The new platform eliminates the key operational barriers faced by exporters: lengthy payment processing times, manual document handling, and opaque processes. At the same time, it opens new opportunities for investors by providing access to assets backed by real export contracts.

Platform Purpose and Functionality

The Edenex platform shortens the cash-to-cash cycle through the digitization of five key stages of an export transaction:

1. Document Preparation and Verification. An automated system for verifying contracts, invoices, certificates of origin, and export declarations minimizes errors and eliminates the need for document rework.
2. Compliance and Currency Control. The platform integrates sanctions screening and counterparty verification at the preliminary stage, reducing manual payment processing time by correspondent banks.
3. Financing Structuring. Tools for negotiating factoring and credit line terms without the involvement of credit committees for each individual transaction, operating within established limits.
4. Proof of Performance. Digital registration of delivery notes and bills of lading with instant access for financing institutions and investors.
5. Fund Disbursement and Yield Distribution. A transparent system for tracking payment status in real time, with reduced settlement times and automated distribution of investment returns.

Key Advantages

For exporters, implementing the platform enables the following operational metrics:

• Reduction of initial compliance time to 2 business days
• Decrease in document package rejection rates to below 5%
• Shortening of financing approval time to 3–5 days
• Reduction of the overall cash-to-cash cycle to 15–45 days depending on product category

For investors, the platform provides access to tokenized real-world assets (RWA) backed by monetary claims under export contracts, with a transparent yield structure and full legal support.

Edenex’s key value proposition is the SPV (Special Purpose Vehicle) — a separate legal entity established for each asset. The exporter sells its right to claim payment from the buyer to the SPV. If that right remained on the exporter’s balance sheet, creditors could seize it in the event of bankruptcy, leaving investors with nothing. With Edenex, the asset stays within the SPV, and if the exporter becomes insolvent, funds are returned to investors according to a pre‑defined waterfall.

Target Audience

The product is designed for companies engaged in regular export operations seeking to improve working capital management efficiency, as well as for institutional and private investors considering investments in real-asset-backed instruments with fixed returns.

The platform targets companies that export regularly and face cash flow gaps between shipment and payment. This core segment includes industrial equipment suppliers, agricultural exporters, manufacturers of construction materials and chemical products, and IT companies or software developers with foreign clients — service exporters where milestone confirmation requires not only invoices but also acceptance certificates, a hurdle that traditional bank financing often struggles to accommodate.

Structural Liquidity Gap in Global Trade and Edenex’s Solution

The global economy in 2026 faces a paradox: record cross-border trade volumes coexist with archaic trade finance mechanisms. Estimates place the global tokenized real-world asset (RWA) market near $25 billion, with institutional investors increasingly shifting treasury obligations and money market funds on-chain. The key driver is the transition toward predictable yield instruments backed by tangible assets.

Simultaneously, traditional trade finance exhibits growing inefficiencies. The export segment remains fragmented. The cash-to-cash cycle for exporters can extend to 45–90 days, with each stage from document verification to compliance entailing repeated manual interventions and delays. Banks dominating factoring operate under rigid limits and demand excessive collateralization. They lack the flexibility to accommodate the specifics of new-economy exports and frequently decline financing due to non-compliance with formal criteria.

Issues Constraining Scalability

For exporters, this translates into a chronic working capital deficit: goods shipped, funds frozen in accounts receivable, while the supply chain demands immediate payment. Investors view classic factoring as an opaque “black box”: no direct visibility into the underlying asset, legal risks associated with the receivable remaining on the originator’s balance sheet (which in the event of bankruptcy jeopardizes the entire structure), and limited secondary market liquidity. Lenders face operational overload: each tranche requires repeated underwriting, while document chain verification stretches over weeks. Consequently, the volume of unfinanced export contracts significantly exceeds demand, while the cost of capital remains inflated.

Impact on the Industry and Stakeholders

For exporters, implementing the platform reduces initial compliance timelines to two days, lowers document rejection rates below 5%, and shortens the overall cash-to-cash cycle to market benchmarks of 15–45 days depending on product category. This is achieved through the elimination of redundant checks and data unification.

For investors, the platform provides access to a new class of RWA instruments backed by monetary claims under actual export contracts, offering fixed yield and a transparent legal structure. This aligns with market demand for a shift from hype toward assets that behave like traditional financial instruments while offering the liquidity and composability of the blockchain environment.

For lenders and insurers, the platform serves as a source of verified data, reducing operational underwriting costs and allowing them to focus on risk pricing.

In a broader context, the Edenex solution illustrates the transition of the trade finance market from fragmented banking procedures to programmable infrastructure, where each transaction stage from verification to settlement becomes transparent, predictable, and automatable. This lays the foundation for the future convergence of such solutions with broader RWA ecosystems, including cross-border platforms and potential infrastructure projects within BRICS, where the tokenization of commodity flows is viewed as a tool to reduce dependence on traditional currency corridors.

Executive Commentary

Sergey Abisher, Head of New Projects at Edenex Platform:

“When I worked with exporters, every deal felt like an obstacle course: gather documents, send them to the bank, wait for a response, get rejected over some minor issue, redo everything, send again — rinse and repeat. Our platform is our attempt to eliminate that routine. We’ve automated 80% of the initial checks. Now exporters upload documents once, and investors see not just ‘some assets’ but a clear chain: contract, shipment, insurance, proof of delivery.”

www.edenex.com

94 people participated in the competition. The competition laureates receive the opportunity for additional training to develop soft or hard skills.

The organizers awarded 10 grants for additional training, worth up to 600,000 tenge. The program was launched in 2022.

Telzhan Myrzabekov, a 28-year-old employee of the M. Auezov South Kazakhstan University, says the grant will allow him to take an assessment center course from SHL Kazakhstan.

24-year-old Asmina Barkhandinova from the IT company QazCode stated that she intends to take an advanced online course in computer vision from DeepSchool.

Kurmet Danebek, a 23-year-old student at Nagasaki University (Japan), dreams of a certification course in healthcare management from the University Medical Center and the Kazakhstan Association of Healthcare Managers.

Another winner is 23-year-old Yermakhan Kurban, a student at L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University. He plans to spend the grant on learning Python programming. He is also interested in quantum computing.

An attorney representing Meta shareholders told Judge Kathaleen McCormick in Delaware’s Chancery Court a settlement was reached with Zuckerberg and other members of the company’s leadership, multiple outlets reported, though details of the settlement were not immediately available.

Sam Closic, the shareholders’ attorney, said an agreement was reached quickly, according to Reuters.

Facebook shareholders sued Zuckerberg, former COO Sheryl Sandberg and other billionaires tied to the company in 2018, alleging they violated a Federal Trade Commission agreement by sharing user data with third-party apps without their consent.

Shareholders requested $8 billion in damages, and the trial was expected to feature testimony from Zuckerberg, Sandberg and billionaires Peter Thiel, Marc Andreessen and Netflix CEO Reed Hastings, all of whom served on Facebook’s board.

Neither Meta nor attorneys representing the company immediately responded to requests for comment.

Who Were The Defendants In Meta’s Privacy Trial?

Zuckerberg, Sandberg and Konstantinos Papamiltiadis, Facebook’s former vice president of partnerships, were among those named as defendants. Shareholders also named Andreessen, Thiel, Hastings and other Facebook board members, including former Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation CEO Susan Desmond-Hellman, eBay CFO Peggy Alford and former American Express CEO Kenneth Chenault. Jeff Zients, President Joe Biden’s former chief of staff who testified Wednesday, was named alongside Erskine Bowles, President Bill Clinton’s former chief of staff, for their roles on Facebook’s board.

Key Background

A lawsuit between shareholders of Facebook, which rebranded to Meta in 2021, arose in 2018 over alleged violations of an agreement the company reached with the FTC. That agreement included a consent order in which Facebook agreed to create a “comprehensive privacy program” to address privacy concerns. Their claims were highlighted by the company’s Cambridge Analytica scandal, during which Facebook user data was harvested through a third-party app and then allegedly used to influence Brexit and the 2016 election. Zuckerberg and other defendants disputed claims of wrongdoing, arguing the shareholders failed to back up their claims of company officials acting unlawfully.

Surprising Fact

Sandberg was sanctioned by Delaware’s Chancery Court in January, after she allegedly deleted personal emails that were material to the trial. Sandberg claimed she rarely used her personal email and information from those deleted emails was preserved as other users were copied in on those messages.

Forbes Valuation

Zuckerberg is the world’s third-wealthiest person with a fortune valued at $241.1 billion, according to Forbes’ latest estimates. Sandberg has a net worth valued at $2.4 billion as of Thursday, while Andreessen ($2 billion), Hastings ($6.8) and Thiel ($23.2 billion) also rank among the world’s richest.

Up to $11 billion of the aid package will be allotted for an assistance program for farmers producing row crops, such as corn, wheat and soybeans, through a Farmer Bridge Assistance program.

Those funds will move by Feb. 28, 2026, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said at a roundtable with the president and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, but farmers will be informed how much they will receive earlier.

The other $1 billion will be reserved for farmers of other specialty crops, Rollins said, with Politico reporting this could include producers of crops like fruit and vegetable.

Rollins said the bridge funding was necessary because the “farm economy is facing a crisis that we inherited,” blaming the hardships faced by farmers on the Biden administration’s policies, including not signing new trade deals.

Trump also said the administration was planning to reduce environmental regulations on farming equipment, such as that produced by John Deere—insisting tractors and other machinery are getting too expensive and “it doesn’t do anything but make the machines break all the time.”

The funds will be authorized by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act, Bloomberg reported, and will not require the administration to seek congressional approval to use tariff revenue to fund the bailout.

Trump repeatedly connected the payments to tariff income, insisting “this money would not be possible without tariffs.”

Trump will announce the aid package at a round table with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and members of Congress, according to the reports.

Earlier this year, soybean farmers bore the brunt of Trump’s tariff policy when China abruptly slashed their U.S. soybean purchases to zero as the two countries struggled to resolve a trade dispute over rare earth minerals. China was previously the largest single purchaser of American soybeans, and purchased about half of the U.S.’ $24.5 billion soybean crop in 2024. The Trump administration has been weighing options to address the crisis since the trade dispute began, including a reported plan to use tariff revenue for a slightly smaller bailout. China began importing American soybeans again in October ahead of a meeting between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping. After Trump struck a deal with Xi Jinping later the same month, the president claimed China would resume purchasing “massive amounts” of soybeans and other crops. Although the Trump administration said China would buy 12 million tons of soybeans before the end of the year, the country has not come close to meeting that mark as of late November, Reuters reported.

Big Number

About 60%. That’s how much farm bankruptcies rose in the first half of 2025 compared to the previous year, the Washington Post reported citing data from court records. A total of 181 farms across the country filed for bankruptcy in the first two quarters of the year, compared to 115 during the same two quarters in 2024.

