested.
Lewisite was produced in 1918 for use in the first world war but its production was too late for it to be used. Another vesicant, it causes blistering of the skin and mucous membranes (eyes, nose, throat) on contact.
I declined Carter’s kind offer.
Other chemicals appeared in the records less frequently. There were the lovely vomiting agents, which are designed to winkle their way under your gas mask to make you sick, which will make you take off your gas mask making you vulnerable to the next wave of attack by, for example, nerve agents.
These agents were relatively standard members of a chemical arsenal. In an effort to expand its horizons, Porton Down opened its collective mind in the early 1960s to the usefulness of psychedelics in warfare and tested LSD for its potential as a disruptor of enemy military discipline.
The tests showed that troops became unable to put up much of a fight, but ultimately the chemicals were rejected as means of mass disruption. You can see a video of a test at Porton Down with LSD below.
In the video, a troop of Royal Marines can be seen taking part in an exercise during which they are given LSD. Not long afterwards the men become barely capable of military action and seem to find almost everything funny. One man seems not to know which end of a bazooka to point at the enemy.
The most commonly tested substances at Porton, according to our data, were mustard gas, lewisite and pyridostigmine (more of which later) with thousands of tests undertaken. Less frequently tested were a basket of chemicals including sodium amytal (a barbiturate) and more strangely perhaps, 49 tests with pastinacea sativa – the irritant wild parsnip.
Not all men who took part in tests did so with chemical agents. Many visited Porton Down and were “tested” with substances that were not intended to be harmful but which must have been providing useful information of some kind. Some people were tested with “lubricating oil” (498 people) and “ethanol” (204 people). Many tests were with protective equipment such as materials for protective suits and with respirators.
Nerve agent tests
Around 3,000 people were tested with nerve agents. The number of nerve agents tested was not extensive, with six principal agents recorded. These were tabun, (known as GA), soman (GD), sarin (GB), cyclo sarin (GF), and methylphosphonothioic acid (VX).
The period of nerve agent research ran from the early postwar period to the late 1980s, and coincided with the cold war, when military tension between the Nato countries and the USSR was high.
The archive was rich in information on these tests. The records included detail of the time and place of each test along with details of who took part, noting both staff and volunteer participants. Records on the early tests are especially revealing.
Chambers like this were used to carry out tests on nerve agents. Thomas Keegan
For example, in 1945 nerve agents were not yet known to Porton Down scientists. They had come close to discovering nerve agents when they had worked on PF-3, a chemical of the same organophosphate type as the nerve agents, but they had not thought it sufficiently toxic.
However, these agents were well known to German scientists, and to the German military who weaponised them during the second world war. Despite fears to the contrary, gas was not used in the fighting, though Germany had clearly prepared for chemical warfare.
Nazi agents and gin and tonic
Advancing US forces moving through Germany came across stockpiles of artillery shells in a railway marshalling yard near Osnabrück that contained suspicious liquids. The markings on the shells – a white ring on one type and green and yellow rings on the other – were new to the Americans. The shells were sent to the US and Porton Down for investigation.
After initial analysis, Porton scientists found that the shells with the white ring contained tear gas. The other contained an unknown substance (later it would be named tabun).
Tabun is one of the extremely toxic organophosphate nerve agents. It has a fruity odour reminiscent of bitter almonds. Exposure can cause death in minutes. Between 1 and 10 mL of tabun on the skin can be fatal.
On April 10 1945, after some laboratory tests, the scientists decided to test the new chemical on people. In fact, as Carter pointed out to me, disaster could have struck immediately as the first nerve agent to arrive at Porton for testing was transported to the lab in a test tube stoppered only with cotton wool.
Thinking this was a new variety of mustard gas, they placed drops on the participants’ skin. The scientists also placed drops in the eyes of some rabbits. The records show that before any serious effect to the humans could be noted one of the rabbits died, giving the scientists running the tests a fright.
The chemical was quickly wiped off the men’s arms and the test ended there. According to a brief memoir supplied by Carter, Dr Ainsworth (who was involved in the tests) said that Captain Fairly (the Porton scientist being tested on) had been shaken by the experience but recovered “after a stiff gin and tonic in his office”.
This sporting attitude to self-testing was not uncommon among scientists, however. Dr Ainsworth later tested a method for reducing the effect of a splash of nerve agent on the skin which involved a tourniquet and opening a vein – something he thought worked well.
But he was used to the pioneering methods of the day. “Taste this,” the pharmacologist John (later Sir John) Gaddum had ordered on one previous occasion. Dr Ainsworth sipped the liquid offered and reported that it tasted a little like gin. “That’s strange”, Professor Gaddum said. “I can’t taste anything. It’s diluted lewisite and the rats simply won’t drink it.”
Back at the wartime testing lab they were keen to find out more about what was now understood to be a new type of chemical agent developed by German scientists and weaponsied by their armed forces. The following week, ten people were exposed in a chamber, at the higher concentration of 1 in 5 million. In the pioneering spirit not uncommon at Porton, four of the subjects: Commandant Notley, Major Sadd, Mr Wheeler and Major Curten were Porton staff. Major Curten reported having a tightness of chest, and a slight contraction of the pupils, unlike the commandant who had no reaction but thought the gas smelled of boiled sweets.
An undated photograph of the southern end of the Porton Down campus showing the bus stop outside. The grey building is thought to be one of the exposure chambers. Thomas Keegan
Later that morning the scientists had another go, this time at a higher concentration, 1 in 1 million. The symptoms were now more noticeable, with more than one person vomiting and others needing treatment the following day for the persistent symptoms of headaches and eye pain.
Given what we have since learned about tabun, it seems at the very least cavalier of the scientists to conduct these tests on themselves and others. They were were lucky not to have been seriously injured or even killed, but those were the risks they seemed willing to take.
Fatal consequences
The last entries in the archive for nerve agent tests were for 1989 so newer compounds such as novichok, used in an attempted assassination in nearby Salisbury, were not included. One later nerve agent tested in the 1960s was VX, then a scarily potent new nerve agent.
According to the Centers for Disease Control in the US, VX is one of the most toxic of the known chemical warfare agents. It is tasteless and odourless and exposure can cause death in minutes. As little as one drop of VX on the skin can be fatal.
It was not developed into a weapon by the UK, as by then it had abandoned an offensive capability, but tests were carried out on a relatively small number of volunteers. I mentioned VX to Carter. He recalled that the first sample of VX was first discovered, accidentally, at an ICI chemical factory in the UK and sent to Porton in the regular post. Luckily, nobody was exposed.
In one notorious episode however, the tests of nerve agents on humans did not go as expected.
As I referred to earlier, in 1953, during an early nerve agent experiment, the young airman, Ronald Maddison died. Testing was paused at Porton after an inquiry by the eminent Cambridge academic Lord Adrian and limits on exposures were set after resumption in 1954. A second inquest into the death returned a verdict of unlawful killing in 2004.
One of the founders of the Porton Down Veterans Group, Ken Earl was in the same experiment. He remembered vividly being in the same chamber as Maddison, and while not affected seriously at the time, felt his health issues later in life were directly related to the test. In an interview with the BBC, he attributed the many health problems he suffered through his life, including skin conditions, depression and a heart irregularity, to his experience at Porton Down.
Our research could not establish a direct link to the kind of ill health Earl suffered. But our data on the short-term effects did show a good deal about the immediate aftermath of a nerve agent exposure, similar to the type Earl experienced.
The physiological effect of exposure to nerve agents varies greatly between individuals as our previous research has shown. The strength of symptoms varies too. Five of the six participants in the same test as Maddison did not report adverse effects other than feeling a bit cold.
However, tests before this had shown that certain effects were consistently seen with nerve agent exposures. In July 1951 six people participated in a test with soman. The lab book notes:
5/5 experienced pain in eyes, blinker effect and blurred vision 30 minutes after exposure (these symptoms continued for 24 hours). 1 participant vomited 4 hours after exposure. 2 participants vomited 24 hours after exposure. Eye pain and vision improved after 48 hours but not normal – return to normal after 5 days. 4/5 given multiple doses of atropine.
While these effects must have been unpleasant, it is also shown that participants in nerve agent tests had between one and two “exposures”. Those in tests with other chemicals such as mustard gas may have had many.
To further regulate exposures, strict limits on the amount of nerve agent allowed in tests were imposed after Maddison died. The levels of exposure typically experienced by servicemen induced: pinpoint pupils (miosis), headaches, a tightness in the chest and vomiting. These symptoms recur many times in the records, as does documentation of the drugs used to treat them, typically atropine and pralidoxime.
A new era
Despite the range of agents which have been developed, chemical weapons have rarely been used by states in conflict, perhaps held back by adherence to the Chemical Weapons Convention or by their difficulty of use.
Despite this they were used by Iraq (not then bound by the CWC) in the Iran-Iraq war (1980-88), who used mustard gas and tabun against Iranian troops. They have also been used by states against civilians – for example by Iraq against its Kurdish population and more than once by Syria against its civilian population between 2014 and 2020.
In 2017, North Korean agents used VX to assassinate Kim Jong-nam, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un’s half-brother in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. And more recently the Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny was poisoned with a nerve agent. He later recovered only to die in a Russian prison in early 2024.
These are not just remote threats. As I previously noted, a particularly high-profile example of a state using a chemical weapon to kill someone took place in the UK in 2018 when it is alleged that the Russian state tried to kill an ex-KGB spy using small quantities of the then new and especially toxic nerve agent Novichok.
Sergei Skripal, the intended victim, and his daughter Yulia survived the attack.
A public inquiry heard how the Skripals were found slumped in a park in Salisbury. While the presence of nerve agents was not at first suspected, the emergency services noted how the Skripals suffered from a range of symptoms including pinprick pupils, muscle spasms and vomiting. For those experienced with nerve agents these symptoms are typical.
But these symptoms were not known to Nick Bailey, a detective sergeant who had been assigned to check over a house in Salisbury, home to the two people that had recently been found collapsed. This should have been routine but the first indication to DS Bailey that something was amiss was when he looked in the mirror.
His pupils, normally wide open at this time of night, had shrunk into pinpricks. He was also beginning to feel very strange. But it was when Bailey’s vision fractured and he vomited that he knew something was seriously wrong.
It would later become clear that the agents sent to kill Skripal had sprayed the liquid nerve agent onto the door handle of the Skripal house. Sergei and his daughter both used the handle and were poisoned. So was Bailey, who had closed the door and locked it after his checks on the house later that evening.
Four months later, the boyfriend of Dawn Sturgess found a discarded perfume bottle in nearby Amesbury, picked it up and then later gave it to her as a present. Neither could have imagined it had been used to bring Novichok to Salisbury and left behind by the attackers. Sturgess died after spraying the contents onto her skin. Her boyfriend survived.
It was in partnership with experts at Porton Down that the local health services were able to treat the victims. According to the inquiry, a key challenge was for the hospital to work out what had poisoned the Skripals so they could treat them effectively. Porton Down worked nonstop to determine what type of nerve agent had been used. Once the cause was known the hospital was able to save the Skripals’ lives.
That Porton Down is situated just a few miles from Salisbury where the Novichok attack took place was probably useful to those treating victims. The Russian state however, used this proximity to try to muddy the waters of accountability for the poisoning, but there seems little doubt that blame for the nerve agent poisoning lies with Russia.
Despite the efforts of those agents, five out six people poisoned with Novichok survived, not unscathed perhaps, but alive. That they did so is in some way the result of the expertise and knowledge gained over years of nerve agent research at Porton Down.
It seems clear that the more information about the effects of nerve agent exposure that are known outside specialist research circles the better. Though nerve agent attack is extremely rare the events in Salisbury and Amesbury have shown they are not impossible.
To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter.
The research study that took Thomas Keegan to Porton Down was led by the University of Oxford and funded by the Medical Research Council.
Browse through Donald Trump’s ghostwritten memoir, The Art of the Deal, and you’ll come across an aphorism which will go some way to explaining the US president’s approach to negotiating. Having established that he would do nearly anything within legal bounds to win, Trump adds that: “Sometimes, part of making a deal is denigrating your competition.”
It’s an idea which makes a lot of sense when you consider Trump’s record. We saw it time and again on the campaign trail, as he sought to seal the deal with the US public by repeatedly denigrating first Joe Biden and then Kamala Harris. Which begs the question, in seeking to make a deal to end the war in Ukraine, exactly who he sees as the competition he needs to denigrate: Vladimir Putin or Volodymyr Zelensky?
Trump has certainly gone out of his way to excoriate the Ukrainian president over the past day or two, both in public and on his TruthSocial platform. He has variously blamed Zelensky for starting the war, called him a “dictator without elections” and a “modestly successful comedian … very low in Ukrainian polls” who “has done a terrible job, his country is shattered, and MILLIONS have unnecessarily died”.
Putin, meanwhile, takes a rather different view of how to seal a deal with the US president. Far from denigrating Trump, he has set out to charm the flattery-loving president with a view to driving a wedge between the US and Europe, claiming that EU leaders had “insulted” Trump during his election campaign and insisting that “they are themselves at fault for what is happening”.
Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.
The Russian president will be well pleased with the events of the past week or so. After three years of increasing isolation under the Biden presidency, he’s now back at the top table with the US president – two powerful men discussing the future of Europe.
For the man who, in 2005, complained that the collapse of the Soviet Union had been “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century, to be back deciding the fate of nations is a dream come true, writes James Rodgers of City St George’s, University of London.
Rodgers, a former BBC Moscow correspondent, observes that Putin has fulfilled this mission having “conceded not an inch of occupied Ukrainian territory to get there. Nor has he even undertaken to give back any of what Russian forces have seized since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine three years ago.”
Not only that, but Putin also appears to have enlisted US support for one of the key objectives that encouraged him to invade Ukraine in the first place: preventing Ukraine from joining Nato. That much was clear from the US defense secretary Pete Hegseth’s speech to European defence officials last week. The views of Washington’s European allies (and of the Biden administration) – that Ukraine’s membership of Nato is a matter for the alliance members to decide with Ukraine as a sovereign state in control of its own foreign policy – don’t appear to matter to Trump and his team.
Meanwhile, Trump’s policy volte-face over Ukraine and, more broadly, European security in general has driven a dangerous wedge between the US and its allies in Europe. France’s president, Emmanuel Macron, responded by convening a meeting on Monday of the leaders of what the French foreign minister, Jean-Noël Barrot, described as “the main European countries”. This turned out to include Germany, the UK, Italy, Poland, Spain, the Netherlands and Denmark, as well as the Nato secretary-general and the presidents of the European Council and European Commission.
Passing over the question of how the leaders of the Baltic states felt about this, given they all share a border with Russia (as does Finland) and presumably are well aware of the vulnerability of their position, the fact is Europe is deeply divided over its response to the situation.
As Stefan Wolff observes, the Weimar+ group of countries that met in Paris only represent one shade of opinion within the EU. Meanwhile, Hungary’s prime minister, Viktor Orbán, is openly scathing about European efforts to support Ukraine, posting on X: “While President @realDonaldTrump and President Putin negotiate on peace, EU officials issue worthless statements.”
Wolff, an expert in international security at the University of Birmingham, notes that disrupting European unity is a stated aim of the Project 2025 initiative which has guided, if not Trump himself, many of his close advisers. The past week, taking into account both Hegseth’s meeting with European defence ministers and the subsequent appearance by the US vice-president, J.D. Vance, at the Munich Security Conference, has gone a fair way down the path towards achieving that disruption.
At the same time, Vance’s lecture to the conference – during which he was heavily critical of Europe as “the enemy within” which was undermining democracy and threatening free speech – will have united most of those present in anger and dismay at his remarks.
Trump has declared that Zelensky is a “dictator” because he cancelled last year’s election in Ukraine. In fact, Ukraine’s constitution provides that elections are prohibited during periods of martial law. And martial law has been in force since the day of the invasion on February 24 2022.
Lena Surzhko Harned, a professor of political science at Penn State University, writes that the delegitimisation of Zelensky is a tactic Putin has been striving for from the very start. The Kremlin has pushed the narrative that there is no legitimate authority with which to negotiate a peace deal, and that Zelensky’s government is “illegitimate”.
“What Putin needs for this plan to work is a willing partner to help get the message out that Zelensky and the current Ukraine government are not legitimate representatives of their country,” writes Harned. “And into this gap the new US administration appears to have stepped.”
Despite Zelensky still enjoying relatively strong support in recent opinion polls, an election campaign in the middle of this conflict would be a needlessly divisive exercise. And that’s before you consider the potential for Russian interference, which would be seriously debilitating for a country fighting for its survival.
Putin knows all this – and he also knows by framing the issue in a way that suggests Ukraine is dragging its feet over peace, he will enjoy a propaganda coup. And that’s what he is doing, with the apparent support of the US president.
Another way Putin hopes to discredit the Ukrainian leadership is by deliberately excluding it from the talks – at least for the present. Zelensky has said, with the support of his European allies, that there can be no deal without Ukrainian participation.
It’s easy to see why Zelensky and his allies are so adamant that they should be involved, writes Matt Fitzpatrick, a professor of international history at Flinders University. History is littered with examples of large powers getting together to decide the fate of smaller nations that have no agency in the division.
Three such shameful debacles determined the history of much of the 20th century – and not in a good way. The Sykes-Picot agreement divided the Middle East between British and French spheres of influence, and sowed the seed for discord which continues to this day. The Munich conference of 1938, at which the fate of Czechoslovakia was decided without any Czech input, showed Adolf Hitler that naked aggression really does pay. And having failed to learn from either of these, in 1945 the Big Three (Russia, the US and Britain) got together at Yalta to carve up Germany, thereby setting the scene for the cold war.
One of Trump’s assertions this week has been that Zelensky had his chance to strike a deal and avoid all the bloodshed and much of the territorial loss suffered by Ukraine in the three years of war. Reacting to questions about why Zelensky or any Ukrainian diplomats hadn’t been involved in the talks, he scoffed: “Today I heard: ‘Oh, well, we weren’t invited.’ Well, you’ve been there for three years … You should have never started it. You could have made a deal.”
Stephen Hall, who specialises in Russian and post-Soviet politics at the University of Bath, recalls the early talks in the spring of 2022. He says that the idea – also floated in the press by several commentators – that Ukraine should have concluded a peace deal in March or April of 2022 after talks in Istanbul is absurd.
While there was momentum for peace, particularly on Kyiv’s part, the two sides were a long way apart on issues such as the size of Ukraine’s military and the fate of territories such as Crimea. “Had Ukraine done a deal based on the Istanbul communique, it would have essentially led to the country becoming a virtual province of Russia – led by a pro-Russian government and banned from seeking alliances with western countries,” Hall writes.
And in any case, back then there was scant support among Ukraine’s allies in Europe and the Biden White House for appeasing Putin by offering him concessions in return for aggression. But that’s now history. Trump and his team appear to have already granted the Russian president some of his dearest wishes before the negotiations proper have even started.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stephen Hall, Lecturer (Assistant Professor) in Russian and Post-Soviet Politics, University of Bath
It has been an eventful and, for Ukraine and its European allies, alarming past week or so. First they heard that the US president, Donald Trump, had spent 90 minutes on the phone with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin. In one stroke, Trump upended three years in which his predecessor, Joe Biden, had sought to isolate Russia after its full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
On the same day, February 12, Trump’s newly installed secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, told a gathering of senior defence officials in Brussels that Europe would no longer be the primary focus for US security policy, and that Ukraine could not hope to regain the territory Russia had illegally occupied since 2014, nor join Nato.
Hegseth added that not only would the US not contribute to any peacekeeping force in Ukraine in the event of a peace deal, but that any European peacekeeping operation would not be done under the protection of Nato’s Article 5.
This was soon followed by the US vice-president, J.D. Vance, telling the Munich Security Conference that it was Europe, not Russia or China, that was the main security threat – the “enemy within” that fostered anti-democratic practices and sought to curtail free speech.
This week, a US team led by the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, sat down with their Russian opposite numbers led by the foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, to discuss peace negotiations. Ukraine was not represented. Nor was Europe. Following that, and perhaps taking his cue from Hegseth, Lavrov declared that Russia would not accept any European peacekeepers in Ukraine – deal or no deal.
Meanwhile, Trump has taken to his TruthSocial media platform to repeat several favourite Kremlin talking points. Ukraine was responsible for the war, he said. Its president, Volodymyr Zelensky, was a “dictator” who had cancelled elections, and whose popularity with his own people was now as low as 4% (it’s actually 57%, at least 10 points higher than Trump’s rating in the US).
Trump also mocked Zelensky’s concern at his country’s exclusion from the Riyadh talks, telling reporters: “Today I heard: ‘Oh, well, we weren’t invited.’ Well, you’ve been there for three years … You should have never started it. You could have made a deal.”
This leads us back to the Istanbul communique, produced at the end of March 2022 after initial peace talks between Russia and Ukraine in Antalya, Turkey. Some US commentators have suggested Ukraine could now be better off had it signed this deal.
Istanbul communique
What happened in Istanbul, and how close Russia and Ukraine were to an agreement, has been hotly debated, with some arguing a deal was close and others refuting this.
Ukraine reportedly agreed to a range of concessions including future neutrality, as well as giving up its bid for membership of Nato. Russia, in turn, would apparently have accepted Ukraine’s membership of the EU. This concession, incidentally, is still on the table.
But there were sticking points, primarily over the size of Ukraine’s armed forces after a deal – Kyiv reportedly wanted 250,000 soldiers, the Kremlin just 85,000 – and the types of weaponry Ukraine could keep in its arsenal.
There were also issues about Ukraine’s Russian-occupied territory, particularly Crimea – this was projected to be resolved over 15 years with Russia occupying the peninsula on a lease in the meantime. Another Kremlin demand was for Zelensky to stand down as president, with the presidency being taken up by the pro-Russian politician Viktor Medvedchuk.
Negotiations continued through April 2022, only to break down when Russian atrocities were reported in Bucha, a town Ukrainian troops had retaken as part of their spring counter-offensive. But the fact is, an agreement was never really close.
The UK’s former prime minister, Boris Johnson, has taken much flack over reports that he urged Zelensky not to accept the deal. But there was never a realistic chance this deal would be acceptable to Ukraine. A neutral Ukraine with a reduced military capacity would have no way to defend itself against any future aggression.
Had Ukraine done a deal based on the Istanbul communique, it would have essentially led to the country becoming a virtual province of Russia – led by a pro-Russian government and banned from seeking alliances with western countries. As for joining the EU, it was the Kremlin’s opposition to Kyiv’s engagement with the EU in 2013 which provoked the Euromaidan protests and led to Russia’s initial annexation of Crimea the following year.
What next?
Kyiv signing the Istanbul communique may have quickly stopped the war and the killing. But the Kremlin has repeatedly shown it cannot be trusted to adhere to agreements – you only have to look at the way it repeatedly violated the Minsk accords of 2015, which attempted to end hostilities in eastern Ukraine.
Further, a deal that rewards Russian aggression by agreeing to its taking of territory and demanding the neutrality of the victim would undermine global security, and encourage other illegal foreign policy adventurism.
