NewzIntel.com

Category: Ukraine

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Missions – AFET ad-hoc delegation to the United Kingdom – 28-10-2024 – Committee on Foreign Affairs

    Source: European Parliament

    FISC Mission to London (UK) – 19 to 20 June 2023 © Image used under the license from Adobe Stock

    A seven-member strong delegation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) travelled to the United Kingdom from 28 to 30 October 2024. This was the first official visit of the Committee abroad in this parliamentary term. The delegation discussed possibilities for strengthening of the EU-UK partnership, in particular in foreign and security affairs.

    This visit was also be an opportunity to exchange views on issues of global and regional significance such as the Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, the situation in the Middle East and tensions in the Indo-Pacific.

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Highlights – AFET ad-hoc mission to the United Kingdom – 28-30 October – Committee on Foreign Affairs

    Source: European Parliament

    European Union and UK © Adobe stock

    A seven-member strong delegation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) travelled to the United Kingdom from 28 to 30 October 2024. This was the first official visit of the Committee abroad in this parliamentary term. The delegation discussed possibilities for strengthening of the EU-UK partnership, in particular in foreign and security affairs.

    This visit was also be an opportunity to exchange views on issues of global and regional significance such as the Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, the situation in the Middle East and tensions in the Indo-Pacific.

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Video: Russian Federation: Human rights situation – Special Rapporteur | United Nations

    Source: United Nations (Video News)

    Press conference by Ms. Mariana Katzarova, UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Russian Federation.

    ———————————

    Mariana Katzarova, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Russian Federation said, “the aggressive war, the full-scale invasion against Ukraine” has exacerbated “the repression against civil society, against any antiwar expression inside the Russian Federation.”

    Special Rapporteur spoke to reporters Tuesday (29 Oct) in New York, describing instances of Russian citizens, soldiers, and critics who resist the war facing severe punishment, ranging from beatings to torture.

    Katzarova said, “Russian soldiers who decide, or officers who decide, already in Ukraine, that they don’t want to follow criminal orders, they do not want to participate in the war, they have been subjected to despicable torture in so called “zindans” pits in the ground, or they have been suspended from trees without water, without food while they’ve been severely beaten. Some has been shot in the back while trying to escape the war zone.”

    The clampdown has also extended to Russian journalists covering the conflict, with Katzarova detailing how authorities have detained more than 30 reporters. She said, “there are rules of war, but when the authorities of any country, and here we’re talking about the Russian government, starts hunting down journalists on assignment, this shows a desperation by the authorities to really cover up, to silence the truth about the aggressive war in its third year against Ukraine.”

    Katzarova estimated that over 1,300 people are currently detained as political prisoners, though some NGOs place the number above 1,700. Among these cases, she pointed to a young poet, arrested after reading an anti-war poem publicly in Moscow, who was reportedly gang-raped by police officers in detention. Despite the poet’s request for an investigation, Katzarova said, “the judge turned a blind eye.”

    Other dissenters, including prominent activist Vladimir Kara-Murza, have received lengthy prison terms for speaking out. Kara-Murza was sentenced to 25 years for “publishing three articles and delivering two speeches against the war.” His recent release as part of a prisoner exchange is an exception in Russia, Katzarova emphasized.

    Beyond political repression, Katzarova highlighted the troubling status of marginalized groups in Russia, particularly the LGBTQ+ community, which was labeled “extremist” by Russia’s Supreme Court last year, criminalizing expressions of LGBTQ+ identity and symbols. She said, “if you allow yourself to wear the rainbow flag, you are promoting the symbols of extremist organization.”

    Katzarova also condemned Russia’s tolerance of other severe human rights abuses, including the prevalence of female genital mutilation (FGM) in regions like Dagestan, a practice that remains legal in the country. “Russia is a signatory to the UN Convention Against Torture, which mandates torture be criminalized under national law,” she stated, noting that domestic violence and torture remain unaddressed by Russian legislation. “There is no law in Russia outlawing domestic violence, nor any distinct criminal offense of torture in Russian legislation,” said the Special Rapporteur.

    Following her UN briefing, Katzarova joined a meeting with public and grassroots organizations, hosted by the German Mission, where Vladimir Kara-Murza, now free, also addressed attendees. Speaking later with UN News, Kara-Murza said, “I believe it’s vitally important that now, for the first time ever, there is a specific mandate holder within the United Nations system tasked with documenting human rights violations in the Russian Federation. This is the first time ever that such a mandate holder has been appointed with responsibility for a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and that alone speaks volumes about the horrendous state of Vladimir Putin’s Russia.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS-15OQf-HQ

    MIL OSI Video –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why Europe should consider putting boots on the ground in Ukraine

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Viktoriia Lapa, Lecturer, Institute for European Policymaking, Bocconi University

    The mantra “as long as it takes” has become the European Union’s rallying cry in support of Ukraine’s resistance against Russia. Initially, some experts predicted that Ukraine would fall within three days – yet nearly three years have passed, and Ukraine is still standing. This prolonged struggle has come at an immense human cost.

    It’s clear that the decision to resist was made by the Ukrainian population, and they are grateful to the EU for its support. However, hopes that Ukraine can repel the invaders are fading, and there is no clear end in sight. “As long as it takes” for the EU translates, for Ukrainian ears, to “as many of your lives as we can afford to sacrifice”. Ukrainians are weary, even as they hold the front line, but the west has not communicated a commitment to fully engage in stopping Russian aggression and deterring future threats. Instead, it seems focused on a policy of “de-escalation management”. This only emboldens Russia and its allies.

    What is even more concerning is the absence of a coherent strategy for managing Russia. What would the EU do in the event that the war were to magically end tomorrow? Is there a plan in place, or will EU leaders simply offer Russia a reset?

    The EU has excelled in rhetoric when it comes to Ukraine but has fallen short in delivering military support. It remains reluctant to draw firm red lines for Russia as a response to attacks on European soil or to adopt a more assertive stance.

    The supply of shells to Ukraine is a case in point. The EU pledged to supply 1 million rounds of ammunition by March 2024, but by January, Josep Borrell, the EU’s foreign affairs chief, admitted that the bloc would only deliver half of that on time while committing to send 1.1 million shells by the year’s end. To address this shortfall, Czech president Petr Pavel proposed an initiative at the Munich Security Conference in February, aiming to provide 800,000 shells to Ukraine by the year’s end, sourcing ammunition globally instead of solely from EU manufacturers. By August 2024, the EU had sent Ukraine only 650,000 shells out of the promised 1 million.

    Various news outlets have reported that the result is a grim picture on the front line, where for every shell fired by Ukraine, Russian forces are firing ten or more.

    Additionally, the EU has been reluctant to take decisive action, even in response to Russian attacks on its territory. Recent incidents, such as a narrowly avoided plane crash in Germany attributed to suspected sabotage, reflect a troubling increase in aggressive behaviour from Russian saboteurs. The only response so far has been a relatively weak sanctions framework to be used on those involved in such attacks.

    A strategy for the future

    The EU must adopt a proactive approach to securing peace in Ukraine, recognising that Russia is currently unwilling to negotiate – but would also never negotiate from a position of weakness.

    A clear strategy – including security guarantees for Ukraine, preferably through a pathway to Nato membership – could help put pressure on Russia and facilitate negotiations. It’s clear that bringing Ukraine into Nato might take years, but in the meantime, European countries should consider deploying troops to Ukraine as a security guarantee for this interim period.

    As the Lithuanian minister of foreign affairs, Gabrielius Landsbergis, rightly said: “At the beginning of the year, Emmanuel Macron hinted at putting boots on the ground. At the end of the year, North Korea had actually done so. We are still on the back foot, reacting to escalation instead of reversing it. Macron’s ideas should now be revisited – better late than never.”

    Security agreements do of course exist between Ukraine and its EU and G7 partners, but not a single country has hinted at a possibility of providing, as a guarantee for peace, such a security guarantee as “troops on the ground”. EU countries must consider this seriously.

    And with a view to what happens after the Russian aggression in Ukraine, the EU needs at least the beginnings of an idea about what its terms would be for re-engaging with Russia. Otherwise it risks enabling Russia to set its own terms.

    The situation on the ground is dire. While the west boasts economic strength, it lacks visionary leadership and political will. It should not allow Russia to take the lead and must adopt a clear strategy for Ukraine’s victory. Otherwise, we are heading toward the scenario described by Timothy Garton Ash in his Financial Times article advocating for Ukraine’s accession to Nato:

    Consider the alternative. A defeated, divided, demoralized, depopulated Ukraine, pulsating with anger against the West and – as Zelenskyy hinted last week – probably seeking to acquire nuclear weapons. Moscow triumphant. The rest of the world concluding that the West is a paper tiger. Xi Jinping encouraged to have a go at Taiwan. Biden and Harris going down in history as the leaders who ‘lost Ukraine’.

    One could add: the EU faces disintegration, regressing to its pre-union state. Ursula von der Leyen is remembered as the leader whose “as long as it takes” policy resulted in an epic failure to secure a safer future for Europe and Ukraine. Does the west want to see itself in this way?

    Viktoriia Lapa is an Affiliated Scholar at the Center for Constitutional Studies and Democratic Development, a research partnership between the School of Law of the University of Bologna and the Johns Hopkins University Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies in Bologna, Italy (SAIS Europe).

    – ref. Why Europe should consider putting boots on the ground in Ukraine – https://theconversation.com/why-europe-should-consider-putting-boots-on-the-ground-in-ukraine-242279

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Autumn Budget 2024 speech

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    Autumn Budget 2024 speech as delivered by Chancellor Rachel Reeves.

    Delivered on:
    (Transcript of the speech, exactly as it was delivered)

    Madam Deputy Speaker…

    [redacted political content]

    This government was given a mandate. 

    To restore stability to our economy… 

    … and to begin a decade of national renewal. 

    To fix the foundations… 

    … and deliver change. 

    Through responsible leadership in the national interest.  

    That is our task.  

    And I know that we can achieve it. 

    My belief in Britain burns brighter than ever.  

    And the prize on offer is immense.  

    As my Right Honourable Friend the Prime Minister said on Monday – change must be felt. 

    More pounds in people’s pockets.  

    An NHS that is there when you need it.  

    An economy that is growing, creating wealth and opportunity for all…  

    … because that is the only way to improve living standards.   

    And the only way to drive economic growth… 

    … is to invest, invest, invest.  

    There are no shortcuts. 

    And to deliver that investment… 

    … we must restore economic stability…

    [redacted political content]

    INHERITANCE

    [redacted political content]

    … it is the first Budget in our country’s history to be delivered by a woman.  

    I am deeply proud to be Britain’s first ever female Chancellor of the Exchequer.  

    To girls and young women everywhere, I say:  

    Let there be no ceiling on your ambition, your hopes and your dreams.  

    And along with the pride that I feel standing here today… 

    … there is also a responsibility… 

    … to pass on a fairer society and a stronger economy to the next  

    generation of women.

    [redacted political content]

    A black hole in the public finances… 

    Public services on their knees…. 

    A decade of low growth. 

    And the worst parliament on record for living standards. 

    Let me begin with the public finances. 

    In July, I exposed a £22bn black hole

    [redacted political content]

    The Treasury’s reserve, set aside for genuine emergencies… 

    … spent three times over… 

    … just three months into the financial year.  

    Today, on top of the detailed document that I have provided to the House in July… 

    … the government is publishing a line by line breakdown of the £22bn black hole that we inherited… 

    It shows hundreds of unfunded pressures on the public finances… 

    … this year, and into the future too.  

    The Office for Budget Responsibility have published their own review of the circumstances around the Spring Budget forecast.  

    They say that the previous government – and I quote – “did not provide the OBR with all the [available] information to them”… 

    … and – had they known about these “undisclosed spending pressures that have since come to light”… 

    … then their Spring Budget forecast for spending would have been, and I quote again: “materially different”.  

    Let me be clear: that means any comparison between today’s forecast and the OBR’s March forecast is false… 

    … because the party opposite hid the reality of their public spending plans. 

    Yet at the very same budget… 

    … they made another ten billion pounds worth of cuts to National Insurance.

    [redacted political content]

    That’s why today, I can confirm that we will implement in full… 

    … the 10 recommendations from the independent Office for Budget Responsibility’s review. 

    But, the country has inherited not just broken public finances… 

    … but broken public services too. 

    The British people can see and feel that in their everyday lives. 

    NHS waiting lists at record levels. 

    Children in portacabins as school roofs crumble. 

    Trains that do not arrive. 

    Rivers filled with polluted waste.  

    Prisons overflowing. 

    Crimes which are not investigated… 

    … and criminals who are not punished.  

    That is the country’s inheritance

    Since 2021, there had been no detailed plans for departmental spending set out beyond this year.  

    And [redacted political content] plans relied on a baseline for spending this year which we now know was wrong… 

    … because it did not take into account the £22bn black hole.  

    The previous government also failed to budget for costs which they knew would materialise.  

    That includes funding for vital compensation schemes…  

    … for victims of two terrible injustices…

    [redacted political content]

    … the infected blood scandal… 

    … and the Post Office Horizon scandal.  

    The Leader of the Opposition rightly made an unequivocal apology for the injustice of the infected blood scandal on behalf of the British state… 

    … but he did not budget for the costs of compensation.  

    Today, for the very first time, we will provide specific funding to compensate those infected and those affected, in full… 

    … with £11.8bn in this budget. 

    And I am also today setting aside £1.8bn to compensate victims of the Post Office Horizon scandal… 

    … redress that is long overdue for the pain and injustice that they have suffered.

    [redacted political content]

    … and we will restore stability to our country again. 

    The scale and seriousness of the situation that we have inherited cannot be underestimated. 

    Together, the hole in our public finances this year, which recurs every year… 

    … the compensation schemes that they did not fund… 

    … and their failure to assess the scale of the challenges facing our public services… 

    … means this budget raises taxes by £40bn. 

    Any Chancellor standing here today would have to face this reality. 

    And any responsible Chancellor would take action. 

    That is why today, I am restoring stability to our public finances… 

    … and rebuilding our public services.  

    FISCAL RULES / OBR FORECASTS 

    Economy forecast/growth 

    As a former economist at the Bank of England, I know what it means to respect our economic institutions.  

    I want to put on record my thanks to the Governor of the Bank, Andrew Bailey…  

    … and to the independent Monetary Policy Committee. 

    Today, I can confirm that we will maintain the MPC’s target of two per cent inflation, as measured by the 12-month increase in the Consumer Prices Index. 

    I want to thank James Bowler, the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and my team of officials. 

    Madam Deputy Speaker, I would also like to thank my predecessors as Chancellor of the Exchequer… 

    … for their wise counsel as I have prepared for this Budget.

    [redacted political content]

    Finally, I want to thank Richard Hughes and his team at the Office for Budget Responsibility for their work in preparing today’s economic and fiscal outlook. 

    Let me now take the House through that forecast. 

    The cost of living crisis under the last government stretched household finances to their limit, with inflation hitting a peak of above 11%.  

    Today, the OBR say that CPI inflation will average 2.5% this year, 2.6% in 2025, then 2.3% in 2026, 2.1% in 2027, 2.1% in 2028 and 2.0% in 2029.  

    Next, I move on to economic growth.  

    Today’s budget marks an end to short-termism.  

    So I am pleased, that for the first time, the OBR have published not only five year growth forecasts… 

    … but a detailed assessment of the growth impacts of our policies over the next decade, too… 

    … and the new Charter for Budget Responsibility, which I am publishing today, confirms that this will become a permanent feature of our framework. 

    The OBR forecast that real GDP growth will be 1.1% in 2024, 2.0% in 2025, 1.8% in 2026, 1.5% in 2027, 1.5% in 2028 and 1.6% in 2029. 

    And the OBR are clear: this Budget will permanently increase the supply capacity of the economy…

    [redacted political content]

    … boosting long-term growth. 

    Every Budget I deliver will be focused on our mission to grow the economy. 

    And underpinning that mission are the seven key pillars of our growth strategy… 

    … developed and delivered alongside business…  

    … all driven forward by our Financial Secretary to the Treasury.   

    First, and most important, is to restore economic stability. That is my focus today. 

    Second, increasing investment and building new infrastructure is vital for productivity, so we are catalysing £70bn of investment through our National Wealth Fund… 

    … and we are transforming our planning rules to get Britain building again. 

    Third, to ensure that all parts of the UK can realise their potential… 

    … we are working with the devolved governments… 

    … and partnering with our Mayors to develop local growth plans.  

    Fourth, to improve employment prospects and skills we are creating Skills England, delivering our plans to Make Work Pay and tackling economic inactivity.  

    Fifth, we are launching our long-term modern industrial strategy and expanding opportunities for our small and medium sized businesses to grow. 

    Sixth, to drive innovation we are protecting record funding for research and development to harness the full potential of the UK’s science base.  

    And finally, to maximise the growth benefits of our clean energy mission, we have confirmed key investments such as Carbon Capture and Storage to create jobs in our industrial heartlands. 

    Our approach is already having an impact. 

    Just two weeks ago – we delivered an International Investment Summit which saw businesses commit £63.5bn of investment into this country… 

    … creating nearly 40,000 jobs across the United Kingdom.

    [redacted political content]

    Economic growth will be our mission for the duration of this parliament.  

    Stability rule 

    Madam Deputy Speaker, in our manifesto, we set out the fiscal rules that would guide this government. 

    I am confirming those today… 

    Our stability rule… 

    And our investment rule… 

    The “stability rule” means that we will bring the current budget into balance… 

    … so that we do not borrow to fund day to day spending. 

    We will meet this rule in 2029-30, until that becomes the third year of the forecast.  

    From then on, we will balance the current budget in the third year of every budget, held annually each autumn. 

    That will provide a tougher constraint on day to day spending… 

    … so difficult decisions cannot be constantly delayed or deferred.  

    The OBR say that the current budget will be in deficit by £26.2bn in 2025-26 and £5.2bn in 2026-27… 

    … before moving into surplus of £10.9bn in 2027-28, £9.3bn in 2028-29 and £9.9bn in 2029-30… 

    … meeting our stability rule… 

    … two years early.  

    Monthly public sector finances data shows that government borrowing in the first six months of this year… 

    … was already running significantly higher than the OBR’s March forecast. 

    And so the OBR confirmed today, that borrowing in this financial year is now £127bn…

    [redacted political content]

    The increase in the net cash requirement in 24-25 is lower than the increase in borrowing, at £22.3bn higher than the spring forecast.  

    Because of the action that we are taking… 

    … borrowing falls from 4.5% of GDP this year to 2.1% of GDP by the end of the forecast. 

    Public sector net borrowing will be £105.6bn in 2025-26, £88.5bn in 2026-27, £72.2bn in 2027-28, £71.9bn in 2028-29 and £70.6bn in 2029-2930. 

    FIXING THE FOUNDATIONS 

    Spending  

    Madam Deputy Speaker, before I come to tax… 

    … it is vital that we are driving efficiency and reducing wasteful spending. 

    In July, to begin delivering, and dealing with our inheritance… 

    … I made £5.5bn of savings this year.  

    Today we are setting a 2% productivity, efficiency and savings target for all departments to meet next year… 

    … by using technology more effectively and joining up services across government 

    As set out in our manifesto, I will shortly be appointing our Covid Corruption Commissioner, they will lead our work to uncover those companies that used a national emergency to line their own pockets. 

    Because that money belongs in our public services. And taxpayers want that money back.  

    And I can confirm today that David Goldstone has been appointed as the Chair of the new Office for Value for Money…  

    … to help us realise the benefits from every pound of public spending. 

    Welfare 

    Today, I am also taking three steps to ensure that welfare spending is more sustainable.  

    First, we inherited [redacted political content] plans to reform the Work Capability Assessment.  

    We will deliver those savings…  

    …as part of our fundamental reforms to the health and disability benefits system that my Right Honourable Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary will bring forward. 

    Second, I can today announce a crackdown on fraud in our welfare system… 

    … often the work of criminal gangs.  

    We will expand DWP’s counter-fraud teams.. 

    … using innovative new methods to prevent illegal activity…  

    … and provide new legal powers to crackdown on fraudsters… 

    … including direct access to bank accounts to recover debt. 

    This package saves £4.3bn a year by the end of the forecast. 

    Third, the government will shortly be publishing the “Get Britain Working” white paper…  

    … tackling the root causes of inactivity with an integrated approach across health, education and welfare.  

    … and we will provide £240m for 16 trailblazer projects… 

    … targeted at those who are economically inactive and most at risk of being out of education, employment or training… 

    … to get people into work and reduce the benefits bill.  

    Tax avoidance 

    Before a government could consider any change to a tax rate or threshold… 

    … it must ensure that people pay what they already owe. 

    So we will invest to modernise HMRC’s systems using the very best technology… 

    … and recruit additional HMRC compliance and debt staff. 

    We will clamp down on those umbrella companies who exploit workers… 

    … increase the interest rate on unpaid tax debt to ensure that people pay on time… 

    … and go after promoters of tax avoidance schemes. 

    These measures to reduce the tax gap raise £6.5bn by the end of the forecast… 

    … and I want to thank the Exchequer Secretary for his outstanding work on this agenda. 

    PROTECTING WORKING PEOPLE 

    Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that for working people up and down our country… 

    … family finances are stretched… 

    … and pay checks don’t go as far as they once did. 

    So today, I am taking steps to support people with the cost of living. 

    Cost of living

    [redacted political content]

    As promised in our manifesto, we asked the Low Pay Commission to take account of the cost of living for the first time.  

    I can confirm that we will accept the Low Pay Commission recommendation to increase the National Living Wage by 6.7% to £12.21 an hour… 

    … worth up to £1,400 a year for a full-time worker. 

    And for the first time, we will move towards a single adult rate…  

    … phased in over time…  

    … by initially increasing the National Minimum Wage for 18-20 year olds by 16.3% as recommended by the Low Pay Commission… 

    … taking it to £10 an hour.

    [redacted political content]

    Second, I have heard representations from colleagues across this house about the Carer’s Allowance… 

    … and the impact of the current policy on carers looking to increase the hours they work… 

    … including from the Honourable member for Shipley, the Honourable member for Scarborough and Whitby and the Rt Hon Member for Kingston and Surbiton, too. 

    Carer’s allowance currently provides up to £81.90 per week to help those with additional caring responsibilities.  

    Today, I can confirm that we are increasing the weekly earnings limit to the equivalent of 16 hours at the National Living Wage per week… 

    … the largest increase in Carer’s Allowance since it was introduced in 1976.  

    That means a carer can now earn over £10,000 a year while receiving Carer’s Allowance… 

    … allowing them to increase their hours where they want to… 

    … and keep more of their money. 

    I am also concerned about the cliff-edge in the current system and the issue of overpayments. 

    My Right Honourable Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary has announced an independent review to look at the issue of overpayments, and we will work across this house to develop the right solutions. 

    Third, we will provide £1bn from next year to extend the Household Support Fund and Discretionary Housing Payments, to help those facing financial hardship with the cost of essentials.  

    Fourth, having heard representations from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Trussell and others… 

    … to reduce the level of debt repayments that can be taken from a household’s Universal Credit payment each month… 

    … by reducing it from 25% to 15% of their standard allowance. 

    This means that 1.2 million of the poorest households will keep more of their award each month… 

    … lifting children out of poverty…  

    … and those who benefit will gain an average of £420 a year. 

    Madam Deputy Speaker, our Plan to Make Work Pay will also protect working people.

    [redacted political content]

    It is right that we protect those who have worked their whole lives.  

    In our manifesto, we promised to transfer the Investment Reserve Fund in the Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme to members… 

    … and I have listened closely to my Honourable Friends for Easington, Doncaster Central, Blaenau Gwent, and Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock on this issue. 

    Today we are keeping our promise…  

    … so that working people who powered our country receive the fair pension that they are owed. 

    Our manifesto committed to the Triple Lock… 

    … meaning spending on the State Pension is forecast to rise by over £31bn by 2029-30… 

    … to ensure that our pensioners are protected in their retirement.  

    This commitment means that while working age benefits will be uprated in line with CPI, at 1.7%… 

    … the basic and new State Pension… 

    … will be uprated by 4.1% in 2025-26. 

    This means that over 12 million pensioners will gain up to £470 next year… 

    … up to £275 more than if uprated by inflation.  

    The Pension Credit Standard Minimum Guarantee will also rise by 4.1%…  

    … from around £11,400 per year to around £11,850 for a single pensioner.  

    Fuel duty 

    While I have sought to protect working people with measures to reduce the cost of living… 

    … I have had to take some very difficult decisions on tax. 

    I want to set out my approach to fuel duty.  

    Baked into the numbers that I inherited from the previous government… 

    … is an assumption that fuel duty will rise by RPI next year… 

    … and that the temporary 5p cut will be reversed.  

    To retain the 5p cut… 

    … and to freeze fuel duty again… 

    … would cost over £3bn next year.  

    At a time when the fiscal position is so difficult…  

    … I have to be frank with the House that this is a substantial commitment to make. 

    I have concluded… 

    … that in these difficult circumstances… 

    … while the cost of living remains high… 

    … and with a backdrop of global uncertainty… 

    … increasing fuel duty next year… 

    … would be the wrong choice for working people. 

    It would mean fuel duty rising by 7p per litre. 

    So, I have today decided to freeze fuel duty next year… 

    … and I will maintain the existing 5p cut for another year, too. 

    There will be no higher taxes at the petrol pumps next year.

    Madam Deputy Speaker, the last government made cuts of £20bn to employees’ and self-employed national insurance in their final two budgets.

    [redacted political content]

    Because we now know they were based on a forecast which the OBR say would have been “materially different”… 

    … had they known the true extent of the last government’s cover-up.   

    Since July, I have been urged on multiple occasions to reconsider these cuts.  

    To increase the taxes that working people pay and see in their payslips. 

    But I have made an important choice today: 

    To keep every single commitment that we made on tax in our manifesto.  

    So I say to working people: 

    I will not increase your National Insurance… 

    …I will not increase your VAT… 

    …And I will not increase your income tax. 

    Working people will not see higher taxes in their payslips as a result of the choices I make today. 

    That is a promise made – and a promise fulfilled. 

    TAX 

    But any responsible Chancellor would need to take difficult decisions today. 

    To raise the revenues required to fund our public services. 

    And to restore economic stability.  

    So in today’s Budget, I am announcing an increase in Employers’ National Insurance Contributions.  

    We will increase the rate of Employers’ National Insurance by 1.2 percentage points, to 15%, from April 2025.  

    And we will reduce the Secondary Threshold – the level at which employers start paying national insurance on each employee’s salary – from £9,100 per year to £5,000.  

    This will raise £25bn per year by the end of the forecast period.  

    I know that this is a difficult choice. 

    I do not take this decision lightly.  

    We are asking business to contribute more… 

    … and I know that there will be impacts of this measure felt beyond businesses, too… 

    … as the OBR have set out today. 

    But in the circumstances that I have inherited, it is the right choice to make.  

    Successful businesses depend on successful schools. 

    Healthy businesses depend on a healthy NHS.  

    And a strong economy depends on strong public finances.

    [redacted political content]

    That is the choice our country faces too.  

    As I make this choice, I know it is particularly important to protect our smallest companies.  

    So having heard representations from the Federation of Small Businesses and others… 

    … I am today increasing the Employment Allowance from £5,000 to £10,500. 

    This means 865,000 employers won’t pay any National Insurance at all next year… 

    … and over 1 million will pay the same or less than they did previously. 

    This will allow a small business to employ the equivalent of 4 full time workers on the National Living Wage… 

    … without paying any National Insurance on their wages. 

    Madam Deputy Speaker, let me come now to capital gains tax. 

    We need to drive growth, promote entrepreneurship, and support wealth creation… 

    … while raising the revenue required to fund our public services… 

    … and restore our public finances.  

    Today, we will increase the lower rate of Capital Gains Tax from 10% to 18%, and the Higher Rate from 20% to 24%… 

    … while maintaining the rates of capital gains tax on residential property at 18% and 24%, too.  

    This means the UK will still have the lowest Capital Gains Tax rate of any European G7 economy. 

    Alongside these changes to the headline rates of Capital Gains Tax… 

    … we are maintaining the lifetime limit for Business Asset Disposal Relief at £1m… 

    … to encourage entrepreneurs to invest in their businesses.   

    Business Asset Disposal Relief will remain at 10% this year… 

    … before rising to 14% in April 2025… 

    … and 18% from 2026-27… 

    … maintaining a significant gap compared to the higher rate of Capital Gains Tax.  

    Together, the OBR say these measures will raise £2.5bn by the end of the forecast. 

    In a sign of this government’s commitment to supporting growth and entrepreneurship… 

    …we have already extended the Enterprise Investment Scheme and Venture Capital Trust schemes to 2035… 

    … and we will continue to work with leading entrepreneurs and venture capital firms… 

    … to ensure our policies support a positive environment for entrepreneurship in the UK. 

    Next, inheritance tax. 

    Only 6% of estates will pay inheritance tax this year. 

    I understand the strongly held desire to pass down savings to children and grandchildren. 

    So I am taking a balanced approach in my package today. 

    First, the previous government froze inheritance tax thresholds until 2028. I will extend that freeze for a further two years, until 2030. 

    That means the first £325,000 of any estate can be inherited tax-free… 

    … rising to £500,000 if the estate includes a residence passed to direct descendants…. 