Contra

In a statement to Forbes, the White House blamed the Biden administration for the recent increased hardship for farmers. “Farmers suffered for years under Joe Biden, who increased the United States’ trade deficit to over $1.2 trillion, raised input costs, pushed woke DEI agricultural policies, and more,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement. “Today’s announcement reflects the President’s commitment to helping our farmers, who will have the support they need to bridge the gap between Biden’s failures and the President’s successful policies taking effect,” Kelly said.

The Bengaluru, India-based company will buy the stakes held by Serum Institute Life Sciences, Tata Capital and Activ Pine by swapping 70.28 Biocon shares for every 100 Biocon Biologics shares, at a price of 405.78 rupees ($4.51) per Biocon share, according to a statement released over the weekend. The deal, slated to be completed in March subject to regulatory approvals, values Biocon Biologics at $5.5 billion, it said.

Separately, India-listed Biocon also said it will also buy the shares held by Pittsburgh-based Viatris in Biocon Biologics for $815 million, paying $400 million in cash and $415 million in Biocon shares. The company also plans to raise up to 45 billion rupees ($500 million) by selling shares to institutional investors, with the proceeds going toward the cash payment to Viatris.

“The integration of Biocon Biologics into Biocon represents the next chapter in our evolution,” Mazumdar-Shaw, executive chairwoman of Biocon said in the statement. “Strategically, Biocon will be one of the few companies offering both biosimilars and generics at a global scale”.

The company said that integrating Biocon Biologics will simplify its corporate structure and strengthen Biocon’s position in diabetes, oncology and immunology medications, which together make up nearly 40% of global pharmaceutical industry’s revenues.

With an estimated net worth of $3.6 billion based on Forbes’ real-time data, Mazumdar-Shaw, is among the wealthiest in India. She founded Biocon in 1978 and turned it into a biopharmaceutical giant. The company acquired U.S. drugmaker Viatris’ biosimilars business for $3.3 billion in 2022. Biocon-backed cancer therapy drug maker Bicara Therapeutics raised $362 million in its IPO on Nasdaq last year.

As digital ecosystems expand at an unprecedented speed, the global IT industry faces an acute shortage of talent capable of working with large-scale, industrial software systems. Against this backdrop, the International Software Engineering Olympiad PROD has carved out a distinct niche. Launched in January 2024, the program quickly became one of the few platforms where high-school students from multiple countries solve real business challenges, explore the architecture of complex software systems, and gain a mindset shaped by the workflow of enterprise-level engineering teams. Registration for the new season closes on December 2, and the initiative is increasingly viewed as a gateway for young people to explore the full spectrum of modern technological development.

The Story Behind PROD

PROD is one of the fastest-growing education projects in recent years, bringing together high-school students around tasks drawn directly from real-world industry. The initiative is run by several Russian organizations: Central University – a new-generation STEM-oriented institution ranked among Russia’s leading universities and one of the top 10 most competitive for admission; T-Technologies, a major fintech company; and the Faculty of Computer Science at HSE University.

The idea was born as an attempt to give teenagers an early, informed pathway into a profession shaping the future technological landscape. Importantly, the organizers emphasize that no prior programming experience is required – basic knowledge of mathematics and computer science is sufficient.

PROD allows students from grades 8 to 12 to test themselves in industrial development, one of the most complex branches of IT. Its debut season in 2024 was a milestone as PROD became the world’s first international Olympiad of this kind. More than 6,000 applications were submitted. During the second season, which opened in December 2024, over 10,000 students applied, and 4,000 Russian-speaking participants from more than 20 countries – including the UK, Germany, France, Canada, China and Peru – took part. In just two cycles, the Olympiad has evolved from a standalone international contest into a genuine bridge linking schools, universities, and the technology sector.

The new season opens in December 2025, with results announced in March 2026. For the first time, the competition is fully bilingual – in English and Russian – making it accessible to students worldwide.

Structure of the Olympiad and Opportunities for Participants

The design of PROD ensures that students from any country can complete the full journey: from introductory tasks to a final project defense. Most stages are held online, lowering access barriers and establishing PROD as a truly global academic platform. Only the final round takes place offline in Moscow, with accommodation for international participants fully covered by the organizers.

The competition begins with a remote test in mathematics and basic programming – identical for all participants regardless of national curricula. The second round focuses on case challenges in frontend and backend development, mobile engineering, and MLOps, each reflecting the realities of modern tech industries around the world. This structure helps students grasp principles applicable not only in Russian or European fintech, but also across global digital ecosystems.

The final stage consists of two rounds. In the individual round, finalists develop a project within their chosen track; in the team round, they collaborate to create full-scale solutions based on cases provided by the organizers.

PROD’s growing international status is reinforced by its real impact on participants’ futures. Over two years, the program has built its own development ecosystem: 39 finalists and award-winners have secured internships at T-Technologies – a company developing a major financial and lifestyle services ecosystem – with 19 currently interning and 9 already employed full-time. More than 120 participants from the previous season enrolled at Central University, including 50 finalists and 20 winners and prize-winners.

In a world where software has become a universal language, initiatives like PROD shape a new generation of engineers – young professionals capable of building world-class digital products even before entering university. The Olympiad has already proven that high-school students are ready for this challenge, and its international expansion ensures that young people anywhere in the world can access this experience.

The expansion will also enable the company’s existing factory in the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu to produce electric buses, e-scooters and charging infrastructure, New York-listed VinFast said in a statement. The facility, which started producing electric cars in August, is Vinfast’s first overseas plant.

“The proposed expansion of the Tamil Nadu plant will enable us to broaden our product lineup in India, allowing us to meet a wider range of customer needs,” Pham Sanh Chau, CEO of VinFast Asia, said in the statement. “VinFast believes that Tamil Nadu will continue to serve as a strategic hub in our global expansion journey and will play an important role in supporting India’s green mobility goals.”

The expansion project—which would increase annual production capacity in India to 150,000 from 50,000 currently—is the second phase of an existing $2 billion commitment to scale up its operations in India. The government of Tamil Nadu is allocating an additional 200 hectares right next to VinFast’s existing factory, which sites on a 160-hectare property.

Based in the port city of Hao Phong in northeastern Vietnam, VinFast has been scaling up shipments globally even as the company remains in the red. It delivered 110,362 EVs in the first nine months of the year, surpassing 97,399 deliveries in the whole of 2024. In India, it plans to increase its dealer network to 35 outlets by the end of the year from 24 currently.

With a real-time net worth of $14 billion, Pham has interests in real estate, retail, healthcare, education, and technology through his flagship Vingroup. He built his fortune from an instant noodles business he started in Ukraine in 1993. He sold that business to Nestle in 2010 and built one of Vietnam’s most diversified conglomerates.

Zhang Jianzhong, founder of Moore Threads Technology, has joined the billionaire ranks as shares of his Chinese AI chipmaker soared over 420% on its Shanghai market debut amid optimism it could one day become the Nvidia of China. The 59-year-old chairman and CEO of the Beijing-based firm has amassed a fortune of $4.3 billion based on his stake in the company, according to Forbes estimates. Moore Threads raised 8 billion yuan ($1.1 billion) in late November by selling 70 million shares at 114.28 yuan apiece, according to its prospectus. Fellow cofounders Wang Dong and Zhang Yubo also joined the world’s three-comma club, amassing a fortune of $1.4 billion and $1.7 billion based on their respective company stakes.

The company did not respond to a request for comment. The initial public offering is one of the most anticipated in China this year – with the retail portion of the share sale being oversubscribed by 2,750 times despite a clawback mechanism that eventually allotted more shares to individual investors. Moore Threads now sports a market capitalization of 276 billion yuan and plans to use the proceeds for hiring as well as research and development.

Before its blockbuster IPO, Moore Threads raised funding from a star-studded list of investors including HSG (HongShan Capital Group, formerly known as Sequoia China) as well as the investment arms of Chinese tech giants ByteDance and Tencent. In 2023, it was added to the U.S. government’s entity list, a trade blacklist that prevents it from accessing advanced American chipmaking technologies.

The company is benefiting from China’s push for technology self-reliance amid U.S. restrictions on selling advanced semiconductors to its top geopolitical rival, Kenny Ng, a Hong Kong-based securities strategist at Everbright Securities International, says via WeChat messages. Growing optimism over locally made chips has also vaulted the shares of companies including Cambricon Technologies. Chen Tianshi, Cambricon’s 40-year-old chairman and CEO, is now China’s 11th richest person with a net worth of $23.4 billion, according to Forbes’ Real-Time Billionaires List.

As for Moore Threads, its products range from graphics processing units to supporting software to train AI models. The domestic market for such GPUs will grow to 1.3 trillion yuan in 2029 from 142.5 billion yuan in 2024, according to a November research note from Shanghai-based brokerage Sinolink Securities.

Moore Threads is likely to become an “important force” in replacing overseas suppliers such as Nvidia, the brokerage wrote in the note. During the first nine months of this year, sales at the company soared 182% year-on-year to 784.6 million yuan. Its loss narrowed to 723.5 million yuan, down 18.7% from the same period a year ago.

Founder Zhang has worked in the semiconductor business for almost 20 years. He led Nvidia’s China unit for 14 years until 2020, the same year he founded Moore Threads, according to the prospectus. The mogul previously worked as a senior executive at Dell and HP in China, its prospectus shows. His wife, Liu Shanshan, was a company director during its early years before stepping down in 2023.

One of the recent cases was a deal with the fund, in which the company provided microfinance to secure a stake in a company whose shares were traded in a closed market segment. The transaction was accompanied by a thorough asset assessment, liquidity assessment, legal audit and a pre-developed exit strategy.

Within three months, the asset was sold in accordance with the planned model. The financial result of the project was distributed among the partners, which emphasizes the transparency of the processes and compliance with the internal regulations of the company.

“We are not looking for easy solutions — only calculated steps based on numbers, risk modeling and an institutional approach. Sustainability, trust and long—term impact for our partners are our focus,” the company noted.

Today, the company is developing a full-fledged ecosystem that combines experience in traditional and digital financial instruments, including microfinance mechanisms, asset management, projects in the field of blockchain economics and compliance standards.

Details about investment projects, transaction structures, and documentation are available on the company’s official website in the Documents section.

The investment attractiveness of Si14 AG shares is growing after the holding introduced patented colloidal nanotechnologies in the pharmaceuticalindustry, according to Infoway Marketing, the official representative of Si14 AG, компании Infoway Marketing.

The company is engaged in the implementation of colloidal technologies in the field of medicine in the BRICS countries. Technologies are implemented through theSi14 Pharmamanagement.

Si14 Pharma specializes in homeopathic steroids, innovative medical equipment, комплекты Life Packs, and dietary supplements based on metallob atomic colloids..

В хThe Si14 AG holding includes 9 innovative areas in the fields of high technology, healthcare, sustainable energy and finance. The company intends to go public in 2026 and continue to actively expand internationally.