If the Trump administration has the blueprint of a fair peace deal, it’s hiding it well at this point. Instead, European leaders have been put in a position where they must face the prospect of having to fund Ukraine’s continued defence, while coping with a US retreat from its security guarantees for Europe as a whole.
Either that or, as my University of Bath colleague Patrick Bury wrote on X this week, accept some pretty dire consequences.
Europe is facing a crisis that it could have prepared for after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. With Trump back in power, the relationship between the US and Europe appears increasingly fractured. But Europe too is bitterly divided over how to approach this crisis.
Britain and France initially talked up the idea of providing troops as peacekeepers in Ukraine – but Germany adamantly refused to go along with that plan. Both Emmanuel Macron and Keir Starmer have since rethought the idea (although there is a report that the UK prime minister has considered a scheme for a 30,000-strong “monitoring force” away from the ceasefire line).
The Kremlin reacts to signals. While it was clearly preparing for the invasion in late 2021, Joe Biden’s statement that he would not send troops to defend Ukraine showed the limits to US involvement. A message that Europe is prepared to dispatch peacekeepers to Ukraine now would send a strong signal to Putin – and the Trump administration – that Europe is serious.
Stephen Hall does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
After months of wrangling over public debt and spending decisions, the German government collapsed in November 2024. Among the many disagreements between the parties which made up the governing coalition was how to pay for measures to combat climate change.
Seeking to take advantage of disillusioned voters (who in recent years showed record support for the Greens), populist parties have since cast doubt on the idea of tackling environmental issues at all.
Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), for example, the rightwing party which denies the existence of man-made climate change, has raised concerns about energy security and the economic cost of green alternatives.
If the AfD’s broader aim was to take green issues off the political agenda, the plan appears to be working. In the run-up to the general election on February 23 2025, migration and the economy are the most important issues for voters (each on 34%), with climate change lagging far behind (13%).
Nor has the environment been a priority in the parties’ election campaigns. In the first TV debate between the chancellor, the social democrat Olaf Scholz, and his most likely successor, the conservative Friedrich Merz, the topic was ignored almost entirely. A lack of political will and fear of losing voters appear to have relegated environmental policies to the sidelines.
Others want it back at the top of the agenda. Germany’s foreign intelligence service, for example, describes the climate crisis as one of the major risks facing the country, alongside terrorism and war.
Business associations have urged the next government to address climate change mitigation for the sake of German jobs. The Federation of German Industries has demanded an increase in public spending on climate change of as much as €70 billion (£58 billion). Younger voters have called for a nationwide protest to bring the subject back into politicians’ minds.
So have German voters really become sceptical about dealing with climate change?
In a recent study, we found that people who planned to vote for the AfD and the leftwing populist BSW party are indeed sceptical of the need for far-reaching climate policies.
Among voters of these two parties, only 23% (AfD) and 41% (BSW) think that an energy transition is necessary to achieve national climate goals. For Green party voters that figure is 93%, and for SDP supporters it’s 83%.
Voters across the political spectrum have different priorities when it comes to energy supply. For populist party supporters, energy costs trump everything, with only 12% of AfD and 20% of BSW voters considering low emissions important.
These voters are also less likely to assume the energy transition would have positive effects on jobs, and are more likely to fear rising energy costs and security of supply. In short, they are afraid of the social and economic consequences of the energy transition. It is this fear that the far right appears to have been able to mobilise.
Climate costs
Our results are backed up by other research which shows that poorer voters are concerned about the potential costs associated with net zero ambitions.
There is also uncertainty about the possible effects on employment. Many people in Germany believe there will be job losses in their local community as a result of the transition to green energy, and 25% worry they will lose their job.
While these results may seem gloomy, we also found majority support – even among AfD voters – for climate change policies where communities benefit financially from local renewable energy projects, and where citizens feel they have more of a voice in how the energy transition comes into effect.
People want to be heard and participate in a potential transformation. Previous research in psychology has shown that participating in processes and a perception of fairness can increase acceptance.
Research also shows that people fear the effects of climate policies on their personal finances, and that these perceived costs inhibit environmentally friendly behaviour.
But the climate crisis won’t go away, no matter who governs Germany in the coming years. More “once-in-a-century” floods and droughts will hit the nation and bring the climate crisis back to the top of the political agenda.
When this happens, politicians need to ensure they have a positive and credible vision of the future ready to present to voters – where the costs are shared fairly. This will make it harder for populist parties to play on economic worries, and easier to persuade German voters to prioritise the climate crisis.
Vera Trappmann receives funding from Hans Böckler Foundation
Felix Schulz receives funding from the Hans-Böckler-Foundation.
President Donald Trump has actually described Ukraine’s widely admired wartime President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as “a dictator” and falsely claimed he started the war.
In a news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump mused about an American takeover of the Gaza Strip by removing its occupants to neighbouring countries and developing the region as a seaside resort. This would very likely constitute a war crime.
Snubbing international law
Trump’s return to the American presidency marks a normalization of this type of threat.
Trump is obviously unsentimental about America’s longtime allies, including the innermost circle of English-speaking democracies — the U.S., Canada, the United Kingdom, Australian and New Zealand — that make up the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing alliance.
A group of countries that wouldn’t normally be fussed about the transition from one American president to another is now very nervous about how far Trump is going to go.
During the first angry weeks of Trump’s second presidency, the U.S. appears to be signalling a return to an anarchic and explicitly colonial imagining of the world. In this regard, Trump’s disdain for the rule of law at home tracks a potentially even greater disdain for the international legal order, one that’s existed since 1945.
Trump, not historically much of an imperialist in his rhetoric, has now doubled down on classical imperialist threats as he repeatedly proposes expanding the physical map of the U.S., musing in particular about Greenland, Panama, Canada and now Gaza.
Greenland holds a strategic interest for the U.S. — there’s already an American airbase on the island — since its location is increasingly important as the Arctic ice melts and amid greater competition from Russia and China.
But Canada? At least Trump agreed at a news conference before taking office that military force was off the table. Instead, Canada only had to worry about “economic force” being used to annex it.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has told business leaders that Trump’s talk about annexing Canada is “the real thing,” aimed at obtaining Canada’s critical minerals.
He’s not only peacocking on the global stage, he is also telegraphing that he holds international legal norms in even lower esteem than the norms of his own country, where he is a convicted felon. This situation is as alarming as it unprecedented.
Right now, cognitive dissonance in the form of status quo bias poses a real danger in terms of Trump’s dismissal of the rule of law. This means that folks are somehow convincing themselves that the undoing of the global rules-based order in real time is just a blip; things will somehow ramp down and return to normal.
But the evidence is glaringly to the contrary.
Trump is plainly communicating his wishes: a new age of American imperialism. At first few took him seriously. Now we all are. Canada, due to its proximity to and reliance on the U.S., must especially face a new reality in which an American president casually and repeatedly threatens its sovereignty.
Canada, America’s closest ally in terms of shared language, culture and geography, should be the first and not the last to start believing Trump’s threats to annex it.
Even when Trump is no longer in office, neither Canadians nor any of America’s other allies can be certain someone just like him will not be returned to power by the U.S. voters. That means America’s western allies, like Canada and Denmark, must learn the lessons Latin American and Middle Eastern countries learned along time ago: America is a threat.
Some might ask: Aren’t these American problems for the American people? As Canadians can attest, no. Trump poses grave dangers to the rest of the world due to the unique place the U.S. occupies in the geopolitical system.
Nothing about Trump’s second presidency bodes well for America’s allies and friends, including Canada.
A kleptocrat who regards friends and allies as transactional customers and for whom everything is “just business,” including national security, Trump poses an existential threat not only to America, but to the international world order.
Jeffrey B. Meyers does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Ahead of the election on February 23, many German voters are deeply concerned about the economy – and for good reason. The German economy is in a recession and has been shrinking for two consecutive years. In fact, it is now about the same size as it was in 2019, even as some of its peers among the world’s advanced economies have experienced solid growth (on the left of the chart below).
This matters for voters, who have experienced stagnating real incomes and remain pessimistic – expecting real incomes to decline further.
GDP and productivity growth of Germany, UK and US:
There could be several reasons for Germany’s economic malaise. First, fiscal policy in Germany is tighter than in other countries, meaning higher taxes and lower public spending. Due to the “debt brake” enshrined in its constitution, Germany is severely restricted in running budget deficits, except when the government declares an emergency, as it did due to COVID.
The last coalition government collapsed over a dispute about whether to declare another emergency over the war in Ukraine in order to increase borrowing capacity. This did not happen, and as a result Germany’s fiscal deficit has remained relatively moderate. The argument goes that a larger deficit might have boosted economic growth.
Second, for decades, Germany has relied on foreign demand to sustain economic growth at home. During the first two decades of the 21st century, it benefited greatly from China’s integration into the world economy.
To build up its productive capacity, China relied heavily on machinery produced in Germany and it purchased a significant number of German cars. However, this is no longer the case. As China has moved to the technology frontier, it no longer depends as much on German cars or machinery.
However, both factors only go so far in accounting for the stagnating German economy. For if demand – domestic or foreign – is too weak to sustain growth, this should be reflected in falling prices.
Yet prices have been rising strongly. Inflation in Germany has been running high over the last couple of years.
And it has not been systematically lower than in, say, the US or the rest of the euro area. Over the next 12 months, households expect inflation to be above 3% – well above the European Central Bank’s 2% target.
Another relevant indicator also suggests that lack of demand is unlikely to be the main reason for Germany’s stagnation. Unemployment is low in Germany, lower than in most European countries and hardly higher than in 2019.
Instead, adverse supply conditions are key, as reflected in households’ expectations of falling incomes and higher inflation.
Overall, supply is simply the combination of labour and capital inputs (for example, the size of the workforce and the machinery or premises available to them) along with productivity or technology, which tells us how much output we get from the labour and capital inputs. Germany is facing a triple crisis in this regard – expensive energy, weak labour supply and low productivity growth.
First, there are energy prices, which have been pushed up everywhere by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. However, the effect has been particularly strong in Germany due to its direct dependency on Russian gas.
The outgoing government, in which the Greens have been a key player, is widely credited with trying to accelerate Germany’s green transition. This raised the costs of the transition above those caused by the European Emissions Trading System, whereby polluters pay for their emissions.
While it is difficult to determine the exact contributions of the war and the green transition to the rise in energy prices, both clearly act as a drag on growth, particularly on the supply side (that is to say, production potential).
The productivity problem
But Germany faces more fundamental supply-side challenges. The second issue becomes apparent when comparing GDP per hour worked (a measure of a country’s productivity, as seen on the right of the chart above).
Here, the trends in Germany and the UK are quite similar, implying that Germany’s lower economic growth relative to the UK is primarily due to people working fewer hours. This, in turn, may reflect demographic changes, migration that does not contribute to the labour force or shifting preferences in the wake of COVID.
The third issue is productivity growth. Consider the increase in GDP per hour worked in the US, which has risen by more than 10% as shown in the chart above, dwarfing the developments in both Germany and the UK. Common causes of weak productivity growth include ageing infrastructure, low private sector investment, a lack of start-ups and fewer new companies growing into multinational leaders.
A turnaround requires far-reaching improvements in supply conditions. In terms of energy, Germany should avoid measures such as introducing more regulation on the heating or insulation of new and existing homes, and instead rely on the EU-wide emissions trading scheme to curb emissions.
In the labour market, increased participation or skilled migration is needed, supported by policies that encourage people to retire later and entice more women into the workforce.
Productivity growth remains the most challenging issue. A good start would be increased funding for universities and reduced regulation, particularly for AI technology.
Deepening the EU’s single market, for example by removing restrictions on cross-border energy trade to allow firms to access cheaper electricity, would enhance competition and drive productivity growth. This way, companies could expand and create well-paying jobs.
Finally, an additional boost may come from higher defence spending, not only to address the much-needed improvement of Germany’s external security but also because it has been shown to increase productivity.
While immigration may be a major talking point for the German electorate in the coming vote, the economy – as ever – will be an important factor in measuring the mood of the country.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments
Statement highlighting UK Minister for Development, Anneliese Dodd’s attendance at a ministerial roundtable to urgently address the rapidly deteriorating humanitarian crisis in Sudan.
On 13 February, the UK Minister for Development, Anneliese Dodds MP, convened Ministers and other representatives virtually from Canada, Egypt, EU, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Netherlands, Norway, Qatar, UAE and USA with the UN Emergency Relief Coordinator, Tom Fletcher. The participants discussed how to urgently address the rapidly deteriorating humanitarian crisis in Sudan where over 30 million people are in urgent need of assistance, more than 12 million are displaced and famine conditions have been confirmed.
The participants agreed on the critical need for both warring parties to adhere to their commitments agreed in the Jeddah Declaration to respect international humanitarian law, protect civilians and facilitate the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief both into and throughout Sudan. They expressed concern that only a fraction of aid available has been able to reach those in most need and discussed the importance of all sides lifting the bureaucratic impediments that are unnecessarily blocking or delaying the distribution of aid.
They took note of other efforts to galvanise international action and attention on the humanitarian situation in Sudan, including the High-Level Humanitarian Conference for the People of Sudan co-hosted by Ethiopia, UAE, the African Union and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development on 14 February that called for a Ramadan humanitarian pause and the launch of the 2025 UN Sudan Humanitarian Needs and Response Plan and the Regional Refugee Response Plan on 17 February.
The participants re-affirmed their commitment to the Sudanese people and agreed to re-convene at regular intervals to strengthen the international response to the humanitarian crisis in Sudan.
UK continues to step up on European security in move to deepen defence ties with Norway
The UK has kickstarted negotiations today on a major defence agreement with Norway in a move that will bolster security at home and on the European continent and help deter Russian aggression.
During a visit 400km inside the Arctic Circle, including to the Norwegian border with Russia, the Defence Secretary John Healey set out plans for a new agreement which will bring the UK and Norway closer together than ever, boosting national security and creating opportunities for growth to help deliver the government’s Plan for Change.
The proposed strategic partnership will look to build on the UK’s longstanding defence relationship with Norway by strengthening our armed forces, developing closer industrial ties and enhancing our capabilities to face common challenges such as protection of critical undersea infrastructure. It follows the Defence Secretary signing the landmark Trinity House Agreement with Germany in October.
The announcement, recognising the importance of the High North region, comes as the UK steps up to take a leading role in European security and within NATO.
With Russia continuing to militarise the High North and Arctic, this new agreement will boost security for the UK, Norway and our NATO allies, bolstering defences on NATO’s northern flank.
Alongside Norway Defence Minister Tore Sandvik, John Healey visited a border post near Kirkenes on the Russian border yesterday. There, they discussed shared security concerns and the commitment to deterring Russian threats and stepping up support for Ukraine in this critical year.
Defence Secretary John Healey MP said:
Kickstarting work on a deep, ambitious new defence agreement with Norway shows the UK promise to step up on European security in action.
Norway remains one of the UK’s most important allies. We will create a new era of defence partnership to bring us closer than ever before as we tackle increasing threats, strengthen NATO, and boost our security in the High North.
The UK is determined to play a leadership role on European security, supporting the foundations for our security and prosperity at home and showing our adversaries that we are united in our determination to protect our interests.
Both Defence ministers also visited the UK’s ship RFA Proteus in Bodø, which is docked in Norway ahead of exercises in the Baltic Sea.
The Ministers saw how Proteus’ capabilities support UK and European security – functioning as a mothership for drones and remotely operated vehicles, which act as a deterrent and can monitor and protect undersea infrastructure.
The UK and Norway have both stepped up maritime security in the Baltic Sea to protect critical undersea infrastructure. Under NATO’s Operation Baltic Sentry operation, the UK and Norway are working together, with the UK contributing Rivet Joint and P-8 Poseidon maritime surveillance aircraft.
Speaking in sub-zero conditions in Bodø, the two Ministers highlighted their determination to defend shared interests in an increasingly unstable world.
Norway Defence Minister, Tore Sandvik said:
The United Kingdom is Norway’s closest and most important ally in Europe, and our two countries have maintained a close and strong security and defence cooperation for many years. We now face many of the same security challenges in a time of great uncertainty.
It is therefore natural for us to strengthen our ties even further to enhance both our own and our allies’ security while safeguarding our shared strategic interests. At the same time, we will contribute to making NATO stronger.
Together, the UK and Norway continue to be ironclad in support for Ukraine, leading the Maritime Capability Coalition which is transforming the Ukrainian Navy by developing its Black Sea maritime force and building new cutting-edge underwater drones.
Both nations are also playing a key part in the training of Ukrainian recruits. More than 51,000 men and women have been provided with the skills needed to counter Russian’s illegal invasion.
In addition, Norway is the only nation to join the full duration of the UK’s Carrier Strike Group deployment to the Indo-Pacific this year. A Norwegian frigate will sail alongside the Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales. In preparation for the deployment, the UK and Norway will take part in Exercise Tamber Shield in the next few weeks.
In 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handed down three landmark judgments providing national authorities with more clarity when assessing applications for international protection lodged by women faced with different forms of gender-based violence. A new EUAA report examines how these EU-level and national court decisions are guiding national practices to shift to a more gender-sensitive approach in international protection.
The European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA) has published a report examining how courts interpreted the legal grounds to grant international protection to women fleeing violence and systematic discrimination. Over the last five years, there has been a significant legal shift in recognising and protecting this profile of applicants, with three landmark rulings by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in 2024 providing clearer legal grounds to Member States’ national authorities, as they consider asylum applications due to persecution or serious harm based on gender.
In 2024, the CJEU ruled that women who are subjected to systematically imposed discriminatory measures by the State, amounting to persecution, may qualify for international protection on account of their gender and nationality. Already prior to this judgment, some national authorities had adapted their policies following the EUAA’s Country Guidance on Afghanistan of January 2023, which then served as one of the main sources for the judgment of the CJEU. The Agency continues to work closely with Member States’ national authorities to help ensure that this jurisprudence is then reflected in national practices. Courts in Denmark, France, Germany and Luxembourg applied this reasoning after hearing appeals on negative decisions from Afghan women who, were then, granted refugee status.
The EUAA report highlights how, between 2020 and 2024, European courts have established case law that increasingly acknowledges persecution on account of gender; and, identifies the risk profiles of women who might then be members of a ‘particular social group’, as defined in the recast Qualification Directive. The case law referenced in the report notes that the risk profiles include women fleeing forced marriage, divorced women targeted by honour crimes, victims of sexual violence, women accused of witchcraft, women who have had an illegal abortion and those fleeing female genital mutilation/cutting.
National courts in Finland, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands and Portugal also overturned decisions of asylum authorities when they failed to assess the need for special procedural guarantees that aim to ensure that women can effectively participate in the procedure for international protection. The cases highlighted the need to transfer vulnerable women from the border or accelerated procedure to the regular procedure for international protection, with sufficient safeguards in place.
Background
The cases presented in the report are extracted from the EUAA Case Law Database, a public database which serves as a centralised platform on jurisprudential developments related to international protection. It contains English language summaries of judgments related to international protection which are pronounced by national courts of EU+ countries, the CJEU, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and quasi-judicial bodies of the United Nations and the Human Rights Committee (CCPR).
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Tatsiana Kulakevich, Associate Professor of Instruction in the School of Interdisciplinary Global Studies, University of South Florida
Traditional Russian wooden nesting dolls depict U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin at a gift shop in Moscow on Feb. 13, 2025. Tatyana Makeyeva/AFP via Getty Images
The United States’ steadfast allegiance to Ukraine during that country’s three-year war against Russia appears to be quickly disintegrating under the Trump administration. President Donald Trump on Feb. 19, 2025, called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy “a dictator” and falsely blamed him for the war that Russia initiated as part of a land grab in the countries’ border regions.
Zelenskyy, meanwhile, said on Feb. 19 that Trump is trapped in Russian President Vladimir Putin’s “disinformation space.”
The U.S. and Russia have long been adversaries, and the U.S., to date, has given Ukraine more than US$183 billion to help fight against Russia. But that funding came when Joe Biden was president. Trump does not appear to be similarly inclined toward Ukraine.
Amy Lieberman, a politics editor at The Conversation U.S., spoke with Tatsiana Kulakevich, a scholar of Eastern European politics and international relations, to understand the implications of this sudden shift in U.S.-Russia policy under Trump.
Kulakevich sees Trump’s moves that could be perceived as self-interested as instead part of a calculated strategy in preliminary discussions.
Can you explain the current dynamic between the U.S., Ukraine and Russia?
People should not panic because the U.S. and Russia are only holding exploratory talks. We should not call them peace talks, per se, at least not yet. It was to be expected that Ukraine was not invited to the talks in Saudi Arabia because there is nothing to talk about yet. We don’t know what the U.S. and Russia are actually discussing besides agreeing to restore the normal functioning of each other’s diplomatic missions.
People are perceiving the U.S. and Russia as being in love. However, Trump’s Russia policy has been more hawkish than often portrayed in the media. Looking at the record from the previous Trump administration, we can see that if something is not in the interests of the U.S., that is not going to be done. Trump does not do favors.
In 2019, Trump also issued economic sanctions against a Russian ship involved in building the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. These sanctions tried to block Russia’s direct gas exports to Germany – this connection between Russia and Germany was seen by Ukraine as an economic threat.
Based on Trump’s talks with Russia and remarks against Ukraine, it could seem like the U.S. and Russia are no longer adversaries. How do you perceive this?
There are no clear indications that Russia and the U.S. have ceased to be adversaries. Despite Trump’s occasional use of terms like “friends” in diplomacy, his rhetoric often serves as a tactical maneuver rather than a genuine shift in alliances. A key example is his engagement with North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, where Trump alternated between flattery and threats to extract concessions.
Even if the U.S. is meeting with Russia and the public narrative seems to say otherwise, strategically, abandoning Ukraine is not in the United States’ best interests. One reason why is because the U.S. turning away from Ukraine would make Russia happy and China happy. Trump has treated China as a primary threat to the U.S., and China has supported Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is also still saying that everyone, including Ukraine, will be at the table for eventual peace talks.
The allegations that Russia was holding some information over Trump and blackmailing him started long before this presidential term and did not stop Trump from imposing countermeasures on Russia during his first term. The first Trump administration took more than 50 policy actions to counter Moscow, primarily in the form of public statements and sanctions.
What does the U.S. gain from developing a diplomatic relationship with Russia?
Trump is a transactional politician. American companies could profit from the U.S. aligning with Russia and Russian companies, as some Russian officials have said during the recent Saudi Arabia talks with the Trump administration. But the U.S. could also benefit economically from the Trump’s administration’s proposed deal with Ukraine to give the U.S. half of Ukraine’s estimated $11.5 trillion in rare earth minerals.
Zelenskyy rejected that proposal this week, saying it does not come with the promise that the U.S. will continue to give security guarantees to Ukraine.
Historically, since the Cold War, there has been a diplomatic triangle between the Soviet Union – later Russia – China and the U.S. And there has always been one side fighting against the two other sides. Trump trying to develop a better diplomatic relationship with Russia might mean he is trying to distance Russia from China.