    … and £1m when a tax free allowance is passed to a surviving spouse or civil partner. 

    Second, we will close the loophole created by the previous government… 

    … made even bigger when the Lifetime Allowance was abolished… 

    … by bringing inherited pensions into inheritance tax from April 2027. 

    Finally, we will reform Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief.  

    From April 2026, the first £1m of combined business and agricultural assets will continue to attract no inheritance tax at all… 

    … but for assets over £1m, inheritance tax will apply with 50% relief, at an effective rate of 20%. 

    This will ensure we continue to protect small family farms… 

    … and three-quarters of claims will be unaffected by these changes. 

    I can also announce that we will apply a 50% relief, in all circumstances, on inheritance tax for shares on the Alternative Investment Market (AIM) and other similar markets… 

    … setting the effective rate of tax at 20%. 

    Taken together, these measures raise over £2bn in the final year of the forecast. 

    Next, I can confirm that the government will renew the Tobacco Duty escalator for the remainder of this Parliament at RPI+2%… 

    … increase duty by a further 10% on hand-rolling tobacco this year… 

    … introduce a flat rate duty on all vaping liquid from October 2026… 

    … alongside an additional one off- increase in tobacco duty to maintain the incentive to give up smoking. 

    And we will increase the Soft Drinks Industry Levy to account for inflation since it was introduced… 

    …  as well as increasing the duty in line with CPI each year going forward. 

    These measures will raise nearly £1bn per year by the end of the forecast period. 

    Madame Deputy Speaker, we want to support the take-up of electric vehicles. 

    So I will maintain incentives for electric vehicles in Company Car Tax from 2028… 

    … and increase the differential between fully electric and other vehicles in the first year rates of Vehicle Excise Duty from April 2025. 

    These measures will raise around £400m by the end of the forecast period. 

    Madam Deputy Speaker let me update the House on our plans for Air Passenger Duty…

    [redacted political content]

    Air Passenger Duty has not kept up with inflation in recent years… 

    … so we are introducing an adjustment… 

    … meaning an increase of no more than £2 for an economy class short-haul flight.  

    But I am taking a different approach when it comes to private jets…  

    … increasing the rate of Air Passenger Duty by a further 50%.

    [redacted political content]

    These measures will raise over £700m by the end of the forecast period. 

    Madam Deputy Speaker, let me turn now to our high street businesses.  

    I know that for them, a major source of concern is business rates.  

    From 2026-27, we intend to introduce two permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties which make up the backbone of high streets across the country… 

    … and it is our intention that is paid for by a higher multiplier for the most valuable properties.

    [redacted political content]

    So I will today provide 40% relief on business rates for the retail, hospitality and leisure industry in 2025-26… 

    … up to a cap of £110,000 per business. 

    Alongside this, the small business tax multiplier will be frozen next year.  

    Next, I can confirm that alcohol duty rates on non-draught products will increase in line with RPI from February next year… 

    … but nearly two-thirds of alcoholic drinks sold in pubs are served on draught. 

    So today, instead of uprating these products in line with inflation… 

    … I am cutting draught duty by 1.7%… 

    … which means a penny off a pint in the pub. 

    Alongside the changes I am making today, I am publishing a Corporate Tax Roadmap.. 

    … providing the business certainty called for by the CBI, British Chambers of Commerce and the Institute for Directors. 

    This confirms our commitment to cap the rate of Corporation Tax at 25% – the lowest in the G7 –  for the duration of this parliament…. 

    … while maintaining full expensing and the £1 million Annual Investment Allowance… 

    …and keeping the current rates of research and development reliefs, to drive innovation. 

    Manifesto 

    Madam Deputy Speaker, in our manifesto we made a number of commitments to raise funding for our public services.  

    First, I have always said that if you make Britain your home, you should pay your tax here. 

    So today, I can confirm… 

    … we will abolish the non-dom tax regime… 

    … and remove the outdated concept of domicile from the tax system from April 2025. 

    We will introduce a new, residence based scheme… 

    … with internationally competitive arrangements for those coming to the UK on a temporary basis… 

    … while closing the loopholes in the scheme designed by the party opposite. 

    To further encourage investment into the UK, we will also extend the Temporary Repatriation Relief to three years and expand its scope… 

    … bringing billions of pounds of new funds into Britain. 

    The independent Office for Budget Responsibility say that this package of measures will raise £12.7bn over the next five years.  

    Next, the fund management industry provides a vital contribution to our economy… 

    …  but as our manifesto set out, there needs to be a fairer approach to the way carried interest is taxed.  

    So we will increase the Capital Gains Tax rates on carried interest to 32% from April 2025… 

    … and – from April 2026 – we will deliver further reforms to ensure that the specific rules for carried interest are simpler, fairer and better targeted. 

    In our manifesto we committed to reforming stamp duty land tax to raise revenue while supporting those buying their first home.  

    We are increasing the stamp-duty land tax surcharge for second-homes… 

    …known as the “Higher Rate for Additional Dwellings”… 

    … by 2 percentage points, to 5%, which will come into effect from tomorrow.  

    This will support over 130,000 additional transactions from people buying their first home, or moving home over, the next five years. 

    Next, we committed to reform the Energy Profits Levy on oil and gas companies. 

    I can confirm today that we will increase the rate of the levy to 38%, which will now expire in March 2030… 

    … and we will remove the 29% investment allowance. 

    To ensure the oil and gas industry can protect jobs and support our energy security… 

    … we will maintain the 100% first year allowances and the decarbonisation allowances too.  

    Finally, 94% of children in the UK attend state schools. 

    To provide the highest quality of support and teaching that they deserve… 

    … we will introduce VAT on private school fees from January 2025… 

    … and we will shortly introduce legislation to remove their business rates relief from April 2025, too.  

    We said in our manifesto that these changes… 

    … alongside our measures to tackle tax avoidance… 

    … would bring in £8.5bn by the final year of the forecast. 

    I can confirm today that they will in fact raise over £9bn… 

    … to support our public services and restore our public finances. 

    That is a promise made – and a promise fulfilled. 

    Madam Deputy Speaker, I have one final decision to take on tax today. 

    The previous government froze income tax and National Insurance thresholds in 2021… 

    … and then they did so again after the mini-budget. 

    Extending their threshold freeze for a further two years raises billions of pounds.  

    Money to deal with the black hole in our public finances…  

    … and repair our public services.  

    Having considered this issue closely… 

    … I have come to the conclusion… 

    … that extending the threshold freeze… 

    … would hurt working people. 

    It would take more money out of their payslips.

    I am keeping every single promise on tax that I made in our manifesto. 

    So there will be no extension of the freeze in income tax and National Insurance thresholds beyond the decisions of the previous government.  

    From 2028-29, personal tax thresholds will be uprated in line with inflation once again.

    When it comes to choices on tax, this government chooses to protect working people every single time.  

    SPENDING 

    Madam Deputy Speaker, these are the choices I have made. 

    To restore economic stability. 

    And to protect working people.  

    The next choice I make is to begin to repair our public services.  

    In recent months, we have conducted the first phase of the Spending Review… 

    … to set departmental budgets for 2024-25 and 2025-26… 

    … and I want to thank my Right Honourable Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for his tireless work with colleagues from across government.  

    Because I have taken difficult decisions on tax today… 

    … I am able to provide an injection of immediate funding over the next two years… 

    … to stabilise and to support our public services.  

    The next phase of the Spending Review will report in late Spring, and I have set the overall envelope today. 

    Day to day spending from 2024-25 onwards will grow by 1.5% in real terms… 

    … and total departmental spending, including capital spending, will grow by 1.7% in real terms. 

    At the election we promised there would be no return to austerity.  

    Today we deliver on that promise. 

    But given the scale of the challenges that are facing our public services… 

    … that means there will still be difficult choices in the next phase of the Spending Review. 

    Just as we cannot tax and spend our way to prosperity… 

    … nor can we simply spend our way to better public services.  

    So we will deliver a new approach to public service reform… 

    … using technology to improve public services… 

    … and taking a zero-based approach… 

    … so that taxpayers’ money is spent as effectively as possible…  

    … and so that we focus on delivering our key priorities.  

    Spending Review: Phase 1 

    In the first phase of the Spending Review… 

    … I have prioritised day-to-day funding to deliver on our manifesto commitments. 

    I want every child to have the best start in life… 

    … and the best possible start to the school day, too… 

    … and I know my Right Honourable Friend the Education Secretary shares my ambition.  

    So I am today tripling investment in breakfast clubs to fund them in thousands of schools.  

    I am increasing the core schools budget by £2.3bn next year… 

    … to support our pledge to hire thousands more teachers into key subjects.   

    So that our young people can develop the skills that they need for the future… 

    … I am providing an additional £300m for further education. 

    And finally, this government is committed to reforming special educational needs provision… 

    … to improve outcomes for our most vulnerable children and ensure the system is financially sustainable. 

    To support that work, I am today providing a £1bn uplift in funding, a 6% real terms increase from this year.  

    There is no more important job for government than to keep our country safe, and we are conducting a Strategic Defence Review to be published next year. 

    And as set out in our manifesto, we will set a path to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence at a future fiscal event. 

    Today, I am announcing a total increase to the Ministry of Defence’s Budget of £2.9bn next year… 

    … ensuring the UK comfortably exceeds our NATO commitments…  

    … and providing guaranteed military support to Ukraine of £3bn per year, for as long as it takes. 

    Last week, alongside my Right Honourable Friend the Defence Secretary, I announced, in addition to this, further support to Ukraine – on top of our NATO commitment…  

    … through our £2.26bn contribution to the G7’s Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration agreement… 

    … repaid using profits from immobilised Russian sovereign assets. 

    And as we approach Remembrance Sunday…  

    … it is vital that we take time to remember those who have served our country so bravely.  

    So I am today announcing funding to commemorate the 80th anniversary of VE and VJ day next year… 

    … to honour those who have served at home and abroad. 

    We must also remember those who experienced the atrocities of the Nazi regime first hand.  

    I would like to pay tribute to Lily Ebert, the Holocaust Survivor and educator who passed away aged 100 earlier this month.  

    I am today committing a further £2m to holocaust education next year… 

    … so that charities like the Holocaust Educational Trust, can continue their work to ensure these vital testimonies are not lost and are preserved for the future. 

    Madam Deputy Speaker, to repair our public services we also need to work alongside our mayors and our local leaders. 

    We will deliver a significant real-terms funding increase for local government next year…  

    … including £1.3bn of additional grant funding to deliver essential services… 

    … with at least £600m in grant funding for social care…  

    … and £230m to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping 

    We are today confirming that Greater Manchester and the West Midlands will be the first mayoral authorities to receive integrated settlements from next year… 

    … giving Mayors meaningful control of the funding for their local areas. 

    * 

    And to support our local high streets… 

    … we are taking action to deal with the sharp rise in shoplifting we have seen in recent years. 

    We will scrap the effective immunity for low-value shoplifting introduced by the party opposite. 

    And having listened closely to organisations like the British Retail Consortium and USDAW… 

    … I am providing additional funding to crack down on the organised gangs which target retailers… 

     … and to provide more training to our police officers and retailers to help stop shoplifting in its tracks.  

    Finally, I am today providing funding to support public services and drive growth across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.  

    Having discussed the matter with the First Minister of Wales, Eluned Morgan, and my HFs for Llanelli and Pontypridd… 

    … I am providing a £25m to the Welsh Government next year for the maintenance of coal tips to ensure we keep our communities safe.  

    And to support growth, including in our rural areas, we will proceed with City and Growth Deals in Northern Ireland… 

    … in Causeway Coast and Glens; and Mid-South West.

    And we will drive growth in Scotland [redacted political content] including a City and growth Deal in Argyll and Bute.

    This budget provides the devolved governments with the largest real-terms funding settlement since devolution… 

    … delivering an additional £3.4 billion for the Scottish Government through the Barnett formula… 

    … funding which must now be spent effectively to improve public services in Scotland.  

    This budget also provides £1.7 billion to the Welsh Government… 

    …  and £1.5 billion to the Northern Ireland Executive in 2025-26. 

    I said there would be no return to austerity, and that is the choice I have made today.  

    REBUILDING BRITAIN 

    Madam Deputy Speaker, to rebuild our country we need to increase investment. 

    The UK lags behind every other G7 country when it comes to business investment as a share of our economy. 

    That matters.  

    It means the UK has fallen behind in the race for new jobs… 

    … new industries… 

    … and new technology.  

    By restoring economic stability… 

    … and by establishing the National Wealth Fund to catalyse private funding… 

    … we have begun to create the conditions that businesses need to invest.  

    But there is also a significant role for public investment.

    Hospitals without the equipment they need.  

    School buildings not fit for our children.  

    A desperate lack of affordable housing. 

    Economic growth held back at every turn.  

    Under the plans I inherited… 

    … public investment was set to fall from 2.5% to 1.7% of GDP.  

    But in Washington last week, the International Monetary Fund were clear:  

    More public investment is badly needed in the UK.  

    So today, having listened to the case made by the former Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney… 

    … former Treasury Minister, Jim O’Neill… 

    … and the former Cabinet Secretary, Gus O’Donnell… 

    … among others…  

    … I am confirming our investment rule.  

    As set out in our manifesto, we will target debt falling as a share of the economy. 

    Debt will be defined as Public Sector net Financial Liabilities, or “net financial debt”, for short… 

    … a metric that has been measured by the Office for National Statistics since 2016… 

    … and forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility since that date too. 

    “Net financial debt” recognises that government investment delivers returns for taxpayers…  

    … by counting not just the liabilities on a government’s balance sheet, but the financial assets too. 

    This means that we count the benefits of investment, not just the costs… 

    And we free up our institutions to invest… 

    … just as they do in Germany, France and Japan.  

    Like our stability rule, our investment rule will apply in 2029-2030… 

    … until that becomes the third year of the forecast. 

    From that point onwards, net financial debt will fall in the third year of every forecast. 

    Today, the OBR say that we are already meeting our target two years early… 

    … with “net financial debt” falling by 2027-28…  

    … with £15.7bn of headroom in the final year. 

    So that we drive the right incentives in government investments… 

    … we will introduce four key guardrails to ensure capital spending is good value for money and drives growth in our economy.  

    First, our portfolio of new financial investments will be delivered by expert bodies like the National Wealth Fund which must, by default, earn a rate of return at least as large as that on gilts.  

    Second, we will strengthen the role of institutions to improve infrastructure delivery.  

    Third, we will improve certainty, setting capital budgets for five years and extending them at every spending review every two years. 

    Finally, we will ensure there is greater transparency for capital spending, with robust annual reporting of financial investments… 

    … based on accounts audited by the National Audit Office… 

    … and made available to the Office for Budget Responsibility at every forecast. 

    Taken together with our stability rule… 

    …these fiscal rules will ensure that our public finances are on a firm footing… 

    … while enabling us to invest prudently alongside business. 

    Growth projects  

    The capital plans I now set out… 

    … to drive growth across our country… 

    … and repair the fabric of our nation… 

    … are only possible because of our investment rule.  

    Let me set out those investment plans. 

    Industrial strategy 

    Today we are confirming our plans to capitalise the National Wealth Fund… 

    … to invest in the industries of the future… 

    … from gigafactories, to ports to green hydrogen. 

    Building on these investments, my Right Honourable Friend the Business Secretary is driving forward our modern industrial strategy… 

    … working with businesses and organisations like Make UK… 

    … to set out the sectors with the biggest growth potential. 

    Today, we are confirming multi-year funding commitments for these areas of our economy, including… 

    … nearly £1bn for the aerospace sector to fund vital research and development, building on our industry in the East Midlands, the South-West and Scotland… 

    … over £2 billion for the automotive sector… 

    …  to support our electric vehicle industry and develop our manufacturing base… 

    … building on our strengths in the North East and the West Midlands… 

    And up to £520m for a new Life Sciences Innovative Manufacturing Fund. 

    For our world-leading creative industries…  

    … we will legislate to provide additional tax relief for visual effect costs in TV and film… 

    .. and we are providing £25m for the North East Combined Authority… 

    … which they plan to use to remediate the Crown Works Studio site in Sunderland… 

    … creating 8,000 new jobs.  

    Research & Development 

    To unlock these growth industries of the future, we will protect government investment in research and development with more than £20bn worth of funding. 

    This includes at least £6.1bn to protect core research funding for areas like engineering, biotechnology and medical science… 

    …through Research England, other research councils, and the National Academies. 

    We will extend the Innovation Accelerators programme in Glasgow, in Manchester and in the West Midlands.  

    And with over £500m of funding next year, my Right Honourable Friend the Science, Technology and Innovation Secretary, will continue to drive progress in improving reliable, fast broadband and mobile coverage across our country, including in rural areas. 

    Housing 

    We committed in our manifesto to build 1.5 million homes over the course of this parliament… 

    … and my Right Honourable Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is driving that work forward across government. 

    Today, I am providing over £5bn of government investment to deliver our plans on housing next year. 

    We will increase the Affordable Homes Programme to £3.1bn…  

    … delivering thousands of new homes.  

    We will provide £3bn of support in guarantees… 

    … to boost the supply of homes and support our small housebuilders. 

    And we will provide investment to renovate sites across our country… 

    … including at Liverpool Central Docks… 

    … where we will deliver 2,000 new homes… 

    … and funding to help Cambridge realise its full growth potential.  

    Alongside this investment, we will put the right policies in place to increase the supply of affordable housing.  

    Having heard representations from local authorities, social housing providers and from Shelter…  

    … I can today confirm that the government will reduce Right to Buy Discounts… 

    … and local authorities will be able to retain the full receipts from any sales of social housing… 

    … to reinvest back into the housing stock, and into new supply.. 

    … so that we give more people a safe, secure and affordable place to live.  

    We will provide stability to social housing providers, with a social housing rent settlement of CPI+1 percent for the next five years.  

    And we will deliver on our manifesto commitment to hire hundreds of new planning officers, to get Britain building again.  

    We will also make progress on our commitment to accelerate the remediation of homes following the findings of the Grenfell Inquiry… 

    … with £1bn of investment to remove dangerous cladding next year.  

    Transport

    Working with my Right Honourable Friend the Transport Secretary, I am changing that.  

    We are today securing the delivery of the Trans-Pennine upgrade to connect York, Leeds, Huddersfield and Manchester…  

    … delivering fully electric local and regional services between Manchester and Stalybridge by the end of this year… 

    … with a further electrification of services between Church Fenton and York by 2026.… 

    … to help grow our economy across the North of England… 

    … with faster and more reliable services.  

    We will deliver East-West Rail to drive growth between Oxford, Milton Keynes and Cambridge…  

    … with the first services running between Oxford, Bletchley and Milton Keynes next year… 

    … and trains between Oxford and Bedford running from 2030.  

    We are delivering railway schemes which improve journeys for people across our country… 

    … including upgrades at Bradford Forster Square…  

    … improving capacity at Manchester Victoria… 

    … and electrifying the Wigan-Bolton line. 

    My Right Honourable Friend the Transport Secretary has also set out a plan for how to get a grip of HS2. 

    Today, we are securing delivery of the project between Old Oak Common and Birmingham… 

    … and we are committing the funding required to begin tunnelling work to London Euston station… 

    … This will catalyse private investment into the local area. 

    I am also funding significant improvements to our roads network.  

    For too long, potholes have been an all too visible reminder of our failure to invest as a nation. 

    Today, that changes… 

    … with a £500m increase in road maintenance budgets next year… 

    … more than delivering on our manifesto commitment to fix an additional one million potholes each year. 

    We will provide over £650m of local transport funding to improve connections across our country… 

    … in our towns like Crewe and Grimsby… 

    … and in our villages and rural areas, from Cornwall to Cumbria.

    … we understand how important bus services are for our communities… 

    …so we will extend the cap for a further year, setting it at £3 until December 2025. 

    Finally we will deliver £1.3bn of funding to improve connectivity in our city regions, funding projects like…  

    … the Brierley Hill Metro extension in the West Midlands… 

    … the renewal of the Sheffield Supertram… 

    … and West Yorkshire Mass Transit, including in Bradford and Leeds.  

    Energy 

    Madam Deputy Speaker, to bring new jobs to Britain and drive growth across our country… 

    … we are delivering our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower, led by my Right Honourable Friend the Energy Secretary. 

    Earlier this month, we announced a significant multi-year investment between government and business into Carbon Capture and Storage… 

    … creating 4,000 jobs across Merseyside and Teesside. 

    Today, I am providing funding for 11 new green hydrogen projects across England, Scotland and Wales – they will be among the first commercial scale projects anywhere in the world… 

    … including in Bridgend, East Renfrewshire and in Barrow-in-Furness 

    We are kickstarting the Warm Homes Plan by confirming an initial £3.4bn over the next three years… 

    … to transform 350,000 homes… 

    … including a quarter of a million low-income and social homes. 

    And we will establish GB Energy… 

    … providing funding next year to set up GB Energy at its new home in Aberdeen. 

    Overall, we will invest an additional £100bn over the next five years in capital spending… 

    … only possible because of our investment rule.  

    The OBR say today that this will drive growth across our country in the next five years… 

    … and in the longer term increase GDP by up to 1.4%. 

    It will crowd in private investment… 

    … meaning more jobs, and more opportunities… 

    … in every corner of the UK.  

    That is the choice that I have made.  

    To invest in our country… 

    … and to grow our economy. 

    Today, I am setting out two final areas in which investment is so badly needed… 

    … to repair the fabric of our nation. 

    Schools

    [redacted political content]

    … schools roofs are crumbling….  

    … and millions of children are facing the very same backdrop as I did. 

    I will be the Chancellor that changes that.  

    So today, I am providing £6.7bn of capital investment to the Department for Education next year… 

    … a 19% real-terms increase on this year. 

    That includes £1.4bn to rebuild over 500 schools in the greatest need… 

    … including St Helen’s Primary School in Hartlepool, and Mercia Academy in Derby… 

    … and so many more across our country. 

    And we will provide a further £2.1bn to improve school maintenance, £300m more than this year… 

    … ensuring that all our children can learn somewhere safe… 

    … including dealing with RAAC affected schools in the constituencies of my HFs the members for Watford, Stourbridge, Hyndburn, and beyond.   

    Alongside investment in new teachers… 

    … and funding for thousands of new breakfast clubs… 

    … this government is giving our children and young people the opportunities that they deserve.   

    NHS 

    Madam Deputy Speaker, I come to our most cherished public service of all: our NHS.

    [redacted political content]

    In our first week in office, he commissioned an independent report into the state of our health service by Lord Darzi.  

    Its conclusions were damning.  

    While our NHS staff do a remarkable job, and we thank them for it… 

    … it is clear that, that in so many areas… 

    … we are moving in the wrong direction.  

    100,000 infants waited over 6 hours in A&E last year.  

    350,000 people are waiting a year for mental health support. 

    Cancer deaths here are higher than in other countries.  

    It is simply unforgiveable. 

    In the Spring, we will publish a 10 year plan for the NHS… 

    … to deliver a shift from hospital to community… 

    … from analogue to digital… 

    … and from sickness to prevention. 

    Today, we are announcing a downpayment on that plan…  

    …  to enable the NHS to deliver 2% productivity growth next year. 

    These reforms are vital.  

    But we should be honest.  

    The state of the NHS we inherited… 

    … after – and I quote Lord Darzi – “the most austere decade since the NHS was founded” –  

    … means reform must come alongside investment. 

    So today… 

    … because of the difficult decision that I have taken on tax, welfare and spending… 

    … I can announce… 

    … that I am providing a £22.6bn increase in the day to-day health budget… 

    … and a £3.1bn increase in the capital budget… 

    … over this year and next year. 

    This is the largest real-terms growth in day to day NHS spending outside of Covid since 2010.  

    Let me set out what this funding is delivering.  

    Many NHS buildings have been left in a state of disrepair. 

    So we will provide £1 billion of health capital investment next year to address the backlog of repairs and upgrades across the NHS.  

    To increase capacity for tens of thousands more procedures next year… 

    … we will provide a further £1.5bn… 

    … for new beds in hospitals across the country…  

    … new capacity for over a million additional diagnostic tests… 

    … and new surgical hubs and diagnostic centres … 

    … so that those people waiting for their treatment can get it as quickly as possible. 

    My Right Honourable Friend the Health Secretary will be announcing the details of his review into the New Hospital Programme in the coming weeks… 

    … and publishing in the new year… 

    … but I can tell the House today… 

    … that work will continue at pace to deliver those seven hospitals affected including… 

    … West Suffolk Hospital in Bury St Edmunds… 

    … and Leighton Hospital in Crewe.  

    And finally… 

    … because of this record injection of funding… 

    … because of the thousands of additional beds that we have secured… 

    … and because of the reforms that we are delivering in our NHS…  

    … we can now begin to bring waiting lists down more quickly… 

    … and move towards our target for waiting times no longer than 18 weeks… 

    … by delivering our manifesto commitment for 40,000 extra hospital appointments a week.

    [redacted political content]

    CLOSING 

    Madam Deputy Speaker, the choices that I have made today are the right choices for our country.  

    To restore stability to our public finances. 

    To protect working people. 

    To fix our NHS. 

    And to rebuild Britain.  

    That doesn’t mean these choices are easy. 

    But they are responsible.

    [redacted political content]

    This is a moment of fundamental choice for Britain.  

    I have made my choices.  

    The responsible choices. 

    To restore stability to our country. 

    To protect working people.  

    More teachers in our schools.  

    More appointments in our NHS.  

    More homes being built.  

    Fixing the foundations of our economy. 

    Investing in our future.  

    Delivering change.  

    Rebuilding Britain.

    We on these benches commend those choices… 

    … and I commend this Statement to the House.

