NewzIntel.com

Category: Ukraine

  • MIL-OSI USA: Kugler, Navigating Inflation Waves: A Phillips Curve Perspective

    Source: US State of New York Federal Reserve

    Thank you, Tom, and thank you for the invitation to give the Whittington Lecture.1 It is humbling to be here giving this lecture to honor the memory and legacy of Leslie Whittington. While I did not cross paths with Leslie here at Georgetown University, when I arrived, I heard so many stories about her contributions to the school, the university, and the students. She worked on research about the effects of economic policies on children and families, so I know that if I had had the good fortune to overlap with her as a colleague, I would have benefited greatly from her work and presence. It is also an honor to be giving this lecture, because so many dynamic leaders have previously stood before you, including some who have been inspirations to me in my career, such as Alice Rivlin and Cecilia Rouse.
    Today I will be discussing a topic that has certainly captured the attention of central bankers, and the public at large, in recent years: inflation and the relationship between inflation and unemployment. But before I talk about a lens through which to think about the inflation experienced in the pandemic period, I want to update you with my views on the current outlook for the U.S. economy and the Federal Open Market Committee’s (FOMC) efforts to sustainably return inflation to our 2 percent objective while maintaining a strong labor market.
    Economic OutlookThe overall picture is that the U.S. economy remains on a firm footing, with output growing at a solid pace. Real gross domestic product grew 2.5 percent in 2024. Consumer spending continued to drive this solid pace last year. While retail sales posted a decline last month, January data are often difficult to interpret. Bad weather and seasonal adjustment difficulties may have affected the release, and it should be noted the slowdown came after a strong pace of sales in the second half of last year. That said, as usual, I pay attention to many indicators to gauge the state of the economy. Employment readings show that the labor market is healthy and stable. Payroll job gains have been solid recently, averaging 189,000 per month over the past four months, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). After touching 4.2 percent as recently as November, the unemployment rate has flattened to 4 percent since then, consistent with a labor market that is neither weakening nor showing signs of overheating.
    Inflation has fallen significantly since its peak in the middle of 2022, though the path continues to be bumpy and inflation remains somewhat elevated. Readings last week from the BLS showed price pressures persisted in the economy in January. Our preferred inflation gauge at the Fed, the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index, will be released next week. Based on the consumer price index and producer price index data for January, it is estimated that the PCE index advanced about 2.4 percent on a 12-month basis in January. Excluding food and energy costs, core prices are estimated to have risen 2.6 percent. Those readings show there is still some way to go before achieving the FOMC’s 2 percent objective.
    Regarding monetary policy, the FOMC judged in September that it was time to begin reducing our policy interest rate from levels that were strongly restrictive on aggregate demand and putting downward pressure on inflation. We reduced that rate 100 basis points through December, leaving our policy rate at moderately restrictive levels. At our latest meeting in January, I supported the decision to hold the policy rate steady. I see this as appropriate, given that the downward risks to employment have diminished but upside risks to inflation remain. The potential net effect of new economic policies also remains highly uncertain and will depend on the breadth, duration, reactions to, and, importantly, specifics of the measures adopted.
    Going forward, in considering the appropriate federal funds rate, we will watch these developments closely and continue to carefully assess the incoming data and evolving outlook.
    Now, turning back to the main topic of my speech, I will start with the core mission of the Federal Reserve: to pursue the dual mandate, given to us by Congress, of promoting maximum employment and stable prices. We saw firsthand during the pandemic period why the price-stability portion of the mandate is so important. High inflation imposes significant hardship and erodes Americans’ purchasing power, especially for those least able to meet the higher costs of essentials like food, housing, and transportation. As a policymaker and economist, I think it is vitally important to have a good understanding of inflation dynamics and how those dynamics may have evolved over time. This knowledge allows me to pursue the best policies to deliver stable prices while maintaining a solid labor market.
    Waves of InflationFive years after the pandemic took hold suddenly and with little warning, there is a tendency to remember the inflation buildup as a fast and uniform phenomenon. But that was not the case. Inflation stemming from the pandemic shock came in waves. Today I will first describe the different waves of inflation experienced in the pandemic period. Then I invite you aboard the sailboat that we will use to navigate those waves: You could call it the SS Phillips Curve. The Phillips curve is a model that has been used for a long time to try to explain inflation dynamics and the tradeoffs between inflation and unemployment. Finally, I will discuss with you how this voyage may have changed the charts for policymakers.
    Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S., and much of the world’s developed economies, experienced a prolonged period of low inflation. Then, when the economy broadly shut down in March and April 2020, the U.S. experienced a brief period of deflation. But by the middle of that year, we saw that the first of several waves of inflation began hitting the economy’s shores.
    The first notable wave of inflation came from food prices. With many restaurants closed and people fearful of gathering, consumers pivoted their spending to grocery stores and online grocery delivery to meet their families’ needs, with some stockpiling essential items because they feared future shortages. This jump in demand was met with snarled supply chains for food processing and groceries. Annual food inflation reached a first peak of 5 percent in June 2020. There was a second food inflation wave with the onset of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in the middle of 2022. Beyond the cost alone, grocery prices are an important determinant of inflation expectations for consumers since food is purchased so frequently.2 Another wave of inflation came from goods other than food and energy—what economists call “core goods.” In the years immediately before the pandemic, goods prices were not a significant source of inflation. During the expansion from 2009 until 2020, core goods inflation declined 0.5 percent annually on average. However, once the pandemic took hold, consumer demand rotated from services to goods. At the same time, additional supply chain issues arose, including closed factories and disrupted ports. As consumption rapidly shifted toward goods, their prices rose sharply.3 Core goods inflation picked up markedly in the spring of 2021 and reached a peak of 7.6 percent on a 12-month basis in February 2022. This was a notable development because, during most of this century, goods price deflation offset price increases in other categories and thus kept a lid on overall inflation.
    A third wave of inflation came from services costs, excluding housing. Near the start of the pandemic, millions of Americans lost their jobs, and many left the labor market, with some retiring and others fearful of being exposed to the virus. When the economy began to reopen from shutdowns, demand for workers rose faster than the supply. As a result, the labor market quickly became very tight. To attract workers, employers raised wages. And to offset that expense, many raised prices. Given that labor is the most important input into the production of services, core services inflation ensued, reaching a peak of 5.2 percent on a 12-month basis in December 2021. Core services inflation stayed persistently high until it began to turn down in February 2023.
    The final wave of inflation I will discuss came from PCE housing services inflation. During the pandemic, many Americans reassessed housing choices, including those who preferred to move to detached homes in the suburbs from multifamily dwellings in cities. The supply of housing has long been constrained, so when a further increase in demand met limited supply, prices rose. Housing inflation rose to a peak of 8.27 percent on a 12-month basis in April 2023 and has moved lower since then. The run-up in housing inflation came more slowly, but it is also the component most slowly to abate. This is an area that experienced catch-up inflation, as housing inflation rises and falls slowly because rents are reset infrequently, usually only once a year for most renters.
    For the remainder of this discussion, I will focus on core inflation, and specifically core goods and core services inflation. My objective is to discuss several additions to an augmented Phillips curve model that allow us to capture the dynamics of those waves we encountered on our journey.
    The Traditional Phillips CurveSince price stability and maximum employment are the two components of the Fed’s dual-mandate goal, it is important for policymakers to be able to interpret the inflation process and relate it to macroeconomic conditions, including unemployment. One traditional way of understanding the usual tradeoff between inflation and unemployment is the use of the Phillips curve. It was first employed by New Zealand economist A.W. Phillips in 1958 to describe a simple relationship between wage growth and unemployment. Basically, it demonstrates that wage inflation is lower when unemployment is high, and higher when unemployment is low. Since then, several variants and updates have been offered to the Phillips curve model, and I will offer updates, too.
    One of the most notable updates came from Milton Friedman in 1967 in his presidential address to the American Economic Association.4 In that speech, he argued that there is only a temporary tradeoff between inflation and unemployment, because inflation depends on both the unemployment rate relative to a natural rate (the unemployment gap) and expectations of future inflation.
    The unemployment gap measures how much unemployment is above or below some reference level such as the natural rate of unemployment, or NAIRU (non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment), which is thought to be the normal level of unemployment absent cyclical forces. An unemployment rate that is above the reference level indicates that there is slack in the economy. Conversely, if the unemployment rate is below the reference level, the economy is tight. The unemployment gap has an inverse relation to wage and price inflation, because slack in the economy means that there are excess resources to meet demand while tightness in the labor market means there is little room to expand demand without putting upward pressure on prices. Let’s turn now to the other ingredient in Friedman’s Phillips curve: inflation expectations. Inflation expectations represent the rate at which people expect prices to rise in the future. A Phillips curve model that includes inflation expectations is called an “expectations-augmented Phillips curve.”
    The idea behind adding inflation expectations to a Phillips curve is that workers care about their inflation-adjusted wage, rather than nominal wages, over the course of a period of employment when bargaining their pay. Meanwhile, price-setting firms care about their relative price in pricing their products. Both sets of agents must forecast as best as possible the future path of inflation to efficiently bargain their wages or set their prices. In other words, both parties form expectations about the general price level, and these expectations will feed back into the inflation process.5 Friedman assumed that inflation expectations respond to lagged observed inflation—or what are called “adaptive expectations”—and when that is so, it provides a mechanism for inflation to be persistent.
    This view captured inflation dynamics in the 1970s and early 1980s fairly well; however, it was not broadly applicable to the period from the late 1980s through 2019, often called the “Great Moderation.” Rather, regarding inflation dynamics over an extended period, inflation appears to be more strongly related to long-run inflation expectations than to lagged inflation or short-run inflation expectations measures. Monetary policy can play an important role in setting long-run inflation expectations. Both wage seekers and price setters form their inflation expectations, in part, from their beliefs about the central bank’s inflation goal. When long-run inflation expectations stay close to the central bank’s goal, we say that inflation expectations are anchored at that goal. That goal is currently set at 2 percent, and long-run inflation expectations have indeed been in a tight range around that target.6
    The empirical literature on the Phillips curve has considered additional variables that may affect inflation and used those variables to create new versions of a Phillips curve. For example, Phillips curves have long included measures of “cost-push” pressures such as core import prices. These cost pressures more fully capture shocks to firms’ costs coming from global price pressures and not captured by other measures of slack. Other Phillips curves also include lags of inflation to capture persistence in the inflation process.7
    To summarize, the empirical literature has come to the conclusion that inflation dynamics can best be captured by a Phillips curve that includes lags of inflation, long-run inflation expectations, and a measure of slack, as well as import and energy prices as cost-push shocks. An instance of that formulation of a Phillips curve is included in former Chair Janet Yellen’s speech from 2015.8 Next, I would like to assess the accuracy of this baseline model during the recent run-up of inflation and consider how to augment the Phillips curve model with some new variables that may be able to capture some of the shocks experienced during the pandemic and post-pandemic period. A large literature has emerged on how to interpret the recent run-up in inflation, and more research is needed to fully understand this complicated episode. The Phillips curve model that I will use is another approach to consider. This is a simple approach, but it is possible to consider more complex models, such as models that consider the joint dynamics of inflation and other variables or models that explicitly consider nonlinearities.9 However, I still see value in starting from this simple framework, seeing what it can and cannot explain about pandemic inflation, and then seeing whether the addition of certain variables can help the model more fully account for inflation during the pandemic.
    Estimation of the Phillips Curve TodayAs I just explained, the Phillips curve model allows flexibility in the choice of variables, but economists employing the model must decide how to weight these variables. And those weights must be chosen in some way. Economists choose weights by examining available data and deciding which capture the inflation process in the best possible way. This decision is called “estimation.” The modern way to undertake such an estimation is called “training.” Economists train a model on a specific set of data and consider different cuts of the data set to determine different ways to compute those weights.
    I will consider quarterly data that have been consistently produced since 1964, allowing us to include the periods of the Great Inflation, the Great Moderation, and the most recent inflation run-up. We could use this entire data set to train the model. However, subsample analysis also serves to prove some valuable points.
    First Result: Examining the Great ModerationLet’s start by updating former Fed Chair Yellen’s results. She estimated the model using the data during the so-called Great Moderation; I will update her results by training the model through 2019, the last year before the COVID-19 pandemic took hold in the U.S. As the term “moderation” implies, this was a period in which both inflation and output became much less volatile. We do not know exactly what brought about the Great Moderation. Hypotheses include the effects of better inventory management or better monetary policy. We do know, however, that inflation settled into a trend near to or slightly below 2 percent during that period. We estimate the model with data from this period, and we decompose how much of inflation is explained by the variables and how much is left unexplained, which economists call the “residual.” As it turns out, this model does a good job of capturing the inflation process over that period before the pandemic, and my results are similar to Yellen’s. The model explains 70 percent of the variation in inflation, meaning that only 30 percent of the variation in inflation is attributed to unexplained residuals. An alternative way to understand the unexplained part is as the standard deviation of the residual or the unexplained portion of the model, which was 0.50 percentage point for the period from 2010 to 2019, compared with the standard deviation of inflation of about 0.8 percentage point.
    This model, however, struggles to explain the run-up in inflation in the years immediately after the pandemic took hold. The unexplained portion of inflation, the residual, rises dramatically in 2021 and 2022. In 2021, the unexplained portion is almost 2 percentage points, and the following year, it is about 1.5 percentage points. Perhaps we should not be surprised by the outcome. These years saw inflation reach a four-decade peak, but the model has been trained on a Great Moderation sample that saw relatively quiet inflation.10
    Second Result: Using a Longer SampleThe results are more encouraging if, instead, we also include data from the previous period of significant inflation and train the model on data starting in 1964. Intuitively, it makes sense that including a period with persistent inflation, like the 1970s, might help us better understand another inflationary episode. I stop at 2019 because I want to see if training on data from the previous 55-year period can explain the post-2020 inflation.
    The model captures more of the most recent run-up in inflation when using the longer period of analysis. The unexplained residual drops to about 1.5 percentage points in 2021 and to a bit above 0.5 percentage point in 2022. Allowing for greater persistence in inflation allows an inflation equation to fit the pandemic period better, though it does not settle the question of whether the pandemic inflation was caused by large and persistent shocks or by large shocks and a persistent inflation process—for example, because of greater feedback between wages and prices.
    To improve the model further, it would be useful to include additional explanatory variables that could better capture the overheating of the economy. In what follows, I include variables that might account for factors experienced in the most recent bout of inflation, such as a very tight labor market and supply chain snarls.
    Third Result: Alternative Measure of SlackAs I mentioned before, the very tight labor market was an important contributor to inflation in recent years, especially to services inflation, yet the weight on the unemployment gap in the Phillips curve for the more recent period is very small. This measure of slack has become less and less important over time in explaining inflation, except during selected episodes such as in the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis, which was characterized by a very sluggish recovery. Outside of that episode, and very few others, the Phillips curve places little weight on that measure of slack in explaining inflation over the Great Moderation, including during the recent run-up. This is also a reflection of training the model over the Great Moderation, in which inflation moved fairly tightly around a very flat trend. Notice that this would suggest a “flat Phillips curve” or a big penalty in terms of unemployment needed to reduce inflation. Instead, I focus on another very promising alternative measure that I have paid a lot of attention to since I was chief economist at the Department of Labor—and again since I joined the Board of Governors—and that I am very familiar with as a scholar of labor markets. The measure is the ratio of vacancies to the level of unemployment.11 In effect, this ratio measures how much competition there is for a given job, or the “tightness” of the labor market. Labor is an important input into most production processes, and, thus, tightness in the labor market is closely related to price pressures. I use the standard version of this ratio that measures job openings from the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey as the numerator and the unemployment level from the Current Population Survey as the denominator. This allows me to use data back to the 1960s.12 The vacancy-to-unemployment ratio as a measure of slack is more effective at explaining inflation than the unemployment gap. This represents an interesting result because it offers a larger role to heated labor markets in explaining the run-up in inflation. My results echo research that finds the vacancy-to-unemployment ratio is a helpful measure of slack to consider in out-of-sample forecasting exercises.13
    Fourth Result: Supply Chain SnarlsAlthough the vacancy-to-unemployment ratio offers a promising measure of slack and supply chain pressures due to labor shortages, that measure does not necessarily capture supply chain snarls whose roots lie outside of the labor market. As I mentioned earlier, there were substantial supply chain disruptions during the past few years that came at the same time as strong demand. That resulted in material and labor shortages. Attempts at quantifying supply-side disruptions have been around for some decades now.14 I rely on a new monthly shortages index created by a team of Fed Board economists, which relies on textual analysis to scan news articles for sentences that include the word pairs “labor shortages,” “material shortages,” or “food shortages.”15 The Shortage Index allows us to better measure cost-push pressures from different sources and is constructed all the way back to the beginning of the previous century. Thus, it makes a difference to have access to advances in natural language processing.16 When I add the Shortage Index to the baseline Phillips curve or to the vacancy-to-unemployment–based Phillips curve, I obtain that the Shortage Index explains an even larger portion of the inflation run-up during and after the pandemic. The residual for 2020 is cut in half, the residual for 2021 is about 1 percentage point, and the residual is effectively eliminated in 2022. I judge this a noteworthy result and a proof of concept that with additional augmentation, the Phillips curve model can better capture inflation dynamics during the recent period. Through the lens of this model, supply shortages played an important role in 2022 in constraining output to grow at an anemic rate and in pushing up inflation. Moreover, the model is also able to capture the decline in inflation in 2023 and 2024 despite the strong expansion in real activity. I view the Shortage Index as a powerful indicator of the nonlinear effects stemming from a compounding of the contemporaneous interaction of demand and supply bottlenecks.
    I have offered additional variables to account for a measure of slack as it relates to labor supply and material supply. This exercise could be extended further to better account for some of the subcategories of inflation that caused the waves I discussed earlier. For example, food inflation, which is characterized by two distinct waves, can mostly be explained by the Food Shortage Index, which captures a large portion of the residual in the baseline model.
    Lessons for the PolicymakerToday I have discussed the waves of inflation the country faced starting five years ago. I also talked about how the vessel we use to navigate those choppy waters can be improved upon. As I conclude, I want to discuss with you how central bankers might recalibrate their compasses, based on what we learned from considering these augmentations to Phillips curve models. I think a clear lesson is that no single model alone can give a policymaker an understanding of every possible state of the economy. Policymakers must be open to various options, models, and frameworks—and not be afraid to experiment in search of more accurate answers. Policymakers must be very attentive to the most recent contributions from academia and empirical practitioners. Broadly, that is the approach I take, and why I apply the same rigor I did as an academic researcher to the monetary policy decisions that I confront.
    The recent run-up in inflation in many ways was a rather unique period, spurred, at least initially, by the first onset of a global pandemic in more than a century. Fully understanding the dynamics at play has provided a tough test for economists. The models I described today have had some success in capturing salient features of the inflation process during the pandemic period. I hope this illustrative analysis helps you see the difficulties of forecasting inflation in real time.
    Another lesson to be learned from this experience is that the feared harsh tradeoff between unemployment and inflation, one that requires large costs in terms of job loss and reduction in incomes in order to reduce inflation, did not materialize in the years immediately after the 2022 inflation peak. Inflation has been significantly reduced while the labor market has remained solid. This is a historically unusual, but most welcome, outcome. While this outcome is in part due to the actions of Fed policymakers, it is also possible to explain that remarkable result through the lens of the models that I have presented today. A large fraction of the rise in inflation, most specifically core goods inflation, can be explained by supply chain snarls. The untangling of supply chains contributed to a decline in inflation with little cost in terms of unemployment. Likewise, labor markets were very tight in this period. As workers returned to the labor force, labor markets became less tight, and the vacancy-to-unemployment ratio declined. That corresponded with a subsequent decline in inflation. That is a consistent result because services inflation is closely connected to the cost of labor.
    Thank you for your time today. Once again, it is humbling to be asked to give the Whittington Lecture to honor the memory of fellow educator Leslie Whittington. I look forward to your questions.