Understanding the Psychological Effects of Reading Mediums

Research has shown that reading on paper often leads to deeper comprehension. The tactile sensation of paper can enhance focus and retention. Readers may find themselves more immersed when turning pages compared to scrolling. Paper allows for better spatial awareness. Many readers remember where information is located on a page. This ability can aid in recall during discussions or examinations. In contrast screens can lead to distractions from notifications and multitasking. The digital environment demands more cognitive resources which may impede the reading experience.

Moreover the physical experience of paper can evoke feelings of nostalgia and comfort. The scent of a book or the sound of pages turning creates a sensory connection. This tactile feedback contributes to emotional engagement. Readers often associate physical books with personal ownership and permanence. These connections may lead to a preference for print. Understanding these nuances can guide your choices as you select reading materials. Exploring digital platforms offers convenience and accessibility.

The Benefits of Digital Reading

Digital reading has its own unique advantages. The accessibility of e-books allows for a broader range of materials at your fingertips. You can easily carry thousands of titles on a single device. This portability encourages exploration and discovery. Digital libraries like zlibrary provide resources that cater to various interests. Users can access textbooks fiction and non-fiction from the comfort of home. This convenience can foster a love for reading among those who may struggle to find time in their busy lives.

The ability to adjust font sizes and background colors on digital devices can also enhance readability. Readers with visual impairments can tailor their experience for comfort. Additionally the search functions available in e-books allow for quick retrieval of information. This can save time during research or study sessions. Many digital platforms offer features such as note-taking and highlighting that can enrich the reading experience. The integration of multimedia elements enhances engagement through interactive components.

Before diving deeper into the advantages of digital reading let’s take a moment to explore some key benefits:

• Accessibility: Digital libraries provide easy access to a wide array of reading materials. Users can search for titles quickly without visiting a physical library.
• Portability: E-books allow readers to carry multiple books in one device. This is especially beneficial for travelers or students.
• Customization: Readers can adjust text size and brightness on digital devices. This personalization can improve comfort during extended reading sessions.
• Search Functions: Digital formats allow for instant searches. Readers can find specific information without flipping through pages.
• Interactive Features: Many e-books offer annotations and highlights. These tools can enhance understanding and retention of important concepts.

Understanding these advantages can help you appreciate the role of digital reading in modern society.

The Importance of Personal Preference

Ultimately the choice between reading on screens or paper comes down to personal preference. Some readers thrive on the tactile experience of physical books while others prefer the convenience of digital formats. Awareness of how each medium affects your reading experience can lead to better choices. It is essential to consider what you want from your reading. If you aim for deep comprehension paper may suit you better. However if you seek convenience and accessibility z library provides an excellent solution.

The psychology of reading reveals significant differences between screens and paper. Both mediums have distinct advantages and challenges. By recognizing these factors you can enhance your reading journey. Ultimately embracing a balance between the two may offer the best of both worlds. Whether you prefer the feel of a book in hand or the convenience of a screen the world of reading is vast and welcoming.

A 35-year-old man camping in a remote Montana forest was found killed in his tent following a vicious attack initially suspected of being a bear mauling, authorities said.

Victim Dustin Kjersem went camping northeast of Big Sky, Montana, on Oct. 10 with plans to meet a friend the next day, Gallatin County Sheriff Dan Springer said.

The friend found Kjersem’s body Saturday morning and reported it as a possible bear mauling. But a state wildlife agent found no evidence of a bear.

An autopsy later determined the man, from the Montana community of Belgrade, died of “multiple chop wounds” from an unknown weapon, Springer said at a news conference Wednesday.

Kjersem suffered wounds to his skull and body. Kjersem’s campsite was not in an established campground, and it was not known exactly when he died.

No arrests had been made, and it was unknown if there was a continuing threat to the community.

“If you’re out there in the woods, we need you to be paying attention; we need you to remain vigilant,” Springer said.

The remote location of the killing complicates the investigation, the sheriff added. There is no cell service in that area, meaning no record of calls investigators could use.

The victim’s sister said he worked as a homebuilder in the Gallatin Valley, which includes the city of Bozeman. Jillian Price described her brother as a skilled tradesman and adoring father.

“I ask our community to please help us find out who did this,” Price said. “There is someone in our valley who is capable of truly heinous things.”

The sheriff’s office asked that anyone who had a trail camera or game camera in the Moose Creek area, where Kjersem’s body was found, reach out to authorities.

A court filing unsealed by federal prosecutors details how a Texas man and his friends brought an arsenal of guns with them to Washington, D.C., and how he snuck one onto the Capitol grounds during the deadly Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection attempt.

Roger Preacher was first charged in May of last year with unlawful possession of a firearm on the Capitol grounds on the day of the insurrection. He carried a .22 caliber Walther P22 pistol in his waistband on the Capitol’s lower west terrace, where some of the worst violence of the day erupted.

Preacher was arraigned in May and pleaded guilty, but his case was put under seal. U.S. attorneys told a judge there was “sensitive information” specific to Preacher’s plea agreement that couldn’t be released publicly at the time. With those concerns apparently resolved, prosecutors unsealed the case last week.

The newly released records offer disturbing details about Preacher’s foray to Washington, where he attended the “Stop the Steal” rally that would end in the storming of Congress and an attempt to overturn the election.

According to prosecutors, Preacher drove from Texas to Virginia with two other men, Jason Parsons and Mario Mares. They started texting about their plans around Jan. 2, and on the journey discussed “firearms laws in the District of Columbia and … knew it would be unlawful to bring firearms into the city,” the records allege.

Prosecutors said the three men drove from Texas to a Virginia suburb of D.C. in Mares’ car, which they’d loaded with a bag of guns, and they checked into a hotel to prepare for the rally on Jan. 6. The next day, Preacher drove himself and his friends from Virginia into D.C., and though the men left their rifles behind in the car, Preacher tucked the .22 caliber into a holster on his waist. Prosecutors say the men made it to the lower west terrace of the Capitol grounds, and Preacher was in that location for an hour before getting separated from his group.

Back at their hotel room in Virginia, the three men discussed hearing about arrests and decided to flee back to Texas. But before they headed home, they took a picture of their guns and tactical gear and posted it to Facebook.

“Fuck Washington DC,” the caption read.

The gun Preacher carried with him at the Capitol is in the center of the photo, along with a red MAGA hat and other items.

Prosecutors are asking that Preacher be sentenced to zero to six months in prison and that he pay a fine ranging anywhere from $500 to $9,500. That would be a bargain, considering the charges he faces: Without a plea deal, he was looking at up to five years in prison and a fine of $250,000.

In exchange for his guilty plea, prosecutors agreed not to bring any other charges against him.

Preacher waived his right to a jury trial. It is unclear when he will be sentenced, but records show that a joint status report for his sentencing is due before Oct. 28.

An attorney for Preacher did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Parsons was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm on Capitol grounds in April 2023 and pleaded guilty after striking a deal with prosecutors. His case was sealed until September 30, 2024.

Mares was indicted in March 2023 and charged with multiple offenses including entering and remaining in a restricted building with a deadly weapon, disorderly conduct and unlawful possession of a firearm. Mares pleaded not guilty and opted to have a bench trial. The bench trial concluded on Oct. 4 and a verdict is imminent from U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes.

The revelations about Preacher come just a day after Donald Trump said during a Univision town hall event that there were no guns at the U.S. Capitol on Jan 6.

Lumping himself in with the rioters, Trump remarked that “we didn’t have guns” but “the others” — the police who defended the Capitol building that day — did.

Preacher is far from the only Jan. 6 defendant who was armed at the Capitol that day. Participants in the riot brought guns, knives, baseball bats, stun guns, and chemical irritants like bear spray. Several defendants have pleaded guilty to carrying weapons on Jan. 6, including Guy Reffitt, Mark Mazza and Chris Alberts.

The far-right militia known as the Oath Keepers also brought a massive cache of weapons to a hotel room in northern Virginia, as the 2022 seditious conspiracy trial of some of the group’s leaders revealed. The group called members who transported and guarded the guns a “quick reaction force” who would be ready at a moment’s notice to occupy the Capitol if Trump invoked the Insurrection Act.

The Justice Department announced criminal charges against an Indian government employee Thursday in connection with a foiled plot to kill a Sikh separatist leader living in New York City.

Vikash Yadav remains at large but faces murder-for-hire charges in federal court.

The criminal case was announced the same week as two members of an Indian inquiry committee investigating the plot were in Washington to meet with U.S. officials about the investigation. Also this week, Canada said it had identified India’s top diplomat in the country as a person of interest in the assassination of a Sikh activist there and expelled him and five other diplomats Monday.

“The Justice Department will be relentless in holding accountable any person — regardless of their position or proximity to power — who seeks to harm and silence American citizens,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement announcing the charges.

The murder-for-hire plot was first disclosed by federal prosecutors last year when they announced charges against a man, Nikhil Gupta, who was recruited by a then-unidentified Indian government employee to orchestrate the assassination of a Sikh separatist leader in New York.

Gupta was extradited to the United States in June from the Czech Republic after his arrest in Prague last year.

In a statement, the intended victim, Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, said the indictment means the U.S. government has “reassured its commitment to fundamental constitutional duty to protect the life, liberty and freedom of expression of the U.S. Citizen at home and abroad.”

He added, “The attempt on my life on American Soil is the blatant case of India’s transnational terrorism which has become a challenge to America’s sovereignty and threat to freedom of speech and democracy, which unequivocally proves that India believes in using bullets while pro Khalistan Sikhs believe in ballots.”

Keke Palmer is opening up about her child star past — and her once-dire financial straits.

The “Nope” actor became her family’s breadwinner while still a young girl. And though that Hollywood gambit ultimately paid off, Palmer recently revealed she’d declared bankruptcy at 18 years of age.

“I was so spooked,” she admitted at the Building Wealth Today for Tomorrow financial literacy event in Chicago, per Afrotech. “I was like, ‘What went wrong?’”

Palmer was only 10 years old when she landed her first part in “Barbershop 2: Back in Business,” and went on to nab lead roles in major projects including “Akeelah and the Bee” (2006) and Nickelodeon’s “True Jackson, VP” (2008-2011). But that came at a cost.

“Due to my traveling and scheduling both of my parents had to stop working to support my career and be present for my three siblings, leaving me with the financial responsibility around age 12,” she wrote last year on Instagram. The actor said she took “great pride” in that, but the responsibility of becoming a “parentalized child” who paid the bills also forced her to abandon her youth.

Now 31 and with a child of her own, Palmer says she lives well “under” her means.

“If I got $10,000 in the bank, then my house be $500 a month,” she reportedly said at last week’s summit. “That’s how under I mean, because I can probably afford something $2,500 maybe, but I’m going way under. You know why? Because I wanna invest in my business.”

Palmer launched a streaming network named KeyTv on YouTube in 2022 to empower and amplify Black creatives — and reportedly invested $500,000 of her own to make it happen.

“So if I wanna invest in my business, then the material things that I’m having currently might have to take a short back,” she said at the summit. “Instead of wearing Gucci, I’m wearing Zara. I live in a good place. I drive a cool car, ’cause my money is going elsewhere.”