    Updates to this page

    Published 30 October 2024

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Remarks by President Trump at Executive Order Signing

    US Senate News:

    Source: The White House
    For Immediate Release                            January 24, 2025
    REMARKS BY PRESIDENT TRUMP
    AT EXECUTIVE ORDER SIGNING
    Oval Office
    (January 23, 2025)
    3:10 P.M. EST
         THE PRESIDENT:  Hello, everybody.
         Q    Hello, sir.
         THE PRESIDENT:  You all set?  Okay.  Very good.
         I’m going to sign some executive orders.  They were very important in just about every case.  And we’ll go through the first one, please. 
         MR. SCHARF:  Sure.  Do you want to —
         MR. SACKS:  Yeah.  Mr. President, this is an executive order on crypto.  We’re going to be —
         MR. SCHARF:  That’s AI.  Sorry.
         MR. SACKS:  Oh, sorry.  We’re doing AI first.  Sorry.
         MR. SCHARF:  Yeah, AI.
         MR. SACKS:  Sir, this is an executive order on AI.  We’re forming — we’re — we’re basically announcing the administration’s policy to make America the — the world capital in artificial intelligence and to dominate and to lead the world in AI. 
         THE PRESIDENT:  Do you want to say your name — your full name and serial number?
         MR. SACKS:  Yeah, David Sacks, AI and crypto czar.
         THE PRESIDENT:  David is one of the greatest in the world at AI — most respected, probably, there is. 
         (The executive order is signed.)
         So, that should take us to the forefront, right?
         MR. SACKS:  Absolutely.  We got to win. 
         THE PRESIDENT:  Okay. 
         Thank you. 
         MR. SCHARF:  Thank you, sir.
         THE PRESIDENT:  And this, David, is?
         MR. SCHARF:  Crypto.
         MR. SACKS:  Yeah, this is the crypto EO.  We’re going to be forming a internal working group to make crypto — to make America the world capital on crypto under your leadership.
         THE PRESIDENT:  Which is really going up, right? 
         MR. SACKS:  Absolutely.
         (The executive order is signed.)
         THE PRESIDENT:  All right, David.  That’s for you.  (The president gives Mr. Sacks the signing pen.)  Thanks.
         MR. SACKS:  Thank you, sir.
         THE PRESIDENT:  You find them exciting?  They might not be exciting, but we’re going to make a lot of money for the country.  Okay?
         MR. SACKS:  Thank you, sir.
         THE PRESIDENT:  And so is David.  You have to check him out.  There is nobody like this guy.  They said, “How did you get David Sacks?  How did you do that?”  And he’s — he’s doing it for the country more than anything else.  So, we appreciate it, David.  Thank you very much.
         MR. SACKS:  Thank you, sir.
         MR. SCHARF:  This is an executive order establishing a presidential commission — an advisory commission on science and technology.
         THE PRESIDENT:  Good.
         (The executive order is signed.)
         Do you want to explain that a little bit?
         MR. SCHARF:  The basic idea is to get together top people from government to private-sector technology industry, as well as educational institutions, to make sure that America maintains its leadership position with respect to science and technology development in the years ahead.
         THE PRESIDENT:  Good.  That’s great.
         MR. SCHARF:  Next, sir, we have a presidential memorandum encouraging departments and agencies in your government, including the Department of the Interior, to promote federal recognition of the Lumbee Tribe of —
         THE PRESIDENT:  Ohh.
         MR. SCHARF:  — North Carolina.
         THE PRESIDENT:  I love the Lumbee Tribe.  So, this is their first big step, right?
         MR. SCHARF:  This would be a huge step for them, sir.
         THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.  They were with me all the way.  They were great — North Carolina Lumbee Tribe.
         (The presidential memorandum is signed.)
         And we’ll send — you’ll send them a copy of that?
         MR. SCHARF:  Yes, sir.
         THE PRESIDENT:  They were great. 
         Okay?
         MR. SCHARF:  And, if you’d like, I could get them that pen, sir, as well.
         THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah, let’s do that.  (The president gives Mr. Scharf the signing pen.)
         MR. SCHARF:  Next, we have a set of pardons for peaceful pro-life protestors who were prosecuted by the Biden administration for exercising their First Amendment rights.
         THE PRESIDENT:  Do you know how many?
         MR. SCHARF:  I believe it’s 23, sir.
         THE PRESIDENT:  Twenty-three people that were prosecuted.  They should not have been prosecuted.  Man- of — many of them are — are elderly people.  They should not have been prosecuted.  This is a great honor to sign this.
         (The proclamation is signed.)
         They’ll be very happy.
         MR. SCHARF:  Thank you, sir.
         THE PRESIDENT:  So, they’re all in prison now?
         MR. SCHARF:  Some are.  Some are — are out of custody. 
         THE PRESIDENT:  It’s ridiculous.
         Okay?
         MR. SCHARF:  Lastly, sir, we have an executive order ordering the declassification of files relating to the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, and the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
         THE PRESIDENT:  That’s a big one, huh?  A lot of people are waiting for this for a long — for years — 
         MR. SCHARF:  Yes, sir.
         THE PRESIDENT:  — for decades.  And everything will be revealed.
         (The executive order is signed.)
         Okay.  Give that to RFK, Jr.  (The president gives Mr. Scharf the signing pen.)
         MR. SCHARF:  Yes, sir.
         THE PRESIDENT:  Okay. 
         Okay.  Thank you very much.
         (Cross-talk.)
         Q    Mr. President — Mr. President, a U.S. judge temporarily blocked the birthright citizenship order.  Do you have any reaction to —
    THE PRESIDENT:  No.  Obviously, we’ll appeal it.  They put it before a certain judge — in Seattle, I guess, right?  And
    there’s no surprises with that judge. 
    Q    Mr. President, Senators Collins and Murkowski have now said they will vote against Pete Hegseth.  Are you worried about his confirmation, and your reaction?
    THE PRESIDENT:  No.  And no surprises there.  It’s too bad.  You know, it’s the way — the way it is.  Too bad. 
    Q    And when would you adjourn Congress to make recess appointments, Mr. President?
    THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I’d take a look at that.  I’d listen to John Thune.  He’s doing a fantastic job.  We’re moving along.  The Democrats are trying to delay government, as they always do.  They can’t help themselves.  Even John Ratcliffe, who’s very, very strong, very popular and liked by the Democrats — I guess, he gets a lot of Democrat votes — that’s taking a long time, and it shouldn’t be taking a long time. 
    They — they’re maxing everything out so they can delay everything as much as possible.
    Q    Does Senator Thune support an effort to use recess appointments if you choose to do that?
    THE PRESIDENT:  I’d be willing to use recess appointments.  It’s up to John.  We’ll see.  John Thune is a great guy, great senator, knows his stuff inside out and backwards.  But I would use recess appointments if he wants to do that.  Absolutely.
         (Cross-talk.)
    The Democrats are just delaying.  They always delay.
    Q    Mr. President, you spoke with the Saudi crown prince yesterday.
    THE PRESIDENT:  Who?
    Q    The Saudi crown prince.
    THE PRESIDENT:  Yes.
    Q    How was the — the call?
    THE PRESIDENT:  Great.  It was great.
    Q    And they said $600 million — billion dollar they can invest?
    THE PRESIDENT:  Six hundred.  I’ll ask them for a trillion. 
    Q    You said you’re going to ask them for a trillion.  Will Saudi Arabia be the first foreign country you will visit, since they’re investing that much money?
    THE PRESIDENT:  Well, if they do that, I would, yeah.
    Q    You would?
    THE PRESIDENT:  I would be glad to do that.  I did it, as you know, four years ago.  We did $450 billion — meaning the money all goes to American companies — and they purchased jets and they purchased computers and everything else.  And we did $450 billion, and I guess we’re at $600, $650.
    (Cross-talk.)
    And I’ll see if I can talk them into a trillion.
    Q    And on the Middle East again.  You showed great confidence in Steve Witkoff.  Why you said that you doubt that the ceasefire in Gaza will — will hold since you appraised his efforts?
    THE PRESIDENT:  Well, no, I think he’s great.  But it’s a very tricky place.  It’s very tricky.  And we’ll see.  And if it — if something does happen, they will not be happy. 
    Q    Sir, follow-up on that one.  In terms of Steve Witkoff, are you going to put him in charge of — of Iran strategy?  And do you want him talking directly with the Iranians?
    THE PRESIDENT:  No, but he — he certainly is somebody I would use.  He’s done a fantastic job.  He’s a great negotiator.  He’s a very good person, great — a very popular person.  Gets along with people.  I have great negotiators.  They — they have no personality whatsoever, and then I have some that do. 
    Steve has a wonderful way about him and people like him.  And even in this case, both sides like him, and he was able to make a deal.  That deal would have never been made without Steve. 
    The Biden people couldn’t make the deal.  They were working on it for a year and a half.  They couldn’t make a deal.  We got it done prior to the inauguration.  We said it has to be before the inauguration. 
    I mean, the deal should hold, but if it doesn’t hold, there’ll be a lot of problems.
    (Cross-talk.)
    Q    Related to your AI EO.  Just hours after you made that big Stargate announcement, Elon Musk tweeted that they don’t actually have the money.  Is that true?
    THE PRESIDENT:  I don’t know if they do, but, you know, they’re putting up the money.  The government is not putting up anything.  They’re putting up money.  They’re very rich people, so I hope they do. 
    And, I mean, Elon doesn’t like one of those people.  So, (inaudible).
    (Cross-talk.)
    Q    Are you worried that AI is going to replace many American jobs? 
    THE PRESIDENT:  No.
    Q    Does that worry you?
    THE PRESIDENT:  No, no.  It’s going to create tremendous numbers of jobs.  It’s going to also create a lot of benefits, medically, for cancer research and other things.  It’s going to have a huge positive impact.
    And, you know, we want to be ahead of China.  We’re, right now, way ahead of China.
    David Sacks is one of the all-time experts.  You know, that — people are amazed that he — you just met him.  I don’t know if he’s still here.
    MR. SACKS:  (Inaudible.)
    THE PRESIDENT:  There he is.
    But — but one of the most respected people in that world.  It’s a world.  That’s a whole different world. 
    And we’re ahead of China now because of what I’m doing, and I think it’s going to be very successful. 
    (Cross-talk.)
    Q    On NATO spending, please.  You just asked the Davos forum again that NATO countries should spend 5 percent of GDP on defense.
    THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.
    Q    The United States don’t spend 5 percent.
    THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I — I don’t think so, no.
    Q    Do you think it should also apply to the United States?
    THE PRESIDENT:  We’re protecting them, you know?  They’re not protecting us.  We’re protecting them.  So, I don’t think we should be spending — I’m not sure we should be spending anything, but we should certainly be helping them.  But they should — they should up their 2 percent to 5 percent, yeah.
    Q    Mr. President — Mr. President, you said earlier during your speech at Davos that you would like to see interest rates come down.
    THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.
    Q    How much would you like to see them come down?
    THE PRESIDENT:  A lot.
    Q    And will you talk with Powell?
    THE PRESIDENT:  I’d like to see them come down a lot, and oil prices will come down.  And when oil prices come down, everything is going to be cheaper for the American people — and actually for the world — but for the American people.  So, I’d like to see oil prices come down.
    And when the energy comes down, that’s going to knock out a lot of the inflation.  That’s going to automatically bring the interest rates down. 
    Q    Are you worried that it’s too much going on at once if you’re —
    Q    Mr. President, you said that you would demand —
    Q    Are you worried that there’s too much going on at once if you’re trying to bring interest rates down and —
    THE PRESIDENT:  No, no.
    Q    — get the economy back going?
    THE PRESIDENT:  No.  It just works that way.  I mean, it just economically works that way.  When the oil comes down, it’ll bring down prices, then you won’t have inflation, and then the interest rates will come down.  (Inaudible.)
    (Cross-talk.)
    Q    You said that you would demand that the interest rates come down. 
    THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I would put in —
    Q    Do you expect —
    THE PRESIDENT:  I would put in a strong statement.
    Q    Do you expect the Fed to listen to you?
    THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah. 
    Q    Are you going to talk to Powell about this and — bringing the rates down?
    THE PRESIDENT:  At — at the right time, I would.
    Q    Sir, do you plan to meet with any of the people you pardoned that were — participated in the January 6th, 2021, attack — do you plan to meet with any of them or meet with them at the White House?
    THE PRESIDENT:  I don’t know.  I’m sure that they probably would like to.  I did — I did them something important.  But what they did is they were protesting a crooked election.  And, you know, I mean, people understand that also.  And they were treated very badly.  Nobody’s been treated like that. 
    So, I’d be open to it, certainly.  I — I don’t know of anything like that, but I think they — they’re going to — meeting some of the congresspeople — congressmen, -women —
    Q    Have you spoken to them?
    THE PRESIDENT:  — who want to — want to meet.  But I’d certainly be open to it. 
    Q    Have you spoken to them since you issued the pardons?
    THE PRESIDENT:  I haven’t spoken to any of them yet, but I know they’re very happy. 
    (Cross-talk.)
    I gave them — I gave them their life back.  Their life was taken away from them unnecessarily and unfairly.  I gave them their life back.  So, I can imagine they probably would like to.
    Q    What did you mean when you said that Biden took bad advice in not pardoning himself yesterday? 
    THE PRESIDENT:  Well, he did.  I think he did, because he — he pardoned all these people that are crooked as hell.  Look, the congressmen, they’re crooked.  What they did is they destroyed evidence.  When you destroy evidence, especially criminally like that — they did it criminally. 
    And the reason they destroyed the evidence is because it proved that I was right.  They didn’t destroy evidence for no reason.  They destroyed it because they found many documents saying that I offered 10,000 soldiers.  If they had 500 soldiers or National Guard, there would have been no problem.  If they had 200, that would have been — I offered 10,000, if they needed them — there would have been no problem. 
    That’s been now totally disproven.  And it’s also been disproven by Nancy Pelosi’s daughter, who has her on tape saying it was her fault, that she has full responsibility for this. 
    But — and they have all that stuff.  They destroyed everything, and they go through a year and a half, two years of nonsense, they come up with tremendous evidence, and they destroyed evidence.
    And Schiff knew about it.  That’s why he’s on there.  He knew all about the destruction of evidence.  A lot of people said he’s the one that got them to do it.  And he’s a crooked guy — you know? — totally crooked politician.  And so, he’s pardoned, and some other people are pardoned. 
    And these are crooked politicians, every one of them.  Bennie Johnson [Thompson], what he did is incredible.  I mean, he was the leader of the committee, and he did it.  Cheney, Crying Adam Kinzinger, all of them — they destroyed evidence and deleted everything. 
    There’s nothing with — there’s no evidence now.  They’re crooked politicians, and they should be punished.  You know, that’s — even in a civil trial, you go to jail for a thing like that.  They destroyed every document, from what I understand — every document — because it proved that I was totally innocent. 
    Q    Do you plan to send up to 10,000 troops to the southern border, sir?
    THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.  Oh, southern border?
    Q    Yes, the border. 
    THE PRESIDENT:  When you say “southern border” — when I said “10,000 troops,” I was referring to the Capitol. 
    Q    Oh, I see.  A- — and when does that —
    THE PRESIDENT:  No, no, you got it wrong.  I was referring — 
    Q    When do you plan —
    THE PRESIDENT:  — to the Cap- — 
    Q    When do you plan to do that?
    THE PRESIDENT:  I offered 10,000 troops to the Capitol before January 6th.
    Q    And as for the 1,500 at the southern border, sir, to clarify, what exactly do you want them to be doing right now?
    THE PRESIDENT:  Making sure that the border is safe and secure and that criminals don’t come into our country.
    Q    Mr. President, do you think that sanctions on Russia will force President Putin to negotiate?
    THE PRESIDENT:  I don’t know, but I think he should make a deal. 
    Q    Mr. President, does it bother you that Elon Musk criticized a deal that you made publicly, that he said — that he tweeted that?
    THE PRESIDENT:  No, it doesn’t.  He hates one of the people in the deal.  So — 
    Q    Have you spoken to him since then?
    THE PRESIDENT:  No, no.  I’ve — well, I’ve spoken Elon but —
    Q    Not about that? 
    THE PRESIDENT:  I’ve spoken to all of them, actually.
    No, no.  The people in the deal are very, very smart people.  But Elon, one of the people he happens to hate.  But I have certain hatreds of people too —
    Q    Sir —
    THE PRESIDENT:  — you know?
    Q    Sir, on China.  What do you think Xi Jinping can do on the Ukraine-Russia war? 
    THE PRESIDENT:  Which one?
    Q    Ukraine-Rus- — -Russia war.  What can Xi Jinping do about that?
    THE PRESIDENT:  China?
    Q    Yeah.
    THE PRESIDENT:  They have a lot of power over Russia.  They supply energy to Russia, and Russia supplies energy to them.  They supply other things to — you know, it — it’s really a very big trade.  It’s a very big trading partner.  But Russia supplies a lot of energy to China, China pays them a lot of money for that, and I think they have a lot of power over Russia.  So, I think Russia should want to make a deal. 
    Maybe they want to make a deal.  I think, from what I hear, Putin would like to see me, and we’ll meet as soon as we can.  I’d — I’d meet immediately.  Every day we don’t meet, soldiers are being killed in a battlefield, and that battl- — battlefield is like no battlefield since World War II.  That’s a —
    Q    You said that U- — Ukraine wants to —
    THE PRESIDENT:  And I have — I have pictures that you don’t want to see.  Soldiers are being killed on a daily basis at numbers that we haven’t seen in decades.  And it would be nice to end that war.  It’s a ridiculous war. 
    Q    You said that Ukraine is ready to make a deal.  Did President Zelenskyy tell you that at — personally?
    THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah, sure.  He’s ready to negotiate a deal.  He’d like to stop.  He’s a — he’s somebody that lost a lot of soldiers, and so did Russia — lost a lot.  I mean, Russia lost more soldiers.  They lost 800,000 soldiers.  Would you say that’s a lot?  I’d say it’s a lot.
    (Cross-talk.)
    Q    Mr. President, you said that you wanted to make Dr. King’s dream a reality.  What’s your response to his children and civil rights leaders who say that your DEI orders are a contradiction of his dream and could further drive racial disparities?
    THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I haven’t heard that. 
    Q    Mr. President, you put the Houthis back on the terror list.  How do you see the war in Yemen end now?
    THE PRESIDENT:  Well, we’ll see what happens, but they can’t shoot down our ships — the Houthis.
    Q    Yes.
    THE PRESIDENT:  And that — you can’t shoot down our ships or any ships, and that’s what they’ve been doing.  So, they’re on the terror list, and —
    Q    Mr. President —
    THE PRESIDENT:  — that’s not good for them.
    Q    Mr. President —
    Q    Sir, why did you revoke security protections for former Secretary of State Mi- — Mike Pompeo and — and Brian Hook?
    THE PRESIDENT:  Well, the same reason I do — when you, you know, have protection, you can’t have it for the rest of your life.  Do you want to have a large detail of people guarding people for the rest of their lives?  I mean, there’s risks to everything. 
    Q    Do you think a former presidents should (inaudible) —
    Q    Sir, would you support striking Iran’s nuclear facilities?
    THE PRESIDENT:  Say it? 
    Q    Would you support Israel, for example, striking Iran’s nuclear facilities?  Or do you — 
    THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I’m not going to answer that.
    Q    — believe in diplomacy?
    THE PRESIDENT:  Obviously, I’m not going to answer that question.  We’ll have to see.  I — I’m going to be meeting with various people over the next couple of days, and we’ll see.  But hopefully that can be worked out without having to worry about it.  It would be nice — it would really be nice if that could be worked out without having to go that further step. 
    Q    And who are you going to meet with, if I — if I may ask?
    THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I’d rather not say that, but very high-level people.  But hopefully that could be worked out. 
    You know, look, Iran, hopefully, will be — make a deal.  And if they don’t make a deal, I guess that’s okay too.
    Q    And, Mr. President, just to follow up, you said you think the Fed should listen to you.  Can you elaborate on why you think it should?
    THE PRESIDENT:  With regard to interest rates?
    Q    Correct, yes.
    THE PRESIDENT:  Because I think I know interest rates much better than they do, and I think I know it certainly much better than the one who’s primarily in charge of making that decision. 
    But, no, I’m guided by them very much, but if I disagree, I will let it be known.
    Q    Mr. President —
    Q    Sir, your tariffs planned for China and Mexico are much tougher — or the ones for Canada and Mexico are much tougher than the one for China.  Why is it softer for China?
    THE PRESIDENT:  Well, China is already paying a lot of tariffs because of me, and when you add them up, I would say, you know, they’re paying a lot.  They paid hundreds of billions of dollars.  They never paid 10 cents until I came along.  When I came along, they pay hundreds of — they’ve paid hundreds of billions of dollars.  Never paid anything.  And so, they’ve already started at a higher base.
    Q    Is February 1st —
    Q    Sir, about the border —
    Q    — the date for Chinese tariffs as well, sir?  February 1?  Or was that just Mexico and Canada?
    THE PRESIDENT:  It’s Mexico and Canada.  But we’ll — we’re talking about China too.  Look, China is sending us tremendous amounts of bad drugs: fentanyl — really bad stuff.  Most of it comes through Mexico.  And we’re losing, I s- — I think, 300,000 lives a year because of that.  People say 150, 100, 120.  I think 300,000 lives a year.  Those are old numbers.  The other — the lower number is a low number.  And we can’t have that.  They’ve got to stop sending it. 
    I had a deal with President Xi, but it was a deal that wasn’t followed up by Biden, of course, where they were going to issue the death penalty to people that make fentanyl, and that would have stopped it.  But we’ll have to stop it with tariffs. 
    Okay?  Thank you very much, everybody. 
    Q    So, is China (inaudible) —
    (Cross-talk.) 
    THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  Thank you.  Thank you very much.  Appreciate it. 
    Q    Thank you, Mr. President.
    THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you. 
                             END                    3:30 P.M. EST

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Fiscal Affairs Department’s 60th Anniversary Conference: “60 Years of FAD: The Fiscal Affair Continues”

    Source: International Monetary Fund

    The Fiscal Affairs Department (FAD) of the IMF will celebrate 60 years since it was formed in 1964 with a one-day conference, “60 Years of FAD: The Fiscal Affair Continues,“ on November 4, 2024, in Washington D.C., USA.

    Even as prospects for a global soft landing have improved, fiscal policy continues to struggle with legacies of high debt and deficits, while facing new challenges. Risks to public finances are acute, reflecting the pressures of aging societies, industrial policies, geopolitical tensions, the needs of a greener and more equitable society and now, the threat to labor from AI technologies. Lower medium-term growth prospects have worsened debt dynamics and compounded the risks to fiscal sustainability. Fiscal policy challenges are especially acute in low-income countries, where financing is scarce and limits the ability of governments to support economic and human development.

    In this context, the conference will bring together fiscal policy experts, senior policy makers, and former and current IMF staff. They will look back at the contributions of FAD to the global fiscal policy discourse and its service to the membership. They will discuss the likely evolution of sovereign debt market and the role that public policy can play in making AI beneficial for workers and growth. And they will look ahead to the challenges that will emerge for fiscal policy in the future, and the choices fiscal policymakers will face, especially in low-income and fragile countries. The conference will also be an occasion to celebrate the evolution and impact of FAD’s capacity development (CD) from serving a small section of the membership to covering nearly every corner of the world.

    Agenda

    8:30 A.M. Coffee and refreshments
    9:00 A.M. Opening remarks. Gita Gopinath, First Deputy Managing Director of the IMF, introduced by Vítor Gaspar, Director, Fiscal Affairs Department, IMF.
    9:15 – 10:30 A.M. Sovereign Debt
     Moderator: Ceyla Pazarbasioglu, Director, Strategy, Policy and Review Department, IMF
    Panelists:

    S. Ali Abbas  (Deputy Director, Fiscal Affairs Department, IMF)

    S. Ali Abbas is a deputy director in the IMF’s Fiscal Affairs Department where he supervises the sovereign debt and governance workstreams, and oversees the department’s review of Fund programs in emerging and developing economies, with a focus on Sub-Saharan Africa. He was previously IMF mission chief for the United Kingdom and Jordan, and deputy chief of the Debt Policy Division in the IMF’s Strategy Policy and Review Department. He has been closely involved in several complex Fund programs, and has led reforms to the IMF’s exceptional access lending and debt sustainability frameworks. In 2019, he co-edited Sovereign Debt: A Guide for Economists and Practitioners (OUP), with Alex Pienkowski and Kenneth Rogoff, adding to his earlier published work on post-GFC fiscal policy, the euro area sovereign debt crisis, international tax competition, state contingent debt instruments, fiscal policy and the current account, and government securities markets. Ali is a Rhodes scholar from Pakistan and holds a doctorate in economics from Oxford. He also served as an Overseas Development Institute fellow to the Tanzanian Treasury during 2000–02.

    Carlo Cottarelli (Former Director Fiscal Affairs Department, IMF)

    Carlo Cottarelli, a citizen of Italy, after receiving degrees in economics from the University of Siena and the London School of Economics, worked at the Bank of Italy, ENI and the IMF. He was FAD Director in 2008-13, Commissioner for Public Spending in Italy in 2013-14, IMF Executive Director in 2014-17. He taught at Bocconi University and he is currently Director of the Observatory on the Italian Public Accounts of the Catholic University of Milan, where he also teaches a course of Fiscal Macroeconomics In 2021 he was awarded the honor of First Class Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic.

    Christoph Trebesch (Professor, Kiel University)

    Christoph Trebesch is a professor at the Kiel Institute for the World Economy and the University of Kiel. His research focuses on international finance and macroeconomics as well as political economy and geopolitics. His research has been published in leading economic journals such as the American Economic Review, the Quarterly Journal of Economics, and the Journal of Political Economy, and is regularly cited in international media, including the New York Times, the Financial Times, and the Wall Street Journal. He directs the CEPR Policy Network on “International Lending and Sovereign Debt” and co-directs the CEPR Network on “Geoeconomics”, for which he organizes an annual high-level conference on geopolitics and economics. He is also the creator of the widely referenced “Ukraine Support Tracker” on military and financial aid flows to Ukraine. In 2023, he was awarded an ERC Consolidator Grant, one of the most prestigious research recognitions in Europe.
    10:30 – 11:00 AM The Surge in FAD’s Capacity Development Delivery (A/V) Moderators:

    Katherine Baer (Deputy Director, Fiscal Affairs Department, IMF)

    Katherine Baer is a Deputy Director in the IMF’s Fiscal Affairs Department (FAD). She oversees FAD’s work in the areas of taxation and public financial management, supervises Capacity Development (CD) delivery in all fiscal areas to countries in the Middle East, North Africa and Centra Asia, oversees FAD’s strategy to strengthen fiscal policies and institutions in the Fragile and Conflict-Affected States, and manages the department’s work on fiscal issues from a gender perspective. Her career at the IMF has focused on strengthening fiscal policies and institutions in member countries across all regions and income levels, and in countries experiencing economic crises. She has been an economist in the U.S. Treasury and an assistant commissioner in the Mexican Tax Administration. She also worked at the World Bank on public finance reforms in Latin America and the Caribbean at the height of the region’s debt crisis in the 1980s. Ms. Baer has many publications relating to public finance and holds a Ph.D. from Cornell University.

    Juan Toro (Deputy Director, Fiscal Affairs Department, IMF)

    Juan Toro is Deputy Director of the IMF’s Fiscal Affairs Department (FAD), in charge of: managing FAD budget, relationship with development partners, overseeing governance and operations of FAD’s capacity development (CD), coordinating FAD’s CD to Europe, and coordinating FAD TA on sustainable development goals. He previously was Assistant Director in charge of the IMF’s revenue administration CD to Europe, Asia, Middle East, and Central Asia.

    He has led and participated in IMF TA missions in taxation in more than 40 countries and has authored and contributed to several analytical papers in taxation. Before joining the IMF in 2007, he was the Commissioner of the Chilean Tax Administration (Servicio de Impuestos Internos, SII) from 2002 to 2006.
    11.00 – 11:30 A.M. Coffee break
    11:30 A.M. – 12:45 P.M. FAD in the Global Discourse
    Moderator: Ruud De Mooij , Deputy Director, Fiscal Affairs Department, IMF
    Panelists:

    Zainab Ahmed (Alternate Executive Director, World Bank)

    Alternate Executive Director from Nigeria from July 2023 to October 2024. A Nigerian national representing – Angola, Nigeria, and South Africa (EDS25). Prior to joining the WBG, Ms. Ahmed has served a:- Minister of Finance, Budget and National Planning (2018- 2023); Minister of State, Ministry of Budget and National Planning (2015 – 2018); Chair of the board of Trustees of the African Union Peace Fund (2019 – 2023). Member of the International Board, Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) (2016 – 2019); Executive Secretary and National Coordinator, Nigeria Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI) (2010 – 2015); and Managing Director, Kaduna Investment Company Ltd (2009 – 2010).

    Abdulelah Alrasheedy (Deputy Minister of Macro-Fiscal Policies, Ministry of Finance, Saudi Arabia)

    Dr. Abdulelah AlRasheedy is the Deputy Minister for Macro-Fiscal Policies at Ministry of Finance (MOF). Before being named Deputy Minister in March 2024, Dr. AlRasheedy was Assistant Deputy Minister for Macroeconomic Policies Analysis and Acting as General Supervisor of Policy and Consultation Assistant Deputyship.
    Prior to joining Ministry of Finance, Dr. Abdulelah spent 12 years with Saudi Central Bank (SAMA) most recently as Manager of Economic Modeling Division and was SAMA Representative at The International Financial Architecture Working Group.
    Dr. Abdulelah earned a Ph.D.  in economics and statistics from University of Missouri, where he was a Research Scholar at the Global Institute for Sustainable Prosperity.
    In addition to being a Deputy Minister, he is a board member of King Abdullah City for Atomic and Renewable Energy. Also a Ministry of Finance Representative for Financial Sustainability Board. 

    Adam Posen (President, Peterson Institute of International Economics)
    Mark Sobel (U.S. Chairman, OMFIF)

    Mark Sobel is currently US Chair at OMFIF.  He served  nearly four decades at the US Treasury, including as Deputy Assistant Secretary for International and Monetary Affairs from 2000-2015, a position in which he led the Department’s work in preparing G7 and G20 Finance Minister and Central Bank Governor meetings, formulating US positions in the IMF, and coordinating the work of Treasury and regulatory agencies in the Financial Stability Board.  He was also chief US financial negotiator in the G20 from 2008-2015, including for the 2009 London Economic Summit.  From 2015 through early 2018, he was US representative at the IMF. 
    12:45 – 1:00 P.M. FAD Montage (A/V)
    A look back at FAD through the decades.
    1:00 – 2:15 P.M. Lunch (by invitation)
    2:15 – 3:30 P.M. Public Policy for AI
    Moderator: Era Dabla-Norris, Deputy Director, Fiscal Affairs Department, IMF
    Panelists:

    Simon Johnson (Professor, MIT Sloan School of Management & 2024  Nobel Prize Winner in Economics )

    Simon Johnson is the Ronald A. Kurtz (1954) Professor of Entrepreneurship the MIT Sloan School of Management, where he is head of the Global Economics and Management group. At MIT, he is also co-director of the Shaping the Future of Work Initiative and a Research Affiliate at Blueprint Labs. In 2007-08, Johnson was chief economist and director of the Research Department at the International Monetary Fund. He currently co-chairs the CFA Institute Systemic Risk Council with Erkki Liikanen. In February 2021, Johnson joined the board of directors of Fannie Mae, where he is vice chair of the audit committee and a member of the risk and capital committee. Johnson’s most recent book, with Daron Acemoglu, Power and Progress: Our 1000-Year Struggle Over Technology and Prosperity, explores the history and economics of major technological transformations up to and including the latest developments in Artificial Intelligence.
    2024 Nobel prize laureate in economic sciences “for studies of how institutions are formed and affect prosperity”

    Branko Milanovic (Professor, City University of New York)

    Research professor at the Graduate Center, City University of New York and senior scholar at The Stone Center on Socio-economic Inequality; Visiting Professor at the Institute for International Inequalities at LSE; was lead economist in World Bank Research Department for almost 20 years and senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. Milanovic’s main area of work is income inequality, in individual countries and globally, as well as historically among pre-industrial societies. His most recent books are Global inequality: a new approach for the age of globalization which deals with economic and political issues of globalization, and Capitalism, Alone that contrasts inequality and class formation in societies of liberal and political capitalism. In October 2023, he published Visions of Inequality that looks at how income distribution was studied by the most famous economists over the past 200 years. Milanovic was awarded (jointly with Mariana Mazzucato) the 2018 Leontieff Prize.