    1. The views expressed here are my own and are not necessarily those of my colleagues on the Federal Reserve Board or the Federal Open Market Committee. Return to text
    2. D’Acunto, Malmendier, Ospina, and Weber (2021) show that consumers disproportionately rely on the price changes of goods in their grocery bundles when forming expectations about aggregate inflation; see Francesco D’Acunto, Ulrike Malmendier, Juan Ospina, and Michael Weber (2021), “Exposure to Grocery Prices and Inflation Expectations,” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 129 (May), pp. 1615–39. Return to text
    3. Ferrante, Graves, and Iacoviello (2020) show that a sharp reallocation of demand from one sector to another can exacerbate supply chain disruption and cause aggregate inflation; see Francesco Ferrante, Sebastian Graves, and Matteo Iacoviello (2023), “The Inflationary Effects of Sectoral Reallocation,” Journal of Monetary Economics, supp., vol. 140 (November), pp. S64–81. Return to text
    4. See Milton Friedman (1968), “The Role of Monetary Policy,” American Economic Review, vol. 58 (March), pp. 1–17; and Edmund S. Phelps (1967), “Phillips Curves, Expectations of Inflation and Optimal Unemployment over Time,” Economica, vol. 34 (135), pp. 254–81. Return to text
    5. Friedman did not consider forward-looking price-setting firms, but more recent advances in macroeconomics do, such as New Keynesian models; see Jordi Galí (2015), Monetary Policy, Inflation, and the Business Cycle: An Introduction to the New Keynesian Framework and Its Applications (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press). Return to text
    6. In an earlier speech, I have sketched a model in which agents infer the central bank target by observing inflation, interest rates, and unemployment data; see Adriana D. Kugler (2024), “Central Bank Independence and the Conduct of Monetary Policy,” speech delivered at the Albert Hirschman Lecture, 2024 Annual Meeting of the Latin American and Caribbean Economic Association and the Latin American and Caribbean Chapter of the Econometric Society, Montevideo, Uruguay, November 14. Return to text
    7. For a review of Phillips curve formulations, see Robert J. Gordon (2018), “Friedman and Phelps on the Phillips Curve Viewed from a Half Century’s Perspective,” Review of Keynesian Economics, vol. 6 (4), pp. 425–36. Return to text
    8. The model that I will use is similar to the one described by Janet Yellen in her famous speech at the University of Massachusetts in 2015; see Janet L. Yellen (2015), “Inflation Dynamics and Monetary Policy,” speech delivered at the Philip Gamble Memorial Lecture, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, September 24. Return to text
    9. See Pierpaolo Benigno and Gauti B. Eggertsson (2023), “It’s Baaack: The Surge in Inflation in the 2020s and the Return of the Non-Linear Phillips Curve,” NBER Working Paper Series 31197 (Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research, April). Return to text
    10. The results that I obtain for the 1990–2019 period are similar to those that Yellen reports for the 1990–2014 period. Return to text
    11. The ratio of job openings to unemployment has attracted the attention of many researchers. See, for instance, Olivier J. Blanchard and Ben S. Bernanke (2023), “What Caused the US Pandemic-Era Inflation?” NBER Working Paper Series 31417 (Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research, June). Return to text
    12. Although job openings from the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) go back only as far as the early 2000s, I use here the extended series from Barnichon that pieces together JOLTS data for the more recent period with a corrected version of the help-wanted index originally from the Conference Board for the period before 2001. See Regis Barnichon (2010), “Building a Composite Help-Wanted Index,” Economics Letters, vol. 109 (December), pp. 175–78. Return to text
    13. See Regis Barnichon and Adam Shapiro (2022), “What’s the Best Measure of Economic Slack?” FRBSF Economic Letter 2022-04 (San Francisco: Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, February); and Régis Barnichon and Adam Hale Shapiro (2024), “Phillips Meets Beveridge,” Journal of Monetary Economics, supp., vol. 148 (November), 103660. Return to text
    14. The Institute for Supply Management’s Supplier Deliveries Index has been around since the 1950s, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Global Supply Chain Pressure Index since 1998, and the Census Bureau’s Quarterly Survey of Plant Capacity Utilization since 2008. Return to text
    15. See Dario Caldara, Matteo Iacoviello, and David Yu (2024), “Measuring Shortages since 1900,” working paper. Their index is available at https://www.matteoiacoviello.com/shortages.html. Return to text
    16. Other authors have used natural language processing in an attempt to produce a measure of shortages. For instance, see Paul E. Soto (2023), “Measurement and Effects of Supply Chain Bottlenecks Using Natural Language Processing,” FEDS Notes (Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 6). Blanchard and Bernanke use Google searches for the word “shortage” as an indicator of sectoral supply constraints in a Phillips curve equation; see Blanchard and Bernanke, “What Caused the US Pandemic-Era Inflation?” in note 11. For an early-attempt, hand-coded shortage index, see Owen Lamont (1997), “Do ‘Shortages’ Cause Inflation?” in Christina D. Romer and David H. Romer, eds., Reducing Inflation: Motivation and Strategy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), pp. 281–306. Return to text

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI: Oaktree Specialty Lending Corporation Prices Public Offering of $300,000,000 6.340% Notes due 2030

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    LOS ANGELES, CA, Feb. 20, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Oaktree Specialty Lending Corporation (NASDAQ: OCSL) (“OCSL” or the “Company”), a specialty finance company, today announced that it has priced an underwritten public offering of $300.0 million aggregate principal amount of 6.340% notes due 2030. The notes will mature on February 27, 2030 and may be redeemed in whole or in part at the Company’s option at any time at par plus a “make-whole” premium, if applicable.

    OCSL expects to use the net proceeds of this offering to reduce its outstanding debt under its revolving credit facilities and for general corporate purposes.

    SMBC Nikko Securities America, Inc., BNP Paribas Securities Corp., ING Financial Markets LLC, Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, BofA Securities, Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, CIBC World Markets Corp., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Barclays Capital Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC are acting as joint book-running managers for this offering. KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc., First Citizens Capital Securities, LLC, Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, Inc., A Stifel Company, R. Seelaus & Co., LLC, B. Riley Securities, Inc., Blaylock Van, LLC, Citizens JMP Securities, LLC, Jefferies LLC and Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. are acting as co-managers for this offering. The offering is expected to close on February 27, 2025, subject to customary closing conditions.

    Investors are advised to carefully consider the investment objective, risks, charges and expenses of OCSL before investing. The pricing term sheet dated February 20, 2025, the preliminary prospectus supplement dated February 20, 2025 and the accompanying prospectus dated February 7, 2023, each of which have been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, contain this and other information about the Company and should be read carefully before investing.

    The pricing term sheet, the preliminary prospectus supplement, the accompanying prospectus and this press release are not offers to sell any securities of OCSL and are not soliciting an offer to buy such securities in any jurisdiction where such offer and sale is not permitted.

    The offering may be made only by means of a preliminary prospectus supplement and an accompanying prospectus. Copies of the preliminary prospectus supplement (and accompanying prospectus) may be obtained by calling SMBC Nikko Securities America, Inc. at 1-212-224-5135, BNP Paribas Securities Corp. at 1-800-854-5674, ING Financial Markets LLC at 1-877-446-4930 or Wells Fargo Securities, LLC at 1-800-645-3751.

    About Oaktree Specialty Lending Corporation

    Oaktree Specialty Lending Corporation (NASDAQ:OCSL) is a specialty finance company dedicated to providing customized one-stop credit solutions to companies with limited access to public or syndicated capital markets. The Company’s investment objective is to generate current income and capital appreciation by providing companies with flexible and innovative financing solutions including first and second lien loans, unsecured and mezzanine loans, and preferred equity. The Company is regulated as a business development company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, and is externally managed by Oaktree Fund Advisors, LLC, an affiliate of Oaktree Capital Management, L.P.

    Forward-Looking Statements

    Some of the statements in this press release constitute forward-looking statements because they relate to future events, future performance or financial condition. The forward-looking statements may include statements as to: future operating results of the Company and distribution projections; business prospects of the Company and the prospects of its portfolio companies; and the impact of the investments that the Company expects to make. In addition, words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “expect,” “seek,” “plan,” “should,” “estimate,” “project” and “intend” indicate forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements include these words. The forward-looking statements contained in this press release involve risks and uncertainties. Certain factors could cause actual results and conditions to differ materially from those projected, including the uncertainties associated with (i) changes in the economy, financial markets and political environment, including the impacts of inflation and elevated interest rates; (ii) risks associated with possible disruption in the operations of the Company or the economy generally due to terrorism, war or other geopolitical conflict (including the current conflicts in Ukraine and Israel), natural disasters, pandemics or cybersecurity incidents; (iii) future changes in laws or regulations (including the interpretation of these laws and regulations by regulatory authorities); (iv) conditions in the Company’s operating areas, particularly with respect to business development companies or regulated investment companies; and (v) other considerations that may be disclosed from time to time in the Company’s publicly disseminated documents and filings. The Company has based the forward-looking statements included in this press release on information available to it on the date of this press release, and the Company assumes no obligation to update any such forward-looking statements. The Company undertakes no obligation to revise or update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, you are advised to consult any additional disclosures that it may make directly to you or through reports that the Company in the future may file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K.

    Contacts
    Investor Relations:
    Oaktree Specialty Lending Corporation
    Dane Kleven
    (213) 356-3260
    ocsl-ir@oaktreecapital.com

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: President von der Leyen at the CARICOM Leaders’ Summit to strengthen partnership between the European Union and the Caribbean

    Source: European Commission

    European Commission Press release Brussels, 20 Feb 2025 During the first-ever visit of a European Commission President to the Caribbean, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen reaffirmed Europe’s commitment to deepening its relations and partnership with the region.

    At the invitation of Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Chair, Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley, President von der Leyen met the 15 leaders of the Caribbean Community during the 48th Regular Meeting of the CARICOM.  The visit aims at further strengthening the EU’s presence in the region and lay the groundwork for the EU-CELAC Summit, planned for later this year.  

    In a new era of harsh geostrategic competition, Europe stands for openness, partnership and outreach. The visit took place in the context of the Commission’s effort to build new partnerships and strengthen old ones, which includes recent agreements with Mercosur, Mexico and Malaysia.

    President von der Leyen said: “Europe and the Caribbean may be an ocean apart, but we are close allies. We share so many interests and values, including our mutual support for Ukraine. Europe stands with the Caribbean countries in the fight against climate change, protecting nature and biodiversity, strengthening trade, and boosting investments through Global Gateway. Europe wants to be a fair and trusted partner for all regions of the world that want to work with us.”

    President von der Leyen also discussed with Caribbean partners the situation in Haiti. She underlined the EU’s commitment to Haiti’s recovery and security and its support to CARICOM efforts in this regard. In this context, a package of €19.5 million EU support was announced during the visit. This new financial support will complement ongoing efforts to deliver essential services to Haitians as well as support the country’s macroeconomic stability.

    President von der Leyen highlighted the EU’s commitment to supporting Caribbean partners in fighting climate change and its devastating impact on the islands. As the leading provider of climate finance, the EU is determined to work together on innovative financing, while promoting private sector investments.

    At global level, the EU and the Caribbean are stepping up their energy partnership following the launch of the Global Energy Transition Forum by President von der Leyen in Davos last month. She welcomed the 8 countries (Barbados, Guyana, Grenada, Haiti, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Dominica)* that joined the forum during the summit, committing to action to meet the global targets of tripling renewable energy capacity and doubling energy efficiency by 2030.

    During the visit, President von der Leyen underscored the reliability of the EU as a trade and investment partner to the region working together on mutually beneficial projects. President von der Leyen launched several projects under Europe’s Global Gateway strategy on renewable energy, digital transformation, pharmaceutical production and economic resilience. The projects will invest in a stronger, greener and better connected Caribbean.

    Key Global Gateway projects in the Caribbean

    Expanding Renewable Energy: Global Gateway energy projects are underway in 13 Caribbean countries, leveraging European expertise, technology, and financing tools. In this context, President von der Leyen and Prime Minister Mottley announced a €160 million green hydrogen storage project by the French company HDF Energy, the first of its kind in the Caribbean.

