Your cart is currently empty!
Tag: War
Opinion | Trump’s Gaza Deal: War Crimes in Exchange for Beachfront Property
Trump’s proposition, the pundit Amit Segal said on Israel’s Channel 12, is “not 100 percent what Netanyahu wants — it’s 200 percent.” Until now, Israeli politicians who publicly discussed such ideas risked American blowback. Joe Biden’s administration was shamefully unwilling to restrain Netanyahu, but it did rebuke far-right Israeli ministers when they fantasized about building Jewish settlements in Gaza. The Palestinians, Biden’s secretary of state, Antony Blinken, said last year, “cannot, and they must not, be pressed to leave Gaza.” Netanyahu had to at least pretend to agree, insisting that it wasn’t “realistic” to talk about settling Gaza.
It might seem more realistic to him now. On Thursday, Trump wrote on Truth Social, his social media site, “The Gaza Strip would be turned over to the United States by Israel at the conclusion of fighting,” after Palestinians had “already been resettled in far safer and more beautiful communities, with new and modern homes, in the region.” Never mind that under the terms of the cease-fire he takes credit for, fighting is supposed to be over now. Trump seems to be offering Israel a deal: The U.S. will countenance the ethnic cleansing of Gaza so long as America gets a prime piece of oceanfront property at the end of it.
So far, of course, both Israel and the United States have spoken of the removal of Palestinians from Gaza as if it would be voluntary. No doubt some Palestinians would choose to leave the land that Israel has made uninhabitable if they had a decent alternative, which they don’t. (One Israeli news site reported that among the destinations being considered for Palestinians are Puntland and Somaliland, two regions of Somalia.) But many of the enclave’s nearly more than two million people, seared by a history of dispossession, are determined to stay put. Driving them out would be a war crime. It could not be accomplished without atrocity.
Republicans may brush off Trump’s words as nothing but audacious spitballing, but by opening the door to a Gaza without Palestinians, Trump has already made the world more brutal and unstable. Right now, Israel and Hamas are supposed to be negotiating Phase 2 of their cease-fire agreement, which is meant to lead to a permanent cessation of fighting, the release of the remaining live hostages, and the withdrawal of Israeli forces. But the Israeli delegation has yet to leave for Qatar to participate in talks, and now Trump has removed an important incentive for Hamas to set the hostages free. Why would Hamas release them, asked Samuel Heilman in The Times of Israel, “when at the end of the process they will neither have control of Gaza back nor any hope of a Palestinian sovereign state?”
There’s an idea floating around that even if Trump’s plan is unworkable, he deserves credit for recognizing that the status quo is untenable. “Trump picks up on a real problem, about how to reconstruct Gaza,” the British academic Lawrence Freedman told The New York Times. But there’s nothing admirable about tossing off absurd and impossible solutions to intractable dilemmas. If smart people are convincing themselves otherwise, it suggests to me a desperation to find rationality where there is none.
In recent news, President Trump has announced a controversial deal regarding the Gaza Strip that has sparked outrage and condemnation from human rights organizations around the world. The deal, which involves the exchange of beachfront property in Gaza for what many are calling war crimes, has been met with skepticism and concern.Critics of the deal argue that it sets a dangerous precedent for international diplomacy, as it essentially rewards and legitimizes the use of violence and human rights abuses as a means to achieve political goals. By offering beachfront property in exchange for committing war crimes, President Trump is sending a dangerous message that such actions will be tolerated and even rewarded on the world stage.
Furthermore, this deal undermines the rights and dignity of the Palestinian people, who have long been subjected to violence and oppression at the hands of the Israeli government. By condoning and rewarding such actions, the Trump administration is complicit in perpetuating the cycle of violence and injustice that has plagued the region for decades.
It is crucial that the international community condemns this deal and holds all parties accountable for their actions. We cannot allow war crimes to be used as bargaining chips in political negotiations, and we must stand up for the rights and dignity of all people, regardless of their nationality or political affiliation.
In conclusion, President Trump’s Gaza deal is a dangerous and reckless move that only serves to further destabilize the region and perpetuate human rights abuses. It is imperative that we speak out against this deal and demand justice for the Palestinian people who have suffered for far too long.
Tags:
- Trump Gaza deal
- War crimes exchange
- Beachfront property
- Middle East conflict
- United States foreign policy
- Gaza Strip agreement
- Human rights violations
- International relations
- Trump administration decisions
- Palestinian rights
#Opinion #Trumps #Gaza #Deal #War #Crimes #Exchange #Beachfront #Property
Peter Navarro Is One of Trump’s Most Faithful Allies. Now He’s Getting His Trade War.
This story is part of a series exploring the backgrounds and agendas of the players — the well known names and behind-the-scenes operators alike — who will wield power in Trump’s second term.
Years before Peter Navarro went to prison for contempt of Congress, he was already known for his contempt for Congress.
Throughout Donald Trump’s first term, lawmakers often left meetings with Navarro — the president’s trade attack dog — uncertain of the new administration’s strategic endgame. They were hearing concerns from companies in their districts about Trump’s tariffs on imports from America’s allies, which were causing higher prices and threatening jobs. Could someone explain, they wondered, why paying more for steel and aluminum from Canada and Mexico was necessary for national security?
Rep. Warren Davidson shared apprehensions like those in a meeting with Navarro, but it left him frustrated. It was “a complete waste of time,” he recalled in a recent interview with NOTUS.
Peter Navarro, the White House trade adviser, has been one of President Trump’s most loyal and steadfast allies since the beginning of his administration. Navarro has been a vocal advocate for Trump’s tough stance on trade, particularly with China, and has been instrumental in shaping the administration’s trade policies.Now, Navarro is finally getting his trade war. Trump’s recent announcement of tariffs on steel and aluminum imports has been met with widespread criticism and has sparked fears of a trade war with major trading partners. But Navarro remains undeterred, defending the tariffs as necessary to protect American industries and jobs.