    Christine Qiang (Global Director, Digital Transformation Global Department, World Bank)
    3.30 – 4:00 P.M. Coffee break
    4:00 – 5:15 P.M. The Future of Fiscal Policy
    Moderator: Vítor Gaspar Director, Fiscal Affairs Department, IMF
    Panelists:

    Jason Furman (Professor, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University)

    Jason Furman is the Aetna Professor of the Practice of Economic Policy jointly at Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) and the Department of Economics at Harvard University. Furman engages in public policy through research, writing and teaching in a wide range of areas including U.S. and international macroeconomics, fiscal policy, labor markets and competition policy. Previously Furman served eight years as a top economic adviser to President Obama, including serving as the 28th Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers from August 2013 to January 2017, acting as both President Obama’s chief economist and a member of the cabinet. In addition to articles in scholarly journals and periodicals, Furman is a regular contributor to the Wall Street Journal and Project Syndicate and the editor of two books on economic policy. Furman holds a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University.

    Ilan Goldfajn (President, Inter-American Development Bank)

    He was elected president of the IDB in November 2022, after serving as director of the Western Hemisphere Department at the International Monetary Fund. Previously, he was governor of the Banco Central do Brasil (2016-2019), where he led several modernization reforms, including promoting financial inclusion through Brazil’s fast digital payment system. He has also held several academic positions and high-ranking roles in Brazil’s financial sector.  In 2017, he was elected Central Banker of the Year by The Banker magazine.  Mr. Goldfajn holds a doctorate in economics from MIT, and master’s degree in economics from the Pontificia Universidade and has taught economics at universities in Brazil and the U.S. He is fluent in four languages.

    Mick Keen (Professor, Tokyo University)

    Michael Keen was formerly Deputy Director of the Fiscal Affairs Department at the International Monetary Fund. He is now Ushioda Fellow at the University of Tokyo. Michael was President of the International Institute of Public Finance from 2003 to 2006, awarded the CESifo Musgrave Prize in 2010, and in 2018 received from the National Tax Association of the United States its most prestigious award, the Daniel M. Holland Medal for distinguished lifetime contributions to the study and practice of public finance. His most recent book, Rebellion, Rascals and Revenues (with Joel Slemrod), aims to use history and humor to convey basic tax principles to a wider audience.
    5:15 P.M. Closing remarks
    Vítor Gaspar (Director, Fiscal Affairs Department )
    6:00 P.M. Adjourn

    Conference Organizing Committee: Katherine Baer (Deputy Director, FAD), Mitali Das (Advisor, FAD), and Andrew Okello (Deputy Division Chief, FAD).

    Conference Coordinators: Agnese de Leo (Administrative Coordinator), Harsha Padaruth (Administrative Coordinator), Luciana Marcelino (Administrative Coordinator) Martha Gaytan Frettlohr (Administrative Coordinator), Sahara De la Torre (Administrative Coordinator), and Sheetal Prasad (Senior Administrative Coordinator) – all FAD.

    The conference (which is in-person only) is open to all Fund employees and invited external guests (registration is required of external guests who will all receive a link to the registration form). Please note that the deadline for registration for this conference is October 25th, 2024. Registered external guests will be required to present photo identification on entering the IMF at 1900 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington D.C. For questions regarding the conference, please email FAD_60th_anniversary@imf.org

    MIL OSI Economics –

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Secretary-General’s press encounter at the end of his visit in Colombia [bilingual, scroll down for Q+A]

    Source: United Nations secretary general

    Ladies and gentlemen of the media.

    I thank President Petro for hosting the United Nations Biodiversity Conference in Cali. 

    I congratulate Colombia on the excellent organization of this COP.

    I also thank the people of Colombia for their warm welcome, we all felt very much at home.

    The world has come to Cali to make peace with nature. 

    Let me be clear: we are facing an existential crisis.

    Temperatures are climbing higher and higher. 

    We are losing more and more species – forever. 

    We are poisoning our waters. 

    And treating nature as a disposable asset.

    Human activities have already altered three-quarters of Earth’s land surface and two-thirds of its waters.

    And no country, rich or poor, is immune to this devastation. 

    To survive, humanity must make peace with nature. 

    We must transform our economic models – shifting our production and consumption to nature-positive practices. 

    Renewable energy, sustainable supply chains and zero-waste policies are not optional. 

    They must become the default option for both governments and businesses.

    Dear friends,

    The good news is that we have a plan: 
    The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, adopted two years ago.

    But nature cannot wait for its implementation any longer. 

    This is what this COP is about:

    Turning promises into action. 

    We have seen good progress, and I want to thank everyone for their efforts. 

    But with less than two days of negotiations left to go, we need to accelerate. 

    I want to highlight three priorities.

    First – Cali must spark a new era for ambitious national biodiversity plans.

    As of today, a majority of countries have national targets that align with the Global Biodiversity Framework.

    I urge every Member State to follow suit and align these national plans with their adaptation plans and updated climate Nationally Determined Contributions – due early next year.

    We must also reach an agreement on a strengthened monitoring and transparency framework to ensure accountability and move forward together.

    Second – we must leave Cali with concrete plans to unlock new funding and share the benefits from the use of genetic resources.

    This means capitalizing the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund.

    I thank the countries and regions that pledged an additional 163 million US dollars this week.

    But if we are to deliver the Global Biodiversity Framework in full, we need much more. 

    We must make sure we are able to mobilize 200 billion dollars annually by 2030 from all sources – domestic, international, public and private.

    Developed countries must lead the way and provide at least 20 billion dollars per year – by next year – to support developing countries, in particular the Least Developed Countries and Small Island States, in their conservation and restoration efforts.

    Businesses profiting from nature must also contribute to its protection and restoration.
    This includes operationalizing a mechanism for sharing the benefits from the use of the Digital Sequence Information on Genetic Resources – in a clear, fair and efficient way.

    Third – we must recognize, involve, and protect those who guard our natural heritage. 

    Indigenous Peoples and local communities possess vital knowledge of biodiversity conservation. 

    And in this region, People of African descent are key custodians of natural resources. 

    They must all be at the center of our decisions, not on the sidelines.

    In Cali, we must agree on the proposal to establish a new permanent body for Indigenous peoples and local communities within the Convention on Biological Diversity – ensuring their voices are heard at every step across the work of the Convention.

    The clock is ticking.

    The survival of our planet’s biodiversity – and our own survival – are on the line.

    We don’t have a moment to lose.  

    Señoras y señores de la prensa, 

    Mientras el mundo se reúne en este hermoso país para comprometerse a hacer la paz con la naturaleza, aprovecho la oportunidad para reafirmar nuestro compromiso con la paz en Colombia.  

    Me complace estar de nuevo en Colombia en este momento propicio para cerrar los dolorosos capítulos de guerra y consolidar este ejemplo de paz ante el país y el mundo.

    Saludo los esfuerzos renovados del Presidente Petro y su gobierno para acelerar la implementación del Acuerdo Final de Paz – incluso mediante el Plan de Choque que se enfoca en aspectos concretos para mejorar la calidad de vida en los territorios priorizados.

    Asimismo, reconozco el compromiso firme de la otra parte firmante – los que fueron combatientes de las FARC-EP.  

    Estos antiguos adversarios trabajan hoy como socios en la construcción de la paz.   

    Llegando con avances y desafíos a su octavo aniversario, este histórico Acuerdo debe de mantenerse en el centro de los esfuerzos de consolidación de la paz.   

    El Acuerdo sigue siendo la hoja de ruta principal para romper con los ciclos de violencia en Colombia. 

    Y también para enfrentar las causas estructurales de esta violencia mediante el compromiso de llevar la presencia integral del Estado a las regiones históricamente olvidadas. 

    Una presencia que conlleva seguridad, oportunidades de desarrollo y gobernanza inclusiva.  

    No debe haber más demora para que los dividendos de paz lleguen a todos los territorios. A todos aquellos pueblos que todavía esperan que se concrete la promesa de paz. 

    Asegurar la justicia para las víctimas también es impostergable. 

    Reconozco la noble y valiente labor del sistema pionero de justicia transicional creado por el Acuerdo. Y animo a que avance.  

    La Paz Total impulsada por el gobierno nacional es un objetivo loable. 

    Las iniciativas de diálogo, a pesar de los desafíos, buscan ampliar la paz en el país de manera complementaria al Acuerdo de Paz. 

    Aconsejo no dejarse desviar del camino del diálogo.

    Estos diálogos son oportunidades para acabar con la violencia que sigue azotando a las poblaciones de regiones que también son claves para la implementación del Acuerdo de Paz. 

    Especialmente a las comunidades Indígenas y Afrocolombianas, a los desplazados y confinados por los grupos armados, a las mujeres víctimas de la violencia sexual y a los niños y niñas reclutados en la guerra.

    Hoy, mi llamado al pueblo colombiano es de perseverar. 

    Que trabajen juntos para que sea un esfuerzo nacional, compartido.  

    Les quiero recordar que Colombia nunca estará sola en sus esfuerzos por la paz. 

    Será un honor seguir acompañando a Colombia en su camino hacia la paz, a través de la Misión de Verificación de la ONU y las agencias y programas del equipo de país.

    Cuenten siempre con mi apoyo y mi solidaridad con Colombia, así como con mi profunda gratitud por la confianza que han otorgado a las Naciones Unidas. 

    Estaremos siempre al lado de Colombia. 
     
    Question: Muchas gracias Secretario. Quiero trasladarle una pregunta de muchas delegaciones acá y es ¿Cómo vio usted la presencia en la COP16 del Canciller venezolano Yván Gil, lo cuestionan muchas delegaciones -más de la mitad- incluso usted, que le ha exigido que publique las actas de las elecciones y esto no cayó nada bien aquí su presencia. Lo vimos incluso a usted distante del Canciller Gil. Si bien la diversidad y la protección de la naturaleza debe abarcar la mayor cantidad de actores posibles, ¿Cómo vio usted la presencia de Venezuela aquí en la COP16?
     
    Answer: Hay dos aspectos distintos. En primer lugar, la opinión que formamos sobre la forma como se transcurrieron las elecciones, la ausencia de una transparencia adecuada y el hecho que hay muchos gobiernos que aún no han reconocido el gobierno de Venezuela. La otra parte es el mecanismo del funcionamiento de las organizaciones multilaterales y en particular de las COPs. Y en las COPs hay una acreditación en que los que están, participan desde que la misión del país los acredite. Esta es una práctica que no podemos cambiar porque es la práctica establecida estatutariamente, pero eso no invalida la opinión que podemos tener sobre lo que pasó en Venezuela.

    Question: [Inaudible] – AFP. There are five years left to achieve the coming Montreal Objective Framework – to have them reversed by biodiversity laws by 2030.  Here the focus is mainly on resource mobilization. Is that the correct approach? Is it really the fight over finance that will determine the success of the [Global Biodiversity Framework Fund] GBF.  Is it the fight over finance that is key to determine the success of GBF? Or is it something else? 

    Answer: I think the most important thing in it – and that is the reason my presence in this COP – is to change what has been the permanent neglect of biodiversity, namely when compared with our efforts in relations to climate change. 

    We need, first of all, to accept the concept that we are facing three existential crises: climate change, biodiversity and pollution, namely plastics. 

    But they are all interlinked and indivisible.  So, the central question is to make sure that we are able to put biodiversity as the center of our concerns in all aspects of policy and strategy and financing as we are putting climate change.

    Obviously, finance is essential, but finance is not enough. What we need is a political priority at government levels. Political priorities at multilateral institution levels, and the clear commitment of the Private Sector to be involved in order to make sure that we understand that without defeating the biodiversity crisis, we will not defeat the climate crisis, we will not defeat the pollution crisis, and we will condemn our world to a situation of extreme poverty in the natural environments and this is totally unacceptable. 

    So, we must bring the attention of the people of the government, the institutions, and the Private Sector to the centrality of biodiversity in the context of our environmental processes.

    Question: Sir, this is Stella Paul from IPS news (Inter Press Service News).  Our overarching theme here is making peace with nature, but at the time, when we are seeing increasing impact of war and conflict on biodiversity across the world, starting from Ukraine to all the way to Palestine and we are not seeing enough discussion of that in a formal way, even at the COP, how do you think that we can make peace with nature? Thank you. 

    Answer: Well, we need peace with nature, and we need peace among ourselves. That is the reason I’ve been asking for in line with the Charter, in line with international law, and in line with the General Assembly resolutions. That is why we have been asking for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, releasing all hostages and massive humanitarian aid to Gaza. That is why we have been asking for peace in Lebanon and peace that respects Lebanese sovereignty and Lebanese territorial integrity and paves the way for a political solution. That is why we have been asking for peace in Sudan, where an enormous tragedy exists. And, obviously, we need to make peace in nature, but we need to make peace among ourselves because wars have one of the most devastating impacts – wars have some of the most devastating impacts on biodiversity on climate and on pollution. 

    Thank you so much. At the back there, Le Monde.  Thank you.

    Question: Hi [inaudible] for Le Monde. Many issues of the negotiations are still unresolved, and many Ministers are leaving tonight. Are you worried this COP could fail or at least not be as successful as is should?

    Secretary-General: I have to say that I met with the five groups. And I heard a large number of ministers talk. And I felt that there was a huge will to find a successful result and a huge will to compromise on the pending issues. So, I’m quite optimistic that it will be possible to reach a consensus and not a consensus on the consensus, but the consensus that paves the way for progress after the COP in the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Framework

    Question: Secretario, Silvia Patiño de W Radio Colombia. Usted estuvo ayer reunido con el Presidente Gustavo Petro y el presidente le planteó la posibilidad de cambiar el mecanismo a través del cual la ONU mide la cantidad de hectáreas de cultivos de coca en Colombia. ¿La ONU está dispuesta a eso? Porque el Presiente además planteó hace algunas semanas la posibilidad de comprar los cultivos de coca a los campesinos para tratar de enfrentar el tema de narcotráfico. A la ONU ¿le suena, le gusta, le parece esta idea en torno al tráfico de drogas?
     
    Answer: Hay convenciones sobre drogas y la ONU está vinculada a esas convenciones. Pero creo que es importante abrir la puerta a una reflexión muy seria en un mundo donde vemos que desafortunadamente el tráfico de drogas es simultáneo con el tráfico de armas, de muchos otras formas incluso de tráfico de mujeres, hombres y niños. Y que ese tráfico está minando en muchos países la estructura del Estado, por la corrupción generada.
     
    Entonces creo que el apelo del Presidente Petro a una reflexión sobre los mecanismos que hoy tenemos en relación con el combate al narcotráfico y en relación con la droga, creo que el apelo que es hecho a una reflexión sobre la eficacia sobre los mecanismos que tenemos es un apelo que debe ser escuchado. Yo no conozco en detalle el proyecto, pero si la compra es hecha para después ser utilizada de una forma positiva, ¿puede impedir el tráfico no?

    Si eso puede garantizar que haya una neutralización de esa producción y que esa producción no alimente al tráfico. Pero naturalmente el objetivo nuestro tiene que ser un objetivo de preservar la salud de la gente de todo el mundo. Muchas gracias.

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: US election: how control of Congress will matter for the new president

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Thomas Gift, Associate Professor and Director of the Centre on US Politics, UCL

    Andrea Izzotti/Shutterstock

    Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are promising big initiatives if elected: tax cuts (and hikes), lots of giveaways, and major pieces of legislation bearing on issues such as abortion, healthcare, the environment and foreign military assistance. Regardless of who wins the presidency, the one thing all these items have in common? They can’t pass without Congress, which comprises the House of Representatives (the lower body) and the Senate (the upper body).

    The Senate is currently controlled by Democrats, 51 to 49, while Republicans hold a majority in the House of Representatives, 220 to 212. Website FiveThirtyEight, which aggregates polls, forecasts that the Republicans are far more likely to win the Senate 2024. In the House, the race is expected to be much closer.

    Given the numbers, it’s the Senate that most worries Democrats and excites Republicans. Democrats are likely to lose representation in Republican-leaning West Virginia, and could lose additional seats in Ohio, Montana, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. There’s a chance for Democrats to pick up seats in Florida and Texas, but both races are still trending Republican.

    Who wins the Senate could constrain the next president, if the party of opposition is in control. In the Senate, the filibuster, a tactic to delay or block legislation, can make it hard to enact many new laws with a simple majority (51 votes). In theory, a simple majority is enough to pass a bill, but if a Senator introduces a filibuster, an extra 60 votes are needed to override it and stop debate so a vote on legislation can be held.

    Still, just having a Senate majority is crucial, particularly if there is a tie-breaking vote. (The vice-president is president of the Senate and only has a vote if the vote is tied).

    Here are four key ways in which who wins the Senate matters.

    1. Legislative agenda

    Both the Harris and Trump campaigns have laid out sweeping proposals, especially for the economy, much of which will require Senate backing. While a filibuster-proof 60 votes is usually needed to pass laws, a special process called “budget reconciliation” can (with the consent of the official in charge of the rules, the Senate parliamentarian) be used to approve some budgets – relating to specific tax, spending and debt bills – with a minimum of a tie-breaking majority.

    Harris’s plan focuses on building what she calls an “opportunity economy,” which includes US$25,000 (£19,200) in down-payment assistance for first-time homebuyers, US$6,000 tax credits for families with newborns, and federal bans against excessive prices for food and other groceries. Harris has also pledged to raise the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%, and floated taxing unrealised gains – such as the appreciation in equities, real estate and other assets – for the very rich, a 25% minimum tax on total income exceeding US$100 million.

    What is the filibuster?

    Trump’s economic blueprint includes making his 2017 tax cuts permanent. He’s called for the elimination of taxes on tips, overtime, and social security benefits. Additionally, Trump has vowed to slash the corporate tax rate from 21% to 15%. Perhaps Trump’s most consequential economic proposal – imposing 10-20% tariffs on all imports into the US and 60% tariffs on goods from China – could be done unilaterally without Congress.

    2. Supreme Court

    Some of the biggest battles over the next four years are likely to be fought in, and over, the federal judicial system. The Senate must consent to Supreme Court appointments. During his first term, Trump pushed through three court appointments – Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – which helped solidify a six-three conservative supermajority on the bench. Biden named one justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson.

    While no justice has signalled an intent to step down soon, either Trump or Harris could have the opportunity – planned or unplanned – to install one or more new justices. The two oldest-serving members of the court are conservatives Clarence Thomas, 76, and Samuel Alito, 74. For Republicans, the next presidential term could offer an opportunity to cement a right-leaning bench for decades to come.

    If Trump wins and the Senate goes Republican, there will be pressure from conservative corners for the older right-leaning justices to retire and to replace them with young blood. By contrast, if Harris wins and the Democrats control the tiebreak, they could begin to redirect a court that’s been drifting rightward for years.

    3. Future of the filibuster

    Left-wing Congress members have advocated for ending the filibuster throughout President Joe Biden’s term. This “nuclear” option would mean doing away with a Senate rule, which was used in the first Congress in 1789. Ending the filibuster would signal an all-out partisan war that would have wide-ranging ramifications on Capitol Hill not only for the next presidency, but further into the future.

    The filibuster has already been diluted in recent years by both Democrats and Republicans. In 2013, Democrats removed the 60-vote threshold to confirm many executive branch nominations, a move they said was necessary due to Republican blockading. In 2017, Republicans responded by killing the filibuster over Supreme Court appointments.

    If elected, Harris has indicated that she would support ending the filibuster to reinstate reproductive rights that were eliminated after the overturning of Roe v Wade. However, she has talked little about the issue since becoming the Democratic nominee for president. It’s also unclear that more centrist Democrats would support the move.

    4. Foreign policy

    While there’s bipartisan support in Washington for both aiding Israel’s military and taking a “tough on China” approach, the incoming Senate will be essential in determining if the US approves additional funds to Ukraine.

    With the retirement of Republican minority leader Mitch McConnell, a vocal advocate for supporting the war, it’s unclear if such a measure would even come up for a vote under Republican leadership. But a Harris administration or a Democrat-led House or Senate, or both, would continue to lobby for US funding.

    One important, but less-discussed, issue that may also arise before the Senate is the ratification of a defence pact between the US and Saudi Arabia. Both the Trump and Biden administrations have envisioned a Saudi-Israel deal normalising relations between the two countries, with a US security pact for Saudi Arabia to back the agreement.

    Any future treaty would require a two-thirds Senate majority, a high bar to clear. Twenty Democratic senators raised concerns to Biden about the potential deal in 2023, while Republican senators voted to block Trump’s proposed armed sales to the Saudis in 2019.

    Both at home and abroad, it’s not just who wins the White House that will determine the political trajectory of the United States. Races in the Senate could have far-reaching implications under either a President Harris or President Trump.

    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. US election: how control of Congress will matter for the new president – https://theconversation.com/us-election-how-control-of-congress-will-matter-for-the-new-president-242246

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Attorney General James Leads Multistate Coalition Backing National Ban on Price Gouging

    Source: US State of New York

    NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James today led a coalition of 15 attorneys general urging Congressional leaders to support a ban on price gouging at the national level. While over 40 states ban price gouging, there is no federal law preventing businesses from raising prices to increase their profits on essential goods during an emergency. In a letter to Congressional leaders, Attorney General James and the coalition argued that a national ban on price gouging would give the federal government the power to crack down on price gouging that cannot be stopped by a single state, and allow states and the federal government to work together to stop illegal price gouging in national supply chains. 

    “Businesses should never be able to hike prices during an emergency just to increase their profits,” said Attorney General James. “When companies take advantage of major disruptions and raise prices of food and supplies that New Yorkers rely on, my office holds them accountable, getting people their money back and protecting their wallets. Our federal government should have the same power to protect Americans when disaster strikes and stop price gouging at the national level that threatens both hardworking families and small businesses.” 

    Bans on price gouging let businesses raise prices to cover costs but prevent them from raising prices further solely to increase their profits during an emergency. Attorney General James and the coalition argue in their letter that prohibiting price gouging benefits both consumers and businesses. First, it encourages much-needed production at critical times by only allowing businesses to make more money by selling more products, instead of by raising prices. Second, it prevents businesses from risking long-term harm and reputational damage by overreacting in an emergency and setting prices too high. Third, it discourages hoarding in an emergency, since rising prices can prompt customers to over-buy. Fourth, price gouging bans protect consumers from monopolists who can raise prices without worrying about consumers’ reactions or being undercut by a competitor. 

    The COVID-19 pandemic and the onset of war in Ukraine disrupted supply chains at the national level, creating opportunities for price gouging that were sometimes out of reach from individual states. Attorney General James and the coalition argue in their letter that a federal ban would complement states’ anti-price gouging measures to help stop price gouging at the national level. 

    As Attorney General James and the coalition note, attorneys general have successfully stopped price gouging at the state level, demonstrating a clear need for national enforcement to complement these efforts. In New York, Attorney General James has secured decisive settlements with companies for illegally raising prices during emergencies, including the COVID-19 pandemic. In March and April 2024, Attorney General James distributed over 9,500 cans of baby formula in Buffalo and New York City as part of a settlement with Walgreens for illegally raising prices of baby formula during the 2022 shortage. In May 2023, Attorney General James recovered $100,000 from Quality King for price gouging Lysol products at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. In April 2021, Attorney General James secured 1.2 million eggs for New Yorkers from Hillandale Farms Corporation as part of a settlement resolving a lawsuit brought by the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) in August 2020 for illegally gouging egg prices in the early months of the pandemic. 

    In March 2023, Attorney General James proposed new rules to protect consumers and small businesses by making it easier for OAG to investigate and combat price gouging. Throughout the pandemic, during major disruptions, and ahead of recent declared disasters, Attorney General James has issued consumer warnings against price gouging on essential supplies.

    Joining Attorney General James in sending the letter to Congress are the attorneys general of California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and the District of Columbia.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: National recognition for Council support to people seeking sanctuary

    Source: Scotland – City of Perth

    The formal recognition of the Council’s support for the sanctuary-seeking population follows a comprehensive evaluation by UK City of Sanctuary.  

    Perth and Kinross has been a place of sanctuary for people for many years, and since at least the outbreak of World War I in 1914 when a group of Belgian refugees came to Perth. In more recent times, people of all ages from countries around the world, including the Ukraine, Syria and Afghanistan, have received vital help and multi-agency support for positive integration and resettlement within the community. 

    Leader of Perth and Kinross Council, Councillor Grant Laing said: “Our vision is for Perth and Kinross as a place where ‘everyone can live well free from poverty and inequalities’. For refugees and people seeking asylum this can be a challenge, however we will continue to work creatively across our services and with our public sector and community partners to make the area as safe and welcoming as possible.” 

    Equalities Lead, Councillor Peter Barrett said: “Our sanctuary seeking population have come from wide-ranging and difficult circumstances in their own countries from war to persecution. This national recognition of what we have done to make a difference to their lives, from families to unaccompanied children and young people, is something we all warmly welcome at the Council and the link with the UK City of Sanctuary organisation also opens up new avenues of support, advice and good practice we can access for the benefit of those most in need.” 

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Commission adopts 2024 Enlargement Package

    Source: European Commission

    European Commission Press release Brussels, 30 Oct 2024 Today, the European Commission adopted its annual Enlargement Package, providing a detailed assessment of the state of play and the progress made by Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova, Ukraine and Türkiye

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Request for clarification of legal exemptions for Ukrainian lorry drivers transiting Romania – E-001659/2024(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    1. Under the Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine on the Carriage of Freight by Road signed on 29 June 2022[1], Ukrainian hauliers are granted only limited rights for access to the EU market compared to the rights of the hauliers established in EU. The Ukrainian operators are only allowed to perform bilateral transport operations from or to Ukraine and transit the EU territory in case of operations with third countries. They do not have the right to perform cross border trade between Member States or cabotage within a Member State, unlike European hauliers. Ukrainian hauliers are required to comply with all the obligations resulting from the Agreement. Member States have the responsibility to enforce these obligations including by laying down effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties.

    The amending Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine signed on 20 June 2024[2] has clarified and reinforced control measures to enhance its implementation[3], including a system for monitoring compliance of road haulage operators.

    2. The Agreement does not affect the competence and responsibility of Member States to control road transport activities, including to ensure that they do not involve any criminal or illegal activities such as human trafficking or drug smuggling.

    3. Under the Agreement Ukrainian haulage undertakings are not granted the right to compete with EU hauliers for intra EU trade. Ukraine is a member of both the European Agreement Concerning the Work of Crews of Vehicles Engaged in International Road Transport[4] and the European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) Multilateral Quota System[5], Ukrainian haulage companies and drivers are therefore subject to the safety, social and competition standards contained in these agreements.

    • [1] OJ L 179, 6.7.2022, p. 4, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/agree_internation/2022/1158/oj
    • [2] OJ L, 2024/1878, 2.7.2024, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/agree_internation/2024/1878/oj
    • [3] EU and Ukraine update and extend Road Transport Agreement: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_3382
    • [4] https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XI-B-21&chapter=11&clang=_en
    • [5] https://www.itf-oecd.org/ecmt-road-transport-platform
    Last updated: 30 October 2024

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Economics: WTO members review safeguard actions during latest committee meeting

    Source: WTO

    Headline: WTO members review safeguard actions during latest committee meeting

    Japan and Australia took the floor to stress that safeguards are emergency measures, and members taking safeguard actions must ensure that they comply with the relevant rules.
    Review of legislative notifications
    The legislative notifications from Cabo Verde and the Solomon Islands were tabled at the meeting. Both members notified that they did not currently have regulations or administrative procedures relating to safeguard measures. The Committee also continued the review of legislative notifications from Liberia and from Ghana.
    Specific notifications of safeguard actions
    Notifications of various safeguard actions from the following members were reviewed by the Committee: the European Union (1 investigation); Ghana (1 investigation); India (1 investigation); Indonesia (8 investigations); Madagascar (3 investigations); the Philippines (1 investigation); South Africa (1 investigation); Türkiye (4 investigations); Ukraine (1 investigation), the United Kingdom (1 investigation); and the United States (2 investigations).
    Six members took the floor in respect to the European Union’s update of the status of its safeguard measure on certain steel products. One member referred to its proposal to suspend substantially equivalent concessions against European Union imports in reaction to the European Union’s measure.
    Five members took the floor to comment on the latest status of the United Kingdom’s safeguard measure on certain steel products, with several members recalling that the UK applies this measure having “transitioned” it from the EU following its departure from the European Union.
    Japan expressed concerns about two specific safeguards: Viet Nam’s safeguard measure on “certain semi-finished and finished products of alloy and non-alloy steel” and Indonesia’s safeguard measure on “articles of apparel and clothing accessories”.
    Indonesia’s request regarding Türkiye’s proposed suspension of concessions against its exports
    On 11 July 2024, Indonesia submitted, pursuant to Article 13.1 (e) of the Safeguards Agreement, a request in relation to Türkiye’s proposal to suspend substantially equivalent concessions or other obligations against imports from Indonesia. Türkiye had proposed the suspension of concessions in response to Indonesia’s safeguard measure on carpets and other textile floor coverings.
    Article 13.1 (e) of the Safeguards Agreement stipulates, as one of the functions of the Committee, to “review … whether proposals to suspend concessions or other obligations are ‘substantially equivalent’, and report as appropriate to the Council for Trade in Goods”. The Chair explained how he intends to move forward on this matter. Several members took the floor to describe their views, including with respect to the relevant period to use for the purpose of determining the value of the substantially equivalent concessions.
    Discussion Group regarding safeguard proceedings
    A member, on behalf of 13 other members, explained that a meeting of an informal discussion group regarding safeguard proceedings would take place after the Committee meeting. While it was not part of the Committee meeting, the discussion was open to all members. The idea behind this discussion group was to provide a broader perspective than in formal Committee meetings where members review particular notifications, and to focus more on each other’s experiences and to learn from each other.
    Creation of online portal for submission of safeguard notifications
    Under “Other Business”, the Chair provided an update regarding the creation by the WTO Secretariat of an online portal for the submission of safeguard notifications. The Chair reported that a prototype was now ready for delegations to test.
    Next meeting
    The next meeting of the Committee on Safeguards is scheduled for the week of 28 April 2025.
    Background
    Under the WTO rules, a member may apply measures to imports of a product temporarily (take “safeguard” actions) through higher tariffs or other measures if it determines through an investigation that increased imports of a product are causing or threatening to cause serious injury to its domestic industry. Unlike anti-dumping duties, safeguard measures cover imports from all sources, although imports from developing country members with a small share of imports are exempted through special and differential treatment provisions.
    More background on safeguards is available here.