The “cool car,” she told her audience, is a Toyota.

Cameron Diaz says leaving the business was “just something I had to do.”

The “Charlie’s Angels” star was still a bona fide A-lister when she retired in 2018. Now, with a decade behind her since she last appeared on-screen in 2014’s “Annie” adaptation, Diaz opened up about the decision to quit and her impending return to the spotlight.

“It was just something I had to do,” Diaz said Monday at Fortune’s “Most Powerful Women Summit” in Laguna Niguel, California. “It felt like the right thing for me, to reclaim my own life, and I just really didn’t care about anything else, I didn’t.”

“And nobody’s opinion, nobody’s success, no one’s offer, no one’s anything could change my mind about my decision of taking care of myself and building the life that I really wanted to have,” the actor, who married Good Charlotte guitarist Benji Madden in 2015, continued.

After her breakout role in “The Mask” (1994) and a star-making turn in “There’s Something About Mary” (1998), Diaz was off to the races. She worked with directors as acclaimed as Oliver Stone and Martin Scorsese and superstars like Leonardo DiCaprio and Tom Cruise.

Despite establishing herself as a lead actor with blockbusters like the “Charlie’s Angels” films and becoming an integral part of the billion-dollar “Shrek” franchise, Diaz started thinking about family — with her decision to retire only growing stronger during the 2020 pandemic.

“After Covid, we were in the house for a long time, which was amazing and the problem was we would probably stay there, we would still be there right now,” Diaz said Monday, per The Hollywood Reporter. “People would be like, ‘It’s over’ and I’d be like, ‘No it’s not.’”

The actor had her first child in 2019 and welcomed her second earlier this year.

“I think it really comes to, what are you passionate about?” Diaz said Monday. “For me, it was to build my family. For other people, it might just be, ’You know what? I went to school for this, and I’ve done it my whole life, and I know how to do it really, really well … but it doesn’t feed my soul.’”

While she’s since announced her comeback (and is set to star in a dark comedy opposite Keanu Reeves, a fifth “Shrek” film and an action movie opposite Jamie Foxx), Diaz says she simply listened to her “soul” when she decided to quit — and promised the crowd that they could, too.

JoJo Siwa is getting candid about the “brutal” backlash she has faced for posing with a fake bulge for a recent magazine cover.

While appearing last week on the “Talk Tuah” podcast hosted by Haliey Welch, who’s known as the viral “Hawk Tuah Girl,” the singer and dancer said it was “really hard” being criticized for the viral photo shoot, in which she sported a bedazzled faux bulge.

“It’s brutal,” she told Welch. “It’s really hard. People are just dicks.”

In the September photo shoot for LadyGunn, Siwa also posed in a strapless, jeweled top featuring nipples and mock abs, which she paired with gold combat boots.

The “Dance Moms” alum explained her decision to don the controversial accessory.

“The stone bulge is — we were just giving a little spice, a little gender-bend, a little, you can be anything you want to be,” Siwa said. “It just was spicing myself up a little.”

Siwa then compared her sparkly bulge look to Harry Styles’ controversial Vogue cover in 2020, in which he wore several traditionally female garments, including skirts and dresses.

“It’s like back in the day when Harry Styles wore a dress,” Siwa noted. “Obviously, wearing a bulge is a little different than wearing a dress.”

Welch replied, “You stuck out. I think you should do more of that, though.”

Siwa explained that she likes to push boundaries and dabble in the “risk zone” with her ensembles.

“One thing about me is I like to be for the people that are different, for the people that don’t fit in and for the people who are just unafraid to take risks,” Siwa said. “I feel like being that person, I have to go as far as I possibly can into the risk zone. I have to explore the risk zone to see what it’s like.”

Last month, the “Karma” singer turned heads with yet another risqué fashion look at Christian Cowan’s New York Fashion Week show.

Siwa hit the Sept. 8 runway show dressed as a giant ball covered in black fur. She paired the leg-baring outfit with knee-high furry green boots and coordinating green makeup.

At the event, the former Nickelodeon star told E! News that she and her team have saved every single outfit she’s worn publicly since she was 9 years old.

“Everything that I’ve ever worn publicly, like for a music video, for a performance, we have in an archive,” Siwa told the outlet. “So I have it all saved, from the time I was 9 — everything I wore on TV. It’s way too many things. We got to clean it out one day.”

So it was all the more noteworthy that the UN’s “Special Rapporteur” for, among other matters, women in sports took a plain shot Tuesday at the IOC for the controversy that erupted at the Paris Games in women’s boxing.

Some context:

A key IOC policy  — the 2021-24 gender equality and inclusion plan — details 21 “objectives” rooted in five “focus areas” that, it says, are “unsurprisingly” aligned with the March 2020 UN Women ‘Sport for Generation Equality’ Initiative. In September 2023, the IOC renewed its deal with UN Women; it calls UN Women a “vital partner” in “creating positive social change and promoting gender empowerment through sport.”

In June, Kirsty Coventry of Zimbabwe, now running for the IOC presidency, was sent to address the UN General Assembly, where she asserted that sport can help further the UN Sustainable Development Goals, promote peace and prevent youth crime.

Since Lillehammer in 1994, the president of the UN General Assembly has made a “Solemn Appeal” for a symbolic Olympic Truce during the Games; since 2006, the Truce call has applied to the Paralympics, too. The IOC position to allow but a few Russians to Paris, and then as neutrals, includes in significant part the view of UN experts — in UN jargon, ‘Special Rapporteurs.’ On this matter, the IOC’s unequivocal declaration, on its website, declares: “This is about the UN guiding principles, and the IOC must rely on these Special Rapporteurs,” adding just one sentence later, “It is about the UN human rights system. And therefore, for the Olympic Movement, these UN Special Rapporteurs must be our guides in these efforts.”

What did one of these “guides” say Tuesday?

Amid a 24-page report entitled, “Violence against women and girls in sports,” Jordan’s Reem Alsalem said what the International Boxing Association — which, it would appear, would now seem to be owed an apology by the IOC and, for that matter, much of the media worldwide — has consistently maintained:

“There are circumstances in which sex screenings are, however, necessary, legitimate and proportional in order to ensure fairness and safety in sports.

“For instance, at the 2024 Paris Olympics, female boxers had to compete against two boxers whose sex as females was seriously contested, but the International Olympic Committee refused to carry out a sex screening. 

“Current technology,” she went on, “enables a reliable sex screening procedure through a simple cheek swab that ensures non-invasiveness, confidentiality and dignity.”

Algeria’s Imane Khelif and Yu Ting Lin of Chinese Taipei won gold in Paris. Each took chromosome tests at the 2022 and 2023 IBA women’s world championships — then, after the tests at the 2023 women’s worlds, were DQ’d. Why? The 2023 tests for each depict XY chromosomes — in the words of the lab analysis, “Male karyotype.” The IBA has said the 2023 tests are “absolutely identical” to 2022. 

In early June 2023, the IBA notified the IOC there was something amiss in the Khelif and Lin files. The IOC has consistently sought to dismiss evidence of the 2022 and 2023 tests as unreliable because they came via IBA events.

3 Wire Sports remains the only outlet worldwide that has seen the 2022 and 2023 lab tests. 

Later in June 2023, the IOC expelled the IBA from the Olympic system. The primary point of tension: the IBA president is Russian, Umar Kremlev.

At the Paris Olympics, the IOC, which having banished the IBA itself oversaw women’s boxing, said a passport reading  ‘female’ would meet competition eligibility. Bach declared at a news conference late in the Games, referring to Khelif and Lin:

“We had so-called sex tests until 1999. Then science has told us that they are not reliable anymore. It does not work anymore as it used to work with regard to the chromosomes and with regard to other measurements. And we were also that these kinds of tests can be against human rights because they are too intrusive. The new system has been developed in great agreement with everybody and I think this is since 1999 or 2000 that this system is working and therefore our decision is very clear. Women must be allowed to take part in women’s competitions. The two are women.”

Responding to other Bach remarks on the topic at the same Paris news conference, Alsalem said at the time on Twitter/X she was “very concerned,” asserting women have a “fundamental right” to equality and non-discrimination, and asking this essential question: 

Bach, in the snippet you can watch above from that news conference, said, “We have said from the beginning if somebody is presenting [to] us [a] scientifically solid system how to identify men and women, we are the first ones to do it. We do not like this uncertainty …”

Enter the UN report made final Tuesday and, to be clear, the exact thing the IBA told the IOC 13 or so months before the Paris Games: a simple chromosome test.

World Aquatics, for instance, uses such a test.

The real shock Tuesday was not that Alsalem — her formal title, readily evident in the  Twitter/X bio, is “United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women and Girls” — came out with a report and presented it in New York. An advance unedited version has been out since September 10, the report itself since September 28.

The wonder is that given the close relationship between the IOC and UN, the report says what it does. Further, if there was effort to soften the final version, it  apparently came to naught. 

The language is unusually blunt. Particularly for two institutions given to working together closely.

In her remarks Tuesday, Alsalem proved forthright, too.

Speaking Thursday at UN headquarters, Alsalem said the far-reaching report “highlights the pervasive and systematic violence against women and girls in sport, driven by male-dominated cultures and stereotypes,” adding a moment later in reference to men in the female category, “The intrusion of males in female-only sports undermines integrity and safety.”

From the report: 

“Policies implemented by international federations and national governing bodies, along with national legislation in some countries, allow males who identify as women to compete in female sports categories. In other cases, this practice is not explicitly prohibited and is thus tolerated in practice.”

The result?  “According to information received, by 30 March 2024, over 600 female athletes in more than 400 competitions have lost more than 890 medals in 29 different sports.”

What should be done? 

Again, from the report: “To avoid the loss of a fair opportunity, males must not compete in the female categories of sport.”

On this point, she said Thursday, “Human rights language and principles must continue to be consistent with science and facts …

“Sex must be understood in its ordinary meaning to mean biological sex. And conflating sex and gender identity throughout the creation of a legal sex category has been confusing and problematic.

A moment later, she said, referring to the report and the Paris Games, “I did not actually refer to the names of any athletes, whether in the Paris Olympics or otherwise. What happened at the Paris Olympics could have been avoided and can be avoided if, in the future, the IOC inclusion guidelines recognize that there should be no discrimination based on sex …”

Author: Alan Abrahamson, source 3wiresports.com
Article original link:  https://www.3wiresports.com/articles/2024/10/8/s8rjy7g0cwbrf25khshhmoxwu8rz03

The United Nations overwhelmingly passed a resolution on Wednesday demanding that Israel urgently end its illegal occupation of Palestinian land, a vote that comes just weeks before Israel’s military offensive that has caused a devastating humanitarian crisis in Gaza reaches one year.

Out of the U.N. General Assembly’s 193 member states, 124 of them voted in favor of the resolution presented by the Palestinian mission to the world body. Fourteen states voted against the resolution ― including Israel’s closest ally and primary weapons supplier, the United States ― while 43 states abstained. There are no vetoes in the General Assembly, unlike the 15-member Security Council.