Despite facing backlash from both Democrats and Republicans, Navarro continues to stand by Trump’s side, unwavering in his support for the president’s trade agenda. As the trade war heats up, Navarro’s influence within the administration is only likely to grow, solidifying his position as one of Trump’s most trusted allies.
Love him or hate him, there’s no denying that Peter Navarro is a key player in Trump’s trade war strategy. Only time will tell if his unwavering loyalty will pay off in the end.
Tags:
- Peter Navarro
- Trump administration
- Trade war
- U.S. trade policy
- China tariffs
- Economic advisor
- Navarro tariffs
- Trade negotiations
- White House trade advisor
- Trade policy analyst
#Peter #Navarro #Trumps #Faithful #Allies #Hes #Trade #War
U.S. and Russia in ‘Serious’ Discussions About Ukraine War, Trump Says
U.S. President Donald Trump said Sunday that members of his administration are already in talks with Russian authorities about ending Moscow’s war on Ukraine.
“We will be speaking, and I think we’ll perhaps do something that’ll be significant,” Trump told reporters at the White House. “We want to end that war,” he said, referring to the conflict in Ukraine.
Trump did not specify which members of his administration were in talks with Russian officials or describe the nature of those conversations, only saying that “we are having discussions… already talking, yes.”
When asked whether he had personally spoken to Russian President Vladimir Putin over the phone, Trump told reporters: “I don’t want to say that.”
“We are having very serious discussions about that war. We’re trying to get it ended,” the U.S. president said.
Trump also repeated past claims that Russia would not have launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine had he been in office, claims that Putin repeated last month in an interview with Russian state media.
Earlier, Trump’s Ukraine envoy Keith Kellogg told Fox News that both Kyiv and Moscow would need to make concessions in talks to end the war.
“I think both sides will give a little bit,” Kellog said in an interview, suggesting that both Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Putin would “soften” their positions about territorial claims.
Russian forces occupy large swaths of land in eastern and southern Ukraine, and Moscow annexed the Crimean peninsula in 2014. Ukrainian troops, meanwhile, have controlled parts of Russia’s southwestern Kursk region since August.
On the campaign trail, before he won the U.S. presidential election in November, Trump boasted that he could end the war in Ukraine before taking office. However, the White House is now reportedly working on a “100-day peace plan” for bringing an end to the conflict.
Putin said last month that he was ready to meet with Trump to discuss the war in Ukraine, as well as other “areas of interest to both the U.S. and Russia.”
In a recent statement, former President Donald Trump revealed that the United States and Russia are engaged in ‘serious’ discussions regarding the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Trump, who has maintained close ties with Russian President Vladimir Putin, expressed optimism about the potential for a peaceful resolution to the war.The conflict in Ukraine, which has been ongoing since 2014, has resulted in thousands of deaths and has caused significant tensions between Russia and Western countries. Trump’s announcement of discussions between the U.S. and Russia comes as a glimmer of hope for a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
While details of the discussions have not been disclosed, Trump’s statement indicates that both countries are actively working towards finding a solution to the conflict. The former President’s involvement in these discussions highlights his continued influence in international affairs, even after leaving office.
As the situation in Ukraine continues to escalate, the world will be watching closely to see how these discussions between the U.S. and Russia unfold. The potential for a peaceful resolution to the conflict remains uncertain, but Trump’s announcement signals a step in the right direction.
Tags:
- U.S. Russia discussions
- Ukraine war
- Trump statement
- International relations
- Political news
- Conflict resolution
- Diplomatic talks
- Geopolitical tensions
- Foreign policy negotiations
- U.S. Russia relations
#U.S #Russia #Discussions #Ukraine #War #Trump
Donald Trump is waging a very public war on Jerome Powell—so why hasn’t he picked up the phone?
-
Analysis: President Trump’s one-sided war against the Fed doesn’t show any signs of abating. And yet Federal Open Market Committee Chairman Jerome Powell says he hasn’t had any contact with the new occupant of the White House.
Even before President Donald Trump got the keys to the White House, he was repeatedly attacking the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) and its chairman, Jerome Powell. Yet now that he’s in the Oval Office, the commander in chief hasn’t even picked up the phone.
Trump has variously said he would fire Powell (the man he himself appointed), then declared he would allow Powell to finish his tenure if he complied with Trump’s desires.
Most recently he blamed the Fed for inflation, writing on his social media platform, Truth Social, that it spends too much time on issues such as “DEI, gender ideology, ‘green’ energy, and fake climate change.”
But despite the public dunking, it seems Trump hasn’t taken the fight directly to Powell. “I’ve had no contact,” Powell responded when questioned by reporters this week if he had spoken with the president.
The public lambasting may simply be a case of Trump signaling to his supporters that he is intensely focused on inflation. Price rises dominated the political rhetoric in the run-up to the election with the Republican politician promising to bring grocery prices “way down.”
The message resonated well with voters. After all, 41% of Americans named inflation as their top economic issue heading into the November elections, according to a Bankrate study of more than 2,000 people.
Voters also elected Trump because they believed he would handle the economy better than his rival Kamala Harris. In a Gallup survey of more than 900 registered voters, 54% trusted Trump with the economy while 45% sided with Harris.
So President Trump’s mandate to bring down prices is clear—and yet he hasn’t picked up the phone or driven across Washington, D.C., to meet with the man who directly influences the metric.
That may be because on some level, he knows he can’t.
Importance of Fed independence
What has surprised—and in some cases appalled—economists about Trump’s attempts to influence the Fed is that this tactic has not worked out well in the past.
The fundamental point of having an independent central bank—mandated to keep inflation at a base level of 2% and maximize employment—is that it is not beholden to the whims of politicians who revolve in and out of power once every four or five years.
The FOMC’s goals look to the long-term prosperity of the economy, not to manipulate its health twice a decade in order to install a certain individual in the Oval Office.
Powell has been clear on this, telling reporters back in September: “This is my fourth presidential election at the Fed, and it’s always the same.
“We’re always going into this meeting and asking, ‘What’s the right thing to do for the people we serve?’ … That’s always what it is, it’s never about anything else. Nothing else is discussed.”