    Share

    MIL OSI Economics –

  • MIL-OSI: Fully Operational Rigetti QPU Included in UK’s Recently Opened National Quantum Computer Centre

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    The UK’s National Quantum Computing Centre (NQCC) officially opened the doors of its landmark facility on Harwell Campus on October 25. The state-of-the-art facility includes a fully operational 24-qubit Ankaa™-class Rigetti system, which will be made available to NQCC researchers for testing, benchmarking, and exploratory applications development.

    LONDON, Oct. 30, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Rigetti UK Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Rigetti Computing, Inc. (Nasdaq: RGTI) (“Rigetti” or the “Company”), a pioneer in full-stack quantum-classical computing, today announced that the UK’s National Quantum Computing Centre (NQCC) officially opened the doors of its landmark facility on Harwell Campus on October 25. The facility will support world-class quantum computing research and provide state-of-the-art laboratories for designing, building, and testing quantum computers. Rigetti’s system located at the NQCC is a fully operational 24-qubit Ankaa™-class quantum computer, featuring tunable couplers and a square lattice for fast gate times, enhanced connectivity, and high fidelity. As part of the implementation, Rigetti will be integrating Riverlane’s technology with the long-term objective of large-scale error correction.

    In February 2024, Rigetti was awarded a Small Business Research Initiative (SBRI) grant delivered by Innovate UK and funded by the NQCC to deliver a quantum computing system based on the Company’s Ankaa-class architecture to the new facility. The 24-qubit system will be made available to NQCC researchers for testing, benchmarking, and exploratory applications development.

    Rigetti CEO Dr. Subodh Kulkarni and CTO David Rivas attended the official inauguration to celebrate the milestone.

    “The NQCC opening is a great occasion for both the UK and Rigetti. We are proud that Rigetti’s on-premises quantum computer is fully operational for the NQCC research team to pursue critical research to advance our understanding of how to use quantum computing to solve real-world problems,” says Rigetti CEO Dr. Subodh Kulkarni.

    About Rigetti
    Rigetti is a pioneer in full-stack quantum computing. The Company has operated quantum computers over the cloud since 2017 and serves global enterprise, government, and research clients through its Rigetti Quantum Cloud Services platform. The Company’s proprietary quantum-classical infrastructure provides high performance integration with public and private clouds for practical quantum computing. Rigetti has developed the industry’s first multi-chip quantum processor for scalable quantum computing systems. The Company designs and manufactures its chips in-house at Fab-1, the industry’s first dedicated and integrated quantum device manufacturing facility. Learn more at www.rigetti.com.

    Rigetti Computing Media Contact:
    press@rigetti.com

    Cautionary Language Concerning Forward-Looking Statements
    Certain statements in this communication may be considered “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the federal securities laws, including but not limited to, expectations related to the Company’s 24-qubit Ankaa-class system operating at the UK’s National Quantum Computing Centre, including the results of researchers testing, benchmarking and performing exploratory applications development on that system, and the SBRI grant to the Company from Innovate UK. These forward-looking statements are based upon estimates and assumptions that, while considered reasonable by the Company and its management, are inherently uncertain. Factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from current expectations include, but are not limited to: the Company’s ability to achieve milestones, technological advancements, including with respect to its technology roadmap, help unlock quantum computing, and develop practical applications; the ability of the Company to obtain government contracts successfully and in a timely manner and the availability of government funding; the potential of quantum computing; the ability of the Company to expand its QPU sales; the success of the Company’s partnerships and collaborations; the Company’s ability to accelerate its development of multiple generations of quantum processors; the outcome of any legal proceedings that may be instituted against the Company or others; the ability to maintain relationships with customers and suppliers and attract and retain management and key employees; costs related to operating as a public company; changes in applicable laws or regulations; the possibility that the Company may be adversely affected by other economic, business, or competitive factors; the Company’s estimates of expenses and profitability; the evolution of the markets in which the Company competes; the ability of the Company to implement its strategic initiatives, expansion plans and continue to innovate its existing services; the expected use of proceeds from the Company’s past and future financings or other capital; the sufficiency of the Company’s cash resources; unfavorable conditions in the Company’s industry, the global economy or global supply chain, including financial and credit market fluctuations and uncertainty, rising inflation and interest rates, disruptions in banking systems, increased costs, international trade relations, political turmoil, natural catastrophes, warfare (such as the ongoing military conflict between Russia and Ukraine and related sanctions and the state of war between Israel and Hamas and related threat of a larger conflict), and terrorist attacks; and other risks and uncertainties set forth in the section entitled “Risk Factors” and “Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023, the Company’s Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2024, and other documents filed by the Company from time to time with the SEC. These filings identify and address other important risks and uncertainties that could cause actual events and results to differ materially from those contained in the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made. Readers are cautioned not to put undue reliance on forward-looking statements, and the Company assumes no obligation and does not intend to update or revise these forward-looking statements other than as required by applicable law. The Company does not give any assurance that it will achieve its expectations.

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI: Landmark Bancorp, Inc. Announces 30.5% Increase in Third Quarter Net Earnings and Earnings Per Share of $0.72. Declares Cash Dividend of $0.21 per Share and 5% Stock Dividend

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    Manhattan, KS, Oct. 30, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Landmark Bancorp, Inc. (“Landmark”; Nasdaq: LARK) reported diluted earnings per share of $0.72 for the three months ended September 30, 2024, compared to $0.55 per share in the second quarter of 2024 and $0.52 per share in the same quarter last year. Net earnings for the third quarter of 2024 amounted to $3.9 million, compared to $3.0 million in the prior quarter and $2.9 million for the third quarter of 2023. For the three months ended September 30, 2024, the return on average assets was 1.00%, the return on average equity was 11.82%, and the efficiency ratio was 66.5%.

    For the first nine months of 2024, diluted earnings per share totaled $1.77 compared to $1.75 during the same period in 2023. Net earnings for the first nine months of 2024 totaled $9.7 million, compared to $9.6 million in the first nine months of 2023. For the nine months ended September 30, 2024, the return on average assets was 0.84%, the return on average equity was 10.18%, and the efficiency ratio was 68.8%.

    In making this announcement, Abby Wendel, President and Chief Executive Officer of Landmark, said, “The Company delivered strong results in the third quarter 2024. Net earnings grew 30.5 percent over the prior quarter and 36.6 percent over the same period last year. Earnings per share also increased 36.5 percent over the third quarter last year. Growth in loans, margin expansion, and higher non-interest income all contributed to strong revenue growth. This quarter total loans grew $21.3 million, or 8.6 percent annualized, driven mainly by strong growth in residential mortgage, agriculture and commercial real estate loans. Additionally, net interest income grew 5.7 percent, to $11.6 million, as higher interest on loans exceeded interest costs on deposits and our net interest margin expanded by nine basis points and was 3.30 percent for the quarter. Non-interest income also increased $533,000 over the prior quarter mainly due to increases in fees and service charges earned along with a gain on the sale of a former branch. During the third quarter 2024, non-interest expense declined by $536,000, as the prior quarter included a $979,000 valuation adjustment on a former branch facility. Deposit balances increased 8.0 percent annualized during the third quarter mainly due to growth in money market, checking, and certificate of deposit accounts. Stockholders’ equity also increased by $11.4 million as lower rates this quarter reduced our net unrealized securities losses and increased our book value per share.”

    Landmark’s Board of Directors declared a cash dividend of $0.21 per share, to be paid November 27, 2024, to common stockholders of record as of the close of business on November 13, 2024. The Board of Directors also declared a 5% stock dividend payable on December 16, 2024, to common stockholders of record on December 2, 2024. This is the 24th consecutive year that the Board has declared a 5% stock dividend.

    Management will host a conference call to discuss the Company’s financial results at 10:00 a.m. (Central time) on Thursday, October 31, 2024. Investors may participate via telephone by dialing (833) 470-1428 and using access code 242414. A replay of the call will be available through November 30, 2024, by dialing (866) 813-9403 and using access code 908094.

    SUMMARY OF THIRD QUARTER RESULTS

    Net earnings in the third quarter of 2024 increased $919,000, to $3.9 million mainly due to growth in net interest income coupled with higher non-interest income and lower non-interest expense. The current quarter included a gain of $273,000 on the sale of a former branch and we also recorded a provision for credit losses of $500,000.

    Net Interest Income

    Net interest income in the third quarter of 2024 amounted to $11.6 million representing an increase of $630,000, or 5.7%, compared to the previous quarter. The increase in net interest income was due mainly to growth in interest income on loans, but partially offset by higher interest expense on deposits. The net interest margin increased to 3.30% during the third quarter from 3.21% during the prior quarter. Compared to the previous quarter, interest income on loans increased $911,000, or 6.1%, to $15.9 million due to both higher average balances and rates. The average tax-equivalent yield on the loan portfolio increased 10 basis points to 6.43%. Interest expense on deposits increased $157,000, or 2.8%, in the third quarter 2024, compared to the prior quarter, mainly due to higher rates on interest-bearing deposits. The average rate on interest-bearing deposits increased in the third quarter to 2.48% compared to 2.44% in the prior quarter. Interest on borrowed funds increased $55,000 due to slightly higher average balances in the current quarter.

    Non-Interest Income

    Non-interest income totaled $4.3 million for the third quarter of 2024, an increase of $533,000, or 14.3%, from the previous quarter. The increase in non-interest income compared to the second quarter of 2024 was primarily the result of increases of $282,000 in other non-interest income and $189,000 in fees and service charges. Gain on sales of residential mortgage loans also increased 8.6% compared to the prior quarter. The increase in other non-interest income was primarily due to a $273,000 gain on the sale of a former branch.

    Non-Interest Expense

    During the third quarter of 2024, non-interest expense totaled $10.6 million, a decrease of $536,000, or 4.8%, compared to the prior quarter. As mentioned above, non-interest expense in the prior quarter included a valuation allowance of $979,000 recorded on a former branch facility that was ultimately sold in the third quarter of 2024. Partially offsetting that decline were increases of $299,000 in compensation and benefits and $135,000 in occupancy and equipment.

    Income Tax Expense

    Landmark recorded income tax expense of $867,000 in the third quarter of 2024 compared to $587,000 in the prior quarter. The effective tax rate was 18.1% in the third quarter of 2024 compared to 16.3% in the second quarter of 2024. The increase in the effective tax rate was primarily due to higher earnings before taxes as tax-exempt income was consistent between the periods.

    Balance Sheet Highlights

    As of September 30, 2024, gross loans totaled $1.0 billion, an increase of $21.3 million, or 8.6% annualized since June 30, 2024. During the quarter, loan growth was primarily comprised of one-to-four family residential real estate (growth of $12.3 million), agriculture (growth of $7.5 million) and commercial real estate (growth of $5.2 million) loans. The increase in one-to-four family residential real estate loans reflects continued demand for adjustable-rate mortgage loans which are retained in our portfolio. Investment securities decreased $9.4 million during the third quarter of 2024, while pre-tax unrealized net losses on these investment securities decreased from $24.8 million at June 30, 2024 to $13.3 million at September 30, 2024.

    Period end deposit balances increased $25.0 million to $1.3 billion at September 30, 2024. The increase in deposits was mainly driven by increases in money market and checking (increase of $19.2 million) and certificates of deposit (increase of $11.4 million). Average interest-bearing deposits however were down slightly this quarter compared to the second quarter. Total borrowings decreased $38.5 million during the third quarter 2024. Average borrowings, including FHLB advances and repurchase agreements increased $4.3 million this quarter compared to the second quarter. At September 30, 2024, the loan to deposits ratio was 77.6% compared to 77.5% in the prior quarter.

    Stockholders’ equity increased to $139.7 million (book value of $25.39 per share) as of September 30, 2024, from $128.3 million (book value of $23.45 per share) as of June 30, 2024. The increase in stockholders’ equity was primarily due to a decline in accumulated other comprehensive losses as the unrealized net losses on investments securities declined during the third quarter. The ratio of equity to total assets increased to 8.93% on September 30, 2024, from 8.22% on June 30, 2024.

    The allowance for credit losses totaled $11.5 million, or 1.15% of total gross loans on September 30, 2024, compared to $10.9 million, or 1.11% of total gross loans on June 30, 2024. Net loan charge-offs totaled $9,000 in the third quarter of 2024, compared to net loan recoveries of $52,000 during the second quarter of 2024. A provision for credit losses of $500,000 was recorded in the third quarter of 2024 compared to a no provision for credit losses in the second quarter of 2024.

    Non-performing loans totaled $13.4 million, or 1.34% of gross loans at September 30, 2024 compared to $5.0 million, or 0.51% of gross loans at June 30, 2024. The increase in non-accrual loans was primarily related to one commercial loan which was put on non-accrual status this quarter. Loans 30-89 days delinquent totaled $7.3 million, or 0.73% of gross loans, as of September 30, 2024, compared to $1.9 million, or 0.19% of gross loans, as of June 30, 2024. The increase in delinquent loans was primarily related to two commercial-related loans. Foreclosed real estate owned totaled $428,000 at September 30, 2024.

    About Landmark

    Landmark Bancorp, Inc., the holding company for Landmark National Bank, is listed on the Nasdaq Global Market under the symbol “LARK.” Headquartered in Manhattan, Kansas, Landmark National Bank is a community banking organization dedicated to providing quality financial and banking services. Landmark National Bank has 30 locations in 24 communities across Kansas: Manhattan (2), Auburn, Dodge City (2), Fort Scott (2), Garden City, Great Bend (2), Hoisington, Iola, Junction City, Kincaid, La Crosse, Lawrence (2), Lenexa, Louisburg, Mound City, Osage City, Osawatomie, Overland Park, Paola, Pittsburg, Prairie Village, Topeka (2), Wamego and Wellsville, Kansas. Visit www.banklandmark.com for more information.

    Contact:
    Mark A. Herpich
    Chief Financial Officer
    (785) 565-2000

    Special Note Concerning Forward-Looking Statements

    This press release may contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 with respect to the financial condition, results of operations, plans, objectives, future performance and business of Landmark. Forward-looking statements, which may be based upon beliefs, expectations and assumptions of our management and on information currently available to management, are generally identifiable by the use of words such as “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “plan,” “intend,” “estimate,” “may,” “will,” “would,” “could,” “should” or other similar expressions. Additionally, all statements in this press release, including forward-looking statements, speak only as of the date they are made, and Landmark undertakes no obligation to update any statement in light of new information or future events. A number of factors, many of which are beyond our ability to control or predict, could cause actual results to differ materially from those in our forward-looking statements. These factors include, among others, the following: (i) the strength of the local, national and international economies, including the effects of inflationary pressures and supply chain constraints on such economies; (ii) changes in state and federal laws, regulations and governmental policies concerning banking, securities, consumer protection, insurance, monetary, trade and tax matters, including any changes in response to the recent failures of other banks; (iii) changes in interest rates and prepayment rates of our assets; (iv) increased competition in the financial services sector and the inability to attract new customers, including from non-bank competitors such as credit unions and “fintech” companies; (v) timely development and acceptance of new products and services; (vi) changes in technology and the ability to develop and maintain secure and reliable electronic systems; (vii) our risk management framework; (viii) interruptions in information technology and telecommunications systems and third-party services; (ix) changes and uncertainty in benchmark interest rates, including the timing of rate changes, if any, by the Federal Reserve; (x) the effects of severe weather, natural disasters, widespread disease or pandemics, or other external events; (xi) the loss of key executives or employees; (xii) changes in consumer spending; (xiii) integration of acquired businesses; (xiv) unexpected outcomes of existing or new litigation; (xv) changes in accounting policies and practices, such as the implementation of the current expected credit losses accounting standard; (xvi) the economic impact of past and any future terrorist attacks, acts of war, including the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the conflict in Ukraine, or threats thereof, and the response of the United States to any such threats and attacks; (xvii) the ability to manage credit risk, forecast loan losses and maintain an adequate allowance for loan losses; (xviii) fluctuations in the value of securities held in our securities portfolio; (xix) concentrations within our loan portfolio, large loans to certain borrowers, and large deposits from certain clients; (xx) the concentration of large deposits from certain clients who have balances above current FDIC insurance limits and may withdraw deposits to diversify their exposure; (xxi) the level of non-performing assets on our balance sheets; (xxii) the ability to raise additional capital; (xxiii) cyber-attacks; (xxiv) declines in real estate values; (xxv) the effects of fraud on the part of our employees, customers, vendors or counterparties; and (xxvi) any other risks described in the “Risk Factors” sections of reports filed by Landmark with the Securities and Exchange Commission. These risks and uncertainties should be considered in evaluating forward-looking statements, and undue reliance should not be placed on such statements. Additional information concerning Landmark and its business, including additional risk factors that could materially affect Landmark’s financial results, is included in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

    LANDMARK BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
    Consolidated Balance Sheets (unaudited)

    (Dollars in thousands)   September 30,     June 30,     March 31,     December 31,     September 30,  
        2024     2024     2024     2023     2023  
    Assets                              
    Cash and cash equivalents   $ 21,211     $ 23,889     $ 16,468     $ 27,101     $ 23,821  
    Interest-bearing deposits at other banks     4,363       4,881       4,920       4,918       5,904  
    Investment securities available-for-sale, at fair value:                                        
    U.S. treasury securities     83,753       89,325       93,683       95,667       118,341  
    Municipal obligations, tax exempt     112,126       114,047       118,445       120,623       115,706  
    Municipal obligations, taxable     75,129       74,588       75,371       79,083       73,993  
    Agency mortgage-backed securities     140,004       142,499       149,777       157,396       148,817  
    Total investment securities available-for-sale     411,012       420,459       437,276       452,769       456,857  
    Investment securities held-to-maturity     3,643       3,613       3,584       3,555       3,525  
    Bank stocks, at cost     7,894       9,647       7,850       8,123       8,009  
    Loans:                                        
    One-to-four family residential real estate     344,380       332,090       312,833       302,544       289,571  
    Construction and land     23,454       30,480       24,823       21,090       21,657  
    Commercial real estate     324,016       318,850       323,397       320,962       323,427  
    Commercial     181,652       178,876       181,945       180,942       185,831  
    Agriculture     91,986       84,523       86,808       89,680       84,560  
    Municipal     7,098       6,556       5,690       4,507       3,200  
    Consumer     29,263       29,200       28,544       28,931       29,180  
    Total gross loans     1,001,849       980,575       964,040       948,656       937,426  
    Net deferred loan (fees) costs and loans in process     (63 )     (583 )     (578 )     (429 )     (396 )
    Allowance for credit losses     (11,544 )     (10,903 )     (10,851 )     (10,608 )     (10,970 )
    Loans, net     990,242       969,089       952,611       937,619       926,060  
    Loans held for sale, at fair value     3,250       2,513       2,697       853       1,857  
    Bank owned life insurance     39,176       38,826       38,578       38,333       38,090  
    Premises and equipment, net     20,976       20,986       20,696       19,709       23,911  
    Goodwill     32,377       32,377       32,377       32,377       32,377  
    Other intangible assets, net     2,729       2,900       3,071       3,241       3,414  
    Mortgage servicing rights     3,041       2,997       2,977       3,158       3,368  
    Real estate owned, net     428       428       428       928       934  
    Other assets     23,309       28,149       29,684       28,988       29,459  
    Total assets   $ 1,563,651     $ 1,560,754     $ 1,553,217     $ 1,561,672     $ 1,557,586  
                                             
    Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity                                        
    Liabilities:                                        
    Deposits:                                        
    Non-interest-bearing demand     360,188       360,631       364,386       367,103       395,046  
    Money market and checking     565,629       546,385       583,315       613,613       586,651  
    Savings     145,825       150,996       154,000       152,381       157,112  
    Certificates of deposit     203,860       192,470       191,823       183,154       169,225  
    Total deposits     1,275,502       1,250,482       1,293,524       1,316,251       1,308,034  
    FHLB and other borrowings     92,050       131,330       74,716       64,662       82,569  
    Subordinated debentures     21,651       21,651       21,651       21,651       21,651  
    Repurchase agreements     9,528       8,745       15,895       12,714       12,590  
    Accrued interest and other liabilities     25,229       20,292       20,760       19,480       23,185  
    Total liabilities     1,423,960       1,432,500       1,426,546       1,434,758       1,448,029  
    Stockholders’ equity:                                        
    Common stock     55       55       55       55       52  
    Additional paid-in capital     89,532       89,469       89,364       89,208       84,568  
    Retained earnings     60,549       57,774       55,912       54,282       57,280  
    Treasury stock, at cost     (396 )     (330 )     (249 )     (75 )     –  
    Accumulated other comprehensive loss     (10,049 )     (18,714 )     (18,411 )     (16,556 )     (32,343 )
    Total stockholders’ equity     139,691       128,254       126,671       126,914       109,557  
    Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity   $ 1,563,651     $ 1,560,754     $ 1,553,217     $ 1,561,672     $ 1,557,586  


    LANDMARK BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
    Consolidated Statements of Earnings (unaudited)

    (Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)   Three months ended,     Nine months ended,  
        September 30,     June 30,     September 30,     September 30,     September 30,  
        2024     2024     2023     2024     2023  
    Interest income:                                        
    Loans   $ 15,933     $ 15,022     $ 13,531     $ 45,445     $ 37,530  
    Investment securities:                                        
    Taxable     2,301       2,359       2,445       7,088       7,141  
    Tax-exempt     747       759       772       2,270       2,333  
    Interest-bearing deposits at banks     41       40       46       144       193  
    Total interest income     19,022       18,180       16,794       54,947       47,197  
    Interest expense:                                        
    Deposits     5,830       5,673       4,384       16,960       10,375  
    FHLB and other borrowings     1,100       1,027       1,251       3,149       2,845  
    Subordinated debentures     416       418       417       1,246       1,168  
    Repurchase agreements     72       88       116       267       403  
    Total interest expense     7,418       7,206       6,168       21,622       14,791  
    Net interest income     11,604       10,974       10,626       33,325       32,406  
    Provision for credit losses     500       –       –       800       299  
    Net interest income after provision for credit losses     11,104       10,974       10,626       32,525       32,107  
    Non-interest income:                                        
    Fees and service charges     2,880       2,691       2,618       8,032       7,457  
    Gains on sales of loans, net     704       648       491       1,864       2,014  
    Bank owned life insurance     254       248       230       747       671  
    Other     415       133       313       730       834  
    Total non-interest income     4,253       3,720       3,652       11,373       10,976  
    Non-interest expense:                                        
    Compensation and benefits     5,803       5,504       5,811       16,839       16,925  
    Occupancy and equipment     1,429       1,294       1,373       4,113       4,136  
    Data processing     464       492       458       1,437       1,478  
    Amortization of mortgage servicing rights and other intangibles     256       256       474       924       1,407  
    Professional fees     573       649       624       1,869       1,722  
    Valuation allowance on real estate held for sale     –       979       –       1,108       –  
    Other     2,034       1,921       1,989       5,915       5,753  
    Total non-interest expense     10,559       11,095       10,729       32,205       31,421  
    Earnings before income taxes     4,798       3,599       3,549       11,693       11,662  
    Income tax expense     867       587       671       1,972       2,065  
    Net earnings   $ 3,931     $ 3,012     $ 2,878     $ 9,721     $ 9,597  
                                             
    Net earnings per share (1)                                        
    Basic   $ 0.72     $ 0.55     $ 0.53     $ 1.77     $ 1.75  
    Diluted     0.72       0.55       0.52       1.77       1.75  
    Dividends per share (1)     0.21       0.21       0.20       0.63       0.60  
    Shares outstanding at end of period (1)     5,501,221       5,469,566       5,481,805       5,501,221       5,481,805  
    Weighted average common shares outstanding – basic (1)     5,490,808       5,471,724       5,479,909       5,477,453       5,476,703  
    Weighted average common shares outstanding – diluted (1)     5,495,728       5,474,336       5,482,633       5,481,456       5,481,270  
                                             
    Tax equivalent net interest income   $ 11,777     $ 11,167     $ 10,809     $ 33,852     $ 32,974  

    (1) Share and per share values at or for the period ended September 30, 2023 have been adjusted to give effect to the 5% stock dividend paid during December 2023.

    LANDMARK BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
    Select Ratios and Other Data (unaudited)

    (Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)   As of or for the
    three months ended,    		     As of or for the
    nine months ended,    		  
        September 30,     June 30,     September 30,     September 30,     September 30,  
        2024     2024     2023     2024     2023  
    Performance ratios:                                        
    Return on average assets (1)     1.00 %     0.78 %     0.74 %     0.84 %     0.84 %
    Return on average equity (1)     11.82 %     9.72 %     9.87 %     10.18 %     11.13 %
    Net interest margin (1)(2)     3.30 %     3.21 %     3.06 %     3.21 %     3.19 %
    Effective tax rate     18.1 %     16.3 %     18.9 %     16.9 %     17.7 %
    Efficiency ratio (3)     66.5 %     67.9 %     73.8 %     68.8 %     71.0 %
    Non-interest income to total income (3)     25.5 %     25.4 %     25.6 %     25.0 %     25.3 %
                                             
    Average balances:                                        
    Investment securities   $ 428,301     $ 437,136     $ 486,706     $ 440,744     $ 493,853  
    Loans     985,659       955,104       906,289       962,252       877,048  
    Assets     1,562,482       1,545,816       1,549,724       1,554,682       1,528,938  
    Interest-bearing deposits     936,218       936,237       902,727       935,958       886,227  
    FHLB and other borrowings     77,958       72,875       89,441       74,496       70,774  
    Subordinated debentures     21,651       21,651       21,651       21,651       21,651  
    Repurchase agreements     10,774       11,524       15,387       12,218       19,903  
    Stockholders’ equity   $ 132,271     $ 124,624     $ 115,644     $ 127,597     $ 115,275  
                                             
    Average tax equivalent yield/cost (1):                                        
    Investment securities     2.99 %     3.04 %     2.77 %     2.99 %     2.72 %
    Loans     6.43 %     6.33 %     5.93 %     6.31 %     5.72 %
    Total interest-bearing assets     5.38 %     5.29 %     4.81 %     5.26 %     4.62 %
    Interest-bearing deposits     2.48 %     2.44 %     1.93 %     2.42 %     1.57 %
    FHLB and other borrowings     5.61 %     5.67 %     5.55 %     5.65 %     5.37 %
    Subordinated debentures     7.64 %     7.76 %     7.64 %     7.69 %     7.21 %
    Repurchase agreements     2.66 %     3.07 %     2.99 %     2.92 %     2.71 %
    Total interest-bearing liabilities     2.82 %     2.78 %     2.38 %     2.77 %     1.98 %
                                             
    Capital ratios:                                        
    Equity to total assets     8.93 %     8.22 %     7.03 %                
    Tangible equity to tangible assets (3)     6.84 %     6.09 %     4.85 %                
    Book value per share   $ 25.39     $ 23.45     $ 19.99                  
    Tangible book value per share (3)   $ 19.01     $ 17.00     $ 13.46                  
                                             
    Rollforward of allowance for credit losses (loans):                                        
    Beginning balance   $ 10,903     $ 10,851     $ 10,449     $ 10,608     $ 8,791  
    Adoption of CECL     –       –       –       –       1,523  
    Charge-offs     (153 )     (119 )     (142 )     (413 )     (408 )
    Recoveries     144       171       663       449       814  
    Provision for credit losses for loans     650       –       –       900       250  
    Ending balance   $ 11,544     $ 10,903     $ 10,970     $ 11,544     $ 10,970  
                                             
    Allowance for unfunded loan commitments   $ 150     $ 300     $ 200                  
                                             
    Non-performing assets:                                        
    Non-accrual loans   $ 13,415     $ 5,007     $ 4,440                  
    Accruing loans over 90 days past due     –       –       –                  
    Real estate owned     428       428       934                  
    Total non-performing assets   $ 13,843     $ 5,435     $ 5,374                  
                                             
    Loans 30-89 days delinquent   $ 7,301     $ 1,872     $ 6,173                  
                                             
    Other ratios:                                        
    Loans to deposits     77.64 %     77.50 %     70.80 %                
    Loans 30-89 days delinquent and still accruing to gross loans outstanding     0.73 %     0.19 %     0.66 %                
    Total non-performing loans to gross loans outstanding     1.34 %     0.51 %     0.47 %                
    Total non-performing assets to total assets     0.89 %     0.35 %     0.35 %                
    Allowance for credit losses to gross loans outstanding     1.15 %     1.11 %     1.17 %                
    Allowance for credit losses to total non-performing loans     86.05 %     217.76 %     247.07 %                
    Net loan charge-offs to average loans (1)     0.00 %     -0.02 %     -0.23 %     0.00 %     -0.06 %
    (1 ) Information is annualized.
    (2 ) Net interest margin is presented on a fully tax equivalent basis, using a 21% federal tax rate.
    (3 ) Non-GAAP financial measures. See the “Non-GAAP Financial Measures” section of this press release for a reconciliation to the most comparable GAAP equivalent.
         