A similar dynamic is playing out between the U.S. and Belarus’ authoritarian leader, Alexander Lukashenko, a co-aggressor in the war in Ukraine. Lukashenko is close with both Russia and China. The U.S. administration is looking to relax sanctions on Belarusian banks and exports of potash, a key ingredient in fertilizer, in exchange for the release of Belarusian political opposition members who are imprisoned. There are over 1,200 political prisoners in Belarus. This U.S. foreign policy strategy is aimed at providing Lukashenko with room to grow less economically dependent on Russia and China.
A worker clears snow from a cemetery in Kramatorsk, Ukraine, on Feb. 17, 2025. More than 46,000 Ukrainian soldiers have died in combat since Russia launched a full-scale invasion in February 2022. Pierre Crom/Getty Images
Is this level of collaboration between the U.S. and Russia unprecedented?
While U.S.-Russia relations are often defined by rivalry, history shows that pragmatic cooperation has occurred when both nations saw mutual benefits – whether this relates to arms control, space, counterterrorism, Arctic affairs or health.
Moreover, the U.S. has always prioritized its own interests in its relationship with Russia. For example, the U.S. and its allies imposed sanctions on Russia’s uranium and nickel industries only in May 2024, over two years after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. This was due to the United States’ strategic economic dependencies and concerns about market stability if it sanctioned uranium and nickel.
Even after Russia invaded Crimea – an area of Ukraine that Russia claims as its own – in 2014 and provided support for Russian separatists in Ukraine’s Donbass region, the U.S. and other Western countries imposed largely symbolic sanctions. This included freezing assets of Russian individuals, restricting some financial transactions and limiting Russia’s access to Western technology.
We should also notice that Trump in January 2025 promised to sanction Russia if it does not end the Ukraine war. The U.S. still has not removed any existing sanctions, which signals its commitment to a tough stance on Russia, despite perceptions of a close relationship between Trump and Putin.
Given Trump’s transactional approach to foreign policy, his tough rhetoric on Zelenskyy could be a deliberate negotiation strategy aimed at pressuring Ukraine into making greater concessions in potential peace talks, rather than signaling abandonment.
Tatsiana Kulakevich 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.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Donald Heflin, Executive Director of the Edward R. Murrow Center and Senior Fellow of Diplomatic Practice, The Fletcher School, Tufts University
During the first few weeks of the second Trump administration, President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said a lot of things about longtime allies that caused frustration and outright friction among the leaders of those countries.
Trump and Vance indeed appear to disdain close alliances, favoring an America First approach to the world. A New York Times headline characterized the relationship between the U.S. and Europe now as “A Strained Alliance.”
As a former diplomat, I’m aware that how the U.S. treats its allies has been a crucial question in every presidency, since George Washington became the country’s first chief executive. On his way out of that job, Washington said something that Trump, Vance and their fellow America First advocates would probably embrace.
France sent soldiers, money and ships to the American revolutionaries. Within three years, after a major intervention by the French fleet, the battle of Yorktown in 1781 effectively ended the war and America was independent.
Isolationism, then war
American political leaders largely heeded Washington’s warning against alliances throughout the 1800s. The Atlantic Ocean shielded the young nation from Europe’s problems and many conflicts, and America’s closest neighbors had smaller populations and less military might.
That began to change when Europe descended into the brutal trench warfare of World War I.
Initially, American politicians avoided becoming involved. What would today be called an isolationist movement was strong, and its supporters felt that the war in Europe was being waged for the benefit of big business.
But it was hard for the U.S.to maintain neutrality. German submarines sank ships crossing the Atlantic carrying American passengers. The economies of some of America’s biggest trading partners were in shreds; the democracies of Britain, France and other European countries were at risk.
President Woodrow Wilson led the United States into the war in 1917 as an ally of the Western European nations. When he asked Congress for a declaration of war, Wilson touted the value of like-minded allies, saying, “A steadfast concert for peace can never be maintained except by a partnership of democratic nations.” The war was over within 16 months.
Prosperity came along with the peace, helping the U.S. quickly develop into a global economic power.
However, within a few years, American politicians returned to traditional isolationism in political and military matters and continued this attitude well into the 1930s. The worldwide Great Depression that began in 1929 was blamed on vulnerabilities in the global economy, and there was a strong sentiment among Americans that the U.S. should fix its internal problems rather than assist Europe with its problems.
Alliance counters fascism
As both Hitler and the Japanese Empire began to attack their neighbors in the late 1930s, it became clear to President Franklin Roosevelt and other American military and political leaders that the U.S. would get caught up in World War II. If nothing else, airplanes had erased America’s ability to hide behind the Atlantic Ocean.
In January of 1941, Roosevelt gave his annual State of the Union speech to Congress. He appeared to prepare the country for possible intervention – both on behalf of allies abroad and for the preservation of American democracy:
“The future and the safety of our country and of our democracy are overwhelmingly involved in events far beyond our borders. Armed defense of democratic existence is now being gallantly waged in four continents. If that defense fails, all the population and all the resources of Europe, and Asia, and Africa and Australasia will be dominated by conquerors. In times like these it is immature – and incidentally, untrue – for anybody to brag that an unprepared America, single-handed, and with one hand tied behind its back, can hold off the whole world.”
As World War II ended, the wartime alliance produced two longer-term partnerships built on the understanding that working together had produced a powerful and effective counter to fascism.
A ‘news bulletin’ from August 1945 issued by a predecessor of the United Nations. Foreign Policy In Focus
Postwar alliances
The first of these alliances is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO. The original members were the U.S., Canada, Britain, France and others of the wartime Allies. There are now 32 members, including Poland, Hungary and Turkey.
The aims of NATO were to keep the peace in Europe and contain the growing Communist threat from the Soviet Union. NATO’s supporters feel that, given that the wars in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s and in the Ukraine today are the only major conflicts in Europe in 80 years, the alliance has met its goals well. And NATO troops went to Afghanistan along with the U.S. military after 9/11.
The other institution created by the wartime Allies is the United Nations.
The U.N. is many things – a humanitarian aid organization, a forum for countries to raise their issues and a source of international law.
In addition to these formal alliances, many of the same countries created institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Organization of American States and the European Union. The U.S. belongs to all of these except the European Union. During my 35-year diplomatic career, I worked with all of these institutions, particularly in efforts to stabilize Africa. They keep the peace and support development efforts with loans and grants.
Admirers of this postwar liberal international order point to the limited number of major armed conflicts during the past 80 years, the globalized economy and international cooperation on important matters such as disease control and fighting terrorism.
Detractors point to this system’s inability to stop some very deadly conflicts, such as Vietnam or Ukraine, and the large populations that haven’t done well under globalization as evidence of its flaws.
The world would look dramatically different without the Allies’ victories in the two World Wars, the stable worldwide economic system and NATO’s and the U.N.’s keeping the world relatively peaceful.
But the value of allies to Americans, even when they benefit from alliances, appears to have shifted between George Washington’s attitude – avoid them – and that of Franklin D. Roosevelt – go all in … eventually.
Donald Heflin 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.
Atos successfully deploys new, innovative sport technologies during the Winter European Youth Olympic Festival Bakuriani 2025
New, integrated technologies contributed to the event success and are now field-proven, ready to be deployed at a larger scale.
Bakuriani, Georgia, and Paris, France, February 20, 2025 – Atos, a global leader in digital transformation and the Technology Partner of the Winter European Youth Olympic Festival (EYOF) Bakuriani 2025, today announces that its innovative IT services contributed to the success of the event from February 9 to 16, 2025. Atos delivered a comprehensive suite of digital services that enhanced fan experience, optimized event operations, and brought the Festival closer to audiences across Europe.
Atos provided traditional Timing and Results services, ensuring accuracy and efficiency across all sports. It also powered the official event website and mobile application, a real-time results information system, and an interactive database allowing fans and stakeholders to effortlessly access key statistics and insights. Atos enabled the live streaming production and distribution of all competitions, enabling rights-holding broadcasters and media partners to seamlessly share the action with audiences worldwide.
The Winter European Youth Olympic Festival was also the opportunity for Atos and the organizing committee to showcase innovative technologies which deepened the experience, immersion and engagement of stakeholders.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) powered Media Center for press and stakeholders
During the event, Atos provided for the first time exclusive, automated and AI-powered media clips and highlights to official stakeholders, including Olympic Committees, federations, and accredited media outlets across Europe. Through a password-protected content management system, users could submit natural language requests for read-to-use video clips about an athlete, a sport, a result or a game situation, users received a corresponding ready-to-use video clip. The Atos AI-powered Media Center then automatically recovered, edited and customized footage for each type of user. This breakthrough technology is expected to incredibly speed up video dissemination for major events worldwide.
On- and Off-site immersion
In collaboration with the Organizing Committee, an innovative solution has been developed to keep onsite attendees and online users informed about live events. The system combines real-time results with video highlights, providing a complete overview of ongoing competitions on a single screen. News feeds were also broadcast on giant screens at event venues, ensuring an immersive experience for all spectators.
An AI-powered chatbot
The AI-powered chatbot designed to answer fan inquiries about Georgia, the Festival, and historical results, has proven its efficiency by providing instant, reliable information throughout the event.
SportEurope integrated, unified platform
Atos developed SportEurope for the European Olympic Committees (EOC), an online fan ecosystem that integrates the event’s web presence, social media domains and marketing automation systems, ensuring continuous engagement with sports enthusiasts across Europe. Through strategic content creation in collaboration with athletes, European National Olympic Committees and European sports federations, SportEurope fosters a vibrant community around the Games.
Atos developed the Winter Crystal gaming experience, a mobile game that places players in digitized environments of Georgian landmarks and EYOF venues. This interactive adventure involves solving games and completing challenges to explore the spirit of the Games while competing for the prestigious Winter Crystal award.
“We are delighted that our technologies were instrumental in the success of the European Youth Olympic Festival” said Nacho Moros, Head of Atos Major Events. “This inspiring event was also the perfect venue to introduce new and innovative solutions and continue to set new benchmarks in digital transformation for major sporting events. We are confident these field-proven technologies will soon be deployed in world-class events”.
“Atos provided a high level of professional service and made a significant contribution to the success of the Bakuriani 2025 Olympic Festival”, saidZurab Tuskia, Head of IT & Accreditation, EYOF Bakuriani 2025 OC. “We would like to thank Atos for their professional support, which was demonstrated through the prompt resolution of any issues that arose throughout our time together, as well as for the strong and friendly relationship that was formed between the IT department and the Atos team during the Olympic Festival.”
Key figures:
8 sports operated, 5 venues in 3 host cities (Bakuriani, Batumi and Tbilisi).
Atos staff: 56 on site plus 10 on remote support
over 30 days on site operations.
over 150 laptops, 70 mobile phones, and Sport Specific devices.
3.334 accreditations
over 200 live streaming hours.
Digital achievements:
over 1 million Instagram views, 60,000 TikTok views, 60,000+ visits to sporteurope.org
AI-generated articles ranked among the Top 7 most viewed pages.
2,000 active users on the app.
over 200 active users for the Winter Crystal mobile game.
over 100 users accessing the Gaudi multimedia repository & over 550 downloads. Notable users include over 40 European National Olympic Committees, Local Organizing Committees and Sport Federations.
30% of Sport Europe users are opening the Email Marketing emails.
Atos has been serving its partners and customers through a dedicated in-house sports and major events division (“Major Events”) for over 30 years, giving it an unmatched experience and the flexibility to serve its customers regardless of their exposure, size and scale. From global events to local competitions, Atos consistently strives to deliver technology excellence to its entire customer base.
Atos has been involved with the Olympic Movement since 1992 and the Paralympic Movement since 2002 and is the Official Digital Technology Partner of the European Olympic Committees, including the European Games 2027, as well as the official Digital partner for Special Olympics International. In addition, the company is also the Official Information Technology Partner of UEFA National Team Football. Most recently, Atos has been instrumental in delivering successful leading-edge IT services for iconic events such as UEFA EURO 2024™ in Germany and the Olympic and Paralympic Games Paris 2024.
To learn more about Atos solutions for sporting events and major events, visit Atos major events.
***
About European Youth Olympics Festival Bakuriani 2025
The EOC is an international non-governmental not-for-profit organization whose objective is to propagate the fundamental principles of Olympism at European level. Held under the patronage of the IOC, and the pride of the European Olympic Committees with almost 35 years of tradition, the EYOF is the first top European multi-sport event aimed at young athletes aged 14 to 18. There is a winter and a summer edition, which take place in two-year cycles, in odd-numbered years.
The event is rich with Olympic traditions: from the burning flame to athletes’ and officials’ oaths. It is at the EYOF that many of Europe’s aspiring sports stars take their first steps on the international stage. And while some may look to the EYOF as a stepping-stone to Olympic greatness, all who participate take home friendships and experiences to last a lifetime.
About Atos
Atos is a global leader in digital transformation with c. 82,000 employees and annual revenue of c. € 10 billion. European number one in cybersecurity, cloud and high-performance computing, the Group provides tailored end-to-end solutions for all industries in 69 countries. A pioneer in decarbonization services and products, Atos is committed to a secure and decarbonized digital for its clients. Atos is a SE (Societas Europaea) and listed on Euronext Paris.
The purpose of Atos is to help design the future of the information space. Its expertise and services support the development of knowledge, education and research in a multicultural approach and contribute to the development of scientific and technological excellence. Across the world, the Group enables its customers and employees, and members of societies at large to live, work and develop sustainably, in a safe and secure information space.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Florimond Gueniat, Associate Professor in Mechanical Engineering, Birmingham City University
AdamEdwards / shutterstock
The UK’s pledge to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 hinges on replacing millions of petrol and diesel vehicles with cleaner alternatives. But transitioning to electric transport isn’t just about manufacturing new cars, installing chargers and so on. It’s a gargantuan energy generation challenge that could push the power grid to its limits.
In 2023, UK transport consumed about 46 million litres of petrol and diesel. If we convert that into electricity, it would be equivalent to 49.5 gigawatts (GW) of continuous power throughout a whole year. For perspective, this is about one-third more than the UK’s entire current electricity generation capacity.
In other words, every single power station in the UK could be devoted entirely to powering electric vehicles and it still wouldn’t be enough. But one might say we didn’t consider the efficiency of electric vehicles. Petrol and diesel engines waste about three quarters of their energy as heat, with only a small portion used to propel the car. Electric vehicles meanwhile waste only about one quarter.
Adjusting for this, the actual power needed if the UK went entirely electric drops to around 20 GW. It would still mean increasing today’s grid capacity by almost half (46%), corresponding to building 17 nuclear plants (1.2 GW each) or 5,800 skyscraper-sized wind turbines (3.5 MW each). Those wind farms would cost around £22 billion, while the nuclear plants would cost significantly more.
At the moment, less than 1% of vehicles in the UK are electric, which explains why there are no specific power issues – yet. But if the country did have a fully carbon-free fleet of vehicles, the associated surge in demand would strain infrastructure and risk large blackouts. California’s grid, for example, already faces stress during electric vehicle charging peaks, prompting warnings and forcing the state to put “managed charging” policies in place.
‘A gargantuan energy challenge’. Supamotionstock.com / shutterstock
Massive upgrade needed
Most countries looking to switch to zero-carbon transport will need to massively upgrade their electricity grid and power plants. Renewable energy complicates matters as wind and solar can’t always meet demand spikes (you can burn more gas or coal when needed, but you can’t choose when the wind blows or the sun shines). Nuclear offers stable and massive output, but new plants can take decades to build and the public is often hostile.
Certain “smart” solutions could help things even if the grid itself isn’t overhauled. Electric vehicle batteries could be linked to the grid for instance, and used to store and supply power. Overnight, millions of cars will soak up electricity before releasing it when demand spikes again in the morning. Price discounts would encourage people to charge their cars at night, when demand for electricity is at its lowest.
This can help mitigate many of the issues related to wind and solar being intermittent. But it will cause batteries to deteriorate faster, and still won’t solve the problem of having to generate more electricity.
Electricity stored overnight can be very useful in the morning when millions of lights and kettles are switched on. Smile Fight / shutterstock
One underappreciated strategy is empowering households and businesses that generate their own electricity via solar panels, small wind turbines, or even micro-hydro systems. By 2035, with vigorous policies, these “prosumers” could supply up to 15% of the UK’s electricity, easing grid strain and reducing reliance on centralised funding. Such policies in Germany have lead its prosumer networks to already offset 10% of the national demand.
Without such decentralised efforts, the financial burden of grid upgrades will fall entirely on taxpayers, at staggering costs. The alternative is a huge rise in price of electricity, felt by all, and a stalled transition.
No time to delay
Generating more power remains the core issue. Without urgent action, the transition to low-carbon transport could stall – or worse, overload the energy system. The governments of France, the UK and some other countries have recently begun to discuss increasing energy production, but the focus is on meeting AI-related demands rather than electricity for the next generation of vehicles.
Critically, net-zero will only happen with strong transport and energy policies in place. Governments must increase grid capacity and incentivise small-scale renewable generation through tax breaks and specially-designed payments. The alternative – delaying and relying solely on public funds – is economically unviable and politically risky.
Florimond Gueniat does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
European Commission Statement Brussels, 20 Feb 2025 Thank you Mr Chairman!
This is the first time I am back in a big Plenary room since the hearing. Thank you for being nice to me! People ask me if I could sleep at night in the preparation phase, and I always answered, ‘yes I sleep like a baby’. I sleep for a few hours, I wake up and cry a little bit, then I sleep for a few more hours and then I wake up and cry a little bit.
Thank you so much and thank you for the collaboration, both before and after the hearing.
Now of course, we have started the actual work and I really cherish, both the bilateral collaboration I have with many of you, but also with the groups and with the Committee.
I am looking forward for the exchange of views today. Obviously, it’s also a possibility for me to highlight some of the things that are coming up and that we are presenting from the Commission’s side in the weeks and months to come, just as it is an opportunity for you to ask me questions, but obviously also give me some input.
A lot has happened since December, there is an old, I think it’s a Chinese curse, that goes ‘may you live in interesting times’. I think it’s pretty fair to say we are living in interesting times.
I think it’s also fair to say that this is for me a very, very clear sign that we should all be happy that we have the European Union. No country, not even the biggest ones of us, have a chance of solving the challenges that we face right now alone.
We need to really stand by each other’s shoulders and we need to work with each other closer, together. And therefore, I think it is also extremely important that we send a very clear signal to our own citizens, our own companies but also of course to the world, that in the European Union, the way that we face challenges like the ones we face right now, is not by polarising but standing together.
This certainly also goes for the energy part of our collaboration. We already working very closely together on this, compared to any other region of the planet, we are better interconnected and more rational and greener than any other region.
This is obviously not to say that we don’t have many challenges, we have a lot. But I just think it’s worth reminding each other, when standing in challenging times, it’s also necessary to remember what are our strengths and to build on our strengths. And when facing challenges you have to be very careful, when you find the solutions, that you don’t undermine the position of strength that you actually have, by choosing to go in completely different directions.
For me that means, looking at our Energy Union, we need to make that stronger.
It really is a little bit of a paradox, when walking around this building and looking at all the historic photos, the buildings and rooms named after great personalities that helped shape the European Union, that it all started as a Coal and Steel Community. So coal, basically energy.
Yet today, there is many other issues we are much more integrated than we are on the energy side.
So, we have a lot of potential. I will also say that we need to do better in that part of our integration.
Now, if we look at our electricity infrastructure and how it is connected in Europe. Again, I would find it difficult to point to any other places in the world that are doing as well as we are. But at the same time, we are not at all where we need to be and we are not even exploiting the possibilities that we have of doing better right now.
An analogy that you could use, if you thought about our more traditional physical transport infrastructure and, let’s just take an arbitrary number, say that what we needed was 100 big highways to connect Europe and we would be perfectly connected, it’s just an arbitrary number but let’s say it’s 100. Then say, that those highways are energy, electricity, then right now we are at a stage where we have 100 highways but we need 200. What makes it even more challenging, but also gives us possibilities, is that out of the 100 we are only using 50. So out of the infrastructure that we already have, the interconnectedness and maintenance that we already have, we are only utilising a part of it. And we have a lot of potential for utilising it better. And even if we did that 100 per cent, that still would not be enough.
So, what does that mean? It means we need to be better connected, both physically, so physical infrastructure, but also in a more regulatory sense.
Countries need to implement better legislation that we already have, this means exploiting the possibilities of having the benefits of having neighbours that produce energy at certain times and also being solidaire, providing them the energy to them, when they don’t.
If all countries fulfilled our obligation of the 70% transmission target, then already there, we would be much better off that we are today.
If we were better at exploiting the grid we have, and we can be, via digitalization and AI, and better planning and better coordination of maintenance, small things they might seem like, but they can really make a difference. Then we could avoid a lot of curtailment. In Germany alone, the curtailment every year equals the lost revenue of 4 billion euros.
When we have the big crisis last Summer, in many of the Southern European countries because of the heat wave, one of the reasons why the crisis became so big was because there was a lot of maintenance going on and it wasn’t being coordinated. This is not to blame anybody, because there were probably good reasons why it had to happen there, but had we coordinated better, we could have avoided these things.
So this is just to say there are actually quite a few low hanging fruits, quite a few things that can work, even in the short term. But I will also be honest with you and say there are also some fruits at the top of the tree, that we need to pick. There is also a lot of things that we need to do that are more structural, long-term decisions.
Something that lies in between there, I would say, is our ability to move swiftly with the deployment of more renewables.
We need to, in my opinion, take a good and hard look at our rules for permitting. Now, during the crisis we had some change in the rules that we have and emergency measures, that were also implemented and that meant that in some countries things were actually speeding up.
But still, as a general rule, it is going way too slow and I think that is probably the message that I am getting most often from industry, from local communities, from green NGOs from people that are more concerned about prices. It’s not going fast enough.
And this is even in a period of time when we are actually deploying more renewables faster than ever, so last year it was 78 new Gw of renewables, this is a huge number. Last year for the first time ever, we produced more electricity by solar than by coal. This is fantastic, it’s going in the right direction, it’s going fast. But not fast enough.
This will be at the core also of the Affordable Energy Action Plan that I will be presenting, the Commission will be presenting, next week as a part of the Clean Industrial Deal.
We will look at every issue separately, that is right now hindering us from becoming more independent of fossil fuels and thereby also Russian energy imports, decarbonising our economy and of course first and foremost, which the title also reflects, bringing down the prices.
Renewable energy is not something that is making our competitiveness worse as some will have you believe. I am sure probably not many in this room but sometimes outside of this room you will hear this.
It is the opposite. From 2021 to 2023, the International Energy Agency, [IEA Executive Director] doctor Fatih Birol, has calculated that we in Europe saved 100 billion euro because of the deployment of new renewable energy. 100 billion euro that we would have bad to pay more, had we not been on the transition path that we are in.
We are working hard to rectify where there is barriers, and the plan that I will be presenting will not be a plan with one big silver bullet that will solve all the problems. But it will be a lot of very targeted things, of course interconnected, but targeted things that we can do, that when you add them all up, will make a lot of difference both on the short term and on longer and more structural term.