    Advancing the Digital Agenda: The EU and the Caribbean are strengthening their digital partnership with the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Caribbean and the European satellite company Hispasat during the CARICOM meeting. It will improve the Caribbean’s satellite internet connectivity and sovereignty within the framework of the EU–LAC Digital Alliance. As part of this initiative, the EU and Spain will provide a €10 million grant to support satellite broadband expansion and promote digital inclusion across the region.

    Developing Local Pharmaceutical Production: The EU’s €8.9 million investment to promote local production and regulatory alignment with European standards was also taken forward in the framework of the CARICOM meeting. A joint declaration to cooperate on twinning Caribbean and EU regulatory agencies, capacity-building initiatives, and research collaborations was signed during the meeting. Additionally, the first investment from a European pharmaceutical company, Biomed X in Barbados, will support research and manufacturing, further reinforcing the region’s health resilience.

    Supporting Post-Hurricane Reconstruction: As part of the assistance given to Grenada in rebuilding Carriacou and Petite Martinique after Hurricane Beryl, the EU is supporting the islands to become 100% powered by renewable energy. This initiative will serve as a global model for small islands striving for climate resilience.

    Combating the Sargassum Challenge: The EU, in collaboration with regional partners, is transforming the environmental and economic challenge of sargassum seaweed into an opportunity for sustainable development. Through an ongoing €386 million Global Gateway initiative, the EU is working with financial institutions such as the European Investment Bank and the private sector to develop sustainable value chains for sargassum, particularly in Grenada.

    For More Information

    Opening remarks by President von der Leyen at the opening ceremony of the 48th Regular Session of the Conference of CARICOM

    Statement by President von der Leyen at the joint press conference with Barbadian Prime Minister Mottley

    * Updated on 20/02/2025 at 14:55

    Quote(s)

     Europe and the Caribbean may be an ocean apart, but we are close allies. We share so many interests and values, including our mutual support for Ukraine. Europe stands with the Caribbean countries in the fight against climate change, protecting nature and biodiversity, strengthening trade, and boosting investments through Global Gateway. Europe wants to be a fair and trusted partner for all regions of the world that want to work with us.

    Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – European drone capabilities and defence autonomy: steps to reduce dependency on China and foster innovation in drone- and counter-drone systems – E-000668/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-000668/2025
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Hilde Vautmans (Renew)

    The ongoing Russian-Ukrainian war has demonstrated the transformative role of drones in modern conflict, from intelligence gathering and precision strikes to logistical support and decoy operations. Ukrainian drone production has skyrocketed to unprecedented levels, reaching up to four million units annually, with Russia reportedly matching this pace. This rapid development underscores the need for Europe to reassess its own defence strategies, particularly as the fast innovation cycles of drone and counter-drone technologies quickly render systems obsolete.

    Moreover, Europe remains heavily dependent on Chinese-manufactured drones and components. Given China’s growing geopolitical influence and its close cooperation with Russia, this dependency poses a significant risk to European defence autonomy. Efforts to establish production in Ukraine highlight the need for European support in both technological and industrial capacities.

    In the light of these developments:

    • 1.What steps is the Commission taking (or considering taking) to reduce Europe’s dependency on Chinese drone components?
    • 2.How does the Commission plan to promote scalable and adaptable drone production to meet future defence needs, while fostering innovation in counter-drone systems?
    • 3.Will the Commission address the increasing involvement of civilians in warfare through drone use, and its implications for European defence and security policy?

    Submitted: 12.2.2025

    Last updated: 20 February 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Video: Human Rights Council, CARICOM & other topics – Daily Press Briefing | United Nations

    Source: United Nations (Video News)

    Noon Briefing by Stéphane Dujarric, Spokesperson for the Secretary-General.

    Highlights:

    – Human Rights Council
    – Secretary-General/as CARICOM
    – Haiti
    – Deputy Secretary-General
    – South Sudan
    – Libya
    – Democratic Republic of the Congo
    – Central African Republic
    – Occupied Palestinian Territory
    – Israel/Palestine
    – Ukraine
    – World Day of Social Justice
    – Financial Contribution

    HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
    On Sunday, the Secretary-General will arrive in Geneva, where he will take part in the opening of the 58th session of the Human Rights Council, which is scheduled to kick off on Monday morning.
    In his remarks, the Secretary-General is expected to say that without respect for human rights, sustainable peace is a pipedream.
    He will also state that breathing life into the work of the Human Rights Council and the Pact for the Future can help end the suffocation of human rights that we see around the world.
    The Pact calls for peace processes and approaches rooted in the key pillars that reinforce human rights — from the Universal Declaration to international law and the UN Charter, he is expected to add.
    Later in the day, he is also expected to address the high-level segment of the Conference on Disarmament. He is expected to call on Member States to seize the fresh momentum provided by the Pact for the Future to make tangible progress on disarmament issues.
    While in Geneva, he is expected to hold a number of bilateral meetings.
    He will be back in New York on Monday night.

    SECRETARY-GENERAL/CARICOM
    Before he heads to Geneva he has to conclude his trip to Barbados, he is currently in Bridgetown as you know he is attending the 48th Regular Meeting of the Conference of the Heads of Government of the Caribbean Community, also known as CARICOM.
    This morning, he participated in a closed session with CARICOM Heads of Government, where he exchanged views on pressing issues in the region, such as finance, climate and security, with a focus on Haiti.
    Last night, at the opening ceremony, the Secretary-General said that the exquisite beauty of the Caribbean is famed the world over, but that there is trouble in paradise. He noted that wave after wave of crisis is pounding the people of the Caribbean and their islands – with no time to catch their breath before the next disaster strikes.
    Stressing that international solutions are essential to create a better today and a brighter tomorrow for the wonderful region and for the world, the Secretary-General said that he sees three key areas where, together, we must drive progress. First, he said, unity for peace and security, particularly to address the appalling situation in Haiti – where gangs are inflicting intolerable suffering on the people of Haiti.
    The Secretary-General added that he will soon report to the Security Council on the situation in Haiti, including proposals on the role the UN can play to support stability and security and address the root causes of the crisis.
    The Secretary-General further highlighted unity on the climate crisis and sustainable development as areas where progress is needed.
    Also yesterday, he held a bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Mia Mottley the host of the meeting, where they exchanged views on regional and global issues, particularly the situation in Haiti and climate change. He commended Barbados for spearheading efforts to advance reforms to the international financial architecture through the Bridgetown Initiative 3.0.
    And this morning, he also met with the Prime Minister of Jamaica, Andrew Holness, with the Presidential Adviser of the Transitional Presidential Council of Haiti, Laurent Saint-Cyr, and with the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, Patricia Scotland.
    He will be heading back to New York this afternoon.

    Full Highlights: https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/noon-briefing-highlight?date%5Bvalue%5D%5Bdate%5D=20%20February%202025

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3TthtRQgzg

    MIL OSI Video –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s art of the deal horrifies Ukraine and its allies

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonathan Este, Senior International Affairs Editor, Associate Editor

    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.



    Read more:
    Ukraine peace talks: Trump is bringing Russia back in from the cold and ticking off items on Putin’s wish list

    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.



    Read more:
    Europe left scrambling in face of wavering US security guarantees

    Constitutional matters

    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.



    Read more:
    In pushing for Ukraine elections, Trump is falling into Putin-laid trap to delegitimize Zelenskyy

    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.



    Read more:
    Ukraine isn’t invited to its own peace talks. History is full of such examples – and the results are devastating

    Deal or no deal

    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.



    Read more:
    Ukraine war: the idea that Kyiv should have signed a peace deal in 2022 is flawed – here’s why

    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.

    World Affairs Briefing from The Conversation UK is available as a weekly email newsletter. Click here to get updates directly in your inbox.

    – ref. Trump’s art of the deal horrifies Ukraine and its allies – https://theconversation.com/trumps-art-of-the-deal-horrifies-ukraine-and-its-allies-250461

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Ukraine war: the idea that Kyiv should have signed a peace deal in 2022 is flawed – here’s why

    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.

    – ref. Ukraine war: the idea that Kyiv should have signed a peace deal in 2022 is flawed – here’s why – https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-the-idea-that-kyiv-should-have-signed-a-peace-deal-in-2022-is-flawed-heres-why-250423

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Canada, Greenland, Panama, Gaza and now Ukraine: Wake up, world, Donald Trump is coming for you

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jeffrey B. Meyers, Instructor, Legal Studies and Criminology, Kwantlen Polytechnic University

    It’s no longer speculative to ask how the post-Second World War world order, led by the United States, will end. It’s apparently already ended.

    The U.S. has snubbed its NATO partners and Ukraine itself from purported “peace talks” to end the three-year-old war in Europe in favour of direct bilateral talks between American and Russian officials hosted by Saudi Arabia.

    President Donald Trump has actually described Ukraine’s widely admired wartime President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as “a dictator” and falsely claimed he started the war.

    These lies came directly after Vice President JD Vance’s recent broadside against NATO partners at the Munich Security Conference in which he downplayed the threat of Russia and China to the western alliance and suggested instead that liberal centrism was the real threat.

    His remarks were widely regarded as an intervention on behalf of the European far right, particularly far-right political parties in Germany ahead of upcoming elections in that country.

    Dreaming of a Gaza takeover

    Eighty years after the liberation of Auschwitz and 36 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, we are in the midst of new crimes against humanity, new forms of ethnic cleansing and even, potentially, genocide.

    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.

    Instead of embracing the international rule of law in the post-Second World War spirit of avoiding another devastating global conflict, the U.S. is building new walls rather than tearing them down while at the same time threatening to annex other sovereign nations and amass new territory.

    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.



    Read more:
    Allies or enemies? Trump’s threats against Canada and Greenland put NATO in a tough spot

    Anarchy, colonialism

    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.

    The only real connection between the past and contemporary times predates the American-led post-war order of the past eight decades and harkens further back to America’s imperialist and expansionist past and ideas like Manifest Destiny from more than a century ago.



    Read more:
    How the U.S. could in fact make Canada an American territory

    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.

    Panama has been in America’s imperialistic sights more often than Greenland, and was even invaded by U.S. forces in 1989.

    Canada as a 51st state

    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.

    Trump’s interactions with Denmark, Canada and Panama all demonstrate a disdain for basic principles of the rule of law at the international level, which is underpinned by the sovereignty of states.

    His musings on Gaza, which led United Nations Secretary General António Guterres to warn him specifically against endorsing ethnic cleansing, demonstrate a willingness to break completely with international legal norms.

    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.



    Read more:
    Despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s gift to Donald Trump, he could be barred from Canada as a convicted felon

    America now a threat

    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.



    Read more:
    Allies or enemies? Trump’s threats against Canada and Greenland put NATO in a tough spot

    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.

    The Democratic Party must also figure out how it’s going to effectively resist Trump over the next four years.

    Only an American concern?

    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.

    – ref. Canada, Greenland, Panama, Gaza and now Ukraine: Wake up, world, Donald Trump is coming for you – https://theconversation.com/canada-greenland-panama-gaza-and-now-ukraine-wake-up-world-donald-trump-is-coming-for-you-248737

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Ukraine’s natural resources are at centre stage in the ongoing war, and will likely remain there

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Nino Antadze, Associate Professor, Environmental Studies, University of Prince Edward Island

    Three years after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the world now knows the exact price for American military support of Ukraine. During a recent interview with Fox News, United States President Donald Trump put a $500 billion price tag on American aid to the war-torn country.

    But there was a catch: the exchange should be made in the form of Ukraine’s valuable natural resources, including rare earth minerals. “We have to get something. We can’t continue to pay this money,” Trump said in the interview.

    Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has since told his aides to reject the proposal.

    Given the dizzying pace of events that have unfolded since the Trump interview, it’s unclear now whether any deal with Ukraine on its rare earth minerals will ever come to pass. This is especially true given Trump’s subsequent surprise phone conversation with Russian leader Vladimir Putin and ongoing peace talks between the U.S. and Russia that have excluded Ukrainian and European Union officials.

    But there’s little doubt Ukraine’s natural resources will be an important element in future diplomatic negotiations.

    Always a strategic factor

    Ukraine’s rich natural resources have always been a strategic factor in the war. To some extent, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was driven by the interest to capture and control these resources — including critical minerals, fertile farmland and energy reserves.

    Ukraine’s previous attempts to develop its mineral deposits and energy reserves — such as oil and gas privatization in 2013 and later attracting investments for the development of its mineral resource extraction in 2021 — were cut short first by Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and then by the full-scale Russian invasion in 2022.

    In 2021, the European Union signed a strategic partnership with Ukraine to include “activities along the entire value chain of both primary and secondary critical raw materials and batteries.”

    The timing of the military campaign against Ukraine may not have been determined solely by the country’s attempts to develop its natural resources, but they have certainly been a factor. Most of these deposits, including oil and gas fields, are located in the eastern and southern regions of Ukraine, which are currently either under Russian occupation or near the front line.

    Ukraine’s mineral wealth

    Ukraine’s mineral wealth amounts to about 20,000 mineral deposits and 116 types of minerals. Most of these deposits are unexplored, with only 15 per cent of all the deposits active prior to the Russian invasion.

    Rare earth minerals are among this mineral wealth as demand for them has skyrocketed in the past several years.

    According to recent estimates, Ukraine has the largest titanium reserves in Europe and seven per cent of the world’s reserves, as well as the largest lithium reserves in Europe. It also has significant production capacity when it comes to rare earth minerals.

    Ukraine also has confirmed deposits of beryllium, uranium and manganese. Before the war, Ukraine was the world’s fifth-largest producer of gallium and is a major producer of neon gas.

    In addition, Ukraine also has large reserves of nonferrous metals, including copper, zinc, silver, lead, nickel, cobalt, as well as one of the largest global reserves of graphite.

    Estimates vary, but Ukrainian critical mineral deposits could be worth trillions of dollars.

    These resources are important from a geopolitical perspective: China has become the major supplier of rare earth minerals on the global market. Not only has China led in the extraction of these minerals, but it also has the largest production and refinement capacity.

    As reliance on Chinese supply has increased, China used it as leverage during the U.S.-China trade dispute in 2019 and stopped rare earth exports to Japan in 2010.

    China’s dominance in this sector means diversifying the supply of rare earth minerals has geopolitical importance, especially for the U.S. and the EU. They want to ensure the supply comes from a strategic partner — Ukraine.

    Ukraine’s natural wealth

    Ukraine’s natural riches go beyond critical minerals and include large deposits of hydrocarbons, particularly natural gas. Ukraine ranks second for natural gas reserves in Europe and fourth in terms of natural gas production.

    Ukraine’s fertile soil — or chernozem, humus-rich grassland soils used extensively for growing cereals and raising livestock — is also economically and strategically important, making the country one of the largest exporters of food globally.

    In 2021, Ukrainian wheat exports accounted for 12 per cent of the global wheat supply, 16 per cent of the global corn supply, 18 per cent of the global barley supply and almost half of the global supply of sunflower seeds, mainly to developing countries.

    Last but not least, Ukraine’s biodiversity, landscapes and ecosystems — some of which have been severely damaged due to the war — are invaluable to the country’s natural environment and essential for the health and well-being of Ukrainians.

    The country’s nuclear facilities and radioactive sites are also at risk of being compromised, which would result in severe environmental and health ramifications in the region. In fact, a recent Russian drone attack reportedly damaged part of the Chernobyl nuclear facility.

    What’s next for Ukraine’s natural resources

    The fate of Ukraine’s mineral riches will largely depend on how the conflict and post-conflict processes unfold.

    But their existence has already proven to be of strategic importance in the war — first, to Russia, and now to the U.S. as well.

    Ukraine’s natural wealth and how it features in current conversations about the future of the conflict reminds us about the central role resource politics can play in shaping war and peace.

    Nino Antadze 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.

    – ref. Ukraine’s natural resources are at centre stage in the ongoing war, and will likely remain there – https://theconversation.com/ukraines-natural-resources-are-at-centre-stage-in-the-ongoing-war-and-will-likely-remain-there-249254

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: “Russia is Us”: a concert dedicated to Defender of the Fatherland Day was held at the State University of Management

    Translartion. Region: Russians Fedetion –

    Source: State University of Management – Official website of the State –

    On February 20, 2025, a festive concert dedicated to Defender of the Fatherland Day was held at the State University of Management for residents of the South-Eastern Administrative District of Moscow.