    LANDMARK BANCORP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
    Non-GAAP Finacials Measures (unaudited)

    (Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)   As of or for the
    three months ended,    		     As of or for the
    nine months ended,    		  
        September 30,     June 30,     September 30,     September 30,     September 30,  
        2024     2024     2023     2024     2023  
                                   
    Non-GAAP financial ratio reconciliation:                                        
    Total non-interest expense   $ 10,559     $ 11,095     $ 10,729     $ 32,205     $ 31,421  
    Less: foreclosure and real estate owned expense     (23 )     39       (1 )     (34 )     (21 )
    Less: amortization of other intangibles     (171 )     (171 )     (196 )     (512 )     (591 )
    Less: valuation allowance on real estate held for sale     –       (979 )     –       (1,108 )     –  
    Adjusted non-interest expense (A)     10,365       9,984       10,532       30,551       30,809  
                                             
    Net interest income (B)     11,604       10,974       10,626       33,325       32,406  
                                             
    Non-interest income     4,253       3,720       3,652       11,373       10,976  
    Less: losses (gains) on sales of investment securities, net     –       –       –       –       –  
    Less: gains on sales of premises and equipment and foreclosed assets     (273 )     9       –       (264 )     (1 )
    Adjusted non-interest income (C)   $ 3,980     $ 3,729     $ 3,652     $ 11,109     $ 10,975  
                                             
    Efficiency ratio (A/(B+C))     66.5 %     67.9 %     73.8 %     68.8 %     71.0 %
    Non-interest income to total income (C/(B+C))     25.5 %     25.4 %     25.6 %     25.0 %     25.3 %
                                             
    Total stockholders’ equity   $ 139,691     $ 128,254     $ 109,557                  
    Less: goodwill and other intangible assets     (35,106 )     (35,277 )     (35,791 )                
    Tangible equity (D)   $ 104,585     $ 92,977     $ 73,766                  
                                             
    Total assets   $ 1,563,651     $ 1,560,754     $ 1,557,586                  
    Less: goodwill and other intangible assets     (35,106 )     (35,277 )     (35,791 )                
    Tangible assets (E)   $ 1,528,545     $ 1,525,477     $ 1,521,795                  
                                             
    Tangible equity to tangible assets (D/E)     6.84 %     6.09 %     4.85 %                
                                             
    Shares outstanding at end of period (F)     5,501,221       5,469,566       5,481,805                  
                                             
    Tangible book value per share (D/F)   $ 19.01     $ 17.00     $ 13.46                  

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Russia should end the war now instead of sending other countries’ sons to die: UK statement at the UN Security Council

    Source: United Kingdom – Government Statements

    Statement by Ambassador Barbara Woodward, UK Permanent Representative to the UN, at the UN Security Council meeting on maintenance of peace and security of Ukraine.

    Location:
    United Nations, New York
    Delivered on:
    (Transcript of the speech, exactly as it was delivered)

    When Russia invaded Ukraine, almost 1000 days ago, the General Assembly was clear in its condemnation: it deplored Russia’s aggression in the strongest terms, demanded its full withdrawal and declared Russia’s invasion to be in violation of the UN Charter.

    Only five countries voted against, including the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

    Today the DPRK’s support for Russia goes even further. Pyongyang provides significant support to Russia by supplying munitions, arms, and other materiel, and now 10,000 troops have arrived in Russia, with a significant number believed to be deploying to Kursk.

    In addition to aiding Russia’s ongoing violation of the UN Charter, and a UN Member State’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, this cooperation between Russia and the DPRK is a direct violation of multiple UN Security Council resolutions.

    Russia voted for these resolutions. Now it violates them. This undermines not only international peace and security, but also the Security Council itself.

    Council members have repeatedly condemned these violations, yet the transfers continue.

    This latest development, Russia’s training and deployment of DPRK troops, is a significant step further for both countries. Russia has now suffered over 600,000 casualties. Instead of sending other countries’ sons to die for the imperialistic whims of one man, they should end the war now.

    Russia is not just paying for this invasion in the lives of young men. Defence and security will consume over 40% of state spending next year. 

    We can be sure that DPRK will be extracting a high price from Russia in return for the transfer of its troops, including military assistance. This risks further raising tensions on the Korean peninsula and undermining regional security in the Indo-Pacific.

    A DPRK with improved military technology and enhanced capacity to export weapons, could fuel instability in vulnerable conflict areas around the world.  An escalation of violence and expansion of the battlefield is in no one’s interest.

    It is clear that a desperate and impoverished Russia needs external support for this war to continue. Any country providing assistance to Russia’s aggression is thereby prolonging Russia’s illegal war.

    But Russia’s desperation will not deter our resolve to support Ukraine to exercise its right to self-defence in line with the UN Charter, and to protect their people and sovereignty.

    Updates to this page

    Published 30 October 2024

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Kishida’s legacy: Scandals and compromise at home, global respect for security and diplomacy – AP

    Source: United States Institute of Peace

    TOKYO (AP) — Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida will step down Tuesday, handing over leadership to his successor Shigeru Ishiba,…

    TOKYO (AP) — Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida will step down Tuesday, handing over leadership to his successor Shigeru Ishiba, who is expected to formally take office later in the day. He says he plans to call a snap election for Oct. 27.

    Kishida’s popularity ratings were precarious during most of his three-year term due to damaging corruption scandals that eventually led him to bow out.

    At home, Kishida was seen as a leader without a vision who compromised with powerful conservative nationalists within the ruling Liberal Democratic Party to stay in power. But he has won respect outside Japan, especially from the United States, for pushing bold changes in Japanese defense and security policies and for standing tougher against Russia and China.

    Here is a lookback at Kishida’s leadership and his legacy:

    Distress at home

    After taking office in October 2021, Kishida made a number of major decisions, such as reversing Japan’s nuclear energy phase-out and pursuing a rapid military buildup. But he avoided controversial social issues related to gender and sexual diversity. As head of a smaller faction in the ruling party, his top priority appeared to be keeping a stable grip on power by avoiding clashes with members of the Liberal Democrats’ powerful conservative group, led by the late Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

    Abe’s assassination in July 2022 and subsequent major corruption scandals linked to Abe’s faction members left constantly in damage control mode, as his support ratings tumbled. Kishida himself narrowly escaped an explosives attack during a speech at a fishing port in western Japan’s Wakayama in April, 2023.

    Investigations into Abe’s assassination led to revelations of the Liberal Democrats’ decades-long links to South Korea’s Unification Church. That was followed by a more damaging corruption scandal involving more than 80 LDP lawmakers, again mostly in Abe’s faction, involving illegal slush funds.

    Several lawmakers, their aides and accountants were indicted in that scandal.

    Kishida led internal probes and moved to reform and tighten political funding laws, but opposition lawmakers and voters viewed the measures as inadequate.

    Public outrage over the slush funds scandal has caused the LDP to lose a few local elections this year and lawmakers within the party called for a fresh face to shake off the scandals in order to win the next national election.

    Kishida ends his term as a kingmaker who could remain influential behind the scenes after he helped lift Ishiba to a come-from-behind victory in the party’s vote on Friday against staunch conservative Sanae Takaichi.

    Stronger defense

    Kishida, who long served as foreign minister under Abe, has won respect for his national security and foreign policies that significantly deepened ties with the United States and other partners such as Australia, the U.K., South Korea and the Philippines, while elevating the country’s international profile.

    In December 2022, Kishida’s government adopted a security and defense strategy involving a rapid buildup of Japan’s military power to acquire a “counter-strike” capability with long-range cruise missiles, a major break from Japan’s post-World War II self-defense-only principle.

    Kishida’s government set a five-year goal to double Japan’s military spending to nearly 2% of GDP, eventually to about 10 trillion yen ($70 billion), making it the world’s third biggest spender after the United States and China. But it’s unclear how Japan will fund that spending and balance it against other urgent needs such as coping with the country’s shrinking population.

    In December, Kishida substantially eased Japan’s weapons export rules, allowing licensing of Japanese-made PAC-3 missile interceptors to the United States and future foreign sales of fighter jets that Japan is developing with the U.K. and Italy.

    Kishida quickly joined other G7 countries in sanctioning Russia and supporting Ukraine. He has repeatedly said “Ukraine today may be East Asia tomorrow,” comparing the Russian invasion of Ukraine to China’s growing assertiveness in the Asia-Pacific region. He has worked on strengthening economic and security cooperation in the region.

    “Although Kishida’s successes on foreign affairs were overshadowed by domestic political scandals involving his Liberal Democratic Party, as well as lackluster economic growth, he oversaw increases in Japan’s reputation and popularity in the region and globally, as well as the institutionalization of related partnership gains,” Mirna Galic, a senior policy analyst at the U.S. Institute of Peace, wrote in a recent article.

    Better ties with South Korea

    One of Kishida’s diplomatic successes was Japan’s improved ties with South Korea, especially in regional security and in ties with their mutual ally, the United Sates, due to shared concerns about China and North Korea.

    Kishida, under pressure from Washington and with support from South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol, helped mend ties between the two Asian neighbors that have suffered over Japan’s colonial-era legacy of colonialism and atrocities. Stable relations are key to the U.S.-led united front in the Pacific.

    In April, Kishida made a state visit to Washington and spoke to Congress, stressing Japan’s determination to stand by America as a global partner. In 2023, President Joe Biden invited him to a trilateral summit at Camp David with Yoon where they agreed to strengthen their trilateral security framework.

    When Kishida announced in August his plans to step down, Biden lauded Kishida’s leadership, saying he had helped take the U.S.-Japan alliance “to new heights.”

    “Guided by unflinching courage and moral clarity, Prime Minister Kishida has transformed Japan’s role in the world,” Biden said in a statement. Kishida’s “courageous leadership will be remembered on both sides of the Pacific for decades to come,” he said.

    Kishida also recently helped work out a deal with Beijing to lift a Chinese ban on imports of Japanese seafood that Beijing imposed due to Japan’s release of treated radioactive wastewater into the Pacific from its wrecked Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Tensions over China’s military activity near Japanese water and airspace persist.

    He also deepened ties with Southeast Asian countries, the Pacific Island nations as well as so-called Global South developing countries.

    G7 Hiroshima and nuclear disarmament

    Kishida represents a constituency in Hiroshima and hosting a summit of the Group of Seven wealthy nations in the city in May 2023 was a highlight of his time in office aligned with his career goal of working toward a world free of nuclear weapons.

    However, the G7 summit statement on nuclear disarmament defended the possession of nuclear weapons as a deterrence, disappointing and angering survivors of the U.S. 1945 atomic bomb attack.

    Kishida says he adheres to Japan’s principles of not developing, possessing or allowing the deployment of nuclear weapons in its territory. Ishiba, a former defense minister, has advocated deepening a discussion among regional partners about the U.S. nuclear deterrence strategy.

    “New Capitalism” never took off

    Kishida espoused a “new capitalism” economic strategy calling for more equitable distribution of national wealth, an alternative to Abe’s heavy government spending and hyper-easy monetary policy. Neither policy has managed to get flagging growth back on track.

    Kishida’s defense and childcare policies would require big spending and the wage hikes he supported failed to keep pace with price increases.

    Government moves to try to reverse Japan’s falling birth rate involved mostly childcare allowances for married couples and didn’t address the problems of the growing number of young Japanese reluctant to marry and start families due to bleak job prospects, the high cost of living and a corporate culture that is unfriendly to working mothers.

    Copyright © 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, written or redistributed.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI: Superior Energy Services Announces Third Quarter 2024 Results and Conference Call

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    HOUSTON, Oct. 30, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Superior Energy Services, Inc. (the “Company”) filed its Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2024. In accordance with the Company’s Shareholders Agreement, it will host a conference call with shareholders on November 1, 2024.

    For the third quarter of 2024, the Company reported net income from continuing operations of $21.9 million, or $1.09 per diluted share, with revenue of $197.3 million. This compares to net income from continuing operations of $29.5 million or $1.46 per diluted share, with revenue of $201.1 million, for the second quarter of 2024.

    The Company’s Adjusted EBITDA (a non-GAAP measure defined on page 4) was $57.8 million compared to $60.0 million for the second quarter of 2024. Refer to pages 11 and 12 for a reconciliation of Adjusted EBITDA to GAAP results.

    Third Quarter 2024 Geographic Breakdown

    U.S. land revenue was $36.0 million for the third quarter of 2024, a decrease of 8% compared to revenue of $39.0 million for the second quarter of 2024. The decline in U.S. land revenue was primarily driven by decreased activity from our premium drill pipe and bottom hole accessories product lines within our Rentals segment, consistent with a reduced U.S. land rig count.

    U.S. offshore revenue was $49.7 million in the third quarter of 2024, a decrease of 8% compared to revenue of $53.8 million in the second quarter of 2024. U.S. offshore revenue decreased primarily in our Well Services segments, with the most significant decline coming from our project-based completion services product line.  U.S. Offshore revenue in the Rentals segment for the third quarter of 2024 was up $1.6 million versus the second quarter of 2024, despite approximately $1.0 million of revenue slipping to the fourth quarter of 2024 due to hurricane activity in September.

    International revenue was $111.6 million in the third quarter of 2024, an increase of 3% compared to revenue of $108.4 million in the second quarter of 2024. International revenue was up across both our Rentals and Well Services segments, with the increase being driven by our hydraulic snubbing and well control services product lines.

    Third Quarter 2024 Segment Reporting

    The Rentals segment revenue in the third quarter of 2024 was $97.9 million, a 2% decrease compared to revenue of $99.9 million in the second quarter of 2024, primarily driven by reduced activity in U.S. land and hurricane disruptions in the U.S. offshore market. In the third quarter of 2024, Rentals segment income from operations was $43.9 million as compared to $44.1 million in the second quarter of 2024. Adjusted EBITDA was $55.9 million, a decrease from $56.0 million in the second quarter of 2024. Adjusted EBITDA Margin (a non-GAAP measure defined on page 4) was 57%, a 1% increase from the second quarter of 2024.

    The Well Services segment revenue in the third quarter of 2024 was $99.5 million, a 2% decrease compared to revenue of $101.2 million in the second quarter of 2024 and income from operations for the third quarter of 2024 was $3.8 million as compared to $10.7 million in the second quarter of 2024. Adjusted EBITDA for the third quarter of 2024 was $15.4 million with an Adjusted EBITDA Margin of 16%, as compared to Adjusted EBITDA of $19.1 million with an Adjusted EBITDA Margin of 19% in the second quarter of 2024. The Well Services segment sequential decline was primarily driven by lower activity in our project-based completion services product line.

    Liquidity

    As of September 30, 2024, the Company had cash, cash equivalents, and restricted cash of approximately $380.6 million.  As of September 30, 2024, our borrowing base, as defined in our credit agreement, was approximately $89.9 million, and we had $39.5 million in letters of credit outstanding which reduced the borrowing availability to $50.4 million. At September 30, 2024, we had no outstanding borrowings under our credit facility.

    During the third quarter of 2024, we utilized an indirect foreign exchange mechanism known as a Blue Chip Swap. The transactions were completed at implied exchange rates that were approximately 63.0% higher than the official exchange rate, resulting in a loss of approximately $5.1 million during the third quarter of 2024.

    During the third quarter of 2024, net cash from operating activities was $62.5 million. Free Cash Flow (a non-GAAP measure defined on page 4) for the third quarter of 2024 totaled $50.5 million as compared to $39.0 million for the second quarter of 2024. Refer to page 8 for a reconciliation of Free Cash Flow to Net Cash from Operating Activities.

    Third quarter 2024 capital expenditures were $12.0 million. The Company expects total capital expenditures for 2024 to be approximately $100 to $110 million. Approximately 91% of total 2024 capital expenditures are targeted for the replacement of existing assets.  Of the total estimated 2024 capital expenditures, approximately 68% is expected to be invested in the Rentals segment.

    2024 Guidance

    Our full year 2024 guidance remains consistent from the second quarter 2024 guidance. We expect 2024 revenue to come in at a range of $780 million to $840 million with 2024 Adjusted EBITDA expected to be in a range of $235 million to $265 million.

    Conference Call Information

    The Company’s management team will host a conference call on Friday, November 1, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time. The call will be available via live webcast in the “Events” section at ir.superiorenergy.com. To access via phone, participants can register for the call here, where they will be provided a phone number and access code. The call will be available for replay until November 1, 2025 on Superior’s website at ir.superiorenergy.com. If you are a shareholder and would like to submit a question, please email your question beforehand to Jamie Spexarth at ir@superiorenergy.com.

    About Superior Energy Services

    Superior Energy Services serves the drilling, completion and production-related needs of oil and gas companies worldwide through a diversified portfolio of specialized oilfield services and equipment that are used throughout the economic life cycle of oil and gas wells.  For more information, visit: www.superiorenergy.com.

    Non-GAAP Financial Measures

    To supplement Superior’s consolidated financial statements, which are prepared and presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States (“GAAP”), the Company also uses Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA Margin. Management uses Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA Margin internally for financial and operational decision-making and as a means to evaluate period-to-period comparisons. The Company also believes these non-GAAP measures provide investors useful information about operating results, enhance the overall understanding of past financial performance and future prospects, and allow for greater transparency with respect to key metrics used by management in its financial and operational decision making. Non-GAAP financial measures are not recognized measures for financial statement presentation under U.S. GAAP and do not have standardized meanings and may not be comparable to similar measures presented by other public companies. Adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA Margin should be considered as supplements to, and not as substitutes for, or superior to, the corresponding measures calculated in accordance with GAAP. We define Adjusted EBITDA as net income (loss) from continuing activities before net interest expense, income tax expense (benefit) and depreciation, amortization, accretion and depletion, restructuring and transaction expenses, adjusted for other gains and losses and other expenses, net, which management does not consider representative of our ongoing operations. We define Adjusted EBITDA Margin as Adjusted EBITDA by segment as a percentage of segment revenues. For a reconciliation of Adjusted EBITDA to net income, the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure, please see the tables under “―Superior Energy Services, Inc. and Subsidiaries Reconciliation of Adjusted EBITDA” and “—Superior Energy Services, Inc. and Subsidiaries Reconciliation of Adjusted EBITDA by Segment” included on pages 11 and 12 of this press release.

    Free Cash Flow is defined as net cash from operating activities less payments for capital expenditures. Free Cash Flow is considered a non-GAAP financial measure under the SEC’s rules. Management believes, however, that Free Cash Flow is an important financial measure for use in evaluating the Company’s financial performance, as it measures our ability to generate additional cash from our business operations. Free Cash Flow should be considered in addition to, rather than as a substitute for, net income as a measure of our performance or net cash provided by operating activities as a measure of our liquidity. Additionally, our definition of Free Cash Flow is limited and does not represent residual cash flows available for discretionary expenditures due to the fact that the measure does not deduct the payments required for debt service and other obligations or payments made for business acquisitions. Therefore, we believe it is important to view Free Cash Flow as supplemental to our entire Statement of Cash Flows. Please see table under “—Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows” included on page 8 of this press release.

    The Company is unable to provide a reconciliation of the forward-looking non-GAAP financial measure, Adjusted EBITDA, contained in this press release to its most directly comparable GAAP financial measure, net income, as the information necessary for a quantitative reconciliation of the forward-looking non-GAAP financial measure to its respective most directly comparable GAAP financial measure is not (and was not, when prepared) available to the Company without unreasonable efforts due to the inherent difficulty and impracticability of predicting certain amounts required by GAAP with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Net income includes the impact of depreciation, income taxes and certain other items that impact comparability between periods, which may be significant and are difficult to project with a reasonable degree of accuracy. In addition, we believe such reconciliation could imply a degree of precision that might be confusing or misleading to investors. The probable significance of providing this forward-looking non-GAAP financial measure without the directly comparable GAAP financial measure is that such GAAP financial measure may be materially different from the corresponding non-GAAP financial measure.

    Forward-Looking Statements

    This press release contains, and future oral or written statements or press releases by the Company and its management may contain, certain forward-looking statements within the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  Generally, the words “expects,” “anticipates,” “targets,” “goals,” “projects,” “intends,” “plans,” “believes,” “seeks”, “will,” “could,” “may” and “estimates,” variations of such words and similar expressions identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words. All statements other than statements of historical fact regarding the Company’s financial position and results, financial performance, liquidity, market outlook, future capital needs, capital allocation plans, business strategies and other plans and objectives of our management for future operations and activities are forward-looking statements. These statements are based on certain assumptions and analyses made by the Company’s management in light of its experience and prevailing circumstances on the date such statements are made. Such forward-looking statements, and the assumptions on which they are based, are inherently speculative and are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to conditions in the oil and gas industry, U.S. and global market and economic conditions generally and macroeconomic conditions worldwide (including inflation, interest rates, supply chain disruptions and capital and credit markets conditions) and other uncertainties (such as the war in Ukraine and conflict in Israel and broader geopolitical tensions in the Middle East and eastern Europe)  that could cause the Company’s actual results to differ materially from such statements. These forward-looking statements rely on a number of assumptions concerning future events and are subject to a number of uncertainties and factors, many of which are outside the control of the Company, which could cause actual results to differ materially from such statements.

    While the Company believes that the assumptions concerning future events are reasonable, it cautions that there are inherent difficulties in predicting certain important factors that could impact the future performance or results of its business.

    These forward-looking statements are also affected by the risk factors, forward-looking statements and challenges and uncertainties described in the Company’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2023 and subsequent reports on Form 10-Qs and those set forth from time to time in the Company’s other periodic filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which are available at www.superiorenergy.com. Except as required by law, the Company expressly disclaims any intention or obligation to revise or update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

    SUPERIOR ENERGY SERVICES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
    CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
    (in thousands, unaudited)
                                 
      Three Months Ended     Nine Months Ended  
      September 30,     June 30,     September 30,     September 30,  
      2024     2024     2023     2024     2023  
                                 
    Rentals $ 97,857     $ 99,851     $ 113,201     $ 305,799     $ 334,433  
    Well Services   99,450       101,230       97,184       301,223       340,562  
    Total revenues   197,307       201,081       210,385       607,022       674,995  
                                 
    Rentals   35,227       36,596       37,769       109,589       109,258  
    Well Services   74,172       71,672       72,076       214,717       239,062  
    Total cost of revenues   109,399       108,268       109,845       324,306       348,320  
                                 
    Depreciation, depletion, amortization and accretion   21,077       20,868       20,490       62,392       61,250  
    General and administrative expenses   33,458       33,404       30,089       101,837       92,256  
    Restructuring and transaction expenses   5,891       –       –       5,891       1,983  
    Other gains, net   (133 )     (614 )     (4,073 )     (1,829 )     (5,424 )
    Income from operations   27,615       39,155       54,034       114,425       176,610  
                                 
    Other income (expense):                            
    Interest income, net   5,032       5,760       6,629       17,632       18,581  
    Loss on Blue Chip Swaps   (5,113 )     –       (12,120 )     (5,113 )     (12,120 )
    Other income (expense)   979       (2,082 )     (4,520 )     (2,916 )     (8,508 )
    Income from continuing operations before income taxes   28,513       42,833       44,023       124,028       174,563  
    Income tax expense   (6,597 )     (13,370 )     (11,403 )     (34,754 )     (44,615 )
    Net income from continuing operations   21,916       29,463       32,620       89,274       129,948  
    Income from discontinued operations, net of income tax   –       1,896       128       1,896       408  
    Net income $ 21,916     $ 31,359     $ 32,748     $ 91,170     $ 130,356  
                                 
    Income per share – basic:                            
    Net income from continuing operations $ 1.09     $ 1.46     $ 1.62     $ 4.43     $ 6.46  
    Income from discontinued operations, net of income tax   –       0.09       0.01       0.09       0.02  
    Net income $ 1.09     $ 1.55     $ 1.63     $ 4.52     $ 6.48  
                                 
    Income per share – diluted                            
    Net income from continuing operations $ 1.09     $ 1.46     $ 1.62     $ 4.42     $ 6.45  
    Income from discontinued operations, net of income tax   –       0.09       –       0.10       0.02  
    Net income $ 1.09     $ 1.55     $ 1.62     $ 4.52     $ 6.47  
                                 
    Weighted-average shares outstanding                            
    Basic   20,177       20,172       20,136       20,170       20,123  
    Diluted   20,186       20,183       20,159       20,182       20,144  
                                           
    SUPERIOR ENERGY SERVICES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
    CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
    (in thousands, unaudited)
               
      September 30,     December 31,  
      2024     2023  
    ASSETS          
    Current assets:          
    Cash and cash equivalents $ 325,881     $ 391,684  
    Accounts receivable, net   200,106       276,868  
    Inventory   70,293       74,995  
    Income taxes receivable   13,383       10,542  
    Prepaid expenses   23,363       18,614  
    Other current assets   7,765       7,922  
    Total current assets   640,791       780,625  
    Property, plant and equipment, net   306,285       294,960  
    Note receivable   72,694       69,005  
    Restricted cash   54,707       85,444  
    Deferred tax assets   59,555       67,241  
    Other assets, net   42,319       43,718  
    Total assets $ 1,176,351     $ 1,340,993  
               
    LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY (DEFICIT)          
    Current liabilities:          
    Accounts payable $ 38,897     $ 38,214  
    Accrued expenses   106,203       103,782  
    Income taxes payable   20,100       20,220  
    Decommissioning liability   30,747       21,631  
    Total current liabilities   195,947       183,847  
    Decommissioning liability   140,030       148,652  
    Other liabilities   38,599       47,583  
    Total liabilities   374,576       380,082  
               
    Total equity   801,775       960,911  
    Total liabilities and equity $ 1,176,351     $ 1,340,993  
     
    SUPERIOR ENERGY SERVICES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
    CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
    (in thousands, unaudited) 
                                 
      Three Months Ended     Nine Months Ended  
      September 30,     June 30,     September 30,     September 30,  
      2024     2024     2023     2024     2023  
                                 
    Cash flows from operating activities                            
    Net income $ 21,916     $ 31,359     $ 32,748     $ 91,170     $ 130,356  
    Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash from operating activities:                            
    Depreciation, depletion, amortization and accretion   21,077       20,868       20,490       62,392       61,250  
    Loss on Blue Chip Swaps   5,113       –       12,120       5,113       12,120  
    Washington State Tax Settlement   –       –       –       –       (27,068 )
    Decommissioning costs   (5,111 )     (143 )     (3,401 )     (5,684 )     (6,279 )
    Other non-cash items   (2,642 )     4,205       566       4,798       23,357  
    Changes in operating assets and liabilities:   22,162       17,487       (10,112 )     67,396       (38,390 )
    Net cash from operating activities   62,515       73,776       52,411       225,185       155,346  
                                 
    Cash flows from investing activities                            
    Payments for capital expenditures   (12,005 )     (34,744 )     (21,592 )     (67,447 )     (67,218 )
    Proceeds from sales of assets   292       669       9,563       3,577       24,710  
    Proceeds from sales of Blue Chip Swap securities   8,121       –       9,656       8,121       9,656  
    Purchases of Blue Chip Swap securities   (13,234 )     –       (21,776 )     (13,234 )     (21,776 )
    Net cash from investing activities   (16,826 )     (34,075 )     (24,149 )     (68,983 )     (54,628 )
                                 
    Cash flows from financing activities                            
    Distributions to shareholders   –       –       –       (250,417 )     –  
    Repurchase of shares   –       –       –       (962 )     –  
    Other   (358 )     –       –       (1,363 )     (1,116 )
    Net cash from financing activities   (358 )     –       –       (252,742 )     (1,116 )
    Net change in cash, cash equivalents, and restricted cash   45,331       39,701       28,262       (96,540 )     99,602  
    Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash at beginning of period   335,257       295,556       410,447       477,128       339,107  
    Cash, cash equivalents, and restricted cash at end of period $ 380,588     $ 335,257     $ 438,709     $ 380,588     $ 438,709  
                                 
    Reconciliation of Free Cash Flow                            
    Net cash from operating activities $ 62,515     $ 73,776     $ 52,411     $ 225,185     $ 155,346  
    Payments for capital expenditures   (12,005 )     (34,744 )     (21,592 )     (67,447 )     (67,218 )
    Free Cash Flow $ 50,510     $ 39,032     $ 30,819     $ 157,738     $ 88,128  
                                 
    Free Cash Flow is a Non-GAAP measure. See Non-GAAP Financial Measures for our definition of Free Cash Flow.  
       