I will also say that the question of Russian energy, in my opinion, has not become smaller, I think you will agree.
When the war escalated and Russia attacked Ukraine in 2022 we were at 45% of our gas coming from Russia. Last year we brought that down to 15%, but then the LNG imports went up, so we ended up at 19%. Now we are at approximately 13% because the transit via Ukraine ended the 1 January.
So on the one hand, I guess you can argue that this is a huge success of Europe. I would like you to point to any other region of the world that could that fast, fundamentally change such as important part of the energy system. It is actually a tremendous accomplishment on one hand. On the other hand, we are still importing 13% from our gas from Russia. This is billions of euros filling up Putin’s war chest. So,we need to do more.
Some of the things that I have already talked about, that will be a part of the Action Plan on Affordable Energy will obviously also help us in that regard. But we will need to, in my opinion, take even further steps and, therefore, next month, the Commission will propose a Roadmap for independence on Russian fuel.
Obviously we have a lot of other things planned, but my time is already more than up, so I hope I’ll get an opportunity to speak about them in connection with your questions. They are all interrelated obviously, so the Electrification Action Plan is also connected to the Affordable Energy Action Plan and so forth.
On housing, which I know is also important for many in this Committee, we will be presenting the Affordable Housing Action Plan next year. The reason why I decided and we decided in the Commission to not do it before, was also to make sure that we have a process that is parallel to yours, here in the Parliament, the Committee on Housing. I would not feel comfortable putting forward my plan without having also taken into account the result of your work and your recommendations.
But this does not mean that I will not act before that. We are already acting. So you could put it all together in one fine plan in a year, but since it’s probably wiser to wait with that plan, I will start doing some of the things already now. That is probably not the way we normally or actually often work, but I think it’s the smart way of doing it so.
On the State aid rules, we are working on them, [Executive Vice President for a Clean, Just and Competitive Transition] Teresa Ribera and myself, on making, creating a pan-European investment platform, I am working with the EiB on that. On making sure we spend more money from the cohesion funds on housing, going from 7.5 billion euros to 15 billion euro, I am working with Vice-President [for Cohesion and Reforms, Raffaele], Fitto on that and of course also on other issues.
But I would be interested to hear your comments and answer any questions also!
Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Mike Johnson (LA-04)
WASHINGTON — Yesterday, Speaker Johnson delivered the keynote address at the 2025 Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) global conference in London, England. Appearing remotely to the more than 4,000-person audience, Speaker Johnson warned against the threat of “soft despotism,” and encouraged leaders to “be prepared to steer their aims towards policies and mediating institutions that reduce government dominion over our lives and advance prosperity.”
“The only way to reverse this trend into further technocratic tyranny is to recommit to our foundational principles and live them out. What made the West, and what made our nations great, must now guide us once again,” Speaker Johnsonsaid.
Watch Speaker Johnson’s full address here.
Below are excerpts from the address:
“Here in America, as you are all seeing, we’re in the midst of a great change. In our national election a few months ago, our people delivered truly a mandate to make our country great again and to restore common sense in our public policy. Here and elsewhere, the radical big government progressives pushed that pendulum too far and too aggressively to the left, and the people rose up and said, enough. And now that pendulum is beginning to swing back to the center, and we’ve been given a once-in-a-generation opportunity to demonstrate now to our nation and the new demographics of voters who have come into our Republican Party for the first time, that it really is our conservative policies that lead to human flourishing, because they’re better for individuals and families and communities, individual states, and our nation as a whole,” Speaker Johnson said.
“In America, we still believe in peace through strength, and we still understand our role in the world. A strong America is good for free people everywhere because it helps to keep the terrorists and the tyrants at bay. But to maintain our strength and leadership, our foreign policy must be centered on our own national interest. It’s a matter of common sense for each of our countries to acknowledge that we must each take care of our own houses before we help take care of the neighborhood,” Speaker Johnson said. “As we seek to make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous, we will encourage all our friends and allies to do the same in and for their own countries. The survival of the West will depend upon that. And this is how we will turn the tides, by refocusing and marshalling our many shared interests toward our own national interest.”
“This trend is reflected in political apathy and the growing tendency of people to simply submit to governments whose laws have become so offensively intrusive and whose centers of power feel distant and inaccessible. If there is nothing to fight for, then why fight at all, Speaker Johnson said. ”This is the vision of the left, for the people to feel so powerless that they give in and just accept their fate as mindless vassals under the safe protection of the state. And the only way to reverse this trend into further technocratic tyranny is to recommit to our foundational principles and live them out. What made the West and what made our nations great must now guide us once again.
Below is the full transcript of Speaker Johnson’s address as delivered:
Thank you, my dear friend, the Baroness. Good morning. I wish I could be there with all of you in person, and I am truly sorry that I’ve been prevented from making the trip now for the second year in a row. I was unexpectedly elected Speaker of the House just days before the inaugural ARC Conference in October 2023, and I had to send my last-minute regrets. And now, just days before this second conference that I had so much been looking forward to, I found myself once again with late breaking developments in Congress, this time involving our budget and government funding that simply doesn’t allow me to leave the country. But there’s no place I’d rather be than there with you this week as we had long planned, but I’m glad to at least have this opportunity to join you remotely.
We find ourselves in a very unique and consequential moment in history here in America and throughout the West. And I believe the timing of the ARC Conference is truly providential. I joined the ARC Advisory Board two years ago because I was so intrigued by the idea of bringing together so many thought leaders and change makers from around the world to, as we determined, ‘shape a hope-filled vision for the future.’ My friends, there really is great reason for our hope.
Here in America, as you are all seeing, we’re in the midst of a great change. In our national election a few months ago, our people delivered truly a mandate to make our country great again and to restore common sense in our public policy. Here and elsewhere, the radical big government progressives pushed that pendulum too far and too aggressively to the left, and the people rose up and said, enough. And now that pendulum is beginning to swing back to the center, and we’ve been given a once-in-a-generation opportunity to demonstrate now to our nation and the new demographics of voters who have come into our Republican Party for the first time, that it really is our conservative policies that lead to human flourishing, because they’re better for individuals and families and communities, individual states, and our nation as a whole.
In recent decades, our government had become too large, too inefficient, and too powerful. And in too many cases, it had also been weaponized and corrupted. That is precisely what the framers of our Constitution feared and what political philosophers and historians over the centuries have warned against. Almost two centuries ago, Alexei de Tocqueville wrote of big government: “After having thus successfully taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated rules, minute and uniform, which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate to rise above the crowd.”
De Tocqueville noted that “such a power does not tyrannize, but it compresses, extinguishes, and stupefies a people till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals of which the government is the shepherd.” Tocqueville called it soft despotism, a condition in which citizens voluntarily and gradually just surrender their rights and independence to the government, lured by the promise of security and stability. This kind of despotism doesn’t arrive through violence or open tyranny. Instead, it comes quietly, insidiously, through comfort and convenience.
Tocqueville warned of a future where citizens would become passive spectators in their own democracy, willful stewards of their carefully managed decline. Soft despots don’t break down your door and confiscate your weapons, they don’t arrest you in public for criticizing the government, and they don’t station soldiers on street corners to ensure your compliance. Soft despots ensure your compliance through normal democratic channels.
Regulations? Oh, they keep you safe.
Censorship? That’s to protect you from misinformation.
Surveillance? That’s necessary for your security, see.
Dependence? It offers you stability.
And we see these forces at work in our society today. The architects of this soft despotism have taken shape too often as government bureaucrats and big tech and corporate elites, international institutions, media gatekeepers, and the welfare state. And their benevolent rule has given us nations without borders, grossly inefficient bureaucracies, a culture of surveillance, and a citizenry that is apathetic, distracted, and dependent. The dynamics are the same around the world. Whether you’re in Detroit or Manchester, Lyon or Berlin, the supreme power of big government has extended its arm over all of us. And the casualties of the soft despotism that’s taken hold have been the loss of our heritage, our national identities, our patriotism, and our prosperity.
In this civilizational moment, as our friend Oz Guinness describes it, will we choose renewal, replacement, or decline? In the U.S., we have just embarked on a new path of renewal. We are determined to bring about a new golden age in America, as President Trump says, and we are convinced that we can, if we return to the timeless foundational principles which lead to human flourishing.
The challenge we have today is ensuring that the current generations of our countrymen recognize and recommit to those principles. And what are they? In less than 17 months, the U.S. will celebrate the 250th anniversary of our Declaration of Independence. As G.K. Chesterton observed, “America was founded on a creed that is set forth with dogmatic and even theological lucidity,” he said. From. the second paragraph of the Declaration, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Of the 56 men who signed the Declaration, almost all of them professed to be Christians, and at least half of them had received formal religious training in their education. Having studied the Bible, they recognize that we are not simply born equal, but rather created equal and that it is our Creator who endows us with our rights and not the state. They also recognize that all of us are made in the image of our Creator and thus every single person has an inestimable dignity and value. And that value is not related in any way to the color of our skin or where we live or what our talents are or anything else. Our value is inherent because it is given to us by God.
The founders of our country also understood that man has a fallen nature and that fallen men with power and no accountability can become a serious problem. Because power corrupts and as Lord Acton observed, “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” So, our system of government was meticulously designed with careful safeguards, like the separation of powers and checks and balances. And our founders emphasized that a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, could not long survive without a vibrant practice of religious faith, because they understood that is a necessary element to foster personal responsibility and to keep a general moral consensus among the people. A healthy, self-governing society relies on the moral character of its citizens.
It’s ironic, but on this day in America, we’re observing one of our 11 federal holidays, and this one’s known as President’s Day, which originally began as an annual celebration of George Washington’s birthday. In his farewell address, the father of our country noted this. He said, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” Our second president, John Adams, reminded his countrymen that the American Constitution was, “made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” The founders emphasized the importance of balancing individual liberty with personal responsibility. And our fourth president, James Madison, argued that every citizen should put the nation above their own self-interest.
The timeless virtues that are rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition served as the foundation of America and of all Western civilization. But in recent decades, changes have happened rapidly, and left-wing social movements have advanced very aggressively. Many world leaders, convinced that national borders were obstacles to unity and social progress, sought to dismantle them in favor of global integration.
But a key downside to the new global order is that it ultimately led to a devaluing of local communities and a weakening of national identity, which was replaced instead by a divisive new racial, sexual, and gender-based identity. If Americans aren’t American anymore, and Brits aren’t British anymore, and Germans aren’t German anymore, then naturally something else will fill the void. If everyone is a citizen of the world, then no one is really accountable any longer to their own nation or to their own local community.
Unfortunately, these ideas have taken hold. We have heard a little bit about polls this morning. Here’s a few more. 50% of Germans under the age of 30 say they feel more European now than German. Only 40% of Americans say they are extremely proud to be American. Only one in five British adults consider themselves to be very patriotic. This trend is reflected in political apathy and the growing tendency of people to simply submit to governments whose laws have become so offensively intrusive and whose centers of power feel distant and inaccessible. If there is nothing to fight for, then why fight at all?
This is the vision of the left, for the people to feel so powerless that they give in and just accept their fate as mindless vassals under the safe protection of the state. And the only way to reverse this trend into further technocratic tyranny is to recommit to our foundational principles and live them out. What made the West and what made our nations great must now guide us once again.
During his trip through America, Tocqueville marveled at what he said was, “The extreme skill with which the inhabitants of the United States succeed in proposing a common object for the exertions of a great many men and in inducing them voluntarily to pursue it.” Those neighbors and local volunteers joined together to found seminaries, hospitals, prisons, libraries, and schools. They built society together with their own hands.
In all of our shared history in the West, it has remained true that strong communities have formed a bulwark against tyranny. Strong mediating institutions ground us in the needs of our community and the outgrowth of these institutions formed the basis for a healthy, engaged citizenry. Edmund Burke called them “little platoons.” He was referring to the families and churches and civic organizations and community groups which began at the smallest, most local level. Burke argued this bottom-up voluntary approach to society would deepen our sense of duty and shared responsibility to one another and also act as an important safeguard against a distant state authority.
While the spirit of voluntary association is currently on life support throughout the West, it is not dead. We see it in America every time there is a natural disaster. I’ve participated in this as a local citizen, and I’ve witnessed it often as an elected official.
This past September, Hurricane Helene made landfall in the United States. It was an historic storm. For five straight days, torrential rains and 100-mile-per-hour winds swept across the Atlantic, devastating homes and communities and businesses. It hit western North Carolina the hardest. As the Speaker of the House, tasked with ultimately passing the relief efforts through Congress, I wanted to take a trip to ground zero to witness the scope of this destruction and meet with the individuals whose aid our aid would eventually impact.
One of our first visits in the state was to the First Baptist Church in Swannanoa, North Carolina. When we arrived, we were met with what looked like a military-grade aid station. It was so impressive. There were doctors and nurses and carpenters and chefs and scores of volunteers. The storm knocked out almost all of their cell and internet service throughout the entire region. So, I asked the pastor’s wife at that church, how did all this come together?
She informed me that an elderly woman in the community, who had recently purchased an entire cow to store in her deep freezer for the winter months, had lost her home in the storm, but somehow the deep freezer had survived. She was worried that the hundreds of pounds of meat in her freezer would spoil without electricity, so she loaded it into a vehicle and dropped it off somewhere she knew it would go to good use, and that was the local church.
Neither the pastor nor his wife were trained butchers, but they knew they had hungry mouths in the community, so they turned their sanctuary into a makeshift butcher shop and started cooking for the surrounding people. As the smell of grilled beef wafted above the small town, citizens showed up. And they continued to show up. And from that point forward, the church became the central hub for disaster relief, organized not by the state or the federal government, but by local neighbors, the community. It filled in where the bureaucracy could not.
In times of disaster, local organizations are often the first to respond, well before the broken and bureaucratic federal agencies ever arrive. And they often have a much higher mission success rate, by the way. In my home state of Louisiana, organizations like the Cajun Navy, an interconnected group of volunteers with boats and trucks, have saved thousands of Louisianians during storms like Hurricane Katrina.
I tell these stories because they serve as evidence that strong communities, built on the spirit of voluntary association and shared responsibility are still very much alive. But it is a shame that it takes a natural disaster for us to recognize their value. This level of civic engagement should be the rule and not the exception, because the same principles that drive effective local action in times of crisis can also inform national policy and global leadership.
In the last line of the Declaration of Independence, our founders wrote the following, “For the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.” America’s founders were willing to die for the cause of liberty, and this acknowledgment in our nation’s birth certificate signaled a commitment that America would place our national interest over our individual interests, and those of foreign nations.
While we have gradually lost sight of this concept, the new American government is proof positive that we can rekindle that spirit once again. On this national holiday of ours, I’ll quote the president that I most fondly remember from my youth, and that’s Ronald Reagan. He reminded us of this famous admonition. He said, “We cannot escape our destiny, nor should we try to do so. The leadership of the free world was thrust upon us two centuries ago in that little hall in Philadelphia. In the days following World War II, when the economic strength and power of America was all that stood between the world and the return of the Dark Ages, Pope Pius XII said, the American people have a great genius for splendid and unselfish actions.
Into the hands of America, God has placed the destinies of an afflicted mankind.” American leadership clearly did help bring about decades of peace and economic growth and prosperity for the Western democracies.
In America, we still believe in peace through strength, and we still understand our role in the world. A strong America is good for free people everywhere because it helps to keep the terrorists and the tyrants at bay. But to maintain our strength and leadership, our foreign policy must be centered on our own national interest. It’s a matter of common sense for each of our countries to acknowledge that we must each take care of our own houses before we help take care of the neighborhood. As we seek to make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous, we will encourage all our friends and allies to do the same in and for their own countries. The survival of the West will depend upon that. And this is how we will turn the tides, by refocusing and marshalling our many shared interests toward our own national interest.
Recent elections in places France, Italy, like Netherlands and Germany signal that millions of freedom-loving people around the world share our concerns about unchecked power and the erosion of national sovereignty. As leaders in government, academia, media, and the arts, we must be prepared to steer their aims toward policies and mediating institutions that reduce government dominion over our lives and advance prosperity. In short, we must not let this civilizational moment pass us by.
So how do we do it? As leaders, we should be working at every level to shift control away from established power centers and back to the people. The local school board will not be nearly as powerful if there is a thriving parent-teacher association holding them accountable. The county commission’s grip on zoning laws is weakened when neighborhoods take control of development initiatives. And organizations like the World Economic Forum lose their dominance when organizations like our ARC seek to challenge their hegemony.
History has proven that centralized governments thrive when their subjects are powerless and indifferent. If we want to protect our rights from tyranny, we have to focus, work, and build closest to home. And we must hold our elected leaders accountable.
President Reagan reminded us of another thing. He said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on so that they will know the same liberty, opportunity, and security that we have too often taken for granted.”
This is our civilizational moment. The West is finally awakening once again. We have to seize this opportunity, and by God’s grace, we will. I hope you all enjoy this historic conference, and I thank you again for the opportunity to share with you this morning, and I so wish I was there in person. God bless you.
cBrain reports EBT of 32% and raises payout ratio to 20%
Copenhagen, February 20, 2025
cBrain (NASDAQ: CBRAIN) reports revenue grew by +12% to DKK 268m in 2024, up from DKK 239m in 2023, aligning with the expected revenue growth range of 12-13%.
Software revenue is 78% of total revenue, while implementation and support services account for 22% of total revenue. Software subscriptions, the majority based on long-term contracts with Danish government customers, account for more than 50 % of the total revenue.
Earnings before tax (EBT) grew to DKK 86m in 2024, up from DKK 81m in 2023, thereby reaching an EBT margin of 32%. EBT is therefore at the expected EBT margin of 30-32%.
Due to faster-than-expected global industry changes as well as market uncertainties in the US and Germany, cBrain has held back some of the planned market investments in 2024. This has resulted in costs being lower than expected.
The results show a strong positive cash flow from operating activities. This enables an increase in dividends and investments in the growth of the company and at the same time reduces long-term loans on cBrain-owned buildings.
cBrain does not have a share buyback program. However, due to solid earnings, cBrain proposes to raise dividends to DKK 0,64 per share (2023: DKK 0,28 per share) corresponding to a payout ratio of approx. 20% of profit for the year.
Executing the growth plan In 2022, cBrain announced its 2023-2025 growth plan with the goal of consolidating the business model and preparing for long-term growth by positioning itself as a supplier of climate software for government and developing a partner model.
During the past two years, cBrain has executed this plan and during 2023 and 2024, cBrain has grown, initiated partnerships, and delivered solid results, growing revenue by +42% and growing EBT by +76%.
The growth plan assumes that government organizations over time will switch from relying on custom-built solutions and best-of-breed architectures to using standard software. The government IT industry is massive and dominated by large suppliers who benefit from consultancy fees and billable hours. This creates significant entry barriers as the classic vendors defend their business, and the growth plan therefore anticipates a long and slow transition to standard software.
The COTS for government seem to emerge faster than anticipated Contrary to these assumptions, cBrain now sees indications that industry shifts toward standard software and platforms are occurring faster than anticipated. Fueled by a lack of skilled IT resources and a growing demand for fast delivery, cBrain sees a rapidly emerging IT industry, referred to as Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) for government. For cBrain, this presents new strategic opportunities.
COTS for government, leveraging new technologies and platforms such as the F2 Digital Platform, enables digital transformation at higher speed and lower costs that outperform traditional IT modernization.
For example, cBrain delivered a complete end-to-end digital platform for two new Danish ministries within just three weeks during the autumn of 2024, and in 2025 cBrain has just announced a third new Danish ministry, following a similar fast-track implementation schedule. Traditionally, projects of this nature take years and often fail. The Danish ministerial cases thereby exemplify the power of the COTS for government approach.
cBrain has a first-mover advantage The long-term cBrain growth strategy is founded on a vision and a business case to provide standard software for government. Over the past 15 years, cBrain has invested more than 450,000 hours in developing the F2 platform. Danish ministries and a total of more than 75 Danish authorities use F2 as their digital platform. Internationally cBrain has delivered F2 for government organizations across five continents.
With a solid first-mover advantage and a strong customer base, cBrain is well-positioned to become a leading international software provider of COTS for government solutions.
During the year 2024, the accelerated market shift and the power of the COTS for government approaches have opened new opportunities for cBrain. This is exemplified by the recent collaboration between cBrain and UNDP in Africa to support the UNDP Digital Offer for Africa strategy, and larger orders in Romania helping to modernize traditional mainframe-type solutions.
Reiterating the international growth strategy The faster-than-expected market shift, with government looking toward IT modernization and digitization based on the alternative COTS for government approach, clearly represents an incredibly positive development for cBrain.
cBrain wants to fully take advantage of this, and a solid business with strong cash flow and earnings offer strategic flexibility. Consequently, cBrain is now reiterating and potentially adjusting its international growth strategy.
This includes evaluating organizational readiness, as well as market and product development strategies, to leverage and maximize the benefits of accelerated industry changes. With the goal of being an internationally leading vendor in the emerging COTS for government industry, cBrain will execute several changes to the growth plan during the spring of 2025.
Driving international expansion With the current Danish customer base, cBrain has a strong home market position. Internationally this is an important reference position, and cBrain intends to maintain and develop a strong position on the Danish market.
However, to be a leader in the COTS for government industry and fully deploy the potential of the new emerging industry, cBrain will direct more resources into its international business.
cBrain has built its international business based on organic growth, building the business by addressing international customers directly or in collaboration with local partners. This strategy is maintained, but with an increased focus on working with international partners.
As of today, over one-third of the total revenue is export. cBrain is currently reiterating and potentially adjusting its international growth strategy with a goal, that within a few years, the international revenue will be significantly larger than the Danish revenue.
Lifting the business During the past two years, cBrain has built a pipeline of potential customers, which are significantly larger than the average Danish customer. This includes projects in Germany and the US, as well as projects in the Emirates, India, Kenya, and Romania.
For cBrain to be a leader in the COTS for government industry, it is key to building an international business. Backed by a solid financial position, cBrain is therefore shifting a focus to international opportunities. This shift involves changes across the cBrain internal organization, from marketing and sales to delivery and R&D.
cBrain announced the growth plan in 2022 with an ambition to reach a revenue of 350 million in the year 2025. cBrain continues to execute its growth plan. However, reaching the revenue ambition requires winning and delivering some of the large international contracts cBrain is currently working on.
cBrain guides continued growth in revenue and solid earnings for 2025 With limited visibility, cBrain forecasts expected revenue growth in 2025 of 10-15% and earnings before tax (EBT) of 18-23%.
The earnings forecast is based on solid market development investments into international growth, across the African region, USA, Germany, and India, as well as investments into developing the F2-for-Partners concept.