“Please stand on the right side of history, with international law, with freedom, with peace,” Palestinian ambassador Riyad Mansour, who introduced the resolution, told the body on Tuesday. “The alternative is what you witness every day on your TV screens. And what the Palestinian people are enduring in their flesh. A different reality is possible. It starts now, and here. Free Palestine.”

The nonbinding resolution demands that Israel “brings an end without delay its unlawful presence” of occupied Palestinian territories like Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The Israeli government must end its illegal occupation by withdrawing all of its forces and evacuating its settlers from Palestinian land within the next 12 months, according to the draft.

In addition, the resolution calls for Israel to pay reparations to Palestinians for damage accrued by its occupation, and urges member states to impose sanctions on those responsible for maintaining Israel’s presence in the territories, and halt weapons transfers to Israel.

“This is a shameful decision that backs the Palestinian Authority’s diplomatic terrorism,” Israel’s U.N. Ambassador, Danny Danon, said following the vote ― accusing the General Assembly and the Palestinian Authority of being sympathetic to Hamas, whose militants killed about 1,200 people and captured hundreds in Israel nearly one year ago.

Since then, the Israeli military has killed more than 41,000 people in Gaza and rendered the territory virtually unlivable. Aid groups say the collapse of necessary food and medical infrastructure has caused a humanitarian catastrophe, while multiple U.N. member states and human rights experts have described Israel’s ongoing violence as genocidal.

The resolution was drawn from a July advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice that said Israel’s decades-long presence in the Palestinian territories is illegal and must urgently come to a halt. According to the court, Israel violated international law by capturing Palestinian land by force during the 1967 war, giving it no right to sovereignty over the territories.

U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield said that she voted against the “one-sided” resolution because it did not recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization and “will not bring about tangible progress for Palestinians.” The U.S. has unconditionally supplied Israel with weapons and has condemned efforts by the international community to hold the Israeli government accountable.

Palestine is considered a “Permanent Observer State” after the U.N. rejected its request to become a member state in 2011. Having Permanent Observer status allows Palestine to still participate in U.N. proceedings ― except for voting on draft resolutions and decisions in bodies like the Security Council, General Assembly and the six main committees.

In April, Palestine renewed its request to become a member state by sending a letter to Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who forwarded it to the Security Council. The following month, the General Assembly passed a resolution that upgrades Palestine’s observer rights at the body, allowing the state to submit and introduce proposals, make statements on behalf of a group, fully participate in U.N. conferences, and elect delegates of the State of Palestine as officers in the plenary and the main committees of the General Assembly.

Mansour said that peace in the region can only be possible if there is a just, two-state solution to the long-debated Israeli-Palestinian conflict, based on the 1967 borders. And that such a solution cannot be reached if states believe “this is not the right time for such action,” he said.

“I stand on this podium, at this historic and tragic juncture, to tell the Palestinian people that a change is going to come, that their fate is not endless suffering and agony, that freedom is their birthright and their destiny,” Mansour told the General Assembly. “We are not a people too many. We are not a problem. We are a nation that asks for nothing more than your nations, but can accept nothing less.”

The leader of Hezbollah vowed Thursday to keep up daily strikes on Israel despite this week’s deadly sabotage of its members’ communication devices, and said Israelis displaced from homes near the Lebanon border because of the fighting would not be able to return until the war in Gaza ends.

Hezbollah and Israel launched fresh attacks across the border as Hassan Nasrallah spoke for the first time since the mass bombing of devices in Lebanon and Syria that he described as a “severe blow” — and for which he promised to retaliate.

The two days of attacks targeting thousands of Hezbollah pagers and walkie-talkies have been widely blamed on Israel, heightening fears that 11 months of near-daily exchanges of fire between Hezbollah and Israel will escalate into all-out war. Israel has neither confirmed nor denied involvement in the attacks.

During Nasrallah’s speech, Hezbollah struck at least four times in northern Israel, and two Israeli soldiers were killed in a strike earlier in the day. Israeli warplanes flew low over Beirut while Nasrallah spoke and broke the sound barrier, scattering birds and prompting people in houses and offices to quickly open windows to prevent them from shattering.

Israel also launched attacks in southern Lebanon on Thursday, saying it struck dozens of missile launchers and other Hezbollah infrastructure, though it was not immediately clear if there were any casualties.

In recent weeks, Israeli leaders have stepped-up warnings of a potential larger military operation against Hezbollah, saying they are determined to stop the group’s fire to allow tens of thousands of Israelis to return to homes near the border.

In a Thursday briefing, the Israeli defense minister said Hezbollah would “pay an increasing price” as Israel seeks to make conditions near its border with Lebanon safe enough for residents to return.

“The sequence of our military actions will continue,” he said.

The attack on electronic devices appeared to be the culmination of a monthslong operation by Israel to target as many Hezbollah members as possible all at once — but civilians were also hit. At least 37 people were killed, including two children, and some 3,000 wounded in the explosions Tuesday and Wednesday.

Nasrallah said the group is investigating how the bombings were carried out.

“Yes, we were subjected to a huge and severe blow,” he said. “The enemy crossed all boundaries and red lines,” he said. Pointing to the number of pagers and walkie-talkies, he accused Israel of intending to kill thousands of people at one time. “The enemy will face a severe and fair punishment from where they expect and don’t expect.”

He said Hezbollah will continue its barrages into northern Israel as long as the war in Gaza continues, vowing that Israel will not be able to bring its people back to the border region. “The only way is stop the aggression on the people of Gaza and the West Bank,” he said. “Neither strikes, nor assassinations nor an all-out war will achieve that.”

Earlier Thursday, Hezbollah said it had targeted three Israeli military positions near the border, two of them with drones. Israeli hospitals reported eight people lightly or moderately injured.

Hezbollah says its near daily fire is a show of support for Hamas. Israel’s 11-month-old war with Hamas in Gaza began after its militants led the Oct. 7 attack on Israel.

Israel has responded to Hezbollah’s attacks with strikes in southern Lebanon, and has struck senior figures from the group in the capital Beirut. The exchanges have killed hundreds in Lebanon and dozens in Israel and forced the evacuation of tens of thousands of residents on each side of the border.

Israel and Hezbollah have repeatedly pulled back from an all-out war under heavy pressure from the United States, France and other countries.

But in their recent warnings, Israeli leaders have said they are determined to change the status quo dramatically.

Speaking to Israeli troops on Wednesday, Gallant said, “We are at the start of a new phase in the war — it requires courage, determination and perseverance.” He made no mention of the exploding devices but praised the work of Israel’s army and security agencies, saying “the results are very impressive.”

He said that after months of fighting Hamas in Gaza, “the center of gravity is shifting to the north by diverting resources and forces.”

Israel began moving more troops to its border with Lebanon on Wednesday as a precautionary measure, Israeli officials said. Israel’s army chief, Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi, said plans have been drawn up for additional action against Hezbollah, though media reported the government has not yet decided whether to launch a major offensive in Lebanon.

Lebanon is still reeling from the deadly device attacks of Tuesday and Wednesday.

The explosions have rattled anxious Lebanese fearing a full-scale war. The Lebanese Army said it has been locating and detonating suspicious pagers and communication devices, while the country’s civil aviation authorities banned pagers and walkie-talkies on all airplanes departing from Beirut’s international airport until further notice.

The attack was likely to severely disrupt Hezbollah’s internal communication as it scrambles to determine safe means to talk to each other. Hezbollah announced the death of five combatants Thursday, but didn’t specify if they were killed in the explosions or on the front lines.

The blasts went off wherever the holders of the pagers or walkie-talkies happened to be in multiple parts of Beirut and eastern and southern Lebanon — in homes and cars, grocery stores and cafes and on the street, even at a funeral for some killed in the bombings, often with family and other bystanders nearby.

Many suffered gaping wounds on their legs, abdomens and faces or were maimed in the hand. Tuesday’s pager blasts killed 12 people, including two children, and wounded some 2,300 others. The following day’s explosion killed 25 and wounded more than 600, Health Minister Firas Abiad said, giving updated figures.

Abiad told reporters that Wednesday’s injuries were more severe than the previous day as walkie-talkies that exploded were bigger than the pagers. He praised Lebanon’s hospitals, saying they had managed to deal with the flood of wounded within hours. “It was an indiscriminate attack. It was a war crime,” he said.

Israel launched a rare airstrike that killed a senior Hezbollah military official in a densely populated southern Beirut neighborhood on Friday. It was the deadliest such strike on Lebanon’s capital in decades, with Lebanese authorities reporting at least 14 people killed and dozens more wounded in the attack.

The Israeli military’s chief spokesman, Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari, said the strike on Beirut’s southern Dahiya district killed Ibrahim Akil, a commander of Hezbollah’s elite Radwan Force, as well as 10 other Hezbollah operatives.

“We will continue pursuing our enemies in order to defend our citizens, even in Dahiya, in Beirut,” said Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, describing the Israeli strike that targeted Akil as part of “a new phase of war.”

Several hours later, Hezbollah confirmed Akil’s death. In a statement, the Lebanese militant group described Akil as “a great jihadist leader” and said he had “joined the procession of his brothers, the great martyr leaders, after a blessed life full of jihad, work, wounds, sacrifices, dangers, challenges, achievements, and victories.”

Akil served on Hezbollah’s highest military body, the Jihad Council. He was sanctioned by the United States for his alleged involvement in the 1983 bombing that killed more than 300 people at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut and the U.S. Marine Corps barracks.

Last year, the U.S. State Department posted a $7 million reward for information leading to his identification, location, arrest or conviction, citing his role in the embassy bombing and in the taking of American and German hostages in Lebanon in the 1980s.

The strike came as a new cycle of escalation between the enemies raised fears of a full-out war erupting in the Middle East.

Hours before the Israeli strike, Hezbollah pounded northern Israel with 140 rockets as the region awaited the revenge promised by Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah over this week’s mass explosions of pagers belonging to members of the Shiite militant group.

The Israeli military did not provide the identities of the other Hezbollah commanders allegedly killed in its strike on the crowded neighborhood just kilometers from downtown Beirut.

Lebanon’s Health Ministry said at least 14 people were killed and 66 others were wounded in the attack, which leveled the apartment building where the Israeli army claimed Akil had been meeting with other militants in the basement. Nine of the wounded were in serious condition, the ministry added.

Local networks in Lebanon broadcast footage showing first responders sifting through the rubble of a collapsed high-rise in the Jamous area in the heart of Dahiya, where Hezbollah conducts many of its political and security operations.

Friday’s airstrike — the deadliest such attack on a neighborhood of Beirut since Israel and Hezbollah fought a bloody, monthlong war in 2006 — hit during rush hour, as people were leaving work and children heading home from school.

At Beirut’s St. Therese Hospital near the scene of the airstrike, crowds flocked to donate blood for those wounded in the attack.