    SUPERIOR ENERGY SERVICES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
    REVENUE BY GEOGRAPHIC REGION BY SEGMENT
    (in thousands, unaudited)
                                 
      Three Months Ended     Nine Months Ended  
      September 30,     June 30,     September 30,     September 30,  
      2024     2024     2023     2024     2023  
    U.S. land                            
    Rentals $ 28,934     $ 32,713     $ 37,478     $ 100,653     $ 127,341  
    Well Services   7,027       6,242       8,223       20,735       20,384  
    Total U.S. land   35,961       38,955       45,701       121,388       147,725  
                                 
    U.S. offshore                            
    Rentals   32,228       30,644       44,681       100,123       117,867  
    Well Services   17,489       23,125       14,459       69,486       54,185  
    Total U.S. offshore   49,717       53,769       59,140       169,609       172,052  
                                 
    International                            
    Rentals   36,695       36,494       31,042       105,023       89,225  
    Well Services   74,934       71,863       74,502       211,002       265,993  
    Total International   111,629       108,357       105,544       316,025       355,218  
    Total Revenues $ 197,307     $ 201,081     $ 210,385     $ 607,022     $ 674,995  
                                           
    SUPERIOR ENERGY SERVICES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
    SEGMENT HIGHLIGHTS
    (in thousands, unaudited)
                                 
      Three Months Ended     Nine Months Ended  
      September 30,     June 30,     September 30,     September 30,  
      2024     2024     2023     2024     2023  
    Revenues                            
    Rentals $ 97,857     $ 99,851     $ 113,201     $ 305,799     $ 334,433  
    Well Services   99,450       101,230       97,184       301,223       340,562  
    Total Revenues $ 197,307     $ 201,081     $ 210,385     $ 607,022     $ 674,995  
                                 
    Income (loss) from Operations                            
    Rentals $ 43,856     $ 44,061     $ 56,253     $ 139,128     $ 167,373  
    Well Services   3,789       10,686       10,581       27,867       50,860  
    Corporate and other   (20,030 )     (15,592 )     (12,800 )     (52,570 )     (41,623 )
    Income from operations $ 27,615     $ 39,155     $ 54,034     $ 114,425     $ 176,610  
                                 
    Adjusted EBITDA                            
    Rentals $ 55,915     $ 56,023     $ 68,791     $ 174,959     $ 204,632  
    Well Services   15,427       19,078       15,137       56,028       69,697  
    Corporate and other   (13,576 )     (15,078 )     (12,125 )     (45,096 )     (37,207 )
    Total Adjusted EBITDA $ 57,766     $ 60,023     $ 71,803     $ 185,891     $ 237,122  
                                 
    Adjusted EBITDA Margin                            
    Rentals   57 %     56 %     61 %     57 %     61 %
    Well Services   16 %     19 %     16 %     19 %     20 %
    Corporate and other n/a     n/a     n/a     n/a     n/a  
    Total Adjusted EBITDA Margin   29 %     30 %     34 %     31 %     35 %
                                 
    Adjusted EBITDA is a Non-GAAP measure.  See Non-GAAP Financial Measures for our definition of Adjusted EBITDA and pages 11 and 12 for a reconciliation to income (loss) from operations.  
       
    SUPERIOR ENERGY SERVICES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
    RECONCILIATION OF ADJUSTED EBITDA
    (in thousands, unaudited)
                                 
      Three Months Ended     Nine Months Ended  
      September 30,     June 30,     September 30,     September 30,  
      2024     2024     2023     2024     2023  
                                 
    Net income from continuing operations $ 21,916     $ 29,463     $ 32,620     $ 89,274     $ 129,948  
    Depreciation, depletion, amortization and accretion   21,077       20,868       20,490       62,392       61,250  
    Interest income, net   (5,032 )     (5,760 )     (6,629 )     (17,632 )     (18,581 )
    Income tax expense   6,597       13,370       11,403       34,754       44,615  
    Restructuring expenses and other adjustments (1)   9,074       –       (2,721 )     9,074       (738 )
    Loss on Blue Chip Swap Securities   5,113       –       12,120       5,113       12,120  
    Other (income) expense, net   (979 )     2,082       4,520       2,916       8,508  
    Adjusted EBITDA $ 57,766     $ 60,023     $ 71,803     $ 185,891     $ 237,122  
                                 
    Adjusted EBITDA is a Non-GAAP measure.  See Non-GAAP Financial Measures for our definition of Adjusted EBITDA.  
                                 
    (1) Restructuring expenses and other adjustments for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2024 relate to costs associated with changes in our executive management and other restructuring costs.  Adjustments for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2023 relate to exit and disposal activities related to non-core businesses and other restructuring costs.  
       
    SUPERIOR ENERGY SERVICES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
    RECONCILIATION OF ADJUSTED EBITDA BY SEGMENT
    (in thousands, unaudited)
                                 
      Three Months Ended     Nine Months Ended  
      September 30,     June 30,     September 30,     September 30,  
      2024     2024     2023     2024     2023  
    Rentals                            
    Income from operations $ 43,856     $ 44,061     $ 56,253     $ 139,128     $ 167,373  
    Depreciation, depletion, amortization and accretion   12,059       11,962       12,538       35,831       37,259  
    Adjusted EBITDA $ 55,915     $ 56,023     $ 68,791     $ 174,959     $ 204,632  
                                 
    Well Services                            
    Income from operations $ 3,789     $ 10,686     $ 10,581     $ 27,867     $ 50,860  
    Depreciation, depletion, amortization and accretion   8,455       8,392       7,277       24,978       21,558  
    Restructuring expenses and other adjustments(1)   3,183       –       (2,721 )     3,183       (2,721 )
    Adjusted EBITDA $ 15,427     $ 19,078     $ 15,137     $ 56,028     $ 69,697  
                                 
    Corporate                            
    Loss from operations $ (20,030 )   $ (15,592 )   $ (12,800 )   $ (52,570 )   $ (41,623 )
    Depreciation, depletion, amortization and accretion   563       514       675       1,583       2,433  
    Restructuring expenses and other adjustments (1)   5,891       –       –       5,891       1,983  
    Adjusted EBITDA $ (13,576 )   $ (15,078 )   $ (12,125 )   $ (45,096 )   $ (37,207 )
                                 
    Total                            
    Income from operations $ 27,615     $ 39,155     $ 54,034     $ 114,425     $ 176,610  
    Depreciation, depletion, amortization and accretion   21,077       20,868       20,490       62,392       61,250  
    Restructuring expenses and other adjustments (1)   9,074       –       (2,721 )     9,074       (738 )
    Adjusted EBITDA $ 57,766     $ 60,023     $ 71,803     $ 185,891     $ 237,122  
                                 
    Adjusted EBITDA is a Non-GAAP measure.  See Non-GAAP Financial Measures for our definition of Adjusted EBITDA.  
                                 
    (1) Restructuring expenses and other adjustments for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2024 relate to costs associated with changes in our executive management and other restructuring costs.  Adjustments for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2023 relate to exit and disposal activities related to non-core businesses and other restructuring costs.  
       

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    Jamie Spexarth, Chief Financial Officer
    1001 Louisiana St., Suite 2900
    Houston, TX 77002
    Investor Relations, ir@superiorenergy.com, (713) 654-2200

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III and South Korean Defense Minister Kim Yong Hyun Hold Joint Media Availability

    Source: United States Department of Defense

    PENTAGON PRESS SECRETARY MAJOR GENERAL PAT RYDER: Well, good afternoon and thank you for being here today. Ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to introduce Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin and Republic of Korea Minister of National Defense Kim Yong Hyun. The secretary and the minister will deliver opening remarks and then we’ll have time to take a few questions.

    Please note that I will moderate and call on journalists. And with that, Secretary Austin, over to you sir. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE LLOYD AUSTIN: Thanks, Pat. Good afternoon, everybody and thanks for being here. Minister Kim, let me again welcome you and your team to the Pentagon. It’s our honor to host our allies in the Republic of Korea for our 56th Security Consultative Meeting. The SCM is the annual capstone event for the US-ROK Alliance. It brings our defense leaders together to tackle shared challenges and to deepen our friendship.

    For more than 70 years, our alliance has been the foundation of peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula. Our two proud democracies share a vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific and we stand shoulder to shoulder against those who would upend the status quo. Now we’re closely tracking the unprecedented level of direct military cooperation between Russia and the DPRK. In our meetings today, we shared our deep concerns about the deployment of DPRK troops to Russia.

    We also discussed how we’re going to work together with our allies and partners to respond to this dangerous and destabilizing escalation. The evidence now suggests that North Korea has sent around 10,000 soldiers to train in eastern Russia and some of these DPRK troops have already moved closer to Ukraine.

    And we’re seeing them outfitted with Russian uniforms and provided with Russian equipment. And I am increasingly concerned that the Kremlin plans to use these North Korean soldiers to support Russia’s combat operations in Russia’s Kursk region near the border with Ukraine. And let me remind you that Russia signed on to the UN Security Council resolutions agreeing not to provide military assistance to North Korea.

    Of course, we know that Putin has gone tin cupping to get weapons from the DPRK and Iran. Turning to a pariah state like North Korea for troops just underscores how much trouble he is in. And we take this very seriously. We urge the Kremlin to change course and we fully understand the security implications for both Europe and the Indo-Pacific.

    Putin will not prevail in Ukraine even with more help from North Korea, but these deeply concerning developments only underscore the importance of our alliance with the ROK and other allies and partners committed to shared security and prosperity. Now, Minister Kim and I had an outstanding meeting today.

    Our discussions move the ball forward to modernize and deepen our alliance that will help protect the security of the Korean Peninsula and shape the future of the Indo-Pacific. It was with a sense of urgency we’ve delivered on a shared security objectives that we set forth just a year ago in a defense vision of the US-ROK Alliance.

    The US Department of Defense and the ROK Ministry of National Defense signed the Nuclear Consultative Group guidelines in July and later that month I traveled to Japan to join an historic trilateral ministerial meeting with the ROK and Japan. It was held in Tokyo for the first time as envisioned by the 2023 Camp David Summit.

    Now I assured Minister Kim today that the United States remains fully committed to the defense of the ROK and our extended deterrence commitment remains ironclad. That commitment is backed by the full range of America’s conventional missile defense, nuclear and advanced non-nuclear capabilities. We’ve also returned to large scale exercises with our ROK allies and that strengthening our combined readiness and our interoperability.

    We’re also working together to tackle shared security challenges across the Indo-Pacific. So today Minister Kim and I endorsed a framework to expand our cooperation throughout the region based on our shared values and common interests. We also discussed the important role of the United Nations Command, which reflects the international community’s long-standing commitment to peace on the peninsula.

    And earlier this year with support from the ROK, we accepted Germany as the 18th member state of the UNC. Moving forward, we’ll build on our momentum and will expand the scope and scale of our cooperation. We’ll use our strategic advantages and innovation in our defense industrial bases to bring cutting edge tech to our warfighters.

    Now our alliance has always been rooted in our shared commitment to act together in the interests that brought us together seven decades ago have continued to grow stronger. Today’s discussion again underscored our shared vision for this alliance’s future. So, Minister Kim, thanks for your leadership and your commitment to this proud alliance.

    We got a lot done today and I look forward to doing even more tomorrow in the US-ROK 2+2 with Secretary Blinken and Minister Cho and thanks very much and now let me turn it over to Minister Kim. SOUTH KOREAN DEFENSE MINISTER KIM YONG-HYUN: (Via interpreter) Good afternoon. This is the Minister of National Defense of the Republic of Korea, Kim Yong-hyun. I find it highly meaningful to conduct my first overseas defense diplomatic engagements after my inauguration here at the Pentagon, the heart of safeguarding liberal democracy. Today at the SCM, Secretary Austin and I reviewed the work of implementing the defense vision of the ROK-US alliance over the last year.

    In addition, we reaffirmed that the ROK-US alliance remains more robust than ever, even amid complex international security crisis. While asserting its theory of hostile two nations. North Korea continues to escalate tensions on the Korean Peninsula through detonation of sections of inter-Korean roads. In order to deter and respond to DPRK, provocations and

    threats, Secretary Austin and I agreed to maintain an overwhelming combined defense posture and engage in close coordination and responses.

    In particular, we made it clear that DPRK’s ongoing practice of sending filth and trash balloons constitutes a violation of the armistice agreement and called for an immediate cessation of this activity with one voice. Furthermore, we condemned in the strongest terms with a unified voice, the unlawful military cooperation between North Korea and Russia, which directly violates the rules-based order through the deployment of North Korean forces to Russia and arms trade and pledged to closely work with the international community.

    This July, the defense authorities of Korea and the United States completed the NCG Joint Guidelines through the Nuclear Consultative Group, thereby elevating the ROK-US alliance to an unequivocal nuclear based alliance. Building on these guidelines, Secretary Austin and I will diligently pursue the NCG tasks in a substantive manner to enhance the execution capabilities of extended deterrence of ROK and US equal partners.

    Throughout this process, the ROK Strategic Command will be a key unit in the execution of the ROK-US conventional nuclear integration, CNI, operations. Secretary Austin reaffirmed the United States’ unwavering commitment to providing extended deterrence to the Republic of Korea by utilizing the full range of its military capabilities.

    In addition, as tangible evidence of the US commitment to the defense of the ROK, Secretary Austin reiterated that the frequency and intensity of US strategic asset deployment would be increased and made regularized in accordance with President Biden’s commitment in the Washington Declaration. The ROK and the United States will further enhance their — continue to further enhance the Alliance’s capabilities and posture in response to nuclear and missile threats through implementing combined exercises that reflect the North Korean nuclear threats.

    Secretary Austin and I agreed to strengthen security cooperation in the region based on the respective Indo-Pacific strategies of our two countries. The nuclear and missile threat from North Korea is now an existential threat, not only to the ROK, but also to the Indo-Pacific region. We had a shared understanding that the ROK-US-Japan Trilateral Security Cooperation Framework signed this July represents a historic milestone in trilateral security cooperation.

    We will continue to further enhance it. In particular, we highly appreciated the achievements of freedom to exercise the first multi-domain training and have decided to conduct a second training in the near future. In today’s meeting, Secretary Austin and I approved the regional cooperation framework for ROK-US Alliance contributions to security in the Indo-Pacific, demonstrating our commitment to cooperation both domestically and internationally.

    Based on the framework, we will expand substantive cooperation with ASEAN and Pacific Island nations, enhancing the level and broadening the scope of the ROK-US Alliance.

    Secretary Austin and I pledge to strengthen cooperation in science and technology and defense industry based on the defense vision of the alliance.

    We plan to establish a vice minister level defense Science and Technology executive committee within this year to explore the application of cutting-edge science and technology in the defense sector as well as cooperation on all cause Pillar 2. Furthermore, we acknowledge the significance of securing supply chain resilience and modernizing alliance capabilities and pledge to engage in active cooperation in the defense industry sector.

    In this regard, Secretary Austin welcomed ROK’s participation in the US MRO pilot project and underscored the efforts to expand cooperation between our two countries. For more than 70 years, the ROK-US Alliance has overcome countless challenges establishing itself as one of the world’s most premier and exemplary alliances.

    Through the 56th Security Consultative Meeting, Secretary Austin and I reaffirmed our resolve to leap forward as a stronger alliance in response to uncertain future challenges. As the minister of National Defense, I will work closely with Secretary Austin so that the ROK-US Alliance serves as a linchpin of peace and stability in the world extending beyond the Korean Peninsula.

    I deeply appreciate Secretary Austin’s active support for the successful meeting we had today. We go together, [untranslated]. Thank you. MAJ. GEN. RYDER: Thank you very much, gentlemen. Our first question will go to Phil Stewart, Reuters. Q: To Secretary Austin, how soon do you believe that North Korean soldiers may enter the fight against Ukrainian forces in Kursk? Are we talking days or weeks? And do you believe there’s anything the international community can still do to stop that deployment? And to Mr. Kim, does this deployment increase the risk of war on the Korean Peninsula?

    And does this change South Korea’s willingness to provide lethal direct aid to Ukraine? If not, why not? SEC. AUSTIN: Well, Phil, as you heard me say in my opener (pause for translation)— Phil, as you heard me say in my opener, we believe that the DPRK has sent some 10,000 troops into eastern Ukraine and there they’ve been drawing equipment and conducting some training. And some of those troops have begun to make their way towards the border of Ukraine in the Kursk region.

    Whether or not they’ll be employed in the fight, is left to be seen yet. But certainly, if they are employed, then that’s very disturbing. And so, we remain concerned that they’re going to use these troops in combat. I won’t speculate on the timing of employment. Again, this is something we’re going to continue to watch and we’re going to continue to work with allies and partners to discourage Russia from employing these troops in combat.

    Again, this is a violation of the UN security agreement. So, this is pretty serious. Again, we’re going to continue to watch it and continue to work with our allies and partners to discourage it, so (pause for translation) Phil, to be clear, violation of UN sanctions. Q: Do you mean eastern Ukraine? SEC. AUSTIN: I’m sorry? Q: I thought you said deployed to eastern Ukraine. Yeah? Q: Did you mean eastern Ukraine or Eastern Russia that they had deployed to? SEC. AUSTIN: They had deployed to Eastern Russia and then they’re making their way west towards the Ukrainian border, sorry about that. DEFENSE MINISTER KIM YONG-HYUN: (Via interpreter) I’d like to answer the question regarding the increase in the possibility of war breaking out on the Korean Peninsula following the North Korean’s troops deployment to Russia. I do not necessarily believe that the North Korean troops deployment to Russia results in the changes in the possibility of war breaking out on the Korean Peninsula.

    However, I believe this can result in the escalation of the security threats on the Korean Peninsula. This is because there is a high possibility that North Korea, in exchange for their troops deployment, would ask for cutting edge technology transfer. There is a high chance that they would, in exchange for their deployment, North Korea is very likely to ask for technology transfers in diverse areas, including the technologies relating to tactical nuclear weapons technologies related to their advancement of ICBM, also those regarding reconnaissance satellite and those regarding SSBNs as well.

    There is also a high chance that they will try to replace their equipment that have been taken a lot of time, so therefore old technologies or equipment. I believe such changes in the technological situation of North Korea can pose an increase in the escalation of security threats on the Korean Peninsula.

    However, one thing to consider is that as we have witnessed in the Russia-Ukraine war, the conventional weapon capabilities of Russia is not as formidable as we expected it to be. Therefore, even with the possibility of Russia’s cutting-edge technology flowing into North Korea and thereby resulting in the advancement of North Korea’s military technology, I believe it is possible for us to overcome such challenges based on our robust ROK-US alliance and ROK-US-Japan trilateral security cooperation.

    And through these cooperation, I believe we can secure enough and sufficient capability in order to overcome such security challenges. In short, I would rather see the results or impacts of the deployment as an increase that can result. I believe the deployment can result in the security threats on the Korean Peninsula and it could also have a destabilizing impact on the security of the Korean Peninsula, but I don’t believe it is going to be any changes in the possibility of war breaking out on the Korean Peninsula.

    MR. RYDER: Thank you both. Our next question will go to Ji Hun Kim, Yonhap News Agency. Q: (Via interpreter) This is Reporter Kim from Yonhap Agency, and first I have a question to direct it to Minister Kim. Last year’s munition deal between Korea’s corporation and the United States is an exemplary case where Korea was able to provide support toward United States in accordance with the mutual defense treaty. And do you have any additional plans to give indirect support to Ukraine by supplying munitions to the United States in an indirect way?

    And also, there’s another question about the trash and filth balloons. Korea has been showing consistently the kind of response — Korea has been showing response such as collecting the trash balloons after they were dropped on the territory of Korean Peninsula, or they have consistently asked North Korea to cease the release of trash balloons.

    Do you have any additional measures in order to respond to such release of trash or filth balloons from North Korea? And this question, the last question is directed to both Minister Kim and Secretary Austin. North Korea has consistently shown their anti-humanitarian provocations. Do you have any messages in mind that you can deliver to Kim Jong Un and North Korea? DEFENSE MINISTER KIM YONG-HYUN: (Via interpreter) So the first question about munitions supply to United States, I have to give you an answer that at the current moment, nothing is determined. And for your second question about Korea’s response to North Korea’s release of trash and filth balloons, in today’s meeting, Secretary Austin and I have confirmed that the deployment of trash and filth balloons are a violation of armistice agreement. And as the release of trash and filth balloons is a provocation that poses a safety threat to our people, we have been using the response of first identifying and then tracking and then after we found out the location of the dropping. And then we checked if there is any biological or chemical weapons in it after we have gone through all the tests, then we collected those balloons.

    These measures were taken under our assessment that this is the best and most optimal way of guaranteeing and confirming the safety of our people and that this is the way to protect our people in our best way. However, North Korea is crossing the line with various methods of provocations and we are open to all alternatives when it comes to the risk — when it comes to our response to North Korea’s provocation.

    On your third question, I recall it was if I have any message toward — that I have to Kim Jong Un. I believe the essence of North Korean troop deployment is the possibility of expansion of the war. And this results from the intervention of the third party, which is North Korea. And such possibility is resulting in grave concerns of European countries, including Ukraine.

    And the deployment is — North Korea is joining the collusion of Russia’s illegal aggression and invasion, and therefore I see that the deployment is Kim Jong Un’s attempt to maintain

    its dictatorship and Kim Jong Un didn’t hesitate to sell out its young people and troops as cannon fodder mercenaries. I believe such activities is a war crime that is not only anti-humanitarian but also anti-peaceful.

    Therefore, I would like to strongly condemn the activity of Kim Jong Un and I believe all responsibility from the results of the deployment belong to Kim Jong Un. We call for Kim Jong Un’s immediate withdrawal of his troops in our strongest terms. Thank you.

    SEC. AUSTIN: Thank you for the question. I don’t have any messages for the leadership of DPRK. I call upon them to cease their potentially destabilizing behavior in both the Indo-Pacific region and now in the European theater as well. And like my colleague here, Minister Kim, I call upon them to withdraw their troops out of Russia.

    It does have the potential of lengthening the conflict or broadening the conflict if that continues. MR. RYDER: Our next question will go to Courtney Kube, NBC. Q: Thank you. Mr. Secretary, you told Phil that you — the US will continue to watch this deployment and work with allies to discourage it. But how specifically can the US or the international community actually stop? Is there anything the US can do? And you just said that that this does have the potential for broadening the conflict.

    Does that mean that you see the possibility that if in fact Russian troops are fighting alongside North Korean troops that that means other countries could send troops perhaps even to fight alongside the Ukrainians in an advisory level or fighting or anything? And then just one more, this is my real question. Those were follow ups.

    My real question is just what happens when North Korean troops are killed by US provided weapons? And then Minister Kim, do you see any signs that North Korea plans to interfere in the US elections? We — your DIA said today that DPRK may be ready to launch an ICBM, perhaps a nuclear weapon.

    Is there any indication that that could be or other actions that they may be taking could be specifically to interfere with the US election? Thank you. You only get one. SEC. AUSTIN: So Courtney, the first of your 20 questions here was whether or not we can stop the DPRK from sending troops. We certainly can work with others to discourage this — this kind of behavior. But I didn’t mean to imply that we can stop that. But certainly, their actions have consequences as all actions have consequences.

    And we need to be mindful of that. In terms of what could happen, you mentioned my reference to potentially broadening this conflict. Yes, it could encourage others to take action, different kinds of action, but I won’t speculate on what could exactly happen. But we — there are a number of things that could happen.

    And what happens when DPRK soldiers are killed with US provided weapons? Well, if the DPRK soldiers are fighting alongside Russian soldiers in this conflict and attacking Ukrainian soldiers, Ukrainian soldiers have the right to defend themselves and they will do that with the weapons that we provided and others have provided.

    That’s to be expected. But if they are fighting alongside of — of Russian soldiers, they are co-belligerents and you have every reason to believe that those kinds of things will happen, that they will be killed and wounded as a result of battle. DEFENSE MINISTER KIM YONG-HYUN: (Via interpreter) Thank you for giving 20 questions to Secretary Austin, but only one for me. I’m so happy. So on your question about the possibility that North Korea attempts to interfere with US presidential election, my short answer is that the possibility is not high. I believe there isn’t a high chance of them attempting to interfere with the election.

    However, I believe there is a high chance that they would want to exaggerate their existence around the season of US presidential election before and after the election. The expected courses of action that North Korea could take in their attempt to provoke could be either their launch of ICBM or their seventh nuclear tests. MR. RYDER: Thank you. Our final question will go to Ji-ho Yang, Chosun. Q: (Via interpreter) This is Reporter Yang from Chosun Daily. First, I have a question to Minister Kim. The main opposition party of Republic of Korea has expressed their opposition to North Korea’s dispatch of analysis team and Korean delegation to Ukraine. So from your perspective, Minister Kim, what do you think is the role that Korean military can play in Ukraine?

    And I have another — I have a question to Secretary Austin. So it is my understanding that the current assessment of the United States DOD is that North Korea did deploy troops to Ukraine — to Russia, however, they were not involved in any combats at the moment. So however, some are claiming that North Korean troops that are — are already being deployed are being — are already being in engagement.

    So like, what would be your standard to determine whether the participation of these North Korean troops will be deployment or actual participation in combat operations? And also you have — US DOD has also made a statement that the North Korean troops who are in Russia will also be classified as enemies that can be attacked by — by US weapons that are supplied to Ukraine.

    So could you give a little more elaboration on this statement? This concludes my question. DEFENSE MINISTER KIM YONG-HYUN: So I recall the question was about our observers and monitoring teams of Korea that are — that are and could be sent to Ukraine. So throughout the history in many different wars, including the Iraq war, there have been many

    cases where we have sent monitoring teams or lesson learned analysis team to the countries that are currently — that were in war.

    The role of such observers or analysis team play in the war is mainly analysis of the trends of the modern warfare or different aspects of modern welfare. And especially as we have confirmed North Korean troops were deployed to Russia, I believe it could serve as a great opportunity for our analysis team or observer to learn the movements or trends of the North Korean troops.

    In many wars there — we have witnessed many new and diverse weapon systems continuously popping up and also we were able to witness many different modern tactics in the war. I believe if we can collect such information diligently and then utilize it for our future safety of — and stability of our country, I believe it can serve as an opportunity for us to provide better protection to our — the people of Republic of Korea.

    I believe it is an obvious task that our military should play to send observers and analysis team to the Russia-Ukraine war. And I — I would even say that if we don’t send our observers or analysis team, it would mean that we are not faithfully doing our jobs. SEC. AUSTIN: So thank you for your question. As I understand it, the first question was what was our — what is our standard for determining whether or not the DPRK troops are actually fighting or in the fight. And the second question was whether or not they can be engaged with US weapons. So I think standards are pretty easy.

    If they’re fighting, if they’re attacking Ukrainian soldiers and they are co-belligerents, they’re a part of this fight, that’s fairly easy to determine. And it’s not certain that they will be introduced into this fight. But clearly 10,000 soldiers, and some of them are moving west towards the Ukrainian border, then there’s a good likelihood that they will be employed, but we’ll see.

    We won’t speculate. We’ll collect evidence. They’re doing this because Putin has lost a lot of troops, a lot of troops. And you know, he has a choice of either getting other people to help him or he can mobilize. And he doesn’t want to mobilize because then the people in Russia will begin to understand the extent of his losses of their losses.

    So there’s a good likelihood that these troops will be introduced into combat, not certain, but I think the likelihood is pretty high. But this is not a sign of strength. It’s a sign of weakness. Putin has not achieved one strategic objective in two and a half years against a force that was far inferior to his force. That’s a sign of weakness. Again, he’s gone to other countries for weapons and munitions and now he’s going to other countries for people. And as I said earlier, if they are fighting and they’re co-belligerents, they’re attacking Ukrainian troops and the Ukrainian troops have the right to defend themselves, and we have every expectation that they will.

    They’ll use their own weapons. They’ll use the weapons that they’ve been provided, and that won’t be a surprise to anyone. But this doesn’t have to happen. Putin can end this war

    today. It was his choice to launch this war. He’s not achieved his objectives. He can end this war and he should end this war.

    Otherwise, we’ll see a lot more losses on both sides and that’s really highly unnecessary. But I think in terms of our standards for determining whether or not they’re fighting, they’re in the fight, I think it’ll be pretty easy to determine that. OK. MAJ. GEN. RYDER: Secretary Austin, Minister Kim, thank you both, gentlemen. Ladies and gentlemen, that’s all the time we have available today. This concludes our press briefing. Thank you.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI China: US secretary of state orders pause on most of existing US foreign aid

    Source: China State Council Information Office

    U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio ordered a sweeping pause Friday on almost all of the State Department’s existing foreign aid grants, according to reports by U.S. and British media that obtained an internal memo specifying the order in the form of guidance.

    Effective immediately and valid for 90 days, Rubio’s guidance required State Department staffers to issue “stop-work orders” on nearly all “existing foreign assistance awards,” U.S. outlet Politico reported.

    For exceptions, the guidance allows foreign military financing for Egypt and Israel to continue and allows emergency food assistance and “legitimate expenses incurred prior to the date of this” guidance “under existing awards.”

    At points, it also says the decisions need to be “consistent with the terms of the relevant award,” the outlet added.

    “No new funds shall be obligated for new awards or extensions of existing awards until each proposed new award or extension has been reviewed and approved … as consistent with President Trump’s agenda,” The Guardian, a British newspaper that has also obtained the memo, cited the document as saying.

    The memo said senior officials “shall ensure that, to the maximum extent permitted by law, no new obligations shall be made for foreign assistance” until Rubio makes a decision after a review, according to The Guardian.

    In their respective reports, both Politico and The Guardian noticed the memo’s omission of current U.S. military assistance to Ukraine, which the reports said has sent shock waves across the State Department.