Best regards
Per Tejs Knudsen, CEO
Inquiries regarding this Company Announcement may be directed to
Ejvind Jørgensen, CFO & Head of Investor Relations, cBrain A/S, ir@cbrain.com, +45 2594 4973
Shunyi district in northeastern Beijing is accelerating high-quality, internationalized development. With 15 indicators of high-quality development in place, the district aims for an economic output of over 330 billion yuan (US$45.32 billion) and a modern service industry worth 150 billion yuan, as well as an annual trade value exceeding 200 billion yuan in its Tianzhu comprehensive bonded zone, according to local officials. The district has been working to become a hub for international companies and resources, as demonstrated by its Beijing China-Germany Industrial Park. China’s only national-level park focusing on China-Germany economic and technological cooperation, the industrial compound has attracted 118 German-funded and affiliated enterprises since its establishment three years ago, including major brands like Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and Bosch. During this period, the park registered an annual industrial output exceeding 40 billion yuan. With an innovative environment and thriving entrepreneurial ecosystem, the park has been an attractive landing spot for German companies looking to expand in China. The park has also forged cooperation with more than 50 institutions, such as the European Economic Senate, and hosts forums and expos to foster international collaboration. In addition, it has introduced commercial facilities like German-style beer houses, cafes, and convenience stores selling German goods. It has also become a venue for events such as wine and beer festivals, football tournaments, and equestrian competitions organized by the resident companies. The district is also leading in cross-border pharmaceutical trade. According to officials, 10 rare disease drugs and clinically urgent medications have been approved in Beijing. These will be purchased globally and transported through the Tianzhu bonded zone to medical institutions in the city. Rare disease medications can now be cleared through customs once and used multiple times outside the zone, ensuring continuous availability for patients. Moreover, rare disease patients can receive top-tier diagnosis and treatment here. Last year, the total trade value of the Tianzhu zone reached 123.49 billion yuan, yuan, with pharmaceutical trade accounting for 106.93 billion yuan, marking a 6.39% increase. Cutting-edge industries are also flourishing in the district, which has introduced public rental housing to lure top talent. Cui Xiaohao, the district head, announced that by 2030, the total output value of its five high-end manufacturing industries — new-energy intelligent vehicles, aerospace, third-generation semiconductors, intelligent equipment, and medical and health industries — will exceed 300 billion yuan.
cBrain intends to take lead in COTS for government industry
Copenhagen, February 20, 2025
cBrain (NASDAQ: CBRAIN) revenue grew by +12% to DKK 268m in 2024, up from DKK 239m in 2023. Earnings before tax (EBT) grew to DKK 86m in 2024, up from DKK 81m in 2023, thereby reaching an EBT margin of 32%.
Results are in line with expectations, forecasting a revenue growth range of 12-13% and EBT margin of 30-32%.
Strong positive cash flow from operating activities enables an increase in dividends, investments in the growth of the company, and it reduces long-term loans on cBrain-owned buildings.
cBrain does not have a share buyback program. However, due to solid earnings, cBrain proposes to raise dividends to DKK 0,64 per share (2023: DKK 0,28 per share) corresponding to a payout ratio of approx. 20% of profit for the year.
Fueled by a lack of skilled IT resources and a growing demand for fast delivery, cBrain sees a rapidly emerging IT industry, referred to as Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) for government. COTS for government, leveraging new technologies and platforms such as the F2 Digital Platform, enables digital transformation at higher speed and lower costs that outperform traditional IT modernization.
For cBrain the accelerated market shift represents new strategic opportunities. cBrain wants to fully take advantage of this, and cBrain is therefore currently in the process of evaluating and potentially adjusting its international growth strategy.
With the goal of being an internationally leading vendor in the emerging COTS for government industry, the strategy process includes evaluating organizational readiness, market and product development strategies.
As a result of the strategy process, cBrain expects to implement a number of changes to the growth plan during the spring of 2025. Consequently, cBrain forecasts expected revenue growth in 2025 of 10-15% and earnings before tax (EBT) of 18-23%.
The revenue forecast takes into account that e.g. developing new channel strategies may shortly delay revenue. The earnings forecast is based on significantly increased investments into international growth, across the African region, USA, Germany, and India, as well as increased investments into developing the F2-for-Partners concept.
Best regards
Per Tejs Knudsen, CEO
Inquiries regarding this Company Announcement may be directed to
Ejvind Jørgensen, CFO & Head of Investor Relations, cBrain A/S, ir@cbrain.com, +45 2594 4973
Air India and Lufthansa Group have agreed to build on their longstanding codeshare partnership, which sees Air India enter into a new codeshare agreement with Austrian Airlines, as well as expand the existing codeshare agreements between Air India, Lufthansa, and Swiss International Air Lines (SWISS).
The expanded partnership significantly boosts flight options and connectivity for travellers between the Indian Subcontinent and Europe with the addition of close to 60 codeshare routes operated by the four airlines across 12 Indian and 26 European cities.
The expanded agreements increase the total number of codeshare routes between Air India, Lufthansa and SWISS from 55 to nearly 100. Additionally, the new agreement between Air India and Austrian Airlines adds 26 codeshare routes. This provides greater choice, convenience, and seamless experiences to travellers from both regions.
Customers of Lufthansa Group will now be able to connect to Air India’s domestic services to or from 15 points within India, namely Ahmedabad, Amritsar, Bengaluru, Bhubaneswar, Chennai, Delhi, Goa Mopa, Goa Dabolim, Hyderabad, Indore, Kochi, Kolkata, Mumbai, Pune, and Thiruvananthapuram. Additionally, Lufthansa Group carriers will add their respective designator codes to Air India’s international services to 3 destinations from Delhi and Mumbai: Kathmandu, Melbourne, and Sydney.
Additionally, flights currently operated by Air India and Lufthansa Group carriers between India and Germany or Switzerland will be covered under the expanded codeshare partnership. For example, customers who wish to fly between Delhi and Frankfurt will now have three daily flight options each way with ‘LH’ flight numbers, including two flights operated by Air India and one flight operated by Lufthansa.
Reciprocally, Air India will now offer its customers a total of 26 destinations across Europe and 3 destinations in the Americas beyond its gateways in Europe (Frankfurt, Vienna, and Zurich), with the ‘AI’ designator code placed on the following services operated by airlines in the Lufthansa Group, including Austrian Airlines for the first time:
Lufthansa Between Frankfurt and: Amsterdam, Barcelona, Berlin, Bremen, Brussels, Copenhagen, Dresden, Düsseldorf, Dublin, Geneva, Hamburg, Hannover, Luxembourg, Lyon, Manchester, Marseille, Munich, Nice, Nuremberg, Oslo, Prague, Riga, Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Stockholm, Stuttgart, Toulouse, Valencia, Washington D.C.
Both airlines plan to progressively include other destinations in their network to the codeshare arrangements.
Air India and the three Lufthansa Group carriers are members of Star Alliance. Frequent flyers will continue to earn and redeem points/miles on all four airlines, while elite status holders of Air India’s Maharaja Club and Lufthansa Group’s Miles & More programmes will benefit from Star Alliance Gold benefits including priority services, extra baggage allowance, and airport lounge access across the world.
According to Lufthansa Group Chief Commercial Officer, Dieter Vranckx: “We are thrilled to strengthen our partnership with Air India and elevate the travel experience for our joint customers. By further enhancing our cooperation, we will increase the travel options between Europe and India and offer our passengers improved access to additional destinations. Lufthansa Group remains committed to India, and we are excited about the possibilities and potential the country and Air India as a partner have to offer”.
Nipun Aggarwal, Chief Commercial Officer, Air India, said: “Our goal is to enable our customers to travel from any corner of the world to another via Air India and its partner airlines. The expansion of our partnership with Lufthansa Group is a step in that direction, and we are pleased to take this long-standing relationship to the next level. With this renewed partnership, our customers will have access to more destinations and greater flexibility to travel across Europe on Lufthansa Group carriers. It also gives us the opportunity to serve Lufthansa Group customers, with warmth and quintessential Indian hospitality, aboard Air India flights. We look forward to continue working closely with our Star Alliance partners in making the world feel like a smaller place.”
Subject to regulatory approvals, the codeshare flights will be progressively made available for sale through the airlines’ respective booking channels.
ABOUT LUFTHANSA GROUP:
The Lufthansa Group is an aviation group with operations worldwide. With 100,000+ employees, Lufthansa Group generated revenue of €35.4bn in the financial year 2023. Our largest business segment is Passenger Airlines while other key business segments include Logistics and Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul (MRO). Other companies and Group functions such as IT companies and Lufthansa Aviation Training form complimentary components of the Group. All airlines and business segments play leading roles in their respective markets.
ABOUT AIR INDIA GROUP:
The Air India group – comprising of full-service global airline Air India and low-cost regional carrier Air India Express – is spearheading a new era of Indian aviation. The Air India story began in 1932 when JRD Tata piloted the airline’s inaugural flight and opened the skies for aviation in India. Today, Air India group employs more than 30,000 people, operates over 300 aircraft and carries customers to 55 domestic and 48 international destinations across five continents.
Returning to the Tata Sons in 2022 following 70 years under Government ownership, Air India group is in the midst of a five-year transformation program, Vihaan.AI. As part of the transformation, Air India placed the then largest-ever order for 470 new aircraft in 2023. In 2024, sister airlines Air Asia India and Vistara were successfully merged into Air India Express and Air India respectively, and the Airline opened South Asia’s largest aviation training academy.
A new flying school is scheduled to open in 2025, and construction of a greenfield maintenance base, to be operational in 2026, is underway. In addition to receiving new aircraft, all existing aircraft are progressively undergoing a full interior refit.
With transformation underway across all facets of the business and India’s rich legacy of hospitality, Air India is committed to being a world class global airline with an Indian heart.
U.S. President Donald Trump attends a press conference at the White House in Washington D.C., the United States, Feb. 13, 2025. [Photo/Xinhua]
After US President Donald Trump’s first punitive tariffs targeted the United States’ major trade partners — Mexico, Canada and China — tariff threats are shifting to the European Union, even the rest of the world. The tariff threats are also shifting from steel and aluminum to computer chips and pharmaceuticals.
In the latest move, Trump said on Tuesday he intends to impose auto tariffs “in the neighborhood of 25 percent” and similar duties on semiconductors and pharmaceutical imports.
The US has a major trade deficit with many other trading economies, including Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea and Vietnam, which are likely to be in the firing line later, if not soon.
A tariff is a tax levied on imported goods and services. In its haste to target the three countries, the Trump administration has ignored concerns about these tariffs fostering inflation or snarling global supply chains. This is a serious mistake on the part of the administration. In the US, wholesale prices are already rising on higher food and energy costs, adding to the growing pile of bad inflation news ahead of more US tariffs. Globally, these risks are real, costly and damaging.
As the new US administration has been launching another tariff war, China’s economy has been showing progressive signs of stabilization — especially since the fourth quarter of 2024, as the impact of the November stimulus measures has kicked in. During this period, growth accelerated from 4.6 percent to 5.4 percent to reach 5.0 percent year-on-year in 2024, which prompted the International Monetary Fund to recently upgrade China’s GDP growth.
But what’s fueling these gains?
China’s industrial production has proved resilient on the back of both domestic and international demand, particularly in electric vehicles and solar panels. The most prominent part of the growth story is the strong expansion of China’s advanced technology, electronics and automobile sectors. The pace of development in industrial robotics is almost as strong, while consumption is being fueled by equipment and durable goods upgrade.
Yet two main challenges remain. At home, the nearly 11 percent decline in real estate investment suggests the property market is still ailing. But in about 300 Chinese cities, the decline of residential inventory is slowing.
The external challenges China faces include the impending trade and tech wars, which the first Trump administration launched in 2017, the Biden administration expanded and the new Trump administration is broadening worldwide.
On Feb 1, Trump imposed 25 percent tariffs and 10 percent duties on energy products imported from Canada and Mexico, and 10 percent tariffs on Chinese goods. The three countries are the US’ biggest trade partners and the US has a trade deficit with each one of them. These tariffs alone would cost an average US household more than $1,200 a year.
After separate talks between Trump and the Canadian and Mexican presidents, the US agreed to delay levying the extra tariffs for 30 days. But the threatened tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods, if they are imposed, could reduce long-run GDP by 0.3 percent.
Moreover, a trade war between the US and its two largest trading partners would hit incomes in the US, impact employment and accelerate inflation. As Trump’s tariffs went into effect against China, Beijing announced a broad package of economic measures against Washington on Feb 10. And more countermeasures are likely to follow.
Half a decade ago, the US’ punitive tariffs on Chinese goods covered goods worth $396 billion, or more than 90 percent of the total trade. But the first round of Trump’s tariffs against Canadian, Mexican and Chinese goods alone will cover far more traded goods in dollar terms.
Trump’s four tranches of tariffs on Chinese goods in 2018-19 covered imports worth $360 billion. Today, Canada and Mexico and China account for more than two-fifths of all US imports. New tariffs on the goods imported from the two countries plus additional tariffs on Chinese goods would likely cover imports valued at more than $1.3 trillion. That’s more than 3.5 times the value than half a decade ago.
This might be just the opening salvo in a series of tariffs the Trump administration is likely to announce in the coming weeks. Factor in the potential/likely retaliatory tariffs and duties by the affected countries and the Trump administration’s “reciprocal tariff” plan, and the final toll could be much higher.
Ironically, US tariffs are legitimized by a flawed victimization narrative in which Washington is portrayed as a target of wrongful economic and geopolitical measures. In reality, the US’ imposed tariff levels are about geopolitical coercion, not economic factors.
The threatened wave of tariffs could further heighten trade tensions, reduce investments, hit market pricing, distort trade flows, disrupt supply chains and undermine consumer confidence. In fact, much worse could happen.
Due to the new US tariffs, we are in for a far costlier, global déjà vu all over again.
Gnomes writers Tegan Higginbotham and Paul Verhoeven, and creator/producer Joel Kohn. Stan and Screen Australia have announced the brand-new Stan Original Series Gnomes, which is slated for production in 2025 in Victoria. The series is set in a fading country town that finds itself under siege by an army of murderous garden gnomes on the eve of their first Gnome-a-Palooza festival. At the heart of the story are two police officers, Senior Sergeant Arnold Kipps and his ex-partner from the force (and life) Senior Constable Ellie McKay, who has returned to town with the task of shutting down Arnold’s beloved police station. When the town’s gnome population is brought to life by an ancient evil, all hell breaks loose. Arnold and Ellie must team up with a motley crew of locals to try and save their home from a Gnome-apocalypse. Gnomes has been created by award-winning filmmaker Joel Kohn, who will produce alongside Total Fiction producers John Molloy (Barons, The Gloaming) and Richard Kelly (The Tailings, Jones Family Christmas). The series boasts a stellar creative team, with writers Tegan Higginbotham and Paul Verhoeven penning the scripts. Screen Australia Director of Narrative Content Louise Gough said, “Gnomes is a thrilling example of the kind of bold, genre-defying storytelling that continues to capture global attention. This series not only showcases the dynamic creativity of Australian talent but also highlights how local and international partnerships can elevate Australian productions to new heights. With a unique blend of horror and comedy, and a stellar creative team, Gnomes has all the ingredients to engage audiences worldwide.” Stan Chief Content Officer Cailah Scobie said, “Gnomes is set to deliver a darkly comedic treat unlike anything we’ve seen before. Australian audiences adore horror and genre, and this project typifies the kind of audacious and unique productions that we love to show on Stan. We’re thrilled to be partnering with such an exceptional creative team, along with Happy Accidents on their first Australian series.” Co-CEO of Happy Accidents Holly Hines said, “I fell in love with this concept the moment I heard the pitch and the scripts have been just exceptional. Gnomes is a complete gem – wildly imaginative, hilariously offbeat, and unlike anything else in the comedy-drama space. With Paul and Tegan writing, and our wonderful co-producers, we have created a series that truly stands out in the global marketplace. The enthusiasm from our partners is a testament to how universal its appeal truly is, and we can’t wait to introduce this unique adventure to even more audiences.” VicScreen CEO Caroline Pitcher said, “Nurturing talented Victorians to bring their bold vision and innovation to the global screen is what we do best, and VicScreen is thrilled to support the Victorian creative force bringing the comedy-horror Gnomes to life.” Gnomes is produced by Total Fiction and Screen Invaders alongside co-producers Happy Accidents (USA) and Network Movie (Germany). Happy Accidents will handle international distribution, German pre-sale via Network Movie. Major production investment from Screen Australia in association with Stan. Produced in association with VicScreen. Post, digital and visual effects supported by Screen Queensland. Developed with assistance of Screen Australia. Stan Executive Producers are Cailah Scobie and Donna Chang. The Stan Original Series Gnomes will begin production in 2025. Stan Media Enquiries [email protected] Media enquiries Maddie Walsh | Publicist + 61 2 8113 5915 | [email protected] Jessica Parry | Senior Publicist (Mon, Tue, Thu) + 61 428 767 836 | [email protected] All other general/non-media enquiries Sydney + 61 2 8113 5800 | Melbourne + 61 3 8682 1900 | [email protected]
SANTA CLARA, Calif., Feb. 19, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — PDF Solutions, Inc. (Nasdaq: PDFS) today announced it has entered into a definitive agreement to acquire secureWISE, LLC, the most widely used secure, remote connectivity solution in the semiconductor manufacturing equipment industry, from Telit IOT Solutions Inc.
The secureWISE global network enables equipment manufacturers to bring up new equipment faster, provide operational support, and maximize the value derived from the equipment customers’ investments. It is currently used by over 100 equipment vendors to connect and control their tools located in over 190 semiconductor fabs and to manage the exchange of multiple petabytes of data annually.
PDF Solutions empowers semiconductor companies to maximize their manufacturing effectiveness. The PDF Solutions platform breaks down data silos to enable engineers to uncover critical relationships across manufacturing and design, resulting in better process control, product screening, and equipment operations.
As the semiconductor industry becomes more globally distributed, and as advanced devices rely on the integration of multiple chiplets into a single package, more collaboration and integration are required across the semiconductor industry. This collaboration needs to be executed securely with each participant controlling access to its intellectual property.
Today, secureWISE customers have built applications on top of the secureWISE network to deliver equipment analytics. PDF Solutions expects the acquisition to accelerate equipment makers’ ability to derive value from equipment data by enabling them to leverage PDF Solutions’ Exensio analytics software.
Beyond enabling equipment vendors to build equipment analytics at foundries, the acquisition of secureWISE is expected to dramatically expand the capability of PDF Solutions’ secure DEX OSAT network by allowing equipment makers, fab operators, and fabless companies to collaborate to optimize chip manufacturing and test.
“This acquisition extends PDF Solutions analytics for equipment makers and fabless to the factory manufacturing level, which allows them to generate value from AI,” said Dr. John Kibarian, President, CEO and co-founder of PDF Solutions. He continued, “We provide the leading analytics platform for semiconductor manufacturing, and with secureWISE, the PDF Solutions platform will also be able to help members of the semiconductor ecosystem collaborate through a secure, direct connection and control the manufacturing process down to the production equipment.”
Mike Dempsey, Vice President of secureWISE LLC, said, “We believe PDF Solutions is the ideal partner to accelerate secureWISE’s evolution, ensuring we remain at the forefront of industry trends and ahead of our customers’ needs. This acquisition will strengthen our ability to anticipate, pioneer, and integrate a far richer suite of security, collaboration, and analytics capabilities into our platform. As data exchange and collaboration become increasingly relevant to the semiconductor industry, this acquisition will better position secureWISE to deliver maximum long-term benefit to its customers who have invested in our platform.”
Under the terms of the definitive agreement, PDF Solutions will pay a cash amount of $130.0 million, subject to customary purchase price adjustments. The purchase price will be funded by a combination of cash on hand and $70M of new bank debt. The acquisition is subject to certain closing conditions and is expected to close in the first calendar quarter of 2025.
TD Securities (USA) LLC acted as financial advisor and Latham & Watkins LLP acted as legal advisor to PDF Solutions.
Updated Financial Outlook
John Kibarian, CEO and President of PDF Solutions, said, “Assuming the transaction closes in the first quarter of 2025, and with purchase accounting adjustments, we would expect to achieve a full year 2025 revenue growth rate between 21% to 23% on year-over-year basis. Given that, we also expect to achieve 2025 gross margin in line with our corporate gross margin, our target model 20% operating margin, and for EPS to be slightly accretive.”
Conference Call
PDF Solutions will discuss this announcement on a live conference call beginning at 3:00 p.m. Pacific Time / 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time today. To participate in the live call, analysts and investors should pre-register at: https://register.vevent.com/register/BI9abfc7eadb2245c5ba00c59922fe6c87.
Registrants will receive dial-in information and a unique passcode to access the call. We encourage participants to dial into the call ten minutes ahead of the scheduled time. The teleconference will also be webcast simultaneously on the Company’s website at https://ir.pdf.com/webcasts. A replay of the conference call webcast will be available after the call on the Company’s investor relations website. A copy of this press release will also be available on PDF Solutions’ website at News & PR Archives – PDF Solutions following the date of this release.
Forward-Looking Statements
The statements in this press release regarding the expected future financial results, benefits and synergies of the secureWISE acquisition on PDF Solution’s product offerings, and the expected closing of the secureWISE acquisition are forward looking and are subject to future events and circumstances. Actual results could differ materially from those expressed in these forward-looking statements. Risks and uncertainties that could cause results to differ materially include risks associated with: uncertainties with respect to the timing of the closing of the proposed transaction, including when and whether all conditions to closing will be satisfied; the failure of expected benefits from the proposed transaction to be realized or to be realized within the expected time period; uncertainties with respect to the future performance of secureWISE following an acquisition by PDF Solutions; PDF Solution’s ability to integrate secureWISE and its product and service offerings, the cost and schedule of new product development; continued adoption of the PDF Solution’s and secureWISE’s solutions by new and existing customers; the fact that operating costs and business disruption may be greater than expected following the public announcement or consummation of the proposed transaction; potential adverse reactions or changes to business or employee relationships, including those resulting from the public announcement or consummation of the proposed transaction; the incurrence of significant transaction costs related to the proposed transaction; unknown or understated liabilities of secureWISE; and other risks set forth in PDF Solutions’ periodic public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including, without limitation, its Annual Reports on Form 10-K, most recently filed for the year ended December 31, 2023, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, and Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to such reports. The forward-looking statements made herein are made as of the date hereof, and PDF Solutions does not assume any obligation to update such statements nor the reasons why actual results could differ materially from those projected in such statements.
About PDF Solutions
PDF Solutions (Nasdaq: PDFS) provides comprehensive data solutions designed to empower organizations across the semiconductor and electronics industry ecosystem to improve the yield and quality of their products and operational efficiency for increased profitability. The Company’s products and services are used by Fortune 500 companies across the semiconductor and electronics ecosystem to achieve smart manufacturing goals by connecting and controlling equipment, collecting data generated during manufacturing and test operations, and performing advanced analytics and machine learning to enable profitable, high-volume manufacturing.
Founded in 1991, PDF Solutions is headquartered in Santa Clara, California, with operations across North America, Europe, and Asia. The Company (directly or through one or more subsidiaries) is an active member of SEMI, INEMI, TPCA, IPC, the OPC Foundation, and DMDII. For the latest news and information about PDF Solutions or to find office locations, visit https://www.pdf.com.