“We are all together in this situation, so it’s my obligation,” said Hussein Harake, who lined up to donate blood.

From Israel, Gallant said he briefed senior military officials on the strike and vowed Israel would press on against Hezbollah “until we achieve our goal, ensuring the safe return of Israel’s northern communities to their homes.”

The strike came after Hezbollah launched one of its most intense bombardments of northern Israel in nearly a year of fighting, largely targeting Israeli military sites. Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system intercepted most of the Katyusha rockets. The few that got through sparked small fires but caused little damage and no Israeli casualties.

Hezbollah described its latest wave of rocket salvos as a response to past Israeli strikes on southern Lebanon — not as revenge for the mass explosions of Hezbollah pagers and walkie-talkies on Tuesday and Wednesday that killed at least 37 people – including two children – and wounded 2,900 others in attacks widely attributed to Israel.

Israel has neither confirmed nor denied involvement in this week’s sophisticated attacks, which signaled a major escalation in the past 11 months of simmering conflict along the Israel-Lebanon border.

Israel and Hezbollah have traded fire regularly since Hamas’ Oct. 7 assault on southern Israel ignited the Israeli military’s devastating offensive in Gaza. But previous cross-border attacks have largely struck areas in northern Israel that had been evacuated and less-populated parts of southern Lebanon.

The last time Israel hit Beirut was in a July airstrike that killed senior Hezbollah commander Fouad Shukur.

“The attack in Lebanon is to protect Israel,” Hagari said at a news conference following Friday’s strike, describing both Shukr and Akil as the two military officials closest to Hezbollah leader Nasrallah.

Hagari also accused Akil of plotting a series of attacks against Israeli soldiers and civilians dating back decades, including a never-realized plan to invade northern Israel in a similar way to the Hamas-led Oct. 7 attacks.

After Friday’s Israeli airstrike, Hezbollah announced attacks on northern Israel, two of which it said targeted an intelligence base from where it claimed Israel directed assassinations.

Israel remains on edge, with Nasrallah vowing Thursday to keep up strikes on Israel despite the humiliating “blow” he said Hezbollah suffered in the sabotage of its communication devices.

“We are in a tense period,” Hagari told reporters Friday. “We are prepared on high alert both offensively and defensively.”

In recent days, Israel has sent a powerful fighting force to the northern border, designated as an official war goal the return of tens of thousands of displaced residents to their homes in northern Israel and ordered citizens near Israel’s border with Lebanon to stay close to bomb shelters. Hezbollah has maintained that it will only halt its fire when there is a cease-fire in Gaza.

Hamas, which continues to fight Israel in Gaza, condemned the Israeli strike targeting Akil as a “new crime” and “violation of Lebanese sovereignty.”

Even as the world’s attention turns to the surge in Israel-Hezbollah tensions, Palestinian casualties in the besieged Gaza Strip continued to mount.

Palestinian health authorities early Friday reported that 15 people, including children, were killed in Israeli strikes that targeted a family home and a group of people on the street in Gaza City. Israel’s campaign in Gaza has already killed at least 41,000 Palestinians, according to the Gaza-based Health Ministry, which doesn’t differentiate between fighters and civilians.

In response to a request for comment on the latest Gaza strikes, the Israeli military insisted on Friday that it took “feasible precautions to mitigate civilian harm” and accused Hamas of endangering civilians by operating in residential areas.

Israel’s bombardment and invasion of the Gaza Strip — launched in response to Hamas killing 1,200 people and taking 250 hostage in southern Israel on Oct. 7 — has wreaked vast destruction and displaced about 90% of Gaza’s population of 2.3 million.

However, the issue of illiquidity is becoming an increasing concern in this niche industry. As the luxury real estate market evolves, investors are becoming more aware of the challenges involved in quickly converting high-end properties into cash.

This article will explore the factors that contribute to market volatility, as well as the risks and opportunities of buying luxury property under such conditions. Whether you are a seasoned investor or a first-time buyer, this guide aims to provide valuable insights to help you navigate the complexities of purchasing luxury property in uncertain times.

Market Volatility: What is it?

The term “market volatility” refers to the frequency and extent of price fluctuations in the market. It is often driven by a combination of economic factors, such as changes in interest rates, inflation, unstable political environments, and global events. In the context of luxury real estate, volatility can also be influenced by shifts in consumer behavior, technological advancements, and trends within the real estate sector.

• Economic factors. Various economic indicators, such as consumer confidence, employment rates, and GDP growth, significantly impact the real estate market. During uncertain economic periods, luxury property markets may experience more pronounced price swings as buyers and sellers adapt to changing conditions.

• Interest rates. Interest rates directly affect borrowing costs, influencing real estate affordability. Central banks may adjust interest rates in a volatile market to control inflation or stimulate economic growth. These changes can have significant impact on the demand for luxury real estate, particularly among buyers who rely on financing.

• Global events. Unexpected changes in market sentiment can result from global events such as natural disasters, pandemics, or political upheavals. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic caused significant disruptions in global real estate markets, presenting both opportunities and challenges for the luxury market.

• Market sentiment. Consumer confidence and market sentiment are also key contributors to volatility. During uncertain times, buyers may become more cautious, leading to slower sales and potential price declines. Conversely, in optimistic periods, the luxury real estate market might experience rapid price increases.

When investing in luxury real estate, high-net-worth clients often have access to various financing options. Some investors may choose mortgage financing, while others may opt for cash payments.

Risks of Buying Luxury Property in a Volatile Market

Purchasing luxury real estate offers affluent individuals an unique opportunity to diversify their financial portfolios and enjoy exclusive benefits. However, high-net-worth clients must be mindful of the risks and opportunities inherent in this niche market. By developing a thorough understanding of the market, you can maximize potential returns on luxury real estate investments and make well-informed decisions.

There are specific risks associated with buying luxury real estate during periods of market instability that buyers should be aware of. These risks can impact the buyer’s financial status, the value of the property, and the overall performance of the investment.

1. Price fluctuations. One of the biggest risks in an unpredictable market is the potential significant price swings. Luxury properties, due to their higher price points and smaller buyer pool, are often subject to more dramatic changes than other real estate categories. Buying at the peak price may expose buyers to the risk of a market downturn soon after.
2. Liquidity issues. Luxury properties are often less liquid than more affordable homes, making them more difficult to sell, especially in a down market. This lack of liquidity can be a major concern in a volatile market, as buyers may have to hold onto a property longer than anticipated, leading to additional costs.
3. Finance difficulties. Securing financing for luxury properties can be more challenging during uncertain economic times. Lenders may tighten their requirements, demanding higher credit scores or larger down payments. Additionally, fluctuating interest rates can affect the overall cost of the mortgage, increasing the expense of financing a luxury purchase.
4. Economic uncertainty. Broader economic uncertainty can impact the luxury real estate market. Economic downturns can lead to in reduced consumer spending, loss of income, and job losses, all of which can depress property values. Buyers may find that the value of a luxury property declines significantly during such periods.
5. Geopolitical risks. Political instability or changes in governmental regulations can directly affect the luxury real estate market. For example, changes in tax laws, such as increased capital gains or property taxes, can affect the profitability of luxury real estate investments. Foreign buyers may also face additional risks due to shifts in foreign investment restrictions or currency fluctuations.

Despite the risks, a volatile market can also present unique opportunities for savvy investors. By understanding market dynamics and adopting a strategic approach, buyers may capitalize on the volatility to secure attractive deals in the luxury property sector.

Conclusion

Buying luxury property in a volatile market environment is a complex and challenging endeavor,

but it can also be highly rewarding. By understanding the factors that contribute to market volatility, recognizing the associated risks and opportunities, and adopting a strategic approach, buyers can navigate the market with confidence.

If it acts quickly, however, Washington can stem these worrying developments. In February, Beijing invited the world’s nuclear states to negotiate a “no first use” treaty. (The United States, which has more than ten times as many nuclear weapons as China, maintains a first-use option.) After so many rejected advances, the United States should welcome China’s overture to talk. If Beijing is prepared to negotiate in good faith, Washington should respond in kind—and press for a broader arms control agreement.

Washington must engage in tough, even coercive diplomacy, making it clear that Beijing faces a stark choice: participate meaningfully in substantive negotiations or brave a massive U.S.-backed nuclear buildup in its own backyard. And if Chinese leaders decline to do so, Washington could begin discussions with Seoul and Tokyo about nuclear-sharing arrangements, as well as move faster to update and enlarge its own arsenal, channeling investments to its nuclear weapons defense industrial base.

Some observers might object to this tough approach, arguing that it will contribute to nuclear proliferation. But there is an instructive precedent for Washington’s use of coercion to bring states to the arms control negotiating table. In 1983, Washington deployed nuclear-tipped Pershing II missiles in West Germany and ground-launched cruise missiles in Belgium, Italy, and the Netherlands. Rather than prompting escalation, this aggressive move compelled Moscow to engage in diplomacy that led to the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which eliminated all intermediate-range forces from Europe.

Today, Washington should strengthen its missile defenses, and those of its allies, ramp up U.S. deployments of nuclear-armed submarines and nuclear-capable bombers, and pursue nuclear-sharing arrangements with Seoul and Tokyo. Just as such moves drove the Soviet Union to the bargaining table in the past, they could convince China to negotiate in the future.

Conflict has long been a central driver of global hunger. This enduring pattern is on tragic display today in places such as the Gaza Strip, Haiti, and Sudan, where millions of civilians are now on the brink of famine. 

Since Hamas’s October 7 attack on Israel, Russia has enjoyed watching the deteriorating situation in the Middle East preoccupy its main adversary, the United States. On April 13, however, Moscow grew concerned when, in retaliation for an attack on the Damascus consulate of Iran, its growing ally, Tehran launched more than 300 missiles and drones at Israel. Although that attack was effectively neutralized by antimissile defenses and coordinated support from the United States and Arab and Western partners, Israel responded six days later with a strike on an S-300 long-range air defense system in Isfahan, a city deep within Iran.

On July 21, following weeks of intense speculation, U.S. President Joe Biden announced that he would not run in the November 2024 presidential election and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris to take his place. Coming at a time of geopolitical uncertainty, the decision could have large implications for U.S. foreign policy for the remainder of Biden’s term.

To make sense of what Biden’s decision means for the presidency and U.S. world leadership in the weeks to come, Foreign Affairs’ senior editor Hugh Eakin spoke to the presidential historian Timothy Naftali, a faculty scholar at the Institute of Global Politics at Columbia University, the founding director of the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, the author of George H. W. Bush (a volume in the Times Books “American Presidents” series), and the editor of The Presidential Recordings: Lyndon B. Johnson.  

The conversation has been edited for clarity and length.

In his momentous announcement, Biden said that it’s in the best interest of his party in the country for him to focus solely on “fulfilling [his] duties as president for the remainder of [his] term.” I wonder how easy that will be. Will the world, including not only antagonists but also partners and allies, see him as a lame duck?