    MIL OSI China News –

  • MIL-OSI Economics: France defense expenditure to reach $67.8 billion in 2029, forecasts GlobalData

    Source: GlobalData

    In July 2023, France outlined its defense spending plans for the next six years in the Military Planning Law (LPM) 2024-30, expanding the modernization initiatives kickstarted by LPM 2019-25 to reflect evolving geostrategic dynamics and better incorporate emerging technologies, including unmanned and space-based assets. Against this backdrop, France is expected to increase defense spending from $60.4 billion in 2024 to $67.8 billion in 2029, according to GlobalData, a leading data and analytics company.

    GlobalData’s latest report, “France Defense Market Size, Trends, Budget Allocation, Regulations, Acquisitions, Competitive Landscape and Forecast to 2029”, reveals that France’s defense spending is forecast to rise to $64 billion in 2025.

    Tristan Sauer, Senior Defense Analyst at GlobalData, comments: “The deterioration of European security following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has highlighted the importance of France’s strategic reforms, providing the impetus for further and more diversified investment in defense and security capabilities. The most recent spending commitments will allow French defense expenditures to surpass 2% of GDP and finally attain the minimum threshold recommended for NATO members.”

    France’s armed forces continue to pursue modernization across the different operational domains. The largest amount of spending is being directed to the fixed-wing aircraft, missiles and missile defense systems, naval vessels, submarines, and armored vehicles market segments over the next several years. Between 2024-2034, France’s largest investments are for the international FCAS New Generation Fighter program ($17.9 billion), the SNLE 3G nuclear submarines ($17.3 billion), and various upgrades to the Rafale fighter jet program ($12.9 billion).

    Sauer continues: “These investments are indicative of a renewed strategic focus on the commensurate rise of both great power competition and the risk of high intensity conflict. Procurement of conventional capabilities such as aircraft, naval assets, artillery, armored vehicles, and weapons systems is being supplemented with investment in cybersecurity as well as space systems to account for the increasingly diffuse and multi-domain nature of modern warfare.”

    As with many western nations, France is facing recruitment issues leading to personnel shortages despite growing investment. GlobalData forecasts that France will spend $125.9 billion on military personnel between 2025-2029, though spending will only increase at a CAGR of 0.5%, which is far slower than the 1.26% CAGR achieved between 2020-2024.

    Sauer concludes: “France’s continued investments in modernization and acquisition programs provide substance to the broader political refocus on strategic competition and its associated risks, with the nation’s growing defense industrial base providing growing opportunities for international engagement. However, much like with the US and other NATO allies, lackluster performance with regards to personnel recruitment and retention is indicative of a wider challenge, which current investments have thus far failed to overcome.”

    MIL OSI Economics –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Written question – Security considerations linked to the reconstruction of Ukraine’s telecom infrastructure – E-002209/2024

    Source: European Parliament

    22.10.2024

    Question for written answer  E-002209/2024
    to the Commission
    Rule 144
    Arba Kokalari (PPE)

    According to Ukraine’s Ministry of Digital Transformation, Russia has destroyed over 4 300 mobile base stations in Ukraine since the full-scale invasion began in February 2022.

    The EU’s extensive support to Ukraine in the reconstruction of the country’s telecom infrastructure is very important. However, as with all infrastructure investments in Europe, there are a number of security considerations.

    Chinese state control actors are advancing their positions in Ukraine as a result of tendering procedures that are based solely on price. There are risks of new security problems in the long term, not only for Ukraine but also for Europe as a whole, during the process of integrating Ukraine into the EU.

    In light of the above:

    • 1.What conclusions does the Commission draw regarding the security considerations linked to the reconstruction of Ukraine’s telecom infrastructure?
    • 2.Does the Commission consider that procurement processes that are based on EU support to Ukraine for its telecom infrastructure can be carried out on grounds other than price alone?
    • 3.What opportunities does the Commission envisage for including Ukraine and other EU candidate countries in the EU toolbox for 5G security?

    Submitted: 22.10.2024

    Last updated: 30 October 2024

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: In-Depth Analysis – IMF Lending to Ukraine: State of Play and the Road Ahead – 30-10-2024

    Source: European Parliament

    This paper provides an overview of the International Monetary Fund (IMF)’s lending to Ukraine, particularly focusing on the IMF response to the Russia’s invasion of Ukraine since February 2022, given the challenging macroeconomic circumstances. If further analyses the key elements of the IMF’ Extended Fund Facility (EFF) programme for Ukraine, including the evolution of core assumptions, risks, fiscal sustainability and conditionality.

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: VATICAN/GENERAL AUDIENCE – Pope Francis: Confirmation must not become the sacrament of “departure” from the Church

    Source: Agenzia Fides – MIL OSI

    Wednesday, 30 October 2024

    Vatican Media

    Vatican City (Agenzia Fides) – “The problem is how to ensure that the Sacrament of Confirmation is not reduced, in practice, to “last rites”, that is the Sacrament of “departure” from the Church, but is rather the Sacrament of participation, of active participation in the life of the Church”. This is what Pope Francis said at today’s general audience in St. Peter’s Square, continuing his catechesis on the Holy Spirit and today reflecting on the presence and action of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church through the Sacraments.Last week the Pope spoke about the action of the Holy Spirit in marriage, today he reflected on Confirmation, which “par excellence, according to Pope Francis, is the sacrament of the Holy Spirit”. The Pope recalls that in the New Testament, in addition to baptism with water, “another rite is mentioned, that of the imposition of hands, which has the purpose of communicating the Holy Spirit visibly and in a charismatic way, with effects analogous to those produced by the Apostles at Pentecost”.With the passing of time, “the rite of anointing took shape as a Sacrament in itself, assuming diverse forms and content in the various ages and different rites of the Church”. To better suggest what this sacrament represents, the Pope quotes the Catechism of adults of the Italian Episcopal Conference. It states: “Confirmation is for all the faithful what Pentecost was for the entire Church. … It reinforces the baptismal incorporation into Christ and the Church and the consecration to the prophetic, royal and priestly mission. It communicates the abundance of the gifts of the Spirit. … If, therefore, Baptism is the Sacrament of birth, Confirmation is the Sacrament of growth. For this very reason it is also the Sacrament of witness, because this is closely linked to the maturity of Christian existence”.”The problem,” said the Bishop of Rome, “is how to ensure that the Sacrament of Confirmation is not reduced, in practice, to “last rites”, that is the Sacrament of “departure” from the Church.” “It is said that it is the farewell Sacrament, ” cintinued the Pope, “because once young people do it they go away and then return for marriage. This is what people say”. On the contrary, Confirmation is “the Sacrament of participation, of active participation in the life of the Church”. The Bishop of Rome continued: “It is a milestone that can seem impossible, given the current situation throughout the Church, but this does not mean that we should stop pursuing it. It will not be so for all Confirmands, children or adults, but it is important that it is at least for some who will then go on to be the animators of the community”, continues the Pope who proposes that it can be useful, for this purpose “to be helped in preparing for the Sacrament by lay faithful who have had a personal encounter with Christ and have had a true experience of the Spirit. Some people say that they have experienced it as a blossoming of the Sacrament of Confirmation received as children”.But this, he stresses, “does not relate only to future Confirmands; it relates to all of us and at any time. Together with Confirmation and anointing, we have received” what Saint Paul calls “the first fruits of the Spirit”.”We must “spend” this bond, savour these first fruits, not bury underground the charisms and talents received. Here is a good goal for the Jubilee year! To remove the ashes of habit and disengagement, to become, like the torchbearers at the Olympics, bearers of the flame of the Spirit. May the Spirit help us to take a few steps in this direction!”, the Pope concluded.Before the final blessing, Pope Francis once again recalled the countries at war and asked for constant prayers for peace: “War is increasing, let us think of the countries that are suffering so much, such as the tormented Ukraine, Palestine, Israel, Myanmar, North Kivu. Let us pray for peace. Peace is a gift of the Spirit, war is always a defeat. In war, no one wins, everyone loses”.”Yesterday,” the Pope added referring to the recent massacre in the Gaza Strip, “I saw 150 innocent people shot with machine guns. What do children and families have to do with it? They are the first victims of war, let us pray for peace,” the Pope concluded. (F.B.) (Agenzia Fides, 30/10/2024)
    Share:

    MIL OSI Europe News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why vote for Harris or Trump? A cheat sheet on the candidates’ records, why their supporters like them and why picking one or the other makes sense

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Amy Lieberman, Politics + Society Editor, The Conversation

    Voters cast their ballots in Dearborn, Mich., on Oct. 29, 2024. Bill Pugliano/Getty Images

    If you are still undecided and mulling your pick for president, there are clear differences between Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris that are important to understand.

    The Conversation has published stories from more than a dozen scholars looking at the records of the two candidates.

    We had an anthropologist provide our readers with a window into why both Trump and Harris supporters favor their presidential pick.

    And we have also looked at why, even if you don’t like either candidate, it still doesn’t make sense to sit out the election.

    Here is a roundup of stories to help you evaluate the candidates:

    Kamala Harris and running mate Tim Walz campaign in Ann Arbor, Mich., on Oct. 28, 2024.
    Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

    Harris’ and Trump’s records

    It’s no surprise that Harris and Trump have contrasting records on policy issues like LGBTQ+ rights and gun violence. The differences don’t stop there.

    While Harris has consistently supported protecting and expanding abortion rights, Trump took actions while president that made it harder for people to get an abortion, explains legal scholar Rachel Rebouché.

    And while Harris has consistently opposed the death penalty, Trump has supported it, explains political science scholar Austin Sarat.

    In other cases, their differences are not as clear-cut. Both candidates have supported restricting immigration to the U.S., writes immigration scholar William McCorkle. And both of them tried to lower drug prices, writes pharmacy practice scholar C. Michael White.

    Here are some stories to explain the candidates’ records on other issues: education, space policy, the Ukraine war, artificial intelligence, science research funding, clean energy, drug prices, health care, oil and gas production, foreign policy and labor.

    Donald Trump and running mate JD Vance appear at a 9/11 memorial event in New York City on Sept. 11, 2024.
    Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

    Why people like Trump and Harris

    Alex Hinton, an anthropologist who researches both the far right and political polarization in the U.S., helped answer why, after all of the controversies and alleged wrongdoing, people still support Trump.

    “Many people have thoughtful reasons for voting for Trump, even if their reasoning – as is also true for those on the left – is often inflamed by populist polarizers and media platforms,” Hinton writes.

    There are a few central factors that keep Trump’s supporters loyal. These include the fact that some people recall – whether accurately or not – having more money when Trump was president, and that the economy seemed better. They are upset about immigration. And some supporters like his outlandish persona.

    And then there’s the other side to understand: Why people are voting for Harris. Hinton explained that many people deeply dislike and distrust Trump, as well as the extreme direction they think he can take the country.

    “In contrast, they contend that Harris combines steady leadership with a message of change, calm, honesty and hope for a better future,” he writes.

    Harris’ support of abortion rights and health care, as well as her commitment to international alliances and bipartisan governing, are other reasons people want her as their president.

    “Some voters also support Harris because they see her as a candidate of change,” Hinton writes. After Harris replaced President Joe Biden as the Democratic presidential nominee, “voters across a range of demographics were immediately galvanized by her relative youth, biracial identity, articulateness and positive message of change and possibility, as opposed to fear.”

    A woman drops off her ballot in Norwalk, Calif., on Oct. 28, 2024.
    Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images

    Why it still makes sense to vote

    It’s possible that none of this information resonates with undecided voters and that they are considering backing a third-party candidate instead, or not voting at all.

    But the logic that an individual vote won’t matter anyway is not accurate, according to behavioral economics scholar Daniel F. Stone.

    Every single vote matters, especially in an election like this one that is incredibly close in all of the important swing states, Stone says. This matters if the difference between Harris and Trump is just 5,000 votes in a state like Pennsylvania, for example.

    “So, if the 10,000 unhappy voters do vote for one of the two major-party candidates, they can swing the election,” Stone writes.

    Even if someone boycotts an election and doesn’t support either of the two viable candidates, “One of them is going to win whether you like it or not,” Stone writes.

    .

    – ref. Why vote for Harris or Trump? A cheat sheet on the candidates’ records, why their supporters like them and why picking one or the other makes sense – https://theconversation.com/why-vote-for-harris-or-trump-a-cheat-sheet-on-the-candidates-records-why-their-supporters-like-them-and-why-picking-one-or-the-other-makes-sense-242437

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau speaks with President of Republic of Korea Yoon Suk Yeol

    Source: Government of Canada – Prime Minister

    Yesterday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spoke with the President of the Republic of Korea, Yoon Suk Yeol.

    The leaders discussed recent developments and expressed their deep concern and condemnation over North Korea’s troop deployment to support Russia’s ongoing war of aggression against Ukraine.

    The Prime Minister and the President welcomed Canada and Korea’s first High-Level Foreign and Defence Policy Dialogue (2+2) between ministers of Foreign Affairs and Defence later this week. They also noted the value of our growing defence partnerships and reaffirmed the importance of bilateral co-operation on regional and global issues, including in the Indo-Pacific.

    Prime Minister Trudeau and President Yoon agreed to remain in close contact and looked forward to meeting soon.

    Associated Links

    MIL OSI Canada News –

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Russian threat actor Midnight Blizzard conducting large-scale spear-phishing campaign

    Source: Microsoft

    Headline: Russian threat actor Midnight Blizzard conducting large-scale spear-phishing campaign

    ap-northeast-1-aws.s3-ua[.]cloud ap-northeast-1-aws.ukrainesec[.]cloud ca-central-1.gov-ua[.]cloud ca-central-1.ua-gov[.]cloud ca-west-1.aws-ukraine[.]cloud ca-west-1.mfa-gov[.]cloud ca-west-1.ukrtelecom[.]cloud central-2-aws.ua-mil[.]cloud central-2-aws.ua-sec[.]cloud central-2-aws.ukrainesec[.]cloud central-2-aws.ukrtelecom[.]cloud eu-central-1.difesa-it[.]cloud eu-central-1.mfa-gov[.]cloud eu-central-1.mil-be[.]cloud eu-central-1.mil-pl[.]cloud eu-central-1.minbuza[.]cloud eu-central-1.mindef-nl[.]cloud eu-central-1.msz-pl[.]cloud eu-central-1.quirinale[.]cloud eu-central-1.regeringskansliet-se[.]cloud eu-central-1.s3-be[.]cloud eu-central-1.s3-esa[.]cloud eu-central-1.s3-nato[.]cloud eu-central-1.ua-gov[.]cloud eu-central-1.ua-sec[.]cloud eu-central-1.ukrtelecom[.]cloud eu-central-1-aws.amazonsolutions[.]cloud eu-central-1-aws.dep-no[.]cloud eu-central-1-aws.gov-pl[.]cloud eu-central-1-aws.gov-sk[.]cloud eu-central-1-aws.gov-trust[.]cloud eu-central-1-aws.mfa-gov[.]cloud eu-central-1-aws.minbuza[.]cloud eu-central-1-aws.mindef-nl[.]cloud eu-central-1-aws.msz-pl[.]cloud eu-central-1-aws.mzv-sk[.]cloud eu-central-1-aws.ncfta[.]cloud eu-central-1-aws.presidencia-pt[.]cloud eu-central-1-aws.quirinale[.]cloud eu-central-1-aws.regeringskansliet-se[.]cloud eu-central-1-aws.s3-be[.]cloud eu-central-1-aws.s3-ua[.]cloud eu-central-1-aws.ua-gov[.]cloud eu-central-1-aws.ukrainesec[.]cloud eu-central-2-aws.amazonsolutions[.]cloud eu-central-2-aws.aws-ukraine[.]cloud eu-central-2-aws.dep-no[.]cloud eu-central-2-aws.gov-pl[.]cloud eu-central-2-aws.gov-sk[.]cloud eu-central-2-aws.mil-be[.]cloud eu-central-2-aws.mil-pl[.]cloud eu-central-2-aws.mindef-nl[.]cloud eu-central-2-aws.msz-pl[.]cloud eu-central-2-aws.mzv-sk[.]cloud eu-central-2-aws.presidencia-pt[.]cloud eu-central-2-aws.regeringskansliet-se[.]cloud eu-central-2-aws.s3-be[.]cloud eu-central-2-aws.ua-gov[.]cloud eu-central-2-aws.ua-mil[.]cloud eu-central-2-aws.ukrtelecom[.]cloud eu-east-1-aws.amazonsolutions[.]cloud eu-east-1-aws.dep-no[.]cloud eu-east-1-aws.gov-sk[.]cloud eu-east-1-aws.gov-ua[.]cloud eu-east-1-aws.mil-be[.]cloud eu-east-1-aws.mil-pl[.]cloud eu-east-1-aws.minbuza[.]cloud eu-east-1-aws.mindef-nl[.]cloud eu-east-1-aws.msz-pl[.]cloud eu-east-1-aws.mzv-sk[.]cloud eu-east-1-aws.quirinale[.]cloud eu-east-1-aws.regeringskansliet-se[.]cloud eu-east-1-aws.s3-be[.]cloud eu-east-1-aws.s3-de[.]cloud eu-east-1-aws.ua-gov[.]cloud eu-east-1-aws.ua-sec[.]cloud eu-east-1-aws.ukrtelecom[.]cloud eu-north-1.difesa-it[.]cloud eu-north-1.gov-trust[.]cloud eu-north-1.gov-ua[.]cloud eu-north-1.gv-at[.]cloud eu-north-1.mil-be[.]cloud eu-north-1.mil-pl[.]cloud eu-north-1.mzv-sk[.]cloud eu-north-1.ncfta[.]cloud eu-north-1.regeringskansliet-se[.]cloud eu-north-1.s3-be[.]cloud eu-north-1.s3-de[.]cloud eu-north-1.s3-ua[.]cloud eu-north-1-aws.dep-no[.]cloud eu-north-1-aws.difesa-it[.]cloud eu-north-1-aws.gov-pl[.]cloud eu-north-1-aws.gov-sk[.]cloud eu-north-1-aws.mil-be[.]cloud eu-north-1-aws.mil-pl[.]cloud eu-north-1-aws.minbuza[.]cloud eu-north-1-aws.ncfta[.]cloud eu-north-1-aws.presidencia-pt[.]cloud eu-north-1-aws.quirinale[.]cloud eu-north-1-aws.regeringskansliet-se[.]cloud eu-north-1-aws.s3-be[.]cloud eu-north-1-aws.s3-de[.]cloud eu-north-1-aws.ua-energy[.]cloud eu-north-1-aws.ua-gov[.]cloud eu-south-1-aws.admin-ch[.]cloud eu-south-1-aws.dep-no[.]cloud eu-south-1-aws.difesa-it[.]cloud eu-south-1-aws.gov-pl[.]cloud eu-south-1-aws.gov-trust[.]cloud eu-south-1-aws.mfa-gov[.]cloud eu-south-1-aws.mil-be[.]cloud eu-south-1-aws.minbuza[.]cloud eu-south-1-aws.mzv-sk[.]cloud eu-south-1-aws.quirinale[.]cloud eu-south-1-aws.s3-be[.]cloud eu-south-1-aws.s3-de[.]cloud eu-south-1-aws.ua-gov[.]cloud eu-south-2.dep-no[.]cloud eu-south-2.gov-pl[.]cloud eu-south-2.gov-sk[.]cloud eu-south-2.mil-be[.]cloud eu-south-2.mil-pl[.]cloud eu-south-2.mindef-nl[.]cloud eu-south-2.s3-be[.]cloud eu-south-2.s3-de[.]cloud eu-south-2.s3-esa[.]cloud eu-south-2.s3-nato[.]cloud eu-south-2.ua-sec[.]cloud eu-south-2.ukrainesec[.]cloud eu-south-2-aws.amazonsolutions[.]cloud eu-south-2-aws.dep-no[.]cloud eu-south-2-aws.gov-pl[.]cloud eu-south-2-aws.gov-sk[.]cloud eu-south-2-aws.mfa-gov[.]cloud eu-south-2-aws.mil-be[.]cloud eu-south-2-aws.mil-pl[.]cloud eu-south-2-aws.mil-pt[.]cloud eu-south-2-aws.minbuza[.]cloud eu-south-2-aws.msz-pl[.]cloud eu-south-2-aws.mzv-sk[.]cloud eu-south-2-aws.ncfta[.]cloud eu-south-2-aws.quirinale[.]cloud eu-south-2-aws.regeringskansliet-se[.]cloud eu-south-2-aws.s3-be[.]cloud eu-south-2-aws.s3-de[.]cloud eu-south-2-aws.s3-esa[.]cloud eu-south-2-aws.s3-nato[.]cloud eu-south-2-aws.s3-ua[.]cloud eu-south-2-aws.ua-gov[.]cloud eu-southeast-1-aws.amazonsolutions[.]cloud eu-southeast-1-aws.aws-ukraine[.]cloud eu-southeast-1-aws.dep-no[.]cloud eu-southeast-1-aws.difesa-it[.]cloud eu-southeast-1-aws.gov-sk[.]cloud eu-southeast-1-aws.gov-trust[.]cloud eu-southeast-1-aws.mil-be[.]cloud eu-southeast-1-aws.mil-pl[.]cloud eu-southeast-1-aws.mindef-nl[.]cloud eu-southeast-1-aws.msz-pl[.]cloud eu-southeast-1-aws.mzv-cz[.]cloud eu-southeast-1-aws.mzv-sk[.]cloud eu-southeast-1-aws.quirinale[.]cloud eu-southeast-1-aws.s3-be[.]cloud eu-southeast-1-aws.s3-de[.]cloud eu-southeast-1-aws.s3-esa[.]cloud eu-southeast-1-aws.s3-ua[.]cloud eu-southeast-1-aws.ua-energy[.]cloud eu-southeast-1-aws.ukrainesec[.]cloud eu-west-1.aws-ukraine[.]cloud eu-west-1.difesa-it[.]cloud eu-west-1.gov-sk[.]cloud eu-west-1.mil-be[.]cloud eu-west-1.mil-pl[.]cloud eu-west-1.minbuza[.]cloud eu-west-1.msz-pl[.]cloud eu-west-1.mzv-sk[.]cloud eu-west-1.regeringskansliet-se[.]cloud eu-west-1.s3-de[.]cloud eu-west-1.s3-esa[.]cloud eu-west-1.s3-ua[.]cloud eu-west-1.ua-gov[.]cloud eu-west-1.ukrtelecom[.]cloud eu-west-1-aws.amazonsolutions[.]cloud eu-west-1-aws.aws-ukraine[.]cloud eu-west-1-aws.dep-no[.]cloud eu-west-1-aws.gov-pl[.]cloud eu-west-1-aws.gov-sk[.]cloud eu-west-1-aws.gov-trust[.]cloud eu-west-1-aws.gov-ua[.]cloud eu-west-1-aws.mil-be[.]cloud eu-west-1-aws.mil-pl[.]cloud eu-west-1-aws.minbuza[.]cloud eu-west-1-aws.quirinale[.]cloud eu-west-1-aws.s3-be[.]cloud eu-west-1-aws.s3-de[.]cloud eu-west-1-aws.s3-esa[.]cloud eu-west-1-aws.s3-nato[.]cloud eu-west-1-aws.ua-sec[.]cloud eu-west-1-aws.ukrainesec[.]cloud eu-west-2-aws.amazonsolutions[.]cloud eu-west-2-aws.dep-no[.]cloud eu-west-2-aws.difesa-it[.]cloud eu-west-2-aws.gov-pl[.]cloud eu-west-2-aws.gov-sk[.]cloud eu-west-2-aws.gv-at[.]cloud eu-west-2-aws.mil-be[.]cloud eu-west-2-aws.mil-pl[.]cloud eu-west-2-aws.minbuza[.]cloud eu-west-2-aws.mindef-nl[.]cloud eu-west-2-aws.msz-pl[.]cloud eu-west-2-aws.mzv-sk[.]cloud eu-west-2-aws.quirinale[.]cloud eu-west-2-aws.s3-be[.]cloud eu-west-2-aws.s3-de[.]cloud eu-west-2-aws.s3-esa[.]cloud eu-west-2-aws.s3-nato[.]cloud eu-west-2-aws.s3-ua[.]cloud eu-west-2-aws.ua-sec[.]cloud eu-west-3.amazonsolutions[.]cloud eu-west-3.aws-ukraine[.]cloud eu-west-3.mil-be[.]cloud eu-west-3.mil-pl[.]cloud eu-west-3.minbuza[.]cloud eu-west-3.mindef-nl[.]cloud eu-west-3.msz-pl[.]cloud eu-west-3.mzv-sk[.]cloud eu-west-3.presidencia-pt[.]cloud eu-west-3.s3-be[.]cloud eu-west-3.s3-ua[.]cloud eu-west-3.ukrainesec[.]cloud eu-west-3.ukrtelecom[.]cloud eu-west-3-aws.aws-ukraine[.]cloud eu-west-3-aws.dep-no[.]cloud eu-west-3-aws.difesa-it[.]cloud eu-west-3-aws.gov-pl[.]cloud eu-west-3-aws.gov-sk[.]cloud eu-west-3-aws.gov-trust[.]cloud eu-west-3-aws.mil-be[.]cloud eu-west-3-aws.mil-pl[.]cloud eu-west-3-aws.mil-pt[.]cloud eu-west-3-aws.minbuza[.]cloud eu-west-3-aws.mindef-nl[.]cloud eu-west-3-aws.msz-pl[.]cloud eu-west-3-aws.mzv-sk[.]cloud eu-west-3-aws.quirinale[.]cloud eu-west-3-aws.regeringskansliet-se[.]cloud eu-west-3-aws.s3-be[.]cloud eu-west-3-aws.s3-ua[.]cloud eu-west-3-aws.ua-mil[.]cloud us-east-1-aws.mfa-gov[.]cloud us-east-1-aws.s3-ua[.]cloud us-east-1-aws.ua-gov[.]cloud us-east-1-aws.ua-sec[.]cloud us-east-2.aws-ukraine[.]cloud us-east-2.gov-ua[.]cloud us-east-2.ua-sec[.]cloud us-east-2.ukrainesec[.]cloud us-east-2-aws.gov-ua[.]cloud us-east-2-aws.ua-gov[.]cloud us-east-2-aws.ukrtelecom[.]cloud us-east-console.aws-ukraine[.]cloud us-east-console.ua-energy[.]cloud us-west-1.aws-ukraine[.]cloud us-west-1.ua-energy[.]cloud us-west-1.ua-gov[.]cloud us-west-1.ukrtelecom[.]cloud us-west-1-amazon.ua-energy[.]cloud us-west-1-amazon.ua-mil[.]cloud us-west-1-amazon.ua-sec[.]cloud us-west-1-aws.gov-ua[.]cloud us-west-2.gov-ua[.]cloud us-west-2.ua-energy[.]cloud us-west-2.ua-sec[.]cloud us-west-2-aws.mfa-gov[.]cloud us-west-2-aws.s3-ua[.]cloud us-west-2-aws.ua-energy[.]cloud

    MIL OSI Economics –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Connolly, Turner Raise Concerns About October 26 Elections and Euro-Atlantic Future for Georgia

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Gerry Connolly (D-Va)

    Congressman Gerry Connolly (D-VA), President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Co-Chair of the Congressional Georgia Caucus, and Congressman Mike Turner (R-OH), head of the U.S. delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, released the following statement:

    “We are deeply concerned by the pre-election environment of Georgia’s October 26th elections which were marred by reports of vote buying, voter intimidation, abuse of administrative resources, and questionable appointments to election oversight boards.

    The October 26th elections presented Georgia an invaluable opportunity to prove to the international community, to NATO countries and the European Union that Georgia remains firmly committed to its Euro-Atlantic path. Unfortunately, through campaign rhetoric blaming the West for Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, foreign agents’ legislation passed to root out civil society, and lack of accountability for violent attacks against political opposition figures, Georgia’s government provided no such reassurance. These elections, which posed significant challenges to the democratic process, move Georgia significantly further away from joining NATO and the European Union.

    Widespread pressure on public sector employees to vote for the incumbent party and a refusal to investigate violent attacks on political opponents are authoritarian behaviors, and a drastic departure from the vibrant, multiparty emerging democracy that once defined Georgia.

    In the aftermath of the October 26th election, we must be clear: The United States and all NATO countries stand with the Georgian people and their Euro-Atlantic aspirations.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Europe: Answer to a written question – Compliance of the German Government’s decision to reintroduce border controls with EU law – P-001801/2024(ASW)

    Source: European Parliament

    1. In the notification of 9 September 2024, the German authorities indicated as public policy and internal security grounds: the security risks connected to irregular migration, including migrant smuggling, resulting in high levels of illegal entries; the excessive burden on the asylum reception system and solidarity in society and resulting threats to public order and internal security; security risks flowing from the Russian invasion in Ukraine and the situation in the Middle East, including terrorist Islamist violence; the effects of crimes carried out by refugees on the overall sense of security among the German public.

    2. In the notification, Germany explained that it considers the reintroduction of internal border control to be a necessary and proportionate means of last resort. It does not believe the threats can be sufficiently addressed with alternative measures. It has indicated that the controls will be flexible and risk-based and that the federal police strive to limit the impact on free movement of persons within the area without internal border control and cross-border regions. The Commission will remain in close contact with the German authorities in order to evaluate the situation.

    3. No Member State has brought the matter before the Commission in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 259 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU.

    Last updated: 29 October 2024

    MIL OSI Europe News –