    According to tradition, the patriotic concert opened with the anthem of the Russian Federation. Prefect of the South-Eastern Administrative District Andrey Tsybin greeted the residents of the district from the stage and reminded them of the enormous significance of the holiday, which has been celebrated for over a hundred years.

    “Our country is an example of how to protect your sovereignty and your interests on the world stage. First of all, I want to congratulate the guys of the South-Eastern District, who are now fulfilling their civic duty in the SVO. I also congratulate those who provide their rear with their labor and solve state problems here in the city. It is nice to see when citizens of all ages, both children and the older generation, collect humanitarian aid for the newly acquired territories of Russia. I thank the deputies of the district who organize this work. And of course, I congratulate the veterans, whose example is important for all of us. I wish everyone a peaceful sky above their heads, warmth and light in their homes,” Andrei Tsybin addressed the residents of the district.

    Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Pyotr Tolstoy also congratulated those gathered on the upcoming February 23. The parliamentarian supported the prefect’s words that in this difficult time, everyone in their place helps to defend the interests of the entire country.

    “Previously, February 23 was an exclusively men’s holiday, and March 8 was a women’s holiday. Today, Defender of the Fatherland Day no longer divides us by gender. I congratulate the soldiers who ensure our safety and prosperity in a special military operation. I congratulate their family members. I express my condolences and support to the relatives and friends of the soldiers who died for their homeland. Unfortunately, this also happens. Now a political situation has arisen that can help resolve the conflict in Ukraine more quickly. We all feel close to success, but this feeling depends only on the actions of the guys at the front. And they need our support and any help,” said Pyotr Tolstoy.

    A military choir and a children’s vocal group performed for the audience, as well as a power team, literally tying nails into knots. It is worth noting that the entire audience rose from their seats during the performance of the song “Vstanem”, many filmed the event on their phones. The headliner of the concert was Honored Artist of Russia and now State Duma deputy Denis Maidanov, known for his concert trips to the sites of military operations and unequivocal support of the SVO.

    Subscribe to the TG channel “Our GUU” Date of publication: 02/20/2025

    Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: German election: a triple crisis looms large at the heart of the economy

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Ralph Luetticke, Professor of Economics, School of Business and Economics, University of Tübingen

    Oleg Senkov/Shutterstock

    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.

    Increasing defence spending could be a way to boost German productivity.
    Ryan Nash Photography/Shutterstock

    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.

    – ref. German election: a triple crisis looms large at the heart of the economy – https://theconversation.com/german-election-a-triple-crisis-looms-large-at-the-heart-of-the-economy-250320

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Chancellor backs Britain’s financial services to drive development and kickstart economic growth

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Rachel Reeves urges financial industry leaders to seize growth opportunities in emerging markets, creating new business for British firms and boosting trade links with fast-growing economies, delivering on the government’s Plan for Change.

    • Chancellor launches coalition to improve sustainable sovereign debt financing to developing economies, shoring up London’s position as development finance leader amid growing global uncertainty

    • Reeves aims to boost private capital mobilisation for development ahead of her attendance of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development’s annual meeting on 13-15 May in London

    In Canary Wharf today (20 February) the Chancellor met with some of the UK’s biggest financial services firms such as Aviva, HSBC and Schroders and urged them to work with development institutions including the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and British International Investment. To go further and faster in delivering the government’s Plan for Change and put more money in people’s pockets, the Chancellor encouraged firms to seize investment opportunities in emerging markets for Britain’s brightest and best companies.

    Co-hosting a roundtable with Odile Renaud-Basso, president of the EBRD, the Chancellor launched the “London Coalition on Sustainable Sovereign Debt”. This will be co-chaired by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Emma Reynolds.

    The Coalition will bring together government and private sector stakeholders to find innovative solutions to more sustainable sovereign debt financing in developing economies.

    Promoting orderly and transparent debt restructuring and more resilient borrowing will mean that emerging economies can make progress meeting their climate and development targets. The Coalition capitalises on London’s financial services expertise and will help cement its position as a global leader in development finance, in turn supporting economic activity and financing investment across the country. Investing in emerging markets themselves can boost UK growth by creating new opportunities for British businesses in areas such as financial services, and boost trade ties with fast-growing economies amid an increasingly uncertain global environment.

    Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves said:

    Business and government must work together to seize opportunities in emerging markets and kickstart economic growth as part of our Plan for Change.

    Today’s roundtable shows how the UK’s world-leading financial centre can help countries unlock new opportunities for our brightest and best British companies to create wealth and drive growth.

    President of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Odile Renaud-Basso said:

    Mobilising private capital is key to meeting global development needs. I’m delighted to co-host UK business leaders with the Chancellor to discuss how multilateral banks like the EBRD can help channel further financing to emerging markets. By joining forces, we aim to deliver the much-needed impact for developing countries while creating new opportunities for businesses from developed economies.

    The Chancellor and Renaud-Basso also signed a Memorandum of Understanding setting out cooperation on the EBRD annual meeting and business forum in London, which will be held from 13 to 15 May this year.

    The Chancellor will attend the bank’s first annual meeting in London since 2016 where it will see governors approve the bank’s next 5-year strategy and highlight opportunities for UK businesses to work with the EBRD in its key markets such as Ukraine, Poland and Turkey.

    Reeves and Renaud-Basso discussed with business leaders how to create the right environment for investment. This is being done at home, for example through reforms to the pensions system which could unlock around £80 billion in productive investment and the launch of the Transition Finance Council led by Lord Alok Sharma. It is also key to work overseas, where British International Investment and UK-backed programmes including MOBILIST and the Private Infrastructure Development Group have unlocked billions in private investment for climate and development around the world. A new Institutional Investor Taskforce will advise government and institutional investors on how they can work together to open up even more of this much-needed investment and establish London as the world’s leading climate and development finance hub.

    Reeves outlined the UK’s growth priorities, both at home and abroad, and highlighted the financing tools and instruments to help achieve this such as the National Wealth Fund, which is expected to mobilise over £70 billion in private investment into the high-growth industries of the future. Reeves also underscored the importance of multilateral development banks in helping to mobilise private capital, through working together more effectively as a system and with the private sector.

    As the largest institutional investor in Ukraine, the EBRD has also been working with the UK government to support Ukraine’s resilience and recovery. In December, the UK confirmed its participation in a EUR 4bn capital increase which will unlock billions each year to support critical sectors of Ukraine’s economy. The EBRD and Aon also launched an innovative $110m war insurance facility with UK support in the same month to rebuild the country’s insurance market.

    Elsewhere, the EBRD invests in 36 economies across three continents including in Central, Eastern and Southern Europe, Central Asia and North Africa. This year it will also begin operations in sub-Saharan Africa.

    The roundtable comes ahead of the Chancellor’s visit to Cape Town, South Africa, next week to attend the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors meeting. She will be advocating for the UK’s Growth Mission on the global stage and championing how private capital and the role of the City will kickstart economic growth and raise living standards around the world.

    Baroness Shriti Vadera, Chair of Prudential PLC and Co-Chair of the World Bank Private Sector Investment Lab, said:

    It is critical for governments, international financial institutions, and the private sector to work together to mobilise, at scale and pace, greater levels of finance for climate and development where it is most needed – in emerging and developing markets. I particularly welcome the focus today on practical steps to develop and deploy risk-sharing and blended financial instruments.

    Dame Elizabeth Corley, Chair of Schroders PLC, said:

    I firmly believe asset managers play a key role in crowding in private capital and unlocking it at scale in emerging markets. Schroders, with its impact pioneer BlueOrchard, is eager to share our expertise in blended finance and impact investing to overcome barriers to private sector investment, redressing some of the world’s biggest challenges like climate change and inequality.

    Updates to this page

    Published 20 February 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: The Global Geopolitical Situation: Foreign Secretary speech at G20 South Africa

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s intervention on Discussions on the Global Geopolitical Situation at the G20 Foreign Ministerial Meeting, South Africa

    Thank you very much, Ronald (Ronald Lamola, Minister of International Relations and Cooperation of South Africa) and let me say, my dear brother, what a joy is to see the G20 in Africa at long last. And we thank Brazil for its stewardship last year.

    The challenges that we face are truly global.

    We will not begin to tackle them unless we harness the potential of this continent, bursting with growth and opportunities and with so many young people, talented young people at its heart.

    The starkest challenge we face is escalating conflict, both between and within nations, driving vicious cycles of grievance, displacement and low growth.

    Your presidency, Ronald calls for solidarity, and solidarity starts by recognizing and naming the victims of war and injustice.

    Innocent Ukrainians enduring bombardment night after night from Odessa to Zaphorizhya, the hostages still cruelly held underground by Hamas, 16 months old on from the trauma of October the 7th, and the Palestinian civilians driven from their homes in Gaza and the West Bank, the Sudanese refugees flee their burning villages to escape across the border to Chad, the overwhelming majority of them, women and children having endured the most unimaginable and indiscriminate violence.

    As I said when I visited Chad, there can be no geopolitical stability, whilst there remains a hierarchy of conflicts, with those on this continent finding themselves at the bottom of the global pile.

    And that’s why, since starting this job, I’ve made a reset with the so called Global South, a central plank of the UK Foreign Policy, and it’s why I doubled British aid for Sudan, and I prepared a conference in London to push for a political process which will end the fighting and protect civilians.

    And that’s why I’ve called out the Rwandan Defence Force operations in the eastern DRC as a blatant breach of the UN Charter which risks spiralling into a regional conflict, and that’s why I will again make clear to President Kagame, that further breaches of DRC’s sovereignty will have consequences.

    Because at the heart of my government’s approach to foreign policy lies the belief that regional and geopolitical stability can only be delivered through respect for international law and the principles of the UN Charter.

    And as my Canadian, Australian, Japanese colleagues have said, respect for international law must underwrite a free and open Indo Pacific, just as it must underwrite the Euro Atlantic, with the security of those two regions ever more closely linked.

    And as we turn to the Middle East, the ceasefire in Gaza is painfully fragile, I’m grateful that so many of us here today are working together to ensure that it holds we must continue to work together tirelessly to secure the release of the remaining hostages, to bolster the Palestinian Authority, and to boost aid into Gaza and to develop a long term plan for governance and security on the strip so that we can advance towards, a two state solution. Which remains the only long term viable pathway to peace.

    And finally, in Ukraine, the only just and lasting peace will be a peace that is consistent with the UN Charter, and we want that as soon as possible.

    You know, mature countries learn from their colonial failures and their wars, and Europeans have had much to learn over the generations and the centuries.

    But I’m afraid to say that Russia has learned nothing.

    I listened carefully to Minister Lavrov intervention just now he’s, of course, left his seat, hoping to hear some readiness to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty.

    I was hoping to hear some sympathy for the innocent victims of the aggression.

    I was hoping to hear some readiness to seek a durable peace.

    What I heard was the logic of imperialism dressed up as a realpolitik, and I say to you all, we should not be surprised, but neither should we be fooled.

    We are at a crucial juncture in this conflict, and Russia faces a test.

    If Putin is serious about a lasting peace, it means finding a way forward which respects Ukraine’s sovereignty and the UN Charter which provides credible security guarantees, and which rejects Tsarist imperialism, and Britain is ready to listen.

    But we expect to hear more than the Russian gentleman’s tired fabrications.

    Updates to this page

    Published 20 February 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Durbin: President Trump Is A Pushover For Russian President Vladimir Putin

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Dick Durbin
    February 19, 2025
    On the Senate floor, Durbin condemns President Trump’s attacks on Ukrainian President Zelenskyy
    WASHINGTON – In a speech on the Senate floor, U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) Co-Chair of the Senate Ukraine Caucus, spoke on the Senate floor condemning President Donald Trump after he publicly attacked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Further parroting a Kremlin propaganda point, President Trump also falsely claimed that Ukraine started the war against Russia.
    “Three years ago, the Russian invasion of Ukraine was not a partisan issue in the United States. Congressmen and Senators on both sides of the aisle agreed on the basic facts—Russia was waging an unprovoked, illegal war and must be stopped at all costs. And for the past three years, we have supported Ukraine with the funding it needed to beat back Russian aggression and defend the frontline of democracy in Europe. And the Ukrainian people have done just that—46,000 Ukrainian lives have been lost—46,000 defending their nation against Putin,” Durbin said. “President Trump is a pushover for Russian President Vladimir Putin, always has been and will always be. Since Trump took office, he has played right into Putin’s hands, the outrageous comments he posted today on Truth Social make that painfully clear.”
    In the post, President Trump claimed the U.S. was “duped” into spending billions to help Ukraine defend itself following Russia’s 2022 full-scale military invasion and that President Zelenskyy is a “dictator without elections.”
    “Can you believe that? An American President selling out a democratic leader bravely defending his country from an actual dictator—Putin, a former KGB apparatchik at that? It is insulting to say that. It is shameful. But from this President, it is no surprise,” Durbin continued. “President Trump is doing nothing more than parroting Kremlin propaganda and spreading lies that Putin whispers into his ear. I could call on Trump to apologize to the people of Ukraine who have suffered so much, but it would be a waste of breath. Let me be clear to President Trump, you don’t make America great by selling out our nation and allies to a Russian dictator. Most of my Republican colleagues know this… but it’s time now for them to speak up.” 
    Durbin concluded his speech by reflecting on President Abraham Lincoln in which he stated when referring to the Civil War, “Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war, rather than let it perish. And the war came.”
    “Putin has made war rather than let Ukraine survive and Ukraine has had no choice but to accept war rather than see itself perish.  And President Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people have led that noble effort with strength, fortitude, and determination. As their ally, as a fellow democracy, as a nation committed to freedom—the United States of America has an obligation to stand by Ukraine—not to appease Putin,” said Durbin.
    Video of Durbin’s remarks on the Senate floor is available here.
    Audio of Durbin’s remarks on the Senate floor is available here.
    Footage of Durbin’s remarks on the Senate floor is available here for TV Stations.
    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Durbin Criticizes Trump And Musk For Dismantling Of USAID And Harming American Farmers In Senate Floor Speech

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Dick Durbin

    February 19, 2025

    In his remarks, Durbin also debunked Kremlin-fostered falsehoods about USAID that have been circulated by Trump, Musk, and foreign adversaries and called on Republicans to speak up

    WASHINGTON – In a speech on the Senate floor today, U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) criticized President Trump and Elon Musk’s ill-advised mission to dismantle the U.S. Agency forInternational Development (USAID)—the largest distributor of humanitarian aid in the world.  Consequently, programs that provide clean drinking water, treat debilitating disease, and advance human rights have been shut down, recklessly gutting American soft power and providing a huge strategic opening to China. 

    “This month, President Trump and Elon Musk attempted to dismantle USAID, the largest distributor of humanitarian aid on this earth.  Musk was gleeful when he said we are ‘feeding USAID to the wood chipper,’” Durbin began.

    Durbin then listed the critical programs housed under USAID, which have since shuttered.  USAID has provided clean water in Haiti and Jordan, helped fight malaria and tuberculosis in Kenya and Uganda, and supported human rights programs in countries such as Burma, China, Iran, North Korea, and Sudan.  The agency has also provided economic assistance to Central America to address the root causes of migration and counter the flow of fentanyl in to the U.S., in addition to leading campaigns to counter disinformation from Russia and China to protect U.S. national security interests.

    Despite blatantly inaccurate claims from President Trump and Musk, USAID funding makes up only one percent of the federal budget and billions of those aid dollars flow back into the American economy.  Furthermore, these programs have a long history of broad bipartisan support in Congress.  In Illinois, these cuts have forced the closure of the Soybean Innovation Lab at the University of Illinois.  As a result, 30 experts will lose jobs that were dedicated to expanding international soybean markets, at a time when Illinois ranks number one in the U.S. for soybean production, and new markets are critical foraddressing low soybean prices.