Headquartered in Santa Clara, California, PDF Solutions also operates worldwide in Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan. For the Company’s latest news and information, visit https://www.pdf.com.
About secureWISE
The secureWISE platform enables secure and controlled remote connectivity, collaboration and service enablement in the semiconductor industry. The secureWISE suite of products and services is designed to give OEM suppliers role-based, real-time and on-demand access to their equipment that is installed at the production facilities of their customers, to deliver valuable operational insights, mission-critical performance, substantial time and cost savings, and new service revenue opportunities. As the only remote access tool built around the ISMI guidelines, secureWISE is installed in over 90% of the world’s 300mm semiconductor fabs and also numerous solar and chemical plants across the globe. https://www.telit.com/iot-platforms-overview/telit-securewise/
PDF Solutions and the PDF Solutions logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of PDF Solutions, Inc. and/or its subsidiaries in the United States and other countries. Other trademarks used herein are the property of their owners.
GAAP diluted earnings per share of $3.21 and non-GAAP diluted earnings per share of $4.44
GAAP operating profit margin of 40.3% and non-GAAP operating profit margin of 53.3%
Operating cash flows of $258.0 million and unlevered operating cash flows of $266.8 million
Annual contract value (ACV) of $1,094.6 million
/FY 2024 Results
Revenue of $2,544.8 million
GAAP diluted earnings per share of $6.55 and non-GAAP diluted earnings per share of $10.91
GAAP operating profit margin of 28.2% and non-GAAP operating profit margin of 45.7%
Operating cash flows of $795.7 million and unlevered operating cash flows of $834.6 million
ACV of $2,563.0 million
Deferred revenue and backlog of $1,718.3 million on December 31, 2024
PITTSBURGH, Feb. 19, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — ANSYS, Inc. (NASDAQ: ANSS), today reported fourth quarter 2024 revenue of $882.2 million, an increase of 10% in reported currency, or 11% in constant currency, when compared to the fourth quarter of 2023. For FY 2024, revenue growth was 12% in reported currency, or 13% in constant currency, when compared to FY 2023. For the fourth quarter of 2024, the Company reported diluted earnings per share of $3.21 and $4.44 on a GAAP and non-GAAP basis, respectively, compared to $3.14 and $3.94 on a GAAP and non-GAAP basis, respectively, for the fourth quarter of 2023. For FY 2024, the Company reported diluted earnings per share of $6.55 and $10.91 on a GAAP and non-GAAP basis, respectively, compared to $5.73 and $8.80 on a GAAP and non-GAAP basis, respectively, for FY 2023. Additionally, the Company reported fourth quarter and FY 2024 ACV growth of 15% and 11% in reported currency, respectively, or 16% and 13% in constant currency, respectively, when compared to the fourth quarter and FY 2023. Fourth quarter 2024 ACV of $1.1 billion contributed 43% of the full year 2024 ACV while Q1, Q2 and Q3 each contributed 16%, 20% and 21%, respectively. The Company expects double-digit FY 2025 ACV growth.
As previously announced, on January 15, 2024, Ansys entered into a definitive agreement with Synopsys, Inc. (“Synopsys”) under which Synopsys will acquire Ansys. As previously announced by Synopsys, Ansys and Synopsys have received conditional clearance from the European Commission. The U.K. Competition and Markets Authority provisionally accepted our remedies towards a transaction approval in Phase 1. The State Administration for Market Regulation of the People’s Republic of China has officially accepted our filing, and its review of the proposed transaction is in process. We continue to work with the regulators in other relevant jurisdictions to conclude their reviews. The transaction is anticipated to close in the first half of 2025, subject to the receipt of required regulatory approvals and other customary closing conditions. As previously announced, in light of the pending transaction with Synopsys, Ansys has suspended quarterly earnings conference calls and no longer provides quarterly or annual guidance.
The non-GAAP financial results highlighted represent non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations of these measures to the comparable GAAP measures can be found later in this release.
/Summary ofFinancial Results
Ansys’ fourth quarter and fiscal year (FY) 2024 and 2023 financial results are presented below. The 2024 and 2023 non-GAAP results exclude the income statement effects of stock-based compensation, excess payroll taxes related to stock-based compensation, amortization of acquired intangible assets, expenses related to business combinations and adjustments for the income tax effect of the excluded items.
Our results are as follows:
GAAP
(in thousands, except per share data and percentages)
Q4 QTD 2024
Q4 QTD 2023
% Change
FY 2024
FY 2023
% Change
Revenue
$
882,174
$
805,108
9.6
%
$
2,544,809
$
2,269,949
12.1
%
Net income
$
282,688
$
274,762
2.9
%
$
575,692
$
500,412
15.0
%
Diluted earnings per share
$
3.21
$
3.14
2.2
%
$
6.55
$
5.73
14.3
%
Gross margin
91.8
%
91.3
%
89.0
%
88.0
%
Operating profit margin
40.3
%
41.4
%
28.2
%
27.6
%
Effective tax rate
21.3
%
15.4
%
19.8
%
15.5
%
Non-GAAP
(in thousands, except per share data and percentages)
Q4 QTD 2024
Q4 QTD 2023
% Change
FY 2024
FY 2023
% Change
Net income
$
391,044
$
345,317
13.2
%
$
959,252
$
769,308
24.7
%
Diluted earnings per share
$
4.44
$
3.94
12.7
%
$
10.91
$
8.80
24.0
%
Gross margin
94.6
%
94.3
%
93.1
%
92.2
%
Operating profit margin
53.3
%
53.0
%
45.7
%
42.6
%
Effective tax rate
17.5
%
17.5
%
17.5
%
17.5
%
Other Metrics
(in thousands, except percentages)
Q4 QTD 2024
Q4 QTD 2023
% Change
FY 2024
FY 2023
% Change
ACV
$
1,094,552
$
955,161
14.6
%
$
2,563,029
$
2,300,466
11.4
%
Operating cash flows
$
257,973
$
232,722
10.9
%
$
795,740
$
717,122
11.0
%
Unlevered operating cash flows
$
266,777
$
242,848
9.9
%
$
834,582
$
755,129
10.5
%
/Key Long-Term Metrics
The Company’s long-term outlook covering the years 2022 through 2025 provided at the 2022 Investor Update has been suspended given the pending transaction with Synopsys. Below is a summary of key metrics covering the years 2022 through 2024.
Consistent double-digit ACV growth with a 2022 through 2024 CAGR of 12.3% at actual exchange rates and 13.0% at 2022 exchange rates.
Unlevered operating cash flows grew faster than ACV with a 2022 through 2024 CAGR of 13.5%.
With FY 2024 unlevered operating cash flows of $834.6 million, cumulative 3-year unlevered operating cash flows (FY 2022 to 2024) are $2.2 billion.
Note: 2024 unlevered operating cash flows includes $28.2 million of cash outflows primarily associated with the pending transaction with Synopsys.
Supplemental Financial Information
/Annual Contract Value
(in thousands, except percentages)
Q4 QTD 2024
Q4 QTD 2024 in Constant Currency
Q4 QTD 2023
% Change
% Change in Constant Currency
ACV
$
1,094,552
$
1,110,711
$
955,161
14.6
%
16.3
%
(in thousands, except percentages)
FY 2024
FY 2024 in Constant Currency
FY 2023
% Change
% Change in Constant Currency
ACV
$
2,563,029
$
2,593,819
$
2,300,466
11.4
%
12.8
%
*Subscription lease ACV includes the bundled arrangement of time-based licenses with related maintenance. **Perpetual and service ACV includes perpetual licenses, with related maintenance, and services.
Recurring ACV includes both subscription lease ACV and all maintenance ACV (including maintenance from perpetual licenses). It excludes perpetual license ACV and service ACV.
/Revenue
(in thousands, except percentages)
Q4 QTD 2024
Q4 QTD 2024 in Constant Currency
Q4 QTD 2023
% Change
% Change in Constant Currency
Revenue
$
882,174
$
893,996
$
805,108
9.6
%
11.0
%
(in thousands, except percentages)
FY 2024
FY 2024 in Constant Currency
FY 2023
% Change
% Change in Constant Currency
Revenue
$
2,544,809
$
2,570,207
$
2,269,949
12.1
%
13.2
%
REVENUE BY LICENSE TYPE
(in thousands, except percentages)
Q4 QTD 2024
% of Total
Q4 QTD 2023
% of Total
% Change
% Change in Constant Currency
Subscription Lease
$
441,120
50.0
%
$
399,556
49.6
%
10.4
%
12.1
%
Perpetual
102,295
11.6
%
102,721
12.8
%
(0.4)%
1.7
%
Maintenance1
319,381
36.2
%
283,130
35.2
%
12.8
%
13.8
%
Service
19,378
2.2
%
19,701
2.4
%
(1.6)%
(1.2)%
Total
$
882,174
$
805,108
9.6
%
11.0
%
(in thousands, except percentages)
FY 2024
% of Total
FY 2023
% of Total
% Change
% Change in Constant Currency
Subscription Lease
$
948,831
37.3
%
$
786,050
34.6
%
20.7
%
22.1
%
Perpetual
315,085
12.4
%
302,698
13.3
%
4.1
%
5.1
%
Maintenance1
1,209,217
47.5
%
1,103,523
48.6
%
9.6
%
10.6
%
Service
71,676
2.8
%
77,678
3.4
%
(7.7)%
(7.4)%
Total
$
2,544,809
$
2,269,949
12.1
%
13.2
%
1Maintenance revenue is inclusive of both maintenance associated with perpetual licenses and the maintenance component of subscription leases.
REVENUE BY GEOGRAPHY
(in thousands, except percentages)
Q4 QTD 2024
% of Total
Q4 QTD 2023
% of Total
% Change
% Change in Constant Currency
Americas
$
457,752
51.9
%
$
410,681
51.0
%
11.5
%
11.5
%
Germany
98,527
11.2
%
81,828
10.2
%
20.4
%
24.2
%
Other EMEA
170,541
19.3
%
155,023
19.3
%
10.0
%
12.2
%
EMEA
269,068
30.5
%
236,851
29.4
%
13.6
%
16.3
%
Japan
52,294
5.9
%
61,243
7.6
%
(14.6)%
(11.1)%
Other Asia-Pacific
103,060
11.7
%
96,333
12.0
%
7.0
%
10.1
%
Asia-Pacific
155,354
17.6
%
157,576
19.6
%
(1.4)%
1.8
%
Total
$
882,174
$
805,108
9.6
%
11.0
%
(in thousands, except percentages)
FY 2024
% of Total
FY 2023
% of Total
% Change
% Change in Constant Currency
Americas
$
1,297,367
51.0
%
$
1,106,242
48.7
%
17.3
%
17.3
%
Germany
209,714
8.2
%
199,068
8.8
%
5.3
%
6.6
%
Other EMEA
445,791
17.5
%
406,719
17.9
%
9.6
%
9.8
%
EMEA
655,505
25.8
%
605,787
26.7
%
8.2
%
8.8
%
Japan
184,547
7.3
%
203,013
8.9
%
(9.1)%
(2.1)%
Other Asia-Pacific
407,390
16.0
%
354,907
15.6
%
14.8
%
16.9
%
Asia-Pacific
591,937
23.3
%
557,920
24.6
%
6.1
%
10.0
%
Total
$
2,544,809
$
2,269,949
12.1
%
13.2
%
REVENUE BY CHANNEL
Q4 QTD 2024
Q4 QTD 2023
FY 2024
FY 2023
Direct revenue, as a percentage of total revenue
79.7
%
74.5
%
75.2
%
73.9
%
Indirect revenue, as a percentage of total revenue
20.3
%
25.5
%
24.8
%
26.1
%
/Deferred Revenue and Backlog
(in thousands)
December 31, 2024
September 30, 2024
December 31, 2023
September 30, 2023
Current Deferred Revenue
$
504,527
$
427,188
$
457,514
$
349,668
Current Backlog
524,617
475,604
439,879
424,547
Total Current Deferred Revenue and Backlog
1,029,144
902,792
897,393
774,215
Long-Term Deferred Revenue
31,778
24,150
22,240
20,765
Long-Term Backlog
657,345
536,855
552,951
410,697
Total Long-Term Deferred Revenue and Backlog
689,123
561,005
575,191
431,462
Total Deferred Revenue and Backlog
$
1,718,267
$
1,463,797
$
1,472,584
$
1,205,677
/Currency
The fourth quarter and FY 2024 revenue, operating income, ACV and deferred revenue and backlog, as compared to the fourth quarter and FY 2023, were impacted by fluctuations in the exchange rates of foreign currencies against the U.S. Dollar. The currency fluctuation impacts on revenue, GAAP and non-GAAP operating income, ACV, and deferred revenue and backlog based on 2023 exchange rates are reflected in the tables below. Amounts in brackets indicate an adverse impact from currency fluctuations.
(in thousands)
Q4 QTD 2024
FY 2024
Revenue
$
(11,822
)
$
(25,398
)
GAAP operating income
$
(9,057
)
$
(19,588
)
Non-GAAP operating income
$
(9,076
)
$
(19,335
)
ACV
$
(16,159
)
$
(30,790
)
Deferred revenue and backlog
$
(38,306
)
$
(40,993
)
The most meaningful currency impacts are typically attributable to U.S. Dollar exchange rate changes against the Euro and Japanese Yen. Historical exchange rates are reflected in the charts below.
Period-End Exchange Rates
As of
EUR/USD
USD/JPY
December 31, 2024
1.04
157
December 31, 2023
1.10
141
December 31, 2022
1.07
131
Average Exchange Rates
Three Months Ended
EUR/USD
USD/JPY
December 31, 2024
1.07
153
December 31, 2023
1.08
148
Average Exchange Rates
TwelveMonths Ended
EUR/USD
USD/JPY
December 31, 2024
1.08
151
December 31, 2023
1.08
140
/GAAP Financial Statements
ANSYS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets
(Unaudited)
(in thousands)
December 31, 2024
December 31, 2023
ASSETS:
Cash & short-term investments
$
1,497,517
$
860,390
Accounts receivable, net
1,022,850
864,526
Goodwill
3,778,128
3,805,874
Other intangibles, net
716,244
835,417
Other assets
1,036,692
956,668
Total assets
$
8,051,431
$
7,322,875
LIABILITIES & STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY:
Current deferred revenue
$
504,527
$
457,514
Long-term debt
754,208
753,891
Other liabilities
706,256
721,106
Stockholders’ equity
6,086,440
5,390,364
Total liabilities & stockholders’ equity
$
8,051,431
$
7,322,875
ANSYS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Income
(Unaudited)
Three Months Ended
Twelve Months Ended
(in thousands, except per share data)
December 31, 2024
December 31, 2023
December 31, 2024
December 31, 2023
Revenue:
Software licenses
$
543,415
$
502,277
$
1,263,916
$
1,088,748
Maintenance and service
338,759
302,831
1,280,893
1,181,201
Total revenue
882,174
805,108
2,544,809
2,269,949
Cost of sales:
Software licenses
12,947
10,909
45,367
40,004
Amortization
21,801
20,586
88,560
80,990
Maintenance and service
37,940
38,554
145,892
150,304
Total cost of sales
72,688
70,049
279,819
271,298
Gross profit
809,486
735,059
2,264,990
1,998,651
Operating expenses:
Selling, general and administrative
314,009
269,857
995,340
855,135
Research and development
134,259
126,288
528,014
494,869
Amortization
5,623
5,914
23,748
22,512
Total operating expenses
453,891
402,059
1,547,102
1,372,516
Operating income
355,595
333,000
717,888
626,135
Interest income
14,636
7,199
51,131
19,588
Interest expense
(10,924
)
(12,551
)
(47,849
)
(47,145
)
Other expense, net
(14
)
(2,876
)
(3,132
)
(6,440
)
Income before income tax provision
359,293
324,772
718,038
592,138
Income tax provision
76,605
50,010
142,346
91,726
Net income
$
282,688
$
274,762
$
575,692
$
500,412
Earnings per share – basic:
Earnings per share
$
3.23
$
3.16
$
6.59
$
5.76
Weighted average shares
87,455
86,888
87,313
86,833
Earnings per share – diluted:
Earnings per share
$
3.21
$
3.14
$
6.55
$
5.73
Weighted average shares
88,137
87,541
87,895
87,386
/Glossary of Terms
Annual Contract Value (ACV): ACV is a key performance metric and is useful to investors in assessing the strength and trajectory of our business. ACV is a supplemental metric to help evaluate the annual performance of the business. Over the life of the contract, ACV equals the total value realized from a customer. ACV is not impacted by the timing of license revenue recognition. ACV is used by management in financial and operational decision-making and in setting sales targets used for compensation. ACV is not a replacement for, and should be viewed independently of, GAAP revenue and deferred revenue as ACV is a performance metric and is not intended to be combined with any of these items. There is no GAAP measure comparable to ACV. ACV is composed of the following:
the annualized value of maintenance and subscription lease contracts with start dates or anniversary dates during the period, plus
the value of perpetual license contracts with start dates during the period, plus
the annualized value of fixed-term services contracts with start dates or anniversary dates during the period, plus
the value of work performed during the period on fixed-deliverable services contracts.
When we refer to the anniversary dates in the definition of ACV above, we are referencing the date of the beginning of the next twelve-month period in a contractually committed multi-year contract. If a contract is three years in duration, with a start date of July 1, 2024, the anniversary dates would be July 1, 2025 and July 1, 2026. We label these anniversary dates as they are contractually committed. While this contract would be up for renewal on July 1, 2027, our ACV performance metric does not assume any contract renewals.
Example 1: For purposes of calculating ACV, a $100,000 subscription lease contract or a $100,000 maintenance contract with a term of July 1, 2024 – June 30, 2025, would each contribute $100,000 to ACV for fiscal year 2024 with no contribution to ACV for fiscal year 2025.
Example 2: For purposes of calculating ACV, a $300,000 subscription lease contract or a $300,000 maintenance contract with a term of July 1, 2024 – June 30, 2027, would each contribute $100,000 to ACV in each of fiscal years 2024, 2025 and 2026. There would be no contribution to ACV for fiscal year 2027 as each period captures the full annual value upon the anniversary date.
Example 3: A perpetual license valued at $200,000 with a contract start date of March 1, 2024 would contribute $200,000 to ACV in fiscal year 2024.
Backlog: Deferred revenue associated with installment billings for periods beyond the current quarterly billing cycle and committed contracts with start dates beyond the end of the current period.
Deferred Revenue: Billings made or payments received in advance of revenue recognition.
Subscription Lease or Time-Based License: A license of a stated product of our software that is granted to a customer for use over a specified time period, which can be months or years in length. In addition to the use of the software, the customer is provided with access to maintenance (unspecified version upgrades and technical support) without additional charge. The revenue related to these contracts is recognized ratably over the contract period for the maintenance portion and up front for the license portion.
Perpetual / Paid-Up License: A license of a stated product and version of our software that is granted to a customer for use in perpetuity. The revenue related to this type of license is recognized up front.
Maintenance: A contract, typically one year in duration, that is purchased by the owner of a perpetual license and that provides access to unspecified version upgrades and technical support during the duration of the contract. The revenue from these contracts is recognized ratably over the contract period.
/Reconciliations of GAAP to Non-GAAP Measures (Unaudited)
Three Months Ended
December 31, 2024
(in thousands, except percentages and per share data)
Gross Profit
% of Revenue
Operating Income
% of Revenue
Net Income
EPS – Diluted1
Total GAAP
$
809,486
91.8
%
$
355,595
40.3
%
$
282,688
$
3.21
Stock-based compensation expense
3,635
0.4
%
73,016
8.2
%
73,016
0.83
Excess payroll taxes related to stock-based awards
39
—
%
1,272
0.2
%
1,272
0.01
Amortization of intangible assets from acquisitions
21,801
2.4
%
27,424
3.1
%
27,424
0.31
Expenses related to business combinations
—
—
%
12,988
1.5
%
12,988
0.15
Adjustment for income tax effect
—
—
%
—
—
%
(6,344
)
(0.07
)
Total non-GAAP
$
834,961
94.6
%
$
470,295
53.3
%
$
391,044
$
4.44
1 Diluted weighted average shares were 88,137.
Three Months Ended
December 31, 2023
(in thousands, except percentages and per share data)
Gross Profit
% of Revenue
Operating Income
% of Revenue
Net Income
EPS – Diluted1
Total GAAP
$
735,059
91.3
%
$
333,000
41.4
%
$
274,762
$
3.14
Stock-based compensation expense
3,413
0.4
%
63,358
7.9
%
63,358
0.73
Excess payroll taxes related to stock-based awards
4
—
%
271
—
%
271
—
Amortization of intangible assets from acquisitions
20,586
2.6
%
26,500
3.3
%
26,500
0.30
Expenses related to business combinations
—
—
%
3,664
0.4
%
3,664
0.04
Adjustment for income tax effect
—
—
%
—
—
%
(23,238
)
(0.27
)
Total non-GAAP
$
759,062
94.3
%
$
426,793
53.0
%
$
345,317
$
3.94
1 Diluted weighted average shares were 87,541.
Twelve Months Ended
December 31, 2024
(in thousands, except percentages and per share data)
Gross Profit
% of Revenue
Operating Income
% of Revenue
Net Income
EPS – Diluted1
Total GAAP
$
2,264,990
89.0
%
$
717,888
28.2
%
$
575,692
$
6.55
Stock-based compensation expense
14,313
0.6
%
270,900
10.7
%
270,900
3.08
Excess payroll taxes related to stock-based awards
506
—
%
8,643
0.3
%
8,643
0.10
Amortization of intangible assets from acquisitions
88,560
3.5
%
112,308
4.4
%
112,308
1.28
Expenses related to business combinations
—
—
%
52,841
2.1
%
52,841
0.60
Adjustment for income tax effect
—
—
%
—
—
%
(61,132
)
(0.70
)
Total non-GAAP
$
2,368,369
93.1
%
$
1,162,580
45.7
%
$
959,252
$
10.91
1 Diluted weighted average shares were 87,895.
Twelve Months Ended
December 31, 2023
(in thousands, except percentages and per share data)
Gross Profit
% of Revenue
Operating Income
% of Revenue
Net Income
EPS – Diluted1
Total GAAP
$
1,998,651
88.0
%
$
626,135
27.6
%
$
500,412
$
5.73
Stock-based compensation expense
13,337
0.6
%
221,891
9.9
%
221,891
2.54
Excess payroll taxes related to stock-based awards
307
0.1
%
5,541
0.2
%
5,541
0.06
Amortization of intangible assets from acquisitions
80,990
3.5
%
103,502
4.5
%
103,502
1.18
Expenses related to business combinations
—
—
%
9,422
0.4
%
9,422
0.11
Adjustment for income tax effect
—
—
%
—
—
%
(71,460
)
(0.82
)
Total non-GAAP
$
2,093,285
92.2
%
$
966,491
42.6
%
$
769,308
$
8.80
1 Diluted weighted average shares were 87,386.
Three Months Ended
Twelve Months Ended
(in thousands)
December 31, 2024
December 31, 2023
December 31, 2024
December 31, 2023
December 31, 2022
Net cash provided by operating activities
$
257,973
$
232,722
$
795,740
$
717,122
$
631,003
Cash paid for interest
10,671
12,274
47,081
46,069
20,844
Tax benefit
(1,867
)
(2,148
)
(8,239
)
(8,062
)
(3,752
)
Unlevered operating cash flows
$
266,777
$
242,848
$
834,582
$
755,129
$
648,095
/Use of Non-GAAP Measures
We provide non-GAAP gross profit, non-GAAP gross profit margin, non-GAAP operating income, non-GAAP operating profit margin, non-GAAP net income, non-GAAP diluted earnings per share and unlevered operating cash flows as supplemental measures to GAAP regarding our operational performance. These financial measures exclude the impact of certain items and, therefore, have not been calculated in accordance with GAAP. A detailed explanation of each of the adjustments to these financial measures is described below. This press release also contains a reconciliation of each of these non-GAAP financial measures to its most comparable GAAP financial measure, as applicable.