A quick look at the history books is a reminder of why Fed independence is so critical.
In the 1970s, when President Richard Nixon was seeking reelection, he said of then–Fed Chairman Arthur Burns: “I respect his independence. However, I hope that independently he will conclude that my views are the ones that should be followed.”
Chairman Burns proceeded to follow the not-so-subtle hint, which in turn led to a period of stagflation—a possibility which still keeps the likes of JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon awake at night.
The Fed and democracy
In Trump’s continued baiting of the Fed, it might seem that any response from Chairman Powell is a bite.
But the Fed boss—and his peers—are aware that they are ultimately accountable to the public. Outright ignoring Uncle Sam’s democratically elected leader may not be the best way to demonstrate this.
The “elected vs. appointed” argument is one Vice President JD Vance has made himself—while conveniently overlooking the fact that President Trump brought in Powell in his first administration.
Vance told CNN’s Dana Bash last summer: “Agree or disagree, we should have America’s elected leaders having input about the most important decisions confronting the country.
“It would be a huge change, but whether the country goes to war, what our interest rates are, these are important questions that American democracy should have important answers for.”
Public accountability is a topic Fortune has put to multiple Fed presidents.
The leader of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Austan Goolsbee, explained: “Central banks should be held accountable for their actions. And they are. The evidence of what happened during the COVID times, in my view, [is that] there’s a lot of public accountability on the central banks—not just in the United States but everywhere—and that’s totally fine.
“That’s a completely different issue than: ‘Do elections drive monetary policy decisions?’”
Likewise Boston Fed President Susan Collins highlighted the fundamental target of her work is to improve the lives of American households. She told Fortune: “It’s important for people to understand the role of the FOMC or monetary policy at the Federal Reserve because of the importance of price stability and maximum employment for people’s everyday lives.
“It impacts individuals and their families and the communities that they live in. It impacts micro firms [and] individual entrepreneurs all the way up to our global multinational corporations. In order to have an environment that sustains rising living standards for our citizens, sustaining a low stable inflation and an environment with maximum employment really matters for all of us.
“That is what the FOMC is charged by Congress to do. That’s our job.”
Indeed Powell said he and his FOMC peers would be seeking “new ideas and critical feedback” from the public this year especially, as the group holds its five-year review of its monetary policy strategy.
“Our review will again include outreach and public events involving a wide range of parties, including Fed Listens events around the country and a research conference in May,” Powell said on Jan. 29 in his post–Fed meeting press conference.
Don’t spook the markets
Usually the Fed and the Treasury can expect to enjoy a fairly cozy relationship. Weekly breakfast meetings are the standard, Powell told the New York Times DealBook Summit last year—though whether the tradition will be adopted by new Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent remains to be seen.
And while the FOMC may deliberately ignore the behests of Wall Street, it also won’t want to upset the markets to the point of tipping them into a downward spiral—putting both jobs and prices at risk as a result.
Already analysts are hedging their bets on the tension between Trump and Powell. As UBS chief economist Paul Donovan said in an update on Jan. 30: “The idea of a March rate cut was called into question by the tone of the policy decision, and it’s not unreasonable to suppose that a March rate cut would be a higher probability if there were more certainty about the nature of the new administration’s policies.
“There might be a risk … that over-criticism by Trump might tilt the Fed toward hawkishness in any future close-call decision, in order to prove the Fed’s independence is beyond reproach.”
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
Donald Trump is waging a very public war on Jerome Powell—so why hasn’t he picked up the phone?In recent weeks, President Donald Trump has been openly criticizing Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, blaming him for the economic downturn and calling for his removal. Trump has even gone as far as to compare Powell to a golfer who can’t putt and has questioned whether Powell is a greater enemy than China’s President Xi Jinping.
Despite this very public and aggressive stance against Powell, one question remains: why hasn’t Trump picked up the phone and had a direct conversation with the man he is attacking?
Many political analysts believe that a direct conversation between Trump and Powell could potentially resolve some of the tension and animosity between the two. It could allow Trump to express his concerns and frustrations directly to Powell, rather than through Twitter or the media.
However, others argue that Trump’s attacks on Powell are more about political posturing and deflecting blame for the economic challenges facing the country. In this view, a phone call would not change Trump’s strategy of using Powell as a scapegoat for his administration’s economic policies.
Whatever the reason may be, it is clear that the ongoing public war between Trump and Powell is causing uncertainty and volatility in the markets. Perhaps a simple phone call could help to ease tensions and provide a more constructive way forward for both parties.
Tags:
Donald Trump, Jerome Powell, Federal Reserve, President Trump, Powell feud, Trump criticism, Federal Reserve Chairman, Trump administration, central bank, monetary policy, interest rates, economic impact, political tension, communication breakdown
#Donald #Trump #waging #public #war #Jerome #Powellso #hasnt #picked #phone-
Trade war begins: After Trump’s tariffs, Canada province bans US firms & dumps Musk’s Starlink
Canada’s Ontario on Monday banned US firms from government contracts in a move that will scrap $100-million deal with Elon Musk‘s Starlink.
Doug Ford, premier of Ontario, said the ban would persist unless the Trump administration lifts recently imposed tariffs on Canada.
Last year, the Doug dispensation had inked an agreement with Musk, who is a key part of the Trump government, to deliver high-speed internet to remote residents in rural and northern Ontario.
“Every year, the Ontario government and its agencies spend $30 billion on procurement, alongside our $200 billion plan to build Ontario. US-based businesses will now lose out on tens of billions of dollars in new revenues. They only have President Trump to blame. We’re going one step further. We’ll be ripping up the province’s contract with Starlink. Ontario won’t do business with people hellbent on destroying our economy. Canada didn’t start this fight with the U.S., but you better believe we’re ready to win it,” the Ontario premier wrote on X.Earlier, Ford announced that his officials would soon be removing American products from provincial liquor store shelves.
His statement came a day after British Columbia Premier David Eby announced that the local authority will stop buying liquor from US Republican states.