    “Not only are these cuts to USAID a betrayal of American values to satisfy the narcissism of Elon Musk, but they hurt innocent people, and they hurt American farmers… who, for decades, have helped provide such critical and strategic food aid,” Durbin continued.  “Not only is this sweeping aid cut illegal and counterproductive, but it hurts American farmer in Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Iowa, Texas, Wisconsin, and many other states.   American farms supply more than 40 percent of the food aid that USAID distributes around the world.  And now, hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of such commodities are stranded in ports, rotting away at the direction of the new administration.”

    In addition to hurting the U.S. economy, halting foreign aid has endangered global programs that have helped stem pandemics and supported clean water and sanitation programs.

    “Programs like PEPFAR have been a key example of humanitarian success abroad.  It was started by President George W. Bush, a Republican president, who wanted to curtail the AIDS epidemic ravaging many parts of the world, including Africa.  PEPFAR and the Global Fund have saved more than 25 million lives so far,” Durbin said.  “But because of President Trump’s directive, it’s been halted… People will die as a result of this political decision.”

    “In the last decade, USAID clean water and sanitation programs have provided more than 70 million people with first-time sustainable access to clean water…  These programs that have a six-to-one return in dollars saved in health, economic, and education,” Durbin continued.  “But because of the President’s directive, innocent people across the world will suffer, and America’s reputation will be weakened, not made stronger.”

    Durbin concluded his remarks by debunking lies about foreign aid, including falsehoods amplified by Russia, China, and other adversaries.  Durbin referred to a fabricated video created by a private company with links to the Kremlin, which falsely claimed that celebrities were paid by USAID to visit Ukraine.

    “The Russian influence campaign was reposted on Twitter by Elon Musk, no surprise, and became a viral disinformation rallying cry against USAID.  But it was false—like so many of the allegations of supposed outrages by USAID,” Durbin said.  “And yet, this kind of nonsense is used by Mr. Musk to justify gutting entire congressionally-appropriated American soft power programs, while many of my Republican colleagues, virtually all of them, sit silently.”

    “This Senate, Republicans and Democrats, cannot afford to roll over, play dead, and hand over congressional authority on these bipartisan programs and on larger constitutionally-designated Congressional appropriations powers,” Durbin concluded.

    Video of Durbin’s remarks on the Senate floor is available here.

    Audio of Durbin’s remarks on the Senate floor is available here.

    Footage of Durbin’s remarks on the Senate floor is available here for TV Stations.

    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: UK and Norway kickstart new defence agreement in boost for European security

    Source: United Kingdom – Government Statements

    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.

    More details on the announcement between the UK and Norway can be found here – Joint Statement on Enhanced Defence Cooperation between Norway and the United Kingdom – GOV.UK

    Updates to this page

    Published 20 February 2025

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI: Leveraging Artificial Intelligence (AI) for Drone Operations Market Leading to Multi-Billion Dollar Revenue Opportunity

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    PALM BEACH, Fla., Feb. 20, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — FN Media Group News Commentary – A report from Verified Market Research said that the AI In Drone Market size is projected to reach USD 206.9 Billion by 2031, growing at a CAGR of 32.4% during the forecast period to 2031. The report said: “Developments in Technology: One of the main factors propelling the artificial intelligence (AI) market for drones is the quick development of AI technologies. Drone capabilities are improved by innovations like computer vision, machine learning, and real-time data processing, which enable advanced decision-making and autonomous navigation. These developments make it possible for drones to more effectively carry out difficult jobs like infrastructure inspection, precision farming, and search and rescue missions. Furthermore, a variety of businesses can incorporate drones into their operations as AI software becomes more widely available and reasonably priced, expanding the market. Demand in the industry is driven by the ongoing improvement of AI algorithms, which guarantee that drones can do ever-more-difficult tasks. Industry Acceptance: One of the main factors driving the market is the growing use of drones in a variety of sectors, such as construction, logistics, surveillance, and agriculture. Businesses are increasingly incorporating AI-enabled drones into their operations as they realize the efficiency, cost savings, and safety enhancements these technologies provide. AI drones improve crop monitoring and resource management in agriculture and expedite delivery procedures in logistics. Demand is further fueled by this cross-industry applicability, as businesses look to automation and improved data insights to gain a competitive edge. Drones’ increasing acceptance as vital instruments in contemporary operations propels market expansion and encourages innovation in the AI space. Active Companies in the markets today include ZenaTech, Inc. (NASDAQ: ZENA), Rigetti Computing, Inc. (NASDAQ: RGTI), AeroVironment, Inc. (NASDAQ: AVAV), Unusual Machines (NYSE: UMAC), Safe Pro Group Inc. (NASDAQ: SPAI).

    Verified Market Research continued: “Cost Cutting: The market is expanding due to the declining costs of drone technology and AI integration. Drones and related AI software are becoming more affordable as manufacturers develop and competition rises, opening up these technologies to a wider variety of consumers. Drone adoption is made possible by lower costs, which makes it easier for small and medium-sized businesses to enter the market. Cost savings are also facilitated by the adoption of open-source software and improved manufacturing process efficiency. The market is seeing faster adoption rates as affordability rises, which prompts more investment in AI capabilities that boost drone applications and functions. The government, commercial, and military sectors are the main end-users that divide the AI In Drone Market. Recognizing that different businesses have diverse needs and use drones for different purposes, this division highlights the uses of AI-powered drones across a range of fields. The government sector uses AI to improve data analysis, automate repetitive jobs, and increase decision-making in areas including disaster response, surveillance, law enforcement, and agricultural monitoring. Drones can now swiftly and effectively process enormous volumes of data thanks to artificial intelligence (AI), which is especially useful for government tasks requiring real-time information, such as monitoring emergencies or evaluating and handling public safety issues. The commercial AI drone market sector encompasses a wide range of applications, such as media, construction, logistics, and agriculture.”

    ZenaTech (NASDAQ:ZENA) Quantum Computing “Sky Traffic” Project Demonstrates High Accuracy in Initial Testing Leading to Expansion of Team and AI Drone Applications for Commercial and Defense – ZenaTech, Inc. (FSE: 49Q) (BMV: ZENA) (“ZenaTech”), a technology company specializing in AI (Artificial Intelligence) drones, Drone as a Service (DaaS), enterprise SaaS and Quantum Computing solutions, announces positive results from initial testing and an update on its Quantum Computing Sky Traffic project. An initial test using the Company’s AI algorithms and quantum computing to predict weather has resulted in a high level of accuracy for the parameters tested including actual temperatures versus predicted temperatures in the test which used 2016 data.

    Due in part to these encouraging results, ZenaTech is now growing its internal team over the next two months. As part of the ramp up, the Company is adding additional quantum, AI and hardware engineers, and optimization specialists and is engaged in recruiting staff from physics facilities at international universities, including researchers, instructors, and Ph.D. candidates.

    “The Sky Traffic project leverages AI and quantum computing to process vast data streams to improve the accuracy and speed of weather forecasting that can also apply to the innovation of many other commercial and defense applications utilizing drones. Our hiring strategy focuses on assembling a multidisciplinary team of quantum and AI specialists, and hardware and aerospace engineers to help us revolutionize autonomous drones. By combining quantum algorithms with advanced machine learning, we can optimize navigation, decision-making, and real-time data processing for next-generation aerial intelligence,” said CEO Shaun Passley, Ph.D.

    ZenaTech launched the Sky Traffic project in November 2024, which will utilize its AI drones, quantum computing, and specialized quantum and AI teams to develop and test advanced applications for traffic management, weather forecasting, wildfire management and defense applications using large datasets, Amazon Web Services, and computing devices and platforms.

    AI Drones are used in weather forecasting to collect real-time atmospheric data from hard-to-reach areas, such as storm systems or remote regions, providing valuable input for weather models. Quantum computers can then analyze this vast and complex data much faster and more accurately, improving weather predictions and enhancing the ability to forecast extreme events like hurricanes, tornadoes, or wildfires.

    AI and quantum computing can work together to make defense drones smarter, faster, and more efficient using a single drone or a swarm of multiple drones. AI helps drones analyze data, recognize objects, and make decisions on their own, while quantum computing can process massive amounts of information much faster than regular computers. For example, a defense drone using AI can detect enemy movement, but adding quantum computing allows it to analyze complex battlefield data instantly and find the best flight path or strategy in real time. This combination improves reaction speed, mission accuracy, and overall drone performance, making them more effective for surveillance, reconnaissance, and security operations.

    Quantum computing is an emergent field of cutting-edge computer science harnessing the unique qualities of quantum mechanics to solve problems beyond the ability of even the most powerful classical computers of today, to process massively complicated mathematical problems and data at orders of magnitude faster speeds.

    The ZenaDrone 1000 is a multifunction autonomous drone, in a VTOL (Vertical Takeoff and Landing) quadcopter design with eight rotors; it is considered a medium-sized drone measuring 12X7 feet in size. It is designed for stable flight, maneuverability, heavy lift capabilities up to 40 kilos, incorporating innovative software technology, AI, sensors, and purpose-built attachments, along with compact and rugged hardware engineered for industrial and defense use for a variety of inspection, surveillance or tracking applications. Continued… Read this full release by visiting: https://www.financialnewsmedia.com/news-zena/

    Other recent developments in the markets include:

    QphoX B.V., a Dutch quantum technology startup that is developing leading frequency conversion systems for quantum applications, Rigetti Computing, Inc. (NASDAQ: RGTI), a pioneer in full-stack quantum-classical computing, and Qblox, a leading innovator in quantum control stack development, recently announced that their joint research demonstrating the ability to readout superconducting qubits with an optical transducer was published in Nature Physics.

    Quantum computing has the potential to drive transformative breakthroughs in fields such as advanced material design, artificial intelligence, and drug discovery. Of the quantum computing modalities, superconducting qubits are a leading platform towards realizing a practical quantum computer given their fast gate speeds and ability to leverage existing semiconductor industry manufacturing techniques. However, fault-tolerant quantum computing will likely require 10,000 to a million physical qubits. The sheer amount of wiring, amplifiers and microwave components required to operate such large numbers of qubits far exceeds the capacity of modern-day dilution refrigerators, a core component of a superconducting quantum computing system, in terms of both space and passive heat load.

    AeroVironment, Inc. (NASDAQ: AVAV) recently announced the launch of the JUMP® 20-X, a next-generation, modular Group 3 uncrewed aircraft system (UAS) designed to meet the dynamic demands of modern warfare. Setting a new benchmark for autonomous maritime operations, the JUMP 20-X delivers unrivaled versatility, efficiency, and precision in contested and complex environments.

    Unveiled at the 2025 International Defence Exhibition & Conference (IDEX), the JUMP 20-X is a vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) medium uncrewed aircraft system (MUAS) engineered to revolutionize shipboard UAS operations. With an advanced heavy-fuel engine capable of running on multiple fuel types, JUMP 20-X enhances operational flexibility, simplifies refueling logistics, and ensures mission adaptability across diverse maritime and expeditionary environments.

    Unusual Machines (NYSE:UMAC) recently announced that its Fat Shark Aura FPV Camera has been added to the U.S. Defense Department’s Defense Innovation Unit’s (DIU) Blue UAS Framework. It is the only camera on the Blue UAS list purpose-built for first person view (“FPV”) applications, providing a high-performance, NDAA-compliant option for defense and government users.

    This approval marks another step forward in Unusual Machines’ mission to supply NDAA-compliant FPV components for both commercial and defense applications. The Fat Shark Aura FPV Camera joins the Rotor Riot Brave F7 Flight Controller and Brave 55A ESC, both of which have already been approved under the Blue UAS Framework.

    Safe Pro Group Inc. (NASDAQ: SPAI) recently announced that its Safe Pro AI subsidiary reached its latest milestone having processed over 1,000,000 real-world images and 20,000 explosive threat detections in Ukraine utilizing its patented AI-powered small object threat detection and drone image analysis and mapping technology.

    Sourced from real-world aerial imagery collected in Ukraine by organizations utilizing commercially available drones over the past two years, SafePro’s latest generation of small object detection models include one of the largest and widest arrays of labeled imagery of landmines, unexploded ordnance (UXO) and explosive remnants of war (ERW) in existence today. Supported by the hyper scale of the Amazon Web Services (AWS) cloud, this robust dataset enables the patented SpotlightAI™ ecosystem to rapidly detect over 150 types of surface-level explosive hazards, enabling government and humanitarian organizations to quickly assess threats on the ground with sub-centimeter precision. The Company intends to utilize its newly enhanced models to power new threat detection solutions designed for expanded domestic and international applications in defense, public safety and commercial markets.

    About FN Media Group:

    At FN Media Group, via our top-rated online news portal at www.financialnewsmedia.com, we are one of the very few select firms providing top tier one syndicated news distribution, targeted ticker tag press releases and stock market news coverage for today’s emerging companies. #tickertagpressreleases #pressreleases

    Follow us on Facebook to receive the latest news updates: https://www.facebook.com/financialnewsmedia

    Follow us on Twitter for real time Market News: https://twitter.com/FNMgroup

    Follow us on Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/financialnewsmedia/

    DISCLAIMER: FN Media Group LLC (FNM), which owns and operates FinancialNewsMedia.com and MarketNewsUpdates.com, is a third party publisher and news dissemination service provider, which disseminates electronic information through multiple online media channels. FNM is NOT affiliated in any manner with any company mentioned herein. FNM and its affiliated companies are a news dissemination solutions provider and are NOT a registered broker/dealer/analyst/adviser, holds no investment licenses and may NOT sell, offer to sell or offer to buy any security. FNM’s market updates, news alerts and corporate profiles are NOT a solicitation or recommendation to buy, sell or hold securities. The material in this release is intended to be strictly informational and is NEVER to be construed or interpreted as research material. All readers are strongly urged to perform research and due diligence on their own and consult a licensed financial professional before considering any level of investing in stocks. All material included herein is republished content and details which were previously disseminated by the companies mentioned in this release. FNM is not liable for any investment decisions by its readers or subscribers. Investors are cautioned that they may lose all or a portion of their investment when investing in stocks. For current services performed FNM has been compensated fifty four hundred dollars for news coverage of the current press releases issued by ZenaTech, Inc. by the Company. FNM HOLDS NO SHARES OF ANY COMPANY NAMED IN THIS RELEASE.

    This release contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and such forward-looking statements are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. “Forward-looking statements” describe future expectations, plans, results, or strategies and are generally preceded by words such as “may”, “future”, “plan” or “planned”, “will” or “should”, “expected,” “anticipates”, “draft”, “eventually” or “projected”. You are cautioned that such statements are subject to a multitude of risks and uncertainties that could cause future circumstances, events, or results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements, including the risks that actual results may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements as a result of various factors, and other risks identified in a company’s annual report on Form 10-K or 10-KSB and other filings made by such company with the Securities and Exchange Commission. You should consider these factors in evaluating the forward-looking statements included herein, and not place undue reliance on such statements. The forward-looking statements in this release are made as of the date hereof and FNM undertakes no obligation to update such statements.

    Contact Information:

    Media Contact email: editor@financialnewsmedia.com – +1(561)325-8757

    SOURCE: FN Media Group

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s threats on Greenland, Gaza, Ukraine and Panama revive old-school US imperialism of dominating other nations by force, after decades of nuclear deterrence

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Monica Duffy Toft, Professor of International Politics and Director of the Center for Strategic Studies, The Fletcher School, Tufts University

    Imperialist rhetoric is becoming a mark of President Donald Trump’s second term. From asserting that the U.S. will “take over” the Gaza Strip, Greenland and the Panama Canal to apparently siding with Russia in its war on Ukraine, Trump’s comments suggest a return to an old imperialist style of forcing foreign lands under American control.

    Imperialism is when a nation extends its power through territorial acquisition, economic dominance or political influence. Historically, imperialist leaders have used military conquest, economic coercion or diplomatic pressure to expand their dominions, and justified their foreign incursions as civilizing missions, economic opportunities or national security imperatives.

    The term “empire” often evokes the Romans, the Mughals or the British, but the U.S. is an imperial power, too. In the 19th and early 20th century, American presidents expanded U.S. territory westward across the continent and, later, overseas, acquiring Puerto Rico and other Caribbean islands, Guam and the Philippines.