We use non-GAAP financial measures (a) to evaluate our historical and prospective financial performance as well as our performance relative to our competitors, (b) to set internal sales targets and spending budgets, (c) to allocate resources, (d) to measure operational profitability and the accuracy of forecasting, (e) to assess financial discipline over operational expenditures and (f) as an important factor in determining variable compensation for management and employees. In addition, many financial analysts that follow us focus on and publish both historical results and future projections based on non-GAAP financial measures. We believe that it is in the best interest of our investors to provide this information to analysts so that they accurately report the non-GAAP financial information. Moreover, investors have historically requested, and we have historically reported, these non-GAAP financial measures as a means of providing consistent and comparable information with past reports of financial results.
While we believe that these non-GAAP financial measures provide useful supplemental information to investors, there are limitations associated with the use of these non-GAAP financial measures. These non-GAAP financial measures are not prepared in accordance with GAAP, are not reported by all our competitors and may not be directly comparable to similarly titled measures of our competitors due to potential differences in the exact method of calculation. We compensate for these limitations by using these non-GAAP financial measures as supplements to GAAP financial measures and by reviewing the reconciliations of the non-GAAP financial measures to their most comparable GAAP financial measures.
The adjustments to these non-GAAP financial measures, and the basis for such adjustments, are outlined below:
Amortization of intangible assets from acquisitions. We incur amortization of intangible assets, included in our GAAP presentation of amortization expense, related to various acquisitions we have made. We exclude these expenses for the purpose of calculating non-GAAP gross profit, non-GAAP gross profit margin, non-GAAP operating income, non-GAAP operating profit margin, non-GAAP net income and non-GAAP diluted earnings per share when we evaluate our continuing operational performance because these costs are fixed at the time of an acquisition, are then amortized over a period of several years after the acquisition and generally cannot be changed or influenced by us after the acquisition. Accordingly, we do not consider these expenses for purposes of evaluating our performance during the applicable time period after the acquisition, and we exclude such expenses when making decisions to allocate resources. We believe that these non-GAAP financial measures are useful to investors because they allow investors to (a) evaluate the effectiveness of the methodology and information used by us in our financial and operational decision-making, and (b) compare our past reports of financial results as we have historically reported these non-GAAP financial measures.
Stock-based compensation expense. We incur expense related to stock-based compensation included in our GAAP presentation of cost of maintenance and service; research and development expense; and selling, general and administrative expense. We also incur excess payroll tax expense related to stock-based compensation, which is an additional non-GAAP adjustment. Although stock-based compensation is an expense and viewed as a form of compensation, we exclude these expenses for the purpose of calculating non-GAAP gross profit, non-GAAP gross profit margin, non-GAAP operating income, non-GAAP operating profit margin, non-GAAP net income and non-GAAP diluted earnings per share when we evaluate our continuing operational performance. Specifically, we exclude stock-based compensation during our annual budgeting process and our quarterly and annual assessments of our performance. The annual budgeting process is the primary mechanism whereby we allocate resources to various initiatives and operational requirements. Additionally, the annual review by our Board of Directors during which it compares our historical business model and profitability to the planned business model and profitability for the forthcoming year excludes the impact of stock-based compensation. In evaluating the performance of our senior management and department managers, charges related to stock-based compensation are excluded from expenditure and profitability results. In fact, we record stock-based compensation expense into a stand-alone cost center for which no single operational manager is responsible or accountable. In this way, we can review, on a period-to-period basis, each manager’s performance and assess financial discipline over operational expenditures without the effect of stock-based compensation. We believe that these non-GAAP financial measures are useful to investors because they allow investors to (a) evaluate our operating results and the effectiveness of the methodology used by us to review our operating results, and (b) review historical comparability in our financial reporting as well as comparability with competitors’ operating results.
Expenses related to business combinations. We incur expenses for professional services rendered in connection with acquisitions and divestitures, which are included in our GAAP presentation of selling, general and administrative expense. We also incur other expenses directly related to business combinations, including compensation expenses and concurrent restructuring activities, such as employee severances and other exit costs. These costs are included in our GAAP presentation of selling, general and administrative and research and development expenses. We exclude these acquisition-related expenses for the purpose of calculating non-GAAP operating income, non-GAAP operating profit margin, non-GAAP net income and non-GAAP diluted earnings per share when we evaluate our continuing operational performance, as we generally would not have otherwise incurred these expenses in the periods presented as a part of our operations. We believe that these non-GAAP financial measures are useful to investors because they allow investors to (a) evaluate our operating results and the effectiveness of the methodology used by us to review our operating results, and (b) review historical comparability in our financial reporting as well as comparability with competitors’ operating results.
Non-GAAP tax provision. We utilize a normalized non-GAAP annual effective tax rate (AETR) to calculate non-GAAP measures. This methodology provides better consistency across interim reporting periods by eliminating the effects of non-recurring items and aligning the non-GAAP tax rate with our expected geographic earnings mix. To project this rate, we analyzed our historic and projected non-GAAP earnings mix by geography along with other factors such as our current tax structure, recurring tax credits and incentives, and expected tax positions. On an annual basis we re-evaluate and update this rate for significant items that may materially affect our projections.
Unlevered operating cash flows. We make cash payments for the interest incurred in connection with our debt financing which are included in our GAAP presentation of operating cash flows. We exclude this cash paid for interest, net of the associated tax benefit, for the purpose of calculating unlevered operating cash flows. Unlevered operating cash flow is a supplemental non-GAAP measure that we use to evaluate our core operating business. We believe this measure is useful to investors and management because it provides a measure of our cash generated through operating activities independent of the capital structure of the business.
Non-GAAP financial measures are not in accordance with, or an alternative for, GAAP. Our non-GAAP financial measures are not meant to be considered in isolation or as a substitute for comparable GAAP financial measures and should be read only in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP.
We have provided a reconciliation of the non-GAAP financial measures to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures as listed below:
GAAP Reporting Measure
Non-GAAP Reporting Measure
Gross Profit
Non-GAAP Gross Profit
Gross Profit Margin
Non-GAAP Gross Profit Margin
Operating Income
Non-GAAP Operating Income
Operating Profit Margin
Non-GAAP Operating Profit Margin
Net Income
Non-GAAP Net Income
Diluted Earnings Per Share
Non-GAAP Diluted Earnings Per Share
Operating Cash Flows
Unlevered Operating Cash Flows
Constant currency. In addition to the non-GAAP financial measures detailed above, we use constant currency results for financial and operational decision-making and as a means to evaluate period-to-period comparisons by excluding the effects of foreign currency fluctuations on the reported results. To present this information, the 2024 period results for entities whose functional currency is a currency other than the U.S. Dollar were converted to U.S. Dollars at rates that were in effect for the 2023 comparable period, rather than the actual exchange rates in effect for 2024. Constant currency growth rates are calculated by adjusting the 2024 period reported amounts by the 2024 currency fluctuation impacts and comparing the adjusted amounts to the 2023 comparable period reported amounts. We believe that these non-GAAP financial measures are useful to investors because they allow investors to (a) evaluate the effectiveness of the methodology and information used by us in our financial and operational decision-making, and (b) compare our reported results to our past reports of financial results without the effects of foreign currency fluctuations.
/About Ansys
Our Mission: Powering Innovation that Drives Human Advancement™
When visionary companies need to know how their world-changing ideas will perform, they close the gap between design and reality with Ansys simulation. For more than 50 years, Ansys software has enabled innovators across industries to push boundaries by using the predictive power of simulation. From sustainable transportation to advanced semiconductors, from satellite systems to life-saving medical devices, the next great leaps in human advancement will be powered by Ansys.
/Forward-Looking Information
This document contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the Securities Act), and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). Forward-looking statements are statements that provide current expectations or forecasts of future events based on certain assumptions. Forward-looking statements are subject to risks, uncertainties, and factors relating to our business which could cause our actual results to differ materially from the expectations expressed in or implied by such forward-looking statements.
Forward-looking statements use words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “could,” “estimate,” “expect,” “forecast,” “intend,” “likely,” “may,” “outlook,” “plan,” “predict,” “project,” “should,” “target,” or other words of similar meaning. Forward-looking statements include those about market opportunity, including our total addressable market, the proposed transaction with Synopsys, including the expected date of closing and the potential benefits thereof, and other aspects of future operations. We caution readers not to place undue reliance upon any such forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date they are made. We undertake no obligation to update forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as may be required by law.
The risks associated with the following, among others, could cause actual results to differ materially from those described in any forward-looking statements:
our ability to complete the proposed transaction with Synopsys on anticipated terms and timing, including completing the associated divestiture of our PowerArtist RTL business and obtaining regulatory approvals, and other conditions related to the completion of the transaction with Synopsys;
the realization of the anticipated benefits of the proposed transaction with Synopsys, including potential disruptions to our and Synopsys’ businesses and commercial relationships with others resulting from the announcement, pendency, or completion of the proposed transaction and uncertainty as to the long-term value of Synopsys’ common stock;
restrictions on our operations during the pendency of the proposed transaction with Synopsys that could impact our ability to pursue certain business opportunities or strategic transactions, including tuck-in M&A;
adverse conditions in the macroeconomic environment, including inflation, recessionary conditions and volatility in equity and foreign exchange markets;
political, economic and regulatory uncertainties in the countries and regions in which we operate;
impacts from tariffs, trade sanctions, export controls or other trade barriers, including export control restrictions and licensing requirements for exports to China;
impacts resulting from the conflict between Israel and Hamas and other countries and groups in the Middle East, including impacts from changes to diplomatic relations and trade policy between the United States and other countries resulting from the conflict;
impacts from changes to diplomatic relations and trade policy between the United States and Russia or between the United States and other countries that may support Russia or take similar actions due to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine;
constrained credit and liquidity due to disruptions in the global economy and financial markets, which may limit or delay availability of credit under our existing or new credit facilities, or which may limit our ability to obtain credit or financing on acceptable terms or at all;
our ability to timely recruit and retain key personnel in a highly competitive labor market, including potential financial impacts of wage inflation and potential impacts due to the proposed transaction with Synopsys;
our ability to protect our proprietary technology; cybersecurity threats or other security breaches, including in relation to breaches occurring through our products and an increased level of our activity that is occurring from remote global off-site locations; and disclosure or misuse of employee or customer data whether as a result of a cybersecurity incident or otherwise;
volatility in our revenue due to the timing, duration and value of multi-year subscription lease contracts; and our reliance on high renewal rates for annual subscription lease and maintenance contracts;
declines in our customers’ businesses resulting in adverse changes in procurement patterns; disruptions in accounts receivable and cash flow due to customers’ liquidity challenges and commercial deterioration; uncertainties regarding demand for our products and services in the future and our customers’ acceptance of new products; delays or declines in anticipated sales due to reduced or altered sales and marketing interactions with customers; and potential variations in our sales forecast compared to actual sales;
our ability and our channel partners’ ability to comply with laws and regulations in relevant jurisdictions; and the outcome of contingencies, including legal proceedings, government or regulatory investigations and tax audit cases;
uncertainty regarding income tax estimates in the jurisdictions in which we operate; and the effect of changes in tax laws and regulations in the jurisdictions in which we operate;
the quality of our products, including the strength of features, functionality and integrated multiphysics capabilities; our ability to develop and market new products to address the industry’s rapidly changing technology, including the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning in our products as well as the products of our competitors; failures or errors in our products and services; and increased pricing pressure as a result of the competitive environment in which we operate;
investments in complementary companies, products, services and technologies; our ability to complete and successfully integrate our acquisitions and realize the financial and business benefits of such transactions; and the impact indebtedness incurred in connection with any acquisition could have on our operations;
investments in global sales and marketing organizations and global business infrastructure, and dependence on our channel partners for the distribution of our products;
current and potential future impacts of any global health crisis, natural disaster or catastrophe; the actions taken to address these events by our customers, our suppliers, and regulatory authorities; the resulting effects on our business, the global economy and our consolidated financial statements; and other public health and safety risks and related government actions or mandates;
operational disruptions generally or specifically in connection with transitions to and from remote work environments; and the failure of our technological infrastructure or those of the service providers upon whom we rely including for infrastructure and cloud services;
our intention to repatriate previously taxed earnings and to reinvest all other earnings of our non-U.S. subsidiaries;
plans for future capital spending; the extent of corporate benefits from such spending including with respect to customer relationship management; and higher than anticipated costs for research and development or a slowdown in our research and development activities;
our ability to execute on our strategies related to environmental, social, and governance matters, and meet evolving and varied expectations, including as a result of evolving regulatory and other standards, processes, and assumptions, the pace of scientific and technological developments, increased costs and the availability of requisite financing, and changes in carbon markets; and
other risks and uncertainties described in our reports filed from time to time with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC).
Ansys and any and all ANSYS, Inc. brand, product, service and feature names, logos and slogans are registered trademarks or trademarks of ANSYS, Inc. or its subsidiaries in the United States or other countries. All other brand, product, service and feature names or trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
Nadia Calviño is President of the European Investment Bank (EIB), the largest promotional bank in the world. On behalf of the EU Member States, it is tasked with ensuring stability through investments within and beyond the European Union. So it’s little wonder that the former Deputy Prime Minister of Spain would attend the 61stMunich Security Conference. Shortly before the event, Calviño visited Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Kyiv, signing investment agreements totalling around €1 billion. Before beginning her interview with the Süddeutsche Zeitung, the 56-year-old wanted to get one thing straight, right from the start: Europe must realise that we are at a turning point in history.
Something seems to have ruptured between the United States and the European Union. Trump is talking with Putin about the future ofUkraine, without the EU at the table. The US Secretary of Defense says that America will no longer guarantee security in Europe. And US Vice President J.D. Vance says the greatest risk for Europe is not Russia or China, but the alleged internal threat to freedom of expression. How shocked are you by this?
Calviño: I’m not shocked, or even surprised. I was certain we would see a fundamental change in transatlantic relations. We Europeans need to remember where our strengths lie, stand up for our interests and defend the rules-based world order from which we have benefited so richly over the past 80 years. And the Americans even more so.
Isn’t the new US government threatening to destroy this world order?
I am convinced that good transatlantic relations are strategically important for both sides. We must work to create a new foundation for them. In such turbulent times, it is more important than ever for Europe to stand for stability and reliability – not just within our own borders, but also for the rest of the world. That Europe should do even more to uphold a rules-based world order is something I hear often from our partners across the globe.
But again, do the United States pose a risk to the global order?
It is in their interest to preserve the things that have made America great. Institutions like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund or the World Trade Organization, which we founded together. That’s one reason the US dollar is a global reserve currency. There are many win-win situations to be had from working together, and with Europe. But the most important thing is for us to accept that the world of tomorrow is very different from the world of yesterday.
“We are at a turning point in history.”
The European Investment Bank is the world’s largest promotional bank. As its president, what can you do to help Europe stand the test of time in this new world?
We are at a crucial moment in history. And at a turning point in the geopolitical order. The future will depend on the decisions we make today, and every decision counts.
What does that mean exactly?
Since I joined the EIB as president in 2024, I have held talks with all 27 EU Member States and our European and international partners, but also with civil society and industry. For the first time, we have set out a clear Strategic Roadmap. 2024 was a record year for us, in which the EIB signed €89 billion in financing to strengthen Europe’s competitiveness and security. These funds will go, for example, to energy infrastructure and renewable projects, to new technologies like artificial intelligence or quantum computers, and to supporting the transport and automotive industries. In 2024, we invested a record amount in energy networks. We also doubled our support for security and defence – to €1 billion – and we expect to double it again in 2025.
At the Munich Security Conference, we kept hearing the question of where Member States could get the many billions of euros they would need to invest in their armies, including under pressure from Trump. Are they all coming to you now?
Ursula von der Leyen has already proposed relaxing the rules under the Stability Pact so that EU countries can finance their defence spending. Olaf Scholz has similar ideas. The EIB is not a defence ministry, but there is a lot we can do to help in this area. For example, if Member States want to renovate their roads and bridges to improve military mobility, we can fund that, just like we can fund protection of critical infrastructure like submarine cables, or investments in cybersecurity. We are doing this, and are exchanging with Europe’s finance and defence ministries and with industry.
What is the EIB financing inGermanyin this domain?
We are currently looking into 14 specific projects across Europe. In 2021, for example, we granted the Munich-based drone startup Quantum Systems a loan of €10 million. Their products are now used by the Ukrainian military, and have both civilian and military applications, so they can be supported by the EIB. The Lithuanian government has just applied to us with a proposal that we are now evaluating. It seeks financial assistance to build the base for the new German army brigade in Rūdninkai, near the border with Belarus.
This is a very important and demanding project, and we’ve only just started looking into the details. Another good example is the EIB support for the expansion of the Danish port in Esbjerg. Going forward, it will be better able to accommodate NATO vessels and the transport of materials for offshore wind farms.
You just came from a visit to Ukraine. How is the EIB supporting that country?
The trip to Ukraine was my first one outside the EU as EIB President. We are probably Ukraine’s most important investment partner, and our role is one that our partners value greatly. During my visit, we signed agreements for investment totalling around €1 billion. They will allow major Ukrainian banks to grant more loans to medium-sized companies. And with the country’s government, we have signed packages to finance infrastructure for energy, transport, water and district heating, as well as the construction of bunkers in schools and nurseries. So we are actively investing in all of the important areas for the Ukrainian people to lead normal lives, as far as possible. And, of course, we aim to strengthen the country’s resilience.
Are you also supporting Ukraine’s defence industry?
We support the European security and defence industry, which also helps Ukraine. In 2024 we expanded the dual-use approach, so that we can now support a wide range of projects, such as border security, cybersecurity, satellites and drones, and mine clearance.
The CEO of the Italian arms company Leonardorecently told our reportersthat Europe has one main problem:Member States spend more and more money on defence, but don’t work together enough. Is he right?
It is clear that a common European procurement system would make us stronger and more efficient, especially when it comes to our flagship projects. And yes, I think the European Investment Bank can contribute by acting as an independent appraiser for projects. In 2024, to bring in top expertise, we signed agreements with the NATO Innovation Fund and the European Defence Agency so that we can draw on their technical knowledge in this regard.
Is there any dispute at the EIB due to differing positions on Ukraine, with member countries like Hungary or Slovakia that have pro-Moscow governments?
No, not at all.
“I would never presume to tell a Member State what to do.”
So you are president of one of the only EU institutions that aren’t divided?
I told you that I visited the 27 Member States, and listened very carefully to them. On that basis, we drew up our strategy, which was unanimously supported. We are therefore well aligned with the EU priorities and the expectations of the Member States. There is strong support for what we are doing. Including in Ukraine.
When it comes to Europe’s future, one word always comes up: competitiveness. What does Europe need to do to avoid falling even further behind the US and China economically?
The different reports, for example by Enrico Letta and Mario Draghi, are quite unanimous: We need market integration, streamlining and investment. So what we need to do is clear. And I think the new Commission is willing to go in that direction. On streamlining, for example, we have teamed up with the Commission to adapt environmental reporting standards so that we can pursue the Paris Agreement and our green transformation objectives in a way that promotes the competitiveness of European industry, as well as green finance and green investment.
How optimistic are you that Europe will finally begin to react more quickly and actually make decisions? With the capital markets union, we’ve been waiting ten years for things to finally happen. And that’s just one example of many.
As Spain’s Minister of Finance and its Deputy Prime Minister, I saw lots of things. The euro area crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic. And I have seen how Europe can succeed: Together, we developed the vaccines, and we dealt with the crisis. With the NextGenerationEU package, Spain has made some very far-reaching reforms and, thanks to mobilising investment, it is now the best-performing economy in Europe and a driver of growth and prosperity on the continent. We succeed when we unite, act decisively, truly focus and bring all our energy together.
In contrast to Spain and other countries, Germany’s economy has been hit hard. Many experts see the debt brake as an obstacle to further growth. What does Germany have to do for things to start looking up again?
I would never presume to tell a Member State what to do. I simply wish for a strong Germany with a stable, pro-Europe government – because we need a strong Germany at the centre of our union.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022 forced millions of people to flee Ukraine. To date, approximately 6.8°million people have had to seek refuge, mostly in the EU and its neighbourhood. The EU responded rapidly in March 2022, activating the Temporary Protection Directive (TPD) for the first time ever. The TPD’s emergency mechanism offers swift protection and rights to those in need who arrive in large numbers, preventing Member States’ asylum systems from becoming overwhelmed. Rights under the TPD include access to a residence permit, employment, housing, medical and social welfare assistance, and education for children and adolescents. For those fleeing Ukraine, these rights also include travel within the EU, and to and from Ukraine. Currently, the largest number of beneficiaries of temporary protection from Ukraine reside in Germany, Poland and Czechia. Among them are nearly 1.3 million children, with 50 % still awaiting enrolment in their host countries’ education systems. Many pupils attend online classes delivered from Ukraine, as parents prefer to keep ties with their home country. The EU and its Member States have made efforts and funds available to support the integration of displaced people from Ukraine in terms of employment, housing, education and healthcare. Research indicates that Ukrainian refugees have a high employment rate in host countries, reflecting the circular mobility pattern observed among Ukrainians prior to 2022, when they were the largest non-EU workforce within the EU. However, with no end to the war in sight, the situation of Ukrainian refugees remains uncertain. There is currently no EU-level strategy regarding the status of refugees from Ukraine beyond the extension of temporary protection until March 2026. By April 2024, an estimated 1.2 million Ukrainians had already returned to their country despite the war. While most only go for brief visits to see family or tend to their properties, some intend to return permanently. Both the EU and Ukrainian policymakers face questions about the potential scale of and reasons for returns, as they seek to adapt and prepare their policies.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Viktor Valgarðsson, Leverhulme Early Career Fellow in the Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Southampton
Pro-Trump rioters stormed the US Capitol building to protest against the result of the 2020 presidential election.72westy / Shutterstock
Citizens’ trust in their political institutions has been falling around the world. This may not come as a shock to many.
British politics has been in chaos since the Brexit referendum in 2016. Rioters stormed the US Capitol in protest against the result of the 2020 presidential election. And the US president, Donald Trump, is continuing to attack the supposed “deep-state” controlling American politics. None of these things scream public trust in government.