I actually think that President Biden’s very difficult decision today has restored some of the luster to the American commitment to Ukraine and to stabilizing other parts of the world.

Leaders see power as always in flux. And in the three weeks since the debate, the Biden administration likely found the world more skeptical about U.S. power, in the sense that it seemed more and more likely that former President Donald Trump would beat Joe Biden in the election this fall. And as a result, countries were already gaming what kind of international political environment they would be contending with starting at the end of January, with Biden no longer in the White House.

But there is now a better chance that a Democrat will win in November. And so I’d argue that, for the moment at least, foreign leaders have to take seriously the possibility that a member of Biden’s team or someone else from the Democratic Party will be leading the United States, meaning that they may be able to count on support for Ukraine, for example. Some of that luster may disappear after the beginning of November. But the fact that the Democrats are no longer likely losers, I think will influence the way foreign leaders, particularly American adversaries view the Biden administration.

So to the extent that a likely Trump victory was already baked into the international calculus about the United States, Biden’s announcement forces a very different assessment.

And something else needs to be underscored here. Not since the early 1950s, when the internationalist General Dwight Eisenhower won the contest for the soul of the Republican Party over the isolationist Senator Robert Taft, have the two parties presented such fundamentally different worldviews with regard to America’s place in international affairs. Since 1952, both parties have been internationalist in their outlook. President Trump in his first term was an exception, but the Republican Party that he led was divided on this issue. 

As the recent Republican convention demonstrated, Trump has now refashioned the party completely in his own image. His choice of Senator J. D. Vance as his running mate, for example, didn’t represent an attempt to bridge different points of view, but a doubling down of Trumpism. And so were he to return to power—were he to regain the White House, and Republicans to hold the House and regain the Senate—foreign leaders, friends and foes alike, could anticipate a much more isolationist America. So the fact that now the internationalist party has an improved chance to win, will necessarily alter the calculations of foreign leaders. [Russian President] Vladimir Putin can no longer be certain that he can outlast the American commitment to European stability and to the sovereignty of Ukraine.

On the matter of antagonists, however, the United States is closely involved in two major wars, in Europe and the Middle East, and dealing with complicated issues in Asia and elsewhere. Does this announcement come at a perilous moment?

Oh, yes. It’s a perilous moment when the national strategy of a great power is so in question that an election could alter the country’s, or at least its leadership class’s, definition of the national interest. And it’s especially perilous for the international system when the country in question is a superpower. This situation introduces an uncertainty into the political calculations of every leader. It is very rare for an election to decide how the power elite of a nation defines its national interest. And it’s almost unheard of that this should happen for a great power.

During the Cold War, the two parties in the United States disagreed on the means by which to fight the Cold War, particularly in the Vietnam and post-Vietnam era. But they didn’t disagree on the fact that the United States faced a determined adversary and that national security entailed playing a role in defending, protecting, and encouraging regional and international stability. That consensus doesn’t exist anymore across the two parties.

Comparisons are naturally being made with President Lyndon Johnson’s March 1968 announcement that he would not run again. And many have noted that Biden’s decision is coming much later, in late July. But from a foreign policy point of view, it seems that actually, it’s early: we still have six months of the presidency left. What are the real possibilities in terms of what Biden can do during this time?

President Biden can ensure the continuation of the systems that are below the surface that are helping American allies around the world. If Trump is elected, we don’t know what will happen to intelligence cooperation, for example, not only with Ukraine but also with NATO allies and allies in East Asia. We don’t know what will happen to the training that our military is doing to assist allies of freedom around the world. 

All these processes, though they don’t get a lot of attention, matter for the stability of the world. And they don’t usually need special acts of Congress to be sustained; they just need a stable center in the Oval Office, and [under Biden] that’s been guaranteed. Adversaries are very sensitive to the continuation of those activities. It’s these day-to-day activities of the United States that are often the most alarming to them and most reassuring to our allies. International problems are rarely easy to solve, but they can be managed, and it’s that gardening, if you will, that American foreign national security policy makers need to do every day to be effective. 

And so the gardening can continue.

With the president in office focused on American internationalism, that’s a good thing for American allies. It gives them some predictive capacity about what they can expect from the United States between now and the 20th of January. And it’s a terrible thing for American adversaries, who know they are going to have to put up with a lot of American activities in support of aims that they don’t share.

What about the larger Biden record? Inevitably, one thinks of what happened at the end of the Obama administration and Trump coming to office setting out to undo so many of the major Obama policy initiatives. Are there specific ways that Biden can Trump-proof some of his own accomplishments?

By stepping aside, Biden is doing the most important thing that he can do at this point to Trump-proof the United States, in terms of our national security. As the Supreme Court just reminded us, the U.S. president has enormous authority to direct our foreign policy. And so the choice of the next president is so important. Even if Trump were to beat the ultimate Democratic nominee, Biden’s accomplishments in foreign policy might not all completely dissolve. Were Trump not to score a trifecta, and retain the House as well as win the Senate, one might see some pushback from Congress if a future President Trump and Vice President [J. D.] Vance were to try to dramatically rescind American activities abroad and sacrifice Ukraine to the wolf in the Kremlin. 

So how to Trump-proof our international stature will depend on which party the American people choose to lead the two houses of Congress. If Democrats control the House, they would complicate Trump’s efforts, for example, to shut down support for Ukraine. Trump could still veto a bill, but there may be the votes to overturn that veto. There will still be Republican senators and Republican members of the House who will want to vote for aid for Ukraine. So, if the Democrats control the House, Congress might be able to pass assistance packages for Ukraine and Israel, despite Trump’s being in the White House.

As a result of this decision, does Biden in fact have a chance to try to shape his legacy, given the timing and that there is a definite endpoint ahead? Are there useful historical analogies for what presidents have done in these final months?

Well, this will be an unusual late presidency because of how this new period we’ve just entered started. In 1968, Johnson attempted to combine two very difficult decisions as a way of strengthening his legacy and improving the well-being of the United States. At the same time that he said in March 1968 he would not be a candidate for reelection in November, he announced a serious commitment to negotiating a way out of the Vietnam War. In that way, he made clear that he was devoting his late presidency to an issue of foreign policy. 

Biden might view his remaining months in office as an opportunity to do something similar in the Middle East. But the current crisis in the Middle East is hardly a parallel to the US policy failure in Vietnam. The United States is not a direct combatant in Israel’s war with Hamas. It has to work through an ally, Israel. So there isn’t a direct parallel to Johnson, who said to the world, and particularly to Hanoi and Moscow and Beijing, “Take me seriously” in seeking a diplomatic off-ramp from the war in Vietnam. “I’m no longer playing politics. I’m out of politics.” I don’t see there being a direct parallel for Biden, and that’s OK. 

History provides us with echoes, but rarely does it repeat itself; the circumstances of each case are almost always very different though the dilemmas they raise can seem similar. The people, the political culture—those can be similar, the individuals can be similar. But history isn’t a crystal ball. There are unique elements to Biden’s decision that should be appreciated—and should be a source of some humility in trying to figure out what’s going to happen next.

From a historical perspective, is there something you see as particularly striking about the decision and how it happened?

In trying to follow from afar the discussions going on in Wilmington [Delaware, where the president was at his family home, isolated with COVID and struggling to decide what to do], it seemed that Biden was in part a prisoner to an unfortunate American tradition. This is the idea that only by winning a second term is the president of the United States validated. In the 1840s, James K. Polk made clear that he was seeking only one, very consequential term. Modern presidents, however, have treated their re-election as a referendum on their first terms, when the campaign would be better suited as a test of what they have to offer in a second term.

Presidents should be allowed to rise to greatness in our history simply by serving one term. The moment and the individual can coalesce and that moment may last only four years. George H. W. Bush is a good example. He was supremely qualified and had the right tools to manage the end of the Cold War and the first years of what followed. Yet he didn’t want to be just a one-term president. As a result, when he was defeated in 1992, he left office feeling depressed as if he had somehow failed as president, despite his one term having been so consequential and important. Gerald Ford was another excellent one-term president.

Biden’s one-term presidency is destined to be viewed very positively. How positively will ultimately depend on whether a Democratic successor, whether it’s Kamala Harris or not, is elected in November. But not all of his legacy depends on a Democratic victory in November. He brought us out of Trumpian chaos. He restored America’s role in the world, restored the trust of allies. He pushed adversaries away from goals they were hoping to achieve. Without anything like the majorities of FDR or LBJ, his deft touch with Congress led to a deepening of the social safety net, brought technology to bear in the problem of climate change without sacrificing American jobs, and made a generational commitment to American infrastructure. 

In sum, the president has had a successfully consequential term. Unfortunately, he felt that he alone could prevent Trump from returning to the White House and so sought reelection. But sadly, he didn’t have enough in the tank. It was his own body that defined that his moment had passed. I hope that with time he comes to view his term differently, just as I believe George H. W. Bush did, as one that was extraordinarily successful and a blessing for our country.

This year, films representing five continents and 39 countries (Russia, Italy, Turkey, India, Australia, China, Spain, USA, Tunisia, South Korea, Taiwan, Iran, etc.) became participants in the film festival. The festival program included works of different genres and issues, but with one cross-cutting theme – families, the lives of modern children and parents in different parts of the globe.

During the opening ceremony of the festival, a welcoming telegram from the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, was read to its guests and participants. The Russian leader is convinced that the festival is expecting a big success in the family year. According to him, the increased interest in the event is ensured by specialists and the wider public. The key to success will be interesting premieres, as well as a warm, welcoming atmosphere.

The social network “Odnoklassniki” hosted the online broadcast of the festival’s most important events. Over 2.5 million festival broadcasts have been recorded on the platform.

It is a travel guidebook that features eco-friendly and comfortable holiday destinations in Russia. Its main purpose is to promote ecotourism and to help tourists find the most picturesque corners, interesting routes and regional attractions, accredited hotels, and real farm products.

The guide is the first such experience in Russia and emphasizes a “green” concept with easy navigation and up-to-date, structured information.

The guidebook is developed based on careful planning and attitude to nature and the environment, with everything selected by experts and checked for compliance with environmental principles.

Alexander Lvovsky, Head of the Moscow office of ROSSA RAKENNE SPB: “Our company in love with nature. For many years we have been working on wood – a unique building material, thanks to which you join a new, healthy lifestyle. Many of our clients are true followers of wildlife, clean air and eco-friendly recreation. We believe that everyone who uses the advice of the Green Guide will see Russia in fresh colors, discover unexpected routes, and look at iconic places in a different way.”

Anastasia Fetisova, Head of the project Green Travel Guide, ARCHIWOOD marketing lead, notes: “We have experienced the philosophy of eco-style of life, which is chosen by more and more people around the world. Beautiful nature, comfort of country hotels, real farm products help modern people to slow down the pace and get a taste of real life. The development of ecotourism is now one of the priority areas, so we try to inspire and support entrepreneurs working in this area.”

WHERE TO GO?