    After that, outright territorial conquest mostly ceased, but the U.S. did not give up imperialism. As I trace in my 2023 book, “Dying by the Sword,” the country instead embraced a subtler, more strategic kind of expansionism. In this veiled imperialism, the U.S. exerted its global influence through economic, political and threatened military means, not direct confrontation.

    Embracing traditional U.S. imperialism would upend the rules that have kept the globe relatively stable since World War II. As an expert on U.S. foreign policy, I fear that would unleash fear, chaos – and possibly nuclear war.

    No redrawing borders

    One of the most fundamental principles of this post-war international system is the concept of sovereignty – the idea that a nation’s borders should remain intact.

    The United Nations Charter, signed in San Francisco in 1945, explicitly bars countries from obtaining territory through force. Outright annexation or territorial takeover is considered a direct violation of international law.

    Work by the late political scientist Mark Zacher outlines how, since World War II, the international community – including the U.S. – has largely upheld this standard.

    But imperialism still shapes world politics.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 is a blatant instance of imperial ambition justified by alleged historical grievances and national security concerns. Russia’s invasion set a dangerous precedent by undermining the principle that borders can’t be changed by force and that countries shouldn’t resort to aggression.

    Putin’s precedent, in turn, has raised concerns that another great power may attempt to forcibly redraw international borders.

    Take China, for example. President Xi Jinping has become increasingly aggressive toward Taiwan since 2019. If Putin’s invasion culminates with Russia successfully annexing parts of Ukraine – which the Trump administration has agreed with Russia should be part of any settlement – Xi may follow through on his threats to invade Taiwan.

    Respect for national sovereignty has made the world more stable and less violent.

    The decline of traditional imperialism after World War II led to a flourishing of independent nation-states. As former colonial powers gradually relinquished control of their holdings in the second half of the 20th century – voluntarily or after losing wars of independence – the number of sovereign countries increased dramatically. The U.N. had 51 member countries in 1945 and over 150 by 1970.

    The U.N. was founded on the idea that people of all countries should have a say in how they build their own futures. Today, 197 countries try to work together through the U.N. on a wide range of global issues, including defending human rights and reducing global poverty.

    When a major power like the U.S. openly embraces imperialist rhetoric, it further weakens the already fragile rules that keep this delicate collaboration working.

    Nonviolent imperialism

    Imperialism does not require military force. Great powers still exert influence over weaker nations, shaping their behavior through economic might and wealth, diplomacy and strategic alliances.

    The U.S. has long engaged in this form of influence. It has often pursued its imperialist agenda in what I would call a more “gentlemanly manner” than historical empires with their bloody physical conquests.

    During the Cold War, for example, the U.S. established extensive dominance over much of the globe. In Latin America and the Middle East, it used economic aid, military alliances and ideological persuasion rather than outright territorial expansion to exert its control. Russia did the same in Eastern Europe and its other spheres of influence.

    Demonstrators in Panama City insist ‘Panama Canal is Not For Sale’ following Donald Trump’s threats to seize the canal, Jan. 20, 2025.
    Arnulfo Franco/AFP via Getty Images

    Today, China excels at nonviolent imperialism. Its Belt and Road Initiative, a global infrastructure construction project launched in 2013, has created deep economic dependencies among partner nations in Africa, South Asia and Latin America. Trade and diplomatic ties between China and those regions are much closer today as a result.

    Nuclear era

    A critical distinction between imperialism past and present is the presence of nuclear weapons.

    In previous eras, great powers frequently fought wars to expand their influence and settle disputes. Countries could attempt to seize territory with little risk to their survival, even in defeat.

    The sheer destructive potential of nuclear arsenals has changed this calculus. The Cold War doctrine of mutually assured destruction guarantees that if one country launches a nuclear weapon, it will quickly become the target of nuclear counterattack: annihilation for all sides.

    Any major war between nuclear-armed nations now carries the risk of massive, potentially planetary, destruction. This makes direct conquest an irrational, even suicidal strategy rather than a calculated political maneuver.

    And it makes Trump’s old-school imperial rhetoric particularly dangerous.

    If the U.S. tried to annex foreign territory, it would almost certainly provoke serious international conflict. That’s especially true of the most strategic places Trump has threatened to “take over,” like the Panama Canal, which links 1,920 ports across 170 countries.

    These imperialist threats, even if they’re not intended as serious policy proposals, are already ratcheting up global tensions.

    Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino — a pro-American ally — has flatly ruled out negotiating with the U.S. over control of the Panama Canal. Denmark’s prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, says its territory of Greenland is “not for sale.” And Palestinians in Gaza, for their part, fiercely reject Trump’s plan to move all of them out and turn their homeland into a “Middle East Riviera,” as have neighboring Arab countries, which could be expected to absorb millions of displaced Palestinians.

    Rhetoric shapes perception, and perception influences behavior. When an American president floats acquiring foreign territories as a viable policy option, it signals to both allies and enemies that the U.S. is no longer committed to the international order that has achieved relative global stability for the past 75 years.

    With wars raging in the Middle East and Europe, this is a risky time for reckless rhetoric.

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

    – ref. Trump’s threats on Greenland, Gaza, Ukraine and Panama revive old-school US imperialism of dominating other nations by force, after decades of nuclear deterrence – https://theconversation.com/trumps-threats-on-greenland-gaza-ukraine-and-panama-revive-old-school-us-imperialism-of-dominating-other-nations-by-force-after-decades-of-nuclear-deterrence-249327

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s move to closer ties with Russia does not mean betrayal of Ukraine, yet – in his first term, Trump was pretty tough on Putin

    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 intensifying bitterness comes as the U.S. and Russia started talks in Saudi Arabia, without including Ukraine, on how to end the conflict.

    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.

    An airplane passenger reads a Financial Times article about U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Feb. 19, 2025.
    Horacio Villalobos Corbis/Corbis via Getty Images

    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.

    He approved anti-tank missile sales to Ukraine in 2019. That same year, Trump withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, an agreement with Russia that limited what weapons each country could purchase, over Russian violations.

    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.

    – ref. Trump’s move to closer ties with Russia does not mean betrayal of Ukraine, yet – in his first term, Trump was pretty tough on Putin – https://theconversation.com/trumps-move-to-closer-ties-with-russia-does-not-mean-betrayal-of-ukraine-yet-in-his-first-term-trump-was-pretty-tough-on-putin-250359

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How allies have helped the US gain independence, defend freedom and keep the peace – even as the US did the same for our friends

    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

    French Gen. Jean de Rochambeau and American Gen. George Washington giving the last orders in October 1781 for the battle at Yorktown, where the British defeat ended the War of Independence. ‘Siege of Yorktown’ painting, Ann Ronan Pictures/Print Collector/Getty Images.

    Make Canada angry. Make Mexico angry. Make the members of NATO angry.

    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.

    In what’s known as his “Farewell Address,” Washington warned Americans against “entangling alliances.” Washington wanted America to treat all nations fairly, and warned against both permanent friendships and permanent enemies.

    The irony is that Washington would never have become president without the assistance of the not-yet-United-States’ first ally, France.

    In 1778, after two years of brilliant diplomacy by Benjamin Franklin, the not-yet-United States and the Kingdom of France signed a treaty of alliance as the American Colonies struggled to win their war for independence from Britain.

    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.

    Aside from the War of 1812, in which the U.S. fought the British, America largely found itself protected from the outside world’s problems.

    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.

    A Boston newspaper headline in 1915 blares the news of a British ocean liner sunk by a German torpedo.
    Serial and Government Publications Division, Library of Congress

    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.

    Immediately after the war, the Allies – led by the U.S., France and Britain – stayed together to craft the peace agreements, feed the war-ravaged parts of Europe and intervene in Russia after the Communist Revolution there.

    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.

    Though public opinion was divided, the U.S. began sending arms and other assistance to Britain and quietly began military planning with London. This was despite the fact that the U.S. was formally neutral, as the Roosevelt administration was pushing the limits of what a neutral nation can do for friendly nations without becoming a warring party.

    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.”

    When the Japanese attacked Hawaii in 1941 and Hitler declared war on the United States, America quickly entered World War II in an alliance with Britain, the Free French and others.
    Throughout the war, the Allies worked as a team on matters large and small. They defeated Germany in three and half years and Japan in less than four.

    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.

    However, it is also an alliance. The U.N. Security Council on several occasions authorized the use of force by members, such as in the first Gulf War against Iraq. And it has the power to send peacekeeping troops to conflict areas under the U.N. flag.

    Other U.S. allies with treaties or designations by Congress include Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Israel, three South American countries and six in the Middle East.

    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.

    – ref. How allies have helped the US gain independence, defend freedom and keep the peace – even as the US did the same for our friends – https://theconversation.com/how-allies-have-helped-the-us-gain-independence-defend-freedom-and-keep-the-peace-even-as-the-us-did-the-same-for-our-friends-248839

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Update 277 – IAEA Director General Statement on Situation in Ukraine

    Source: International Atomic Energy Agency – IAEA

    Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) has been relying on a single off-site power line for more than a week now after its only remaining back-up line was lost, once again highlighting an extremely fragile nuclear safety situation during the military conflict, Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said today.

    Nuclear power plants (NPPs) need a secure supply of external electricity to cool their reactors and for other essential nuclear safety and security functions. However, this has been a major challenge over the past three years, with the ZNPP temporarily losing all off-site power eight times.  

    In the latest incident affecting the reliability of the supply of power from the grid, its sole 330 kilovolt (kV) back-up power line was disconnected on 11 February and has not yet been fully restored. This leaves Europe’s largest NPP entirely dependent on its only remaining 750 kV line. Before the conflict, it had a total of 10 power lines – six 750 kV and four 330 kV – available.

    “The Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant still needs reliable supplies of off-site power for cooling purposes, even though its six reactors have been shut down for more than two years now,” Director General Grossi said. “The vulnerability of the external power situation remains a deep source of concern for nuclear safety.”

    The ZNPP said the 330 kV line was disconnected last week due to the activation of the electrical protection system. The Ukrainian regulatory body informed the IAEA that it was the result of unspecified military activity and that the power line had been damaged. The IAEA team at the ZNPP currently continues to gather further information regarding the status of the back-up power supply to the site.

    Further underlining the constant risks to nuclear safety, the IAEA team based at the site heard an explosion close to the ZNPP on 12 February, coinciding with unconfirmed reports of a drone attack approximately 300 meters from the site. The team has over the past week continued to hear other daily explosions at varying distances from the ZNPP. No damage to the site has been reported.

    The IAEA team continues to carry out walkdowns across the ZNPP as part of the work to monitor and assess nuclear safety and security.

    The IAEA remains in contact with both sides regarding the next rotation of IAEA personnel at the ZNPP, after it was delayed last week due to intense military activity in the area.

    At the Chornobyl NPP site, firefighters are continuing to put out small fires that keep smouldering and spreading on the roof of the New Safe Confinement (NSC), after it was struck on 14 February by a drone that pierced a hole in the large structure built to cover the reactor destroyed in the 1986 accident.

    The IAEA team based at the site, which was granted unrestricted access to examine the impact of the explosion, conducts regular walkdowns and radiation measurements to independently monitor the situation. The team’s measurements continue to show normal gamma radiation dose rate values near the NSC compared to those recorded by the IAEA since it established a continuous presence at the site just over two years ago.

    The IAEA teams based at Ukraine’s other NPPs – Khmelnytskyy, Rivne and South Ukraine – have continued to report frequent air raid alarms over the past week and were also informed of the presence of drones within the areas surrounding the respective sites.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI: Greystone Housing Impact Investors Reports Fourth Quarter 2024 and Annual 2024 Financial Results

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    OMAHA, Neb., Feb. 20, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — On February 20, 2025, Greystone Housing Impact Investors LP (NYSE: GHI) (the “Partnership”) announced financial results for the three months and year ended December 31, 2024.

    Financial Highlights

    The Partnership reported the following results as of and for the three months ended December 31, 2024:

    • Net income of $0.39 per Beneficial Unit Certificate (“BUC”), basic and diluted
    • Cash Available for Distribution (“CAD”) of $0.18 per BUC
    • Total assets of $1.58 billion
    • Total Mortgage Revenue Bond (“MRB”) and Governmental Issuer Loan (“GIL”) investments of $1.25 billion

    The difference between reported net income per BUC and CAD per BUC is primarily due to the treatment of unrealized gains on the Partnership’s interest rate derivative positions. Unrealized gains of approximately $7.0 million are included in net income for the three months ended December 31, 2024. Unrealized gains are a result of the impact of increased market interest rates on the calculated fair value of the Partnership’s interest rate derivative positions. Unrealized gains and losses do not affect our cash earnings and are added back to net income when calculating the Partnership’s CAD. The Partnership received net cash from its interest rate derivative positions totaling approximately $1.3 million during the fourth quarter.

    The Partnership reported the following results for the year ended December 31, 2024:

    • Net income of $0.76 per BUC, basic and diluted
    • CAD of $0.95 per BUC

    In December 2024, the Partnership announced that the Board of Managers of Greystone AF Manager LLC declared a regular quarterly distribution to the Partnership’s BUC holders of $0.37 per BUC. The distribution was paid on January 31, 2025, to BUC holders of record as of the close of trading on December 31, 2024.

    Management Remarks

    “2024 was a challenging year from a number of different perspectives,” said Kenneth C. Rogozinski, the Partnership’s Chief Executive Officer. “The conditions in the multifamily markets, both higher interest rates and operating expenses, presented challenges to our joint venture equity investments. Interest rate volatility also impacted the efficiency of some of our securitization transactions. However, we are encouraged by the opportunities that we are starting to see in 2025. The dedicated pool of capital that we have from the new BlackRock construction lending joint venture is a powerful new tool for us to serve our affordable housing developer relationship base.”

    Recent Investment and Financing Activity

    The Partnership reported the following updates for the fourth quarter of 2024:

    • Advanced funds on MRB and taxable MRB investments totaling $36.8 million.
    • Advanced funds on GIL, taxable GIL and property loan investments totaling $32.0 million.
    • Advanced funds to joint venture equity investments totaling $11.2 million.
    • Received proceeds from the sale of an MRB totaling $11.5 million.
    • Entered into the 2024 PFA Securitization Transaction representing fixed rate, matched term, non-recourse and non-mark to market debt financing totaling $75.4 million.

    In January 2025, the Partnership received proceeds from the sale of Vantage at Tomball located in Tomball, Texas, totaling $14.2 million, inclusive of the Partnership’s initial investment commitment made in August 2020. The Partnership estimates it will not recognize any gain, loss, or CAD upon sale.

    Investment Portfolio Updates

    The Partnership announced the following updates regarding its investment portfolio:

    • All MRB and GIL investments are current on contractual principal and interest payments and the Partnership has received no requests for forbearance of contractual principal and interest payments from borrowers as of December 31, 2024.
    • The Partnership continues to execute its hedging strategy, primarily through interest rate swaps, to reduce the impact of changing market interest rates. The Partnership received net payments under its interest rate swap portfolio of approximately $1.3 million and $6.5 million during the three months and year ended December 31, 2024, respectively. From January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2024, the Partnership received net swap payments totaling $12.3 million or approximately $0.53 per BUC.
    • Six joint venture equity investment properties have completed construction, with three properties having previously achieved 90% occupancy. Four of the Partnership’s joint venture equity investments are currently under construction or in development, with none having experienced material supply chain disruptions for either construction materials or labor to date.

    Earnings Webcast & Conference Call

    The Partnership will host a conference call for investors on Thursday, February 20, 2025 at 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time to discuss the Partnership’s Fourth Quarter and full-year 2024 results.

    For those interested in participating in the question-and-answer session, participants may dial-in toll free at (877) 407-8813. International participants may dial-in at +1 (201) 689-8521. No pin or code number is needed.

    The call is also being webcast live in listen-only mode. The webcast can be accessed via the Partnership’s website under “Events & Presentations” or via the following link:
    https://event.choruscall.com/mediaframe/webcast.html?webcastid=T0wdPGmd

    It is recommended that you join 15 minutes before the conference call begins (although you may register, dial-in or access the webcast at any time during the call).