But declining political trust is not self-evident. It’s possible that we may be too focused on a couple of countries that dominate our attention, and a lot has been going on in recent years that could explain the situation that we find ourselves in.
Many researchers have also pointedout that people have never been particularly fond of politics. They suggest that we’ve simply been seeing “trendless fluctuations” in trust – ebbs and flows where we happen to notice declines more than rises or stability.
In a recently published study, my co-authors and I took on this debate. We analysed more data on political trust than previous studies, from over 5 million respondents to 3,377 surveys conducted in 143 countries between 1958 and 2019.
Our models suggest that, at least since 1990, trust in parliament and government has indeed been declining by an average of about 8.4 and 7.3 percentage points respectively in democratic countries across the world.
The same does not apply to trust in non-representative “implementing institutions”, such as the civil service, justice system or police. In fact, we find that trust in the police has increased by about 12.5 percentage points across democracies on average over the same period.
Thus, declining trust in government appears to be rooted in how politics is practised, which is seemingly less inspiring to citizens today, rather than in a growing distaste for social institutions in general.
Of course, this global picture masks a more nuanced story. Political trust has been rising in a few smaller countries: Denmark, Ecuador, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland. These nations may chart a path forward for the rest of the democratic world.
Conversely, trust in the legal system has been declining in many countries in eastern Europe and Latin America. The same appears to be the case more recently in the US, suggesting that implementing institutions are not immune to the political trust crisis.
Our findings do not answer why citizens of democracies are gradually losing faith in their democratic institutions, or what the consequences could be. They also do not suggest how trust in politics can be rebuilt. But what we do know is concerning.
For instance, our data tells us that political trust was declining dramatically in Hungary right up until 2010, when Viktor Orbán was re-elected as prime minister (his first term ended in 2002). When in office, Orbán started dismantling the country’s constitutional and liberal democratic order.
We also know that the US has seen one of the more dramatic declines of political trust in recent times, and that political distrust was a powerful predictor of voting for Trump at least in the 2016 Republican primaries.
In a survey conducted that year by American National Election Studies, about 24% of Trump’s primary voters said they would “never” trust the federal government to do what is right. This compared with about 9% of voters for rival Republican candidate John Kasich, and 8% and 4% of voters for Democrat candidates Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton respectively.
We do not yet have data for the 2024 US presidential election. But it does not take a political scientist to know that Trump leaned even more heavily on people’s distrust in government in his campaign. Since becoming president, he has stepped up his efforts to dismantle America’s constitutional and liberal democratic order.
Declining political trust is not the only cause of these developments. We are also seeing illiberal candidates and parties doing increasingly well in countries where we didn’t see the same trust declines in our data. The rising popularity of Geert Wilders in the Netherlands or the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party in Germany are both good examples.
Some of this may be driven partly by more recent trust declines, like in the Netherlands where trust in parliament has dropped substantially since 2020. Or it could be driven by a polarisation of trust between a more trusting majority and a deeply distrusting minority. But much of it is also probably driven by other factors, such as economic distress, attitudes towards immigration and the “culture wars” of our day.
It stands to reason that voters who deeply distrust the political establishment would tend to be attracted to populist leaders who rail against that establishment.
These voters probably still support democracy as an ideal. Support for democratic principles has, in fact, remained high globally – although there are worrying signs among younger generations in US and UK. But these voters appear to be more willing to vote for politicians who will attack the institutions needed to make it work.
Sceptical mistrust of government
This brings us to one crucial question: are citizens right to distrust government? After all, political institutions haven’t been working all that well for a large portion of citizens – except maybe in areas like Scandinavia, where we have seen rising trust in recent times.
A degree of sceptical mistrust of government is certainly vital for a healthy democracy. We are reminded of this by some of the more sobering points in our data.
China has the highest rates of reported trust in the world, while Hungary and Russia have both seen rising trust levels as their governments have become less democratic and seized control of the media environment. Clearly, trust is not unequivocally good from a democratic perspective.
Our challenge is to find the right balance: a climate of sceptical trust, where we hold our governments to account and engage critically with our institutions without throwing them away in favour of autocratic populists.
To save the foundations of liberal democracy, we may need to rediscover its appeal to the ordinary citizen. If it’s something about the way politics is practised that citizens distrust, perhaps those politics need to change.
Viktor Valgarðsson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Headline: Apple debuts iPhone 16e: A powerful new member of the iPhone 16 family
February 19, 2025
PRESS RELEASE
Apple debuts iPhone 16e: A powerful new member of the iPhone 16 family
iPhone 16e joins the iPhone 16 lineup, featuring the fast performance of the A18 chip, Apple Intelligence, extraordinary battery life, and a 48MP 2-in-1 camera system — all at an incredible value
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIAApple today announced iPhone 16e, a new addition to the iPhone 16 lineup that offers powerful capabilities at a more affordable price. iPhone 16e delivers fast, smooth performance and breakthrough battery life, thanks to the industry-leading efficiency of the A18 chip and the new Apple C1, the first cellular modem designed by Apple. iPhone 16e is also built for Apple Intelligence, the intuitive personal intelligence system that delivers helpful and relevant intelligence while taking an extraordinary step forward for privacy in AI. The 48MP Fusion camera takes gorgeous photos and videos, and with an integrated 2x Telephoto, it is like having two cameras in one, so users can zoom in with optical quality. When outside of cellular and Wi-Fi coverage, Apple’s groundbreaking satellite features — including Emergency SOS, Roadside Assistance, Messages, and Find My via satellite — help iPhone 16e users stay connected and get assistance when it matters most.1
iPhone 16e will be available in two elegant matte finishes — black and white — with colorful cases available to accessorize. Pre-orders begin Friday, February 21, with availability beginning Friday, February 28.
“iPhone 16e packs in the features our users love about the iPhone 16 lineup, including breakthrough battery life, fast performance powered by the latest-generation A18 chip, an innovative 2-in-1 camera system, and Apple Intelligence,” said Kaiann Drance, Apple’s vice president of Worldwide iPhone Product Marketing. “We’re so excited for iPhone 16e to complete the lineup as a powerful, more affordable option to bring the iPhone experience to even more people.”
A Beautiful and Durable Design with Breakthrough Battery Life
iPhone 16e is built to last, featuring splash, water, and dust resistance with a rating of IP68; the Ceramic Shield front cover with an advanced formulation that is tougher than any smartphone glass; and the toughest back glass in a smartphone.2 The 6.1-inch Super Retina XDR display with OLED technology has an edge-to-edge design that is perfect for watching HDR videos, playing games, and reading crisp text.3 iPhone 16e has the best battery life ever on a 6.1-inch iPhone, lasting up to six hours longer than iPhone 11 and up to 12 hours longer than all generations of iPhone SE.4 And with Face ID enabled by the TrueDepth camera system, users can securely unlock their iPhone, authenticate purchases, sign in to apps, and more. iPhone 16e also offers convenient charging options, including both wireless charging and USB-C for easy connection to a wide range of accessories.
Performance and Connectivity
iPhone 16e is powered by Apple’s latest-generation A18 chip, which enables fast, smooth performance, incredible power efficiency, and Apple Intelligence. The 6-core CPU is up to 80 percent faster than the A13 Bionic chip on iPhone 11, handling both everyday and intensive tasks with ease — from simple workloads, to more demanding actions with Apple Intelligence. The 4-core GPU powers stunning graphics performance and unlocks next-level mobile gaming on the go, enabling graphically demanding AAA titles and hardware-accelerated ray tracing for more realistic lighting and reflections. The 16-core Neural Engine is optimized for large generative models and runs machine learning (ML) models up to 6x faster than A13 Bionic.
Expanding the benefits of Apple silicon, C1 is the first modem designed by Apple and the most power-efficient modem ever on an iPhone, delivering fast and reliable 5G cellular connectivity. Apple silicon — including C1 — the all-new internal design, and the advanced power management of iOS 18 all contribute to extraordinary battery life.
Built for Apple Intelligence
iPhone 16e is built for Apple Intelligence, unlocking exciting new capabilities that make iPhone even more helpful and powerful. With the Clean Up tool, it’s easy to remove distracting elements in images, and natural language search in the Photos app allows users to search for just about any photo or video by simply describing what they are looking for.
Users can also explore creative new ways to express themselves visually with Image Playground, create the perfect emoji with Genmoj, and make their writing even more dynamic with Writing Tools. They can now type to Siri, and Siri is more conversational with the ability to follow along if users stumble over their words. Siri can also maintain context from one request to the next. With extensive product knowledge, Siri can answer thousands of questions about the features and settings of Apple products, so users can learn how to do things like take a screen recording or schedule a text message to send later.
With access to ChatGPT seamlessly integrated into Writing Tools and Siri, users can choose to access ChatGPT’s expertise without jumping between applications, so they can get things done faster and easier than ever before. In addition, users can access ChatGPT for free without creating an account, and privacy protections are built in — their IP addresses are obscured and OpenAI won’t store requests. Users can choose whether to enable ChatGPT integration, and are in full control of when to use it and what information is shared with ChatGPT.
Apple Intelligence marks an extraordinary step forward for privacy in AI and is designed to protect users’ privacy at every step. It starts with on-device processing, meaning that many of the models that power Apple Inteligence run entirely on device. For requests that require access to larger models, Apple’s groundbreaking Private Cloud Compute extends the privacy and security of iPhone into the cloud to unlock even more intelligence. When using Private Cloud Compute, users’ data is never stored or shared with Apple; it is used only to fulfill their request.
Access Favorite Features and Unlock Visual Intelligence with the Action Button
iPhone 16e features the Action button, allowing users to easily access a variety of functions with just a press. Once customized in Settings, the Action button can be used to quickly open the camera or flashlight; switch between Ring and Silent modes; recognize music with Shazam; activate Voice Memos, Focus, Translate, and accessibility features like Magnifier; or use Shortcuts for more options. The Action button can even access in-app functionality like launching the camera in Snapchat, unlocking a car door with FordPass, tracking a child’s sleep schedule with Napper, and more.
The Action button on iPhone 16e also unlocks a new visual intelligence experience that builds on Apple Intelligence to help users learn about objects and places. Visual intelligence can summarize and copy text, translate text between languages, detect phone numbers or email addresses with the option to add to contacts, identify an animal or plant, and more. Visual intelligence also allows users to search Google so they can see where they can buy an item, or benefit from ChatGPT’s problem-solving skills. Users are in control of when third-party tools are used and what information is shared.
A Powerful Camera System to Capture Any Moment
The powerful 2-in-1 camera system on iPhone 16e is perfect for capturing everyday moments and important memories, including in Night mode and Portrait mode. Using computational photography, the 48MP Fusion camera takes super-high-resolution photos, so users can capture gorgeous images that balance light and detail. With an integrated 2x Telephoto, users have the equivalent of two cameras in one, and can zoom in with optical quality to get closer to the subject and easily frame their shot. And the front-facing TrueDepth camera with autofocus enables sharper close-ups and beautiful group selfies. The latest generation of HDR captures subjects and the background with true-to-life renderings of skin tones, while ensuring photos have bright highlights, rich mid-tones, and deep shadows.
iPhone 16e takes stunning videos with the ability to record in 4K with Dolby Vision up to 60 fps, and users can stop and restart a recording for more flexibility when capturing the moment. iPhone 16e also records video in Spatial Audio for immersive listening with AirPods, Apple Vision Pro, or a surround sound system, and enables more ways to edit video sound with Audio Mix. Users can adjust their sound after capture to focus on the voice of the person on camera, make it sound like the video was recorded inside a professional studio, or position vocal tracks in the front and environmental noises in surround sound. With wind noise reduction, powerful ML algorithms automatically reduce unwanted noise for better audio quality.
Groundbreaking Safety and Communication Capabilities
iPhone 16e helps users stay connected and get assistance when it matters most. Apple’s satellite features help users text via satellite when they’re outside of cellular and Wi-Fi coverage. This includes Messages via satellite to text friends and family; Emergency SOS via satellite to connect with emergency services; and Roadside Assistance via satellite to reach a roadside assistance provider in case of car trouble. Users can also use the Find My app to share their location via satellite, reassuring friends and family of their whereabouts while traveling off the grid. Crash Detection on iPhone 16e can detect a severe car crash and automatically dial emergency services if a user is unconscious or unable to reach their iPhone.5
Featuring iOS 18
iOS 18 makes iPhone 16e more personal, capable, and intelligent than ever.6 With more customization options, users can give apps and widgets a new dark or tinted look and arrange them in any open space on the Home Screen. The controls at the bottom of the Lock Screen can be customized; Control Center has been redesigned to provide users with easier access to many of the things they use every day, including third-party apps; and new privacy protections include the ability to lock and hide apps to protect sensitive apps and the information inside them. iOS 18 also provides powerful updates for staying connected. In Messages, users can use text effects to bring words, phrases, sentences, and more to life. Tapbacks expand to include emoji, Genmoji, or stickers, and now users can schedule a message to send later. When messaging contacts who do not have an Apple device, the Messages app now supports RCS for richer media and more reliable group messaging when compared to SMS and MMS.
Better for the Environment
iPhone 16e is designed with the environment in mind. As part of Apple 2030, the company’s ambitious goal to be carbon neutral across its entire carbon footprint by the end of this decade, Apple is transitioning to renewable electricity for its manufacturing, and investing in wind and solar projects around the world to address the electricity used to charge all Apple products, including iPhone 16e. Today, all Apple facilities run on 100 percent renewable electricity — including the data centers that power Apple Intelligence.
To achieve Apple 2030, the company is designing products with more recycled and renewable materials, which further drives down the carbon footprint. iPhone 16e features over 30 percent recycled content overall, including 100 percent recycled cobalt and 95 percent recycled lithium in the battery, 85 percent recycled aluminum in the enclosure, and more.7 Additionally, the main logic board and back glass of iPhone 16e are designed to be manufactured more efficiently, reducing the amount of raw materials needed. The packaging is also entirely fiber-based, bringing Apple closer to its goal of removing plastic from its packaging by the end of this year.8
Pricing and Availability
iPhone 16e will be available in white and black in 128GB, 256GB, and 512GB storage capacities, starting at $599 (U.S.) or $24.95 (U.S.) per month for 24 months.
Apple offers great ways to save and upgrade to the latest iPhone. With Apple Trade In, customers can get up to $120 (U.S.) in credit when they trade in iPhone 11, or up to $170 (U.S.) in credit when they trade in iPhone 12. With a carrier offer, customers can get up to $400 (U.S.) in credit when they trade in iPhone 11, or up to $599 (U.S.) in credit when they trade in iPhone 12 to put toward an iPhone 16e. Customers can take advantage of these offers by visiting the Apple Store online or an Apple Store location. For carrier offer eligibility requirements and more details, see apple.com/shop/buy-iphone/carrier-offers. To see what their device is worth and for Apple Trade In terms and conditions, customers can visit apple.com/shop/trade-in.
Customers in 59 countries and regions, including Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, South Korea, Türkiye, the UAE, the UK, and the U.S., will be able to pre-order iPhone 16e beginning at 5 a.m. PST on Friday, February 21, with availability beginning Friday, February 28.
Apple Intelligence is available in localized English for Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, the UK, and the U.S. Additional languages — including French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Spanish, Japanese, Korean, Chinese (simplified), English (Singapore), and English (India) — will be available in April, with more languages coming over the course of the year, including Vietnamese. Some features, applications, and services may not be available in all regions or all languages.
Visual intelligence is available in iOS 18.2 or later on all iPhone 16 models. For more information on visual intelligence, visit support.apple.com/guide/iphone.
iPhone 16e Silicone Case will be available in five colors for $39 (U.S.): winter blue, fuchsia, lake green, black, and white.
AppleCare+ for iPhone provides unparalleled service and support. This includes unlimited incidents of accidental damage, battery service coverage, and 24/7 support from the people who know iPhone best. For more information, visit apple.com/support/products/iphone.
iCloud+ plans start at just $0.99 (U.S.) per month and offer up to 12TB of additional storage to keep photos, videos, files, and more safe in the cloud and available across devices. An iCloud+ subscription gives access to premium features such as unlimited event creation in the new Apple Invites app, as well as Private Relay, Hide My Email, and custom email domains. With Family Sharing, users can share their subscription with five other family members at no extra cost.
Customers who purchase iPhone 16e may receive three free months of Apple Music, Apple TV+, Apple Arcade, Apple News+, and Apple Fitness+, with a new subscription. Offer and services availability varies by region. See apple.com/promo for details.
About Apple Apple revolutionized personal technology with the introduction of the Macintosh in 1984. Today, Apple leads the world in innovation with iPhone, iPad, Mac, AirPods, Apple Watch, and Apple Vision Pro. Apple’s six software platforms — iOS, iPadOS, macOS, watchOS, visionOS, and tvOS — provide seamless experiences across all Apple devices and empower people with breakthrough services including the App Store, Apple Music, Apple Pay, iCloud, and Apple TV+. Apple’s more than 150,000 employees are dedicated to making the best products on earth and to leaving the world better than we found it.
Apple’s satellite features are included for free for two years starting at the time of activation of a new iPhone 14 or later. For Emergency SOS via satellite availability, visit support.apple.com/en-us/HT213426. Messages via satellite will be available in the U.S. and Canada in iOS 18 or later. SMS availability will depend on carrier. Carrier fees may apply. Users should check with their carrier for details. Roadside Assistance via satellite is currently available in the U.S. with AAA and Verizon Roadside Assistance, and in the UK with Green Flag. Participating roadside assistance providers may charge for services, and iPhone users who are not members can take advantage of their roadside assistance services on a pay-per-use basis. Apple’s satellite features were designed for use in open spaces with a clear line of sight to the sky. Performance may be impacted by obstructions such as trees or surrounding buildings.
iPhone 16e is splash-, water-, and dust-resistant. It was tested under controlled laboratory conditions and has a rating of IP68 under IEC standard 60529 (maximum depth of 6 meters for up to 30 minutes). Splash, water, and dust resistance are not permanent conditions. Resistance might decrease as a result of normal wear. Do not attempt to charge a wet iPhone; refer to the user guide for cleaning and drying instructions. Liquid damage is not covered under warranty.
The display has rounded corners that follow a beautiful curved design, and these corners are within a standard rectangle. When measured as a standard rectangular shape, the screen is 6.06 inches diagonally. The actual viewable area is smaller.
All battery claims depend on the cellular network, location, signal strength, feature configuration, usage, and many other factors; actual results will vary. The battery has limited recharge cycles and may eventually need to be replaced. Battery life and charge cycles vary by use and settings. Battery tests are conducted using specific iPhone units. See apple.com/batteries and apple.com/iphone/compare for more information.
Crash Detection is designed for four-wheel passenger vehicle crashes with certain mass, G-force, and speed profiles consistent with severe, life-threatening crashes. It was designed for severe, life-threatening, high-impact front and rear, side-swipe, T-bone, and rollover crashes. Crash Detection is available worldwide on iPhone 14 or later, Apple Watch Series 8 or later, Apple Watch SE, and Apple Watch Ultra or later.
Some features may not be available for all countries or all areas. For more information on iOS 18, visit apple.com/ios/ios-18.
All cobalt and lithium references use a mass balance allocation.
Based on retail packaging as shipped by Apple. Breakdown of U.S. retail packaging by weight. Adhesives, inks, and coatings are excluded from calculations of plastic content and packaging weight.
AUSTIN, Texas, Feb. 19, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Ashtrom Renewable Energy, a global independent power producer and renewable energy developer and subsidiary of Ashtrom Group, has signed a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) to sell electricity to the municipality of San Antonio, Texas through CPS Energy, the city’s local utility company.
According to the signed agreement, CPS Energy (Aa2 Moody’s) will purchase approximately 70% of the electricity produced by the project, along with purchasing green certificates (RECs), for a period of 20 years at a predetermined fixed price. Under the agreement, Ashtrom has committed to achieve the commercial operation of the El Patrimonio project by the second half of 2027. The remaining electricity produced by the project is expected to be sold within Texas’s open electricity market. The project will produce electricity equivalent to the annual consumption for about 37,500 households.
“We are proud to announce a significant collaboration and the signing of an important agreement with CPS Energy, the largest municipal utility company in the U.S.,” said Yitsik Mermelstein, CEO of Ashtrom Renewable Energy. “The agreement is not only an expression of our great partnership with CPS Energy, but also a central pillar in realizing our strategic vision to expand renewable energy activities in the country. This step strengthens our position as a leading player in the industry and is a significant milestone in the company’s growth journey.”
El Patrimonio is Ashtrom’s second solar project in Texas, marking a key achievement for the company that further deepens its presence in the ERCOT market. The completion of the PPA is expected to accelerate the project’s development and construction processes. The solar project is expected to be constructed in Bexar County, Texas, with a planned capacity of approximately 150 megawatts (AC).
In addition to delivering electricity to San Antonio, the El Patrimonio project will support the local economy and community through educational activities. Ashtrom will establish an annual scholarship program, offer field tours of the El Patrimonio site for local students, and host job fairs on-site. Through these efforts, Ashtrom aims to enhance community knowledge of renewable energy and the role people can play in its future.
About Ashtrom Renewable Energy
Ashtrom Renewable Energy is delivering clean energy at scale. We build best-in-class renewable energy projects in the United States and around the globe. With a hands-on, risk-informed approach that emphasizes strategic and cost-effective execution, the company is an independent power producer (IPP) led by a team of energy experts with decades of experience in solar and wind siting, development, construction, financing, and operation. Ashtrom Renewable Energy leverages the financial stability and culture of excellence cultivated by Ashtrom Group (TASE: ASHG), a leading infrastructure, construction, and real estate development company with a 60-year legacy of success. With a development pipeline of ~1.8 GWdc in the U.S. and ~2.5 GWdc worldwide, Ashtrom Renewable Energy is poised to rapidly scale its development and investment activities in the U.S. market for the long term. Learn more about Ashtrom Renewable Energy at https://www.ashtromrenewableenergy.co.il/en
About Ashtrom Group Ashtrom is one of Israel’s leading construction and real estate companies whose shares are traded on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange 90 index The group operates in several operating sectors: Construction and infrastructure contracting in Israel – including, inter alia, residential and infrastructural contract constructions; Franchise – participation in tenders and executing planning, operations and financing activities for large-scale infrastructure and residential projects; Housing entrepreneurship in Israel, through Ashdar, a subsidiary that is a leader and among the oldest companies in the field; Investment and entrepreneurial real estate, through Ashtrom Properties, a subsidiary operating in Israel, Germany and England, holding and managing shopping malls and commercial centers, office buildings and employment centers, industrial structures and more; Industries – mainly manufacturing, marketing and selling raw materials to the construction industry and importing and marketing finishing products for the construction industry; Construction and infrastructures contracting abroad, as well as residential real estate development in the U.S. and Europe – performed by Ashtrom International; Renewable energy – investment in wind, solar, storage and other energy related projects in Israel and worldwide. Ashtrom Group chairperson is Mr. Rami Nussbaum, and the group’s CEO is Mr. Gil Gueron.