Canada’s move is in retaliation to Trump’s sweeping new tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico and China, a move that has triggered sharp reactions from global leaders and financial markets.
The tariffs, which Trump says are aimed at protecting American workers and industries, have sparked fears of economic retaliation from affected countries.
Meanwhile, Trump said that he would talk to Trudeau at 3.00 PM about drug pouring through the borders of Canada.
“Canada doesn’t even allow U.S. Banks to open or do business there. What’s that all about? Many such things, but it’s also a DRUG WAR, and hundreds of thousands of people have died in the U.S. from drugs pouring through the Borders of Mexico and Canada. Just spoke to Justin Trudeau. Will be speaking to him again at 3:00 PM,” Trump said on his social media platform Truth Social.
In response to President Trump’s recent tariffs on Canadian goods, the province of Ontario has announced a ban on all US-based companies and has decided to cut ties with Elon Musk’s Starlink project. This move comes as a retaliation to the escalating trade war between the two countries, with Ontario officials citing the need to protect their own economy and interests.The decision to ban US firms and sever ties with Starlink has sparked controversy and debate within the province, with some critics claiming that the move will only serve to further damage the already strained relationship between Canada and the US. However, Ontario officials have stood by their decision, stating that they will not stand idly by while their economy suffers as a result of Trump’s tariffs.
The trade war between the US and Canada shows no signs of slowing down, and Ontario’s bold stance against US companies is just the latest development in what could be a long and tumultuous battle. As tensions continue to rise, it remains to be seen how this trade war will ultimately impact both countries and the global economy as a whole.
Tags:
- Trade war
- Trump tariffs
- Canada province
- US firms
- Elon Musk
- Starlink
- Trade tensions
- International trade
- Economic impact
- Global markets
#Trade #war #begins #Trumps #tariffs #Canada #province #bans #firms #dumps #Musks #Starlink
Gabriel and William Saliba to renew ‘war’ with Erling Haaland as Arsenal face Man City – The Radar | Football News
Welcome to The Radar, a Sky Sports column in which Nick Wright uses a blend of data and opinion to shed light on need-to-know stories from up and down the Premier League. This week:
Gabriel, Saliba and Haaland to do battle
Versatile Gray a bright spot for Spurs
Iraola’s defensive innovation
A player to watch this weekendGabriel, Saliba and Haaland face off again
Erling Haaland telling Mikel Arteta to “stay humble” was the headline-grabbing moment from the fiery exchanges which followed September’s 2-2 draw between Manchester City and Arsenal at the Etihad Stadium. But his battle with Gabriel was where it all started.
Haaland could be seen throwing the ball into the back of Gabriel’s head after John Stones’ stoppage-time equaliser, with the pair clashing again from the kick-off. On Sunday, live on Sky Sports, they will renew their “war”, as termed by Gabriel, at the Emirates Stadium.
Haaland scored the opener in that last meeting, racing onto Savinho’s pass and finishing coolly. But few centre-back pairings have made life more difficult for him than Gabriel and William Saliba.
His goal in the September game came after three meetings without even a shot on target, including last season’s Community Shield.
Since the start of last season, Haaland has averaged 0.33 goals per 90 minutes against Arsenal compared 0.91 per 90 minutes against other sides. He has taken fewer shots and those he has taken have registered lower on the expected goals scale.
Gabriel and Saliba have shown the capacity to stifle him, in other words, as they have so many others. Arsenal have a superior defensive record to any other Premier League side since the start of the 2022/23 season. The importance of their centre-backs is clear.
Arsenal have conceded an average of only 0.8 goals per game with Gabriel and Saliba starting compared to 1.4 per game without them. The difference in their points per game and win rate is similarly stark, from 2.3 to 1.8 and 73 per cent to 47 per cent respectively.
Even in the context of Arsenal’s difficulties, the pair have been particularly effective this season, limiting opponents to a meagre 0.71 goals per game when starting together, putting them just ahead of Liverpool’s Ibrahima Konate and Virgil van Dijk on 0.78.
Of course, they know full well just how devastating Haaland can be.
Manchester City’s Haaland-inspired 4-1 thrashing of Arsenal in April 2023 came with Rob Holding deputising for the injured Saliba but both were present for their 3-1 loss two months earlier, in which Haaland also scored. His goal at the Etihad Stadium in September came when he exploited a gap between them.
Haaland also comes into this meeting in fine form. After a dip between September and December, he has scored six goals in his last seven games. He will be just as fired up as those tasked with stopping him on Sunday. Expect more fireworks to follow.
Gray filling holes for Spurs
Micky van de Ven came through Tottenham’s Europa League win over Elfsborg unscathed on his return to action but an injury to Radu Dragusin, his second-half replacement, means there’s little prospect of Archie Gray getting a rest against Brentford on Sunday.
The 18-year-old has started 14 consecutive games for Spurs amid their injury crisis. The fact he has shone so brightly during a dismal run of form for Ange Postecoglou’s side is even more impressive given the number of roles he has been asked to fulfil.
Gray started as Spurs’ right-sided centre-back against Elfsborg having played at left-back in their previous two games, against Hoffenheim and Leicester. Before that, against Everton, he started in central midfield, having been their left-sided centre-back against Arsenal only a few days earlier.
The circumstances would be demanding enough for a young player even without the positional changes. But Gray has taken it all in his stride, demonstrating extraordinary versatility and emerging from a torrid run for Spurs with his own reputation enhanced.
Iraola ripping up defensive rulebook
Andoni Iraola’s Bournemouth host Liverpool on Saturday having extended their unbeaten run to 11 games with last weekend’s 5-0 thrashing of Nottingham Forest. A point off the Champions League spots, they continue to defy the odds, despite a lengthy injury list.
They are doing it with one of the youngest sides in the Premier League this season. But what is really unusual about Bournemouth is that their youthfulness is concentrated in defence.
At centre-back, a position in which experience and knowhow are traditionally deemed crucial, Iraola is using the 22-year-old Illia Zabarnyi and the 19-year-old Dean Huijsen, a pairing roughly six years younger than the Premier League average this season.