    A recorded replay of the webcast will be made available on the Partnership’s Investor Relations website at http://www.ghiinvestors.com.

    About Greystone Housing Impact Investors LP

    Greystone Housing Impact Investors LP was formed in 1998 under the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act for the primary purpose of acquiring, holding, selling and otherwise dealing with a portfolio of mortgage revenue bonds which have been issued to provide construction and/or permanent financing for affordable multifamily, seniors and student housing properties. The Partnership is pursuing a business strategy of acquiring additional mortgage revenue bonds and other investments on a leveraged basis. The Partnership expects and believes the interest earned on these mortgage revenue bonds is excludable from gross income for federal income tax purposes. The Partnership seeks to achieve its investment growth strategy by investing in additional mortgage revenue bonds and other investments as permitted by its Second Amended and Restated Limited Partnership Agreement, dated December 5, 2022 (the “Partnership Agreement”), taking advantage of attractive financing structures available in the securities market, and entering into interest rate risk management instruments. Greystone Housing Impact Investors LP press releases are available at www.ghiinvestors.com.

    Safe Harbor Statement

    Certain statements in this press release are intended to be covered by the safe harbor for “forward-looking statements” provided by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements generally can be identified by use of statements that include, but are not limited to, phrases such as “believe,” “expect,” “future,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “plan,” “foresee,” “may,” “should,” “will,” “estimates,” “potential,” “continue,” or other similar words or phrases. Similarly, statements that describe objectives, plans, or goals also are forward-looking statements. Such forward-looking statements involve inherent risks and uncertainties, many of which are difficult to predict and are generally beyond the control of the Partnership. The Partnership cautions readers that a number of important factors could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in, implied, or projected by such forward-looking statements. Risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to: defaults on the mortgage loans securing our mortgage revenue bonds and governmental issuer loans; the competitive environment in which the Partnership operates; risks associated with investing in multifamily, student, senior citizen residential properties and commercial properties; general economic, geopolitical, and financial conditions, including the current and future impact of changing interest rates, inflation, and international conflicts (including the Russia-Ukraine war and the Israel-Hamas war) on business operations, employment, and financial conditions; uncertain conditions within the domestic and international macroeconomic environment, including monetary and fiscal policy and conditions in the investment, credit, interest rate, and derivatives markets; adverse reactions in U.S. financial markets related to actions of foreign central banks or the economic performance of foreign economies, including in particular China, Japan, the European Union, and the United Kingdom; the general condition of the real estate markets in the regions in which the Partnership operates, which may be unfavorably impacted by pressures in the commercial real estate sector, incrementally higher unemployment rates, persistent elevated inflation levels, and other factors; changes in interest rates and credit spreads, as well as the success of any hedging strategies the Partnership may undertake in relation to such changes, and the effect such changes may have on the relative spreads between the yield on investments and cost of financing; the aggregate effect of elevated inflation levels over the past several years, spurred by multiple factors including expansionary monetary and fiscal policy, higher commodity prices, a tight labor market, and low residential vacancy rates, which may result in continued elevated interest rate levels and increased market volatility; the Partnership’s ability to access debt and equity capital to finance its assets; current maturities of the Partnership’s financing arrangements and the Partnership’s ability to renew or refinance such financing arrangements; local, regional, national and international economic and credit market conditions; recapture of previously issued Low Income Housing Tax Credits in accordance with Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code; geographic concentration of properties related to investments held by the Partnership; changes in the U.S. corporate tax code and other government regulations affecting the Partnership’s business; and the other risks detailed in the Partnership’s SEC filings (including but not limited to, the Partnership’s Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, and Current Reports on Form 8-K). Readers are urged to consider these factors carefully in evaluating the forward-looking statements.

    If any of these risks or uncertainties materializes or if any of the assumptions underlying such forward-looking statements proves to be incorrect, the developments and future events concerning the Partnership set forth in this press release may differ materially from those expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these statements, which speak only as of the date of this document. We anticipate that subsequent events and developments will cause our expectations and beliefs to change. The Partnership assumes no obligation to update such forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this document or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events, unless obligated to do so under the federal securities laws.

    GREYSTONE HOUSING IMPACT INVESTORS LP
    CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
    (UNAUDITED)
     
        For the Three Months Ended
    December 31,    		     For the Years Ended December 31,
        2024     2023     2024     2023    
    Revenues:                                
      Investment income $ 20,056,000     $ 20,010,343     $ 80,976,706     $ 82,266,198    
      Other interest income   2,199,643       1,034,638       9,509,307       17,756,044    
      Property revenues   –               –       4,567,506    
      Other income   330,381       60,702       785,386       310,916    
    Total revenues   22,586,024       25,184,617       91,271,399       104,900,664    
    Expenses:                                
      Real estate operating (exclusive of items shown below)   –       573,255       –       2,663,868    
      Provision for credit losses (Note 10)   (24,000 )     (466,000 )     (1,036,308 )     (2,347,000 )  
      Depreciation and amortization   5,967       313,626       23,867       1,537,448    
      Interest expense   15,840,620       16,849,384       60,032,007       69,066,763    
      Net result from derivative transactions (Note 15)   (8,239,844 )     7,168,413       (8,495,426 )     (7,371,584 )  
      General and administrative   4,787,849       4,889,014       19,652,622       20,399,489    
    Total expenses   12,370,592       29,327,692       70,176,762       83,948,984    
    Other income:                                
      Gain on sale of real estate assets   –       10,363,363       63,739       10,363,363    
      Gain on sale of mortgage revenue bond   1,207,673       –       2,220,254       –    
      Gain on sale of investments in unconsolidated entities   60,858       –       117,844       22,725,398    
      Earnings (losses) from investments in unconsolidated entities   (1,315,042 )     (17,879 )     (2,140,694 )     (17,879 )  
    Income before income taxes   10,168,921       6,202,409       21,355,780       54,022,562    
      Income tax expense (benefit)   36,398       (1,515 )     32,447       10,866    
    Net income   10,132,523       6,203,924       21,323,333       54,011,696    
      Redeemable Preferred Unit distributions and accretion   (741,477 )     (622,590 )     (2,991,671 )     (2,868,578 )  
    Net income available to Partners $ 9,391,046     $ 5,581,334     $ 18,331,662     $ 51,143,118    
                                       
    Net income available to Partners allocated to:                                
      General Partner $ 390,766     $ 75,252     $ 479,602     $ 3,589,447    
      Limited Partners – BUCs   8,937,983       5,472,230       17,587,205       47,209,260    
      Limited Partners – Restricted units   62,297       33,852       264,855       344,411    
        $ 9,391,046     $ 5,581,334     $ 18,331,662     $ 51,143,118    
    BUC holders’ interest in net income per BUC, basic and diluted $ 0.39     $ 0.24   ** $ 0.76   * $ 2.06   **
    Weighted average number of BUCs outstanding, basic   23,115,162       22,947,795   **   23,071,141   *   22,929,966   **
    Weighted average number of BUCs outstanding, diluted   23,115,162       22,947,795   **   23,071,141   *   22,929,966   **
       
    * The amounts indicated above have been adjusted to reflect the distribution completed on April 30, 2024 in the form of additional BUCs at a ratio of 0.00417 BUCs for each BUC outstanding as of March 28, 2024 on a retroactive basis.
       
    ** On July 31, 2023, the Partnership completed a distribution in the form of additional BUCs at a ratio of 0.00448 BUCs for each BUC outstanding as of June 30, 2023 (the “Second Quarter 2023 BUCs Distribution”). On October 31, 2023, the Partnership completed a distribution in the form of additional BUCs at a ratio of 0.00418 BUCs for each BUC outstanding as of September 29, 2023 (the “Third Quarter 2023 BUCs Distribution”). On January 31, 2024, the Partnership completed a distribution in the form of additional BUCs at a ratio of 0.00415 BUCs for each BUC outstanding as of December 29, 2023 (the “Fourth Quarter 2023 BUCs Distribution”, collectively with the Second Quarter 2023 BUCs Distribution and the Third Quarter BUCs Distribution the “2023 BUCs Distributions”). The amounts indicated above have been adjusted to reflect the 2023 BUCs Distributions on a retroactive basis.
       

    Disclosure Regarding Non-GAAP Measures – Cash Available for Distribution

    The Partnership believes that CAD provides relevant information about the Partnership’s operations and is necessary, along with net income, for understanding its operating results. To calculate CAD, the Partnership begins with net income as computed in accordance with GAAP and adjusts for non-cash expenses or income consisting of depreciation expense, amortization expense related to deferred financing costs, amortization of premiums and discounts, fair value adjustments to derivative instruments, provisions for credit and loan losses, impairments on MRBs, GILs, real estate assets and property loans, deferred income tax expense (benefit), and restricted unit compensation expense. The Partnership also adjusts net income for the Partnership’s share of (earnings) losses of investments in unconsolidated entities as such amounts are primarily depreciation expenses and development costs that are expected to be recovered upon an exit event. The Partnership also deducts Tier 2 income (see Note 23 to the Partnership’s consolidated financial statements) distributable to the General Partner as defined in the Partnership Agreement and distributions and accretion for the Preferred Units. Net income is the GAAP measure most comparable to CAD. There is no generally accepted methodology for computing CAD, and the Partnership’s computation of CAD may not be comparable to CAD reported by other companies. Although the Partnership considers CAD to be a useful measure of the Partnership’s operating performance, CAD is a non-GAAP measure that should not be considered as an alternative to net income calculated in accordance with GAAP, or any other measures of financial performance presented in accordance with GAAP.

    The following table shows the calculation of CAD (and a reconciliation of the Partnership’s net income, as determined in accordance with GAAP, to CAD) for the three months and years ended December 31, 2024 and 2023 (all per BUC amounts are presented giving effect to the BUCs Distributions described in Note 23 of the consolidated financial statements on a retroactive basis for all periods presented):

        For the Three Months Ended
    December 31,    		     For the Years Ended December 31,
        2024     2023     2024     2023    
    Net income $ 10,132,523     $ 6,203,924     $ 21,323,333     $ 54,011,696    
    Unrealized (gains) losses on derivatives, net   (6,978,561 )     9,994,292       (2,097,900 )     3,173,398    
    Depreciation and amortization expense   5,967       313,626       23,867       1,537,448    
    Provision for credit losses (1)   (24,000 )     (466,000 )     (867,000 )     (2,347,000 )  
    Reversal of gain on sale of real estate assets (2)   –       (10,363,363 )     –       (10,363,363 )  
    Amortization of deferred financing costs   466,105       710,271       1,653,805       2,461,713    
    Restricted unit compensation expense   436,052       473,127       1,891,633       2,013,736    
    Deferred income taxes   1,164       2,796       2,435       (362 )  
    Redeemable Preferred Unit distributions and accretion   (741,477 )     (622,590 )     (2,991,671 )     (2,868,578 )  
    Tier 2 income allocable to the General Partner (3)   (309,858 )     (19,439 )     (309,858 )     (3,248,148 )  
    Recovery of prior credit loss (4)   (17,156 )     (17,156 )     (69,000 )     (68,812 )  
    Bond premium, discount and acquisition fee amortization, net
       of cash received    		   (90,310 )     (42,900 )     1,247,066       (182,284 )  
    (Earnings) losses from investments in unconsolidated entities   1,315,042       17,879       2,140,694       17,879    
    Total CAD $ 4,195,491     $ 6,184,467     $ 21,947,404     $ 44,137,323    
                                       
    Weighted average number of BUCs outstanding, basic   23,115,162       22,947,795       23,071,141       22,929,966    
    Net income per BUC, basic $ 0.39     $ 0.24     $ 0.76     $ 2.06    
    Total CAD per BUC, basic $ 0.18     $ 0.27     $ 0.95     $ 1.92    
    Cash Distributions declared, per BUC $ 0.37     $ 0.367     $ 1.478     $ 1.46    
    BUCs Distributions declared, per BUC (5) $ –     $ 0.07     $ 0.07     $ 0.21    
       
    (1) The adjustments reflect the change in allowances for credit losses which requires the Partnership to update estimates of expected credit losses for its investment portfolio at each reporting date. In connection with the final settlement of the bankruptcy estate of the Provision Center 2014-1 MRB in July 2024, the Partnership recovered approximately $169,000 of its previously recognized allowance credit loss which is not included as an adjustment to net income in the calculation of CAD.
       
    (2) The gain on sale of real estate assets from the sale of the Suites on Paseo MF Property represented a recovery of prior depreciation expense that was not reflected in the Partnership’s previously reported CAD, so the gain on sale was deducted from net income in determining CAD for 2023.
       
    (3) As described in Note 23 to the Partnership’s consolidated financial statements, Net Interest Income representing contingent interest and Net Residual Proceeds representing contingent interest (Tier 2 income) will be distributed 75% to the limited partners and BUC holders, as a class, and 25% to the General Partner. This adjustment represents 25% of Tier 2 income due to the General Partner.
       
      For the year ended December 31, 2024, Tier 2 income allocable to the General Partner consisted of approximately $310,000 related to the gain on sale of the Arbors at Hickory Ridge MRB in November 2024.
       
      For the year ended December 31, 2023, Tier 2 income allocable to the General Partner consisted of approximately $3.8 million related to the gains on sale of Vantage at Stone Creek and Vantage at Coventry in January 2023 and approximately $813,000 related to the gain on sale of Vantage at Conroe in June 2023, offset by a $1.4 million Tier 2 loss allocable to the General Partner related to the Provision Center 2014-1 MRB realized in January 2023 upon receipt of the majority of expected bankruptcy liquidation proceeds.
       
    (4) The Partnership determined there was a recovery of previously recognized impairment recorded for the Live 929 Apartments Series 2022A MRB prior to January 1, 2023. The Partnership is accreting the recovery of prior credit loss for this MRB into investment income over the term of the MRB consistent with applicable guidance. The accretion of recovery of value is presented as a reduction to current CAD as the original provision for credit loss was an addback for CAD calculation purposes in the period recognized.
       
    (5) The Partnership declared a distribution payable in the form of additional BUCs equal to $0.07 per BUC for outstanding BUCs as of the record date of March 28, 2024.
       
      The Partnership declared three separate distributions during 2023 each payable in the form of additional BUCs equal to $0.07 per BUC for outstanding BUCs as of the record dates of June 30, September 29, and December 29, 2023.
       

    MEDIA CONTACT:
    Karen Marotta
    Greystone
    212-896-9149
    Karen.Marotta@greyco.com

    INVESTOR CONTACT:
    Andy Grier
    Investors Relations
    402-952-1235

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI NGOs: Ukrainian agency toward peace must be honored and preserved: Oxfam

    Source: Oxfam –

    In response to the US-Russia meeting yesterday (Feb 18) on the future of the war in Ukraine, Nicola Bay, Director of the Oxfam in Ukraine Response Team said: 

    “Any path toward a genuinely sustainable and just peace must obviously include Ukrainians, with the voice and agency of Ukrainian women and civil society made prominent. Russia’s invasion breached international law and its act of aggression must not be rewarded. Legitimizing an act of aggression risks setting a dangerous precedent that would threaten the very fabric of the international laws that are designed to prevent wars before they start. Whether or not Ukraine and Russia agree to negotiate a peace plan, civilians must be protected from harm, in line with the countries’ obligations under international humanitarian and human rights law.” 

    “The Ukrainian people have been the backbone of all the efforts to respond to the humanitarian crisis sparked by Russia’s illegal war. Despite being underfunded and often marginalized, local Ukrainian organizations have shown remarkable strength, determination, and the have been successful in helping to save people’s lives and provide them with aid and support. 

    Rhea Catada, Communications Manager Oxfam Ukraine Response: rhcatada@oxfam.org.uk 

    For real-time updates, follow us on X and Bluesky, and join our WhatsApp channel tailored specifically for journalists and media professionals. 