Untouched corners of nature, breathtaking views of extraordinary beauty, silence and harmony, precious moments alone with yourself… The Green Guide will feature dozens of ecological routes. All of them are distinguished by a well-thought-out concept and logistics, safety and comfortable living conditions.

Currently, the share of ecotourism in the global tourism market is already about 20%. This direction of the tourist industry is becoming one of the leading ones in our country. Russia has a unique natural heritage, based on its the territories represent almost all the climatic zones of the planet – from Arctic to subtropical. The landscapes are so diverse and amazing that 11 sites are included in the UNESCO World Heritage

The deepest lake on the planet and the largest freshwater lake on the continent is Lake Baikal. Deep mountain rivers, mysterious caves and rocks covered with legends, cedar forests in the Altai. The land of countless lakes – Karelia, whales, ocean, fjords, pristine nature and absolute exoticism in Chukotka. Mountain ranges with caves, underground rivers and lakes, picturesque sea coast, relict forests and parks of the Crimea. Majestic mountains of the Caucasus. Harsh beauty and the pursuit of the northern Lights in the Arctic. Huge glittering glaciers, polar bears and reindeer, underwater volcanoes and Arctic climate mysteries.

WHERE TO LIVE?

Contrary to popular belief, an ecological trip can be not only beautiful and unusual, but also quite comfortable. For accommodation, tourists are offered premium eco-hotels that have passed the accreditation of ROSSA RAKENNE SPB and ARCHIWOOD. At the service of travelers are premium hotels and guest houses that meet the requirements of our company: a harmonious combination with the natural environment, natural materials, soft colors, maximum convenience.

WHERE TO EAT?

Ecotourism is the road to human health. This means that the food should be appropriate. The menu of our tourists includes only natural, farm products and national cuisine. Also, no one canceled the fish soup cooked on a campfire in camping conditions, or meat cooked on a spit in the Caucasus mountains. During the eco-trip, tourists will learn about the production of Adyghe cheese and local southern wines, taste real Siberian dumplings, Ossetian pies, kulebyaku and khinkali, taste the freshest Kamchatka crabs, as well as Russian tinctures and mead, visit apiaries. The routes will include restaurants with unique cuisine for a particular region. Russia – one of the most multinational countries in the world. About 200 nations live on the territory of the country, each of them is proud of its own traditions. All these peoples are united by one thing – hospitality and cordiality.

WHY ARCHIWOOD?

ARCHIWOOD is the most authoritative and remarkable project in the sphere of Russian timber architecture.ARCHIWOOD Contest for the best log homes and wooden structures was established in 2009.The Award is held annually – among the participants are the objects that are built up on the territory of the Russian Federation during a year, or those that are created abroad in case a Russian architect is involved. The professional jury is formed from the leading architects and architectural critics on representation of the members of the Advisory Council. The unique experience of the Award, acquired by years of existence, became the basis of an absolutely new structure – ARCHIWOOD business community. The union of the best Russian and foreign architects, builders and house manufacturers in one team contributes to the complex solution of any complicated task. First of all, it refers to the construction of a modern country house.

The future plans of the guide’s creators include the release of special eco-maps of the traveler with discounts and bonuses, the development of a mobile application, and the launch of an Internet portal.

The Olympic movement has had too many controversial moments in its history, such as when it was the mouthpiece of Nazism at the 1936 Berlin Games, with Adolf Hitler in the stands, although the image of the American Jesse Owens raising his fist in front of the Nazi leader after winning the 100m has gone down in history. 

Boycotts and the politicisation of sport

The US-led bloc boycott of the 1980 Moscow Games and the US and Commonwealth-led reaction to the 1984 Los Angeles Games remain anecdotal in the face of the new situation in which the Olympic body itself vetoes countries over non-sporting issues such as Russia and Belarus. 

The very rapid reaction of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to the war between Russia and Ukraine contrasts with the Thomas Bach-led organisation’s lukewarm attitude to the armed conflict between Israel and Palestine, Israel’s indiscriminate bombing of embassies, Iran’s response with two dozen missiles and drones, or the bombing between the United States and the Houthis in Yemen.

The International Olympic Committee has become another actor on the political scene, like the UN, NATO, the European Union or the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan). Wouldn’t Baron Pierre de Coubertin have dreamed of an embrace between a Ukrainian and a Russian athlete? Or between an Israeli and a Palestinian? In this objective of depoliticising sport, the International Olympic Committee has failed miserably, especially during the ‘pranked’ “Bach era”. 

Umar Kremlev, a pioneer

The other major problem is economic. In a context where fewer and fewer countries and cities want to organise the Olympic Games, the question of amateurism has been left behind since the basketball ‘Dream Team’ of the United States, with Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Scottie Pippen, Karl Malone, Larry Bird or John Stockton, marvelled at the Barcelona Games. It was the triumph of professionalism at the Olympic Games. 

The question that has been asked for some time is this. If the Olympic Games are no longer professional, why is all the money going to the Olympic committees, with the IOC at the top, of course? Huge advertising contracts exploiting the image of the real protagonists, hundreds of executives living like royalty for almost three weeks in five-star hotels with four-figure daily allowances and television revenues that could feed entire countries. Well, those who see the money least are the athletes themselves, in a situation reminiscent of the gladiators in the Colosseum in ancient Rome. 

In this scenario, Umar Kremlev, president of the International Boxing Federation (IBA), is very clear that the athlete must be at the centre of attention, which is why he has decided to professionalise amateur boxing, which has caused a storm in some institutions. The Olympic Games, which, strangely enough, already allow professional boxers to take part. 

“We must be able to feed our families and make money from boxing. I can state categorically that the IBA should invest in boxing and not make money from it. We must continue to prove through our actions that boxing is not only a sport to be practised for health and fitness, but that it is also a means of advancement for many, it can even be a career,” he stressed, outlining the organisation’s new goals. 

And… what about the athletes? Former world boxing champion Roy Jones Jr., for example, has a clear opinion. “I am really pleased to see the great work the IBA is doing. The athletes feel safe and secure in the IBA. With more prize money, they will be able to achieve more, train harder and deliver more spectacular fights,” said the American. 

Coe announces economic awards for Paris 2024

This war against the IBA is even threatening the continuity of one of the most emblematic sports of an Olympic Games in the programme, by a IOC led by septagenarians who have curiously adopted the ‘Millennium’ T-shirt featuring breakdancing in the Paris 2024 programme as their latest contribution, while some members of the IOC are in favour of including e-sports in the Olympic movement. The biggest, fastest and strongest of Coubertain… but let a puppet do it all on screen. 

The decision by Kremlev and the IOC to reward athletes financially tasted like burning horns to Thomas Bach and company, but the new order now comes not from a Russian but from a British lord who dreams of succeeding the German at the helm of the IOC: Sebastian Coe. 

The President of World Athletics was as skilful as he was individualistic. Overnight, and without consulting anyone, the two-time Olympic champion announced that in Paris in 2024 the Olympic champions in each athletics event will receive $50,000 (€46.647), a prize that will be retained in Los Angeles in 2028, with an additional $30,000 (€27,988) for the runners-up and $20,000 for the bronze medallists, a total of $2.4 million (€2.24 million). 

Many athletes back Coe’s decision

Instead, athletes backed Seb Coe’s idea. Norway’s Karlsten Warholm, the reigning Olympic champion and world record holder in the 400m hurdles, was quoted by AFP as saying: “To be honest, anything that’s offered in terms of a prize is good for the athletes, it’s motivation, so it’s very important that it recognises this changing landscape”. 

Qatar’s Mutaz Essa Barhim, high jump gold medallist at Tokyo 2020, agrees with the Scandinavian. “Anything that’s offered in terms of a prize is good for the athletes, it’s motivation. These athletes work really hard and make sacrifices and this kind of prize is very important. The prize money in athletics can’t be compared to football or basketball, for example,” he said. 

Was Kremlev right? Will the IOC take action against Coe and his World Athletics as it did against the IBA? Absolutely not, and this is where the first premise of the politicisation of the Olympics becomes important. Kremlev is Russian and Coe is British. A gentleman who, if he succeeds in his balancing act, could preside over the IOC itself. There he would have confirmation of his good management of the London 2012 Olympics, where he was president of the organising committee. 

If the Games are the great economic business on which the entire Olympic movement lives (and does very well) on a global scale, and if they have almost completely lost the amateur character that made them magical, including Neymar, Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo, why not give their success to the athletes whose image pays for the whole party? 

Criticised by international federations

Sebastian Coe’s decision has come as a blow to most international sports federations. The ANOCA (Association of National Olympic Committees of Africa) has described his manoeuvre as “repugnant” and this balance to reach the top of the IOC could be damaged by these hate attacks. 

The Association of International Olympic Federations (ASOIF), chaired by Francesco Ricci Bitti, also commented on the controversial issue. “In recent days, ASOIF members have expressed several concerns regarding the announcement made by World Athletics. This move undermines the values of Olympism and the uniqueness of the Games. You cannot and should not put a price on an Olympic gold medallist and in many cases, Olympic medallists benefit indirectly from commercial sponsorship. This ignores the less privileged athletes,” said the Italian. 

What are these federations afraid of? That the snowball will get bigger and they will be forced to pay the athletes? Will Coe be right in the end? If so, Kremlev will not be the devil the IOC thinks he is, but a visionary who understood better than anyone else that if you want to squeeze the athletes, you have to pay them for what they do. 

Footballers with contracts worth over €10 million give up almost three weeks of their career to the IOC and live in an English bed and breakfast in the Olympic Village. Doesn’t anyone understand that this is nonsense? How much money did the IOC make, directly or indirectly, from Neymar’s presence at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games with ticket sales, television rights and image rights? How much money did the Brazilian player receive? 

Inequalities between athletes

Another important detail is a profound inequality, as the IOC does not reward Olympic champions financially, thus preserving the original spirit of the ancient Games. It is the various national organisations that do this, creating significant differences between countries. Far from promoting equality, an American Olympic champion can receive many times more for a gold medal than one from a developing country. Or some may receive nothing at all

For example, Spain’s three Olympic gold medals at Tokyo 2020 were distributed as follows: karate fighter Sandra Sánchez (kata) and rock climber Alberto Ginés (combined) received a total of 94,000 euros, while the shooting team of Fátima Gálvez and Alberto Fernández (mixed team trap) took home €75,000 each. Had a team won gold, each member would have received €50,000. 

The coaches of the champions will also be rewarded. They will receive 10% of each medal won by their athletes, i.e. €9,400 euros for gold, €4,800 euros for silver and €3,000 euros for bronze, from which the taxes applicable in their country of residence will be deducted, as these are non-tax-exempt economic amounts. 

Spain is in the lower middle of the world rankings in terms of prize money, ahead of countries such as the United States (€31,600 for each gold medal, €19,000 for silver and €12,650 for bronze), but far behind the €622,400 that Singapore receives for its gold medals alone, followed by Taiwan (€603,000 euros) and Indonesia (€291,807 euros), as reported by Expansion in an article published after the last Olympic Games.