Not that you would know it to watch them. The pair have developed an excellent understanding, displaying a level of assuredness to bely their years. Iraola’s side have only lost one of the 12 Premier League games they have started together and kept clean sheets in five.
Iraola’s preference for youth is not limited to his centre-backs. At left-back, there is the 21-year-old Milos Kerkez. At right-back, Julian Araujo, 23, was generally favoured before his injury, with James Hill, also 23, subsequently emerging as second choice when fit.
In Huijsen’s case, it is partly a story of circumstance, with Marcos Senesi unavailable due to injury. But it is also a stylistic choice. Iraola’s commitment to throwing bodies forward in attack demands defenders with the dynamism to cope when the ball is turned over.
“There are probably times when we suffer, experience-wise, because a lot of them are very young,” he explained to Sky Sports in an office at the Vitality Stadium in October. “But they give us the ability to defend big spaces and cope with those situations.”
The club have recruited with Iraola’s high-intensity approach in mind, making youth a priority. “You have to play to your strengths,” added Iraola. “That is why it helps to have a young team with players who can play with high energy, in a high rhythm.”
Carry on like this and it might prove difficult to keep their defensive unit together. Huijsen, a bargain £12.8m signing from Juventus, is sure to attract interest. Kerkez is a reported target for Liverpool.
But don’t expect Iraola to change tack. In fact, in Kerkez’s case, he may already have a successor in place in Julio Soler, the 19-year-old signed from Argentine club Lanus earlier this month. Bournemouth and their head coach continue to do things their own way.
Player Radar: Who else to keep an eye on
Kevin Schade continues to quietly impress for Brentford. The 23-year-old has scored six goals at an average of 0.50 per 90 minutes this season, putting him level with Wolves’ Matheus Cunha and not far behind his team-mate Bryan Mbeumo on 0.61. Spurs beware.
Live Radar: What’s on Sky this weekend?
Wolves host Aston Villa in a Black Country derby on Saturday Night Football, with coverage starting on Sky Sports Premier League and Main Event from 5pm ahead of the 5.30pm kick-off.
Super Sunday sees Brentford take on Spurs in the early game, kicking off at 2pm, with Arsenal’s meeting with Man City following at 4.30pm. Coverage of that double-header begins on Sky Sports Premier League and Main Event at 1pm.
Don’t miss Monday Night Football as Graham Potter returns to his former club Chelsea with West Ham. Kick-off is at 8pm, with David Jones and Jamie Carragher live on Sky Sports Premier League and Main Event from 6.30pm.
Read last week’s Radar column
Cole Palmer or Phil Foden? The Radar backed the wrong horse for Man City’s meeting with Chelsea! Murillo’s outrageous long shots for Nottingham Forest and Leicester’s struggles were also covered.
In an epic showdown between two young defensive talents and one of the most lethal strikers in the game, Gabriel and William Saliba are set to renew their ‘war’ with Erling Haaland as Arsenal face Manchester City. The Radar is buzzing with anticipation for this clash of titans on the football pitch.Gabriel and Saliba have been solid pillars at the back for Arsenal, showcasing their defensive prowess and composure under pressure. Their ability to read the game and make crucial interceptions has been a key factor in Arsenal’s success this season.
On the other hand, Erling Haaland has been a scoring machine for Manchester City, terrorizing defenses with his lightning speed and clinical finishing. The Norwegian striker has been unstoppable in front of goal, leading the Premier League in scoring and showing no signs of slowing down.
As these three young stars prepare to face off once again, football fans can expect a thrilling battle filled with intensity, skill, and determination. The Radar will be closely watching as Gabriel and Saliba look to shut down Haaland and lead Arsenal to victory against Manchester City.
Stay tuned for all the updates and analysis on this epic showdown between Gabriel and Saliba against Erling Haaland. The Radar has got you covered with all the latest football news and insights.
Tags:
- Gabriel Saliba vs William Saliba: Arsenal’s Battle with Erling Haaland
- Arsenal vs Man City: The Clash of Titans
- Erling Haaland showdown: Gabriel and William Saliba ready for war
- Premier League showdown: Arsenal faces Man City in epic battle
- Gabriel and William Saliba set to renew rivalry with Erling Haaland
- The Radar: Football News – Arsenal vs Man City preview
- Gabriel Saliba and William Saliba prepare for epic clash with Erling Haaland and Man City
- Arsenal’s defensive duo ready to take on Erling Haaland and Man City
- Gabriel and William Saliba gear up for battle against Erling Haaland and Manchester City
- Arsenal vs Man City: Gabriel and William Saliba’s showdown with Erling Haaland – The Radar | Football News
#Gabriel #William #Saliba #renew #war #Erling #Haaland #Arsenal #face #Man #City #Radar #Football #News
Bitcoin drops below $100,000 as Trump’s trade war rattles markets — analysts split on what’s next – DL News
- Bitcoin crashes below $100,000 as Trump’s tariffs spark market turmoil.
- $200 billion wiped from crypto markets as traders brace for supply shocks and retaliation.
- Some see a Bitcoin hedge play, but liquidity risks could drag prices lower.
Bitcoin tumbled below the $100,000 mark early Sunday as markets reacted to President Donald Trump’s sweeping new tariffs on America’s three largest trading partners.
The cryptocurrency market shed $200 billion in value, with every asset in the top 100 sinking into the red over the past 24 hours.
The sell-off came after Trump announced a 25% tariff on imports from Mexico and Canada alongside an additional 10% tariff on Chinese goods.
The administration justified the move under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, citing an “extraordinary threat” posed by illegal immigration and the fentanyl crisis.
Bitcoin, often considered a hedge against economic uncertainty, initially held steady but later plunged as risk-off sentiment spread.
The sudden downturn led to $540 million in liquidations, mostly from overleveraged long positions.
Bloomberg Economics estimates that the tariffs will push the US average tariff rate to its highest level since the 1940s.
Canada and Mexico have already pledged retaliatory tariffs, with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau confirming levies on $155 billion worth of US goods.
Join the community to get our latest stories and updates
Some analysts see trade war tensions as a bullish narrative for Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.
Rising tariffs are stoking inflation concerns, and there is an increasing demand for alternative stores of value. Some investors believe Bitcoin could benefit as a hedge against economic instability and currency devaluation.
“You simply have not yet grasped how amazing a sustained tariff war is going to be for Bitcoin in the long run,” tweeted Jeff Park, head of alpha strategies at Bitwise.
Others fear liquidity shocks and market-wide risk aversion could continue weighing on price action in the short term.
“In the short term, Bitcoin still trades as a risk-on asset,” said Nic Puckrin, CEO of Coin Bureau. “If markets keep collapsing, it could bring BTC down with it and end the current cycle.”
Crypto market movers
- Bitcoin has lost 2% in the past 24 hours and is trading at $99,950.
- Ethereum is down 4.5% over the same period to $3,115.
What we’re reading
Kyle Baird is DL News’ Weekend Editor. Got a tip? Email at kbaird@dlnews.com.
Bitcoin has taken a hit as the ongoing trade war between the US and China continues to rattle global markets. The cryptocurrency dropped below the $100,000 mark, causing concern among investors and analysts.Some analysts believe that this drop is just a temporary setback and that Bitcoin will bounce back in the near future. Others, however, are more cautious and warn that the trade war could have a lasting impact on the cryptocurrency market.
The uncertainty surrounding the trade war has created a sense of unease among investors, leading to increased volatility in the market. As a result, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have seen significant fluctuations in value.
It remains to be seen what the future holds for Bitcoin and the broader cryptocurrency market. Will the trade war continue to weigh on prices, or will investors regain confidence and drive prices back up? Only time will tell.
Stay tuned to DL News for the latest updates on Bitcoin and the cryptocurrency market.
Tags:
Bitcoin price drop, Trump trade war, market analysis, Bitcoin market update, cryptocurrency news, Bitcoin analysis, trade war impact, market volatility, experts opinions, Bitcoin price analysis, market trends, economic news, financial analysis
#Bitcoin #drops #Trumps #trade #war #rattles #markets #analysts #split #whats #News‘Make them pay’: Canada puts Trump’s ‘first friend’ Elon Musk’s Tesla in the crosshairs of tariff war
The tariff standoff between the US and Canada is heating up, and Tesla finds itself squarely in the crosshairs. Chrystia Freeland, Canada’s former finance minister and current Liberal Party leadership contender, has proposed a bold countermeasure: slapping 100% tariffs on select American goods, including Teslas, in direct response to President Trump’s threatened tariffs on Canadian and Mexican imports.
In an interview with The Canadian Press, Freeland made her intentions clear. “We need to be very targeted, very surgical, very precise,” she said. The strategy isn’t just about economic retaliation — it’s personal. Tesla’s inclusion stems from CEO Elon Musk’s financial and operational backing of Trump, which Freeland didn’t shy away from addressing. “We need to look through and say who is supporting Trump and how can we make them pay a price for a tariff attack on Canada.”
Tesla’s electric vehicles sold in Canada are primarily manufactured in the US and China. Imposing tariffs would inevitably hike their prices, potentially steering Canadian EV buyers toward other automakers. This could be a significant blow to Tesla, which dominates Canada’s EV market with its Model Y and Model 3 leading in sales.
Freeland, who resigned from her finance minister post last year partly over disagreements on handling Trump’s economic threats, is now using this issue to define her leadership campaign. “One of the characteristics of the Trump administration is they like to traffic in uncertainty,” she remarked. “There are lots of reports about there being internal debates in the US (administration), so let’s use that to our advantage. And let’s put some cards on the table and be very clear that if they hit us, we will hit them back.”
The stakes are high. Canada’s EV adoption rate is outpacing that of the US, with nearly 17% of new cars sold in the third quarter of 2024 being fully electric, compared to just 8% in the US. Quebec’s aggressive EV incentives have fueled this growth, making Tesla’s dominance even more pronounced — and vulnerable.
As Trump’s policies ripple across borders, Canada’s response is no longer confined to diplomatic channels. It’s taking direct aim at the businesses tied to his political machinery, and Tesla is at the forefront of that retaliation.
In a bold move, Canada has decided to target Tesla, the electric car company owned by Elon Musk, in the ongoing tariff war with the United States. This decision comes as retaliation against the Trump administration’s recent tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum.Elon Musk, often referred to as President Trump’s ‘first friend’ in the business world, has been a vocal supporter of the current administration’s policies. However, this alliance seems to have backfired as Canada aims to make Tesla pay for the trade tensions created by the US government.
The Canadian government has announced plans to impose a 25% tariff on all Tesla vehicles imported into the country, a move that is sure to hit Musk’s company hard. This decision is seen as a way to send a strong message to both Tesla and the Trump administration that Canada will not back down in the face of unfair trade practices.
As the tariff war between the US and Canada continues to escalate, it remains to be seen how this will impact Tesla’s bottom line and Musk’s relationship with the Trump administration. Stay tuned for updates on this developing story. #MakeThemPay #TariffWar #CanadaVsTesla
Tags:
- Canada
- Trump
- Elon Musk
- Tesla
- Tariff war
- Trade dispute
- International relations
- US-Canada relations
- Automotive industry
- Import tariffs
#pay #Canada #puts #Trumps #friend #Elon #Musks #Tesla #crosshairs #tariff #war
Civil War, Annihilation, and how Alex Garland explores the dark side of humanity
From Ex Machina to Civil War, Alex Garland’s varied work as a writer-director explores the inherent flaws that make us human.
NB: The following contains spoilers for Ex Machina and Men.
It’s a sign of how gifted Alex Garland is as a storyteller that he can move between forms seemingly without effort. A pair of best-selling novels in the 1990s (The Beach, The Tesseract) led to his screenwriting work in the 2000s (28 Days Later, Sunshine, Never Let Me Go) and some videogame industry writing (Enslaved: Odyssey To The West, DmC: Devil May Cry).
It was during the difficult production of 2012’s Dredd that Garland first turned his hand to directing (albeit uncredited), before making his directorial debut with Ex Machina just over a decade ago. In the years since, Garland has continued to forge an individual path through the movie business, writing and directing movies that are uncompromising and unmistakably personal. Although different in terms of their plots and even genres, they’re all united by common themes that appear to dwell on the filmmaker’s mind. One particularly insistent element is the human capacity for self-destruction.
You can see it running right through Civil War, Garland’s unsparing dystopian action thriller from 2024. It’s set in a United States in which the President (Nick Offerman) has set himself up as a dictator; a bitter fight has broken out between federal forces on one side and a secessionist coalition on the other. Garland doesn’t dwell on political allegiances; instead, he depicts the conflict’s broader societal cost.
The war has left the economy in such a state that the dollar is essentially worthless; cities are rocked by suicide bombings. In the countryside, Americans are torturing their old high school buddies, or tipping the bodies of innocent civilians into mass graves. Garland depicts war as a sickness – the final, terminal stage of a disease whose early symptoms likely include populism, fake news and increasing division.
Cailee Spaeny in Civil War. Credit: A24. Read more: Civil War | Alex Garland makes his own Heart Of Darkness
Garland explores the human condition more closely through his ensemble cast. Three of them are seasoned professionals – war photojournalist Lee (Kirsten Dunst); New York Times reporter Sammy (Stephen McKinley Henderson) and Reuters hack Joel (Wagner Moura). Joining the group is Jessie (Cailee Spaeny), a budding photojournalist.
Their stated goal is to travel across war torn America from New York to Washington DC, where they hope to capture the President’s final moments before he’s violently deposed. Beneath that professional ambition, they’re driven by more base instincts they may not even be aware of.
Joel is a thrill-seeker who gets an adrenaline rush from passing through near-death experiences unscathed. Sammy, an older gent who gets about with the help of a cane, has resigned himself to the dangerous nature of his job; his sentiment appears to be that he’s going to die at some point, so it may as well be in pursuit of something worthwhile. At the other end of the age spectrum, 20-something Jessie is driven by both her youthful ambition and misplaced feeling of indestructibility – as demonstrated in the sequence where she clambers from one moving vehicle to another.
Darkest of the lot is Lee, whose experiences in overseas battle zones have left her shell-shocked and cynical about the value of her own journalism. Focused on her work with almost aggressive single-mindedness, Lee’s resignation to the danger of her livelihood goes beyond Sammy’s and into the arena of self-destruction – there’s the sense, in both her dialogue and hollow-eyed demeanour, that she not only accepts that this latest assignment could kill her, but subconsciously hopes that it will.
Kirsten Dunst Civil War. Credit: A24 Read more: Civil War | How political is Alex Garland’s film?
There are parallels between Civil War and Alex Garland’s 2018 feature Annihilation here. Based on the novel by Jeff Vandermeer, Annihilation is about another group of people embarking on a mission with an uncertain end point. A mysterious forcefield – an alien phenomena dubbed the Shimmer – envelops the coast off Florida, exerting an otherworldly effect on everything in its reach.
A scientific expedition is dispatched to go into the Shimmer to try to learn more about it, and like the group in Civil War, they’re driven by something more than just curiosity. Protagonist Lena (Natalie Portman) is wracked with guilt because her soldier husband Kane (Oscar Isaac) ventured into the Shimmer months earlier and subsequently died. Kane’s decision to enter the Shimmer was fuelled partly by his sense of betrayal over Lena having an affair – as a result, Lena blames herself for his fate.
Lena’s compatriots have similarly bleak backstories. One scientist (Jennifer Jason Leigh) is terminally ill; another (Tessa Thompson) suffers from a history of depression and self-harm; still another (Gina Rodriguez) is grief-stricken following the death of her child. Viewed from the perspective of its characters, the meaning of the title ‘Annihilation’ becomes clear: the film is about the self-destructive instincts that reside in us, and that may even be hardwired into our DNA.
Read more: Ex Machina could have starred Jake Gyllenhaal
Hints of this same sentiment are threaded into Garland’s 2014 debut, Ex Machina. Oscar Isaac plays reclusive tech CEO Nathan Bateman, who may or may not have created a sentient AI in the shape of the female-looking android, Ava (Alicia Vikander). Young programmer Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson) wins a competition to visit Bateman’s sleekly minimal home, which is part bachelor pad, part lab and part fortress. There, Caleb is given the secret reason for his visit: to determine whether Ava is truly intelligent and self-aware, as the rest of us are, or is simply an advanced parlour trick.
Alicia Vikander in Ex Machina. Credit: Universal. Garland very deliberately presents Bateman as a darkly flawed personality – secretive, perhaps a bit paranoid, and prone to heavy drinking sessions for which he atones by lifting heavy weights the following morning. Bateman’s dogged pursuit of sentient AI – something real-world scientists are pursuing as these words are typed – could itself be seen as self-destructive; like the invention of the atom bomb, we know it could cause terrible harm, but it’s pursued regardless, like some kind of collective death urge. (AI also forms a part of Garland’s underrated TV series, Devs, which is well worth seeing.)
Of the films discussed so far, 2022’s Men might seem rather out of sync. A small-scale folk horror set in a remote country house, it’s a world apart from the Heart Of Darkness-inspired journeys of Civil War or Annihilation, or the high-tech claustrophobia of Ex Machina. But even here, we’re essentially peering into the psyche of a woman torn apart by guilt. Like Annihilation’s Lena, Men protagonist Harper (Jessie Buckley) is tormented by memories of her late husband, a depressive and emotionally manipulative figure whose influence still affects Harper’s every waking moment. Or is what we’re seeing her nightmare…?
Read more: Men review | Psychological terror and grotesque thrills
Garland’s films constantly probe at the darker edges of the human condition. To be sentient, Garland seems to suggest, is to be inherently flawed, naturally compromised, innately self-destructive.