    MIL OSI NGO –

  • MIL-OSI Asia-Pac: 6th Edition of the Delhi International Leather Expo begins at IICC,Yashobhoomi

    Source: Government of India (2)

    Posted On: 20 FEB 2025 11:59AM by PIB Delhi

    The Council for Leather Exports (CLE) is organising the 6th Edition of the Delhi International Leather Expo (DILEX) – Reverse Buyer Seller Meet (RBSM) during 20th and 21st February 2025 at the India International Convention & Expo Centre (IICC), Yashobhoomi, Dwarka, New Delhi, with funding support from the Government of India under the Market Access Initiative (MAI) Scheme. This landmark event is poised to strengthen India’s position in the global leather and footwear industry.

    The 6th edition boasts expanded participation with approximately 225 Indian exhibitors showcasing their latest collections across an 8,000-square-meter exhibition area, a significant increase from the previous edition. Its global reach has also grown, with over 200 foreign buyers from nearly 52 countries, including key markets in Europe and the U.S., compared to just 130+ last time. The event will take place in Hall 1B at IICC, offering a world-class venue, while robust domestic engagement is ensured with over 500 representatives from Indian buying houses, retailers, and trade buyers, fostering extensive networking opportunities.

    During the inauguration of the 6th Edition of the Delhi International Leather Expo (DILEX), organized by the Council for Leather Exports (CLE), Shri Vimal Anand, Joint Secretary of the Department of Commerce, remarked that the event marked a significant milestone in India’s global trade journey. He noted that in the post-COVID recovery phase, India’s leather and footwear industry had demonstrated exceptional resilience by expanding exports and positioning the country to achieve its ambitious targets, including a goal of USD 7 billion for FY 2025-26.

    Shri Anand, also shared that with favorable policies, such as import duty exemptions on wet blue leather and enhanced credit guarantees for MSMEs, India is well-positioned to capitalize on emerging global shifts—particularly in light of geopolitical changes and new market access opportunities, including tariff adjustments and the “China Plus One” demand.

    Shri RK Jalan, Chairman, Council for Leather Exports at the inauguration of DILEX 2025 said, “The 6th Edition of the Delhi International Leather Expo (DILEX) 2025 opens doors for the global leather and footwear sector amidst an evolving geopolitical landscape. As the world recovers from the pandemic and contends with disruptions like the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Trump Tariff era and China’s aggressive trade policies, India’s leather industry has shown resilience, achieving consecutive months of growth. With a positive trajectory, we aim to reach the Department of Commerce’s USD 7bn export target and position India among the top 5 global exporters by FY 2025-26.

    As India continues to expand its footprint in the global footwear and leather market, DILEX 2025 provides a critical platform for fostering international trade and collaboration. The event facilitates one-on-one business meetings, allowing manufacturers and exporters to engage directly with international buyers, thereby exploring viable sourcing alternatives. At a time when India is increasingly recognized as a “China Plus One” sourcing option, DILEX 2025 reaffirms the country’s commitment to innovation, sustainable growth, and excellence in the leather and footwear sectors.                                              

    ***

    Abhishek Dayal/Abhijith Narayanan

    (Release ID: 2104883) Visitor Counter : 63

    MIL OSI Asia Pacific News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Opening remarks by Commissioner Jørgensen at the ITRE Committee Structured Dialogue

    Source: EuroStat – European Statistics

    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!

    Thank you!

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Switzerland seen from abroad in 2024: very positive public image, with media focus on Bürgenstock Summit

    Source: Switzerland – Department of Foreign Affairs in English

    In 2024, Switzerland was perceived positively. The Summit on Peace in Ukraine attracted by far the most attention from the world’s media. Overall, there was less coverage of Switzerland and fewer critical reports than in 2023 and 2022. Switzerland’s image among the general public abroad remains very positive.

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Transparency and accountability over EU funds for Ukraine – E-000497/2025

    Source: European Parliament

    Question for written answer  E-000497/2025
    to the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy
    Rule 144
    Alexander Sell (ESN)

    At a press conference in Ankara on 24 January 2025, Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas said: ‘The EU is Ukraine’s largest overall donor. We have contributed over EUR 134 billion’.

    In an interview with The Associated Press on 1 February 2025, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy stated that he was unaware of where most of the US aid to Ukraine had gone. While US President Donald Trump states that his country has provided over USD 200 billion to Ukraine, President Zelenskyy claims that they have only received around USD 75 billion. To date, the EU has given EUR 134 billion to Ukraine, and it is estimated that EUR 500 billion will be needed for reconstruction.

    • 1.Is the Commission able to confirm that all of the funding awarded to Ukraine has actually reached the intended beneficiaries and that it has been used for its intended purposes?
    • 2.What control and monitoring mechanisms has the Commission put in place to track the allocation and use of EU funds in Ukraine?
    • 3.If US President Trump follows through with his intentions to limit his country’s involvement in the reconstruction of Ukraine, what share of costs involved does the Commission expect the EU to finance?

    Submitted: 4.2.2025

    Last updated: 20 February 2025

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Statement by President von der Leyen at the joint press conference with Barbadian Prime Minister Mottley

    Source: European Commission

    European Commission Statement Bridgetown, 19 Feb 2025 Prime Minister, dear Mia,
    Thank you for hosting me here in Barbados. It is indeed the first time that I am here, it is fantastic. It is a big pleasure to join you and our partners at this CARICOM Summit. I have crossed the Atlantic to share with you how much Europe values its partnership with the Caribbean. We live in an unpredictable world. In these times, it is more important than ever to stick together; to stand up for our values; and to deepen ties with friends.

    Despite being an ocean apart, Europe and the Caribbean are very close at heart. We are strong and vibrant democracies; we are convinced that it is of big importance to defend multilateralism and the rule of law; we believe in freedom and the right of people to choose their own future. This is why you have been standing with Ukraine since the very beginning of the war. Ukraine is a future member of the European family. So supporting them means also supporting us. And it is important to also call for a just peace not only in Ukraine but also in the Middle East, in Sudan and Haiti, which is what you have always done.

    While sharing our values, we also face some of the same challenges. When devastating hurricanes sweep through your islands, like hurricane Beryl last July, Europe wants to be by your side: We provide emergency support to those who have lost everything, we are rebuilding together. Actually, we are currently supporting Grenada to rebuild Carriacou and Petite Martinique with the goal of making the islands 100% powered by renewable energy. And we have just discussed how to strengthen our cooperation in resilience and preparedness, so to work closer together to have a foresight when these natural disasters and extreme weather events, which are often related to climate change, hit.

    We know that the fight against climate change is truly existential. In the face of hardship, the Caribbean are showing incredible leadership. Especially you, my dear Mia. You have amplified the voice of small island nations on the global stage, for the benefit of all humanity. This was key, for example, to the launch of the Loss and Damage Fund together at COP29. It amounts to almost USD 750 million in pledge, half of it covered by Europe and its Member States. Because climate financing is another very important challenge. Europe is the leading provider. We contribute well beyond our fair share of the USD 100 billion annual target.

    But we know that given the scale of the transition and its urgency, we need new and innovative financing tools – in addition – like green bonds and carbon and nature credits, for example, which is what we are working on. And we need to bring the private sector fully on board, with a smarter use of private and public funds. With your Bridgetown Initiative, dear Mia, you are leading the way to making green and development financing fairer, more accessible and more affordable so that the climate targets can be met.

    Another initiative you mentioned is renewable energy. At COP28 we agreed on global targets for renewables and energy efficiency. We want to triple renewable energy and double energy efficiency by 2030. To implement these goals, we created the Global Energy Transition Forum, because only what gets measured gets done, and we really need that the goals on paper are achieved on the ground. And this year, Barbados joined the Global Energy Transition Forum, I am very glad about that, that is great. It will allow us to deliver concrete projects on the ground and unlock more investment for the transition. And I hope that many Caribbean nations will follow your example.

    This brings me to our bilateral work. The starting point for us is our investment programme Global Gateway. That is the investment programme abroad for partners. It is already at work – here in Barbados and across the Caribbean. Together with Hydrogen de France we have just signed the first green hydrogen storage project in Barbados. What is important is that renewable energy is homegrown, and therefore it is cheaper: It gives you energy independence and it gives you energy security, and it is the energy of the future, because it is clean energy.

    We are, as you said, also working on the health sector. I think both of us have learnt our bitter lessons during COVID-19 and how vulnerable we are. And therefore, we support your pharmaceutical sovereignty. It means vaccines and medication produced in the Caribbean, for the Caribbean, but also to be a hub for the rest of the world. We have just signed a biomedical partnership between BioMedX, a European biotech company, and Barbados. And tomorrow, we will launch ‘PharmaNext’, a project that really boosts innovation and investments across the Atlantic. Because it also aligns the regulatory environment that is so important to move forward.

    We have other great projects in the Caribbean. One has really caught my attention: In Barbados and Grenada, we are turning the sargassum threat into an opportunity, and I think it is really smart. We are working to transform this harmful alga into fertiliser, biomass and even cosmetics.This project has, and this is phenomenal, the potential to leverage almost EUR 400 million in investments. And actually, we are bringing thus a harmful alga, fighting a harmful alga but turning it into an opportunity that brings revenue. So it could not be better. Finally, we are bringing the Caribbean closer together and closer to us – with digital connectivity. Tomorrow, we will commit with Spain to deliver high-speed internet via satellite to even the most remote communities here. So the last kilometre that is always so difficult, we are going to manage that now via satellite.

    To me, the spirit of Global Gateway is needed more than ever. We are investing in value chains, skills and jobs. We are sharing knowledge and technology for the benefit of both sides. We are looking into a long-term and trusted partnership. And we are convinced that a win-win situation is the most beneficial for our people and our economy.

    Thank you very much again for having me here.

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Hoyer Statement on President Trump’s Appalling Comments on Ukraine

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Steny H Hoyer (MD-05)

    WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman Steny H. Hoyer (MD-05) released the following statement today in response to the comments made by President Donald J. Trump regarding Ukraine:

    “President Donald Trump’s comments on Ukraine are appalling. By repeating Russian propaganda, our own President dishonors America, and dishonors the brave men and women who have fought so valiantly for democracy and international law. These freedom fighters are defending their homeland and sovereignty against a war criminal who invaded Ukraine without any justifiable cause. 

    “With his comments, President Trump also dishonors all of those democracies who have supported President Zelenskyy in his leadership to defeat a craven dictator.

    “It is now obvious why Zelenskyy was not included in the discussions so critical to the future of Ukraine. President Trump is clearly adopting Putin’s argument, which has been rejected by the free world and the United States of America in a bipartisan fashion. Every American and every Republican and Democrat who loves freedom and opposes dictators and war criminals should be speaking out forcefully in opposition to this Putin lie that, shockingly, Trump has parroted. His relationship with this despot is dangerous and despicable.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Grattan on Friday: Dutton doesn’t pull his punches on Trump while Albanese plays it safe

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

    Treasurer Jim Chalmers will not be organising a bucks’ night ahead of the coming nuptials of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Jodie Haydon.

    How do we know this morsel of trivia? The treasurer, appearing on Wednesday breakfast TV to talk up Tuesday’s interest rate cut, was asked about being in charge of arranging the PM’s bucks’ party.

    “I’m more of a cup of tea and an early night kind of guy these days. And so I’m sure you can find someone more appropriate to plan the bucks,” Chalmers said, laughing off whatever impatience he may have felt at being taken down this path.

    To the dismay of more than a few in Labor circles, a Women’s Weekly interview with the PM and his fiancee dropped into the news cycle just as the government needed all attention on the rate cut.

    Given the army of prime ministerial spinners, there was some wonder at this publicity collision.

    All leaders do these soft photogenic sessions. But, leaving aside the unfortunate clash, it might be argued this is not the time for the prime ministerial couple to be inviting attention to their post-election marriage. Albanese is not thinking of retiring, but some voters might see a subtle hint of that. As they did when he bought his clifftop house on the central NSW coast.

    Chalmers, when asked about the Women’s Weekly piece, was anxious to get across the message that, wedding or not, “I can assure all of your viewers, whether it’s the prime minister or the rest of his government, the main focus is on the cost of living”.

    More disappointing for the government than the Women’s Weekly blip was the mixed reception the long-anticipated rate cut received in much of the media.

    Reserve Bank Governor Michele Bullock indicated the bank’s decision to cut was a close call. She hosed down expectations of further cuts, which effectively rules out a pre-election move on April Fools’ Day.

    It wasn’t an entirely happy week for Bullock, with critics of the cut suggesting she had responded to political pressure. Out in mortgage land, people will be relieved at the slight help, but it only takes away a fraction of their repayment pain.

    Meanwhile the work of the cabinet expenditure review committee and the treasury continues apace on what could be a “ghost” March 25 budget – if Albanese aborts it with an April election.

    The government insists there is nothing strange about this. If the budget doesn’t eventuate, the measures will be rolled out as election policy, it says. The argument is unconvincing. Preparing a budget and putting together election policy may have some things in common, but they are not the same. A budget is a close-woven tapestry; election policy is open-stitch cloth.

    The uncertainty about the election date, while full campaigning is underway, is disruptive for business and the economy (even if, as Chalmers says, it’s now only a matter of weeks either way). It reinforces the argument for fixed federal terms, which work well in the states. But the obstacles are such that that’s not even worth talking about, unfortunately.

    In a “no show without Punch” moment this week, Clive Palmer entered the election race with his Trumpet of Patriots party and a promise to spend “whatever is required to be spent”. There’s talk of $90 million being splashed on a “Make Australia Great Again” platform.

    It’s hard to get a fix on what impact Palmer will have. He’s competing with Pauline Hanson for votes on the right. Labor fears his advertising on the cost of living will crowd out its messages. He is also targeting Opposition Leader Peter Dutton for not being Trumpian enough. He told Nine media, “As Dutton said, he’s no Donald Trump. I say, what’s wrong with being Donald Trump?”

    The answer is, a very great deal. As Trump’s presidency unfolds, its dangers are becoming more obvious than even his harshest critics feared.

    Inevitably, the shadow of Trump is hanging increasingly over our election.

    With Trump’s win, the Liberals would have thought the latest manifestation of a widespread international swing to the right would put wind in their sails. But the counter-argument has grown – an erratic and autocratic Trump is making some Australian voters feel more unsettled and inclined to stick with the status quo.

    Dutton is not a mini-me Trump but shares some of his views on issues such as government spending, bureaucracy and identity politics. Former Prime Minister Scott Morrison told the Australian Financial Review this week that Dutton would sympathise with some of Trump’s objectives but the opposition leader was “not trying to ape” what was going on in the United States.

    Trump’s push to end the Russia-Ukraine war has taken Trumpism to a fresh, alarming level, and could inject strains into the Australia-US relationship.

    Trump has sidelined Ukraine and is clearly favouring Russia in pursuing a settlement. Now he has launched an extraordinary personal attack on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

    On his social media platform Trump lashed Zelensky as a “modestly successful comedian” who had gone “into a war that couldn’t be won, that never had to start”. Zelensky was a “dictator” who refused to have elections, had done “a terrible job” and was very low in the opinion polls, Trump said.

    Ukraine’s cause has been bipartisan in Australia, which has given the country more than $1.5 billion in assistance and now has (belatedly) reopened its embassy there.

    To his credit, Dutton immediately condemned Trump’s stand in very forthright terms.

    “President Trump has got it wrong in relation to some of the public commentary that I’ve seen him make in relation to President Zelensky and the situation in Ukraine,” he told Sydney radio.

    “I think very, very careful thought needs to be given about the steps because if we make Europe less safe, or we provide some sort of support to [Russian president] Putin, deliberately or inadvertently, that is a terrible, terrible outcome.”

    Albanese’s initial response was to repeat firmly Australia backing for Ukraine, condemning Russia. He did not comment directly on Trump’s attack. He repeated he was not going to give “ongoing commentary on everything that Donald Trump says”.

    The government finds itself caught between the need to strongly reject Trump’s handling of Ukraine, and a desire to tread softly with an administration from whom it desperately wants to win a concession on tariffs.

    Michelle Grattan 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.

    – ref. Grattan on Friday: Dutton doesn’t pull his punches on Trump while Albanese plays it safe – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-dutton-doesnt-pull-his-punches-on-trump-while-albanese-plays-it-safe-250386

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –