bet365 ee
( MENAFN ) A subsidiary of Russia's Rosatom has signed an agreement with Ethiopia’s Ministry of Innovation and Technology to conduct a feasibility study for establishing a Nuclear Science and Technology Center (NSTC) in Ethiopia, as announced by the Russian state atomic energy company on Tuesday. Rosatom will also assess how nuclear and radiation technologies can benefit Ethiopia's non-energy sectors, helping to identify potential users and create a market for commercial products and services derived from the NSTC. Ethiopia's Minister of Innovation and Technology, Belete Molla, expressed optimism about the partnership, emphasizing the importance of Rosatom's support in advancing the country's nuclear energy and technology initiatives. Molla believes the collaboration will help develop Ethiopia’s national nuclear programs and individual projects. Rosatom reaffirmed its commitment to promoting nuclear development in Africa. Ilya Vergizaev, the company’s Executive Director, highlighted ongoing international projects aimed at expanding nuclear and radiation technologies across the continent. Additionally, Anatoly Bashkin, Director of the Russia Foreign Ministry’s Africa Department, noted that Africa is becoming an attractive destination for investments in high-tech industries, with Rosatom playing a key role in promoting nuclear energy for peaceful purposes to boost energy security and industrial development. MENAFN30112024000045015687ID1108941610 Legal Disclaimer: MENAFN provides the information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.Menendez brothers' bid for freedom delayed until January
Walmart finally restocked the $249 Ninja SLUSHi and fans are grabbing it ‘frost’ and furiouslyThe discussions in the West about authorizing long-range missile strikes on Russia are profoundly dishonest and misleading. The political-media elites present deeply flawed arguments to support the conclusion that attacking Russia with these weapons doesn’t cross the line between proxy war and direct war. NATO may be successful in deluding itself, yet for Moscow there is no doubt that this is an act of war. The argument that Ukraine has the right to defend itself as a justification for NATO to authorize long-range strikes into Russia is very manipulative. The public is pulled in with a very reasonable premise, based on the universal acceptance of the right to self-defense. Once people have accepted this, then it’s presented as a foregone conclusion that Ukraine should be supplied with long-range missiles to attack Russia. The extent of NATO’s involvement in the war, as the main issue, is subsequently eliminated entirely from the argument. The point of departure in an honest discussion should start with the right question: When is the line between proxy war and direct war crossed? These are US long-range missiles, their use is entirely dependent on American intelligence and targeting. They will be operated by US soldiers and guided by US satellites. Launching them from Ukraine does not make it any less of a direct American attack on Russia. Washington didn’t use these weapons against Russia for three years as it knew it would amount to a direct attack, yet now the media is attempting to sell the narrative of this merely being uncontroversial military aid to enable Ukraine to defend itself. The US and some of its NATO allies have decided to attack Russia directly, and they should be honest about this intention. Attempts to present it as merely giving military aid to Ukraine to defend itself constitute an irresponsible effort to shame any dissent and avoid a serious discussion about attacking the world’s largest nuclear power. It is imperative to place oneself in the shoes of opponents and ask how we would interpret a situation and what we would do if the situation were reversed. The US and NATO have invaded many countries over the years, so we do not need to delve too deep into our imagination to set up a hypothetical scenario. How would we have reacted if Moscow had sent long-range missiles, dependent on Russian intelligence and targeting, operated by Russian soldiers and guided by Russian satellites, to attack NATO countries under the guise of merely helping Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen of another country to defend itself? We are deluding ourselves if we pretend that this would not have been interpreted as a direct attack, and despite the great risks involved, we would be compelled to retaliate to restore our deterrent. President Putin warned in September 2024 that Russia would interpret this as a direct attack and the beginning of a NATO-Russia War, and Putin argued that Russia would respond accordingly. The clarity in his language makes it nearly impossible to walk back the commitment to strike back at NATO, which is a deliberate tactic in the game of chicken, as Russia cannot swirl away. Stories about thousands of North Korean soldiers fighting in Ukraine or Kursk are used to legitimize the attack on Russia. This is most likely NATO war propaganda as there would be some evidence if thousands of North Korean soldiers were fighting. The North Koreans allegedly training in Russia are likely intended as a deterrent in case NATO would go to war against Russia. However, even if North Koreans involve themselves in the fighting, it does not make NATO any less of a participant in the war by attacking Russia. The reluctance by Moscow in the past to sufficiently retaliate against NATO’s incremental escalations has been presented as evidence for the false conclusion that it wouldn’t dare respond. There is no doubt that Russia’s restraints have emboldened NATO. President Biden once argued that sending F-16s would result in a Third World War, such warnings now are denounced as ”Russian propaganda”. Russia’s failure to respond when the US crossed that line meant that the US could argue it did not amount to a direct attack. The rules of proxy war subsequently changed. Russia’s dilemma over the past three years has been to either respond at the risk of triggering a Third World War, or to gradually abandon its deterrent and embolden the US. With every NATO escalation, Russia is facing an ever-higher price for its restraint. Russia has been under pressure to set a final red line, and NATO attacking Russia directly is simply too dangerous to go unanswered. How will Russia respond? There are several more steps on the escalation ladder before pushing the nuclear button. Russia can intensify strikes on Ukrainian political targets and infrastructure, possibly introduce North Korean troops, strike NATO assets in the Black Sea and logistic centers in Poland or Romania, destroy satellites used for the attacks on Russia, or attack US/NATO military assets in other parts of the world under the guise of enabling other countries to defend themselves. Russia’s response will also depend on how these missiles are used. The New York Times has suggested that the use of these missiles would be limited and primarily used to assist Ukraine with the occupation of Kursk, which also makes the US an even more involved participant in the occupation of Russian territory. However, Russia must respond forcefully to any breach of its red lines to counter NATO’s incrementalism – salami tactics that aim to chop away at its deterrent. The purpose of such incrementalism is to avoid an excessive response from Russia. The US will predictably impose restrictions on how these weapons can be used as it engages in direct attacks on Russia, but gradually these restrictions will be removed. The extent of Russia’s response will depend on the extent to which these weapons are effective. The war is evidently being won by Russia, which is why Moscow is cautious about any escalations, as it only needs time. However, if these weapons would actually turn the tide of the war, then Russia would consider itself compelled to launch a powerful attack on NATO as Moscow considers this to be a war for its survival. NATO should therefore hope that these weapons are not effective, which undermines the reasoning for using them at all. The war has already been lost, and Washington previously admitted that these long-range missiles would not be a game changer. There are two reasons for escalating the war at this point, to further bleed Russia and to sabotage Trump’s objective to end the fighting. There is overwhelming evidence that the overarching objective in sabotaging all paths to peace and fighting the proxy war in Ukraine has been to weaken Russia as a strategic rival. Even Vladimir Zelensky recognized in March 2022 that some Western states wanted to use Ukraine as a proxy against Russia: ”There are those in the West who don’t mind a long war because it would mean exhausting Russia, even if this means the demise of Ukraine and comes at the cost of Ukrainian lives.” Both Israeli and Turkish mediators have confirmed that the US and UK sabotaged the Istanbul peace agreement in order to pit Russia against the Ukrainians, while interviews with top American and British diplomats have revealed that the weakening of Russia and regime change in Moscow was the only acceptable outcome. The timing of Washington’s decision is also suspicious and appears to aim at sabotaging Trump’s massive mandate to end the proxy war. By comparison, Obama similarly threw a wrench into US-Russia relations in late 2016 as he was handing the White House over to Trump. The anti-Russian sanctions and expulsion of Russian diplomats were intended to sabotage Trump’s promise to get along with Russia. Biden appears to be following the same playbook by risking a Third World War to prevent peace from breaking out in Ukraine. Biden was too cognitively impaired to run for re-election, yet he is supposedly mentally fit enough to attack Russia as he prepares to leave the White House. The world today is more dangerous than at any other time in history. The US decision to attack the world’s largest nuclear power is a desperate effort to restore global primacy. What makes this situation even more dangerous is the absurd self-deception across the West that results in us sleepwalking towards nuclear war. The public should be presented with more honest arguments when making the case for risking a third world war and nuclear annihilation. This piece was first published on Glenn Diesen’s Substack and edited by the RT team.
Why Ciena Stock Jumped Nearly 22% Today
Global stocks mostly cheer Nvidia results as bitcoin gains
A weekend anchor for left-leaning cable channel MSNBC said he was “conflicted” by President-elect Donald Trump’s decision to name the openly gay hedge fund manager Scott Bessent as the next Treasury Secretary. Jonathan Capehart, a Washington Post opinion writer who moonlights as host of “The Sunday Show with Jonathan Capehart” on the Comcast-owned news channel, admitted he was torn about Bessent’s nomination because it was a Republican who chose him to be the highest-ranking gay official ever. “Wait, Scott Bessent is gay, and married, and has children,” Capehart, who is also gay, said during Sunday’s broadcast. His comments were posted in a clip on X. “You know if confirmed, he would be the highest ranking out LGBT person ever to serve — to be appointed and confirmed by the United States Senate,” he added. “And I’m kind of conflicted about this.” Jon Reinish, a Democratic strategist who was a guest on Capehart’s panel, said: “In that case, credit where it’s due...” Reinish correctly predicted that the stock market would “shoot up” once they opened in reaction to the news of Bessent’s nomination, adding: “Wall Street likes the guy.” “It is very interesting, yes, that is Trump and not one of our team that made that historic nomination,” Reinish said. Capehart, who once shed tears on the air while discussing the events at the US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, is the latest name on a roster of MSNBC stars who have struggled to cope with Trump’s crushing victory over Vice President Kamala Harris in the Nov. 5 presidential election. “Morning Joe” co-hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski traveled to Mar-a-Lago to meet with Trump in person despite telling their viewers that the Republican was a “fascist” who posed a danger to the republic. Brzezinski last week announced that she was leaving X , the social media platform owned by prominent Trump backer Elon Musk, in favor of Bluesky, which has seen an influx of left-leaning internet users who have fled the platform formerly known as Twitter. The Dow Jones Industrial Average rallied more than 300 points on Monday and the S&P 500 hit a new all-time high as investors cheered Bessent’s nomination. At its peak, the Dow was up more than 500 points before paring back gains. Bessent, the founder of Key Square Group, rose to become money manager for billionaire financier George Soros. “I am most pleased to nominate Scott Bessent to serve as the 79th Secretary of the Treasury of the United States,” Trump wrote in his announcement, posted on Truth Social . “Scott is widely respected as one of the World’s foremost International Investors and Geopolitical and Economic Strategists,” the president-elect said of this Treasury pick. Bessent, the 62-year-old founder of Key Square Group, has repeatedly backed the president-elect’s pro-tariff stance in a series of op-eds and media appearances over the past year. “Scott’s story is that of the American Dream,” Trump said Friday, noting that Bessent “has long been a strong advocate of the America First Agenda.” The nomination of Bessent ended a bitter, behind-the-scenes race that saw fierce jockeying among Wall Street power players including Cantor Fitzgerald CEO Howard Lutnick and Apollo Global Management chief Marc Rowan. Lutnick, who co-chairs the Trump transition team and was thought to be the front-runner for the Treasury Secretary job, was named Commerce Secretary.
Forging Digital Pathways: The Visionary Work of Bangar Raju Cherukuri in Web Innovation