When this writer briefly met the writer-director a decade ago, something he said about AI might offer an insight into how his films deconstruct the human condition. While talking about what was then his latest work, Ex Machina, Garland referenced a line from the film about advanced computer programs that are capable of beating humans at chess.
Jessie Buckley stars in Men. Credit: A24. “It [the computer] seems to be wanting to beat you at chess, but it doesn’t want to beat you,” Garland said. “It doesn’t want anything. It doesn’t actually know it’s playing chess, right? Computers make you confront that kind of problem, and make you think about it. I’ve always been interested in that.”
Garland then added that a friend of his, who he said was ‘knowledgeable’ about the subject, held the opinion that sentient AI would never happen. Garland thought the opposite: “Instinctively, I think there will be,” he said. “And also rationally, I think there will be. We used to argue about that a lot over the years.”
It’s interesting to flip Garland’s philosophy around: if a non-sentient computer doesn’t want to win, then humans, by contrast, are driven by wants and desires from the minute we open our eyes in the morning. Even beyond our everyday need for food and water, we crave human connection; we search for validation; through self-destructive behaviours, we seek escape.
In Ex Machina, the male characters realise – too late to save themselves – that the AI in their midst really has achieved sentience. How do they learn this? Because the AI – as embodied by Ava and another female-looking robot, Kyoko (Sonoya Mizuno) – uses cunning and even murder in order to escape.
To be truly sentient, Garland suggests, is to have needs and desires beyond mere programming. And if we ever do create a sentient machine, then it follows that the entity we’ve made will inherit the darker impulses that make us human.
As Oscar Isaac’s character says in Ex Machina, “I gave her one way out. To escape, she’d have to use self-awareness, imagination, manipulation, sexuality, empathy, and she did. Now, if that isn’t true AI, what the fuck is?”
—
Thank you for visiting! If you’d like to support our attempts to make a non-clickbaity movie website:
Follow Film Stories on Twitter here, and on Facebook here.
Buy our Film Stories and Film Junior print magazines here.
Become a Patron here.
In his films “Civil War” and “Annihilation,” writer and director Alex Garland delves deep into the darkest corners of humanity, exploring the brutality, violence, and destruction that can arise from conflict and the unknown.In “Civil War,” Garland takes us to a near-future world where society has collapsed into chaos and bloody civil war. The film follows a group of survivors as they navigate this brutal landscape, facing betrayal, loss, and the moral complexities of war. Garland doesn’t shy away from depicting the horrors of conflict, showcasing the toll it takes on individuals and society as a whole.
In “Annihilation,” Garland shifts his focus to the unknown and the terrifying. The film follows a team of scientists as they enter a mysterious, otherworldly zone known as “The Shimmer.” As they explore this strange and beautiful landscape, they are confronted with their own fears, desires, and inner demons. Garland expertly weaves together themes of self-destruction, annihilation, and transformation, challenging viewers to confront the darkness within themselves.
Through his films, Garland forces us to confront the darker aspects of humanity – our capacity for violence, our fear of the unknown, and our destructive tendencies. By exploring these themes in such a raw and unflinching way, he pushes us to question our own beliefs and actions, and to consider the consequences of our choices.
In a world that often seems mired in conflict and uncertainty, Garland’s films serve as a stark reminder of the darkness that lies within us all. By shining a light on these shadowy corners of the human experience, he challenges us to confront our own darkness and strive for a better, more compassionate world.
Tags:
Civil War, Annihilation, Alex Garland, dark side of humanity, exploration, film analysis, psychological thriller, sci-fi, dystopian, human nature, social commentary, existential crisis.
#Civil #War #Annihilation #Alex #Garland #explores #dark #side #humanityCivil War, Annihilation, and how Alex Garland explores the dark side of humanity
From Ex Machina to Civil War, Alex Garland’s varied work as a writer-director explores the inherent flaws that make us human.Nb: The following contains spoilers for Ex Machina and Men.
It’s a sign of how gifted Alex Garland is as a storyteller that he can move between forms seemingly without effort. A pair of best-selling novels in the 1990s led to his screenwriting work in the 2000s and some videogame industry writing.
It was during the difficult production of 2012’s Dredd that Garland first turned his hand to directing (albeit uncredited), before making his directorial debut with Ex Machina just over a decade ago. In the years since, Garland has continued to forge an individual path through the movie business, writing and directing movies that are uncompromising and unmistakably personal. Although different in terms of their plots and even genres, they’re all united by common themes…
In his films “Ex Machina” and “Annihilation,” director Alex Garland delves into the darkest corners of the human psyche, exploring themes of power, control, and destruction. Drawing on elements of science fiction and horror, Garland presents a chilling vision of a future where technology and nature collide, leading to devastating consequences.In “Ex Machina,” Garland examines the ethical implications of artificial intelligence and our desire to play god. The film follows a young programmer who is selected to participate in a Turing test with an advanced AI named Ava. As the programmer becomes more entangled in Ava’s world, he begins to question his own humanity and the consequences of his actions. Garland expertly weaves a narrative that forces the audience to confront the darker aspects of human nature, including manipulation, deceit, and the desire for control.
In “Annihilation,” Garland takes a different approach, exploring the destructive nature of humanity and our impact on the environment. The film follows a group of scientists who enter a mysterious zone known as “The Shimmer,” where the laws of nature are distorted and mutated. As the scientists unravel the mysteries of The Shimmer, they come face to face with their own inner demons and discover the true extent of their destructive tendencies.
Through his work, Garland forces us to confront the dark side of humanity and the consequences of our actions. By blending elements of science fiction and horror, he creates a haunting and thought-provoking exploration of the human condition. As we continue to grapple with issues of power, control, and destruction in our own world, Garland’s films serve as a stark reminder of the dangers that lie within us all.
Tags:
Civil War, Annihilation, Alex Garland, dark side of humanity, exploration, sci-fi, film analysis, psychological thriller, human nature, dystopian society, technology, mind-bending, existential dread, thought-provoking, societal collapse, human survival, narrative complexity.
#Civil #War #Annihilation #Alex #Garland #explores #dark #side #humanity